E:\mn307

MIM Notes 307 · September 15-30, 2004 · Page 1

MIM Notes

Sept. 15-30 2004, Nº 307

The Official Newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM)

Free

INSIDE: Imperialism books * Under Lock & Key * Una Página en Español...

www.etext.info/Politics/MIM

BODY COUNT

MOUNTS:

`DEFEATED'

FIGHTERS KILL 7

SECURITY GUARDS

A car bomb exploded outside the Kabul

office of an Amerikan security company

on Sunday, 29 August, killing at least seven

people, including two Amerikans. The

company, Dyncorp Inc., provides security

for "Afghan President" and U$ puppet

Hamid Karzai.(1) Early reports said the

Taliban claimed responsibility for the

attack.(2) The Taliban ruled Afghanistan

before the U$ invaded after 9/11 and

installed Karzai with the UN's blessing.

This successful attack in a section of

the city populated by Westerners and on

the "President's" Amerikan security force

no less exposes the lie that Amerika's

Afghan escapade has been a smashing

success for imperialism on the cheap.

Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld's

idea--apparently shared by John Kerry

based on his stump speeches at the

Democratic National Convention and

beyond--went something like this: send

in a few Special Forces, wave some cash

around, dust off some pro-Western exiles,

have a meeting in some quaint European

city and voila: pro-Amerikan, secular

democracy.

Already in 2001 MIM predicted that

this strategy would fail, based on our

understanding of imperialism and study

of history. Only those too lazy to read a

few articles about the Soviet Union's war

in Afghanistan, Amerika's war in Vietnam

or its support of Chiang Kai Chek in

China's civil war could have thought

Rumsfeld's approach would work. Now

even laziness is no excuse. Every day the

5 o'clock news shows that the Amerikan

puppet regime's authority doesn't go past

the "President's" security cordon.

Warlordism has returned to the

countryside, and anti-Amerikan fighters

such as the Taliban and Al Qaeda are

gaining ground, despite being driven from

the cities.

Still, Afghanistan appears to be the

model for John Kerry's approach to

foreign policy. He tells the Amerikan

No end in sight to Amerika's

`war on terror'

Protesters carry hundreds of flag-draped coffins through the streets of New

York (left) to symbolize the 973 Amerikan soldiers killed in Iraq (as of 29 Aug

04). If they had carried one per every Iraqi civilian killed, like the one above,

the line of coffins would have been more than ten times as long.

Hundreds of thousands marched against the Republican National Convention

just as MIM Notes went to press. For more coverage of the RND and DNC

protests, visit http://www.etext.info/Politics/MIM/elections/ and http://

www.etext.info/Politics/MIM/whatsnew.html.

Osama Bin Laden or his followers are

not just scaring the wits out of the

bourgeoisified people of the imperialist

countries. He and his followers are also

winning the praise of Third World peoples.

At this particular point in history, it is a

given that the imperialists are going to

demonize someone in the Mideast. We

have to ask ourselves why it is that an

Arab, African or Iranian Maoist leader

did not obtain this honor now given to

Osama Bin Laden.

A bourgeois research organization

found that the peoples of Indonesia,

Jordan, Morocco, Pakistan and the

Palestinian Authority regard Osama Bin

Laden as one of three leaders they most

trust to "do the right thing."(1) The people

of Jordan (71%) and Indonesia (66%)

also view Osama Bin Laden as more

peaceful than the United $tates.(2) It goes

to show that attacks on U$ interests will

be supported by the Third World masses

and even the foreign-policy bourgeoisie

of U$ imperialism knows it. It's an

important lesson to take a materialist

approach to the masses and ask them who

they trust more, their Maoist leaders or

the U$ imperialists.

MIM's summer

movie breakdown

Too busy protesting the

Republocrats to catch any movies

this summer? Don't worry, MIM will

let you know what you missed--or

didn't miss.

Addicted to celluloid? Check out

what MIM has to say about this

year's summer blockbusters. They're

not all bad. Really.

MIM reviews The Bourne

Supremacy, The Day After

Tomorrow, Collateral, and Harry

Potter: pages 8-9.

