I N T E R N E T ' S  M A O I S T   M O N T H L Y

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
 

     XX XX  XXX  XX XX   X   X  XXX  XXX  XXX  XXX
     X X X   X   X X X   XX  X  X X   X   X    X
     X V X   X   X V X   X X X  X X   X   XX   XXX
     X   X   X   X   X   X  XX  X X   X   X      X
     X   X  XXX  X   X   X   V  XXX   X   XXX  XXX

= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = 
 

         THE MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT

  MIM Notes 86                       March, 1994

MIM Notes speaks to and from the viewpoint of the 
world's oppressed majority, and against the 
imperialist-patriarchy. Pick it up and wield it in 
the service of the people. support it, struggle 
with it and write for it.


IN THIS ISSUE:
1.  EX-YUGOSLAVIA: 'HUMPTY DUMPTY' OR PRELUDE TO MORE WAR?
2.  LETTERS:
3.  SINN FEIN LEADER ALLOWED INTO AMERIKA:
    CLINTON CAUGHT IN SQUEEZE
4.  CORRECTION
5.  FILIPINO REVOLUTION GAINS INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT
6.  MIM STRUGGLES OVER WHITE WORKING CLASS
7.  U.S. IMPERIALISM PROPS UP PERUVIAN COMPRADOR REGIME
8.  HOUSING PROJECTS PROPELLED INTO NEW WORLD ORDER
9.  PHILADELPHIA
10. IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER: 
    INSPIRATIONAL STRUGGLE AGAINST INJUSTICE
11. MOVIE MONOPOLY
12. HOLLYWOOD IS ROYALTY IN EUROPE
13. BSU BOYCOTTS MLK DAY SYMPOSIUM

* * *

WHAT IS MIM?

The Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) is a 
revolutionary communist party that upholds 
Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, comprising the collection 
of existing or emerging Maoist internationalist 
parties in the English-speaking imperialist 
countries and their English-speaking internal 
semi-colonies, as well as the existing or emerging 
Spanish-speaking Maoist internationalist parties 
of Aztlan, Puerto Rico and other territories of 
the U.S. Empire. MIM Notes is the newspaper of 
MIM. Notas Rojas is the newspaper of the Spanish-
speaking parties or emerging parties of MIM.

MIM is an internationalist organization that works 
from the vantage point of the Third World 
proletariat; thus, its members are not Amerikans, 
but world citizens.

MIM struggles to end the oppression of all groups 
over other groups: classes, genders, nations.  MIM 
knows this is only possible by building public 
opinion to seize power through armed struggle.

Revolution is a reality for North America as the 
military becomes over-extended in the government's 
attempts to maintain world hegemony.

MIM differs from other communist parties on three 
main questions: (1) MIM holds that after the 
proletariat seizes power in socialist revolution, 
the potential exists for capitalist restoration 
under the leadership of a new bourgeoisie within 
the communist party itself. In the case of the 
USSR, the bourgeoisie seized power after the death 
of Stalin in 1953; in China, it was after Mao's 
death and the overthrow of the "Gang of Four" in 
1976. (2) MIM upholds the Chinese Cultural 
Revolution as the farthest advance of communism in 
human history. (3) MIM believes the North American 
white-working-class is primarily a non-
revolutionary worker-elite at this time; thus, it 
is not the principal vehicle to advance Maoism in 
this country.

MIM accepts people as members who agree on these 
basic principles and accept democratic centralism, 
the system of majority rule, on other questions of 
party line.

"The theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin is 
universally applicable. We should regard it not as 
dogma, but as a guide to action. Studying it is 
not merely a matter of learning terms and phrases, 
but of learning Marxism-Leninism as the science of 
revolution."
-- Mao Zedong, Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 208


* * *

EX-YUGOSLAVIA: 'HUMPTY DUMPTY' OR PRELUDE TO MORE WAR?

by MC5 & MC12

Don't look to President Clinton to get the real story behind 
imperialist aggression in ex-Yugoslavia. He explained it like 
this: "Sarajevo is sort of the Humpty Dumpty of Bosnia. If you 
want everyone to be put back together again--the country--you've 
got to keep Sarajevo from total collapse."(1) The President was at 
a loss for words to explain why the Amerikan government supposedly 
suddenly cared about the carnage in Bosnia. Were you fooled?

When the United States and its NATO allies call for bombing, in 
ex-Yugoslavia or anywhere else, their intention is not 
humanitarian. This is a central axiom of imperialist war policy, 
but it is worth repeating. National Security Advisor Anthony Lake 
made that clear recently.

Lake wrote that the U.S. government will ask the following 
questions before getting involved in international military 
action: "What is the threat to our interests? Is there a clearly 
defined mission? A distinct end point? How much will it cost? Are 
the resources available? What is the likelihood of success?"(2)

Absent from this list was: "Will this help innocent people who are 
dying?" But he did say that "peacekeeping" is "an often useful 
foreign policy tool." So much for humanitarianism.

So why do the imperialists care what happens in ex-Yugoslavia? 
Most simply, the former Yugoslavia republics house precious 
resources serviced by important populations in a strategic 
location--on the Adriatic sea and the Danube river, and on key 
land routes to the Aegean Sea and the Turkish Straits. And the 
various imperialist powers are in conflict over who gets what. 

Germany is making the greatest advances into Eastern Europe after 
the collapse of the USSR. In the first few years after 1989, 
Germany dumped half of all Western capital into Eastern Europe, 
making it the largest foreign investor in the region.(3) Germany 
already won the former Yugoslavian republics of Slovenia and 
Croatia, drawing them into its orbit when they split from 
Yugoslavia in 1991.

France, Britain, the United States and others fear not only a 
stronger German imperialism, but also a potential German-Russian 
alliance. And this threat has grown stronger, not weaker, with the 
political rise of Russian nationalism. 

Just days after government conferencing over admitting Eastern 
European countries to NATO, France said that the credibility of 
NATO is at stake in Bosnia. This is evidence of a Franco-German 
split. Here's why.

Yugoslavia was not a member of NATO and nor is Bosnia. NATO's 
credibility is at stake because if NATO has any use to the 
imperialists, it is to protect against a future threat of Russian 
imperialism, in the opinion of some circles of imperialists at 
least.

The strong election results of Russian fascist Vladimir 
Zhirinovsky, whose party won the popular vote in last year's 
Russian elections, have sent several countries scurrying to NATO. 
Zhirinovsky has promised wholesale dismemberment of countries if 
he comes to power. When Zhirinovsky said "we would be happy to 
have a border with Serbia," despite the existence of several 
countries in between them at present(4), he was offering Germany a 
partitioning of Eastern Europe.

The top ex-Nazis and current Nazis of Germany are Zhirinovsky's 
friends. Hence, there are those concerned with a German-Russian 
imperialist alliance.

One weight against Russian-German alliance is the unified European 
Economic Community. If Germany sees major gains from a European 
free trade zone, chances are it might reject Russian overtures or 
seek to bring Russia and Eastern Europe into the EEC later. Should 
the EEC fall apart, however, we might see more of a German tilt 
toward Russia.

NATO intervention into Bosnia, driven by France and Amerika, is a 
threat to Germany and Russia. Russia (and Ukraine) denounced NATO 
action in Bosnia.(5) The Russian Duma had earlier passed a 
resolution--444 to 280--declaring that "great concern is caused by 
the discussion in NATO countries of the possibility of bomb 
strikes against targets in the former Yugoslavia."(6) Zhirinovsky 
warned against bombing in Bosnia, saying harm to Bosnian Serbs 
would amount to a declaration of war on Russia.(7)

But Amerikan aggression in the face of Germany and Russia is not 
confined to bombing in Bosnia.

