From owner-marxism Sun Sep 24 00:48:16 1995
Date: Sat, 23 Sep 1995 20:48:16 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maoist Internationalist Movement
Subject: Re: Detroit strike
On Fri, 22 Sep 1995, Walter Daum wrote:
>
> Thanks to Bryan Alexander for forwarding those first-hand reports on the
> Detroit newspaper strike. Much appreciated, and please continue.
>
> They do raise a question for MIM, I would think. Since most of the strikers
> battling the cops and capitalists seem to be white, does that mean their
> strike is not to be supported? Especially since (as I read elsewhere) that
> the owners have brought in Mexicans as scabs.
MIM replies: This is where anti-MIMerism leads--to attacks on foreign workers. It's in the line of the anti-GATT and anti-NAFTA CPUSA and other similar organizations. There are so many things that journalists could be doing and real Marxists could be doing to lead the journalists, but instead they go down this path that INEVITABLY leads to social-chauvinism in the current context, a fight over the re-division of surplus-value.
If the imperialists brought in maybe 100 million Mexican and other Third World "scabs," then maybe we could go back to talking about exploited white workers and unite the working class and that stuff. Right now, "labor" organizing provides some of the shocktroops for the restrictions of immigration being imposed by the imperialists including Clinton who just cut legal immigration by a third, partly in response to the kind of "labor" movement Daum is talking about.
>
> Either MIM's theory or the class struggle has to give.
MIM continues:
"The class struggle" according to Daum is something that doesn't even target the state. Even if we presume that these workers are exploited, which they aren't, Engels would say they have yet to advance class struggle "one iota."
When the various chavinists DO speak out to lead the workers against the government, they call for closing the borders, opposing GATT and opposing NAFTA, just like the KKK did at a recent rally by the way.
The other thing to raise is how heated is this conflict? And how typical? The bourgeoisie has its own in-house fights, but they never lead anywhere for the proletariat in themselves except when the bourgeois factions kill each other and leave a vacuum.
Likewise, 99% of the time the labor aristocracy negotiates with the imperialists. Another 44 one-hundreds of one percent of the time, they go to strikes using physical force.
The remainder of situations where the labor aristocracy actually moves against the state it is not in a proletarian direction.
Meanwhile, in the Third World, the state imprisons people for organizing or kills them regularly and the classes really do engage in class struggle, not class collaboration or negotiation.
From time to time the bourgeoisie sends its members to country-club prisons with regard to its intra-class fighting--Watergate, Iran-Contra, how to embezzle etc. How does this Detroit struggle compare with that?
Pat for MIM
--- from list marxism@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
From owner-marxism Mon Sep 25 19:08:22 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 14:08:22 -0500 (CDT)
From: Marc Luzietti
Subject: Re: Detroit strike
On Sat, 23 Sep 1995, Maoist Internationalist Movement wrote:
>
>
> On Fri, 22 Sep 1995, Walter Daum wrote:
> > They do raise a question for MIM, I would think. Since most of the strikers
> > battling the cops and capitalists seem to be white, does that mean their
> > strike is not to be supported? Especially since (as I read elsewhere) that
> > the owners have brought in Mexicans as scabs.
>
> MIM replies: This is where anti-MIMerism leads--to attacks on foreign
> workers. It's in the line of the anti-GATT and anti-NAFTA CPUSA
> and other similar organizations. There are so many things that
> journalists could be doing and real Marxists could be doing
> to lead the journalists, but instead they go down this path that
> INEVITABLY leads to social-chauvinism in the current context,
> a fight over the re-division of surplus-value.
Where did this come from? The point I believe he was trying to make was that the capaitalists are using Mexican scab labor (although the vast
majority of the scabs are actually anglos) to break the strike, i.e.,
oppress the striking workers.
> > Either MIM's theory or the class struggle has to give.
>
> "The class struggle" according to Daum is something that
> doesn't even target the state. Even if we presume that these
> workers are exploited, which they aren't, Engels would say
> they have yet to advance class struggle "one iota."
