MIM replies to defender of the "RCP-USA"
by mim3@mim.org
February 12, 2001

>11 points on MIM’s deceptive terminology,
>counter-revolutionary motives, false statements, and
>outright lies.

mim3@mim.org replies:
MIM does not know the motivations or intentions of the persyn circulating
this document, but we rebut it below. Below it appears the persyn claims to speak for the 
"RCP-USA" ("Revolutionary Communist Party USA"). Usually after it receives a public 
political embarrassment, the "RCP-USA" says that we were dealing with an imposter. It 
would be useful if the "RCP-USA" stood by the below questions it raises about MIM.

>
>1) MIM claims that the Committee of the Revolutionary
>Internationalist Movement (CoRIM) is led by the
>"crypto-Trotskyist Revolutionary Communist Party-USA".
>Where in the *writings* (not potentially out of
>context spoken "conversations") of the RCP, USA do
>they show themselves to have Trotskyist tendencies,
>let alone "crypto-Trotskyist"(!) ones? There is
>nothing of>the sort in _Conquer the World?_ by Bob Avakian, as
>hinted at by MIM. Why does MIM think that CoRIM is led
>by the RCP, USA? The parties that make up the
>Revolutionary Internationalist Movement (RIM - see
>bottom) do not make public their internal functioning
>for obvious security reasons. Can MIM offer a single
>shred of evidence to suggest that CoRIM is dominated
>by the RCP, USA?
>

mim3@mim.org replies:?
Why would someone write these questions without referring to any of our theory journal 
articles covering precisely these questions? Is the point division for its own sake? 
Division should be connected with points of substance or it serves no purpose now or 
from the point of view of history.

It's no secret that MIM Theory #9 is for sale on our web site and it contains the article 
"RCP-USA and Trotsky: A Literal Comparison." The "RCP" also receives several 
mentions in our Stalin issue and several other articles in the MIM Theory journals. We 
would suggest that the questioner has not studied the question very much.

As for criticizing the Co-RIM, this is also a question of actually reading the Co-RIM 
literature; although the questioner claims to defend the RIM against the MIM. The 
magazine "A World to Win" features RIM parties, but it says openly that it is the word of 
the Co-RIM. Since the comrades in Nepal cannot be reached and the same is true of 
others involved in struggle, they cannot be held responsible for what they may or may not 
have sanctioned. The "RCP-USA" on the other hand has web sites, email, bookstores, 
postal addresses and open members writing and accountable. The public face of the RIM 
in the whole world is mostly the "RCP-USA." That's not to mention the origins of RIM or 
the view that Comrade Gonzalo had of it. Again, this persyn should really be answering 
these questions h/self rather than raising empty nihilism in public.

>2) Why does MIM claim that RIM is a new Comintern? RIM
>has maintained that it is not an international, but
>rather an organization of parties which work to
>accelerate the world revolution. They have also stated
>that if an international were to be formed, it would
>have to contain non-RIM MLM forces.

mim3@mim.org replies:
Yes, that is a new development in Co-RIM literature. Had the author read much 
RIM/"RCP-USA" literature, s/he would know that it criticized Mao via the 
COMINTERN issue.

>
>3) Why does MIM separate CoRIM and RIM? CoRIM is RIM’s
>leading committee, and the line of CoRIM is
>representative of the global strategy of RIM. An
>attack on CoRIM is therefore an attack on all RIM
>parties and organizations, including the Communist
>Party of Peru (PCP). The PCP has openly maintained
>their steadfast support for RIM, and has remained an
>active participant in RIM since its founding in 1984.
>Will MIM dare to condemn the Communist Party of Peru,
>beacon of hope for the world’s oppressed and vanguard
>of the world revolution for the past 20 years, or will
>they merely continue their deceptive and arcane
>attacks on CoRIM?
>

mim3@mim.org replies: The Co-RIM was the first to separate RIM and Co-RIM.
Again the question is accountability. The publication of a magazine in London is no 
proof that  someone in Ayacucho is to blame for its contents. The people in Peru and 
Nepal do not operate in the open where we can send some questions to them. MIM has no 
intention of condemning or praising people for things they may or may not have written 
or may or may not have endorsed. We are in praise of the People's Wars in Nepal and 
Peru. We are not going to hold them responsible for the magazine coming out of London 
or the "RCP-USA." Nor do we encourage the People's Wars to make concessions to 
bourgeois Liberalism just to satisfy imperialist country curiosity. If the parties conducting 
People's Wars meet and agree on joint statements, that is all well and good, but if security 
makes it too difficult, then that is good too.