It is no accident that on Feb. 8 the Amerikan-controlled World 
Bank approved new loans to the former Yugoslavian republic of 
Macedonia, and that on Feb. 9 the United States, over Greece's 
objection, officially recognized an independent Macedonia.(5) 
Greek's prime minister was "very, very disturbed" by the move. 
Greece threatened to blockade Macedonia. Then on Feb. 10, after 
NATO voted to act in Bosnia, Greece called the ultimatum "totally 
wrong and guilty," and said NATO was threatening to spread the war 
in the Balkans.(1)

Greece is not overreacting. Speaking candidly, James Baker and 
Alex Haig, two former U.S. secretaries of state, said there was no 
point in trying to stop the war in Bosnia. Instead, Amerika's only 
hope is to deploy thousands of troops in Macedonia, to "prevent" 
war from spreading.(8)

In late January, before the bombing of the Sarajevo market that 
caused so much mock moral outrage in NATO capitals, the CIA 
announced it was deploying operatives and spy aircraft in Albania 
to monitor events in the Balkans.(8) This was when Clinton was 
still supposedly against military action in Bosnia.

Yugoslavia was a fairly advanced industrialized country, from 
which the United States, Germany and the USSR all drew healthy 
profits. Its leader, Tito, betrayed communism in 1948 and began 
building a model for Khrushchev's state capitalism in Russia. The 
Yugoslav federation exploded in 1991 under the splitting pressure 
of Germany and Amerika from the West, and Russia from the East. 
The resulting war is the turf battle between Croat and Serb 
capitalists, fighting over the spoils of Bosnia-Hercegovina. 
Bosnia is and was not a nation; many of its people are Croat or 
Serb Muslims.(9)

Those calling for Amerikan war in Bosnia want Amerika to make a 
more aggressive push into the new European balance of power. The 
neo-liberal New Republic magazine, for example, complained that 
with Bush, Amerika was "first among equals," when it came to 
international action, but with Clinton it's "one among equals. ... 
Thus we had action against Iraq and we have inaction against 
Serbia."(10)

There is a big difference between Iraq and Bosnia, though: Iraq 
was U.S. turf, Bosnia is in Europe. The magazine complains that 
"we are hiding behind the Europeans' skirts. Clinton has abjured 
America's primacy in NATO just as surely as he has abjured 
America's primacy at the United Nations."(10)

Amerikan power-brokers are divided, though. Some people point out 
that the situation in Bosnia may "require" more than the original 
"selective" airstrikes; the U.S. contribution to a future 
NATO/U.N. force was planned to be about 25,000 troops.(11) While 
the Russian defense minister said the intervention could lead to 
World War III, Republicans divided--with Jesse Helms against and 
Bob Dole for--over military intervention.(12)

Bush's former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft said the 
U.S. military should be "prepared to carry the war to Serbia 
itself," if it wanted to accomplish its mission, and experts from 
the Harvard Kennedy School and Brookings Institution all doubt 
selective bombing will stop the war.(1).

Political developments within Russia are driving the inter-
imperialist rivalry. Analyzing the election results in Russia, New 
York Times analyst William Safire said that the West's hero 
Yeltsin made a deal with the fascist Zhirinovsky. Yeltsin did not 
criticize Zhirinovsky by name in the elections and Zhirinovsky did 
likewise--and supported the new Constitution to give Yeltsin (and 
maybe himself, someday) greater powers. This maneuver in itself 
indicates that Yeltsin finds Zhirinovsky's politics to have some 
merit, and it scares imperialists in-the-know.

Though the Western bourgeoisie generally favored Yeltsin's 
Constitution that legitimized his shutting down of Parliament, 
without the fascist Zhirinovsky's support it would have failed. 
Indeed, the strength of Zhirinovsky's showing forced the bourgeois 
media to make a distinction between phony-communists and fascists 
for the first time, as the pro-Western "reformers" called for a 
united front with the "communists" against the fascists in the 
government.(13)

Underlying this shift in bourgeois media coverage is not a new 
genuine anti-fascism. For a moment, the imperialist bourgeoisie of 
Amerika believes it needs to court the "communists" in Russia to 
ensure that they do not ally with Zhirinovsky to redivide Europe 
with Germany. This fear approached panic as Yeltsin purged his 
cabinet of "reformers" in January, and its future depends on what 
final strategy the imperialists agree on for dealing with the 
instability in Eastern Europe.

Those who uphold Lenin's theory of imperialism have a 
responsibility to point out that the causes of imperialist 
contention still exist despite the end of the Soviet bloc. The 
imperialists are already waging war on the Third World countries. 
The threat of inter-imperialist war remains, but with new 
alliances.

As long as there is capitalist imperialism, there will be a profit 
in going to war to force other countries to give trade and 
investment terms favorable to one's bloc. Such war and imperialist 
subversion of slightly independence-minded governments is already 
going on every day in the Third World.

MIM believes in creating a genuine free trade system based on real 
independence of nations, equality and actual peace and harmony. 
That is only possible by replacing capitalist competition and the 
pursuit of profit with socialism. The wars over ex-Yugoslavia are 
further evidence of this hard reality. 

Notes: 
1. Reuter 2/10/94. 
2. New York Times 2/6/94, p. 17. 
3. Economist 5/23/92. 
4. UPI 1/30/94. 
5. Reuter 2/11/94. 
6. UPI 1/21/94. 
7. UPI 1/30/94. 
8. UPI 1/28/94. 
9. See MIM Theory 4, Winter 1993. 
10. New Republic editorial 2/28/94. 
11. Reuter 2/13/94. 
12. AP 2/12/94. 
13. See NYT 12/13-15/93.

* * *

LETTERS:

Sison surrendered?

Dear MIM Distributors,

Thanks for the MIM Notes newspaper. 

In your Jan. 94 issue, you try to pass off one of the founders of 
the Communist Party of the Philippines, Jose Maria Sison, as a 
revolutionary communist leader of the oppressed masses. You need 
to check your history. Sison and other CPP leaders surrendered to 
the Corazon Aquino liberal capitalist regime in 1986. True, Sison 
had a history of anti-imperialist organizing and struggle going 
back to the 1960s, but he and a section of his party have 
capitulated to the Philippine ruling class, especially its liberal 
wing. 

In 1986 Aquino praised the surrender of Sison and other CPP 
officials on Philippine TV and to the capitalist press. She said 
confidently that Sison was "changing and going to be a good boy." 
Some other former CPP officials became legal organizers and others 
went into the agriculture business as managers.

Now maybe Sison (and others) may have second thoughts about their 
surrender and the political illusions they helped sow in the 
masses in the Aquino liberal-landlord regime. If so, they should 
PUBLICLY do some self-criticism about their illusions in the 
"nationalist-progressive" Filipino bourgeoisie and their under-
estimation of the struggles of the urban Filipino workers whose 
strength is rapidly growing with the industrialization of the 
Philippines.

--A west coast critic

MIM responds: Our critic provides no documentation for any of her 
or his charges other than a quote from Corazon Aquino--who had 
every interest in portraying Sison as a sell-out. Our critic 
spreads reactionary slander about revolutionary leaders which was 
meant to split the masses from their leaders and confuse them 
about the necessity of revolution. As for a public self-criticism, 
Sison has defended himself against these charges many times:

"I never signaled support for the Aquino government beyond 
encouraging it to meet the antifascist, anti-imperialist, and 
antifeudal demands of the people. 

"Since the beginning of the regime, I have clearly described it as 
mainly and essentially a pro-U.S. and reactionary government of 
the ruling classes of big compradors and landlords...

"I have always criticized the naive description of the Aquino 
regime as liberal democratic, a description made as if it were 
possible to foster liberal democracy on the basis of semicolonial 
and semifeudal conditions gravely deteriorated by economic 
bankruptcy and violent strife among the reactionaries themselves...

