*----------------------------------------------------------* | | | x x x x x x x xx xxx xxx xxx | | xx xx x xx xx xx x x x x x x Issue #20 | | x x x x x x x x xx x x x xx xxx | | x x x x x x x x x x x x 01/29/86 | | x x x x x x x xx x xxx xxx | | | |----------------------------------------------------------| | Newspaper of the Maoist Internationalist Movement | *----------------------------------------------------------* U.S. EXPECTS MARCOS FRAUD, U.S. AID AFTER U.S. PREFERS AQUINO; WILL WORK WITH MARCOS IN PHILIPPINES If Marcos is still in power after elections this February, it won't be the result of any lack of effort by the key people creating public opinion in the United States. The New York Times and the Congress are generating headline after headline about Marcos's Manhattan real estate. Also, the major newspapers covered two U.S. Government reports--that Marcos is quite ill and a fraudulent WWII hero. (Interestingly enough, no one denies that the U.S. awarded Marcos the Purple Heart and other honors after WWII.) If American newspapers decided the issue in the Philippines, Marcos would be out of there. Even a number of conservative think tanks (excluding Jerry Falwell's clique) and White House committees believe that Aquino would better serve American interests better than Marcos, who is viewed as a "liability." In MIM NOTES, no. 19, we agreed with that assessment. Aquino is a fresh face for the interests of U.S. capital, the Pentagon and Philippino landlords behind the veil of parliamentarism. The people running the newspapers and government in the U.S.--the ruling class--are not concerned with the moral issues concerned in the upcoming election. The U.S. ruling class only criticizes Marcos to the extent that he seems incompetent in repressing his own laboring classes and serving American interests. It's not that Reagan worries about supporting a dictator. It's just that Reagan does not want to support a dictator, who loses to nationalist semi- Maoist rebels. Marcos for his part does not appear to believe in bourgeois parliamentarism, the way Reagan and Co. do. The Philippines will not allow any foreign observors at upcoming elections. In addition, someone, probably the Army, has killed 6 people in the Aquino campaign so far. Faced with Marcos's own local control and ability to fake elections, White House Chief of Staff Donald Regan has decided to cover Reagan's bases. If Marcos wins, Regan says he will condemn the fraud, but the U.S. would continue to "do business" with Marcos. (USA Today, 1/27/86, p. 1) Reagan has also said that officially the U.S. is neutral and will not use covert or overt means to overthrow Marcos. Thus, the U.S. ruling class is unwilling to appear to alienate Marcos too much. Perhaps the whole election farce called for by Reagan and implemented by Marcos is to say "we tried." Thus, the U.S. covers its role and confuses public opinion by appearing to oppose Marcos. INVESTORS ANALYZE GENEVA SUMMIT IMPACT "BAD NEWS? A Wall Street analyst says in a recent report, 'The threat of peace also hangs over the defense environment.' But the report by Washington Analysis Corp., a unit of First Manhattan Co., adds with relief that 'the first summit was a non-event in terms of investment impact.'" (Wall Street Journal, 1/17/86, p. 1) GOETZ GETTING OFF; RACIST VIGILANTE MESSAGE SENT At least temporarily, the court system threw out the most important charges against Bernhard Goetz, who admitted to shooting four Black youth on a train in Manhattan. Using procedural arguments, the judge let Goetz off the hook at least for awhile. Goetz faces charges only concerning the shots he fired that DID NOT hit the Black youth; although the case is being appealed. (New York Times, 1/17/86, p. 1) Goetz admitted that he shot one of the teens who was already wounded and on the ground. "You don't look so bad; here have another one," said Goetz as he shot the youth in the back at point-blank range. U.S. BLACK CONDITION UPDATE Under the Carter Administration, the Black median income declined to 56% of white median income, the largest drop since the figures started coming out. In 1984, that figure remained at 56%, down from 62% in 1970. (New York Times, 1/23/86, p. 7) Meanwhile, there continues to be progress in Black education. The percentage of Blacks completing high school is closing in on the percentage of whites who graduate. Unfortunately, a Black would have to be a college graduate to make the same money a white high school drop-out makes. Unemployment in 1985 was 14.9% for Blacks and 5.6% for whites. Black youth suffered 40.1% unemployment and that may be rising at the moment. (Ibid.) Currently, Black infant mortality is leading an increase in overall infant mortality in the United States, which is up 3% between 1982 and 1983. The gap between Black and white infant mortality was higher in 1983 than in any of the previous 40 years. In Cleveland, Detroit and Chicago, Black infant mortality stands at over 25 per 1000. The figures are for babies one month to one year of age. (Detroit Free Press, 1/17/86, p. 1) REAGAN ASKING CONTRA, SAVIMBI AID: CONSCIOUS IMPERIALIST RIVALRY Consciously linking the struggles in Nicaragua and Angola, Reagan sought to show the Soviets who is boss by asking Congress for military aid to counterrevolutionary contras in Nicaragua and rebels in Angola. (New York Times, 1/23/86) Although conditions in the localities of Angola and Nicaragua determine the struggles there, it is clear that overall, the two imperialist blocs consider their position relative to each other before making any move. Any anti- imperialist analysis must start from the fact that the conflict between the U.S. led imperialist bloc and the Soviet social-imperialist bloc is the main (principle in Maoist parlance) contradiction facing the international anti- imperialist movement. Those that worry that an explanation of Soviet social- imperialism will lead Americans to support U.S. imperialism are promoting political ignorance and naivete. Our position must be the same as Lenin's in WWI. The question is not who started imperialism and whose nation-state to support. The question is the class interests in the current WWIII. A class analysis would show that the proletariat has nothing to gain from WWIII and to argue that criticizing Soviet social- imperialism will drive Americans into Reagan's hands is like arguing the proletariat should support the Gramm-Rudman Law because otherwise reactionaries will rally to cut only social programs, instead of taking half the cut from the military. Just as it is backwards to pander to concerns about the federal deficit, it is backward to aim polemics at American patriots. If the proletariat starts with the assumptions of the bourgeoisie, it will support the Democrats, Gramm-Rudman and the Soviets sheerly out of pragmatic concerns. It is the job of the anti-imperialist movement to prevent this.