MIM replies to Trotskyist-CyberLiberal-cop bloc

[Maoist Internationalist Movement <mim3@xxxxxxxxxx>]

The Australian dupe of Quispe says:

THIS IS SUCH A GOOD POST I CONSIDERED IT NECESSARY TO
POST IT AGAIN.

Quispe says:
> It is easy to say turncoat, wrecker, cop, etc. but the point is to
> substantiate them. That's why people laugh on you and do not take you
> seriously.

MIM replies: Anyone who follows this list knows that you translated and
did some of the distribution work for Luis Arce Borja's El Diario, which
even way back you sabotaged when MIM started distributing more widely
than you did.

Suddenly, in May you turned against what you had been upholding as late
as April. You called Luis Arce Borja a "traitor." Your statement above is
an attempt to confuse more recent readers. There is no way you can avoid
the term "turncoat."

Next you ordered MPPs not to join the WMC work. That is wrecking.

>From these actions, many people put two and two together Quispe.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIM says:
> Now you validate everything we said about Quispe and Avakianism
> > as crypto-Trotskyism.
Quispe says:
> You said they were cops, do you mean crypto-Trotskist colonels?
> MIM you are incorregible, a laughing stock.

MIM replies:
Unlike the idiot metaphysician in Australia, MIM does not believe cops
come out saying "we're cops here to penetrate your movement for years
and then wreck your movement." Not the kind of cop Quispe is. That's not
what he does. No, such cops wear MASKS.
Gina and the Australian dupe follow the MASKS, because they represent
labor aristocracy/p.b. politics of CyberLiberalism and don't think it matters
if cops speak in the name of the PCP or not.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

MIM says:
 Before you start your mission you should
> > buy MIM Theory #9 with the article, "RCP-USA & Trotsky: A Literal
> > Comparison." Come on; send your $5 plus whatever postage it takes
> > to get a magazine to you to PO Box 3576, Ann Arbor, MI 48106 USA
Quispe says:
> MIM is just like the RCP, a merchant. Why don't you 5 guys open a
> bookstore MA-1000?

MIM replies: According to USA Today, June 10, 1996, p. d1, the average
household income of the INTERNET user is $59,140. Quispe complains
when we ask them to pay for their literature, because Quispe would rather
prisoners not get any literature and he would rather people like Salazar
Calero pay for it while INTERNET people get it free. This is more
CyberLiberalism that Quispe seeks to take advantage of.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MIM says:
>  The rest of you should send your money for MIM Theory #10
Quispe says:
> Give money, money and money...Yankee revisionist and trafficker, why
don't
> you open your shop and become a non-profit organization like
Revolutioanary
> bookstores.

MIM replies: Because MIM is not trying to point people to the RCP-USA
like you are. This does remind MIM of a lame excuse Quispe came up with
for running with the tail between its legs. Back then, when asked why he
couldn't break with the RCP-USA, Quispe said they have accomplished
something no one else had been able to do--set up a chain of bookstores.
All this talk about "profits" fits in nicely with his obsession with their
bookstores.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dupe "C" from Australia says:
  Yes, I believe so. His rebuttal of the nonsense about a "100%
police hoax" was truly excellent. LAB, AO and Jay apparently deny the
existence of two-line struggle in a communist party.

MIM replies: I have it on written record that Quispe did too, but only when
it applied to the Communist Party of the Philippines. Quispe was quite
willing to say there was no two-line struggle if it meant he could drive a
wedge between the CPP and the PCP. His position was much more
extreme than anything he accuses AO of now. (Dupe "C" doesn't care that
Quispe demonstrably flip-flops the way a cop needs to for his own
purposes, because "C" believes the international communist movement is
just a talk-shop, a bunch of parliamentary chatterboxes. His line is let the
cops speak for the PCP.)

However, this comment from Dupe "C" is the dividing line. Dupe "C" is no
longer a "comrade" in our book but a revisionist.