"In May 1986 or even further back, I should have started to refer 
to the new regime as the U.S.-Aquino regime. But the euphoria 
among a great number of the people over the downfall of Marcos and 
the ascendance of Aquino and some relatively progressive moves of 
Aquino in contrast to the tyranny of Marcos necessitated some more 
time for the regime to unfold itself. Otherwise, if I or the 
progressive movement spoke of a U.S.-Aquino regime, we would have 
been called dogmatist or sectarian."

"If I may add, let it be understood that the U.S. and local 
reactionaries were not able to put one over on the 
revolutionaries. The biggest advantage gained by the revolutionary 
movement from the downfall of Marcos has been the aggravation of 
the violent contradictions among the reactionary factions. The 
increased tendency of the ruling system to disintegrate is 
beneficial to the growth of the revolutionary forces."

Note: Jose Maria Sison, The Philippine Revolution: The Leader's 
View, New York: Taylor and Francis, 1989, pp. 120, 131-132, 134.

White working class not exploited

[Y]our views of the U.S. working class and workers in "first 
world" countries seem rather ludicrous today. Your absurd analysis 
about so-called overpaid airline, auto, and mine workers for 
example could have been culled from the Wall Street Journal or the 
Heritage Foundation, your only difference being that your 
"analysis" comes in a "leftist" guise. You do not understand much 
about Marxism--the very workers you heap scorn on produce capital 
which enriches the capitalist parasites too. You think $10 to $15 
an hour is too much pay--not so--when these workers produce $40-60 
of surplus value stolen by the rich each hour. Apparently your 
"Maoism" believes that these workers actually exploit the 
capitalists!

--The same west coast critic

MIM responds: Was it absurd for Engels to write in 1892 that the 
English working class benefited from England's industrial 
monopoly, or for Lenin to say that the super-exploitation of 
colonial workers created the "material and economic basis for 
infecting the proletariat of one country or another with colonial 
chauvinism?"(1) After 85 years of expanding imperialist 
penetration, is it absurd for MIM to say the same thing?

In MIM Theory 1, MIM showed that the Amerikan white working class 
as a whole is not exploited, i.e. it consumes at least as much 
value as it produces. Key to our analysis is the recognition that 
the dead labor of super-exploited Third World workers and 
exploited First World minorities is hidden in that "$40-60" which 
the Amerikan worker supposedly produces alone. J. Sakai's 
"Settlers: the Mythology of the White Proletariat" examines the 
development of the settler nation and explains how even those 
sections of the white working class which are exploited have an 
interest in preserving white supremacy.

MIM does not investigate individuals' working conditions in order 
to slap arbitrary labels like "labor aristocrat" on them; we are 
much more interested in the line and practice of groups. And we do 
recognize that there are Black members of the labor aristocracy 
(although these are the exception), and that there is a (much 
smaller) basis for First World chauvinism even in the subordinate 
Black nation.

Notes: 1. J. Sakai, Settlers: the Mythology of the White 
Proletariat, Chicago: Morningstar Press, 1983, p. 53. Write to MIM 
to order MIM Theory 1 ($4 post-paid) or Settlers ($10). Make 
checks payable to "ABS." 

PUERTO RICO ARTICLE DEBATED

MIM's article on the Puerto Rican plebiscite sparked a lot of 
Internet debate. Here is the first part of MIM's response to a 
number of the arguments.

A U.S. imperialism supporter wrote: "Election results indicate 
that only 4% support independence. Only independence advocates 
claim that they are larger than what they really are and, as a 
consequence they act like clowns when elections results come in."

MIM responds: No plebiscite can be meaningful when it is conducted 
under occupation. This is a well recognized principle of 
international politics. This is no more possible than a vote in 
Amerika to abolish Amerika. Campaigning for such a proposal is 
treason by definition; hence, any such vote would be meaningless. 
The same applies under conditions of Puerto Rican occupation.

In Eritrea, for example, the people fought a war of independence 
for decades. After the Ethiopian occupation was forcibly ended, 
THEN they held a plebiscite and declared their independence.

The debate also turned to economics, where some pro-U.S. advocates 
argued that Puerto Rico is better off than other Latin American 
countries, even if it is more poor than white Amerika. MIM agreed 
that Puerto Ricans are generally better off than others in Latin 
America. But they are still at the bottom of the pile compared to 
white Amerika, and even other national minorities. Like some 
Blacks in the United States, they gain some of the benefits of the 
empire, even as they help make others richer.

Referring to U.S. corporations lured to Puerto Rico with tax 
credits, the first U.S. supporter wrote: "We all love and work our 
butts out to have them stay on the island, while others simply 
whine all day waiting for the wealth to come from abroad."

MIM responds: We certainly are not waiting for wealth to come from 
abroad. Rather, MIM argues the Puerto Rico is coughing up wealth 
to Amerika all the time in the form of exploited labor.

Since the 1950s, the United States instituted a program of export-
based industrialization on the island. In the process, 
manufacturing boomed, but no independent basis for economic growth 
resulted. Living standards for those involved in growth industries 
improved greatly during this period--almost as fast as the profits 
from Amerikan companies.

Manufacturing shot up. Looks great. What happened to all the 
money, though? This table shows manufacturing GNP, and 
manufacturing profits and dividends paid out to nonresidents--
people who don't live in Puerto Rico.(1)

     (in $millions)
                      Profits     Percent
     Manufacturing   sent out    sent out

1950   $   119.7    $   14.8        12.4%
1960       366.3        75.3        20.6
1970     1,190.0       408.3        34.4
1980     5,322.5     3,308.2        62.2
1982     6,017.0     4,131.5        68.7
1989    11,032

So, from 1950 to 1982, manufacturing production increased by 
4,927%. During that same time, the amount of profits and dividends 
from manufacturing paid out to nonresidents of Puerto Rico 
increased by 27,816%. And for all that "development," the NET 
contribution to Puerto Rican GNP of manufacturing on the island 
increased from 13.9% to only 14.9%--during which time the 
percentage of workers in the manufacturing sector more than 
doubled.(2)

Another way of looking at it is to compare how much the 
imperialists get for their manufacturing wages in Puerto Rico. 
Here are the wages of production workers in manufacturing as a 
percentage of "value added" (the difference in the price of 
products after they leave the factory compared to when they went 
in):(3)

1963 28.8% 
1967 27.9% 
1972 24.9% 
1977 17.9% 
1982 12.2%

This is a good incentive for "development:" more profit from the 
same wages. 

All this suggests that Puerto Ricans live at the whim of Amerika. 
The island is a launching pad for someone else's enterprises. When 
Puerto Rican workers are not needed in Puerto Rico, they may 
migrate into the bottom of the labor force in Amerika--or be 
unemployed there. In short, their well-being is not in their own 
hands: they lack self- determination.

And no imperialist-run plebiscite is going to change that.

Notes: 
1. James L. Dietz, Economic History of Puerto Rico, Princeton 
University Press, 1986, p. 257; except 1989, from 1991 U.S. 
Statistical Abstract, p. 822. 
2. Dietz, p. 258. 
3. Emilio Pantojas-Garcia, Development Strategies as Ideology, 
Boulder & London: Lynne Rennier, 1990, p. 125, 169.

BATHROOM POLITICS

MIM recently carried on a poster debate with an anarchist critic 
in a women's bathroom in a Midwestern university. MIM posted a 
response which upheld China under Mao and the Soviet Union under 
Stalin as real-world steps towards freedom for the majority of 
their inhabitants. MIM emphasized the gains women made in those 
societies.