Bin Laden and the Concept of `Theocratic Fascism'

A motley crew of

counterrevolutionaries, labor bureaucrats

and centrists calling themselves "Marxist-

Leninist" are responsible for Islamic

militants' outflanking the communists in

the minds of the exploited of many Third

World countries. We have two choices

in this matter: 1) we can believe the

Islamic scriptural hocus-pocus and that

it is somehow God's will; or 2) we can

realize that communists in many Middle

East and Third World countries

surrendered nationalist credentials in the

Third World the way a Mao or even a Ho

Chi Minh never allowed. The Islamic

movement is becoming the preferred

expression of the struggle against

imperialist super-exploitation in many

countries while the "Marxist-Leninists"

Continued on page 6...

Continued on page 5...

MIM Notes 307 · September 15-30, 2004 · Page 2

What is MIM?

The Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) is the collection of existing or emerging

Maoist internationalist parties in the English-speaking imperialist countries and their English-

speaking internal semi-colonies, as well as the existing or emerging Maoist Internationalist
parties in Belgium, France and Quebec and the existing or emerging Spanish-speaking
Maoist Internationalist parties of Aztlan, Puerto Rico and other territories of the U.$. Empire.

MIM Notes is the newspaper of MIM. Notas Rojas is the newspaper of the Spanish-speaking
parties or emerging parties of MIM. MIM upholds the revolutionary communist ideology
of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and is an internationalist organization that works from the

vantage point of the Third World proletariat. MIM struggles to end the oppression of all
groups over other groups: classes, genders, nations. MIM knows this is only possibly by
building public opinion to seize power through armed struggle. Revolution is a reality for

North America as the military becomes over-extended in the government's attempts to
maintain world hegemony. MIM differs from other communist parties on three main
questions: (1) MIM holds that after the proletariat seizes power in socialist revolution, the

potential exists for capitalist restoration under the leadership of a new bourgeoisie within
the communist party itself. In the case of the USSR, the bourgeoisie seized power after the
death of Stalin in 1953; in China, it was after Mao's death and the overthrow of the "Gang

of Four" in 1976. (2) MIM upholds the Chinese Cultural Revolution as the farthest advance
of communism in humyn history. (3) As Marx, Engels and Lenin formulated and MIM has
reiterated through materialist analysis, imperialism extracts super-profits from the Third

World and in part uses this wealth to buy off whole populations of oppressor nation so-
called workers. These so-called workers bought off by imperialism form a new petty-
bourgeoisie called the labor aristocracy. These classes are not the principal vehicles to

advance Maoism within those countries because their standards of living depend on
imperialism. At this time, imperialist super-profits create this situation in the Canada, Quebec,
the United $tates, England, France, Belgium, Germany, Japan, Italy, Switzerland,

Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Israel, Sweden and Denmark. MIM accepts people as
members who agree on these basic principles and accept democratic centralism, the system
of majority rule, on other questions of party line.

"The theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Stalin is universally applicable. We should

regard it not as dogma, but as a guide to action. Studying it is not merely a matter of
learning terms and phrases, but of learning Marxism-Leninism as the science of revolution."

- Mao Zedong, Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 208.

Editor, MC206; Production, MC12

Letters

MIM Notes

The Official Newsletter of The Maoist Internationalist Movement

ISSN 1540-8817

MIM Notes is the bi-weekly newsletter of the Maoist Internationalist Movement. MIM

Notes is the official Party voice; more complete statements are published in our journal,
MIM Theory. Material in MIM Notes is the Party's position unless noted. MIM Notes
accepts submissions and critiques from anyone. The editors reserve the right to edit
submissions unless permission is specifically denied by the author; submissions are
published anonymously unless authors insist on identification (prisoners are never
identified by name). MIM is an underground party that does not publish the names of its
comrades in order to avoid the state surveillance and repression that have historically
been directed at communist parties and anti-imperialist movements. MCs, MIM comrades,
are members of the Party. The Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist League (RAIL) is an anti-
imperialist mass organization led by MIM (RCs are RAIL Comrades). MIM's ten-point
program is available to anyone who sends in a SASE.

The paper is free to all prisoners, as long as they write to us every 90 days to confirm

their subsciptions. There are no individual subscriptions for people outside prison.

People who want to receive newspapers should become sponsors and distributors.

Sponsors pay for papers, distributors get them onto the streets, and officers do both
distribution and financial support. Annual cost is: 12 copies (Priority Mail), $120; 25
(Priority Mail), $150; 50 (Priority Mail), $280; 100, $380; 200, $750; 900 (Express
Mail), $3,840; 900 (8-10 days), $2,200. To become a sponor or distributor, send
anonymous money orders payable to "MIM." Send to MIM, attn: Camb. branch, PO Box
400559, Cambridge, MA 02140. Or write mim3@mim.org.

Most back issues of MIM Notes are available free on our web site. The web site con-

tains thousands of documents, with ordering information for many more.

MIM grants explicit permission to copy all or part of this newspaper for any reason, as

long as we are credited.

For general correspondence, contact:

MIM

P.O. Box 29670

Los Angeles, CA 90029-0670

eMail: <mim@mim.org>

WWW: <http//www.etext.info/Politics/MIM>

Latino soldiers' role in

the Iraq war: an

historical perspective

Historically, the function of the military

has been to protect and perpetuate the

ideological/material interest of the ruling

class. The rank and file, being

predominately from the impoverished and

middle class, are among the least informed

in society. In the 21st century, this fact

remains which explains those justifications

given by the Raza as to why they are in

Iraq. They have said, "To free the Iraqis

from Saddam Hussein" and "to eliminate

an imminent threat to the United $tates."

I will respond to both of these quotes in

turn, but first I want to make a brief

historical analysis of our role in Euro

conquest.

For us, this first occurred in 1519 when

the Cempohuanlans made a strategic

alliance with Cortez and his

conquistadores. On their way to

Tenochtitlan, the conquistadores

continued to acquire recruits and make

alliances with tribes who [opposed] the

Aztec Empire. These few thousand

conquistadores and a few hundred

thousand allies went on to successfully

defeat the Aztecs. Those tribes who allied

themselves with the conquistadores

retained some autonomy during the

conquest and were under the belief that

their material conditions would improve

once free of Aztec domination. However,

once the conquest of Mexico and Central

America was completed and the

European forces were secured, their

"allies" were reduced to commodities of

the Spanish crown. Putting those "allies"

in the same category as the tribes they

helped to conquer.

Let's jump forward 300 years to Texas.

Believing the propaganda for

independence by Anglo squatters, many

Mexicans did, in fact, fight along side Sam

Houston, thinking that independence

would equal prosperity. However, once

independence was realized, they learned

that Anglos neither acknowledged their

contribution, nor allotted them any

significant role in the new independent

state. In fact, their material aspirations

only resulted in Anglo consolidation of land

and power.

Then there are the many lessons of

North Amerikan First Nations who, in

various "Euro wars," sided with the

British, the French or Amerikans.

Regardless of their alliances, once the

smoke had cleared and they were no

longer needed by Euro forces, they

learned that Europeans were not in the

habit of sharing land, wealth or power.

Consequently, they all met the same fate.

In these few examples, those

indigenous forces had either an

independent strategic and/or material

interest in fighting in "Euro wars." In 2004,

what is the Raza's interest in fighting for

Europeans? As a captured colony of the

United $tates, the Raza has no

independent interest in fighting for

imperialism. Some can point to a

"dependent interest" but even this is

illegitimate and only testifies to our

incapacitated state and is a manifestation

of our neo-colonial status.

Fighting to free Iraqis? When and where

has imperialism "freed" anyone? This

historical fact does not exist! The Raza

in the United $tates are not even free

ourselves so how are we going to free

anyone else? (Indeed, we are only free

to be good subjects of Euro imperialism.)

Underneath all the propaganda, it amounts

to Raza/people of color killing people of

color for Euro interest.

Even if all that was alleged about Iraq

was true, which the U$ Administration is

not admitting was not, we must realize

that imperialism not only provoked but

created that threat. If we analyze the 20th

century, we'll find that imperialism

frequently created (and will continue to

create) situations all over the world that

will require our bravery, our blood and

our lives in large amounts.

Let's not be fooled into believing that

the war in Iraq eliminates an imminent

threat. This idea is propagated to give

people a false sense of security. Who or

what is the most imminent threat to us

(people of color)? "Imminent" implies

something that will occur in the future.

I'd ask you to look at the material

conditions as they exist now and decide

which is the most detrimental to our

existence: other people of color in foreign

countries or the status quo in the United

$tates? Undisputedly, it is the status quo.

