Against the Rotten Block

hariette spierings hariette at easynet.co.uk
Sun Oct 6 05:41:47 MDT 1996


>The third component includes the opportunistic current
>within the communist movement of the Southern and Eastern
>Sectors of Global Capitalism, represented in this list
>by Mr. Oleachea.
>
>What is the essence of this opportunism?  In the nutshell:
>a rotten compromise with the metropolitan Left to obtain their
>support, or, at least, a neutrality re revolutionary struggles in
>the South-East sector in exchange for helping it to
>obstruct proletarian struggles in the North and the North-East.
>This is the objective political nature of
>Mr. Oleachea's brand of opportunism, which represents an
>almost mirror-like double of the Stalinist and Neo-Stalinist
>opportunism in relation to the First and Third World proletarian
>struggles in the 1920s-1980s.  From the Webbs and Stalin to
>the little rotten block in M1 there runs the same thread -
>that of right opportunism! For Mr. Oleachea's brand of right
>opportunists, the working classes of the North-East are
>just expendable currency for the ascendence  of the democratic
>national-bourgeois movements in the South-East. Their politics
>is a betrayalof proletarian internationalism - the foundation of our
>program for emancipation!  This is what Mr. Oleachea smuggles
>to our nothern climates under the disguise of "defending Stalin
>against his bourgeois slanderers and their Trotskyist hirelings,"
>and by joining the gang against the Lenin-Trotsky's followers.
>
>This is then where the little secret lies of the rotten block
>between the professional anti-Stalinists of the Left and the
>professional defender of Stalin "against the bourgeoisie"
>Mr. Oleachea; between the metropolitan Azcuetas and Mothers
>Courages of this list and the strict revolutionary judge of
>their Peruvian counterparts.
>
>This is then how we solve the apparent paradox of the arch-rotten
>block between the social-imperialist defender of the U.S. labor
>aristocracy Mr. Henwood and the flaming anti-imperialist and the
>"smasher" of the U.S. labor aristocracy Mr. Oleachea.
>
>The stamp of Stalinist politics is opportunism that sacrifices
>the ultimate interests of the international proletariat for the
>sake of illusory short term gains. The opportunistic elements,
>presently prevailing in the organized communism of the periphery
>must realise that they are playing a very dangerous game by ganging
>up with the metropolitan left against the ONLY REVOLUTIONARY CURRENT
>that still exists in the metropoly. They'd better take a longer view
>of what is at stake behind the split of two tendencies coming from
>the Third International of the Lenin-Trotsky period.  The fatal
>lack of class solidarity between the working classes of metropolitan
>and neocolonial sectors of global capitalism presents, in the final
>analysis, the single crucial problem for socialist project, both
>practically and theoretically. Here lies not only the key to the
>overthrow of the bourgeois world order but also the monumental
>problem looming immediately beyond it: the contradictions between
>the victorious workers' states in the North and the revolutionary
>regimes in the South. Without coming together by coming back to
>the common revolutionary heritage of the Third International, these
>two streams of communist movement will fail their internationalist
>duty before the workers of the world.
>
>Vladimir Bilenkin
>


Vladimir:

I really find you a rather inconsistent character.  On the one hand you
continue to speak of a rotten block.  A rooten block for what?

A rotten block to take things seriously in this list.  A block against what
you yorself correctly identify - those nasty elements of whatever label (be
it maoist, trotskyst, pro-stalin, anti-stalin, pro-trotsky or anti-trotsky)
who like malecki and Rodwell are prepared to - no once but twice - play in
this list the game of the Military High Command.

Here is what you have to say in your most lucid moments:

one needs to excercise
the utmost caution in this to prevent even the slightest possibility of
becoming an unwilling tool in the hands of its enemies. This danger is
more real in case of Peru because of the years of demonization of the PCP
by the bourgeois propaganda machine, the informational iron curtain, and
above all, the extremely favorable opportunities for disinformation and
psychological war that the Fujimore regime and its US handlers now have
as the result of Guzman's capture.

