Know the enemy – Reply to MR-2004 invitation

(Booklet published by PALA and NDLF, Tamilnadu)

2 -12 -2003
Dear Comrades,

You may be aware that WSF is holding its annual mela (fanfare) at Mumbai, India during
January 2004. Some organisatio ns like AIPRF, ILPS, WPRM etc., are organising a
parallel event, namely 'MR 2004' on the same dates at Mumbai. MR 2004 formally
exposes WSF to be a stooge organisation of the Imperialists. But MR 2004 categorically
states that it is not against WSF; Furthe r, it also invites the constituents of WSF to the
MR 2004 event. We consider this approach to be erroneous. We had been invited to join
MR 2004. But we declined the invitation and have sent our criticisms on MR 2004's
approach towards NGO's and WSF. Though the WSF is sufficiently exposed by various
organisations and intellectuals worldwide, we feel that there still remain various
vacillatory trends amongst Communist Revolutionaries and Democratic Forces in dealing
with the WSF. Hence we circulate the following document. Please do respond.

People's Art and Literary Association (PALA)

New Democratic Labour Front (NDLF)
Tamil Nadu, South India,
Email: puthiyakalacharam@ rediffmail.com
________________________________________________________________________

KNOWING THE ENEMY

WSF is a formation designed by the imperialists to divert and blunt the spontaneous anti-
imperialist struggles and to nip the Communist politics that threatens to sprout up again.
Even those who were initially excited by the Seattle agitation and rushed to appraise it as
the emergence of an anti-Imperialist People’s movement had to retract. Within a few
years, from their own experience they realized the fact that WSF nothing but a puppet of
Imperialism. The recent issue of Aspects of Indian Economy (Issue No. 35, Sep.03)
carries a well-documented exposure of this conspiracy, called WSF.

On its part the first document of MR 2004 presents the following facts against the WSF:

a. “We find that the WSF, as it structured – only for ‘reflective thinking’ without
conclusions and plans for action – does not allow for the development of a clear anti-
Imperialist perspective.”
b. “The WSF is being led by ‘left’ parties who are or have been in power either at
provincial or central level in Brazil, Western European countries and even India. These
parties have themselves been implementing the policies prescribed by the IMF, WB and
other imperialist institutions.”

1
c. “Leading constituents of the WSF are major NGOs who are active in raising
demands to reform the imperialist system and give, in their words, ‘globalization a
human face’. Given this domination of WSF by elements that are not opposed to
imperialist globalization itself, it is clear that the task of developing the anti-imperialist
struggle cannot be undertaken freely in this forum.”

d. “The WSF is being funded largely by donations obtained either directly from
imperialist agencies (e.g., The Ford Foundation) or indirectly through NGOs funded by
such agencies or governments. Such funds are given with the express purpose of
institutionalizing dissent and diverting genuine activists into channels harmless to
imperialism, thus harming the growing movement.”

After listing the above facts (or should we call them exposures?) the document makes a
mysterious turnaround and invites all those “forces committed to and participating in the
WSF process to join in the MR 2004 programme.” Even a cursory reading of the
document reveals the inherent contradictions. The document accuses WSF to be an
organization led by the lackeys of imperialists, crowded with NGOs and funded by Ford
Foundation etc., to disrupt and impede the anti- imperialist moveme nt. After such an
assessment, one expects the document to end with an appeal to strive for the abolition of
this imperialist maneuver. But in a carefully worded statement the document describes
MR 2004 as a Parallel Event caused by the fact that “the task of developing anti-
imperialist struggle could not be undertaken freely in WSF.” While the strings as well as
the hands that pull the puppet (i.e. WSF) are clearly visible and sufficiently exposed the
document worries about the ideology and practice of the puppet. It states that the WSF is
structured only for reflective thinking and hence does not allow for the development of
clear Anti- Imperialist perspective. Lack of clarity in anti-imperialist perspective and lack
of freedom to develop anti- imperialist struggles! Such criticisms are put forth even by the
anarchists of all hues, who are diehard members of the WSF. Thus the ‘criticisms’ put
forth by MR 2004 against WSF are not in fact criticisms. They sound more like an
apology or explanation of an unfortunate situation in which they were forced to cause a
divide in a great anti- imperialist people’s movement. No wonder that the WSF
constituents are invited to participate in MR 2004. But, why the MR 2004 constituents
are not accorded with the license to cross the fence? This remains to be a puzzle.

