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

New Delhi, India reader disagrees with MIM

Dear MIM Ideological Institute:
It has delighted me to have received and read with zeal and zest your publications. I acknowledge receipts of a few news bulletin copies and three booklets, relating to the philosophy and ideology of Marxism, capitalism and socialism. All those philosophers engaged to uproot brutality and oppression that have been committed upon mankind, all over the world. They all deserve my floral tribute though. Some people thought against the on-going system of governance and devised another system better than the one in vogue perhaps. But all kind of governance and wherein a judicious system based on equality and justice--equitable control over the sources of production by the masses is thought to be essential for better economic distribution for mankind. On this account Marxism is a better evolved system you have considered to be the better or perhaps the best one, and you have earned world wide recognition too.

How far any system of government which is based upon the torture, killings and mass murderings is just? When the mission is betterment of mankind, what kind of welfare is this wherein masses are brutally massacred? Is it an industry, of making widows and orphans? The system to re-establish and re-aligned theories of ruling by bloodshed is not palatable. Terrorism whose philosophy is to kill whosoever goes against their ideology of government be destroyed? Ridiculous indeed.

If so, then the teachings of all the good men, the saints, the fundamentals of democracy, the conscious theory, the sense of compassions and mercy must be destroyed forthwith. The off-spring of mankind are not spare-parts to be reared collectively. They are loveable products as future generations who are required to be tenderly brought up. Is it not extremism to first destroy the prevalent system of ruling and then establish another system that too by oppression and suppression. That is why today the world is hosting worldwide conferences and seminars to save mankind from these fundamentalists. They are the fundamentalists who pose a great danger to mankind rather than the democratic systems of governance. It may be a resultant of unholy terrorist actions and revenge or a lust for power by way of destruction and demolitions all civilised systems of governments assiduously established.

Sacrifice has its own place but how and where and in what state. It is the freedom which is a cherished dream of all individuals and freedom envisages numerous factors. I am unable to understand how the Marxism can sustain the system once established and that people and parties of other concepts cannot and will not uproot your way of system. I hold it just one of the many and other philosophers may be at variance with your views. I am deadly against the violent way of ideologies: killing is a great sin. Love is a gold coin which is a password here and in all the astral world described in holy scriptures of all religions which appeal to the conscience of men and women of the world of all religions. I have no courage to speak ill of all religions and would like to mention that love to mankind is a great binding force and not the system of cruelty and oppression, though the political power is the key to administer welfare plans and policies, lies beneath the theories of politics. We have an example of Nepal's Maoists, who have realised that it is not sustainable if they succeed in establishing their way of government and lifestyle of the people. Life is short and perishable and man is always in quest for happiness which lies in peace and reconciliations. Have not the NDA and UPA governments constituted alliances with other parties? Once you attain the objectives it is a doubt that it can be sustained permanently. Many people are confused and lost visions in the labyrinth theories to set a clear objective to run a government for the welfare of the mankind may be they erred at this crossroad.

With due respect, I regret that I am at variance with your ideology and overthrowing the government by bloodshed and massacres of those who welfare all governments set agenda and manifestoes. For this I beg a thousand pardons though. It is also equally a crime--the assaults upon innocent people by superpowers better equipped with power to kill all those who do not act upon the dictates of the superpowers. This is my well considered opinion. It is better to mould masses by love and reconciliations and mutual respects and once their thinking is changed one can achieve their intended objective.

New Delhi reader

International Minister replies:
Pacifism is a delusion, a product of the sick mind, especially in the Third World. Pacifism is not a concrete practice anywhere in the world. Imperialism dominates the globe with violence and there is no choice except in mental wonderlands to live without violence in this world yet. Like it or not, but the choice is between more violence and less violence--so far. There is no pacifist paradise we can go to and lend our aid. There are only lazy idealist mental habits of referring to concepts with no implementation.

If we went to the hospital and met a doctor who said he would not puncture our arm to give us treatment, because it would be violence and the patient still might die, we would hopefully find a better doctor somewhere else. We would seek a doctor who realized that there is better and worse medical practice, not a doctor squeamish about reality as it is. Yet when it comes to politics all manners of snake oil pass, because of the interests of the wealthy benefitting from institutional violence.

We believe there will come a day when no violence is a concrete option, but obviously if millions starve to death each year, we are not close to that point yet. It is only by ignoring the violence all around him that Gandhi could come up with a bankrupt philosophy. Pacifism as of now is only a figleaf for the violence of the status quo in the Third World, because there is no record of rulers decreasing their violence without the use of violence against them.

We would also like our international readers to note how this critic writing into us links pacifism with Indian nationalism against Islam. The comrade says democracy should be held up against religious fundamentalism, a line we are hearing quite a bit from India. This is yet another way of saying put the fight against Islam ahead of anti-imperialism. It is a substitution of geo-political and religious concepts for class war, to suit the taste of the Bush regime. Even if the anti-fundamentalists target Bush as a fundamentalist, they are letting Kerry off the hook, the larger part of imperialism and they are at the very least equating oppressed nations with imperialism. We genuine Maoists cannot abide by that. The line pretending independence from Islamic "fundamentalists" and Bush fundamentalism is that of the Indian national bourgeoisie seeking to position itself geopolitically and if we cannot learn to recognize that, we have not learned the first thing about political science.