Picking up the rock and dropping it on your own feet, again, and again, and again
16 Comments 
Posted under: anti-communism, gender, philosophy, polemic, science and epistemology, theory
*MIM disputes some of this article on factual grounds, see comments.*
Picking up the rock and dropping it on your own feet, again, and again, and again
(llco.org)
The Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) has recently published another strange, rambling document aimed at us. (1) The document repeats many bizarre claims such as the accusation that Leading Light had engaged in “wrecking” against MIM by publishing a rather kind obituary of Henry Park, their leader who had sadly degenerated in various obvious ways many years ago. In MIM’s bizarro world, our gushing obituary, probably the kindest thing ever written about Henry Park, somehow constitutes “wrecking.” We invite everyone reading this to read the obituary and judge for themselves. (2) It is also odd that MIM whines about what we “were printing about MIM a handful of years ago,” especially since everything we printed went through our leadership, which, at the time, probably had more one-time MIM leaders than the MIM cell that Henry Park was running had. MIM must know this. It isn’t like this was some Leading Light wrecking operation, but an appraisal that was approved by many of those who were Henry Park’s comrades.
Leading Light was not the one forcing Henry Park to spam his delusions online. If anything constitutes a wrecking campaign against MIM, it is not the kind obituary we wrote, but the dozens of paranoid, delusional, and personal materials published by Henry Park in his final years. Leading Light would prefer to not speak ill of the dead out of respect. It is a shame that MIM has chosen to drag all this up again by forcing us to set the record straight. MIM has a security cult that functions very much like the personality cult in other organizations. As part of this paranoid cult, MIM sees itself as a target of enemies everywhere. MIM has a history of seeing false patterns in random events, which is also a result of the cult. Our mention of Henry Park’s “degeneration” years ago and a recent blurb on social media saying that most people think “all sex is rape” is “crazy” does not constitute some pattern of wrecking. The two events are years apart and unrelated. Although MIM’s phony set up, their interpretation of these disconnected events, might just get people to start thinking that maybe MIM “doth protest too much,” maybe there is something to the “crazy” allegation. Where there is smoke, there is often fire. Just as MIM was its worst enemy then, MIM is its worst enemy now. MIM probably does not even realize that they need only look in the mirror to find the wreckers. The title of MIM’s article is “MIM(Prisons) pwned by sexual liberalism.” However, the title should be “MIM pwned by MIM.” Mao warned about the man who picks up a rock just to drop it on his own feet. If that is the act of a fool, then what do we call the man who repeats the act, smashing his own feet twice? Three times? Four times?
The rest of MIM’s document is barely coherent. And this is an assessment made by people who have read everything MIM ever wrote. Just imagine how it must read to civilians passing through. What is happening here is MIM is writing to itself. Theirs is not a document that actually lays out coherent arguments that can then be refuted. Rather, it is a document seemingly aimed at themselves, to convince themselves. It is a theatrical prop to deflect criticism. In any case, one thing that is consistent throughout MIM’s article is the unargued for or poorly argued for accusations. We don’t have the time to unpack it all, but we’ll touch on the main points.
On “liberalism”
MIM accuses Leading Light of “liberalism.” MIM even goes so far to say that our “article could have been written by the Democratic Party if one just cut out the words ‘Leading Light Communism.’” (3) To this we can only say that the Democratic Party must be stepping up its game: Proudhon, Marx, Aristotle, Descartes, Frege, Wittgenstein, Positivism? In MIM’s crazy town, it is somehow wrong to be concerned with creating a world where people enjoy each other in healthy, happy ways. By contrast, Leading Light says it is part of our duty as revolutionaries to create such a happy world. It is part of our duty as Leading Lights to craft a mass line that can be grasped and move the masses forward toward true, Leading Light Communism. Whatever they may claim, MIM is not concerned with mass line. They are concerned with empty, ultra-left sloganeering. MIM’s “All sex is rape,” “sterilize all men,” etc. is not a serious, revolutionary gender line. It is so out of touch that it boggles the mind anyone identifying as communist is actually defending it. It also boggles the mind that we are even bothering with it. MIM should be flattered that anyone respects them enough to try to set them straight on one of the main fetters on their movement advancing. However, rather than face facts, MIM would rather double down, triple down, etc.
