c.everson at student.canberra.edu.au
Sat Jun 15 02:36:28 MDT 1996
On Mon, 10 Jun 1996, ANTHONY FROSINOS wrote:
> You wrote:
> >There has never been any 'exposure' of so-called 'reactionary' Quispe.
> >You've fooled no one here. There has been nothing but assertions and a
> >'logic' that says: disagreement with WMC = Avakianist clone/dupe =
> First I'd like to know if you have been reading all of the post's to
> this list from quispe and those concerning the WMC.
> Because if you had it should be quite clear that quispe has expoused himself.
> He has expoused himself to be both a liar and a fake.
That is not the conclusion I have drawn.
> Do you really
> think that the Communist Party of Peru the most advanced CP in the
> world today guided by Gonzalo thought would have a someone like quispe
> representing the MPP?
The posts which I read described Luis Quispe as merely a
rank-and-file member of MPP.
> Has he shown himself to practice Maoism on this
Yes, I believe so. His rebuttal of the nonsense about a "100%
police hoax" was truly excellent. LAB, AO and Jay apparently deny the
existence of two-line struggle in a communist party. I wrote to Jay about
that but he did not reply.
> Was his "brillant polemics" directed at Comrade's Godenas,
> Charlotte and Jay the works of a Maoist?
I disagree with the personal attacks but they were understandable
in the circumstances.
> What about the Zodiac debacle?
Yes. It really exposed that 'zodiac' as a cop posing as a
> How could anyone who followed that thread, still consider quispe a
Well I certainly consider the comrades of MPP,USA and The New
Flag to be Maoists based on their clear support for the line of the PCP.
> Concerning the WMC I was there when the New Flag unofficially
> endorsed the call for the WMC. It was not until his avakianist masters
> in Sweden T.P gave him orders and Rolf Martens appeared on this list
> that quispe became openly opposed to the WMC. The new flag has
> addmitted that in Europe the "MPP's" are soft on avakian.
"avakianist masters"? Come on Tony, you don't really believe that
do you? Such expressions are cheap debating devices without foundation.
> What does
> this mean? It would seem to me that the attempt to reserect esparza and
> the la torres along with the move towards the line promoted by the
> World to WIn magazine. "Not 100% hoax" "struggle against the ROL" is a
> clear indication of where quispe and his new flag are headed.
"Not 100% hoax" makes me think you do not understand two-line
struggle in the party either. You should read the recent post by Gina and
more generally the book, "A Basic Understanding of the Communist Party of
China" from 1976.
> I for one am not willing to be dragged down into the avakianist
That's understandable, I quite agree.
> The avakinst and his toad quispe revisionism
I thought you objected to such language when used towards Jay etc
> is most damaging to the prospects of making revolution here in the US
> or anywhere else for
> that matter. It is very important that these types are not allowed to
> misrepresent Maoism and the Revolution in Peru. I think that is why the
> WMC is so important.
What, but its okay to allow PROVEN LIARS such as MIM and side
line critics of the PCP and slanderers of Chiang Ching such as Martens to
misrepresent Maoism is it?
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism