Re: Peruvian Maoism

[briang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Brian Green)]

It appears to me we are getting bogged down with the wrong question, as far
as Sendero Luminoso is concerned, becoming locked into a debate which pits
theoretical heritage vs. human rights.

Louis' initial post makes an important point...Sendero's use of indigenous
imagery and its attempt to marry Marxism and traditional Inca culture is
radically different from the practice of revolutionay movements elsewhere,
i.e Nicaragua ( yes, the Sandinistas deserve all the criticism they get for
their treatment of the Miskito nation). And if the purpose of the initial
post was to raise some discussion along these lines, then I think that's a
very worthwhile task.

However, with Robert Saute, I would add that it is not possible, nor
desirable, to ignore the human rights issues at play here; as far as I'm
concerned, the true measure of a revolutionary movement, like any political
entity, is its political behaviour, not its rhetoric. And while Sendero's
marriage of Inca tradition and Maoism is well- worth investigating, it is
important to bear in mind that Sendero has been responsible for the murders
of community activists, indigenous leaders and labour organizers.
Furthermore, Sendero's alienation from the rest of the Peruvian left and
international Marxist movement is as much Sendero's responsibility as anyone
else's...Guzman  from the beginning condemned virutally and and all
socialists outside of Sendero as capitalist-roaders, fascists and cretins.
The Party's leadership has shown utter contempt for anyone and everyone who
may disagree with its theory, organization, or strategy, and that contempt
frequently been demonstrated by physical abuse, torture and murder -- this
is not armed conflict with the state we're talking about, it is execuation
and slaughter of working people who engage in struggle outside of Sendero's
leadership.  Finally, on the topic of ingigenism, the Shining Path is by no
means an indigenous movement...Its leadership has been generally white,
university-educated,  and middle class, and the adoption of Quechua and Inca
symbolism  represents a political strategy designed to gain support in a
country with a massive indigenous population.

Louis does provide a brief but useful outline Peruvian left-wing political
history. He discusses APRA, founded by Haya de la Torre, and the limit of
its political programme to some form of cross-class social democracy
favouring liberal professionals and skilled urban trade unions, positing
Sendero as a radical  and Mariategui-inspired alternative to the APRA
project. There are, however, a few points that are missing from the outline
Louis presents. First, APRA and Sendero have not been the only Peruvian
political movements claiming to represent the political Left, nor has
Sendero been unique in its demand for a radical socialist revolution. In
thelate 1950s and early 1960s three different revolutionary groups emerged:
the MIR (Revolutionary left Movement, founded by more radical elements of
APRA and influenced by Che Guevara); the ELN (National Liberation Army, a
slinter group of the Communist Party of Peru, also heavily influenced by the
Cuban example) and the  the POR (Peruvian trotskyist party, which  worked
with select other leftist organizers to found the Revolutionary Left Front).
While these groups certainly all had their weaknesses, and were individually
crushed by the Peruvian state's (CIA-funded) counter-insurgency campaign, it
is important to mention them, and to consider their revolutionary heritage
in any discussion of armed struggle in Peru. Indeed, Sendero did not emerge
until over a decade later, and seemed to entirely miss the point that it was
each group's isolation from the others that allowed the Peruvian military to
crush what had been a mass discontent with a great deal of revolutionary
potential.

Secondly, (and this just a quick point) it is important not to confuse
Mariategui with Sendero. Mariategui was an important thinker and militant of
the Peruvian left in the 1920's, who pointed out the importance of linking
the struggle for socialism to Peru's indigenous struggles. Sendero has
simply taken up the name of Mariategui, using his work to inform its own
brand of Marxism. To criticize or even condemn Sendero's methods is by no
means to attack Mariategui's legacy.

That being said, I was glad to see Louis' post on the issue...Let's discuss
Sendero, let's discuss the failure of Marxists to adequately address racism
and indigenism...But let's not form a Sendero fan club in some attempt to
erase years of top-down leadership, personality cult and brutality in the
name of Marx, Mao and Mariategui.

In solidarity,
Brian Green


 You
>have one section of the Peruvian left that is trying to prop up a reformist
>government, while another section is trying to overthrow it. In these
>circumstances, which involved civil war, it is not surprising that there
>leftists who were killed. This does not excuse it, it simply explains it.
>
>Revolutions are not tea-parties. They often involve bloody reigns of
>terror. The French Revolution, the Russian Revolution, the Chinese
>Revolution all entailed the loss of innocent lives. Castro imprisoned his
>anarchist opponents and threw away the key. Ho Chi-minh killed the
>Trotskyists. We simply can not make a political judgement on these
>struggles based on such casualties. If you want to avoid the loss of
>innocent lives, then don't take up the armed struggle.
>
>There is nobody who was a more ardent supporter of the Sandinistas than me.
>Rob Saute can testify to this, since he was a Tecnica volunteer who did a
>great job repairing computers in Nicaragua. But the truth is that the FSLN
>not only put the Miskitos into concentration camps, they also killed them.
>I have tried to explain the origins of this problem, which was rooted in
>dogmatic Marxism. The solution to the problem is better Marxism, not
>accomodation to the status quo. Parenthetically, what I wrote about the
>Miskitus got me an invitation to a conference in Bluefields which I might
>take up.
>
>The simple truth of the matter is that the PCP is a Maoist guerrilla group.
>It has modeled itself on the Chinese Communist Party. My goal was not to
>whitewash them, but to make clear that they are part of the revolutionary
>movement in the 20th century. Mao's revolution--no matter how degraded it
>has become--was one of the great achievements of the oppressed masses in
>the 20th century. The common perception that the PCP was like the Khmer
>Rouge was unfortunately abetted by the NACLA articles. They did not deserve
>this reputation.
>
>Louis Proyect
>
>
>
-----
Brian Green                                        |
briang@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx