*----------------------------------------------------------*
|                                                          |
| x   x x x   x   x  x  xx  xxx xxx  xxx                   |
| xx xx x xx xx   xx x x  x  x  x   x       Issue #33      |
| x x x x x x x   x xx x  x  x  xx   xxx                   |
| x   x x x   x   x  x x  x  x  x       x   01/12/88       |
| x   x x x   x   x  x  xx   x  xxx  xxx                   |
|                                                          |
|----------------------------------------------------------|
|    Newspaper of the Maoist Internationalist Movement     |
*----------------------------------------------------------*

   
   US bombs Iran, kills fishers in Gulf
   By MC5 and MC99
   
   "US warships sank two Iranian oil platforms and Navy 
commandos raided another in the Persian Gulf on Monday in 
retaliation for a missile attack on a U.S. registered oil 
tanker." (Detroit Free Press, 10/20/87, p. 1)
   "The Reagan administration announced Monday [10/19/87] 
morning that four U.S. destroyers had fired 1,000 rounds from 
their five-inch guns on two platforms of an Iranian oil 
facility in international waters." (Ibid.)
   The United States justified the attack with references to 
Iranian attacks on US bloc shipping in the Gulf and the 
reputed role of the oil platforms as a military base.  On 
October 15, Iran hit the "the Sungari, an American-owned 
tanker flying the Liberian flag" with a missile. On October 
16th, Iran hit "the Sea Isle City, a Kuwaiti-owned tanker 
flying the American flag." (New York Times, 10/23/87, p. 7)
   Previously, US helicopters had attacked three Iranian 
speedboats on October 8th.
   The most recent incident as MIM Notes goes to press 
indicates what the US means by its literal "shoot first" 
policy in the Gulf. The US navy fired machine guns on three 
Arab fishing boats in the Persian Gulf and killed an Indian 
fisher, Bekwan Kangee on November 4.
   The United States states that it is making international 
waters in the Gulf safe for use against Iranian and Iraqi 
attack.
   After the US aggression, Iran attacked Kuwait's main 
offshore oil terminal and caused it serious damage on October 
22nd. (Ibid.) Iran considers Kuwait its enemy in the war with 
Iraq.
   
   Democrats support President
   The Democratic Party as a whole supported the bombing of 
Iran. The most-quoted Democrat prior to the bombing was 
Senator Sam Nunn, the chair of the Armed Service Committee: 
"The Iranians should be aware that if they do use those 
missiles in a way that jeopardizes American ships, they are 
subjecting themselves to possible and probable retaliation." 
(New York Times, 10/17/87, p. 4)
   Although the press focused on the reaction of moderate and 
conservative Democrats, those considered more liberal also 
supported the bombing.
   Senator Edward Kennedy's office (DMA) told MIM that he 
"supported the President' s action and thought it was 
appropriate." Senator Alan Cranston's office had this to say: 
"the Senator has not given a position. . . no senator 
criticized the attack."
   Presidential candidate Michael Dukakis, the governor of 
Massachusetts "supports the president. . . when vessels are 
fired on we should be able to retaliate." He added that the 
Gulf needs "a multilateral UN force. . . to maintain peace," 
according to his office.
   Senator Paul Simon (D-IL) had a lengthy statement prepared 
in support of the bombing: "Destruction of the oil platform 
seems to be a measured response given the circumstances in 
which we find ourselves in the Persian Gulf. An appropriate 
response was necessary. But this clear exchange of 
hostilities is added cause for invoking the War Powers Act. 
We were left with no choice but a military response which is 
why I have expressed concern about the reflagging effort from 
the beginning. We need to protect the freedom of the seas in 
the Gulf, but it should not be unilateral. We need the help 
of other nations." So the most liberal presidential candidate 
admits that even if he were in office, he would be "left with 
no choice but a military response." Indeed, his call for the 
involvement of other nations is ominous and indicates on what 
scale the problem in the Gulf is.

   Jesse Jackson
   Jesse Jackson, in the opinion of this author, is the 
Democrat, who because he seems promising to progressive 
people, is the most valuable in co-opting people into the 
Democratic Party. Indeed, numerous supposedly Marxist-
Leninist groups have dissolved because of the hope they found 
in Jackson's campaign. These activists want to be among the 
rainbow communities so as to pull people into radical 
politics, whether Jackson fails or succeeds.
   More than one organizer for Jesse Jackson has admitted to 
MIM that Jackson is opportunist. These same organizers say 
that they are able to campaign for Jackson on the basis of 
any platform they choose.
   According to Jackson's Washington and Chicago offices, 
however, Jackson has only one stand on the Persian Gulf. 
Jackson supported the oil platform bombing calling it a 
"tactical, surgical strike within the boundaries of 
international law."
   
