I N T E R N E T ' S M A O I S T M O N T H L Y = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = XX XX XXX XX XX X X XXX XXX XXX XXX X X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X V X X X V X X X X X X X XX XXX X X X X X X XX X X X X X X X XXX X X X V XXX X XXX XXX = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = THE MAOIST INTERNATIONALIST MOVEMENT MIM Notes 86 March, 1994 MIM Notes speaks to and from the viewpoint of the world's oppressed majority, and against the imperialist-patriarchy. Pick it up and wield it in the service of the people. support it, struggle with it and write for it. IN THIS ISSUE: 1. EX-YUGOSLAVIA: 'HUMPTY DUMPTY' OR PRELUDE TO MORE WAR? 2. LETTERS: 3. SINN FEIN LEADER ALLOWED INTO AMERIKA: CLINTON CAUGHT IN SQUEEZE 4. CORRECTION 5. FILIPINO REVOLUTION GAINS INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT 6. MIM STRUGGLES OVER WHITE WORKING CLASS 7. U.S. IMPERIALISM PROPS UP PERUVIAN COMPRADOR REGIME 8. HOUSING PROJECTS PROPELLED INTO NEW WORLD ORDER 9. PHILADELPHIA 10. IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER: INSPIRATIONAL STRUGGLE AGAINST INJUSTICE 11. MOVIE MONOPOLY 12. HOLLYWOOD IS ROYALTY IN EUROPE 13. BSU BOYCOTTS MLK DAY SYMPOSIUM * * * WHAT IS MIM? The Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) is a revolutionary communist party that upholds Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, comprising the collection of existing or emerging Maoist internationalist parties in the English-speaking imperialist countries and their English-speaking internal semi-colonies, as well as the existing or emerging Spanish-speaking Maoist internationalist parties of Aztlan, Puerto Rico and other territories of the U.S. Empire. MIM Notes is the newspaper of MIM. Notas Rojas is the newspaper of the Spanish- speaking parties or emerging parties of MIM. MIM is an internationalist organization that works from the vantage point of the Third World proletariat; thus, its members are not Amerikans, but world citizens. MIM struggles to end the oppression of all groups over other groups: classes, genders, nations. MIM knows this is only possible by building public opinion to seize power through armed struggle. Revolution is a reality for North America as the military becomes over-extended in the government's attempts to maintain world hegemony. MIM differs from other communist parties on three main questions: (1) MIM holds that after the proletariat seizes power in socialist revolution, the potential exists for capitalist restoration under the leadership of a new bourgeoisie within the communist party itself. In the case of the USSR, the bourgeoisie seized power after the death of Stalin in 1953; in China, it was after Mao's death and the overthrow of the "Gang of Four" in 1976. (2) MIM upholds the Chinese Cultural Revolution as the farthest advance of communism in human history. (3) MIM believes the North American white-working-class is primarily a non- revolutionary worker-elite at this time; thus, it is not the principal vehicle to advance Maoism in this country. MIM accepts people as members who agree on these basic principles and accept democratic centralism, the system of majority rule, on other questions of party line. "The theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin is universally applicable. We should regard it not as dogma, but as a guide to action. Studying it is not merely a matter of learning terms and phrases, but of learning Marxism-Leninism as the science of revolution." -- Mao Zedong, Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 208 * * * EX-YUGOSLAVIA: 'HUMPTY DUMPTY' OR PRELUDE TO MORE WAR? by MC5 & MC12 Don't look to President Clinton to get the real story behind imperialist aggression in ex-Yugoslavia. He explained it like this: "Sarajevo is sort of the Humpty Dumpty of Bosnia. If you want everyone to be put back together again--the country--you've got to keep Sarajevo from total collapse."(1) The President was at a loss for words to explain why the Amerikan government supposedly suddenly cared about the carnage in Bosnia. Were you fooled? When the United States and its NATO allies call for bombing, in ex-Yugoslavia or anywhere else, their intention is not humanitarian. This is a central axiom of imperialist war policy, but it is worth repeating. National Security Advisor Anthony Lake made that clear recently. Lake wrote that the U.S. government will ask the following questions before getting involved in international military action: "What is the threat to our interests? Is there a clearly defined mission? A distinct end point? How much will it cost? Are the resources available? What is the likelihood of success?"(2) Absent from this list was: "Will this help innocent people who are dying?" But he did say that "peacekeeping" is "an often useful foreign policy tool." So much for humanitarianism. So why do the imperialists care what happens in ex-Yugoslavia? Most simply, the former Yugoslavia republics house precious resources serviced by important populations in a strategic location--on the Adriatic sea and the Danube river, and on key land routes to the Aegean Sea and the Turkish Straits. And the various imperialist powers are in conflict over who gets what. Germany is making the greatest advances into Eastern Europe after the collapse of the USSR. In the first few years after 1989, Germany dumped half of all Western capital into Eastern Europe, making it the largest foreign investor in the region.(3) Germany already won the former Yugoslavian republics of Slovenia and Croatia, drawing them into its orbit when they split from Yugoslavia in 1991. France, Britain, the United States and others fear not only a stronger German imperialism, but also a potential German-Russian alliance. And this threat has grown stronger, not weaker, with the political rise of Russian nationalism. Just days after government conferencing over admitting Eastern European countries to NATO, France said that the credibility of NATO is at stake in Bosnia. This is evidence of a Franco-German split. Here's why. Yugoslavia was not a member of NATO and nor is Bosnia. NATO's credibility is at stake because if NATO has any use to the imperialists, it is to protect against a future threat of Russian imperialism, in the opinion of some circles of imperialists at least. The strong election results of Russian fascist Vladimir Zhirinovsky, whose party won the popular vote in last year's Russian elections, have sent several countries scurrying to NATO. Zhirinovsky has promised wholesale dismemberment of countries if he comes to power. When Zhirinovsky said "we would be happy to have a border with Serbia," despite the existence of several countries in between them at present(4), he was offering Germany a partitioning of Eastern Europe. The top ex-Nazis and current Nazis of Germany are Zhirinovsky's friends. Hence, there are those concerned with a German-Russian imperialist alliance. One weight against Russian-German alliance is the unified European Economic Community. If Germany sees major gains from a European free trade zone, chances are it might reject Russian overtures or seek to bring Russia and Eastern Europe into the EEC later. Should the EEC fall apart, however, we might see more of a German tilt toward Russia. NATO intervention into Bosnia, driven by France and Amerika, is a threat to Germany and Russia. Russia (and Ukraine) denounced NATO action in Bosnia.(5) The Russian Duma had earlier passed a resolution--444 to 280--declaring that "great concern is caused by the discussion in NATO countries of the possibility of bomb strikes against targets in the former Yugoslavia."(6) Zhirinovsky warned against bombing in Bosnia, saying harm to Bosnian Serbs would amount to a declaration of war on Russia.(7) But Amerikan aggression in the face of Germany and Russia is not confined to bombing in Bosnia. It is no accident that on Feb. 8 the Amerikan-controlled World Bank approved new loans to the former Yugoslavian republic of Macedonia, and that on Feb. 9 the United States, over Greece's objection, officially recognized an independent Macedonia.(5) Greek's prime minister was "very, very disturbed" by the move. Greece threatened to blockade Macedonia. Then on Feb. 10, after NATO voted to act in Bosnia, Greece called the ultimatum "totally wrong and guilty," and said NATO was threatening to spread the war in the Balkans.(1) Greece is not overreacting. Speaking candidly, James Baker and Alex Haig, two former U.S. secretaries of state, said there was no point in trying to stop the war in Bosnia. Instead, Amerika's only hope is to deploy thousands of troops in Macedonia, to "prevent" war from spreading.