Koreans have come a long way or have they?

At the end of the Korean monarchy’s existence, it found itself under the guard of Russians in the Russian legation in Korea. The Koreans were unable to guard their own monarchy.(1) The Russians lost the Russo-Japanese war and then Japan took over Korea more aggressively and ended the Korean monarchy. The Japanese assassinated Queen Min.(2)

The descendants of the monarchy settled in $outhern Korea and the United $tates. Now the United $tates guards $outhern Korea with 30,000 troops against–against Koreans and the historical notion of a joint Russian-Chinese invasion that would have left Japan facing communism in a strategic place.

Now the Koreans do not need help with guarding from the united $tates. They can blow themselves up along with the Amerikans on the peninsula in a matter of hours. So it would seem that Koreans have come a long way in the armed struggle, and one would presume independence.

That is why the endorsement of the North American Committee Against Zionism and Imperialism  (3) by Juche-oriented web pages seems all the more strange. One analyst put it this way:

“Nacazi is a transparent false flag operation intending to inject CIA configured neo-Nazism into the Left. We have to remember that it is not only the project of the CIA, et al, to attack the Left in militant ways but also, and on this occasion mainly, to lead the Left into extreme errors that cause irrepairable damage to our cause.”(4)

MIM’s guess was that this was a neo-Nazi front of Zionists trying to discredit MIM and Korea. CIA false flag operation is another good guess.

The very name of the organization is derivative of the word “Nazi.”

There is a theorist Julia Kristeva who one can almost hear saying: “MIM, MIM, MIM: I told you so. The only people you can recruit are these kinds of identity politics types, totalitarians–no scientists.”

Kristeva is factually correct, but only in the bought-off imperialist countries. The solution is to cut recruiting way, way back and focus on quality, while the main forces of anti-imperialism have their say in the Third World. 

A list of sites taken in by NACAZAI:

http://www.geocities.com/songunpoliticsstudygroup/

http://ndfsk.dyndns.org/kuguk8/pym/Nr0501-1/sol.htm

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:rnwd7VDvm1QJ:www.tongilkorea.net/%3Faction%3Dfullnews%26showcomments%3D1%26id%3D6204+%2BNacazai+%2BJuche&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=12&gl=us

www.freewebs.com/ruralmaoism

Koreans are better with weapons today, but there is still a hole in the politics. NACAZAI is proof that without politics in command, anything can happen.

Notes:

1.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Gwan_Pa_Cheon

2.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empress_Myeongseong_of_Korea

3.  www.nacazai.org/Digest11/communismjewishsupremacy.html

4. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/07/293401.shtml

What is original and what is not in MIM’s political economy 

Although MIM is known for original work on gender topics, the question of the labor aristocracy shocks but found expression by Lenin and Sultan-Galiev long before MIM. Sometimes controversy appears not from the concept but the application.

Hitler himself believed that parasitism goes beyond the capitalist class and so there is nothing all that exciting in putting out a vague concept that parasitism exists. The bourgeoisie can handle that. What it cannot handle is an accurate demarcation between exploiter and exploited that the exploited can use to rally themselves.

Recently, a patriotic youth website tried to criticize MIM for a statement on a discussion board by someone else who explicitly said MIM never signed off on the statement. It was a typically vacant criticism of MIM, that the concept of surplus-value is just that, a concept that MIM supposedly does not know.

The critic showed no evidence of having read any MIM Theory magazines on the topic. For the critic, Marx’s concept of surplus-value had only ideological significance, no question of scientific content to it. Bourgeois teachers often teach concepts in this manner, without showing the difficulties of application.

The contested essay in question was looking at global income, not to match a definition of surplus-value but to answer a question that applying the concept raises–which is how much surplus-value could there be and where is it going? The pro-MIM reader had gone beyond reading the concept of surplus-value and wanted to know what percentage of the world’s production is surplus-value? Such a question does not interest the workerists of identity politics. For them everything is a matter of what makes them feel good ideologically. They are pre-scientific.

