MIM: "All Sex Is Rape"

[Warren Peace]

I've been posting on IRTR (It's Right to Rebel), the forum for MIM (Maoist Internationalist Movement). I'm way more anti-authoritarian than most of the people there.

I really haven't been getting along with anyone very well, so obviously I'm slandered as being "dogmatic", when they are the ones who think "MIM thought", their ideology, or "line" as they like to call it, is so superior that they would rather fight other revolutionaries than the reactionaries. ;)

In this thread (http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=basi&action=display&thread=1123131738) about how MIM thinks all sex is rape, :wacko: I finally lost my patience and started ranting. What's funny is that Mao had sex with at least three women. Even according to themselves, the m&ms aren't really Maoists, they're "MIMists" who follow "Marxism-Leninism-Maoism-MIMism". :blink: As if there isn't already enough crap, sorry I mean "extensions", layered on Marxism. I was totally swamped by m&m fanatics. Some help from my comrades here would be cool.

[Red Heretic]

It is important to note that MIM is in direct contradiction with the teachings of Mao Tse Tung, especially his analysis of the class contradictions in the USA. I can elaborate more on this if anyone is interested.

Either way, if I'm not mistaken, their "all sex is rape" statement refers to sex under this system. It acknowledges that under a system in which men dominate women, all women are at least to some degree being put into a position of subordinance while having sex under this system.

As far as I know, this statement does not mean "abolish sex" or that people shouldn't have sex under capitalism (EDIT: Err, I was wrong, MIM is even crazier than I though), but that they should strive for a system in which sexuality can be developed in a way that does not lead to the domination of the woman, and is not developed for economic factors (ie. many women only marry men because it is the only way they can escape poverty).

The statement is actually true to a degree. This system of male chauvanism dominates and inflitrates every relationship that takes place within its bounds. However, MIM has a way with being very dogmatic and obnoxious when putting their ideas forward so I'm not surprised you would be alienated by this statement (or MIM in general).

[RedAnarchist]

What about sex where each person, regardless of sex, is pleasured equally?

[wet blanket]

I'm sure it all just depends on the position.... Cowgirl(girl-on-top) would be OK, but doggy-style would be out of the question for an MIM gal. :lol:

[Dark Exodus]

They seem out of the ordinary, time to join their forum.

With logic and/or sarcasm as my sword and logic and/or apathy as my shield!

[Decolonize The Left]

I already post in 3 forums, so I won't join this one. But I'll give you a simple question to ask these people:
"So since all sex is rape, I assume you all are refusing to have sex until society changes, correct?"
This should shut them up. Or they will provide an elaborate description of why the sex they have is not rape, in which case you can simply quote their own previous arguments.

-- August

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 13 2005, 10:16 PM
What about sex where each person, regardless of sex, is pleasured equally?
The arguement in which MIM is making is that there are outside factors that effect all sexual intercourse. There are economic, social, cultural, etc. factors that cause all sexuality in this system to be based on compulsion.

"Rape" is probably the wrong word, but then again, it's not surprising they use this word since MIM is known for butchering language in a dogmatic and obnoxious way.

[Warren Peace]

Thanks.


It is important to note that MIM is in direct contradiction with the teachings of Mao Tse Tung, especially his analysis of the class contradictions in the USA. I can elaborate more on this if anyone is interested.

I agree, MIM thinks all American workers are imperialists and "labor aristocrats". Maoism isn't exactly the best, but the m&ms are even worse.

[redstar2000]

You will need great patience (and a strong stomach) to participate at MIM's board...they are as personally abusive in debate as anything I've seen anywhere.

Their line on sexuality is extremely "Platonic" -- they say "all sex is rape" but they mean that it's not really rape rape.

Moreover, they have a very peculiar "take" on the distinction between biological sex and gender...in their view, biological males and biological females in the "west" are both "gendered males". And when they have consensual sex with each other, they are actually "raping each other". (!)

I'm not making that up...that's really what they say. :o

In case you haven't seen it yet, be sure and read the ultimate MIM thread...

One Big Gulag (http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=MarxtoMaoandbeyond&action=display&thread=1119615914)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 04:24 AM

One Big Gulag (http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=MarxtoMaoandbeyond&action=display&thread=1119615914)
Oh my fucking god.....

[Warren Peace]

You will need great patience (and a strong stomach) to participate at MIM's board...they are as personally abusive in debate as anything I've seen anywhere.

You have no idea, man. Here's some stuff MIM followers have said to me on IRTR.

"This should tell you something about anarchism it's loosey goosey and you can put anything into it from neo-fascist libertarians, to pacifist libertarians, to focoist idiots, to pacifists."

"It is only men (i&#39;m talking gender not biology here) that get nervous when we talk about homosexuality or <gasp> celibacy."

"The only consistent anarchism is pacificism."

"Is there a point to your rant? Let me try to find one. You are being naive."

"Please show me how your version of MLM is more explanatory than MIM&#39;s line, and I will join your proletarian pole of ONE."

"OK, if that&#39;s your definition of rape then maybe men are on the right track. Keep getting them while they&#39;re young and beating and raping their identity into them. The problem is that this only happens to about half the little girls (according to the best statistics). If only we could institutionalize it, so that every girl by the age of 12 knows that she exists to be a sex machine. Then we&#39;ll never have anyone claiming they were raped."

"And if it did, pigs like you would be online doing &#39;whois&#39; all day to figure out who owned and ran it."

Wait.. what&#39;s a whoi?

"Uh, basically you don&#39;t know what the f*ck you&#39;re talking about. "

"Your argument is not just with MIM, it is with Marx, Engels, Lenin and also Stalin. Your argument is with MLM as a whole."

"We look at things scientifically, that is how Maoists come to conclusions. You don&#39;t. You basically want to make up an ideology to fit your preconceived notion of what the world must look like."

