We have found that the form of democratic-centralism we have managed to prepare is a prioritization of verbal work. People attracted to MIM find that they can prioritize the principal contradiction and our third cardinal principle on the labor aristocracy, almost together. Then there is also the matter of Soviet revisionism and the Cultural Revolution.
In relating to the outside world, what we have stressed is that IRTR can manage to make people who wish to interact prioritize Marxist economics and the question of surplus-value. That is a kind of incipient democratic-centralism, an understanding that if we take in the wrong people, we waste time discussing with them for Maoist purposes. If they are going to defend the petty-bourgeoisie in real life, there is no point in continuing discussion. It means we are training the enemy and we do not want to train the enemy.
It was put by a critic at IRTR it seems like "take up the third cardinal or f* off." That might be right. We are indeed hostile to the exploiter class. The MLPD (Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany) does not uphold our third cardinal, but we're not as hostile to them as the RIM right now, because the MLPD has managed to stay on top with the principal contradiction while RIM has obviously abandoned it. Of course, we at MIM would say that without our third cardinal, abandonment of the principal contradiction is inevitable.
In fact, as we pointed out, in general, spies outnumber communists in the united $tates. Evidence from infiltrated organizations of the past points in the same direction, whether Trotskyist, Maoist or fascist. The scale of the infiltration of organizations has caused MIM to change its line from what it was originally and to break further with white worker democracy movements and 1960s ultra-democratic student movements.
MIM has indeed become more authoritarian than just about any other organization calling itself communist or socialist in some ways. From our point of view, the federal government can afford to hire people to spend their lives talking to real communists, to get them to waste their time. Then in addition to the spies wasting our time and taking up valuable training, we have the petty-bourgeoisie. The people who are actually going to do something with Maoism end up being a minority among those in our circles. This is a huge problem, an impossility of a situation for those with tactics taken from the left-wing of parasitism. More than ever, finding the good comrades means "clearing space" for future dragons, not hand-holding people who are liable to turn out to be spies or petty-bourgeoisie anyway.
So the enemy is close at hand and outnumbers us. Thus we at MIM take an authoritarian approach, not a head-counting approach more appropriate in the Third World. Those of us who are the real deal in the imperialist countries should concentrate on getting their message out and doing things that minorities can do. That's just how it goes in our conditions. "Waiting" ends up being conciliating with spies and petty-bourgeoisie.
IRTR has generously decided that there should be a place for people to discuss MIM line. No one does it better. To preface remarks below, I would point out that IRTR held the beginnings of an exemplary two-line struggle on whether or not Amerikkkans should be left in place for joint dictatorship of the proletariat or dispersed to various nations. In a stark way, this two-line struggle took in hand what it means to be an enemy of the international proletariat. Maybe the original inspiration was some snide remarks by our critics, but the point is that a two-line struggle is not a direct struggle with the enemy. Either leaving Amerikkkans in place or dispersing them is the better approach and will set back the enemy more, but it's not a discussion openly saying that the top 10% of the world is not bourgeoisie. In addition to that subject, IRTR has also had path-breaking two-line struggle on the question of art.
Still we notice some reluctance at IRTR to discuss their own views openly. We at MIM are not in discussion with people who disagree with us on the third cardinal. They have to get that straightened out first. Then we need to do some historical work on the Cultural Revolution and Soviet revisionism with people. There are also high-priority security questions and issues that specifically Bob Amerikkkan influenced people need to address first. There are some people at IRTR who can do all that. So they should go to the next stage. Genuine communists should take up two line struggle. We would like that to be inside a party, but right now, we cannot do that the way we would normally imagine, so we should do it in the open. We would be aghast to see a cell form and then drop the third cardinal or form and then endorse revisionists, but much can be done short of that.
The art, pornography, Kristeva, fascism/monarchy questions come to mind, but also questions of the ICM. ICM questions have a big potential for split right now, but people should still tackle them. Last year, maybe Secretary of State Rice was not calling Iran practically the principal contradiction for the whole world. This year she has been saying it several months now. Though not right on top of the issue, MIM still warned our comrades on this topic before International Wimmin's Day. Yet six months later and after the obvious, we still have those saying the principal contradiction is between the IRI (Islamic Republic of Iran) and the people. So sometimes we have to be forming important historical judgment as events are happening. Here there is a question of breaking.
Some cells may come to believe others are revisionist, opportunist or merely inept. That would be normal too. Even if we go revisionist by mistake of not blindly following some MIM cell or other, this may be better than not understanding what we are doing. Maybe that way we go revisionist when we are younger and struggle to a better position later in life, rather than never understanding what we are doing and realizing we were revisionist all along--so as usual with struggle matters, better sooner than later. After observing how things go, we may come to an understanding of how to reach a higher level of unity.
We don't have the kind of democratic-centralism we would like, because the enemy has interfered with our organization, but we believe that some open discussion by cells could lead to greater things. It does not mean open the discussion of how the top 10% of the world economically is proletarian or hold open voting and violate security. But within certain cardinal principles, we want to allow some lack of discipline until we know how to improve discipline at a higher level. It's also very important that cells show their own initiative, because they may create something new within Maoism or overcome weaknesses.
In general, MIM does not talk about something without some investigation behind what we are saying. On the other hand, the broader the question, the more it becomes a question of retention and coordination of knowledge. Mistakes along those lines are inevitable.
To the extent that IRTR might even be more than one cell, I'd still say the same points apply. Better to go revisionist now than to realize it in old age, so we should dare to struggle over some points, especially the non-cardinal points, but also the points regarding the ICM that are freshly in the news. If we get stale, we will surely go revisionist, so we have to keep on re-evaluating who is a stooge and who is not, who is revisionist etc.