2.1. In large countries, there can be no justification for "bloodline" theories or narrow cultural outlooks that restrict against cross-cultural dating, marriage and family. There are 35 million Blacks inside U$ borders alone, and there is no danger of that culture being wiped out except from the same imperialist forces threatening the whole species with extinction. As MIM explained in MT2/3, Blacks in inter-racial dating situations face much higher probabilities of being charged with rape than in intra-Black dating. Nonetheless, even this we do not find to be an acceptable reason for a blanket condemnation of cross-cultural family even between Blacks and whites. It is in fact the lingering influence of reactionary parents influenced by bloodline theories that contributes to that situation of rape accusations against Blacks dated by white wimmin in the first place.

Most of the world lives in large ethnic groups--a billion Han people for instance. People belonging to these large ethnic groups do not face an immediate danger of their particular culture going extinct except for the general problem of imperialism which threatens everyone including even one billion Han people. Whatever could wipe out a billion Han people is certainly a threat to the whole species and thus internationalism is in the best interests of Han people and internationalism should apply in the sense of supporting cross-cultural family. Likewise, Hitler may have wiped out one half of the world's Jews, but to do so he had to have the most ferocious world war history had seen yet. Addressing the causation of imperialism then was in Jews' best interests prior to Hitler's appearance in world history. Anything less than such a global approach would not have worked for Jews.

Imperialism, militarism and the womyn question are the topics of the day in avoiding extinction for large ethnic groups. When large ethnic groups lay down taboos against cross-cultural dating in the name of "bloodlines," they throw open the doors to intra-proletarian bloodletting seen globally. These divisive bloodline theories actually undermine the struggle against imperialism and make genocide more likely, not less likely.

Along these lines, we must condemn the theory of Kim Il Sung in Korea (1) and the pro-Liu Shaoqi Red Guards in the Cultural Revolution who upheld the theory of "bloodline."(2) They extended their theory beyond just saying they did not want to marry into ex-landlord families or people with reactionary views. These reactionary views originated by saying that family class background was important and extended that to the point tantamount to saying that genetics were more important than political action. In reality, there is no pure race anywhere. Informed anthropologists and biologists have long known that genetic mixing is the rule and has been for thousands of years.

Kim Il Sung in Korea sought to exploit Confucian customs regarding the family and ancestors in reaction to the U$ imperialist invasion. Not for no reason in Korean history the party chose Kim Il Sung's son to be his successor. However, Kim's reaction to the invasion undermined the struggle against imperialism and thus set back the day of Korean reunification. To benefit the accession of his son to power and supposedly find a basis for uniting Koreans despite tight border controls imposed by Amerikkans and their lackeys, Kim Il Sung corrupted Stalin's theory of nation by introducing the "bloodline" element. This had the effect of stressing that the U$-imposed border broke up Korean families who were still a nation despite economic separation, but it did so at great cost to the struggle against imperialism.

It is true that Kim faced a terrible reality in the Amerikkkan occupation and the situation of super-profit redistribution which made for some Koreans hankering to become the 51st state of the United $tates. Nonetheless, the solution was to attack Western theories of economic development, the manifestations of super-profits and of course, the imperialism underlying the global pattern in both. Nothing that holds back the struggle against imperialism is going to do anything good for the Korean people.

Here is what Stalin said: ""This does not mean, of course, that the proletariat must support every national movement, everywhere and always, in every individual concrete case. It means that support must be given to such national movements as tend to weaken, to overthrow imperialism, and not to strengthen and preserve it. Cases occur when the national movements in certain oppressed countries come into conflict with the interests of the development of the proletarian movement. In such cases support is, of course, entirely out of the question."(3) The bloodline theory is at the center of much intra-proletarian bloodshed and it must die.

In 2004, ethnicities advocating the theory of "bloodline" justified more bloody atrocities in ex-Yugoslavia. Meanwhile, I$raelis went on assassinating Palestinians while fixating great energy on who is a Jew and who is not.

Kim Il Sung was afraid southern Korea would become a nation separate from northern Korea. He took a "pragmatist-empiricist" approach that since he did not like Stalin's line for his particular situation, one data point in the world, he threw out Stalin's theory. MIM says "pragmatist-empiricist," because if we throw out theory every time we think we have an inconvenient fact, we will never have any theory. No theory works 100% of the time or is understood 100% of the time as the case with Kim.

