The PCP-SL and the Peruvian Trotskyists
rolf.martens at mailbox.swipnet.se
Wed Oct 9 10:36:14 MDT 1996
Hugh (and J. Ponce, if he's real) wrote on 06.10
(things which once again show thre reactionary character
of their line):
>I've been asked to forward this to the list.
>The PCP-SL is making a kamikaze policy. We ask them, STOP attacking the rest
>of the left and the workers movement, stop the violent actions against our
>working class. Change your policies, accept the decisions of the mass
>assemblies and make a united front with the people's and workers
"The rest of the left and the workers movement", meaning, the
firends of Ponce? A very doubtful entity, at least. I at least
cannot say that it would be wrong simply to kill such people.
I cannot be certain they're actually agents. But below are
some things again that do point at their being *Quislings*.
>The real thing is that because of the criminal mistakes of the United Left
>and the PCP-SL the left is shrinking in Peru. The PCP-SL is ten times
>smaller now than in 1989-91. Feliciano's PCP-SL doesn't control any
>provincial city. It's an extreme marginal force which is no longer consider
>a threat to the state. The main leader of the PCP-SL, Gonzalo, is today
>supporting the regime. The leadership of the PCP-SL ended as all the
>mao-stalinist leaders always finished, they capitulated to the reaction.
>Stalin made his pact with Hitler and later with Roosvelt and Churchil. Mao
>made his pacts with Nixon. The Vietnamese stalinists are now US friends.
>That's the tragedy of stalinism.
>The trotksyist have a complete different strategy.
No doubt! Among the things Ponce stated above, I'll *leave out*
the question of whether Stalin did make a *pact* with Hitler or not.
*But* Ponce's attacks on two other things very clearly show up the
reactionary character of Ponce's line: The "pact" of Stalin
with Roosevelt and Churchill. That "pact", that *alliance*, of
course was entirely justified and very important. It was *in order
to beat Hitler fascism and its allies*.
And Mao made a certain *alliance* with Nixon. Why? And was it
correct or not? It was entirely correct, and was an tactical
alliance with that group within US imperialism which did
*not*, as did another important group, abet and support the
Soviet social-imperialists in their aggressive designs on
Europe at that time but *opposed* social-imperialism, at that
time the most dangerous source of war.
The line of Ponce (and of Hugh), thus, is one *supporting*
the very worst reactionaries in the world at certain points
in time. Are they *agents* or not? I cannot tell. They
certainly are acting very much like such people.
This is without taking into account their stories on
comrade Gonzalo etc, etc, which I at least cannot *prove*
are mendacious but which, as bandied about in this manner,
clearly have the character of slanderous rumors.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism