When it comes to Anglo-Saxon peoples and even many of the oppressed nationality people overly influenced by them, the root problem is pragmatism which comes in infinite varieties. Most of you are so pragmatic in fact, that there is no way to communicate to you what pragmatism is, because once we communicated it to you, you would have had to realize that pragmatism is a general principle too.

You pretend to argue about politics, but in reality you have countless ways to taunt the powerless as an excuse for not dealing with political reality. Because of people like you, there is a connection between armed struggle and truth. You only respect truth after it seizes power. For now, most of you are petty-bourgeois folks effectively lined up with imperialism, either through active help, silence or paralysis--but you have the belief that you are somehow not on the imperialist side and won't take responsibility for what you do.

The overwhelming majority of you are "geographic opportunists." That means you would not consider an opinion and adopt it unless someone is persynally in your face. You have libraries, bookstores, the Internet and the mail to deliver whatever you want in an era of unprecedented wealth, but you still do not handle politics systematically. If we were to take you and move you to a new locale, you would consider that locality's opinions, only because you were there.

Though socialism or communism is obviously an underdog movement, the number of you who like to debate things you have not read is frightening. We are talking about people who go on for years arguing about things they've never read. Because "talk is cheap," many assume politics is cheap and in fact they cheapen our politics by assuming it is not something that requires a systematic, scientific effort and persynal sacrifices of time and money.

This is related to your "sizeism." If you do not see a large number of people adopting an opinion, you assume it is wrong--even in this age of obviously serious problems of weapons of mass destruction, sold for profit no less. It's called Monkey-See-Monkey-Do.

In this regard the "leftist" pragmatists are more stupid than the rightist ones. Obviously socialism or communism as a movement is the underdog and must unseat the status quo. Yet many of you "leftists" point to that underdog weakness as a reason not to join a particular organization or movement. It shows that there is no thought given there as to what will actually accomplish what needs to be done. You say stupid things like, "your party is too small" and give that as a reason to keep it that way.

And we've studied it. The people giving pragmatist reasons for not doing anything are not putting the ball in the basket either. They're basically petty-bourgeois slackers.

In the Anglo-Saxon populations and those oppressed nationality people overly influenced by them, even the people claiming to be "socialist" or "communist" judge by the following criteria, each of which we have heard from countless people. "You aren't in my city." "I've never seen your newspaper." "I haven't met any of your supporters who are not lumpen." "You don't do work in my locality." "If you go carrying pictures of Chairman Mao, you ain't gonna make it with anyone any how." Such an attitude is more like, "where's my job in a socialist administration?" than "I'm a revolutionary who recognizes we are the underdog and we have to make things happen." You look at where things are now instead of what has to change for progress.

Most of you thinking about communist activity think a party should be some kind of godly power or you don't want to join. It shows us what you think of your own ability to contribute to the struggle.

The same ones among you saying size matters have no argument about the facts of history that for instance Mao started with 20 comrades. You seem not to have noticed that entire parties several times MIM's size have disappeared from the face of the Earth, because MIM was right about issues and they were not. Other parties started 50, 100 or 1000s of times larger than MIM and have less to show for it now.

Because you are so pragmatist, you do not realize how contradictory you are. When we try to show you the inconsistency in what you say, you say you are being "labelled" or "pigeon-holed." Your individuality is more important to you than being able to have a discussion with other people that has common reference points.

Most of you "leftist" pragmatists are so stupid as to apply standards to MIM that Democrats or Republicans could apply to any third party--size. You don't stop to think: "what if everyone applied that reasoning I just used against MIM?" "What if I want a proletarian party and everyone came up with their one reason to split from it?" "Is my principle/complaint 1) something the opponents of change could not manipulate and 2) the proponents of change can access as well as I can?" That's why it is key to go through the process of deciding what your cardinal principles are and whether you believe your cardinal principles suggest to the rest of society issues that would encourage the large groups of people needed for change to split over trivial matters. When it comes to large groups of people acting for change, we have to be right about where history is going or can go based on group analyses. We can not expect everyone else to understand you, the individual.

Pragmatism defending the status quo is one gigantic form of circular reasoning. If you are unhappy with the Democrats and Republicans or similar parties in other majority-exploiter countries, then you should be talking about political principles suitable for the moment, not movement size or things that derive from size. It goes without saying that the challenger is smaller, less established, has less money etc. The question is whether we are right about the direction of history. Mao proved what he said that "political and ideological line is decisive," because he was right where history was going and it did not matter that he and Stalin both started in small book-reading circles.