2. MR-2004 introduces itself “as a continuation of the militant traditions set in the anti-
globalization and anti-war movements that assumed a new intensity after Seattle.” Since
AIPRF is one of the key initiators of this effort we have to remind them of certain simple
facts. Apart from the much lauded militancy of the Seattle struggle, its political
orientation was extremely heterogeneous, to say the least. But the anti- imperialist
tradition of the Communist Revolutionaries of the world is time honoured, politically
radical and in practice more militant. Seattle or no Seattle, Communist Revolutionaries
of all countries organize their own people against imperialism on the basis of their own
political strategy and tactics. They proudly proclaim themselves to be the inheritors of the
Communist as well as national revolutionaries. Such an independent, unambiguously
anti- imperialist and revolutionary movement should be the base upon which any truly
international formation could be built. On the contrary, MR 2004 is inspired by Seattle! It

2
expresses its desire to inherit the subsequent Anti-globalization and anti-war movements.
Elsewhere its document also admits to the fact that, the same movements to which MR
2004 proudly lays claim to are institutionalized by the NGOs and the lackeys of
imperialists. Militant, yet such a vulnerable tradition! Not discounting the fact that
millions of people have indeed participated in the said movements, one cannot lose sight
of the fact that the ideological orientations of the constituents were so fragile that they
could effortlessly be institutionalized by the imperialists. Such a massive task of
institutionalization in a surprisingly very short period! We cannot bestow the who le
credit to the imperialists, lest we forget the role played by the anarchists and
postmodernists, and their ideological influence over the masses. Militancy apart, these
are also facts, which constitute the ‘Seattle tradition’. While the genuine anti-imperialist
sentiments of the people should definitely be taken into account, one should not close his
eyes to the Political expression of the said sentiment, before laying claim to a tradition.

3. WSF is a puppet designed to give a human face to imperialism and it should be

exposed from without. Such an endeavor combined with the building of a revolutionary
anti- imperialist movement would render the immobilization of WSF. But MR 2004 holds
a different view. ‘Criticisms’ apart, it considers WSF and its constituents as a force to be
won over to its side. MR 2004 introduces itself as an event running parallel to WSF, not
opposed to it. It seeks to take all those attending WSF beyond the limits of reflective
thinking, into serious anti- imperialist struggle. We cannot help recalling the tradition of
CPI, which strove hard to identify progressive elements in the Congress Party.

4. Regarding the perspective of MR 2004, its document states that “through sharing
experiments and analyzing imperialist strategies it aims at developing a perspective that
will unite all struggling forces, irrespective of the forms of struggle they may choose, and
take the movement forward to confront and ultimately defeat imperialism”. Developing a
perspective for the ultimate defeat of imperialism, through analyzing imperialist
strategies! Or, is it about formulating a revolutionary perspective through sharing the
experiences of struggles guided by a variety of bourgeois perspectives? Leave alone the
fact that empiricism never gives birth to a scientific perspective. But it is really shocking
when MR 2004 presents itself as an organization (or event) hitherto having no ideological
perspective and waiting to develop one, through a discussion. That too a perspective
tailored to guarantee the unity of all struggling forces! We can be rest assured that such a
lowest common denominator would have nothing to do with Marxism – Leninism – Mao
tse Tung Thought. We definitely agree that any revolutionary organization can build a
United Front with non-proletarian organizations on the basis of a common minimum
programme, while preserving its ideological purity. But MR 2004 enlightens us to a new
concept of common minimum perspective! While the WSF, which pretends to be a
process and has ‘defined’ its ideology to be anti-Communist (ranging from neo- liberalism
to anarchism and postmodernism), we witness the Communist Revolutionaries feeling
apologetic of their identity and ideological perspective. MR 2004 states that it presents a
concretely defined socio -economic structure as opposed to the amorphous presentation of
WSF. But this concreteness defines itself as “self-reliance and a total break from all
controls of the world capitalist system and a striving to move towards a genuine socialist
order.” ‘Genuine Socialist Order’ also happens to be an equally amorphous term, which

3
could be understood and explained in many mutually incompatible ways. We are yet to
learn from RRS, BKU, CMM AND MUSLIM YOUTH OF INDIA (the initiators of MR
2004) about their concrete understanding of ‘genuine socialism’, not to speak of the
anarchists and Trotskyites of WSF.

