Shining Path and Ridgway

Maoist Internationalist Movement mim3 at nyxfer.blythe.org
Wed Sep 13 11:47:25 MDT 1995



On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, Jim Jaszewski wrote:

>
> On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, Maoist Internationalist Movement wrote:
>
> > > 	Such ultra-left violence has shown again and again that it ends
> > > up COSTING the People's support -- and the Revolution.  Hell -- even if
> > > they win, every indication is of Pol Pot II...
> >
> > MIM replies: You didn't answer my question: "Are there
> > any revolutions that have occurred that you supported that
> > didn't have such violence?"
>
> 	We're not talking about crimes during wartime -- we're talking
> about Party POLICY.

MIM replies: There is a fine line between lies and polemic.
If Jim were a journalist, I'd say this is a lie, because
journalists are supposed to report fact. Since I read this
on an academic list, I take it to be more nihilism.

Show us where this extreme violence you claim is party policy.
At the bottom of this post I will add more on this subject.
You need to read Gonzalo for the party's policy. There you
will see that official policy is to "dip our handkerchiefs"
"in the rivers of blood" spilled by the regime.

People who want to read official documents from the PCP--in English,
Spanish and French--can ftp ftp.etext.org and check under
/pub/Politics/MIM/MIM.essays


>
>
> > Nihilism--a generally destructive approach--is easy. Intellectuals
> > are prone to it, because their careers are built on picking
> > apart ideas and making their own seem "original." That is their
> > role in the productive process so to speak.
> >
> > If your ideas about what is "COSTING" support are true,
> > then there should be some evidence in revolutions that succeeded.
> > These days, from the ultraleft--the real Trotskyists, and the
> > real anarchists--and the right, such as the social-democratic wannabes
> > so common in the de-Sovietization process--there is a general
> > avoidance of WHAT WORKS in bringing about class struggle victoriously.
> > Across the board there is a return to pre-science,
> > a return to pre-Marxist ideology--a secular religion of communism.
>
> 	I'm sure that's too often the case, but you would be wrong to
> imply that your organization is the only one willing to bite the bullet...
>

MIM replies: Where did we say MIM was the only organization
undertaking scientific enterprise? For those who read this list
as new Marxists, the above is a very common oversimplification
of Lenin used for knocking down as a straw man. Such Lenin-baiting
is common amongst post-modern intellectuals who see no truth
to struggle for. Rather than state this directly, these
post-modern intellectuals attack Leninists for allegedly
claiming they individually are the only ones who hold truth.
Facts be known though, at least from my experience, you
won't find anyone claiming Leninism who believes he or she
or only its organization is the only one employing science.
You will find people like MIM claiming that they are more
correct relatively speaking than others. Furthermore, you
will find people like MIM who some fraction of the time
run into people like Jim who seem to employ no scientific method,
only idealism. (I have read nothing from Jim prior to
joining this list three days ago, but I am responding to what
Jim has said to us in this short period of time.)

If we judge Jim's posts these last 2 or 3 days, then yes,
we conclude that Jim does not utilize science, only comparisons
of real-world revolutions to his/her morally absolute principles.
That is a uniquely ideological exercise--common to Christianity
and utilization of the Ten Commandments. It has nothing to do
with science.

As we said, we respect anarchist pacifists. They are pre-scientific
and a great ally of the revolution in the imperialist countries.
(Pacifists are not so good in situations of immediate armed struggle
against imperialism.) Judging the last couple days, I hold out
some hope for Jim J. to take up consistent
anarchism as the way for Jim J. to blow off the maximal amount of
nihilist steam.

If Jim J. wants absolute moral principles, I cannot offer any, but
I can suggest the following enterprise: go to Peru; live as a Peruvian;
if Jim J. is willing to die of starvation or government repression
and is still unwilling to support the PCP violence, then Jim J. is
someone of high principle. Meanwhile, in the imperialist countries,
we think Jim J. is overly obsessed with the political violence
which he and Louis Proyect seem to to think is always about to
engulf them. Their fear of "Stalinists" threatening their middle-class
privileges is the only rational explantion for their disproportionate
response to the People's War in Peru.

Pat for MIM

----
MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT
POSITION PAPER ON VIOLENCE, PART I
Last edit: 8/26/92

People wonder what Comrade Gonzalo means about "lagoons of blood"
being spilled by the existing order in Peru and why the Maoists
are only "dipping their handerkerchiefs" trying to cross the river.

For starters, comrade Gonzalo went to China in the 1960s, and what
he saw there under Mao is something he found that Peru still needs
today. In fact, World Bank figures would back him up.

Peru in 1988 had a per capita annual income of $1,300 while China
had one of $330. However, in Peru the life expectancy was 62, while
it was 70 in China. (China's hasn't changed much since China turned
capitalist. The basic accomplishment came under Mao before 1976.)

People on this net are fairly scientifically adept. If they think about
it they can realize what it means that a country is four times
richer than another (on average), while it has only 88.6% of the
life expectancy: It means the poor are being killed off from
malnutrition and inadequate basic public health measures.

The gini coefficient in Peru is about double what it was in China
under Mao--.458. The gini coefficient is a measure of income
inequality.

Further proof of this is that the average per-capita calorie
supply in Peru actually declined between 1965 and 1986.
The daily figure was 2,325 calories in 1965 and 2,246 in 1986,
down 3.4 percent.

This is not an occasional bombing. This is a certain fraction of
the population dying because Peru doesn't follow the socialist
road. That is not to mention that the Peruvian army kills several
times as many people as the Senderos do in combat.

Elsewhere, we will compare the non-violent road of Gandhi in India
and the revolutionary road of Mao Zedong in China and show that Mao's
road was much less bloody.

We Maoists know that it doesn't matter to the dead and dying whether
they die from socially-caused starvation or a bullet: either way
they are dead. Capitalist societies are insensitive not just to
militarism but economic violence.

By the way, the source for this post is the four bourgeois economists
Malcolm Gillis, Dwight Perkins, Michael Roemer and Donald Snodgrass,
three of which work on government grants at the Harvard Institute of
International Development. Economics of Development, 3rd ed., NY:
W.W. Norton & Co., p.10, p. 76, p. 251. These economists favor
export-led development like south Korea's, back the IMF and
multinational corporate investment in the Third World.
Maoist Internationalist Movement, PO Box 3576, Ann Arbor, MI
48106-3576


     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list