"RCP"-USA and international communist movement update

by MC5

December 6, 2000

MIM uses the occasion of the publication of "A World to Win" #26 by the
Revolutionary Internationalist Movement and its Committee (CoRIM) to
update MIM readers on the "Revolutionary Communist Party" or "RCP"-USA and
the international communist movement more generally.

International communist movement

The international communist movement continues to show 20 times more
fluidity than it did in the 1980s, but still not enough for MIM to believe
there will be a favorable re-orientation any time soon except by MIM's own
efforts and those of fraternal comrades.

For explanatory ease, we may divide up the organizations of the alleged
international communist movement into five parts: 1) Those upholding
Stalin yet in fact practicing revisionism on the restoration of capitalism
in the USSR after his death. Such would be the effort led by Ludo Martens
in Belgium that attempts to draw in the Castroites and even a handful of
Trotskyists here and there. 2) The right-wing of revisionism claiming Mao
in the imperialist countries, unfortunately gathering itself around
Filipino Jose Maria Sison. These parties are unclear to this day about
Deng Xiaoping (despite the denunciation of him) and Hua Guofeng in the
best cases and in other cases add lack of clarity on the labor aristocracy
to the point where they obviously hate the mention of the phrase "labor
aristocracy" in the same way the social-chauvinists Lenin had to fight to
exclude from the Third International. Lenin's writings from the time are
still applicable to these imperialist economists and
social-chauvinists. 3) The Kautskyite-centrists calling themselves Maoists
in the imperialist countries that are grouped in the RIM and the Third
World comrades who tolerate them. 4) MIM and its fraternal
comrades. 5) The ultraleft, anarchists, Progressive Labor Party etc.

Currently, there is some fluidness in all the four parts mentioned above
excluding MIM. Each has attractive and changing elements and each has
incorrect history it is unwilling to part with. MIM is the junior element
of the five, the one with the least history.

For the far right wing of people with some possibility of coming to
Maoism, we must say that Ludo Martens has dedicated himself to mending the
Sino-Soviet split as the source of all evil.

"Joma" Sison has taken persynal responsibility for the many confused
people calling themselves "Maoist" and opposing the "Gang of Four," plus
the MLP Germany which upholds the "Gang of Four." Joma Sison has also
tended to group the imperialist country parties most like those Lenin
fought to exclude from the Third International based on the question of
the labor aristocracy. Sison gives rather too much credit to his
imperialist country comrades.

Bob Avakian and the RIM have undertaken to uphold the Cultural Revolution,
including the so-called "Gang of Four." The associated "CoRIM" has written
comments on the efforts of  Joma Sison to regroup the international
communist movement. These comments are indicative of the CoRIM's
Kautskyite nature.

In general, by criticizing revisionists and right opportunists, the Co-RIM
makes mostly correct criticisms of substance in "Comments on the
Resolutions Adopted by the Fifth Conference of the International
Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organisations" in "A World to
Win" #26. 1) The distinction between imperialism and oppressed
nations. 2) The labor aristocracy. 3) The lack of criticism of Hua
Guofeng. 4) The lack of distinction between Maoist-led and other armed
struggles. 5) Going beyond upholding Stalin in the ex-USSR, attacking
Ludo Martens's "neo-revisionist" gang, dispelling myths about Cuba.

The comments err in calling for the re-establishment of a COMINTERN,
something Mao opposed in his lifetime. Furthermore, adding to the
Kautskyite air of social-chauvinism, the CoRIM mentions the concept of
labor aristocracy, but as usual, does not apply it. The words "split in
the working class" are merely window-dressing to cover a Kautskyite
agenda. Specifically, what the CoRIM seeks to do is lead the rightists and
revisionists ever so slightly "leftward" in order to bring them back to
revisionism at the last minute. Such revisionism is always the most
dangerous. The CoRIM seeks to cut off a move toward MIM at the last minute
through maneuver and positioning.

