Carguacountii

I think Vijay Prashad wrote something about Russia like its viewed in the West as either the Vatican or hell... not hell, he uses a different word, its a much better phrase than I'm able to remember. But the point being that dichotomy between the source of moral authority, or the opposite (I guess alluding to Moscow as the fourth Rome).

On this particular topic, my own view is that Russia is restricting the rights/priviledges of what they term the 'international' LGBTQ movement, because I think the west uses wealthy urbanite associations of that kind in Russia (particularly St Petersberg/Moscow) for spying activities. At the same time, Putin has said (though ofc its necessary to examine what is done, not just what is said) that the LGBTQ community is part of Russian society, and shouldn't be attacked or victimised - this is probably because as a legalist ruler he wants to be in compliance with various legal obligations, and also doesn't want internal conflict. I think he isn't particularly opposed to the restrictions, because of the support it wins from the Orthodox church.

I wonder also with this particular topic, how much of the impetus for these kind of anti-progressive movements is to do with political kompromat. Certainly I don't think most of the elite, like aristos or capitalists for example, really care about sexual preferences, but rather its a useful political tool if the masses (are persuaded to) consider it immoral. Like with the 'Lavender Scare' in the US, but then I've also seen a CIA testimony saying that they (I paraphrase) 'like homosexuals because they're useful' referring I think to the usefulness of having something over someone. I suppose I mean, I wonder how much (alongside other factors) the passage of anti or pro LGBTQ laws is to do with wanting a political weapon, or alternatively as a kind of disarmemant treaty among the ruling classes.

I don't think there is anything 'unserious' about an armed conflict with a state, and I don't think you can be serious about portraying it that way - its a flippant thing to say.

Again, I don't think its true that they didn't have support from the peasants. Certainly that's been claimed by the anti-communists, but they always say that about their enemies.

I don't think conflicts occur on somebody's whims, there is always a reason. A long (and ongoing) conflict of this kind could not have occured without there being a good reason for it, and also a possibility of victory.

That's your (and the US, Peruvian colonial anti-communist gov, and European) interpretation of the speech, in accordance with the same 'sides' claims about what happened - as has been pointed out to you, but you seemingly aren't in agreement with, although you haven't mentioned why.

Corpses of course occur in every conflict - it would actually however be useful as a piece of evidence as to what happened, provided of course we can trust the investigatory body that conducted autopsies, and there was nothing suspicious about the process (like in the Oct 7th case, or Bucha). Do you have a source for such autopsies or investigations, I couldn't find one when i looked?

We do have testimony, from members of the 'terrorist'/liberation group that operates in that region (as well as poor people who understandably will take money to say whatever is asked of them), regarding the alleged Uyghur genocide, and China has discussed previously its 'security' campaign in that area, which naturally involved killings - annihilations - of combatants (as well as police action, arrests and so on). There was also allegations of 'collective punishment' via mass arrests, seperation of families. Xi is unlikely to say such things, because of his position and circumstance - it would hardly be useful to brag about the defeat of a comparatively insignificant enemy force.

Of course, in the case of the Uyghur 'genocide' we can easily say that its a nonsense, that what happened there is not as the west alleges, for various reasons - mostly that we have more evidence from a wide array of sources, including the Chinese (and local government) side of the conflict. That isn't so in the Peruvian case as I'm sure you'll acknowledge - which is why I think leftists have been persuaded more easily to take the US state department line about savage murderous barbarian enemies of all that is good and right, who were supposedly hated by the people of Peru.

Incidentally, how do you feel, given what you've said previously (about the Red Army) about the so called Katyn massacres? The Russians admitted responsibility - though not that it was a war crime - in the 90s. Personally, my view of it is that it is likely that it was the Germans, but that it was expedient or useful to 'admit' responsibility (Stalin being long gone) for Russia at the time. Further, I'd also say that even if it did happen by the Soviets, I'm fairly indifferent to it - a bunch of military, aristos, and their sympathisers getting offed in the course of a war isn't a big deal.

Which comes to the point made by the Peruvian communists, that 'human rights' and 'war crimes' are a product of Imperial and Colonial governments. This is true, thats who drew the laws up. I don't think that means that there is no moral or ethical code, but rather that a concept of human rights must be the product of all of humanity to be meaningful. For example, its considered a war crime to take hostages, as Hamas (and the Peruvian communists) did. This is absurd of course - provided the hostages are treated well I don't see a problem, hostage taking is a very effective tactic in warfare particularly against a stronger and wealthier opponent, which is why its considered illegal by strong wealthy states. Collective punishment is another example - there are obviously degrees of such, and those matter when determining justification. Mass restriction of movement, while not ideal, is hardly the same as mass indiscriminate bombing (in fact is simply what happens at borders between states every day).

its important though to seperate the 'look' from the actual circumstances. Was he anti-indigenous, did he kill indigenous Peruvians deliberately because of their ethnicity, or because some were fighting on the side of landed interests?