It is the U$ oppression. It is Mexican on

Mexican violence. It is our high child

mortality rate. It is our sky rocketing

incarceration rate. It is our suicide rate.

Etc., etc. All of which are the

consequence of imperialism.

I'd also challenge you to make a

quantitative analysis of how many civilian

"terrorists" or "rogue nations" have killed

outside of their own countries. How many

millions of civilians did the U$ kill in

Vietnam in one war alone? In Iraq, the

U$ has already killed 10 times the amount

of civilians that died in 9/11/01. So decide

who is the most imminent threat to human

kind and world stability.

Unfortunately, the Raza have become

equivalent to the Aztec forces after they

were militarily defeated. We are being

used (just as the Aztecs were) to fight

and die for the same people who have

conquered us, taken our lands and reduced

us to subsistence. Beneath the pose and

illegitimate justifications, Raza in the U$

military are only perpetuating Euro

imperialism. After 500 years, we are back

to square one!

The fact that most Raza who enlist in

the U$ military do so specifically for

economic mobility, it gives potential to a

collective realization of the cause and

effect of the U$ military industrial

complex via imperialism, as it directly

applies to them and their native country/

continent. For those of us who are

politically advanced, our challenge is to

develop this collective realization, to move

our forces, from their current front of

stabilizing Euro imperialism and

domination, to our own.

-- A California Prisoner, April 2004

MIM Notes 307 · September 15-30, 2004 · Page 3

After more than four years since the

ACLU filed suit on behalf of MIM, other

publishers, and some Colorado

Department of Corrections (DOC)

prisoners, we reached a settlement out

of court which requires the DOC to

institute clear policies regulating

censorship. Far from perfect, the

settlement explicitly continues censorship

of parts of MIM Notes and other

publications named in the lawsuit. In spite

of this and other limitations, the settlement

was clear progress for the battle against

prison censorship.

We have gained an explicit statement

that "there will be no general prohibition

of publications such as. . . MIM Notes . .

." And the settlement mandates the

prison follow explicit regulations when

they censor mail. For example, the prison

must notify the sender of any censorship

and give the sender and recipient an

opportunity to challenge censorship in

front of a review board.

People reading this might be surprised

that these policies are not standard for

all prisons. But this is the myth of free

speech in Amerika-- it is free for those

who support the imperialist system, but

not for those who oppose it. In reality

MIM faces censorship across Amerika,

both in the prisons and on the streets.

Censorship is the strongest in the

prisons where people are denied access

to even basic reading materials on the

whim of the prison staff. Many prisons

censor MIM Notes and other literature

without notifying either the prisoner or the

sender. When notification is given, it

generally includes vague justification if any

at all.

By this settlement the DOC is required

to offer a meaningful description for the

reasons of withholding publications,

identify the portions that are objectionable,

and remove only the objectionable portions

if that is fewer than four pages. According

to the ACLU, censorship of the specific

issues of MIM Notes in question was one

of the last point of contention in the

negotiation with the DOC. They refused

Anti-censorship activists force Colorado DOC reform

to modify their position on MIM's

organizational statement.

Ultimately the settlement included

delivery of MIM Notes to the prisoner

named in the lawsuit, but with the pages

with MIM's organizational statement

(page 2) and those written by prisoners

(Under Lock and Key) removed, along

with a few other pages. The settlement

makes it clear that no one is agreeing that

the partial censorship of these issues is

correct or even consistent with the new

regulations.

Once the Colorado DOC puts the new

censorship regulations in place, MIM will

use these new regulations to challenge

the on-going censorship of MIM notes.

It used to be that Oxfam was just a

charity organization bringing food to the

Third World and maybe even wrecking

the agriculture there in order to do so.

We did not think much of its political or

economic sense. While drawing endless

attention to starvation, Oxfam does not

see a non-negotiable humyn right to eat

while MIM does. Hence, MIM is for the

dictatorship of the proletariat while

Oxfam believes that when push-comes-

to-shove the exploited and super-

exploited should negotiate away their

rights to eat in "democracy." A large

portion of the world gives money to

Oxfam to feel good about itself rather than

actually change anything.

