War Pornography

[Free Palestine]

"US soldiers trade grisly photos of dead and mutilated Iraqis for access to amateur porn. The press is strangely silent. (http://eastbayexpress.com/Issues/2005-09-21/news/news.html)"

So much for the phrase "Support our troops." We should start using the phrase "Stop the massacres in Iraq! Bring the murderers home - before they kill more!"

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

"Support the troops" is a bourgeois liberal patriotic slogan.

WTF is "support the troops, not the war."

That's like saying "support the murders, but not the murder."

And I've heard of this, it's fucking ridiculous. What else can you expect though?

[rioters bloc]

i could never advocate supporting troops. unless you live in a country where conscription is law, you choose to be in the military. it's not 'heroic'. it's not about dying for your country, it's about killing for it.

fuck war
fuck police
fuck shit up

[La Comédie Noire]

The phrase means we shouldn't be fighting and shouting at the kids who are hypnotized into joining the war which is not their cause, but we should be fighting the system and the guys on top who brought this war into play.

and to them I say "murderers!"

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

We should criticize the military and it's economic draft, we should do all we can to disrupt recruiting, we should try to win soldiers over to our cause and get them out of the military, we should support mutiny, we should support awols, etc. but we shouldn't support imperialist murderers.

[romanm]

This kind of depravity is to be expected from amerikkkans.

[Reds]

Romanm your theroy seems to be that the janitor working in some us High school in wiscosian is just as bad as the army or the government just becase he/she was born in the US.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

romanm is an MIMer. Just to give you a wiff of their rotten politics, they think there is no working class in America.

[romanm]

There are people who work for wages in amerikkka - obviously. They are not exploited in the scientific sense, nor do they constitute a proletariat - at least according to Marxism. Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to join our debate on the subject over on marxleninmao.proboards43.com where we have several indepth threads on the subject. If CDL could disprove our class analysis, then they would engage us in those threads instead of making silly unprincipled attacks over here.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 03:06 AM
There are people who work for wages in amerikkka - obviously. They are not exploited in the scientific sense, nor do they constitute a proletariat - at least according to Marxism. Anyone who thinks otherwise is welcome to join our debate on the subject over on marxleninmao.proboards43.com where we have several indepth threads on the subject. If CDL could disprove our class analysis, then they would engage us in those threads instead of making silly unprincipled attacks over here.
I honestly doubt that your the real fighters for freedom after reading your one big gulag thread I realized one thing about you guys. YOUR FUCKING LUNATICS! How exactly do you plan to take over america? You cant win a war without popular support and I can gaurentee that every american right now is laughing in your face for the idea of one big gulag. You call yourself liberators of the proletariet? I call you liers fakes and class traitors.


Now on to the subject at hand.

This absolutely horrible that soldiers in Iraq actually have the mental ability to post some mutilated dead bodies then wank off to some girls.....

[Insomniac]

This only confirms my view that EVERY American, whether an official soldier, a CIA spy or a mercenary ('civilian' contractor) needs to leave Iraq in a black body bag!

Only when America's imperialist system lies in smoke and rubble will the American people wake up from their coma of racial superiority and their vile belief that they have a god given right to own and rule the world and then and only then will they see the need for revolution!

[Intifada]

Fuckers.

[bolshevik butcher]

Middle class international movement. Bit of an irony really, they wnat to turn there own land into one 'giant glaug.'

Yeh, dirrupting recruitemtn and fighting the system is a good diea, however a lot of individual soldiers probabaly dont even want to be in the military, as has alraeady been mentioned, its a place where people are forced to go out of depseration.

[romanm]

Middle class international movement

Typical unprincipled nonsense.

It really doesn't matter what the background is those putting forward a line, what matters is the line itself. Who is advocating a line, bares no relation to the truth or falsity of that line. But, MIM is one of the few organizations that does do major work in prisons. Any quick look to their paper or magazines shows that many of the writers are writing from prison. The reason for focusing on prisons is because not only are many prisoners victims of terrible national oppression, but they also are often forced into slave labor. A case can be made that prisoners in the first world are proletarian. So, Maoist organizations like MIM are correct in this focus. I suggest you compare MIM's focus with other organizations before tying to peg them as somehow especially privileged. The fact is that nearly all amerikans are privileged - MIM is doing something to end that fact while other organizations want more imperial loot for fat amerikan pigs.


This only confirms my view that EVERY American, whether an official soldier, a CIA spy or a mercenary ('civilian' contractor) needs to leave Iraq in a black body bag!

Only when America's imperialist system lies in smoke and rubble will the American people wake up from their coma of racial superiority and their vile belief that they have a god given right to own and rule the world and then and only then will they see the need for revolution!

Exactly. Amerika needs to be broken and destroyed. Amerika is a white supreamacist state founded on genocide and slavery. Amerikans as a whole have benefited from this fact, and they continue to benefit from Amerika's exploitation of the whole world.


You cant win a war without popular support and I can gaurentee that every american right now is laughing in your face for the idea of one big gulag. You call yourself liberators of the proletariet? I call you liers fakes and class traitors.

You are right about one thing. We don't intend to win popular support from a bunch of petty bourgeois labor aristocratic amerikan pigs. We Marxists fight for the proletariat - which is virtually does not exist in the first world. From a Marxist point of view, from a class stand point, your politics, like most "left politics" is closer to fascism than socialism because it is rooted in the petty bourgeois labor aristocracy. Like fascists, you agitate on behalf of the imperialist labor aristocracy - you agitate for a bigger cut of the imperial pie for those who, globally speaking, are within the richest 15% of the world's population (an amerikan at the poverty line ranks within the richst 13% or so globally). So, you are very right. I agitate on behalf of the vast majority of humynity who foot the bill for the amerikan pig lifestyle. Amerikans have alot more to lose than their chains, they have cars, vcrs, tvs, pornography.. not to mention all their other stolen loot.

Revolution will come to amerika one of two ways. Either there will be a reproletarization because imperialism becomes over-extended and amerika suffers several military defeats - "many vietnams"... Or, amerika will be invaded by the international proletariat int he same way Stalin invaded NAZI germany.

Does this mean there is nothing to do? Of course not. It just means that we are not going to be organizing amerikans around their class interests (which stand opposed socialism). We should do what we can to fight imperialism and support revolutions in the 3rd world. In addition, national oppression is still very much a reality in amerika, and we need to do what we can to advance the liberation of the Black, Mexican, First Nations, and other captive nations.. There is nothing pessimistic about recognizing the obvious reality that amerika has no significant proletariat. We Maoists have strategic confidence in the international proletariat. That means, we know that revolution will come and that the vast majority of humynity is on our side.

In any case, waving your arms and saying the Maoist analysis is wrong is not very convincing. Like I said, there are several threads with detailed class analysis on our forum and on the MIM site. For those who want to take up this discussion in a serious way, I invite them to come discuss it with us on IRTR. I don't see much use reproducing IRTR and MIM material here when it is already available . I would be very happy to be proven wrong, but, the facts say otherwise.

[bolshevik butcher]

Stalin invaded NAZI germany.

And what was socialsit about th eastern bloc after ww2 exactly? My grandparents were going to get shot by your hero because they were taken prisoner by the other side and were returning to their native land, ukraine. Doesnt seem very socialsit to me, and no they werent beugoirse they were poor semi-literate farm labourers.

[romanm]

Was Stalin era socialism perfect? Obviously not. That period was very hard and the Soviets were in a life and death struggle. So what? Mao himself said Stalin made many errors. Invading NAZI germany and smashing it was not one of those errors. Sitting around and waiting for the german labor aristocracy to overthrow Hitler would have been an error.

Hitler actually saw amerika as a model. He saw german expansion east like the u$ expansion to the west. He invisioned a greater germany where every german was a land owner, where the master race directed slave labor, etc.. sound familiar?

[bolshevik butcher]

Stalin was the representitive of teh beauracracy that became the ruling class of the soviet union.

The gernman labour aristocracy, what about rosa luxemburgs rbllion was that made up of the labour aristocracy?

Also your great leaser only attacked german after they invaded him in the first place. He could of taken them on a long time beofre htat and lots mutch less russians.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Typical unprincipled nonsense.

You call yourself a Marxist, yet you fail to realise that "being determines consciousness" not the other way round.

If one comes from the middle class/petit bourgeouis, then it is inevitable that the reactionary mindset of such a social position is going to seep in, much like the petit bourgeuois influence of Lenin permeated the entire Soviet Union.


The fact is that nearly all amerikans are privileged - MIM is doing something to end that fact while other organizations want more imperial pig for fat amerikan pigs.

I'm sorry, but the average American is not responsible for the actions of their leadership, who are the real villains in this case.


Revolution will come to amerika one of two ways. Either there will be a reproletarization because imperialism becomes over-extended and amerika suffers several military defeats - "many vietnams"... Or, amerika will be invaded by the international proletariat int he same way Stalin invaded NAZI germany.

As bad as the US Republican regime is, it cannot yet be compared to Nazi Germany. Your middle class fantasy of the "international proletariat" invading the US is untenable.


In any case, waving your arms and saying the Maoist analysis is wrong is not very convincing. Like I said, there are several threads with detailed class analysis on our forum and on the MIM site. For those who want to take up this discussion in a serious way, I invite them to come discuss it with us on IRTR. I don't see much use reproducing IRTR and MIM material here when it is already available . I would be very happy to be proven wrong, but, the facts say otherwise.

Please stop pimping your website. If you feel your arguments aren't strong enough to stand up unsupported by a load of pseudo-maoist groupies, then don't bother.

[romanm]

Amerikans are responsible. They are part of the exploiting classes. Just because every single one is not morally evil, doesn't mean they aren't responsible. Not every bourgeoisie has his hands on the levers of power directly, but as a class, the bourgeoisie is responsible for the horrors of this system.

"being determine consciousness" is not the same thing as the claim that the truth of a proposition is determined by who is asserting it. The latter would imply that everything a proletarian ever said was true and everything a bourgeois individual ever said would be false. If something is said by a proletarian than repeated by a bourgeoisie, the truth content does not change (except in very few cases, for example, "I am proletarian" ).

The p-b labor aristocracy prefers the open fascism of a Pat Buchannon sort to basically the same chauvinist politics posing as Marxism. Amerikan so-called workers are not suffering from any false consciousness, they are following their class interest as petty bourgeois labor aristocrats. Marxism is an ideology of the proletariat - which is why it is not taken up en masse in places like amerika. However, there are those amerikans who come over to the anti-imperialist camp, and some even become revolutionaries and take up Maoism. Marx himself noted that there are always segments of the p-b and bourgeoisie that join the struggle. Those who do come over to the proletarian side are exceptions that prove the rule.


