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

International Minister Update:

CPI(Maoist) opposes cardinal principles of Maoism

October 19 2006

From three different sources, MIM can now conclude tentatively that the CPI(Maoist) opposes our resolution on Iran. It's enough evidence to conclude that we have nothing to discuss with CPI(Maoist) on details, because it simply does not uphold the universal principles of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism as nearly as we can tell. If there are not universal principles of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, including united front in countries fighting for their independence, then MIM cannot see any reason to be engaged in discussions with other parties.

The supporters of Juche and the people opposing putting Maoism in command as a universal ideology do have some justification. Mao said, "there is no Marxism that is not concrete." So if there is no concrete international issue in having the united $tates set up parties to defeat Third World states in the midst of U.$. invasions, then there surely is nothing for MIM to talk about regarding other parties and we might as well all be Jucheists then.

A magazine calling itself "People's March" and linking itself to the CPI(Maoist) and now available on googlepages seems to indicate that the editor of People's March does have access to the Internet. This renders strange the People's March decision to remain silent on the "peace accords" dispute in Peru also. Do they not see the web pages supporting peace accords to this day? Can they not piece together that there must have been a big split in exile based on the web pages they see now?

MIM tries to argue with the CPI(Maoist) that it makes a qualitative difference that a sweeper in India gets paid less in a month than a sweeper in Washington, DC does in a day, but reports say CPI(Maoist) is close to RIM and certainly "People's March" points to a "Communist Party of France(Marxist-Leninist-Maoist)" with a labor aristocracy line. From the CPI(Maoist) point of view, RCP=CIA line is acceptable because it targets Christian fundamentalism and Bush as fascist.

So we cannot say we agree with CPI(Maoist) on the cardinal issues as far as we can tell--not the labor aristocracy and not the biggest line struggles since 1976. There are also lesser irritations regarding how to avoid becoming culture warriors for imperialism.

We are baffled by more web pages suddenly appearing that link MIM to CPI(Maoist) and CPNepal(Maoist) that are appearing internationally. It seems to us an effort to smother differences of principle with a false embrace. If RIM wants to have a two-line struggle, it is quite free to take its own people and assign them to support the MIM line inside RIM. Though it can be irritrating, RIMers don't have to call it MIM line even. That silence is a lesser evil than pretending that MIM already agrees with organizations with no history of agreeing. There is no need to start linking to MIM web pages and thereby water everything down. And if people have concluded that they like the old RIM line but RCP is CIA and that's why the embrace of MIM at this time, they need to spell that out too. MIM is not looking for web page links and nor will they shut us up. We have cardinal differences with the RIM.

I must report that in the June-July 2006 issue of People's March they do call caste structural, not just superstructural. So yesterday's article on India was misleading in this regard. As of their June-July issue, People's March also stood for quotas on caste and took a strong stand against economic reservations upheld by revisionists in India. In contrast, in the united $tates, both kinds of affirmative action are under attack, especially by majority in the case of race/ethnicity.

Also in regard to Communist Party of India(M-L) Janashakti, the comment appeared on IRTR that we do not read their publications. That is true. We do not. We hope to remedy that and we have already started. Janashakti is linked to MLPD and also opposes our line upholding Lin Biao's essay upholding protracted People's War. We have also lost touch with CPI(ML), the original pro-Lin group.

Today I was visiting with Secretary of State Rice (joking)--on her web page. And while I was there her news changed. Originally the lead story was a UN resolution condemning Korea followed by a story on the Arab bourgeoisie and Palestine.

While I was there it changed to become yet another story on northern Korea with Iran in second place. That's two mentions for northern Korea, two mentions for Iran, one for Palestine, one for polio and one for landmines in Mozambique if we look at the top page and issues page. We've received a communication from Joseph Ball in response to my report basically denying what Rice is doing on a daily basis this past year.

People want to know why Web Ministry took down Joseph Ball's paper on the Great Leap after spending a day editing it for him. Now we can see why, first of all because of his confused policy on getting published. Second of all, we can see that ministers were correct we would end up putting up his paper and having to justify why we were building up an author that was going to crumble in the Iran struggle. And Ball did not submit his paper anonymously in line with our usual security policy.

