One of the obstinate labor aristocracy criticisms of MIM on the third cardinal principle is that income is not assets and Marxism is about control of the means of production, so therefore MIM’s analysis of so-called workers is wrong. This sort of argument is prevalent because of the ebb of the communist movement which has reduced the pool of possible leaders to draw from. These critics did not read what MIM actually said and also lack in many ways indicative of general communist problems today.

In the first place, in the real world, income and assets overlap. That is a factual matter and MIM Lite only regrets not stealing proprietary data when it had the chance to prove it in public. People experienced with social data would not really question this point, but our poorly attended communist movement does question it, as if the top 10% by income in the world were not mostly the same 10% holding the most assets.

The problem in our ranks is especially disconcerting because the leading section of imperialism, the finance capitalists know better. For the finance capitalists, income and assets are converted into each other all the time. Plebians can think about putting money in a certificate of deposit in a bank and obtaining an interest rate. If a capitalist puts $1 million in the bank certificate and the interest rate is 5% and inflation is 0%, then the capitalist receives $50,000 income a year for that certificate of deposit.

The finance capitalists have gone a step further, because they get used to forgetting about the initial $1 million and simply evaluating how much income comes in each year and figuring out what it would take to boost that income. So a typical business student learns concepts such as “present value,” while our would-be communists learn how to say, “the workers should have overthrown the Stalinists and instituted free pizza and beer.”

Here is an example from the Wikipedia about what business students might learn.

“Present value is the value on a given date of a future payment or series of future payments, discounted to reflect the time value of money and other factors such as investment risk. Present value calculations are widely used in business and economics to provide a means to compare cash flows at different times on a meaningful ‘like to like’ basis.”

That could be a difficult web page to read. However, if one can guarantee an income now and into the future, say $X payment every month for Y years, that figure can be converted into an asset a finance capitalist would be willing to exchange for right now. That figure is not $X times 12 times Y, but there is some figure such that a finance capitalist would be willing to exchange an asset now in order to obtain the steady income later. In other words, income flows are assets already in the minds of the finance capitalists.

MIM’s philistine critics dogmatically repeated something they read somewhere about how a worker making double what another worker makes might still be exploited, which is true. One worker could earn subsistence wages while another earns less than subsistence. A subsistence worker “eats” his income and would have nothing leftover to provide guaranteed income to anyone else.

Yet in the u.$. case, what we are usually handling is income above and beyond the means of subsistence–luxury goods and means of production. Year after year, the Amerikan petty-bourgeoisie enjoys a living standard above the means of subsistence and thus it is meaningful to covert its income into assets for calculation sake. In the finance capitalist’s world, whether those with income convert their income to assets in an actual market or not may be irrelevant. For proletarian theoretical purposes, we can also deduce that a steady flow of income IMPLIES social access to capital and can be calculated per business school procedures, the likes of which Wikipedia explains.

By looking at the income or cash flow of the Amerikan petty-bourgeoisie historically or into the future, we can, if we have to, calculate its implied assets. We can even do so after we subtract out income that really goes to subsistence. The remainder will be capital–the appropriation of labor from other countries’ labor. Sheer luxury consumption funded by collecting interest on a $1 million certificate of deposit and luxury consumption by the Amerikan population generally are the same thing in terms of the studies suggested by the labor theory of value.

MIM’s critics who simply make up their economic analyses in order to obtain 51% of voters–most likely for the Democratic Party or Labour in England–are bourgeois democrats. They are political analysts with no anchor in Marxist political economy.

Those who make up their economic analyses in order to flatter 90% of a country such as the united $tates are bourgeois populists.

Those who like Marx uphold the labor theory of value look at the cost of subsistence, luxury consumption and matters such as total profits. Marxist scientists will perform the calculations necessary to learn how much exploitation is happening or not happening. Marxism has nothing to do with bourgeois democratic or bourgeois populist political formulas unless capitalism has not fully established itself and the bourgeoisie is playing a progressive role.



