The liberation movement among the various Asian nationalities in the U.S., like the general communist movement, is characterized by the struggle between revolution on the one hand and opportunism on the other.
Ever since its founding in 1969, I Wor Kuen has consistently tried to maintain a principled stand and has fought against reformist, anarchist, cultural nationalist, and other deviations in the revolutionary movement. Within the Asian movement, one of the main struggles we have engaged in has been against a right opportunist tendency that has organizationally been consolidated into Wei Min She (WMS) a group in San Francisco which supposedly espouses revolution.
This article will discuss some history of WMS, their errors and the lessons we should learn. While the article has particular interest for the Asian movement, in which this struggle is well known, we believe it contains important lessons for the entire revolutionary movement. This is because l) the ideas WMS has held and currently holds are evident in other sectors of the revolutionary movement and more specifically, 2) WMS is the most developed of the Revolutionary Union’s so-called anti-imperialist organizations within a national movement. Thus this study will hopefully add more to the understanding of the general opportunism of the RU and its particularly disastrous effect on one segment of the revolutionary movement.
We want to point out the existing relationship between the RU and WMS not because we believe the individuals of WMS are “dupes” or that WMS is a “front” organization for the RU; but on the contrary, WMS has established conscious fundamental political unity with the RU and likewise, the RU on its part consciously decided to unite with the rightism of WMS. We point this out in opposition to those foolish notions that WMS is just being “used” and thus are not fully accountable for their line and actions. There is an objective class basis for this unity, for the two forces actually formulated much of their wrong ideas on the national question and revolution independently.
While the struggle between IWK and other revolutionary forces in the Asian movement versus the opportunism of WMS and the RU has been going on for the past five years, it has recently sharpened and come out in the press. In the fall of 1974, WMS published a pamphlet entitled: “I Wor Kuen’s Reactionary Line on May Day and the Workers’ Movement”. This is one of the most slanderous and distorted articles we have yet to see. It stoops even lower than most of the RU’s own warped “political writings”. With the publication of this essay, it became clear to us that WMS had decided to abandon any attempt to engage in principled struggle and to try to struggle out our differences in a constructive way.[1]
While the vile slanders in WMS’s “Reactionary Line” almost doesn’t warrant a reply, we do feel that we must respond in order to clear up once and for all any confusion that may exist regarding the consolidated unprincipled line and practice of WMS. Thus as an appendix to this article, we are including a section on the specific point by point lies and distortions of their publication.
This article begins with an examination of the historical background of WMS and the relationship between IWK, WMS, the RU and other forces. The second half of the essay concentrates on the political differences that are at the basis of the struggle.
We hope that this essay will contribute to raising the Asian and communist movements out of the marsh of the sectarianism, subjectivism, and opportunism fostered by WMS and the RU.
[1] It had been well known to WMS that we had extended an invitation with them to meet anytime, anywhere and discuss any subject to try to resolve some of our contradictions. This had been our policy for five years and yet they refused to meet with us even once. It is curious to note that in their “Reactionary Line” they reprinted one of our own letters requesting to meet. This letter is a clear indication of our desire to engage in principled struggle.