File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/marxism-general.9705, message 11


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 ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005