As stated in previous resolutions, MIM will not form chapters in Third World countries. For this reason alone among many others, MIM cannot be equated with the COMINTERN on questions of organization. There is both a qualitative and quantitative difference. If Mao is one pole and the COMINTERN another pole on international organization questions, MIM stands closer to Mao for this reason alone, as the principal substance of concern regards imperialist country party domination of oppressed nation parties.
However, in the imperialist and semi-imperialist countries as well as their internal colonies, MIM has undertaken its organizational work. With regard to the danger of the rocks of hegemonism on the one hand and revisionism and liquidationism on the other hand, MIM has steered firmly for hegemonism within the imperialist countries. In principle, there should be no discussion of organizational hegemonism in geographic locations where there is no Maoist vanguard party at all! (Hegemonism--an ideology of domination, especially in regard to the national question and as can be manifested by one Maoist party's attempting to dominate another one. Revisionism--altering of the fundamental scientific or ideological principles of Marxism. Liquidationism--the mistaken attribution of a small or non-existent role to vanguard party leadership in the struggle for communism--occurring for reasons of ideological laxity, not because any scientific evidence exists that the struggle for communism succeeds better without leadership.)
On a scientific level, the national feelings of the imperialist country peoples and even their internal colonies have no justification with regard to the labor theory of value and the Third World proletariat and exploited peasantry--the economic substance of the principal contradiction on a global level. The peoples of the imperialist countries and their internal semi-colonies are net exploiters, even if in some cases, people in those places are exploited in one narrowly defined context while being given even greater super-profits in return. If one imperialist country persyn offends another imperialist, semi-imperialist or even internal colony persyn in reference to any question on a national level involving national feelings, it is a good thing at the class level (dividing the camp of the enemy on the global scale) and a trivial matter on the level of intra-comrade discussion.
What is true of the classes on an international plane is even more true at an organizational level. The main danger with to what degree and how we reject the COMINTERN model and hegemonism is that spontaneously internationalist and anti-militarist youth will have no scientific party of Maoism to lead them to the truths contained in MIM's cardinal principles. These advanced youth have no national feelings to offend and yet no experience with genuine communist parties. Hence, we cannot worry about organizational hegemonism in their regard until after some parties are formed.
In this year's resolution we would like to address some questions of internationalist organization for the first time. Specifically this resolution will require that any national MIM-affiliated vanguard party will have to have a representative on MIM's highest political bureau, the Central Committee in the past and possibly the Politburo if there is one.
If the existing MIM leadership does not believe the ideological level and quality of the comrades in newly forming party organizations is high enough to serve in the MIM leadership, then MIM will grant no party affiliation status. It would be MIM contradicting itself on the one hand to stand by and watch a party form without proper leadership thereby discrediting Maoism and at the same time admit such party organizations into MIM. Of special importance is the stability of such leadership comrades, because formation of parties followed by their degeneration is of special debilitating concern.
In the event that a national party organization forms that wishes to join MIM and no member of that national party is deemed seasoned and advanced enough to be in the MIM Politburo, then said MIM comrades will not speak for MIM in their countries and will lead organizations such as RAIL, MSG and PIRAO or more general party work until that time when the nation in question generates a Politburo level persyn.
People in each place will still bear responsibility for developing their own line on their own conditions and for directing work in their conditions. We will not be having North America direct work on conditions in other places, except to the extent that it cannot be done in the MIM name without adherence to its cardinal principles, which we consider universal in validity. But really if there were no North American comrades, that could still be done.
Footnote: For further related details, we also refer readers to MIM Theory #7 on when it is ripe to form a national party distinct from so-called multi-racial ones. The same question of having comrades able to publish a newspaper is true in the overall international context as it is in the "multi-racial" context.
Contact MIM by writing mim@mim.org