"This is laughable. "

"Maoists follow science. Like you, cults follow dogma. "


One Big Gulag (http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=MarxtoMaoandbeyond&action=display&thread=1119615914)

I don&#39;t think even Stalin was that authoritarian. Hell, even Hitler wasn&#39;t that authoritarian.


What will socialism look like in Amerikkka?

Will it look like Prairiefire&#39;s "One Big Gulag"?

Those bastards, do they even know what socialism is? The people have to control the industry through democracy. These m&ms don&#39;t even pretend to support democracy, they just come out and call their goal what it is: "One Bug Gulag".


Yes, One Big Gulag is sharply opposed to the RCP=U&#036;A line that much is obvious. People interested in their vision can go look the new RCP=U&#036;A program.

That&#39;s because, as authoritarian as the RCP is, they support democracy instead of slavery. To any intellegent person, that statement is support and advertisement of the RCP.

The m&ms are really calling themselves part of the class enemy. The idea that someone is a class enemy because they are born into an imperialist country is crazy&#33; MIM thinks they are somehow the exception to the rule.

[Decolonize The Left]

Yeah I read some of the posts there. Who are those people? And what the fuck are they talking about? Do they believe that shit?

When the revolution comes, I hope their on the other end.

-- August

[Hiero]

If you want to start a discussion about MIM and its forum, then create a new thread and i will gladly join.

[Red Heretic]

Here&#39;s what Mao had to say about this kind of dogmatic line:


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, farmers, revolutionary intellectuals and other enlightened persons who comprise the overwhelming majority of the white people.

"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.*

[Decolonize The Left]

I don&#39;t understand. Can someone explain who the fuck these people are in this other forum? And why they talk about such ridiculous shit like giant gulags?

-- August

[Red Heretic]

MIM is a phoney Maoist cult with a line that resembles to Khmer Rouge. They have taken Mao&#39;s analysis that class contradictions are the sharpest in the third world because of imperialism, and extended it so that they believe that all people in the first world are the enemy.

They oppose the RCP (the Maoist party in this country) for trying to liberate a first world country, as they say it is impossible, and that instead all Americans should be put into a giant gulag.

Their line is very much like that of the Khmer Rouge, especially when the Khmer Rouge said that all people who lived in the cities were parasites and put them into camps. They hold an extended version of the Khmer Rouge&#39;s ideology on the entire whole of the American people.

[Red Heretic]

The horrors of MIM&#39;s line can best be summed up here:


The One Big Gulag Vision stems from the obvious truth that Amerikkkans as a whole are the class enemy. I think it is an honest look at what needs to happen. I am very opposed to Avakian’s Trotskyism.

Amerikkka will be literally occupied my a military force of the proletariat. Adult Amerikkkans will be re-educated and forced to work in productive labor. Their labor will be sent elsewhere for some time, maybe a generation. Perhaps Amerikkkans will be sent elsewhere to work, sent to the third world.

Most luxuries will not be produced.

Amerikkkans will not be allowed to criticize or organize against the occupation. They will not have anything like China’s GPRC. These bourgeoisie and labor aristocrat forces will not be given the chance to organize. They will resist and will punished and put down militarily if need be. We are up against years of reactionary social programming and a very powerful bourgeois culture. It is not going to be easy reforming these people.

The system will be very “commandist“ in appearance. For the most part Amerikkkans will be told what to do and how to think by the occupation forces. This is going to be a dictatorship and it will tell them what to do and think until they shape up and get with the program.

This vision may not be pretty, but this is how it will look. It’ll be “One Big Gulag”, a giant re-education/work camp.

[Decolonize The Left]

I highly doubt that all these people, with their access to computers and the internet, and their education in the english language, are from third world countries deep in poverty.
They are probably people just like you and I, and so they are advocating their own enslavement. Poor bastards.

Well then, they will be on the other side. Though I won&#39;t feel sorry for fighting them.

-- August

[Red Heretic]

They are all Americans. MIM is a small group of nerds in the Bay Area.

[Decolonize The Left]

Haha, what a bunch of hypocrits...

I wonder why they don&#39;t realize they are insulting themselves, and if they get their way, condeming themselves to slavery?

-- August

[Dark Exodus]

One Big Gulag

Well thats me gone. I lasted a good few hours.

[Decolonize The Left]

What happened Dark? Why so quickly?

-- August

[Dark Exodus]

Anyone that subscribes to that is not worth talking sense into.
It also very slightly disturbing to have someone tell you that a human being has no sex-drive.

[Decolonize The Left]

Indeed, some people are out of reach. It&#39;s a shame really. They are the very people the are condeming...

-- August

[Black Dagger]

"The only consistent anarchism is pacificism."

Erm, they seemed to have got that &#39;wrong&#39;, although i&#39;m sure it was intentional. This is a common anarchist criticism of so-called pacifists. That is, if one really opposed all forms of violence, that should also entail an opposition to, capitalism- and the violence of poverty, war and so forth that it creates, and an opposition to the state, as an organ of organised and legitimised violence.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 12:24 AM
You will need great patience (and a strong stomach) to participate at MIM&#39;s board...they are as personally abusive in debate as anything I&#39;ve seen anywhere.

Their line on sexuality is extremely "Platonic" -- they say "all sex is rape" but they mean that it&#39;s not really rape rape.

Moreover, they have a very peculiar "take" on the distinction between biological sex and gender...in their view, biological males and biological females in the "west" are both "gendered males". And when they have consensual sex with each other, they are actually "raping each other". (&#33;)

I&#39;m not making that up...that&#39;s really what they say. :o

In case you haven&#39;t seen it yet, be sure and read the ultimate MIM thread...

One Big Gulag (http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=MarxtoMaoandbeyond&action=display&thread=1119615914)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif
Yeah I saw that thats fucked up. :blink:

[bolshevik butcher]

These guys make the maoist and stlainists here look like libertairans&#33;

[scon]

I&#39;ve come across their newspaper "MIM Notes" a few times and I always assumed one person wrote the whole thing. I also wondered if there was only one person in MIM.