So, when you say that the American working class is *not* exploited, you
are saying that the American working class recieves *FULL* renumeration
for their labor? If not, then please explain whyu your definition of
exploitation differs from Marx's. If so, please back up your assertion
with some facts. As I understand it, American workers recieve 1/4 of the
value of their labor back in wages & benefits (Gus Hall, 1980). In real
dollar terms, the American working class is one of the most exploited
classes in the world, even if they are better off than the working
classes in the rest of the world.
> When the various chavinists DO speak out to lead the
> workers against the government,
> they call for closing the borders, opposing
> GATT and opposing NAFTA, just like the KKK did at a recent rally
> by the way.
The racist ruling classes of this country have spent over three hundred
years attempting to inculculate us in their idelogy, and no wonder.
Whenever racism breaks down, the combined forces of the working class
threaten the capitalists position, from Nat Turner's Rebellion through
the Progressive Party to the Civil Right's movement. Calling the workers
backwards and in bed with management does not win them over. If all I
ever did was to call MIM race-baiting, wannabe radical, trust fund babies,
you wouldn't be very inclined to work with me. If you were to repeat your
theories to a typical unionist, I believe you'd get a well deserved punch
in the nose.
[snip]
> Likewise, 99% of the time the labor aristocracy negotiates
> with the imperialists. Another 44 one-hundreds of one percent
> of the time, they go to strikes using physical force.
> The remainder of situations where the labor aristocracy
> actually moves against the state it is not in a
> proletarian direction.
The fact that the labor aristocracy (i.e., the union bosses) regularly
betrays the rank-and-file is a well known phenomina among both
revolutionaries and unionists. You do not help matters be insulting the
workers. In fact, one of the reasons for the upsurge in unoin militancy
is because the rank-and-file has begun to battle their leadership.
> Meanwhile, in the Third World, the state imprisons people
> for organizing or kills them regularly and the classes
> really do engage in class struggle, not class collaboration
> or negotiation.
Oh, and what are state run unions? I seem to see them throughout the
third world?
> From time to time the bourgeoisie sends its members to
> country-club prisons with regard to its intra-class
> fighting--Watergate, Iran-Contra, how to embezzle etc.
> How does this Detroit struggle compare with that?
What does this have to do with the price of tea in China? When was the
last time a union activist went to a country club prison (keyword is
*ACTIVIST,* Lane Kirkland doesn't count)? In fact, I seem to remember
that union militants in the US are getting jailed, beaten, and yes,
occasionally murdered
> MIM3 for MIM
Marc Luzietti3 for Marc Luzietti
P.S. Okay, okay, so I changed Pat's name back to it's original. I prefer
MIM3 to Pat.
--- from list marxism@lists.village.virginia.edu ---
From owner-marxism Tue Sep 26 00:08:20 1995
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 20:08:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Maoist Internationalist Movement
Subject: Re: Detroit strike
On Mon, 25 Sep 1995, Marc Luzietti wrote:
>
>
> >
> > MIM replies: This is where anti-MIMerism leads--to attacks on foreign
> > workers. It's in the line of the anti-GATT and anti-NAFTA CPUSA
> > and other similar organizations. There are so many things that
> > journalists could be doing and real Marxists could be doing
> > to lead the journalists, but instead they go down this path that
> > INEVITABLY leads to social-chauvinism in the current context,
> > a fight over the re-division of surplus-value.
>
> Where did this come from? The point I believe he was trying to make was
> that the capaitalists are using Mexican scab labor (although the vast
> majority of the scabs are actually anglos) to break the strike, i.e.,
> oppress the striking workers.
MIM replies: If you follow our posts this month, you will see that we said failure to use the correct analysis of the imperialist country working classes would lead to attacks on foreign workers.
This is not an isolated example. It happens again and again as Daum just proved in this example from reality. Daum is able to correct his own view, but for most of the class it won't happen that way.
Mexican "scabs" are workers too. There is also a Mexican working class that is exploited. The same cannot be said of the u.s. imperialist working class. It produces no surplus-value, because it is mostly composed of unproductive laborers. In addition, they are paid more than the value of their labor-power (forgetting what that labor power is used for.)
