--English comrade
April, 2003
Let me answer you on two levels. In MIM's case, we are saying the white proletariat does not exist as a class. There are too few to form a class. Even in Marx's day, he spoke of situations where larger groups than what we are talking about proportionately might not form a class.
So could there be white proletarians? Yes, there could be. However, such proletarians form only in action. Again, on this point, we do not differ from say the Comintern for example, where even individual people from bourgeois background might be re-labelled "proletarian."
So on the questions of definitions, whether classes might fail to exist and whether or not individuals could be proletarian despite their social background, MIM says nothing new.
What MIM has had to say new is that material conditions changed along the lines that Lenin said when he said a "whole country" could be parasitic. (Concretely, he also said Germany was majority petty-bourgeois.)
http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/classics/classics.html
has some of the quotes.
We Marxists do not shirk from our scientific conclusions. Strategy and tactics come later. For example, Mao realized that the urban proletariat was not sufficiently developed in China, so he came up with the exploited peasants as the "main force" led by proletarian thought to surround the cities. He did not say, well the exploited proletarians are the minority so now I can wait like the Trotskyists would conclude.
Likewise, today, our strategy has to adjust to the economic facts of life that simply cannot be wished away for hundreds of millions of parasites. We do not bank on altruism. We bank on a coordinated global revolutionary movement--much like what we just saw on Iraq but of course with much higher quality--that does not respect imperialist borders when those same imperialists never respected anyone else's. Quite the contrary, it would be banking on altruism (and the labor aristocracy's rather limited framework of mind in which it chooses countless diversions rather than really involve itself in politics thoroughly and scientifically) to call for revolution as if an exploited majority existed.
We would be idealist if we said that revolution could happen MAINLY BY THE HANDS OF EXPLOITERS. That is in fact what our opponents say. There is no way to get around the question of whether the population is exploited or not. It is for that reason that Mao investigated class conditions first and then formed strategy, not the other way around. The question of who is exploited and who is a friend and enemy precedes the question of how revolution will be made. One has to be right about this question. Our oppponents are wrong and end up banking on exploiters.
So to sum up: 1) the world's vast majority will bring down imperialism. 2) Our opponents do not put sufficient emphasis on that and rather divert us down unfruitful roads when in fact the whole rub is international cooperation and unity against imperialism. 3) There are individual white proletarians now and there could be classes of such in major imperialist countries, but only AFTER major economic catastrophe such as after nuclear war or similar devastation. The fact that such a proletariat as a CLASS could arise does not mean now that we call exploiters "exploited." Though Marx said that the majority of the bourgeoisie would go out of business and become re-proletarianized, he never referred to that bourgeoisie as a proletariat! (e.g. "RCP-USA")
> Hello Comrade,
> mim3@mim.org wrote:
>
>
> Would you say, as an example, that the labor aristocrats and
> petty-borgeoisie combined form an *absolute majority* of the total adult
> population in england?
yes.
See, http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mt/imp97/index.html
See, http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mt/imp97/imp97d1.html
>
> >We bank on a coordinated global revolutionary movement >much like what we
just saw on Iraq but of course with much >higher quality--that does not respect
imperialist borders when >those same imperialists never respected anyone else's.
>
> So, would it be correct to say that organising on a national level
> *within the imperialist countries* is not worthwhile? That organisations
> such as RCP-USA or the PCm in Italy are barking up the wrong tree, so to
> speak?
That's exactly right: if you focus on the national with bourgeois democratic prejudice, you will end up seeking a majority, which will end up being exploiters. That's what most of our critics are doing. They are saying put strategy first and never mind what the class structure actually is. Such a view is really the methodological definition of opportunism. Just crack open Mao's Selected Works, and it's plain to see that he did the class structure first and then came up with strategies and tactics.
The only other way to focus on the national would be within a framework determined by international analysis. For instance, an attitude of focusing on what can be done within the imperialist countries must not mean thinking that a majority is exploited. MIM finds itself plenty busy organizing the minority and we are far from done setting up the pole that can exist in the given international situation.
