NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/alt/activism/21117

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-21 | 9.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!spool.mu.edu!sgiblab!sgigate!sgi!cdp!NFMail!pine.3.05.9301202024.a29519-e100!world.std.com!odin
From: [e-mail]
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 20 Jan 93 17:31 PST
Subject: NO "PATERNALISM" RE: MIM
Sender: Notesfile to Usenet Gateway <[e-mail]>
Message-ID: <-23310912@pine.3.05.9301202024.a29519-e100>
Nf-ID: #N:pine.3.05.9301202024.a29519-e100:-23310912:000:9542
Nf-From: world.std.com!odin    Jan 20 17:31:00 1993
Lines: 201


From: Hank Roth <[e-mail]>
Subject: NO "PATERNALISM" RE: MIM

From [e-mail]  Ukn Jan 20 19:21:13 1993
Return-Path: <[e-mail]>
Received: from cdp.igc.org by world.std.com (5.65c/Spike-2.0)
    id AA13907; Wed, 20 Jan 1993 19:21:09 -0500
Received: by igc.apc.org (4.1/Revision: 1.56 )
    id AA16563; Wed, 20 Jan 93 16:23:38 PST
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 93 16:23:38 PST
From: Hank Roth <[e-mail]>
Message-Id: <[e-mail]>
To: [e-mail]
Subject: NO 'PATERNALISM' RE: MIM
Status: RO
X-Status:

/* Written  4:15 pm  Jan 20, 1993 by [e-mail] in igc:gen.socialism */
/* ---------- "NO "PATERNALISM" RE: MIM" ---------- */
/* Written  4:12 pm  Jan 20, 1993 by pnews in igc:p.news */
/* ---------- "NO "PATERNALISM" RE: MIM" ---------- */
<<< via P_News/p.news >>>

NO "PATERNALISM" WITH REGARD TO MIM

On P_news and p.news I posted the following statement:
 > [M.A.P. (misc.activism.progressive), has unilaterally
 >  decided to disallow MIM from posting there. I have
 >  publicly criticized Harel's editors on M.A.P. for their
 >  ban on MIM articles. I have also provided a forum for
 >  MIM on p.news and will continue to cross-post their
 >  articles here. P_news and p.news provide forums for
 >  views and articles from various tendencies on the
 >  socialist LEFT, notwithstanding their differences in
 >  process and theory.]

Rene Bilodeau [on P_news] replied:
RB>You will continue to post MIM articles that are anything but
RB>progressive! The garbage they put forward is unbelievable and I
RB>can certainly understand why they've been banned. I hope you
RB>don't think their attacks on the ANC for example shows
RB>responsible posting. From what I've seen of the stuff they post
RB>they are anything but a "tendency within the socialist left". If
RB>anything, they fit well into the description of infantile
RB>disorders and add nothing to the credibility of the left in
RB>general. Fortunately, I can skip over their postings although the
RB>telco still charges me for them.

The impetus behind Harel's [et al] decision to ban MIM from
further posting on M.A.P. (misc.activism.progressive) is MIM's
support for Shinning Path's alleged human rights abuses.

However, I believe you bring up some interesting points
which go to the core of this dispute between MIM and M.A.P.
There are philosophical differences between MIM and other
currents on the left, especially the more "moderate" and
reformist `anti-armed struggle' elements of the Committees of
Correspondance, DSA and CP. Other theoretical currents, such
as the PLP are just plainly opposed to MIM because they take a
different `path' to communist struggle. For many of the same
reasons the RCP is also accused of being `reactionary' and
`infantile.' I don't pretend to be knowledgeable enough to defend
either the RCP or MIM because I am not a member of either tendency,
but I want the opportunity to read what they say, just as I want
the opportunity to read what is being written by CofC, DSA, CP,
ISO, ML, RCP, PLP, the Spartacists and others. Like Kelly [of
NYtransfer News] says, for someone else to decide what is or isn't
acceptable *Left* or `progressive' is just too `paternalistic.' I
still have enough of my faculties about me to be able to interpret
what I read and make my own decisions. I would assume others in
these conferences are also intelligent enough to at least want that
opportunity.

Harel accuses Shinning Path of human rights abuses against women.

MIM replies:
MIM>MIM has no reason to dispute that 10 non-combatant women
MIM>might have died at Sendero Luminoso hands in 7 years of armed
MIM>struggle. We would like to see any comparison to revolutions or
MIM>non-revolutions elsewhere in which 10 civilian women were not
MIM>killed in seven years.

MIM>If Sendero has its population so well disciplined that it kills
MIM>only 10 women in 7 years, that is a miracle, especially given
MIM>that Sendero L. controls most of the countryside and operates
MIM>almost everywhere.