A second critic wrote: "Excuse me, have you ever spent time in 
China or the Soviet Union? I have, and believe me, especially in 
China, there's very little personal freedom of thought or 
expression; women still get the shaft--they still don't get equal 
status, and even if they're doctors, it's because doctoring is 
considered women's work!! There's female infanticide, forced 
abortion and plenty of domestic violence. Students there are 
afraid to talk to me in public. Get a clue. If you're so into 
Maoism, go to China and see it in action."

MIM responds: We would not go to China today to see Maoism in 
action. We agree with this critic that women are not free in China 
today. What our critic leaves out of her litany against the 
current regime (much of which we share) is that this regime is not 
Maoist. China has not been Maoist since 1976. Mao opposed Deng 
Xiaoping's line while he was alive. And Deng came to power as part 
of a coup d'etat following Mao's death in which Mao's closest 
supporters, the so-called Gang of Four, were arrested and 
imprisoned.

Check it out, straight from the horse's mouth: A July 28, 1992 
article in the New York Times was called "With focus on profits, 
China revives bias against women." The Times reporter grants that 
under Mao women had better housing, education, and jobs. The 
article then describes some of the patriarchal practices that have 
emerged with capitalist restoration in China: Wife-buying and -
selling, western-style advertising, which has restored women's 
image as ornaments, and, as our critic points out, female 
infanticide.

When writing to MIM, please provide a return address. We do not 
have enough space to print all correspondence, so we need to be 
able to write back. If you think MIM is wrong and care enough to 
write in and try and convince us of that, you should be prepared 
to struggle with us: What if MIM does not understand your 
criticism or wants you to help us do further research? What if you 
have misunderstood MIM's line? Struggle is key. 

* * *

SINN FEIN LEADER ALLOWED INTO AMERIKA:
CLINTON CAUGHT IN SQUEEZE

by MC45

When Attorney General Janet Reno waived an anti-terrorist act and 
signed a visa permitting Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams entry to 
the United States for 48 hours to attend a conference on the war 
in northern Ireland, she tried to make it look like Sinn Fein had 
split from the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and had renounced armed 
struggle. Sinn Fein has done no such thing. Rather, Amerika's 
approval of Adams entry and the media distortion spun around that 
approval are a result of the pressure put on Clinton from two 
sides: liberal Irish Amerikans and the British government. 

The conference in New York City is part of peace talks between the 
Irish and British governments and Irish Republicans.(4) Sinn Fein 
supports the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and will be an essential 
part of any peace agreement in northern Ireland. Without Sinn Fein 
cooperation, the only avenue left for peace is for the British 
occupation forces to end the Irish Republican movement militarily.

Clinton claims to want to see an end to the war in northern 
Ireland, but he doesn't support the republican goal of a unified 
Ireland. He doesn't even support ending the veto power the 
loyalist Protestant minority holds over the question of 
unification.(7)

The U.S. government and media was deliberately vague about the 
conditions under which Adams was granted entry to the U.S. In the 
past he has been denied visas under U.S. law which excludes 
members and supporters of "terrorist" organizations.(5) Their 
vagueness was part of an attempt to split supporters of the 
republican movement by giving the impression that Adams had given 
up on armed struggle to come to the U.S. 

Adams has never renounced the IRA's armed struggle against British 
imperialism, and he did not do it for Bill Clinton.

Bourgeois media distortion

National Public Radio reported that Adams had been granted a visa 
because he had finally complied with the U.S. law that had been 
used to exclude him. NPR went on to report that Adams had called 
on the IRA to give up its arms when Protestant paramilitary forces 
put down their arms and when British troops withdraw from northern 
Ireland.(3)

So even though the U.S. media has been consistently trying to 
whitewash Adams's politics, it is not true that he or Sinn Fein 
has renounced armed struggle or any part of the IRA's practice.  

Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein are still well aware of the American 
government's hypocrisy in claiming that it keeps out "terrorists." 
The U.S. government lets British government officials, who support 
the occupation of northern Ireland, run rampant in the U.S. It 
simply opposes the IRA, which attempts to protect the Irish people 
from British brutality.

Clinton bows to pressure

Granting the visa was a way for the Clinton administration to 
answer the questions it has left hanging since the start of the 
administration: when would Clinton actually do something about his 
desire for "an end to the collusion between [British] security 
forces and the Protestant paramilitary groups," interpreted 
hopefully by Irish solidarity organizations as a promise to help 
bring about peace in northern Ireland.(1) 

The president was also responding to pressure from powerful Irish 
Amerikan democrats in the Senate: Edward Kennedy, Daniel Patrick 
Moynihan and Christopher J. Dodd.(4) The U.S. president is not 
genuinely interested in justice in northern Ireland. Amerika would 
like to see peace, as a better climate for investment, but it does 
not support self-determination for the Irish people, the only 
conditions under which real peace can take hold.(1)

The British press, which would rather be honest about Sinn Fein's 
political positions because this makes it easier to justify the 
occupation, was more honest than the U.S. media about the nature 
of Gerry Adams's call for peace. The Economist wrote a snippy 
editorial saying that "most Americans watching Mr. Adams's 
performance may be forgiven for being misled by it."(8) This 
editorial went on to stress that high ranking Sinn Fein members 
are also decision-making members of the IRA and the party's level 
of influence is the only reason to want to talk to Sinn Fein. 

The interests of the British and Amerikan media are not 
fundamentally different. This issue represents a split in U.S. and 
British imperialist policies--the U.S. media's job in this case 
was to make Sinn Fein look moderate to excuse the U.S. government 
extending a visa to the party's leader; the British media has to 
safeguard the moral position of the British occupation.

In the past when Gerry Adams has had a forum in the United States 
to build public opinion for Irish Republicans he has been very 
forthright about his opposition to U.S. imperialism, and to the 
conditions under which oppressed people are forced to live in the 
United States. On the question of Irish Americans who support 
Irish Republicans but are racist he said, "Personally, I wouldn't 
wish to have support from someone who on the one hand professes 
our right as a people for national self-determination, and on the 
other hand was denying human beings their rights on the basis of 
color or creed."(2)

Notes:
1. Candidate Clinton wrote this in a letter to Connecticut 
congressman Bruce Morrison in October of 1992. Irish Freedom, 
Winter 1993, p. 19.
2. Forward Motion March-April 1988, p. 14.
3. NPR 1/30/94.
4. New York Times 1/31/94, p. A5.
5. Forward Motion March-April 1988, p. 12-13.
6. Forward Motion March-April 1988, p. 11.
7. NYT 1/30/94. The partitioning of Ireland in 1922 was contrived 
to make one half of the partition contain a majority Protestant 
population (the only population likely to be loyal to the British 
crown). The six counties of the "North," then, comprise the only 
combination of Irish counties which could have a majority 
Protestant population. Because the north and south are distinct 
legal entities, in any referendum on independence, British 
occupation or unification, the Protestant minority has veto power 
over Ireland's Catholic majorities wishes.
8. The Economist 2/5/94, p. 13.

* * * 

CORRECTION

The article "Prisoners support Peruvian revolution" in MIM Notes 
85 was a project of Prison Legal News, PO Box 1684, Lake Worth, FL 
33460.

* * *

FILIPINO REVOLUTION GAINS INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT

The recent internal rectification of the Communist Party of the 
Philippines (CPP) and the re-affirmation of its founding Maoist 
principles by the vast majority of the CPP membership has 
galvanized revolutionary communist and national liberation forces 
all over the world. (See MIM Notes 85 & 84.)

The CPP-led people's war in the Philippines is notable for its 
adherence to the Maoist principle of maintaining the weapon of a 
revolutionary united front--to fight imperialism and bureaucrat 
capitalism. The National Democratic Front (NDF) is composed of the 
New People's Army (NPA) and many patriotic organizations, united 
under the leadership of the CPP, in the common cause to kick U.S. 
imperialism out of the Philippines and make the New Democratic 
revolution. Once imperialism is vanquished, the dictatorship of 
the Filipino proletariat will uplift 65 million Filipinos and 
eradicate the scourge of capitalism.