>
> So, when you say that the American working class is *not* exploited, you
> are saying that the American working class recieves *FULL* renumeration
> for their labor? If not, then please explain whyu your definition of
> exploitation differs from Marx's. If so, please back up your assertion
> with some facts. As I understand it, American workers recieve 1/4 of the
> value of their labor back in wages & benefits (Gus Hall, 1980). In real
> dollar terms, the American working class is one of the most exploited
> classes in the world, even if they are better off than the working
> classes in the rest of the world.
MIM replies: We have provided the facts and calculations in MT#1. The Gus Hall thing is not even close. It's disgusting chauvinism when you get right into the nuts and bolts. It amounts to saying how much more valuable Amerikan workers are than other workers--empty boasting, which if true would mean that trillions in wealth accumulate in the hands of capitalists every year. (There is no evidence for that.)
Send $5 to MIM, PO Box 3576, Ann Arbor, MI 48106
For another $19 get issues 2-7 as well.
Since you are interested in this, I think you should buy it and review it for the list. Also there is a forthcoming follow up to MT#1 from what I am told, so your reply has every chance of being published if you look into this MIM stuff.
> The racist ruling classes of this country have spent over three hundred
> years attempting to inculculate us in their idelogy, and no wonder.
> Whenever racism breaks down, the combined forces of the working class
> threaten the capitalists position, from Nat Turner's Rebellion through
> the Progressive Party to the Civil Right's movement. Calling the workers
> backwards and in bed with management does not win them over. If all I
MIM replies: It wins over the advanced ones. And the rest aren't as thin-skinned and weak as you make out. Besides, what you are saying is an example of opportunism almost as a matter of definition. They can't handle the truth so you tell them what they want to hear. That's the style of the bourgeois electoral parties that we should not mimic.
> ever did was to call MIM race-baiting, wannabe radical, trust fund babies,
> you wouldn't be very inclined to work with me. If you were to repeat your
MIM replies: J. Sakai calls us Maoists "bourgeois" and "armchair." However, we distribute more of her book than probably any other organization. We would, however, get pissed at you if all you ever did was call us names (like some people on this list do in their one paragraph blasts unsubstantiated by anything.) At least you told us what you were thinking and we are now able to criticize it.
> theories to a typical unionist, I believe you'd get a well deserved punch
> in the nose.
>
MIM replies: Hitler's brownshirts would've said the same and in the name of the German workers who are the greatest so that they are worth so much more than other workers and yet paid so much less than they should be.
> [snip]>
> The fact that the labor aristocracy (i.e., the union bosses) regularly
> betrays the rank-and-file is a well known phenomina among both
MIM replies: You need to read Lenin and the COMINTERN more carefully. You and others may have renamed certain phenomena to fit your line, but union bosses shold be referred to as labor bureaucrats, not labor aristocracy. Even Trotsky made this distinction in the last year of his life according to the documents published by Merit publishers.
> revolutionaries and unionists. You do not help matters be insulting the
> workers. In fact, one of the reasons for the upsurge in unoin militancy
> is because the rank-and-file has begun to battle their leadership.
MIM replies: We have heard the above sort of thing about upsurge for 50 years now. By now we should be in communism with all the bragging Amerikans do about Amerikan workers.
>
> > Meanwhile, in the Third World, the state imprisons people
> > for organizing or kills them regularly and the classes
> > really do engage in class struggle, not class collaboration
> > or negotiation.
>
> Oh, and what are state run unions? I seem to see them throughout the
> third world?
MIM replies: This is a perfect example. In Korea now, workers sacrifice their lives to build real unions and even more go to prison, while students fight in the streets to back them up.
Meanwhile, here, apologists continually talk about how the labor bureaucrats are just misleading the workers. Face it: the Amerikan working class hasn't the energy for struggle against imperialism that Koreans or Puerto Ricans or Azanians or Peruvians have, and there is a material reason for it.
Pat for MIM