I can&#39;t remember if it&#39;s their paper, or the Sparts Workers Vanguard but there is a letter section that seems entirely made up. Every letter praises the paper for it&#39;s article on whatever and is written in the same kind of style. And every letter is written by "Redstudent" or "Commie Soldier" or something.

MIM notes is also one of the hardest to read of the left papers I&#39;ve seen. Apart from the spelling mistakes, many articles are run on sentences that cover dozens of topics that have nothing to do with the title of the article. One issue I saw must have been messed up at the printing press because every place there should have been the letter "I" there was "@&#33;&#036;&%" or some other weird symbols. Ugh.

The funniest thing is that they talk about putting people into reeducation camps in their newspaper. I guess they want to be honest about their policies but talking about that publicly also guarantees they&#39;ll never win.

[Decolonize The Left]

I wouldn&#39;t be suprised, scon. Their posts are hard enough to read, what with spelling mistakes and all, not to mention they just seem to reassure the previous post in the original posts statement. I doubt much actual productive discussion happens there at all. Pity.

By the way, welcome to the forum. Just noticed that was your first post. Hope you enjoy it.

-- August

[Warren Peace]

If you want to start a discussion about MIM and its forum, then create a new thread and i will gladly join.

This is a discussion about MIM and it&#39;s forum.

That almost sounds like the evasive tactic MIM uses on their forum. Let’s say I’m in a thread about MIM’s view that humans have no sex drive, and I mention how MIM thinks all American workers are imperialist "labor aristocrats”. Instead of countering my argument, the m&ms will wave it all off by saying “If you think MIM’s line on labor aristocracy is wrong, create a new thread and we will talk about it”.

Come on Hiero; don’t tell me you support that “One Big Gulag” shit. You’re better than that, all socialists are. There is no way even Stalin would have supported enslaving an entire nation of people, only Nazis comes close to being that bad.


MIM is a small group of nerds in the Bay Area.

Now we know why they&#39;re into celibacy- they never get girls&#33; :lol:

They always avoid saying they are Americans by saying that questions about nationality are "pig questions".

[Decolonize The Left]

Yeah I know, I read their responses involving the "pig question" line. Pretty weak if you ask me. All you have to do is look at where they are, and online-internet forum in english. This means they have personal computer access and access to the internet as well as proficiency (to some degree) in the english language. That alone should put them in the catagory of the people they want to enslave... hypocrits.

-- August

[Hiero]

If you think MIM’s line on labor aristocracy is wrong, create a new thread and we will talk about it”.

Heaven forbid that they try to keep their forum tidy. Forums get untidy if the subject keeps changing in the thread. I was expecting this thread to be about the topic of all sex is rape.


Come on Hiero; don’t tell me you support that “One Big Gulag” shit.

Remember "Gulags" are just labour and education camps. They would be greatly improved since the days of their introduction in the USSR.

The theory has some basis as it is true that when 3rd world is liberated the US will lose alot of its standard of living and alot of its luxuries. I believe this will cause a similar effect that a herion addict experinces when they have their drugs taken away.

[bolshevik butcher]

Remember "Gulags" are just labour and education camps. They would be greatly improved since the days of their introduction in the USSR.

Tell your average glaugs prisoner that.

[h&s]

Come on Hiero; don’t tell me you support that “One Big Gulag” shit.



Remember "Gulags" are just labour and education camps. They would be greatly improved since the days of their introduction in the USSR.

The theory has some basis as it is true that when 3rd world is liberated the US will lose alot of its standard of living and alot of its luxuries. I believe this will cause a similar effect that a herion addict experinces when they have their drugs taken away.

They are FORCED labour and education camps - SLAVE camps.
And don&#39;t even try to claim that the American working class deserve that.

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by redstar2000+Aug 14 2005, 04:24 AM--> (redstar2000 &#064; Aug 14 2005, 04:24 AM)One Big Gulag (http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=MarxtoMaoandbeyond&action=display&thread=1119615914)[/b]
Holy fucking shit&#33; :o :blink:


Hiero
The theory has some basis as it is true that when 3rd world is liberated the US will lose alot of its standard of living and alot of its luxuries. I believe this will cause a similar effect that a herion addict experinces when they have their drugs taken away.

Interesting how promised but non-existant "theories" can turn a "leftist" into an ignorant individual.

Luxuries you talk about are "addictions" of the higher class which is a small minority.

Once proletariat takes economy, production, suply and share into its control - life standard can only go higher. Anywhere&#33;
Needs of the masses are the soul minimum which is herited from a prior (capitalist) standard. Once modes of production have changed, even that minimum line automaticly will go up.

If basic needs = average contemporary standard of society, once you remove the labor that creates the surplus value and the surplus value itself - these needs can be satisfied very easily, with very litle used labor.
If you put together: needs satisfaction labor + huge unused amount of reserve labor (the unemployed mass), then this all = increase of average standard.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 11:04 AM
The theory has some basis as it is true that when 3rd world is liberated the US will lose alot of its standard of living and alot of its luxuries. I believe this will cause a similar effect that a herion addict experinces when they have their drugs taken away.
Which will mean that the American proletariat will take state power in the USA, not that the USA should be invaded and have it&#39;s entire population put into a forced labor camp, jesus christ.

Maoists oppose the forcing of socialism onto a people from above. We hold that socialism can only come from the masses themselves. Therefore, the kind of imperialist line that MIM is NOT Maoism.

Like I have said already, they most resemble the Khmer Rouge.

[romanm]

Now we know why they&#39;re into celibacy- they never get girls&#33;

get girls? If there ever was a poster child for why activists should adopt the all sex is rape line, it is you.

As far as keeping threads on topic. There are about 10 threads on the labor aristocracy already on the Maoist forum. In fact, there is a whole board basically dedicated to the question, the economics board: http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=math

So, crying that you are restricted from discussing the topic is an outright lie. In fact, in the economics forum, even guests can post.

The Maoist forum keeps threads on topics and enforces its rules. It is one of the reasons serious people, even those who disagree with Maoism, post to and read the Maoist forum.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 03:09 PM
on the Maoist forum
I really fucking hate it when he says that.

