Lima 1963 and Adolfo, who to believe?

Hugh Rodwell m-14970 at mailbox.swipnet.se
Sat Oct 5 18:43:26 MDT 1996


Louis G defends Adolfo to the hilt:

>Hugh,  this is beneath you.    You certainly have enough on the ball to
>engage in debate with others without resorting to this sort of thing,  don't
>you?    Who,  exactly,  is Mr/Ms(?) Ponce?    How  is s/he able to write
>openly,  as a purported "revolutionary",   from "Lima".
>
>I know Adolfo Oleachea personally.    I know that he has been fined one half
>billion dollars by the Fujimori government,   which has sentenced him *in
>absentia* to life in prison.     I know that he is unable to leave Britain
>because of the actions of the Thatcher/Major governments,  and that they are
>continuing their efforts to have him extradited back to Peru.    I know that
>he is the object of no little interest to American law enforcement agencies,
>and that he is on an Interpol "watch list."    I know that in his writings
>and his activism he is a dedicated enemy and implacable foe of international
>reaction.    He lives openly and fearlessly and eschews aliases and the
>subterfuge common to armchair radicals.    He exists.   He is real.
>
>As for the character "Ponce":   well,  for all I know he's some guy in a
>checkered coat.

Juan P is a Trotskyist voice from Peru. A very useful corrective to the
Maoist petty-bourgeois nationalist tripe peddled by the supporters of the
PCP-SL.

How can Louis G claim that Juan writes "openly"? Forwarding like this is
not writing openly.

Would Adolfo write openly if he was in Peru?

People will have to make their own minds up about who to believe.

On the one hand someone who

*describes an incident of university occupation, one among many, as the
equivalent of the Petersburg Soviet of 1905, and his own role in it as the
equivalent of the Soviet leadership

*approves the slaughter of union militants knowing nothing at all about the
people involved or the circumstances

*is totally unable to substantiate his claims about the line of the PCP-SL
despite reams and reams of words

*argues for the existence of a democratic-revolutionary national
bourgeoisie and the need to collaborate with it

*supports the Moscow Trials to the last comma of the monstrous confessions

*is incapable of handling any disagreements without accusing his opponents
of being police spies, one of the most serious charges a revolutionary
could make about another, and in many situations the equivalent of a death
threat

and

*is a monster of ignorance, vulgarity and stupidity when it comes to even
the most elementary Marxist principles and their discussion.

On the other, someone who

*provides comparative historical evidence on real large-scale social
movements in Peru in the early sixties

*gives information on the changing positions of the PCP and various
tendencies within it

*provides information on the personal and political history of the
butchered union militant

*makes a plausible case for a very deep split in the PCP-SL regarding the
line of the people's war, that has been reflected in the Maoist wars here,
and is the most credible reason for the utter confusion in reporting these
things from Peru -- no secret service has the influence  necessary to
manufacture this kind of situation

*defends the rights of his political opponents within the socialist
movement against the repression of the pro-imperialist Fujimori regime

and

*refrains from indiscriminate accusations of collaboration with the
imperialist secret police.


There are no short cuts to socialism. Substituting a rural army for the
urban working class, nationalism for internationalism, and class
collaboration for independence are not getting us one step closer to
socialism in Peru or anywhere else.

The creation of a deformed workers' state is just conceivable on this
basis, but in the past five years or so we've seen how incredibly dependent
all the ready-deformed workers' states were on the real revolutionary gains
made in the October revolution. With the ferocious attacks now in progress
against the foundations of the October workers' state on the part of world
imperialism and the treacherous restorationist bureaucracy, the
international help needed to support a deformed workers' state will be much
harder to come by than it used to be. A good case can be made that the
experience of the Nicaraguan revolution proves that the creation of
deformed workers' states as a result of national mobilizations led by
petty-bourgeois nationalist leaderships was taken off the  historical
agenda well over a decade ago as the Soviet bureaucracy started moving more
decisively towards restoration.

Cheers,

Hugh




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




More information about the Marxism mailing list