(8) In late January, before the bombing of the Sarajevo market that caused so much mock moral outrage in NATO capitals, the CIA announced it was deploying operatives and spy aircraft in Albania to monitor events in the Balkans.(8) This was when Clinton was still supposedly against military action in Bosnia. Yugoslavia was a fairly advanced industrialized country, from which the United States, Germany and the USSR all drew healthy profits. Its leader, Tito, betrayed communism in 1948 and began building a model for Khrushchev's state capitalism in Russia. The Yugoslav federation exploded in 1991 under the splitting pressure of Germany and Amerika from the West, and Russia from the East. The resulting war is the turf battle between Croat and Serb capitalists, fighting over the spoils of Bosnia-Hercegovina. Bosnia is and was not a nation; many of its people are Croat or Serb Muslims.(9) Those calling for Amerikan war in Bosnia want Amerika to make a more aggressive push into the new European balance of power. The neo-liberal New Republic magazine, for example, complained that with Bush, Amerika was "first among equals," when it came to international action, but with Clinton it's "one among equals. ... Thus we had action against Iraq and we have inaction against Serbia."(10) There is a big difference between Iraq and Bosnia, though: Iraq was U.S. turf, Bosnia is in Europe. The magazine complains that "we are hiding behind the Europeans' skirts. Clinton has abjured America's primacy in NATO just as surely as he has abjured America's primacy at the United Nations."(10) Amerikan power-brokers are divided, though. Some people point out that the situation in Bosnia may "require" more than the original "selective" airstrikes; the U.S. contribution to a future NATO/U.N. force was planned to be about 25,000 troops.(11) While the Russian defense minister said the intervention could lead to World War III, Republicans divided--with Jesse Helms against and Bob Dole for--over military intervention.(12) Bush's former National Security Advisor Brent Scowcroft said the U.S. military should be "prepared to carry the war to Serbia itself," if it wanted to accomplish its mission, and experts from the Harvard Kennedy School and Brookings Institution all doubt selective bombing will stop the war.(1). Political developments within Russia are driving the inter- imperialist rivalry. Analyzing the election results in Russia, New York Times analyst William Safire said that the West's hero Yeltsin made a deal with the fascist Zhirinovsky. Yeltsin did not criticize Zhirinovsky by name in the elections and Zhirinovsky did likewise--and supported the new Constitution to give Yeltsin (and maybe himself, someday) greater powers. This maneuver in itself indicates that Yeltsin finds Zhirinovsky's politics to have some merit, and it scares imperialists in-the-know. Though the Western bourgeoisie generally favored Yeltsin's Constitution that legitimized his shutting down of Parliament, without the fascist Zhirinovsky's support it would have failed. Indeed, the strength of Zhirinovsky's showing forced the bourgeois media to make a distinction between phony-communists and fascists for the first time, as the pro-Western "reformers" called for a united front with the "communists" against the fascists in the government.(13) Underlying this shift in bourgeois media coverage is not a new genuine anti-fascism. For a moment, the imperialist bourgeoisie of Amerika believes it needs to court the "communists" in Russia to ensure that they do not ally with Zhirinovsky to redivide Europe with Germany. This fear approached panic as Yeltsin purged his cabinet of "reformers" in January, and its future depends on what final strategy the imperialists agree on for dealing with the instability in Eastern Europe. Those who uphold Lenin's theory of imperialism have a responsibility to point out that the causes of imperialist contention still exist despite the end of the Soviet bloc. The imperialists are already waging war on the Third World countries. The threat of inter-imperialist war remains, but with new alliances. As long as there is capitalist imperialism, there will be a profit in going to war to force other countries to give trade and investment terms favorable to one's bloc. Such war and imperialist subversion of slightly independence-minded governments is already going on every day in the Third World. MIM believes in creating a genuine free trade system based on real independence of nations, equality and actual peace and harmony. That is only possible by replacing capitalist competition and the pursuit of profit with socialism. The wars over ex-Yugoslavia are further evidence of this hard reality. Notes: 1. Reuter 2/10/94. 2. New York Times 2/6/94, p. 17. 3. Economist 5/23/92. 4. UPI 1/30/94. 5. Reuter 2/11/94. 6. UPI 1/21/94. 7. UPI 1/30/94. 8. UPI 1/28/94. 9. See MIM Theory 4, Winter 1993. 10. New Republic editorial 2/28/94. 11. Reuter 2/13/94. 12. AP 2/12/94. 13. See NYT 12/13-15/93. * * * LETTERS: Sison surrendered? Dear MIM Distributors, Thanks for the MIM Notes newspaper. In your Jan. 94 issue, you try to pass off one of the founders of the Communist Party of the Philippines, Jose Maria Sison, as a revolutionary communist leader of the oppressed masses. You need to check your history. Sison and other CPP leaders surrendered to the Corazon Aquino liberal capitalist regime in 1986. True, Sison had a history of anti-imperialist organizing and struggle going back to the 1960s, but he and a section of his party have capitulated to the Philippine ruling class, especially its liberal wing. In 1986 Aquino praised the surrender of Sison and other CPP officials on Philippine TV and to the capitalist press. She said confidently that Sison was "changing and going to be a good boy." Some other former CPP officials became legal organizers and others went into the agriculture business as managers. Now maybe Sison (and others) may have second thoughts about their surrender and the political illusions they helped sow in the masses in the Aquino liberal-landlord regime. If so, they should PUBLICLY do some self-criticism about their illusions in the "nationalist-progressive" Filipino bourgeoisie and their under- estimation of the struggles of the urban Filipino workers whose strength is rapidly growing with the industrialization of the Philippines. --A west coast critic MIM responds: Our critic provides no documentation for any of her or his charges other than a quote from Corazon Aquino--who had every interest in portraying Sison as a sell-out. Our critic spreads reactionary slander about revolutionary leaders which was meant to split the masses from their leaders and confuse them about the necessity of revolution. As for a public self-criticism, Sison has defended himself against these charges many times: "I never signaled support for the Aquino government beyond encouraging it to meet the antifascist, anti-imperialist, and antifeudal demands of the people. "Since the beginning of the regime, I have clearly described it as mainly and essentially a pro-U.S. and reactionary government of the ruling classes of big compradors and landlords... "I have always criticized the naive description of the Aquino regime as liberal democratic, a description made as if it were possible to foster liberal democracy on the basis of semicolonial and semifeudal conditions gravely deteriorated by economic bankruptcy and violent strife among the reactionaries themselves... "In May 1986 or even further back, I should have started to refer to the new regime as the U.S.-Aquino regime. But the euphoria among a great number of the people over the downfall of Marcos and the ascendance of Aquino and some relatively progressive moves of Aquino in contrast to the tyranny of Marcos necessitated some more time for the regime to unfold itself. Otherwise, if I or the progressive movement spoke of a U.S.