Maoist Internationalist Movement

Scuttlebutt update

[Scuttlebutt reports are not exactly literal discussion of security. This report has a large portion of ideology connected to security that anyone could discuss.]

"We are ruled by none

"Never ever neverrrrrraaa

"And you thought that we were faking
That we were all just money making
You do not believe we're for real
Or you would lose your cheap appeal ?

"Don't judge a book by the cover
Unless you cover just another
And blind acceptance is a sign
Of stupid fools who stand in line"
--Sex Pistols (http://www.lyricsfreak.com/s/sex+pistols/emi_10214104.html)

1. Joseph Ball, do you agree with us in principle that unless there is no one doing underground proletarian work, it is opportunist for people to pretend on a need to spread persynal information around? For example, since Joseph Ball does not know MIM persynally, intellectuals and activists like him should not be raising discussion of that point.

Likewise, we at MIM concede to the public, intellectuals and activists in particular, that Avakian's approach is wrecking Lenin from within by insisting on arguments on questions of individual leadership while at the same time admitting that not all aspects of the party's work are in the open. Science has to be about questions that are in the open.

The problem is that Avakian and the social-democrats are punishment by opposing errors that justify each other. The fact that there are time- wasters setting up "RCP" to be run by the CIA does not excuse those who raise persynal questions in public. Yes or no Mr. Ball? It is what Lenin called bowing to bourgeois spontaneity, because the state dominates gossip.

We are asking Joseph Ball not just to oppose ad hominem attack but also to see the inherent nature of inaccessible biographical discussion except when it is among people who know each other.

People who want everything in the open should go to the anti-war and environmentalist organizations and leave Leninists alone or admit being state agents.

2. A racist CIA asswipe has apparently recognized that he did something racist. So far we have heard his mention of 1% of the problem. We're not interested in his solution.

On this, it has to be admitted that Avakian saw the problem more than a year earlier than CIA asswipe and said so in a discussion on the topic of rationality. When Avakian agrees the CIA went too far, then we can be pretty sure that we are talking about something that was not even good for bourgeois stability. Both got themselves wrongly tangled up with the state, but Avakian saw the problem of it sooner.

The best we could hope for is that people looking at this question would take up a different politics, one that recognizes when trouble is built into a situation as opposed to needing individual details and pig-assistance before one realizes MIM was right and they were wrong. It requires a little hard thought on structure and what organizational requirements flow from that.

3. MIM has semi-publicly criticized an FBI after-the-fact censorship of a media story. We received backtalk defending the FBI. The story in question was from a source in a position to know. It's too much to ask the FBI to follow Joreen or accountable policy, but the fact is that the FBI did not attempt to argue with the story. It simply censored it, after-the-fact. It's possible the FBI and media interpretation would have been at loggerheads in any case, but to assert that the story was wrong and then secretly censor it was unnecessary.

Had the FBI or the other federal government agencies concerned done as much as send a letter to criticize the story, it would have provided a chance for the media to check with the source for a reaction.

4. Redstar2000 can only imagine party leaders abusing the masses, because Redstar2000 is completely entangled in the imperialist state. His constant attack on Leninists and pressure to drive them above-ground is closely situated in CIA activities. This is something that revleft.com and the like need to get straight in principle. So-called Leninists citing the inaccessible for leadership claims are wrong, but anti-Leninists seeking to drive Leninists above-ground are also wrong in principle. The anti-Jacobins should focus on the anti-war and environmentalist groups. People who are feelings-, majority- and openness-oriented should stay away from Leninist parties.

Anyone saying MIM is trying to take over revleft.com is lying. This is another indication of anti-Jacobin dishonesty. Anti-Jacobins should instead quote MIM in its SIO policy to accomplish what they want in a non-sectarian fashion. The fact that they do not quote us when we agree with them, and the fact that they lump us in with others is proof of ultra-sectarianism.

The cult of Mary could be connected to crypto-creationism and immaculate conceptions and knowledge magically appearing without investigation. Kristeva has much good material to read on this point. What a crock of shit to be criticizing Avakian when Redstar2000 criticizes Leninists but sounds like cult of Mary.

5. We have one persyn out there claiming to uphold MIM's cardinal principles since our cell division. Unfortunately, the persyn was also recently seen defending public CP=U$A members. The story goes much deeper than that, but it is a warning about false friends. MIM's line on the CP=U$A has not changed since its foundation. People psychologizing MIM on that only expose their own inability to think coherently.

Instead of taking people at verbal face-value, we should look for action toward MIM cardinals. That is a way of weeding a lot of "left face" types.

6. Bill, we still have hope in you, that you will shut people up. As time goes on, surveillance only increases. We do not appreciate people who can or could have discussed questions individually and now find it so necessary to speak publicly because of increased surveillance. Friends discuss one-to-one. Enemies try to destroy Leninist discussion by forcing discussion of things that do not help anyone in public.

7. Again, on what to expect from MIM, MIM prioritizes defending people's security, which often means their privacy first. We have received death threats from an imperialist state with regard to someone who was never a member and left contact with the organization more than a decade ago. So protecting MIM privacy and security is also a matter of protecting the security of others that the state happens to know of in connection to MIM.

