In January of 2004, the annual edition of the World Social Forum (WSF) took place in Mumbai, India. At the same time another activity called Mumbai Resistance 2004 was organised nearby with a clear anti-imperialist orientation. WSF drew tens of thousands of people from India and around the world. The holding of such an event sparked controversy among the Maoist forces as to the correct policy to adopt for activities such as that of the WSF.

In advance of the holding of the WSF and Mumbai Resistance (MR), the Committee of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (CoRIM) circulated a private letter to RIM participants. It was also given as a matter of courtesy to comrades outside of RIM who had been involved in the organisation of Mumbai Resistance, including forces connected with People's March, a monthly Maoist magazine from India.

At the WSF and the Mumbai Resistance events, supporters of the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement from several countries were active. CoRIM also encouraged the World People's Resistance Movement (WPRM) to be active in relation to the WSF and MR, and several articles appeared in the A World to Win News Service after these events.

In the course of discussing the various reactions of different forces in the Indian Marxist-Leninist movement in their June 2004 issue, People's March (PM) launches sharp criticism of the analysis and approach taken by the Revolutionary Internationalist Movement to the WSF/MR-2004.1 Although the above-mentioned letter from CoRIM to activists involved in the WSF/MR-2004 events was never intended to be published2, since PM chose to quote from it and develop a rather lengthy polemic on this subject it seems useful to publish for our readers the original CoRIM letter along with PM's criticism, both of which are reprinted following this response to PM. (A World to Win follows the principle of publishing the articles we are criticising to the degree possible and not merely quoting from them, to give readers an objective view of both sides.)

In responding in brief to People's March, we will follow their own organisation of their criticisms into three distinct parts.

I. Participation

CoRIM did, indeed, call on communist forces to participate in the WSF to the extent possible as well as in Mumbai Resistance. We have still seen no convincing argument as to why such participation is incorrect. The argument that CoRIM views the WSF as "an anti-imperialist organisation" is clearly contradicted in the very letter that PM polemicises against. But even without being anti-imperialist there can be no doubt that the WSF meeting drew many thousands of anti-imperialist-minded people from around the world, and was thus an arena that demanded the intervention of communists. For example, the mass organisations associated with the Communist Party of the Philippines were very visible in the WSF and are a leading force in the International League of People's Struggle, which was also one of the sponsors of Mumbai Resistance 2004.

There are many arenas in which leadership is in the hands of opponents of proletarian revolution, and yet it is possible, and in fact sometimes absolutely necessary, for genuine communist forces to take part in different ways. From the days of Marx and Engels to the present, communists have participated in trade unions, co-operatives, cultural associations, organisational committees for political campaigns, etc. - the list is endless. And while a great deal of rightism and revisionism have accompanied such work over the history of the international communist movement (ICM), no serious revolutionary movement in any country can avoid intervening in diverse forms and organisations. So the question of the leadership of an organisation alone cannot answer the question of whether or not it is correct for communists to participate in a given political event.

Further, it should be stressed here that the participation that CoRIM called for, and organised, in the WSF did not involve participating in the leadership of the WSF. It involved attending the WSF and using it as a platform, to the degree possible, to put forward a resolute position in opposition to imperialism and in support of the people's struggles, including revolutionary struggles for political power such as the People's War being waged in Nepal. When there is a gathering of many thousands of people from around the world, the majority of whom have come to oppose the injustices of the world imperialist system, it is correct and necessary that communists use every possible means to address these masses. Whether the possibilities of using such a platform are great or small is also a matter of struggle.

The fact of the matter is that tens of thousands of leaflets with a revolutionary orientation were distributed at the WSF by forces associated with RIM. Wasn't this a good thing?

Most of the participants at the WSF were not there because they were being misled by the leadership of the WSF. A great many of the participants very likely had no clear idea of who the leaders of the WSF are and what their programme is. The WSF and its regional forums, such as the European Social Forum, have drawn all sorts of political forces, a great many of whom can be correctly categorised as progressive organisations. Certainly the "mass" of participants are, for the most part, opposed to imperialist globalisation and war. It is this turbulent diversity that PM refers to disparagingly as a "frivolous" "cacophony of dissent", which is actually one of the positive factors making it possible and necessary for genuine communists to intervene in this arena. There are undoubtedly all sorts of anti-people elements within this "cacophony", but there is also a basis for communists to make their own voice heard, and heard clearly, in such an atmosphere.

