On MIM's racial position.

[Leif]

This concretely proves that MIM are totally incorrect in their position that the "white race" constitutes a practially solid bourgeois class of its own, and the only oppressed within the United States are minorities. Well, if they stand behind their position, they are incorrect in their Maoism, as they clearly go against Mao's position.




I call on the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals, enlightened elements of the bourgeoisie and other enlightened persons of all colours in the world, whether white, black, yellow or brown, to unite to oppose the racial discrimination practised by U.S. imperialism and support the black people in their struggle against racial discrimination. In the final analysis, national struggle is a matter of class struggle. Among the whites in the United States it is only the reactionary ruling circles who oppress the black people. They can in no way represent the workers,

page 4

farmers, revolutionary intellectuals and other enlightened persons who comprise the overwhelming majority of the white people. At present, it is the handful of imperialists headed by the United States, and their supporters, the reactionaries in different countries, who are oppressing, committing aggression against and menacing the overwhelming majority of the nations and peoples of the world.

-Chairman Mao, Statement Supporting the American Negroes in Their Just Struggle Against Racial Discrimination by U.S. Imperialism" (August 8, 1963), People of the World, Unite and Defeat the U.S. Aggressors and All Their Lackeys, 2nd ed., pp. 3-4

[Lenny]

to unite to oppose the racial discrimination practised by U.S. imperialism and support the black people in their struggleThose krazy kommunists love using the word "imperialism" dont they, even when it has nothing to do with anything :cool: How was the domestic US issue of supposed white oppression of blacks "imperialism", that makes no sense.

Is it part of Communist training to use the words imperialism and imperialist(s) in every other sentence? :D

[Leif]

Those krazy kommunists love using the word "imperialism" dont they, even when it has nothing to do with anything How was the domestic US issue of supposed white oppression of blacks "imperialism", that makes no sense.

Is it part of Communist training to use the words imperialism and imperialist(s) in every other sentence?

The original document that this is taken from was about U.S. imperialism and its various aggressions around the world.

[Probably maybe]

:rofl: another ridiculous thread by internet commies.
Hey, dude, didn't you know that internet is incredibly " bourgeois thing"?

Eat pineapples and hazel-grouse,
Your last day is coming, Mr. bourgeois. :222:

[Ixtab]

Excellent thread -- well, barring the idiocy following the original post, particularly the following passage, another ridiculous thread by internet commies.
Hey, dude, didn't you know that internet is incredibly " bourgeois thing"?1.]Ah. So Communists shouldn't use any goods and services under capitalism because they oppose private (bourgeois) ownership. I suppose, by the same reasoning, the Libertarian shouldn't use the postal service and all other state-run services, and should immediately cease paying taxes. He should refuse to be employed, if his employer happens to be called the State, and he should refuse to eat, if agriculture is socialised in the country he was born into. :rofl: :rofl:
Honestly, are you a complete moron? Get educated.
2.]I would disagree that the Internet is an "incredibly bourgeois thing". It is created by human labour. Socialists do not wish to abolish computers, or anything else produced by human labour, but to abolish the exploitation that is involved in their production under capitalistic productive relations [i.e., in which surplus value generated by the actual producers is extracted as profit by the owners of the means of production].
3.]If you argue that Socialists somehow partake in exploitation by using the goods and services of the society into which they were born, I answer: (a) Socialists of the Marxist variety believe that capitalism is a necessary, indespensable, highly desirable phase of social evolution; (b) alienating oneself from the social system of which one is a part is a certain way not to make any changes to that system - boycotting goods is incapable of conducing to the positive transendence of any mode of economic production; (c) technically it's not exploitation anyway, this mere buying of goods; certainly not in Marxist parlance.

[Billy Score]

I was going to edit this thread to weed out undesirable posts but your refutations are excellent and deserve to be kept up in context, as these types of childish accusations and comments are common attacks on marxists and socialists.

[Berianidze]

Back to the original topic, good post; I remember you made a similar post at Rebel Forums...MIM has some good qualities but their logic behind some of their positions is misguided at best...like their rationale for using the terms "womyn and persyn."

[Leif]

Back to the original topic, good post; I remember you made a similar post at Rebel Forums...MIM has some good qualities but their logic behind some of their positions is misguided at best...like their rationale for using the terms "womyn and persyn."