   The War Powers Act is moot
   According to Senate Majority Leader Robert Byrd (D-W.VA), 
"the U.S. response... was minimal and appropriate." (Detroit 
Free Press, 10/20/87, p. 5a) Likewise, House Speaker Jim 
Wright (D-TX), "it was necessary to make a demonstration that 
the Iranians cannot willfully and at their whim attack U.S. 
vessels without expecting measured retaliation." (Ibid.)
   So popular was the move with Democrats that the call to 
invoke the War Powers Act took on a different meaning than 
that wished by some naive liberals. The Democrats supported 
the invocation of the War Powers Act so that Reagan could 
prove the public fully supported the war against Iran.
   A key example of this was that of former president Carter: 
"Mr. Carter said that Congress would probably not overrule 
the President's policy if the War Powers Resolution were 
invoked, and that doing so would 'help alleviate the 
worldwide belief' that Congress overwhelmingly disapproves of 
the current naval buildup in the Persian Gulf." (New York 
Times, 10/17/87, p. 4)
   On Wednesday, October 21st, the Senate voted to call on 
the President to issue a report on hostilities on the Gulf 
and give the Senate 30 days to respond. The Senate did not 
call on the president to uphold the War Powers Act. The bill 
has no teeth and even some Democrats thought it was "mishmash
   (Detroit Free Press, 10/22/87, p. 1)
   
   Pentagon selects journalists to report Gulf war
   In July Marines aimed machine guns at a chartered boat of 
journalists who attempted to cover the progress of US-
escorted tankers through the Gulf. The journalists involved 
left.
   The Pentagon only allows 10 people from the press to cover 
the Gulf military actions. The Pentagon determines when it is 
safe (by its standards) for the 10 people to release the news 
reports.
   The 10 reporters traveled in two groups of five on the 
cruiser Fox and the destroyer Kidd.
   The first reports from actual action in the Gulf were 
allowed through by "Defense Secretary" Caspar W. Weinberger. 
He "'immediately approved' the release of the first pool 
dispatch once it arrived at the Pentagon, Sims [Pentagon 
spokesperson] said." (Los Angeles Times, 7/22/87, p. 10)
   According to one of the AP reporters, Tim Ahern, however, 
the military did in fact censor reports from the ships. In 
the first place, the first reports from the Gulf were held by 
the Pentagon for three days: "It wasn't until days later that 
we found out that those reports had been held back at the 
Pentagon, supposedly because they breached operational 
security by reporting about future military events. I didn't 
think that was so, nor did any of the other reporters, but we 
didn't have much avenue of appeal aboard the ships." 
(Washington Journalism Review, 10/87, p. 17)
   Later buried in the story, Ahern also admits that the Navy 
changed his stories Captain David Yonkers of the Persian Gulf 
Flotilla changed at least two aspects of Ahern's stories. 
"The first concerned a reference to beer drinking, which 
Yonkers eliminated because he said it wouldn't look good to 
readers back in the United States if they knew Navy officers 
had been drinking during such an important mission."
   "The second occasion came on July 23, when I wrote a piece 
about the upcoming last day of the convoy. I detailed how and 
when we were going to pass Farsi Island.... Yonkers objected 
to putting specifics into the story, so we fudged the details 
and then sent the story." (Ibid.)
   These facts appear buried in Ahern's story about his trip 
to the Gulf. Ahern has no major criticisms of the system 
which let him, along with 9 other people from major 
capitalist syndicates, be the first to report from the Gulf.
   Those who can obtain the Washington Journalism Review of 
October 1987 should do so to read how intimate the 
relationship is between the US government and the media: The 
media has no problem when the government picks the select 
number of journalists who it wants for its missions, decides 
when the reporters can report or participate, changes their 
stories and limits their travel except within the military 
boats themselves.
   
   Ships hit by Iran were not in international waters
   The two tankers that Iran hit with Chinese Silkworm 
missiles on October 15th and 16th were in Kuwaiti waters. The 
United States is claiming to protect international shipping 
lanes in the Persian Gulf, but its retaliation against Iran 
for the destruction of Kuwaiti ships indicates that Kuwait is 
little more than a protectorate of the United States. 
(Indianapolis Star, 10/17/87, p. a3; Los Angeles Times, 
10/17/87, p. 1)
   "The tiny emirate of Kuwait has become a prime target for 
Iranian retaliatory strikes largely because it provides 
financial assistance to Iraq and allows war materiel to pass 
through its ports en route to Iraq." (Los Angeles Times, 
10/16/87, p. 6) Kuwait is "contributing billions of dollars 
and allowing Iraqi military supplies through its ports." (New 
York Times, 10/23/87, p. 7)
   The United States admitted that Iranian attacks on Kuwait 
are not US business. (New York Times, "U.S. Calls Latest Iran 
Raid An Issue for Kuwait Alone," p. 7)
   
