This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.

This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
Maoist Internationalist Movement

The new generation of Amerikan lackeys and opponents:

U.$. wars are clarifying politics

On September 14, U.$. stooges in Iran with a background in Marxism called the NCRI told New York reporters that Iran has a secret laser-based nuclear enrichment program--the second time the stooges have made the accusation. This time, the stooges were obviously covering for u.$. imperialism which came under a rare attack from the United Nations's IAEA, on September 13. There was nothing new in the stooges' accusations, but of course the imperialist media gave them equal time with the UN's new accusations.

On September 13, "The International Atomic Energy Agency wrote the leadership of the House Intelligence Committee on Wednesday, lambasting it for claiming that the Islamic republic 'is currently enriching uranium to weapons grade.'"(1)

The National Council of Resistance of Iran (NCRI) is composed of veteran activists that are highly skilled and dedicated to what they do. Originally a hybrid of Marxism and Islam, now these Iranians and their fake Maoist allies are among the most brazen u.$. stooges in the world.

On International Wimmin's Day, March 8, the NCRI released the U.S. State Department report on conditions for wimmin in Iran before the State Department itself did later the same day in the united $tates. That same day the Avakian cult of fake Maoists demonstrated for the State Department cause in the united $tates. Secretary of State Rice coordinated her comments on Iran's nuclear threat the same day and backed the demonstrations of Iranian wimmin.

In other words, these ex-radicals including their supposedly Maoist allies are performing the role of spies for u.$. imperialism. They are informing on Iran to the u.$. imperialists regarding Iran's nuclear activities in exchange for aid. Meanwhile, the UN's IAEA was making it clear there would be no re-run of propaganda that led to the ground invasion of Iraq that the people of Iraq are still fighting against.

In justification of itself, an organization calling itself "Maoist" but affiliated with a Trotsky-style organization that stole our name of "Revolutionary Internationalist Movement" (RIM) said we should support the "third pole" so that people can tell the difference between the Iranian regime and Maoism. This is a sectarian approach dividing the people in the face of u.$. imperialist invasion, for the benefit of a supposedly Maoist organization. In war, there are no triads. In actual fact, the third way idea is simply part of U.$. psy-war operations against Iran, to make the most patriotic of Iranians wobble. In contrast, Mao distinguished himself from other patriotic Chinese organizations without echoing U.$. or Japanese imperialists.

The RIM parties are nothing but tails of the NCRI. Their positions on wimmin and nuclear energy have been exactly the same--recycled State Department lies. Going into International Wimmin's Day, they stressed "we are all united now," and now they want to blame us for not distinguishing them from other organizations with the same exact tactical approach as theirs.

The fake Maoists based in the united $tates quoting their Iranian comrades said straight-out that they should take imperialist aid like they claim Khomeini did:

It is possible to learn from reactionaries, too. Before getting state power in 1979, Khomeini and his clique were already acting like a future government. . . . what enabled him to dare to pose himself as an alternative government was that he had reached an agreement with the imperialist powers.

Likewise, these lackeys of Uncle $am want the people of Iran to be indifferent to a U.$. invasion. So instead of outflanking the Islamic regime with nationalism mobilizing the super-exploited and oppressed, the lackeys of u.$. imperialism tail after the urban Liberals and echo every single thing Uncle $am is saying about Iran ranging from the subject of wimmin to nuclear power to the regime's alleged lack of popularity, as if Khomeini would not have won a bourgeois election--another obvious State Department lie.

Stooges of U.$. imperialism are not part of a revolutionary movement. They aren't even part of an anti-imperialist front as demonstrated by all the stands they have taken so far this year, centered on the idea that "It is clear that the people's struggle should be focused against the main enemy, the IRI [the theocratic regime in Iran--MIM]." On a very similar note, other RIM stooges are going around saying, "the principal contradiction is between the people and Islamic terrorism." Meanwhile, on International Wimmin's Day, Rice almost said the principal contradiction for the whole world was Iran: "We may face no greater challenge from a single country than from Iran," she said. Thus, the fake Maoists were still in tune with U.S. Secretary of State Rice at the end of August, 2006.

The fake Maoists say they can do nothing against u.$. imperialism while the Islamic reactionaries hold power in Iran--and in this they lie about the nature of Maoism in addition to their lies about Iran. Mao never held recognized state power before kicking out the Japanese imperialists entirely! This is just another shameless and passivity-promoting lie of the fake Maoists that nothing can be done while exploiters have state power.