Wow. I forgot that place even existed. I believe Ix was the first to post this quote, although I don't remember where. It is quite a damning of MIM.

[Probably maybe]

Ah. So Communists shouldn't use any goods and services under capitalism because they oppose private (bourgeois) ownership.

Yes, it's like nazi mating with jews. I will tell you more every true bolshevik shouldn't speak english language because it's language of "bourgeois world". Russian only. :nono:

[Ixtab]

Back to the original topic, good post; I remember you made a similar post at Rebel Forums...MIM has some good qualities but their logic behind some of their positions is misguided at best...like their rationale for using the terms "womyn and persyn."MIM has no good qualities.

[Berianidze]

MIM has no good qualities.

I'll concede and say for the most part you're right; however, I do like their "one big gulag" theory (or at least what I've heard from some self-proclaimed members of MIM).

[Ixtab]

I'll concede and say for the most part you're right; however, I do like their "one big gulag" theory (or at least what I've heard from some self-proclaimed members of MIM).It's infandous; probably the most inane "theory" (if it is even worthy of that name) I have ever come across in my entire life.

[Berianidze]

It's infandous; probably the most inane "theory" (if it is even worthy of that name) I have ever come across in my entire life.

Seriously, the most inane you've ever come across in your entire life? Then fine, don't refer to it as a theory but rather as a proposal, I'm not advocating nor defending MIM or their "theories" either, so don't get contentious with me.

[daisy]

unite to oppose racial discrimination practised by u.s. imperialismmim might as well get off that black mess.
white albinos are the oppressed ones in all of the anglosphere.
white albinos were the first slaves even before the blacks. they just charged more money for the blacks when they got them because blacks have more pigmentations and muscles than white albinos.
white albinos have been slaves before and longer than them blacks.

[maoist]

First off, MIM does not have any "racial theories" that is ridiculous. MIM upholds the idea that the First World, the white nation in particular (this means the Euro-settler state in North America) are complete parasites on the Third World and have no revolutionary class. In fact, membership in the Euro-settler state doesn't have anything to do with skin color necessarily. There idea that there is a separate internal coloney known as the Black Nation comes straight from Stalin and the Comintern. The Stalinists in the CP=u$a fought for this position aginst the white revisionist leadership. It is known as the Black Belt thesis. All you have to do is read Harry Hayood or Pepper of the old CP=u$a to see that MIM didn't invent this stuff. It is in fact the traditional Stalinist position.

There are a number of arguments why MIM says there is no proletariat in the first world. And, they are all straight from Marx and Lenin and Stalin. As far as that Mao quote goes, MIM has already said that Mao was wrong on it. Mao did not do any kind of class analysis of the united $tates. Mao relied mostly on the word of revisionist parties like the CP=u$a and PLP. Even though Mao was wrong on this issue, other Maoists and writers who published in Peking Review (Mao's paper) were right on. Maoism is not about applying science, it is not about dogmatically following every little thing Mao said. If anyone thinks they can take on MIM, they are welcome to it on the Maoist forum at irtr.org . :222: But, I will warn you. I went there thinking I knew alot about Marxism and those MIM folks tore me to shreds. Now, I totally agree with what they say that is until I see someone agrue them down. I haven't see them lose an argument yet and most people are too afraid to debate them now.

As for the alternative spellings, MIM did not invent that either. MIM is on the cutting edge in its analysis. They truly are the vanguard party. :cool:

[Roland]

MiM alternative spellings are artifacts from the anti-colonialist era of the 1970s. That is hardly cutting-edge. The rest are based off false etymologies such as their term to denote Women. Being fairly open-minded, I am wholly in favor of the conscious reorganization of language; however, I suspect that the MiM method is not necessarily the correct method.

[Billy Score]

any organization that uses terms like "wimmin" or "womyn" will nver be legitemate in my eyes.

[maoist]

I don't speak for MIM or anything like that. This is my view.

MIM is the most advanced revolutionary organization in the English SPeaking world. People rag on MIM so much percisely because MIM is dead on target. MIM has totally exposed these revolutionary posers in the first world. Like Mao says, to be attacked is not a bad thing.

