Talk:Maoist Internationalist Movement

[Untitled]
I don't think it's true that RADACADS was formed in 1970 as an offshoot of SDS. I thought RADACADS was started in the 1980s and had no direct connection to the student movement of the 60s or the New Communist Movement of the 1970s. I know I've read in MIM literature that they say they have no connection organizationally to the 1960s or 70s groups; they have referred to themselves as one of the very few new revolutionary organizations that formed in the 1980s. Anyone have any sources?

Having seen some portions of MIM's web site, I haven't found any instance of "United Snakes," nor have I found a tendency for them to not capitalize their names of Canada or the US - Israel I haven't come across yet. Maybe we should either get verification of this or change the wording to show that the naming conventions are not universal. --BDD 18:52, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

--erebus
 * The conventions used to denote particular inferences vary from paper to paper, though some are consistent. MIM has something in there FAQ regarding their writting style for contributers of which you might want to take a look at. I, fo r one, have seen '$nakes' as well as MIM explaining how imperliast countries should be lower-case, emphasizing on their ilegitimacy.

It looks like someone made those changes since I last came by this page. I've got another bone to pick this time though. Based in Ann Arbor? Where did that come from? I thought they were highly secretive in their organization, hence the pen/code names. --BDD 00:35, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I am making BDD's changes. I could find no verification for these things either. It is based on speculation, not public knowledge, thus it is inappropriate. There is also no evidence MacKinnon herself disavowed MIM's interpretation of her work.


 * BDD, in answer to your question "Based in Ann Arbor? Where did that come from?" -- the group's publication, MIM Notes, listed an Ann Arbor, Michigan post-office box as the contact address in the print edition. At least it did in the 1990s. Ropcat 01:53, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Harper's
I remember Harper's published MIM's resolution from a party congress in one of their editions a few years ago. I think they titled it something like "Maoists on whoring", but I can't seem to find this anywhere on google. Does anyone know? --Mista-X 18:56, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Why are legitimate and active revolutionary movements in the third world bothring to associate with a bunch of white college kids on the computer? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.238.13.240 (talk) 13:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

MIM is not Marxist and it is not Leninist either. MIM is a sellout group, that has sold out to Russian imperialism. Check their website and you will see. They actually regard Putin's imperialism as part of the proletarian camp! They want to swap one imperialist master for another. They are not aware that there is no such a thing as a "proggressive imperialism". All imperialism is equally reactionary. Russia is a great capitalist power (only Zyuganovites believe that it is a "semicolony"), therefore Russian imperialism is on the same level with US imperialism. Marxists need to wake up to this fact. RaduFlorianRaduFlorian 11:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Of course, Marxists need to realize that US imperialism and non-US imperialism are equally bad. Because when the war breaks out we will need internationalists in both imperialist camps. And MIM's stance that US imperialism or the US imperialist bloc is the only villain will only strengthen the Zyuganovites and other "patriotic communists" in Russia who support their "own" imperialism. Sadly, there is only one internationalist party in Russia today, namely the Russian Maoist Party, and MIM's stance will not help strengthen it. The international working class needs to break with this paranoid Anti-Americanism. RaduFlorianRaduFlorian 11:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * This is all interesting, POV and speculation; but has nothing to do with my question.--Mista-X 16:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I also disagree very much with MIM's stance that there is no white proletariat in the developed countres. This simply is NOT TRUE. The truth is that there are millions of starving Whites in the US, yet MIM doesnt give a damn about them. To them, a Third World capitalist is closer to a Third World worker than to a First World white worker. Of course, this is nothing but a lie. A poor White is closer to a poor Black than to a White capitalist, regardless of whether they're aware of this or not. This is what Marxism teaches us. RaduFlorianRaduFlorian 08:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm sure there are some hungry white people, but I think you will find that going hungry even as a homeless persyn in north amerikkka is almost impossible. This doesn't mean their aren't any "poor" workers and legitimate struggles in north amerikka. You missed the point, which is that by international standards these "workers" are petty-bourgeois. I also think you need to establish what a proletarian is. Marx and Engels showed us that proletarians don't work then they don't eat. This is not the case with imperialist country "workers". Also, proletarians work with the means of production, whereas most "workers" in the imperialist countries don't even work in production. But again, this has nothing to do with my original question about the Harper's article. --Mista-X (talk) 03:40, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Even if they WERE petty-bourgeois, which, in the case of illegal immigrants, I very much doubt it, their struggles should be supported. Nevertheless, according to Marxism-Leninism the petty-bourgeoisie is not static, it's a class that constantly swells the ranks of the proletariat- the petty-bourgeois of today may well become the proletarian of tomorrow. This is especially true in times of acute crisis of the capitalist system, and, with the rising unemployment we're seeing in world's most powerful capitalist country, it's safe to say that crisis is very near. To overcome it, the imperialist powers will have no other option but to resort to war, and this time it will be an inter-imperialist war, pitting American against Russian imperialists. But this will not improve the living standards, on the contrary, will worsen the condition of the masses. The Western workers will once again become revolutionary, and the West will once again be ripe for anti-capitalist revolution. MIM's mistake, as far as I am familiar with their views, was that it underestimated the revolutionary POTENTIAL of workers in the West, it failed to see that labour aristocracies are not stable and that their struggles are worthy of support. RaduFlorian (talk) 10:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Mimhead.gif
Image:Mimhead.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 17:31, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

boohoo vandalism
What I have been putting down for MIM and first world whites isn't vandalism. Just ask any MIM member. If you don't side with me, then you're a genocidal jerk.

