Maoist Internationalist Movement
Summing up the Filipino situation and moving on
by International Minister
October 23 2006
1) The situation with the Communist Party of the Philippines
2) Two more comments on IRTR discussions
To review the situation of the Filipino comrades and why MIM broke with them:
1)
We asked them to stand against counterrevolutionary Iran bashing on
International Wimmin's Day and instead the NDF International Office backed a
response conciliating with the RCP=CIA.
2) We asked them to take a stance
against the Iranians falsely calling themselves "Maoist" and calling for defeat
of Iran by U.$. imperialism, and they refused.
3) They are in much tighter with
the Indian situation than MIM is, but they did not take a stand on whether there
is such a thing as "Islamo-fascism," even though the issue comes up in their own
country.
Behind these controversies with the Filipino comrades:
1) MIM for a long time
standing asked them to break with the bureaucrat capitalist line saying that the
Third World petty-bourgeoisie is worth less than the Amerikkkan, British or
French "worker." Their response is that they do not have much manufacturing in
the Philippines and they would be glad to have some more sweatshops, in which
case why not uphold Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-Deng Xiaoping Thought for the
Philippines too?
2) Though speaking for national liberation and anti-
imperialism, the Filipino comrades consistently speak for the Trotskyist
multiracial line on the working class in the united $tates, just redubbed
"multinational" by the RCP=CIA. The proper use of the word "multinational" is in
"the multinational Red Army took over Berlin in 1945." The troops in that army
eventually went back to their own countries. The RCP=CIA and Trotskyists see one
stars and stripes flying above the united $tates.
3) The Filipino comrades do not name the struggle of Occupied Mexico/Aztlan today
as that of one for national liberation and anti-imperialism; even though the national
question in the Philippines and inside u.$. borders are completely opposite.
Joma Sison is a veteran who understands each of these issues inside-out. Yet there is obviously something political preventing him from doing the scientifically right thing. We know that the united $tates put Filipino comrades on the Foreign Terrorist Organization list and shut down Joma Sison's banking.
MLPD! (Marxist-Leninist Party Germany) The Filipino comrades must draw the line between the urban petty-bourgeoisie of their countries and their own proletariat and it must be done in an internationalist way! We cannot have the Filipino comrades calling Filipino urban petty-bourgeoisie a class with one tenth the living standard of German so-called workers! Everything else is twisted, because the root class analysis is wrong! Hear us MLPD! Your influence is paving the way to the bureaucrat capitalist line internationally! Please look at what the Communist Party of Pakistan (Stalinist-Maoist) said about the petty-bourgeoisie in Pakistan! Do not be encouraging the Deng Xiaopings of the future! Destroy the political economy behind the traitor cultivator line!
Understandably it makes some comrades queasy to break with our Filipino comrades. That's why we stress that opposing our own imperialists is our true first duty. Supporting People's War is not our true first duty, especially since People's Wars wont be much longer People's Wars if led by the wrong line. The FARC is just one warning of what can happen in politics with a gradual depoliticization; although, even in the FARC's case we are sure there is some class struggle going on, just not one led by scientific communists.
It is not in the interests of the international communist movement to have an image of Maoism which is in accommodation to u.$. imperialism. The failure to denounce and purge the Iranian counterrevolutionaries is a tell-tale sign.
Against us, pragmatists continue to argue that the Indians and Nepal people have the most armed fighters and we dare not struggle to overturn their incorrect line. Comrades! This is a big mistake! Do we not know how much the imperialists paid to have the Polish fight in Iraq? Do we not realize that the U.$. imperialists offered billions for just a battalion from another country in the Vietnam War? Do the comrades think the "coalition of the willing" was volunteers from the Third World?
To spend a little money to outfit some guerrillas without the full complement of u.$. equipment would be a drop in the bucket! So if people are going to be cynical, they better be all-the-way cynical! Energetic optimism or energetic cynicism can both lead to scientific endeavor. Cynics, follow the logic of your own thinking! South Asia is not the principal contradiction and even if it were, it would not contribute to the resolution of the fundamental contradiction if the parties there reached an accommodation with u.$. imperialism. The People's Wars must use their own publicity-generating nature to inspire anti-imperialist struggle. That will be true until we finally win. There cannot be any sizeist or sentimental pass for the people conducting armed struggle.
