I. The question of war and seizing state power now

MIM has talked decades now about how we cannot do our jobs in the imperialist countries without understanding that the population is labor aristocracy. We had a dramatic confirmation this week with International Wimmin's Day. The same exact set of words uttered inside Iran have one meaning but while muttered in the united $tates, have a totally different impact. When Iranians talk to Iranians about the conditions of wimmin, the principal impact is not self-hatred of Iran. Yet when we raise the question of Iran's wimmin in the united $tates, the principal impact--the way it is done by imperialists and revisionists basing themselves in the labor aristocracy--is to build a war climate.

We said the same thing about the Turkish movie "Yol." If anti-imperialists see it, the impact is fine, but if Fox Studios or someone bought the rights and showed it country-wide or took it and jazzed up the love stories, the impact would be devastating and it would put Turkey on the hit list for imperialism. There IS a reason that neo-conservatives won 60 million votes this last election. Comrades best take that as advice from MIM, people who are professionals in studying Western public opinion, people raised inside the imperialist countries and know what's what.

To discard MIM's advice, it better be on the basis of one's own thorough investigation. The reason Bush made a statement about International Wimmin's Day singling out Iran, northern Korea and Burma is not that he cares about wimmin's conditions. The reason is that he is actually more advanced than many of our comrades when it comes to manipulating public opinion. Bush knows the truth that the left-wing of white nationalism tries to blind us to. When Bush gets up there and says he's all for International Wimmin's Day and the struggle in Iran, he has hordes of professionals standing behind him, people like Karl Rove, people who know what the impact is going to be. Meanwhile, our troglodyte leaders of the international communist movement are still listening to seat-of-the-pants amateurs babbling about a white proletariat. If there are any international communist leaders who do not know all this already, then they need to bring some new people into their circles, clear some space.

We pointed this out before in our Congress resolution on animal rights too. Spreading vegan propaganda inside u.$. borders about u.$. chicken-raising practices is one thing. Spreading vegan propaganda about China's eating dogs inside u.$. borders builds a war climate.

In the Amerikan heartland, where the majority of people we were dealing with are Bush voters, MIM showed a movie several times to hundreds of people, a movie recommended by the left-wing of white nationalism. Actually we ourselves saw very little wrong with the movie, but when it was all over and we studied the reactions, we were astonished. The movie had lots of good economic explanations of capitalism and imperialist intervention, but when it was over it were as if the viewers had only seen one thing in the whole movie. They were keying in on plant closings. When they did that, we also found invariably that the resolves that strengthened, the change of opinion reported was that they now want to kick the migrants out. This is the kind of thing that scientific Marxist-Leninist-Maoists have to know, because good intentions are far from enough. It is the objective impact of one's actions that matter, not the subjective intentions. Bringing domestic economic questions to the Amerikans riles them up for economic nationalism. This will be the impact even of a movie with relatively high internationalist content.

There is some especially bad twaddle from social-fascists trailing off into mysticism about ignoring polls. It goes to the whole level of ignoring the quantitative side of questions. But if you show 1000 Amerikans a movie about conditions for wimmin in Turkey, Iran or Iraq, then you better know what the impact is afterwards. The actual impact of a movie that keys on foreign gender conditions by themselves is to strengthen the resolve of average Amerikans to stay in Iraq and "finish the job." In contrast, you really make some headway if you show a movie with Amerikan soldiers visiting prostitutes of color. MIM has done that too. When you show that movie, you are not spreading racism, but wimmin invariably respond with the same racism that made them support the war to begin with. I'm sorry to say it, but they could care less about civilian casualties in the Third World, but show Third World wimmin getting the Amerikan soldier, and the result is earth-shaking vacillation, in the hardest of hard core Bush sectors.

Impact is something we have to know from studying numbers, from practice and from summing that up into theory. Other parties don't study numbers, don't put new ideas into practice and have no capability for summing up into theory even if they did carry out study and practice. It has also to do with being professional communist scientists and not religious devotees of a vision of a white proletariat.

The imperialists have themselves crunched the numbers on Archie Bunker. They found that contrary to the directors' intentions, Archie is the least likely character to be seen as satired in "All in the Family" by the Amerikan oppressor public. It must have been a terrible blow to go to all that work, get the damned monopoly capitalist TV station to accept the show and then watch in horror as the poll numbers come in. After studying this at length, the monopoly capitalists built a show just for Archie called "Archie's Place." If you don't know that, if you can't see the class reality behind those poll numbers, then you do not understand why the seemingly well-intentioned left-wing of white nationalism is so effete, except when it comes to reinforcing war climates and patriarchy.

