The WWMC, the sinking "RIMitz" & Mr. Quispe 2/3

[rolf.martens@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Rolf Martens)]

UNITE! Info #8en: The sinking of the "RIMitz" 4/5 [Posted: 25.04.96]

Marxism list posting: 

The WWMC, the sinking "RIMitz" & Mr. Quispe 2/3

[Continued from Part 3/5  (from Marxism list posting 1/3)]


¤12.     But Mr. Quispe has tried to turn things upside-down 
        completely on this point too. The fact that I - because I 
understand Marxism in some respects somehwat better than those comrades 
whose bulk of information about it apparently has been from the documents 
of the PCP, which hasn't been immediately confronted with these questions - 
have been able to combat those arch-reactionary anti-industrial etc 
campaigns, and have continued to do so also after the bourgeois 
degeneration (approximately in the late '80:s) of my earlier information 
source on this, the KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT), he has tried to make, not a 
point in my favour but something for which I should be attacked.

In the very first words of his first attack on me, on 15.04, he referred
to me as a "LaRouche-type" person, and on 18.04 he even wrote:

>We are not going to please the few anti-communists and
>reactionaries in this list such as the snitches of the Socialist
>Workers Party (SWP), Nacla, "leftist observer" and the "pigs" by
>trying to engage answering the diatribes of the brain-child of
>Lyndon LaRouche "Rolf Martens" who is singing on the list the
>same music of our enemies. We would better have a proven
>reactionary debating with us than a fake claiming to be protecting
>the the PCP from the little Avakian."
  
>We must not allow individualist scribblers who enjoy taking part
>in soap operas of the reactionaries in a futile attempt to promote
>themselves.

And, in reply to comrade Olaechea (likewise on 18.04):

>OK. I have never called Martens a fascist. Thought he hold similar
>views on promoting energy sources like nuclear fission and fusion
>than LaRouche. 
>Isn't Chernobril close to Sweden? Wasn't the Yankee imperialists
>the first in dropping the nuclear bombs of hydrogen killing hundreds
>of thousands of people? Exotic, isn't it? what is wrong to learn
>Trotskism to combat them better?

On the question of nuclear energy, against the peaceful use of 
which precisely the U.S. imperialist main forces have long been 
leading the reactionary campaigns in many countries, as a very important 
component of their entire efforts to strangle the industrial
development there, Mr. Quispe thus emits a particularly venomous black 
diatribe. He's just as fanatically opposed to nuclear energy as those 
Trotskyites he rants about have been in the last 20-30 years.

This supposed "Maoist" pretends not even to know that chairman
Mao, as did all who had some elementary knowledge of science
and weren't reactionaries of the anti-development type, always
strongly advocated the peaceful use of nuclear fission and fusion
as energy sources incomparably superior to all others - that is, who
according to Quispe "held similar views" to those of the leader of a 
small bourgeois/imperialist group in (mainly) the USA of today which 
still - for bourgeois/imperialist aims, of course - wants overall 
technical, industrial and scientific development. Over this question, 
Mr. Quispe got so excited that he in practice accused Mao Zedong 
of being "a brainchild of" Lyndon LaRouche.

He also asks: "Isn't Chernobyl close to Sweden?", continuing to sing 
the song of the very worst enemies of the proletariat and the 
oppressed peoples and indeed chiming in in one of their loudest 
and most out-of-tune reactionary propaganda soap opera arias. The
serious incident in 1986 with the Chernobyl reactor in the then Soviet 
Union, caused by massive and quite abnormal manipulation of this 
graphite-cooled plant (quite different from the ones e.g. in Sweden, 
where nobody could cause such an explosion even if they wanted to) 
"in order to conduct an experiment" in fact took place at a considerable 
distance from here.

Despite this, the reactionary politicians not only pretended that there
had been "harmful fallout" in this country from this incident - which
radiation experts have pointed out was not the case - and quite
unnecessarily, only for reactionary propaganda reasons, ordered
supposedly "contaminated" animals after the elk-hunt to be buried
etc. Similar completely unjustified and damaging "countermeasures" 
indeed were taken on a gigantic scale in the Ukraine itself, causing 
one of the greatest material destructions ever known in "peacetime". But 
this is *warfare*, against the masses. In Sweden, the Chernobyl incident 
was further taken as a pretext by the bourgeois politicians for a new 
law prohibiting(!) all research and projecting with the purpose of 
constructing a nuclear power reactor in this country - the infamous
Inquisition-type "brainwash paragraph" of 1987. 

*This* is what the tune sung by Mr. Quispe praises. And that's not even
the end of it. He pretends not even to know the difference between the
peaceful use of nuclear energy and the military use of it. Even worse, at
the very mention of fission etc this supposed "Marxist" speaks out in 
strong terms against *all* atomic bombs, precisely as if they couldn't 
also be constructed for self-defence and for *countering* that nuclear-
weapons-blackmail which, for instance, those same Yankee imperialists he 
supposedly is so much opposed to once directed against revolutionary 
China, which however fortunately constructed such a weapon of its own 
in 1964 - need I remind him, under the guidance of whose political line?