What struck me when I was reading J. Ponce's letter was that I had already
heard some of his arguments VERBATIM. They were advanced in this list last
spring.  And they came from some very dark quaters. Below I quote some of
the most striking textual coincidences (emphasis is mine):

>
> 3- A person that was completely absent from Peruvian class struggle for
> around 30 years has to show some little respect for other people. Adolfo
> Olaechea was not part of any of the more than a dozen general strikes. he
> was not involved in any of the hundreds of factory occupations or radical
> strikes. He even was not involved in the actions which self-sacrificing
> PCP_Shinning Path militants made risking their lives in the last 16 years
> of people's war. *He doesn't have anybody around him.* *He most probably
> doesn't participate in the British class struggle.*  *His only job is to use
> the internet to write non senses every day.*

> To Adolfo we only ask to be more humbled, to don't slander other people and
> to do some practical work amongst the Peruvian masses. It is good that he
> could translate documents for the PCP but a cadre like him, which claim to
> be the leader of a Soviet in Peruvian capital when he was only 20 years
> old, *is losing his time expending hours each day in writing in the
> internet.* He should cease to insult everybody and should return and help
> his comrades risking his skin.

Is this not what Rodwell and malecki - guided by their pique and bad faithn
- did in both occassions?  Do they not deserve what I have said about them?
I think they did, because this is not blocking against them for their ideas,
but for their actions!

And in this I block with all sincere people of whatever provenance.  Is that
wrong?  No. It is absolutely logical.

As far as the question of the Spoons lists, I am here and intend to remain.
I have made my position clear and do not intend to join any other list while
this is functioning.

In so far as your analysis about my "opportunism", I base myself on the
principled position that one can and must seek understanding among ALL
schools of thought independent of labels in order to advance the interests
of the revolution.

You complaint that by doing so and not applying a narrow view among the
European left and discriminating against those who are not purely
revolutionary I am selling out the European and US proletariat.  However the
question should be put in different terms.

Who is betraying whom?  For 16 years the PCP has been engaged in
constructing a new power for the proletariat and the people while the "only
revolutionary current" has been slandering its efforts as "terrorism" while
laping the crumbs of the imperialist dinner table.  That is how things are
seen from my end.

Now we do not see an organised revolutionary current in the imperialist
world.  We see individuals dispersed among various schools of thought and
organisations, we see people - and organisations too - emerging out of a
period of complete and utter abandonment of the revolution IN DEEDS whatever
they may say in words.

As this dark period comes to an end, we put our contribution on the table in
order to help the revolutionaries to re-affirm before the masses that the
revolutionary current holds promise and thus generate public opinion for the
revolution.  Whre is the short term gain here?

Everyone knows that I have differences with many who hold friendly and
respectful relations with me, no matter what points of contention we may
have, provided they do not engage in counter-revolutionary activities
against the People's War.

The problem with malecki is not his Trotskysm, nor is it with Rodwell either
or with plant, or with criticism of the revolution.  It is their actions
against the revolution in Peru - their playing time and time again into the
hands of the reactionaries and Fujimori agents in spreading the CIA line
against the Peruvian revolution.

The ease with which they would give credence to any allegation emanating
>from the policy of the High Command of the Armed Forces, particularly the
accusation that the PCP kills leftists for their ideas, and not because
these "leftists" are in fact working hand in hand with the reactionary state
of the ruling classes in a role assigned to them within the strategy so well
outlined by General Sinecio Jarama:

"This is because many politicians have found it easy to speak of terrorism
and not of armed rebellion.  By doing so they can use the police and the
Armed Forces and throw them in to destroy the terrorists.  Finishing with
the terrorists the problem is finished.  But, are things really like that in
Peru?  No.

I am going to tell you something.  We are interested, for political and
strategic reasons to present the problem in these terms:

"Look here ladies and gentlemen:  the bloodthirsty methods of Shing Path!
Look here!  And the Human Rights organisations have not yet condemned them".

And we begin to parade some corpses:

"Look here!  Look how they assassinated Mrs Moyano (Mother Courage - the
"leftist" Maria Elena Moyano).  Look here!  Look how they assassinated this
one and this other".

And, about the roots of these problems?  Nothing.  This is how we have been
conducting things and it suits us.  It is one method.  We are at war.  We
always portray them as murderers.  But they are not murderers, it is simply
that we are engaged in a struggle for power with them.

