PCP

Julio Fernández Baraibar julfb at SPAMsinectis.com.ar
Sun Aug 29 17:52:36 MDT 1999



Macdonald asked me:

> I am trying gather an answer to a question now. Are you to say that a PCP
> victory would (have) be(en) a bad thing?

Of course no. But this is too an abstract question. They didn´t win and they
were wrong. Or in the other sense, they were wrong and they didn´t win. The
why to this I have tried to explain in my messages.

> > > >Macdonald Stainsby wrote:
> > > >- Juan
> > > I'm not wxactly sure what you are asking for. If you mean targets, I
> > > certainly am not here to deny that they have been often reckless. That
> >is
> > > not the point. The targets are selected on the basis of making the
> >country
> > > ungovernable for reaction.
> >
> >The country was not managed by reaction at that time, but a petty
bourgeois
> >nationalistic movement in struggle against the imperialism. The principal
> >target of Sendero was this government. And they get the target. This
> >government lost the election and Fujimori came. If Fujimori hadn´t
winned,
> >the president would have been the incredible Vargas Llosa, an man who was
> >truely worried on the human rights during Garcia´s government.

> Is he prefferable to you than the PCP? I can not buy the argument that
goes:
> There is someone inside the system trying to improve our situation, it
would
> be better to not come at this from the outside and scare down the whole
> house of cards. If such an argument is true, it states that power could
not
> be taken, so why try. I reject this answer, and applaud that decision by
the
> PCP as well.

But this is precisely the core of the left´s rol in the semicolonial
countries. It sounds for me as you doesn´t understand the difference between
Garcia and Fujimori, APRA and neoliberalism.
This argument states that power can not be taken when the revolutionariy
movement has not the neccesary force to do it. And when it tried to do it,
the good intentions become a provocation that helps to the principal enemy.
This has been the experience in my country and others, like Bolivia during
Torres government and POR and others leftist of different sign provoking it.
Always came a serious general and ordered to stop.

>    Any movement that has any real power can sustain "two fronts", one that
> is a political without weapons wing, and one that is not. I do agree that
it
> can be a divisive and weakening position to attack the government top to
> bottom and not distinguish between any faction of the state apparatus, but
> it is still the state we are talking about.

But, my God, look at the FARC. Or don´t they want to take the state
apparatus?

> >
> >Yes. But the solidarity can´t forbid us the critique about the
estrategical
> >and tactical errors.
>
> Very much agreed, and it is the biggest critique that no such argument
could
> be made to the inner ring of power in the PCP. However, knowing how
> tremendously powerful the medias propaganda is here, I have to take a
> different stategy. Here inside the beast, it is better to not lie about
> anything, but moreover discuss the gross distortions that are prevalent
> among the few who have actually heard of the PCP (almost everyone call
them
> Shining Path, newspapers to civilians) . To explain why a revolution
is/was
> taking place is to discuss the situation in Peru, and to expose US
> Imperialism. It is otherwise similar to the "both side critique" that I
find
> so loathsome in situations like the NATO bombing.
>           For yourself, I imagine a very different scenario, you organize
> among those who already have at least some understanding of Imperialism
from
> daily life. That is all I can really say on this matter.

Ok. I agree, indeed.

>
> Solidarity is not to applaud each shot that is
> >triggered in the world by people who consider themselves as comunists. As
> >you self has written, in a better english: "It is not enough to say
> >"communist"  to merely get off the hook".
>
> Very true, but a peasant army is very different than a cell of, say, the
Red
> Brigades in Italy.


Reading my post it sounded for me some hard, unnecessarily unkind. I suppose
it depends on my difficulties with english. When you must say not what you
exactly want, but what your words let, the writing becomes schematic.
Sorry, my intentions are friendly.

Hasta pronto.












More information about the Marxism mailing list