|
RIM Circular:
Advancing
Amidst Storms
The
following document, prepared by the Committee of the Revolutionary
Internationalist Movement (CoRIM), was originally circulated internally
to RIM parties and organisations in April 2003. An edited version
of this circular was provided to A World to Win for publication.
Dear
Comrades,
We
are writing this circular two weeks after the beginning of the
US-UK war on Iraq. It is clear from the opening salvoes of the
war, as well as the months of fierce political and diplomatic
struggle that preceded it, that the Iraq war represents a major
turn in world events, heavy in consequences for the people's struggle
and for our Movement.
The
Iraq war is a direct result---and intensification---of the world
situation our Movement analysed&in the year 2000 [see A World
to Win 2000/26], a situation which itself underwent a qualitative
intensification following 11 September and the US imperialists'
declaration of an open-ended "war on terrorism" in which
they proclaimed the right to attack any state, movement or organisation
that might pose a "potential" threat to the interests
of US imperialism and its drive for world hegemony.
The
analyses made in [previous reports] have been completely borne
out by subsequent developments.
Of
great importance has been the phenomenal growth of massive opposition
to the US imperialist war plans. The movement has been of particular
breadth and strength in Europe, the Middle East and the US itself,
but no region of the world has been untouched by this mighty upsurge.
Although
the mass opposition to the war did not prove powerful enough to
stop the war before it began, it did result in several extremely
important accomplishments:
1)
It completely exposed the unjust, predatory nature of the US war
plans and stripped off the cloak of "victim" the US
had tried to hide behind since 11 September. The mass movement
demonstrated clearly and convincingly that the imperialist war
against Iraq is opposed by the vast majority of the people of
the world.
2)
The mass movement greatly intensified the contradictions within
the imperialist camp itself, notably between the US and UK on
the one hand and France, Germany and Russia on the other. Although
these latter powers have their own imperialist interests pushing
them to oppose the US war on Iraq, it is fairly clear that without
the strength of the international mass movement these states would
have found some form of accommodation with the US war efforts.
In fact, even now these countries are co-operating to different
degrees with the war effort. France and Germany have granted over-flight
rights, Germany is allowing the use of many key bases for the
war, and other countries are collaborating in one form or another
with the US war machine. In those European countries most directly
implicated in the aggression --- the UK obviously, but also Spain
and Italy --- the anti-war movement has been of even greater magnitude,
with the masses directly demanding the resignation of the reactionary
governments and increasingly taking measures to directly oppose
the war machine (blocking troop shipments, etc.).
3)
The fact that a number of imperialist powers have gone to war
or supported it against the expressed will of the people of those
countries (the UK is a particularly notable example where public
opinion was overwhelmingly opposed to the war) has shown the shallowness
of their mask of democracy and helped reveal that their bourgeois
dictatorship is ultimately based on military force.
4)
In many countries, especially in the Middle East, the mass movement
has lit a fire of opposition under the puppet regimes on whom
the US imperialists count to police the people and generally protect
their imperialist interests. This can be seen in Turkey, where
the massive opposition of the people severely disrupted US war
plans, when Turkey's parliament found it prudent not to allow
the US army to march through the country on the way to Iraq, and
in Egypt where the government has been feigning neutrality or
even opposition to the US all the while it is protecting the Suez
Canal, so vital for the US movement of troops and war materiel
to the Gulf theatre.
5)
The masses of people in Iraq itself have proven that they are
not easily cowed by the "shock and awe" of the imperialists
and have put up a fierce resistance to the aggression. This in
turn is giving heart to the people of the world, underscoring
the fundamental weakness of the imperialists and fuelling further
opposition to US-UK aggression.
A
number of commentators have described the mass movement as having
"emerged from nowhere" and as having become a major
factor in world affairs that the imperialists must take into account
in determining all of their political, diplomatic and even military
moves. Of course, this movement did not "come out of nowhere"
but has been gestating and building in opposition to the intensified
imperialist exploitation and oppression of the 1990s. In the West,
in particular, this took the form of an intensifying "anti-globalisation"
movement that more and more sharply focused on imperialism itself
as the source of the misery of the majority of the world's people
--- even if the solution to imperialism was not clearly seen by
most of the participants in the movement. In the oppressed countries,
the opposition to intensified imperialist exploitation and oppression
accompanying the collapse of Soviet social- imperialism was manifested
in a growing discontent among the masses, the searching out of
alternative political models (even if in many cases important
sections of the masses gravitated toward non-revolutionary solutions
such as religious fundamentalism), and explosions of struggle
in different forms. In some still too infrequent but nonetheless
very important cases, it translated into the armed struggle for
political power, notably in Nepal.