March 26, 2008

There is a five page posting in a patriotic youth group on the Internet about apologizing to MIM. The responses will serve as excellent material for history. They demonstrate exactly how far out to lunch the left-wing of parasitism is and has been for several years. There is no prophylaxis at work, while even MIM Lite accepts that it is impossible to keep everyone in a patriotic youth group informed. The point is that protective concepts have to be formed and applied to keep the unconscious from anti-communism. In contrast, Michelle Malkin at least gives reasons for her attacks.
Now we have McCarthyism debated by Clinton and Obama camps: “‘I think given all we have heard and seen, he would not have been my pastor,’ Clinton said in a news conference in Greensburg, Pennsylvania.”(1) Hillary Clinton said this in connection to Obama’s pastor Wright. In saying that one cannot choose family but one can choose one’s pastor, Clinton echoes Michelle Malkin, who said it before her.
Bill Clinton kicked off a discussion of McCarthyism by indirectly questioning Obama’s patriotism. “Mr. Clinton, in a speech to voters on Friday in North Carolina, said ‘it would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country.'”(2) A retired Air Force general replied for Obama: “‘I was going to college when Joe McCarthy was accusing good Americans of being traitors,’ General McPeak said, ‘so I’ve had enough of it.'”(2) McPeak has probably done his share of travelling the world with the Air Force. Now we have a passport scandal in the news as well.(3) There are those who point out that Joe McCarthy was building his party and really believed in what he was doing. Bill Clinton is attacking Obama and revealing cynicism with his McCarthyism. CNN is calling the situation a discussion of “21st century McCarthyism.”
Especially now that there has been an all-volunteer military for over a generation, Amerikans can consider a Jeffersonian approach to patriotism. In that case, patriotism is just making sacrifices to engage in the public affairs of one’s country. Such a definition does not prejudge whether one should be in the minority or majority and nor does it hold that patriotism requires a willingness to die to kill people in other countries.In The Audacity of Hope, Barack Obama points to a survey that showed that 66% of Amerikans believed that Saddam Hussein had a direct role in 9/11. The fatuous left-wing of parasitism is inclined to believe that such results are on account of poverty’s leading to a lack of political education. MIM believes the opposite that the situation stems from economic well-being which leads to carefree existence but also an occasional willingness to cover for one’s leaders and to invent vicious reasons covering for their actions–a whiteness solidarity.
Unlike Obama, we at MIM do not love the 66%. Of course, the mentally retarded should be excused, but taking such an approach to the 66% is unnecessarily elitist in its own way. Such a love of country is not love in our book, just condescension. The Amerikans knew they might be just covering for Bush in coming up with justifications to start the Iraq War. It is only now that they see the results–after the fact–that we see polls running in other directions. So if loving the 66% is a requirement of patriotism, MIM is not patriotic. We have seen evidence time and time again that the majority can be consciously and unlovably vicious. If one would not love a boyfriend or girlfriend who made up stories to carry out mass murder, then one should not love the 66% who made up stories about Saddam Hussein.The fact is that there was no one with any discernment in the patriotic youth group spreading private information about MIM over a period of many years. It readily sided with the imperialist state against MIM again and again and ended up comparing unfavorably with many in the state itself not 100% enthralled with either Clinton or Bush, especially once they discovered that neither Clinton nor Bush could 100% protect them.On a related note, a “counterterrorism blog” has already compared the McCarthyism situation to Watergate. The blogger said that Deep Throat should have appealed to the “Left” for help. Deep Throat was a source in the Watergate stories that brought down Nixon. The counterterrorism blog says that once FBI leaders realized they were on questionable legal ground, they started playing both sides–Nixon’s and that of his opponents.This is unfortunately a point well beyond our would-be “Left.” There would not be five people anywhere who would understand it in the activist groups. Moreover, when Putin or his underlings talk about “counterterrorism cooperation” and “continuity” there is no one here outside the state to understand what he is talking about. We would tell our counterterrorism blogger that there is nothing to worry about because there is no “Left.” What there is is a bunch of people unable to reason independently from the state, unable to stand by themselves and unable to contribute anything except regurgitation of the state–except with their own racist pornographic modifications and axes to grind thrown in. With a would-be “Left” easily bought off with trinkets, there is only Deep Throat, nothing else. It were as if there did not have to be a Democratic Party office to break into in Watergate.To obtain an apology from MIM’s Internet critics would be pointless, because the same thing would happen again, if not to MIM, then to future communists. A meaningful apology would have to come with a policy against using the good ole’ boys’ network, and that is not going to happen in a white nationalist Internet organization. Clinton may be the one offering the theory right now, but patriotic youth groups will be delivering the practice as they have in the last several years.The accusations levelled over years by leaders of the patriotic youth association against MIM stem from myopic pragmatism. The hope is to hurl enough charges of an uninvestigated nature that some stick. If sufficiently embarrassed, the pragmatists then apologize but only for an individual instance. To do otherwise would require a method in
one’s madness and that is not possible for the pragmatist Liberals. The inability to reason from ideological principle and the inability to put facts in scientific categories are the same underlying problem. One unable to reason from ideological principle is also unable to see the point of scientific endeavor. For pre-scientific people there is only the case-by-case approach.

