Literally doesn't make a difference. Liberal respectability politics. >Lenin and Mao created socialist republics
under entirely different circumstances. >the difference between them and Gonzalo is that they actually took time to self crit and contributed theory
literally in the quote which is used by Gonzalo to freak out about lucanamarca, he self crits. > and contributed theory
He did contribute to theory>the overall betterment of their people.
He did make things better for many people, who gained protection, education and so on. Unless you are gonna say some shit like "actually he caused the reactionary state to kill people" which would be victim blaming. >Gonzalo on the other hand only brutalised those who supported them
actually he brutalised people who didn't support them>The PKK and the ACP may call China revisionist, but they don't go out of their way to bomb their embassies.
China isn't actively supporting the enemies of the PKK >Except they wouldn't. Not even the USSR gets off scott free from the crime of genocide relating to the deportation of Volga Germans, Crimean Tartars and Chechneans- difference being is that they actually apologised and re-compensated them for this crime.
On this website, it does, and, they lived long enough to apologise, they did not do so at the time. >>1028331>An argument is a statement backed with evidence, you on the other hand are just throwing around rhetoric
no that is what you are doing, I have literally presented various pieces of evidence, about the statistics from the t a r comission report, about forced sterilisation, about massacres comitted by the state etc
you have just given opinions and posted fucking bad empanda lmao.
>oooh the people said a thing.
here is what someobody who actually went to region and studied the problem properly foundhttps://oxfordre.com/view/10.1093/acrefore/9780199366439.001.0001/acrefore-9780199366439-e-495
>Even after President Alejandro Toledo increased the number of commissioners to twelve from seven (adding Ames, Arias, Lay, Antúndez, Morote, and the observer Bambarén), the commissioners still reflected elite sectors of Peru least affected by the violence. All were residents of Lima, all were urban dwellers, only one spoke Quechua, only one understood it, and none self-identified as Indigenous or campesino. As Commissioner Carlos Iván Degregori later commented, “even the composition of the CVR reflected the gaps in the country” that underlay the political violence
>It is crucial to remember that survivors of the violence made decisions about what they would and would not share with the CVR. Anthropologist Kimberly Theidon observed that in many rural Ayacucho communities devastated by the violence, campesinos held local assemblies prior to the arrival of the CVR’s testimonial teams. At those assemblies, community authorities decided what local residents should say and what they should leave unsaid, lest some community members’ initial support for Shining Path militants somehow cast the community as less deserving of reparations. As Theidon notes, “There was an effort to close narrative ranks, prompted by the many secrets people keep about a lengthy fratricidal conflict and the numerous expectations a commission generates.”
>The CVR also conducted interviews with more than one thousand leaders and rank-and-file members of the Shining Path and MRTA. Commissioners decided against allowing any of these individuals to participate in the public hearings,
>Politicians from the period, including former president Alan García, gave testimonies and participated in public hearings.
>Some have also argued that the CVR was too narrow in its focus, upset that the Final Report did not highlight their communities’ experiences or investigate their claims. Others contend that the CVR should have discussed the forced sterilizations carried out by the Fujimori government’s Family Planning Program. Those sterilizations of over two hundred thousand predominantly impoverished women of Indigenous descent occurred without informed consent and sometimes against the women’s will, often with grave health consequences>>1028445>nor did they say that what they did was wrong, but rather "was an excess".
a semantic argument, not many people see excess as a good thing
>People such as Ho Chi Minh, Abdullah Ocalan AND EVEN FUCKING GADAFFI actually made efforts to recompensate and denounce these excesses of revolutionary violence.
from what position
>So how is killing peasants and children via machette attacks who have no ties to government or the state a revolutionary act?
you claim to have engaged in all these posts.
I can see 2 general points that you have made, point 1) made over and over again, and to be frank, totally boring, is that they did violence, that was bad, and in your opinion, wasn't justified, even given the situation, state of governance and history and context of Peru, they did very bad violence, and under no circumstances can these incidents be considered the sad result of a necessary war, rather they are just the wanton violence of evil and bad people. On this point, we have talked to death. I feel as if you have been given many different pieces of evidence describe the situaiton which meant it fact, it was a necessary war, and a necessarily brutal war, and you haven't answered them at all.
2) The point made here: "as I explained, they opressed indigenous communities by killing their leaders, stealing their food while offering nothing in return, banned indigenous festivals and ceremonies and any criticism of them was met with either death threats or with death itself. "
which, you give no source for, no context of source, etc, and sounds literally identical to crits of the soviet union involving the holodomor etc.
literally: they stole grain from the innocent peasants.
Gonna need a source for all this, and also, I want you to respond in turn to my points here:
like I have done for you >>1029681
specifically, you have failed to ackowledge the sterilisation programs of the Fujimori govt,
as well as this, the whole rest of that post, where I describe the nature of Latin America at the time, to which you respond:
>yet when you bring up "he was fighting le heckin CIA", this is a non-argument.
no, it isn't a non argument, its an extremely valid argument. You are simply focussing on only precisely what the SP did in specific moments of violence, ignoring entirely the picture around that, which is that they were 40 years into a continent wide, extremely brutal struggle against CIA backed narco imperialism, this point in history is OBJECTIVELY the most violence period in the history of Latin America, coinciding with Pablo Escobar in Columbia, the Contras in Nicaragua, similar goings on in El Salvador, Honduras. This is all one struggle, the national borders between it mean nothing to the CIA.
What did Peru, Columbia and Nicargua have firmly in common? Its literally the same drug route, all the way down, the operation is the same.
This is what the Shining Path were up against. I also didn't just talk about the CIA, i talked about Peru's extremely unstable political history, of coup after coup, you did not respond to this.
I also talked about other abortive Guerrilla movements, previously stomped out by the CIA, how the SP are actually, objectively, the most successful in several waves of this, which you did not respond to. If you can point to a more successful Peruvian Guerrilla movement, please point to it.