   Shipping and oil capitalists pushed for retaliation
   "'If one of these vessels [US controlled vessels without 
the US flag--ed.] were being attacked, we would like to see 
the United States authorized to intervene and stop the 
attack,' said Thomas S. Wyman, director of governmental and 
public affairs for Chevron, the San Francisco oil giant." 
(Los Angeles Times, 10/17/87, p. 12)
   Wyman went on to say that it should not matter what flag 
is on a ship in the Gulf. The United States should protect 
its "vital interest" in the Gulf.
   Chevron only sends three or four tankers to the Gulf each 
month, but it spoke for a number of oil shippers in its 
lobbying of the Reagan administration.
   Chevron pointed out that 40% of US controlled oil shipped 
to the US from the Gulf does not travel in US registered 
ships. (Ibid.)
      Also supporting the reflagging is the US Mideast Force. 
Perhaps seeking glory, promotion or greater resources, Rear 
Adm. Harold Bernsen has asked for permission to attack 
Iranian gunboats "'stalking civilian oil tankers."' (St. 
Petersburg Times, 10/16/87, p. 16a)
   
   Press bias is obviously against Iranians
   The New York Times (10/20/87) wrote stories about the 
bombing of Iran that totaled more than 100 inches in length. 
Almost all of the coverage was based on the comments of the 
U.S. government or shipping executives.
   Below, MIM Notes quotes all the Iranian reactions that the 
New York Times found fit to print:
   "At the United Nations, an Iranian delegate said "several 
innocent people" had been killed in the attack, but the 
assertion could not be confirmed." (p. 1)
   "Before the shelling began, the Iranian installation was 
warned by radio messages that an attack was imminent. Receipt 
of the message was acknowledged, and Iranians were seen 
leaving the platform in a small boat, according to the 
Secretary." [This is a second-hand report of the IraniansÕ 
reaction as relayed by the U.S. Secretary of Defense, Caspar 
W. Weinberger to the New York Times, ed.] (p. 6)
   "Iran vowed today to deliver a "crushing blow" against the 
United States in revenge for the raids on its offshore 
platforms in the Persian Gulf.
   "We're sending so much over there that the water level of 
the gulf is going to go up two or three inches when it's all 
done.Ó -- Reagan administration official.
   "The United States has entered a swamp from which it can 
in no way get out safely," said the director of Iran's War 
Information Office, Kharrazi. He said Washington was now 
embroiled in a full-fledged war with Iran.
   "The remarks, released by the official Iranian press 
agency, were the first Iranian reaction to the raids on the 
platforms, which the United States said were used as radar 
and speedboat bases for preying on shipping.
   "[At the United Nations, Iran's envoy, Said Rajaie 
Khorassani, described the target of the attack as an "oil 
terminal" without military significance and said "several 
innocent people were killed." He acknowledged his country was 
behind the missile attacks against two ships in Kuwaiti 
waters last week, but called the action a justified measures 
(sic.) against a nation supporting Iraq in its war with Iran. 
One ship was Kuwaiti-owned but registered in the United 
States; the other was American-owned and registered in 
Liberia.]"
   The Iranians got one-half inch on page one out of seven 
and one-half inches. Three quarters of an inch for the 
second-hand U.S. government report of the Iranian reaction 
appeared on page six. Then on the last page of coverage of 
the bombing in the New York Times, Iran got a whopping four 
inches. (p. 8) Meanwhile, Britain's reaction also received 
three inches on the same page. All together, Iran had its 
views explained or quoted for a total of five and one-quarter 
inches. The next day contained no coverage, so it was not the 
case that the New York Times did not have the time to report 
more of a response.
   While the New York Times is the best major newspaper in 
the United States, it is still a crude mouthpiece for the 
Pentagon, shipping executives and various Reagan officials.
   
   History--a review of hostilities
   The bombing of the Iranian oil platform was not an 
isolated military act on the United States' part. On October 
8th, US helicopters attacked and sank between one and three 
Iranian gunboats in the Persian Gulf. The two sides dispute 
who fired first. (Los Angeles Times, 10/10/87, p. 8)
   The last issue of MIM Notes neglected to mention an 
important conflict between Saudi Arabia and Iran that the 
imperialists are trying to inflame--the Arab vs. Persian 
conflict.
   Friday, July 31st, at least 402 people died in Mecca when 
Saudi Arabian police fired on Iranian demonstrators. Mecca is 
an Islamic holy city in Saudi Arabia. At least 275 of the 
dead were Iranians. (The Plain Dealer, 8/4/87, p. 2a)
   After the riot, Iran called for the overthrow of the Saudi 
government for the first time. (Los Angeles Times, 8/3/87, p. 
1)
   There is also more information in on the role Soviet 
economic and military competition had in driving the U.S. 
into Gulf intervention. In April, Kuwait made an agreement 
with the Soviet Union "to lease three small tankers from the 
Soviet Union, which will provide a naval escort to and from 
Kuwaiti ports." (The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, p. 5a)
   Indeed, the US attempt to have all the states of the 
Middle East as its dependents figures into the Kuwaiti 
request for US military escort in the Persian Gulf. Having 
heard that the United States is supplying Iran in its war 
with Iraq, Kuwait decided to "test" the US commitment to 
protecting the "moderate gulf states" from "Iranian 
aggression" according to a Kuwaiti official. (Ibid.)
   In reality, as of October 16, 1987 Iraq had attacked 258 
commercial ships, while Iran had attacked 142. (The 
Indianapolis Star, 10/17/87, p. a3)
   Iranian military actions are partly response to US 
provocations
   In the past, Iran has indicated that its actions in the 
Persian Gulf are at least partly responses to the US military 
force there. "As long as there are foreign forces in the 
gulf, it is quite natural to use such means to block 
approaches," said Iran's Kamal Kharazi of the Supreme Defense 
Council.
   Iran, however, has denied responsibility for mines that 
have caused the destruction of various tankers in the Gulf. 
Some evidence for this is that Iranian oil has spilled as a 
result of the mine attacks.
   Iran claims that both the United States and Iraq are also 
using mines in the Persian Gulf. Even if Iran is the only 
country putting in the mines, it is not in the Iranians' 
interests to blow up their own oil, unless there is a larger 
threat such as the United States in the Gulf.
   Iran also claims not to want to block free navigation in 
the Gulf, but it has said that the US "is trying to find 
justification for its presence" in the Gulf. (Los Angeles 
Times, 8/21/87)
   