MIM’s rejection of mass line in favor of their bizarre “utopian” vision of communism plays into the hands of liberals. Firstly, it discredits real anti-rape activists. Rape is a serious issue, even in the First World. MIM’s claim that “all sex is rape” has the effect of belittling the suffering caused by real rape. For MIM, there is nothing qualitatively different about real rape. For MIM, there is nothing especially or uniquely wrong with real rape. MIM itself even says that they are not interested in punishing real rape. Secondly, “all sex is rape” discredits revolutionaries in front of the masses. It makes revolutionaries look like fools who are completely disconnected from the masses, from their concerns and outlooks. It makes revolutionaries look like crackpots. There are times when revolutionaries have to take up advanced lines that may not be immediately understood by the masses. However, “all sex is rape” is not such a case. This is not the case of a revolutionary organization pushing science onto the uneducated masses. This is a case where a revisionist organization is trying, but also failing, to pass off metaphysics and idealism to the masses. And, in this case, the intuitions of the masses often happen to be more in line with science than MIM. Thirdly, the whole orientation of “all sex is rape” is First Worldist. Such a line only resonates with the some of the most useless First Worldist activist trends and demographics. It’s a pseudo-radicalism that gives cover to those who fundamentally reject proletarian politics, making it easier for enemies to infiltrate less advanced, but potentially revolutionary circles. It is a pseudo-left cover for those who would try to infiltrate revolutionary circles. It is what revolutionaries in China used to call “left in form, right in essence.”
On MIM’s bad analogy and bad metaphysics
MIM attempts to answer our criticism that their approach to sex is very similar to Descartes’ idealist approach to knowledge. MIM does this by saying that their approach to sex is not unlike a correct approach to communism. MIM’s non-sequitur goes like this: since, according to MIM, happy, consensual sex has never existed and full communism has never existed, somehow the two are akin to each other. It is correct that positing Leading Light Communism as a regulative idea is not inherently idealist so long as it is understood as a kind of mental construct that we use to measure the progress of societies or that we use to compare one society with another. Think of it like this. Even though an absolutely perfect circle has, perhaps, never existed as an empirical object, we can still use the idea of a perfect circle to compare our sketches of circles against each other. The circular sketch most closest to the regulative idea can be said to be better than others. There is nothing idealist about this. So too, if MIM said that we should posit a regulative idea of true egalitarian sexual relations as something to strive for and something by which we measure current sexual practices against, then we would have no disagreement. This is not what MIM does, however. MIM is not simply saying that there is an egalitarian sexual ideal we ought strive for. MIM is saying “all sex is rape” and all sex that has ever existed in rape. This is where the analogy breaks down. To posit a regulative idea of Leading Light Communism does not obliterate important distinctions between other types of social configurations. Positing the regulative idea of Leading Light Communism does not prevent us from discussing a wide variety of other forms of society in the spectrum: socialism, capitalism, semi-feudalism, feudalism, and so on. By contrast, in a move that is very similar to Descartes’, MIM’s way of casting the rape debate obliterates all the useful and real distinctions between kinds of unegalitarian sex. As almost everyone but MIM recognizes, not all unegalitarian sex is rape. In the case of positing the regulative idea of Leading Light Communism, explanatory power is increased. In MIM’s “all sex is rape,” explanatory power is sacrificed for metaphysics and pseudo-radical sloganeering. When real science posits regulative ideas, it does so to increase explanatory and predictive power, not to reduce it. Metaphysics, like MIM’s approach, is the opposite.
Science, biology, sex
MIM tosses science, biology, and common sense to such a degree that they make embarrassing statements such as:
“So it has little meaning in this debate to say, ‘Sexuality is normal behavior for any complex species.’ We would like to see some evidence that, ‘Most people desire a sexual life even in the context of oppression.’” (3)
MIM even takes a dark-age shot at evolutionary biology by saying that people today rely too much on Darwinian theory. Marx is said to have wanted to dedicated Capital to Darwin because Marx recognized Darwin’s theories constituted not only a profound revolution in biology, but also had profound epistemological implications. Today, evolutionary theory is the cornerstone of modern biology. If MIM does not think there are Darwinian explanations for human sexuality and pleasure, what is MIM’s explanation for these biological functions that humans seem to share with all or most complex species? “All sex is rape” is as disconnected from science as MIM’s other gem, “sterilize all men!”
