Re: PCP and RIM

[Maoist Internationalist Movement <mim3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

From: "Chris, London" <100423.2040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: marxismlist a <marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: PCP on the RIM

MIM3 wrote 5th June

 we are opposed to the reconstitution of
the International.

- Please explain what the remit of the Maoist Internationalist
Movement is, then.

BTW The Document posted as PCP on the RIM, is not dated.
This makes it hard to place in context. A date would be
appreciated with all documents.


Chris Burford

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIM replies:

In 1993, a joke started going around that there are three Maoist
Internationals in the world and MIM is one of them. Quispe took
advantage of that and the confusing historical fact that RIM stole our name
to spread disinformation saying MIM is a "world party." MIM told Quispe
our precise position on this in 1994 and we still have the letters, but
Quispe went on spreading disinformation. In 1995, MIM did pass a
resolution taking responsibility for forming parties in the imperialist
countries, and their internal semi-colonies. In a handful of places, MIM
is the vanguard. In three-quarters of the planet MIM makes no effort and
sees it as the job of others to do the work, though we would not rule out
assistance where no banner of Mao has been raised and we were asked to
help raise it.

With regard to the PCP-CC document, you should ask AO such questions
in general. Since you ask, I will tell you Chris how we outsiders should
look at that document.

The document says "published in 1991," which doesn't mean that it was
written then. What's more important than when it was written is that it was
written when Gonzalo was free AND the PCP-CC upheld it as late as
1993, with no one contesting it.

In 1993, the full meaning of the peace accords plot started to filter into
PCP circles. At the end of 1993, MIM was asked to take a stand on who
was the legitimate representation of the PCP--capitulators or people
opposing the peace accords idea. And clearly if MIM had received that
document in A World to Win, MIM would have said even based on our
line that the CRCPA is calling capitulationist, even based on our most
Quispish line, MIM would have called the document
"counterrevolutionary" and unlike Quispe and CRCPA, we would not have
called it "a step forward" for RCP-USA to be calling it "right opportunist."

There was actually a couple reasons that Quispe and CRCPA picked that
sectarian nit over the difference in their own minds between "main
initiators" (of conferences leading to RIM) and "principal leaders." You see
Chris, some people want us to believe that the PCP was saying for years
that the RIM is not a COMINTERN yet if it ever will be one, and then
suddenly, and conveniently, the PCP became the "principal leader" of the
RIM. Why do they need to do this aside from its simple nationalist appeal
to Peruvian sojourners?

It has everything to do with Quispe's attempt to aid the RCP camp. People
in the RCP-USA camp on the peace accords realize that it would be much
better to have their positions be the supposed positions of the world's
greatest fighter against revisionism, the PCP. It would completely
legitimize them and for some people it would allow them to pose as apart
>from the RCP-USA.

So all the sudden, and conveniently enough amidst these controversies, and
without any forthcoming congratulations, acknowledgement or consent
>from other RIM organizations, notably the TKP/ML, all of the sudden
some circles attempted to pass off the RIM as PCP-led.

You're probably sorry you asked, but as outsiders, we are being asked
twice in a row since 1993 to judge what is legitimate and what is farce. The
first time was the difference between capitulators and revolutionaries, both
claiming Gonzalo Thought. Now, we have some supposedly in the anti-
capitulator camp again moving over to the capitulators and asking that you
recognize them as legitimate. So as an outsider, you are being asked a lot
of your Maoism, if you are political weaklings like we are in the imperialist
countries Chris.

For this reason, some people have come to MIM and said, "I don't know
anything about Peru and I know even less about Maoism, what the hell can
I do about this?" That's why the answer of Charlotte from the CP-USA
makes so much sense. She's obviously not a Maoist yet, and she says she's
a recent supporter of the People's War, but she knows an Amerikan-style
cop when she sees one. She doesn't have to know about Peru or Maoism,
and she's absolutely right. This creep talking about Detroit PSC as "drug-
addicts" with "long hair" and AO as a "failure" in the bourgeois world--it's
all what the typical cop tries to project about any defendant in the
Amerikan courtroom, regardless of the charges against the defendant.
Attempting to cause splits, and fabricating documents, does anyone need to
know about Maoism in detail to know about that? That's why we have not
gotten into these Talmudic questions Chris. It is Quispe who hopes to
benefit from them by distracting attention from the basic questions.

But now that you've raised it Chris, as you can see from the document, you
don't need to form a "fraction" if you are already the principal leader. When
you are the principal leader, your whole party takes your stand.

At a later date, I may reveal how many times Quispe has consented to the
formulation that the RCP-USA is the "principal leader" of the RIM and we
can have a jolly-good sectarian nit about translations, doctorings of phrases
and things from MIM circles and elsewhere.





     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---