|
|
|
|
|
|
|
*See our article on the conflict over Iran's nuclear energy program
At the moment, it appears we have earned some time in the U.$.-Iran conflict, no thanks to u.$. public opinion. Various international factors including the role of Russia and China, the stretch of u.$. troops and the price of gas oppose a further intensification of the war between Iran and the united $tates, which already has spotter troops in Iran. We of the international communist movement should take this time to right the ship of the anti-war movement in the imperialist countries, which keeled over in successive Afghanistan, Lebanon and Iran matters.
Though Bush is not bombing Iran at the moment, we need to be clear that he is bowling a very high score with the u.$. public right now on that issue. On August 31, he made a speech again harping on the "Islamo-fascism" idea. He is no doubt happy that publications ranging from the National Review to the Boston Phoenix and Village Voice are backing him on that.
Out of a possible 300 score, Bush is bowling 250 just for that. Then we have to talk about our left-wing of parasitism calling itself "socialist" or "communist." Bush is picking up another 25 pins there, because his agents have succeeded in introducing wobble there and the proletariat is only a keeping a minority of those wobbling pins just barely standing. Total score for Bush: 275.
In the recent conflicts, Bush's top asset in the u.$. left-wing of parasitism is Bob Amerikkkan. In approximately 24 point type, his rag said, and his web page on its front page also said, "What we see in contention here with Jihad on the one hand and McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically outmoded ruling strata of the imperialist system." There is no difference between that quote and the theories undergirding neo-conservatism.
That particular asset Bob Amerikkkan has mostly international duties, but that quote is a master stroke for Bush both internationally and for Bob Amerikkkan's zombies at home. Internationally, the effect it to take someone claiming to be "Maoist" and have him rewrite the principal contradiction between oppressed nations and imperialism to generate wobble, to blunt the attack on u.$. imperialism.
While the principal contradiction as stated by true Maoists has no ambiguity about it in application to Iran, Bob Amerikkkan does his master's bidding by getting even alleged Maoists to wobble. After reading that quote, we think, "gosh, we have no interest either way. It is the outmoded against the outmoded. Bush is doing us a favor by attacking our outmoded countries." In fact, that is the view of the Russian imperialists in particular, but it takes up the central kernel of the Trotskyist and neo- conservative theses.
Bob Amerikkkan's organization has a long, long history of opposition to uniting the oppressed nations against imperialism--going right back to its founding in 1975 on the basis of attacking the Black Panther Party. Bob Amerikkkan's organization can never just straight-up accept and act on the principal contradiction between imperialism and oppressed nations. It always comes up with reasons for why it does not.
Getting the Village Voice to support war against Islamo-fascism is a huge win for Bush. Bush does not have to get the so-called communists to scream "vote for Bush!" to win. No, his goals can be reduced, especially for his assets in camouflage. The goal among communists is just to get them to carry out the split in the proletarian camp, to smuggle in the bourgeoisie. Here, Bush has succeeded again. So if Bush can get an alleged anti-war movement to be more tepid and get it to provide reasons that are going to cause most of the labor aristocracy to support Bush or stand by in silence, then Bush has won. Here among our Trotskyists who call Hezbollah not really anti-imperialist after defeating I$rael no less, and among our crypto- Trotskyist zombies following state agents, there really is no such thing as class or nation. In the end, they are going to go with culture as do many Third World lackeys of imperialism.
Contrary to the stupid and individualist petty-bourgeois interpretation of "sectarianism" which is "when two organizations don't get along," Mao said sectarianism was putting the interests of the organization above the proletariat--pitting the organization against the class. The above Bob Amerikkkan quote is sectarianism, because it is not so secretly welcoming Bush to attack the "outmoded" while he stands by neutral or providing reasons for Bush to attack even while he has to have camouflage of pretended anti-war or "Maoist" sort.
Bob Amerikkkan's philistine followers of the sexual liberal sort just culturally cannot stomach the oppressed nations as they are especially in the different sexual cultures of the Mideast, and cannot bring themselves to a stout defense of the oppressed nations. So Bob Amerikkkan brings them petty-bourgeois wobble to assure them. For the benefit of both Bush and his philistine followers, Bob Amerikkkan rewrote the Maoist concept of principal contradiction. He put his followers above the needs of the unity of the international proletariat. Meanwhile, Amerikkkan's useful idiots call MIM "sectarian" against Bob Amerikkkan's organization; even though MIM makes no attempt in more than 20 years to recruit any of his zombies and would not consider itself benefitting organizationally to do so. It's again an example of truthiness. The petty-bourgeoisie believes what it wants to believe and cannot really follow through a political analysis to the end. Facts are facts: MIM has never once tried to go into a Revolution Books or other crypto-Trotskyist meeting to steal any of that trash. People talking about "sectarianism" should "deal with" the facts instead of just believing what they want to believe. MIM believes it would be boosting its membership numbers at the expense of the international proletariat to have ex-crypto-Trotskyist zombies--and THAT would be sectarianism. Purging petty-bourgeois rot of our own and keeping even worse rot out in the first place is not sectarian.