Lots of bolsheviks were Jewish, of course that doesn't mean that in killing Russian opponents they were carrying out an anti-Russian campaign - although that is a common rightist accusation, presumably because of how it 'looks'.

As far as I understand Peru, a lot of the rural areas have indigenous populations, partly because many fled there during the European conquest. I don't think it is possible that the resistance movement could have done what it did without the support of a large amount of indigenous people. Of course, some will have opposed the communists - the armed militia, referred to as 'peasant patrols' seem to me to be paramilitaries assisted by the state and fighting for landowners, particularly cattle ranchers.

80 people, but who were those people (if that itself isn't an exaggeration ofc)?

I take it you're referring to the speech, but in that the 'victims' are referred to as combatants, so.

I'm for them because they're communists, and they're fighting against a US (and European) backed colonial government, whose ancestors genocided the people and took their land. That's enough for me, I don't feel the need to decry and condemn people resisting just because the US or a colonial government says they were bad - every side in a conflict says the other is bad, its expected.

Perhaps - personally, I support many independence movements even if they're not socialist or communist, because often its impossible to progress while occupied or colonised, so its a necessary first step. Afghanistan is a good example of this - its objectively better having the Taliban back in control than the US occupation and their pet warlords.

I see what you mean in a strategic sense - its not a good idea to fight against too many opponents at once. I'm not sure that Shining Path did attack those who they should have allied with however - all the sources I can find are dubious, and I wasn't there, so I can't really make a good judgement about who did what and the types of people they are alleged to have killed, only apply the usual rubric that if the US says one thing about communists, the opposite is probably the case.

From what I've read, it seems like they did have a lot of support (and what they did achieve would be frankly impossible without that). The difference I can see between them and the Maoist case, is that Peru wasn't being occupied by another power at the time, and the urban centres didn't like them so much (except in the very poor areas). But then Peru isn't/wasn't particularly industrialised, being a resource extraction colony, so I wonder if there was even a significant urban proletariat to really bother trying with.

Well no revolution is fighting on behalf of all the people is it?

You're admirably vehement in defending the official version of events, have you wondered if you might be wrong? Like, if your opinion and view of what happened aligns with the US state department (among other imperialists and colonisers, and anti-communists), what if this is another case of lies like the supposed Uyghur genocide, or the 'holodomer', or basically any of the things the US tends to say about its enemies? What about this particular case, Peru, convinces you that the US and the colonial government are correct and not lying?

Its difficult to find a good source, isn't it?

I don't really believe the claims made by Israel about Oct 7th either. Of course, clearly at least some 'innocents' did die in crossfire on that day. I also find it difficult to believe, on the basis of testimony alone, the claims from both sides that during the Nakba and also during the recent uprising, that children were cooked in ovens. Obviously (some few) people are capable of doing such things, but its also a very good lie to tell because it causes instinctive outrage and disgust that prevent people from investigating further - blood libel is a very old and common tactic, because it works.

I think the leader of the movement doesn't/didn't accept the tale we've been told by the Liberal settler colonial government, and by US agencies, about what happened. I don't think he was stupid, whatever else he was, and it would be a stupid thing to brag about if it happened as alleged.

Well conservative Islam seems to have worked for the Taliban. I think its more that national liberation movements align themselves with what will gain them the most or the best foriegn and domestic support.

What options would you say Peru had but didn't take? Castillo dressed up like a western cowboy but that still wasn't good enough - do you think those recent events vindicate somewhat the armed struggle?

I doubt the communists there were completely alienated from the people, or else the conflict would have been over very fast - in fact it is still ongoing. Its difficult to assess however, being illegal to show support for them there.

I'm not sure it matters too much (if the events there are as presented by the commission) that there were women killed does it? A lot of the membership of the communist side were women, which possibly meant they didn't uphold 'chivalric' values (for want of a better term) in wartime.

As for indigenous, Mao of course killed a lot of indigenous Chinese in the course of his war. I'm not sure using these categories of people for moral outrage is useful for analysis, unless there's some kind of sustained genocidal campaign, which there clearly wasn't.

Children of course are usually somewhat different, but as we know the Romanov children died during that revolution, and I would be surprised if thats the only example.

I'm not defending these actions - its bad optics to do so and so you must always caveat with this - but war is always like this. I suppose all you can do is weigh the result against what it took to get there - like the Terror in France, or the purge of landlords in China.

Thanks, I will do - do you have any recommendations, especially ones not from a settler-colonist state or anticommunist source? Thats all I tend to find when I look.

thats certainly a claim I've read too, but then I suppose every revolutionary movement has had a conflict with local peasantry as well as the state - peasants are often co-opted to fight against such movements, and certainly landowners usually resist. From what I read about Peru, they were fighting cattle farming interests.