[romanm]

It&#39;s interesting to see how the liberals and trotskyists all take the same line in attacking Stalin&#39;s gulags and Mao&#39;s reeducation camps (both mentioned in the OBG thread) as houses of horrors. Typical Trotskyism.

[El-Bortukali]

So sex is wrong?:o damn those hippies and they&#39;r free rape&#33;


Now more seriously, this MIM shit sounds like pure old bullshit... I mean, they really believe in a big proletarian army invading North America? Sending adults to re/education programs and shit like that? i mean, how will we be heard or at least understood if there is always someone talking about gulags and sending adults to re-education programs? and they want to be taken seriously.... :D pfffffff

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 15 2005, 03:19 PM
It&#39;s interesting to see how the liberals and trotskyists all take the same line in attacking Stalin&#39;s gulags and Mao&#39;s reeducation camps (both mentioned in the OBG thread) as houses of horrors. Typical Trotskyism.
I have seen no where here where anyone has comdemned reeducation for the former bourgeoisie, but what HAS been condemn here is the line that MIM is taking in which:

1. Americans will be subject to Trotsky-like, Khmer Rouge-like imperialism, in which a socialist country invades and occupies (like Trotsky advocated), and in which the entire population is subject to a dictatorship as the Khmer Rouge did with the entire population living in the cities.

2. Maoism is completely contradicted by removing the rights to criticism and dissent by the masses.

3. The masses are not struggled with and persuaded to the side of revolution as in Reeducation in China, but rather indoctrinated and forced to believe something.

4. America will be no more of a socialist country than the states that were subject to Soviet social-imperialism during the soviet union&#39;s revisionist-imperialist era (1954-1990)

The fact that you call yourself a Maoist disgusts me even more than the fact that the Khmer Rouge called themselves communists.

[Warren Peace]

*Applauds Red Heretic*


get girls? If there ever was a poster child for why activists should adopt the all sex is rape line, it is you.

Thanks, I&#39;m flattered, really. :lol:

So I&#39;m a "child"? I&#39;d ask for your age, but that would be a "pig question".


As far as keeping threads on topic. There are about 10 threads on the labor aristocracy already on the Maoist forum. In fact, there is a whole board basically dedicated to the question, the economics board: http://marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index.cgi?board=math

So, crying that you are restricted from discussing the topic is an outright lie. In fact, in the economics forum, even guests can post.

The Maoist forum keeps threads on topics and enforces its rules. It is one of the reasons serious people, even those who disagree with Maoism, post to and read the Maoist forum.

Okay, so IRTR is a fair forum. You still haven&#39;t defended any of MIM&#39;s bullshit ideas, like the idea that "socialism" in America will mean turning the country into a giant gulag and enslaving everyone who happens to live in America. Do you seriously expect people to fight a revolution so that they can be enslaved? :blink: MIM doesn&#39;t want revolution, they want a foreign power to invade America and enslave all Americans. This is an imperialistic, Khmer Rouge-like idea. On IRTR, whenever I suggested a revolution against the government in America, people told me that a revoltion needed to be fought against all Americans, and said that it was most likely a foreign power would defeat America. Who do you want this foreign power to be?

[Lamanov]

Originally posted by Red Heretic
...Trotsky-like, Khmer Rouge-like imperialism, in which a socialist country invades and occupies (like Trotsky advocated), and in which the entire population is subject to a dictatorship as the Khmer Rouge did ...

When and where? Source?

When you claim that someone advocated something please state the source that proves it.

[Anarchist Freedom]

It&#39;s interesting to see how the liberals and trotskyists all take the same line in attacking Stalin&#39;s gulags and Mao&#39;s reeducation camps (both mentioned in the OBG thread) as houses of horrors. Typical Trotskyism.



IN all honesty I dont think this has anything to do with Typical Trotarchists. It has to do with the leftist movement considering groups like MIM a fucking joke thats why.

[bolshevik butcher]

Yeh, i think its just the libertarian left not being intersted in working with crazy, phsycotic nutters who call tehnselves nutters but who are only interested in recreatin pol pot. Unfortunatley we often get asociated with them.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by DJ&#045;[email protected] 15 2005, 05:37 PM
When and where? Source?

When you claim that someone advocated something please state the source that proves it.
uhhh, dude. Trotsky&#39;s first big conflict with Stalin was over the question of whether or not the USSR should invade and force socialism upon western europe.

Stalin took the position that the USSR needed to defend itself for the time being and let those countries have revolutions of their own (which went back to Lenin&#39;s thesis of the right to national self-determination).

Trotsky took the poistion that it would be impossible to defend a socialist state and that the USSR had to either invade and force socialism upon western europe, or abandon socialism.

It is common knowledge for the most part..

[Karl Marx's Camel]

From what I&#39;ve heard, the only MIM&#39;s are from the US.

They talk about "one big gulag", but it seems they have forgot the fact that Hitler was planning to make Denmark (yes, a whole nation) into a giant prison. A similarity? :rolleyes:


Quote from the site:

There&#39;s another thread, possibly destroyed last night by a hacker, in which we were talking about "nation traitors," meaning white Amerikkkans who look upon whites as an enemy nation and ally themselves with the oppressed peoples. Check it out.

[Lamanov]

Oh, yea, of course. "The first big conflict with Stalin, where comrade Stalin kicked his ass". :lol: pathetic&#33;

Looking at history through political conflict of two individuals is lame, especially if you don&#39;t know the facts (like in your case).

He didn&#39;t advocate "forcing upon" socialism... hmm, (better yet) "socialism".
Led by his doctrine of permanent revolution he thought that Russia alone could never reach socialism without the help of western proletariat (Russia, by the way, really, never did reach socialism. It&#39;s sad how you talk now as it did). In Brest-Litovsk peace with Germany he saw a chance for German government to deal with revolutionary dangers without the obligation on the eastern front. Arround this premise he led all of his military politics. He wanted to "boost up" the revolution in the west, not to force it upon them. In that time Stalin was an unsignificant figure who&#39;s political stupidity was a revealing testemony of un-proletarian character of the Soviet government and it&#39;s leaders.