Meanwhile, Joseph Ball does have time to do a paper on the Great Leap Forward and debate it at revolutionaryleft.com. It's not that there is a shortage of Maoism to debate for our time period. There was in fact a debate raging on the imperialist threats against Iran and the war on Lebanon.

Yet Joseph Ball goes off to talk about the Great Leap (1958-1960). In fact, he has spent more time attacking MIM on the Great Leap than he has attacking imperialist plans for defeating Iran. England has no Maoist party for starters, either.

So in question is what Ball has done to attack his imperialists. Frankly, the British imperialists may want Prachanda's party to beat the pro-China party in Nepal in the elections coming up. We simply don't know.

We can't be sure how Ball's paper on the Great Leap fits into British plans, because we can think of good reasons that British imperialists may see Prachanda as more geopolitically independent than the openly anti-Great Leap party in Nepal.

Ball has taken a good line on the labor aristocracy. Now we need to see him oppose his imperialists consistently and with good timing instead of letting issues blow over while they are being decided in questions of war and peace. He says not everything is "MIM vs. RIM," but that just shows that his own thinking about organizations stays at that level instead of deciding what to say about Iran in principle. He fails to put "Maoism in command" and instead gets stuck at the level of what organizational things may have to change or what leaders' feelings may be hurt. Joseph Ball should put politics in command and let the organizational details change to conform to proletarian political necessity.

Joseph Ball, the Bush regime and European imperialists are threatening Iran with nukes. That is not something MIM made up to have a fight with RIM. Your reluctance to get involved in the struggle sure looks like based on sectarian skittishness on behalf of organizations that just can't see straight on Iran. Now he is even saying the issue is "not important," and points to bigger fish with the same line as fake Maoists in Iran such as the "NCRI." People do not seem to realize that we cannot criticize NCRI if we do not start with those calling themselves "Maoist." Likewise, MIM would have no place to criticize National Organization for Women (NOW) for warmongering if people calling themselves "Maoist" are doing worse. That's just political reality. When Ball says what a party calling itself "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist" says is unimportant he is denigrating Lenin's contributions on the party idea. It's also the same old sizeism: don't criticize counterrevolution in the name of Mao because it's too small in numbers.

When the supposed Maoists do not have Iran straight it's hard to get the rest straight. I don't see much going on in England to oppose war on Iran or anything else. We're also not going to sit here while RIM attacks the National Organization for Women (NOW) for standing for peace with Iran while RIM bashed Iran on International Wimmin's Day. That situation is going to be corrected. Until RIM and its allies acknowledge their counterrevolutionary role in building war against Iran, the international proletariat is going to be in conflict with the RIM and their allies.

People's March said this correctly and Joseph Ball should take note:

It is the duty of the genuine Marxist- Leninist-Maoists not to be afraid of and run away from the challenges posed by the bourgeois ideological trends but to follow the ways adopted by great Comrade Marx, Engles, Lenin, Stalin and Mao, that means whenever there is an attack on the theory, basic line and policy by bourgeois ideology and revisionist ideology then this attack and offensive has to be smashed and to ensure the road of victory for the struggles led by the proletariat class, oppressed classes and castes.

People's March also puts a strong emphasis on the role the united $tates plays in Indian politics. Yet it seems to be in denial of that role exactly at a time when Secretary of State Rice is emphasizing that role in Iran. The People's March stood against Islamic chauvinism early in the year, but when it came time to say something about the U.$. role in connection to Iran and "Maoism," People's March covered up for counterrevolution. It appears to us as a nationalist error too, because when it comes to Indians, People's March is big on describing the U.$. role and pointing out what a threat CPI(Maoist) is deemed by U.$. imperialism, but when it comes to Iran, the same standard does not seem to apply.

Comrades, we have received a flood of contact from sources we have not heard from before. As always, it's a question of how much cardinal understanding of MIM principle there is, because there seems to be much vague "support" out there. Translation helps in mutual understanding. We are breaking with old friends, but there are always new friends to be found. We need to tend to our public opinion work and seek out new revolutionary forces and hopefully organize new ones. We post our ideological stand in clearcut form so we can turn to public opinion work. We do not appreciate efforts to water that down, because it causes us to return to ideological and security work when we may want to stay involved in public opinion and infrastructural work.