>
> The MPP in Peru, for example, see the establishment of reconstituted
> (marxist-leninist-maoist) communist parties in europe as an essential
> *component* of world revolution. Are they totally wrong on this point?
As in your above comment those organizations must indeed be INSIDE the imperialist countries, but they need not pursue a majority or believe that they will provide the "main force" as Mao said. There is no reason a proletarian line cannot lead a minority within the imperialist countries. Not exactly analogous but thought-provoking parallels occurred in China in the 1930s and 1940s in the Japanese-controlled and "white areas." There were parts of the cities where the population was hostile to the revolution and work had to be underground.
>
> >So to sum up:
>
> >1) the world's vast majority will bring down imperialism.
>
> Agreed.
>
> >2) Our opponents do not put sufficient emphasis on that and >rather
> >divert us down unfruitful roads when in fact the whole rub >is
> >international cooperation and unity against imperialism.
>
> What kind of co-operation, in practice?
Ultimately it must be military cooperation of people from many countries. The start has to be cooperation of many parties led by the proletarian line. That will involve solving a lot of problems among and between oppressed nations before we can bring down imperialism. However, the silver lining in the cloud of this colossal imperialism is that it does have the capability of uniting the oppressed nations globally. We see this with the Iraq war, where most countries are 80% or 90% against the war, but where a few vacillate wildly like England and Australia and two favor it outright as Amerikkka and I$rael.
Would you not agree that England ended up vacillating in its majority in a way that was not principled in opposition to imperialist war? And is this not indicative of a petty-bourgeoisie? And before we blame the media for false consciousness in England, Amerikkka etc, should we not ask ourselves if the media is also not brainwashing people in other countries which still managed to come out against the war 80-90%+ (at least vaguely, if not with Maoist leaders). So why does brainwashing work in some places but not others? The answer must be that material conditions differ.
>
> >3) There are individual white proletarians now and there could be
> >classes of such in major imperialist countries, but >only AFTER major
> >economic catastrophe such as after nuclear >war or similar devastation.
>
> Does it really require *nuclear war*? The Vietnam war put a big dent in
> the super-profits of Amerika without nukes. Wouldn't two or three
> simultaneous wars like that put paid to the bribes that imperialists
> give to the upper strata?
That's exactly what we are saying. The only way without a global encirclement of imperialism is nukes/environmental catastrophe. Such catastrophes depend primarily on the capitalist-driven anarchy of production. A more hopeful and active scenario would be the anti-war movement against Iraq writ larger or several Vietnams going on at once. Realize though that those several Vietnams would be the "main force." That's exactly the main scenario that interests us.
Something we like to talk about too is what happens when the imperialist country comrades lie to the world about conditions in their countries. Will not the Third World comrades fail to unite at a high enough level and prepare the direct destruction of imperialism? Will they not defer to our national feelings in the imperialist countries when for instance Nazi-supporters in Germany deserved no such deference to their national feelings?
>
> >The fact that such a proletariat as a CLASS could arise does >not mean
> >now that we call exploiters "exploited." Though Marx >said that the
> >majority of the bourgeoisie would go out of >business and become
> >re-proletarianized, he never referred to that bourgeoisie as a
> >proletariat! (e.g. "RCP-USA")
>
> I don't know if it is fair to characterise the RCP-USA as
> crypto-trotskyist. But I share your view that we must make a scientific
> appraisal of the actual class structures currently existing within
> nations and plan our strategies accordingly. I also agree that the
> exploiter and exploited cannot be friends so long as that relatonship
> persists.
Cde, it all starts from there. I think you will find if you read what we have said about this and the challenges we toss the "RCP-USA" way and other organizations' way, that they consciously avoid the economic substance of the question in deference to social-democratic, bourgeois-democratic and populist prejudice. The organization to try the hardest to answer our challenge is MLPD (Germans), and I think you can see from reading their articles that they do not really know what surplus-value is and so they have not really answered us very thoroughly either.
mim3@mim.org wrote:
>See, http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mt/imp97/index.html
>See, http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mt/imp97/imp97d1.html
Thank you for these links. The statistical information confirms what I thought about the english working class.
