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

The negative role of right opportunism:

Reviewing the roles played in the 2006 struggle

October 17 2006
*See RAIIN's links
*See socialist.in links

By International Minister

We are still sweeping up and consolidating the gains of the security and political struggle connected to the Iran issue in 2006. At the moment we are in a stand-off with the "India Communists" discussion board. People will recall that "India Communists" appeared out of the blue and never told MIM what struggle took place to make it appear.

Some people at the IRTR noticed that "India Communists Discussion Board" does not take a clear-cut stand on many questions and in fact on the vast majority of Trotskyism points, they agree with Trotskyism. The IRTR did a good job in pointing out the variety of ideological issues that seem to separate MIM and the India Communists discussion board. We are trying to see if that is on account of RIM agents or other agents or just because MIM's struggle with India is not very far along yet. It has to be admitted that IRTR's diagnosis of RCP=CIAism rings most true. Someone is basically using the Nepal and India issue to try to split MIM cells and supporters away to unprincipled attacks on Maoism.

Now I'm going to explain why India Communists believed it could jump out for Trotskyism and even never make its own public statement on Iran. India Communists had some help from a cell with one or two distinguishing features-- one being a web page linking to the so-called "Communist Party of Nepal(Maoist)." Whether by pre-arrangement or just to test the waters, India Communists wanted to exploit such a point.

The Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Information Network (RAIIN) enabled the current problems we are having and caused bad relations with a number of international comrades who have not been informed on questions of principle separating MIM from RIM. MIM does not link to the so-called "Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist)" ("CPNM") because of how principles are linked together in the minds of both organizations MIM and "CPNM."

The RAIIN role in the 2006 struggle is an example of "right opportunism." On the whole, it is clear that most of what RAIIN is doing belongs in the MIM camp. RAIIN upholds MIM cardinal principles more than RCP=CIA zombie line, so if you had to say where this organization belongs, it appears to belong in the MIM camp more than elsewhere. Perhaps RAIIN should also consider anarchism if it finds MIM's explanations of difference with RIM unappealing.

Although both RAIIN and India Communists Discussion very indirectly linked to organizations that upheld Mao on Iran, the magic between them was opportunism on the "CPNM." Ironically this magic increased in emphasis as the struggle over Iran unfolded. India Communists took the RAIIN line and then added the CPI(Maoist) into the mix based on Prachanda's joint statement with CPI(Maoist).

Yet if we read Prachanda carefully in regard to a joint statement with his Indian counterparts in the CPI(Maoist), the two organizations are only separated tactically not strategically. This applies even more to organizations in the RIM that CPNM belongs to. That means that "CPNM" has to take not just ideological but strategic responsibility for the RIM counterrevolutionaries called the Communist Party of Iran (M-L-M).

Instead of endorsing the whole RIM, the RAIIN endorsed "CPNM," as if the "CPNM" came a la carte. Apparently RAIIN does not understand why the RIM formed as an international center to begin with, and how its members see Mao's "exaggeration" of the Comintern's difficulties. There are two more aspects of opportunism in connection to the a la carte approach to "CPNM." One is that it denies that "CPNM" made a conscious choice to join a Comintern and it has agreed to surrender strategic independence in connection to other organizations. Hence, the RAIIN position is slight hegemonism on "CPNM," a kind of trafficking. The RAIIN position is basically denying that the "CPNM" has the right to join the RIM, because there will be someone who talks about it the way he wants to see it instead of how the "CPNM" sees itself. This is really no different than the quandary MIM had when confronted with the "red fraction" of the RIM that was the PCP when Gonzalo was still free. It's a quandary not worth getting into, very much akin to trying to date someone in a committed relationship already. They will say you can join the RIM, and therefore not be "cheating," but what if you don't really want to be involved with someone calling for defeat of Iran?