Both the patriotic youth group and the astrological patriotic
association would have been better off following MIM orders. They have ended up as crude tools of Bush and Clinton. That’s a tough concept to swallow with Leninism so unpopular in the imperialist countries. On the other hand, it will also be tough to swallow how little evidence there is for a “Left” in the imperialist countries if certain MIM struggles are examined carefully.

It is imperative to dispense with ultra-democratic and pseudo-
anarchist ideas that the leaders are abusing followers even before the
leaders have state power. Quite the contrary, the “live wires” always
attract a disproportionate response from the state. Lenin got that
right and the bourgeois Liberalism masquerading as some kind of
radicalism, whether anarchist, ultra-democratic or other exotic “ism”
got it wrong. Getting it wrong is not just academic but leads directly
to counterrevolutionary activity. If the patriotic youth group had any
integrity, it would admit that. The lack of ability to discuss that
point proves again why MIM’s emphasis on quality and raising the bar
is correct. It is unfortunate that Lenin is correct, but he is correct.
If he were not correct, the anarchists and ultra-left would have already
mobilized the “masses” to rebuff the new Watergate and McCarthyism. Their lack of accurate understanding of the strategic balance of forces ends up delivering youth to militant anti-communist tendencies.

Unfavorable comparisons between a would-be “Left” and Deep Throats arise because MIM’s third cardinal principle is correct in spectacular fashion. What would be a “Left” is really just a pornographic transmission belt for the imperialist state.

4. “Of Telecoms, and “Twisting Slowly, Slowly in the Wind”: Watergate Reprised,” By Jeffrey Breinholt,

The first paragraph of this article is factually false, because FISA does spell out exactly that authority for spying on Amerikans does not exist elsewhere. However, the article is mostly about analogies to Watergate in the current day and is thus useful.

[I apologize for the formatting problems in this article over the last few days, problems which seem to change without my doing anything. MIM Lite is unfamiliar with formatting at this time, but we will get up to speed eventually.]

Obama’s race speech

March 19, 2008

Only 8% of the public approves of Barack Obama’s pastor,(1) Jeremiah Wright, who has made some remarks in favor of the oppressed and exploited globally. Wright has at least on occasion taken strong stands against racism and chauvinism, stands that Obama has now condemned in a speech on race.

Obama’s speech is an excellent marker for all political activists inside U.$. borders. After all the analysis and theoretical argument, in the end, it comes down to that Obama cannot win with 8%. As a result, all of Obama’s arguments match almost to a “t” the arguments of the left-wing of parasitism opposing MIM over 25 years.

Former Clinton consultant Dick Morris hit the nail on the head: “Because he’s a black Chicago politician who comes from a mixed marriage and went to Columbia and Harvard. Suspected of not being black enough or sufficiently tied to the minority community, he needed the networking opportunities Wright afforded him in his church to get elected. If he had not risen to the top of Chicago black politics, we would never have heard of him. . . . Americans will gradually realize that Obama stuck by Wright as part of a need to get ahead. They will chalk up to pragmatism why he was so close to such a preacher. As they come to realize that Obama doesn’t agree with Wright but used him to get started, they will be more forgiving.”(2)

MIM Lite appreciates this statement from Morris very much, because it explains to the international proletariat the political reality that is only the expression of class reality in the united $tates. Stand with the oppressed and international proletariat like Wright and obtain 8% support. To win an election, one must ally with another 43 percentage points somewhere, and that is why Obama took up the outlook of the Black petty-bourgeoisie and also the white petty-bourgeoisie in opposition to Wright. Obama has to use the 8% to accomplish the goals of Amerikan exploiters. The 8% is actually much more in line with international public opinion, but that won’t win an election and so the left-wing of parasitism does the Obama two-step.

