From: Maoist Internationalist Movement <mim3-AT-blythe.org>
Subject: MIM Congress "On Hegemonism in 1996"
Date: Sun, 7 Jul 1996 15:19:17 -0400 (EDT)


MIM Congress, 1996 document
 "On Hegemonism in 1996"

As MIM pointed out in its 1995 resolutions, the very idea of "an 
emerging international center" leads to hegemonism. Hegemonism is 
the ideology backing an ignorant and dogmatic intervention at the 
level of activity that should be left to the Guiding Thought.

Hegemonism is definitely the lesser evil than revisionism in many 
circumstances. 1) When there is no banner of Mao upholding the first 
two cardinal principles in a society,. we can hardly cry 
"hegemonism!" if foreigners raise that banner in a society. 2) When 
some organization is waving the red flag to oppose the red flag, we 
can hardly object if outside Maoists intervene, if the question is of 
absolutely universal significance. For example, if an organization in 
one of the semi-colonies waves the red flag but instructs everyone to 
lay down their arms as a matter of principle, such an organization 
cannot cry "hegemonism!" when outside Maoists unmask revisionism.

In 1996, at least two open questions before the international 
communist movement involve difficulties of hegemonism--the "peace 
accords" idea in Peru and the white working class in the imperialist 
countries.

In the peace accords controversy, there are at least two camps that 
arose by the end of 1993 calling themselves followers of MLM-
Gonzalo Thought, at least two of which claim to MIM that they will 
never lay down their arms, and that as a matter of principle. Left 
alone at that level, it would have been hegemonism for MIM to 
decide which camp is the genuine and which is the fake. One side 
claims that leadership is principal, and the PCP needs to continue 
following its Central Committee led by Comrade Gonzalo in prison, as 
the initial undisputed PCP-CC resolutions requested after the arrest 
of Gonzalo. The other camp claimed that the "masses make history" 
and that the other camp was capitulationist.

Nonetheless, forced to recognize one camp or the other as legitimate, 
in 1994, MIM made a determination to the best of its ability that the 
anti-capitulator camp had the party majority. We continued to 
respect all claimants of MLM-Gonzalo Thought who claimed in 
principle never to lay down arms this side of communism.

In 1996, MIM obtained the A World to Win on Peru supposedly 
published in 1995 by the Committee of the Revolutionary 
Internationalist Movement (Co-RIM). On pages 64 and 65 of that 
magazine are some documents from one camp claiming MLM 
Gonzalo-Thought that the RCP-led Co-RIM calls "right opportunist," 
which are in fact out-and-out calls for counterrevolution by any 
standards of the universals of MLM. Likewise it surfaces that those 
in the capitulator camp supposedly defending MLM Gonzalo Thought 
refer to the PCP Central Committee as "totalitarian." In these regards, 
it is no longer a question of hegemonism, but a question of the 
absolutely universal aspects of Maoism that the capitulator camp 
must be criticized. In practice, in the imperialist countries, that has 
also meant we must defend the work of Luis Arce Borja.

By contrast, the RCP-USA-led RIM took a centrist and hegemonist 
approach to the question of Peru. It presents pages of analysis of 
Peru as if it could know better than the PCP itself, the conditions in 
Peru. Instead of choosing scientific Maoist leadership to follow in 
Peru, the RCP-USA has intervened in a hegemonic way on questions 
of conditions in Peru. For itself, it has come to the conclusion that the 
call for "peace accords" is "objectively counterrevolutionary" based 
on its own two years of study of conditions in Peru.

We cannot deny that science is not a matter of genetic or cultural 
background. A Maoist scientist in the united states could investigate 
conditions in Peru and arrive at a Guiding Thought for Peru. Such is 
the nature of science. However, MIM does not believe that the RCP-
USA scientists surpass those on the ground in Peru.

Where there are those who act as if guided by a global Guiding 
Thought, MIM has referred to "RIM Thought." RIM Thought is an 
excuse for failing to study the concrete conditions or failing to follow 
those leaders who have studied the concrete conditions.

Followers of RIM Thought believe for instance that we cannot 
unmask "MPP-USA" police plot actions in the united states without 
permission from Peru. The followers of RIM Thought believe that 
somehow the leaders of the "New Flag" could be watched from 
thousands of miles away, and that the comrades back in Lima could 
see all the forgeries and disinformation being spread by the "MPP-
USA" leaders in the united states.

Since 1993 another kind of hegemonism has arisen where legitimate 
Maoists ask MIM to drop its third cardinal, based on no comparable 
analysis or Guiding Thought concerning the imperialist countries. In 
fact, these requests have come despite the knowledge that MIM is 
the organization of parties and pre-parties in the imperialist 
countries that has the most correct stance on the cardinal questions 
of universal import. This goes so far that some legitimate Maoists 
>from outside the imperialist countries have asked MIM to drop its 
third cardinal while supporting an organization in the imperialist 
countries defending Gorbachev that doesn't even call itself "Maoist."

Hegemonic dogmatism can only rally the "grass tips." It has no 
potential in the imperialist countries for mobilizing the grass roots in 
a Maoist direction. Barely aware of the labor aristocracy issue, the 
hegemonic dogmatists believe that trotting out old quotes from the 
classics suffice on the question of women's equality as well. The only 
people interested in such are members of revisionist organizations, 
and hence hegemonic dogmatism's reliance on right opportunist ideas 
of popular front. Without a Guiding Thought to address lifestyle 
politics in feminism, environmentalism, anti-racism and peace and 
justice movements, hegemonic dogmatism has no chance of winning 
over people from mass organizations and generating Maoists from 
scratch. In contrast, MIM has already had success in training Maoists 
without having to rely on the revisionist organizations.

There is no defense for the attacks on MIM in terms of the universal 
aspects of Maoism. A different but related question is why then do 
these attacks on MIM's third cardinal arise, especially in the context 
of support for revisionism or neo-revisionism in the imperialist 
countries? The answer for this can be found in the usual sizeism, 
pragmatism, reformism and Menshevism. However, we must also 
accord a high role to sectarianism, right opportunism and the bribery 
of the labor bureaucracy.


Adopted unanimously, 1996 Congress


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