It is worth mentioning that the non-graduate service sector workers without collective bargaining are the poorest paid majority class in England.
This is the minimum & near-minimum wage class to which I belong. For the most part we are, as one of your articles suggested, simply the "luxury expenditure" of the other classes.
I don't deny that workers in exploited nations have a MUCH harder time than us, but are the care assistants, call-centre workers, shelf-stackers, cashiers, janitors, delivery men, clerical assistants, etc. *immune* to proletarian ideology?
I don't see these people as labor aristocrats. I see the labor aristocracy as comprising certain well-paid highly-unionised jobs, the armed forces, police and junior management. The recent fire-fighter's strike was really about the desire of these guys to *join* the labor aristocracy.
The skilled manufacturing workers that are left typically earn twice as much as us. However, they are rapidly disappearing as a class since capitalists find it cheaper to make & import the goods (e.g. Dyson vacuum cleaners) from countries like Indonesia!
>> What kind of co-operation, in practice?
>Ultimately it must be military cooperation of people from many >countries. The start has to be cooperation of many parties led >by the proletarian line.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. Obviously the Maoist parties in Nepal, the Phillipines, Peru, Kurdistan, etc. are already waging the Peoples War. Non-communist national liberation struggles are also being waged around the world. As a communist I support this whole-heartedly. I would be willing to fight alongside them if I was called to do so, but for obvious reasons, none of these groups are recruiting white foreigners from the imperialist nations!
So what is to be done in England? Obviously the objective conditions for Peoples War do not exist here - it is STILL an imperialist country. Do I "sit on my hands" until Imperialism is thwarted abroad and the super-profits dry up? If not, then I must make propaganda. But then who is my target audience?
If, as you allege, my fellow citizens (and internet users) are from the reactionary classes - wouldn't a consistent communist message fall on deaf ears?
>Would you not agree that England ended up vacillating in its >majority in a way that was not principled in opposition to >imperialist war?
I freely admit that the vast majority of objectors to the war did not have a communist viewpoint. Most media savvy people knew that Bush & Blair were bullshitting and that made people say "If they are lying to us - then f**k them." That was the impression I got from the non-communists at the 1.5 million strong demo in London.
>And is this not indicative of a petty-bourgeoisie?
I'm well aware of the pampered labour aristocrats and petty-borgeoisie advocating Trotskyism or Anarchism. I see it all the time. Their ideology also infects some unfortunate working class people.
>And before we blame the media for false consciousness in >England, Amerikkka etc, should we not ask ourselves if >the media is also not brainwashing people in other countries >which still managed to come out against the war 80-90%+ (at >least vaguely, if not with Maoist leaders). So why does >brainwashing work in some places but not others? The answer >must be that material conditions differ.
Agreed.
>Something we like to talk about too is what happens when the >imperialist country comrades lie to the world about conditions >in their countries. Will not the Third World comrades fail to >unite at a high enough level and prepare the direct destruction >of imperialism?
In all honesty, I don't think our comrades in Latin America, Asia and Africa will defer to us! They live in the storm centres of revolution. They decide when to go to war and how to fight.
If what we say is not objectionable to them they will judge us in accordance with our *actions*.
Again let us reply that no class, not even the bourgeoisie proper is immune to proletarian ideology. We will win a certain percentage in all situations. Marx set this out right in the "Communist Manifesto." We hope you agree that there is a lot of work implicit in organizing even a mere 10% of the population, which means organizing 29 million in the united $tates and more than 5 million in England. None of us have accomplished that yet. Also there is the question of those things that can be done more easily in imperialist countries that absolutely have to be done, whether or not they have to be done by minorities.
