From: odin@world.std.com
Newsgroups: alt.activism
Date: 20 Jan 93 17:31 PST
Subject: NO "PATERNALISM" RE: MIM
Nf-ID: #N:pine.3.05.9301202024.a29519-e100:-23310912:000:9542
Nf-From: world.std.com!odin    Jan 20 17:31:00 1993


From: Hank Roth <odin@world.std.com>
Subject: NO "PATERNALISM" RE: MIM

From pnews@igc.apc.org  Ukn Jan 20 19:21:13 1993
Return-Path: <pnews@igc.apc.org>
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 <pnews@igc.apc.org>
Message-Id: <9301210023.AA16563@igc.apc.org>
To: odin@world.std.com
Subject: NO 'PATERNALISM' RE: MIM
Status: RO
X-Status: 

/* Written  4:15 pm  Jan 20, 1993 by pnews@igc.apc.org 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.