72% disapprove of Pastor Wright. Realistically 40 of those 72 percentage points are probably going to vote for McCain no matter what. So the only question is whether the other 32 percentage points decide to prioritize negative feelings about Wright. They will have to decide on Obama as a package deal.

By adopting the outlook of the Black petty-bourgeoisie, Obama can take up Pollyanish patriotism. By increased exploitation of the rest of the world, the united $tates did improve the position of the Black petty-bourgeoisie, which even resents the Black lumpen at times.

MIM Lite has a different outlook. For us, U.$. imperialism IS dynamic– dynamically moribund, dynamically decadent and dynamically militarist. We can see a ten-fold increase in Black imprisonment while we fantasize about Black petty-bourgeois progress since Jim Crow days. Even better, the united $tates has gone from using axes and muskets to murder indigenous people to using nuclear weapons against Japan in 1945. That is dynamic, not static.

The other road is Obama’s. The left-wing of parasitism should read his speech carefully and answer honestly why we need their pseudo-Marxism when we already have Democrats. It takes no great Marxist science to know that 8% cannot win an election. On the other hand, Gore needed every vote in 2000 and Obama has to deliver something to that 8% also. However, we do not need Marxist internationalism to do that. All it takes is the Democratic Party–no need for the other organizations claiming Marxism.



Over a million workers toting AK-47s in the air surrounded the U.S. Congress the night of March 13. The House of Representatives met in its fifth secret session in history in a tense atmosphere to discuss its response. The last secret session was 25 years ago.

An astrologist exhorting the crowd said, “things really started clicking when we removed the hammer and sickle from our newspaper logo.” Citizens sporting captured makeshift tanks from local police departments flanked and guarded celebrating revolutionaries on foot in the streets of DC.

“Once we blew past the locals with their more educated use of weapons against us, it was a relatively easy task to overpower the 50 million security guards of McJihad Inc. securing the Capitol,” added the astrologist, Jeb Bunker. “The 50 million guards from Pakistan reinforcing the Congress did not have a high cost of reproduction of their labor-power,” he added.

Although Jeb Bunker’s speeches drew the largest crowds in the uprising, not all were content. “We dropped the hammer and sickle for a different reason,” said one disgruntled Jeb Bunker follower  who now stresses the “mass line.” “Now we use the water cooler to replace the hammer and the coconut tree to replace the sickle, as our contribution to the application of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in the United States,” he added. However, a careful examination of the rebel faction’s literature shows that the logo is a topless Paris Hilton leaning on a water cooler with a bubble quote, “I get tired after proving it all night!” Underneath is the slogan “abortion free and on demand!”

Priscilla Prissy addressed the condition of females further, “I get tired of the MIM people always talking about the low morals of our females. That’s why it was so key to focus the fire on the backward wimmin of Iran and Afghanistan this International Wimmin’s Day,” Prissy said. “Jeb Bush’s speeches make me feel so good about myself after cheating on my boyfriend, slipping a laxative in my romantic competitor’s coffee and accusing my quota of minorities of rape,” she added. “It’s not that we are decadent here. It’s that they are so backward in the Islamic countries and the MIM just doesn’t get it, because they’re old white men not in tune with what young Maoists of America think today.”

From Nepal, Communist Party (Maoist) leader Prachanda hailed the developments: “Clearly, the line of the world party has been proven correct, particularly International Wimmin’s Day preparations.” “It was the timely aid to the occupation of Afghanistan that drew the best troops away from Washington, DC and allowed the rebellion to proceed relatively unmolested,” he said. “With our provocative statements supporting them, we lured the enemy deep into our territory, and exploited Americans needing refreshment at the water cooler did the rest.”