Now things have changed. The "fair

trade" project initiated by Oxfam has

turned Oxfam into a better ally of MIM

than the countless "communist"

organizations that do not as of yet

understand international exploitation even

as much as Oxfam does. As MIM has

predicted in several articles on the

emergence of internationalist social-

democracy, Oxfam has made

internationalist reformism respectable

reformism. Together we can support an

end to imperialist country protectionism,

the abolition of agricultural subsidies or

the internationalization of them, an

international minimum wage for the

whole world and not just the export

sectors either, international regulations on

child labor, international environmental

controls--at least for all countries

wanting to participate in the WTO-

governed trade agreements which is

almost everyone.

Tackling the WTO, the Oxfam has

opened a huge subject within which there

are many, many large, medium and small

issues. Doubtless MIM will have

disagreements with Oxfam down the road

on how to implement fair trade.

However, broadly-speaking in the world,

there are two responses to globalization.

1) One fans imperialist country economic

nationalism a la Patrick Buchanan, Ross

Perot and to a lesser extent Richard

Gephardt. This camp benefits from the

irrational nihilism of many so-called

anarchists who have no way forward. 2)

The other camp accepts that the world is

getting smaller and seeks reforms of the

WTO and international trade agreements.

MIM belongs to this camp, because the

other camp speeds the planet toward an

intensification of world war. Included in

this camp should be the oppressed nation

economic nationalists seeking to compete

on terms more favorable with the rich.

For MIM, one great class struggle

occurred recently in Berkeley, California

where the labor aristocracy showed us

internationalists that the labor aristocracy

is in the saddle, not us, even in the

supposedly most radical city in Amerika.

Over 70% of voters would not require

coffee shops to use coffee beans from

"fair trade" certified sources.

It's one of the few class struggles in

Amerika in recent times that was not

Oxfam shows respectable internationalist reformism

strictly intra-bourgeois. There was real

proletarian content to that struggle in

Berkeley which we lost.

MIM wants to be clear with people that

Oxfam cannot succeed, because the

economic and political interests blocking

it will not surrender without revolution.

Any concept of "free trade" or "fair

trade" is only a pipe-dream under

capitalism. Nonetheless, as even most

calling themselves "revolutionaries" have

not figured that out yet, and because the

alternative to Oxfam reformism is

reactionary reformism, we encourage

many people to join MIM or Oxfam.

Revolutionaries should hook up with MIM

and weak-kneed reformists and charity-

lovers should push Oxfam's

maketradefair.com project as far as they

can.

We encourage anyone launching a "fair

trade" offensive to keep MIM informed.

We can publicize it in our publications and

website as well.

Imperialism kills

Dear MIM,

Why don't you have a spot in your

paper where you print what the

Americans say is the recent number of

dead (`913'), and they don't print the

ones they cart away wounded and thus

die, the poor slobs. Those few on tap

come home with legs or arms or eyes

cut out, they can't get the right

compensation for their ills. There's so

much more, but you should print the

true deaths in your paper; it would

wake the sleepers up for sure. You owe

it to the people.

--a reader in Los Angeles, 5 August

2004

Indeed, the Amerikan military does not

like to report on the number of U$ soldiers

killed and wounded in Iraq. Although it

publishes press releases on individual

deaths, it does not tally them ("we don't

do body counts" is the quote from U$

general Tommy Franks). It even tried to

censor photos of flag-draped coffins

returning to the United $tates.

Information on the number and severity

of non-fatal wounds is also difficult to

find.

So as a public service we publish the

current numbers (as of 30 Aug 2004)

here.

Iraqi civilians 11,707

U$ military fatalities 973

U$ allies' military fatalities 66

U$ military wounded total 6,497

U$ military wounded RTD 2,992

"Wounded RTD" means wounded in

action, returned to duty within 72 hours.

This gives some idea of the severity of

the wounds suffered. More than half of

the total wounded were militarily

incapacitated for over three days.

U$ military recruiters try to lure

recruits with promises of money for

college and adventure in exotic places.

Some even suggest Amerikan youth are

less likely to die by gun violence in Iraq

than in Amerikan cities--a ridiculous

claim that we debunked in MIM Notes

305. The truth is being a soldier is

dangerous. Unlike targets on a shooting

range, people tend to shoot back, especially

when they consider you a member of an

A public service announcement brought to you by MIM

illegitimate occupying army.

