This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
Maoist Internationalist Movement

Style, Liberalism and pornography: Part II

Limonov

Discussion of Kristeva continues to spin-off into some directions MIM has not addressed much. I was reading writer Limonov's website in Russia and he was talking again about how important style is, how quickly they had to decide the uniform and symbols of his party organization. It really struck me that Limonov is the incarnation of what I said in the last article on style and pornography stemming from Kristeva, which is that the ultimate end-point of style is pornography.

It is well-known that Limonov has kiddie porn for his youth league and now he has a photo web page for adults as well. He connects it directly to the party, as in "girlfriends of the party" and their appearance. In these photos, the wimmin try to evoke the styles they want.

The plus side for Limonov is obvious. He is also complaining how Bolshevism became associated in the Soviet Union with processions funeral-like in nature. Ideology is something solemn in the minds of many, especially those who think of Bolshevism as social conservatism in opposition to imperialism. In other words, there is a zombie question.

The positive aspect of Limonov's style gallery of pornographic photos is that in each case we are taking someone and saying: OK, you create. YOU. There is going to be no one else to blame for that photo and how it turns out. So a womyn wears this and that, puts on this and that make-up and then poses this and that way.

But Limonov is not done. He then takes the photos and claims the wimmin for the party.

If we take such a pornographic ideology of style to the bourgeoisie, the result is nothing. However, if we take it to the lowest-paid workers in Russia, the result is to hammer home that we do not want to see any zombieism. The photo is starting small. It is saying you can control your own style and affect it. Then it is also saying there is a party style.

Yet there is a big difference between Limonov's galleries and Afakean's. Afakeanists put up one photo of one persyn who has to design his style. Limonov is putting up more than one persyn. He also does so for opportunist reasons, but the effect is that it starts to mobilize the subjective factor in people.

So here is the question behind it all. Are we going to have a pornographic photo for one persyn to co-opt people into the world of the image or would it be better for everyone to be their own porno actors. Does taking photographs of wimmin and putting them on the website corral wimmin into only one role or is it possibly an acknowledgement that there is no bourgeois feminism yet and wimmin would not comfortably play another role for the party yet--in the sections of the Russian working class that we really need to reach. So the question is how backward is the situation there for wimmin in the exploited sections of the working class. Then we should keep in mind that the situation in the most backward sections of Russia gradually shades into what we see in Iran or Afghanistan.

Hence, this is another case where the concrete conditions have to be known and MIM will not make a snap judgment about it. Western adult females may assume I slander Russian wimmin outside Leningrad and Moscow, but our question is if wimmin spend all their spare time fussing with clothing manufacturing or shopping for their own clothes and doing their make-up each day, would it at least be a step forward to do that for the party? Then too Western pseudo-feminists should remember that in Russia there is a huge shortage of men again. Bashing men may not go too well for wimmin in the truly exploited sections where they would consider having the choice of an adult male partner to raise a family a near-luxury.

In Chechnya, there was recently a beauty contest. It turned out to be a scandal; yet it involved something that occurs regularly in the West. People in the West may not imagine this combination of social conservatism and exploitation. So MIM rather has the suspicion that Limonov summons patriarchal ideology in Liberal forms to battle with zombie mindsets in the exploited of Russia outside Leningrad and Moscow. For some, this Liberalism will be a transition to imperialism, and possibly persynally bourgeois status. For others like Mao, contact with Liberalism ended up leading toward communism.

Now behind Limonov's photos, of course, individual wimmin do not pose in a vacuum. They obtained their ideas from somewhere. Yet this is what we say to the workers in Russia too: "Do not just follow your trade union bosses, your old party leaders or your favorite national leaders. Think it all through and choose for yourself." The hope is that the exploited will then choose an authentic ideology of revolt.

Finally, there is the recruiting aspect of Limonov's pornography. It assures the male chauvinists that there will still be a sexual style. When it comes to the wimmin, the question would be if he succeeds in creating something of a mini-gender aristocracy. Do the wimmin who pose for those photos end up being more comfortable around the party? Do they accept that it is not just a man's world, because there is a place for womyn? Do the wimmin who shy away from the photos fail to polemicize against him and just drop away? And finally, what MIM wants to know is whether or not there is in fact some other way to bring forward wimmin from the socially conservative hinterland of Russia.

Masses and style

From a mass line investigation, we will find that the real masses still want style. What it means is that Liberalism as an ideology has not completed its task yet, has not delivered people to the pornographic endpoint yet in a way that people recognize the communist future.

The question of style is important in separating people from yaks or cave people. When we speak to the masses, their ardent defense of style is usually backward-looking, a hurried escape from utter poverty. We will not generally have people talk to us about historical trends, except of escaping utter poverty where the rich are seen as having style advantages. And of course, the masses do not yet accept that pornography is style. Many see it as poor taste.

In the united $tates, style is the concern of the labor aristocracy too, the class looking over its shoulder and seeing utter barbarism in the Third World and having fantasies of utter ruin. These anxieties have some real basis because of imperialism's decadence and recklessness. At the same time, these anxieties have no progressive political thrust that is usable to the international proletariat, except in the parts of Europe that aim those anxieties at U.$. imperialism as if it were stealing super-profits from the European labor aristocracy. Inside u.$. borders, except for prisoners and migrants, we have to be merciless in criticizing these backward-looking tendencies and try to get people to look into the socialist future.

MIM stresses that in the imperialist countries like the united $tates and England, we are stressing all science. There is no role for the mass line except among prisoners and migrants. This has to do also with rejecting pornography and having people to realize that they have reached an endpoint where they should start thinking about the future.

