Some open conflicts in the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement May 31, 2004 The mutual aid society for press releases known as the "Revolutionary Internationalist Movement," (RIM) which stole our very name in 1984, now has some open conflicts which we can report without confusing anyone. Peru and Nepal An organization claiming to represent the "Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)," which claims to lead the People's War there is recognized by the RCP=U$A ("Revolutionary Communist Party"). In turn some open representatives of that same organization claiming to speak for the People's War in Nepal recognize some organizations which may not be members of the RIM. One of those organizations specifically recognized supports the "peace letters" in Peru as legitimate. It goes so far as to link its web page to the Cuban focoist-inspired MRTA of Peru and anarchists. At the same time, the claimants to represent the People's War in Nepal say that they support the armed struggle in Peru and even agree but not openly with MIM that the principal job of deciding what to do has to go on the party in each country, not some "international center." MIM repeats: we've seen the danger when Trotkyist-minded people think that a press-release organization is an "international center." There's a reason Mao did not support having an international center despite his having much superior resources to that of the RIM. Among other things, it encourages people to ignore study of their own conditions, just as the Moscow-trained "Bolsheviks" did in Mao's day. Likewise, it was Trotsky constantly attacking Stalin for downplaying the central role of the Comintern, as if the Russians could give orders everywhere if they had sufficient internationalist will. We should beware of quick fixes like RIM for reasons of pure subjectivism. In fact, the RIM did not take up any struggle for the armed struggle in Peru in the crucial moments of 1992 and 1993 despite being part of the "international center" with the PCP. MIM was there. RCP=U$A used to distribute a publication for armed struggle in Peru that it stopped distributing when the "peace accords" idea came out. To this day, "El Diario Internacional" comes out independently without RIM help. MIM still holds that it is impossible to have a two-line struggle inside the party with police agents or people saying to lay down arms. Granted, the party must handle the sentiments for peace among the masses, but that is separate from the vanguard party. The question of stopping the People's War in Peru is too important to be called a "two-line struggle." It is an example of a problem that has to be handled by a "break." Though we point out the evils of European social- democracy today, there is no meaningful sense in which Bolsheviks are in "two-line" struggle with European social-democracy. This is a misunderstanding of the "two-line struggle" idea. Lenin broke with what today are called "social-democrats"; even though Lenin himself once called himself social-democratic. Likewise, today, we need breaks, not just "two-line struggles." Perhaps the most frequent Maoist two-line struggles in the world center around what focus should go on urban struggles in the semi-feudal countries. People wanting to launch armed struggle or intensify it in the urban areas have popped up in China, India, the Philippines and Latin America. Though one side of the "two line struggle" is always more correct than the other, the basic premise of two-line struggle is much more mutual respect than say Lenin had for the social-chauvinists who backed World War I. Even if one side of a two-line struggle regarding the proper role of urban struggle is completely unrealistic, chances are we want to keep those comrades in the party. After all, both sides of this sort of two-line struggle probably represent exploited classes. We should not overly disrespect people with a mistaken estimation of the balance of forces, if we can keep a certain degree of unity. Even in that case, in practice, many two-line struggles do lead to unprincipled breaks for reasons that one or both sides may not articulate correctly. In all the most heinous two-line struggles of communist history, stopping the armed struggle was not one of them in a situation like Peru's. There have been many important two-line struggles in China's history and Filipino history which are very relevant. None were connected to the imprisonment of the leaders of the Chinese or Filipino processes and none involved documents calling for laying down of arms. Even when Mao dealt with Chiang Kai-shek with Stalin in the background, Mao did not lay down arms. Spain Although we have no sympathy for the comrades saying ending the armed struggle in Peru could be a part of "two-line struggle" in a Maoist party, we would like to stop here to express some sympathy for the Spanish comrades trying to figure out what to do about "democracy" in Spain. In a unique bit of history, Spain's Franco lived on after victory against German, Italian and Japanese fascism. Many comrades reasoned correctly that only armed struggle was correct in that situation. Now there is a question of whether or not Spain has managed to get out of fascism, and how. The Spanish communists have a big job to do deciding whether Spain is imperialist, how much super- profit is flowing into Spain and whether fascism ceased. These are not tasks that the RIM has any capability in. Kanada An organization in Kanada sympathetic to the RIM supports El Diario Internacional. It even has a link to the Russian Maoist Party, which says it's not interested in the RIM. This Kanadian organization does not agree with MIM's third cardinal principle. The organization claiming to represent the People's War in Nepal links to both the Kanadian group upholding El Diario Internacional and yet another organization of Peruvian exiles that does not support El Diario Internacional. Thus, the organization claiming to represent the People's War in Nepal is linked to all sides of the Peru conflict, both in Peru and externally. MIM will add this. If it's true that the PCP considers the police hoax part of a "two-line struggle," then the PCP is wrong. It does not matter if the reason the PCP says it's a "two-line struggle" is to cover RIM's sorry butt given how little RIM did abroad on upholding People's War in a timely manner in 1992 and 1993. Whatever the internal reasoning there, the prestige of RIM itself is not worth propping up with Trotskyist subjectivism. It takes the risk of confusing all the other People's Wars out there. The PCP can uphold the Cultural Revolution, the "Gang of Four" and Mao's ideas about People's War without inventing "two-line struggles" to cover for RCP=U$A's mistakes. Alternatively, if the PCP had documents from people calling for laying down of arms and the PCP called this a part of "two-line struggle" in Peru, then the PCP is wrong. Summary RIM from its beginning formed on a dishonest basis. A number of organizations dissolved right away. Often the purpose seemed to be to create a splash with a press release to boost RCP=U$A's hopes. Today it is now apparent that there is little of anything consistent in the RIM. Mashal was opposed to Maoism, like Avakian from 1984 to 1993. There was only one Maoist party in the united $tates in 1983--MIM--and that did not change in 1993 just because Avakian tacked on "Maoism" at the end of "Marxism-Leninism." Today more organizations in the imperialist countries are taking up Maoism, but Avakian's is not one of them. Most RIM people think the People's War in semi- colonial and semi-feudal countries can be stopped and that can be an issue of "two-line struggle." Mashal opposed People's War and the RIM did not exclude imperialist country parties based on Lenin's terms of admittance to the Comintern. Only MIM does that. If you follow all the endorsements the various parties of RIM have made, you will end up with a succession of enemies that consider each other "counter-revolutionary," the way a statement passed along becomes a rumor which becomes a farce. Comrades who uphold the Cultural Revolution and People's War and maintain the definitions of labor aristocracy and proletariat applied by Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao know who they are. They do not need press releases upholding each other. The RIM parties and supporters should stop with the pretenses. MIM would like to sign an international statement from parties of many continents one day, one which: 1. Upholds People's War in the semi- colonial and semi-feudal nations and does not think that stopping one or a struggle with cops could be part of "two-line struggle." 2. Upholds the "Gang of Four" and Jiang Qing and Zhang Chunqiao by name--with all the attendant criticism of Khruschev, Brezhnev, Liu Shaoqi, Deng Xiaoping, Hua Guofeng, Jiang Zemin etc. 3. Applies the definitions of "proletariat" and "labor aristocracy" as laid down by Marx and Lenin for the imperialist countries that are majority- exploiter countries and does not believe it could be a "two-line struggle" in Maoist parties to think that 600 million people in the United $tates, parts of the EU and Japan could be exploited instead of exploiters. There are many things that Maoist parties should have two-line struggles over. Laying down arms in semi-colonial/semi-feudal countries, upholding the "Gang of Four" and distinguishing between exploited and exploiter in the imperialist countries should not be included.