Of course there is a two-line struggle in the party. That doesn't justify your
camp's attempts to rehabilitate the capitulators who called for laying down
and destroying arms, described in A World to Win, pp. 64-5. That goes
beyond "two-line struggle" and gets you thrown out of the party. There is a
difference between "right opportunism" and "counterrevolution" as far as
genuine Maoists are concerned.

Nor does "two-line struggle" justify calling the PCP-CC "totalitarian." By
this crap of using Maoism to cover for counterrevolution, the dupe from
Australia has crossed the line into revisionism. It has nothing to do with
who is the real representative of the PCP. The dupe from Australia stands
in violation of the universal aspects of Maoism.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malecki says:

But if you could give me the short version of where MIM stands on the
Peruvian revolution then perhaps i can give you an answer.

MIM replies: We stand with Luis Arce Borja and Adolfo Olaechea and we
are requesting that the PCP-CC be made known of the police plot by MPP-
USA leaders so that it can re-orient the support movement.

At this moment, we are engaged in a key battle against RCP-USA
hegemonism; hence, MIM does not now and never has claimed to be
building a Guiding Thought for Peru. The revisionist from Australia and
the other RCP supporters on this list are clearly getting involved in doing
just that, coming up with a Guiding Thought for Peru.

They all need to cover their lie that the PCP is the principal
leader of the RIM, so they attack MIM instead of Gonzalo. Let them
answer a simple question: Is the RCP-USA the principal leader of the RIM or not?

When MIM doesn't match their Guiding Thought for Peru, they attack
MIM. It's that simple. At first this took the form of denying the two-line
struggle in the case of Quispe; for Quispe it was also a matter of saying no
peace accord could possibly be considered from the universal aspects of
Maoism. Now that is inconvenient for Quispe as cop, so now he backs two
line struggle--even to count counterrevolutionaries and pro-Cold War
intellectuals in the two-line struggle, thus libelling the great PCP which
would never include such trash in its ranks. He now also admits that peace
accords are possible within Maoism. In fact, he has done such an about-
face, that now he says such peace accords and the open advocacy of ending
the guerrilla war are OK for the PCP two-line struggle.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Malecki says:
I try not to get involved in the name calling of "who are the cops and
imperialist agents crap being thrown around here on this list so freely. It
generally means a lack of political line and is used as a cover for not
fighting out the differences.

So far the fight is obviously not about Peru, but who will control the
solidarity movement outside of Peru. A power trip by various fractions
who
appear to be tearing each other apart without the real politcal differences
surfacing.

So until the real politics of the MIM are presented her i will keep silent.
When you come with some politics and not just this name calling then
perhaps you will get and answer...

MIM replies: Of course you don't care about who are the cops are and who
aren't. You are a CyberLiberal, just as much as Trotskyists in Eastern
Europe allied with any and all CIA and bourgeois intellectuals spouting
Western Liberalism. I'm not complaining that you are being inconsistent
Mr. Malecki. Your line is honestly and forthrightly stated. In this context, it
is only the closet Trotskyists who deserve our condemnation for claiming
to be one thing when they are really something else. It does not help
political debate for crypto-Trotskyism to be running amok.

We understand that you want a talk-shop and you don't care if cops
participate or not, because cop lines can be refuted you think. And for
many purposes that's OK. In this case, it's not OK, because Quispe
represents h/self as PCP and thus fools many trusting people, some of
whom the cops will oppress. The cops don't go after labor aristocrats and
labor bureaucrats Malecki, so we realize you don't care, but we do.

Yes, it's true that we would rather genuine people control the movement to
support the People's War in Peru. It's a power-struggle to oust cops. That
is why we clearly take AO and LAB's side in this. As Lenin said, "better me
than you."

As for your talk-shop Malecki, we notice you said some general things, but
you didn't answer our questions about the RCP-USA, the semi-proletariat
and the labor aristocracy. It was just 15 yes or no questions Mr. Malecki.
Do answer them before you accuse us of avoiding politics.

