From: dr.bedggood-AT-auckland.ac.nz To: marxism-international-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EU Date: Mon, 19 May 1997 23:12:36 +0000 Subject: M-G: (Fwd) 17 years of "people's war" CC: tumi-AT-kern.com, marxism-general-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU Forwarded from Poder Obrero (Peru) Part 3. In the Andes the APRA (Peru) and the MNR (Bolivia) made many militarist action in their "anti-imperialist" early days. Nevertheless, all of them became imperialist puppets. In the recent years we saw how the FSLN, the FMLN, the Colombian M-19, the Bolivian MIR, the Ecuatorian Alfaro Vive, etc. became part of the establishment and how they use their forces to attack the working class strikes. Marxist policies in relation to the petite bourgeois militarism are based in the following criteria: * The capitalist state is the main enemy and we would never support any state's action against the guerrillas. * We call the anti-imperialist petite bourgeoisie to mobilise the masses and to allow the creation of big unions, councils and militias subordinated to rank and file assemblies. * At the same time that we call the anti-imperialist petite bourgeoisie for a united front, we need to criticise them and to organise a separate WORKERS party in OPPOSITION to them. * We need to always denounce that the radical petite bourgeoisie WILL capitulate. They don't centre their work amongst the industrial proletariat and they don't reflect it. It is inevitable that the guerrillas would end in the opposite side of the barricades. All the petite bourgeois guerrillas finished in one of these 4 ways: 1) Destruction or marginalisation (like the armed groups in Italy, Germany, Bolivia, etc.) 2) Capitulating to the establishment (Colombia, Peru, Central America, etc.) 3) If they took power they would rebuild a bourgeois state (Angola, Mozambique, Nicaragua, etc.). The right wing would use the left "anti-imperialist" guerrilla to demobilise the masses and to prepare the conditions for its reactionary return to power. In Palestine and South Africa the former anti-imperialist fighters today are trying to reform-maintain the racist states. 4) In few circumstances (like in east Asia, east Europe and Cuba) the guerrillas could expropriate the bourgeoisie and create a bureaucratic Stalinist workers state which suppress workers democracy and active proletarian internationalism. The destruction of the USSR and the process of capitalist restoration in the east would prevent such an outcome in the near future. A ruling bureaucracy from a degenerated workers state have always the possibility of destroying its own previous creation and to start to restore capitalism. In no place in the planet the anti-imperialist petite bourgeois guerrillas led to a workers council state, to a semi-state like the Commune of Paris or the Lenin and Trotsky Russian Soviet state. * A revolutionary workers party have to use the parliament and electoral tribune and the union and mass struggle to organise itself and to mobilise the toilers. We are against a military-political party because it creates a bureaucratic authoritarian machine which kills workers democracy and Bolshevik discussion and democratic-centralism. The workers would have arms when they became a class so political active that could attract the majority of the population and several layers of the troops to their power bodies. We are for a patient work amongst the masses and for a future insurrection lead by workers and peasants councils and militias and supported by significant sections of the army's rank and file. We are against all the guerrillerist strategies because they are not lead by the workers and often they would finish attacking the workers. We are for THE SAME STRATEGY AS THE BOLSHEVIK: the priority is the work amongst the workers and to prepare councils and a MASS revolutionary party that could prepare an insurrection in a revolutionary crisis. In the Andes we are not in favour of launching today a war or armed struggle, but we are in favour of self-defence committees. In Peru we don't have a revolutionary crisis. On the contrary, we have a period of reactionary offensive in which the masses have to defence and the left and unions needs to growth. Gonzalo and the historical leadership in jail are promoting a "peace agreement". In Palestine the Hamas and the different "people's liberation fronts" and former PLO left-wingers are openly attacking Arafat, the Palestinean great leader, as a a traitor. In Colombia the guerrilla forces which opposed the peace process organised by the M-19, PRT, Quintin Lama and some wings of the EPL and ELN are openly denounced their former leaders and comrades as traitors. The PCPSL pro-war faction doesn't want to break with Gonzalo. Why? The only explanation is that they don't want to break all the bridges towards a "peace agreement". The existence of a militarist PCPSL faction is not longer consider as a risk for the state. Of course that the army would like to finish it. Nevertheless, everybody is talking advantage of the existence of a very small militarist group. The army and Fujimori are using the "phantom" of "terrorism" to impose the worst anti-union laws in the continent. In Peru Fujimori was able to smash labour security and most of the rights to strike and unionise because he used an "anti-terrorist legislation". The universities and factories have police and military control. The left, the street demonstrations and the unions are under big intimidation. In short, the existence of a diminished guerrilla activity is being used to justify terrible attacks against the workers and poor people under "anti-terrorist" laws. Gonzalo is using the existence of a militarist faction to press Fujimori for more concessions. He is trying to convince the military that if he and his supporters could be release he could be capable of ending the war. Gonzalo would not be completely happy if all the military actions could finish because it would mean that he doesn't have anything to use to press and make deals. We are not suggesting than Gonzalo is leading the Feliciano's anti-peace agreement faction. Most probably Feliciano and his people have their own independence and their own agenda. I am suggesting that there is some kind of co-habitation and mutual interests. Gonzalo in a way try to take advantage of Felciano's military actions to obtain more concessions. Feliciano doesn't want to break with Gonzalo and to any possibility for a future reconciliation with him. J. Ponce (Poder Obrero Peru) Dave Bedggood --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005