Behind their poorly-formed non-arguments, there is a certain view of sexuality in play in MIM’s work as a whole. MIM’s tone is a puritanical one. Sex, in such a view, is evil, dirty, bad, as, in a word, rape. MIM seems to have a repulsion for what is ordinary, natural behavior for any complex species. Thus happy, consensual sex has never existed, only rape. MIM have named their movement after Mao. And they see Mao as a rapist. In fact, for MIM, all the greatest communist leaders of the past were really rapists. According to MIM, happy people in loving relationships around the world are really rapists. Children from loving homes are really products of rape in MIM’s view. Even more odd is that MIM equates their personal revulsion for sex with their desire for communism itself. This revulsion leads MIM to state bizarre things such as:
“LLCO’s recent articles on rape and gender oppression can easily be categorized as part of the patriarchal pornography machine.” (4)
At this point, what more is there to say? When someone, such as MIM, has departed so far from reality in their assumptions, there is little point in arguing with them. After over a quarter century of being locked into their bad logic, and being a very dogmatic organization, it is highly doubtful MIM has the scientific capacity to change. Of course, we hope MIM does change, but we won’t hold our breath. This will almost certainly be our last post in this back-and-forth. We think our time can be spent better elsewhere.
Notes
16 Comments + Add Comment
Deja un comentario / Leave a comment / Mag-iwan ng komento / Hinterlasse einen Kommentar / Αφήστε ένα σχόλιο
Contact the Leading Light
Recent Posts
Leading Light Essentials
The Leading Light On:
Archives
Recent Comments
- on Picking up the rock and dropping it on your own feet, again, and again, and again
- on We are the Leading Light Communist Organization (Video)
- on Revolution in the Third World; Resistance in the First World
- on Picking up the rock and dropping it on your own feet, again, and again, and again
- on Picking up the rock and dropping it on your own feet, again, and again, and again
- on Picking up the rock and dropping it on your own feet, again, and again, and again
- on We are the Leading Light Communist Organization (Video)
- on We are the Leading Light Communist Organization (Video)
- on Picking up the rock and dropping it on your own feet, again, and again, and again
- on Picking up the rock and dropping it on your own feet, again, and again, and again
Honest to God MIM is borderline insane with these posts, clearly detached from reality. I think maybe the security cult has managed to keep them from even allowing reality into their theory.
I’m quite disappointed with LLCO’s response to the MIM line regarding “all sex is rape.” For an organization usually quite astute with its analysis, I was expecting better. For one, MIM’s accusation that LLCO was involved with “wrecking” was in reference to articles that previously appeared on the MSH website, not the obituary LLCO wrote for Henry Park. It’s dishonest to write, “In MIM’s bizarro world, our gushing obituary, probably the kindest thing ever written about Henry Park, somehow constitutes ‘wrecking'” when MIM’s comments were clearly referring to a previous incident. Second, LLCO misrepresents MIM’s line by saying that MIM is making the claim that happy, consensual sex never existed. Rather, as they explain in their article, they are arguing that there has never been consensual sex under patriarchy. MIM’s emphasis is not on coming up with “better ways” to decide who is a worse rapist under patriarchy, but on convincing people that patriarchy itself needs to be overthrown. Along those lines, I wish LLCO had addressed MIM’s final two questions, which are central to their argument:
“In what actual conditions do you see “all sex is rape” sloganeering as reinforcing bourgeois or patriarchal interests? and how?
Or the other side of that question, where do you see “you can have good, consensual sex” being used to effectively challenge the patriarchy or imperialism or working in the interests of the oppressed masses in general?”
Finally, as someone who has also read most of MIM’s material, I certainly didn’t find their article to be “rambling” or “incoherent.” I think anyone with a background in Western feminist theory would have been able to understand it easily. I also think there are several ways by which LLCO could have effectively challenged MIM’s argument, such as questioning the validity of second-wave feminism for the Third World, or even questioning if patriarchy itself really needs to be overthrown. Perhaps, if patriarchy represents the “natural/biological” ordering of society, then it can’t be overthrown, and can only be reformed into a form of “less-oppressive patriarchy.” In any case, it would have been better for LLCO to actually focus on MIM’s line, instead of spending so much of the article dismissing MIM as wackos.
