Re-opening a purge case

March 25, 2008

I have it from two sources that I want to believe that MIM overstated its case against a liaison MIM purged. Hence, I will restate the case leaving out the false parts.

1) The comrade refused a particular assignment which she knew was grounds for purging, so she wanted to be purged on some level and in refusing the task specifically said she did “not trust” the leadership.

2) The comrade was suspected of planning a quick and unauthorized departure from her cell anyway.

3) Soon after the purge, MIM learned that she had provided false identification to the party and never corrected it over years.

4) We suspect but would have difficulty proving in an absolutely clear way that she released a unique piece of information about the party created for her benefit.

As one can imagine, point 3 led to false charges against the liaison.

Scuttlebutt received back says that the leadership had “persynal” reasons to placate another comrade in conflict with the liaison, and thus the purge. This has to do with the general lack of method among Amerikans in their thinking, because they prefer pragmatist empiricism to method. The easier course would have been to keep the comrade around–less boil, bubble, toil and trouble–but then the same variations of Liberal wags would have said MIM did that also for persynal reasons of a more classic sort. So no matter what was done, purge or not purge, we can be sure that the pragmatist empiricists would have generated bullshit psychological reasons for why it happened.

That’s why it is important to form policy based on theory and a general factual knowledge of populations and stick to policy. People who always do after the fact (post-hoc) justification on an individual basis are absolutely the worst. In MIM’s experience, thanks to the influence of pseudo-anarchism, ultra-democracy and bourgeois Liberalism there is no where in the united $tates a leadership capable of doing that much–formulating policy in a scientific fashion.

In point of post-hoc, psychological fact, the comrade in conflict with the liaison provided a relative defense of the liaison. However, when one is so pseudo-anarchist by habit that one provides false information to the party, one cannot expect not to be highly suspected.

That said, in the overall picture, the liaison case is absolutely one of the bright spots if reports are true, despite a total lack of Leninism. Nonetheless, we claim credit for having made the right decision.

“Bad-jacketing” someone not in an armed struggle who has so many strikes against her otherwise is a sort of overkill concern. In this case, when she was purged, the “colossal toilet bowl” had already filled with water and flushed once completely. The liaison was not aware of that fact, but “trust” was going to have to be in infinite supply. So we have not just a post-hoc individualist justification for the purge, but also another policy concern specific to the struggles of that time and Leninism generally.

The comrade in question did display a nagging sense that she was wrong and that the party needed greater help. And as we say, if reports are true, then she was truly a relative bright spot compared with other things that happened in the MIM picture. For us, that is a vindication of the purge; although, it would be interesting to hear her side of it. There was no intermediate stage possible where say people learn to trust each other under fire at the barricades or in a trade union march sniped on by police. Hence, purge was the right decision.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: