|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Despite an occasional error, the original MIM cell has always opposed revolutionary tourism. If we happen to be in another country, we should scope out its political situation and pick up literature we might not otherwise find. Nonetheless, in a previous forum explanation, the original MIM cell also pointed to why the question of "revolutionary tourism" is linked to inter-imperialist rivalry.
In the 1980s, the principal enemy of the Afghan people was Soviet social-imperialism. In that circumstance, Western comrades could expect to go to Afghanistan and receive a different treatment than most other countries in the world. Even so, most of the Westerners in Afghanistan would be imperialist spies of one kind or another. Western comrades would have been right to expect no better treatment than the CIA types floating around in Afghanistan.
Today, most of the world is dominated by u.$. imperialism and MIM seeks to deter peoples from assisting u.$. spies. MIM does not ask for spying rights and does not encourage Third World peoples to see Amerikkkans as other than spies. The U.S. Government has admitted to having over 100,000 spies, far more spies than combined communists, revisionists and social-democrats. After the united $tates cuts its military spying by 90%, then Amerikkkans will deserve better treatment in the world.
There is a definite downside to MIM policy. The people remember fondly books by Western authors about China's revolution--people such as Edgar Snow.
Yet we have to remember that those authors got their breaks in a particular context of inter-imperialist rivalry. With Germany menacing the Soviet Union and Japan occupying the Far East in the 1930s and 1940s, authors from the united $tates, England and Kanada would look differently than they would today. In that phase of inter-imperialist rivalry, the world's people gained some trust in Amerikans and Kanadians in the context of China for example.
It's no accident that Stalin deported Anna Louise Strong and also condemned Sidney Rittenberg to a six year prison term according to Sidney Rittenberg. Rittenberg showed up at a time when there was no inter-imperialist logic of friendship with China. He ended up spending 16 years in communist prisons, 10 of which even he admits he deserved.
Being located in the Western imperialist countries, MIM comrades will have to wait their chance for a situation where they will not be correctly regarded as spies.
Today, the principal contradiction on a world scale is between imperialism and the oppressed nations and within that, MIM has its focus on the countries occupied by imperialism. The numbers dictate that Western communists or any Westerners be seen as likely spies in those countries.
Does this mean we oppose tourism to Mt. Everest? There will be some places in the world where most of the Amerikkkans that show up are some kind of tourist slob or another, just petty-bourgeoisie. Nonetheless, the revolutionaries must be careful even in touring with the petty-bourgeoisie and the people of Mt. Everest touring businesses need to be careful about Amerikans too.
To make up for the fact that the principal contradiction is between imperialism and oppressed nations, imperialist country comrades must not be coy about reading Third World authors. Even some of those authors will be spies, but the numbers and logic of history are on the side of seeing evermore Third World dragons appear.
MIM has received requests to tour much of the world as journalists. Connected to that request though is MIM's concern with the Wang Ming line. We would much rather promote Third World authors on their own conditions than go abroad and try to pretend that imperialist journalism is legitimate. What we would like is to receive requests that we review various literature by Third World authors. MIM should do its best to sort out those with the most correct line and promote them. This will encourage people to study their own conditions instead of having MIM do it. Aside from promptly reviewing Third World authors and taking a stand on Third World literature, MIM can also set the right example by investigating its own conditions, integrating facts with theory and taking on the various challenges to our line, not necessarily one-at-a-time, but in general class outlines.
Anyone opposing the line that MIM took originally should explain why imperialist country authors should be regarded differently than spies in the Third World.
P.S. As comrade Servethepeople at IRTR pointed out, I did not mention the dictatorship of the proletariat. If Maoists come to power somewhere, then we have to re-evaluate what MIM says. In that situation, the state can keep an eye on a few spies at a time, so some genuine comrades may also squeak through. So in the Cultural Revolution, there were many Westerners in China, but Mao had to be pretty secure in his power for that to make sense. John Birch-type spies continued to land in China guns-in-hand and die, but it was also possible for others to land in China.
*********************************************
MIM Notes 223 December 1, 2000
MIM policy on meeting with international comrades: security as the key link
by International Minister, October 15, 2000
1. MIM has long opposed "revolutionary tourism." That means that people can best make revolution in their own countries. We oppose the Peace Corps concept. We offer the PIRAO concept instead.
2. MIM opposes the Lori Berenson example in Peru in terms of security. There is nothing wrong with solidarity with genuine Maoists, but following Yankees around is too easy for the imperialists.
The most advanced Amerikans still lack qualities necessary for disciplined clandestine work. They should not be trusted by comrades operating at qualitatively higher levels in the Third World. It is not a secret that MIM had two previous International Ministers, who quit in the midst of their work in the 1990s, one after six years of detailed party experience. After the second one quit, MIM cut its international work drastically and consciously.
3. MIM has no one speaking in tours in countries in its name. Of course, MIM comrades travel and talk with people like everyone else and revolutionaries everywhere are under obligation to exchange and investigate views. However, there is no reason to accord any security privileges or clearances to MIM comrades or alleged MIM comrades that would not be accorded to ordinary middle-class tourists. Any international comrades relying on secrecy for their safety from a repressive state should not trust any comrades from North America. Whether fully "encapsulated" by the state or not, MIM counts itself amongst those who cannot be trusted. Aside from the question of infiltrators is simply the matter of bungling security.
This is what we said in the February 15, 1998 MIM Notes: " MIM has cutback its 'International Ministry' to reflect its 1997 Congress resolution on the subject. This reflects both a reallocation of resources and a tightening of security. . . .
We remind comrades internationally to be on their guard against people from the imperialist countries posing as communists. In the imperialist countries there is not much danger in discussing politics with people who may or may not be genuine MIM comrades or other comrades. At all times, our Third World comrades should protect their own security in relation to the supposed comrades of the imperialist countries."
The best sources of information about MIM are its web page at www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext, the MIM Notes and MIM Theory.