With U.$. troops already in Iran, at the end of August, the fake Maoists were still saying the main enemy was the reactionary regime in Iran. Yet, having Chiang Kai-shek claim government authority in China did not stop Mao from mobilizing against Japanese imperialism even better. The attitude of these fake Maoists is nothing but Trotskyist--perfect for their neo-conservative masters. Like the Trotskyists always do, they say there is no allying with the national bourgeoisie, when Lenin and Stalin both believed it was possible to unite with feudal lords against imperialist invasion, never mind the patriotic wing of the national bourgeoisie.

The reactionary Iranian regime has shown in practice that it is a much more serious partner of the anti-imperialist front than the fake Maoists. Contrary to fake Maoist lies, the Iranian regime is obviously preparing its people for Amerikan attack, and doing so within their bourgeois limits much more vigorously than Chiang Kai-shek ever did, and Mao still had a period of united front with Chiang Kai-shek against Japanese occupation. (Can anyone even dream that Chiang Kai-shek would have challenged FDR to a television debate? Not in a million years, but the current Iranian president did just challenge Bush, who chickened out.) The fact is that the Iranian regime is the left-wing of the national bourgeoisie as Mao put it, the most patriotic wing of the exploiters that there is.

Even if we grant the fake Maoists some concession to Iranian public opinion--the belief that a war won't really happen, a sort of strange confidence oblivious to world events that Iran is just Iran and not really oppressed--these fake Maoists are not thinking in a proletarian fashion about what else is going on in the Middle East. If alleged "Maoists" are kissing imperialist ass in Iran, then "Maoism" lessens its chances in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon where there is no doubt that a war is really going on. Even if invasion is not happening in Iran, the Iranians ought to be thinking about their neighbors where it is happening. If they can't get hyped about Iran, then get hyped about neighbor Iraq.

There is nothing like a series of wars to clarify the political situation of u.$. imperialism. Wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and southern Lebanon leave the Arab and Islamic peoples with few doubts about the nature of u.$. imperialism. Old lackeys of u.$. imperialism in Egypt are defecting while new lackeys in Iran and Kurdistan are arising to help Uncle $am. We know the CIA is active in handing out money to find new lackeys. It's important to keep up with the changes of guard, with new stooges and new enemies of imperialism appearing almost daily.

In Egypt, the good news is that the Lebanon war lost Bush and I$rael its ties to Egyptian Liberals, who have become more patriotic. Kifaya has gone in exactly the direction MIM has suggested for the world in general. The healthy forces for revolution, those most interested in armed struggle will be exactly those most opposed to the I$raeli invasion of Lebanon. The ones making jokes about how the Egyptian army is protecting the suburb the rulers live in instead of being in Lebanon or opening another front are the revolutionary material we seek. We do not seek Nabokov-reading, anti-nuke pacifists of Iran to claim to be some kind of Maoist vanguard. MIM has suggested numerous tactics to enable the Third World Maoists to distinguish themselves from their united front partners, but the root problem is that the fake Maoists as lackeys of Uncle $am do not see a need for a united front of oppressed nation people against imperialism. The root idea that it is not possible to ally with the national bourgeoisie against imperialism is Trotskyist and does not belong in the Maoist repertoire.

The fake Maoists of Iran and the united $tates running the Trotskyist RIM complain about the pacifism of the Iranian people. Yet it is their stance on unjust wars that is lacking. Below is an example of what we need to do to get bourgeois Liberals of the Third World to change:

"'I was among those who saw hope in an American role to bring democratic change,' said Nigad Borai, a rights activist whose organization, the Group for Democratic Development, benefited from a U.S. program offering financial assistance to civil society groups.

"'Now, I am convinced that a nation that tolerates Israeli war crimes and provides diplomatic coverage for them cannot be genuinely democratic,' he said."(2)

The imperialists thus pointed out that the Egyptian reformist organizations had taken U.$. money before. Now the imperialists are letting their stooges take more critical outlooks out of fear of losing them completely and some stooges are breaking with imperialism completely. That's the direction we want to go in, the example we want to set--going from lackeys to breaking with imperialism. It's exactly the opposite of what RIM does in Iran and Afghanistan.

Borai is certainly correct that war is a big enemy of minority rights and hence sensible citizen participation in democracy. For u.$. imperialism, majority rule means that a majority of white people rules the whole world.