When
analysing the First World War, Lenin stressed it was impossible
to understand the nature of that war without first examining the
thirty years of economic, diplomatic and political history that
preceded it, of whose "politics" the First World War
was a continuation. Similarly today's war (and by this we mean
not only the invasion and occupation of Iraq but also the whole
military/political offensive by US imperialism since 11 September)
is a continuation and concentration of the politics of US imperialism,
especially over the last twelve years, which has increasingly
placed the US directly in the role of the exploiter and policeman
of the oppressed nations and peoples. It is this reality, an expression
of the principal contradiction in the world today, which is shaping
and propelling the other main contradictions in the world, as
we have seen in the last few months of crisis followed by the
war in Iraq. The conflict between the US and the other imperialist
countries has been heating up and has been shaped immeasurably
by the struggle of the people, just as the war moves of the imperialists
have further propelled a new round of struggle of the proletariat
and its allies within the imperialist citadels themselves. This
latter contradiction, also, does not "come out of nowhere"
but has intensified in the past period with the important struggles
in many of the advanced countries around the rights of immigrants,
against police repression, against attacks on living standards
of the people and so forth.
To
return to the analysis [which appeared in AWTW 2000/26], "While
we are not yet experiencing the same kind of high tide of revolutionary
struggle on a world scale that we have witnessed in the past and
will surely see again, we can speak with confidence of an emerging
new wave of the world proletarian revolution." Our Committee
called attention to the likelihood of a mass upsurge developing
in our November 2002 statement on Iraq when we said that a US
war of aggression was "likely to ignite a world-wide storm
of resistance such as has not been seen for many years".
Today, we can affirm that this storm of struggle has indeed materialised.
The possibilities for revolutionary struggle are opening up, in
the Middle East, certainly, but also in many countries across
the globe. Although the struggle will certainly not develop in
a straight line and will inevitably go through ups and downs and
be met by fierce resistance from the class enemy, the reality
of the advance of the tide of revolutionary struggle is inescapable.
Again
it is worth referring to Lenin's outstanding essay, "The
Collapse of the Second International" and his analysis of
the First World War and the revolutionary opportunities that accompanied
it. "&[T]he objective war-created revolutionary situation,
which is extending and developing, is inevitably engendering revolutionary
sentiments; it is tempering and enlightening all of the finest
and most class-conscious proletarians. A sudden change in the
mood of the masses is not only possible, but is becoming more
and more probable, a change similar to that which was to be seen
in Russia early in 1905 & when, in the course of several months
and sometimes of several weeks, there emerged from the backward
proletarian masses an army of millions, which followed the proletariat's
revolutionary vanguard. We cannot tell whether a powerful revolutionary
movement will develop immediately after this war, or during it,
etc., but at all events, it is only work in this direction that
deserves the name of socialist work." (Collected Works, Vol.
21, pp. 257-58.) And earlier in the same work when discussing
the importance of the struggle going over to direct assaults on
state power, Lenin stresses, "It is not so often that history
places this form of struggle on the order of the day, but then
its significance is felt for decades to come. Days on which such
method of struggle can and must be employed are equal to scores
of years of other historical epochs." (Collected Works, Vol.
21, p. 254, emphasis in the original.)
In
their own perverse way, the imperialists themselves recognise
the importance of the moment and how their actions will set the
stage for the future. On the eve of war, Tony Blair, addressing
the UK's parliament for approval for British forces to participate
in the attack on Iraq, stated, "&on this decision hangs the
fate of many things: Of whether we summon the strength to recognise
this global challenge of the twenty-first century and meet it&.Of
the institutions and alliances that will shape our world for years
to come."