-Aquino regime, we would have been called dogmatist or sectarian." "If I may add, let it be understood that the U.S. and local reactionaries were not able to put one over on the revolutionaries. The biggest advantage gained by the revolutionary movement from the downfall of Marcos has been the aggravation of the violent contradictions among the reactionary factions. The increased tendency of the ruling system to disintegrate is beneficial to the growth of the revolutionary forces." Note: Jose Maria Sison, The Philippine Revolution: The Leader's View, New York: Taylor and Francis, 1989, pp. 120, 131-132, 134. White working class not exploited [Y]our views of the U.S. working class and workers in "first world" countries seem rather ludicrous today. Your absurd analysis about so-called overpaid airline, auto, and mine workers for example could have been culled from the Wall Street Journal or the Heritage Foundation, your only difference being that your "analysis" comes in a "leftist" guise. You do not understand much about Marxism--the very workers you heap scorn on produce capital which enriches the capitalist parasites too. You think $10 to $15 an hour is too much pay--not so--when these workers produce $40-60 of surplus value stolen by the rich each hour. Apparently your "Maoism" believes that these workers actually exploit the capitalists! --The same west coast critic MIM responds: Was it absurd for Engels to write in 1892 that the English working class benefited from England's industrial monopoly, or for Lenin to say that the super-exploitation of colonial workers created the "material and economic basis for infecting the proletariat of one country or another with colonial chauvinism?"(1) After 85 years of expanding imperialist penetration, is it absurd for MIM to say the same thing? In MIM Theory 1, MIM showed that the Amerikan white working class as a whole is not exploited, i.e. it consumes at least as much value as it produces. Key to our analysis is the recognition that the dead labor of super-exploited Third World workers and exploited First World minorities is hidden in that "$40-60" which the Amerikan worker supposedly produces alone. J. Sakai's "Settlers: the Mythology of the White Proletariat" examines the development of the settler nation and explains how even those sections of the white working class which are exploited have an interest in preserving white supremacy. MIM does not investigate individuals' working conditions in order to slap arbitrary labels like "labor aristocrat" on them; we are much more interested in the line and practice of groups. And we do recognize that there are Black members of the labor aristocracy (although these are the exception), and that there is a (much smaller) basis for First World chauvinism even in the subordinate Black nation. Notes: 1. J. Sakai, Settlers: the Mythology of the White Proletariat, Chicago: Morningstar Press, 1983, p. 53. Write to MIM to order MIM Theory 1 ($4 post-paid) or Settlers ($10). Make checks payable to "ABS." PUERTO RICO ARTICLE DEBATED MIM's article on the Puerto Rican plebiscite sparked a lot of Internet debate. Here is the first part of MIM's response to a number of the arguments. A U.S. imperialism supporter wrote: "Election results indicate that only 4% support independence. Only independence advocates claim that they are larger than what they really are and, as a consequence they act like clowns when elections results come in." MIM responds: No plebiscite can be meaningful when it is conducted under occupation. This is a well recognized principle of international politics. This is no more possible than a vote in Amerika to abolish Amerika. Campaigning for such a proposal is treason by definition; hence, any such vote would be meaningless. The same applies under conditions of Puerto Rican occupation. In Eritrea, for example, the people fought a war of independence for decades. After the Ethiopian occupation was forcibly ended, THEN they held a plebiscite and declared their independence. The debate also turned to economics, where some pro-U.S. advocates argued that Puerto Rico is better off than other Latin American countries, even if it is more poor than white Amerika. MIM agreed that Puerto Ricans are generally better off than others in Latin America. But they are still at the bottom of the pile compared to white Amerika, and even other national minorities. Like some Blacks in the United States, they gain some of the benefits of the empire, even as they help make others richer. Referring to U.S. corporations lured to Puerto Rico with tax credits, the first U.S. supporter wrote: "We all love and work our butts out to have them stay on the island, while others simply whine all day waiting for the wealth to come from abroad." MIM responds: We certainly are not waiting for wealth to come from abroad. Rather, MIM argues the Puerto Rico is coughing up wealth to Amerika all the time in the form of exploited labor. Since the 1950s, the United States instituted a program of export- based industrialization on the island. In the process, manufacturing boomed, but no independent basis for economic growth resulted. Living standards for those involved in growth industries improved greatly during this period--almost as fast as the profits from Amerikan companies. Manufacturing shot up. Looks great. What happened to all the money, though? This table shows manufacturing GNP, and manufacturing profits and dividends paid out to nonresidents-- people who don't live in Puerto Rico.(1) (in $millions) Profits Percent Manufacturing sent out sent out 1950 $ 119.7 $ 14.8 12.4% 1960 366.3 75.3 20.6 1970 1,190.0 408.3 34.4 1980 5,322.5 3,308.2 62.2 1982 6,017.0 4,131.5 68.7 1989 11,032 So, from 1950 to 1982, manufacturing production increased by 4,927%. During that same time, the amount of profits and dividends from manufacturing paid out to nonresidents of Puerto Rico increased by 27,816%. And for all that "development," the NET contribution to Puerto Rican GNP of manufacturing on the island increased from 13.9% to only 14.9%--during which time the percentage of workers in the manufacturing sector more than doubled.(2) Another way of looking at it is to compare how much the imperialists get for their manufacturing wages in Puerto Rico. Here are the wages of production workers in manufacturing as a percentage of "value added" (the difference in the price of products after they leave the factory compared to when they went in):(3) 1963 28.8% 1967 27.9% 1972 24.9% 1977 17.9% 1982 12.2% This is a good incentive for "development:" more profit from the same wages. All this suggests that Puerto Ricans live at the whim of Amerika. The island is a launching pad for someone else's enterprises. When Puerto Rican workers are not needed in Puerto Rico, they may migrate into the bottom of the labor force in Amerika--or be unemployed there. In short, their well-being is not in their own hands: they lack self- determination. And no imperialist-run plebiscite is going to change that. Notes: 1. James L. Dietz, Economic History of Puerto Rico, Princeton University Press, 1986, p. 257; except 1989, from 1991 U.S. Statistical Abstract, p. 822. 2. Dietz, p. 258. 3. Emilio Pantojas-Garcia, Development Strategies as Ideology, Boulder & London: Lynne Rennier, 1990, p. 125, 169. BATHROOM POLITICS MIM recently carried on a poster debate with an anarchist critic in a women's bathroom in a Midwestern university. MIM posted a response which upheld China under Mao and the Soviet Union under Stalin as real-world steps towards freedom for the majority of their inhabitants. MIM emphasized the gains women made in those societies. A second critic wrote: "Excuse me, have you ever spent time in China or the Soviet Union? I have, and believe me, especially in China, there's very little personal freedom of thought or expression; women still get the shaft--they still don't get equal status, and even if they're doctors, it's because doctoring is considered women's work!! There's female infanticide, forced abortion and plenty of domestic violence. Students there are afraid to talk to me in public. Get a clue. If you're so into Maoism, go to China and see it in action." MIM responds: We would not go to China today to see Maoism in action. We agree with this critic that women are not free in China today. What our critic leaves out of her litany against the current regime (much of which we share) is that this regime is not Maoist. China has not been Maoist since 1976. Mao opposed Deng Xiaoping's line while he was alive. And Deng came to power as part of a coup d'etat following Mao's death in which Mao's closest supporters, the so-called Gang of Four, were arrested and imprisoned. Check it out, straight from the horse's mouth: A July 28, 1992 article in the New York Times was called "With focus on profits, China revives bias against women." The Times reporter grants that under Mao women had better housing, education, and jobs. The article then describes some of the patriarchal practices that have emerged with capitalist restoration in China: Wife-buying and - selling, western-style advertising, which has restored women's image as ornaments, and, as our critic points out, female infanticide. When writing to MIM, please provide a return address. We do not have enough space to print all correspondence, so we need to be able to write back. If you think MIM is wrong and care enough to write in and try and convince us of that, you should be prepared to struggle with us: What if MIM does not understand your criticism or wants you to help us do further research? What if you have misunderstood MIM's line? Struggle is key. * * * SINN FEIN LEADER ALLOWED INTO AMERIKA: CLINTON CAUGHT IN SQUEEZE by MC45 When Attorney General Janet Reno waived an anti-terrorist act and signed a visa permitting Sinn Fein President Gerry Adams entry to the United States for 48 hours to attend a conference on the war in northern Ireland, she tried to make it look like Sinn Fein had split from the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and had renounced armed struggle. Sinn Fein has done no such thing. Rather, Amerika's approval of Adams entry and the media distortion spun around that approval are a result of the pressure put on Clinton from two sides: liberal Irish Amerikans and the British government. The conference in New York City is part of peace talks between the Irish and British governments and Irish Republicans.