https://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq/sectarian.html
Sectarianism is a term developed from the ideology of guiding ones
practice by what would best promote ones sect, or organization. In other
words, putting the organization itself over what the organization is
supposed to be about.
In practice this looks like multiple groups all saying they are working
for the same thing, but not willing to work with each other on this goal
because they don’t want to share the spotlight, or they have persynal
differences with another group or some other petty issue that has
nothing to do with said goal.
One of the purposes of having cardinal principles is to know what things
one will split over and not be acting in a sectarian way. These
principles, if violated, would deem a party to no longer be working for
the same thing as you.
With the dissolution of the MIM into a
cell
structure in 2005, the potential for sectarianism within the First
World Maoist movement increased. There may be a tendency to compete for
the new position of vanguard with the demise of the Maoist
Internationalist Party (Amerika) around which MIM was centered up until
2007. This doesn’t necessarily stem from an inherent competitiveness
among comrades, but rather their understanding of what the vanguard is
and its importance for those who follow Leninism.
MIM(Prisons) has always promoted the
cell
structure as advantageous in terms of security as well promoting the
theoretical and practical development of a small movement. With a
movement made up of independent cells with different functions, we see
it as appropriate to deem the movement the vanguard, even as we remain
slow to support each other and work together as a coherent movement. We
also continue to struggle against incorrect lines we see within the
movement, as well as combat revisionism elsewhere. While revisionism can
certainly creep up within MIM, the line between the revisionists and
those who effectively combat revisionism is what defines who is a part
of MIM.
Discerning Enemies In Struggle
While it has always been a major challenge of our movement, combating
revisionism is even more challenging when revolutionaries are actively
engaging the enemy in struggle. We’ve seen this with the different
approaches to events in Nepal by comrades upholding the Maoist line.
We’ve also seen it recently surrounding the apparent security struggles
of original MIM cadre.
Before Geronimo Pratt was put away for 25 to life on a FBI frame up, the
pigs regularly accused him of ego-tripping when he talked of the
surveillance and harassment he faced. Of course, it was all true.
Actually there was much more to it than Pratt even knew at the time.
When the FBI deals with those who are known to be armed and promote
armed self-defense, if not offense, it is easy to frame such people for
jail time and assassinations. It was easy for the FBI to find an excuse
to shoot Luqman Ameen Abdullah after they had surrounded him, pointed
their big guns and then sicked an attack dog on him. These tactics are
harder to pull off on those who have consistently opposed armed struggle
and breaking the law by communists, and live to that standard. These
tactics are also used in desperation because they are very damaging to
the state that carries out assassinations and kidnappings in plain site
of the public.
There are many tactics that are often much more damaging to the targets
of COINTELPRO than assassinations. They include destroying one’s
livelihood, buying one off, seducing one sexually, harassment in many
forms and more subtle physical attacks. All of these tactics have been
well-documented along with assassinations and frame-ups. Yet, comrades
seem to ignore these forms of repression because the facts are not clear
or because the difficulties of dealing with them make them
uncomfortable. The facts are never clear until it’s too late, that’s the
whole point of counter intelligence.
We know that some comrades are upset that Henry Park talked about them
publicly. We cannot explain or defend that. He recently decided to talk
about MIM(Prisons). We don’t like it either. In fact, we could leave the
internet altogether and continue on just as effectively with most of our
work. Then those who believe “i can be googled therefore i exist” will
pay us no mind.
However, the real wrecking ability is in the unknown number of MC’s who
left MIM and left the cardinal principles to go on and do who knows
what. According to Park, some of them are doing some very bad things. So
it is curious that others are spending so much time worrying about the
damage being done by someone upholding MIM’s original
3
cardinal principles and at least 9 out of 10 of the
criteria
spelled out by Monkey Smashes Heaven (MSH). The 10th criteria is the
only debatable one because it is not a question of line. It is clear
that MSH and others believe that Henry Park has violated point 10. [For
the record MIM(Prisons) has not proposed a list of cardinal principles
that differ from MIM’s longstanding 3 cardinals, but we see a lot of
value in MSH’s list and certainly agree with them on those points.]
Perhaps MIM(Prisons) is the dense party here who doesn’t get what is
going on. We are not interested in getting into a debate about what is
being done at Henry Park’s blog. But if there is a principled position
out there that would benefit our movement we would like to hear it.