In
a similar vein Jacques Chirac, president of France, spoke days
before the war explaining why France would, if need be, exercise
its veto at the United Nations. His first point was that a "unipolar
world", i.e. US world hegemony, was intolerable. Behind the
diplomatic manoeuvring was a dispute over the emergence of a "counter
power" to US might. It is this that explains the venom with
which the US and UK reacted to the French, German and Russian
moves. And it also explains the fear of these other powers to
go all the way in their opposition to the US --- even though they
oppose an unbridled US hegemony, they are also painfully aware
that at this time only the US can prop up and protect the world
imperialist system.
Of
course the parallel with the situation Lenin analysed during the
First World War, while remarkable in many ways, is far from complete
in all its aspects. First, the current war is not yet "straining"
the entire capacity of the imperialist societies in the way that
the First World War and Second World War did --- there is not
the same widespread immiseration among the masses of these countries
nor the evident possibility of "defeat" of these same
ruling classes at the hands of imperialist enemies. On the other
hand, the arousal to action of broad masses of the people is all
the more remarkable given that the crisis has yet to unleash its
full fury on the masses in these countries.
Why,
then, do the US imperialists feel compelled to carry out such
an adventure? After all, no one takes seriously the charges that
Iraq represented a real threat to the US or that it had "weapons
of mass destruction"? Further, some of the representatives
of US imperialism, including a number of those grouped around
Bush senior, had cautioned against the dangerous and unforeseen
consequences of the military adventure. Those voices have since
been silenced by the US ruling class "consensus at gunpoint".
Despite
the occasional flashes of reason of different imperialist spokespersons,
there is a compelling reality pushing the US into its "war
on the world". If a single country, or even a small group
of countries, is to monopolise so much of the world's wealth it
is also compelled to exercise its political control over those
countries it exploits and oppresses. It must be prepared and willing
to police these countries and impose its will. It has to be ready
to attack not only the workers and peasants of these Third World
countries but even those strata of the exploiting classes who
fail to do the bidding of the US. Further, it is not always enough
to rely on the local ruling class authorities; increasingly the
US is both threatening and employing direct use of the overwhelming
force of its military.
It
is impossible for such an empire to be expanded, consolidated
and policed without intensified opposition from the people themselves,
without massive discontent, protests, rebellions and ultimately
wars of resistance being waged against the US. While all of the
imperialist powers have common interests in opposing and suppressing
the growing upheavals of the people (hence their collusion), they
have sharpening contradictions (contention) with each other, including
how best to protect their specific interests amidst the intensification
of world contradictions. Further, we have seen in the last few
months how the conflict among the imperialists themselves has
created some favourable openings for the people's struggle, fissures
in the enemy camp (to paraphrase Lenin) through which the discontent
of the masses can burst forth. The dispute in the UN over weapons
inspections in Iraq is one such example: although the terms of
the debate were completely reactionary, as they were all premised
on the need to disarm Iraq and maintain the monopoly of weapons
of mass destruction in the hands of a select group of reactionary
powers, it is nonetheless the case that the dispute over these
questions fuelled the growing anti-war movement among the masses
of all countries.
The
crucial importance of a revolutionary situation and revolutionary
crisis in the imperialist countries is generally accepted in our
Movement: our Declaration points out that Lenin "analysed
that the possibility for making revolution in the capitalist countries
was linked to the development of revolutionary situations which
appear infrequently in these countries but which concentrate the
fundamental contradictions of capitalism". The dynamics of
the revolutionary process in the oppressed nations of Asia, Africa
and Latin America (the "Third World" for short) are
different in important ways. Our Declaration stresses, "In
the oppressed countries of Asia, Africa and Latin America a continuous
revolutionary situation generally exists." Because of the
continuous revolutionary situation it is generally possible to
initiate and sustain armed struggle in one or more pockets of
a Third World country. We have correctly opposed those who in
the name of the "lack of an objective revolutionary situation"
would postpone forever the initiation of the armed struggle or
fail to see the decisive importance of the preparation and initiative
of the proletarian vanguard forces. We have seen, both in the
history of our Movement, as well as in the decades preceding our
formation, that the conditions have, in fact, been favourable
for initiating, sustaining and developing the armed struggle of
the people for power. The most recent case in point is the dramatic
growth and success of the People's War in Nepal, begun in 1996
at the very height of US imperialist strength in the post-Cold
War epoch. It stood as a stunning refutation of the thesis of
the Right Opportunist Line that emerged in the Communist Party
of Peru (PCP) and argued that conditions in the world were such
that world revolution was going into a great retreat that required
the communist forces to abandon revolutionary struggle and solicit
peace accords.