PM's charge that CoRIM's view that it is possible to participate in the WSF implies that there is no role for alternative programmes, such as Mumbai Resistance, also does not hold. It is often the case that there is a very useful role to be played by contingents within demonstrations or forums organised along more revolutionary or anti-imperialist lines, as we have seen repeatedly in the massive demonstrations against globalisation which, by the way, are often led by many of the very same forces involved in the WSF. Participating in the forums and activities of the WSF in no way precludes the value of organising separate events around a clear anti-imperialist line. In fact, the tens of thousands of leaflets distributed by forces around RIM at the WSF itself, all included calls to participate in Mumbai Resistance. What is wrong with this? It is true, but tautological, to argue that the possibility of putting forward a revolutionary viewpoint will be greater in forums organised by revolutionaries. The problem arises when one concludes that there is no value in speaking on platforms organised by non-revolutionaries or, on some occasions, even by counter-revolutionaries. In fact it is the counter-revolutionaries and the reformists who most want to keep genuine communists out of forums such as the WSF - why should we make their task easier?

II. Class Analysis of the WSF

As has already been mentioned, the PM article accuses CoRIM of viewing the WSF as an "anti-imperialist organisation". A reading of our letter in its entirety should be enough to dispel that idea. The central proposition of PM is that the character of any organisation is "determined by its leadership" and, since the WSF leadership is "pro-imperialist", according to PM the WSF then becomes nothing more than a "safety valve" to channel the anger of the masses into directions harmless to the imperialist system.

First of all, it is not really correct to say that Attac and Le Monde Diplomatique, groups that are close to or in the leadership of WSF and that are singled out in the PM article, are "ruling-class social democrats". While they are social-democratic in their ideological and political orientation, they are not part of the state structures or the major social-democratic and revisionist parties in Europe. It is not accurate to argue, as the PM article does, that Le Monde Diplomatique, for example, is really not opposed to the US imperialist offensive. In fact, that publication regularly exposes and opposes US imperialist moves. However, Le Monde Diplomatique does this while staying within the framework of the world imperialist system, looking instead for an illusory solution of how the injustices of imperialism can be mitigated without overthrowing the imperialist system itself. As the CoRIM letter points out, they tend to see the European imperialists, if not as a force for progress, at least as a counter-weight to the US that needs to be allied with and utilised.

How should we see this? It is the leading line of any organisation that is ultimately decisive in determining its character, but matters are not quite as simple as our comrades in PM present them.3 There is also the important contradiction between the leadership and the organisations and masses participating in the WSF. It is worthy of note that Arundhati Roy was one of the principal figures at the WSF and that she participated in MR-2004 as well. Furthermore, it is difficult to consider the WSF in the same light as one might judge a political party. The question involved is whether to participate in a particular event, in this case the forums and discussions of the WSF itself. In this sense whether to participate in WSF is more like making a political decision about whether to participate in a mass demonstration or some similar political action. The line of the leaders of such a demonstration or event is important, but it is also very important to know what sections of the masses are being mobilised and around what demands. With the logic of PM, communists would have had to refrain from participating in many or most of the important political actions that have taken place in the West in the last few years against imperialist globalisation, the Iraq war and other crimes of imperialism. Most of these actions were also led by forces, in many cases the same forces involved with the WSF, who could be considered "pro-imperialist" by PM's criteria. And indeed, in all such demonstrations there is usually a question - one that is often not so easy to answer - as to what tactics should be applied with regards to the official sponsors of such actions. The communist and other advanced forces help the masses distinguish the political programme and line of the different class forces involved in leading (or misleading) popular movements. In general it is in the course of uniting the people around a correct platform and in focusing their struggle against the state power of the enemy that it is most possible to expose the alien class forces and establish the leadership of the genuine communist forces.

