>From owner-marxism Fri Aug 23 09:55:49 1996 Louis Proyect: [August 23, "A Reply to Hans"]

This gets to the very heart of our problem. MIM is an object of ridicule in a Nation magazine

MIM replies: And the Nation is known for its Marxism isn't it?

[Louis continues] humor column for its bizarre position on sex (much more bizarre than the positions I've attempted in my own bedroom).

MIM replies: This really is the heart of the problem isn't it Louis? You are afraid of commitment and its threat to your list of paper tiger "Marxists." You can just tell we are asking people to give up much of their middle-class lifestyles and aspirations for such and even their sexual privilege for the revolution.

Yes, our party has a requirement--that people put their party and the revolution above their sex lives. If you knew anything about real revolutionary parties, you'd know MIM is not the first organization to do so.

Those who do not like our tough standards including on finances, romance and mass work can opt for other organizations we work with that have no democratic-centralist requirements of that sort. So basically, even if you disagreed with MIM on its forcing leaders to give up the Mark Rudd lifestyle, and you of all people should know what we say when we train our members on that, it's not a justification for "breaking with" us. Our cardinal questions where each member is sworn to split the party or form a new one rather than compromise are: 1) Cultural Revolution. 2) Oppose old Soviet revisionism. 3) White imperialist working class is not a revolutionary vehicle. 4) Democratic centralism on all the other questions. That means if you didn't like our line and you demonstrated your commitment in practice on the other questions, you'd get a vote on the sex policy of MIM.

Now let me explain the hurdles you'd face. It is the history of MIM and also many other parties including the Black Panthers and the pre-parties like SDS to be riven with gender conflicts. Love triangles in leadership are one serious problem. Another is the Mark Rudd practice of sleeping with recruits. At MIM we demand stability of our leaders. That's why we honor those of asexual lifestyle who put the revolution at the center of their lives as their true love. Then amongst the rest of us bitten with the romance culture, we demand that you settle down with one person, because we don't have time for the rest.

Some other things MIM has required of its members include financial contributions by a certain formula I won't get into. We've had many members move to dumpier locations to save money on rent. And we have policies where people can live. So obviously the petty-bourgeoisie is horrified by all this discipline. Then we add in a lot of discipline that the gender aristocracy rooted in sexual privilege of decadent romance culture won't stand for either. So what we get is people focussed on leading the revolution--at least to a greater degree than the people in CoC for instance. Yet, no one is obliged to follow any of these policies in order to work with MIM, so Louis's concerns about all this are rather misplaced when we have more fundamental issues dividing us. However, the fact that those concerns are misplaced is very revealing. All the uproar is over gender lifestyle questions and anonymity, when the fact is Proyect just can't defend his politics.

[Louis Proyect continues:] Martens, MIM, Neil, Malecki and others too numerous to mention are basically parasites. They feed off our list. In the same way that Monthly Review would not publish a letter from the MIM freaks challenging Harry Magdoff, a genuine Marxism list wouldn't let them through the front door.

Hans, your perceptions are so out of whack with what's important for Marxists to discuss that I sometimes have to laugh out loud.

MIM REPLIES: No it is you who are a parasite Louis, both in class position and in political movement ideology. The Trotskyists never did anything worth talking about in the same breath as Marxism once Lenin died, and your CoC idea also has no historical track record of success. Though we be smaller than your organization, you have yet to prove that yours actually gets more done. That's pathetic. People should judge parties partly on how much they get the individual to contribute, and when a small organization outdoes a larger one, there shouldn't be any question any longer. That's especially true in this case where what Louis advocates is essentially old-fashioned Amerikan pragmatism of the dogmatic sort where compromises are made as a matter of principle and before anything is gained for the proletariat from the trade.