In
the same passage discussing the continuous revolutionary situation
in the oppressed countries, our Declaration goes on to point out
that, "&it is important to understand this correctly: the
revolutionary situation does not follow a straight line; it has
ebbs and flows. The communist parties should keep this dynamic
in mind."
It
is important to stress that a crucial factor in determining the
"ebbs and flows" of the revolutionary situation is the
international situation. It has always been a tenet of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism
that the situation in a given country is inextricably connected
to the world situation as a whole. Mao himself, despite acting
in a country that comprised almost one fourth of the world's population
and had a vast geographical expanse, and despite the fact that
in the earlier decades of imperialism the world was far less tightly
intertwined than it is today, paid great attention to analysing
the world situation and examining the interrelation between the
situation in China and the world as a whole.
The
underlying basis for carrying out a correct strategy of protracted
people's war is rooted in the socio-economic character of the
given country, including the penetration of imperialism into that
country; an economic, political and military consideration is
of the utmost importance in understanding the dynamics of any
oppressed country in today's world. But the ability to launch
the armed struggle for power, the pace of development of the struggle,
and the final seizure of nation-wide power is very much linked
to the overall international situation and the intensification
of the country-wide situation it can give rise to, including in
the mood and revolutionary energy of the masses.
We
can see today in a number of countries that the conditions created
by the Iraq crisis and war have become clearly more favourable
for revolution. In many countries the masses are aroused to a
great extent, the reactionary regimes are more isolated than ever,
and the alignment of the class forces is generally favourable
to the proletariat. Furthermore, the US imperialist enemy, while
remaining on a vicious world-wide offensive, is forced to concentrate
on Iraq and is not capable of intervening everywhere to the same
degree.
In
his famous work "A Single Spark Can Start a Prairie Fire",
Mao opposed pessimistic tendencies in the party that failed to
see the possibility of maintaining the armed struggle and the
base areas. He wrote, "The objective situation today is still
such that comrades who see only the superficial appearance and
not the essence of what is before them are liable to be misled.
In particular, when our comrades working in the Red Army are defeated
in battle or encircled or pursued by strong enemy forces, they
often unwittingly generalise and exaggerate their momentary, specific
and limited situation, as though the situation in China and the
world as a whole gave no cause for optimism and the prospects
of victory for the revolution were remote. The reason they seize
on the appearance and brush aside the essence in their observation
of things is that they have not made a scientific analysis of
the essence of the overall situation. The question whether there
will soon be a revolutionary high tide in China can be decided
only by making a detailed examination to ascertain whether the
contradictions leading to a revolutionary high tide are really
developing. Since contradictions are developing in the world between
the imperialist countries, between the imperialist countries and
their colonies, and between the imperialists and the proletariat
in their own countries, there is an intensified need for the imperialists
to contend for the domination of China. While the imperialist
contention over China becomes more intense, both the contradiction
between imperialism and the whole Chinese nation and the contradictions
among the imperialists themselves develop simultaneously on Chinese
soil, thereby creating the tangled warfare which is expanding
and intensifying daily and giving rise to the continuous development
of the contradictions among the different cliques of China's reactionary
rulers." (Selected Works, Vol. 1, pp. 120-21.) He ended his
article with a scientific, but revolutionary romantic, conclusion:
"How then should we interpret the word 'soon' in the statement,
'there will soon be a high tide of revolution'? This is a common
question among comrades. Marxists are not fortune-tellers. They
should, and indeed can, only indicate the general direction of
future developments and changes; they should not and cannot fix
the day and the hour in a mechanistic way. But when I say that
there will soon be a high tide of revolution in China, I am emphatically
not speaking of something which in the words of some people 'is
possibly coming', something illusory, unattainable and devoid
of significance for action. It is like a ship far out at sea whose
mast-head can already be seen from the shore; it is like the morning
sun in the east whose shimmering rays are visible from a high
mountain top; it is like a child about to be born moving restlessly
in its mother's womb." (Vol. 1, p. 127.)
