Before we even address the details of what marx2mao said about MIM's criticism, we would like to point out a few things regarding some non-discerning responses we have received. 1) Again, marx2mao is not some communist leader being dragged down by secret methods. marx2mao is putting forward resources that are the public resources of the international communist movement. Those showing a lack of discernment treat marx2mao as if it were some rare resource, thereby demonstrating that they do not understand the strategic tasks in front of our movement. Among other things, if marx2mao cannot dissolve without a loss of Mao's works online, then that is an overall problem of the communists, not a problem for the proletariat, which could hardly be blamed for such a lack of tactical energy or strategic vision. 2) As anyone could have noted long ago, marx2mao tries to copyright the works of Marx, Lenin and Mao. That by itself should have been a clue.
The marx2mao.org website has responded to MIM's public criticism of its security risk that we published in MIM Notes 264 "Marx2Mao.org is a security risk." On October 17th, marx2mao.org released some mixed statements of warning and sarcasm and established some false links to the MIM web page.
We would like to point out that marx2mao.org responses continued to encourage Liberalism and speculation in thinking. 1) The article says MIM did not reply to marx2mao.org inquiries in August 2002. Quite the contrary, MIM directed its inquiries toward our http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Maoism where there were several messages on the subject. With that as a matter of public record, the question is why did marx2mao.org lie on October 17th and say MIM did not respond? 2) marx2mao.org says MIM must have done some "pretty heavy-duty snooping" to know what it knows. As anyone who has actually set up a newspaper serving as a tribune of the oppressed knows, that is quite wrong. A well-functioning tribune known for standing on the side of justice receives input from the masses all the time without soliciting it--no "heavy-duty snooping" required. (No we are not revealing how we know what we know about marx2mao.org, only pointing out that Leninists already know that marx2mao.org's speculative response is not consistent with Leninism.) 3) The marx2mao.org adds sarcastically: "the [MIM website] links take you to amazon.com, which apparently is a very security-conscious site (for there is no reason to believe that MIM would ever direct its visitors to an insecure site)."
Again, the marx2mao.org wants to wash everything away in a sea of Liberal assumptions. The difference is that amazon.com does not represent to be anything but a multinational corporation. People who go there to buy Mao's works or the "RCP-USA"'s works (both of which were on sale there before MIM linked to Amazon) have no reason to trust the multinational corporation. Marx2Mao.org claims to be a public service and that is a hugely important distinction that makes it all the better for serving as a cover for enemy activities. Then again, anyone who has read any Engels, Lenin or Mao knows that they all explicitly warned against the covert enemy supposedly within your own camp as the most dangerous.
It seems that only marx2mao.org itself does not know that 1) techniques of security work are not in the open in the tradition of Lenin and Mao 2) that much information from the oppressed comes pouring into the tribune of the oppressed without requiring any Leninist comrade's lifting a finger for "heavy-duty snooping." Thus Marx2Mao.org demonstrates that it does not have experience of this practice or knowledge of the very writings on that website. 3) that the unexposed enemy supposedly in your own camp is the most dangerous--the substance not only of police infiltration but all of revisionism as well.