- MIM’s accusations against the RCP USA, stating that the latter works for the CIA, are unfounded and absurd. The persistent striving to substitute the political question with questions of spying and recruitment is erroneous and serves to disorient the left movement. The RMP principally rejects such a style of polemic-making.
- The RMP recognizes the faithfulness and value of MIM’s position on labour aristocracy; however, it supposes that its critique of the RCP on this topic has been driven by sectarianism. In its program, the RCP raises the question of labour aristocracy and points directly to its dangers, which distinguishes it to its advantage from not only almost all of the Russian left groups, but also from many Maoist parties.
- The RMP accepts and defends the right of the revolutionaries of the Third World to independently identify the time-frame for deployment and suspension of armed struggle. Accordingly, the RMP assesses infighting around so-called ‘peaceful letters’ as an unhealthy phenomenon.
- Regarding the critique of the actions against the Iranian dictatorship in Euro-American metropolises as supportive of the justification of imperialist aggression against Iran (even though the struggle against patriarchy in Iran is justified and appropriate) – the RMP considers the critique to be substantiated. On the other side, RCP USA’s participation in them was a big mistake and a demonstration of utterly thoughtless activism. However, MIM exaggerates RCP’s guilt by falsely maintaining that these actions were not directed against USA and EU imperialism. Moreover, MIM did not present any clear proof to support its statement that the Communist Party of Iran (MLM) had ties to these actions.
- The RMP agrees with MIM’s condemnation of the action on April 30, 2006 against Iran’s nuclear program, yet does not see clear proof that the Mojahedin-e Khalq are somehow associated with the RMP, nor with the RCP USA or CPIran (MLM). On the contrary, Iranian Maoists spoke badly of Mojahedin-e Khalq.
- The fact that MIM has been telling Iranian Maoists how exactly they should defend their country’s independence, happens to be a demonstration of arrogant first-world hegemony and must be condemned. All the more so that the MIM allows for a free interpretation of CPIran (MLM)’s position, which leads to a practical distortion.
- The RMP believes that the MIM, having refused any kind of correspondence and having accepted to make use of an unintelligible literary style full of hints and allegories, condemns its former allies to making errors due to a lacking comprehension of the situation.
- The RMP sees three ‘circles’ of foreign allies (from the furthest to the nearest):
1. Groups that proclaim their goal to be a proletarian revolution, which reject old and modern revisionism and are not active proponents of labour aristocracy and Eurocentric ideology. This may be Maoist, Hoxhaist, Neo-Stalinist and even Trotskyist, Leftcom and other such groups. We classify into this category the Marxist-Leninist Party of Germany (MLPD), with which we have a history of mutually-advantageous cooperation which continues into this day.
2. Groups that side with the Chinese Marxists in the Sino-Soviet split and recognize the progressiveness and importance of the Cultural Revolution (and, accordingly, accept Mao and the ‘Shanghai four’ in person). Groups that point to the ‘unrevolutionism’ and dangers of labour aristocracy (this last criterion must not necessarily be applied to Third World countries). In the First World, we group into this category the MIM, the RCP USA, the Canadian RCP and the Communist Party of Aotearoa.
3. Groups that satisfy the previous criteria, which remain in constant contact with us and have been entered into the ranks of our closest allies by a special decisions of our party. At the present time, we group into this category the Group of Revolutionary Communists “Red Wedge” (GKR “Krasnyy Klin”) (Belarus), KSRD (Ukraine) and the Maoist Anti-imperialist Club (Moldova).
Russian Maoist Party (RMP)