Talk:Maoist Internationalist Movement

I don't think it's true that RADACADS was formed in 1970 as an offshoot of SDS. I thought RADACADS was started in the 1980s and had no direct connection to the student movement of the 60s or the New Communist Movement of the 1970s. I know I've read in MIM literature that they say they have no connection organizationally to the 1960s or 70s groups; they have referred to themselves as one of the very few new revolutionary organizations that formed in the 1980s. Anyone have any sources?

Having seen some portions of MIM's web site, I haven't found any instance of "United Snakes," nor have I found a tendency for them to not capitalize their names of Canada or the US - Israel I haven't come across yet. Maybe we should either get verification of this or change the wording to show that the naming conventions are not universal. --BDD 18:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• The conventions used to denote particular inferences vary from paper to paper, though some are consistent. MIM has something in there FAQ regarding their writting style for contributers of which you might want to take a look at. I, fo r one, have seen '$nakes' as well as MIM explaining how imperliast countries should be lower-case, emphasizing on their ilegitimacy.

--erebus

It looks like someone made those changes since I last came by this page. I've got another bone to pick this time though. Based in Ann Arbor? Where did that come from? I thought they were highly secretive in their organization, hence the pen/code names. --BDD 00:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I am making BDD's changes. I could find no verification for these things either. It is based on speculation, not public knowledge, thus it is inappropriate. There is also no evidence MacKinnon herself disavowed MIM's interpretation of her work.

BDD, in answer to your question "Based in Ann Arbor? Where did that come from?" -- the group's publication, MIM Notes, listed an Ann Arbor, Michigan post-office box as the contact address in the print edition. At least it did in the 1990s. Ropcat 01:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Harper's

I remember Harper's published MIM's resolution from a party congress in one of their editions a few years ago. I think they titled it something like "Maoists on whoring", but I can't seem to find this anywhere on google. Does anyone know? --Mista-X 18:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are legitimate and active revolutionary movements in the third world bothring to associate with a bunch of white college kids on the computer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.13.240 (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

MIM is not Marxist and it is not Leninist either. MIM is a sellout group, that has sold out to Russian imperialism. Check their website and you will see. They actually regard Putin's imperialism as part of the proletarian camp! They want to swap one imperialist master for another. They are not aware that there is no such a thing as a "proggressive imperialism". All imperialism is equally reactionary. Russia is a great capitalist power (only Zyuganovites believe that it is a "semicolony"), therefore Russian imperialism is on the same level with US imperialism. Marxists need to wake up to this fact. RaduFlorianRaduFlorian 11:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Marxists need to realize that US imperialism and non-US imperialism are equally bad. Because when the war breaks out we will need internationalists in both imperialist camps. And MIM's stance that US imperialism or the US imperialist bloc is the only villain will only strengthen the Zyuganovites and other "patriotic communists" in Russia who support their "own" imperialism. Sadly, there is only one internationalist party in Russia today, namely the Russian Maoist Party, and MIM's stance will not help strengthen it. The international working class needs to break with this paranoid Anti-Americanism. RaduFlorianRaduFlorian 11:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