MIM will add only a few comments on the situation of the international
communist movement. 1) Ludo Martens has embarked on an energetic course to
unite in neo-revisionism, a curious medley of beliefs based on his jumbled
historical understanding of the Sino-Soviet split and his willingness to
compromise with sentimental Brezhnevism, something we will have to return
to at a later date as warranting further detail. To the advanced looking
at this trend, MIM would only say that it is now the year 2000. It would
be far better to let teenagers restart communist organizations than to
continue to breathe life into those that cannot see Deng and Hua were
wrong or that the bourgeoisie in the party restored capitalism in the
USSR. (See another review by MIM showing Ludo Martens's party attempting
to breathe life into various dead organizations in the United $tates who
uphold Deng or Hua.) Whatever sentimental attachments we may have to
certain comrades and organizations, they have demonstrated a lack of
discernment, and even if they adopted fully correct Maoist positions
today, they would not be appropriate vanguard material having taken so
long to do so.

2) Similarly, the Filipino comrades may feel a certain responsibility
toward parties that have been around a long time, and that they may have
struggled with in the past. Yet it would be better for those parties
supporting Deng or Hua to die and clear the way for parties of teenagers
to start anew. Hence, we must recall what has been said about Liberalism
and "old friends." There are Third World parties that have never
undertaken armed struggle and never understood the restoration of
capitalism in China or the Soviet Union. They have demonstrated a lack of
scientific discernment inappropriate for vanguard leadership, even if they
should convert to 100% Maoism today. The vanguard party cannot be composed
of those of us least able to quickly apply Marxism-Leninism-Maoism to
concrete conditions. To continue to wait patiently for the most
slow-witted or sentimentally attached to revisionism is to block the unity
of the genuine communists and to divert their energies from the issues
they need to focus on to move forward instead of the issues they should
have already understood from the past. Furthermore, waiting for unity is
to legitimize leadership that blocks the growth of new Maoist leadership.

3) The imperialist country parties except for MIM's fraternal comrades are
talking about establishing social-imperialism from the beginning of
so-called socialist revolution. The contemporary Kautskyites and more
blatant social-democrats propose to overthrow imperialism, but they have
not the slightest notion of how to concretely measure their success. They
do not know and intentionally ignore what percentage of their population
is petty-bourgeoisie including labor aristocracy. Nor do they have any
idea of how much profit stems from imperialist country workers and how
much flows in from abroad; they also have no idea how much in new assets
the imperialists accumulate each year. How will they know when they have
abolished super-profits? How widely will abolishing super-profits affect
the imperialist countries? How deeply? Not knowing the answer to this
question is even more indicative than not knowing the quantity of the
means of production and their location and then claiming that a majority
or 100% were nationalized or taken over by the proletariat. The question
alone of measuring the end of exploitation is enough to make a supposed
Maoist party a party of social-imperialism for its failure to
answer. Failure to answer definitively can only mean a preservation of the
status quo of imperialism in the new clothes of Maoism.

The Third World Maoist parties will be called on to lead the armed
struggles giving the most blood and energy to the struggle. Yet while
these parties do not live amongst entire nations that are parasites, so
too these parties cannot claim to overthrow imperialism without knowing
how they will know they have succeeded. Overthrowing imperialism is not
merely replacing old political faces with new ones or winning an armed
struggle. It means measurably and definitively bringing super-exploitation
and exploitation to an end, and overthrowing U.$. imperialism and
imperialism generally is something that should be done once and for
all. To ask for a blood sacrifice to overthrow imperialism without knowing
how to measure success is a crime in itself. Maoist parties in the Third
World that do this will become comprador props of social-imperialism,
sooner or later.

Peru and CoRIM self-criticism

On June 8th, 1997, MIM replied to "A World to Win" #22, rebutting its
slipshod methods and drawing attention to the CoRIM's Liberalism toward
counter-revolution in the guise of launching two-line struggle. (See
http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/ms/corim.html )Since that time, and
before that time, Luis Arce Borja has demolished the CoRIM's positions on
Peru and the RIM discredited itself widely by allowing the CoRIM to
publish the kind of material it published in #22 of "A World to Win."

Now the CoRIM has made self-criticism for Peru articles in #22. However,
it has only said that it was a matter of publicly airing difficulties and
it has not said who corrected CoRIM--a mark of insincere and
less-than-thorough self-criticism.