5. MR 2004 treads softly so as not to disturb the upper crest of the European and
American public opinion, corrupted by the imperialist propaganda against Communism
and proletarian dictatorship. The form of presenting one’s standpoint may vary, keeping
in view of the public opinion. But the so-called public opinion could not become an
excuse for a compromise on the basic principles. More the distortions against
communism are more the necessity for clarity. For that matter the term imperialism is
also distorted altogether. Many western intellectuals explain imperialism only as acts of
aggression and hegemonism. Subsequently they cherish the dream of redeeming a
bourgeois democratic utopia, upholding the values of Liberty, Equality and Fraternity.
But the ultimate defeat of imperialism inevitably demands the abolition of capitalism.
The advancement towards Communism through Socialism under the dictatorship of the
proletariat is not just a theoretical formulation, but historically established truth. But it
seems that MR 2004 aspires to build a very broad anti- imperialist movement by
underplaying the question of principles. An organization that chooses to maintain a
studied silence on its own ideology, aspires to win over others to its own perspective and
practice. Curious, but a fact nevertheless!

6. The imperialist world is entangled in an unprecedented economic crisis, aptly depicted

by them as ‘synchr onized sinking ’. Politically, the much-trumpeted bourgeois values of
freedom and democracy are steadily getting invalidated leading to the Fascisisation of
State and Society. The gulf of inequality between Classes and Nations is fast widening.
Unable to project any credible political or ideological alternative, the imperialists are
scared at the possibility of communism gaining influence as the alternative. This
apprehension of the enemy is true despite the fact that the International Communist
Movement is splintered and weak. Hence, the time-tested tactics of promoting social
democrats, anarchists, Trotskyites and pseudo-communists is on the play now. The
vanguard role of PT in the WSF and the active role of CPI, CPI (M), CPI M-L
(Liberation) in India are part of this conspiracy; a conspiracy to gain credibility by
portraying a bourgeois formation as a red coalition. Or ‘left pluralism’ in the now
infamous NGO - discourses! A classic case of waving red flag against the red flag! But
does the MR 2004 really hold a red flag to wave against them? This is a moot question.
In our opinion we should hold high the banner of Marxism – Leninism – Mao tse Tung
Thought and expose the lackeys of Imperialism masquerading themselves as Communists
and Socialists. Underplaying the ideological and political issues in order to sound
‘democratic’ is suicidal, to say the least.

7. The crisis of Imperialism and its glaring attempts to thrust the burden of crisis on the
shoulders of the people – especially of the oppressed countries, the blatant aggressions of
the American Hegemonists, and the resultant anger fulminating throughout the world
urgently demands the solidarity of the international proletariat. Hence, the immediate
task of the Communist Revolutionaries is to build a national as well as international front