We should include well-intentioned attempts to talk about conditions for wimmin in Iraq. NOW and the crypto-Trotskyists have pointed out that conditions for wimmin in Iraq have not gotten better. Of course, our scientific communists need to know that and in detail. At the same time though, NOW and the crypto-Trotskyists spread illusions about ordinary Amerikans and their capacities for doing other than overseeing a disaster in Iraq. We have to understand--finding out that wimmin did not advance in Iraq can be taken two ways by the labor aristocracy. One portion will conclude it is hopeless. We need to side with them. Another portion of the labor aristocracy will conclude we Amerikkkans need to "stay the course" and "finish the job." Our pseudo-feminists and crypto-Trotskyists are not explaining that to the rest of the world. Leaving out Amerikan incapacity is actually giving the labor aristocracy an ongoing reason to support the wars to "clean up" the gender mess.

Believe it or not, but much public pressure to stay in Iraq comes from believing it would be "irresponsible" to leave it in a mess. There is even evidence that Bush won his election in 2004, because the public wanted him to be responsible for "cleaning up his own mess." Those who believe it is hopeless believe it is the violence of the insurgents making good Amerikan efforts pointless. That is close enough to true for internationalists to gain from that. We need to augment their ranks with those who see that u.$. troops themselves are incapable of carrying out the imaginary "mission" of improving wimmin's conditions. If we don't do that we are basically waiting for the imperialist war machine to exhaust itself economically, who knows when and after what violence.

Recently, NOW took the positive step of mentioning that female troops are dying in Iraq as a reason to bring them home. Still that can sound like "cut and run" to the labor aristocracy. NOW has yet to own up to the female role in the global prison system, including in the highest command. It's not surprising because NOW is proud of the female bourgeoisie. We are not really breaking the back of the will to stay in Iraq unless we get to the point about the intervention's incapacity. The Iraqis defeat the military and that does more than anything else. We speed it up by helping people get over the idea that the labor aristocracy or gender aristocracy has anything good to bring Iraq. Depicting the purity of a white proletariat plays into White Man's Burden, not socialist revolution. When we point to Abu Ghraib, over and over, we are showing people that not only is there a violent disaster, but also that we Amerikans just do not have the capacity to fix the mess we created including improving conditions for wimmin. To really break the back of the war, we have to show that there is no instrument that can bring about "mission accomplished" after "staying the course" as Bush always says but as fantasized by the labor aristocracy. NOW and the parties opposed to MIM just do not accomplish that ever, because they seek to flatter the troops and Amerikkkans generally instead of spreading understanding of their decadence.

After all these decades, there are countless MIM critics who definitely do not get it, because the class they represent will not allow them to get it. The factual truth matches up nothing like to a dogma about a widespread proletariat inside u.$. borders. The "labor aristocracy" concept is on-target. In considerably more doubt is whether the leaders of the Peoples' Wars will get it or continue to prop up an organization they have tried to prop up for more than 20 years with little result--other than a few limited pragmatic considerations of the here and now.

This all has to do with whether the international communist movement can discern the question of imperialist war and hence a major component of coming to state power. There may be those who stress over and over again that they want to come to state power, but if we look at their practice, it shows no evidence of taking basic tasks seriously.

The Third World has had People's Wars aware of MIM's struggle over 10 years now. Currently, they are aware that a party calling itself "Marxist-Leninist-Maoist" has literally distributed CIA articles in its newspaper and has taken the CIA's side on struggles ranging from Peru to expressionist art to support for Amerikan pseudo-feminist CIA agent Gloria Steinem to singling out Iran on International Wimmin's Day. These parties also know that there is lately emanating a different line on the Democratic Party from this organization. They should also be aware by now that the Pentagon and Bush's closest circles are full of ex-Trotskyists.

When considering this question, there are a host of wrong ideas that go through the mind. One is that the imperialist countries are worthless to the struggle, because it's been since 1917 since we had a revolution and we've had no internally-based revolution in imperialist fascism or imperialist bourgeois democracies. Mao said when there is no People's Army, the people have nothing. So there is nothing. The Eighth Route Army is not marching through Kansas.

