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