This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.

PLP evades its own Trotskyist origins again by MC5 September 20 2004 Progressive Labor Party has existed over 40 years. The Summer 2004 issue of their "Communist" magazine reminds one that somewhere along the line--probably in the 1980s-- the theoretical spark in the party died. Now we see attempts to revive it. The most obvious attempts to revive theoretical interest from the ground up in the magazine are the articles "Why Trotskyism Is Reactionary" and "Bolshevik Revolution: The Most Important Event of the 20th Century," an article of less than two pages. The first few pages of "Why Trotskyism Is Reactionary" are pretty much on target. Yet, we notice that there is not much dealing with the actual works of Trotsky or even PLP's line historically itself. In other words, PLP does not acknowledge where the "innovations" that they came up with in departing from Mao originated. At the end of the article, it were as if the writer realized that s/he had to fit in the PLP line and so s/he takes a two-paragraph pot-shot at Marx, Engels, Trotsky, Stalin and Mao: "In practice Trotsky and his followers came to embrace many of the fundamental assumptions of the CPSU(b) and the Comintern. This is not surprising, since in many ways both Trotsky's ideas and those of Stalin and other Soviet leaders can be found in Lenin's works, and can be traced into Marx's and Engels' writings too. "Today the line of the Trotskyist groups is much like that of the revisionist, formerly pro- Soviet and Maoist groups: *support for nationalism whether 'progressive' or not, among 'oppressed nations'; *United Fronts with 'liberal' bourgeois groups against fascism, or simply against conservatives; *the promotion of 'socialism,' meaning pretty much what the Soviets meant by it--social-welfare state capitalism, with great inequalities among managers and workers; *a 'multi-stage' theory of how to arrive at communism (in the rare instances when they even mention communism), and therefore *no fight for communist revolution at all." (p. 20) From this point onwards, the article becomes ridiculous and in a few more paragraphs the article is over. Since the 1980s, thanks to a lack of commentary or struggle on the question, it is clear that PLP does not know there is even an issue of what it is saying and how it compares with what Trotsky said. Hence, MIM will make it PLP-clear in a parallel two paragraphs that the following of PLP's line came from Trotsky, whether PLP followers know it or not: *Stress on anti-racism instead of national liberation is from Trotsky. *Opposition to Stalin's united fronts comes from Trotsky. *Opposition to Stalin's pact with Hitler (even before it was signed) comes from Trotsky. *Belief that more was possible than what the united front of World War II accomplished stems from blaming Stalin for the reaction of the European labor aristocracy and the belief that the European labor aristocracy (mistakenly referred to as "proletariat") is the most advanced class in the world capable of much more than what we saw in World War II stems from Trotsky. *The criticism of stage-ism comes from Trotsky. *The interest in Soviet war communism and the belief that bureaucratic means (dictatorship of the proletariat as PLP calls it) could impose economic communism stems from a plan that Trotsky proposed and the Soviet party turned down. I should only add that PLP is correct to point out Trotsky's Menshevik root.(p. 17) What PLP did not do is compare its own position with Trotsky's to check if it really is anything different. "Trotsky shared with Lenin and the rest of the Bolsheviks the view that the working class in Russia could not long hold power without revolutions in the advanced industrial countries of Western Europe. However, Trotsky was on the 'right' of this continuum of views, believing more firmly than most that a failure of such revolutions would inevitably doom the socialist revolution in Russia. Others were less fatalistic."(p. 17) "Others" referred to by PLP such as Mao saw more progress possible --even in the Third World more backward than Russia. This brings us to the first article: "Attack the Source of Capitalism's Super-Profits: Fight Racism!" We should note that the article is talking about the united $tates. In fact, this is one of the clearest examples of Martin Luther King-style neo-colonialism possible: the article purports to talk about super-profits but does not provide details about anyone outside the united $tates as the source of super-profits. We have only the following lip-service: "Worldwide, workers reap the 'rewards' of globalized U.S. racism: especially low wages, skyrocketing unemployment, the degradation of women, police- state terror and perpetual war."(p. 2) MIM is not surprised by the lip-service, because anyone who actually started getting into the details would realize that PLP's line is impossible. The super-profits from outside the u$a are too big for white workers to be exploited. Marx showed us how to calculate that, but PLP just does not care and in an article less than three pages long, it would be unrealistic to think that PLP would cover the subject. PLP's whole game is based on uniting the U.$. workers regardless of race to share in super-exploitation of the rest of the world, which is why there is hardly any mention of the outside world or the quantity of super-profits sucked into the u$A and which is also why PLP never supports any armed struggles against U.$. imperialism ever since its break with Mao. It's just like the bourgeoisie to cover up its exploitation and deny its existence. To tie this back into the Trotsky article, PLP shares Trotsky's Menshevik line on the advanced industrial countries to a "t." Since breaking with Mao over 30 years ago, PLP has not found a single armed struggle in the Third World that it finds worthy of support. Oh sure, PLP had its armed struggle with other SDS fragments in the day--but when it comes to armed struggles in other countries or against the imperialist state--not a one. We should be clear what that means. PLP is saying that the economic conditions did not produce a single struggle in over 150 countries worth their support. That's exactly what Trotsky was saying. If in over 30 years in over 150 countries there is not one armed struggle worth supporting, one has taken the ultra-Menshevik line. It's utter idealism that nothing advances in 150 countries over 30 years. At the end of this short 44 page magazine filled with May Day speech fluff are four blank pages, a stark reminder of PLP's rather thin theoretical output since it broke with Mao. PLP relies on Trotsky's voluminous anti-communism to fill in the gaps. We would suggest to everyone--if reading, math and "theory" are difficult and painful, then it is important not to claim to be a leader of scientific communism. PLP should continue its anti-racist work and dissolve itself as a purported vanguard party. It produced more literature in the 1960s than everything from 1976 to now combined-- and that literature from the 1960s was more correct.