Not everyone in the crowd was a new face. Bill Clinton was in the ranks of the revolutionaries: “Our health care plan covers everybody! Know the Clintons. Love the Clintons and you will get a job!” A rank-and-file member of the Prison Guards Union Charles Graner agreed, “the thing about the MIM line is that it is all talk, nothing concrete for us.” Graner passed out business cards to cheerful passers-by.

Rumors surfaced that Barack Obama was also on the scene, but MIM Lite reporters were unable to confirm the veracity of those reports. Nonetheless, marching demonstrators chanted “change comes from below.”

A stand-off between Black supporters of Obama and other factions ended peacefully. “The profits of the telecoms are obscene,” said Bubba Bunker. “We and the Obama supporters realized we have to unite against the MIM line, on behalf of the real masses and against McJihad Inc.,” he said.

Supporters of the Obama faction and others attended an impromptu Bruce Springsteen concert on the street. “By rallying our base in the American flag-waving Bruce Springsteen fans, we were able to defeat the 50 million McJihad Inc.  guards reinforcing Congress’s security perimeter. However, now we must have vigilance against further reinforcements from Palestine, Syria, Iran and Indonesia to finally defeat the greedy condom companies raising the cost of living!” said Jeb Bunker.


The Communist Party of India(Maoist) has rightly called on imperialist country communists to get concrete in applying their Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Specifically they have called for an explanation how the imperialist countries moved so lop-sidedly to services in the occupational structure.

To this day, the Wang Ming-style dogmatists cannot grasp the difference between their wishes and concrete analysis. Some are saying having the concept of labor aristocracy is good enough; however, applying it means answering how much of the population is labor aristocracy.

Others have not attempted to answer the quantity of super-profits or super-exploitation in the imperialist countries. That too is a question of application.

At this time, the “Communist Party of Nepal(Maoist)” continues to support a world party without concrete answers to these questions, when MIM has asked that that world party dissolve in accordance with the teachings of Stalin and Mao, who dissolved the Comintern world party in their day. Entirely new websites continue to arise to support vague concepts but translated into numerous languages, thus replicating Wang Ming’s and Trotsky’s approach completely. They add nothing new but re-packaging.

At this time, only the MIM actually answered concrete questions about imperialist country political economy. The others obstinately sidestepped these questions with the hope of sustaining themselves in prestige connected to translation of universal concepts. They hoped that if their websites explained concepts such as “mass line” or “labor aristocracy” and translated them or used organizations from various countries, the prestige would carry them along. There would be no need for explaining what percentage of the population is “masses” by Marxist-Leninist-Maoists definitions.

The Communist Party of India(Maoist) objects to the idea of appending “X Thought” to Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. Their reasoning behind that is correct. Others believe that the concrete is concentrated in the “X Thought,” when in fact there is “no Marxism that is not concrete.” So the approach of various dogmatists ready for co-optation by Wang Ming and Trotskyist line say that there is Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-MIM Thought, but only the suffix contains anything concrete. In this way they justified creating a world party based in a “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism” with nothing concrete to it.

At the very least MIM trashed that approach by showing that Mao’s struggle against Deng Xiaoping on the “theory of productive forces” echoes again and again in questions ranging from exiles to the role of technology in imperialist wages. We still live in the same basic world as Mao did, so how are we going to say that things like the “restoration of capitalism” or “theory of productive forces” or “economism” do not continue to exist today?

By pointing out this problem of concentrating the concrete analysis in a “X Thought” appendage, the Communist Party of India(Maoist) strikes a blow against the formation of a world party. After all, Deng Xiaoping yelled Marxism-Leninism-Mao Zedong Thought to the top of his lungs too. If that is all he has to do to be in the world party, we are in trouble as a communist movement.

The real communist organizations should check on each other as to the effort they make in applying Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. It is a sad fact that since the 1980s we have had a shortage of people able to do that in the imperialist countries, despite Mao’s concrete example of battle against Wang Ming. This truth should not be denied with generalities about masses of white workers about to rise up at any minute. In fact, there is not even the critical mass of intellectuals present to build parties with a concrete understanding challenging MIM’s. That is part of the truth of the balance of forces in the imperialist countries. We urge our international comrades not to hold their breath for explanations that are not coming and have not been coming for decades. MIM’s opponents fundamentally do not demarcate from Wang Ming and Trotsky and see no need for concrete application of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism.

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.