![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
[Draft for discussion as a general line for our counter-intelligence struggle.]
In the past year, MIM has had several run-ins with federal agents. In one particular power struggle, our enemy was so over-the-top that he exposed himself in public and had to be covered for by MIM. Here I'm not talking about any of the several federal agents who have come to us to talk back channel smack with us--claiming credit for this or that operation against us. There were charmers making death threats and others bringing us the usual grief. No, to sum up this whole question that we need to talk about, we need to talk about the one who we had to cover for and who knows we covered for him--the way a persyn knows the feeling of a broken leg. It is this agent who brings to light the paradigm of thinking we are developing.
We are explaining ourselves accountably and so that others may comment. How is it that we could end up with this attitude toward counter- intelligence.
Democracy and tactics
Now if we had a World War II era fantasy of democracy, we would expose the federal agent to the public and let him face a lynching. At the very least, we would let the public learn from the experience. We would have done that whether we were dealing with fascist agents in France, Russia or China. If we were in Norway, we could have said "hang the Quisling and let that be a lesson to those who oppose the party!"
If we had a real exploited white proletariat in the united $tates, it would be a lot easier to do things that way. It would fit political habit. In actual fact, we don't have that. This is to our enemy's advantage.
In fact, the only reason our enemy does not operate totally in the open is not in fear of the white proletariat but out of fear of others also watching who are not Amerikkkans. In this particular over-the-top operation, a little accident in public left our agent in a bad position for reasons we won't explain but which had implications with people the agent did care about.
Elitism versus democracy: the practice
One reason we know that MIM was right to cover for our federal agent is the practice connected to counter-intelligence that we have seen. Whether we look at the struggle connected to Agent Quispe, the marx2mao controversy, the Satanic Reds FBI front or even just the struggle against open cops and fascists, again and again we see that even in supposedly radical circles the response is like changing the channel on TV. "Yeah, I saw that. That was sort of cool. Now I'm going to change the channel and don't bug me about it too much." If we press too hard, we get called "authoritarian" or the exactly equivalent "sectarian," because life is about changing the channel and having the "choice" of channels. In sum, the people get the leaders they deserve and right now the petty-bourgeois majority doesn't deserve the kind of proletarian leaders who take them seriously.
We know more generally that 80% of the u.$. public pays no attention to politics. Of the remaining 20%, only half in the 1980s could answer two questions about u.$. policy in succession on Central America, just to provide the classic example. So in other words, we are talking about an elite interested in international politics to begin with.
The gender aristocracy and labor aristocracy have much to do with the creation of the internationalist elite. One can say, in these democratic times when everyone can go to college, how can you be talking about elites anymore? Well, it's elite by choice. The gender aristocracy cannot be bothered by politics.
Sure, there is an urban youth demographic that will vote pro-choice, but it's for the same reason it goes shopping--for the joys of choice. This pro-choice demographic does not really fight or show any signs of fighting for a real change for wimmin's status in the world.
In fact, the fight for choice at the moment is inevitably tied up with the war drive on the Islamic countries, because in the Blue States, that is all the pro- choice struggle accomplishes. It heightens the issue just enough to remind people why they do not like the Taliban or Iran. This is most evident in NOW's open rhetoric on the question, but also in the rhetoric of Trotskyists and fake Maoist critics of NOW.
It's built into the imperialist class structure that war-mongering is easier than not. Most political roads lead in that direction. Instead of chasing after the rednecks, the elite should stay internationalist elite and adopt the tactics of such elites used historically.
King Bush and Prince Cheney
So from practice, MIM knows there is no counter-intelligence struggle we can lead in public. We have petty-bourgeoisie which does not care except at most to see it once, and then change the channel. For them there are examples on our web page to look at. If we look at the other side, there is a democratic struggle that the enemy can and does lead in public.
Most typical is Rove's campaign to bring out gay-bashers in the 2004 election. By having referenda against gay marriage in the states, Rove brought out the hate vote and it worked. Instead of going into denial, we need to acknowledge, that IS democracy. Rove used the democratic impulse for a reactionary agenda. Credit needs to go to him for getting Bush 60 million votes, the largest tally ever.
What it is not is liberal democracy. The attack is on minority rights by a majority of oppressors.