On the other hand, while some Third World Liberals are being radicalized by u.$. imperialism's most direct moves, others are being Liberalized into being ex- radicals. Kurds inside Iraqi borders are allowing themselves to be used by Bush in order to try to score points on Saddam Hussein in his trial by u.$. lackeys. Obviously the Kurds are not thinking about their neighbors when they appeal to world public opinion via Uncle $am. The Kurds going after Saddam Hussein also undermine their brothers inside Turkish borders who have resumed armed struggle. Now we have to wonder about them, are they u.$. stooges too; although at least in Turkey it would be stooges against stooges.

Anybody claiming to be Maoist who thinks he can criticize U.$. imperialism less than the UN does, anyone who is going to allow himself to be less anti-u.$. than the National Organization for Women (NOW) on International Wimmin's Day is badly deluded or bought-off, and it does not matter which. The RIM and their conciliators have proved to be in that boat and we are not going to get into whether they lack line struggle, whether they are inept or whether they have been bought off. They could all be on u.$. payroll, so we have to look at the actions and stands--and these stands are way over the line for Maoists, though perfectly acceptable for Trotskyists.

What has happened in connection to Iran is so obvious and brazen that MIM has no relationship to any organization calling itself Maoist that fails to denounce actively the phony Maoists of the RIM concerned. It would only turn out that we allowed ourselves to be associated with the u.$. government, so we do not take kindly to any kind of association of the word "Maoism" with action by U.$. stooges. MIM and RIM share no unity, anymore than the international proletariat shares unity with the U.$. government. While U.$. spies are penetrating MIM circles as well, we are not packing in our anti-imperialist line, unlike the RIM. There is a struggle we can have despite spy activities and we should not give up even in places where we are temporarily outnumbered. There will be no conciliation or lazy unity with stooges of U.$. imperialism by MIM or any of the parties it considers fraternal.

And again, we demand that the U.S. Government cease with its farcical misrepresentation of Maoism using taxpayer money. Back in 1984, U.S. citizens took up Maoism as the first organization in the world to use the name. The U.S. Government has no legal right to use tax money to smear our ideology and organization that has applied Maoism for u.$. conditions. The U.S. Government has set up a party to compete with the original Maoists and that is illegal by itself.

Some say MIM is being sectarian toward the RIM. These people use the word "sectarian" in a namby-pamby way without thinking through the implications for the international proletariat. It cannot be true that Maoists both believe that the Iranian regime is the principal enemy of the Iranian people while others believe u.$. imperialism is. During a u.$. invasion, it cannot both be true that the imperialists are the principal enemy and the regime is. This is have-it-both-ways-ism, an impossibility for real decisions that have to be made. For people watching politics like it is television, of course, have-it-both-ways-ism is eminently possible by changing the channel or using a VCR recorder. Yet politics is not really like pornography, where we can look at one image and then start with a totally different image a minute later. Those misusing the word "sectarianism" use it as if watching the television. The proper use of the word "sectarianism" is entirely different: the interests of the organization should be trashed in the name of the interests of the class; otherwise we are guilty of sectarianism. That could and does mean for example that organizational unities achieved at the expense of the international proletariat are sectarian. People who do not have stomach for struggle do not belong in Maoism, period.

We also need to be clear about the nature of struggle. MIM was stabbed in the back by conciliators on the principal contradiction concerning International Wimmin's Day and Iran. That is action on behalf of u.$. warmongers. For the backstabbers to then whine about words of struggle and diplomatic relations among organizations is perverse and against the interests of the international proletariat.

There are others who continue to hold that the RIM is the equivalent of our Wang Mings--as most obviously indicated by their inability to respond concretely on questions of surplus-value, the same way Wang Ming substituted dogma for concrete analysis of current conditions. Yet we need to understand in what ways Wang Ming was superior to the RIM. First, Wang Ming was in active touch with Trotsky and Stalin while RIM advocates unity based on purely historical questions now--the Cultural Revolution and Soviet revisionism. Secondly, Wang Ming did not take an openly anti-patriotic stance until after leaving the country. It's not just that these fake Maoists cannot reason regarding international flows of surplus-value, but also they have abandoned the principal contradiction. The u.$.-based party never understood it and applied it, but now they, their international comrades and their conciliators have reached the logical political implication of their exploiter economics.

A word to the ordinary activist in the street--if we are hostile to your organization of spies or stooges, there is no reason that you have to stay frozen in place. You can reject your organization's approach. Former pseudo- Maoists should become simple anti-war activists and not claim to be "Maoist." It does not mean everything has to change, but simply dropping false claims of "Maoism" are enough at the margin. Then we can become friends.