Some organizations in the world do appear to come a la carte. The revisionist- led "Communist Party of the Philippines" attempts to go a la carte most of the time; although it shares the RIM line on defeating Iran, contrary to the principles of Maoism. The "CPP" chooses to boost the "CPNM" and appear in countless web pages together with the RIM. Joma Sison sent off a paper to Katmandu to defend RIM from MIM's attack, just as he previously connived/conciliated with RCP=CIA's International Wimmin's Day activity. That was Joma Sison's choice--to go against the principles of Maoism. MIM itself does not get involved in promoting organizations seeking U.$. imperialism to defeat Iran and denying the struggle in Occupied Mexico/Aztlan as Joma Sison does.

The principled way to handle "CPNM" is not to link to "CPNM," but perhaps to struggle over it. People should put up articles where hyper-links should be. Here would be an example:

Dear "CPNM": This page is here instead of a hyperlink, because I basically don't believe you meant it when you signed up with the RIM. I refuse to believe it and I hope you leave RIM so that I can put up a real hyper-link to your page.

My critics say I am opportunist because you have stood by and done nothing to defend Maoism while the "Communist Party of Iran(M-L-M)" ran roughshod over it; even though you belong to the same organization and share strategic co- responsibility, not to mention ideological co-responsibility. (I saw what you said about CPI(Maoist), but did you ever say you did not have tactical co-responsibility with the rest of the RIM?)

I think you are going to read this and come up with a way out of the problem.

That would be a principled way to handle the question.

One of the most important ways to defeat hegemonism is by taking organizations seriously for what they say. The RAIIN line as expressed in its policy of links basically implies that it does not take "CPNM" seriously in its differences with MIM. This is especially bad coming from someone who does not believe in Cominterns. "CPNM" should be able to understand you don't see it that way, but for you to pretend that there is no issue becomes "trafficking," watering down the message that "CPNM" is trying to deliver for your own purposes. Naturally trafficking also impedes the struggle by muddying it, sort of like saying, "OK, half the species on earth were created by God and half evolved by Darwinian procedures." It would be just confusing things, slowing down what has to happen.

People are also trafficking with MIM when they combine MIM with "CPNM." MIM is trying to get out a consistent message, but others are watering it down and claiming to agree with it.

There is another issue too, which is whether or not we believe that "CPN(Maoist)" truly opposes Khruschev revisionism the way it said in its joint statement with the CPI(Maoist). It must be said that internationally many have their doubts, but again, in that situation it is so important to take each organization seriously and not cover over differences. The CPI(Maoist) expressed some differences with "CPN(Maoist)" and then made the joint statement. In turn, MIM could have its differences with CPI(Maoist). Coming along and just saying, "they all oppose Khruschev revisionism" could be unfair to MIM, because we may not believe that "CPN(Maoist)" opposes Khruschev revisionism. In fact, MIM does not believe it does, thanks most decisively to the Iran/Aztlan issues. Lumping everyone together and saying "they all use that same nasty rhetoric!" is also unfair to "CPN(Maoist)," because "CPNM" never said it agrees with MIM on opposing Khruschev revisionism. So you have to let all organizations have their own say.

MIM is giving CPI(Maoist) a pass, because of the banning. There is one CPI(Maoist) document that is current and up on the Internet. There is no such pass to give the "CPN(Maoist)."

The whole RAIIN and India Communists Discussion Board's premise was the right opportunist outlook of papering over problems of struggle. India Communists claims that MIM, RMP, CPI(Maoist) and "CPN(Maoist)" should be linked together.

One thing we do agree with, if Nepal decides to put revisionists in power, it should be allowed to do that. So if an Indian party exerted united front to keep India from intervening in Nepal or if Indian parties attacked the Indian state together with Nepalese that would be justified. It would in fact be an excellent opportunity to take advantage of a war of independence to promote Maoism, just as MIM has been saying we need to have an example.