Young people! Don't make a devil's

bargain! Don't join the U$ military! Not

only will you be part of the system of

violence and oppression, but you might

end up tallied in one of the figures above.

Sources:

Iraqi civilians: iraqbodycount.net; U$ &

allies' military: http://icasualties.org/oif/.

MIM Notes 307 · September 15-30, 2004 · Page 4

by Roger Burbach and Jim Tarbell

London: Zed Books, 2004.

This is the right topic for a book, a topic

dear to MIM's heart. The first 100 pages

seem to rebut the Amerikan public that

thinks September 11th came out of the

blue. Burbach and Tarbell show the U$

history of imperialism, including those

leading Amerikan voices for empire ever

since 1776.

One point we like in this book is that

pretty much as soon as Negri and Hardt

wrote "Empire"--which claimed there is

one global capitalist empire already

without conflicts among nation-states--

the United $tates asserted its national

interests and took over Afghanistan and

Iraq, the latter especially without

international sanction (p. 197). The only

function a book like Negri's and Hardt's

now can serve is capitulation to the United

$tates.

After proving the historical existence

of U$ imperialism, Burbach and Tarbell

focus on recent times under Bush.

Burbach and Tarbell come to some

surprising conclusions, mostly by analogy

with Rome and via the works of others

who have written about the decline of

empires. Burbach and Tarbell tell us that

with Bush in power, the fall of empire is

a matter of a few years, maybe even 1 to

4 (p. 195). Something worth considering

is that competent administrators such as

Clinton prolong the agony of crisis while

people like Bush may be speeding it up.

On the point of the collapse of U$

empire, Burbach and Tarbell created the

title of the book but provided little build-

up. For an example of the kind of build-

up we needed more of, we learn that in

2003 "of the thirty-three active-duty

brigades only three were actually free for

new duties" (p. 11), thanks to all the

military activities of the U$ empire.

In response to this overstretch,

Democrats such as Hillary Clinton and

John Kerry are calling for an expansion

of the military while the Pentagon wants

funding for new weapons systems

instead. Thus far, the Republicans and

Democrats have united in increasing the

size of the government budget deficit by

spending for both weapons and soldiers.

Readers of MIM Notes and the MIM

web page have seen most of the factual

material in this book already. Burbach and

Tarbell add some slight social-democratic

illusions as well that we would not. For

example, they trot out the usual facts on

how military spending produces fewer

jobs than other kinds of spending. (p. 5)

That's an example of something MIM

does not stress, because building a social-

democratic state is not our priority and

because the statement implies that in

exchange for enough jobs the authors will

put away their concerns about imperialist

war--not a good idea in this day and age.

At the beginning of the century the

European rulers offered their workers

pensions and employment in exchange for

war. On the other hand, it is an important

kind of point if one believes that capitalists

do what is most rational for business

overall. In fact, there is nothing that says

the capitalists appreciate anything of the

drawbacks of military and prison

spending for the economy.

In response to communism, Burbach

and Tarbell said it did not take root in the

Amerikan culture, thus leaving discussion

of imperialism in intellectuals' hands (p.

31). They also attack the Soviet Union's

interventions in Eastern Europe while

making clear that U$ interventions have

been historically unprecedented in scope

and ferocity. (p. 57) By page 70, we see

that the authors accepted the Brezhnevite

premise that foreign aid to Soviet allies

was greater than the gains from

exploitation.

In MIM's opinion, Burbach and Tarbell

needed to develop such points more

deeply. They have misunderstood both

the Soviet and U$ crises. For the same

reason that the U$ empire does not pick

the social spending that produces the most

jobs, the Soviet empire's compulsion to

export capital did not necessarily take any

particular form suitable for any particular

short-term goals that Burbach and Tarbell

would accept as reasonable even for

capitalism.

When we argue about pre-socialist

systems where planning has yet to reach

full acceptance, we must break from

thinking that some bourgeois ultra-planner

at the top can fully control bourgeois

development or would seek to do so

toward definite ends other than business

competition narrowly construed. Such

bourgeois planners will in fact not even

be able to maximize the profit of the

system as a whole, both because they

have no theoretical system to be able to

do so and because the state itself is not

an even-handed representative of the

bourgeois class. Some parts of the

capitalist class have more influence on

the state than others and those sections

with more influence will use the state to

make more profit. The only given is that

the individual capitalist will seek to

succeed in business competition. There

is nothing saying that the winners of such

competition will succeed in making the

state undertake a course of action to

maximize profits for capitalism in all its

business branches as a whole.

