3/5 Why do I think Chris is a cop?

Rolf Martens rolf.martens at mailbox.swipnet.se
Sun Jun 30 01:16:12 MDT 1996

3/5 Why do I think Chris is a cop?    [Posted: 30.06.96]

[Continued from part 2/5]

POINT =A45)	Chris, while posing as a "neutral, non-involved
		observer", in reality constantly has tried to make=20
		the "Quispe" side in the recent conflict look good=20
		and the opposing side look bad.

Some quotes:

<Date: 05 May 96 15:25:51 EDT
>Subject: The Maoist Wars 1/2

>1. Lets take the personal first. There is personal distrust and ill-will
>between Adolfo and Luis, which neither side is bothering now to=20
>conceal. Adolfo enjoys having had an extensive education and l
>etting it show. Luis claims a less privileged background. Adolfo is=20
>prepared to range wide with flourishes of polemical invective, Luis=20
>prefers to duplicate documents of others. Adolfo is willing to take a=20
>risk with a cynical writer like Simon Strong. Luis is suspicious, as he=20
>is of Ken.

"'Luis Q'. the proletarian, Adolfo O. the bourgeois".

>2. They have rather different aims on this l'st. Luis would like the hard=
>work he and the others behind New Flag do, to forward documents=20
>that get read at least by some members of this l'st about Peru.  Adolfo=20
>is more ready to see this l'st as an arena for polemic against all forms=20
>of revisionism.=20

"'Luis Q'. the hard-working, even if perhaps not church-going man."
(How Chris found this out he doesn't say.) "Adolfo O. the person=20
disposed towards brawling."

>Date: 12 May 96 04:14:23 EDT
>Subject: PCP Report  Feb 1994

>New Flag appears to have responded promptly to my request to=20
>publish the statement of the PCP of February 1994 which includes

"A small applause for the New Flag and its chief editor 'Quispe'"
(whom so "unfortunately" some people are pointing out as an=20

>Date: 01 Jun 96 13:05:23 EDT


>- Do you mean this? I suggest it would enhance your credibility if
>you do, quite independently of what Olaechea may do.=20

Some friendly advice to "Quispe" about how to "enhance his
credibility", namely: "Keep your mouth shut!" Not such a bad piece=20
of advice either, in the circumstances. Only, at that point, nothing=20
could help the "Qu/Cco" any more.=20

>Date: 02 Jun 96 03:37:27 EDT
>Subject: Gina-Adolfo polemic

>Adolfo has said twice previously that he will have nothing to=20
>do with Gina except on his terms. His credibility is further at=20
>stake by this polemic.

"No nice person, this Adolfo" (who opposes "Quispe").

>As a l'st member I welcomed at least that Gina quoted the March=20
>statement from Adolfo and Borja so it was possible to see quietly
>where they are coming from.

"Gina, on the other hand" (who's supporting "Quispe") "is good
at some things such as clarification".

>Date: 11 Jun 96 03:12:28 EDT
>Subject: Evidence for Adolfo?

>And I continue to find the more likely explanation to do with
>Adolfo's individualistic behaviour. I am not surprised that he has=20
>never been a member of the PCP

Something which of course Chris "knows for a fact". But perhaps
he also tries to provoke Adolfo into answering the question "Are
you now or were you ever....".

>Date: 17 Jun 96 02:12:26 EDT
>Subject: Authenticity of MPP-Europe

>I suggested on 16th June that neither Adolfo nor Luis
>can claim definite support from within the PCP.

>However the interview between New Flag and Sol Rojo
>on 2nd June was an interesting document. It seems=20
>unlikely that Sol Rojo would risk claiming it is publishing=20
>with the approval of the PCP, if that is not the case.

>Exposure might be swift and ignominious.

>Would Adolfo and his supporters care to comment?