In North Amerika, the CPP rectification has given birth to a new 
organization: the Philippine-American Workers International 
Solidarity Committee (PAWISC). The following is a statement from 
Pawis Front, the newsletter of PAWISC:

Medics of the people

The Philippine-American Workers International Solidarity Committee 
will show Medics of the people, a video documentary on the 
liberation movement in the Philippines.

PAWISC calls upon Filipino patriots, progressive and revolutionary 
organizations, student and community groups and individuals to co-
sponsor the showings or watch this important video documentary.

The NPA is a member and the main military armed organization of 
the National Democratic Front. Under the supreme command and 
leadership of the Communist Party of the Philippines, the NPA 
undertakes political work, fighting and production. These tasks 
aim to advance the armed struggle, satisfy the peasant demand for 
land, prepare the masses for self-government and practice self-
reliance while forging the basic worker-peasant alliance.

Since it was founded 24 years ago, with a few fighters in one 
province, the NPA has attained a nationwide presence, the strength 
of thousands of armed guerrillas and the support of a political 
mass base of millions in both city and countryside under the 
current strategic defensive stage of the people's war.

Until the final seizure of state power, the NPA will continue to 
train itself ideologically, politically and militarily. It learns 
well from its own positive and negative experiences and from the 
mistakes of revisionist parties in the formerly socialist 
countries that have restored capitalism. Guided by the CPP, the 
NPA pledges to uphold and defend the science of Marxism-Leninism-
Mao Zedong Thought--or Maoism--in order to best serve the New 
Democratic revolution and prepare itself for the Socialist 
revolution in the Philippines.

Today, as the CPP reaffirms its basic principles and consolidates 
itself against past "left" and right deviations and battles the 
Total War strategy of the U.S.-Ramos regime, Jose Maria Sison, 
founder of the NPA, in a speech delivered last August 8, 1993, 
summarized the situation and duty of the national liberation in 
the Philippines within the context of the present world anti-
imperialist and proletarian revolutionary movement:

"The neocolonialism practiced by the imperialist powers has 
brought about the continuous state of depression and further 
degradation of societies in most Asian countries since the 
1970s.... 

"In the years to come, there will be a sharpening of struggle 
between those who wish to retain the socialist facade of Chinese 
bureaucrat capitalism and those who wish to establish an 
undisguised bourgeois state, as in Eastern Europe and the former 
Soviet Union. At the same time, there will be a sharpening of the 
class struggle between the forces of revolution and the 
counterrevolution. ... 

"In the Philippines, the revolutionary forces and the people are 
resolutely waging people's war. They are determined to carry aloft 
the flaming torch of revolutionary armed struggle as a matter of 
patriotic and internationalist duty, especially at this time when 
the people of the world have just moved into a new period of 
revolutionary struggle."

To call attention to the liberation struggles waged by the NPA, by 
the Communist Party of Peru ("Sendero Luminoso"), by the latest 
armed peasant uprising in Chiapas, Mexico, to name a few struggles 
in the Third World, together with the Blacks, the Mexicanos, the 
indigenous peoples and other oppressed nationalities struggles 
within the U.S. and their need for solidarity and support from all 
progressive, anti-imperialist, proletarian revolutionary forces, 
PAWISC is sponsoring and making available the video documentary 
Medics of the people.

The documentary was filmed by a European anti-imperialist 
solidarity group on a exposure trip in late 1992. It highlights 
one of the many things the NPA undertakes to serve the peasant 
masses in its guerrilla bases in the countryside under the 
condition of war.

Showings, scheduled to coincide with the celebration of the 25th 
anniversary of the founding of the NPA (March 29, 1969), follow:

April 1, 1994, 7-10 p.m., La Pena Cultural Center, 3195 Shattuck 
Avenue, Berkeley, CA.

April 2, 1994, 7-10 p.m., The Woman's Building, 3543 18th Street, 
San Francisco, CA.

Partial list of video co-sponsors: Philippine Information Network 
Services, Kabataang Makabayan, CA Chapter, Maoist Internationalist 
Movement, Geneva Towers Tenant's Association, New Bayview 
Newspaper.

* * *

MIM STRUGGLES OVER WHITE WORKING CLASS

Last November, MIM met with a Maoist Dutch dockworkers union 
leader to struggle over the revolutionary potential of the 
imperialist country working classes. This was part of our 
international campaign to advance our line on the parasitic nature 
of the imperialist country working classes.

MIM attempted to reach unity through struggle. Looking at the 
experience of California, MIM was able to say that occasionally 
union struggles of the imperialist nation workers do strike a blow 
for internationalism. The struggles of the California dockworkers 
in numerous contexts and Polaroid camera workers in solidarity 
with Azanian workers are isolated examples. At the same time, MIM 
pointed out that for every internationalist action by imperialist 
country workers, we could cite 100 counterexamples.

The Dutch worker countered with a "false consciousness" theory 
that this was true because the bourgeoisie is the ruling class and 
hence the workers will demonstrate bourgeois consciousness "until 
the moment before the Revolution when there is widespread 
uprising."

"False consciousness" is an excuse to import petty-bourgeois and 
labor aristocracy ideas into the proletarian movement. Of course, 
every working class has some "false consciousness." The issue is 
how does the "false consciousness" of the imperialist working 
class compare with that of genuine proletarian classes.

In Puerto Rico, south Korea and South Africa, the oppressed nation 
workers rise up in armed struggle against their oppressors, 
despite doing so under illegal conditions. They have false 
consciousness too, because the workers in these countries do not 
always strike for socialism, for their own rule. However, their 
false consciousness is qualitatively different than the support 
for imperialism and imperialist militarism rendered by imperialist 
country workers, because the underlying material interests of the 
imperialist country working classes are qualitatively different 
than those of the oppressed country working classes.

The problem in the imperialist countries is principally the fact 
that opportunists and dogmatists alike flatter the non-exploited 
labor-aristocracy and other middle-classes as if they were 
proletarian.

Our Dutch union leader critic, like similar union leaders in 
Belgium and comrades in England with whom MIM has spoken, has said 
that s/he "couldn't get anywhere" with the workers by telling them 
that they are not exploited as MIM suggests. Other comrades in 
European countries (including England) argued with MIM that unlike 
North America, there are no substantial oppressed nation worker 
populations in Europe.

This is social-democratic logic. The social-democrats cater their 
political principles in order to attract a majority of support--to 
win electoral battles. Such principles are inherently opposed to 
the interests of oppressed nationality "minorities" and the world 
majority. They are principles that can only lead to flattering the 
middle-classes and the importation of petty-bourgeois and labor 
aristocracy ideas into the proletarian movement.

MIM will accept support from labor-aristocrats--but only on the 
basis of firm anti-imperialist and anti-militarist principles. We 
will work with anyone, but we would rather not "get anywhere" than 
to give up those fundamental principles.

Also in November, MIM spoke with Gillette workers in Boston. They 
opposed NAFTA and were not thrilled with the visit of President 
Clinton to promote NAFTA. These workers supported Ross Perot's 
line that opposes letting Mexico "suck" away U.S. jobs.

Even in conscious political agitation (connected to the CIA or 
multinational corporate subversion of foreign governments) the 
labor aristocracy is likely to go away thinking that the 
imperialists should be forced into a limited mobility that would 
require them to leave jobs in the United States. Since this result 
occurs dialectically even in the process of ordinary agitation 
against imperialism, all the more so does it occur when talking 
about unemployment to Gillette workers, for example.

These workers don't need to be told that unemployment is a 
problem. They already know. They need to be told that solving 
unemployment for the labor aristocracy means propping up 
imperialism. They need to understand the history of such solutions 
and why imperialist country working classes have never tried 
socialism.