Nor is MIM dogmatic. They take up what appears to be a hardline to the liberal posers. In reality, MIM's line is straight science and they have thousands of pages to prove it. Liberals just don't want to rock the boat - MIM doesn't care and is willing to turn the whole boat over in the name of truth and revolution. MIM's on a totally different level than these posers and so MIM takes a lot of flak from them. But hey, what do you think the liberals said about the Bolsheviks or Mao's party? MIM's a vanguard - straight up. And, MIM will make revolution - they are the only ones really adapting revolution creatively to the conditions in the first world today. It isn't a matter of whether you like what MIM is saying, it is a matter of reality. And like Lenin said, there is nothing more radical than reality itself.

And, het, you think you got a better line. Then start a polemic with them. MIM is all about science and if you prove them wrong, they will accept that - although I have never seen anyone prove them wrong. MIM's critics are really the dogmatists, MIM has again and again proven them wrong in open polemic on their web page...

Anyways.. MIM won't win everyone over to Maoism. There is a huge social base for revisionism in the labor aristocracy in the first world. Maoists look for the exceptional people, those who are willing to accept reality and adopt the radical means necessary to liberate humanity. If you can't accept revolutionary Marxism, then you should just become an open liberal.

[Berianidze]

I don't speak for MIM or anything like that. This is my view.

MIM is the most advanced revolutionary organization in the English SPeaking world. People rag on MIM so much percisely because MIM is dead on target. MIM has totally exposed these revolutionary posers in the first world. Like Mao says, to be attacked is not a bad thing.

Nor is MIM dogmatic. They take up what appears to be a hardline to the liberal posers. In reality, MIM's line is straight science and they have thousands of pages to prove it. Liberals just don't want to rock the boat - MIM doesn't care and is willing to turn the whole boat over in the name of truth and revolution. MIM's on a totally different level than these posers and so MIM takes a lot of flak from them. But hey, what do you think the liberals said about the Bolsheviks or Mao's party? MIM's a vanguard - straight up. And, MIM will make revolution - they are the only ones really adapting revolution creatively to the conditions in the first world today. It isn't a matter of whether you like what MIM is saying, it is a matter of reality. And like Lenin said, there is nothing more radical than reality itself.

And, het, you think you got a better line. Then start a polemic with them. MIM is all about science and if you prove them wrong, they will accept that - although I have never seen anyone prove them wrong. MIM's critics are really the dogmatists, MIM has again and again proven them wrong in open polemic on their web page...

Anyways.. MIM won't win everyone over to Maoism. There is a huge social base for revisionism in the labor aristocracy in the first world. Maoists look for the exceptional people, those who are willing to accept reality and adopt the radical means necessary to liberate humynity. If you can't accept revolutionary Marxism, then you should just become an open liberal.

What is MIM's stance on homosexuals? Do they see it as bourgeois decadence as a number of other Communist parties from that era in the West have adopted or do they embrace it?

[Helios Panoptes]

What is MIM's stance on homosexuals? Do they see it as bourgeois decadence as a number of other Communist parties from that era in the West have adopted or do they embrace it?

Without researching this, I somehow know the answer to this question.

[maoist]

MIM's line as far as I can tell is that ALL first worlders are gender oppressors. They all participate in and benefit from patriarchy - including first world homosexuals and first world wimmin, including western so called feminists.

MIM's supports the ending of all oppression - after all, that's what communism is about. And, homosexuals are oppressed as a group generally speaking. MIM does not consider homosexuality itself especially decadent in any way. For the very beginning MIM has criticize phoney groups like the rcp=u$a for their homophobia among other things.

MIM's line is that all first worlders are gender oppressors and so to advocate for the demands of first world wimmin, for example, is basically reactionary. However, as Stalin taught us, it is good to use contradictions within the enemy in order to divide them. To qoute MIM, "For this reason, if we can pit the gender aristocracy against the oppressor nation or the oppressor nation against the gender aristocracy, we will. All our fire is concentrated against the oppressor nation. "

[Billy Score]

Maoist learn to speak proper english- i won't tolerate this "wimmin" nitpicking shit on my forum.

A duck is a duck. whether it is from england or south africa. A homosexual is the same. A child molestor should be shot whether he is in ecuador or the US. There are some things that are not divided by class lines, maoist.