Ultra-left opportunism justifies its position by looking into the future at conditions that do not exist yet. The ultimate ultra-left stupidity is to look to the communist future and see total unity and then advocate unity with the exploiter today, because there will be complete unity under communism in the future. Many organizations fool with "dialectics" this way and the "RCP-USA" has raised it to a principle of consciously "working from the revolution back." "Dialectics" of this sort can justify anything: just look to the future somewhere and then name things now accordingly.
All things are a unity of opposites it is true and even most of the bourgeoisie is going to go out of business. However, calling things by their proper names and adopting the correct strategy and tactics depends on what a thing is principally NOW. That is elemental dialectical materialism.
With regard to the Third World, you hope they won't defer to the imperialist country comrades, but do not underestimate some of the incorrect teachings on "internationalism" especially as influenced by Trotskyism, neo-Trotskyism and crypto-Trotskyism. The Third World and ex-Soviet comrades have their problems too, as dialectical reality would require. The Turks and the Kurds have a national question to work out; the ex-Yugoslav peoples have waged genocidal warfare against each other. Many comrades internationally still exhibit an influence which either consciously or unconsciously boils down to thinking the U.$. comrades will take down u.$. imperialism some day and then we can have socialism. Of course, if the English and Amerikkkan proletarians are going to bring down imperialism, it allows the rest of the world the luxury of thinking it can afford to continue old fights with the neighbors instead of unifying against imperialism. There have been inklings of the unity of the People's Wars, but the unity is being held back by illusions regarding the imperialist country labor aristocracies. In deference to the national feelings of the imperialist country comrades, there is not a single organization leading a People's War that has expressed the right of the Third World people to correct imperialism at the source; even though that is what Stalin and the long-suffering Soviet peoples did in practice in World War II.
No less than Stalin debated whether to pause World War II three months to give German comrades a chance to make revolution against Hitler. In the same way, the Maoists in the Third World are looking at the imperialist country comrades and the scientific substance of their arguments to evaluate this question. It is vital that the Third World and ex-Soviet comrades get the correct intelligence from us in the imperialist countries.
On the topic of service workers, as you can see from the quotes we pointed to, Marx did not generally believe that service workers produced surplus-value. They usually shared in it or helped realize it. An exception would be a musical worker who actually printed sheet music and then sold it. This sort of thing requires more detailed examination of course. Then there is the question of whether or not those workers producing surplus-value in England are net producers of surplus-value. As Marx explained the origin of surplus-value can be in the decrease in the price of the necessities of life caused by an influx of surplus-value from abroad. The same worker doing the same work can appear to the be source of surplus-value when it in fact originates in the colonies. This can not be known without understanding international surplus-value flows and the manifestations they have. Simply knowing the occupation and nature of work of a "worker" is not enough to know whether someone is an exploiter or not. Regarding total surplus-value flows, we are confident that a close examination will prove that the vast majority of English "workers" are in fact a variety of petty-bourgeoisie. Only those working in completely illegal and covert conditions typical of a portion of prisons, abused children, sex slaves or immigrants would be exceptions.
There are a lot of things we can do without making parasitic demands:
1) We can stand for an international minimum wage and 8-hour work day.
Even the common people will identify with a "bottom up" strategy.
2) We can oppose imperialist wars, because capitalism can never bring peace
even for the parasites.
3) We can oppose imperialist pollution, because production for profit
destroys the environment, often times even the environment that the bourgeoisie uses.
4) We can undertake concrete campaigns of solidarity with the proletariat in the
Third World. Any proletarians who might exist in the imperialist countries should feel
some sympathy there.
5) We can expose capitalist waste deriving from competition and the nature of having
to realize surplus-value.
6) We can help immigrants with their immigration status problems and call for opening
borders.
If these demands would fall on deaf ears, then we should let them instead of taking chances
with parasitic demands like most imperialist country organizations do. See also our first stab
at a platform.
We dare say there is enough work involved in the above to keep us all busy.