The
question facing many comrades now is to understand how the increasingly
favourable international situation can accelerate the revolutionary
process. Under these circumstances, it is possible to foresee
two basic kinds of deviations. One error would be, under the pressure
of the moment and the rising activity of the masses, to abandon
a party's basic strategic orientation, vision and plan. As comrades
in one party put it, this kind of error is "tactics eating
up strategy" and "policy eating up politics". In
other words, in the understandable effort to make progress in
linking up with the immediate struggle of the masses, the long-term
interests of the masses are sacrificed. This error can take a
classic right form or a "left" form as well. Maintaining
our strategic orientation and strategic planning will be an important
fight if the vanguard forces are, on a correct basis, to be able
to seize the initiative at the current juncture.
At
the same time an equally damaging tendency also exists, which
is to fail to adjust and apply the strategic orientation to the
concrete developments in the class struggle, and to fail to use
the favourable international conjuncture to accelerate and advance
the party's strategic orientation, but instead to go on with "business
as usual" as if we are not experiencing exceptional moments
in the international class struggle. Mao pointed out, "when
a certain objective process has already progressed and changed
from one stage of development to another, they [true revolutionary
leaders] must also be good at making themselves and all their
fellow-revolutionaries progress and change in their subjective
knowledge along with it, that is to say, they must ensure that
the proposed new revolutionary tasks and new working programmes
correspond to the new changes in the situation. In a revolutionary
period the situation changes very rapidly; if the knowledge of
revolutionaries does not change rapidly in accordance with the
changed situation, they will be unable to lead the revolution
to victory." ("On Practice", Selected Works, Vol.
1, p. 306.)
If
communists in any country, and especially those most affected
by the current vortex of contradictions, were not to take into
account the rapid and dramatic changes in the international situation
and their interpenetration with the class struggle in their country,
and if they were not to develop the policies, slogans and tactics
that corresponded to these changes, then "persevering in
the strategic orientation" could become a smokescreen covering
conservatism and passivity and the "strategic goal"
will remain mere wishful thinking.
RIM
Must Advance Amidst Intensifying
Contradictions
The
Revolutionary Internationalist Movement has existed for eighteen
years and its accomplishments are undeniable. But we can by no
means rest content with what we have achieved until now. As [an
internal report put it in] January 2002, "Thus our Movement
is placed before a historic responsibility, opportunity and challenge.
Will the Maoists be able to step forward and lead the masses of
people in resisting the imperialist onslaught, and through the
course of the struggle further advance the cause of the world
proletarian revolution?&
"In
this light it is impossible to overstate the importance that our
Movement has for the people of the world and the importance of
the decisions and actions (or lack of same) that we take in the
coming period. In short, the Movement is facing its greatest test
since its formation."
No
progress is painless - every step forward, especially at critical
junctures, can only come amidst fierce struggle, not only with
the enemy but also against counter-currents that inevitably arise
in opposition to a correct understanding. Mao pointed out that
it is not enough to grasp the correct line, it is necessary to
grasp it firmly. He went on to say, to not grasp the line firmly
means to not grasp it at all. If our Movement is to play the role
that it must, it is necessary that we "grasp firmly"
both the correct political and ideological line that we have been
forging and our understanding of the favourable, if contradictory,
international situation. We also need to firmly grasp the possibility
of achieving breakthroughs precisely in connection with the current
intensification of contradictions and fight to preserve and maintain
this understanding. Finally, and most importantly, we need to
find the means and vehicles to link this advanced understanding
with the masses and push the whole revolutionary process forward.
Nepal
It
is worth briefly examining the interrelation between the revolutionary
advances in Nepal and the overall situation of the world revolutionary
movement. This is a point that our Committee has addressed frequently
in past reports and statements. Today, however, the living link
between the earth-shaking developments in Nepal and the overall
world situation comes into sharper relief.
It
is clear that Nepal is not presently the focus of world events,
as the US-UK imperialists have, for reasons analysed previously,
felt compelled to focus their attention, including especially
their military aggression, against Iraq, as well as the Middle
East more generally. But does this mean that the reality of people's
power emerging in vast expanses of Nepal and the real possibility
of nation-wide victory has no relation to the overall situation
in the world? No, it does not.
