[Adolfo Olaechea continues:] and is it not true that MANY such "revisionist political parties and revisionist led movements" claim ALSO to be Marxist-Leninist? In fact I would say that there are far more fish and fowl of this character than "Maoist sects" such as MIM and RCP-USA. Moreover, such sects are a phenomena confined to the USA and do not in anyway represent the BULK of the Marxist-Leninist-Maoist movement, but only a few individuals who use Maoism to deceive a certain number of revolutionary minded people. In other words, while setting the "benchmark" at Marxism-Leninism comrade Dover minimises the MAIN danger, which comes from Right-wing opportunism mascarading in BULK as Marxism-Leninism, while magnifying the mote of a couple of charlatans who parasite of the prestige of the armed revolution in Peru to advance well-worn Trotskyst and Zinovievite rubbish which is so evident for all to see that it presents no danger of spreading whatsover. MIM replies: Adolfo Olaechea is back to his old muddle. You cannot have things both ways: either tell MIM to abandon the Peru issue or criticize it for "parasite of[sic.] the prestige of the armed revolution in Peru." We at MIM will not parasite off the prestige of the Revolution in Peru. We are willing as you now know to abandon the issue of the People's War in Peru if that is your judgement that our work does more harm than good. We will not be accused of being parasites off the PCP's prestige. More than likely, you raise this issue again though you know you are wrong, out of simple Menshevik compulsion to piss on the most advanced pole in the imperialist countries. You would rather sound like MIM in every regard and then drag away the imperialist country communists at the last possible second, just before they commit to Maoism. As an individual with no party, you provide the further example of anti-party Menshevism, which would be understandable enough, but your role as an obstacle to party-building in the imperialist countries is not excusable and can in no way be condoned by MIM. While Adolfo Olaechea is chattering how MIM is a sect (and he should read Marx on the need for sects depending on the stage of history), MIM is doing the work of building the vanguard in all the English-speaking imperialist countries. We invite the people of this list to write for and distribute MIM publications and to cease with agnosticism and liquidationism. Adolfo Olaechea speaks of Trotskyism, but it was Trotsky who criticized from the outside and had the effect of splitting off a few people from the international communist movement. Those with complaints about MIM should work within MIM to improve it, and not wait for miracles from heaven. [Adolfo Olaechea continues:] Moreover, the existance of these "sects" confirms that Maoism is indeed an ism which has began to develop a life of its own. It was not accidental that the first manifestations of "Leninism" to reach western Europe after the Soviet revolution were also tinged with Left-opportunism of the Zinoviev variety. Lenin then wrote "Left-wing Communism" among other things to counter this trend which in fact did not dissapear totally until the VII Congress of the ICM in 1935. To have written off Leninism on account of the antics of Zinoviev, Radek and others would have in fact played into the hands of the opportunists of the so called "two and half international" who actually were at that time negating the need for Leninism on the grounds that genuine Marxism was sufficient. That would in due course have played straight into the hands of the II International revisionists no doubt. So, as you can see, comrade Dover, this problem is not new, nor the solution unprecedented. [MIM replies to AO's unsubstantiated chatter about Zinoviev and MIM:] "On the Historical role of G. Zinoviev" It is an historical fact that Central Committee member G. Zinoviev snitched on the Bolsheviks at the crucial moment in October 1917 and opposed the armed uprising. "Encountering a decisive rebuff at both meetings of the C.C., Kamenev and Zinoviev made a statement on October 18 in the Menshevik newspaper. . . about the Bolsheviks' preparations for an armed uprising and said that they considered it to be an adventurous gamble."(1) Yet Lenin stressed repeatedly thereafter that this should not be held against Zinoviev. Nearing death, Lenin said on December 24, 1922, "I shall just recall that the October episode with Zinoviev and Kamenev was, of course, no accident, but neither can the blame for it be laid upon them personally." After October, Lenin not only kept Zinoviev in the leadership, but also Lenin made him president of the COMINTERN. How could Lenin do that? What could outweigh splitting the party and being on the wrong side at the crucial moment of the insurrection? In spite of these actions taken by Zinoviev, Lenin held that Zinoviev's attacks on the Second International during World War I far outweighed his weak points. Without Lenin's and Zinoviev's efforts to re-orient the international communist movement, there would have been no military battle to snitch on in October, 1917. During World War I, it was Zinoviev's job to represent the Central Committee,(2) including at the most