1) Racism at www.maoism.ru
2) Dutt on fascism
1) Racism at www.maoism.ru
The comrades at www.maoism.ru have come to your attention lately, because MIM has broken with the Russian Maoist Party on the question of Iran and united fronts for countries seeking independence. The fake Maoists of the "Revolutionary Internationalist Movment" are taking the Trotskyist line and serving U.$. neo-conservatism.
Unfortunately, the open Trotskyism at www.maoism.ru goes much further. An article from the "Revolutionary Gay Front" says in "Lenin, fascists and freedom of sexual minorites," by Boris Stomahin:
So will we live some day in some kind of democracy, will we overcome eternal Asia and eventually become Europe? Will we live to see the establishment of normal free society, leaving alone revolution.
Trotsky was famous for a similar quote. A Ukrainian gay organization openly upholds Trotsky and has links to the Russian Maoist Party. Links from www.maoism.ru lead to "Komsomol" web pages calling Stalin "counterrevolutionary."
2) Dutt and the definition of fascism
In the 1930s comrade Dutt was famous for one school of thought on fascism, while Dimitrov was another. We can say that Dutt's line prevailed in the time that the communists spoke of "social-fascism" in the early 1930s. Then Dimitrov's line prevailed.
MIM is the ultra-Duttist organization of the imperialist countries, because we spend no time talking about so-called workers under "social-democratic illusions," the way almost all European parties calling themselves "communist" do. Quite the contrary, MIM points out that the European labor aristocracy is petty-bourgeoisie and not just deluded. So there is no point in alliance with that labor aristocracy toward revolutionary ends--except to oppose other imperialists, part of inter-imperialist rivalry. We do not take the European labor aristocracy seriously as a class with a revolutionary thrust, but we do take it seriously for its anti-Amerikkkanism based on its queasy feeling that Amerikkkan imperialism must be squeezing it out of super-profits. Labor aristocracies are ONLY good for that purpose--opposing the imperialists of other countries.
In India we have a similar issue though not directly, because Dutt's book on fascism was not meant to center on the colonial countries. MIM has no objection to the CPI(Maoist)'s line that it should rely on its own revolutionary forces and there is no national bourgeoisie to ally with. The national bourgeoisie in India has too many comprador temptations at the moment to be allied with toward revolutionary ends-- so says the CPI(Maoist) carrying out armed struggle, and we believe them.
The problem comes only in the combination of views that the CPI(Maoist) upholds. If CPI(Maoist) is going to take a hard line against its national bourgeoisie unlike its comrades in Nepal, then that line should definitely not be combined with a line saying that Western so-called workers are exploited. This is a deadly combination of views expressing the soul of bureaucrat capital. Knocking one's own national bourgeoisie and yet upholding Western "workers" is comprador politics, because those Western "workers" are bigger appropriators of labor than the national bourgeoisie of India. All parties must demarcate between the proletariat and petty-bourgeoisie and do it in internationalist fashion. Being generous to other countries and calling their petty-bourgeoisie "workers" in need of improvement of their supposed condition of "exploitation" dovetails exactly with compradors saying their own people deserve to work for less than imperialist country people. The urban petty-bourgeoisie of India and the united $tates should be roughly the same in an internationalist class analysis. We urge comrades to study the example of the Communist Party of Pakistan (Stalinist-Maoist). It should be extended internationally. For 13 years, MIM tried to get the Communist Party of the Philippines to handle this question, but its public answers have consistently backed bureaucrat capital. All the parties associated with the RIM have failed to even ask the question.
The other combination of views that would be wrong would be reliance on the revolutionary forces in a situation of U.$. invasion of India. This is what MIM raises with the Iran and Islamo-fascism questions right now.
One thing though, whether Dutt or Dimitrov, both believed that links to finance capital are part of the definition of fascism. Dutt explicitly pointed out that those without links to finance capital cannot be called fascists.