The international proletariat needs to unite the oppressed nations against imperialism. It does not need Amerikkkan's formulation, to unite the oppressed nations against the imperialists, except for those who oppose the right to wear a bikini in Afghanistan, except for those carrying out nuclear energy programs and except for those who are from semi-feudal conditions--by the time of which of course the principal contradiction has been emptied out completely for abandonment.
Bob Amerikkkan would actually be less use as an asset if he came out and said to vote for Bush and support all wars openly. If Bush could only get MIM to wobble while the liberal-radicals at the Village Voice call for war on Islamo-fascism, that would be a 300 score. It is never possible to score higher than that. Right now our international communist movement is letting him score that 275.
Most of the organizations in the world calling themselves "Maoist," never in their history helped us in the imperialist countries "in the fight against our own bourgeoisie." Always, they denied 90% of the existence of "our bourgeoisie" and sought only to play off one faction of bourgeoisie against another. Now in addition, these organizations saddle us with a Comintern backing the Trotskyist line on why it is progressive for imperialism to attack "outmoded" oppressed nation people. Yeah, then they wonder why only 6% supported Lebanon's side in the conflict with I$rael. They cannot figure this out even when ex-Trotskyists have the highest posts in the Pentagon.
Strange as he was, Adolfo Olaechea directed MIM not to support the People's War in Peru. Then he admitted he was wrong and MIM returned to supporting the People's War in Peru.
Today, the conciliators are allowing a camouflaged operation proceed unhindered by public denunciation. Even when the Iranians in Iran released the State Department report on conditions for wimmin on International Wimmin's Day before the U.$. branch of the State Department did, our conciliators kept up with their petty-bourgeois dogma about "sectarianism." That's just MIM being sectarian to point that out, they said.
Well again, no it is not. These fake Maoists and their conciliators globally should not kid themselves. We do not want their members. We would not take them. We gain no benefit for our organization to attack them and in many cases, we do not operate in their countries anyway! So let's recognize facts as they are. This is about how it is impossible to have an anti-war movement when alleged vanguards of the proletariat are muddying the waters with recycled neo-conservatism on the principal contradiction.
There are new-born communist forces seeing through this problem globally. However, let's keep the focus on our rot. We received this letter from a leader in the international communist movement:
Not everyone who is against Amerikkka is ipso facto good and a member of the anti-imperialist front. Not everything Amerikkka does has automatically to be opposed. And vice versa.This is the intellectual's nit-picking of the principal contradiction, the fault of the petty-bourgeois who simply cannot generalize.
The letter goes on:
"There is also the question of the pre-capitalist survivals in economics, social reality, culture: for all your comrades' snickering at 'Iranian women's right to read Nabokov.' And the proletariat and the oppressed peoples WILL ultimately get rid of them and the Iranian women will, as they have an inalienable right to, read Nabokov, Henry Miller or Joyce (reactionary writers all.)"This is an excellent reason for U.$. invasions wherever such "pre-capitalist survivals" exist. But Mao said no such thing. See, in the united $tates our stupid dualists think science does not make a difference in politics, but there is in fact a factual question of how pre-capitalist survivals are dealt with. Imperialism is the principal prop of those survivals. That is the view of Lenin, Stalin and Mao.
If MIM were to distribute flyers in Red States pointing out how Bush would invade Iran and spread abortion, we would be aiding the anti-war movement. You either believe that such a movement is the leading source of progress as the imperialist country strategy of anti-imperialism, including for wimmin or you do not.
Guess what: if you don't ever want to be in the position where you would have to drop the "choice" issue to oppose imperialist war, if you cannot imagine in fact that we in the united $tates should be going to the "Red States" and saying that Bush is going to spread abortion in Iran--then you cannot deal with the "principal contradiction" and you have no place calling yourself "Maoist." Mao only had five essays that his party was calling philosophy and "On Contradiction" was one. If you can't stomach even that much from Mao, then you should realize you are not a "Maoist."
The Trotskyists will be happy to have anyone willing to raise their sexual Liberalism to a principle that high. Together they can stand for the right to promote Freud and read Nabokov. That is not Lenin, Stalin and Mao and that's in print already.
The letter goes on:
"So these people (and their social base: the minuscule urban proletariat, the poor peasantry, the radical intelligentsia) do have some long-standing grievances and a long-standing tradition of addressing these grievances. It is small wonder they sometimes fall for State Dept. rhetoric on 'democratic values' or refuse to join forces with the (to them) clericals and reactionaries. They are still the vanguard--or, to be more precise, it among these circles that the vanguard is to be found."Wow, this is a big "wow." There are people who believe the vanguard is found among those sounding like State Department Liberals. We have tossed anti-imperialism to that extent. MIM disagrees. Culture and lifestyle ARE secondary. Anti-imperialism is principal. If they echo the State Department and cannot unite their own country, they are not vanguard. Give me a mullah who wants to fight imperialism over a Trotskyist or Liberal, if we're going to choose who is vanguard.
These are terrible times. The enemy has accumulated so many victims and victories, twisted so many arms and inserted itself right into our thinking that it is no big deal for even supposed leaders of the international communist movement to call "vanguard" those who echo the U.S. State Department.