[maoist]

Do not edit my posts. If you must, then delete them. But do not edit them and misrepresent what I have said. I am not going to post to this forum if you edit my posts for no other reason than you disagree with my line. That only shows the weakness of your own line that you would stoop to such a thing. You should reflect on your behavior and make a self-criticism.

[Berianidze]

Do not edit my posts. If you must, then delete them. But do not edit them and misrepresent what I have said. I am not going to post to this forum if you edit my posts for no other reason than you disagree with my line. That only shows the weakness of your own line that you would stoop to such a thing. You should reflect on your behavior and make a self-criticism.

He asked you to politely refrain from using the terms "wimmin" and "persyn" because they are absurdly annoying to have to read, all he did was ask you to use proper english, he didn't say he was going to edit them to misrepresent what you said!

[jcs]

He asked you to politely refrain from using the terms "wimmin" and "persyn" because they are absurdly annoying to have to read, all he did was ask you to use proper english, he didn't say he was going to edit them to misrepresent what you said!
But that does misrepresent what he said, because it uses male-centric (pro)nouns and makes 'wimmin' seem inferior to male pigs. He used 'wimmin' so as to be perfectly politically correct. We must disregard the etymology of language and substitute gyneocentric, PC terms where needed so as to combat chauvenism! Now, be a good feminist ideologue and do the same!

[Billy Score]

I am not sure if someone who cannot speak proper english should be posting in this forum. I certainly have nothing to say to someone who can't bear the thought of seeing the word "man" in the word "woMAN". This is beyond PC and is so childish and infantile it does not deserve recognition.

[Roland]

Nevermind the fact that man, in old English, was used to refer to any person regardless of sex. The eytmology given at dictionary.com indicates that the MAN in the word woMAN was not intended to denote the male gender.

[maoist]

He had edited my post, I edited it back.

[maoist]

MIM is very aware of the history of the words. What does the history of the words have to do with anything? Do you there is anything that MIM talks about that they haven't studied inside and out? I guarentee MIM has read ten times more about it than anyone here.

Instead of making up reasons why you think MIM takes the positions it does, why not read them or ask them. MIM knows that "woman" is not derived from "man" - they say it several times on their web page.

There are huge discussions of this topic available on IRTR's archives. If you want to read more about it, I suggest looking there. Several reasons for the spellings are advanced. Again, you need to read what MIM and their supporters actually say and not make so many assumptions.

I'll tell you what I believe on the topic. We need to strike out at every point we can to undermine the system and agitate. If that means making one more keystoke, then fine. So, I make one more keystroke and say "ameriKa" rather than "america" or whatever. Okay, now someone just skimming this forum, sees the alternative spelling and knows immediately that I take a strong anti-imperialist stance. So, maybe they read more.

Look - The majority of stupid first worlders have no interest in Maoism. They just aren't ready for science or revolution. They are stupid parasites and I could careless what they think. People who complain about the strong tone are people who aren't going to be won over anyway. Those that have more potential are going to be attracted to it: oppressed nation people like Blacks, revolutionary feminists, etc. The Panthers used alternative spellings in asome of their articles. So what if I offend the bourgeois sensibilities of some psuedo-intellectual leftist? Actually, real intellectuals are important to the struggle, and those that we can win over aren't going to be so superficial to get turned off by a spelling. They can just take a couple looks at MIM and see MIM is more rigorous than any other organization out there. Even in simple ways, for example, MIM's newspaper footnotes their sources. Most of these other organizations are plagerizing the NY Times and list no citations - which is incredibly dishonest. MIM is honest that way.

[Roland]

MIM is very aware of the history of the words. What does the history of the words have to do with anything? Do you there is anything that MIM talks about that they haven't studied inside and out? I guarentee MIM has read ten times more about it than anyone here.

Instead of making up reasons why you think MIM takes the positions it does, why not read them or ask them. MIM knows that "woman" is not derived from "man" - they say it several times on their web page.

There are huge discussions of this topic available on IRTR's archives. If you want to read more about it, I suggest looking there. Several reasons for the spellings are advanced. Again, you need to read what MIM and their supporters actually say and not make so many assumptions.