As a result of having nothing, the next thought is to take what we can get pragmatically from the imperialist countries. This is a wrong idea in connection to specific organizations but a correct idea to extend and raise to principle for a class, the international proletariat. There is a big difference once we start thinking about what is good for the whole international proletariat as opposed to what we can get from this or that organization. Thinking about it on an organizational level leads to splitting the difference among all organizations. Thinking in the first place about the international proletariat and where it's going to be 50 years from now leads in another direction, a break with parasitism, with hedging and with an emphasis on science that we want the future to have.

We must revert in the imperialist country cases to "doing our share" of the internationalist work and the Third World parties should expect that on a per comrade basis, and per comrade basis only. That is the starting vantage point, Lenin's definition of internationalism, whether or not we are going to be in state power any time soon. In the Third World they should not talk as if it will be them last coming to power, but in the imperialist countries, Lenin's definition of internationalism matches up well with what the party requirements should be.

With the parties that do not match up to that, we do not have to give them any due. There is absolutely nothing wrong with having "The Organization for Recovering Christian Labor Aristocrats" that are now considering Mao. We can have "Trade Unionists for Mao as a Second Choice." Actually, the vanguard party should work with groups like that, because even to spur that much vacillation is an accomplishment as long as it is done in a mass organization, not the party itself.

II. The question of working now to prevent capitalist restoration in the future

All this MIM has stressed before. Both the Third World and imperialist side of the struggle have interlinked futures and both can become frustrated with each other out of impatience for the future. Today we need to start from the other side and see what we can conclude. MIM will try to make more of a case for itself as part of not just running down the labor aristocracy but understanding what it means to the future. Running down the labor aristocracy has to do with war right now and therefore the question of getting to state power. The future also has a question linked to the labor aristocracy of today, even after socialism has come to power.

As MIM said, it's been over ten years of contact with Marxism-Leninism-Maoism- MIM Thought. There will be a practical side of leaders with heavy responsibilities to say that their own people do not know the situation in the imperialist countries and we can hide it. It's not urgent is easy to think. On the other hand, standards are different after 10 years confrontation with MIM line.

MIM believes time is running out for international pragmatism. Reportedly the People's War has control in much of Nepal. In many other places, the people will have to come to an understanding of the lifestyles of Amerikans and other imperialist country people they see on TV or in the movies or imperialist propaganda. In other words, Mao's "blank slate" is much in doubt internationally.

As we recently showed in an article about the roots of Deng Xiaoping's cabal, it is wrong to discount the theoretical training one receives in one's youth. So we ask the '60s generation of leaders, not to be pragmatic, not to think how little the imperialist country parties are good for, not to think how there are not People's Wars in power. We also ask that just because they arose in the 1960s, not to be too optimistic either where the people will rise like a mighty current and smash all obstacles no matter what, no matter where and no matter when. Rather, the leaders of the international communist movement, they need a 50 or 60 year horizon. Deng Xiaoping came to communism in the 1920s. He restored capitalism only more than 50 years later. How can we dare take a pragmatic and narrow approach after thinking about that?

What it means is that what people are hearing and thinking right now could very well influence what happens 50 years from now, 2056. If we do not get the theory of productive forces straight right now, we could see another capitalist restoration for the exact same reasons we already had in China--but in 2046 instead of 1976.

In this comment about "I wouldn't want to live there" regarding socialism, we hear subjectivism. Is it really that the '60s generation has a different elan and different subjective state of mind and that will be the difference? Will the People's Wars be going for various superstructural fads to boost popularity? Is it likely that either Nepal or the Philippines is going to escape the pull of the Western living standard in the intermediate period before the joint dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations (JDPON)? And do our international communist leaders see that the parasitism question is tied up with criticizing Khruschevism? Do they not see that the reason they resist the JDPON is that they implicitly believe the imperialists will not attack the Perus of the future? What kind of Trotskyist or Khruschevian conception must that entail? Are you really looking 50 years forward when you say something opposed to the Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed Nations?

MIM is not saying anything the international communist movement does not know on some level. There is such a thing as a "generation" and there is a "cohort" effect. What kind of generation do we want to send into the future, another one like Deng's or one that shoots down the theory of the productive forces forwards, sideways, backwards, from behind-the-back and upside-down -between-the-legs, before the age of 25? How many of the 1960s generation comrades can honestly say that revolutionaries show up suddenly after age 30? And that they continuously improve their outlook and bring that to the struggle? Is that what happened in China? I will even endorse, the social-fascists' line that "most of the time communists are not being communists," but as a given, not just as something ideological to shoot down. It means if you slack off now, you pay later, because it's a pattern we can observe in communist history already and it is best not to bet too heavily on overcoming it completely in the future.

