Copy of: Peru: what is wrong with negotiations?

Chris, London 100423.2040 at
Sun May 12 02:26:02 MDT 1996

As Marxism-Digest 1046 appears to have been truncated
of many posts by Hugh, and this challenge by me, I am reposting
it my challenge, on Saturday, for digest readers.


---------- Forwarded Message ----------

From:	Chris, London, 100423,2040
TO:	marxismlist a, INTERNET:marxism at
DATE:	11/05/96 21:23

RE:	Copy of: Peru: what is wrong with negotiations?

Negotiations may be favourable or unfavourable, but it is not
a marxist position to say they are wrong in principle.

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

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 Guzman
about negotiations, is one of them.

An article by Arce Borja of 9th May 1995 has been quoted saying

"The 'peace letters' do not arise from any Party source.  The
'peace agreement' is fabricated and STRUCTURED in the headquarters
of the National Intelligence Services (SIN) of the Peruvian state
with the help of US experts.  This fraud is THEN combined with the
participation of capitulationist elements within the prisons who
have no influence whatever in the leadership of the party and
People's War.  The capitulationists, having become snitches and
police agents, had no possibility of influencing the Party's militants.

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

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

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

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

But if fact he may have talked

a) through an incorrect estimate of the balance of forces, as a result of
psychological pressure. It is unlikely that the regime would have directly
tortured him because of his leading position, but they could have put him
under various other severe forms of pressure.

b) like Mandela in prison, he decided to use his wits to talk.
How would that be revisionist on principle?

Lenin on his granite marxist foundations:

"Imagine that your automobile is held up by bandits. You
hand them over your money, passport revolver and automobile.
In return you are relieved of the the pleasant company of
the bandits. That is unquestionably a compromise.
'Do ut des' ('I give' you money, firearms, automobile, 'so
that you give' me the opportunity to depart in peace).
But it would be difficult to find a sane man who would
declare such a compromise to be "inadmissible on
principle", or who would proclaim the compromiser
an accomplice of the bandits (even though the bandits
might use the automobile and firearms for further

Why would such actions cause doubt about anyone's
integrity as a communist? That such a formula
occurs to supporters of the Peruvian revolution
suggests a strong streak of idealism in their

Since the polemic has gone so far, could someone please
publish on the l'st

1) the letters and statements that the Fujimori government
claims were made by Guzman in favour of peace negotiations?

2) the criticisms by the PCP Central Committee in October 93
and February 94?



     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list