I don't like this. I hope Castillo and Peru Libre can learn from the examples of Venezuela and Bolivia and build power outside the government.
I don't like this. I hope Castillo and Peru Libre can learn from the examples of Venezuela and Bolivia and build power outside the government.
Misrepresentation of what I'm saying. Irrelevant to my point.
Feel free to explain how the Shining Path somehow makes a mass movement in support of the socialist government in power somehow strengthen the reactionary military establishment while that socialist government is in power.
Or, again, what alternative methods there are for setting them in line.
Your point and the answers you want are two different things. Your point might be excluding something like Shining Path, but the materialist view cannot just disregard it for the sake of one's intent. It is fundamental to how the military in Peru exists in any circumstance, as well as the powers invested in it; which regardless of the kind of answers you want to be given, are pertinent to any talk about Peru's military and its power over government.
Its anti-materialist and incurious to regard it as some monadic thing instead of integral to all Peruvian politics. The military essentially ran the government due to Shining Path, fear of the militias led to people accepting more military oversight in government due to a perception of the government being unable to handle the conflict. This increases however really just targeted everyone, from the Tupac Amaru movement which was another communist insurgency, to the Rondas which Castillo is connected to, to just random peasants and natives. They set up Fujimori but Fujimori actually does their coup before they can and cuts them out of it, placing his own security forces in that position of instrument of terror.
By the time this ends the Peruvian military has spent decades armed to the teeth, trained to treat any protest movement or just peaceful peasants as a potential threat. To say nothing of a history of being carte blanche to commit whatever atrocities they want.
Just saying Castillo can only change things by creating external support and pressure simplifies the fact that in Peru the military knows it is calling the shots, the people know it calls the shots, and NO ONE wants to test a "mass movement" pressuring the military directly. It doesn't matter if a socialist is in office, if you are worried enough that the powers of president are not enough to nullify the army, then you cannot also act flabberghasted at the idea that that socialist government being in power wont curtail the reactionary military.
Which is it? Is the socialist government enough that the reactionary military won't be able to put down a mass movement, or is it powerful enough that Castillo cannot just purge it? I am not saying mass movements are bad, what I am saying is just pointing to two very different and unique circumstances in Latin America and saying "they should do that" is simplistic and dismissive of the material conditions on the ground in Peru. Bolivia and MAS are not really comparable to Chavez gaining power and holding onto the military support, and neither are applicable to what would be necessary or possible in Peru. Shining Path, Velasco, and the legacy of Fujimori are more pertinent to this moment in Peru than what worked for MAS.
Pressure is good, but don't ask a question or whatever if you just want agreement with your conceit. MAS and Chavez are not a transient policy. They had a thousand factors and distinctions, they can't just be plugged into Peru or used as a mic drop. The Peruvian military has more power than the reactionary military brass of those nations, and specifically have avoided being really brought down by mass movements, rather offering up their political agents and promising to do better etc. Mass movements are gonna be needed, but any change while a socialist is in power and perhaps even while a civil war is not raging is going to have to be done with the mechanisms of the state to put people loyal to the movement in military posts. The military cannot be allowed to pretend to be a neutral arbiter, and if they are going to not be able to make demands, they will need to become a tool for the government not the other way around
Yes. I'm not saying it's not relevant to Peruvian politics but that it's not relevant to my very, very basic point that Castillo and Peru Libre will need a mass base in order to accomplish their goals, because that is true of all socialist movements. Literally every successful socialist movement in history has organized and developed a power base outside of the bourgeois state. You could give me a dissertation on the influence of the Shining Path on Peruvian politics and it wouldn't have any bearing on that very, very basic fact. A failed guerilla war doesn't mean that it's no longer necessary for a socialist administration to build power outside the bourgeois state.
Well then it's good that I'm not saying that. I am not saying that all Castillo needs is external support and I am not saying that the public needs to directly target the military at this point in time. But since what you say here is true, how do you think Castillo alone could directly challenge the military right now and win? Again, for the third time, what power does he and his small party have that could be used to stop the military from calling the shots? This is not a rhetorical question.
My take was very, very simple: Peru Libre is a small party that's proven popular enough to get Castillo the presidency, but it is direly limited in what it can do without a large power base. Getting that is of course a whole other thing and I have no idea what that would involve in detail. But a mass movement is absolutely necessary (necesssary, not sufficient) in any and all class struggles. Under no circumstances is it bad or unhelpful for socialists to organize the masses.
I said they needed a power base outside the government to challenge the entrenched power of the current capitalist state and you said no, so I asked what other mechanisms of challenging their power that you had in mind. Purging the military requires power to accomplish in the first place; where will it come from if not the masses? This is also not a rhetorical question. How do you get from point A (military overruling the government) to point C (government purging the military)? What pro-socialist forces within the government would be enough to tip the scales in the other direction?