Also, it is true that MIM has no presence offline. Just ask any activist.

Maybe a “criticisms of MIM” section is needed in this article. If you must create one, then please put my edits in that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.199.192.235 (talk) 17:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Any strong criticisms like this need a proper source, not just a chat with activists. Do you have a source - a publication or a relevant website - which makes these claims? Warofdreams talk 18:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I really think we need a criticisms section on the MIM. NO left organization or leftist takes it seriously. The problem with this of course is that it means the only legitimate source on the MIM is the MIM itself, since noone gives a shit about this group except to mock it on leftist message boards. --Postbagboy (talk) 10:12, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have a post from their Art Minister, Mousnonya. It's on Youtube. I can prove this person is their Art Minister if you don't believe me. http://youtube.com/watch?v=FLCWr39ZEUs&feature=user Read Mousnonya's post from 2 weeks ago. Again, I can prove Mousnonya is their Art Minister if you don't believe me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.57.88.71 (talk) 01:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * No, I believe you when you say that Mousnonya is a representative of the organisation, but comments on Youtube aren't generally accepted as a source. It's not clear from them whether they are a personal opinion, or that of the group.  What we really need is either something from MIM's own publications or website stating that this is their view, or from another publication or relevant website which - whether supportive or critical - states that this is their view.  The claim that they don't have much of a presence off the internet also needs a source.  For example, perhaps you could find one stating that they are secretive about membership numbers and organise primarily over the internet.  And finally, please don't post abuse on my userpage. Warofdreams talk 00:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my own criticism on MIM, it is true that Mousnonya answered me on his blog. But the his answer seems unconvincing to me. He asserts that the American imperialism is the number one enemy of mankind, since it is the most powerful of all imperialisms. But it is not clear whether he considers US imperialism as the main enemy in some countries dominated by it, or as the main enemy EVERYWHERE, including in countries like Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan or even Serbia, where it is obvious that the biggest foreign capitalists are NOT the Americans. If you regard the American imperialism as the main enemy in SOME countries, then we agree. But if you see it as the main enemy EVERYWHERE- including other imperialist countries and their saTellites, then it's safe to say that we have A PROBLEM.RaduFlorian (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I mean, check out the latest article on their website, to see for yourselves how their paranoid AntiAmericanism has turned them into cheerleaders for Russian imperialism! This is so sad. Russia is a MAJOR imperialist SUPERPOWER, with TOP MULTINATIONALS which opress MILLIONS of people across the world and which, unlike those of China and India are backed by THOUSANDS of nuclear warheads. We as Communists cannot afford to betray the antiimperialist struggle in so many countries dominated by RuSSian capitalists- including RuSSia itself, therefore these despicable imperialists have NO PLACE in an "international antiimperialist front". More than that, I firmly believe the issue of Russian imperialism has become the dividing line in the international Communist movement- between those who are soft on it and those who are not. RaduFlorian (talk) 06:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

It's true the absolute AntiAmericanism promoted by MIM made some sense in the 1990s or early 2000s, when the Americans enjoyed unchallanged world hegemony, but nowadays, when OTHER capitalist empires have emerged, it has turned into a HINDRANCE for the World Communist Movement. Absolute AntiAmericanism is something we can no longer afford. RaduFlorian (talk) 07:54, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

"...it is true that MIM has no presence offline." For one thing, MIM had a printed newspaper and magazine. So that was offline. When I was in RAIL, we did a benefit concert in Long Beach, CA, to raise money for books for prisoners. None of that happened online either. Frankly, I think most of their activities were offline, but there is no real way to quantify how much they did online vs. offline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.51.132.152 (talk) 23:17, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Question
Having just recently become aware of MIM, and perusing its archives, the writing style is fresh in my mind. Having also just recently become aware of Gloria La Riva, and reading a bit of her blog, I've noticed a strikingly similar (albeit toned down) style that switched on a light bulb in my head. Could this be mere coincidence, or does La Riva = "MIM"? This isn't a witch-hunt or smear; I'm passing no judgments, just wondering if I'm the first to think of this.


