I think their line (as a whole) is counterrevolutionary. their analysis of classes is false. their approach to world politics is pessimistic. As a movement they are passive, not involved in real-world struggles and (frankly) suspicious.
In the 60s the panthers sometimes used to challenge suspicious forces saying "You are either a fool or a pig." I think that thought applies here.
KDS writes: "Amongst those who consider themselves Maoist, the one they find disagreements with is the third point, which basically states that given the high development of imperialism, and history gives us a thorough indication, the super-profits extracted from the Third World are used to bribe of members of the imperialist country working class. The MIM propounds that this working class is a labor aristocracy, and following Lenin's teaching as well as applying MLM to the concrete conditions of the U.S., this labor aristocracy is not a vehicle for revolutionary change."
I am well aware of this "third point." I am well aware that Maoists of the world think this stand is wrong and reactionary. And i agree. There is a multinational working class in the u.s., tens of millions within that class are oppressed and exploited (including significant sections of white workers). And this proletariat is the base for revolutionary change.
KDS writes: "I still think that you are taking a wrong stance on whether the number of people in a consideration determines the correctness of political line. Mao said that political line is decisive."
I agree that political line is decisive. And MIM's political line is both reactionary and ridiculous.
KDS writes: "if a group of people are taking a stance on important issues, such as the non-revolutionary nature of the Euro-Amerikan or "white" working class, then the time is worth it for debate."
MIM's line has been patiently exposed many times. the best exchange took place recently on the 2changetheworld discussion site http://2changetheworld.info/disc/view.php?site=changetheworld&bn=changetheworld_unitedfront&key=1022221635.
MIM's anti-workingclass line is opposed and exposed everytime and everywhere they show up. I think the basic issues have been discussed well. I urge you to findthe debate within 2ctw and read it.
KDS writes: "Many of the people confronted by the MIM's stance on this issue simply write it off and shun away from debate."
This is simply not true. (see the comments above on 2change). MIM's line is an old one -- it is similar to the view put forward by Weatherman in the 1960s and other anti-working class forces every since. It has been dissected patiently and systematically, many times.
KDS writes: "Kasama, you speak about discussing the multinational proletariat in the U.S.? What exactly are your views on this..."How is organizing the bought-off, parasitic labor aristocracy a revolutionary strategy as opposed to organizing the prisoner masses in the U.S., who actually represent more of a proletariat, and are disproportionately Black and Latino?"
I am a worker myself. I have spent much of my life working "at the point of production" and organizing working class people.
I find it bizarre to call working people "parasites and bought-off."
How are people who bleed and die in the mines, or who stoop in backbreaking labor in the fields, or who clean the offices and sewers, or who drive through the nights on trucks and trains -- how are these people "parasites"?
What planet do such observations come from?
People who think working people in the u.s. are "parasites" should get out and do social investigation -- come to the housing projects, go talk to a single mother working as a waitress, come to the sweatshops of the big cities, come to the unemployment lines, to the welfare offices, to the schools where proletarian youth are dissed and discarded.
KDS writes: "If the MIM is asking these questions, which spring from actually analysing the concrete, economic and historical conditions of the U.S., then how does this seperate them from the real world?"
Their so-called analysis is nonsense. It is illogical and based on smoke.
It has been exposed many times.
They think that if they prove a homeless person in New York lives better than a homeless person in Brazil -- that this homeless person in New York has an interest in keeping Brazil oppressed. This is nonsense.
Their logic is the logic of the oppressor: who tells the poor "you have it good, stop whining." If we have street lights and Chad doesn't, does that mean we have an interest in brutalizing chad? If a kid in Brooklyn beaten by police goes to the hospital, while a kid beaten by police in Nepal gets no medical care -- does that mean the brooklyn kid has an interest in supporting the cops in Nepal? It is ridiculous on the surface.
The discovery of some small "relative privilege" (which in many cases are just "crumbs"
that characterizes the live of even oppressed people in the U.S. -- that
discover does not equal an INTEREST in supporting a worldwide system of
brutality and exploitation.KDS writes: "I would think that an organization like the RCP-USA... which harbor illusions about a multinational U.S. proletariat, are more out of touch from history and practice, then the MIM is, don't you think?"
Surely you are joking.
KDS writes: "Have you taken a look at MIM's webpage, and the publication of Notes Rouge?"
You have repeatedly accused me (personally) of not looking closely at MIM's stuff. I don't think personal disses have any place in a principled debate.
But (fyi) let me just say: I have read everything MIM has ever written, period.
I hope that clears up your confusion on that point. Their line and writings are mistaken.
The only thing in their press that has a connection with reality is the prisoner letters, and (obviously) that is also the only part of their paper not written by MIM members.
KDS writes: "you seem to think that hostility towards incorrect lines is a flaw."
No i don't. The ability to distinguish Marxism from revisionism (the correct from incorrect) is valuable and requires clear critical analysis.
KDS writes: "their documents ...claim that there are revolutionary masses in the U.S, mainly the prisoners and the undocumented immigrants working in horrible, exploitative conditions. They also aim to organize the oppressed nation youth. Do not play the number's game..."
In politics, struggle (and even in warfare) numbers matter.
If you think there is no major revolutoinary class in the U.S., you think revolution is impossible.
If you think only prisoners and undocumented immigrants have an interest in revolution -- then think through what POSSIBLE strategy there will be for revolution. It would be impossible.
And isn't it lucky for us all (including the international proletariat) that MIM's mumblings are just pessimistic nonsense -- there is a real revolutionary class here.
I think that we should debate key issues in a principled way. And I think it IS an important question "Is there a revolutionary proletariat in the U.S.?" It is worth debating well and throughly.
Having said that, let me add that MIM, in particular, is a joke. If you support them, you should rethink what you have gotten into.
MIM is a bitter little group of immature and confused folks. Its MAIN activity is attacking the masses and denouncing real revolutionaries within the U.S. Think about that.
Is that really something you want to be part of?