4
that projects Communism as the alternative to Imperialism and Capitalism. Such an
alternative cannot be an amalgam of incongruent forces always yearning to tail behind
spontaneity. Our alternative could be dishearteningly small in the beginning, lagging
very much behind the fanfare and the media attention associated with WSF carnivals; our
forums might not be graced with the august presence of the illustrious intellectuals of the
world. But the ideology, politics and organization of our alternative will stand as a
bulwark against the anarchism, postmodernism and the process of de- ideologisation set-
off by the WSF. Only through such an alternative we can convince the people of the
futility of legalism and no n-violence; and politically enlighten them of the inevitability of
an armed revolution to defeat Imperialism. Otherwise Communist Revolutionaries would
be forced to plead before a motley crowd of various ideological hues to allow a space for
armed revolution in their pantheon. We do not reject the necessity of building an anti-
Imperialist United Front with non-proletarian classes and organizations. But we
emphasize the importance of a co-ordination amongst the Communist Revolutionaries
and the significance of building an independent anti-Imperialist movement before
venturing into the formation of any broader front. Any anti-Imperialist United Front built
in alliance with the national and other bourgeois forces would definitely have a Common
Minimum Programme. But we should never dream of constructing a Common Minimum
Ideology. A programme - based unity will not forestall the continuance of ideological
struggle with the allies and WSF is not our ally). This is the time-tested experience of the
international proletariat on the question of United Front, not on the question of
Carnivals. Some people may screw up their faces and may brand this approach to be
‘sectarian’. If putting forward one’s own perspective itself could be considered as
sectarian then proletariat should decide to abandon its ideology to gain democratic
credentials. Longing to gain democratic credentials, MR 2004 compromises on the
ideological perspective. While WSF celebrates de- ideologisation with a sinister design in
mind, MR 2004 arrives at the same destination through democratic means and of course,
with very good intentions.

8. MR-2004 document rightly declares that the leading constituents of WSF are major
NGOs and exposes their evil designs to sabotage the anti-imperialist movement. But
when the document invites the members of WSF to join MR 2004 programme it
maintains a studied silence as to whether the NGOs (major as well as minor) would also
be enrolled as members of MR 2004. Likewise, we are also not enlightened as to
whether the other members of MR 2004 can have truck with the NGOs. Such
inconvenient questions have not been raised nor are they answered in the document. The
ambivalence on the question of NGOs is a disease that erodes the progressive camp. This
ambivalence justifies itself by projecting the examples of a few ‘honest’ individuals who
have one a laudable work in certain fields. As Lenin once warned, honest opportunism
poses the greatest threat. If ‘Honesty’ serves as a mask to conceal opportunism, the
‘Human Face’ of the NGOs conceals their mission to serve Imperialism. During 1980s
the CPI (M) exposed the NGOs as the stooges of Imperialism. Now it has made a
complete turnaround and recognizes them as forces of social change. Such official
declarations help make the ideological struggles much easier than vague explanations.
The NGOs are not just safety valves; they are the power centers of imperialism studded
in the grass root to monitor the project of Recolonisation. ‘Bad NGOs—Good cadres’ is a

5
hackneyed phrase; “Winning over the genuine cadres of NGOs through joint actions” is
also an obsolete excuse, used by CPI M-L (Liberation) twenty years ago. Hence any
Anti-Imperialist front should spell out its position viz., a viz., the NGOs in no uncertain
terms.

9. NGOs are not products of WSF. Instead WSF is the conglomerate of NGOs. The
origin of NGOs dates back to the period of Vietnam aggression. The petit bourgeoisie
and intermediary classes who were disillusioned with the imperialism, yet abhorred the
idea of rallying behind Communism were the prime targets of the Imperialism in the 60s.
The NGOs were institutions designed to institutionalize this social base. Yet, it would be
a gross misjudgment to believe that those who chose to join the NGOs were simply
cheated into it; they were in fact willing accomplices in the Anti-Communist crusade.
While the ideology of the NGOs is firmly rooted in the Anti-Communism, the Grass Root
organizations built by the NGOs amongst various segments of people rambled with
Apoliticism. Their struggles for certain economic and sectoral demands sometimes grew
militant nevertheless they remained stubbornly apolitical. This is the ideological base
upon which the slogan of “Globalization with a human face” rests. Now the WSF has
fulfilled the much needed Global co-ordination amongst the NGOs. Thus a well-
orchestrated strategy to dissipate the anti- Imperialist struggles is on the play. In a
situation where the dictates of WB, IMF and WTO are being thrust upon the people of
the oppressed countries, the role of the NGOs assumes more significance. Since most
Governments of the oppressed countries implement
The project of Recolonisation through backdoor methods and illegitimate means, the
need for lending legitimacy from below beco mes all the more important for the
imperialists. “Legitimising the illegitimate” is a task entrusted to NGOs. Identifying the
potential forces of dissent and institutionalizing them under one umbrella – is their
strategy. In the struggle against Imperialism, the ‘direction of the main blow’ is the most
important factor in our revolutionary political strategy. The vacillating classes and
compromising forces serve as the social basis providing sustenance to the Imperialist rule
by cultivating various illusions amongst the revolutionary masses. Now these forces –
NGOS, Post modernists, anarchists and social democrats – are arrayed against the
international proletariat under a single banner, namely WSF. Unless this Imperialist
‘Trojan Horse’ is targeted for attack, the proletariat could never be able to win over the
vacillating classes to its side. No war is ever won in alliance with the Trojan horses. But
MR 2004 indulges in this folly.

