Committee
of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement on Communist Tactics
and the Anti-Globalisation Movement
To comrades involved with the World Social
Forum and
Mumbai Resistance 2004
8 December 2003
Dear Comrades,
The Committee of the Revolutionary Internationalist
Movement (CoRIM) has followed with great interest the plans that
forces of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM) in South
Asia and elsewhere have developed for the upcoming World Social
Forum (WSF) and, in conjunction with the WSF, Mumbai Resistance
2004. We applaud the initiative taken by the Communist Party of
India Marxist-Leninist (People's War) [CPIML(PW)] and others to
strive to assure the presence of a sharp anti-imperialist line through
sponsoring Mumbai Resistance 2004. At the same time, the Committee
has some disagreements about how the WSF is being approached, at
least on a tactical level. Since the World Social Forum is an international
phenomenon with a certain degree of influence in a number of the
countries in which our Movement is working or in which we have contact,
we need to get a deeper understanding of what the WSF represents
and what strategy and tactics our Movement should adopt in relation
to it. And since comrades from several different countries, including
outside the South Asia region, will be participating in the Mumbai
activities, it is best that our Movement unite as strongly as possible
around a common appreciation of these events and a correct policy.
For those comrades who are not familiar with the
WSF a short history is in order. The World Social Forum grew out
of a conference first held in the Brazilian city of Porto Alegre
in 2001. Although no political parties were openly involved in the
organisation of the WSF, in fact the Workers Party of Brazil, which
controlled the regional government of Porto Alegre, was heavily
involved in supporting the forum. It also involved a wide variety
of social movements and non-government organisations (NGOs) in Brazil,
some of which have been involved in various forms of militant struggle,
such as the Landless Workers Movement (Movimiento Sin Terra or MST
in the original Portuguese), which has a long history of leading
land seizures and even some armed self-defence against the violence
of the exploiting classes, while at the same time channelling the
discontent of the landless masses into an ultimately non-revolutionary
direction. Outside of Brazil the WSF was initially promoted by a
section of the European left, for example those grouped around the
influential journal Le Monde Diplomatique and the organisation known
as Attac, which has been growing quickly in Europe and is associated
with the anti-globalisation mass mobilisations. In particular, the
organisers of the WSF have tried to identify with and attract those
forces that have emerged to oppose "globalisation".
At the first Porto Alegre meeting and since then
a wide section of organised and unorganised forces have attended.
The format of the WSF has been to have large numbers of panel discussions
and seminars as well as one or more large demonstrations during
their programmes.
After the large response to the Porto Alegre forum,
the organisers decided to turn the WSF into a yearly event, and
two other programmes were subsequently held in the Brazilian city.
In addition, regional "social forums" have come forward in affiliation
with the WSF. In Europe, in particular, the European Social Forum
(ESF) has drawn tens of thousands of activists and others to participate
in debates and discussions as well as in large demonstrations. Recently
the ESF was held in France. Last year, the ESF held in Italy, immediately
before the Iraq war, again attracted large numbers and was used
as an occasion to express their opposition to US war plans.
As the WSF grew in size and scope from year to year,
the involvement, direct and indirect, of major reactionary political
forces has also grown step by step. The Brazilian Workers Party
itself has come to nation-wide power with the election of Lula da
Silva as president of the country. Lula's victory was a result of
agreeing to "play by the rules" established by the World Bank and
other imperialist institutions. Lula has agreed to make sure that
Brazil meets its debt payments, that the private property of the
imperialists and the reactionary classes are respected, and that
land seizures are stopped. Because of these reactionary policies,
Lula's rule has already been marked by great disappointment among
sections of the left movement in Brazil. When the newly elected
President Lula addressed the WSF 2003 meeting in Porto Alegre, there
was a great deal of opposition from among many of the forces that
attended, who considered Lula's policy a betrayal. Social-democratic
officials of the European governments also took part in Porto Alegre
in 2002 and 2003.
Similarly, in Europe the ESF has involved not only
groups such as Attac but also a wide variety of major bourgeois
political parties and a whole host of left social-democratic and
revisionist forces, such as many varieties of Trotskyites, etc.
The Paris ESF meeting was reportedly largely funded, for example,
by different levels of the French government. This has led to contradictions
of different degrees of intensity between the ESF organisers and
consistently anti-imperialist and revolutionary elements who have
been participating in the programme.