Unless you speak for MIM on this, I will take what you say with a grain of salt. I write 90% of all the articles that have appeared from Leading Light. And I wrote most that appeared from our predecessor formations. Although my memory may not be perfect, I do not recall any significant articles about MIM being written. I was personally informed from someone close to MIM that it was indeed the obituary that they claim is somehow “wrecking” because we speak of Henry Park’s “degeneration.” Again, as this article states, all articles were approved by the entire IRTR to LLCO leadership. Nobody opposed them at the time. So, as the above article points out, the obituary (and any other articles that may have appeared) were approved probably by more one-time MIM leaders than Etext was working with by the end. Again, this is somewhat speculative on my part, but I think anyone who is honest would probably admit this by now.
If MIM does think that happy, consensual sex has existed, then they had the perfect opportunity to say when and where. They did not. It is a consequence of their line that happy, consensual sex has never really existed given what we know about the historical record. Pure communism has never existed, therefore, how could consent ever exist, according to MIM. Have there been more egalitarian societies than the present one? Sure, there have. Have societies completely free of oppression actually existed? No. Again, MIM could have easily tried to prove us wrong on that point if they wanted to challenge it, which they did not.
You are exactly right that MIM is not, among other things, concerned with ascertaining who is and who is not a rapist. This is because MIM is not actually concerned with solving community issues as part of mass line and building New Power to overthrow the Old Power. By contrast, Leading Light is very much concerned with ending real rape in the communities where we operate. We are very much concerned with settling disputes among the people. We are very much concerned with protecting the people. Serve the people. This is why Leading Lights in Bangladesh, for example, hold village meetings about these topics. Leading Light is about actually solving problems, not just empty posturing. There is also a huge bit of irony, which all of those who have been around know about, that we would be broadcasting if we were out to wreck.
You say MIM is about convincing people that patriarchy needs to be overthrown. And how does “all sex is rape” do this? It is a massive fail. It does not highlight how bad patriarchy is, it ends up belittling real rape, which is one of the worst crimes of patriarchy. It ends up belittling those who suffer some of the worst violence of the system. Trying to prove patriarchy is horrible by preaching to people that their decent, loving relationships are really rape is an obviously losing strategy, even if MIM acknowledged that they really did know all sex was not really real rape. It does not make patriarchy look bad, it makes those pushing the line look foolish in very obvious ways.
Those who want to actually work to overthrow the system, not just yap about it, should hit the donate button or send money orders.
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA512
Thanks to john for providing some clarity from a third party in this debate. We are posting here in hopes of correcting some points made by Prairie Fire above.
The MonkeySmashesHeaven website, the predecessor to LLCO, referenced Henry Park’s actions as a way to question his sanity and drive a wedge between him and the Maoist movement.
Since the MSH website was taken down, our evidence for this is our own article that critiqued MSH for doing this (cited and linked to). That article was written before Henry Park died, and is therefore obviously not referencing the obituary. No one affiliated with MIM(Prisons) would have indicated otherwise, so I have no idea what PF means by h statement about “someone close to MIM.”
That’s about all we can say on this, except that we have learned the value in saving copies of the work of those you are critiquing as the etext site often did.
Prairie Fire, another line you seem to miss in our second article on this topic is where we said, “But patriarchy has not existed forever, so we do not agree that our line implies that “consensual, happy sex has never existed.”” Reading comprehension aside, your response here again elicits our critique of the class reductionist line of the LLCO. Gender oppression is not something that is unique to capitalism. We need to be comparing patriarchal societies to non-patriarchal societies to talk about how sex can be different.
