*----------------------------------------------------------*
|                                                          |
| x   x x x   x   x  x  xx  xxx xxx  xxx                   |
| xx xx x xx xx   xx x x  x  x  x   x       Issue #20      |
| x x x x x x x   x xx x  x  x  xx   xxx                   |
| x   x x x   x   x  x x  x  x  x       x   01/29/86       |
| x   x x x   x   x  x  xx   x  xxx  xxx                   |
|                                                          |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
|    Newspaper of the Maoist Internationalist Movement     |
*----------------------------------------------------------*


   
   U.S. EXPECTS MARCOS FRAUD, U.S. AID AFTER
   
   U.S. PREFERS AQUINO; WILL WORK WITH MARCOS IN PHILIPPINES
   If Marcos is still in power after elections this February, 
it won't be the result of any lack of effort by the key 
people creating public opinion in the United States. The New 
York Times and the Congress are generating headline after 
headline about Marcos's Manhattan real estate. Also, the 
major newspapers covered two U.S. Government reports--that 
Marcos is quite ill and a fraudulent WWII hero. 
(Interestingly enough, no one denies that the U.S. awarded 
Marcos the Purple Heart and other honors after WWII.)
   If American newspapers decided the issue in the 
Philippines, Marcos would be out of there. Even a number of 
conservative think tanks (excluding Jerry Falwell's clique) 
and White House committees believe that Aquino would better 
serve American interests better than Marcos, who is viewed as 
a "liability."
   In MIM NOTES, no. 19, we agreed with that assessment. 
Aquino is a fresh face for the interests of U.S. capital, the 
Pentagon and Philippino landlords behind the veil of 
parliamentarism.
   The people running the newspapers and government in the 
U.S.--the ruling class--are not concerned with the moral 
issues concerned in the upcoming election. The U.S. ruling 
class only criticizes Marcos to the extent that he seems 
incompetent in repressing his own laboring classes and 
serving American interests. It's not that Reagan worries 
about supporting a dictator. It's just that Reagan does not 
want to support a dictator, who loses to nationalist semi-
Maoist rebels.
   Marcos for his part does not appear to believe in 
bourgeois parliamentarism, the way Reagan and Co. do. The 
Philippines will not allow any foreign observors at upcoming 
elections. In addition, someone, probably the Army, has 
killed 6 people in the Aquino campaign so far.
   Faced with Marcos's own local control and ability to fake 
elections, White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan has 
decided to cover Reagan's bases. If Marcos wins, Regan says 
he will condemn the fraud, but the U.S. would continue to "do 
business" with Marcos. (USA Today, 1/27/86, p. 1)
   Reagan has also said that officially the U.S. is neutral 
and will not use covert or overt means to overthrow Marcos. 
Thus, the U.S. ruling class is unwilling to appear to 
alienate Marcos too much.
   Perhaps the whole election farce called for by Reagan and 
implemented by Marcos is to say "we tried." Thus, the U.S. 
covers its role and confuses public opinion by appearing to 
oppose Marcos.
   
   INVESTORS ANALYZE GENEVA SUMMIT IMPACT
   "BAD NEWS? A Wall Street analyst says in a recent report, 
'The threat of peace also hangs over the defense 
environment.' But the report by Washington Analysis Corp., a 
unit of First Manhattan Co., adds with relief that 'the first 
summit was a non-event in terms of investment impact.'" (Wall 
Street Journal, 1/17/86, p. 1)
   
   GOETZ GETTING OFF; RACIST VIGILANTE MESSAGE SENT
   At least temporarily, the court system threw out the most 
important charges against Bernhard Goetz, who admitted to 
shooting four Black youth on a train in Manhattan. Using 
procedural arguments, the judge let Goetz off the hook at 
least for awhile. Goetz faces charges only concerning the 
shots he fired that DID NOT hit the Black youth; although the 
case is being appealed. (New York Times, 1/17/86, p. 1)
   Goetz admitted that he shot one of the teens who was 
already wounded and on the ground. "You don't look so bad; 
here have another one," said Goetz as he shot the youth in 
the back at point-blank range.
   
   U.S. BLACK CONDITION UPDATE
   Under the Carter Administration, the Black median income 
declined to 56% of white median income, the largest drop 
since the figures started coming out. In 1984, that figure 
remained at 56%, down from 62% in 1970. (New York Times, 
1/23/86, p. 7)
   Meanwhile, there continues to be progress in Black 
education. The percentage of Blacks completing high school is 
closing in on the percentage of whites who graduate. 
Unfortunately, a Black would have to be a college graduate to 
make the same money a white high school drop-out makes.
   Unemployment in 1985 was 14.9% for Blacks and 5.6% for 
whites. Black youth suffered 40.1% unemployment and that may 
be rising at the moment. (Ibid.)
   Currently, Black infant mortality is leading an increase 
in overall infant mortality in the United States, which is up 
3% between 1982 and 1983. The gap between Black and white 
infant mortality was higher in 1983 than in any of the 
previous 40 years. In Cleveland, Detroit and Chicago, Black 
infant mortality stands at over 25 per 1000. The figures are 
for babies one month to one year of age. (Detroit Free Press, 
1/17/86, p. 1)
   
   REAGAN ASKING CONTRA, SAVIMBI AID: CONSCIOUS IMPERIALIST 
RIVALRY
   Consciously linking the struggles in Nicaragua and Angola, 
Reagan sought to show the Soviets who is boss by asking 
Congress for military aid to counterrevolutionary contras in 
Nicaragua and rebels in Angola. (New York Times, 1/23/86)
   Although conditions in the localities of Angola and 
Nicaragua determine the struggles there, it is clear that 
overall, the two imperialist blocs consider their position 
relative to each other before making any move. Any anti-
imperialist analysis must start from the fact that the 
conflict between the U.S. led imperialist bloc and the Soviet 
social-imperialist bloc is the main (principle in Maoist 
parlance) contradiction facing the international anti-
imperialist movement.
   Those that worry that an explanation of Soviet social- 
imperialism will lead Americans to support U.S. imperialism 
are promoting political ignorance and naivete. Our position 
must be the same as Lenin's in WWI. The question is not who 
started imperialism and whose nation-state to support. The 
question is the class interests in the current WWIII. A class 
analysis would show that the proletariat has nothing to gain 
from WWIII and to argue that criticizing Soviet social-
imperialism will drive Americans into Reagan's hands is like 
arguing the proletariat should support the Gramm-Rudman Law 
because otherwise reactionaries will rally to cut only social 
programs, instead of taking half the cut from the military. 
Just as it is backwards to pander to concerns about the 
federal deficit, it is backward to aim polemics at American 
patriots. If the proletariat starts with the assumptions of 
the bourgeoisie, it will support the Democrats, Gramm-Rudman 
and the Soviets sheerly out of pragmatic concerns. It is the 
job of the anti-imperialist movement to prevent this.