If one comes from the middle class/petit bourgeouis, then it is inevitable that the reactionary mindset of such a social position is going to seep in, much like the petit bourgeuois influence of Lenin permeated the entire Soviet Union.

It is true that your class origin does play a role in your thinking - obviously. That doesn't mean that someone who is the petty-bourgeoisie, or even bourgeoisie, can't become a revolutionary. History is filled with class and nation traitors. If what you were saying were true, no amerikan at all could be a revolutionary which is obviously not the case. It is true that people do generally follow their class interest and adopt ways of thinking that correspond to their class - which, is why there is nothing like a powerfull revolutionary movement in the u$. Those who assert that the Maoist anaysis is false have to rely on silly arguments about false consciousness to such an extent that they end up denying that being determines consciousness in any meaningfull sense. The explanation for the obvious lack of a revolutionary movement in the u$ is found in the material realities of amerika. This is also the reason that the amerikan so called workers gravitate toward groups like the minutemen and people like Pat Buchannon. Fascism and "left" labor aristocratic politics are rooted in the same class looking for bigger piece of the imperial pie.

Also, that being determines consciousness is partially the reason why those of us who are frist world revolutionaries should focus on aiding the genuine proletariat - in the 3rd world. First world prisoners can also be considered proletarian. Which is why, revolutionaries, organizations like MIM, do so much prison work. I don't know any revolutionary organizations that has a comprable focus on prisons as MIM. MIM notes and MT have many prisoner contributers. So, here is MIM doing genuine work with the proletariat in the first world and it is being slandered by those wanting a bigger but of the imperial pie for amerika. MIM gets slandered all the time by unprincipled people - they don't know the first thing about MIM. But, it is nothing new for proletarian organizations to be attacked by white chauvinists, crypto-fascists, and other reactionaries.

We have provided extensive economic data backing up our position, there are two full books online as well as numerous articles. I prefer to keep this debate in one place, so that we can publish it in full online at some point. Having the debate in 10 different forums is not the best approach for people who seriously want to engage the question. And, like I said, we already have this same debate running in another forum. And, yes, there are several Maoists participating in the discussion - so? The point is to get at the truth, not to win the debate. I would be glad to be proven wrong actually - but it isn't about what I want, it is about getting at the truth. Also, I would like to have the discussion with the best examples of opposing positions, not the weakest examples - which is why I have invited in private message most of the people who I find to be the best representatives of opposing positions to our economics section.

[bolshevik butcher]

Wait, you go down to one of the ghettos in america and tell tehm there part of the ruling/exploiting classes. Classes isnt all just down to wealth, as you proclaim yourself a marxist surley you know of wage slavery?

[PRC-UTE]

In America there are 'labour aristocrats' who eat dog food to survive. Observation trumps theory.

Redstar2000 addressed this once, and I agree with him:


My position is that there's no such thing as a "labor aristocracy"--except for the small number of craftsmen who move randomly between wage-labor and petty-bourgeois independent contracting.

But yes, the RCP and I do agree that MIM's thesis of "a nation of labor aristocrats" (or "parasites") is absurd.

It's occurred to me that MIM's problem on this issue is that you folks can't tell the difference between the petty bourgeoisie and the mythical "labor aristocracy".

The petty bourgeoisie is, after all, a significant class in the U.S. and other imperialist countries...and they have all the "bad ideas" (and are quite vocal in expressing them) that everyone on the left condemns.

In addition, there are a large and growing number of unproductive workers in late monopoly capitalism...whole armies of functionaries, cops, prison guards, private security guards, prosecutors and judges and lawyers, financial "advisors" and "deal makers", landlords/real estate speculators, businesses launched to cater to the whims of the wealthy, etc. And their ideas reflect their role in capitalism...reactionary to the core.

(One hypothesis for future capitalist crises suggests that the unproductive sectors will increase to the point of imposing an intolerable burden on the capitalist economy as a whole.)

A superficial look at American society taken from the bourgeois media and official statistics would serve to convince the hasty that "America is parasitic"...because what is emphasized in such sources is the petty-bourgeoisie and the large sector of unproductive workers--how they live, what they think about things, etc.

The real working class and the large "reserve army of the unemployed" are virtually ignored...how they live and what they think is "not important".


source (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083851178&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

edit to fix quote

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Amerikans are responsible. They are part of the exploiting classes. Just because every single one is morally evil, doesn't mean they aren't responsible. Not every bourgeoisie has his hands on the levers of power directly, but as a class, the bourgeoisie is responsible for the horrors of this system.

Even if you were to assume that bourgeouis democracy means anything, you're still left with the fact that less than half of the US population actually voted, and so to turn America into "One Big Gulag" because of the actions of a leadership that doesn't really give a shit about the population is stupid at best and culpably evil at worst.
Just because american workers earn more than any other in the world does not make it their fault, nor does it remove the fact that they are in fact workers and if they stopped selling their labour they would be in very deep shit indeed.
Also note that the american educational system (At least at the lower tiers) is far from capable of producing anything but the next generation of wage-slaves.


"being determine consciousness" is not the same thing as the claim that the truth of a proposition is determined by who is asserting it. The latter would imply that everything a proletarian ever said was true and everything a bourgeois individual ever said would be false. If something is said by a proletarian than repeated by a bourgeoisie, the truth content does not change (except in very few cases, for example, "I am proletarian" ).

In that case, why do you reject obviously progressive statements made by people living in the first world? Are their objectively true statements not just as valid?
And following this line of thought, isn't it a bit premature to make grand plans like "One Big Gulag" when for all you know by the time American influence has weakened significantly enough for progressive movements to gain significant strength within the third world, that american consciousness will not have changed for the better?


The p-b labor aristocracy prefers the open fascism of a Pat Buchannon sort to basically the same chauvinist politics posing as Marxism. Amerikan so-called workers are not suffering from any false consciousness, they are following their class interest as petty bourgeois labor aristocrats. Marxism is an ideology of the proletariat - which is why it is not taken up en masse in places like amerika.

American workers are not suffering from a false consciousness, they have pretty much no political consciousness at all. The fact that from the moment they are born americans are told they are the greatest nation on Earth lays the blame squarely on the shoulders of the american leadership, the ones actually pulling the strings behind everything in america. American workers don't control what their government does - Or did you forgot all those people who attended the anti-war protests, left-liberal and otherwise?
Saying that every worker (Or "labour aristocrat" as you erroneously label them) in america is involved in some gigantic conspiracy to fuck the third world over is patently false.


However, there are those amerikans who come over to the anti-imperialist camp, and some even become revolutionaries and take up Maoism. Marx himself noted that there are always segments of the p-b and bourgeoisie that join the struggle. Those who do come over to the proletarian side are exceptions that prove the rule.

Except that Maoism isn't the be all and end all of revolutionary leftism, that not all Maoists support your labelling of the ENTIRE american working class as reactionary, nor does it change the fact that you are a bunch of self-hating middle class nutjobs. You may answer any enquiries as to your location as "pig questions" but it's fairly obvious that you live in the nicer portions of the first world as you know nothing about how wretched life can really get in the first world.

I really don't understand how you can categorically eliminate any sort of revolutionary activity within America without some sort of outside intervention - It's not like the Russian revolution needed foreign soldiers to set foot on Russian soil to set it off, merely the social conditions caused by such wars.
Likewise, it is more likely that revolutionary activity in America will be spurred by a string of imperial failures, (Your "many vietnams") Than by some ridiculous fantasy.

[Anarchist Freedom]

You are right about one thing. We don't intend to win popular support from a bunch of petty bourgeois labor aristocratic amerikan pigs. We Marxists fight for the proletariat - which is virtually does not exist in the first world. From a Marxist point of view, from a class stand point, your politics, like most "left politics" is closer to fascism than socialism because it is rooted in the petty bourgeois labor aristocracy. Like fascists, you agitate on behalf of the imperialist labor aristocracy - you agitate for a bigger cut of the imperial pie for those who, globally speaking, are within the richest 15% of the world's population (an amerikan at the poverty line ranks within the richst 13% or so globally). So, you are very right. I agitate on behalf of the vast majority of humynity who foot the bill for the amerikan pig lifestyle. Amerikans have alot more to lose than their chains, they have cars, vcrs, tvs, pornography.. not to mention all their other stolen loot.

Revolution will come to amerika one of two ways. Either there will be a reproletarization because imperialism becomes over-extended and amerika suffers several military defeats - "many vietnams"... Or, amerika will be invaded by the international proletariat int he same way Stalin invaded NAZI germany.

Does this mean there is nothing to do? Of course not. It just means that we are not going to be organizing amerikans around their class interests (which stand opposed socialism). We should do what we can to fight imperialism and support revolutions in the 3rd world. In addition, national oppression is still very much a reality in amerika, and we need to do what we can to advance the liberation of the Black, Mexican, First Nations, and other captive nations.. There is nothing pessimistic about recognizing the obvious reality that amerika has no significant proletariat. We Maoists have strategic confidence in the international proletariat. That means, we know that revolution will come and that the vast majority of humynity is on our side.

In any case, waving your arms and saying the Maoist analysis is wrong is not very convincing. Like I said, there are several threads with detailed class analysis on our forum and on the MIM site. For those who want to take up this discussion in a serious way, I invite them to come discuss it with us on IRTR. I don't see much use reproducing IRTR and MIM material here when it is already available . I would be very happy to be proven wrong, but, the facts say otherwise.


Just because living standards in one country are better then the other doesnt exclude the fact that people are still proletarien wage slaves. Everywhere around you in america people are selling hte hours of there lives away. A third world revolution is on many levels different then a first world. Creating this one big gulag completely destroys the point in being a liberator.

It has nothing to do with labour aristocrats it has to do with public appeal. I honestly doubt Maoism appeals to a nation as a whole. Look at maoist china it was terrible place. Youll never win the revolution without popular support. They will despise you and just look at you as trouble makers. Maybe you should talk about what they want to hear?

Freedom....

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Look at maoist china it was terrible place.

So China post-revolution was worse than pre-revolution???

[La Comédie Noire]

Really has anyone been to the big cities of America latley? where not all upper class and we definetley don't support the war. Don't use communism as a way to spread anti- american sentiment, because that's not what it's for.

And god stop spelling america with ks, and for the last time where not all bigs, like me for instance I only weight 110 pounds and Im 16.

that wasn't pointed at all of you, only the guy, whats his face.

[Anarchist Freedom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 08:54 PM

Look at maoist china it was terrible place.

So China post-revolution was worse than pre-revolution???
Maoism brought china stumbling into the 21st century. Still the cultural revolution was shit.