It is also disingenuous to refer to us in accusing, “MIM has a history of seeing false patterns in random events.” We are not the same organization as the original MIM. We claim the political legacy of MIM, but it is misleading to refer to us as one continuous organization in an attempt to develop patterns in behavior. And we are not claiming some conspiracy here with you, or saying you are police. We merely stated facts, that MSH had attacked Park’s mental state on multiple occasions, that LLCO accused MIM(Prisons) of being crazy, and that this line feeds into police work. In the case of this discussion of mental stability and your discussion of rape we urge you to look at the results of those lines. We think they both are actively supporting imperialism.
I am not aware of Darwin discussing humyn sexuality and validiting contemporary ideas of pleasure via his theory of evolution. If he did, then we might have to include him in the group of people we see as taking Darwin’s theory too far. But it is my impression that this is a more modern extrapolation of a science of material processes being used to explain subjective matters.
Just wanted to point out these few corrections here (most for the second time). It does not seem there is much more for us to print in response to this. Our two articles on this (and MIM’s original FAQ) should address the other points made here.
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–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=Z7VW
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–
Again, I don’t know what you are talking about, and I would have written the article if it existed because I was the group writer. If it existed, it was probably some small comment about Henry Park’s “degeneration,” which was the language we chose to use in that period. For the sake of argument, I’ll pretend your recollection is better than mine on the issue. If you seriously think a single article from 5 years or so ago, with probably little more than aside about Henry Park, and some random comment on social media half a decade later that initially did not even mention “MIM,” constitutes “wrecking,” then you really don’t know what actual wrecking is. If you want to know what actual wrecking is, it was the dozens of barely comprehensible, paranoid, and personal materials spammed on the Etext website by Henry Park himself. If you think some unmemorable article we wrote did great damage to MIM’s reputation as perceived by “the Maoist movement,” then you really have no sense of proportion. I’m not sure what you think MIM’s reputation was first of all, but if anyone tanked Henry Park’s reputation, it was Henry Park himself. And if you are too blind too see that, then there is really not more to say. It should be plain as day to anyone who lived through that period. You really would need to be blinded by dogma not to see it. Do I really need to remind people of all the weird shit that was coming from MIM? At one point, MIM even said we were involved in an assassination plot. That was an entertaining one. Who knows. Who cares. I don’t care to embarrass the hell out of MIM. MIM doesn’t need anyone to wreck their efforts, they have themselves. And there is no shortage of rocks in the world.
I asked a long-time MIM supporter about the bizarre allegation, they said it was the obituary. I assumed they were right since I couldn’t imagine what else it could be. I guess it is even something less significant than the obituary that has been a bee in MIM’s bonnet for half a decade. I think it was Nietzsche who once wrote, if you hurt a hermit, be sure to kill him too. In any case, I’ll add a star at the top of the article telling people to look at the comments for clarification.
Furthermore, MIM misrepresents the entire period:
“They participated in a long-standing campaign to paint MIM as crazy wackos as the original MIM comrades suffered the crushing defeat of every aspect of their work.”
As we already pointed out, which organization, Etext or the post-IRTR group, had more of those “original MIM comrades” by that period? If MIM actually thought about it for a minute, MIM would probably realize that the post-IRTR group probably had more of those comrades in its leadership than Etext. As I said, anything that was written back then went through the entire post-IRTR leadership, which included some of those very people. Not that I really care to out people who have not outed themselves publicly. For what it is worth, none of them continue to be active today in LL.
Following MIM’s reasoning, as far as the happy, consensual sex goes, it requires not just the end of patriarchy, but the end of all systematic oppression that would affect consent. Thus, for true consent to exist, it is necessary, but not sufficient for patriarchy to not exist, according to MIM’s reasoning. Thus It would basically require true communism, which, as far as I know, has never really existed. Perhaps MIM believes it has existed. If so, the burden is on MIM. And MIM had a perfect opportunity to expand on when and where in the previous articles, as I already mentioned in the comments.
“All sex is rape” was (and continues to be) one of the worst lines coming from MIM. Although our work is far more advanced than MIM’s, MIM was the best thing going at the time. And that line was one of the main things that prevented MIM’s real insight, their proto-Third Worldist political economy, from reaching more people in the First World and Third World. It is a line that had the effect of sabotaging the spread of an important truth by discrediting the vehicle by which the political economy was delivered, by discrediting MIM.
