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


Scottish Separatist Group writes in

*See another letter on the question of impossibility of revolution
*Forget MIM, see how Mao handled the "impossible" question

Dear MIM and Vice-President Cheney:

We have read that MIM says that 1st world revolution is impossible. Is this true?

--Scottish Separatist Group

MIM replies:
Thank you for the chance to rebut this white myth yet again. From a white nationalist point of view, of course, to say that the international proletariat might put down the imperialist countries before the imperialist countries get a chance to re-proletarianize is to say revolution is "impossible," because for them, revolution can only be for more super-profits.

Had they been there in Germany, they would have said revolution is impossible, and they would have cried many tears for the German labor aristocracy, which had to be crushed. There were many social-democrats and those calling themselves communist covering for the crimes of German Nazism in 1945, because super-profit glue is more powerful than politics.

In a mailing list recently, someone said MIM's view is "too pessimistic." Yet Marxism is not about spin jobs imitating the Republicans, Democrats, Labour or Conservatives. There's no spinning this thing one way or another. It is what it is: a world war three. If it ends like World War II, which is what we have to go on if we are going to be historically materialist, then the imperialist aggressor will be defeated before the oppressor nation re-proletarianizes and defeats its own rulers. The Germans never defeated their own. Quite the opposite of "pessimistic," it is "optimistic" to show that "even though" the Germans never did the decent thing, still the international proletariat won. Germany overran the European parts of the Soviet Union, but the most backward regions of the Soviet Union turned out to be decisive in victory. That is a lesson of optimism and not to give up, no matter how strong imperialism may look at a given tactical moment.

If the international proletariat defeats u.$. imperialism the same way it defeated Hitler imperialism, it is not "pessimistic" to point that out! Quite the contrary, from the international proletariat's point of view, it is "optimistic": the international proletariat did that even though Germany for many years was seen as unstoppable. So the whole question is what perspective one adopts--some white national perspective or the perspective of the international proletariat.

By spreading this talk of "pessimism," the white nationalists seek to cover up the victories of the international proletariat, namely their great victory in 1945. Only people who adopt the view of the German labor aristocracy see that as "pessimistic."

On this score, even bourgeois President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad of Iran is more "optimistic" than our bootlickers of the labor aristocracy. His people are allowed in public to demonstrate with slogans "Death to America!" They do so all the time. Meanwhile, our sycophants of exploitation in the RIM are calling for the defeat of Iran by u.$. imperialism, because they have absorbed the "pessimism" of the bourgeoisie, falsely called proletariat. They are just stooges of the Pentagon.

Taking the historical materialist view is also necessary for the prevention of unnecessary division. Politics should not be about various gurus lining up to make predictions. We should talk about what happened already and unite on that. What happened in the last world war is reason for optimism, not pessimism.