And this is exactly my problem. If the mechanisms of the state are hostile and the military is not a neutral arbiter, is not willing to hand over power voluntarily, then it stands to reason that he can't just say, "I'm the president, get rid of the elements of the military that I don't like." The state is an instrument of class rule and doesn't allow itself to be taken over by another class just because they asked nicely, filled out the proper paperwork, etc. Literally the only possible means of influencing it to exact concessions is through some form of struggle, which relies on the mobilization of the masses. I'm not talking about armed guerillas and I'm not even necessarily talking about protests (although Peru hasn't exactly been shy about those recently!). And, again, it isn't just about mass struggle, but also a million other variables (which I thought would be an obvious enough thing that I wouldn't have to specify it).
You keep complaining about how I mentioned things outside of the very narrow parameters you mean by mass mobilization and pressure, and then go on to pretty much just restate generic "mobilization" as a strategy. It doesn't matter if you personally don't want to think about Shining Path, that factor is unable to be removed from your narrow point about "the masses". Just restating the most milquetoast idea of "the masses do a thing" is not a theory of change for Peru, or even a strategy. It's like saying "we could have had Bernie create an american soviet union if we did politics" and then pushing back when people say that's less a suggestion and more of a notion.
No one fucking disagreed with you on the idea that political parties need people to support those political parties. You just stated that, and then got mad when the context of Peru was brought up and the simplistic take got pushback. Like they have
That's why the narrow point is milquetoast and why I am not going to give suggestions about Peru that adhere to the point you want to make and nothing more. It is not "obvious enough" that you wouldn't have to specify literally the very aspect of Peruvian politics that your link is about; namely the military. So you want ideas about mass mobilization in relation to changing the military, without people bringing up the Peruvian military and how it would respond? because practically speaking that is what the result of saying "no Shining Path is irrelevant" means. If you want ideas about how Castillo can deal with the military dictating everything for him, then they are going to involve Castillo's powers as president and will inevitably involve consideration of why MAS -esq strategies are inapplicable. Don't make a broad statement about power in Peru and the military and then get annoyed that the complex factor of the peruvian military is used to disagree with the simplification.
Again Castillo is in power, the Peruvian military more than any other in the Americas wont be moved by outside pressure or mobilization beyond that which got a socialist into office. The insurgency means that materially the mobilization has played its hand and the mechanism of change will be structural and inside the administration. it is simple as that, you are not wrong or bad for saying the masses matter, but in terms of the Peruvian military, Castillo doesn't need to "learn" that mobilization is important, the man knows all too well. It is up to neutralizing the army now, this specific issue requires a change to the military administratively not externally. @DragonNest_Aidit 's comment was entirely correct. In this case the army of the state has to be remade by the president, and he already has the mass movement needed to get to that point, it was the election. Now it is appointments and the powers of the president alone, anything else is a non-starter for Peru
Pretentiously saying
Doesn't make your point salient. The very very basic fact is not about the failure of Shining Path, its the fact that power outside the bourgeois state is not what will enable the ELECTED socialist president of Peru to deal with the army. You think the insurgency is being mentioned as a way of saying guerilla war won't work, no you misunderstand my point. The insurgency provides the entire context of how the Peruvian military relates to the state and president. it is not about how Shining Path failed, but literally the nature of this military in this country. Suggesting building outside power structures is not a suggestion for THIS issue, and the pushback has nothing to do with the concept of dual power structures or mass mobilization. The context is not esoteric historical flexing, it is a matter of the behavior of the military. We are talking about Castillo, the elected president, and how he must deal with the army as president. Stop deciding that the material reality of those actors only exist in the context of "no mass mobilization dumb" and "guerilla war FTW". Context is not a reremovedtion of the very concept of everything you said.
Man, you're just being pedantic.
I wasn't pushing a fucking strategy, I was just saying that I hope they can replicate the successes of the only other two examples I'm aware of of successful socialist governments who came to power through semi-electoral means. Then you come in saying, "well ackshually they shouldn't be building power outside the government blah blah blah" and started rambling about the history of the Shining Path. And you literally said:
How was I supposed to interpret this? Because it looks to me like you're saying that the public cannot and should not have any role in the government accomplishing their goals, which is an absurd thing to say. And also that purging the military is an alternative strategy to building support outside the government, not a complementary one, despite acknowledging in the same sentence that Chavez did both of those things?
I say something very simple and obvious not as a proposed strategy but as a way of expressing that I hope they can stay in power and be effective in the face of hostile forces and you say, "nuh uh", and then berate me for not providing a detailed history of Peruvian politics?
"Damn, I hope they do socialism."