The "Patriot Act" is an attack on minority rights, very similar to Hitler's "Enabling Act." If we have to choose among liberal democracy, late stage monarchy or early stage fascism, then the united $tates is either early stage fascist or late stage monarchist.
We could be wrong about this, and people may wish to attack us for saying so, but we believe the best historical analogy for today within the imperialist countries is late stage monarchy, especially Russia and the united $tates. Internationally, and overall, the solution to imperialism is the same as in 1945, a multinational Red Army. Internally, it is more accurate to say that late stage monarchy is the analogy we need. MIM says in no joking way that we acknowledge our prince, Prince Cheney. Let it not be said MIM does not know its place.
If I am wrong about this, it would be on account of something Bush was thinking of doing but apparently did not do. He was thinking about abolishing the CIA. If Bush abolishes the CIA and goes on to the State Department, then that might be indicative of how Amerikan fascism manifests itself--as the "open dictatorship of the most reactionary segment of finance capital." It's like in that crazy "X Files" TV series or its spin-offs: pluralism is not really differing class views inside the imperialist countries. Nor do we have much by way of intellectual variety. Pluralism is the conflicts you get when you have several levels of security clearance within the government. You can almost tell how high-ranking someone is in the scheme of things by the jokes they bring against MIM.
Mao told us to fight legally in the advanced capitalist countries. If there is any doubt about that, it is on account of how Bush and Cheney are changing the rules of politics.
From their point of view, they are democratic. They brought out the voters and deserve the credit. Also, they believe they differ from the failed monarchies, especially the French, because they have managed deficit financing better. George W. Bush in particular believes that Reagan "proved that deficits don't matter."
So let's start by giving the devil his due: he's got something democratic going on. That's why in the imperialist countries we can only be internationalist elitists, not the carriers of the democratic banner, while it's the opposite in countries where majorities of people are exploited. The White Revolution of 1776 really was a revolution, because an economic grievance lined up with liberal revolutionary demands against tyranny. That does not happen anymore in the u$A. In addition, the reason our royalty is rocking the boat on liberal democracy is that it feels that certain things have changed, and in fact they have.
The role of the internationalist elite
In late-stage monarchy, the king makes deals with people not in a fully democratic way, but toward practical ends. He asks some middle and upper-class people for taxes. On this point, our King today feels that he is being short- changed a little, because he has arranged for the people via majority rule to give him his taxes, and he no longer needs special accomodations for non-royal elites, the way the French king did.
The people who really need minority rights, the people who fought for them before the hoi polloi did are the non-royal elites. When the king has the potential backing of a majority for monarchy as in Russia or the u$A today, or even just a large section of the public that is majority-like, there is an elite, some counts, a nobility--someone like that who still wants a word in edge- wise.
The trouble today is that our internationalist elite by long habit has subsumed itself into the democratic struggle. When Bush proves that he has the majority, our internationalist elite does not have the historical memory to change its tactics.
So here is MIM today in a similar position. We have no majority inside imperialist country borders. We have to give the devil his due on that. If we do not give the devil his due, we end up watering down and watering down until we find a hot button issue like abortion which divides the exploiters and may serve our purposes. The only trouble is that these issues are actually hurting us more than Bush. Our goal afterall is internationalist, and the choice issue does not work today.
We need our internationalist elite to hold the line in the imperialist countries, both to interact with the potential Ho Chi Minhs at school in the imperialist countries and to do our share within domestic politics as well.
Our internationalist elite forgot that there is no longer a white proletariat about to rise up any minute and tip over the apple cart. In that circumstance, who knows, maybe it would have been the abortion struggle that would have ushered in the revolution. Today, the abortion struggle framed as choice or defending lifestyle as it exists through Roe vs. Wade is only war preparations against Iran and Afghanistan.
So we have to get out of that mode of thinking, where we blame our internationalist elite selves for not having a majority. If we have to think more like nobles or Japanese Samurai, then that's what we have to do. Tough luck for us with that democracy thing going against us--and no, the civil rights movement was not democratic: it was liberal, for minority rights.
Now one may wonder, how did it work for these elites gradually democratizing monarchies. This is what we have to remember historically.