[h&s]

This war Pictures for porn thing is now all over the news in the UK. Hopefully people will now pay for it.


We Maoists have strategic confidence in the international proletariat.
Which, I suppose, is the reason Maoists only seem to work with the peasantry. :rolleyes:
Just fuck off you racist little bastard.

[bolshevik butcher]

I'm no maoist but even mao himself wasn't reactionary to say thing sutch as, 'There is no working class in america.' Even he woud probably be dismyed that these people were calling themselves maoists.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Maoism brought china stumbling into the 21st century.

The revolution brought many gains to the Chinese people. A 25 year gain in life expentancy, end of prostitution, end of binding women's feet, etc. You don't have to be a 'Maoist' to support that.


Still the cultural revolution was shit.

That's a very deep theoretical analysis.

[Free Palestine]

Army: No Felony in Release of Corpse Pics

WASHINGTON - After an initial look at complaints about U.S. soldiers posting photos of
Iraq war dead on an Internet site, Army investigators concluded they had too little evidence to pursue criminal charges.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050928/ap_on_...e/corpse_photos (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050928/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/corpse_photos)

[Lacrimi de Chiciură]

Can someone please restrict this romanm retard?

[workersunity]

If you maoists ever try to take control for yourselves, you bet your ass, I along with all the true communists will be there to fight you with every last breath we have

[romanm]

Wait, you go down to one of the ghettos in america and tell tehm there part of the ruling/exploiting classes. Classes isnt all just down to wealth, as you proclaim yourself a marxist surley you know of wage slavery?

National oppression exists in the u$, which is why Maoists focus on national liberation of captive nations like the Black Nation, etc. National oppression and exploitation are two different things. Exploitation has a specific meaning in Marx. But, even if exploitation did exist in the ghettos as you contend, you are still talking about a minority of the population in the u$. So, even if your contention were true, MIM would be more correct than other parties. MIM would still be more correct than the white chauvinists masquerading as Marxists.


Just because american workers earn more than any other in the world does not make it their fault, nor does it remove the fact that they are in fact workers and if they stopped selling their labour they would be in very deep shit indeed.
Also note that the american educational system (At least at the lower tiers) is far from capable of producing anything but the next generation of wage-slaves.

So what? amerikkkans are the class enemy whether they like it or not. They may be nice people. They may not be persynally reprehensible. That doesn't change the fact that they are the class enemy and that they are exploiters of the proletariat.


And following this line of thought, isn't it a bit premature to make grand plans like "One Big Gulag" when for all you know by the time American influence has weakened significantly enough for progressive movements to gain significant strength within the third world, that american consciousness will not have changed for the better?

This is a valid point. And, if you bothered to do more investigation. You will note that pinned in the same section as the OBG thread is one entitled something like "Another scenario for socialism" that makes this exact point. The same point is made on MIM's web page that revolution becomes possible as imperialism gets overextended. MIM critics are not known for their reading comprehension or research skills.


American workers are not suffering from a false consciousness, they have pretty much no political consciousness at all.

I thought you said "being determines consciousness"? Like it or not, amerikans as dumb as they are, are not totally zombified. Why do amerikkkans consistently support imperialism? Why is the history of the white working class one of aligning with the white bourgeoisie against captive nation peoples and the third world? One explanation is to say that these white "workers" are suffering from false consciousness - this stretches the facts so much as to basically make being determines consciousness meaningless. Or, you could face facts like Maoists do and recognize that the white nation is a settler state like Israel - where the entire Israeli nation, including its working class, oppresses the Palestinians. The white so-called workers are really labor aristocrats who have historically aligned with the white bourgeoisie against Blacks, First Nations, Mexicans, etc. And, today, they benefit as partners with the bourgeoisie in exploiting the third world. In other words, they do not have false consciousness at all. They are following their class interest.


Saying that every worker (Or "labour aristocrat" as you erroneously label them) in america is involved in some gigantic conspiracy to fuck the third world over is patently false.

There is nothing conspiratorial about it. It is basic economics. And,we have explained some of the mechanisms for these kinds of value transfers in other places. You can find them explained in our forum if you want the details.


Except that Maoism isn't the be all and end all of revolutionary leftism, that not all Maoists support your labelling of the ENTIRE american working class as reactionary, nor does it change the fact that you are a bunch of self-hating middle class nutjobs.

Typical unprincipled background baiting. I have already told you the focus of MIM and how they have more prisoner correspondents (judging from their paper) than any other party I am aware of in the first world. They also focus on the struggles of national liberation of internal semi-colonies within the u$. If I were as unprincipled as you, I would resort to your tactics and call you a rich little white chauvinist. But, that would be pointless. It's about line, not about identity.


not all Maoists support your labelling of the ENTIRE american working class as reactionary,

I am well aware that there are other groups calling themselves Maoist who disagree with the Maoist analysis. There are pages and pages of data refuting these groups. If you look beyond the superficial labels, you should be able to discern which groups are and are not Maoist.

If there was a group that called itself anarchist yet called for vanguard party, and a transitional period with a state, and adopted democratic centralism. I would say that, by any informed persyn's standard, that group was not anarchist. I would say that group was mistaken about what anarchism was.

So if there was a group calling itself Maoist, yet denied socialism in one country, referred to Stalin as historical baggage, rejected materialist investigation, called for a communist international, rejected the idea that the center of gravity of revolution is in the 3rd world, and rejected that a 3rd world nation can build socialism without a first world bail out, etc etc.. I would have the sense to not refer to them as Maoist despite their protests.


I really don't understand how you can categorically eliminate any sort of revolutionary activity within America without some sort of outside intervention - It's not like the Russian revolution needed foreign soldiers to set foot on Russian soil to set it off, merely the social conditions caused by such wars.
Likewise, it is more likely that revolutionary activity in America will be spurred by a string of imperial failures, (Your "many vietnams") Than by some ridiculous fantasy.

Like I said, had you spend even a few minutes reading, you would see that we allow for this possibility. The same section that has the OBG thread, has a thread pinned which is about such a scenario.


Just because living standards in one country are better then the other doesn't exclude the fact that people are still proletarien wage slaves. Everywhere around you in america people are selling hte hours of there lives away.

Wrong. Just because some receives a wage or is employed does not mean surplus value is being extracted. There are many examples of people who are employed by capitalists yet are not exploited, a professional football player who makes millions of dollars a year, is not exploited either. Exploitation, in the narrowest sense, is about the extraction of surplus value. Or, in a broader sense, exploitation is being paid less than the value of your labor power (in the cases of those who do not create value, but still expend labor time realizing capital). In either case, amerikkkans are not exploited whether you use the narrowest sense or the broader one. But, you can't even have a serious position on the question until you have calculated the value of labor power and calculated global surplus value. Maoists have done that research. We didn't just dream up our position on this. So, if you don't like it prove the position wrong with some calculating. Our calculating can be found on our forum and also on the MIM web page in the free MIM Theory section.


Can someone please restrict this romanm retard?

Typical unprincipled attack...

Basically, the critics of Maoism have one point here - they don't *like* the fact that there is no proletariat in the u$. "It just can't be true!" The problem here is a methodological one. They start with the metaphysical idea that revolution (as they conceive it) has to be possible, then they invent an analysis to fit their preconceived idea. It must be the case, because they want it to be the case. This is exactly backwards from a Marxist approach. A Marxist approach starts with an investigation into material conditions and then then arrives at a revolutionary strategy to fit those conditions. So, this discussion isn't going anywhere unless someone here introduces some actual investigation into the material realities of the u$. If you want a place to start, there are links and resources on the MIM page and in the IRTR economics section. If your objection is that you don't like the Maoist line, nothing I say can convince you. It's like arguing with a religious persyn.

[ZACKist]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 04:33 AM
"Support the troops" is a bourgeois liberal patriotic slogan.

WTF is "support the troops, not the war."

That's like saying "support the murders, but not the murder."

And I've heard of this, it's fucking ridiculous. What else can you expect though?
I live right in the center of all this madness. It's a nightmare.

The phrase "love the sinner, hate the sin" used to talk about homosexuals by "progressive" religious peoples is similar. Backward minds in a backward society of rich getting richer / poor getting poor, and the soldiers killing more innocent every day. This only serves to strengthen my convictions against this unjust and unequal system.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 12:33 AM
"Support the troops" is a bourgeois liberal patriotic slogan.

WTF is "support the troops, not the war."

That's like saying "support the murders, but not the murder."

And I've heard of this, it's fucking ridiculous. What else can you expect though?
I've been thinking this exact logic as well. It is contradictory to say you don't support the war but you support the tools of murder used in it.

Death to the Imperialist instruments of war and murder!

[andrew_the_fox]

i agree . i do have one objection though, saying that ALL americans are part of the problem. I am an american. I am NOT a nationalist nor a patriot. But there are many people like me here, there are many people living in poverty, there are many people that agree with the communist cause. saying that everyone in a nation is bad is ignorant.

[Mickalov]

You guys make me sick. If somebody is shooting at you, its either you or them, if you shoot them that makes YOU a murderer? Thats completly ignorant and stupid in my oppinion. The people who signed up for the U.S. military signed up to do what they are doing, they follow orders, does that make them murderers? Are you suggesting that they throw down their weapons and start singing and hugging everybody? No, thats called treason and is punishable by death. I'm espically discusted at all you people who live in America and are saying that. Shit and half of you people from Europe, if it wasn't for America half of you would be speaking german right now. Respect what these men and women do for your country and other countries around the world.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

You guys make me sick. If somebody is shooting at you, its either you or them, if you shoot them that makes YOU a murderer? Thats completly ignorant and stupid in my oppinion. The people who signed up for the U.S. military signed up to do what they are doing, they follow orders, does that make them murderers?

I personally have no antipathy towards those who fell for the lure of college money - my beef is with the rich bastards who will benefit from the deaths of young men.


Are you suggesting that they throw down their weapons and start singing and hugging everybody? No, thats called treason and is punishable by death.

No, but I do think getting out of the US military as soon as possible would be a good idea. If they frag an officer on the way out, so much the better.


I'm espically discusted at all you people who live in America and are saying that. Shit and half of you people from Europe, if it wasn't for America half of you would be speaking german right now.

Rubbish. Germany was already losing when America entered the war.


Respect what these men and women do for your country and other countries around the world.

They're not doing anything for me, they're serving the interests of the US government and their corporate sponsors.

[LSD]

You guys make me sick. If somebody is shooting at you, its either you or them, if you shoot them that makes YOU a murderer?

Depends on why they're shooting at you.

