Julio Fernández Baraibar julfb at SPAMsinectis.com.ar
Sat Aug 28 03:17:29 MDT 1999

Como dijo Jack el Descuartizador, "Vayamos por partes".  (Possibly this is
the kind of jokes impossible to translate. I´m sorry but it came to my

Macdonald dice:
> however, I believe it is more in service to approach this with an eye to
> idea of it being far more positive for "Sendero" to have taken state power
> than to be defeated. In the context of solidarity, I extend it to even
> (like the PCP) who would never dream of extending it to me.

This is an abstract question. The name in spanish is "ucronia". It means
more or less: "What would have happened if...? Sendero was defeated and in
order to continue the struggle the most important is to know how this
happened. I´m not speaking about solidarity or moral questions. I´m speaking
about a lost battle that meant thousand of lives, the victory of the enemy
and a decade of neoliberalism and a virtually despotical government , almost
without opposition. And the provocation of Sendero was one of de causes.

> However, it is still the case
> that Imperialism is not likely to share power in Peru with "these crazy
> terrorist Maoists", and are neccessarily the main target.

This is not a good argument, I think. It is obvious that the imperialism is
not going to share the power with Sendero. It Is the same question with the
terrorist groups that acted against the last government of Peron between
1973 and 1976 in Argentina. They helped to create the atmosphere for the
state coup and they were one of the most important reason for the militar
rebellion against the constitutional government. And of course they were
cruelly defeated by the militar dictatorship. This can awake our solidarity
with the victims of the persecution but this is very different with a
political agreement with them.

> Possibly this argument is "nominal" or "declarativo". While I see your
> as regards the backlash of attacking other left groups, I can not agree
> socialism vs capitalism is somehow in contradiction with
> Imperialism-national independance. The argument is false for a semi-colony
> like Peru, unless we are preffering Mullahs and other nominally
> "anti-Imperialists" to the PCP. The defeat of Imperialism will only be
> with a true defeat of capitalism.

This last afirmation is abstract too, because the situation in Peru was not
an election between "socialist"  Sendero and antimperialistic Mullahs.
Between the democratic imperialism and the Mullahs I am with the Mullahs,
though the Mullahs are against me, above all if I had not the sufficient
power for become the head of this struggle.
But I repeat, this was not the case of Peru. I have tried in other messages
the nature of Garcia and Apra. I don´t need repeat it. But in short it was
not a kind of religious fundamentalism.
It was Sendero who put in contradiction those alternatives . They began a
struggle against the government of Garcia (that in this case meant
"independencia nacional vs. imperialismo") in the name of "socialism vs.
capitalism". I know, of course, that only the socialism can bring the
national independance until the last consequences. But in the course of the
antimperialistic movement, not against it.

 > The PCP was a real threat to topple the
> old regime. It had many different bases that were operating like towns. It
> policed entire villages, across the countryside. As a class principle, as
> have stated before, in this situation I am entirely for the victory of the
> PCP. A bad sectarian is the only example of what would oppose this, to my
> view. Perhaps I should state then that you can't be "Marxist-Leninist" and
> participate directly in the machinations of the state that are under
> by peasants with guns, etc. This is not pulling together for the sake of
> national independance either. It is saying that the revolution had better
> perfect, and to hell with what the peasants have fought for. Hate Gonzalo
> you wish. Remember that it was an indigenous-to-Peru "People's Army" that
> looks defeated. Some "leftists" were busier running for office than to

Excuse me, Macdonald, but I don´t hate Gonzalo. I don´t roundly agree with
the politics of Sendero. I think that it is an deep error and this was not
the responsability of armed peasants, but the responsability of Sendero and
Chairman Gonzalo´s thought.

> No tiene absolutamente nada que ver con nuestra
> >tradicion revolucionaria. Los bolcheviques se presentaban a elecciones en
> >la
> >infame Duma de Nicolas II, mientras Koba asaltaba trenes en el Caucaso,
> >objetivos financieros. Es una diferencia tactica, no estrategica.
> Great example, but I draw out a different interpretation as well. Let us
> that
> the actual seizure of power was held off for even a month longer than it
> was, with direct clashes between Bolshevik workers and whites in the
> streets. Two weeks into these struggles another group of "marxists" run
> the Duma and openly call for the defeat of the Bolseheviks, fighting for
> theirs lives. Would it be fair to say that the Bolsheviks would take aim
> these "mensheviks"? I would have hoped so, rather than give up the USSR
> quickly.

I don´t understand exactly what you mean, but I remember that Kamenev and
Zinoviev denounced in the party press the preparative of the insurrection.
And it was not Lenin who took aim at them. It was Stalin and a lot of years
later .

> Por
> >supuesto que esta afirmacion vale en ambas direcciones. La decadencia de
> >los
> >Partidos Comunistas dependientes de la URSS en America Latina no se debio
> >que eran "electoralistas", frente al "exito" de quienes apostaban por "la
> >lucha armada", error de concepcion que debemos al periodo
> >de los cubanos. Han sido profundos errores de conceptualizacion teorica,
> >desconocimiento de las condiciones objetivas del desarrollo historico de
> >cada uno de los respectivos paises, de satelizacion sumisa a Moscu, de
> >prejuicios pequeñoburgueses, de dependencia respetuosa del marxismo
> >europeo,
> >entre otras razones, lo que determino la virtual liquidacio de los
> >Comunistas en America Latina.
> >Lamentablemente, en muchos casos, los partidarios de "la lucha armada",
> >solo se diferenciaron de aquellos, por esta mera cuestion tactica. Pero
> >sufrian o han sufrido de los mismos errores conceptuales que aquellos de
> >quienes pretendian diferenciarse.
> >Es absolutamente inaceptable el asesinato de militantes populares por
> >de sectores que se reivindican como tales. Lo haya hecho Ho chi Minh o
> >o
> >quien fuera. Tan solo la delacion o la traicion son merecedoras de una
> >medida de autoproteccion.
> >
> While I speak of some of these points, I will agree with your assessment
> the twentyfourth of July. Again I will say that it has helped in their
> speedier than neccessary downfall. There are always different conditions.

> >No estamos hablando tan solo de los enfrentamientos entre ronderos y
> >senderistas. Estamos hablando de asesinatos en las ciudades de militantes
> >populares que no tenian nada que ver con las fuerzas de seguridad.
> >
> I have trouble believing that the Rondas were armed "by themselves".
> like the KLA to me.

Anyway the nature of ronderos is here out of discussion.

> Funnily enough, I had just struggled (espanol/english dictionary in my
> though your post to read exactly what I was doing.

I can recommend you a site: www.spanishdict.com

Au revoir

Julio F.B.

More information about the Marxism mailing list