[Red Heretic]

Ehm, bullshit. Trotsky specifically insisted that the USSR should invade poland and then germany.

The USSR even tried to invade Poland, and failed miserably.

[Lamanov]

Not knowing the difference between "One Big Gulag" and "helping" or "boosting up revolutions" is your problem, not mine. Deal with it.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Hiero+--> (Hiero)Remember "Gulags" are just labour and education camps. They would be greatly improved since the days of their introduction in the USSR.[/b]

Ah, the Maoists.

The RCP&#39;s Avakian promises us an enlightened despotism.

And MIM counter-offers "better gulags".

That&#39;s a tough choice&#33; :lol:


romanm
It&#39;s interesting to see how the liberals and trotskyists all take the same line in attacking Stalin&#39;s gulags and Mao&#39;s reeducation camps (both mentioned in the OBG thread) as houses of horrors. Typical Trotskyism.

There appears to be universal agreement on that view...even many people who otherwise agree with and support Stalin admit that the gulags were indeed quite "horrible" -- to put it mildly.

Mao&#39;s camps were, supposedly, not as bad -- that is, not as likely to end in the death of the prisoner.

Whatever lies that the bourgeois ideologues made up about the USSR and China, they didn&#39;t have to lie about the gulags -- the simply truth was more than sufficient for their purposes.

Blaming the odium on "liberals and Trotskyists" is not even remotely plausible...and suggests a serious dis-connect between MIM and social reality.

As if we didn&#39;t already know that. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[romanm]

Okay, so IRTR is a fair forum. You still haven&#39;t defended any of MIM&#39;s bullshit ideas, like the idea that "socialism" in America will mean turning the country into a giant gulag and enslaving everyone who happens to live in America. Do you seriously expect people to fight a revolution so that they can be enslaved?

There are any number of pinned threads in the economics section defending our class analysis. And, you have been invited on several occasions to show us where we are wrong. It&#39;s fine if you simply don&#39;t know yet if the Maoist line is correct or not. But, what is completely dogmatic is for you to claim our analysis is wrong without even debating it or backing yourself up. We have a whole board dedicated to the labor aristocracy question with probably a couple hundred posts defending our position. And, there are a good number of posts that oppose our analysis. If you don&#39;t know who is right, well, then you should admit as much and investigate. We&#39;re totally open to hearing the other side, which is why we made our economics section open to anyone - even guests. If you want to come and join the debate, then please do so. Which is what people over and over kept asking you to do. We wanted to hear your evidence. And, the most ironic thing of all is that we get called dogmatists for wanting to a scientific debate on the issue.

As far as forcing the imperialists to work and be re-educated, I have no problem with that - nor did Lenin, Stalin or Mao.. Our analysis shows that the vast majority of Amerikkkans are the enemy. I invite you to the economics section to join the debate. Even Red Heretic can come and join the debate since one can post totally anonymously as a guest.

I am not sure what the German class analysis looked like in the 1920s. Was it a majority exploiter nation? I don&#39;t know. By the time of WW2, Stalin was very correct in invading NAZI Germany and trying to impose socialism. Revolution wasn&#39;t going to happen any other way and Stalin knew it. Of course, the GDR was no model of socialism. This just shows that a proletarian nation can invade and defeat militarily a parasite nation. Obviously, the building of socialism in a ex-parasite nation will look harsh from a bourgeois point of view. But, the alternative is much harsher - which is to let Amerikkka continue rampaging the rest of the world.

The Maoist movement in the u&#036; is underground, so we give out as little persynal information as possible. It really doesn&#39;t matter who the Maoists are, what matters is the line being argued. Identity politics is a totally unscientific approach. Those who argue identity politics over science shouldn&#39;t be calling themselves Marxists.

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 12:28 AM
I am not sure what the German class analysis looked like in the 1920s. Was it a majority exploiter nation? I don&#39;t know. By the time of WW2, Stalin was very correct in invading NAZI Germany and trying to impose socialism. Revolution wasn&#39;t going to happen any other way and Stalin knew it. Of course, the GDR was no model of socialism. This just shows that a proletarian nation can invade and defeat militarily a parasite nation. Obviously, the building of socialism in a ex-parasite nation will look harsh from a bourgeois point of view. But, the alternative is much harsher - which is to let Amerikkka continue rampaging the rest of the world.

The Maoist movement in the u&#036; is underground, so we give out as little persynal information as possible. It really doesn&#39;t matter who the Maoists are, what matters is the line being argued. Identity politics is a totally unscientific approach. Those who argue identity politics over science shouldn&#39;t be calling themselves Marxists.
First of all, I have mixed feelings on the invasion of Germany, which I&#39;m sure you understand. Either way, the bottom line here is actually two things. One was that socialism was not established in Eastern Germany, and the second is that even when the Soviet Union (before it went revisionist) did occupy Germany, is did not put the entire population into a giant gulag, and nor should it have. If anything, Germany proves that socialism cannot be established through invasion.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 16 2005, 01:18 AM
If anything, Germany proves that socialism cannot be established through invasion.
Are you suggesting that question was "up in the air" prior to the invasion??

[Red Heretic]

Originally posted by CompaneroDeLibertad+Aug 16 2005, 01:38 AM--> (CompaneroDeLibertad @ Aug 16 2005, 01:38 AM)
Red [email protected] 16 2005, 01:18 AM
If anything, Germany proves that socialism cannot be established through invasion.
Are you suggesting that question was "up in the air" prior to the invasion?? [/b]
Sorry, I&#39;m not sure I follow you, could you rephrase that?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I guess, though I don&#39;t see what&#39;s not to understand.

You said "If anything, Germany proves that socialism cannot be established through invasion."