If you've just invaded their home, stolen their TV, eaten their food, killed their dog, and raped their daughter ....I'd let them off with self defense.

That's a pretty good analogy for US actions in Iraq.


The people who signed up for the U.S. military signed up to do what they are doing, they follow orders, does that make them murderers?

Yes.

They "signed up " to be murderers.

What the hell did they think they were going to do in Iraq?


Are you suggesting that they throw down their weapons and start singing and hugging everybody? No, thats called treason and is punishable by death.

Only in time of war.

Presently the maximum penalty is life in prison, and, besides, refusing to fight wouldn't get you trason, it'd get dereliction, disobeying, action unbecomming, etc..., but you'd never get life.

And if enough soldiers did it, they'd end the war.

Remember, Vietnam collapsed on itself. Whether they realize it or not, soldiers always run the war, not the other way around.


I'm espically discusted at all you people who live in America and are saying that.

Personally, I'm more disgusted by the people who aren't.

Just think for a momment, your defense of mass exploitation, oppression, and murder is literally " they were just following orders".

Don't tell me that doesn't make you feel even slightly dirty.


Shit and half of you people from Europe, if it wasn't for America half of you would be speaking german right now.

Really? Which half?

The idea that the US won World War II is so laughably absurd everywhere but in the US. In the US, "half of you would be speaking german" without the US' generous contribution ...two years after the war started.

The US contributed less soldiers, spent less money, suffered far less damage, fought far for less time, and lost far less lives than any other major combattant and yet still manages to claim some bizarre moral superiority out of the war. It would be fascinating if it wasn't so politically depressing.

This is the same attitude, by the way, that says that the US has never lost a war and the war of 1812 was a victory. :rolleyes:


Respect what these men and women do for your country and other countries around the world.

For most "countries around the world", the American flag means one thing: enemy.

Don't kid yourself kid, the world hates you.

[RedKnight]

In response to RomanM( for the sake of arguement)if it is true that there is not proletariat in the U.S., wouldn't it prove that american style capitalism is closer to acheiving a classless society than any "Communist" regime. I mean if a factory worker were to make twelve dollars an hour, how is that exploitive or exploiting of people in the developing world. If your theory is correct, and it isn't, shouldn't the third world countries follow the western bourgeois democracys example in raising there standard of living? You know, in a way, imperialism hurts the american workers as well. Big global corporations outsource jobs overseas, where they can pay foreign workers a lower wage than americans. Whenever I mention this fact to maoists in such countries as India(where most jobs are going to), I get told that we westerners have to much money and jobs anyway, and that we shouldn't be so selfish. :rolleyes: I personally feel that neo-maoism is often, if not always, a nationalistic brown supremacy ideology. And just like Nazism, all that it does is divide the international proletariat by race and national origin. And so to quote Karl Marx, "The workers of the world have no country. We can not take from them what they already don't have. Workers of all countries unite. You have nothing to lose but your chains." :marx:

[romanm]

This is all off topic, but..


In response to RomanM( for the sake of arguement)if it is true that there is not proletariat in the U.S., wouldn't it prove that american style capitalism is closer to acheiving a classless society than any "Communist" regime.

No. Communism is about ending all oppression of people over people, groups over groups. Obviously a first world nation that exploites and oppresses other nations is not communist. The u$ exploits and brutally oppresses the majority of humynity. How is this in any sense communist? Communism is not just about ending exploitation over one particular group, it is about ending oppression and exploitation everywhere. Think about what your argument would mean. What if Hitler had been successfull, conquered the world, and made Germans masters over all other peoples. Would such a system be "communist" because the Germans had ceased exploiting each other? Of course it wouldn't. A system where the vast majority of humynity is oppressed has nothing in common with communism.


You know, in a way, imperialism hurts the american workers as well. Big global corporations outsource jobs overseas, where they can pay foreign workers a lower wage than americans.

Actually, wages (and standard of living) continue to rise for amerikans despite the fact that their productive sector, and even parts of their unproductive sector, are being outsourced. Not even a third of amerikans are even employed in the productive sector anymore. This fact does not correspond to a decline in wages or standard of living. The opposite is true - which speaks even more to parasiticism. Amerikans are being paid more when they aren't even engaged in value creating. It's a mall economy - a bunch of rich people, mostly employeed to shuffle around goods and services to each other. Very few have anything to do with actually making the goods. In the following link, Page 3 has a chart from the census bureau on wages that shows that they continue to rise: http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mn/mn298.pdf Here is a story on Bureau of Labor stats on productive sector losses: http://mimnotes.info/news/20050920blsemployment/ Even though this article just is for 2004-2005, the trend of productive sector loss has been going on for a long time. There is a LeMonde article on our forum also on the u$ productive sector declining - but I am not allowed by the mods to link to our forum, even when making a citation.


I get told that we westerners have to much money and jobs anyway, and that we shouldn't be so selfish.

You should start listening. Westerners do have too much money and are selfish.


If your theory is correct, and it isn't, shouldn't the third world countries follow the western bourgeois democracys example in raising there standard of living?

The reason the u$ is so wealthy is because it super-exploits the 3rd world. Who is the 3rd world going to super-exploit? Communism is about ending exploitation and oppression everywhere. It is not about simply and mechanically turning the tables.


I personally feel that neo-maoism is often, if not always, a nationalistic brown supremacy ideology.

It doesn't matter what you feel to be the case. First, I'll point out that the above is the same old story of the white chauvinist complaining about "reverse racism." Nothing is more annoying than some white imperialist who is living fat on the backs of the vast majority of humynity whining and suggesting that he is the victim. In any case, as you should know, white refers to a nation, not a skin color. It is an old trick used by white chauvinists to attack Black liberation by trying to discredit its advocates by calling them race theorists, and racists. You even go farther and say we are nazis. I hope the irony isn't lost on anyone. The issue we are talking about is part of the national question, it has nothing to do with race. Race is a bourgeois formulation. White chauvinsists in the cpu$a in the earlier part of this century attempted to discredit Black leaders like Harry Haywood by falsely claiming that those who advocate Black self-determination were race theorists. Real communists like comrade Stalin upheld the self determination of oppressed peoples - including the Black nation. In case you missed it. We are talking about nation, not race. White is a short way of refering to the Euro-settler state that benefited as a whole (including its workingclass) from the genocide of a continent in addition to numberous other horrors commited against oppressed peoples.


And just like Nazism, all that it does is divide the international proletariat by race and national origin.

The above is a great example of what I am talking about: Since you are confused about conditions in the first world, you can't even tell what a proletarian movement is from a non-proletarian one. Fascism is not a proletarian movment that is competing with Marxism to lead some imaginary first world proletariat. Although fascism does compete with Trotskyism and other phoney communism in order to lead the first world labor aristocracy.

As for Marx, I suggest you read a little more deeply into his works so that you don't sloppily mush wage earner with exploited with proletarian with worker. I would recommedn you take a look at our forum, where we have examined these questions much more deeply than in this thread.

[Ownthink]

Originally posted by [email protected] 3 2005, 03:42 AM
This is all off topic, but..


In response to RomanM( for the sake of arguement)if it is true that there is not proletariat in the U.S., wouldn't it prove that american style capitalism is closer to acheiving a classless society than any "Communist" regime.

No. Communism is about ending all oppression of people over people, groups over groups. Obviously a first world nation that exploites and oppresses other nations is not communist. The u$ exploits and brutally oppresses the majority of humynity. How is this in any sense communist? Communism is not just about ending exploitation over one particular group, it is about ending oppression and exploitation everywhere. Think about what your argument would mean. What if Hitler had been successfull, conquered the world, and made Germans masters over all other peoples. Would such a system be "communist" because the Germans had ceased exploiting each other? Of course it wouldn't. A system where the vast majority of humynity is oppressed has nothing in common with communism.


You know, in a way, imperialism hurts the american workers as well. Big global corporations outsource jobs overseas, where they can pay foreign workers a lower wage than americans.

Actually, wages (and standard of living) continue to rise for amerikans despite the fact that their productive sector, and even parts of their unproductive sector, are being outsourced. Not even a third of amerikans are even employed in the productive sector anymore. This fact does not correspond to a decline in wages or standard of living. The opposite is true - which speaks even more to parasiticism. Amerikans are being paid more when they aren't even engaged in value creating. It's a mall economy - a bunch of rich people, mostly employeed to shuffle around goods and services to each other. Very few have anything to do with actually making the goods. In the following link, Page 3 has a chart from the census bureau on wages that shows that they continue to rise: http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mn/mn298.pdf Here is a story on Bureau of Labor stats on productive sector losses: http://mimnotes.info/news/20050920blsemployment/ Even though this article just is for 2004-2005, the trend of productive sector loss has been going on for a long time. There is a LeMonde article on our forum also on the u$ productive sector declining - but I am not allowed by the mods to link to our forum, even when making a citation.


I get told that we westerners have to much money and jobs anyway, and that we shouldn't be so selfish.

You should start listening. Westerners do have too much money and are selfish.


If your theory is correct, and it isn't, shouldn't the third world countries follow the western bourgeois democracys example in raising there standard of living?

The reason the u$ is so wealthy is because it super-exploits the 3rd world. Who is the 3rd world going to super-exploit? Communism is about ending exploitation and oppression everywhere. It is not about simply and mechanically turning the tables.


I personally feel that neo-maoism is often, if not always, a nationalistic brown supremacy ideology.

It doesn't matter what you feel to be the case. First, I'll point out that the above is the same old story of the white chauvinist complaining about "reverse racism." Nothing is more annoying than some white imperialist who is living fat on the backs of the vast majority of humynity whining and suggesting that he is the victim. In any case, as you should know, white refers to a nation, not a skin color. It is an old trick used by white chauvinists to attack Black liberation by trying to discredit its advocates by calling them race theorists, and racists. You even go farther and say we are nazis. I hope the irony isn't lost on anyone. The issue we are talking about is part of the national question, it has nothing to do with race. Race is a bourgeois formulation. White chauvinsists in the cpu$a in the earlier part of this century attempted to discredit Black leaders like Harry Haywood by falsely claiming that those who advocate Black self-determination were race theorists. Real communists like comrade Stalin upheld the self determination of oppressed peoples - including the Black nation. In case you missed it. We are talking about nation, not race. White is a short way of refering to the Euro-settler state that benefited as a whole (including its workingclass) from the genocide of a continent in addition to numberous other horrors commited against oppressed peoples.


And just like Nazism, all that it does is divide the international proletariat by race and national origin.

The above is a great example of what I am talking about: Since you are confused about conditions in the first world, you can't even tell what a proletarian movement is from a non-proletarian one. Fascism is not a proletarian movment that is competing with Marxism to lead some imaginary first world proletariat. Although fascism does compete with Trotskyism and other phoney communism in order to lead the first world labor aristocracy.