"Sol Rojo" is the swindlers' paper of the Avakian-"Quispe" agent
Mr. T.P. (whom I mentioned above) and some of his friends in=20
Europe. Och course Chris must make some propaganda for it.=20
Here there also comes in an element which I'll go into in more=20
detail below: The "argumentation" by Chris with "approval by the=20

>Date: 25 Jun 96 02:22:29 EDT
>Subject: Peru: what its all about

>As El Diario Internacional No 34 puts it in a highly biassed way:-

>"Theme 2:

>Which are the genuine generated organisms of the Communist=20
>Party of Peru (PCP) abroad after October 1993?  The truth about=20
>mercenaries and individuals who have been fabricating counterfeit=20
>"Peru People's Movements (MPPs)".  Opportunists, mercenaries,=20
>mentally derranged people, or infiltrated agents?"

The mere promise by El Diario Internacional, which i.a. was among
the initiators of the call for the WMC, to deal with these subjects in=20
its next issue is called "highly biassed" by Chris.

POINT =A46)	Chris has supported the already exposed
		reactionary agent Avakian, and not only this, but has 		       =20
consistently supported all reactionary tendencies in=20
		the earlier communist movement too. On China, he's
		written in favour of the present fascist regime there.
		and against the earlier, socialist one. On Peru, he's
		written in favour of the "peace letters" hoax and other
		things which suit the reactionary goverment there.

These things in themselves wouldn't point very much at a person's
actually being a cop, instead of just an "ordinary" reactionary. But
they add a little to the picture in this case. Some quotes:

>Date: 12 May 96 04:14:23 EDT
>Subject: PCP Report  Feb 1994

>Nor does this mean that Avakian or RCP supporters by definition=20
>are following a revisionist line (whatever their other weaknesses) if=20
>they want to read the letters that Guzman is alleged to have put his=20
>name to.

>Date: 11 May 96 17:32:07 EDT
>Subject: Peru: what is wrong with negotiations?

>Avakian may have many defects. One or them would appear to=20
>be restricting the circulation of documents of the leadership of the=20

>But it is not clear that trying to analyse the statement put out
>by the Fujimori regime on 1st October 1993 in the name of=20
>Guzman about negotiations, is one of them.=20

>Date: 11 May 96 18:35:26 EDT
>Subject: Lessons from the Maoist wars

>The one sided attacks on Avakian are  blows aimed at the sack=20
>but intended for the ass - any members of the PCP or its=20
>supporters who might consider that Gonzalo was in favour of talks=20
>at this stage.

>Date: 12 May 96 10:29:53 EDT
>Subject: Ruthless struggle and merciless blows

>However IMO they give strength to the arguments of Barkley=20
>Rosser that it is not possible to criticise Stalin, without
>also being prepared to criticise Lenin.

The Chinese communists did criticize Stalin on some points
while not criticizing Lenin. (There is much more that I'd like to
add on this subject but in this context, this would carry too far.)
This "argument" by Chris essentially goes against Mao Zedong's
correct criticism of Stalin on certain points, in the early '60:s.

>It is also interesting IMO that in the later thirties both Trotsky and=20
>Mao stressed the importance of emphasising dialectics in the=20
>study of marxism.

Making propaganda for Trotsky, who rightly is infamous as one
of the big traitors to socialism.

>Date: 07 Jun 96 18:05:10 EDT
>Subject: History of CPSU (B)

>Does anyone know the number of copies and the circulation of=20
>the "History of the CPSU(B) in the 40's and 50's? I would=20
>suspect it was very influential in prejudicing orthodox
>communists against Trotskyism.

There are in fact some reasons for criticism of this influential
book, the "History of the CPSU(B) - Short Course". But when the
genuine Marxists repudiate Trotskyism, this is correct and by no
means "prejudiced".

>Date: 13 Jun 96 02:02:18 EDT
>Subject: Chinese labour camps

>I have seen Amnesty International say that the number of reports=20
>of civil rights abuses in China, has *risen* since the death of Mao.