To the best of our ability, we have informed the PCP of our opinions. We are not going to 
air them for someone who has not studied even the literature that is already available. 
Pigs might be interested in these sorts of things, for their own reasons, but communists 
study the ABCs first.

>4) Why does MIM claim that CoRIM is revisionist?
>Anyone who has read elaborated lines of CoRIM and
>RIM’s participating parties can attest to their clear
>revolutionary, internationalist, and
>Marxist-Leninist-Maoist lines. This is evident in
>their
>_Declaration_ of 1984, _Long Live
>Marxism-Leninism-Maoism_ of 1993 and their _Millennial
>Statement_ of 2000. Perhaps a more interesting
>question should be asked of MIM: Why do you see fit to

mim3@mim.org replies: Again, we have written several articles on these
subjects. None are hidden. We have a PO Box. We have a web site. You can't
pay for them by credit card, but our magazines are available.

The imperialist country parties of the RIM are all revisionist, not just the Co-RIM, 
because none of them draw the line against parasitism in practice, by recognizing the 
overall parasitic nature of the imperialist countries. Hence, if they were to come to power, 
the names would change, but we would have social-imperialist parasitism in practice. If 
we cannot correctly name our class structure as it exists now, if we cannot correctly state 
the degree to which super-profits are swamping the imperialist economies, then we 
cannot be claiming to overthrow imperialism.

>unite with the crudely revisionist CP, USA, and with
>the likes of Luis Arce Borja (A World To Win #22,
>1996) for the purpose of attacking RIM? (Arce wants to
>unite the International Communist Movement with Ludo
>Martens’ Labour Party of Belgium and Nina Andreev’s
>All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks (Soviet
>Union), both of which are Brezhnevite revisionists.)

mim3@mim.org replies: MIM united with two people in the "CP-USA," one of which 
was kicked out subsequently for support of the People's War in Peru. As for Luis Arce 
Borja, we believe you should document your claims. Luis Arce Borja has stood firmly for 
People's War through thick and thin. If he has faults, they must be compared with others 
that the "RCP-USA" aligns itself with. While this persyn blames us for receiving support 
from two people in the "CP-USA," s/he does not mention that in the very same struggle 
where we received that support, the "RCP-USA" received support from a Brit openly in 
favor of peace accords in Peru and a hardline Trotskyist.
>
>5) Aside from being a baseless insult, what does MIM
>mean by "Avakianist Mysticism"?

mim3@mim.org replies: This is answered in our literature. Something is not correct 
because Avakian said so or because Avakian dodges a question with centrism or 
agnosticism, like the class structure of the U$A for instance.

>
>6) Does MIM have any proof to back up their very
>serious accusations of labeling certain groups to be
>"cops". There is reason for suspicion here because
>their reasoning in the past has been almost comical,
>for example, MIM writes that "[New Flag] argues that
>because someone is someone else’s brother, he must be
>revolutionary. This thoroughly reactionary line was
>crushed during the Cultural Revolution of Mao-Tsetung.
>The prestige of one revolutionary does not convert to
>family members. The fact that [the New Flag editor]
>argues this way shows that he is a cop..." (Maoist
>Sojourner, June 1996). Perhaps even funnier is
>that MIM’s "comrade", Luis Arce Borja, has used the
>same logic in attacking a member of the Peru People’s
>Movement! Arce claimed that the member was suspicious
>because of his supposed family connections to someone
>who was promoting the Right Opportunist Line (the ROL
>is a capitulationist line that seeks the end to the
>People’s War) in Peru. Echoing R. Voina, One wonders
>what MIM therefore just conclude about their friend
>Arce! (See A World To Win #22, 1996).

mim3@mim.org replies: Try reading the whole 8 page Maoist Sojourner tabloid
on the question, not one paragraph. BTW, the idea that "New Flag" is cops originated in 
"RCP-USA" circles before MIM said anything about it, but after "New Flag" stopped 
criticizing the "RCP-USA" and switched to support "RCP-USA," the "RCP-USA" started 
questioning our stance.

>
>7) The RCP’s line on homosexuality is thoroughgoing
>revolutionary, anti-patriarchal and anti-misogynist.
>Why does MIM accuse it of being "anti-proletarian"?

mim3@mim.org replies: This is public knowledge and in our publications. It is not 
proletarian to split the vanguard party or its allies on the basis of homosexuality or 
anything else that is not truly cardinal.