   US punishes China for arms trade with Iran
   Despite the fact that no one has gone to jail yet for the 
Iran-contra scam, the US has imposed a high-tech embargo to 
China because China has sold Silkworm missiles to Iran.
   Meanwhile, the US is preparing finally to put a ban on 
Iranian imports including oil. It will also act to cut off 
exports to Iran that could be useful to terrorists. Of 
course, in perfectly hypocritical order, the US will act 
against China first: "the trade curb. . . was imposed as 
President Reagan was poised to announce a ban on most trade 
with Iran. . . Oil and other imports would be cut off, as 
well as exports of all goods that could even be vaguely 
useful to terrorist groups." (New York Times, 10/23/87, p. 1)
   Typically, China has denied arms sales to Iran, as it has 
denied most controversial arms sales before, including 
nuclear sales to South Africa. According to the US, the US 
showed China photographs of China's shipping the arms to 
Iran, but China still denied the sales.
   If this high-tech embargo has any teeth, it will be an 
interesting test of the government in China. Is the Chinese 
government a mere lackey of US imperialism? Certainly, the US 
role in the Chinese economy has become much more important 
since 1976, but is it big enough so that the US can make 
China act as a dependent vassal? The actions of the US seem 
to indicate that the US considers China a dependent state, 
not a partner in imperialism.
   
   China continues to learn from the West

   "In one of the worst environmental disasters on record in 
China, an estimated 20,000 people were poisoned when a 
fertilizer factory dumped toxic chemicals into a river and 
contaminated the source of water for thousands of people." 
(Los Angeles Times, 3/21/87, p. 1)
   "'The leaders of the chemical factory did not take 
immediate measures to stop the continuing contamination. "' 
Apparently, the clean-up project was still unfinished in 
March; even though, the disaster took place on January 2nd.
   "'When you do not pay attention to environmental 
protection, but only go after developing production, 
production cannot be developed, and even more importantly, a 
higher price will have to be paid economically, and this is 
very harmful to the masses,"' said Environmental News in 
China. (Ibid., p. 10)

   Confucius makes open comeback in China

   Scholars met in China to discuss Confucius at the end of 
August and the beginning of September. Contrary to The Sun's 
article on the conference, however, this is certainly not the 
first discussion of Confucius in China's history since 1949.
   During the Cultural Revolution, the Gang of Four led 
discussions and rallies across the country to criticize 
Confucius. (The Sun, 9/3/87, p. 22a)
   Cai Shangsi, a professor at Fudan University, said that 
Confucius represented old ideas that needed to be conquered 
He also reportedly said "another cultural revolution" would 
be needed. A colleague, in defending Cai's views against a 
Columbia University professor, said, however, that Cai was 
not referring to the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. 
MIM is not able to assess this information, whether or not 
Cai really desires the uprooting of reactionary ideas.
   
   China goes to pure private farming

   Since the counterrevolution after Mao's death, the Chinese 
state capitalists have had China's peasants engage in quasi-
private farming. In that farming the state has assigned 
families plots of land for their use. There were only two 
restrictions that the family sell a certain minimum of its 
product to the state and that the family not sell the land it 
was on.
   Now, the Chinese state capitalists are going to allow 
peasants to buy and sell their land. That is to say, a family 
can transfer its plot to someone else. (Ann Arbor News, 
10/26/87, p. C1)
   Farming in China is hence capitalist in the sense of 
private capitalist. Many so-called leftists in the United 
States have said that capitalism only exists where there is 
private property. Well, now even by their own standards, 
China is capitalist.
   
   How Deng learns from the West:
   Going for Western plastic surgery

   With the disgusting aping of everything Western in China 
these days, the latest trend is eyelid operations. A surgery 
procedure costing between one-fifth to one month's salary of 
an average worker makes Chinese eyes appear less slanted and 
more Western.
   Other operations give Chinese people larger noses and 
breasts. Breast operations cost between two and three years' 
salary. We can only hope that the prohibitive costs will 
prevent people from having them.
   Even skin creams for lighter complexions are reportedly 
popular. (New York Times, 4/30/87, p. 17)
   While it is unavoidable in this author's opinion, that 
human bodies will become increasingly synthetic as science 
advances, the operations that the counterrevolution in China 
is promoting are not for the health of the patient. On the 
contrary, the operations contribute to the mental subjugation 
of the Chinese people to Western ideals of beauty and 
fashion.
   