I&#39;m asking, did it need to be proven? Was the question "can socialism be established through invasion" ever valid?

[Red Heretic]

Oooh, of course not comrade, it just reiterated that MIM&#39;s line was bullshit.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Whew.. lol.. okay.

But that actually IS the line of MIM if I&#39;m not mistaken. That socialism, in a place like the US, MUST be realized through military invasion. Am I correct?

[Red Heretic]

For the most part, yes. They also say it might be possible that there could be a revolution after the rest of the world is socialist, but that it is unlikely.

[romanm]

One was that socialism was not established in Eastern Germany, and the second is that even when the Soviet Union (before it went revisionist) did occupy Germany, is did not put the entire population into a giant gulag, and nor should it have. If anything, Germany proves that socialism cannot be established through invasion.

Like I said, nobody is upholding the GDR as a model in all the details. What it shows is the possibility of a proletarian nation militarily occupying a parasite nation.

Stalin knew that by the time of WW2 that the working classes had been bought off in places like Germany and white Amerika. So, revolution had to come somehow - and it wasn&#39;t going to come from a bought off labor aristocracy. The only way proletarian forces have ever had power in a first world nation for any sustained period of time has been when the GDR was occupied under Stalin.

In any case, anyone is welvcome to come debate these issues in a more indepth way in the Maoist forums linked in my sig. The economics board allows people to post anonymously as guests - if u don&#39;t want to log in or want to be anonymous.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

or you could debate them here and stop spamming.

[Decolonize The Left]

That is by far the fowlest thing I have seen in many weeks. Please refrain from posting pictures like that. It&#39;s quite disturbing...

-- August

[Latifa]

Well THAT was odd. :lol:

[Monty Cantsin]

Deleted it...

[Decolonize The Left]

Thank you, I was hesitating to click here for a moment..

-- August

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

thanks

[More Fire for the People]

All that can be said is, What the hell is wrong with these people?
In my opinion, they should all be put in one small gulag.

What was the picture of?

[Warren Peace]

Ya, I didn&#39;t see the picture. ;)

[viva le revolution]

I know it sounds wierd, but everybody&#39;s revulsion to the picture has awakened an uncontrollable urge for me to see it. What was it about, what was in it?

[romanm]

OBG is only one scenario for socialism comming to Amerika. There is also the possibility that white Amerika becomes reproletarianized as its empire becomes over extended and suffers major defeats. Or, some combination of the scenarios is possible.

You can also find out what Maoists have to say about clothing styles in our culture forum - there is also a statement about clothing in our articles section.

Many good topics to discuss.

[Red Heretic]

romanm, you already been asked once, stop advertizing for your stupid fucking forum in every single post on our website.

and while your at it, stop fucking spamming my MySpace with your forum.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

hahahaha

[romanm]

I am glad you have seen the myspace site.

[Reds]

White America black America it is no longer proftable for captalist to make such destions why mus so many on the left do so.

[CrazyModerate]

Originally posted by [email protected] 16 2005, 12:06 AM
Ah, the Maoists.

The RCP&#39;s Avakian promises us an enlightened despotism.

And MIM counter-offers "better gulags".

That&#39;s a tough choice&#33; :lol:
I think I really should have more respect for you. Although I disagree with your advocacy of the death penalty and banning religion, I completely agree with you on this point. These two groups make absolutely no sense.

Holy fuck those douchebags are complete morons. They claim the United States is so evil that every single American should be placed in a Gulag, yet they defend Mao for meeting with Nixon and establishing relations.

Its a good thing these sensationalists will never gain power.

[Xiao Banfa]

I want to see that fucking picture- at least tell me where you got it from.
Or I&#39;ll hold my breath untill my anus explodes.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Revolt Now&#33;@Aug 15 2005, 12:22 AM



MIM is a small group of nerds in the Bay Area.

Now we know why they&#39;re into celibacy- they never get girls&#33; :lol:


Hmm you did make some good points on some of what you said but this one I kept in for a reason. Isn&#39;t that comment just a bit immature?

[Warren Peace]

What was the picture&#33;?


Hmm you did make some good points on some of what you said but this one I kept in for a reason. Isn&#39;t that comment just a bit immature?

What, a revolutionary can&#39;t have a sense of humor? :P

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by CrazyModerate+Aug 18 2005, 12:35 AM--> (CrazyModerate @ Aug 18 2005, 12:35 AM)
[email protected] 16 2005, 12:06 AM
Ah, the Maoists.

The RCP&#39;s Avakian promises us an enlightened despotism.

And MIM counter-offers "better gulags".

That&#39;s a tough choice&#33; :lol:
I think I really should have more respect for you. Although I disagree with your advocacy of the death penalty and banning religion, I completely agree with you on this point. These two groups make absolutely no sense.

Holy fuck those douchebags are complete morons. They claim the United States is so evil that every single American should be placed in a Gulag, yet they defend Mao for meeting with Nixon and establishing relations.

Its a good thing these sensationalists will never gain power. [/b]
Hmm, I thought that RedStar said that the death penalty was "state sponsored murder" and that he opposed it?

Banning religion? Meh.

[Colombia]

Seeing that we ban Stalinists, why is not the same applied to Maoists?

[Warren Peace]

Banning religion? Meh.

I agree. We should allow everyone freedom of religion so long as their religious actions don&#39;t limit the freedom of others, and religion is kept out of the political sphere.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by Revolt Now&#33;@Aug 21 2005, 01:38 AM

Banning religion? Meh.

I agree. We should allow everyone freedom of religion so long as their religious actions don&#39;t limit the freedom of others, and religion is kept out of the political sphere.
Holy shit, I totally agree with everything said in this statement.

[Enragé]

Originally posted by wet [email protected] 13 2005, 11:58 PM
I&#39;m sure it all just depends on the position.... Cowgirl(girl-on-top) would be OK, but doggy-style would be out of the question for an MIM gal. :lol:
lol i was just about to say that

you thought-stealer

:ph34r:

[romanm]

You will need great patience (and a strong stomach) to participate at MIM&#39;s board...they are as personally abusive in debate as anything I&#39;ve seen anywhere.

hm.