>
>8) The RCP does not support the theory of the
>productive forces. As shown in their published
>documents, they understand perfectly well that a
>bourgeoisie is generated out of bourgeois-right,
>contradictions between mental and manual labour,
>between town and country, between men and women, as
>well as from external pressures. The have also firmly
>upheld The Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution as a
>means of mobilizing the masses to fight this new
>bourgeoisie.
>
mim3@mim.org replies: We hope you make good on that, because it is a good
thing to attack the theory of the productive forces. Now tell us how the "RCP-USA"
arrived at its relationship to "America in Decline" and its conjuncturalism if not by 
Trotskyism and the theory of the productive forces? It's not a trivial question that can be 
answered lightly.

>9) The decision of RIM (including the RCP) to adopt
>Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in 1993 came after a period of
>serious struggle internationally among all
>participating organizations of RIM and was certainly
>not because of "pressure" from MIM.

mim3@mim.org replies: OK. Does that mean you speak for the "RCP-USA"?
You know its subjective mindframe? MIM's criticisms of the "RCP-USA" which used to 
speak of "Marxism-Leninism" and frowned on our self-appellation "Maoist" date back to 
the early 1980s.

>
>10) The RCP holds that the principal contradiction in
>the world today after the fall of the capitalist
>Soviet Union is the contradiction between the
>imperialist countries and the oppressed countries.
>There is a wealth of phenomena to support this,
>including but not limited to the two people’s wars
>being led by RIM parties in Peru and Nepal. Why does
>MIM conclude that
>this view is "patently erroneous"?
>

mim3@mim.org replies: You have something upside down here. When MIM formed,
"RCP-USA" accused us of believing the principal contradiction was between the 
oppressed nations and imperialism and seeing "youth as a class." That's available in our 
10th anniversary issue. This is also related to the question of "America in Decline" and 
Trotskyism.

>11) On the question of the "bourgeosified" working
>classes in the imperialist countries, the RCP upholds
>RIM’s conclusion that there exists a
>labour-aristocracy in imperialist countries that more
>or less has a material compulsion in protecting
>imperialism. Of
>course they hold that there is also a real social base
>for revolution in imperialist countries - among women,
>oppressed nationalities, and even among sections of
>the white working class. This particular issue has
>broad implications about the differences between MIM
>and the RCP. In short, the RCP believes that
>revolution in imperialist countries is possible, while
>MIM does not.


mim3@mim.org replies: History says that Japanese troops were kicked
off Chinese soil by force, not by appeals to the Japanese labor aristocracy.

History also shows the Soviet Union shutting down Nazi Germany and occupying it by 
force--again, not by appeals to the German labor aristocracy on its terms.

One understanding of imperialism leads to proletarian resolution and another leads to 
social-democracy and awakening of fascism. Behind the "RCP-USA" view is Menshevik 
"gotta have a majority" disdain for Marxist-Leninist-Maoist science. If the majority are 
parasites, we Maoists do not shirk the scientific truth!

Apparently from the above, we learn that "RCP-USA" believes revolution in the U$A is 
impossible without the Amerikan labor aristocracy. Didn't anyone tell them the masses 
make history? Do they really think the Amerikan labor aristocracy can hold the world 
revolution hostage? It sounds like their wishful thinking.

We are very appreciative that the "RCP-USA" acknowledges this difference with MIM. 
This clarifies matters immensely.


>Unless a MIM member or supporter can answer these
>questions and concerns, they should continue to be
>viewed as a group whose main purpose is to sow
>confusion in the International Communist Movement and
>continue with their pathological and childish hatred
>for the RCP, USA, which, unlike MIM, is a vanguard
>party with deep roots among the proletariat that is
>seriously working towards the goal of revolution in
>the belly of the beast.
>
>Note: RIM is made up of the following organisations,
>as well as other groups not publically mentioned:
>
>-Ceylon Communist Party (Maoist)
>-Communist Party of Afghanistan
>-Communist Party of Bangladesh (Marxist-Leninist)
>[BSD ML]
>-Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)
>-Communist Party of Peru
>-Communist Party of Turkey (Marxist-Leninist)[TKP ML]
>-Haitin Revolutionary Internationalist Group
>-Maoist Communist Party (Italy)
>-Marxist-Leninist Communist Organisation of Tunisia
>-Proletarian Party of Purba Bangla (PBSP) [Bangladesh]
>-Revolutionary Communist Group of Colombia
>-Revolutionary Communist Party, USA
>-Union of Communists of Iran (Sarbedaran)
>
>________________________________________________

mim3@mim.org replies: Of the above, how many can be reached independently of the 
"RCP-USA" and in their native countries? Should we take everything in the magazines 
and what you say above on Avakian's word? Because his poster is really nice? The lack 
of substance in the above criticisms and failure to cite our answers to their questions 
indicates a lack of seriousness to us. Serious questions should be asked after study.