(4) Sinn Fein supports the Irish Republican Army (IRA) and will be an essential part of any peace agreement in northern Ireland. Without Sinn Fein cooperation, the only avenue left for peace is for the British occupation forces to end the Irish Republican movement militarily. Clinton claims to want to see an end to the war in northern Ireland, but he doesn't support the republican goal of a unified Ireland. He doesn't even support ending the veto power the loyalist Protestant minority holds over the question of unification.(7) The U.S. government and media was deliberately vague about the conditions under which Adams was granted entry to the U.S. In the past he has been denied visas under U.S. law which excludes members and supporters of "terrorist" organizations.(5) Their vagueness was part of an attempt to split supporters of the republican movement by giving the impression that Adams had given up on armed struggle to come to the U.S. Adams has never renounced the IRA's armed struggle against British imperialism, and he did not do it for Bill Clinton. Bourgeois media distortion National Public Radio reported that Adams had been granted a visa because he had finally complied with the U.S. law that had been used to exclude him. NPR went on to report that Adams had called on the IRA to give up its arms when Protestant paramilitary forces put down their arms and when British troops withdraw from northern Ireland.(3) So even though the U.S. media has been consistently trying to whitewash Adams's politics, it is not true that he or Sinn Fein has renounced armed struggle or any part of the IRA's practice. Gerry Adams and Sinn Fein are still well aware of the American government's hypocrisy in claiming that it keeps out "terrorists." The U.S. government lets British government officials, who support the occupation of northern Ireland, run rampant in the U.S. It simply opposes the IRA, which attempts to protect the Irish people from British brutality. Clinton bows to pressure Granting the visa was a way for the Clinton administration to answer the questions it has left hanging since the start of the administration: when would Clinton actually do something about his desire for "an end to the collusion between [British] security forces and the Protestant paramilitary groups," interpreted hopefully by Irish solidarity organizations as a promise to help bring about peace in northern Ireland.(1) The president was also responding to pressure from powerful Irish Amerikan democrats in the Senate: Edward Kennedy, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and Christopher J. Dodd.(4) The U.S. president is not genuinely interested in justice in northern Ireland. Amerika would like to see peace, as a better climate for investment, but it does not support self-determination for the Irish people, the only conditions under which real peace can take hold.(1) The British press, which would rather be honest about Sinn Fein's political positions because this makes it easier to justify the occupation, was more honest than the U.S. media about the nature of Gerry Adams's call for peace. The Economist wrote a snippy editorial saying that "most Americans watching Mr. Adams's performance may be forgiven for being misled by it."(8) This editorial went on to stress that high ranking Sinn Fein members are also decision-making members of the IRA and the party's level of influence is the only reason to want to talk to Sinn Fein. The interests of the British and Amerikan media are not fundamentally different. This issue represents a split in U.S. and British imperialist policies--the U.S. media's job in this case was to make Sinn Fein look moderate to excuse the U.S. government extending a visa to the party's leader; the British media has to safeguard the moral position of the British occupation. In the past when Gerry Adams has had a forum in the United States to build public opinion for Irish Republicans he has been very forthright about his opposition to U.S. imperialism, and to the conditions under which oppressed people are forced to live in the United States. On the question of Irish Americans who support Irish Republicans but are racist he said, "Personally, I wouldn't wish to have support from someone who on the one hand professes our right as a people for national self-determination, and on the other hand was denying human beings their rights on the basis of color or creed."(2) Notes: 1. Candidate Clinton wrote this in a letter to Connecticut congressman Bruce Morrison in October of 1992. Irish Freedom, Winter 1993, p. 19. 2. Forward Motion March-April 1988, p. 14. 3. NPR 1/30/94. 4. New York Times 1/31/94, p. A5. 5. Forward Motion March-April 1988, p. 12-13. 6. Forward Motion March-April 1988, p. 11. 7. NYT 1/30/94. The partitioning of Ireland in 1922 was contrived to make one half of the partition contain a majority Protestant population (the only population likely to be loyal to the British crown). The six counties of the "North," then, comprise the only combination of Irish counties which could have a majority Protestant population. Because the north and south are distinct legal entities, in any referendum on independence, British occupation or unification, the Protestant minority has veto power over Ireland's Catholic majorities wishes. 8. The Economist 2/5/94, p. 13. * * * CORRECTION The article "Prisoners support Peruvian revolution" in MIM Notes 85 was a project of Prison Legal News, PO Box 1684, Lake Worth, FL 33460. * * * FILIPINO REVOLUTION GAINS INTERNATIONAL SUPPORT The recent internal rectification of the Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and the re-affirmation of its founding Maoist principles by the vast majority of the CPP membership has galvanized revolutionary communist and national liberation forces all over the world. (See MIM Notes 85 & 84.) The CPP-led people's war in the Philippines is notable for its adherence to the Maoist principle of maintaining the weapon of a revolutionary united front--to fight imperialism and bureaucrat capitalism. The National Democratic Front (NDF) is composed of the New People's Army (NPA) and many patriotic organizations, united under the leadership of the CPP, in the common cause to kick U.S. imperialism out of the Philippines and make the New Democratic revolution. Once imperialism is vanquished, the dictatorship of the Filipino proletariat will uplift 65 million Filipinos and eradicate the scourge of capitalism. In North Amerika, the CPP rectification has given birth to a new organization: the Philippine-American Workers International Solidarity Committee (PAWISC). The following is a statement from Pawis Front, the newsletter of PAWISC: Medics of the people The Philippine-American Workers International Solidarity Committee will show Medics of the people, a video documentary on the liberation movement in the Philippines. PAWISC calls upon Filipino patriots, progressive and revolutionary organizations, student and community groups and individuals to co- sponsor the showings or watch this important video documentary. The NPA is a member and the main military armed organization of the National Democratic Front. Under the supreme command and leadership of the Communist Party of the Philippines, the NPA undertakes political work, fighting and production. These tasks aim to advance the armed struggle, satisfy the peasant demand for land, prepare the masses for self-government and practice self- reliance while forging the basic worker-peasant alliance. Since it was founded 24 years ago, with a few fighters in one province, the NPA has attained a nationwide presence, the strength of thousands of armed guerrillas and the support of a political mass base of millions in both city and countryside under the current strategic defensive stage of the people's war. Until the final seizure of state power, the NPA will continue to train itself ideologically, politically and militarily. It learns well from its own positive and negative experiences and from the mistakes of revisionist parties in the formerly socialist countries that have restored capitalism. Guided by the CPP, the NPA pledges to uphold and defend the science of Marxism-Leninism- Mao Zedong Thought--or Maoism--in order to best serve the New Democratic revolution and prepare itself for the Socialist revolution in the Philippines. Today, as the CPP reaffirms its basic principles and consolidates itself against past "left" and right deviations and battles the Total War strategy of the U.S.