"A World to Win" gyrates in its positions wildly. While the "RCP"-USA had
speculated that Gonzalo was behind the peace accords idea, the CoRIM and
apparently the RIM claim to oppose that idea now in "A World to
Win" #26. (See page 6.)

Already in "A World to Win #25" the CoRIM staged an interview that
contradicted its position in #22 about what it called right opportunism
and a matter of two-line struggle within the party. Asking about prisoners
advocating the peace accords, the CoRIM received the following reply from
a Peruvian in its own interview in "A World to Win" #25. "In the first
place we must clarify some concepts. The two-line struggle goes on inside
the Party, it is the motive force for the development of the Party, it is
its motor. But it is impossible to develop a two-line struggle with these
prisoners who have separated themselves from the Party, by their own
choice. It would be absurd to do so."("A World to Win", #25, p. 26) The
fact that the "A World to Win" contradicted its own line so readily and
without explanation is further proof of opportunism of some sort. It took
till issue #26 to get some further insight into what "A World to Win" was
thinking about in its own change of line.

In 1997, MIM said, in its rebuttal of the Canto Grande statement of
prisoners for a peace accord, laying down of arms and destruction of
people's organizations: "1. Capitulationism is counterrevolutionary, not
merely right-opportunist 

"R. Voina repeatedly asserts that MIM and others have 'opposed the
struggle against the Right Opportunist Line' and have in fact engaged in
'denunciation of the fight against the Right Opportunist Line (ROL)....'
In fact, the Right Opportunist Line that the CoRIM/A World to Win/R. Voina
is talking about is not the same one the PCP is talking about. The CoRIM
is referring to counterrevolution as mere Right Opportunism and then
saying MIM opposes the struggle against Right Opportunism! However, MIM is
attacking the counterrevolutionary line. 

"The RCP-USA [should have been so-called RCP-USA, ed.] and company, in
contrast, are in metaphysical denial of the fact that the line in question
is counterrevolutionary and not merely right opportunist.
AWTW #21 made it clear that CoRIM considers outright capitulationist
documents to be "documents from the Right Opportunist Line." The current A
World to Win (which, though dated Dec 1996, was released in North America
in April 1997) contains the following from CoRIM: "We have noted that some
tendencies still exist to underestimate the importance of the two-line
struggle in the PCP, to see it as something of the past, or to believe
that it is enough to passively support the position of the
CoRIM. Comrades, this is dangerous thinking!" (AWTW #22, Dec 1996,
p. 35.) In sum, the CoRIM insists, even in the face of criticism, that the
counterrevolutionary line of capitulation is currently to be found within
the ranks of the PCP. This is quite an accusation for the CoRIM to be
making of its supposed
comrades, and is quite an accusation to be making without proof. 

"As another example, in footnote #9, Voina refers to a 'pro- Right
Opportunist Line edition of El Diario (Lima).' To MIM's knowledge, the 'El
Diario (Lima)' that Voina is speaking of calls for peace negotiations
quite blatantly and changes the format including credits to comrade Luis
Arce Borja that used to exist in that paper.

"Now CoRIM is calling that work merely 'right opportunist'? The
revisionist swindlers of the CoRIM seek to use discussion of the 'right
opportunist line' to smuggle any counterrevolutionary into the ranks of
the PCP and the movement abroad by extension. 

"Voina presents the line that 'RIM supports the line of peace
negotiations' as evidence of CoRIM critics' dishonesty. But to the extent
that RIM has said that the Canto Grande weed is mere right opportunism, it
can be said that the RIM supports the peace negotiations. It uses a cover
like all revisionists do. RIM claims to be Maoist while it seeks to admit
counterrevolutionaries into the ranks to dilute the party and the
international communist movement. 

"Not all line struggle is a police plot. However, Voina and CoRIM go on
and on about this subject without getting specific. In fact, CoRIM nowhere
defends its decision to call the Canto Grande weed merely 'right
opportunist.' But that is the concrete situation; there is no general
philosophy about two-line struggle worth
debating. We should be talking about the Canto Grande weed specifically as
MIM already has, but the CoRIM needs to dodge this subject and turn it
into one of philosophy detached from the realities of struggle, the
realities of what the rest of us are talking about."