Who's singing along with practically every song in the whole book
of our very worst enemies, huh, Mr. Quispe?

¤13.    In the reactionaries' song-book there's one more of the 
        nastier kind: The "Reactionary-Provocation Song" or "Baader-
Meinhof Anti-Marxist Melody". Ever since the early/mid-'70:s, this has 
been a quite infamous tune, in Germany in particular, but also e.g. 
here in Sweden.  Will Mr. Quispe chime in in this one too?

He's done so. When I first appeared on the Marxism list and was only
hours later met by his first attack, this communication of his, to one
of the Detcom comrades, apparently had reached that list by some
(fortunate) mistake or other. It splashed into it in a manner similar
to that of one of those octopuses which are known to be traditionally
thrown on the ice by nobody-knows-whom when the Detroit home ice hockey 
team scores, and Mr. Quispe immediately returned saying that the New 
Flag at least had not thrown this one and indeed for the time being had 
ceased posting to this list, for various reasons.

But as soon as his controversy with me had started, or rather, the one
mainly with comrade Olaechea prompted by the latter's in the main
defending me, Mr Quispe also got very busy posting to the list articles 
about recent armed actions by the PCP and about actions - genuinely or 
supposedly - in support of the people's war in Peru. It was as if he
now saw a need to prove that he was really a staunch supporter of the
PCP and not something completely different.

In one of those articles, he even dug up and presented this four months 
old "piece of news" (on 20.04, subject "PERU: PCP ...", excerpts):

>GERMANY. Guerillas (supporters of the PCP), bombed a German
>government. On December 27, 95, Reuters reported that the Anti-
>Imperialist Cell of Germany (AIZ) blasted a Duesseldorf office block
>four days ago, against the imperialist government of Bonn that
>provides economic and military assistance to the fascist regime of
>Fujimori. The leaflet reads: Long live the People's War! The blast,
>early on Saturday morning, shattered windows in a building housing
>the Peruvian Consulate. No-one was injured. In a 23-page statement
>sent to news agencies, AIZ said it planted the bomb to draw
>international attention to the conditions of poverty and misery in
>which Peruvians live. 

>In a statement written in a mixture of German, English and Spanish,
>AIZ also expressed open solidarity with the Communist Party of
>Peru (PCP) and its Central Committee leading the Peruvian
>Revolution  

In reality, this kind of adventurist "actions", in far-away countries 
and completely isolated from the masses there, do not serve the cause
of the people's war in Peru at all but only serve to discredit it. In 
fact, such groups as the "AIZ" and its forerunners, the "RAF" (Baader-
Meinhof clique) etc, are long since well-known to be heavily
infiltrated by and under the control of various intelligence services,
who are instigating this kind of political provocations in order to
further certain reactionary aims of their own, including not least
that of facilitating suppression against the real revolutionaries.

This whole phenomenon is a very long and very black chapter by
itself. It's also noteworthy that in 1994, precisely the so-called 
"Sol-Peru, France", which advocated the SIN/CIA "peace accord"
hoax, made propaganda for such provocations, this time in Italy 
(as I briefly noted in my Info #3en). When now the "AIZ" pretends
to be a "supporter of the PCP", their statement should by no means 
immediately be taken at face value,  by people who have a minimum 
of  political knowledge or experience. 

When Mr. Quispe now applauds *this* kind of "support" - which in
realty effects precisely the opposite of what it pretends to do -
is he only being incredibly naive, or is there another explanation?
Is there a better way of miscrediting and damaging the genuine
support by people in Germany and other countries for the PCP than 
to instigate such "actions", and for supposed "PCP representatives"
to acknowledge such "support"?

¤14.    There are other ways of combating the genuine support 
        among the people for the cause of the PCP, of course, even 
if they're not quite as effective as the above-mentioned. You can 
also, for instance, attack, negate and in practice try to liquidate that 
considerable international mass movement for the defence of 
comrade Gonzalo's life which arose shortly after his capture and
which, largely as the result of the Founding Conference of the IEC 
in Duisburg, Germany, in February 1993, in which close to 1000
people took part, eventually comprised some tens of thousands
of people in 30-40 countries, many of which in the third world.

Quispe does this too. On the IEC Conference, he writes (20.04):

>We do not want this to be a "formality" like the Lund event or
>a buareacratic one in Germany for the IEC, we would like 
>this event to be representative of all support groups to the
>People's War worldwide, without sectarisms,

Here he was opposing the proposed WWMC and only mentioned
the Duisburg event for comparison, but it's clear that, whatever
faults that big event had, "bureaucratic" is an unfair description
of it which just "brushes off" the considerable movement it did
represent. Rather than on the masses, Mr Quispe obviously
prefers "basing himself" on such forces as the "AIZ" in Germany.

If Mr. Quispe doesn't change his mind considerably, I on my part
would oppose his partcipating in the WWMC even if he himself
should wish it.

[Continued in Part 5/5 (Marxism list posting 3/3)]









     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---