"What a simplistic take, you fucking rube. Here's multiple paragraphs about how they can't just 'do socialism' because of the particular historical material conditions of Peru..."
You completely inferred the "just"s that you claim I've been saying. Nothing I said was "just" about doing any particular thing and I was very explicit about that when you claimed it.
This is the fourth time I've said that I never said that. It isn't relevant to what I said, because what I said was more or less, "I hope they win."
But for some fucking reason you feel the need to dissect and argue against that like I was offering up a whole analysis.
Yeah, no shit. I wasn't giving a theory of change or a strategy in the first place.
"They should build a stronger power base to challenge the entrenched power structures of the state" isn't a political platform and isn't meant to be. I was sharing this news that I saw that looked significant, and made a general comment to the effect that I hope they can mobilize the masses, which, yes, regardless of the circumstances will always be necessary. It's not "milquetoast", it's an intentionally broad statement that I hope they can expand their political movement, which like every other socialist movement needs ground-level support.
You're acting like I think "build a movement" is an analysis and condescending as if I think I'm giving Castillo advice.
I mean where the fuck is this shit even coming from?
Like Jesus christ, lay off. You're just looking for an argument for some fucking reason.
Its really fucking funny that you push back at anyone disagreeing with your statement as if they are opposed to socialism. Your op was infantilizing, what's the point of saying "this elected socialist should consider making a movement?" that shit was weird. You think I started an argument by stating that the Peruvian military acts a certain way? You can't say you just wanted to open a dialogue and then also be upset that the necessary context was stated. YOU decided the insurgency was irrelevant to the point, you decided to be hostile over the fact that I brought up the specifics of Peru on this matter.
That is my point, its the point others have made as well; the problem is the Peruvian military and its power, curtailing that once a socialist is in power will require removing these fucking ghouls from their positions and putting trusted leftists in the military brass. Mass organizing cannot specifically appoint generals in Peru. I didn't fucking say "the public cannot and should not have any role in the government accomplishing their goals" I said the way to go on THIS MATTER is going to have to be using Castillo's powers as president.
That is literally all I said. You simultaneously want to only talk about very specific parameters, and then suddenly claim that my response to those specific parameters is a freaking definitive statement on politics as a whole and not literally just appointments to the military. You want it both ways, but don't want anyone else to either be specific or general. Are we talking about appointments to the military or about literally all of Peruvian politics and the creation of socialism in Peru? Because I thought we were just talking about the generals.
I know this is on the exact topic you want to talk about and not outside it.....so you will call it irrelevant. but here I am sorry for seeming rude, but your comment just seemed patronizing towards Peruvians and like a silly thing to point to on this specific matter. Here is the 14th duty of the Peruvian president according to article 118 of the 1993 constitution
Those are explicitly Castillo's powers, THAT is why I said the way to go is not external pressure, because Castillo has the power himself to remove these men. Now he has to be careful because if they say he is "politically motivated" in his appointments they will then probably kill him with US approval. But the means of addressing the specific issue you are talking about, and say you are exclusively talking about is in these two articles.
Don't act like I am speaking about the concept of mass movements, either you are lying or seriously jumping the gun and calling the kettle black. Stop fucking acting like you are the victim and I am against people doing politics, just because I said your comment was simplistic and am concerned that the Peruvian military will massacre people. That is why I brought up Shining Path, THAT is why I said the presidential powers are the way to go. Because I am earnestly afraid of what the military will do to "power outside the government" because yes no shit popular movements are the entire soul of socialism, but we are not talking about the idea of popular movements or the soul of socialism. We are talking about the corrupt military brass of Peru, and they literally 20 years ago where massacring journalists and peasants for popular movements calling them "insurgents".
My concern over that is not about you, or thinking you are a rube. I am just saying before anything else is tried, the presidential office making appointments is the way to go. This is not a matter of
You cannot act like I am dismissing the power of the masses, because I am specifically concerned over the violence done upon them. Again, you might find it a ramble about Peruvian history, but no dammit the way the military dealt with "insurgents" is inseparable and paramount to any matter involving the popular movements in Peru. Its insulting and disgusting to pretend like I said the people have no role in their government and your reasoning for that is the fact that my primary hang-up is the legacy of Grupo Colina and the massacres in the 90s. You are saying I am against popular participation, because I am bringing up the violence the Peruvian military uses against the people. Stop thinking about owns or responses to your post, and consider the fact that what I am talking about is the actual massacring of Peruvians and how best to avoid that happening again. This is not about you, or anyone thinking you are stupid, I swear to you.
Don't you dare conflate my fears over another Barrios Altos massacre with thinking the people have no role in socialism. Say whatever you want, but that's crossing a line. My bringing them up is not irrelevant to my response, it is the basis of it. And they are sure as fuck not "being pedantic"