by International Minister
The MIM Congress of 2001 notes the following cardinal differences with the Communist Party of the Philippines--all of which connect to the issue of idealist-liquidationism.
1. While the CPP has endorsed the Cultural Revolution in a general way, it has not specifically endorsed the "Gang of Four," unless it has done so secretly. MIM contends that this is one way to deny the universality of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism--by upholding only those parts in existence when Mao himself was alive.
The failure to side with the "Gang of Four" is typical of an idealist-liquidationist approach. It is incorrect to compare the "Gang of Four" of October 1976 with Mao who was only alive until September, 1976. The choice of following Mao's leadership was no longer available in October 1976 and it is idealist to place a "plague" on all houses that followed Mao. MIM believes there was a proletarian camp, and it deserved support.
2. The "Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany" (MLPD) is not all wrong in attacking liquidationism in connection to the International League of Struggle.
"[W]e reject an exclusion of Marxist-Leninist Parties or other parties with a militant democratic or anti-imperialist character. In the International League of Struggle, openness in terms of world outlook includes the respect of Marxism-Leninism and those organizations and movements which are organized on this basis.
"An International League of Struggle must promote ALL the forces of struggle for liberation from imperialist exploitation and oppression." (http://www.mlpd.de/pruefste.htm)
MIM has experienced a similar exclusion in its work with Filipino organizations building support for the Philippine revolution in the united $tates. The party's mass organization an mass organizations led by revisionists or anarchists have been given higher billing than the party -- in some cases the party has been excluded completely.
We believe this bass-ackwards, as it denies the leading role of the party in the mass organizations.
As we stated when we declined to join the International League of Struggle, parties in the imperialist countries like the MLPD should be excluded -- not because they claim Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, but because they claim MLM and yet represent the parasitic economic interests of the labor aristocracy. Within Germany, for example, the Turkish and Kurdish comrades can do a better job taking the lead than the MLPD does. Again, as in China in 1976, there are concrete choices to be made.
3. The Web Site "Vanguard," which the CPP-led NDF organizes, incorrectly supports the phony "MPP-NY" as if it represented the People's War in Peru, (http://www.geocities.com:80/CapitolHill/Congress/9337/index.html ) when MIM has shown the relevant comrades both in print and in persyn why this "MPP" is a new fraud. The "Vanguard" does not link to Luis Arce Borja's page. Here the NDF has made a choice, the wrong choice, one that has the effect of liquidating senior leaders in exile that could be taken seriously.
4. In MIM's own case, Bay Area and New York City organizations have parted ways with MIM in the name of the CPP. In each case it was not to part ways with MIM on behalf of what were called superior organizations. In each case, absolutist anarchist or Menshevik idealist standards and nihilism were raised against MIM.
MIM does not oppose a general disdain for imperialist country parties and exiles. However, if that is the approach being taken, then the theory for why semi-feudal and oppressed nation parties should see to organizing in the imperialist countries themselves and why they may be better qualified to do so than the residents of those imperialist countries should be spelled out along the lines MIM has already provided.
Contact MIM by writing mim@mim.org