[Hiero]

Originally posted by Ownthink+Aug 21 2005, 04:43 PM--> (Ownthink @ Aug 21 2005, 04:43 PM)
Revolt Now&#33;@Aug 21 2005, 01:38 AM

Banning religion? Meh.

I agree. We should allow everyone freedom of religion so long as their religious actions don&#39;t limit the freedom of others, and religion is kept out of the political sphere.
Holy shit, I totally agree with everything said in this statement. [/b]
Holy shit, liberal bourgeois thought.

[h&s]

Originally posted by Revolt Now&#33;@Aug 21 2005, 05:38 AM

Banning religion? Meh.

I agree. We should allow everyone freedom of religion so long as their religious actions don&#39;t limit the freedom of others, and religion is kept out of the political sphere.
Impossible.
If your religion tells you that women are inferior to men, that abortion is murder, your hardly going to forget that when talking to others.
Organised religion is a tool of influencing politics. It always has been, and always will be.
Preaching from the pulpit has condemned billions to sufffering.

[bezdomni]

I&#39;m pretty sure MIM is entirely CIA or run by the CIA with nutcase followers.

They have very few members, they are highly secretive (refuse to give any background information), they have an expensive-looking newspaper, yet (I assume), very low funding.

There are other things that I have thought of that supported this contention, but I&#39;ve forgotten it.

[left-nut]

Originally posted by Hiero+Aug 22 2005, 02:03 AM--> (Hiero &#064; Aug 22 2005, 02:03 AM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 21 2005, 04:43 PM

Revolt Now&#33;@Aug 21 2005, 01:38 AM

Banning religion? Meh.

I agree. We should allow everyone freedom of religion so long as their religious actions don&#39;t limit the freedom of others, and religion is kept out of the political sphere.
Holy shit, I totally agree with everything said in this statement.
Holy shit, liberal bourgeois thought. [/b]

Holy shit, I guess V.I. Lenin was one hell of a liberal burgeois.




Present-day society is wholly based on the exploitation of the vast masses of the working class by a tiny minority of the population, the class of the landowners and that of the capitalists. It is a slave society, since the "free" workers, who all their life work for the capitalists, are "entitled" only to such means of subsistence as are essential for the maintenance of slaves who produce profit, for the safeguarding and perpetuatlon of capitalist slavery.

The economic oppression of the workers inevitably calls forth and engenders every kind of political oppression and social humiliation, the coarsening and darkening of the spiritual and moral life of the masses. The workers may secure a greater or lesser degree of political liberty to fight for their economic emancipation, but no amount of liberty will rid them of poverty, unemployment, and oppression until the power of capital is overthrown. Religion is one of the forms of spiritual oppression which everywhere weighs down heavily upon the masses of the people, over burdened by their perpetual work for others, by want and isolation. Impotence of the exploited classes in their struggle against the exploiters just as inevitably gives rise to the belief in a better life after death as impotence of the savage in his battle with nature gives rise to belief in gods, devils, miracles, and the like. Those who toil and live in want all their lives are taught by religion to be submissive and patient while here on earth, and to take comfort in the hope of a heavenly reward. But those who live by the labour of others are taught by religion to practise charity while on earth, thus offering them a very cheap way of justifying their entire existence as exploiters and selling them at a moderate price tickets to well-being in heaven. Religion is opium for the people. Religion is a sort of spiritual booze,

page 84

in which the slaves of capital drown their human image, their demand for a life more or less worthy of man.

But a slave who has become conscious of his slavery and has risen to struggle for his emancipation has already half ceased to be a slave. The modern class-conscious worker, reared by large-scale factory industry and enlightened by urban life, contemptuously casts aside religious prejudices, leaves heaven to the priests and bourgeois bigots, and tries to win a better life for himself here on earth. The proletariat of today takes the side of socialism, which enlists science in the battle against the fog of religion, and frees the workers from their belief in life after death by welding them together to fight in the present for a better life on earth.

Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned. Religion must be of no concern to the state, and religious societies must have no connection with governmental authority. Everyone must be absolutely free to profess any religion he pleases, or no religion whatever, i.e., to be an atheist, which every socialist is, as a rule. Discrimination among citizens on account of their religious convictions is wholly intolerable. Even the bare mention of a citizen&#39;s religion in official documents should unquestionably be eliminated. No subsidies should be granted to the established church nor state allowances made to ecclesiastical and religious societies. These should become absolutely free associations of like minded citizens, associations independent of the state. Only the complete fulfilment of these demands can put an end to the shameful and accursed past when the church lived in feudal dependence on the state, and Russian citizens lived in feudal dependence on the established church, when medieval, inquisitorial laws (to this day remaining in our criminal codes and on our statute-books) were in existence and were applied, persecuting men for their belief or disbelief, violating men&#39;s consciences, and linking cosy gov-

page 85

ernment jobs and government-derived incomes with the dispensation of this or that dope by the established church. Complete separation of Church and State is what the socialist proletariat demands of the modern state and the modern church.

The Russian revolution must put this demand into effect as a necessary component of political freedom. In this respect, the Russian revolution is in a particularly favourable position, since the revolting officialism of the police-ridden feudal autocracy has called forth discontent, unrest and indignation even among the clergy. However abject, however ignorant Russian Orthodox clergymen may have been, even they have now been awakened by the thunder of the downfall of the old, medieval order in Russia. Even they are joining in the demand for freedom, are protesting against bureaucratic practices and officialism, against the spying for the police imposed on the "servants of God". We socialists must lend this movement our support, carrying the demands of honest and sincere members of the clergy to their conclusion, making them stick to their words about freedom, demanding that they should resolutely break all ties between religion and the police. Either you are sincere, in which case you must stand for the complete separation of Church and State and of School and Church, for religion to be declared wholly and absolutely a private affair. Or you do not accept these consistent demands for freedom, in which case you evidently are still held captive by the traditions of the inquisition, in which case you evidently still cling to your cosy government jobs and government-derived incomes, in which case you evidently do not believe in the spiritual power of your weapon and continue to take bribes from the state. And in that case the class-conscious workers of all Russia declare merciless war on you.