Maoists must talk about unemployment very carefully and only in 
the context of explaining that unemployment can only be resolved 
through political action--socialism.

While we reached unity on this last point with our Dutch comrade, 
there was still the question of the actual class demands of the 
imperialist country working class. The Dutch union leader stressed 
that workers should fight "for their jobs" in the NAFTA context 
and in any other context where multinational capital threatens to 
move and leave behind unemployed workers. At the same time, the 
union leader said that this was possible while criticizing Ross 
Perot's line that the imperialist countries' jobs were being 
"sucked into Mexico."

This is an obvious contradiction. It is not possible to fight for 
"your" jobs without thinking they should not be someone else's. 
However, the union leader recognizes that it is not correct for 
one group of workers to oppose another set of workers' getting 
jobs. This gets workers nowhere--fighting each other over where 
the imperialists should locate their production.

Workers in the imperialist countries must be trained to think in 
terms of the interests of the international proletariat as a 
whole. For their part, intellectuals and party leaders must stop 
attributing thin skins and weak egos to the workers: they will not 
die if they learn the true history and economic position of the 
labor aristocracy. The political leaders of the proletariat must 
stop making excuses for importing middle-class ideas into the 
proletarian movement.

Imperialist country workers should not be appealed to on narrow 
bases. They must be given explanations for why their class has 
supported imperialism in the past. Without such explanations the 
labor aristocracy workers will only conclude that the communists 
lack any sense of reality. When the labor aristocracy has an 
understanding of its past and repudiates it, then it can move into 
the socialist future.

* * *

U.S. IMPERIALISM PROPS UP PERUVIAN COMPRADOR REGIME

by MC432 

The exploitation and oppression of the Peruvian people by the 
regime of Alberto Fujimori is fueled by a flow of imperialist 
capital into Peru. The regime is barely scraping by now and would 
topple in a second without this boon of imperialist "aid." Mass 
capital-infusions, principally from the United States, are 
propping up the government and its army, enabling it to limp along 
under the devastating force of the People's War and the class 
struggle.

As part of supporting the People's War led by the Communist Party 
of Peru (PCP), a Maoist vanguard party, revolutionaries in Amerika 
must understand the extent of U.S. and other imperialist 
involvement in Peru.

Extent of imperialist "aid"

The U.S. Government claimed it had suspended aid to the Peruvian 
government to punish Fujimori's April 1992 "self-coup." Then, to 
reward Fujimori for his Sept. 1992 capture of Abimael Guzm‡n, 
Chairperson of the PCP, Peru received $137 million in U.S. aid in 
1993. This bundle made Peru the highest recipient of U.S. aid in 
South America, and second in all of Latin America.(1)

The United States also offered $105 million as the main donation 
to an international group covering Peru's foreign debt payments. 
Only $37 million of this has come through so far; the rest is 
being used to persuade the Fujimori regime to prosecute a few 
high-profile human rights cases against the military, such as the 
La Cantuta killings.(1) Peru has averaged 300 disappearances of 
political prisoners per year during the 80s, and so was perhaps an 
embarrassing U.S. ally.(2)

Avalanche of World Bank funds

The U.S.-dominated World Bank is another source of capital. The 
bank deals out large loans usually intended to build roads or dams 
that enable foreign capital to pursue its profit-making more 
easily. The Bank then sucks huge profits out of those countries 
through accumulated interest on the unpayable loans.

The World Bank is now approving $434 million in loans for Peru in 
the 1994-5 fiscal year, mostly for highway construction, roads and 
airports, and the electricity sector. These loans merely ease 
industrial and military penetration of Peru. The remaining funds 
are for supposed humanitarian goals: $100 million for the National 
Compensation and Social Development Fund for social support, and 
$34 million for health and nutrition.(3)

Given Peru's population of 22.8 million people,(4) this amounts to 
about $6 per person. It is precisely this kind of "aid" that is 
intended to allow the government to improve slightly the 
conditions of the impoverished, in the hopes that the poor will 
cease to oppose the state. But this pathetic $6 bone that the 
imperialists are throwing to the Peruvian masses will do nothing 
to weaken their revolutionary fervor.

Penetration of foreign capital

But the biggest source of imperialist capital is the private 
sector. At the end of 1993, there was $1.717 billion of 
accumulated foreign investment in Peru. The U.S. ranked first with 
$630 million, followed by Panama ($160 million), China ($118 
million) and Switzerland ($100 million).(5)

With a 200% rate of return on investment in Peru,(6) U.S. 
investors alone are leaching nearly 1.5 billion dollars from the 
Peruvian people this year.

The "growth" from these investments benefits only the Peruvian 
elite and the imperialist nations' labor aristocracies and 
bourgeoisies. "Growth" without equitable distribution of wealth 
means the economic well-being of the Peruvian population as a 
whole is not improving.

Among the biggest threats to Peruvians is the privatization of 
state-owned industries currently being carried out by the Fujimori 
regime, in which employees of those firms are "sure to be sacked 
when their firms are sold off."(7) This will boost the already 
staggering unemployment rate in Peru--which has remained at nearly 
80% for the last four years!(8)

Privatization scheme rips off masses

Fujimori's hand-picked congress in November put the finishing 
touches on the freest set of investment terms for foreign 
interests in recent times. A "debt-equity swap" program was 
approved, in which owners of Peru's foreign debt can now use it to 
buy privatized state-owned industries.(9)

With Peruvian debt selling at 70 cents on the dollar, Fujimori is 
pawning off the country's industry at discount rates in the vain 
hope of getting the imperialist banks off his back, all the while 
deepening Peru's dependence.

Debt-equity swapping may speed up the privatization process, but 
not for long. Speculators will push up the market value of 
Peruvian debt paper until it's not profitable to swap it for 
equity.(10) And most importantly, no matter how much equity in 
privatized industries the government pawns off to foreign 
multinationals, there will be no equity for the Peruvian people, 
the intended losers in this international shell-game.

Fujimori has also revamped the investment code to include far-
reaching ownership guarantees to foreign interests, free 
repatriation of their earnings and capital, and one of Latin 
America's most liberal tax regimes. These pimping trade-terms will 
lure even more foreign capital to Peru. According to one Peruvian 
government minister, more than $4 billion will have entered the 
Treasury by the time the sell-off of 70 state-owned companies ends 
in 1995.

With literally every state-owned company on the auction-block, the 
livelihood of millions of workers is at stake. Anti-privatization 
protests are widespread, such as those by the workers of 
Pescaperu, the public fishing company.(7)

According to one authority, "Little of the money gained by the 
government from selling off state assets is returned to the people 
in the form of support services and relief for the poor, even 
though worker's survival is threatened by the erosion of labor 
rights, layoffs, and the draining and destruction of Peru's 
resources by foreigners."(6)

People's War continues

The official state of emergency in January was continued in six of 
Peru's 24 departments (Lima, Callao, Ancash, Ucayali, Huanuco and 
Loreto) to "facilitate military operations against terrorism and 
drug trafficking." These decrees suspend constitutional rights and 
indicate that the armed forces (rather than civilian police) will 
attempt to gain control of the areas.(11)

These areas are strategically important, since the six departments 
form a chain that divides Peru in half. One of them, Loreto, 
comprises nearly one-third of the area of the country, while 
another, Lima, holds nearly a third of the country's population. 
Though not every province of each department is under state of 
emergency, it would appear that at least one-third of the country 
is under PCP control or influence. 