Hey, LLCO:
On the one hand, i find myself agreeing with many of the points you’re making about the usefulness of MIM Prisons’s line “all sex is rape.” In particular, it seems really harmful and counterproductive to not be able to single out obviously violent rapists who commit an act that 99% of the global population, communist or no, would agree is rape. i may have missed it (because they are prolific), but i can’t say I’ve heard them address this point, and it seems extremely important. If you know of an instance where they do comment on it, i would be grateful if you could direct me to it.
On the other hand, i find myself wishing your criticisms would address the specific usefulness that they argue their line has. If I’m not wrong, the reasoning behind their line that all sex is rape is that the current conception of rape is used to support a kind of “rapist-hunting” that in practice is a bludgeon in the hand of the settler state and settler population against nationally oppressed people in the White Nation, and especially against New Afrikan men. I’m not 100% clear on it, but i think the intention is to problematize the idea that specifically non-euro-amerikan men are rape-prone, an idea that carries on to this day from the lynchings and racial violence against non-euro-amerikan (and specifically New Afrikan) men who were perceived as desirous of and likely to rape euro-amerikan women.
i am obviously not with MIM Prisons because i pretty clearly don’t know their line by heart. But i have to admit that it, too, holds at least SOME sense to me even if it is not convincing or entirely clear to me. Anyway, i haven’t read anywhere where LLCO addresses this specific argument, and it does seem worth addressing. i may have simply missed somewhere where you did address it, so obviously if you did somewhere, i am happy just to be linked to that.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you for your comment.
I don’t think “all sex is rape” has any effect at all in stopping society from looking for rapists when it happens. Rape is a terrible crime, people are going to go after rapists. Saying “all sex is rape” is not going to convince anyone who has suffered real rape to not seek justice against her rapist. Saying “all sex is rape” is not going to convince any community that real rape isn’t a problem because it obviously is. The objective effect of the line is to discredit anti-rape activism and revolution. In reality, “all sex is rape” does not have any effect at liberating anyone. It does not help to overthrow patriarchy. It is so disconnected from any kind of social base, and reality, that it is just counter-productive sloganeering.
We have produced 3 articles on this topic at this point. I think we have spent too much time on it already. There are just more pressing issues. If the response here wasn’t deep enough, it is because we found MIM’s original article not clear, as we stated, and we did not think it addressed any of the very important points we made in our previous responses. If MIM is not going to address any of our responses, yet make silly charges of “wrecking,” then why bother?
Red Salute!
Was MIM’s line that “all sex is rape”, but that rape isn’t bad? I ask because MIM seems to support anal rape in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoh2BDXOxZo
The video opens with “What would Lenin do?” “It feels great to stimulate your prostrate. Sit back, relax, let me pack your crack.” Was Lenin into anal sex or something?
It’s funny you mention MIM’s weird videos. I stand corrected. We did publish some significant criticisms of MIM’s bizarre movies prior to the founding of LLCO. Perhaps that is what MIM is referring to. Some of them, while entertaining, would certainly fall under the heading “wacko.” Maybe that is what MIM considers “wrecking.” However, I’d say that it was MIM’s Art Minister who produced them was doing far more “wrecking,” along with those under whose watch these videos were issued. Presumably, this would be Etext’s.
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA512
Etext.org never linked to or promoted this video.
Etext.org criticized the Reichian line of the persyn who made those videos as part of a critique of sexual Liberalism and its inability to be used to push a revolutionary line. (similar to the all sex is rape line)
LLCO continues to push a critique focused on the alleged mental sanity of MIM(Prisons). And you want to keep arguing that that is Okay? That is how principled communists do things?
Our first article in this debate was quite widely read and i have not heard of anyone having a hard time understanding it besides this author at LLCO. We have heard from many who understand it just fine, whether they agree or disagree. Are we to believe someone who spends their time combing the works of Descartes and Wittgenstein just can’t make sense of our short and simple articles? Or is it a continued under-handed attack in order to brush under the rug a critique that bothers them?
