File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1996/96-12-11.084, message 17


Date: Sun, 8 Dec 1996 00:33:15 +0100 (MET)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: M-G: 1/3 Rwanda - comparing "Ang's" document to VP, '94


1/3 Rwanda - comparing "Ang's" document to VP, '94
[Posted: 07.12.96]

Part 1/3:

INTRODUCTION - i.a. on "Who can be trusted?"

The document on Rwanda posted in 4 parts by Ang to this list on
04.12 was a valuable contribution and I at least learned several
things from it that I didn't know before. It brings forward some
aspects of the present conflict and of history which no doubt
need to be taken into account.

Nevertheless, I think that the (implicit, as different from the
stated) conclusions of that document, an article by Barry
Crawford (BC for short), Africa Direct, London, in the main
are *not* correct.

I've tried to check out what it's saying by comparing this to what
was stated in some 1994 issues of "Partisan", organ of the Voie
Prolétarienne (VP), France, in the first place, and to what has
been said about recent events by "solidaire", the weekly of the
Parti du Travaille de Belgique (PTB), and by (openly) bourgeois
media, in the second place. Here I shall compare BC's article
above all to what the VP said in 1994.

The question here of course arises, as in many other places:
Whom should you trust as a source of information? I hold, as
before, that the answer must be: In general, practically nobody.

This includes also those organizations existing today that call
themselves "Marxist" - at least those existing here in Europe
and for instance in the USA. Experience has shown that they
to a greater or lesser extent in reality are controlled by some
bourgeois forces or other, and not seldom are saying what is
in the interest of reaction in the world, today led above all by
US imperialism. I've come to see this during, and largely
because of, a long-time close association with a party that
once was genuinely Marxist-Leninist, i.e. really did its best to
represent the interests of the great majority of people, the
KPD/ML(NEUE EINHEIT) in Germany (since the late 1980:s,
unfortunately, likewise a *phoney*"Marxist" party).

A party's stated adherence to Mao Zedong Thought ("Maoism"),
with its rejection of modern revisionism as represented above
all by the social-imperialist Soviey Union of yesterday, of course
is a first requirement for its being trustworthy, but is not
sufficient either. There are phonies camouflaging themselves with
such a - purported - standpoint too. As for the Voie Prolétarienne,
it does state that it's for the ideology of Mao Zedong. But on
some points it opposes it, for instance by opposing nuclear
energy, which is a completely anti-Marxist standpoint and one
which actually suits ultra-reaction to a tee. (Only in part can
such a standpoint, by an organization stating its adherence to
Marxism, be explained by ignorance.) So when below I'm
reporting what it said on Rwanda in 1994, such a general
reservation concerning the character of the VP should be borne
in mind.

Both the VP and the PTB of course are organizations in
countries, France respectively Belgium, which historcially have
had ties with (parts of) Africa, because of the whole history of
colonialism and imperialism, which the country I'm writing from,
Sweden, never has had, and therefore, it's logical that they have
writers with much more direct knowledge of some African
countries than have I and others here. It will at least be of
interest to hear what these writers have to say.

One of them is the chairman of the PTB, my namesake (no
relation) Ludo Martens, from whose earlier writings Barry
Crawford in his article also quotes on a couple of points. But
the PTB, at least today, in direct contradiction to BC, squarely
supports the present government in Rwanda, that of the RPF
in English or FPR in French (which has practically all
abbreviations "backwards") - the Front Patriotique de Rwanda.
It even calls on people to give money to it, and has invited its
ambassador to speak at PTB meetings.

I on my part (still) judge that the PTB is basically right in
this support and that Barry Crawford's and others' assertion that
the FPR is essentially a tool of US and other Western imperialism
is incorrect. (See part 1/2 on this.) Recently, the Rwandan
government has opposed the proposed "Western" intervention
in Congo/Zaire, has (at least in words) welcomed the returning
refugees and appears sympathetic to the insurrectionists under
Kabila in Congo (eastern Zaire), whose cause I believe is just,
as I've stated before, and who for instance were "warned" last
Wednesday (04.12) by the US imperialists *not* to create a
state of their own, as reported in the media here.

This recent "warning" is a fact that seems to confirm what
I've been advocating as far as Congo/Zaire is concerned, that
the AFDL insurrectionists should be supported (and "Class
Struggle" has advocated support of them too, only stressing that
it should be condtional support), and to speak against the
contention of Karl Carlile, for instance, who judged those rebels
mainly to represent the interests of the US imperialists and their
allies.

In general, when the US and other imperialists "are shifting
their allegiance", this may be for three reasons, two of which
are basically opposed:

1) They want to contend with other imperialists (and so  are
backing a/ either some reactionary forces, which is bad for the
majority of people in the world of course, or b/ actually some
progressive forces, in which case "we're in luck" - as when,
for instance, they opposed Hitler fascism and thus in fact gave
support to the struggle of the peoples, when the Soviet social-
imperialists gave some support to the Vietnamese people
fighting their rival US imperialism in the late 1960:s and early
1970:s, or when Nixon went to shake hands with Mao Zedong in
1972 - basically against Soviet social-imperialism, then, which
was becoming the most dangerous source of war at that time
and was being backed in this by the other group of US
imperialists.)

[NOTE:
On one expression used also by Barry Crawford in his
artilce on Rwanda and by many other writers on other
subjects, "since the end of the Cold War" - as meaning, one
understands, "since approximately 1989-91", I'll make a
separate posting, since that expression is so misleading
and confusing, concerning recent history and concerning
the entire situation in the world today. See subject line:
"When did the Cold War end? In 1964, *not* 1989!"]

2) They're backing a reactionary group since the one they
were associated with before has become "too progressive"
and they now want to combat it. (Bad for the people)

3) They've been *forced* to shift to recognizing the more
progressive group, since those (worst) reactionaries which
they used to back in fact have been beaten to the extent
of their becoming "impossible". (A good thing of course,
and similar to the case I called "1)b/" above.)

Here in case 3), the imperialists of course are also doing
their best to subvert the (more) positive forces and try to
draw them over to their side.

Anyway, in my judgement - and I'd like to repeat that I'm
not all that certain that I'm right - it's case 3) that
applies to the present Rwandan government and its being
supported (?) or at least accepted by the main imperialist
forces of today.

In parts 2/3 - 3/3 I shall bring the actual comparison between
Barry Crawford's article (the one brought by Ang) and what
the writers of the Voie Prolétarienne said in 1994.

[Continued in part 2/3]



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---



   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005