MIM’s originality is mostly in trying to apply the concept of surplus-value since most are content to teach it and leave it on the drawing board. Instead MIM showed that we need to know how much new wealth there is in a year to understand the extent of various classes.

On the theoretical plane, MIM undertook one major innovation or revision depending on one’s point of view. That innovation was to say that  thus far in the imperialist era, socialist leaders are structurally capitalist. MIM called it “capitalist mediation” or “mediation by the capitalists.” This idea was not in Mao, who held that political and ideological line is decisive, but did not say that he and Stalin were “capitalist.”

Stalin and Mao kept their countries on the socialist road thanks to their own bourgeois scientific integrity and class pressure from below. The restoration of capitalism proves that as one might expect, relying on a state of mind for the advance of socialism is not a strong enough reed for the proletariat to lean on. When leaders such as Khruschev no longer wished to live in fear of repression by the proletariat, they simply rigged up capitalism via Liberalism for the leaders like themselves.

It was MIM that summed up that the grocery co-op movement, the kibbutz, council communism, the anti-globalization movement and Titoism all failed in their economistic goals of directly confronting the exploiters without capitalist mediation. What happens is that any successful proletarian leader in the imperialist era becomes capitalist at minimum and imperialist at the maximum. So the hippies put together their granola food co-operatives in hopes of opposing capitalism in some vague way and they ended up giving birth to the “Whole Foods” mega-corporation instead. The lies by anarchists, council communists and other ultra-democrats against scientific communists amount to denial that no one has managed to get beyond capitalist mediation of the class struggle.

The idea of capitalist mediation of class struggle occurs in Lenin, Sultan-Galiev and Mao, but not as explicitly as MIM has stated it. Mao’s Three World’s strategy in particular concedes that capitalist leaders end up leading the proletariat. MIM would say that any leader able to serve as glue to unite millions becomes powerful and therefore subject to imperialist bribery, regardless of line.

In his last years, Mao also took up discussion of the theory of productive forces, but it was MIM that tied it to the labor aristocracy question and capitalist development. Deng Xiaoping essentially believed that in his visit to France, the wealth he saw was the product of an attitude toward technology lacking in his own country, not super-exploitation. It was MIM that tied this back to the original Marx discussion of the theory of productive forces as actually applying to the advanced capitalist countries, not the developing countries such as China. Although Marx counted horses as forces of production, he derided the idea that the finding of packs of wild horses in nature or equivalent examples was the significant force driving forward the economy. Likewise, real upholders of the labor theory of value and Marx’s theory of surplus-value are not to be found saying that technology is class neutral or any kind of dynamic element by itself. Technology appears in capitalist accumulation and appears thus dynamic to some people used to improper “vivification” on behalf of bourgeois interests. The bourgeoisie has always justified its position because of its “smarts” and technology is one of them.

Mao was working on these issues as he was dying. He put forward the Three Worlds strategy to drill some reality into his comrades’ heads regarding the class content underlying global politics. Implicit in the Three Worlds strategy was a theory of capitalist mediation of class struggle in the imperialist era. At the same time, the Three Worlds strategy was not somehow separate from Mao’s attack on the theory of productive forces.

Drawing the connections among super-exploitation, Three Worlds strategy and the theory of productive forces is what makes MIM appear to be original. The Three Worlds strategy pointed people like Deng Xiaoping at the main global exploiters. Likewise, Mao tried to tell the world’s Deng Xiaoping’s that the origin of wealth was not class neutral, as in appreciation of technology or search-missions for natural resources. Mao instructed people that where they see wealth they saw exploitation too and he only did not go far enough with this point to tie in an accurate assessment of the global labor aristocracy. Yet an accurate appreciation of the labor aristocracy bolsters Mao’s Three World’s strategy and also uncovers the European roots of Mao’s concern with the economistic theory of productive forces.