The closest thing to an overall strategy

for the imperialists is appeasement of the

bond markets; yet, these bond markets

are notorious for their psychological

fragility. One may rightly suspect that

expanding the U$ military in order to

export less oil from Iraq than before is

not the kind of thing the bond market will

accept not only universally but

increasingly at the margin.

Even if Bush does con the public into

ever greater wasteful military spending

and thus pump up military-contractor

profits, it's far from clear that really boosts

overall profitability. The nature of the

bond market is one reason that Burbach

and Tarbell are right to point out the

strange situation where the United $tates

alienates the rest of the world and then

borrows from it to attack more countries.

Burbach and Tarbell say the financial

markets are not going to tolerate that

much longer.

In this sense, we are close to the

position of Burbach and Tarbell. Whether

they know it or not, the U$ imperialists

have already lost the game. It is U$

imperialism that has the most to lose in

the slow down in trade and business

caused by the "war on terrorism." Other

countries and political actors have long

ago built their strategies without depending

on freer trade. The United $tates benefits

most from easy border crossings and

greater peace. This gets lost in the

imperialist vision, because the imperialists

see booming military, security and prison

profits without grasping the overall

picture.

Militarism is war-mongering or the

advocacy of war or actual carrying out

of war or its preparations.

While true pacifists condemn all

violence as equally repugnant, we

Maoists do not consider self-defense

or the violence of oppressed nations

against imperialism to be militarism.

Militarism is mostly caused by

imperialism at this time. Imperialism is

the highest stage of capitalism--seen

in countries like the United $tates,

England and France.

Under capitalism, capitalists often

profit from war or its preparations.

Yet, it is the proletariat that does the

dying in the wars. The proletariat

wants a system in which people do not

have self-interest on the side of war-

profiteering or war for imperialism.

Militarism is one of the most

important reasons to overthrow

capitalism. It even infects oppressed

nations and causes them to fight each

other.

It is important not to let capitalists risk

our lives in their ideas about war and

peace or the environment. They have

already had two world wars admitted

by themselves in the last 100 years and

they are conducting a third right now

against the Third World.

Even a one percent annual chance of

nuclear war destruction caused by

capitalist aggressiveness or "greed" as

the people call it should not be tolerated

by the proletariat. After playing

Russian Roulette (in which the bullet

chamber is different each time and not

related at all to the one that came up in

previous spins) with 100 chambers and

one bullet, the chance of survival is

only 60.5% after 50 turns. In other

words, a seemingly small one percent

annual chance of world war means

eventual doom. After 100 years or turns

of Russian Roulette, the chances of

survival are only 36.6%. After 200

years, survival has only a 13.4%

chance.

What is militarism?

The unsustainability of Amerikan aggression

Review: Imperial Overstretch: George W. Bush & the Hubris of Empire

MIM Notes 307 · September 15-30, 2004 · Page 5

Average Monthly Combat Fatalities in

Afghanistan

1,024

2001

2002

2003

2004

Source: http://pubpages.unh.edu/~mwherold/

Afghan Civilian

U$ Military

Superficial, bourgeois internationalism in `Axis of Evil'

Review: Inventing the Axis of Evil: The Truth About North Korea, Iran, and Syria

Bruce Cumings, Ervand

Abrahamian, Moshe Ma'oz

The New Press (2004) 213 pp.

MIM can't recommend this book,

except as a quick substitute for reading

the last two years of the New York Times

or Foreign Affairs. It contains some

factual tidbits, many showing how the

United $tates fostered the very regimes

President Bush now calls "evil." But

these tidbits don't make up for the

authors' rather superficial analysis and

bourgeois-internationalist biases. For

example, readers interested in Korea

would well to skip Bruce Cumings' essay

and instead read MIM Notes' coverage

over the last two years; we cover the

same material, but better.(1)

Readers interested in the limitations of

the bourgeois internationalist opposition

to Bush and his neo-conservative coterie

might want to dwell on the Cumings essay,

however. Cumings falls into the "mistakes

were made" school of history, along with

former Secretary of defense and war

criminal Bob McNamara.(2) Both

Cumings and McNamara do a pretty

good job exposing Amerika's leading role

in some of the 20th century's worst

atrocities, especially the Korean and

Vietnamese wars. But both blame these

crimes on Amerikan leaders' mistaken

ideas, not the economic system of

imperialism.

