Suffice to say, I'm with Proyect on this one. People who imagine there is somehow a moral advantage to calling for the defeat an an anti-imperialist force, however distasteful in some respects, is to somehow equate that impulse with a moral superiority for Imperialist-led governments (such as Fujimori in Peru, or the American attackers in Afghanistan soon). We cannot, and should not ever be willing to strengthen regimes that are only as alive as their willingness to be brokered by America and the CIA. While the PCP was far from anyones vision of a brilliant insurgency, they still only killed 20% of the casualties of the entire civil war. It was the Peruvian capitalist state- and no one else- who was the principle architect of the misery in Peru. It is today still, without a massive Maoist movement in second or third place. The line I like simply is "we often forget they were at war with the Peruvian State". This is very true. Right now, for example, we have the same situation, even more starkly so. I assume Mr Waterman, since he seems pleased that Fujimori's American puppet fiefdom won out against dogmatic Maoists, he will now cheer the Northern Alliance "rebels" in Afghanistan against anti-woman butchers who dared to take their money to begin with in the Taliban. One problem, though. They are going to be fighting against the imperialists. That hasn't lost it's central role. It cannot, or we cannot ever imagine space for our own fight. And our fight hasnever been more important. And that is a great shame. It is emotional and based on a different set of enemies that perhaps might apply in North America- but the enemy they face is brute imperialism. In Peru, in South America. We have no business making our support for what is - despite our moral platitudes- the only game in town. Gross though it may be, the Taliban will be the face of independent self-defence in Afghanistan soon. And hard though it may be to understand (although I think your view of the PCP is grossly distorted), the Senderistas were the ones who built a mass movement that challenged imperialisms' grip in South America most in the 80's and 90's. They were all but dead; there have been reports recently that there are troops once again launching attacks. I don't want to use the tone of Mr Proyect and have been finding him very unpleasant for some time. That's why I left his list. Nonetheless, if anyone heeds the call to banish him for demanding clarity- not subordination to, but clarity of- the PCP and the movement in Peru, then expel me too. This no time for maoralistic platitudes and posturing. The reason that movements in other parts of the world which bear the brunt of imperialism most directly develop into such desperation is because we cannot and have not been able to carry out our historic mission. We are one and the same but talk as if we lived in an Ivory Tower. We are not in an Ivory Tower. We are not superior to anyone, for we have absolutely nothing to show for the last 50 years- yet our job remains the only one that matters. We, by our incompetence, have built this mess. The PCP et al are the price we pay for it. This is not to demand a flame war, nor is it a call for guilt. It is a plea for humility, actually. I believe the day is done where we can lecture the periphery on how to rebel while we have no successes in real terms since the 30's. Macdonald ----- Original Message ----- From: "Peter Waterman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >I think the Socialist Register (and any other left) list should consider as a principle >that those >who do not even recognise liberal human rights have no place here. (clip) >The provision of space to socialists who have not yet learned humanism and >democracy means >complicity with their thoughts and acts. >All this may seem a long way from the debates, discussions and even dialogue we >have >been having >about international monetary fundamentalism, Islamic terrorism, and the search for a >democratic >solution to the conflict between them. >Think about it. It isn't. Peter Waterman
