*See our article building for IRTR
*See our article on Internet security

Postscript, November 2006:

MIM opposes the use of this forum. It takes too much time for MIM to monitor the provocations there. The leaders there are Fdapatriarchy and Prairiefire. MIM has never led the IRTR forum.

Comrades,

Some take exception, as you all know, with the "style" MIM uses interpersonally. It has been described as confrontational, aggressive, etc. Obviously, a revolutionary organization will be forceful, even violent, but my line question deals with the methodology of new contacts. At certain points, MIM seems severe in this area, and, at other times, there is displayed a great patience with non- members (see the advice on how to help MIM on the main site). Why is this? Is it different conditions dictating this, or different comrades' approaches. Also, the MIM site speaks of working with people "at a distance" for some years; is this a concession to dealing with very new Maoists, or is it a tactic that MIM is enthusiastic about? Or does it matter?

To Revolt!

mim3@mim.org replies:

The question of style often leads in a Liberal direction. We need to learn when we have asked a Liberal question.

If the question starts and ends in lifestyle, it's probably a Liberal question. For example, if MIM says "all sex is rape," and then one writes in to say "even if I'm gay" or "even if my partner enjoys sex?" one has not understood and defeated Liberalism yet. (Fascists also start and end in lifestyle as with Limonov supporters calling for execution of all gays, but we encounter them less in the imperialist countries.)

If one raises questions that imply politics is a matter of persynalities, then one is still a Liberal, and that's OK for an anti-monarchist situation. It's not OK in trying to surpass Liberalism and fascism.

Liberals are always trying to convince us that questions are ones of persynality, because that means they are questions of the individual instead of classes. The question of "different comrades' approaches" is inherently Liberal. It is something that cops seek to fan.

It's also extra-Liberal to raise this in IRTR. IRTR is not in a position to know the answer to the questions raised above. So this is a point not worth asking, especially when there are so many other things to do. One thing we have to learn is those situations when we are not in a position to discern a general factual pattern. It would be inside the etext-based cell that one has the ability to know what is what by whom. The proper place for that discussion is there. One reason for centralism is that people who do not have activity in relationship to the question do not have a vote.

To raise the harshness question scientifically is something Nkrumah did. He concluded that his major failure in life was in not utilizing negative energy sufficiently. So one can raise the question of the role of forces of attraction and repulsion in politics. This can be discussed without discussing persynalities.

MIM has gone into attraction and repulsion in depth, but probably anybody has at least started the subject. For example, attraction cannot be the be-all-and-end-all for those of us who have qualms about using young wimmin in low cut dresses to recruit teenage boys to a party (though even there, we should not rule it out for an anti-war group). So, at some level, probably most people have thought about this question.

"Working at a distance" is a good substance question. The Internet is a force of production that has enabled this tactic hugely. Another factor is the class structure. Mao worked from caves in regions where thousands or millions of peasants supported him. We cannot utilize tactics that flow from that material and strategic situation. So one thing we have to learn to do is reason from our concrete circumstances.

There are very many Liberal questions that are the equivalent of "when did you stop beating your wife?" No matter how they are answered, the result is Liberal. Sometimes it is best to ignore or suppress a question. It can even be the case that failure to suppress a question leads to defeat, the same way it is important to avoid forks by one's opponents in chess.