mim3 for MIM:
CyM said this in the NBP thread.

It's an example of something that RAF and others have spread regarding political security. "Working with RAF" does not give you or anyone a pass to certify RAF or anyone else.

Granted, that's the method the bourgeois justice system uses. In Amerikkka, one calls "character witnesses" to the stand. It's an individualist approach, not a class one.

I'm not going to say the NKVD did not use some of the same methods the bourgeois cops use, but left at that level, the proletarian side of struggle would surely lose.

It's simple. The bourgeoisie spends the money to send people to "work with" us. For that matter, Khruschev "nestled beside" Stalin for years. Kautsky had great credentials but still sold out and so on. By now, we should know that what matters is the action
and context of struggle. From the struggle against fascism (or in any other struggle by extension) we can see that RAF was an
obstacle. It hardly matters how many vouch for him after that. Whatever vouchers he has, they won't be as good or as numerous
as the ones Trotsky had after 1917--as Stalin correctly pointed out to Bukharin in his struggles.

Likewise, the neo-Nazis will send people to vouch for them too, but we look at the actions in the struggle.

Now I'm going to explain why it is the bourgeoisie WANTS for us to fight on that turf and has infiltrated entire organizations to make us fight on that turf. They are actually hoping we take up their individualist method and do their work FOR THEM.

Entire organizations have been trained to carry out actions that cops would carry out if they had the chance. Their style of investigation and politics is suitable for cops. The identity politics swamp is prime for that sort of thing, but most
calling themselves followers of Marx in the imperialist countries fall for the same thing.

Referring to his actions is exactly what I was doing.

It seems to me, it's convenient to dismiss someone this way simply because of personal issues with them.

I am well aware of the personal issues between the MIM and RAF. I'm also well aware that RAF is a consistent anti-racist who gets very personal if anyone suggests for even a second the idea of being more lenient on racists/fascists, etc... It is only by ignoring RAF's actions that someone could come to the conclusion that he isn't a red.

You wanna talk about actions, then give me the actions you're talking about.

Interestingly enough, it's also well known that a method used by cointelpro was to plant false accusations and sow the seeds of doubt.

If someone makes an accusation like this, I take it very seriously, and I'm not about to be intimidated into taking their position without proper evidence.

Your claims are dubious at best.

This post has been edited by Che y Marijuana on Feb 14 2005, 12:42 AM

CyM, since you take the same exact line as RAF on vouching, I'm not surprised you disagree in a Liberal/apolitical way.

First of all, this is Internet, the impersonal medium. There is nothing "personal" between MIM and RAF. That's your attempt to dodge having to make a decision.

Second of all, if the pigs convinced you there are no cops, because sometimes cops make false accusations that others are cops, then chalk up yet another victory for the cops/Liberalism.

Finally, there is nothing dubious whatsoever in this "dispute." "Red Comrades" informed on MIM to the FBI Tampa and CCed MIM on it. This was also subsequently admitted on the Internet by a "Red Comrade" leader.

RAF's subsequent attitude toward it was to make a joke about it and deny it. RAF is an FBI-informer symp, an obstacle in the struggle. It's that simple.

For the rest of you not paying attention, butt the F* out. It's not funny.