There are two ways to accomplish this goal. One is for those who know that MIM is in fact deemed enough of a threat that it receives very broad repression should speak up and say it is true that it is important to protect privacy as MIM said. Another way is to admit in principle without knowing specifics that probably there are people out there being threatened by the state, which does not always distinguish people the way it should, so that threats to security are broad.

Only die-hard anti-communists (anarchists or not) can only picture party leaders abusing others while going to the state for information and then passing the state more information derived from baiting. Such people have to be disassociated from ruthlessly and not allowed to fester in organizational circles under cover of "mass line." These people who cannot imagine being a serious threat in underground work should go to anti-war groups and stay away from Leninists.

Anyone trying to bait MIM publicly can expect that we will not give out information. We consider biography-baiters enemies, some of whom parade under pretenses of agreeing with us or even supporting us.

Being a friend of a friend does not give one the right to bait for information.

The fact that MIM does not answer a bait does not mean the baiting has any value. Quite often we have the choice between dumb racism and smart chauvinism and the whole question has to be avoided and disdained in public.

Some of the people who think they can do friend-of-a-friend allegorical discussion have themselves been discussed by intelligence agencies on various continents. MIM will often disdain such conversations for security reasons. We do not consider it friendly to people's privacy when they end up discussed on various continents just because people bowed to stupid anti-communist pressures as if we already lived in Liberal utopia.

It's mostly the effing Liberals masquerading as anarchists, Luxemburgists etc. who need to think through the structure of situations. If Avakian says there are important party secrets, then structurally that says something about the impossibility of leadership struggle. THE CONVERSE IS ALSO TRUE. People constantly throwing around things at leaders act as if there were no secrets. If individuals cannot be super-important leaders, nor can they be super-important devils.

Which is the worse error, seeing leaders as super-humyns or super-devils? The answer is in the question. Humyns waste time. Devils are unresolvable. RCP=CIA may waste its time, but its leadership theory does not explicitly say that it must let the CIA lead it. That only comes in practice. In contrast, the people running down leaders are basically in theory (not just practice) saying that the CIA/FBI is not dominating biographical discussion of revolutionaries. RCP=CIA admits the crucial reality that there should be secrets at our stage of struggle.

8. Everything that MIM wants people to know scientifically is made public. We never claim that people should listen to us, because we are "authorities"; even though, we are, and much more tested than our critics. Tested or not is irrelevant because we have no way of communicating all that, so we settle for what we can communicate. If people are not persuaded, we don't give a fuck. Dragons in practice will learn from what we are saying. The rest probably don't understand where the power of Leninism comes from.

This current writer claims openly to have degenerated lifestyle-wise, though not one tenth as much as our critics are saying. So we are not making claims on that score either. If readers would not read this website if its writers were all axe-murderers, then we do not need them. We need to repel the lifestylists and attract those who are occluded and think they are weak but who have capacity to advance scientifically. On the plus side, as comrades go on in time, they may be more corrupted and less strong in some aspects, but more experienced and efficient in other aspects.

We do not see why the Luxemburgists, anarchists, council communists etc. have to complain about what we are saying on organization. If it's not accessible, we did not ask them to believe anything about us. Malte, what is wrong with that?

Lenin said we have to have bourgeois intellectuals for the party, and MIM is in fact more accessible than post-modernism. So maybe the anarchists and other anti-Leninists should dedicate their energies elsewhere, maybe attacking post-modernism before Leninism.

We believe minority semi-underground and underground work is necessary but more difficult to do than open work in the anti-war movement. So we need Leninists. If people do not agree with our postulate on the potential of anonymous non-electoral work, that is fine, but why do they have to deny it to the extent of increasing the state's effectiveness while endangering not just MIM but those even in MIM circles? MIM finds that the Liberals never seem to perceive how things bounce around. It is predictable without knowing concrete details.

9. People are wondering why we did not wipe the table with our enemies in a couple situations a while back. The reasons are not all public. However, we can say that again MIM prioritizes people's privacy and strategic independence. People may wonder why we did not seize this or that resource when we could have. Usually when we dig into it, what we are talking about is people who are especially weak-kneed and do not understand the idea of when a battle is worthless to fight. They are used to being tails on the Democrats or some other non-independent source of power.

Instead of telling people they are poor when they are in fact in the top 10% of people, we should have people make use of petty-bourgeois or capitalist status to free their minds from corrupting influences on thought whenever possible. Mostly we are a disadvantage with no Euro- Amerikan proletariat, but there have to be some positive aspects as well that we can take advantage of, not as a powerful majority movement, but as a few scientists.

10. Some people are discussing beauty standards, perfect skin or the lack of it. Perfect hair or perfect breasts, which is better? Some attack the corporatized patriarchal culture with the foot fetish.

We expect that discussion to end in four weeks. It is possible for a successful conclusion in four weeks. If it stretches out too long, things look decadent. Yes, the Amerikans know the most about these things, with their most developed thought on pornography and Liberalism. The Amerikan comrades should come up with the coordinated non-Liberal analysis and solution.

MIM has not really entered into that discussion despite our being cited. We hope for once someone else can go forward in the gender struggle. Even the foot fetish is a Liberal attempt to break something. In some countries in the world, the men like fatter and taller wimmin.

We're much more concerned with gender privilege and security for instance. Whether its hair, fat or feet, one should put the party first. MIM did not mean to snub anyone in that discussion. It's probably a good idea for MIM not to participate and just see if others can come up with a contribution on the gender struggle.