As for Marx, I suggest you read a little more deeply into his works so that you don't sloppily mush wage earner with exploited with proletarian with worker. I would recommedn you take a look at our forum, where we have examined these questions much more deeply than in this thread.
Actually, last year, Pay for jobs for the "upper class" (CEO's, stock brokers, doctors, corporate scum, etc) rose 22% while pay for workers rose 3%.

"In March of this year, Stephen Crawford became a co-president of the Wall Street investment firm Morgan Stanley. About 100 days later, he quit amid a management shake-up with his company’s stock in the doldrums. Walking away from a job can be scary, but Crawford, who’d been with the firm for 19 years, probably wasn’t sweating. The 41-year-old strolled off with a severance package that included two years’ salary and bonus. Grand total: $32 million.

Here’s some more math for you. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the mean annual earnings for full-time workers in 2003 was $37,784. As Morgan Stanley’s co-president, Crawford pulled in $54,000 PER HOUR! "

I'd like to execute that guy.

[zunachy]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 04:33 AM
"Support the troops" is a bourgeois liberal patriotic slogan.

WTF is "support the troops, not the war."

That's like saying "support the murders, but not the murder."

And I've heard of this, it's fucking ridiculous. What else can you expect though?


We support the war and not the troops. One day. Then the next day when the troops learn their lesson, and start behaving all good and well, we can start supporting them and hating the war.

[romanm]

Actually, last year, Pay for jobs for the "upper class" (CEO's, stock brokers, doctors, corporate scum, etc) rose 22% while pay for workers rose 3%.

So what. The statistics I already provided show the same thing. The gap between amerikan rich and poor is widening, but the amerikan poor are *not* getting poorer. I suggest you go look at the first link I provided again. Amerikans at minimum wage are some of the richest people in the world. Both amerikan workers and bosses benefit from imperialism and super-exploitation to such an extent that there is no proletariat in amerika. As, we have shown on many occasions.

The same thing is reflected in household surveys:

"In 1971, 3.8% of all households had air conditioners. In 1994, 49.6% of all households below the poverty-line had air conditioners (pp14-5). The poor also do better than 1971 U.S. households in clothes dryers, dish washers, refridgerators, stoves, microwaves, VCRs, and personal computers. That is not comparing the poor of now with the poor of the past. We are comparing the poor of now with all households in 1971 and the poor of now are better off." - Myths of Rich and Poor: Why We're Better Off Than We Think by W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm (New York: Basic Books: 1999) 256pp

Marx said that proletarians had nothing to lose but their chains. How many amerikans *truly* fit that description?

[Sabocat]

So what? amerikkkans are the class enemy whether they like it or not. They may be nice people. They may not be persynally reprehensible. That doesn't change the fact that they are the class enemy and that they are exploiters of the proletariat.

So much for "Workers of the World Unite" eh?

My understanding of the term proletariat is those who have to sell their labor to survive. I would say that accounts for quite a few people in the U.S.


Marx said that proletarians had nothing to lose but their chains. How many amerikans *truly* fit that description?

Well here are a few million people that that certainly "fit that description".

Millions of workers making minimum wage. Minimum wage in the U.S. represents bare sustenance survival.

40 million workers without adequate healthcare.

12.6 million households that were food insecure and the 3.9 million that suffer from food insecurity that was so severe that USDA's very conservative measure classified them as "hungry".

37 million people living in poverty in the U.S. up over a million from the year before.

Yes, all these people are exploiting the proletariat. :huh:

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by Disgustapated+Oct 4 2005, 08:35 AM--> (Disgustapated @ Oct 4 2005, 08:35 AM)So much for "Workers of the World Unite" eh?[/b]

Having met a few MIMmites in my lifetime, I can tell you that their slogan is more along the lines of "Petty-Bourgeois Losers of Elite College Campuses, unite!" It's a mouthful, but then, so are all MIMmite slogans.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 08:35 AM
My understanding of the term proletariat is those who have to sell their labor to survive. I would say that accounts for quite a few people in the U.S.

Close to 200 million, if you include children, at last count.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 08:35 AM
Well here are a few million people that that certainly "fit that description".

Millions of workers making minimum wage. Minimum wage in the U.S. represents bare sustenance survival.

Not even that! A recent news report said that someone would have to earn more than $30,000 a year just to make ends meet -- double that for a family of four. Minimum wage only pays about $10,000 a year, and that's if you work full time.


Originally posted by [email protected] 4 2005, 08:35 AM
37 million people living in poverty in the U.S. up over a million from the year before.

And that's based on the "official" poverty line. If you go by the news report, referenced above, that number jumps more than fourfold.


[email protected] 4 2005, 08:35 AM
Yes, all these people are exploiting the proletariat. :huh:

The MIMmites are the kind of people who would see a homeless person on the street begging for a quarter, and would call them an "exploiter" ... as they rush into their new car that mommy and daddy bought them, on their way to their mid-morning applied psychology class.

Miles

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by romanm+Oct 4 2005, 07:21 AM--> (romanm @ Oct 4 2005, 07:21 AM)So what. The statistics I already provided show the same thing. The gap between amerikan rich and poor is widening, but the amerikan poor are *not* getting poorer. I suggest you go look at the first link I provided again. Amerikans at minimum wage are some of the richest people in the world. Both amerikan workers and bosses benefit from imperialism and super-exploitation to such an extent that there is no proletariat in amerika. As, we have shown on many occasions.[/b]

Benjamin Disraeli (and Mark Twain) was right. There are three kinds of lies in this world: lies, damn lies and statistics.

Your numbers do not reflect two very important things: 1) inflation, and 2) real wages.

Since the 1980s, the way that inflation has been calculated has been altered. Inflation is calculated based on a "basket of goods" and what it costs to purchase them. Over the last decade especially, that "basket" measurement has been tampered with by government statisticians to make it look like it has been relatively low. The old measurement was by ounce for foodstuffs; the new measurement is by package. And, if you've been grocery shopping on any consistent basis over the last decade, you will have noticed that the packages are getting smaller while the prices remain the same. This is hidden inflation. Your cost per ounce goes up, but the "basket" price remains relatively unchanged. (And, let's also not forget that "volatile" goods, like gasoline, heating oil, electricity, natural gas, etc., are not included in the "basket".)

Unlike with raw wages, that seemingly go up annually, real wages -- that is, the purchasing power of the money you earn -- has dropped steadily since the 1960s. In fact, apart from a couple of years in the 1990s, real wages have fallen every year since 1965. The average worker's real wages today are between 60 and 65 percent of what they were back then -- about 75 percent what they were in 1980.

If we put these two elements together, we see that inflation has risen significantly while real wages have dropped dramatically. We can also add to this the debt from credit that millions of workers have acquired, which they have no hope of ever paying off.

Finally, let me deal with this stupid shit:


[email protected] 3 2005, 03:42 AM
Actually, wages (and standard of living) continue to rise for amerikans despite the fact that their productive sector, and even parts of their unproductive sector, are being outsourced. Not even a third of amerikans are even employed in the productive sector anymore. This fact does not correspond to a decline in wages or standard of living. The opposite is true - which speaks even more to parasiticism. Amerikans are being paid more when they aren't even engaged in value creating. It's a mall economy - a bunch of rich people, mostly employeed to shuffle around goods and services to each other. Very few have anything to do with actually making the goods. In the following link, Page 3 has a chart from the census bureau on wages that shows that they continue to rise: http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mn/mn298.pdf Here is a story on Bureau of Labor stats on productive sector losses: http://mimnotes.info/news/20050920blsemployment/ Even though this article just is for 2004-2005, the trend of productive sector loss has been going on for a long time. There is a LeMonde article on our forum also on the u$ productive sector declining - but I am not allowed by the mods to link to our forum, even when making a citation.

We can see here that the MIMmites have a hopelessly narrow view of the working class in general. "Not even a third of amerikans are even employed in the productive sector anymore.... Amerikans are ... mostly employeed to shuffle around goods and services to each other. Very few have anything to do with actually making the goods." So, the millions of workers in transportation, office work, service sector, etc., are not workers at all. Nevermind that their work is a direct contribution to the production and distribution of those commodities. It is very telling. Very telling, indeed.

Miles

[romanm]

Having met a few MIMmites in my lifetime, I can tell you that their slogan is more along the lines of "Petty-Bourgeois Losers of Elite College Campuses, unite!" It's a mouthful, but then, so are all MIMmite slogans.

The above is silly, unprincipled, and probably a lie. If it is not a lie, then you are only doing pigwork by describing other activists. I've seen Miles in several threads now argue against an opponent by suggesting that they are petty bourgeoisie. This is not only unprincipled, but totally stupid, since we are two largely anonymous people on the internet. It is very easy for anyone to pose as whatever they want.

A point that I made in another thread, MIM notes and MIM theory have more prisoner writers than any other "left" paper or journal that I am aware of. In any case, it doesn't matter because I am not speaking for MIM anyway. Although, I agree with them on most things.


Your numbers do not reflect two very important things: 1) inflation, and 2) real wages... Unlike with raw wages, that seemingly go up annually, real wages -- that is, the purchasing power of the money you earn -- has dropped steadily since the 1960s.

The statistics I linked to were about income and also the growth in the service sector. I didn't give any statistics about raw or adjusted wages. Did you bother looking at the links even?

It looks like real median household overall incomes have gone up too as is indicated here: http://www.osjspm.org/101_income.htm#2

"Income growth has been a fact of life for families, though it has slowed in the past 20 years. Figure 2.1 illustrates that median family income more than doubled between 1947 and 1977. Between 1977 and 1997, however, median family income grew by only 10 percent. Married-couple families showed the most growth in income over this period, with an increase of 150 percent since 1947. Their income growth was due, in large part, to the increasing participation of wives in the labor force."

"Median household income grew 17 percent since 1967, but exhibited a strong cyclical pattern, related to recessions. Figure 3.2 illustrates the varied fortunes of race and ethnic groups in the United States. Asians and Pacific Islanders have the highest median household income of any race group. Black households, which had the lowest median income in 1967, had the highest growth in income over the period, increasing 31 percent, versus an increase for White households over the 1967-1997 period of 18 percent. In contrast, the change for Hispanic households (who may be of any race) over the 1972-1997 period has been negative -- a decline of 4 percent in their median household income."

(Source: http://www.census.gov/hhes/income/prs98asc.html -- go to the charts mentioned here to see the above breaks down) You can click on the links to see how it breaks down, the increases are not as big as the appear, but they are still generally increasing since WW2.