This is all interesting, POV and speculation; but has nothing to do with my question.--Mista-X 16:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree very much with MIM's stance that there is no white proletariat in the developed countres. This simply is NOT TRUE. The truth is that there are millions of starving Whites in the US, yet MIM doesnt give a damn about them. To them, a Third World capitalist is closer to a Third World worker than to a First World white worker. Of course, this is nothing but a lie. A poor White is closer to a poor Black than to a White capitalist, regardless of whether they're aware of this or not. This is what Marxism teaches us. RaduFlorianRaduFlorian 08:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure there are some hungry white people, but I think you will find that going hungry even as a homeless persyn in north amerikkka is almost impossible. This doesn't mean their aren't any "poor" workers and legitimate struggles in north amerikka. You missed the point, which is that by international standards these "workers" are petty-bourgeois. I also think you need to establish what a proletarian is. Marx and Engels showed us that proletarians don't work then they don't eat. This is not the case with imperialist country "workers". Also, proletarians work with the means of production, whereas most "workers" in the imperialist countries don't even work in production. But again, this has nothing to do with my original question about the Harper's article. --Mista-X (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if they WERE petty-bourgeois, which, in the case of illegal immigrants, I very much doubt it, their struggles should be supported. Nevertheless, according to Marxism-Leninism the petty-bourgeoisie is not static, it's a class that constantly swells the ranks of the proletariat- the petty-bourgeois of today may well become the proletarian of tomorrow. This is especially true in times of acute crisis of the capitalist system, and, with the rising unemployment we're seeing in world's most powerful capitalist country, it's safe to say that crisis is very near. To overcome it, the imperialist powers will have no other option but to resort to war, and this time it will be an inter-imperialist war, pitting American against Russian imperialists. But this will not improve the living standards, on the contrary, will worsen the condition of the masses. The Western workers will once again become revolutionary, and the West will once again be ripe for anti-capitalist revolution. MIM's mistake, as far as I am familiar with their views, was that it underestimated the revolutionary POTENTIAL of workers in the West, it failed to see that labour aristocracies are not stable and that their struggles are worthy of support. RaduFlorian (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mimhead.gif

Image:Mimhead.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

boohoo vandalism

What I have been putting down for MIM and first world whites isn't vandalism. Just ask any MIM member. If you don't side with me, then you're a genocidal jerk.

Also, it is true that MIM has no presence offline. Just ask any activist.

Maybe a “criticisms of MIM” section is needed in this article. If you must create one, then please put my edits in that section.

---

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.192.235 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Any strong criticisms like this need a proper source, not just a chat with activists. Do you have a source - a publication or a relevant website - which makes these claims? Warofdreams talk 18:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I really think we need a criticisms section on the MIM. NO left organization or leftist takes it seriously. The problem with this of course is that it means the only legitimate source on the MIM is the MIM itself, since noone gives a shit about this group except to mock it on leftist message boards. --Postbagboy (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

---

I have a post from their Art Minister, Mousnonya. It's on Youtube. I can prove this person is their Art Minister if you don't believe me. http://youtube.com/watch?v=FLCWr39ZEUs&feature=user Read Mousnonya's post from 2 weeks ago. Again, I can prove Mousnonya is their Art Minister if you don't believe me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.88.71 (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

No, I believe you when you say that Mousnonya is a representative of the organisation, but comments on Youtube aren't generally accepted as a source. It's not clear from them whether they are a personal opinion, or that of the group. What we really need is either something from MIM's own publications or website stating that this is their view, or from another publication or relevant website which - whether supportive or critical - states that this is their view. The claim that they don't have much of a presence off the internet also needs a source. For example, perhaps you could find one stating that they are secretive about membership numbers and organise primarily over the internet. And finally, please don't post abuse on my userpage. Warofdreams talk 00:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my own criticism on MIM, it is true that Mousnonya answered me on his blog. But the his answer seems unconvincing to me. He asserts that the American imperialism is the number one enemy of mankind, since it is the most powerful of all imperialisms. But it is not clear whether he considers US imperialism as the main enemy in some countries dominated by it, or as the main enemy EVERYWHERE, including in countries like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan or even Serbia, where it is obvious that the biggest foreign capitalists are NOT the Americans. If you regard the American imperialism as the main enemy in SOME countries, then we agree. But if you see it as the main enemy EVERYWHERE- including other imperialist countries and their saTellites, then it's safe to say that we have A PROBLEM.RaduFlorian (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Having just recently become aware of MIM, and perusing its archives, the writing style is fresh in my mind. Having also just recently become aware of La Riva, and reading a bit of her blog, I've noticed a strikingly similar (albeit toned down) style that switched on a light bulb in my head. Could this be mere coincidence, or does La Riva = "MIM"? This isn't a witch-hunt or smear; I'm passing no judgments, just wondering if I'm the first to think of this.