-Ramos regime, Jose Maria Sison, founder of the NPA, in a speech delivered last August 8, 1993, summarized the situation and duty of the national liberation in the Philippines within the context of the present world anti- imperialist and proletarian revolutionary movement: "The neocolonialism practiced by the imperialist powers has brought about the continuous state of depression and further degradation of societies in most Asian countries since the 1970s.... "In the years to come, there will be a sharpening of struggle between those who wish to retain the socialist facade of Chinese bureaucrat capitalism and those who wish to establish an undisguised bourgeois state, as in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union. At the same time, there will be a sharpening of the class struggle between the forces of revolution and the counterrevolution. ... "In the Philippines, the revolutionary forces and the people are resolutely waging people's war. They are determined to carry aloft the flaming torch of revolutionary armed struggle as a matter of patriotic and internationalist duty, especially at this time when the people of the world have just moved into a new period of revolutionary struggle." To call attention to the liberation struggles waged by the NPA, by the Communist Party of Peru ("Sendero Luminoso"), by the latest armed peasant uprising in Chiapas, Mexico, to name a few struggles in the Third World, together with the Blacks, the Mexicanos, the indigenous peoples and other oppressed nationalities struggles within the U.S. and their need for solidarity and support from all progressive, anti-imperialist, proletarian revolutionary forces, PAWISC is sponsoring and making available the video documentary Medics of the people. The documentary was filmed by a European anti-imperialist solidarity group on a exposure trip in late 1992. It highlights one of the many things the NPA undertakes to serve the peasant masses in its guerrilla bases in the countryside under the condition of war. Showings, scheduled to coincide with the celebration of the 25th anniversary of the founding of the NPA (March 29, 1969), follow: April 1, 1994, 7-10 p.m., La Pena Cultural Center, 3195 Shattuck Avenue, Berkeley, CA. April 2, 1994, 7-10 p.m., The Woman's Building, 3543 18th Street, San Francisco, CA. Partial list of video co-sponsors: Philippine Information Network Services, Kabataang Makabayan, CA Chapter, Maoist Internationalist Movement, Geneva Towers Tenant's Association, New Bayview Newspaper. * * * MIM STRUGGLES OVER WHITE WORKING CLASS Last November, MIM met with a Maoist Dutch dockworkers union leader to struggle over the revolutionary potential of the imperialist country working classes. This was part of our international campaign to advance our line on the parasitic nature of the imperialist country working classes. MIM attempted to reach unity through struggle. Looking at the experience of California, MIM was able to say that occasionally union struggles of the imperialist nation workers do strike a blow for internationalism. The struggles of the California dockworkers in numerous contexts and Polaroid camera workers in solidarity with Azanian workers are isolated examples. At the same time, MIM pointed out that for every internationalist action by imperialist country workers, we could cite 100 counterexamples. The Dutch worker countered with a "false consciousness" theory that this was true because the bourgeoisie is the ruling class and hence the workers will demonstrate bourgeois consciousness "until the moment before the Revolution when there is widespread uprising." "False consciousness" is an excuse to import petty-bourgeois and labor aristocracy ideas into the proletarian movement. Of course, every working class has some "false consciousness." The issue is how does the "false consciousness" of the imperialist working class compare with that of genuine proletarian classes. In Puerto Rico, south Korea and South Africa, the oppressed nation workers rise up in armed struggle against their oppressors, despite doing so under illegal conditions. They have false consciousness too, because the workers in these countries do not always strike for socialism, for their own rule. However, their false consciousness is qualitatively different than the support for imperialism and imperialist militarism rendered by imperialist country workers, because the underlying material interests of the imperialist country working classes are qualitatively different than those of the oppressed country working classes. The problem in the imperialist countries is principally the fact that opportunists and dogmatists alike flatter the non-exploited labor-aristocracy and other middle-classes as if they were proletarian. Our Dutch union leader critic, like similar union leaders in Belgium and comrades in England with whom MIM has spoken, has said that s/he "couldn't get anywhere" with the workers by telling them that they are not exploited as MIM suggests. Other comrades in European countries (including England) argued with MIM that unlike North America, there are no substantial oppressed nation worker populations in Europe. This is social-democratic logic. The social-democrats cater their political principles in order to attract a majority of support--to win electoral battles. Such principles are inherently opposed to the interests of oppressed nationality "minorities" and the world majority. They are principles that can only lead to flattering the middle-classes and the importation of petty-bourgeois and labor aristocracy ideas into the proletarian movement. MIM will accept support from labor-aristocrats--but only on the basis of firm anti-imperialist and anti-militarist principles. We will work with anyone, but we would rather not "get anywhere" than to give up those fundamental principles. Also in November, MIM spoke with Gillette workers in Boston. They opposed NAFTA and were not thrilled with the visit of President Clinton to promote NAFTA. These workers supported Ross Perot's line that opposes letting Mexico "suck" away U.S. jobs. Even in conscious political agitation (connected to the CIA or multinational corporate subversion of foreign governments) the labor aristocracy is likely to go away thinking that the imperialists should be forced into a limited mobility that would require them to leave jobs in the United States. Since this result occurs dialectically even in the process of ordinary agitation against imperialism, all the more so does it occur when talking about unemployment to Gillette workers, for example. These workers don't need to be told that unemployment is a problem. They already know. They need to be told that solving unemployment for the labor aristocracy means propping up imperialism. They need to understand the history of such solutions and why imperialist country working classes have never tried socialism. Maoists must talk about unemployment very carefully and only in the context of explaining that unemployment can only be resolved through political action--socialism. While we reached unity on this last point with our Dutch comrade, there was still the question of the actual class demands of the imperialist country working class. The Dutch union leader stressed that workers should fight "for their jobs" in the NAFTA context and in any other context where multinational capital threatens to move and leave behind unemployed workers. At the same time, the union leader said that this was possible while criticizing Ross Perot's line that the imperialist countries' jobs were being "sucked into Mexico." This is an obvious contradiction. It is not possible to fight for "your" jobs without thinking they should not be someone else's. However, the union leader recognizes that it is not correct for one group of workers to oppose another set of workers' getting jobs. This gets workers nowhere--fighting each other over where the imperialists should locate their production. Workers in the imperialist countries must be trained to think in terms of the interests of the international proletariat as a whole. For their part, intellectuals and party leaders must stop attributing thin skins and weak egos to the workers: they will not die if they learn the true history and economic position of the labor aristocracy. The political leaders of the proletariat must stop making excuses for importing middle-class ideas into the proletarian movement. Imperialist country workers should not be appealed to on narrow bases. They must be given explanations for why their class has supported imperialism in the past. Without such explanations the labor aristocracy workers will only conclude that the communists lack any sense of reality. When the labor aristocracy has an understanding of its past and repudiates it, then it can move into the socialist future. * * * U.S. IMPERIALISM PROPS UP PERUVIAN COMPRADOR REGIME by MC432 The exploitation and oppression of the Peruvian people by the regime of Alberto Fujimori is fueled by a flow of imperialist capital into Peru. The regime is barely scraping by now and would topple in a second without this boon of imperialist "aid." Mass capital-infusions, principally from the United States, are propping up the government and its army, enabling it to limp along under the devastating force of the People's War and the class struggle. As part of supporting the People's War led by the Communist Party of Peru (PCP), a Maoist vanguard party, revolutionaries in Amerika must understand the extent of U.S. and other imperialist involvement in Peru. Extent of imperialist "aid" The U.S. Government claimed it had suspended aid to the Peruvian government to punish Fujimori's April 1992 "self-coup." Then, to reward Fujimori for his Sept. 1992 capture of Abimael Guzm�n, Chairperson of the PCP, Peru received $137 million in U.S. aid in 1993. This bundle made Peru the highest recipient of U.S. aid in South America, and second in all of Latin America.(1) The United States also offered $105 million as the main donation to an international group covering Peru's foreign debt payments. Only $37 million of this has come through so far; the rest is being used to persuade the Fujimori regime to prosecute a few high-profile human rights cases against the military, such as the La Cantuta killings.(1) Peru has averaged 300 disappearances of political prisoners per year during the 80s, and so was perhaps an embarrassing U.S. ally.(2) Avalanche of World Bank funds The U.S.-dominated World Bank is another source of capital. The bank deals out large loans usually intended to build roads or dams that enable foreign capital to pursue its profit-making more easily. The Bank then sucks huge profits out of those countries through accumulated interest on the unpayable loans. The World Bank is now approving $434 million in loans for Peru in the 1994-5 fiscal year, mostly for highway construction, roads and airports, and the electricity sector. These loans merely ease industrial and military penetration of Peru. The remaining funds are for supposed humanitarian goals: $100 million for the National Compensation and Social Development Fund for social support, and $34 million for health and nutrition.(3) Given Peru's population of 22.8 million people,(4) this amounts to about $6 per person. It is precisely this kind of "aid" that is intended to allow the government to improve slightly the conditions of the impoverished, in the hopes that the poor will cease to oppose the state. But this pathetic $6 bone that the imperialists are throwing to the Peruvian masses will do nothing to weaken their revolutionary fervor. Penetration of foreign capital But the biggest source of imperialist capital is the private sector. At the end of 1993, there was $1.717 billion of accumulated foreign investment in Peru. The U.S. ranked first with $630 million, followed by Panama ($160 million), China ($118 million) and Switzerland ($100 million).(5) With a 200% rate of return on investment in Peru,(6) U.S. investors alone are leaching nearly 1.5 billion dollars from the Peruvian people this year. The "growth" from these investments benefits only the Peruvian elite and the imperialist nations' labor aristocracies and bourgeoisies. "Growth" without equitable distribution of wealth means the economic well-being of the Peruvian population as a whole is not improving. Among the biggest threats to Peruvians is the privatization of state-owned industries currently being carried out by the Fujimori regime, in which employees of those firms are "sure to be sacked when their firms are sold off."(7) This will boost the already staggering unemployment rate in Peru--which has remained at nearly 80% for the last four years!(8) Privatization scheme rips off masses Fujimori's hand-picked congress in November put the finishing touches on the freest set of investment terms for foreign interests in recent times. A "debt-equity swap" program was approved, in which owners of Peru's foreign debt can now use it to buy privatized state-owned industries.(9) With Peruvian debt selling at 70 cents on the dollar, Fujimori is pawning off the country's industry at discount rates in the vain hope of getting the imperialist banks off his back, all the while deepening Peru's dependence. Debt-equity swapping may speed up the privatization process, but not for long. Speculators will push up the market value of Peruvian debt paper until it's not profitable to swap it for equity.(10) And most importantly, no matter how much equity in privatized industries the government pawns off to foreign multinationals, there will be no equity for the Peruvian people, the intended losers in this international shell-game. Fujimori has also revamped the investment code to include far- reaching ownership guarantees to foreign interests, free repatriation of their earnings and capital, and one of Latin America's most liberal tax regimes. These pimping trade-terms will lure even more foreign capital to Peru. According to one Peruvian government minister, more than $4 billion will have entered the Treasury by the time the sell-off of 70 state-owned companies ends in 1995. With literally every state-owned company on the auction-block, the livelihood of millions of workers is at stake. Anti-privatization protests are widespread, such as those by the workers of Pescaperu, the public fishing company.(7) According to one authority, "Little of the money gained by the government from selling off state assets is returned to the people in the form of support services and relief for the poor, even though worker's survival is threatened by the erosion of labor rights, layoffs, and the draining and destruction of Peru's resources by foreigners."(6) People's War continues The official state of emergency in January was continued in six of Peru's 24 departments (Lima, Callao, Ancash, Ucayali, Huanuco and Loreto) to "facilitate military operations against terrorism and drug trafficking." These decrees suspend constitutional rights and indicate that the armed forces (rather than civilian police) will attempt to gain control of the areas.(11) These areas are strategically important, since the six departments form a chain that divides Peru in half. One of them, Loreto, comprises nearly one-third of the area of the country, while another, Lima, holds nearly a third of the country's population. Though not every province of each department is under state of emergency, it would appear that at least one-third of the country is under PCP control or influence. According to an article on coca production in Peru, the export- product, coca paste, is not primarily produced in any of those departments that are now under a state of emergency, but rather centers in the departments of San Martin, Amazonas, Cuzco, Junin, and Pasco. Since there is no overlap between those areas under state of emergency and those areas where coca paste is produced, one can only conclude that "terrorists," that is, the PCP, must be sufficiently powerful in Lima, Callao, Ancash, Ucayali, Huanuco and Loreto to force the government to engage them militarily--with the help of Amerika's $8 million in "drug war" aid for 1994.