It's not that the nobility can mobilize a majority. And let's leave out the possibility of a coup for the throne, especially since we have no majority of rabble that will back an internationalist elite's attack on the imperialists today. That analogy is of no use.
Historically the king had to account for the nobility for tax reasons and foreign policy. Offending a particular noble may have no consequences at home politically, but through family ties there could be quite a hassle with other monarchies.
Today's proletarian internationalist elite has forgotten that. The non-royal elite has a deal with the monarchy on a cut in power, because of specific things that elite can do, not because of its overall effectiveness in winning votes or waging revolutions. The international proletariat is obviously in business, not because of anything within u.$. borders. The pause in warfare on Iran is a case in point, where the public opinion was almost prepared except for the intervention of Lebanon in the headlines, but international factors delayed the whole question.
Why do you exist, you the proletarian internationalist of the imperialist countries wonder
MIM has tried to answer this question many times: our internationalist elite is a reflection of the global class struggle, not the local one.
There is nothing about Marx's theory of economic base and superstructure that says the proletarian reflection in the superstructure can only be in one country, the country where the proletariat lives. Most of a country's superstructure may reflect its local class relations, but some of it will inevitably reflect more globally.
Osama Bin Laden's case is mid-way to typical. The imperialists like to point out that he is from rich background, not an example of the downtrodden. However, Osama Bin Laden is a certain nationality and he did see the imperialist attack on Lebanon in 1983, because he was that nationality, even despite being rich. Being a certain nationality made it more likely that one would witness directly what the united $tates and I$rael were doing. Osama Bin Laden was that nationality.
MIM sees not much difficulty in how the economic base of an economy and language built around a certain territory made it more likely that Osama Bin Laden ended up in the superstructure as he did. It's not exactly parochial but almost.
The more difficult case is where an internationalist elite shows up in a country without an economic basis for one. Here we have to speak disproportionately of the intellectuals, but it could be anyone with keen interest in politics who should be described as intellectual or a member of the intelligentsia, regardless of self-image. Marx talked about this in the "Communist Manifesto" already how there would be the far-sighted bourgeois.
In other words, there is a red minority inside u.$. borders because some people become carriers, bearers of the superstructure. It's simply inevitable. The probability is not nearly as high as the probability of an Arab bourgeois having mixed feelings about the united $tates and I$rael, but even inside u.$. borders there is a reflection of the international proletariat's class struggle in the superstructure.
Once we realize that we exist and we are a minority, we need to think about how the non-royal elite got the king's attention.
What we need from the elite
We need to make use of the internationalist elite's relative advantage in political consciousness and thoroughness. It was always our principal asset in struggle anyway. We may as well cut our losses and focus on what we are good at.
The reason it has to be an elite above all is to hold the line--to say that white nationalist crap is white nationalist crap and be done with it. Whether MIM is right for the reason it says or Kristeva is right that we have a morass of people incapable of scientific thought, we need our internationalist elite to hold the line and then exert power in that minority sort of way.
History has proved that staying within the democratic impulse in imperialist countries leads to watering down and watering down into oblivion. There should be no compromise on quality of internationalism, only on short-run goals.
We need the elite to be internationally alert, cryptic, scientific and charismatic if possible. People who cannot handle the burdens of being cryptic should break away from parties and stick to public opinion work in united front organizations.
We will no longer falsely judge the internationalist elite by the rules of a game Karl Rove has already mastered.
Framework for discussion
The proletarian internationalist elite needs to style itself as an elite and exert power as an out-of-favor elite. Bush is rocking the boat, mainly because his competitors have compromised their way out of power and because the alternate elite forgot to remind Bush why it has to be accounted for.
MIM is not going to say specifically what our demands are. We are diplomatic and do not seek to rile our enemy in a public that could care less.
MIM is not going to say publicly what our power is. Of course we defend ourselves against sinister plots, but our Prince Cheney will have to figure that out for himself. There are reasons he should account for his internationalist elite subjects. To put this in the least controversial language, there is a reason that knowing what you are talking about in international politics matters.
If Prince Cheney understands us correctly, we see he has some basis of legitimacy within u.$. borders that we do not challenge and we hope he understands that we too are magnanimous. Mao told us how it would be in the imperialist countries with a need for long, legal struggles.