The theory of bloodline is a disaster for the womyn question. The theory of bloodline justifies having casual sex with people outside one's narrow nation while only taking wimmin within one's nation seriously for family purposes. The movie "Big Fat Greek Wedding" handled this question very lightly as did the old Amerikan musical, "South Pacific." In many situations in the world, gender oppression is enforced along national lines with a fictitious bloodline theory behind it. Many cultures have spread a pseudo-science imitating Hitler's which alleges to show that cross-cultural babies are retarded. It must be shot down everywhere. The true roots of the bloodline theory today are the imperialists and their lackeys seeking to divide exploited proletarians of different cultures from each other.

There are some circumstances where we understand cultural restrictions on dating and family formation. In the First Nations of North America we have many numbering less than four digits in population. Many people have chosen to become practicing anthropologists to preserve First Nation cultures. In those cultures, children raised outside the First Nation territory are sometimes deemed to have left the nation and lose their right to reside on First Nation territory. This situation arose because of the nearly complete genocide against the indigenous peoples. Even in this drastic situation, MIM would say that the culture is more important than the bloodline--and even then MIM would only see importance in such a struggle to resuscitate culture if it opposed imperialism. A persyn with more First Nation "blood" may still choose to take up joining the Amerikkkan empire completely while someone with less "blood" stays on the national territory putting children through its schools. Thus even in this most drastic case, there is no reason to raise the "bloodline" theory to divide people. The small ethnicities finding themselves in this situation should not advocate bloodline theories, because these theories contribute to global disharmony and imperialist war and genocide. Nonetheless, it is only in these small ethnicities that any practice discouraging cross-cultural family is justified.

Notes:
1. A report from the Kimist press: "Korean nation should be reunified without fail Pyongyang, September 22 (KCNA) -- The 36th-37th issue of the Russian newspaper "Patriot" carried an article entitled "The demarcation line can not divide the people", written by Mikhail Zemskov, editor-in- chief of the paper, to mark the 49th founding anniversary of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. The United States should be blamed for the division of one country into two on the Korean Peninsula, the article said, and went on: Though the DPRK suffered a big loss through the war imposed by the United States, it defended its sovereignty and dignity and has been turned into a powerful country with advanced industry and independent politics under the leadership of the great leader comrade Kim Il Sung. The DPRK owes such achievements directly to President Kim Il Sung and Secretary Kim Jong Il and singlehearted unity is precisely the secret of vigorous advance of socialist Korea. Some time ago Secretary Kim Jong Il, who is creditably carrying forward President Kim Il Sung's idea for the country's reunification, published a famous work "Let Us Carry Out the Great Leader Comrade Kim Il Sung's Instructions for National Reunification" to newly indicate solutions to the problems arising in the relations between the north and the south and the relations between the DPRK and the United States. Korea is the biggest divided nation as the United States refuses to withdraw its troops from south Korea. It is a wrong, unethical intention to divide people by the demarcation line and force them to forget their bloodline and ancestors, the article noted, adding that the Korean nation should be reunified without fail."

2. For a recent bourgeois source on the "bloodline" of pro-Liu Red Guards during the Cultural Revolution, see http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/chinesehistory/cr/xiaowei.htm#_ftn10 This theory is also referred to as "hereditary redness." 3. "Foundations of Leninism," by Joseph Stalin, Works, Vol. 6, (Foreign Language Publishing House, Moscow, 1953), pp. 145-7.

2.4. MIM has been asked to take a stand on hunter-gatherer societies, tribes where neither agricultural cultivation nor industry have been achieved. Some anthropologists, post-modernists and back-to-nature anarchists believe that socialism and capitalism are the same because the advocates of both systems are industrial and seek to destroy the environment including hunter-gatherer societies. An organization called "Cultural Survival" focuses on this problem.

On the side of somehow artificially preserving hunter-gatherer societies, we hear of course that it is good for the environment. In the event of catastrophe, perhaps these tribes may survive better than the rest of us. The clinching argument is usually cultural relativism which we Marxists do not abide by. One anthropologist told MIM that since we are interested in the social organization of pre-cultivation tribes, we should support their continued existence. This latter argument is tempting, but ultimately lacking a humynitarian quality. It supposes that we should prevent people from stepping into modernity in order that we may study them as subjects better.

The change to modern life is traumatic, not easy. Nonetheless the offer and assistance should be forthcoming. We at MIM frame the pre-industrial tribe question as that of a First Nation question, within the national question. A national struggle that advances the fight against imperialism is positive. Preserving culture for its own sake is not part of the Marxist agenda. Whatever resources the tribes can wrest away from imperialism they should take. However, those imperialist country environmentalists and anthropologists stoking the fire against various Third World societies on behalf of pre-industrial tribes err, because Third World and First Nation peoples are both exploited.