According to an article on coca production in Peru, the export-
product, coca paste, is not primarily produced in any of those 
departments that are now under a state of emergency, but rather 
centers in the departments of San Martin, Amazonas, Cuzco, Junin, 
and Pasco. Since there is no overlap between those areas under 
state of emergency and those areas where coca paste is produced, 
one can only conclude that "terrorists," that is, the PCP, must be 
sufficiently powerful in Lima, Callao, Ancash, Ucayali, Huanuco 
and Loreto to force the government to engage them militarily--with 
the help of Amerika's $8 million in "drug war" aid for 
1994.(12,13) 

The Peruvian masses know that they are little better off being 
exploited by foreign multinationals than by their own bourgeoisie-
-that is why the people have chosen Maoist revolution. Yet 
Fujimori's insidious privatization program may have one great 
benefit: when the Peruvian people seize state power, all of that 
imperialist capital can be expropriated, and used in service of 
the people of Peru.

Notes: 
1. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc, Daily Report For 
Executives, 1/24/94. 
2. The New York Times 1/12/94. 
3. American Banker-Bond Buyer 11/22/93. 
4. 1993 World Almanac & Book of Facts (1992, est.).
5. Reuters 1/26/94. 
6. Peru Scholars News and Notes 1/94. 
7. San Francisco Chronicle, 11/22/93. 
8. NYT 11/2/93, p. A1, D2. 
9. International Securities Regulation Report 12/14/93. 
10. American Banker-Bond Buyer 12/13/93. 
11. BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 1/17/94. 
12. BBC 1/12/94. 
13. AP 12/14/93. 

* * *

HOUSING PROJECTS PROPELLED INTO NEW WORLD ORDER

by MA79

Via Operation Safe Home: A program that intends to "reduce violent 
crime in public and assisted housing, and to crack down on white 
collar crime..." (1); Vice President Al Gore said, "will give public 
housing residents some powerful new allies in their struggle to 
secure themselves."(2) This is a program reeking of overt police 
presence and is a continuation of HUD's overall program originally 
designed to wipe out oppressed nations who currently reside in the 
metropolitan trenches. 

Operation Safe Home is a combination of HUD, the Department of 
Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI, the Secret 
Service and U.S. attorneys. The new National Drug Control Strategy 
outlined by Attorney General Reno and Treasury Secretary Lloyd 
Bentsen states clearly in their Press Briefing these outrageous 
claims to fight "crime":

* Tightly coordinated law enforcement and crime prevention 
operations at targeted sites.

* Federal initiatives and policies to strengthen law enforcement 
and crime and "drug prevention" in public and assisted housing. 

* Free rent for police who live in targeted public housing.(3) 
(The police wholesale drugs in the projects.)

* Making it illegal for residents of public housing to own or 
possess any firearms.(2)

The program Operation Safe Home sends a clear message: A more 
overt police presence in the ghettos and more lies to the people. 
A key sub-program to this lie is called the Tenant Opportunity 
Program (TOP). TOP will supposedly train folks in business 
ownership and management, child care, youth programs, tenant 
security patrols and other activities that will probably fizzle 
out because of lack of funds embezzled by underhanded politicians. 

Anybody who knows some of the history of these "opportunities" 
will know that these are bogus. If these weren't lies, the people 
would have what they really do deserve: Factual power! In fact, 
much is said in the press briefing about fraud; how it leads to 
the literal physical deterioration of public and assisted housing. 
Let's face it, the ghettos are refugee communities resulting from 
a 500-year war of exploitation and expropriation against the 
oppressed nations, which has always been conducted in the name of 
the white nation's prosperity and security. Gore continues what 
Uncle Sam started. 

Throughout the Operation Safe Home press briefing document we hear 
of the "reign of terror in public and assisted housing... ." Well, 
if the pigs step up, there will be a terror with which the likes 
no one has ever seen. No doubt will there be more police and 
secret service repression, rape, drug smuggling and random death 
courtesy of the Clinton/Gore corporate empire. We can bet that 
sometime soon the oppressed nations living in the ghettos will 
organize themselves to combat the upcoming devastation that 
befalls them. 

From jail cell to housing project to jail cell, the oppressed 
nations in Amerika go through virtual hell to just stay alive. In 
reality, the oppressed nations have always been blocked by the 
bourgeois state from realizing political or economic power. Geneva 
Towers in San Francisco is a prime example of a people being 
dispossessed by a capitalist structure that would rather have 
nothing to do with them at all, so it just kills them off slowly 
by political repression and economic exploitation.

Operation Safe Home is just a part of an overall proto-fascist 
development, embodied in a crime bill. War on drugs and crime in 
Amerika means just this: A war on the people! This must not go 
unchallenged! There is only one way to break the chains of 
capitalism: Create independent power structures and build public 
opinion to seize power through armed struggle! The only political 
power that the oppressed nations have is their independent power 
which grows only from the use of force. Readers should pick up the 
next MIM Notes in order to follow our coverage of the crime bill.

Notes:
1. Operation Safe Home press briefing 2/4/94, p. 1. 
2. San Francisco Examiner 2/5/94, p. A1, A10. 
3. Operation Safe Home press briefing 2/4/94, p. 8.

* * *

PHILADELPHIA

Philadelphia is making big bucks in the movie industry in spite of 
speculation that a movie about a gay man with AIDS would not 
appeal to the general homophobic public. Fortunately for the 
public, this captivating drama does not go too far into the life 
of a gay man. 

In many ways this is a good movie for Amerikans to see. It forces 
people to at least think about discrimination and sexual 
orientation and AIDS. Unfortunately the movie stops short of 
reality. 

In reality gay men (and lesbians and bisexuals) do more than just 
lightly kiss the partner they have been with for years. In reality 
most gay men are not quite so acceptable to society as were the 
men in this film. In reality, individuals generally do not win in 
battles against powerful capitalist corporations who have 
discriminated against them. And in reality truth and justice do 
not prevail in the courtroom.

In at least one suburban theater there was more laughter from the 
audience at the anti-gay jokes in the movie than at the pro-gay 
jokes. There were many titters and "ew gross" comments when Tom 
Hanks danced with his lover. Fortunately for the audience the 
movie was sufficiently sanitized.

If people are going to go see sad dramas, this one beats a lot of 
what's out there making the big bucks in Hollywood. If only 
because it forces people to think about questions of 
discrimination and inequality in corporate Amerika, this movie 
gets a half thumb up.

--MC17

* * *

IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER: 
INSPIRATIONAL STRUGGLE AGAINST INJUSTICE

In the Name of the Father is an excellent Hollywood docu-drama 
portraying the Irish struggle against British imperialism. While 
MIM understands that there are many inaccurate scenes used to keep 
the audience interested, the drama was well worth the six bucks to 
get at least a glimpse of British injustice and repression against 
the Irish people. 

The movie, starring Daniel Day-Lewis, is an exciting portrayal of 
the Irish nationalist struggle. Although it clearly comes out 
against the IRA and "terrorism," the portrayal of the IRA is more 
complex. The first scene in the movie is one of the best: Gerry 
Conlon, played by Day-Lewis, and his friend are seen as petty 
thieves who catch the attention of the police while playing air 
guitar with a lead pipe on a roof--the police think that Conlon 
and his friend are IRA snipers. During the chase through narrow 
alleys and through houses, the masses shelter and support Conlon, 
and block the British tanks from rolling through the neighborhood. 
This scene depicts strong mass support for the IRA and impressive 
organization by the IRA. 

For example, the IRA had already warned Conlon and his friend to 
stop stealing because it gives the British troops an excuse to 
attack the people. In this scene the IRA threatens to shoot these 
kids in their kneecaps as another warning, because not only had 
they brought down the state on this neighborhood, they ran though 
an IRA base house and gave the police an excuse to bust up part of 
the IRA in the process.

Later portrayals of the IRA are more negative.