In terms of household items:

"In 1971, 3.8% of all households had air conditioners. In 1994, 49.6% of all households below the poverty-line had air conditioners (pp14-5). The poor also do better than 1971 U.S. households in clothes dryers, dish washers, refridgerators, stoves, microwaves, VCRs, and personal computers. That is not comparing the poor of now with the poor of the past. We are comparing the poor of now with all households in 1971 and the poor of now are better off." - Myths of Rich and Poor: Why We're Better Off Than We Think by W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm (New York: Basic Books: 1999) 256pp


Unlike with raw wages, that seemingly go up annually, real wages -- that is, the purchasing power of the money you earn -- has dropped steadily since the 1960s.

The charts I cited were not wages, but rather income. There is a difference. The question we are addressing is whether or not amerikans are getting poorer. Even if real wages are decreasing (which is disputed from what I can tell - many contend that the method used most commonly over-estimates inflation). Back to the main point, Amerikans are not getting poorer. They have gotten richer since world war 2 as the data overwhelmingly shows. This is indicated by the real median household income and the household item survey. I have some data on adjusted for inflation/CPI incomes too that I could post.


A recent news report said that someone would have to earn more than $30,000 a year just to make ends meet -- double that for a family of four. Minimum wage only pays about $10,000 a year, and that's if you work full time.

A news report? $30,000$ to make ends meet? I'm sure that amerikans think that is true. Amerikans think that they have a right to higher standards of living than the rest of humynity, so they set the threshhold of poverty higher for themselves. The majority of humynity lives on a few dollars a day.


We can see here that the MIMmites have a hopelessly narrow view of the working class in general...So, the millions of workers in transportation, office work, service sector, etc., are not workers at all. Nevermind that their work is a direct contribution to the production and distribution of those commodities. It is very telling. Very telling, indeed.

Wrong. You missed the point, just as, it appears, you didn't even look at the tables. Do they work? yes. Do they make a wage? yes. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is their exploitation and do they constitute part of the proletariat as a revolutionary class. As I already said, in order to answer this question, you need to do some calculating. You need to see if they are paid more than the value of their labor.

The reason I mentioned it was that the growth of the service sector is an indication the level of parasiticism in the u$ economy. A huge section of the amerikan "workforce" is employed in distribution and services and not in actually producing commodities, yet at the same time their consumption of commodities (as indicated by the household survey info) has increased. So, they are producing less and consuming more. Amerika is a nation of parasites for the most part.

As to the big question of whether amerikans are exploited or not, as I already said, that requires a method of calculating the value of labor and a comparison of that against their incomes (or perhaps wages - depending on how you approach it). But, you can't have a serious position on it until you have at least looked at the problem from in a Marxist way.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

The above is silly, unprincipled, and probably a lie. If it is not a lie, then you are only doing pigwork by describing other activists.

:lol: Not satisfied with being self-hating petit-bourgeouis, MIM also suffer from paranoia.


In terms of household items:

"In 1971, 3.8% of all households had air conditioners. In 1994, 49.6% of all households below the poverty-line had air conditioners (pp14-5). The poor also do better than 1971 U.S. households in clothes dryers, dish washers, refridgerators, stoves, microwaves, VCRs, and personal computers. That is not comparing the poor of now with the poor of the past. We are comparing the poor of now with all households in 1971 and the poor of now are better off." - Myths of Rich and Poor: Why We're Better Off Than We Think by W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm (New York: Basic Books: 1999) 256pp

This ignores the fact the cost of appliances and other "techie goods" goes down as time passes.


The reason I mentioned it was that the growth of the service sector is an indication the level of parasiticism in the u$ economy. A huge section of the amerikan "workforce" is employed in distribution and services and not in actually producing commodities, yet at the same time their consumption of commodities (as indicated by the household survey info) has increased. So, they are producing less and consuming more. Amerika is a nation of parasites for the most part.

Service sector workers are just as "important" as those in the manufacturing sector.


As to the big question of whether amerikans are exploited or not, as I already said, that requires a method of calculating the value of labor and a comparison of that against their incomes (or perhaps wages - depending on how you approach it). But, you can't have a serious position on it until you have at least looked at the problem from in a Marxist way.

So those who work mandatory unpaid overtime, have to deal with mountains of debt (It's generally impossible to own one's own home without going into debt) and suffer from job insecurity are not being exploited? puh-leeze. While they're not being exploited as much as people in the third world, they're still being exploited.

[bolshevik butcher]

Romann what happens to you when america gets turned into a giant glaug?

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Originally posted by Clenched [email protected] 5 2005, 04:18 PM
Romann what happens to you when america gets turned into a giant glaug?
He won't tell you. He'll call it a "pig question" even though his location can be deduced anyway.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by romanm+Oct 5 2005, 08:59 AM--> (romanm @ Oct 5 2005, 08:59 AM)The above is silly, unprincipled, and probably a lie. If it is not a lie, then you are only doing pigwork by describing other activists. I've seen Miles in several threads now argue against an opponent by suggesting that they are petty bourgeoisie. This is not only unprincipled, but totally stupid, since we are two largely anonymous people on the internet. It is very easy for anyone to pose as whatever they want.[/b]

Pointing out one's class viewpoint is seen as "unprincipled" only by those who do not uphold the class line as a principle -- which certainly describes MIM. As far as I am concerned, MIM is a scab organization that does not even deserve the "left" designation. Any organization that consciously scabs on a strike deserves, at the very least, all the scorn and contempt that can be heaped on them.

And it is not that hard to discern someone's class viewpoint based on their writings -- if you know what to look for, that is.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 08:59 AM
The statistics I linked to were about income and also the growth in the service sector. I didn't give any statistics about raw or adjusted wages. Did you bother looking at the links even?...

I did read the articles, for your information.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 08:59 AM
The charts I cited were not wages, but rather income. There is a difference. The question we are addressing is whether or not amerikans are getting poorer.

Rich and poor are relative terms -- relative to each other, that is. Compared to the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, the proletariat in the U.S. is getting poorer and poorer.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 08:59 AM
Even if real wages are decreasing (which is disputed from what I can tell - many contend that the method used most commonly over-estimates inflation).

Just like many contend that "Intelligent Design" is a legitimate alternative to evolution.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 08:59 AM
Back to the main point, Amerikans are not getting poorer. They have gotten richer since world war 2 as the data overwhelmingly shows. This is indicated by the real median household income and the household item survey. I have some data on adjusted for inflation/CPI incomes too that I could post.

Bourgeois empiricism. It's all about "income" for the MIMmites, not class. It makes you wonder who the "pig" actually is.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 08:59 AM
A news report? $30,000$ to make ends meet? I'm sure that amerikans think that is true. Amerikans think that they have a right to higher standards of living than the rest of humynity, so they set the threshhold of poverty higher for themselves. The majority of humynity lives on a few dollars a day.

If you worked for a living and had to pay bills, you too might think they had a point. As for "humynitiy", everyone deserves a higher standard of living. That is what communists fight for -- a decent life for everyone.


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 08:59 AM
Wrong. You missed the point, just as, it appears, you didn't even look at the tables. Do they work? yes. Do they make a wage? yes. This is not in dispute. What is in dispute is their exploitation and do they constitute part of the proletariat as a revolutionary class. As I already said, in order to answer this question, you need to do some calculating. You need to see if they are paid more than the value of their labor.

Do they have only their ability to work (their labor-power) to subsist on?


Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 08:59 AM
The reason I mentioned it was that the growth of the service sector is an indication the level of parasiticism in the u$ economy. A huge section of the amerikan "workforce" is employed in distribution and services and not in actually producing commodities, yet at the same time their consumption of commodities (as indicated by the household survey info) has increased. So, they are producing less and consuming more. Amerika is a nation of parasites for the most part.

This is a hopelessly anti-Marxian (and thus anti-communist) argument. It ignores the role that circulation of commodities plays in capitalist manufacture -- a role that Marx wrote about extensively in Volume II of Capital.


"In order to simplify the matter (since we shall not discuss the merchant as a capitalist and merchant's capital until later) we shall assume that this buying and selling agent is a man who sells his labour. He expends his labour-power and labour-time in the operations C—M and M—C. And he makes his living that way, just as another does by spinning or making pills. He performs a necessary function, because the process of reproduction itself include unproductive functions. He works as well as the next man, but intrinsically his labour creates neither value nor product. He belongs himself to the faux frais of production. His usefulness does not consist in transforming an unproductive function into a productive one, nor unproductive into productive labour.... His usefulness consists rather in the fact that a smaller part of society's labour-power and labour-time is tied up in this unproductive function. More. We shall assume that he is a mere wage-labourer, even one of the better paid, for all the difference it makes. Whatever his pay, as a wage-labourer he works part of his time for nothing. He may receive daily the value of the product of eight working-hours, yet functions ten. But the two hours of surplus-labour he performs do not produce value anymore than his eight hours of necessary labour, although by means of the latter a part of the social product is transferred to him. In the first place, looking at it from the standpoint of society, labour-power is used up now as before for ten hours in a mere function of circulation. It cannot be used for anything else, not for productive labour. In the second place however society does not pay for those two hours of surplus-labour, although they are spent by the individual who performs this labour. Society does not appropriate any extra product or value thereby. But the costs of circulation, which he represents, are reduced by one-fifth, from ten hours to eight. Society does not pay any equivalent for one-fifth of this active time of circulation, of which he is the agent. But if this man is employed by a capitalist, then the non-payment of these two hours reduces the cost of circulation of his capital, which constitute a deduction from his income. For the capitalist this is a positive gain, because the negative limit for the self-expansion of his capital-value is thereby reduced....

"A certain amount of labour-power and labour-time must be expended in the process of circulation (so far as it is merely a change of form). But this now appears as an additional investment of capital. A part of the variable capital must be laid out in the purchase of this labour-power functioning only in circulation. This advance capital creates neither product nor value. It reduces pro tanto the dimensions in which the advanced capital functions productively. It is as though one part of the product were transformed into a machine which buys and sells the rest of the product. This machine brings about a reduction of the product. It does not participate in the productive process, although it can diminish the labour-power, etc., spent on circulation. It constitutes merely a part of the costs of circulation....

"The capitalist mode of production reduces the costs of transportation of the individual commodity by the development of the means of transportation and communication, as well as by concentration — increasing scale — of transportation. It increases that part of the living and materialised social labour which is expended in the transport of commodities, firstly by converting the great majority of all products into commodities, secondly, by substituting distant for local markets.

