The marxists.org recently had this to say about MIM for its stance on marx2mao.org also reviewed in this links section of the web page and in our now defunct Yahoo group more at length. "Dave" is of the marx2mao that MIM has called on Internet people not to use.

"Sorry about the trouble with MIM"

"Dave,

"Very sorry to hear about the trouble you've had with MIM. Such infighting is really horrible, the wretched game of accusing one another as spies without evidence breaks my heart. The MIM should be ashamed of its ignorance: the internet is horribly insecure, it doesn't take spies to figure out who visits what sites!! All that is necessary is a snooping device on your upstream provider -- not a damn thing can be done about it. What is really sick about this whole thing is the RESULT of what MIM proposes: don't read Marxism on-line, BUY books instead; e.g. it is, in practice, promoting the ignorance of Marxism.

"If there is something I can do Dave, please let me know. We may have different politics, but attacking Marxism on-line is an attack against us all.

"In Solidarity,

"Brian Basgen"

Web Minister replies for MIM:
There are a lot of incorrect assumptions packed into this Liberal drivel above. As MIM has been pointing out for 20 years now, the fact that the enemy can use high-tech means of espionage and spends billions on espionage each year does not mean it is correct to abandon the struggle for security. An Arab paper recently pointed out that U.S. high-tech espionage can determine the color of Saddam Hussein's underwear and detect the motion of ants. Fortunately, the Iraqi people have not surrendered to the invaders on that account.

The reasons not to surrender are numerous: 1) Raising the cost to the enemy, because even when s/he does espionage correctly it costs him/her. 2) The enemy must sort out true from false once information is obtained. 3) The enemy may not bother.

In any case, MIM never claimed there were not other ways for the enemy to provide the same or similar information that marx2mao has provided. Hence, Basgen has raised a red herring. The fact that the United $tates can machine-gun Iraqis and also bomb them is not really relevant regarding any attitude toward struggle. By Basgen's "reasoning" everyone would give up because cops can know the color of your underwear and your middle initials.

As for ignorant claims, Basgen raises a completely different subject. Anyone offering the Internet as a substitute for reading from paper is dooming the proletariat to ignorance. We are surprised to hear anyone say it. "In the past readability research has focused on printed text on paper, and typography designed for print as it has been rendered on screen. In the majority of studies it has been shown that reading performance of subjects who read text presented on paper is much better than that of subjects reading from alternative presentation media."(1)

"The average reading speed on paper is between 150 and 250 words per minute. At that rate it can take more than 5 minutes just to read a single column of the Wall Street Journal. On a computer screen the situation gets worse. The average speed drops to about 100 words per minute and on a hand-held device it decreases further to only 40-60 words per minute."(2) So obviously Basgen's enthusiasm dooms the proletariat to reading half of what it used to read.

Then there is also the fact that sitting up for hours at a computer screen is associated with a host of syndromes which are basically new-fangled forms of arthritis. Taking the book on the bus or to the beach is much better, especially if outdoor activity occurs in the off-hours as a result of having a paper book instead of a computer screen.

That's not to mention the people who simply won't go to the Internet even if they have the choice, and only go there for quick use of technological tools and then leave. Forbes has concluded that the average persyn likes to buy things from Internet but not read them there(3)--something with obvious implications for our strategy leading people to Amazon. Whether we like it or not, most people do NOT like to read online and still prefer paper for reading purposes.

Our task is to start an explosion in people's minds. For most people introducing themselves to Marxism and communist history, the heavy fighting will go on on paper later.

All of the above is just addressing marxists.org red herrings. We did not say the enemy has only one way to spy. We also did not say the texts of Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin and Mao should not be on the Internet. Quite the contrary, we were the first to put them on the Internet and we have attacked marx2mao for putting "copyrights" on the classics. We have also suggested that if those texts are not being widely spread to organizations and computers, we know what the original purpose of the "copyrights" and spying was anyway, both to obtain information and also wreck distribution. It's too bad that the marxists.org had nothing to say about that or the fact that marx2mao's work can be reduplicated, and hence there is no need to put up with either "copyright" or spying.

Long before there was a marx2mao or marxists.org, MIM was providing free classic texts on the Internet. As the pioneer, MIM's enthusiasm for the Internet is not in doubt. MIM is Marxism online and these Liberals at marxists.org and marx2mao people taking advantage of Liberalism haven't read or acknowledged the first thing in Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Mao on security.

Notes:
1. scholar.lib.vt.edu/theses/available/etd-102999-110544/ unrestricted/WeisenmillerDissertation.pdf
2. http://www.rapidreader.com/abt_rapidreader.html
see also, http://www.nsnews.com/issues00/w112700/entertainment/books/webwriting.html ; a number of sources point to computers screens as reducing reading speed 25%, e.g. http://www.content-exchange.com/cx/html/newsletter/1-6/bk1-6.htm 3. http://www.forbes.com/1999/01/09/feat_print.html