Security Minister
November 8 2006
At this time, MIM stresses again that it has no organizational tie to IRTR. MIM does not struggle within the same structure as IRTR. People who take up MIM organizational questions at IRTR are mistaken. IRTR formed originally by two break-away people working with the Web Ministry. Over 90% of their line is correct, which has nothing to do with infiltration questions. Cells can be infiltrated and pursue 100% correct lines of public opinion and propaganda while spying. It's known as "flying the red flag to defeat the red flag."
At first, it looked like IRTR might serve as a kind of half-way house for those at the "RCP," needing a party-building circle to discuss MIM line. Along these lines, IRTR served as a place for things including "RCP" documents and allegories. An IRTR leader should take ownership of bringing that material to IRTR. MIM assumed the reason was to attract "RCP" circles to read at IRTR. There seemed to be a lot of interrogatories of MIM aimed at providing information to the typical "RCP" audience. Over time, IRTR has managed to establish good MIM-Thought intellectual terrorism.
Some allegorical material aimed at criticizing MIM has been left alone by MIM. We often see no harm in people's thinking something wrong with MIM. But anyone who thinks they can get organizational information by interfacing as an allegorical writer interrogating on behalf of "RCP" or other oppressor interests is mistaken.
The MIM and the "RCP" have a different line on criticism of the party. They pursue a bourgeois idealist view of history. We pursue a deflationary approach aimed at scientific socialist method. It's only after we understand that an axe-murderer may have the truth that we know science. That comes with understanding what our principal task really is and what should be sacrificed to attain that.
In the current security clampdown, MIM has no email. Its communications are by web page only in full view, thanks to the actions of the enemy. That necessitates some "crypticness" as it has often been said. Naturally we hope this is a temporary situation, but it is always possible that comrades have to learn new ways to struggle appropriate for their conditions.
IRTR is an heuristic aid to understanding concepts in Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-MIM Thought. As such it is undertaken in a non-MIM Thought way, because MIM's principal task does not include party-building. That's OK. There's still much benefit at IRTR as long as people are careful with their security. Anyone claiming that MIM sees IRTR as more than a heuristic aid is wrong. We have not accorded it organizational status beyond that. IRTR does do public opinion and propaganda work also. Likewise, IRTR cannot claim that MIM organized them though we certainly aided them including from the beginning. The comrades who started IRTR had their own ideas about addressing criticisms of MIM found on the Internet.
Some incorrect standards of reasoning have been used. This is an absolutely critical question if we are going to get to where a comrade Gonzalo can be arrested and still the revolution goes on and on into communism. 1) One reason that MIM asks the cells to think for themselves is that those with organizational ties may give priority to that dynamic above public opinion and propaganda. 2) Another reason is that in many countries in the world including the ex-Soviet bloc, there is a question of not just Liberalism but corruption of the party that millions have experience of. In the West we think there is such a distinction, but in much of the proletariat's mind, there is no difference among pursuit of profit, Liberalism and corruption. For over 20 years, MIM has been offered bribes to leave the revolution.
This is important: the 50-40-10 of 50% spies, 40% petty-bourgeoisie and 10% situation guarantees a cloudy organizational situation. People trying to evaluate it without direct knowledge are going to be wrong. That's just another reason we find ourselves in a cell structure. If the original MIM cell is bribed or intimidated away from the correct line on non-organizational questions, then someone can speak up. Do I know how Gonzalo was bribed or intimidated? No. Do I know that "CPN(M)" and "CPI(M)" were taken off the "Foreign Terrorist Organization" list? Yes. Does that make me an expert on bribes or threats to "CPN(M)" or "CPI(M)"? No. Motivational questions are a scientific dead-end except as class questions, which is why we do address the typical labor aristocracy motivation. What we can know is that an organization has published how to help the CIA in Iran and many other organizations turned a blind eye. If we keep our stand sharp, those with bourgeois motivations will leave. I may speculate on Gonzalo's motivations, but that's all it would be. Likewise, some people speculating on MIM's motivations are not inside u.$. borders and none have any possibility to claim an understanding of timing.
MIM is not buying that something did not happen to cause many organizations to take up a Trotskyist line on Iran. We do not know the decisive bribes or threats, but Marxism-Trotskyism-Afakean Thought would be appropriately reflected in RIM. Other bribes and threats result in claiming Maoism for doing something Mao never dreamed of.
Not surprisingly, pre-scientific people raise some criticisms of MIM without even thinking if the timing of their criticisms makes any sense, never mind ignoring our overall class and national strategic objectives. In the guise of ad hominem, psychological and post-modern reasoning it is possible to stir up only more ad hominem, psychological and post-modern reasoning. So people need to get a grip on the structure of reality or they are going to lose grip on the principal task of building public opinion and the independent institutions of the oppressed. Even asking the timing question of motivation is still ad hominem thinking, and what people are going to do on that is not going to be even close. It's not going to settle anything important, just stir up worthless shit. Some people at IRTR are off on a wild goose chase. Nosy, busy-bodies should take up bridge instead of gossip.
If IRTR did not exist, someone else might invent it anyway. MIM does not consider it "Liberal" for IRTR to adopt its own position on party-building or the JDPON etc. That has to do with what we think is a realistic level of unity at this point in history. Where questions are more apt to arise are in structural Liberalism. This has to do with a two-line struggle over party-building versus broader work.
The MIM cell reads IRTR but does not struggle with IRTR, because the MIM cell does not see the struggle there in party-building questions. It's in public opinion and non-party institution building. We are following the formula already explained, to study harder, listen harder and put forward the proletarian hard line. Notice in there, it is not--struggle with people who stop by.
Look at it another way. Where would the enemy go to have provocations if we used authoritarian communications methods? So MIM has a structural view of a lot of points. Granted, we give up something to have that structural security, but IRTR is going to have to own up to the down side as well as the up side. IRTR heroically squelches tons of ad hominem and security risks so that people can have an environment with a good level of scientific thinking. Does it take its toll? Is it worth it? Maybe it is, because among other things, people learn in practice how they should evaluate questions. What gets priority in dissecting a question is an important question of method. So if there is to be party-building work, that has to be handled. Nonetheless, MIM aims at a structural view of security and thereby pursues a different approach.