So far as the party of the socialist proletariat is concerned, religion is not a private affair. Our Party is an association of class-conscious, advanced fighters for the emancipation of the working class. Such an association cannot and must not be indifferent to lack of class-consciousness, ignorance or obscurantism in the shape of religious beliefs. We demand complete disestablishment of the Church so as to be able to combat the religious fog with purely ideo-

page 86

logical and solely ideological weapons, by means of our press and by word of mouth. But we founded our association, the Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, precisely for such a struggle against every religious bamboozling of the workers. And to us the ideological struggle is not a private affair, but the aflair of the whole Party, of the whole proletariat.

If that is so, why do we not declare in our Programme that we are atheists? Why do we not forbid Christians and other believers in God to join our Party?

The answer to this question will serve to explain the very important difference in the way the question of religion is presented by the bourgeois democrats and the Social-Democrats.

Our Programme is based entirely on the scientific, and moreover the materialist, world-outlook. An explanation of our Programme, therefore, necessarily includes an explanation of the true historical and economic roots of the religious fog. Our propaganda necessarily includes the propaganda of atheism; the publication of the appropriate scientific literature, which the autocratic feudal government has hitherto strictly forbidden and persecuted, must now form one of the fields of our Party work. We shall now probably have to follow the advice Engels once gave to the German Socialists: to translate and widely disseminate the literature of the eighteenth-century French Enlighteners and atheists.[36]

But under no circumstances ought we to fall into the error of posing the religious question in an abstract, idealistic fashion, as an "intellectual" question unconnected with the class struggle, as is not infrequently done by the radical-democrats from among the bourgeoisie. It would be stupid to think that, in a society based on the endless oppression and coarsening of the worker masses, religious prejudices could be dispelled by purely propaganda methods. It would be bourgeois narrow-mindedness to forget that the yoke of religion that weighs upon mankind is merely a product and reflection of the economic yoke within society. No number of pamphlets and no amount of preaching can enlighten the proletariat, if it is not enlightened by its own struggle against the dark forces of capitalism.

page 87

Unity in this really revolutionary struggle of the oppressed class for the creation of a paradise on earth is more important to us than unity of proletarian opinion on paradise in heaven.

That is the reason why we do not and should not set forth our atheism in our Programme; that is why we do not and should not prohibit proletarians who still retain vestiges of their old prejudices from associating themselves with our Party. We shall always preach the scientific world-outlook, and it is essential for us to combat the inconsistency of various "Christians". But that does not mean in the least that the religious question ought to be advanced to first place, where it does not belong at all; nor does it mean that we should allow the forces of the really revolutionary economic and political struggle to be split up on account of third-rate opinions or senseless ideas, rapidly losing all political importance, rapidly being swept out as rubbish by the very course of economic development.

Everywhere the reactionary bourgeoisie has concerned itself, and is now beginning to concern itself in Russia, with the fomenting of religious strife -- in order thereby to divert the attention of the masses from the really important and fundamental economic and political problems, now being solved in practice by the all-Russian proletariat uniting in revolutionary struggle. This reactionary policy of splitting up the proletarian forces, which today manifests itself mainly in Black-Hundred pogroms, may tomorrow conceive some more subtle forms. We, at any rate, shall oppose it by calmly, consistently and patiently preaching proletarian solidarity and the scientific world-outlook -- a preaching alien to any stirring up of secondary differences.

The revolutionary proletariat will succeed in making religion a really private affair, so far as the state is concerned. And in this political system, cleansed of medieval mildew, the proletariat will wage a broad and open struggle for the elimination of economic slavery, the true source of the religious humbugging of mankind.

[source (http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/SR05.html)]

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Religion can&#39;t be kept out of the political sphere. It&#39;s an all encompassing idealism

[Freidenker]

Originally posted by Red [email protected] 13 2005, 09:18 PM
The statement is actually true to a degree. This system of male chauvanism dominates and inflitrates every relationship that takes place within its bounds.
Haha not in my parents marriage. Or my current relationship. My pops and I, our women wear the pants.

"Ask your mother."

"Hold on, gotta make sure it&#39;s okay with the girlfriend."

[Hiero]

Religion must be declared a private affair. In these words socialists usually express their attitude towards religion. But the meaning of these words should be accurately defined to prevent any misunderstanding. We demand that religion be held a private affair so far as the state is concerned. But by no means can we consider religion a private affair so far as our Party is concerned.


So far as the party of the socialist proletariat is concerned, religion is not a private affair. Our Party is an association of class-conscious, advanced fighters for the emancipation of the working class.

I think what Lenin is getting at in this article is that religion is not a private matter, only in regards to the State. So the party continues to fight against religion.

[C_Rasmussen]

Originally posted by Revolt Now&#33;@Aug 21 2005, 05:10 AM
What was the picture&#33;?


Hmm you did make some good points on some of what you said but this one I kept in for a reason. Isn&#39;t that comment just a bit immature?

What, a revolutionary can&#39;t have a sense of humor? :P
Well it is hard to detect humor on the net :).

Anyway though whats the use in arguing sex? No really I mean granted its a big thing for MOST of us but why make a debate out of it? Though I will say that it is slightly absurd that one would think that ALL sex is rape but why the need to go this long on a debate. Actually this extends out to all subject matter.

[Luís Henrique]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 07:01 AM
Haha, what a bunch of hypocrits...

I wonder why they don&#39;t realize they are insulting themselves, and if they get their way, condeming themselves to slavery?

-- August
Obviously, they know they won&#39;t get "their" way, and so won&#39;t be enslaved. :huh:

Seem a quite shallow way to refuse to act in class struggle (since there is no class struggle, after all)...

Luís Henrique