The letter to Maoist Internationalist Mo

The letter to Maoist Internationalist Movement

Respected Maoist International Movement!

My pen-name is Gachikus, I’m from Russia. I write on behalf of the Russian Party of Bolsheviks (RPB). After becoming acquainted with your web page, I have decided to express my opinion on this matter.

1) I saw in your program essential divergence/disagreement with Marxism-Leninism and ideas of Mao. If Mao expressed more hotly the sympathy for the revolutionary movement of the workers of super-powers (see his article "Peoples, that takes into the hands weapon, take into the hands the fate of their country", 1970), then you declare all workers of super-powers in the lump labor aristocracy, which is contrary to the facts. Indeed imperialists bribe at the expense of the robbery of colonies only a narrow layer of workers -- working in the strategic, large, and most important enterprises, which more easily can be organized owing to their high concentration [Today I consider labor aristocracy as majority, 60-80%, of population, both in Russia and in the West – A. G.]. By that means imperialists destroy unity of the working class; they disorganize it, which gives to the imperialists the possibility to intensely exploit the proletariat, moreover, the proletariat of their own country too.

You also are not right by saying that the working class of super-powers will be not subject, but object of proletarian dictatorship in revolution. The revolutionary character of the proletariat of super-powers is obvious: recall the powerful first-of-May demonstrations in Germany, Great Britain, anti-imperialist actions in Austria, skirmishes workers have with the police in South Korea, even in the USA what strong actions were in 1999. Recall the strike movement in the USA, in Italy, in Germany and so forth. Denying the revolutionary character of the proletariat of super-powers, you move away from international proletarian solidarity, you act in favor of imperialists, this is exactly what imperialists are hoping for: to break the unity of the actions of the proletariat of super-powers and oppressed peoples of colonies in the fight against capital.

2) Speaking about the super-powers, why do you only mention the USA, hushing up about Russia, about China, which now also entered into the stage of imperialism, about South Korea and so forth? I think it is not necessary to prove, that China now became imperialist state: imperialism-- this supremacy of banks and export of capital, and Chinese Commercial and Industrial Bank occupies 6th place among the world's largest banks, China exports capital into 120 countries of world: this is fact. Mentioning only the USA as the super-power and hushing up about Russia, about China, you act in favor of imperialist competitors of USA, i.e., in favor of Russian imperialism, Chinese imperialism and so forth.

3) You call the female gender of superpowers doubly aristocracy; although the women under imperialism and under capitalism generally, are the oppressed gender. For example, average wages of women in the super-powers is only 60% of the average wage of men. Opposing female gender to male one, you also split the unity of fight against capital. In more detail our views read the "Manifesto of the Russian Party of Bolsheviks."

With Bolshevik regards,

Gachikus

July 9th, 2001