What can be said in general about the WSF and its
related regional "social forums"? On the one hand, the leadership
and organisational control of the WSF is in the hands of forces
who are not fundamentally opposed to the world system of imperialism
and reaction. While many of these forces do oppose particular outrages
of the imperialists and their world institutions, they are promoting
the illusion that through the pressure of the people and dialogue
a just international economic and social system can be brought about
without revolution. While these forces oppose the current US imperialist
drive for unquestioned world hegemony, they do not oppose the imperialist
system itself. Their organisational principles, for example, exclude
"those who would take human life for political ends", a position
that does not prevent them from accepting the direct or indirect
support of certain reactionary states, such as France or Brazil,
whose police and army have shown in countless ways that they can
and do "take human life" to maintain and preserve the rule of the
exploiting classes.
On the other hand, it is also clear that the slogans
and activity of the WSF and its affiliates have attracted large
numbers of activists and progressive-minded people, mainly from
the middle classes, who are outraged by the growing inequalities
and injustices in the world, who are furious at US imperialism and
want to oppose it in an effective way. Most of these forces are
young and have little or no exposure to a proletarian revolutionary
point of view. These individuals and forces are hungrily looking
for a solution to the problems of the world, and it is very important
that we reach as many as possible of them with our scientific understanding
of the source of the problems in the imperialist system and our
solution of world proletarian revolution. Also, many of them want
to act. Although many of these forces have different degrees of
contradiction and opposition to the main leaders of the WSF, it
is also clear that these forces still consider the WSF an important
arena in which they can learn and interact with others from different
countries and express a united and international opposition to the
policies of imperialism.
This contradictory reality of the WSF makes it difficult
to establish and apply a correct Marxist-Leninist-Maoist (MLM) line
of uniting all who can be united in the struggle against imperialism
and reaction, while exposing and isolating the misleaders of the
masses. It will require that we follow Mao's instruction of being
"firm in principle, flexible in tactics", apply the mass line, and
avoid both right and "left" errors.
To return to the Mumbai programme and especially
Mumbai Resistance 2004. Again, we salute the fact that comrades
were quick to grasp the significance of WSF and have taken action
to ensure that a strong anti-imperialist "pole" is present. The
basic analysis that Mumbai Resistance (MR) has of the opportunist
leadership of the WSF is in our view mainly correct. But we do have
serious reservations about the tactics and approach MR-2004 is developing
in relation to the WSF.
The original call issued 10 November stated, "MR-2004
is not an anti-WSF programme, but one with the clear and sharp focus
that the WSF fails to provide and is committed to building a strong
and genuine anti-imperialist movement. It seeks to unite those who
are genuinely opposed to imperialist globalisation and wars of aggression.
Through a process of sharing experiences and analysing imperialist
strategies, MR-2004 aims at developing a perspective that will unite
all struggling forces irrespective of the forms of struggle they
may choose to take the movement forward to confront and ultimately
defeat imperialism." [Emphasis in the original.] We feel the basic
orientation contained in the above passage is correct and should
be adhered to.
However, other information material from MR-2004
makes this correct orientation seem less clear, for example, on
the MR-2004 web site most of the text is devoted to exposing the
WSF. It is very difficult to reconcile this text with the correct
approach that MR-2004 "is not an anti-WSF programme". We think that
it is inevitable that anyone reading this text will conclude that
MR-2004 is indeed opposed to the WSF, a kind of boycott. Furthermore,
we were informed that a position had been taken that no participant
in MR-2004 should take part in any WSF activity without "denouncing"
the WSF. Our feeling is that if representatives of the genuine anti-imperialist
pole are able to participate in WSF activities they should do so.
The main focus of their participation should be to put forward the
need for resolute struggle, clearly targeting the imperialist enemy.
In this context, it is correct to point out the limitations of the
dominant line of the WSF without making this the focus of their
intervention.
We can examine how, for example, the MR-2004 text
one-sidedly denounces the slogan "another world is possible". This
slogan of the WSF has been widely adopted and popularised around
the world. This is because it addresses the deep desires of the
masses for an end to the injustices of the present imperialist-dominated
world. It is true that, by itself, such a slogan is inadequate.
In the hands of the opportunist leaders of the WSF, "another world
is possible" means "another world is possible without the overthrow
of imperialism and reaction". Our task should be to unite with the
sentiment of the masses that another world is indeed possible and
at the same time show that other world can be none other than a
socialist world brought about through the revolutionary struggle.
Almost any correct slogan can be used by opportunists. We have seen
even in the international communist movement that slogans for communism
and the dictatorship of the proletariat have been used to mask a
real policy of capitulation or restoration of capitalism. This does
not mean, however, that we ever for a moment abandon these slogans
to the opportunists!
It is very important that forces representing the
proletarian point of view are present in the WSF to the greatest
possible degree. There is no doubt that the opportunists will try
to prevent a clear anti-imperialist and revolutionary line from
being presented from the stage and so forth. But we should not make
their work easier for them. If we make our main tactic a direct
assault on the WSF we risk isolating ourselves from the large numbers
of progressive intellectuals and activists who will be participating
in the WSF.