I'll tell you what I believe on the topic. We need to strike out at every point we can to undermine the system and agitate. If that means making one more keystoke, then fine. So, I make one more keystroke and say "ameriKa" rather than "america" or whatever. Okay, now someone just skimming this forum, sees the alternative spelling and knows immediately that I take a strong anti-imperialist stance. So, maybe they read more.

Look - The majority of stupid first worlders have no interest in Maoism. They just aren't ready for science or revolution. They are stupid parasites and I could careless what they think. People who complain about the strong tone are people who aren't going to be won over anyway. Those that have more potential are going to be attracted to it: oppressed nation people like Blacks, revolutionary feminists, etc. The Panthers used alternative spellings in asome of their articles. So what if I offend the bourgeois sensibilities of some psuedo-intellectual leftist? Actually, real intellectuals are important to the struggle, and those that we can win over aren't going to be so superficial to get turned off by a spelling. They can just take a couple looks at MIM and see MIM is more rigorous than any other organization out there. Even in simple ways, for example, MIM's newspaper footnotes their sources. Most of these other organizations are plagerizing the NY Times and list no citations - which is incredibly dishonest. MIM is honest that way.

The last MIM cult member to explain their bizarre language indicated the opposite; stating that there was patriarchal influence in the meaning of words such as woman.

MIM's political ideology is bankrupt and worthless. I charge you to prove to anyone that first world workers from the tertiary sector are any more ignorant regarding science, and therefore revolution, than a third world subsistence farmer from east Asia who's lineage has been working the same area of land with the same tools for the last millennium.

Hijacking the project of the Black Panthers to fit into your contradictory and incoherent ideology because they were influenced by the writings of Mao is not going to make MIM's position more attractive. Huey Newton was very aware of the historically ignorant ideas exposited by people who believed that there were actually oppressed nations within nations, that is why the Panthers abandoned reactionary nationalism in favor of Revolutionary Intercommunalism. The Panthers realized, at best, that there was a semi-coherent and homogeneous black community dispersed throughout the United States; a far more conservative description than that of a nation.

I understand that you utilize language manipulation to garner interest (yes, so did the Panthers), and I have no problem with that. I am, of course, bothered by the language itself; I find long sentences populated with naming conventions such as the "United $naKKKes of AmeriKKKa" to be rather annoying and childish.

[Berianidze]

MIM is very aware of the history of the words. What does the history of the words have to do with anything? Do you there is anything that MIM talks about that they haven't studied inside and out? I guarentee MIM has read ten times more about it than anyone here.

Instead of making up reasons why you think MIM takes the positions it does, why not read them or ask them. MIM knows that "woman" is not derived from "man" - they say it several times on their web page.

There are huge discussions of this topic available on IRTR's archives. If you want to read more about it, I suggest looking there. Several reasons for the spellings are advanced. Again, you need to read what MIM and their supporters actually say and not make so many assumptions.

I'll tell you what I believe on the topic. We need to strike out at every point we can to undermine the system and agitate. If that means making one more keystoke, then fine. So, I make one more keystroke and say "ameriKa" rather than "america" or whatever. Okay, now someone just skimming this forum, sees the alternative spelling and knows immediately that I take a strong anti-imperialist stance. So, maybe they read more.

Look - The majority of stupid first worlders have no interest in Maoism. They just aren't ready for science or revolution. They are stupid parasites and I could careless what they think. People who complain about the strong tone are people who aren't going to be won over anyway. Those that have more potential are going to be attracted to it: oppressed nation people like Blacks, revolutionary feminists, etc. The Panthers used alternative spellings in asome of their articles. So what if I offend the bourgeois sensibilities of some psuedo-intellectual leftist? Actually, real intellectuals are important to the struggle, and those that we can win over aren't going to be so superficial to get turned off by a spelling. They can just take a couple looks at MIM and see MIM is more rigorous than any other organization out there. Even in simple ways, for example, MIM's newspaper footnotes their sources. Most of these other organizations are plagerizing the NY Times and list no citations - which is incredibly dishonest. MIM is honest that way.