>There may be several reasons for this. One is more open=20

Turning things upside-down. Under the earlier dictatorship of the
proletariat in China, only counter-revolutionaries were suppressed.
Under the present fascist dictatorship of the revisionist Deng
Xiaoping, the revolutionaries and the people in China are being
subjected to suppression.

>Date: 10 Jun 96 03:00:08 EDT
>Subject: re: marxism and border controls

>China's abandonment of egalitarianism between the regions has=20
>been one of the most dynamic things in its current economic=20
>growth, with millions migrating from poorer to richer province

Again, an upside-down statement.

It was under the Cultural Revolution that China's industrial=20
production grew by 10% a year and its agricultural production by=20
4% a year, while the population grew by 2% a year. Things at that=20
time were advancing very well for the Chinese people.

Under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie (since approximately=20
1976-78), growth in China has continued only in certain sectors,=20
such as steel production - today somewhat more than 70=20
Mtons/year, compared to 30 Mtons a year in 1976. In oil production,=20
which during the Cultural Revolution 1966-76 leaped forward to be=20
*nine-folded* in those 11 years, there has been an almost complete=20
*stagnation*. And in particular, after the breaking up of the People's=20
Communes in the mid -'80:s and the total abandonment also in other=20
ways of Mao Zedong's programme of mechanization of agriculture=20
in China, that *enormous cathastrophy* is taking place in China that=20
agricultural production isn't increasing at all but is even decreasing.

These simple facts (very briefly recounted here) clearly show the=20
enormous superiority of socialism over capitalism, at least in a=20
third-world country, and the necessity for another revolution in=20
China. And of course the reactionaries have a great interest in=20
trying to hide them.=20

>Date: 05 May 96 16:36:26 EDT
>Subject: The Maoist Wars 2/2

>Some while back Jay forwarded a statement by Guzman on=20
>negotiations which sounded rather undialectical but was after all a=20
>public statement. As a reader of Lenin and Mao, Guzman would=20
>know that negotiations are sometimes part of struggle. A war like=20
>the Vietnam War, or a struggle like the anti-apartheid struggle has=20
>a phase of negotiations.

This in itself is quite correct. It would be wrong to oppose=20
negotiations "on principle". Only, in the writings of Chris, this=20
correct argument has been misused for arguing that the reactionary=20
"peace letters" hoax in Peru "perhaps" wasn't a hoax after all,=20
which it was.

>Date: 11 May 96 17:32:07 EDT
>Subject: Peru: what is wrong with negotiations?

>Avakian's continued doubts about the gravity of the peace issue=20
>for the PCP would be consistent with Guzman having signed the=20
>letters genuinely, and the PCP being unable to expel him.=20

>It is suspicious that the Fujimori regime has not given more=20
>evidence of the genuineness of his letter, than a phone call=20
>apparently made by him to someone in Sweden.

>On the other hand it is suspicious that the PCP has not=20
>challenged the regime to do so.

No, it isn't.

>It is only totally inconceivable that Guzman would have talked with=20
>the regime voluntarily if you hold an idealist view of Guzman, that
>he could never do a thing like that.

Again, Chris is "correct on principle". It has indeed happened=20
many times in the history of the communist movement that=20
important leaders have turned traitors. But again, this "generalized"=20
statement by Chris in reality was made as an *innuendo* towards=20
comrade Gonzalo and a slander of him, since there's nothing to=20
support this "supposing" that comrade Gonzalo had capitulated.

>Date: 20 Jun 96 03:01:07 EDT
>Subject: Peru - Not for forwarding.

[Quoting a certain reactionary newspaper:]
>The followers of Oscar ''Feliciano'' Ramirez refuse to accept
>Guzman's calls for peace.

And in this posting there was more "reporting" of the same
sort, all "forwarded" from an openly reactionary source by Chris,=20
who stated that he on his part didn't necessarily consider it to be=20
true. But the essence of it all was in fact a bit of pro-Fujimori=20

[Continued in part 4/5]

     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list