There is no reason that CPI(Maoist) and "CPN(Maoist)" need to be considered the same ideology for the Indians to give united front to the Nepalese. As far as Indian intervention, it should not matter at all. So the principled position for CPI(Maoist) is to separate from "CPN(Maoist)."

While we agree they SHOULD be linked together, neither RAIIN nor India Communists Discussion Board has a PLAN to make four or five parties unite ideologically. There is no plan of struggle, just more wads of paper, and layer it on thick; then do some organizational bullshit and traffick, traffick, traffick. So let's be clear: is it possible that these four or five organizations should be united? Yes. But those flying the flag for such unity should have a plan of struggle--and they don't. It is opportunist and can be hegemonic in misrepresenting the positions of others to unite organizations that are not united. Instead of just making a web page with four or five party organizations on it, scientific communist comrades should go further and write up plans. "I think these four or five parties are actually linked together and here is how it should happen and here is how my plan relates to the other parties out there."

When there is no overall principled plan to make an ideological unity of four organizations that are not currently united, the question passes from one of opportunism to one of revisionism. The "CPN(Maoist)" never took the correct line on the peace accords in Peru. In fact, "CPNM"'s international policy was even more soggy than RCP=CIA's if that is possible. Some of "CPNM"'s links led not just to the peace accords but to the MRTA in Peru as well. "CPNM"'s international policy underwent a flurry of change, but it is difficult to root out all the problems without persistent effort. "CPNM" shares all the underlying Trotskyist difficulty of the RIM. RMP was obviously more in centralism with the Iranian section of the RIM than it was with MIM. More importantly, RMP does not uphold Maoism on the question of defeating Iran by u.$. imperialism. So how can we try to paper that over? We have to let each organization have its say.

In World War I, Lenin and Zinoviev instructed the Europeans to pitch 80% of their comrades in their parties! Adolfo Olaechea called us sectarian for pointing that out, because Adolfo Olaechea did not know what the word "sectarian" meant. Obviously tossing 80% of your members does not benefit your organization, but in World War I, it sure as hell benefited the organization's stance on World War I! Tossing 80% of your members is usually exactly the opposite of "sectarian."

Sectarianism in the current context would be this: a subunit of MIM decides to invent an issue to toss 80% of the rest of MIM, so that the subunit could become "leader." Even then, it would be questionable if it was "sectarian" if in fact some strategic interest of the international proletariat drew benefit. If say someone did something divisive in order to draw a salary at the RIM, that would be sectarian. It would be done for organizational interest. So cause a split at MIM and then get a leadership reward at RIM, that would be "sectarian." Labor bureaucrats tend to be inherently sectarian. No matter what happens they defend their organization, because they draw salary from it. Interesting that through his whole life he defended the Soviet Communist Party but as he was drawing his pension and life-ending health care in the Soviet Union, Foster told Khruschev he upheld Mao. That was an example of opposing sectarianism. Foster knew what his organizational self-interest was, but he still upheld Mao.

Here in the current situation and what Adolfo Olaechea saw from MIM, there is no question of "sectarianism." The original MIM cell leadership tosses 90% all the time. It cannot be said that MIM's leadership draws benefit from that! The organization as an organization does not benefit from having fewer members. Quite the contrary, MIM is rightly insecure about taking in numbers, because we know what a petty-bourgeois swamp we live in. Rather we are following the Lenin example in World War I. We are not surprised to see this failure of Maoism on Iran, because we saw World War I and we are not at all surprised to find that we have to break 80% of our previous relations of unity. Secretary of State Rice successfully turned up the heat on us by naming Iran the leading enemy of the u.$. imperialists. We lost a lot of Liberals hiding in our ranks with that move of hers.

MIM makes it very easy to recruit away from MIM. We make our principles crystal-clear. We have denounced Joma Sison and the leadership of the "Communist Party of the Philippines" and we have denounced the entire RIM for allowing Maoism to be used as CIA front. There is plenty of basis to do battle against MIM politically. There is no reason to slink around.

*See our Iran page