Your ultra-feminism and homosexual agenda will ultimately get you absolutely nowhere. MIM couldn't be any further out of touch with the Third World with their inane and useless rhetoric. You can be anti-imperialist all you want; trust me, I'm as much an anti-imperialist as anybody else here, but it looks completely retarded and absolutely useless to show your angst and rebel against "the man" through using alternative spellings on a message board.

[maoist]

MIM does more work with those who are exploited in the first world than any organization claiming to be socialist in North America - just look at their prison work. Again, Maoists are not trying to mobilize the vast majority of parasites who are counter revolutionary anyway. So, they can whine about toning it down all they want. Why should we care?

[Leif]

It has been said that the American Negro must have self-determination. Why does the American Negro need self-determination separate from his fellow Americans? True, The American Negro at one time had no say in the government under which he worked, but that time is over. So,

Let us review what makes a nation:

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.

American Blacks do not have any of these characteristics. Their language is English. Their territory varies and is inhabited by an equal number of Whites. Their economic life is tied to other people around them, and is not domestically exclusive. They have no common psychological make-up, nor common culture.

C.L.R. James calls for the "self-determination" of the American Negro, but does he fully understand that the American Negro is separate from his White counterparts only in appearance, and not in social terms?

"Cut off for centuries from all contact with the continent and customs of his origin, the Negro is today an American citizen. In his daily work, language, religion, and general culture, he differs not at all from his fellow workers in factory and field, except in the intensity of his exploitation and attendant brutal discrimination."

Apparently he does…yet he continues to pursue this matter in an unscientific way!


A question: Do the conditions exist for the self-determination of the American Negro?

I ask this question because I am confused as to why some Marxists defend Black Nationalism in America. I will assume that they defend Black Nationalism because they view Negroes as an "oppressed nation" which must attain self-determination. That leads us to the question "Is there an oppressed Negro 'nation'?" If there is such a nation, then the Marxist position is to support the creation of a Negro state. However, if there is no such nation, Marxists must condemn Black Nationalism as reactionary. Thus, one must first decide whether or not there is an oppressed nation.

Let us define a nation:

A nation is a historically constituted, stable community of people, formed on the basis of a common language, territory, economic life, and psychological make-up manifested in a common culture.[1]

For there to be a nation, it must possess all of these qualities. Do the Negroes, as a social group, possess these qualities? Do American Negroes speak a common and unique language? No. Do American Negroes have a common territory? No. Do they have a common economic life? No. Do they have a common culture? No.


Here is part of a debate I had with some Maoists at ernesto-guevara.com on the topic of black nationalism:

Funny how careful you were to avoid discussing psychological make-up and culture. You obviously know that Blacks and whites in Amerikkka have separate cultures (despite the oppressor nation's attempt to aSSimilate its semicolonies), so why can't you acknowledge that this difference shatters the thesis of a single gigantic Amerikkkan nation?

I didn't avoid the cultural issue, I commented upon it here:

They are both predominately Christian, English speaking,...

American Whites and Blacks share the same culture. They watch the same television programming, listen to the same music, and speak the same language. Before "rap music" is brought up I would like to say that it is not exclusively for blacks, many whites, hispanics, and asians also listen to it, and let us not forget Eminem. The same situation exists with Jazz.

You also do not understand what Stalin was saying about language. He didn't say that a nation's language has to be spoken by no one else.

I didn't say that either. I specifically said:

Do American Blacks have a common language separate from American Whites? No, they do not.

I admit that I phrased it badly for the point I was addressing. Sorry.

It matters not that other nations might also use that language.

I agree. There are numerous examples of multiple nations speaking the same language. (England - Ireland - U.S.A., Germany - Austria - Switzerland)

Also, your argument would completely fall apart if applied to the nation of Aztlan, for example, which is Spanish-speaking. Likewise to some First Nations, although most of them now speak English as a result of Amerikkka's genocidal campaigns.

"Aztlan" is not a nation; if anything it is an extension of the Mexican nation.

[Rakhmetov]

MIM's writings come across as very amateurish, simplistic, and unintellectual. They make themselves look goofy with the use of "womyn", "Amerikkka", etc. Although they are not as sectarian as some other groups, their rhetoric contains third world non-white racism against whites. They even go as far as to claim that there is not a white working-class in America which is absurd: West Virginia is the poorest but also whitest state in the country.