As
Mao put it, "Ever since the monster of imperialism came into
being, the affairs of the world have become so closely interwoven
that it is impossible to separate them& today international support
is necessary for the revolutionary struggle of any nation or country.&In
the past, the Chinese revolutionary forces were temporarily cut
off from the world revolutionary forces by Chiang Kai-shek, and
in this sense we were isolated. Now the situation has changed,
and changed to our advantage. Henceforth it will continue to change
to our advantage. We can no longer be isolated. This provides
a necessary condition for China's victory in the war against Japan
and for victory in the Chinese revolution." ("On Tactics
Against Japanese Imperialism", January 1934, Selected Works,
Vol. 1, pp. 170-71.)
We
can see that the emergence of an international movement against
the US imperialist war moves is of great significance for the
future development of the people's struggle in all countries,
including in Nepal. The millions of masses who have been propelled
into motion have, to a great degree, done so despite being "saddled"
with the thankless task of objectively defending the Sadaam Hussein
regime, a regime widely exposed and hated for its crimes against
its own people. Those who have fought so hard to stem the hand
of the US-UK aggressors can, through education and struggle, be
won to fight with all the more determination and enthusiasm to
protect the genuine accomplishments of the Nepalese people and
especially the red political power they have brought into being.
While only six months ago it may have seemed a mere pipe dream
to imagine the masses of the people of the world "coming
to the rescue" of the revolution in Nepal if and when it
faces the massive intervention of imperialism and/or other reactionary
states, today such a movement on the part of the people seems
not only possible but an achievable task. It cannot simply be
willed into being, it will depend a great deal on the actual unfolding
of events, but if the imperialists attack the revolution and as
the people resist in a way that shows the nature of the revolution
they are waging, fertile ground will exist for mobilising support
for the Nepalese revolution, in South Asia and all over the world.
This
shows the correctness of the slogans the Committee has raised
---"Hands off Nepal" --- and calling on the advanced
masses the world over to "Look to the Himalayas, A Better
World's in Birth." The more the masses are aware of the completely
different kind of struggle and completely different kind of society
being built in Nepal, that truly a "better world's in birth",
the more courageously and the more far-sightedly the masses will
struggle on all of the vital battlefronts of today, especially
in the crucial battle to defeat the US-UK aggression in Iraq.
And the more powerfully the struggle against US-UK aggression
and occupation in Iraq is waged, the more the people sense their
own strength and the enemy's underlying weakness and the more
the masses will come to understand the importance and possibility
of beating back the imperialists and reactionary plans against
the revolution in Nepal.
The
Iraq crisis and war, as pointed out earlier, succeeded in bringing
to the surface the cracks and fissures among the imperialists
and reactionaries themselves. Indeed, this is one of the remarkable
differences between the current war and the 1990 Gulf War, when
the US was able to orchestrate virtually the entire "international
community" to take part directly or indirectly in its aggression.
The difference cannot be attributed to Iraq's diplomatic efforts.
Rather, the increased cleavage in the imperialist camp has been
dramatically sharpened by the just struggle of the masses of people
of all countries, which has interacted with the very real conflict
these different powers have over how best to pursue their own
imperialist interests. We can see that the determined resistance
of the Nepalese masses, led by their vanguard party, will win
the support of the progressive and revolutionary people the world
over --- this is an inescapable law. It is this resistance and
this bedrock of support around the world that will create real
obstacles to the imperialists and reactionaries uniting against
the revolution. While it is never possible to rely on any imperialist
or reactionary powers, it is true that through the intensification
of the struggle and the building of a genuine revolutionary movement
of support, it will become more possible to divide the imperialists
and reactionaries, which will, in turn, provide new openings for
the people's struggle.
We
must persevere in the correct policy of focusing our attention
against the US war against Iraq while at the same time seizing
every opportunity to weave education about, and support for, the
Nepalese revolution into our overall work.&
Comrades,
we will end with this verse from a poem by Mao Tsetung:
We
can clasp the moon in the Ninth Heaven
And
seize turtles deep down in the five seas:
We'll
return amid triumphant song and laughter.
Nothing
is hard in this world
If
you dare to scale the heights.
Committee
of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement
5
April 2003
|