The People's Wars in Nepal and the Philippines have some temporary difficulties. Their leaders do not undertake what is in the interest of 90% of their people.
Comments on IRTR discussions:
1. Now that people see there is nothing in Mao to back the "other side" of the dispute on Iran, we are of course being called "dogmatists," against creativity. The only problem is that to be creative, one has to show that one has done something "original." Unfortunately for our critics, there is nothing new in what they have done. It all comes from Trotsky, if it does not come from Khruschev in the case of the "CPNepal(Maoist)."
You must know the enemy's lines, which is not the same thing as saying it is a two-line struggle in the party. Enemy lines should not be admitted to the party except the first, original time. When Trotskyism was original, of course it could be found in the party, but once it has been discovered and exposed, it should not be admitted to the party a second and third time to be "two-line struggled." Trotskyists, Dengists, Kautskyites--these have to be left outside the party.
MIM is going to have a two-line struggle too. It is unavoidable. Some are saying leave the Amerikkkans inside u.$. borders while others say disperse them globally under the joint dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations. For dispersing them, it's possible that in some situations, Amerikkkans would actually be a neutral party to an ongoing historical ethnic conflict in other parts of the world. Would Amerikkkans play a positive role as people without history in the conflict or seek to stir up tensions in Rwanda or ex-Yugoslavia if they were dispersed there? Would the Amerikkkans stir up tensions to seek a restoration of u.$. imperialism? Would it be better to leave them in one place where they can be watched and no records of history lost? Inevitably, some arguments made on one side or another of this debate will be opportunist. When the time comes we will see which argument is better. Probably economics of how to end super-exploitation and exploitation and redistribute means of production will have to be decisive.
Getting a majority petty-bourgeois country into socialist construction has never been done before. The first time we do it, it will be a two-line struggle of original thinking connected to how to do it. One or the other side will end up being opportunist--at least slightly more favorable to the chances of restoration of imperialism.
The idea that the veil is the principal contradiction and "choice" is more important than peace with Iran is old sexual Liberalism that Trotsky declared already.
Our Turkish comrades should try to find German sources and our Russian comrades can also read this in the original: when England invaded Turkey while Lenin was in power, Lenin sent piles of gold to the Turkish government and Turkish military that the English had promptly defeated.
The Sultan-Galiyev line was in charge of the Commissariat of Nationalities.
Now, we have multiple Islamic countries occupied over a period of time and those claiming Lenin dare to come forward and say support defeat in Iran? And this in the case of Iran that is giving material aid to Lebanon and Iraq? What planet are these people from?
Comrades, Hezbollah will be "obsolete," when we Maoists are there to defeat I$rael. After we defeat I$rael and free Palestine, we can be sure most of Hezbollah will declare Hezbollah "obsolete." Till then, the international proletariat is not obsolete. Nor is united front with the national bourgeoisie obsolete.
2. How practically-speaking can international comrades have security if they are now to allow exceptions for comrades working with the CIA to defeat Third World countries? They are throwing out a very helpful rule of security in the name of "creativity." It's very impractical. One of the best means of security available to all comrades is to rely on stand, to know what the enemy wants at a given time in history and then use that. We know what the enemy wants on Iran.
MIM is also not saying it is mandatory to give up any security to meet one's united front partners. However, we do have to be willing to play the role of jilted bride who still wants a marriage to go through.
On the question of tailing, again nothing original is being said. Mao was far smaller than Chiang Kai-shek all the way from 1936 to 1946 militarily-speaking. Chiang Kai-shek had more troops and greater territory. That did not change until a few quick years after World War II. That did not make Mao guilty of tailing Chiang Kai-shek to have united front. If comrades want to worry about tailing they should be concerned about something else--places where religious forces are ahead in landing military blows against imperialism. The tailing going on is tolerating the Iranian traitors. That is tailing after u.$. imperialism.