This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
This is an archive of the former website of the Maoist Internationalist Movement, which was run by the now defunct Maoist Internationalist Party - Amerika. The MIM now consists of many independent cells, many of which have their own indendendent organs both online and off. MIM(Prisons) serves these documents as a service to and reference for the anti-imperialist movement worldwide.
Maoist Internationalist Movement

[October 2004 postscript: This post is mainly interesting as one of the last disputes with Adolfo Olaechea about the imperialist country labor aristocracy. Recently, Spain snatched up Adolfo Olaechea and deported him to Peru.

It was only toward the very end of struggles with Adolfo Olaechea that he recognized that labor aristocracy is indeed "enemy" according to the works of Marx, Lenin and Mao. Prior to that, he had followed Avakian's line that labor aristocracy is not "enemy." Nonetheless, having evidently surprised himself having read Lenin at that time, Adolfo Olaechea simply decided that the labor aristocracy must be small, so that he could return to the Avakian/Kautsky flock.]

From owner-marxism Fri Aug 30 04:04:44 1996
X-Sender: hariette@mail.easynet.co.uk
Subject: RE: Labor & Racism: Construction Trades

>
>To recognize this ugly fact is already a big step forward.
>But isn't this section of American workers constitutes a minority
> of US labor force? The very viciousness of their efforts
> to protect their turf seems to suggest how insecure they feel
> in the midst of the laboring masses who become more impoverished
> and more willing to challenge their privileges. IMO, to portray these
> workers as representing the US proletariat as a whole towering above the
>billions of exploited toilers of the rest of the world may be very
>dangerous for both sides. This would only play in the hands
> of metropolitan and national bourgeoisies. Instead, the privilidged
>layers of the working class in the North should be politically neutralized
> wherever their cooperation with the rest of the workers is presently
>out of question. The problem is how to mobilize the masses without
>antagonizing the "aristocracy" and pushing it into the hands of reaction.
>
>Vladimir

[AO says]
In seeking to link their theory of the "white working class" with the question of the aristocracy of labour, MIM fails to understand the question in Marxist terms, and Bilenkin is also failing to see that the aristocracy of labour, far from being "semi-proletarians" as MIM holds, are in fact CLASS ENEMY, bourgeoisie! A substantial chunk of the so called white working class - i.e. the "respectable" working class (that imbued of

MIM replies: Notice how AO still mocks the phrase "white working class" when we just proved to him that the CP-USA of 1931 UNDER STALIN's EXPLICIT DIRECTIONS started using the phrase "white workers." This comes from a man who claims to belong to a Stalin Society, not a Mao Society. You can see the difficulties we have here these days reclaiming the ORIGINAL principles of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism, when the Stalin society feverishly attacks Stalin's words and stands up for oppressor nation rights, and does so arrogantly without knowledge of the national conditions he is speaking of and without a consistent theory for his own intervention, namely that there is no Amerikan proletariat and hence the outside proletariat better intervene!

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

[AO says]
bourgeois prejudices, the "bourgeoisified workers, in Marx's words) may follow the aristocracy of labour and in fact does so in the USA. But these masses are NOT the aristocracy of labour but their victims and dupes.

MIM replies: It's almost a translation problem, but AO reads Lenin as to equate labor bureaucrats with labor aristocrats. If one reads AO translating "labor aristocrat" to "labor bureaucracy," his views become no different than the Trotskyists'. Of course his views have no standing in Marx or Engels, where bourgeoisified workers are not just a handful. If he claims to be faithful to Marx and Engels, then he is in the position of saying attack the majority and its interests and break it up. However, as we can see below, that's not what he has in mind or he'd already be in closer unity with MIM.

What's your line sir? Are they a majority bourgeois or not? And guess who thought they were a majority bourgeois! You want to squirm around this like Proyect, but maybe it would be better just to take a stand and the lumps that come with one or stay out of it completely!

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

[AO says]
When you consider the aristocracy of labour as "semi-proletarians" or "bourgeosified workers" as both - from different angles - Bilenkin and MIM do, it is evident that, contrary to the proletarian policy, you would have to arrive at proposals not to "antagonise" them.

MIM replies: Here we thank AO for finally just letting the social-democratic cat out of the bag. He says we "have to arrive at proposals not to 'antgonise' them" if they are the majority, as in the case of the MIM line he refers to. He forgets we don't HAVE to fear antagonizing anyone in the imperialist countries, because the imperialist countries are the minority. Like Lenin said the "whole country" is a parasite as I showed in my post of Victor Perlo quoting Lenin. Even Victor Perlo knows what Lenin really said. Does AO?

However, AO differs from MIM, because he can't stand MIM's approach to breaking up the parasitic classes and their attack on the oppressed nations. He wants to retain some room for social-democracy and oppressor nation rights. He doesn't understand that democracy exists only for groups. There is proletarian democracy and there is democracy for oppressed nations on the one hand. There is bourgeois democracy and rights for oppressor nations on the other hand. There is no middle ground no matter how many hairs AO may try to split between "semi-proletariat" and "labor aristocracy."

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

[AO says]
Only consistent Marxism stands for an antagonistic struggle against the aristocracy of labour, the social-chauvinists and imperialist "Labour" bourgeosie of the imperialist countries: The Labour Party in Britain for example, and the "left Democrats and Union bureacrats" in the USA, for example, while supporting the masses of the working class irrespective of national origen or colour under the immortal slogan of the Communist movement:

"Proletarians of all countries unite"!

Adolfo Olaechea

MIM replies: We are going to have go around a few times on this, because AO sounds very similar to MIM, but if you look closely, there is still a world of difference.

Whether semi-proletariat or labor aristocracy, AO is NOT going to find words from Mao saying to rely on the Japanese labor aristocracy or semi-proletariat and avoid antagonizing them! No, he is talking mostly throughout his work how to rid China of the Japanese and he is not bothering with these hair-splitting distinctions that AO is making on behalf of the oppressor nations! When Mao does make hair-splitting distinctions, it's to split his enemy, lackeys of imperialism for instance.

Nor does Mao ever excuse anyone for a lack of concrete investigation, because there is no Marxism-Leninism not integrated with concrete conditions. If AO is now admitting that the majority of the united states and England is semi-proletariat, he should do so publicly.