Capitulators: QUISPE a "good comrade"

Maoist Internationalist Movement mim3 at blythe.org
Thu May 30 08:11:03 MDT 1996


Finishing with Quispe

On December 6, 1993, the Committee Sol Peru in France (known as
capitulators) told MIM some amazing things, after laying down the pro-
peace accords position and explaining that the lack of leadership in Peru
was the principal thing.

1. The following is a paraphrase of what CSP said, written in English:
"MPP does not distribute El Diario Internacional anymore. They used to do
so because it had good info, but no longer. Sol Peru speaks for the PCP. El
Diario Nacional also speaks for the PCP and their line. The CSP is now
publishing something in spanish called Sol Peru."

Can anyone see any difference between this and Quispe's mask of a line
now? So we have Quispe all over the place--working with RCP-USA and
CSP in France, working with El Diario and saying good things about Mr.
D. What's the one useful thing about this? It exposes that Quispe works
with everybody, so he gets info on everybody. (We will admit Mr. D. still
looks great compared with Quispe. Last we knew Mr. D. did not claim any
particular status, and was just acting as a democratic personage, with his
own angle on MLMPG, but we could be wrong. So if anyone knows that
this person is still claiming to be "MPP," they could set us straight.)

2. CSP in France considered Quispe's organization, "'good comrades,'
whom the CSP trust." On the other hand, I have to give CSP in France
credit for saying Quispe is "anarchists," "known to claim ties to Peru it
does not have and have been known to alter documents." CSP
asked/ordered MIM to do translation work with Quispe and try to keep
him from altering documents! Sheesh, even back then he was a known
problem. Yes, at first, the only criticisms of Quispe as fabricator of
documents that MIM heard on this score were from the RCP-USA or its
allies; however, it has now progressed beyond that point.

(At this point we do have to say, that when Quispe first gave us the PCP-
CC documents, they did have a sentence added in what was obviously a
white-out job! That way I guess he could claim he delivered the
documents, but doctored them as to be suspicious-looking to MIM.
Covering his bases.)

>From the direct facts that MIM has, MIM concludes that CSP France
underwent at least one crucial internal struggle in 1993 that led it to be put
in the hands of solid pro-RCP-USA capitulators by December, 1993.

There were other things in there, and in-between the lines, indicating some
things about the RCP-USA that we as yet do not fully understand. It does
raise the question of WHAT does the RCP-USA really consider to be the
Right Opportunist Line? The RCP-USA is posing as centrist on this
question--criticizing both the ROL and the PCP-CC. The RCP-USA is able
to do this partly because there are those Peruvians who criticized RCP-
USA from the other side, saying for instance that IEC was too pro-Borja.

>From reading this material from the "other side," we can now infer some
criticisms that AO and LAB may have of MIM. However, we are in the
same camp right now, because the Quispe thing goes beyond ridiculous and
we at MIM believe AO and LAB to be genuine, unlike RCP-USA and
Quispe.

The question arises, why would the RCP-USA be leading a break with
LAB and AO? They criticize their partners by saying a peace accord would
be objectively counterrevolutionary, but they want to be done with
LAB and they center their organizational work with the people who are
pro-peace accords. How are they going to defeat this objectively
counterrevolutionary thing by libeling LAB and centering its work with
what it calls the ROL? Will it be the role of the RCP-USA to go down in
history as doing the most possible to attract people to capitulation by
posing slightly left? Again the parallels with Hua Guofeng are striking.

In any case, we hope that any last holdouts in Australia or Detroit will now
finish with Quispe.

Comrades, today we were going over all documents and studying for the
third time since we started this struggle in May, 1996. It pays to study as
we can see from the above information retrieved. Going back to
March 22, 1993, we know some of Quispe's history. If anyone knows
anything about Quispe before that, we may soon learn. We shall also
attempt to cut off Quispe's pipeline from the PCP, if any, though that is
obviously more difficult to prove. We have now
pieced together who is who more than we ever wanted to know, but with a
special eye to line distinctions. It only proves that Quispe is in bed
everywhere with everyone, regardless of line. We have reported now only
what is essential and public knowledge except for information related to
the case of Quispe.

P.S. One small thing I would like to clear up as a matter of accuracy. I said
we never used the term "MIM Thought" except in discussions with
Peruvians referring to "MIM Thought." MIM did speak of "MIM Thought"
for argument's sake, but only in private communications with Peruvians
who were polemicizing with us. We do not speak of MIM Thought as part
of our line, though according to the PCP approach, we should.


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




More information about the Marxism mailing list