(12,13) The Peruvian masses know that they are little better off being exploited by foreign multinationals than by their own bourgeoisie- -that is why the people have chosen Maoist revolution. Yet Fujimori's insidious privatization program may have one great benefit: when the Peruvian people seize state power, all of that imperialist capital can be expropriated, and used in service of the people of Peru. Notes: 1. The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc, Daily Report For Executives, 1/24/94. 2. The New York Times 1/12/94. 3. American Banker-Bond Buyer 11/22/93. 4. 1993 World Almanac & Book of Facts (1992, est.). 5. Reuters 1/26/94. 6. Peru Scholars News and Notes 1/94. 7. San Francisco Chronicle, 11/22/93. 8. NYT 11/2/93, p. A1, D2. 9. International Securities Regulation Report 12/14/93. 10. American Banker-Bond Buyer 12/13/93. 11. BBC Summary of World Broadcasts, 1/17/94. 12. BBC 1/12/94. 13. AP 12/14/93. * * * HOUSING PROJECTS PROPELLED INTO NEW WORLD ORDER by MA79 Via Operation Safe Home: A program that intends to "reduce violent crime in public and assisted housing, and to crack down on white collar crime..." (1); Vice President Al Gore said, "will give public housing residents some powerful new allies in their struggle to secure themselves."(2) This is a program reeking of overt police presence and is a continuation of HUD's overall program originally designed to wipe out oppressed nations who currently reside in the metropolitan trenches. Operation Safe Home is a combination of HUD, the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration, the FBI, the Secret Service and U.S. attorneys. The new National Drug Control Strategy outlined by Attorney General Reno and Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen states clearly in their Press Briefing these outrageous claims to fight "crime": * Tightly coordinated law enforcement and crime prevention operations at targeted sites. * Federal initiatives and policies to strengthen law enforcement and crime and "drug prevention" in public and assisted housing. * Free rent for police who live in targeted public housing.(3) (The police wholesale drugs in the projects.) * Making it illegal for residents of public housing to own or possess any firearms.(2) The program Operation Safe Home sends a clear message: A more overt police presence in the ghettos and more lies to the people. A key sub-program to this lie is called the Tenant Opportunity Program (TOP). TOP will supposedly train folks in business ownership and management, child care, youth programs, tenant security patrols and other activities that will probably fizzle out because of lack of funds embezzled by underhanded politicians. Anybody who knows some of the history of these "opportunities" will know that these are bogus. If these weren't lies, the people would have what they really do deserve: Factual power! In fact, much is said in the press briefing about fraud; how it leads to the literal physical deterioration of public and assisted housing. Let's face it, the ghettos are refugee communities resulting from a 500-year war of exploitation and expropriation against the oppressed nations, which has always been conducted in the name of the white nation's prosperity and security. Gore continues what Uncle Sam started. Throughout the Operation Safe Home press briefing document we hear of the "reign of terror in public and assisted housing... ." Well, if the pigs step up, there will be a terror with which the likes no one has ever seen. No doubt will there be more police and secret service repression, rape, drug smuggling and random death courtesy of the Clinton/Gore corporate empire. We can bet that sometime soon the oppressed nations living in the ghettos will organize themselves to combat the upcoming devastation that befalls them. From jail cell to housing project to jail cell, the oppressed nations in Amerika go through virtual hell to just stay alive. In reality, the oppressed nations have always been blocked by the bourgeois state from realizing political or economic power. Geneva Towers in San Francisco is a prime example of a people being dispossessed by a capitalist structure that would rather have nothing to do with them at all, so it just kills them off slowly by political repression and economic exploitation. Operation Safe Home is just a part of an overall proto-fascist development, embodied in a crime bill. War on drugs and crime in Amerika means just this: A war on the people! This must not go unchallenged! There is only one way to break the chains of capitalism: Create independent power structures and build public opinion to seize power through armed struggle! The only political power that the oppressed nations have is their independent power which grows only from the use of force. Readers should pick up the next MIM Notes in order to follow our coverage of the crime bill. Notes: 1. Operation Safe Home press briefing 2/4/94, p. 1. 2. San Francisco Examiner 2/5/94, p. A1, A10. 3. Operation Safe Home press briefing 2/4/94, p. 8. * * * PHILADELPHIA Philadelphia is making big bucks in the movie industry in spite of speculation that a movie about a gay man with AIDS would not appeal to the general homophobic public. Fortunately for the public, this captivating drama does not go too far into the life of a gay man. In many ways this is a good movie for Amerikans to see. It forces people to at least think about discrimination and sexual orientation and AIDS. Unfortunately the movie stops short of reality. In reality gay men (and lesbians and bisexuals) do more than just lightly kiss the partner they have been with for years. In reality most gay men are not quite so acceptable to society as were the men in this film. In reality, individuals generally do not win in battles against powerful capitalist corporations who have discriminated against them. And in reality truth and justice do not prevail in the courtroom. In at least one suburban theater there was more laughter from the audience at the anti-gay jokes in the movie than at the pro-gay jokes. There were many titters and "ew gross" comments when Tom Hanks danced with his lover. Fortunately for the audience the movie was sufficiently sanitized. If people are going to go see sad dramas, this one beats a lot of what's out there making the big bucks in Hollywood. If only because it forces people to think about questions of discrimination and inequality in corporate Amerika, this movie gets a half thumb up. --MC17 * * * IN THE NAME OF THE FATHER: INSPIRATIONAL STRUGGLE AGAINST INJUSTICE In the Name of the Father is an excellent Hollywood docu-drama portraying the Irish struggle against British imperialism. While MIM understands that there are many inaccurate scenes used to keep the audience interested, the drama was well worth the six bucks to get at least a glimpse of British injustice and repression against the Irish people. The movie, starring Daniel Day-Lewis, is an exciting portrayal of the Irish nationalist struggle. Although it clearly comes out against the IRA and "terrorism," the portrayal of the IRA is more complex. The first scene in the movie is one of the best: Gerry Conlon, played by Day-Lewis, and his friend are seen as petty thieves who catch the attention of the police while playing air guitar with a lead pipe on a roof--the police think that Conlon and his friend are IRA snipers. During the chase through narrow alleys and through houses, the masses shelter and support Conlon, and block the British tanks from rolling through the neighborhood. This scene depicts strong mass support for the IRA and impressive organization by the IRA. For example, the IRA had already warned Conlon and his friend to stop stealing because it gives the British troops an excuse to attack the people. In this scene the IRA threatens to shoot these kids in their kneecaps as another warning, because not only had they brought down the state on this neighborhood, they ran though an IRA base house and gave the police an excuse to bust up part of the IRA in the process. Later portrayals of the IRA are more negative. The movie is based on Conlon's autobiography, Proved Innocent, which tells of his and his father's wrongful imprisonment for participation in an IRA bombing of an English soldier's pub. Conlon was not a member of the IRA, and did not really understand the struggle until he was in prison. But he was a petty Irish thief in the wrong place at the wrong time in England during the 1974 bombing. MIM will not give away the dramatic courtroom scenes in which the evidence is finally revealed; you have to see that for yourself. Name of the Father was made to help clear Conlon's father's name, who died in prison and whose name has not yet been cleared of the trumped up charges.