What people see in their youth and how they see it shapes their whole future. We can even say it is a drawback of our species right now, but we ignore it at the peril of the communist movement and the species' whole existence.

When Third World youth and others look at the lifestyles of the West, and try to explain them to themselves, they can come to roughly three conclusions. 1) Like the bourgeoisie, they can conclude technology or capital is magic and justifies the return to capitalists or the workers who use technology. 2) They can take the pure labor aristocracy line and believe that the labor aristocracy works say 30 times harder than Vietnamese people. 3) They can learn the labor theory of value and understand parasitism--completely. This latter truth will lead us away from Negri/Trotsky and toward an appreciation of the importance of putting down imperialism and keeping it down while extracting reparations. We must know the full implications that technology and capital come from labor in the productive sector of capitalism. Dare MIM ask how many leaders of the international communist movement even know what that "productive sector" is, really? And have they incorporated this idea in their teachings? Is that not a danger in itself?

The reason the middle-class lifestyle of the West is important, is actually not the people living that lifestyle themselves, a global minority with no long-term political significance. The importance of the global petty-bourgeoisie is how the people look at it and interpret the economic development behind that petty- bourgeoisie's appearance. Globally, people are settling the issue of economic development in their minds at an intuitive level. It is this we must combat with Marx's theory of surplus-value and the related theory of economic development. No parties other than MIM-supporting ones are fully combating spontaneity on this question.

What is common to the non-MIM line in the imperialist countries and Deng Xiaoping is the theory of the productive forces. Every single other party opposing MIM in the imperialist countries still does not get the theory of productive forces that Marx spent so many pages destroying, and with life-and- death reasons. You can look through all their publications and you will not find an explanation of how Marx crushed the theory of productive forces for application in the West.

One party claiming to be opposed to Deng's theory of productive forces nonetheless is running around the imperialist countries saying that imperialist country workers produce 20 times their subsistence. Until we know that that is flat out impossible, and a fantasy of the productive forces ilk, until we fully understand the labor theory of value, until we realize that trillions are sucked out of the Third World annually, we are not equipping the future of socialism with the correct understanding of economic development and that means we are asking for capitalist restorations again. It means we are asking for static-minded dolts who will beg for scientific and technological plans from the capitalists while they put aside the Gang of Four of the future as some kind of provincial people who do not understand economic development. Quite the opposite, it is the bourgeoisie that is not close to understanding economic development and it is Marxism's strongest suit.

MIM fully admits it: without a People's Army, the people have nothing. The people inside u.$. borders have nothing. That does not mean the Third World cannot get something out of what is inside u.$. borders. In fact, we guarantee that the Third World will get something from inside u.$. borders, the question being what. Will it be the imperialist/labor aristocracy interpretation of economic development or will it be the MIM one?

There are so many ways in which our struggles are not parallel or analogous to those of the Third World. Nonetheless, everywhere MIM goes, the exposure of parasitism also goes and the jarring of perspective that needs to occur to get on the right track also occurs. It is wrong to even care about MIM right now at an immediate level. MIM is a relay station to the Third World future. When you look at MIM, do not see the people in front of you--the scattered elements of an imperialist country--but your own people and what they think in the future.

The bottom line: you our comrades tolerating the revisionist parties cannot evade this question, because your own migrants are important. Those migrants will come back and talk to people who have seen imperialist lifestyle on TV. Future Deng Xiaopings are already germinating, while you take a pragmatic view of what you can get from this or that organization and how you can split the difference ideologically.

The future of the Third World and imperialist country struggles are linked together. A lack of state power and armed struggle leads to frustration and even more division if we allow it. We must be cool and objective. However, today MIM has a simple message for our Third World comrades. Propping up revisionist imperialist country parties in some sort of spite for MIM is ultimately hurting your future. We know that some of you know you formed an organization that is inherently sectarian. You did not think it all the way through why Stalin and Mao did what they did for the benefit of international communist unity. Some have corrected their errors. But more important than sectarianism is that you not prop up the theory of productive forces. You must support the right theory of development and you must make sure that it gets heard everywhere, not just your own country but in the imperialist countries, especially in your migrant organizations. Supporting sectarianism of an organization that stole our very name is dangerous only in that it weakens the correct voice on the question of parasitism and the theory of productive forces that YOUR people are going to hear. Meanwhile, you strengthen the voice of a party spreading ideas on why migrants should wage the struggle from inside imperialism with the "exploited" workers there. You piss away the future of the Third World struggle in that direction also. Since the imperialist countries are allegedly 65% proletarian, and 90% friendly, there is no reason for your best comrades not to move to those imperialist countries and wage the struggle there to free their homelands--so the Trotskyist line goes.