   More evidence of the left eddy in China last summer

   In mid-August, 5,000 citizen volunteers helped put 800 
street peddlers out of business in Beijing. The peddlers were 
accused of speculation, swindling and tax evasion. (Christian 
Science Monitor, 8/24/87, p. 7)
   In Guangzhou, hundreds of other peddlers had the same 
fate. (Ibid.)
   
   Prison inmates in Ohio seek to join IWW

   The Industrial Workers of the World (IWW) claim that over 
400 inmates in Ohio have sent cards in requesting union 
membership.
   Inmates in Ohio make road signs, license plates and 
furniture and grow vegetables for the penal system, but they 
are only allowed to make $24 a month.
   Apparently, prison officials have blocked IWW organizing 
in various ways. The officials claim that the IWW represents 
a threat to the health and safety of the prisoners. (The 
Plain Dealer, 8/4/87, p. dl, d7)
   
   "Defense" increasingly dominates academic research 
spending

   The "Department of Defense" claims to only fund $930 
million in research at universities in the United States, but 
that figure is twice what it was ten years ago by the DOD ' s 
own figures. (Los Angeles Times, 4/12/87, p. 32)

   LA Times review criticizes
   'Platoon' from Latino point of view
   By MC Zero and MC5

   According to Gregg Barrios, Platoon is a movie without any 
believable or significant Latino characters. Yet, statistics 
show that Mexican-Americans constituted 10% of the population 
of the Southwest during Vietnam but 19.4% of the Vietnam War 
casualties.
   In 1965, Blacks suffered 23.5% of the combat deaths in the 
Army while serving as only 10% of the armed forces in 
Vietnam. (Los Angeles Times, Calendar, 4/19/87, p. 2)
   At the same time, Platoon was praised for localizing the 
Vietnam war for the folks at home. Holding up one white boy 
who choose to enlist for macho reasons instead of resist at 
home in no way forces the issue. Amerika still refuses to 
admit total defeat or acknowledge the Vietnamese government. 
Naturally, the US is still completely unsympathetic toward 
the Vietnamese efforts to stop Pol Pot's genocide.
   
   Stock market crash reveals parasitic nature of economy
   
   How is it possible that the stock market could fall 22.6% 
in one day? (New York Times, 10/20/87, p. 1) Since August 
25th, the Dow Jones index of stock prices fell 36%.
   Stocks are supposedly the paper deeds to the means of 
production in the United States. Just as there are ownership 
forms for cars and houses, there are ownership papers for the 
factories, machines and everything else corporations need to 
produce.
   Yet, the fall of 36% in the average prices of stock shares 
does not mean that something destroyed 36% of the factories, 
machines and other means of production in the United States! 
No, the actual property is still there.
   What has changed so much is the perception of the monetary 
value of the stocks. Under capitalism, everything is 
expressed in monetary terms. A share of stock does not refer 
to a particular building or a particular machine. Rather, a 
share is really a deed for some fraction of a company's 
value.
   It is up to the market to determine what the monetary 
value of a share of stock is. This is an inherently 
speculative activity. There is no right or wrong answer as to 
the value of a stock in monetary terms.
   In addition, there are good reasons why the monetary value 
of a stock should change. For instance, if an incompetent 
management takes over a plant, the machinery and buildings 
can become as good as useless. If management can't produce 
anything with its machinery, then that machinery is 
worthless. This is one of the real reasons for merger mania.
   When a capitalist such as T. Boone Pickens finds a poorly 
run company, he can offer the company's shareholders a higher 
price for their stock. Pickens would say, "look with your 
assets, we could make a lot more profit; that's why I want to 
buy your stock and get rid of the old management." So the 
price of a stock depends partially on the competence of the 
company's management, and that competence is measured in 
terms of profit generated.
   When, the whole stock market fell 36%, however, it did not 
mean that managers suddenly increased their incompetence. 
Indeed, the capitalists themselves do not claim that there is 
a real reason that could explain this: "We don't know how to 
interpret it, and we don't think anyone else does either," 
said John A. Rolls, executive vice-president of the United 
Technologies Corporation. (New York Times, 10/20/87, p. 48)
   The slight rise in interest rates, the persistence of the 
trade deficit and the continued war in the Persian Gulf are 
not sufficient real reasons to account for the stock market's 
sudden decline.
   That is why Marxists distinguish between real, actual and 
physical forces in the economy on the one hand and 
speculative, fetishistic and illusionary forces on the other 
hand.