The above lengthy excerpt from MIM remains true today. The fact that "A
World to Win" has not admitted that the criticism hit the nail on the head
is further proof of the insincerity of the self-criticism the CoRIM made
and the validity of Luis Arce Borja's dismissal of these Kautskyite
swindlers now being forced to repair their "left" mask.

The "RCP"-USA's "Notes on Political Economy: Our Analysis of the 1980s,
Issues of Methodology, and the Current World Situation"

Although this document has been much discussed by the "RCP"-USA and MIM
has noted some disgust expressed by Peruvians in its regard, MIM is most
surprised by just how little of any substance the document has to
discuss. The 53 page document purports to re-orient the "RCP"-USA since
predictions of the 1980s went awry. MIM covers many of the same subjects
at much greater length in "Imperialism and Its Class Structure in
1997." (http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mt/imp97/index.html)

One of the main self-criticisms that the "RCP"-USA makes is that "the
phenomenon of two blocs going to all-out military confrontation is not an
inevitable invariant feature of spiral/conjuncture motion."(p. 9) Noting
that various conflicts of imperialists are not inevitable, the "RCP"-USA
rightly steers away from Kautsky on his thesis of ultra-imperialism, while
continuing secretly to uphold his general approach to World War
I. (Kautsky's ultra-imperialism theory held that imperialism could
reform itself into being peaceful with regard to inter-imperialist
conflict.)

Since to the "RCP"-USA a war does not exist unless lots of white people
die on white-owned soil, the "RCP"-USA self-criticism says, "It was wrong,
however, to issue a 'tornado warning (ital)"--to declare that a tornado
(war) was definitely coming unless prevented by revolution."(p. 12) MIM
would say that the "RCP"-USA made a mistake for sure: there was war going
on, and MIM calls it World War III to this day. It's fundamental character
of imperialism against the oppressed nations has not changed. In contrast,
the "RCP"-USA says its mistake was to see war at all. Only later does it
mention "proxy" wars; even though more people have died in wars since
World War II in the Third World than died in either World War I or World
War II.

Then the "Notes" reveal the contradiction in the "RCP"-USA version of
Kautskyite straddling. Kautsky tried to straddle those supporting and
opposing World War I and ended up supporting it. The "RCP"-USA likes to
straddle the issue of whether or not the Euro-Amerikan workers are
parasites. The newspaper "Revolutionary Worker" of July 30, 2000 said,
"One of the main changes since our previous Programme was written is that
U.S. society has become even more parasitic--sucking even more blood from
the people of the world." On the other hand, "Notes" yammers on and on
about labor aristocracy fairytales of downsizing (p. 22) as if those truly
downsized (and we mean people who did not go on to better jobs, not people
who are so conservative they consider themselves "downsized" if they had
to change jobs) were at all representative of a class. Even worse, these
social-democrats masquerading as Maoists then inform us that the welfare
system is coming apart in the United $tates and that the portion of
workers bourgeoisified has declined.(pp. 32-3, 45-6) It would appear that
the "RCP"-USA is prepared for merger with its social-democratic brethren
in Europe. What they are saying in "Notes" now is nothing the
social-democrats have not been saying the last 80 years. Perhaps Ludo
Martens and Workers World will join up with the RIM as well.

As a party concerned with making revolution in the United $tates, MIM is
pleased that there are so many social-democrats in Europe tantalizing the
"RCP"-USA with dreams of a new COMINTERN to lead the labor
aristocracy. The possibility of oppressor nation petty-bourgeois unity
offsets the pressure the "RCP"-USA feels from the MIM and the
proletariat. We can only hope that the possibility of a RIM-led
imperialist country labor aristocracy unity leaves MIM alone in the field
and that the oppressed masses will more easily see the difference. Why
bother with window-dressing when there is so much potential for
social-chauvinist unity for the "RCP"-USA?