Since the Third World is the decisive portion as Mao said, it means you are hurting the decisive portion of the future. You must cast away illusions that some white persyn is going to lead the imperialist country workers any day now to revolution. Your own people are probably too smart to be fooled by the track record since 1917. If your people are fooled, it is an illusion second in damage only to turning over weapons to the imperialists or compradors or giving away secure locations.

In exchange for this hopeful illusion of white worker revolution coming any minute, you pay a price of admission, the dangerous idea that imperialist country workers are exploited, which implies that they produce their living standard and beyond that for profits. When your own workers come to power and do not produce at the level that the Trotskyists said, they will blame the dictatorship of the proletariat. The future Deng Xiaoping will get his opening. And it will all be because you yourself did not understand economic development, accumulation and exploitation when you were 20 or 30 and because you straddled or pissed on MIM when you needed energetically to push away all obstacles blocking MIM's message. What you are saying right now is fanning the future collapse of the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Instead, what you need to aim for is time between the individual victories of the People's Wars and the implementation of the joint dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed nations. By telling people that imperialist country so-called workers are "exploited," you cut your own time between the initial victory of a People's War and the eventual demise of imperialism. There will be an increased risk that your socialism will go down the drain before the proletariat can put away imperialism.

That's right: picture it. The next Deng Xiaoping comes to power undoing your work after taking advantage of illusions you built up. The next Deng Xiaoping will even be able to quote you that Western workers produced their own living standard plus a profit. He will find in your work a million places that you said Western workers are exploited and then he will ask his audience why workers can't do that in your country under socialism. And the truth is, he need not be even that direct, because people piece that together subconsciously whether or not the revisionists piece it together as if a line from point A to point B. The more you piss on or ignore MIM now, the more you try to split the difference with the dogshit revisionist parties, the more difficult you make your future. When you die, thanks to the fact that you did not do thorough self-criticism on parasitism, thanks to your sentimental internationalist outreach to the imperialist country petty-bourgeoisie, thanks to the fact that you did not excise from all your written works any mention of white worker exploitation or high technology working wonders, another Deng Xiaoping will come to power.

Yes, we know, that psychologically it is difficult to switch from the optimism of the 1960s and the overwhelming might of the international proletariat located mostly in the Third World to focus long enough on this imperialist petty-bourgeoisie question. It is psychologically difficult to believe as MIM says that the parties calling themselves supporters of Mao in the West are just trash. It seems not egalitarian, but it is the truth. Development is uneven. There just are times when certain countries do not shed much light. Again, we must as Mao did have strategic confidence in the toilers of the oppressed nations. If that comes at the expense of all the organizations of the West, so be it. What is important is not the organizations, but the interests of the international proletariat. That is the number one lesson in fighting sectarianism. If our international comrades do not know it, they should re-read Mao on sectarianism. No where does it say in Mao that we have to have many organizations or respect a certain number. What it says in Mao is that fighting sectarianism means putting the proletariat above the organization. Fighting sectarianism can mean that it is essential to trash almost all the parties of the West, if it could mean a crucial difference in the migrant struggle for example or if it could help in crushing illusions about Western living standards among the exploited.

To return to this "I wouldn't want to live there" comment, the people themselves are not spontaneously going to understand what is bugging them about economic development under socialism, and therefore politics under socialism. Wimmin are going to wonder why they do not have luxury goods like the West's. Nationalities are going to start wondering if they are not being exploited since they do not enjoy the Amerikan standard of living. There is literally not a single living standard issue where people will be able to see the intersection of economics and force underlying their perceptions--because economic accumulation is the unconscious factor of politics, not libido as pointed out by Freud.