"The circulation, i.e., the actual locomotion of commodities in space, resolves itself into the transport of commodities. The transport industry forms on the one hand an independent branch of production and thus a separate sphere of investment of productive capital. On the other hand its distinguishing feature is that it appears as a continuation of a process of production within the process of circulation and for the process of circulation."

(K. Marx, "Chapter 6: The Costs of Circulation", Capital, Vol. II, Part 1 -- http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1885-c2/ch06.htm)

In plain English: workers who are in the "service" (circulation) sector are a part of the production process, and are intrinsically linked to their brothers and sisters who produce the commodities.

(It should also be noted that some of those who are listed as "service" workers are as much manufacturers as their brothers and sisters who make cars, radios or cloth. For example, I would argue that workers at fast-food restaurants are manufacturers; they manufacture prepared food for sale, just as autoworkers manufacture automobiles for sale.)


[email protected] 5 2005, 08:59 AM
As to the big question of whether amerikans are exploited or not, as I already said, that requires a method of calculating the value of labor and a comparison of that against their incomes (or perhaps wages - depending on how you approach it). But, you can't have a serious position on it until you have at least looked at the problem from in a Marxist way.

On this last point, we agree. So, when do you plan to look at the problem in a Marxist way?

Miles

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 5 2005, 06:59 AM

Your numbers do not reflect two very important things: 1) inflation, and 2) real wages... Unlike with raw wages, that seemingly go up annually, real wages -- that is, the purchasing power of the money you earn -- has dropped steadily since the 1960s.

The statistics I linked to were about income and also the growth in the service sector. I didn't give any statistics about raw or adjusted wages.
Which is the problem.

Real wages are the most relevant statistic to the issue in dispute, so naturally you post statistics about....everything else.

To quote you, "Put up or shut up."

[romanm]

Pointing out one's class viewpoint is seen as "unprincipled" only by those who do not uphold the class line as a principle -- which certainly describes MIM. As far as I am concerned, MIM is a scab organization that does not even deserve the "left" designation. Any organization that consciously scabs on a strike deserves, at the very least, all the scorn and contempt that can be heaped on them... And it is not that hard to discern someone's class viewpoint based on their writings -- if you know what to look for, that is.

Well, if you are broadcasting where people attend college or their nationalities, then you are doing pig work. Anyone can make up anything about identities on the Internet - it has no baring on the lines being discussed. In any case, it is just more smoke and mirrors from Miles.

Scabs? The white so-called working class is the class enemy. They are exploiters who benefit from imperialism as Maoists have demonstrated in great detail all over the place. Maoists stand with the vast majority who have nothing to lose but their chains. Miles can hurl insults all day, it doesn't change the fact that nobody has been able to disprove the Maoist analysis.


Rich and poor are relative terms -- relative to each other, that is. Compared to the bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie, the proletariat in the U.S. is getting poorer and poorer.

I already said this. And, the numbers back this up. The gap between the amerikan rich and poor is widening, but amerikans are not getting poorer. So what if amerikans are getting poorer compared to the super rich? That is pure dogmatism. Just because the gap between the amerikan poor and amerikan rich is widening does not mean amerikans are being exploited more. That's just dogmatism that assumes that because surplus value is realized in the u$, that the value originated in the u$.


If you worked for a living and had to pay bills, you too might think they had a point. As for "humynitiy", everyone deserves a higher standard of living. That is what communists fight for -- a decent life for everyone.

Yes, everyone has an interest in communism in a long term sense. Everyone will be better under communism in the long term sense. However, that doesn't mean that everyone is going to fight for it and that there are not real class enemies who will oppose us and will need to be suppressed. Amerikans are not exploited, they have no class interest in overthrowing the system. Those who agitate around the interests of labor aristocracy are playing into the hands of the fascists and imperialists. The white labor movement has historically aligned with its own bourgeoisie against First Nations, Blacks, Mexicans, etc. Today, it benefits from imperialism. The amerikkkan working class already has more than its share, in fact, it owes reparations to the rest of humynity.


The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that the ultimate aim of this most bourgeois of all nations would appear to be the possession, alongside the bourgeoisie, of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat. In the case of a nation which exploits the entire world this is, of course, justified to some extent. F. Engels, October 7, 1858 "Letter to Marx"

In the above, like Lenin later, Engels connected imperialist workers being bought off, bourgeoisifcation, to imperialism.


Do they have only their ability to work (their labor-power) to subsist on?

Yes, many do actually. But, so what? Earning a wage or earning a salary does not automatically mean you are exploited, nor does it automatically mean you should be considered proletarian - certainly not in the sense of being revolutionary. Sportsstars and actors sell their labor, it does not mean they are proletarian in any meaningful sense. There is something obviously wrong with the kind of mechanistic analysis that sees sportsstars as proletarian or closer to proletarian than an Indian rickshaw puller who may own his own rickshaw.


"The great mass of so-called 'higher grade' workers—such as state officials, military people, artists, doctors, priests, judges, lawyers, etc.—-some of whom are not only not productive but in essence destructive, but who know how to appropriate to themselves a very great part of the 'material' wealth partly through the sale of their 'immaterial' commodities and partly by forcibly imposing the latter on other people-—found it not at all pleasant to be relegated economically to the same class as clowns and menial servants and to appear merely as people partaking in the consumption, parasites on the actual producers (or rather agents of production). This was a peculiar profanation precisely of those functions which had hitherto been surrounded with a halo and had enjoyed superstitious veneration." ("Vulgarisation of Bourgeois Political Economy in the Definition of Productive Labor" )

The above should show that Marx did not have the simplistic view that Miles has. Marx was willing to call certain wage earners "parasites."




This is a hopelessly anti-Marxian (and thus anti-communist) argument. It ignores the role that circulation of commodities plays in capitalist manufacture -- a role that Marx wrote about extensively in Volume II of Capital.

More dogma and smoke from Miles. If you want to say amerikans are exploited, in the Marxist sense, then you have to show that they are receiving less than the value of their labor power. This requires looking at the things like wages, incomes, benefits, etc. Maoists have approached this question in numerous ways, many are available online. If someone has a better method or arrives at a conclusion other than the one shared by myself and MIM, then I would like to see it. But, merely asserting that amerikans are exploited is not a scientific approach.


In plain English: workers who are in the "service" (circulation) sector are a part of the production process, and are intrinsically linked to their brothers and sisters who produce the commodities.

So what? Some are, some are not. Marx mocked the view that saw every laborer as productive in _Theories of Surplus Value_. But, this is somewhat besides the point. The growth of non-productive sectors points to the level of parasiticism. You are confusing two questions. One is whether amerikans are exploited or not. The other is do they create value or not. I maintain amerikans across the board are not exploited. They receive more than the value of their labor power.

As I said before, the growth of non-productive sectors is an indication of the level of parasiticism. It is not the primary way to point to who is and who is not exploited. The question of exploitation is answered by a calculation. Lenin also notes these same things that MIM has, only, parasiticism has grown by leaps and bounds since Lenin's day.


On this last point, we agree. So, when do you plan to look at the problem in a Marxist way?

More smoke and mirrors from Miles.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Scabs? The white so-called working class is the class enemy. They are exploiters who benefit from imperialism as Maoists have demonstrated in great detail all over the place.

Bullshit! How many white workers choose to have their jobs relocated to Indonesia?

[romanm]

To Severian,

1. One issue in dispute is are amerikans exploited.

2. The other issue was are amerikans getting poorer, which I also have shown they are not. Even if real wages were going down, that would not mean that amerikans were exploited. Nor, would it mean they are getting poorer necesarily. I posted the most relevent statistics to the question of are they getting poorer. This isn't even really isn't in dispute since Miles said they are only getting poorer relative to the the amerikan bourgeoisie. I already said as much.

[Martin Blank]

Originally posted by romanm+Oct 7 2005, 04:00 PM--> (romanm @ Oct 7 2005, 04:00 PM)Well, if you are broadcasting where people attend college or their nationalities, then you are doing pig work. Anyone can make up anything about identities on the Internet - it has no baring on the lines being discussed. In any case, it is just more smoke and mirrors from Miles.

Scabs? The white so-called working class is the class enemy. They are exploiters who benefit from imperialism as Maoists have demonstrated in great detail all over the place. Maoists stand with the vast majority who have nothing to lose but their chains. Miles can hurl insults all day, it doesn't change the fact that nobody has been able to disprove the Maoist analysis.[/b]

As far as I am concerned, MIM is an organization of the class enemy -- either consciously or just by dint of their class background. When you openly side with the U.S. bourgeoisie, which MIM has done, your "leftie pass" is revoked.

As for their "analysis", it has already been disproven. The fact that it bases class on income and not relations to the means of production (a wholly anti-Marxian conception), ignores real wages, and ignores the relationship between production and circulation disproves it from the beginning.


Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 04:00 PM
I already said this. And, the numbers back this up. The gap between the amerikan rich and poor is widening, but amerikans are not getting poorer. So what if amerikans are getting poorer compared to the super rich? That is pure dogmatism. Just because the gap between the amerikan poor and amerikan rich is widening does not mean amerikans are being exploited more. That's just dogmatism that assumes that because surplus value is realized in the u$, that the value originated in the u$.

So, what you're saying is that there is no manufacturing in the U.S., or that no value is added to commodities in the U.S.? You really need to get out of that subdivision.


Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 04:00 PM
The white labor movement has historically aligned with its own bourgeoisie against First Nations, Blacks, Mexicans, etc. Today, it benefits from imperialism. The amerikkkan working class already has more than its share, in fact, it owes reparations to the rest of humynity.

I suggest you take a basic U.S. history class before making an ignorant statement such as the one above.


Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 04:00 PM

The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that the ultimate aim of this most bourgeois of all nations would appear to be the possession, alongside the bourgeoisie, of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat. In the case of a nation which exploits the entire world this is, of course, justified to some extent. F. Engels, October 7, 1858 "Letter to Marx"

In the above, like Lenin later, Engels connected imperialist workers being bought off, bourgeoisifcation, to imperialism.

And your point is? Yes, there are labor aristocrats and "labor lieutenants of capital", as DeLeon put it. But we are not talking about them. We are talking about the masses of working people in this country -- the people who make less-than-subsistence wages working well over 40 hours a week just to have the "privilege" of figuring out whether to feed their family or pay bills. These are the people you sneer at and call "bourgeois".

(By the way, did you actually read the letter from Engels to Marx, or did you just snip that from a MIMmite document?)


Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 04:00 PM
Yes, many do actually [have only their labor-power upon which to survive -- Miles]. But, so what? Earning a wage or earning a salary does not automatically mean you are exploited, nor does it automatically mean you should be considered proletarian - certainly not in the sense of being revolutionary. Sports stars and actors sell their labor, it does not mean they are proletarian in any meaningful sense. There is something obviously wrong with the kind of mechanistic analysis that sees sports stars as proletarian or closer to proletarian than an Indian rickshaw puller who may own his own rickshaw.