The movie is based on Conlon's autobiography, Proved Innocent, 
which tells of his and his father's wrongful imprisonment for 
participation in an IRA bombing of an English soldier's pub. 
Conlon was not a member of the IRA, and did not really understand 
the struggle until he was in prison. But he was a petty Irish 
thief in the wrong place at the wrong time in England during the 
1974 bombing. MIM will not give away the dramatic courtroom scenes 
in which the evidence is finally revealed; you have to see that 
for yourself. 

Name of the Father was made to help clear Conlon's father's name, 
who died in prison and whose name has not yet been cleared of the 
trumped up charges.(1) The film sometimes portrays the IRA as 
random, ruthless killers, but the overall message that MIM chose 
to focus on is that the British injustice system, like all of the 
unjust imperialist systems of the world, is not random and needs 
to be exposed and defeated.

Note: World Press Review vol. 40 7/93, p. 49.

* * *

MOVIE MONOPOLY

Producing films is expensive. So is distributing them. But that's 
not all. Both production and distribution are oligopolies: 
industries that are controlled by a few companies which 
collaborate financially (and ideologically, in this case) making 
them virtually monopolies. So, even as more movies are produced 
and directed toward more targeted audiences, there is less and 
less possibility of counter-hegemonic movies reaching mass 
audiences.

Four companies--Sony, Time Warner, Disney and Universal Pictures--
together controlled 72% of the Amerikan industry in 1993, measured 
in gross income. Most of the rest was controlled by a few others.

Sony (Columbia, TriStar, Sony Classics, Triumph), Warner and 
Disney (Disney, Buena Vista, Miramax) between them released 109 
movies last year, with an average gross of about $22-35 million 
each. Universal Pictures is owned by Matsushita.

When MIM Notes reviews movies, we know we're not reviewing 
expressions of organic popular culture. Instead, we are watching 
the efforts of some of the world's biggest multinational 
corporations, as they try to shape popular ideas and culture--
while keeping people satisfied by reacting to, and sometimes co-
opting, popular trends. In the process, the movie companies make a 
killing in cash and attempt to make the world safer for 
imperialism.

--MC12

Notes: Economist 1/8/94, p. 74.

* * *

HOLLYWOOD IS ROYALTY IN EUROPE

Even though some of the biggest movie-producing companies are not 
strictly Amerikan-owned, such as Sony, Hollywood-produced movies 
dominate the world market almost completely.

The Economist reports that "a dozen of the 250 or so films that 
America makes each year account for more than 60% of world box-
office receipts." Further, Jurassic Park was the top-selling movie 
in Germany, Britain and Italy last year, and Britain's top 19 
movies were made in the USA last year.

In 1993, "Spanish films had less than 20% of their home market and 
German films had just 9% of theirs. Hollywood films had 90% of the 
Italian market." France, with the healthiest movie industry in 
Europe, controlled just 37% of its home market last year.

This Amerikan domination serves the interests of imperialism 
overall, even as it strengthens Amerika relative to European 
powers.

Organizing in support of the international proletariat is the task 
of all revolutionary-minded residents of First World countries. 
The exposure and criticism of the imperialists' culture is part of 
that internationalist duty.

--MC12

Notes: Economist 2/5/94, p. 89.

* * *


BSU BOYCOTTS MLK DAY SYMPOSIUM

ANN ARBOR, Mich.ÑThe Black Student Union (BSU) at the University of Michigan recently boycotted the University-sponsored Martin Luther King Day Symposium. The BSU was protesting the lack of political activists at the symposium, the lack of student input in its planning, and its focus on a depoliticized multiculturalism. The BSU organized an alternative teach-in and encouraged students to attend it instead.(1)

University whitewashes history

Besides the exclusion of student planning, the BSU criticized this year's symposium for hiding the real contradictions in Amerikan society. The symposium was "academic and limited to the University setting." It "did not focus on issues of social, political and economic empowerment urgent to African American, Native American, Latino and Asian communities."(1) 

The BSU also criticized the symposium's bogus "multiculturalism" for homogenizing the cultures within Amerikan borders and ignoring the material conditions which create national oppression. "Race tension stems from racial oppression, economic injustice and political marginalization of our communities. Any discussion of multiculturalism which does not address issues of subjugation as they relate to each community only contributes to the maintenance of oppression."(1)

This "multiculturalism" is one of colonialism's main ideological tools. As J. Sakai points out: "Our original demand that our separate and unique histories be recognized is now being used to throw us off our ideological balance.É The imperialists even concede that their standard 'U.S. history' is a white history, and is supposedly incomplete unless the long suppressed Third-World histories are added to it." This allows the imperialists to "keep on saying, over and over, 'You folks, just think about your own history; don't bother analyzing white society, just accept what we tell you about it.'"(3) Oppressed nations are discouraged from studying oppressor nations; revolutionaries are discouraged from knowing their enemy.

The BSU's alternative events focused on "African independence, self-determination and reality."(1) Speakers at the BSU's Unity March referred to the Haitian and Cuban revolutions and called on their listeners to study and understand them. A member of the New Afrikan People's Organization spoke, and Ahmed Abdur-Rahman, a former Black Panther who does not conceal the Panthers' Maoist roots, presented the video, "The FBI's war on Black America."

Rahman and the organizers of the teach-ins advocated a mixture of consciousness-raising and reformism as paths forward and used the slogans "Educate to liberate" and "Each one teach one." MIM thinks that this line is defeatist and a giant step backwards from the Panthers' line and practice. Contentment with individual and local changes plays right into the hands of the reactionaries, who would like nothing better than for resistance to remain small and isolated. 

The Panthers didn't just say, "Tell somebody about national oppression," they said "Build power to take state power!" The Panthers didn't think petition drives or votes today could get lasting concessions from the imperialists, they knew they had to boot the imperialists out before voting to end occupation would mean anything.

Trot-pocrisy

The National Women's Rights Organizing Committee (NWROC), a local front group for the Trotskyist Revolutionary Workers League (RWL), slandered the BSU and attempted to split and wreck it. According to an NWROC flyer, the leaders of the BSU have "diverted the justified anger of black students," played the role of "damage control for the Administration for years," and been hesitant to lead "mass student struggle." The flyer did not contain any investigation of these chargesÑeven though it was handed out at events where the BSU was sharply criticizing the administration and obviously leading a "mass student struggle"Ñand there was no evidence that NWROC had tried to struggle with the BSU beforehand. One NWROC member who was asked to stop distributing the flyer by the BSU refused and vocally accused the BSU of trying to "conceal the truth."

Besides calling the BSU leadership the administration's toadies, NWROC criticized them for "rely[ing] on the Administration to fight racism," i.e. leading a single-issue reformist campaign. Which is the absolute height of hypocrisy. NWROC itself is a single-issue group set up to recruit people with reformist ideologies to Trotskyism. And although NWROC's "MASS STUDENT STRUGGLE [to] force the Administration to take students seriously"(4) sounds more militant, it would still be a reformist struggle for concessions from those in power. But the RWL doesn't care about principled criticism or effective organizing, they just want to see people out in the streets (preferably under their banner).

Reform vs. revolution

MIM asked the BSU for an interview in order to learn more about their exclusion from the speaker selection process, but the BSU was no longer giving interviews. They said the University was listening to their grievances and that it was "time to move on." MIM does not concentrate on negotiating or threatening reforms out of those who hold power. We prepare for the struggle to build the people's power ideologically and organizationally. 

Twenty years of dedicated but reformist activism at the University of Michigan has not perceptibly increased Black enrollment or retention rates. By leading a movement criticizing the university's refusal to change and then entering into negotiations with it, the BSU gives the masses the illusion that reformism works.

Notes: 
1. The Michigan Daily, 1/14/94, p. 4. 
2. The Michigan Daily, 1/24/94, p. 4. 
3. J. Sakai, Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat, Chicago: Morningstar Press, 1983, p. 1. $10 postpaid from MIM.
4. NWROC flyer.