If the scientific Marxist-Leninist-Maoists do not apply their armed struggle in such a way as to accompany a piercing of illusions, even among their own people, the clock will start ticking for capitalist restoration. Trotsky was correct about the labor productivity question (comparative labor productivity coefficients) and how it drags down backward socialist countries. He was just wrong on where the solution comes from. His propaganda made the problem worse by implying that Western productivity was not a matter of parasitism. Force must go into solving that problem and we must also spread our view of economic development with the proof that goes with it--namely that the rich countries are the colonial ones that became neo-colonialists in order to go on super-exploiting the world.

To obtain a following, those imperialist parasite parties are all spreading the theory of productive forces to pacify "their" so-called workers. They deliver the second blow, the first one being delivered by the imperialists who already spread their wares on how they see economic development occurring. This one-two punch lands with near perfect regularity. Yet you somehow expect Deng Xiaopings not to arise while not supporting Marx on the theory of productive forces and Lenin on parasitism and decadence right now.

Perhaps some international comrades think we are nasty bastards here at MIM. Some u.$. revisionists even clamor for a new leader as if that would make a difference given that MIM was never in the leader selling business for countries with a long historical track record of pluralism, individualism-- and now identity politics. However, MIM has seen that labor bureaucracies can arise in the Third World parties. There is a possibility for organizational stodginess to set in. From MIM's point of view, we are in 2006, and Third World parties are still not on track to teach their own people the real sources of economic development. If you do not have scientific leaders who understand the real sources of economic development prepared now for the future, you are begging for capitalist restoration. That is why we are far from an easy unity with any party without our third cardinal. We at MIM tend to see labor bureaucracies and compradors-in-waiting in control still where the MIM third cardinal is not upheld and spread.

We see future Deng Xiaopings and then you wonder why we are vehement. You show year after year that you do not apply the labor theory of value and Lenin's teachings on parasitism. Quite the contrary, we hear you again and again applying the theory of productive forces exactly as derided by Marx. This is not something with no application right now. This is not something to save for a dying struggle among a bunch of 80-year-olds in a future socialist state. It is happening right now and you are failing the test! This is a full-scale deviation from Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in the Third World and outright revisionism in the imperialist countries. If the deviation continues unrectified, it is a matter of time, probably less than 50 years before we have another Deng Xiaoping monster after a new revolution.

No, it is wrong to say just because MIM has not come to power it is not the authority. You have migrants to deal with and Mao is still the authority on that. Mao fought hard to introduce criticism of the theory of productive forces into Chinese conditions. You should be applying it too.

Secondarily, the Third World parties need to think what position they are putting us in in the imperialist countries. What conditions can they expect us to understand in their countries, but also if we at MIM see that the parasitism and economic development question are incorrectly handled globally, can you really expect MIM to be able to tend to anything else? Knowing that Deng Xiaoping and others absorbed all the wrong illusions about French living standards, can we afford to slack off on blistering criticism of the imperialist country petty- bourgeoisie? Bursting bubbles of would-be compradors, labor aristocrats and gender aristocracy is MIM's professional job right now. It would be different if the Third World parties united for MIM's third cardinal and struggled hard for the labor theory of value and Marx's theory of development, and if all these Brezhnevite deviants were gone from the scene. If the situation were confidently in hand, MIM could work more on other things. We do work on other things, but our priority and what bubbles we have to burst depend on the international situation in our communist movement. So advance in one situation depends on advance in the other. If the international strategic balance of forces cleared up on the question of economic development, there would be a natural impulsion to the next stage of struggle.

We hope that explains to comrades globally that when they come to MIM with this or that or attack MIM for this or that, MIM often hears trifles. We are not hearing people who show discernment in their judgements about what is happening politically with Trotskyism now and more importantly, we are not hearing people who give us confidence for their own revolution's future, even should it come to state power. To this extent, it is even MIM's duty to ignore some of the noise and proceed with our work. The armed struggle has a way of bringing out the truth and we may have to wait for that development. At the same time, the danger increases with every passing year that the international communist movement fails to implement the MIM line in imperialist countries and Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in the Third World. For the migrant question alone, not to mention the question of handling non-migrant Third World illusions about the West, the MIM line deserves all-out application, now before it's too late. There is no other Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line for application to migrants.

Even if you do not have the psychological strength to tell the packs of recovering Christians and trade unionists masquerading as Maoists in the West that they are revisionist, because MIM did not come to power yet in an imperialist country, then you should at least set your own people straight. Your migrants have to get it right. In the deepest countryside, when the topic of lifestyles of the West come up, the answer has to be correct or you are digging the grave of the revolution in your own country.