From the article of 'Petrel'
No.628 / May 11, 1997

Please send us your opinion and the impression about this article without reservation.

Scattering the Fantasy of "the Society where terrorism does not exist"

The Peru hostage event and the Japanese Communist Party



The Japanese Embassy hostage event of Peru was settled by the president Fujimori's forcing strategy. The bourgeois public opinion is pleased blinedly that the forcing strategy "succeeded." And now, it is talking briskly that Fujimori was correct, "Not yielding to terrorism is 'the common sense of the world'," "The crisis-management of Japan is sweet," there was no concrete content even if it was said 'the Peaceful Solution.'

In short, the fellows of reactionary are shouting with anxiety about the defectiveness in "the crisis-management system" of Japan, Japan cannot survive in this world as that, Japan cannot "defend the safty and property of Japanese people." Such hysteria arriving ahead is not other than the establishment of decisive, strong "Crisis-management system," therefore, to construct a strong nation in militarily and in the police.

And again, the Japanese Communist Party plays a part in such noisy "dining voice," no, they are ejaculating the detraction of terrorism in loudest voice in a sense.

We make the standpoint of the Communist Party shown in the Peruvian event a problem. Because we evaluate that the reactionary standpoint of the Communist Party appeared in the characteristic here, and we think that the speech of the Communist Party of this problem is extremely harmful of dismantling the class consideration of the worker.

The Communist Party has been consistently shouting "Peaceful solution" though there is not a concrete image either.

However, what was the "Peaceful solution"?
Is it the "solution" by money, or some compromises and dealings with Fujimori?
It was quite nonsense to shout "Peaceful solution" without discoursing concretely anything.

The standpoint of the Communist Party was the standpoint of Hashimoto regime, that is, the standpoint of the bourgeois in Japan, too. They thought that it was best if it "was able to solve by money."

Though they had emphasized, "Lives are heavier than the earth," it was clear that this was a complete dead letter phrase. Because, there are various "lifes" even if we say about it (Is it the hostage's "Life" or including the terrorist's "Life"?), and it cannot simply say that the life is esteemed in case of "Peaceful solution" and the life is made light of in case of the forcing breakthrough.

"The pacifism" of the Japanese bourgeois and the Communist Party only following to it was only an impracticable theory of out of focus. They did not try to think the severe reality of the class society and the class confrontation at all.

The reason why the age of terrorism was born in Peru is that the suppression of national powers was added to the struggle of the workers without mercy, that the workers seemed there is no road to fight except running into terrorism in the place where democracy does not develop enough and is not guaranteed.

And, the terrorism as strategy came to be prized by the petty bourgeois class (in this case, farmer) being the central movement supporter, too. The "bad" relation with the Stalinism thought (including the Mao Tse-tung principle) was also an unhappy thing.

The Communist Party consistently appealed "Peaceful solution", and on the other hand, it was shouting frequently that the terrorist group was the worst trouble. (Look at the article serialized five times from April 25th to 28th on 'The Red Flag')

However, it was a development of nature that their criticisms to Fujimori retreat itself and almost move backward to the background because they call the terrorist group the worst to begin with.

Of course they criticized the Fujimori regime, but it was vague one and actually the same one as not criticize. They never criticized Fujimori's "Strategy," that is, the brutal suppression by the military power clearly. They rather took objectively the attitude that the Fujimori's way of doing was unavoidable because the terrorist group did not respond to the compromise and "the original sin" was in the terrorist group to begin with.

They did not talk and did not try to talk at all what Fujimori defended by suppression to terrorism, that is, the rule of capital, and therefore the millions of workers and people who were suffering from exploitation and poor under the capital. What 'The Red Flag' had emphasized was the following.