The Black Panthers and Limonov's National Bolshevik Party are examples of important questions on the margin. The Blacks inside U.$. borders are generally among the top 10 or 15% of the world's richest people; even though, psychologically that may not be true yet. At the same time, Blacks are an oppressed nation.

Limonov's party is another example of a question at the margin. His social base is the exploited of Russia. They belong to an oppressor nation, and they can cause quite much trouble internationally if stirred up the wrong way, but economically they are much closer to the mainstream of the world's proletariat than Blacks inside u.$. borders.

When people act as if MIM sees all enemies, we should realize that MIM is not denying friends where there is a true question of the margin. We are heralding the Black Panther Party, despite the obvious fact that Blacks inside U.$. borders also have economics pulling them in an enemy direction. We also look forward to the class struggle in Russia; even though there is a serious split in the working class there.

Let us be clear there is no avoiding the style question in the Black Panthers or a Russian party. The Black Panther uniform is necessary, but we are stressing that so too is the party member's understanding of where the style question leads. Party members anywhere should know the difference between what the masses want and where it is all going.

Style as ideology

We who are scientific communists need to think about what style really is ideologically speaking. Particularly, style is the pop-version of art for its own sake.

Now some people may object, because it looks like the Black Panthers had a style and Limonov's party has a style. So how can that be art for its own sake.

This has to do with understanding the nature of imperialism economically. How often have we heard that Blacks originate something in rock'n'roll or popular music generally and then whites copy it. How often does a dance style start with Blacks and then find itself everywhere.

Yet even this often-heard example is another proof of how the style question is always backward-looking. We can point to the origin of a style in this case, but not an ongoing identity.

Style may originate as a key component of identity politics, but contrary to Kristeva, Liberalism is the ultimate owner of identity politics, not the "totalitarianism" she calls us. We have to think hard about who benefits when there is something substance-less but creating choice or variety. As soon as we ask the question, as soon as we see how tied up style is with shopping for clothing and music, we should know the answer. Style benefits the capitalist class already in power seeking to atomize other classes with the ideology of choice and individualism. Style is the symbol of bourgeois Liberal rule. Those claiming to oppose it can claim their own styles, fascists for example, but in the end style leads to bourgeois Liberalism.

And where does a relentless ideology of choice lead where there is a world that still has gender oppression? Obviously the relentless Liberal ideology leads to pornography. Where individuals compete along style lines in a system that already has gender oppression, pornography is going to be the inevitable result.

One thing we all know about imperialism: it has private property. So how come this question about style that keeps coming up--how whites steal Black art forms--is possible? When communists ask this question, it should again be clear that the style-question is always backward-looking among the masses, and only the scientific communists are going to point to the trend of history.

Since when do communists stand for stricter protection of intellectual property? That is where the whole discourse on whites stealing Black style comes from. And as we know from all copyright and patent cases, sometimes you win a court case like that and sometimes you don't. In other words, sometimes something is such a direct copy it is considered stealing. Most questions that may involve inspiration from someone else are not considered stealing. In countries where there is still semi-feudalism, the people may put this question on the agenda and work it all out what the bourgeoisie means by these ideas of intellectual property. In the imperialist countries such questions no longer have progressive thrust.

So the point is that imperialism is a system of private property, but still styles spread around, not just from Blacks to whites but from whites to whites as well. There is also the spread of U.$. style to the whole world. In other words, this transferring around of style is something that a private property system does.

Style and discernment

Style is closely tied up with the question of discernment. In many cases, accepting a party style can be like choosing a father who decided what we wore to school.

When we are still unscientific ourselves, it may be a good thing to acknowledge that there is such a thing as scientific authority or discernment. This is Kristeva's point about reconciling with the father. It represents an aspiration. Later we can work on gaining that capability of discernment ourselves.

Politically the way this should manifest itself is not in the party. The party should be composed of all fathers (not in a paternity sense but in a role-playing sense), including wimmin who are independently able to come to scientific judgment.

People who know they are not scientific yet but want to acknowledge scientific authority should join or form non-party organizations and acknowledge their vanguard party.

What MIM is stressing for its comrades in the imperialist countries and what MIM believes all comrades in all communist parties should know is that style ends in pornography. We should not be accepting or symbolically representing the father but becoming the father ourselves--people capable of judgment, people who use science to reach their goals.

Style and history

Against us, our critics inevitably say that there was a Mao suit because China was poor. This is a bitter paradox created by the labor aristocracy. Had not a labor aristocracy arisen and choked off communism in the imperialist countries, communism could have advanced there and we would not be asking this question about whether China accepted the Mao suit because it was poor or because it was fighting pornography.

The masses in the world are going to see the Mao suit as poverty. There is nothing we can do about it. Only far-sighted members of the bourgeoisie are going to see this differently and bring this to the masses from outside their own thinking.

The masses will only believe that style's endpoint is pornography and that pornography is a style when they contemplate Amerikans. If Amerikans adopted the Mao suit, there would have to be an explanation other than poverty. Yet, the Amerikans are already showing the world something about style that the world does not want to accept yet. Grunge for men and pornography for wimmin should already tell the exploited and oppressed that style is tied up with class and gender questions. The wish to teach people good taste in style is in fact backward-looking, a throwback for a situation where people are first getting a wide variety of clothing to put on, when they are first getting a stereo to play electronic music on and many other situations that arise as people become better off. These concerns still have their role to play in most of the world, but the scientific communists should be aware of the future end of that role.

When power of social groups over other groups is gone under communism, there cannot be identity politics. There would be no point in creating such a style either. There would be no motivation for it. The outlook that there is a matter of style taste to teach people is the outlook of the Liberal bourgeoisie seeking to trap the oppressed and exploited in an individualist ideology. This ideology has a mythical premise, because whether we know it or not, there are patterns to the people's style tastes. The patterns are results of class, gender and nation.