(1) The film sometimes portrays the IRA as random, ruthless killers, but the overall message that MIM chose to focus on is that the British injustice system, like all of the unjust imperialist systems of the world, is not random and needs to be exposed and defeated. Note: World Press Review vol. 40 7/93, p. 49. * * * MOVIE MONOPOLY Producing films is expensive. So is distributing them. But that's not all. Both production and distribution are oligopolies: industries that are controlled by a few companies which collaborate financially (and ideologically, in this case) making them virtually monopolies. So, even as more movies are produced and directed toward more targeted audiences, there is less and less possibility of counter-hegemonic movies reaching mass audiences. Four companies--Sony, Time Warner, Disney and Universal Pictures-- together controlled 72% of the Amerikan industry in 1993, measured in gross income. Most of the rest was controlled by a few others. Sony (Columbia, TriStar, Sony Classics, Triumph), Warner and Disney (Disney, Buena Vista, Miramax) between them released 109 movies last year, with an average gross of about $22-35 million each. Universal Pictures is owned by Matsushita. When MIM Notes reviews movies, we know we're not reviewing expressions of organic popular culture. Instead, we are watching the efforts of some of the world's biggest multinational corporations, as they try to shape popular ideas and culture-- while keeping people satisfied by reacting to, and sometimes co- opting, popular trends. In the process, the movie companies make a killing in cash and attempt to make the world safer for imperialism. --MC12 Notes: Economist 1/8/94, p. 74. * * * HOLLYWOOD IS ROYALTY IN EUROPE Even though some of the biggest movie-producing companies are not strictly Amerikan-owned, such as Sony, Hollywood-produced movies dominate the world market almost completely. The Economist reports that "a dozen of the 250 or so films that America makes each year account for more than 60% of world box- office receipts." Further, Jurassic Park was the top-selling movie in Germany, Britain and Italy last year, and Britain's top 19 movies were made in the USA last year. In 1993, "Spanish films had less than 20% of their home market and German films had just 9% of theirs. Hollywood films had 90% of the Italian market." France, with the healthiest movie industry in Europe, controlled just 37% of its home market last year. This Amerikan domination serves the interests of imperialism overall, even as it strengthens Amerika relative to European powers. Organizing in support of the international proletariat is the task of all revolutionary-minded residents of First World countries. The exposure and criticism of the imperialists' culture is part of that internationalist duty. --MC12 Notes: Economist 2/5/94, p. 89. * * * BSU BOYCOTTS MLK DAY SYMPOSIUM ANN ARBOR, Mich.�The Black Student Union (BSU) at the University of Michigan recently boycotted the University-sponsored Martin Luther King Day Symposium. The BSU was protesting the lack of political activists at the symposium, the lack of student input in its planning, and its focus on a depoliticized multiculturalism. The BSU organized an alternative teach-in and encouraged students to attend it instead.(1) University whitewashes history Besides the exclusion of student planning, the BSU criticized this year's symposium for hiding the real contradictions in Amerikan society. The symposium was "academic and limited to the University setting." It "did not focus on issues of social, political and economic empowerment urgent to African American, Native American, Latino and Asian communities."(1) The BSU also criticized the symposium's bogus "multiculturalism" for homogenizing the cultures within Amerikan borders and ignoring the material conditions which create national oppression. "Race tension stems from racial oppression, economic injustice and political marginalization of our communities. Any discussion of multiculturalism which does not address issues of subjugation as they relate to each community only contributes to the maintenance of oppression."(1) This "multiculturalism" is one of colonialism's main ideological tools. As J. Sakai points out: "Our original demand that our separate and unique histories be recognized is now being used to throw us off our ideological balance.� The imperialists even concede that their standard 'U.S. history' is a white history, and is supposedly incomplete unless the long suppressed Third-World histories are added to it." This allows the imperialists to "keep on saying, over and over, 'You folks, just think about your own history; don't bother analyzing white society, just accept what we tell you about it.'"(3) Oppressed nations are discouraged from studying oppressor nations; revolutionaries are discouraged from knowing their enemy. The BSU's alternative events focused on "African independence, self-determination and reality."(1) Speakers at the BSU's Unity March referred to the Haitian and Cuban revolutions and called on their listeners to study and understand them. A member of the New Afrikan People's Organization spoke, and Ahmed Abdur-Rahman, a former Black Panther who does not conceal the Panthers' Maoist roots, presented the video, "The FBI's war on Black America." Rahman and the organizers of the teach-ins advocated a mixture of consciousness-raising and reformism as paths forward and used the slogans "Educate to liberate" and "Each one teach one." MIM thinks that this line is defeatist and a giant step backwards from the Panthers' line and practice. Contentment with individual and local changes plays right into the hands of the reactionaries, who would like nothing better than for resistance to remain small and isolated. The Panthers didn't just say, "Tell somebody about national oppression," they said "Build power to take state power!" The Panthers didn't think petition drives or votes today could get lasting concessions from the imperialists, they knew they had to boot the imperialists out before voting to end occupation would mean anything. Trot-pocrisy The National Women's Rights Organizing Committee (NWROC), a local front group for the Trotskyist Revolutionary Workers League (RWL), slandered the BSU and attempted to split and wreck it. According to an NWROC flyer, the leaders of the BSU have "diverted the justified anger of black students," played the role of "damage control for the Administration for years," and been hesitant to lead "mass student struggle." The flyer did not contain any investigation of these charges�even though it was handed out at events where the BSU was sharply criticizing the administration and obviously leading a "mass student struggle"�and there was no evidence that NWROC had tried to struggle with the BSU beforehand. One NWROC member who was asked to stop distributing the flyer by the BSU refused and vocally accused the BSU of trying to "conceal the truth." Besides calling the BSU leadership the administration's toadies, NWROC criticized them for "rely[ing] on the Administration to fight racism," i.e. leading a single-issue reformist campaign. Which is the absolute height of hypocrisy. NWROC itself is a single-issue group set up to recruit people with reformist ideologies to Trotskyism. And although NWROC's "MASS STUDENT STRUGGLE [to] force the Administration to take students seriously"(4) sounds more militant, it would still be a reformist struggle for concessions from those in power. But the RWL doesn't care about principled criticism or effective organizing, they just want to see people out in the streets (preferably under their banner). Reform vs. revolution MIM asked the BSU for an interview in order to learn more about their exclusion from the speaker selection process, but the BSU was no longer giving interviews. They said the University was listening to their grievances and that it was "time to move on." MIM does not concentrate on negotiating or threatening reforms out of those who hold power. We prepare for the struggle to build the people's power ideologically and organizationally. Twenty years of dedicated but reformist activism at the University of Michigan has not perceptibly increased Black enrollment or retention rates. By leading a movement criticizing the university's refusal to change and then entering into negotiations with it, the BSU gives the masses the illusion that reformism works. Notes: 1. The Michigan Daily, 1/14/94, p. 4. 2. The Michigan Daily, 1/24/94, p. 4. 3. J. Sakai, Settlers: The Mythology of the White Proletariat, Chicago: Morningstar Press, 1983, p. 1. $10 postpaid from MIM. 4. NWROC flyer.