   The Great Paper Shuffle
   Eight percent of the New York City work force is employed 
in the securities trade. (New York Times, 10/20/87, p. 48) In 
1977, 77,000 worked in the securities trade. By 1987, that 
number was 157,000. The total exceeds 250,000 when one counts 
the lawyers, accountants and computer operators directly 
involved in Wall Street.
   That means there are over 250,000 people working on 
deciding how much a stock is worth in New York alone! And, 
the best justification for this is that someone has to 
analyze the companies to see if they have competent 
management!
   Yet, when the whole market falls 36% in two months, one 
has to conclude that there was simply a lot of speculation 
going on. Wall Street people were paper-shuffling their way 
to profits until the whole house of cards came tumbling down.
   In this most recent paper-shuffle, the bourgeoisie 
unintentionally erased over $ l trillion of wealth in 
monetary terms! (New York Times, 10/20/87, p. 1) But that $1 
trillion is not anything real! The $1 trillion loss can have 
real effects, but only because under capitalism how much 
money one has affects how much one is willing to purchase. 
The $1 trillion loss says nothing about the needs of the 
public or the physical ability of the U.S. economy to satisfy 
those needs.

   Socialism undermines monetary calculation
   Under socialism, the dictatorship of the proletariat sees 
to it that profit is not the goal of the economy. What 
matters is the real economy and what is useful to the 
proletariat.
   Marx pointed out this problem in capitalism in his 
greatest work, Capital. He distinguished between use-value 
and exchange-value because he knew that what was most useful 
to the proletariat was not necessarily the same thing as what 
was most profitable to sell, thanks to speculation and other 
distortions inherent to an economy that chases money.
   Under socialism, the goals will be expressed in terms of 
barrels of oil, tons of corn and pairs of pants. Capitalism 
is incapable of directing its energies in this direction. The 
people on Wall Street chase after goals expressed in money 
terms. In contrast, the proletariat counts real work, real 
products and real needs.
   
   Role of foreign investment in the United States is 
increasing
   In explaining Wall Street's previous bull market, there 
was some talk of Japanese investment's raising the prices of 
US stocks. After all, the earnings to price ratio was 
supposedly several times better in the US than in Japan.
   Many liberal radical economists have said that high 
interest rates and a strong dollar in the early '80s financed 
US expansion, as foreign investors sent dollars back to the 
United States.
   Even as late as 1987, when interest rates are relatively 
low, it appears that foreigners are funding the trade 
deficit. As Rep. John Bryant (D-Tex.) said, "America has been 
selling off its family jewels to pay for a night on the 
town." (Los Angeles Times, 8/3/87, p. 5) In other words, 
instead of producing for export, Americans are selling the 
means of production to foreign capitalists to pay for 
consumption of Japanese VCRs, Korean cars and Arab oil.
   
   The Democrats and social-democrats are invoking 
nationalism in calling for protectionism. They want to save 
American jobs and the means of production for Americans. 
This, however, should not be MIM's position according to MC5.
   What is most amazing about foreign investment in the 
United States is that it is yet another mechanism of 
imperialist parasitism. The United States can have a trade 
deficit of $ 15 billion a month, and still, other countries 
will loan the United States the money to pay for it. For 
example, Japan alone loaned the United States 35% of the 
money the United States government borrowed from citizens and 
foreigners in long-term loans in 1986. (Ibid.) "At some 
Treasury auctions, Japanese investors alone have bought as 
much as two-thirds of long-term United States Government 
bonds." (New York Times, 10/23/87, p. 27) The United States 
now owes other countries more than they owe the United 
States.
   Another possible source of funds for the US is indicated 
in a rising chorus in the press to get Japan and other 
countries to foot the bill for US military spending. Donald 
J. Trump, who is a Òreal-estate magnate, casino operator and 
corporate raider with a fortune of $3 billion drew a bigger 
audience than have any of the Republican candidates [in New 
Hampshire]" (New York Times, 10/23/87, p. 9) by calling for 
Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Japan to pay for the military.
   What will happen if the United States continues to sell 
its assets? Will the United States be able to maintain its 
imperialist parasitism? At least one answer is that the 
United States' ruling class will go to war at least in part 
to maintain the US living standard. In other words, if the 
imperialists value their alliance with the labor aristocracy 
in the United States, the imperialists will go to war to 
seize the resources with which to continue paying off its 
allies in the Euro-Amerikan population of the United States.
   Already the billionaire Trump has suggested that the US 
attack Iran and seize its oil wells. He added, "I'm tired of 
nice people already in Washington.... I want someone who is 
tough and knows how to negotiate. If not, our country faces 
disaster." (New York Times, 10/23/87, p. 9)
   Whatever methods the US imperialists use to maintain US 
parasitism, it is important to keep a close eye on trends. 
Foreign investment is thought to total $1.3 trillion in the 
United States. $200 billion is direct investment.
   "Carnation Co. is Swiss. Doubleday, RCA Records, Celanese 
and General Tire are all German. Dale Corp., the giant 
jewelry retailer, is Canadian. Purina Mills, Smith and 
Wesson, and J. Walter Thompson advertising agency are 
British." (LA Times, Ernest Conine, "The Invasion by Foreign 
Investors," Ibid.)
   In the last five years, Japanese direct investment has 
more than tripled to over $25 billion. Yet, European 
investment is about 10 times larger.
   