Cumings thinks that if the Amerikan

government had only shown a little more

patience, it could have avoided the Korean

and Vietnam wars and other fiascos--

and still have come out on top of the

struggle against "communism." There

were good, socio-historical reasons

Koreans and other oppressed nations

adopted radical land reform and anti-

colonial programs, Cumings argues, and

this made them sympathetic to

communism. If, instead of waging overt

and covert anti-communist wars, the

Amerikans had been patient and

supported their just anti-feudal and anti-

colonial struggles, then these former

oppressed nations would eventually have

gotten over their radical phase and

embraced liberal capitalism.

Aside from overestimating the allure of

liberal capitalism--look at the decline in

life expectancies in Russia since the

collapse of the Soviet Union--Cumings

overestimates the imperialists' ability to

abstain from conquest. He approvingly

quotes former diplomat and architect of

the post-WWII "containment" doctrine

George Kennan:

"I considered that if and when we had

succeeded in persuading the Soviet

leadership that the continuation of [their]

expansionist policies... would be, in many

respects, to their disadvantage, then the

moment would have come for serious

talks with them about the future of

Europe. But when... this moment had

arrived--when we had made our point

with the Marshall plan, with ... the Berlin

blockade and other measures--when the

lesson I wanted to see us convey to

Moscow had been successfully conveyed,

then it was one of the greatest

disappointments of my life to discover that

neither our government nor our Western

European allies had any interest in

entering into such discussions at all. What

they and others wanted from Moscow,

with respect to the future of Europe, was

essentially `unconditional surrender.' They

were prepared to wait for it. And this was

the beginning of forty years of Cold

War."(3)

Kennan and Cumings fail to understand

that the cold war was an imperialist war.

On the one hand, the Amerikans (and

eventually the social-imperialist Soviets)

fought to preserve and expand their

colonial empire; on the other, oppressed

nations fought for liberation. The

Amerikans couldn't do anything but "kick

them while they were down." As Lenin

taught us in "Imperialism," the economic

pressures of monopoly capitalism drive

imperialist powers to divide and re-divide

the world; they cannot rest content with

their little piece of the world, they have

to try and take way their neighbor's

piece--or die.

This is the key point that people working

to eliminate war and colonial exploitation

have to understand: it's the economic

system of imperialism that drives nations

to war, not leaders' persynalities.

Measures that do not challenge this

underlying system--clever diplomacy or

well-meaning reforms--cannot prevent

war or end exploitation. In fact, the more

likely such "pragmatic" measures are to

change something fundamental the less

likely they will ever be adopted by the

powers-that-be--unless they are under

duress from more radical forces.

The Kennans, McNameras and

Cumings of the past 150 years have

shown us that it is impossible to reform

imperialism, no matter how clever one is.

If we want to keep the humyn race from

blowing itself up with its latest hyper-

deadly invention, we have to attack the

capitalist system, and fight for socialism,

which eliminates economic competition

among nations and makes true

cooperation possible.

Notes:

1. See e.g. MN253, MN261, MN262,

MN271, MN272, MN273, MN275,

MN276.

2. See http://www.etext.info/Politics/

M I M / b o o k s t o r e / b o o k s / a s i a /

mcnamara.html.

3. Pp.45-46.

people that more Special Forces and

greater UN involvement in Amerika's

"war on terror" will bring peace. Given

the current mess in Afghanistan Kerry

and his supporters are either lying or

willfully ignorant.

Those in the ABB ("Anybody But

Bush") camp may be tactically correct:

to win the votes he needs outside of the

big coastal cities Kerry needs to show he

can "take care of business," militarily

speaking. But this is a case where sound

tactics lead to ultimate failure because

the overall goal was poorly chosen. The

ABB crowd may well find themselves

with a president who creates one, two,

three Afghanistans--assuming he can

find any allies, as many of the

governments that backed Amerika in

Afghanistan are waiting on the sidelines

to see how Amerika handles the current