"Japan, the Peru people, and the international public nopinion denunciated the terrorism action and demanded the peaceful solution congruently. The criminal group was isolated and the excuse as "for the poor people" was enclosed." (April 27th)

And, the conclusion of the serialization.
"The Peru people welcomed the liberation of hostage, but they catched the thing that the victim case had occurred heavily. Therefore, they seem to grope seriously to take such lesson into consideration. We hear the voice, in order to achieve the Peru society without terrorism, it is important to develop the democratic movement further denouncing terrorism and demanding for peace that have risen taking the opportunity of the event this time." (25th)

All the insistences of the Communist Party are written as stranger's things in the feeling of fake "object", that is, in such tone "The voice is heard", "There is an opinion", and "The voice becomes clamorous, too." Though it is obscured what is the standpoint and the opinion of the Communist Party, but the thing the Communist Party want to say is clear.

They criticize just the terrorist group, and they want to say that Fujimori did not need to demonstrate state power and all things advanced well if there was no terrorist group. What a fantasy, what an innocent fantasy having forgotten the majestic fact of class rule it is!

However, to say as the Communist Party is to shelve such fundamental problem and to forget it in fact, that is, the thing that the Fujimori regime is just the greatest executor of terrorism, the thing that we must denounce and deny the violent device of national powers first if we bring terrorism into issue.

The terrorism of the radical sect or the petty bourgeois revolutional sect is the one like an infant, no, the one like a baby compared with the terrorism of national powers, that is, national violence. Just therefore, the terrorism of the mere sect cannot win the national violence.

Just therefore, Marxism does not oppose terrorism but opposes the realistic class mass action of the workers, and openly declares to depend on it.

However, there is not a common point in this with the thing not criticizing the terrorism of the nation but criticizing just the terrorism of the radical sect as the ringleader of various badness. If the Communist Party is enthusing about this, it is only definitely exposing the thing that this novel and degenerate party has fallen to the petty bourgeois liberal sect, to the "order sect," that is, to the part of the system.

The Communist Party indulges to the nonsense chat whether it is something a problem "to achieve a Peruvian society where terrorism does not exist," and "to develop a democratic movement" in the society where "there is not terrorism."

However, we ask the Communist Party, we wonder how do you deal with the brutal terrorism of the Peru rule class that was exposed even in the event at this time, though the infantile diseases terrorism of the petty bourgeois revolutionary sect might be suppressed and have been crushed as the Communist Party hoped, the more powerful, and more brutal terrorism of the rule class is bare, or does it not become to be justified and reinforced further by the event at this time?

If so, is "such society without terrorism" that the Communist Party dream not a fantasy? Since the brutal and powerful national violence of the rule class (that is, the terrorism) does exist majestically, is it not a nonsense to call some "democratic movement" with it as it is?

Does they say that the terrorism of the radical sect becomes the trouble of "Democratic movement" and the terrorism of the rule class does not become the trouble? If so, what upset and foolish the viewpoint of the Communist Party is!

It might purely be obvious for the conscious workers that the sect blaring out only these kind of things in craziness is purely the petty bourgeois sect, the thoroughly opportunistic sect already twined away to "the system" completely.

The "violence" of the ruled class in a class society, the society ruled by capital has a realistic ground. (The root is the barbarous exploitation and rule by capital.)
It is so even if it gushs out in the wrong shape as terrorism.

Just therefore, the workers repel the terrorist strategy of the petty bourgeois revolutionary sect and primote their own fight in different shape. On the other hand, they expose that the root and ringleader of badness is not the terrorism of the petty bourgeois radical sect but just the violent rule of the ruling class, the national violence, and they call the fight just against it (not the fight against the terrorism of petty bourgeois radical sect).

The "fight" of the Communist Party is only the fight putting the cart before horse, the fight forgetting the true "enemy" away, the fight not possible to say fight, the "fight" that helps the rule class, and this teaches that this party have already been standing on the opponent side of the barricade. The Communist Party that leaves for bourgeois "order sect" is only "the object of overthrow" for the workers.

Though the bourgeoisie stirs up the consciousness of crisis against terrorism, but the workers do not fear the terrorism of petty bourgeois revolutionary, radical sect (for example, "The Red Army Sect" that existed in Japan before). Because they know that such "wrong" route does not grasp the wide workers and people at all, that the wrong route as this will be overcome by the consistent, decisive criticise and experience, and finally by the revolutionary practice of the working class.