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–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=UGBs
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–
Whether Henry Park linked this particular video is irrelevant. There were dozens of these kinds of videos produced by someone who was an official representative of MIM under MIM’s name. Henry Park surely was aware of some of them at least. Surely he was aware of MIM’s Art Minister’s problems since you even mention that Etext criticized one of their Minister’s lines. Yet the Art Minister remained their Art Minister. Surely these videos did far more to hurt MIM’s reputation than anything we ever wrote. Surely the dozens of paranoid, deluded, and personal rants by Henry Park on Etext did far more to hurt MIM’s reputation, right? To say it again: If MIM really thinks some unmemorable remark or post from half a decade ago had some dire consequences in the context of the gobs of weird materials coming from MIM’s Art Minister and Henry Park, then MIM really has no sense of proportion. It is rather incredible MIM would accuse us of wrecking given their own behavior. As far as hurting MIM’s reputation, the current dishonest whining by MIM’s leaders surely hurts their reputation among those who remember these events than some unmemorable remark or article on some insignificant blog a half decade ago. This is what I mean when I say there is no need for anyone to wreck MIM. There is nothing to wreck. Trying to wreck MIM would be like trying to wreck Larry, Mo, and Curly at this point. MIM did some good work that they pissed away themselves, leaving others to do the cleaning up.
We’ve spent more time on “all sex is rape” than it deserves. We thoroughly debunked it from numerous angles. It already fills up too much space on the front page. That we would spend so much time dealing with such an odd form of First Worldism is confusing some of our Third World leaders. There are far more pressing matters.
As a point of clarification, it was your second article, not the first, that was not very coherent. In any case, combing the works of Descartes and Wittgenstein is more productive than wasting time on such poorly argued for positions as MIM’s “all sex is rape.” Given MIM’s dogma and lack of science in numerous areas, it would do MIM some good to comb such works in order to increase their sophistication on epistemological matters.
I understand that MIM believes all sex is rape but that rape is not that bad because they don’t want New Afrikans to be accused of rape? This is a baffling argument since New Afrikans have sex just like others. I don’t even get what they are saying. If a New Afrikan male really rapes a New Afrikan female, does MIM not care? How is this supporting national liberation? It all seems strange.
I was also wondering how MIM defines sex. Since all sex is rape, they should be clear on what they think sex is. Is MIM saying all penetration is rape or are things like handy jays rape too? What about touching? What about leering, the male gaze? MIM said they oppose know it when we see it arguments, so they must define sex somewhere since this is important to their line. Can MIM please point me to it?
Does MIM want to normalize rape in order to protect Black men? Is that the argument? What about all the Third World women who are raped by imperialist armies and sex tourists? Shouldn’t revolutionaries do something about it? Shouldn’t revolutionary armies be stopping rape in their communities? But if MIM is against rape hunting, then what should victims of rape in the Third World do?
Some American civilian rapes a bar girl in Manilla. So the Philippine revolutionaries shouldn’t do something about it? MIM opposes rape hunting.
Their whole approach seems hopelessly confused, disconnected from the concerns of ordinary women, and First Worldist.
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE—–
Hash: SHA512
Well then you gravely misunderstand our line, because we think rape is a clear example of gender oppression, which we are trying to put an end to. LLCO is promoting the interests of the gender aristocracy, which is building up support for the system of gender opppression (patriarchy).
—–BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE—–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=tDAX
—–END PGP SIGNATURE—–
LLCO is a multinational organization leading the real proletariat in the Third World to create a Global People’s War to end all oppression, including patriarchy. MIM is a First Worldist, revisionist, dogmatic organization that, at best, stirs up a little resistance in the First World. They do very little to actually fight patriarchy. In fact, they end up discrediting the real struggle against patriarchy with their poorly argued for gender line. Even though MIM is revisionist, and ineffectual to boot, they probably do more good than harm. But they mostly just wreck themselves.
All real communists of means are duty bound to follow the Leading Light and donate resources to the Global People’s War. In this sense, MIM is not unlike numerous yappers in the First World who talk, but do not really fight imperialism in a serious way.
MIM may call it whatever they want, but if they dropped those bad lines, it would increase their popularity amongst their target audience by about 100 times. It would do nothing but help them spread their other lines in the lumpen and prisoner population. If they dropped the “all sex is rape,” “sterilize all men,” and that type of stuff, they would have so much more influence. Unfortunately, I doubt they will listen. They are too dogmatic. “Wrecking,” right…