   Television networks denied Reagan live coverage, then put 
him in news
   Reagan asked for television time on Wednesday October 14th 
to denounce the critics of the Robert H. Bork nomination for 
the Supreme Court. Showing off their integrity, the networks 
claimed that Reagan's statement of position was not 
newsworthy and turned him down.
   Later, however, the networks put Reagan's statement in the 
Wednesday-night newscasts anyway. "It's getting harder to 
distinguish the tail from the dog," read a rare criticism of 
the mass media by the mass media. (Los Angeles Times, 
10/16/87, p. 1)
   
   MIM to social democrats:
   Poverty in US is not always increasing
   The percentage of people living in poverty (as counted by 
the government) dropped to its lowest level since 1980. "It 
shrank from 14% in 1985 to 13.6% [in 1986 ed] ." (Los Angeles 
Times, 7~31/87, p. 13) Median family income also rose 4.2% to 
$29,460. Median family incomes should set all-time records 
this year.
   Thus, the middle class is doing well for now. That fact is 
not contradicted by the fact that the gap between rich and 
poor is expanding: "The top 20% of all households, which 
represented those with incomes above $45,980, collected 46.1% 
of all household income, an increase from 44.2% in 1980 and 
43.3% in 1970. Meanwhile, the lowest 20% --those with incomes 
below $10,250, collected just 3.8%, a decrease from 4.1% in 
both 1970 and 1980." (Ibid.) Monthly Review stressed just 
such figures in its most recent issue as if to say that the 
US middle class is in trouble.
   Social democrats stress such figures to show that 
movements to expand the welfare state have a material basis, 
that there are a lot of potential supporters of social 
democracy. As revolutionaries, we let the social democrats 
organize for welfare reform The
   people we seek to organize are not in the middle class. 
Nor do we believe that Americans are suddenly becoming poor 
and amenable to radical change.
   Even the fact that the gap between rich and poor is 
expanding does not mean that the bulk of Americans is no 
longer middle class. In fact it is still possible to get 
richer while one's share of income decreases.
   
   Drug trade is rooted in capitalism, not individual 
kingpins
   In early February, the United States successfully 
extradited a cocaine kingpin from Colombia--Carlos Enrique 
Lehder Rivas. Six months later, however, cocaine exports from 
Colombia reached new records.
   Drug barons in Colombia simply bought up and intimidated 
more of the Colombian government. (Ann Arbor News, 8/16/87, 
p.1)
   A foreign narcotics expert came close to a natural Marxist 
analysis of the problem: "He [Lehder--ed.] was mainly 
involved in transportation, but there were plenty of people 
ready to take his place.... The arrest disrupted nothing." 
Marxists always stress that the problem is the system or the 
structure of society, not individuals. The fact that Lehder 
was so easily replaced shows that the problem is the high 
profits found in the cocaine trade, not particularly crafty 
drug dealers.
   The drug business is very big business: in 1985 "illegal 
sales of cocaine, heroin and marijuana totaled about $50 
billion in this country." (Los Angeles Times, 3/18/87)
   No plan of attack that leaves capitalism and high profits 
for the drug trade in place can ever solve the drug problem.
   
   Unemployment
   Unemployment is the lowest since 1979--5.9% (Chicago 
Tribune, 10/3/87)
   
   Repression continues for some in South Korea

   The South Korean regime arrested eleven accused leftists 
for charges going back to March. The leftists supposedly 
support the interests of North Korea. According to police, 
the leftists distributed 80,000 pamphlets that call the S. 
Korean regime "'military fascists exploiting the masses to 
serve the interests of American and Japanese imperialists and 
Korean monopoly capitalists."' (Los Angeles Times, 10/16/87, 
p. 8) The arrest of the leftists will contribute to Roh Tae 
Woo's presidential campaign, which is a campaign for order 
and unity.
   Meanwhile, more than 20 primary and secondary school 
teachers are on a hunger strike because they were fired by 
the government. Chung Young Hoon, for example, incurred the 
wrath of his superiors because he did not order his fifth-
grade pupils to "say a silent prayer at a monument to the 
late Syngman Rhee." (Ibid., p. 9)
   
   Inkatha movement strikes out violently

   Quisling Black leader Gatsha Buthelezi of South Africa has 
initiated violence against the United Democratic Front--a 
movement group led by the African National Congress. In the 
first three months of 1987, the UDF suffered 45 deaths at the 
hands of Buthelezi's Inkatha movement. In return, five 
members of Inkatha suffered death. The President of the ANC, 
Oliver Tambo, has asked Archbishop Desmond Tutu to intervene 
with "'Christian mediation."'(Los Angeles Times, 4/17/87, p. 
1, 8, 9, 10; see also Los Angeles Times, 3/18/87, p. 7))
   The South African ruling class and far right activists in 
the United States sometimes portray Buthelezi as a Black 
"moderate" who is preferable to radicals seeking to overthrow 
apartheid with violence.
   Regent Deane Baker at the University of Michigan opposed 
the awarding of an honorary degree to ANC leader Nelson 
Mandela and offered Buthelezi as a nonviolent alternative. 
Such propaganda efforts by the far right require that we have 
a working knowledge of the Black political leadership in 
South Africa and not just cheer for anybody who is Black in 
South Africa.
   