As for PM's claims that the WSF must be seen mainly as "a safety valve" for the imperialist system, it is certainly true that some of the leaders or financial backers of the WSF do see it in exactly that way. But what is more to the point is that however people may deceive themselves, or others, any political programme that is not linked to the fight for proletarian political power will ultimately become a "safety valve" for the reactionary system, even if it does not begin as one. History has shown this time and again and in country after country. Social-democrats and revisionists are produced batch after batch, and very often from among individuals and forces that start out as vigorous opponents of the reactionary system - Lula's Workers Party of Brazil, much of whose founding core came from the previous Maoist movement, being a case in point. Within the opposition movements there will always be two poles, one that reflects compromise and accommodation with the existing system and the other that seeks to abolish the reactionary system itself.

Can we conclude that the communists need not participate in the different struggles, movements and forums involving the masses that they do not lead? Such a policy will only ensure that such movements and forums are, or become, "safety valves" for the reactionary system.

Nowhere is PM's confusion more evident than in the way it tries to distinguish the armed struggles led by forces such as the armed social-democrats of the EZLN in Mexico (the Zapatistas) and the armed revisionists of the FARC in Columbia from the kind of generally unarmed social-democrat and revisionist forces playing a leading role in the WSF. Whether one pressures the existing state structures through a single dramatic armed action followed by a decade of seeking a negotiated participation in the reactionary state machinery, as the EZLN has done, or whether one tries more consistently to advance one's goals through strikes or elections, as some WFS leaders have done, is really not a fundamental distinction. Revolutionaries, reformists and counter-revolutionaries alike can use violence or relatively peaceful forms of struggle, such as negotiations, strikes or gheraoes (mass encirclements). What fundamentally distinguishes one from another is what line, what strategy, and what objectives are followed by a political grouping and the different tactics that flow from this. It is reversing cause and effect to focus on the armed or unarmed nature of a given political force and then try on that basis to extrapolate its political nature. PM would do better to take the EZLN at its word when it repeatedly insists that its goal is not to capture political power. And they should also ask themselves why the forces that make up the WSF, and in particular Le Monde Diplomatique, are such unreserved admirers of the EZLN. The fact that the EZLN has guns is really not to the point.

III. On the Question of Ideology and the Independent Role of Communists

As for the ideological dimension raised in the PM article, we refer the reader to our original and much distorted letter. We do indeed believe that in the anti-imperialist struggle there will be and needs to be unity with people with different ideologies, including "post-modernism", just as there needs to be unity with believers in religion and other forms of non-proletarian ideology who are active in the struggle against the common enemy. In a different part of its article, PM argues for unity with Islamist forces (and not only believers in Islam) who are "fighting imperialism". Why such indulgence in relation to one form of non-proletarian ideology and such a sectarian view toward another? Making a rejection of "post-modernism" a pre-requisite for unity in what should be a united front effort like Mumbai Resistance can only lead to unnecessary divisiveness.

Furthermore, as our original letter made quite clear, there is a danger of forgetting the role of communists in presenting and fighting for their ideology and instead looking for some sort of "united front" or "anti-imperialist" ideology. Such a search is both illusory and dangerous. Every united front will be composed of different classes, each with their respective world outlook. Again, we find it strange that PM wants to take CoRIM to task for not wanting to make the fight against post-modernism part of the platform for fighting against imperialism, while MR itself has adopted some central ideological and political conceptions common to post-modernism. How else are we to understand sentences like that published on the MR-2004 website referring 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." Frankly, this is undisguised post-modernist "identity politics". And this ideological conciliation with "identity politics" goes hand in hand with the political blurring of the waters between people's wars led by a proletarian party and the (very occasionally) armed theatre of Sub-comandante Marcos of EZLN. Clearly the leaders of Mumbai Resistance 2004 and People's March are trying to "have their cake and eat it too". Better to clearly admit that different ideologies are contending within the movement of opposition to globalisation and encourage the communist forces to take up their necessary independent ideological work.

Footnotes

1. The People's March article actually refers to "CoRIM/RCP, USA". PM's amalgam between CoRIM and the RCP, USA surprises us. To our knowledge, the RCP, USA was not involved in either WSF or MR-2004, and the articles in the RCP, USA newspaper, the Revolutionary Worker, referred to in the PM article, were clearly labelled from A World to Win News Service, which is used by many publications, including, on occasion, People's March itself.