----------

Is this not exactly what Rodwell-Ponce and malecki have done? What Mr. Plant
has gone in for?  Is this the "only revolutionary tendency in the western
world"?  Count me out, then, and yourself too!

You are a Trotskyst - although once, showing that you are not 100% immune to
oportunism yourself - you denied it openly to the list.  However, like it is
the case with other sympathisers of Trotskysm in this list, I do regard you
in a different light.

It would be advisable that you think your "conspiracy theory" over.  That
you try to see in which fashion have I ever endorsed any of what you called
opportunist currents - which could reciprocate the compliment to you under
their own steam and without my help if they wish - or their ideology or
political program?  So there is no "rotten block" but just united action
against malecki and Rodwell in particular on grounds of list profilaxis and
in punishment for their counter-revolutionary actions.

Moreover, you are right in saying that I attempted to bring some seriousness
to this list by undertaking to translate those interviews.  However, what
was the attitude of Rodwell:

Accussing me of doing it "because I wanted to come to a deal with those
generals"!  Is that serious?  In practice it has been Rodwell who has acted
as the carrier-pigeon of the Genrals second Quispe.  The first Quispe
presented himself as a "maoist", the second one, the ponec, as a Trotskyst.
However, it is not the label or flag of convinience under which they
operate, it is the line!  And this is the line which Rodwell calls the
"Trotskyst programme for Peru"!

Look at what the Peruvian trotskyst says:

>The trotkyists in
>Peru are fighting for united front actions with the unions and the left to
>resist Fujimori attacks. We ask the few PCP-SL which continue opposing
>Gonzalo's "national agreement for peace" to subordinate their weapons and
>militias to the decisions of the workers and peasant assemblies and
>movement and that, instead of maintaining a sectarian sterile militarist
>campaign, they should build a united front.


What kind of United Front is that?  A united front to "resist Fujimori".
Now Fujimori represents a dictatorial clique of big bourgeois.  There is
other clicques which constitute its "legal opposition". Some are from the
"left", and other from the "right" (Perez de Cuellar, Bealunde, Apra) for
example.  They too want to resist and even displace Fujimori to install
their own dictatorship within the current old Peruvian state.  In other
words, the Trotskyst in Peru are for a United Front with the pro-imperialist
bourgeosie (Perez de Cuellar, the main opposition candidate in the last
elections was the UN Secretary Genral most subsirvient to US imperialism
even than Butros Butros Gali).

When the Peruvian Trotskyst speak then of a United Front and in the same
breath of a "national agreement for peace", what are they really saying
behind all their hoopla about "peoples organisations"?

They are speaking of an electoral front for "peaceful struggle" to "resist"
Fujimori.  With whom?  With all those willing to resist him for whatever
reason, that is -as the logic of the concrete sutuation would per force
dictate it - with Javier Perez de Cuellar's "Union for the people of Peru"!

Moreover, since they the tiny-teeny weeny Trotskyst sects - together with
all the so called left including the very bogus "stalinist" currents you
think I am defending - cannot master but 0.4% of the vote, while de Cuellar
has a substancial share of the vote (around 20%), this United Front, to be
able to represent even the barest glimpse of an illusion of getting rid of
Fujimori by "peaceful means", would in fact have to be - whatever the
Peruvian Trotskysts say - a front led and controlled by the pro-imperialist
bourgeosie.

In fact then, it is right to say that this is a counter-revolutionary front
of big bourgeois and bureacrats (including Union bureacrats, bureacrats of
NGOs etc).  Is that not now crystal clear?  What is revolutionary about that?
Moreover, they do not even speak of the overthrow of Fujimori, just to
"resist" him, while at the same time demanding the PCP should lay down its
weapons and sign a peace treaty with the very same tyrant they are supposed
to be "resisting".

Can you explain how to publicise that, and to turn themselves into defenders
and carrier pigeons of people who advocate this course of action would make
of malecki and Rodwell the "only revolutionary current" in the Western world?

I think a bit of simple logic would show to you that you are not only
jumping to conclussion but mixing up black with white.


Adolfo



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




More information about the Marxism mailing list