 * I don't see any similarity in the writing style, nor is there much similarity in the political positions at all, nor does her personal history suggest that she ever had anything to do with MIM. It's now well known that Henry Park was the "main" person behind MIM. Mista-X (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I think Marxists of even opposing tendencies who've read the same writers often communicate in a similar argot and rhetorical mode. 2601:448:C580:6D70:F9B1:F605:992F:77D2 (talk) 15:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Shouldn't we refer to MIM in the past-tense?
Or at least refer to it as such in some parts of the article. Like, instead of "MIM's newspaper, MIM Notes, is anonymously written" it should be "MIM's newspaper, MIM Notes, was anonymously written" since said newspaper doesn't exist anymore to my knowledge. The organization might still exist, but in an obviously reduced form in which most of the article no longer currently applies to it. --Mrdie (talk) 15:44, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I would say so. Please feel free to edit the article to change the tense. Warofdreams talk 13:07, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs cleanup of weasel wording and such
The article seems very biased in favour of the subject, rather than approaching it from a more neutral angle, such as describing its theory as "unique" and "unusual" and so forth. It could use some serious help from an expert on the subject. Laval (talk) 08:18, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Accuracy
And considering there are barely any secondary sources, and absolutely no critical sources, I'd say the article is not neutral either. There is plenty of criticism of this group out there. Laval (talk) 08:39, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Not noteworthy?
Someone has put a "not noteworthy" tag on this article. If one is going to claim that MIM is not "not noteworthy," one might as well claim as much for almost the entire American farleft. Surely MIM has been as influential, if not more so, than any number of small far-left groups. MIM is more influential in intellectual circles than groups like FRSO, RCP, ISO, PFOC or the Sparts. In addition, MIM has outproduced groups like the FRSO, PFOC, etc. in terms of literature. MIM's Theory magazine was certainly a more professional publication than FRSO's Forward Motion or PFOC's Breakthrough. MIM was putting out a newspaper (MIM notes) for years. FRSO, for example, can't point to no similar output. Also, MIM's "successor" groups appear to be larger than many remaining new-left sects -- this alone is a reason to keep the MIM entry: MIM's continued relevance to current far-left groups. I note that nobody has tagged these other groups (FRSO, Sparts, etc) with a "Not noteworthy" tag. What is going on here is that members of competing far-left sects are trying to get the MIM wiki entry erased. This is an act of pure unprincipled sectarianism on their part. Anyone who has any familiarity with the American far left is aware of MIM. Everyone has an opinion of them, be it positive or negative.
 * Well then, let's remove it. Done.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.100.234.225 (talk) 03:23, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to remove the tag, you should provide reliable, independent sources that show the subject's notability. Accusations of bad faith towards other users are not appropriate unless you can prove they are acting in bad faith. Edward321 (talk) 16:39, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The tag has hereby been removed. To be consistent, the "notability" tag would have to be applied to a broad range of Wikipedia entries for self-described Maoist/Maoist-influenced groups around the world, especially in Europe and the United States.  Applying such a standard across the board would decimate what the English Wikipedia has gathered for information on Maoism in the Western world.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.171.6.41 (talk) 02:41, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The "not noteworthy" tag is quite appropriate and it shouldn't have been removed. MIM was never anything more than one lonely man pretending to be a "movement".  If I publish a zine with my revolutionary fantasies can I have a Wikipedia article?

I am sure that catherine mackinnon is not the origionator of "all sex is rape"- It was andrea Dworkin in "intercourse" Mattulon (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)MATTULONMattulon (talk) 08:27, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV
I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:
 * This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
 * There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
 * It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
 * In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 15:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

removing claim
Removing the false assertion that MIM "claimed to adhere to a radical Maoist Third Worldist ideology." This simply isn't true. MIM never used that term. MIM referred to their ideology as "MIM Thought." The term "Maoist Third Worldist" stems from a time after MIM dissolved. Please do not falsify this history.


 * I'm not sure who posted the above, but I have also removed this re: what they said. As far as I know aside from two individuals no one uses the MTW term to describe their ideology. MIM never used it, RAIM doesn't use it anymore and neither does LLCO. Mista-X (talk) 00:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Maoist Internationalist Movement. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/ms/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080817080824/http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/whatsnew.html to http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/whatsnew.html
 * Added tag to http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/security/security111808.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/19990418090817/http://www.etext.org/ to http://www.etext.org/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 10:36, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Problematic Sources
Article contains many sources which are neither reliable nor independent of subject and thus impinge our ability to accurately verify validity of the claims made about Subject. Most of these sources appear to be self-published works with dubious editorial oversight and accuracy. Several statements contain original research not supported by reliable third-party sources. Such problematic sources are: anti-imperialism.com, mimdown.org, etext.org, and a wordpress blog. Original research occurs with content referencing github in §"Related organizations". -- dsprc   [talk]  02:41, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

MIM was Henry Park and No One Else
There is no evidence that MIM was anything other than Henry Park's ravings. No one else is a member (except for "secret numbers") and the writing style in each article is the same. Park had funds to produce a newspaper which made "MIM" appear to be more than it was, but MIM == Henry Park, full stop. It was a good scam in its time and no doubt Park wanted to have more members than just his pretend friends, but the "Movement" (LOL) was just Park going back and forth to his PO Box. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.209.228 (talk) 00:41, 13 November 2023 (UTC)