To be consistent with Trotskyism, you have to be for a world party
Malecki, so you are in the right camp with all kinds of shit
designed in Chicago, Canberra and Queens trying to replace MLMGT for Peru.
In contrast, we Maoists are under the obligation to abandon such
forms of organization as where the line is going astray from proletarian
interests. We at MIM are only being criticized for not following unprincipled
C-Thought for Peru.

And if you wonder why we don't polemicize with the Australian more, it's
because there are a couple dividing lines the Australian has crossed. One is
CyberLiberalism. He doesn't care if cops represent the PCP. We have
offered to send xeroxed documents to anyone on the question of
fabrication by Quispe, and C has not requested them and neither have you
Malecki. There is no point in discussing with self-interested sectarians
anything if their own legitimacy is above the interests of the proletariat to
fight cops.

(BTW Malecki, as for your concern about "rotten blocs," of course
you are correct if CyberLiberalism on cops is correct. But despite
the cynicism spread by Quispe, anyone can see that if MIM wanted
to trade legitimacy for selling out the proletariat, we could have
followed the Australian's road; we could also drop our third
cardinal principle and endorsements would start pouring in like
rain. MIM does neither of these things, and hence you are in the
position of saying this is a rotten bloc. Well actually, MIM
has refused to sell principles for legitimacy. We didn't do it
with Quispe and we won't do it with AO and LAB.)

Two is that the Australian has crossed the line in calling open
counterrevolution and cops part of the party two-line struggle. That is
revisionism. It's one thing to worm your way into the party. It's another
thing for the party to call open counterrevolutionaries part of the party.

Three, believe it or not, before any of this started, we presented the
following to the Australian, and he had NOTHING to say:

AUSTRALIA Labor Force by Occupation:
Finance and services 33.8%
Public and community services 22.3%
Wholesale and retail trade 20.1%
Manufacturing and industry      16.2%
Agriculture     6.1%

We had some back-and-forths with the Australian, who was in such a rush
to do Quispe's bidding that he didn't identify himself as a Maoist until
several messages in, and we kept saying, "why don't you ask the Peruvians
that?" because all of the Australian's questions were about fine details of
Peru that Quispe sent him to ask us.

That's where hegemonic thinking leads Malecki, to ignoring of your own
conditions. The Australian does Quispe's most minute errands in exchange
for being called legitimate or the red fraction of the RIM. That's where the
world party logic leads Mr. Malecki.

The only thing the Australian cares about is whether we fit in C-Thought
for Peru. So if your talk-shop seems a little dry Mr. Malecki, it's because
this Australian dupe has nothing to say. It's not that we didn't ask. (You
saw him use that favorite RCP quote from Lenin on we cannot know what
portion will follow the proletariat or the bourgeoisie as a justification why
we "cannot know" our own society's class composition. Surely you are not
such an agnostic Mr. Malecki?)

>From our point of view, Mr. Malecki, the above statistics would be
regarded by Lenin, Trotsky (1917-1924), Stalin, Zinoviev and Dutt as
proof that there is either a tiny or non-existent proletariat in Australia.
Finances and services were considered non-proletarian. Public and
community is obviously non-productive labor. Australia will have to
have its borders forced open or there can be "no talk of the
dictatorship of the proletariat."

The Australian comrade should be arguing with MIM over Australian
conditions, not Peru's finer details. It's obvious that Australian conditions
are similar to u.s. conditions. Both countries are imperialist.

That's why we return to those fifteen yes or no questions Mr. Malecki. The
Australian has not integrated MLM with concrete conditions, and hence
has no MLM at all. He is not even attempting to pursue the dictatorship of
the proletariat. His goal is the dictatorship of the semi-proletariat, and thus
we can't be surprised by his CyberLiberalism on cops, his support for
Avakian and the RIM and the RIM capitulation documents and his
counting counter-revolutionaries as part of "two-line struggle" in the PCP.




     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---