Pro-Hoxha observor can see who has the evidence on
their side, RCP=u$a or MIM
I have generally considered myself to be a
Communist in thought for a few years now, during
which I've progressed through various stages like
most of us western kids. I am now and have been
for a year or so been taking the pro-Hoxha line.
(I had a four of five page debate with a MIM
member at ISF forums last August in which insults, ideas, exchanges as
well as some general agreement emerged. I was
"Cassius Clay" if you wish to look it up.) I write
the above purely to show to MIM's critics of the
theory that Labour Aristocracies dominate the
western world that I'm coming from a position that
doesn't favor MIM automatically. But to me having
read MIM's material from your web page, read and
anaylsed statistics and such from elsewhere and
just generally taken one look around me it is
quite obvious MIM is completley right. The
"workers" in the western world are bought off;
they are clearly not at this moment at least (and
haven't been for a while) "revolutionary."
I do not claim as of yet anyway to be a expert on
factors of economics and such. But reading some
of the debates you have had with RCP and others
it's clear that they come up with no scientific
basis or facts to contradict what MIM is saying.
All I am seeing by MIM's critics on this matter
is purely rhetoric which quickly becomes worn out
in face of the material you at MIM are showing.
Whatever else happens in the future I do believe
that MIM and others who supported this line will
be remembered as not only greatly contributing to
the theory and practice of Revolutionaries in the
future, but also as the one's who remained
scientific Marxists in the face of fake
Communists spouting a line that was long dead. I
hope you will forgive me for pointing out
something that a womyn from Africa said to me at
a meeting of progressives that I was at a few
months ago.
As I said, I'm no expert on economics, but since
MIM's critics don't show any knowledge either I'll
forgive myself. She said "Here (in England)
there is a gap between people's wealth, but it's
only people richer than others. Yes there is a
gap, but all the nice stuff, the TVs stereos,
trainers seems to be available to everyone. There
is no real poverty here." And it's very hard to
disagree with that. Oh sure there can even be a
pretty big gap between the rich, i.e. bourgeoisie
and those that either fulfill a "traditional"
petty bourgeois role and people who were once
exploited workers.
In the end the vast majority still live a relative
life of luxury compared to the world's
proleteriat and oppressed. Marx said the "workers
had nothing to lose but their chains," but it's
clear that there is no need to quote Das Kapital
to show that this is no longer the case. There is
plenty to lose. From reading MIM's webpage it
would seem you take a position that the Labour
Aristocracy, or petty-bourgeoisie faces a choice
when it comes down to it. Side with the
proletariat or the Imperialists. Sadly right now
the majority would side with the Imperialists
against the world's oppressed. In the poorer
areas of Britain that is where the votes for the
fascist BNP come from: no doubt you'd see this in
France with Le Pen. Typically a single mother
living on an estate while living on 50 pounds a
week would blame her problems on "Pakis, Niggers
and Immigrants." The vast majority of populations
in western Europe and Amerikkka particularly if
they are white support Imperialism when it comes
down to it. Sure many in Europe at least are of
the opinion that something as blantant as
Amerikkkan-British Imperialism in Iraq is wrong,
but they fail to analyse and criticise the system
that caused this current war in any depth and
when shown what it is would rather stick with the
status quo. Even indirectly and unconsciously
they support Imperialism.
I support Imperialism through being one of the
mass consumers eating and wearing clothes which
are produced through the sweat of a world's
oppressed. Finally I do have some questions on
this though that I would appreciate some
opinions/answers on. Does MIM believe that in
Amerikkka there is a slowly growing "Black" Labour
Aristocracy? This is not to say the vast majority
of Black people in the United States do not still
constitute an oppressed nation. But rather that
this may not be the case in a hundred years time
if Imperialism remained. Looking at something
like the whole "Hip-Hop" culture or something
this might be the case. Or Colin Powell and C.
Rice, or the cops or the military. As I said I
don't know or have access to the stats at least so
I am, when it comes down to it not ready to form
an opinion on this matter so anything you can
provide would be appreciated. Also when do you
believe this came into effect? I mean to say
when do you believe the white working classes in
Europe and Amerikkka became a Labour Aristocracy?
I know you quote Lenin from 1921 but I myself
would not believe the vast majority of workers to
be bought of at that time. I dont believe Lenin
actually says that does he? I've read your
section on France in 1968 and that seems pretty
spot on. I.e. the massive increase in wages and
benefits and such. But what would your opinion
be on say the Miners Strike in 1984-85 England?
In solidarity!
mim3 for MIM replies: I'm sorry: I had thought we
had some articles on that miners' strike, but I was unable
to find them. Perhaps we'll come back to that in
the future.
On the question of the Black labor aristocracy,
you have hit on another reason exactly why
the multiracial or multinational "one working
class" idea is wrong. Namely, there is already
huge pressure on Blacks to conform to exploiter
ideas of unity, partially coming from within the
Black nation petty-bourgeoisie.
