Macdonald Stainsby mstainsby at SPAMhotmail.com
Thu Aug 26 05:26:53 MDT 1999

>Jim Monaghan wrote:
> >
> > On a general point I believe that the real enemy of the Peruvian working
> > class is Imperialism and their native allies.My only knowledge on Peru
> > Petras in the NLR and old articles by Hugo Blanco. The PCP became a
> > to Imperialism because of its ability to organise sections of the
> > peasantry.It fought a relentless enemy.Its history is not yet over.I
> > distinguis between the fighters in the field like the PCF French
> > resistance who made sectarian mistakes but whose main impetus was the
> > fight against Nazism and Imperialism and those who still spout vicious
> > sectarianism which leads to internecine violence
> >
> > But warts and all the struggle of the PCP lead insurgents deserve
>The problem with this argument is that it compares two things that don't
>compare in the way that Jim wants them to.  He would liken the PCP to
>the PCF which made errors but saw imperialism and nazism as the real
>enemies and thus fought the good fight.  But the PCP did not see
>imperialism as the main enemy.  No, that role it reserved for
Sorry. wrong!
Should you have a look at their traditional historical practices against
their targets, you might notice that the PCP has not spent its time directed
at "legal left" parties (in Peru, this would would rank as a defintion of
contradiction in terms!), but rather at blowing up the infrastructure that
belonged to foreigners. If You wish to debate whether or not this was/is a
viable tactic, go ahead. I'm not Peruvian, so I will bow out. Nonetheless, I
want it known that many properties that are/were owned by out of state
IMPERIALISTS have been blown up, not one of what you call "legal left"
      On this point, I will ask: Is it at the point generally where we will
not "attack" ANY group that says the word "communist"? As such, at least so
far as I know, the PCP has never attacked a base area of the Tupac Amaru.
But, yes, they have taken shots at the Cp's who play by non-revolutionary
games, meaning electoral politics. This, when there is an armed struggle on
the ground, is entirely within the realm of "legitimate targets" if any
social democrats are or have ever been. It is not enough to say "communist"
to merely get off the hook. In other words, it has never been shown to me on
any rational basis that there was any reason (besides the most wretched
forms of anti-maoist sectarianism) to not back the PCP while still backing
the FMLN. Had the El Salvadoran government "organised" groups of peasants to
"stop" the FMLN (at gunpoint), I would have whole-heartedly backed the
revolutionaries taking aim at this nonsense. Why not the PCP? I can not


Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

More information about the Marxism mailing list