Peru and "Sendero"

zodiac zodiac at
Mon May 20 15:57:29 MDT 1996

Hi Francisco --

I agree shrieking and THE HEAVY USE OF CAPS by PCP supporters solves

However, I have to wonder at your statement about "the anti-Fujimori
revolution." I don't profess to be an expert on Peru, so the question is
honest: What the hell is the anti-Fujimori revolution?

I was under the impression the PCP launched an anti-capitalist revolution,
not an anti-Fujimori revolution. How does deposing Fujimori have anything
to do with it -- aside from being a stage in a long road?

Are you redefining the goals of the PCP revolution -- or is the
"anti-Fujimori revolution" something else all together?

>Another thing: the Peruvian situation is not the only or most important
>people's struggle in the world right now, and the volume of "Sendero's"
>emails do asphyxiate discussion of, for example: [Spain, India, Mexico,
>Russia, Cuba]

Judicious use your delete key is a good start. I manage to find all posts
about those subjects. I saw Hinrich's posts about the German labor
situation, and Zeynep's posts about Turkey, etc. They are the heart of the
list, that sort of thing. Not the pissing matches. Those are sideshows.

>Personally, I must state that the fact that after 16 years of bloody
>warfare the "Sendero Luminoso" has not been able to defeat one of the
>most corrupt and inefficient governments in Latin America seems to
>indicate to me that "Sendero" needs to rethink it's dogmatic and
>intransigent ideology and organization.

I suppose it's the half-empty half-full thing... I see the ability to
maintain 16 years of pressure as being impressive.

As I understand it, the Peruvian state expends massive amounts on arming
the populace. If you count the Ronderos (something like 400,000 peasants
armed), Peru has armed forces about equal to Brazil.

Something effective is causing that.

>If Fujimori's regime is so
>bad, how much worse could a transitional coalition government be, that
>would bring political peace, stability and begin the road of meaningful
>socio-economic reform?

By "meaningful socio-economic reform"... you mean the creation of a broad
buffer middle class to service the capitalist machine, and keep the unruly
mob at bay. Right? Or am I being cynical?

I always remember reading a little footnote by Marx somewhere, that all
newer capitalist nations will go through the "stages" of their
predecessors. And I remember thinking that was just a little too
simplistic (which, of course, it is -- but that's a whole different
subject). Having studied how western revolutionary movements have so often
transformed into electoral dead-ends (social democratic parties, in
general), I take it you champion that as being a necessary "stage" for

That there is no point in struggling for anything more than that?

Contented wage-slaves, that's all we are. And all we will ever be.


     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list