We should use every possible avenue and tactic to
connect with the masses who will be attending the WSF from around
the world, presenting a thorough and consistent anti-imperialist
viewpoint, and contrast our genuine revolutionary solutions to the
non-solutions that the opportunists are presenting. We should be
seeking to participate in official WSF seminars and debates wherever
possible, and where this is not possible speaking from the floor
as well as organising other activities. We do not know the plans
of MR-2004, but we hope that programmes are organised by MR-2004
and/or other genuine anti-imperialist forces that can be vehicles
to attract and reach forces that are participating in the WSF. For
example, a forum organised in support of the People's War in Nepal
should attract important sections of those involved in the WSF.
Again, doing this will require artfully combining flexible tactics
with our strategic orientation. Even when we have important criticisms
to make there are different ways to make them. Sometimes it is necessary
to directly denounce a person or a policy. At other times it is
more correct to emphasise our position positively and let the masses
themselves draw the distinction between our understanding and that
of the misleaders.
We should use the Mumbai activities as an occasion
to promote and build the World People's Resistance Movement (WPRM).
The fact that some activists from WPRM from different areas of the
world will be present should be a good opportunity to present our
vision of the WPRM of "North, South, East and West - Unite the People's
Struggles." At the present time WPRM has been focusing on opposing
the US occupation of Iraq (and more generally the US rampage conducted
under the signboard of the "war on terrorism") and support for the
People's War in Nepal (including the specific focus of fighting
for the liberation of Comrade Gaurav [a Communist Party of Nepal
(Maoist) leader held in an Indian prison]). These are important
issues to be raised in Mumbai and also a way to show concretely
the kind of organisation we are trying to develop with WPRM. Attention
should be given to collecting names and addresses of advanced forces
who are coming from different countries.
Another point that we should pay attention to is
playing our independent role as Marxist-Leninist-Maoists in relation
to the different programmes that are scheduled for Mumbai. It is
particularly important that adequate copies of our journal and MLM
literature in general be present and distributed as widely as possible
through tables and other means. It will be important to have at
least some comrades prepared to speak directly as Marxist-Leninist-Maoists.
While we should try to develop mass organisations,
including those we are leading such as WPRM, or playing an active
role such as in MR-2004, we should be careful not to see these organisations
as substituting for our independent communist work. In fact, this
represents combining "two into one" - collapsing the task of uniting
a broader force of anti-imperialists with the task of promoting
our own MLM ideology. In this respect we can see some problems with
formulations used in the MR-2004 web site text referred to above,
for example in the passage where it refers to "the valiant battles
of the indigenous and tribal peoples of the Chiapas, Nepal, Columbia,
Philippines, India, Peru, Turkey and elsewhere for assertion of
their identity and command over resources in their respective habitats/
territories". While this is clearly a laudable effort to unite with
the positive sentiment of many of the forces and activists in the
social movements who have been supporting the "struggles of the
indigenous and tribal peoples", this is not a fundamentally correct
characterisation of the Maoist-led people's wars, and it is not
particularly helpful to lump together the Maoist people's wars with
opportunist and revisionist struggles led by the EZLN in Mexico
(Chiapas) or the FARC in Columbia. Similarly, it is not correct
for an organisation such as MR-2004 to polemicise against "post-modernism".
Waging struggle on the philosophical front is indeed important,
and it is a weakness of the genuine MLM forces that far too little
has been done to this point. But if we make rejection of "post-modernism"
a requirement for joint action, as the MR-2004 text seems to imply,
we will be unnecessarily cutting ourselves off from many progressive
people who define themselves as "post-modernists". Groups such as
WPRM or MR-2004 are not effective vehicles for carrying out struggle
on the philosophical front, but they should be a vehicle for enabling
the communist forces to interact and influence broad sections of
progressive-minded people and in this sense opening the way for
us to carry out our independent communist work, especially the propagation
of the stand, viewpoint and method of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.
Comrades, we are well aware of the limitations in
our own understanding of the WSF and especially the concrete programme
that it is preparing for Mumbai in January, nor are we well informed
as to the specific plans for MR-2004. We cannot and will not try
to propose specific tactics for dealing with these events. But we
do feel the points that we have addressed in this letter are important
for our Movement to act in a united way and to maximise the gains
that can be achieved in Mumbai in relation to both the WSF and MR-2004.
We hope the comrades involved in these actions will give serious
attention to the points we have raised.
Our communist salute and best wishes,
Committee of the Revolutionary Internationalist
Movement