If the whites were all petty-bourgeoisie, and the
Blacks were all proletarians led by a still live
and politically sane Huey Newton, things would be
a lot different and easier around here and
probably there'd be no debate. However, the MLK
followers like PLP and RCP=U$A are attacking the
one relative advantage the international
proletariat has in North Amerika--the opposition
of the oppressed nationalities to many imperialist
wars including Iraq where a majority of Blacks
opposed it from before the beginning. Now come the
MLK followers to say oppressed nationalities
should merge with their alleged class brethren
among the whites and seal the deal on becoming
full-fledged oppressor nation people themselves.
That will only dilute Black opposition to
imperialism. After September 11th, the
imperialists were able to rally even Blacks on a
multiracial basis for a bloodthirsty mood, for at
least a few weeks. We should be clear that that is
where the MLK line really leads to--a unity of the
empire, a unity of exploiters. It cannot do
otherwise, because it lacks a material basis for
coming to a revolutionary conclusion in unity with
mythological white "workers."
It's not just Colin Powell or Condoleezza Rice.
Those are obvious Black imperialists. There is
also the treacherous Black bourgeoisie trying to
destroy the original revolutionary content of hip-
hop. And of course, there is a Black petty-
bourgeoisie.
In Stalin's day, there was a basis for calling for
a Black Belt Republic to address Black
sharecroppers' needs. Farmers were the plurality
of Blacks. Although there continue to be pockets
of virtually slave Black labor in agriculture and
more in prisons, Blacks substantially
industrialized with World War II. The Black
Panther leadership eventually settled on the idea
that Blacks with a few months of industrial work a
year could be labor aristocracy or they could be
lumpen. It's not so much that the Black Panthers
thought there was a great Black proletariat. They
simply tended to see great potential in the Black
lumpen and Huey Newton believed it would become
the majority. When we look at the percentage of
Black men processed through the u.$. prison
system, and how that has grown since his
prediction, we can't say he's been proven wrong.
England's lumpen is no where near the size of the
u.$. one, but it is also large relative to Europe.
The fire for revolution in England needs to be
found among the lumpen, oppressed nationalities,
youth and intellectuals first.
As you also pointed out, not being exploited
doesn't mean someone is not nationally oppressed.
The Black petty-bourgeoisie feels sharply the
injustices of the system, and we should seek to
fan that resentment as much as possible, as far as
it will go. The empire will succeed in lining up
some Black bourgeois forces, but Huey Newton
already proved we can rip away the plurality of
Blacks from any alignment with imperialism. Since
the days of Huey Newton, Blacks have become even
more polarized, with more lumpenized by the state
than Huey Newton's day but more advancing in labor
aristocracy demands also.
Mao himself said that the lumpen, youth and
intellectuals were the first to enter the
revolutionary stage and the workers and peasants
merely finished the play, because they have the
muscle to do so. We at MIM see ourselves taking
Huey Newton's advice. We are at least going to put
the lumpen, youth and some intellectuals on the
revolutionary stage. Then MIM would say we are
going to need some heavy reinforcements from the
Third World workers and peasants for the joint
dictatorship of the proletariat of the oppressed
nations to handle the more than 200 million
exploiters here. The easiest reinforcements to
reach come from Latin America, and that is why we
stress the Aztl&a
acute;n national struggle.
As to when the white proletariat disappeared,
Sakai has said there never was one. There is some
sense to that because the "settlers" always had a
kind of petty-bourgeois status as Marx pointed
out. Through the generations, whites have handed
down wealth in land or equivalent inheritances
robbed from First Nations and denied to Blacks.
Although there are some writers that say the
"Homestead Act" did not apply for all whites, we
believed they missed the point about general white
access to First Nation land and we have to account
for the fact that there will always be a white
lumpen as well. Because whites used to be
dominated by farm and industrial sector work, we
said that we understand why the CP-USA organized
the CIO in the Depression and tried that road, but
ultimately the CP-USA succeeded in eliminating the
white proletariat with the help of FDR and World
War II. We feel assured in saying so now that we
know Stalin briefly approved theses saying that
Amerikkkans had no industrial proletariat before
World War II. The Amerikan victory in World War
II and all the global spoils that went with that
were key to labor aristocracy domination and as
you noted, the French "workers" proved they had
"made it" in 1968, and that they were going to be
every bit as parasitic as Amerikkkans. Another
important date is the 1980 Census which showed
that more than half of U.$. whites had white-
collar jobs. The point is that one could disagree
on the cut-off date, but the evidence has done
nothing but pile up since World War II. It would
be an interesting field for writers to do analyses
of surplus-value in 1930 to see if Sakai were
right, but MIM has not done them.