   Black market thrives in
   Nicaragua (See article, Los
   Angeles Times, 5/3/87, p. 1;
   also 3/18/87)
   
   Inter-imperialist rivalry holds back trade, production
   
   Norway's state-owned arms corporation has shipped the 
Soviet Union " 140 computers capable of running sophisticated 
machine tools" according to Norwegian authorities. (New York 
Times, 10/23/87, p. 27)
   The same company had a hand in Toshiba sales to the Soviet 
Union, which caused Toshiba to take out full-page ads in the 
US to apologize.
   The Western countries have agreements and laws not to sell 
state-of-the-art technology to the Soviets that could have 
military application.
   Not surprisingly, individual capitalists do not have an 
interest in upholding these laws, so they sneak materials to 
the Soviet Union any way they can.
   Maoists don't care whether or not the Soviets gain 
military advantages from the sales. It is interesting, 
however, that once again rivalry between the US and the 
Soviet Union actually holds back business and the development 
of the productive forces.
   Some high-tech companies may have a strong enough interest 
in trade with the Soviet Union that they would push for 
detente. The capitalist class, as a whole, however, still 
would prefer to open the Soviet bloc for trade on its terms, 
namely terms of subjugation.
   Still, it is possible that the US imperialist bloc will 
opt for a new era of imperialist collaboration that would 
involve US economic penetration of the Soviet bloc in 
exchange for reduced military conflict between the US and 
USSR and high-tech for the Soviet bloc. Such an alliance 
would facilitate super-exploitation of the Third World also.
   For example, the US has recently sought Soviet and Chinese 
help in subjugating Iran on US terms. At first, those efforts 
seemed successful, but now both the Soviet Union and China 
have refused to tow the US line. The Soviets have denounced 
US "imperialist aggression" against Iran and China is 
continuing to arm Iran.
   
   Many feminists oppose surrogate mothering
   In a previous issue, MIM Notes treated the Baby M case. 
From reading Off Our Backs, an article in MIM Notes concluded 
that feminist opinion had started to consolidate against the 
Baby M ruling.
   Off Our Backs then printed up a follow-up article from a 
point of view supporting the Baby M ruling, which said that 
feminist opinion was still divided.
   MIM Notes had omitted information about who had pushed for 
the consolidation of feminist opinion on this subject. It was 
Gloria Steinem, Betty Friedan, Phyllis Chesler, Gena Corea, 
Letty Cottin Pogrebin and Marilyn French among others who 
filed a brief in the Baby M case. According to these 
feminists the real issue was the "commercialization of 
reproductive technologies." (Los Angeles Times, 7/31/X7, p. 
1, part V)
   MC0 comments: Potentially these ideologues are simply 
after the reproductive monopoly. Would they also fear a 
device that would free the female work force from the 
cumbersome chore of childbearing?
   As the author said in the previous MIM Notes, no communist 
should believe that surrogate contracts are voluntary and 
hence fair. No communist should oppose Whitehead and support 
Stern on these grounds.
   On the other hand, it is not possible to fight capitalism 
and patriarchy by moving to legally restrict the offering of 
womb services. The Guardian and Frontline in addition to pro-
Whitehead feminists have erred in implying that the womb is 
not commercialized already.
   Surrogate mothering is only an open expression of what 
occurs normally in the United States within fertile couples. 
When men dominate women through the institutions of marriage, 
the church and the workplace, no one rushes to file a brief 
showing how the economic power of men influences the shape of 
every male-female relationship in the United States.
   Indeed, in typically reformist fashion, these feminists 
opposed to the commercialization of the womb, not only missed 
the boat when capitalism started, but also they open the door 
to pre-capitalist, reactionary social agendas. To a large 
extent, the New Right would like to portray the marriage 
institution as religiously sacred and out of the financial 
reach of even the ultrarich -- not a subject of the 
marketplace.
   The New Right is happy to say that the womb should not be 
commercial; God willed marriage (and capitalism) etc. 
Therefore, even the restriction of the already existing 
commercialization of the womb is not necessarily a good 
thing. To act to prevent the commercialization of surrogate 
mothering is to give a certain reactionary myth reality in 
the rare circumstances of surrogate mothering.
   
* * *

   Editors of this joint issue of MIM Notes and MIM Theory: 
MC0, MC5 Contributors in this issue: MC0, MC2, MC5, MC6, MC7, 
MC99 Unless otherwise stated MC5 is the author of articles. 
MC0 and MC5 jointly edit the articles. New subscription price 
is $1.50 an issue for as many issues as desired. Maoist 
Internationalist Movement, PO Box 3576, Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-
3576.