crucial Zimmerwald conferences. Lenin knew very well that it was a rare comrade willing to go against the social-patriotism and militarism of the Second International which dragged workers into slaughtering each other in World War I. Not only did Zinoviev attack social-patriotism and imperialist militarism, but also he provided theoretical leadership along with Lenin on how to destroy the old revisionism and re-orient the international communist movement. Fundamentally that re- orientation hinged on distinguishing between proletarians and workers. It meant not fighting for the interests of the labor aristocracy. When the social-patriots said that the majority of workers favored the war, Zinoviev replied firmly that it was not the proletarians who favored the war. When the sizeists bragged about how much support they got for supporting World War I, Zinoviev said he'd rather have a party with one-fifth as many delegates, as long as it didn't vacillate. For this reason, and only because comrades Zinoviev and Lenin were able to hold out against World War I, the Bolsheviks were able eventually to turn an imperialist civil war into the world's first communist-led revolution. This is something that Zinoviev brought to the COMINTERN as well, at Lenin's bidding. On any matter concerning the role of proletarian leadership, we will find that on the floor of the COMINTERN in his verbal comments or in Lenin's written Selected Works, Lenin always defended Zinoviev. Who but Zinoviev would be a better choice for forming the Third International to replace the social-chauvinist Second International? According to Lenin, none other than Zinoviev was suited for this task. Later in life, Zinoviev sold out, and even allied with Trotsky at times and ended up being shot by Stalin. Yet even so, Stalin made sure to uphold what Zinoviev said about issues of proletarian leadership, even after Zinoviev was disgraced. It is not the Marxist- Leninist method to throw out the truth just because its author was not later able to uphold it. Just as Deng Xiaoping had to clear out the "Gang of Four" before he could carry out his sinister plans for the restoration of capitalism in China, those seeking to restore the social-patriotism of the Second International do not attack Lenin directly and instead aim their attacks at the perceived weak link of Zinoviev. We must crush the attempts of the Mensheviks to attack Zinoviev when he was correct. When Zinoviev laughed at Trotsky's proposals for how to put the party in line with his theory of the productive forces, Lenin defended Zinoviev in "Once Again on the Trade Unions."(3) It was Trotsky's idea to boost production to defeat imperialism by using coercive methods of government administration, including the use of military organization in industrial and agricultural production. Zinoviev Trotsky accused of using propaganda methods, and Lenin defended him.(4) After Lenin died, Trotsky disgraced himself before Zinoviev did. At that time, Zinoviev managed to play a crucial role in the defeat of Trotsky. Later when Zinoviev disgraced himself, Stalin made a point of defending what Zinoviev had done in attacking the social- democracy of the Second International. Bringing down Zinoviev did not mean Stalin was going to make peace with social-patriotism.(5) As time passed, Mao did not try to reverse correct verdicts on Zinoviev either. The Foreign Language Press of Peking continued to publish Lenin's works that referred to Zinoviev favorably in concrete historical conditions.(6) Notes: 1. V.I. Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. 3 (NY: International Publishers, 1967), p. 831. 2. For Lenin specifically authorizing Zinoviev as representative of the CC at that time, see "Tasks of the Proletariat in Our Revolution," Vol. 2, p. 44. 3. Ibid., Vol. 3, pp. 527-30. 4. Ibid., Vol. 3, pp. 539, 544. 5. See MIM Theory #10, p. 23. Contrary to the Trotskyist caricature of Stalin, which is unfortunately accepted by some calling themselves "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist," we Marxist-Leninists refer to Zinoviev as a comrade when he was still correct as Stalin did once Zinoviev had been disgraced: "This appraisal by the Communist International, [on social-democratic sentiments-- ed.] which was then still under comrade Zinoviev's leadership, has been completely confirmed." According to those with a subjectivist, metaphysical and "pc" approach to knowledge in which a table smashed to bits no longer can be called a table in reference to its history before being smashed to bits, the COMINTERN under Stalin in 1927 should not have referred to "comrade" Zinoviev as a "comrade" even in reference to his correct years of work. MIM has no doubts that it is social-patriotism smuggling itself in under the guise of such pc metaphysics. 6. See for example the Peking, 1965 edition of "The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade Kautsky" preface which mentions a work called Against the Stream "by G. Zinoviev and N. Lenin (Petrograd, 1918, 550 pp.) [August, 1998 postscript: the above statement on the historical role of Zinoviev was passed at the MIM 1996 Congress. The footnotes were expanded in reply to Adolfo Olaechea.]