10. Finally, in our opinion the term ‘Imperialist Globalisation’ does not represent the
political essence of the process called Globalisation. Even a section of bourgeois
intellectuals and politicians who want to restore status quo-ante (prior to GATT and
WTO) raise their protest against Globalisation. Thus they interpret Globalisation as
restoration of Imperialism. A sizable section of public opinion involved in anti-War and
anti- WTO protests in the west and various forces, ranging from Swadeshi Jagran Manch
to CPI (M) in India often propagate this viewpoint. The imperialist Superpowers are
attempting to establish Global hegemony (not a redivision) through globalisation of
capital, production, division of labour and the market. This is qualitatively a different
situation than the 1950s, when the Socialist camp and the National Liberation

6
Movements were on the offensive, forcing imperialism to adopt a defensive approach i.e.,
Neo-colonialism. Those objective conditions have undergone a sea change; International
Proletarian Movement is in the defence now. The Imperialist superpowers are on the
offensive, violating the sovereignty of nations through naked aggressions and imposing
their will on the oppressed nations, through their Financial, Political and Military
Institutions. This is a different form of colonization; qualitatively different from Neo-
colonialism of the 1950s and hence we define it as Recolonisation. But many other
Communist Revolutionaries consider this to be a mere quantitative increase in the Neo-
Colonial onslaught of the Imperialists; and Globalization is understood merely as a new
ploy by the Imperialists to shift the burden of crisis on to the shoulders of oppressed
countries. Despite such differences in understanding, both these terms (either Neo-
Colonialism or Recolonisation) precisely express the political content of Anti-
Imperialism. Thus they naturally give rise to the demands for
National liberation, socialism and equality of nations. The anti-imperialist pretentions of
the comprador bourgeoisie and the illusions nurtured by western intellectuals about
imperialism sans aggression will come to end, if the political content of the anti-
imperialist movement is expressed in unambiguous terms. Such a political slogan would
also distinguish the genuine anti-imperialist forces from others and expose the true
colour of many a constituents of WSF. But the term ‘MR 2004’ itself reminds us of the
‘discourse’ of WSF, the ‘text’ offering the reader endless choices of ‘deconstructions’.

To sum up,

1. We understand and recognize the necessity of building an anti- imperialist front. But
such a task need not be undertaken alongside the programme of WSF. In its document,
MR 2004 puts forth certain criticisms against WSF; but its programme sheet does not
contain a single topic aimed at exposing it, because MR 2004 considers WSF to be an
Anti-Imperialist front restrained by certain serious shortcomings. In its latest press release
it emphasizes that it is not against WSF.MR 2004 is described in its own document as a
trend, which runs parallel to WSF that calls itself to be a process. Parallel yet mutually
independent like a railroad!

2. Communist Revolutionaries as well as all genuine anti-Imperialist forces should

expose the WSF when it holds its programme in Mumbai. We should strive for the
elimination of this imperialist puppet by exposing and isolating it from the masses.
“Against WSF” should be the slogan of our
Campaign. Such a campaign could cause a polarization of forces in India and abroad,
including those genuine elements of WSF. Thus it will lead to the consolidation of all
Anti-Imperialist forces.

3. We disagree with MR 2004 and we won’t be participating in it. We appeal to the

AIPRF who are in the forefront of organizing this event in Mumbai, to reconsider their
position in favour of a Revolutionary perspective.