The original MIM cell became imperialist, because MIM line was serving as enough glue to hold together the exploited that MIM line became dangerous. MIM was that successful and Mao was even more successful in achieving socialism while retaining his own class as capitalist, regardless of his own intentions. It was not up to him that the imperialists would find him worthy of bribery. That could only stop when imperialism had been taken down enough notches so that it no longer had the capability to buy off the leaders of the proletarian movement when it needed to.

Challenge to international readers failed

It is February 17, and that makes it official that MIM’s ETEXT-based cell is no longer seeking leadership of the people in the “RCP.” It also means that MIM has abandoned the field in a host of topics and now there is “MIM Lite” to replace it.

The two challenges that failed were:

1) That Russian imperialism admit covert operations against MIM at the tail-end of the Soviet Union’s existence. This challenge did in fact generate pressure from the masses, but it failed.

2) Disbandment of the world party RIM and public self-criticism by Avakian and Ely in connection to MIM as part of MIM reorganization of the “RCP” claiming to be Maoist.


MIM had embroiled itself in many controversies, so many that it was difficult for new people to access MIM line without detailed study. Liberal intellectuals corroded the atmosphere by going to the mass media with individual conflicts, when MIM has generally written for groups of millions and billions of people.

Hopes for resuming the offensive against imperialism center on detaching from people claiming to be our friends, people who are two-faced or more and people flattering us in secret. At any point in decades of time, a serious examination of white nationalism by a handful of people could have prevented the ridiculous situation where we are in now that people send us private flattery while leaving other impressions in public that give grist to the crackertopians seeking our death. In no way is the difficulty we face any different for bourgeois politicians and that itself is a signal that the masses cannot effectively exert pressure in this parasitic environment.

By refocus, we are hoping that some of our enemies will lose interest. We have conceded the Peoples’ Wars to the thin stratum of labor bureaucrats and similar people who seek Trotskyism. In particular, we cede to Bob Avakian, Mike Ely and anyone else leadership in connection to the Peoples’ Wars and imperialism. To do otherwise would be unaccountable and not scientifically clarifying for the people. MIM Lite will write no more on the Peoples Wars and that should satisfy the many workerists of identity politics seeking to use Third World exploitation for their own ends. In the past, MIM unaccountably allowed Trotskyists and labor bureaucrats to claim credit for the proletarian camp’s struggles.

In character for MIM, we at “MIM Lite” are going even further in writing off the Western communist movement. There are now only some interesting embers. MIM spent over 25 years trying to re-orient the communist movement, but the time it would take to unfuck the international communist movement is too great when we need to be able to turn on a dime and go on the offensive right now.

That is not to say that others will not continue to study the ETEXT MIM website, especially once we get the old MIM Theories up there. There may be those who try to regroup around the same principles and they may succeed with the original cell out of the way; although, our suspicion would be that running an ideological outfit is one thing, while countering spy agencies is another thing.

It is not Karl Marx’s fault that MIM was not in a position to unfuck the international communist movement. He deserved much better, but we have reached an ebb period during which time the masses will slowly chew on why MIM was correct. In a period of upsurge, we may see that the MIM website is taken up much more seriously with a greater fury of energy.

Welcome to MIM Lite, a blog to continue where the Maoist Internationalist Movement (1983-2008) left off.

We have cut back our topics of discussion in order to make this blog more accessible and carry out leftover tasks.

We gathered too many controversies at the old website for people to keep up with. That included giving out praise that was undeserved and receiving praise from false flatterers. Starting over regains control of the writing process.

  • One practical task we have left over is to find bookstores in the Third World that would like to receive our abundant stash of MIM Theory magazines left over.
  • We also need to defend past MIM website authors.

Other than that we have a few topics to discuss and we will probably cover some political economic theory.


Readers should know that MIM and MIM Lite are heavily monitored. WordPress.com keeps information on your IP address, which means that there could be an attempt to locate the computer of the reader of the MIM Lite site. There can also be attempts to track your location and web surfing habits. Finally, the state can infect your computer with a software that will not be detected to display you visually across the Internet. People should know more about security.