MIM>We do think that based on 10 women in a country that has seen
MIM>27,000 killed, it would be an opportunist interpretation to say
MIM>S.L. "targets" women, especially women as women as opposed to
MIM>government officials. It seems that if S.L. wanted to "target"
MIM>women it could do a much better job.


WHAT THE CP AND THE PLP ARE SAYING ABOUT SHINING PATH

William Pomeroy writing in the PEOPLE'S WEEKLY WORLD [September
12, 1992] for the Communist Party (CP) refers to Shining Path as
an "ultra-leftism" and PLP writing in THE COMMUNIST (a
publication of the Progressive Labor Party) calls Shinning Path a
"right-wing leftism." Pomeroy says that "in the name of
`democracy' and `pluralism' attempts are made to splinter the
democracy of the collective into a babble of contending beliefs,
while democratic centralism is to be dispersed into an atomized,
undiscipline disunity." The PLP also believes that "Democratic
Centralism is the scientific method applied to politics." Both
organizations are critical of Shinning Path for taking a
different path, notwithstanding that SL (Sandero Luminoso
[Shinning Path]) has the support of the masses and is conducting
a revolution, whereas the PLP and the CP theorize about
revolution and and do not have the mass support of an
organization like Shining Path.

Pomeroy accuses Guzman [Abimael Guzman, a professor at Huamanga
University, who broke with the CP in Peru to form SL] of being
authoritatian. Most have concluded, including those who recently
split from the CP to form the Committees of Correspondance that
Pomeroy's Communist Party was anti-democratic and authoritarian.
He accuses SL of "killing enemies of the revolution" which he
says, "..embraced everyone who does not accept and obey Sandero
Luminoso" and he says that the "Communist Party of Peru, strongly
rooted in the trade unions, has been one of the targets." The
logic here seems to be that since SL is opposed to anti-
revolutionary members of the old Communist Party who support
trade unions, SL must then also be anti-trade union. This is
convoluted logic and pure sophistry.

He then, like Harel and other editors at M.A.P. go on to compare
SL with Pol Pot in Cambodia, which also had Maoist influence. He
[Pomeroy] claims that any support for SL just further fragments
left forces.

ANOTHER PATH TO SOCIALISM

It is correct to say that Sandero Luminoso is promoting a new
path, which they call "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism." It is according
to them a "new, third and higher state of Marxism:"

    "...Marxism leads us to Leninism and Leninism to Maoism. Of
all these three, Maoism is principal. Moreover, Maoism leads us
to Gonzalo Thought, which is the universal truth specific to the
concrete reality of Peruvian society and specific to the concrete
conditions of the class struggle today." [From a speech given by
Guzman to the Central Committee of CPP]

WORKER'S WORLD SUPPORTS PEOPLE'S MOVEMENTS INCLUDING SL

WORKER'S WORLD/MUNDO OBRERO [available by electronic mail from
NYtransfer News and posted to Anews (FidoNets) and various other
electronic conferences (on PeaceNet and UseNet)] calls SL the
"People's Movement." Greg Butterfield writing in WW [Aug. 6] says
this about a successful two-day general strike in Lima, Peru's
capital city:

   "Businesses, factories, government offices, schools and public
transportation were shut down. The strike was so effective that
bourgeois historian Gustavo Gorriti lamented, "It was the first
dress rehearsal for the final insurrection." He said, "The
Shining Path military command showed that they can bring
hundreds, if not thousands, of activists from all over the
country, feed them, organize and execute their actions." The
Party's ability to carry out this high level of organization
shows its strong base in the mass movement."

Greg Butterfield goes on to say,

    "Aren't the PLO, the People's Army in the Phillippines and
others characterized the same way---as "terrorists" who win
support only through intimidation?"

     "Historically, imperialism never wants to admit that
revolutionary movements have mass support. And Peru is no
different. The wildfire spread of guerrilla struggle from the
countryside into urban Lima would not be possible without this
kind of support."

In another article from WW [Sept 24th], Greg Butterfield says:

     "Independent Third World leaders, both those in power and
those leading national liberation struggles, subscribe to various
political ideologies. But the U.S. and its allies always find
ways to demonize them. This is doubly true for those leaders who
mount a revolutionary war against imperialist oppression."

A REVOLUTION ISN'T A TEA PARTY

Guzman, who is now a captive of the Fujimori government has been
demonized by the U.S. and other capitalist leaders and those on
the *left* who oppose the only kind of revolution possible in
Peru, that of `armed struggle' and Sandero's `different path' to
socialism are the ones, I'm afraid, who are falling victim
to lies and propaganda.