Another critic of MIM, Lurigancho says at www.2changetheworld.info:

"But when they exercise that right to self-determination, a whole 
lot of investigation into the concrete conditions of the situation 
shows (in the good old Maoist sense of going to the masses and 
sharing weal and woe with them, not cooking up statistics on surplus 
value in some effort to make me or my group look scientific) that 
the vast majority of Black people (and with higher numbers among 
Black proletarians (that is, of course, if don't count people in the 
projects as labor aristocrats)) do not want a separate Black 
republic."

maoist3@yahoo.com replies for MIM:
The above is pretty explicit that the "RCP-USA" has no use
for the labor theory of value anymore. We say fine, as long
as all their members renounce Marxism. The minute the "RCP-USA"
renounces Marxism, they will become internationalist social-
democrats, models for the many Europeans who need to support 
People's Wars while putting forward their economic reformism.
After renouncing Marxism, the "RCP-USA" will become allies of the 
international proletariat instead of
revisionists trying to smuggle the enemy into the fort
of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

The above statement from Lurigancho
has special neo-colonial significance
in two ways. One is that the "RCP-USA" takes the easy road
to parasitism, by "sharing weal and woe." Can't you just hear
them saying: "Don't tell me about that surplus-value shit!
All I care about is right here and now!" Do they expect to 
hear people offer that they are parasites in an opinion poll?

If "right here and now" is parasitism, the "RCP-USA" is not
going to help sort that out. While Marx told people they would 
have to dig below the commodity relations, "RCP-USA" is here
telling us to accept what people say about themselves--thus
accepting identity politics.

Secondly, the above statement is neo-colonialism because it leaves
out a stage in the process of Black liberation. That is what
happens most of the time when people claim they have surpassed
the Black Panthers of 1966 to 1969 instead of just referring to them.
Eldridge Cleaver already explained why it is that the BPP was
for self-determination. There has to be a couple stages 
before we know what Black people really want, contrary to what
the "RCP-USA" is saying above.

See, when people like the "RCP-USA"'s Lurigancho accept facts as 
stated by people under conditions of 
oppression, they become what we Maoists called "subjectivist-
empiricists." In contrast, we have to see what happens when
the oppressor takes the knife out of the back of the oppressed
before we know what the oppressed really wants. It's hard to make 
out what the people are saying while the knife is still in their
back. Are they saying what they say because they have to? Because
we can't hear what they are really saying amidst pain? Or because
they will say the same thing when the knife is removed? Usually
communist scientists are in favor of plebiscites to resolve these
questions--after the development of suitable conditions to hold
the plebiscite, and those suitable conditions are tantamount
to national liberation in themselves. You can only have a choice
when you really have a choice, and not a knife in your back.

What MIM is saying is consistent with the BPP of 1966 to 1969,
because MIM sees some stages that have to happen
that the "RCP-USA" leaves out. We see some
major problems that have to be addressed through the use of
state power. We do not believe the severe problems of white
chauvinism that we see today can be settled by talking with 
people or with cultural movements BEFORE the seizure of state power
and the re-distribution of assets and opening of borders.
In contrast, the "RCP-USA" believes that whites are mostly
exploited and about to express revolutionary consciousness at any 
moment. This led them to their 1974 "smash busing" "error" 
(when it was a problem of general line, not just an "error") and 
their 2002 references to Stalin's and Peking Review's line on World 
War II Germany from 1943 to 1945 as "wack." In other words, this 
leads them to rename fascism as revolution or evidence of the 
stirrings of the white proletariat.

Finally, did Lurigancho try to ask Black people whether they
wanted to stay integrated with whites because they want to share
in super-profits that a united imperialist state can obtain? Sorry, 
Lurigancho, but your comments on surplus-value, and the "RCP-USA"'s 
attitude toward the question leave me thinking you didn't.

--maoist3@yahoo.com for the Maoist Internationalist Movement