The Galician Communist Movement (GCM), from its modest capacities, has been working for years to achieve the unity of the International Communist Movement (ICM), the unity of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoists. A unity which allows, which facilitates, the inevitable two-line struggle. We have defended making the discussions on the general political line as public as possible. Since we consider that the conditions for a Unified Maoist Conference did not exist, we wanted to postpone the Conference until better conditions were obtained, but in practice, it was not possible to postpone the Conference. Given the impossibility of holding a truly united Conference, we decided not to take part in it. Of course, if history proves that the new international organisation, the ICL (International Communist League), becomes a driving force for the world interests of the proletariat, if the World Proletarian Revolution gets a new impulse thanks to the ICL, then we will make a self-criticism and a rectification. From our point of view, launching a new international organisation with political authority without being able to hold a unified conference first, is a practice that leads to separating part of the ICM from the rest. It also leads to making the rest do the same and that the confrontation within the ICM becomes not a two-line struggle, but a sum of useless confrontations between various tendencies, as well as creating a dynamic that ‘forces’ each tendency to differentiate itself from the rest.
We must also take into account that there is a proposal from the Communist Party of India (Maoist) – CPI (Maoist) – to create a world Maoist ‘Forum’. The realisation of this Forum depends on many variables which are out of our control, but the CPI (Maoist) is the biggest communist party currently existing, and leads the biggest red army in the world in a people's war. This makes it a reference for us.
In the document where the foundation of LCI is made public, it appears the thesis of the United States as the “sole world hegemonic imperialist superpower”. In our opinion, this thesis is confronted by the thesis of the formation of “imperialist blocs to prepare for war,” as a consequence of the decadence of the United States and the increase in the importance of the antagonism between the different imperialist powers at the present time. Moreover, the document mentions the thesis of ‘imperialist blocs’ as revisionism. We will not elaborate on this here, but we have to say that the ‘imperialist blocs preparing for war’ thesis (defended by us) gives importance to the political independence of the proletariat struggling against the bourgeoisie of the different countries, and this has practical implications for both the political line and our work which will be seen as time goes by.
In the Political Declaration and the Principles of the International Communist League, we can read:
"The current demarcation line between Marxism and revisionism consists in: 1) acknowledging or not acknowledging Maoism as the third, new and higher stage of Marxism and the necessity to combat revisionism and all opportunism; 2) acknowledging or not acknowledging the omnipotence of revolutionary violence in order to make revolution in each one’s own country; 3) [....]".
We do not think that the demarcation of camps with revisionism can be reduced to five points. Questions like the way we want to build the party, the style of work with the masses, and so on, also demarcate fields with revisionism. Moreover, in order to have a revolutionary theory that is ‘a guide for action’ we must clarify as much as possible. So the term “revolutionary violence” is not sufficiently clarifying for us. This is because we consider people's war to be the military theory of the proletariat and therefore as universal. Maoism without the universality of the people's war is the same as Marxism–Leninism–Mao Tse-tung Thought. We defend the universality of the people's war, a thesis that was first and independently formulated by comrade Charu Majumdar and comrade Gonzalo. We hold that this is the main thesis of Marxism–Leninism–Maoism.
We also consider that this thesis should not only be known by the cadres of a communist detachment, but that it should be spread among the most advanced sectors of the working class.
Secondly, “revolutionary violence” does not facilitate the critique of the recurrent insurrectionist rhetoric of right-wing revisionism, nor the critique of left revisionism and its defense of a foquism practice of the armed vanguard.
The roots of insurrectionism can be found in the vision of revolution elaborated by the II International on the basis of the study of the historical experience of the bourgeois revolutions. The roots of foquism lie in individualism and in a romantic vision of the revolution.
Amid all this situation in the ICM, the treatment given to the Communist Workers Union (mlm) of Colombia – CWU (mlm) – deserves a special mention. The most outstanding peculiarity of CWU (mlm) is that it defends a socialist revolution for Colombia which will build a Socialist Republic, and not a revolution of New Democracy, where the proletariat is the leading class and the peasants are the main class, where the cities are surrounded from the countryside, etc., and where the people fight to build a Republic of New Democracy. Nevertheless, CWU (mlm) defends that in Colombia (due to social changes that happened along the years), the social relations have today a mainly capitalist and not feudal character. The supporters of the semi-feudal character of the Colombian society should focus on the study of the Colombian society and not if CWU (mlm) writes MLM without dashes (M–L–M), because doing this is not intellectually honest. For our part, we cannot get into this discussion because we have not studied Colombian society collectively. We consider that, taking into account all the priority work we have ahead of us, we cannot undertake to collectively study Colombian society, and even if we could do it, surely it is easier for the Colombian proletariat itself to study Colombian capitalist society.
We consider that the CWU (mlm) defends its political line with honesty. We must be critical between all communist detachments, but the treatment that certain parties have given to CWU (mlm) is unfair. If in all the international contacts we have had within the ICM, all the organizations have always treated us with great courtesy and comradeship, the same has not happened to CWU (mlm), being subjected to an unfair treatment for an organization that dedicates efforts to contribute to the strengthening of the ICM.
We hope this communiqué will help to clarify the current reality of the ICM among the working class.
Conscience in command!
Construction Committee of the Maoist Communist Party of Galicia