I want to say something though about your attitude to things with "-aristocracy" added to the end. Lenin's use of the phrase "labor-aristocracy" did not mean they were outside the class struggle or that they were written off for all time. You people would do with a real serious re-study of "Left-Wing Communism: an INFANTILE disorder"!

H. Gary

MIM replies:

[Postscript October 2004: Actually in "Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder," Lenin said to organize the masses and said he did not expect to organize the petty-bourgeoisie. Our critic sidesteps the whole question of class and exploitation.] When the scum claiming Marxism on this list is not busy spreading idealism, it has to attack materialism.

If you read Marx and Engels, you will see that a portion of the bourgeoisie goes over to the side of the revolution at the last minute. So by H. Gary's foolish reasoning, we would cast aside our materialist analysis of the conflict we are in NOW (not in the afterlife) AND according to H. Gary's line of reasoning we would not write off the capitalist class, because a portion will go over to revolution.

Expressed now in the context we are in, the above line is pro-imperialist and white nationalist. Expressed by oppressed nationals, it is a capitulationist line. Imagine Mao saying, "don't write off those Japanese troops! They'll come around eventually." China would still be under occupation. The way those Japanese come around to Mao is by having their asses kicked out of China just like the only way the U.$. masses come around is by getting their asses kicked out of Vietnam and learn some respect!

The principal contradiction in the world is between imperialism and oppressed nations. That is the conflict we are in NOW. What is ultraleft is counting on allies that are NOT there. The ultraleft overestimates something's potential and then gets the movement smashed by counting on things invented in FANTASY. Those of us with proletarian leanings following Adolfo Olaechea can see an example of this. He just OVERESTIMATED the potential of the English labor aristocracy and labor bureaucracy and got himself booted out of the Leninlist. Of course, that was his aim anyway, given his class stance, but those of us watching could have imagined otherwise: we can imagine how a proletarian outcome would have appeared. Meanwhile, MIM goes forth into concrete struggle with experience and a line for imperialist conditions.

Since the labor-aristocracy produces no surplus-value, the system comes closer to crisis the bigger the labor-aristocracy gets. Of course, the 95 percent scum on this list don't know what surplus-value is anyway and don't care.

*****************************

Fergal Finnegan:
They are fallen and worthless because the silly tardy masses have yet to embrace the truths of mao. What bollocks !.

MIM replies:
No, we at MIM are Leninists. And Leninists believe that you are passing off the responsibility of Irish republican leadership for adopting a SCIENTIFIC outlook, namely Marxism-Leninism-Maoism. We Leninists never said that the masses would embrace communism spontaneously. There has to be a party. But as How the Irish Became White points out , the Irish republican leadership faced with a growing Amerika has set about catering to it. Since Amerika is flaming anti-communist, the Irish republican leadership tones down the communism instead of mobilizing for a proletarian struggle.

**************************************

Fergal Finnegan:
Too many capitalised letters is never a good sign. I really should of simply deleted this example of MIM's ideological and intellectual poverty.

MIM replies:
Then you would have deleted a lot of Marx and Lenin too. In case you didn't notice: this is Marxism Space, not soc.culture.visit-the-queen.

You learned that sort of knee-jerk response from good petty-bourgeois class instructors. Which class has an interest in everything proceeding in an even tone? Which class would like everyone to believe there is nothing to be alarmed by? Which class says there is no crisis to resolve? You've been brainwashed, by the bourgeoisie and petty-bourgeois activists who believe that "effective" means "appealing to the bourgeoisie." We Marxists speak for the angry, as the scientists of revolution.

************************************

Fergal F. again:
Stop blaming the working classes for the irrelevancy of your politics with your crude theories of a global labour aristocracy and think about why your form of Maoism is so illsuited to describing and furthering the class struggle where you live or anywhere else for that matter.

MIM3 replies: Maoism is well-suited for the world's 80 percent. If it is not well-suited for "the class struggle," you must be referring to the class struggle of the imperialists and bought-off workers against the oppressed nad exploited. You and most of Marxism Space are so concerned about not hurting the crackers' feelings. That is why you throw out the scientific truth. You only degrade Marxism. Your petty-bourgeois whining has unleashed a class struggle for sure--a struggle of the imperialists to put more on your plate and buy you out.

"I have sown dragon seeds and harvested fleas."

*********************************** F.F. again:
of course you could always retire to your bedroom and admire the chairman's coy little smile and continue on the same as ever.

MIM3 replies:
I doubt that no matter what line MIM had you or 99% of this list would meet MIM's membership requirements. You are too busy whining about effective revolutionaries and watching "All In the Family" re-runs--literally.