"The great mass of so-called 'higher grade' workers—such as state officials, military people, artists, doctors, priests, judges, lawyers, etc.—-some of whom are not only not productive but in essence destructive, but who know how to appropriate to themselves a very great part of the 'material' wealth partly through the sale of their 'immaterial' commodities and partly by forcibly imposing the latter on other people-—found it not at all pleasant to be relegated economically to the same class as clowns and menial servants and to appear merely as people partaking in the consumption, parasites on the actual producers (or rather agents of production). This was a peculiar profanation precisely of those functions which had hitherto been surrounded with a halo and had enjoyed superstitious veneration." ("Vulgarisation of Bourgeois Political Economy in the Definition of Productive Labor" )

The above should show that Marx did not have the simplistic view that Miles has. Marx was willing to call certain wage earners "parasites."

And you might have made a very good point here, except you have no idea what you're quoting or talking about. This paragraph, cited above, loses much of its meaning since it is taken out of context. For example, do you know what the phrase, "clowns and menial servants", refers to?

This passage is taken from a broader discussion Marx was going through regarding the contradiction in Adam Smith's definitions of productive and unproductive labor. Below are the first three paragraphs from this section of Theories of Surplus-Value, titled "Vulgarisation of Bourgeois Political Economy in the Definition of Productive Labour" (with the quoted section in boldface):


"The polemics against Adam Smith's distinction between productive and unproductive labour were for the most part confined to the dii minorum gentium [Gods of the lesser tribes — Ed.] (among whom moreover Storch was the most important); they are not to be found in the work of any economist of significance — of anyone of whom it can be said that he made some discovery in political economy. They are, however, the hobby-horse of the second-rate fellows and especially of the schoolmasterish compilers and writers of compendia, as well as of dilettanti with facile pens and vulgarisers in this field. What particularly aroused these polemics against Adam Smith was the following circumstance.

"The great mass of so-called 'higher grade' workers — such as state officials, military people, artists, doctors, priests, judges, lawyers, etc. — some of whom are not only not productive but in essence destructive, but who know how to appropriate to themselves a very great part of the 'material' wealth partly through the sale of their 'immaterial' commodities and partly by forcibly imposing the latter on other people — found it not at all pleasant to be relegated economically to the same class as clowns and menial servants and to appear merely as people partaking in the consumption, parasites on the actual producers (or rather agents of production). This was a peculiar profanation precisely of those functions which had hitherto been surrounded with a halo and had enjoyed superstitious veneration. Political economy in its classical period, like the bourgeoisie itself in its parvenu period, adopted a severely critical attitude to the machinery of the State, etc. At a later stage it realised and — as was shown too in practice — learnt from experience that the necessity for the inherited social combination of all these classes, which in part were totally unproductive, arose from its own organisation.

"In so far as those 'unproductive labourers' do not produce entertainment, so that their purchase entirely depends on how the agent of production cares to spend his wages or his profit — in so far on the contrary as they are necessary or make themselves necessary because of physical infirmities (like doctors), or spiritual weakness (like parsons), or because of the conflict between private interests and national interests (like statesmen, all lawyers, police and soldiers) — they are regarded by Adam Smith, as by the industrial capitalists themselves and the working class, as incidental expenses of production, which are therefore to be cut down to the most indispensable minimum and provided as cheaply as possible. Bourgeois society reproduces in its own form everything against which it had fought in feudal or absolutist form. In the first place therefore it becomes a principal task for the sycophants of this society, and especially of the upper classes, to restore in theoretical terms even the purely parasitic section of these 'unproductive labourers', or to justify the exaggerated claims of the section which is indispensable. The dependence of the ideological, etc., classes on the capitalists was in fact proclaimed."

Changes the meaning of that passage, doesn't it? Now it is no longer some great proclamation by Marx, but an explanation of the view of certain political economists toward Adam Smith's conception of "unproductive labor".

Romanm's use of the above passage, and the snippet from the letter from Engels to Marx, is part and parcel of the MIM School of Falsification -- which is a rather ramshackle and rundown edifice, if you ask me. They take passages out of context, and ascribe to them a new meaning that fits with their anti-Marxian (anti-communist) theories.

BTW, romanm, about that question I asked earlier, about you reading the Engels-to-Marx letter, no need to respond now. I already know the answer.

Finally, here is how Marx distinguishes between productive and unproductive labor:


"The cook in the hotel produces a commodity for the person who as a capitalist has bought her labour — the hotel proprietor; the consumer of the mutton chops has to pay for her labour, and this labour replaces for the hotel proprietor (apart from profit) the fund out of which he continues to pay the cook. On the other hand if I buy the labour of a cook for her to cook meat, etc., for me, not to make use of it as labour in general but to enjoy it, to use it as that particular concrete kind of labour, then her labour is unproductive, in spite of the fact that this labour fixes itself in a material product and could just as well (in its result) be a vendible commodity, as it in fact is for the hotel proprietor. The great difference (the conceptual difference) however remains: the cook does not replace for me (the private person) the fund from which I pay her, because I buy her labour not as a value-creating element but purely for the sake of its use-value. Her labour as little replaces for me the fund with which I pay for it, that is, her wages, as, for example, the dinner I eat in the hotel in itself enables me to buy and eat the same dinner again a second time. This distinction however is also to be found between commodities. The commodity which the capitalist buys to replace his constant capital (for example, cotton material, if he is a cotton printer) replaces its value in the printed cotton. But if on the other hand he buys it in order to consume the cotton itself, then the commodity does not replace his outlay....

"On the other hand: an entrepreneur of theatres, concerts, brothels, etc., buys the temporary disposal over the labour-power of the actors, musicians, prostitutes, etc. — in fact in a roundabout way that is only of formal economic interest; in its result the process is the same — he buys this so-called 'unproductive labour', whose 'services perish in the very instant of their performance' and do not fix or realise themselves 'any permanent' ('particular' is also used) 'subject or vendible commodity' (apart from themselves). The sale of these to the public provides him with wages and profit. And these services which he has thus bought enable him to buy them again; that is to say, they themselves renew the fund from which they are paid for. The same is true for example of the labour of clerks employed by a lawyer in his office — except for the fact that these services as a rule also embody themselves in very bulky 'particular subjects' in the form of immense bundles of documents.

"It is true that these services are paid for to the entrepreneur out of the revenue of the public. But it is no less true that this holds good of all products in so far as they enter into individual consumption. It is true that the country cannot export these services as such; but it can export those who perform the services. Thus France exports dancing masters, cooks, etc., and Germany schoolmasters. With the export of the dancing master, or the schoolmaster, however, his revenue is also exported, while the export of dancing shoes and books brings a return to the country.

"If therefore on the one hand a part of the so-called unproductive labour embodies itself in material use-values which might just as well be commodities (vendible commodities), so on the other hand a part of the services in the strict sense which assume no objective form — which do not receive an existence as things separate from those performing the services, and do not enter into a commodity as a component part of its value — may be bought with capital (by the immediate purchaser of the labour), may replace their own wages and yield a profit for him. In short, the production of these services can be in part subsumed under capital, just as a part of the labour which embodies itself in useful things is bought directly by revenue and is not subsumed under capitalist production."

(K. Marx, "Adam Smith’s Second Explanation: the View of Productive Labour as Labour Which Is Realised in a Commodity", Ch. 4, Theories of Surplus-Value -- http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works...-value/ch04.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1863/theories-surplus-value/ch04.htm) -- boldface mine)

Incidentally, this is from the section immediately preceding the one romanm takes his little out-of-context snippet from.


Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 04:00 PM
More dogma and smoke from Miles. If you want to say amerikans are exploited, in the Marxist sense, then you have to show that they are receiving less than the value of their labor power. This requires looking at the things like wages, incomes, benefits, etc. Maoists have approached this question in numerous ways, many are available online. If someone has a better method or arrives at a conclusion other than the one shared by myself and MIM, then I would like to see it. But, merely asserting that amerikans are exploited is not a scientific approach.

OK, here's a good example, from a field you imply is chock full of "bourgeoisified workers". A comrade of mine, who is looking over my shoulder and laughing excessively at your ignorance, works at an intermodal railroad yard where they load onto, and unload off of, railcars every day. On an average day, there are 20 workers participating in this activity at various stages. Their labor is collective and social. All together, these workers receive a total of about $2,800 per day (this includes wages and benefits).

Now, every time a cargo container is lifted (either loaded on to, or unloaded off of, a railcar or chassis of a semi tractor trailer) the price is $50. On an average day, in what this comrade describes as a "slow period", about 250 lifts are performed. The value produced per day is $12,500 (250 lifts x $50/lift = $12,500).

You do the math and calculate the rate of exploitation.

And this figure does not include the storage fees charged if the container stays in the railroad yard past its time -- which adds $50 each day for the first four days, and $100 each day after that.


[email protected] 7 2005, 04:00 PM
So what? Some are, some are not. Marx mocked the view that saw every laborer as productive in _Theories of Surplus Value_. But, this is somewhat besides the point. The growth of non-productive sectors points to the level of parasiticism. You are confusing two questions. One is whether amerikans are exploited or not. The other is do they create value or not. I maintain amerikans across the board are not exploited. They receive more than the value of their labor power.

See above.

Miles

P.S.: Message from my comrade, who provided the example, to romanm: "Get a job, yuppie boy! Move out of your parents' house and live in the real world! See how long that MIM shit stands up to reality."

[Erythromycin-diazepam]

I read about this story, this is disgusting i am apauled.

[Commie Rat]

Yeah support the troops

[KC]

The white so-called working class is the class enemy. They are exploiters who benefit from imperialism as Maoists have demonstrated in great detail all over the place.

Racist.


Maoists stand with the vast majority who have nothing to lose but their chains.

So white people can't belong to this group because they're "exploiters"?


The gap between the amerikan rich and poor is widening, but amerikans are not getting poorer.

Nowhere is "getting poorer" according to your analysis.


Just because the gap between the amerikan poor and amerikan rich is widening does not mean amerikans are being exploited more.

They're still being exploited.


Amerikans are not exploited, they have no class interest in overthrowing the system.

Not yet, of course. This is a rather racist statement as well.


The white labor movement has historically aligned with its own bourgeoisie against First Nations, Blacks, Mexicans, etc.

Oh? Back this up with some evidence.


Today, it benefits from imperialism.

How?


The amerikkkan working class already has more than its share, in fact, it owes reparations to the rest of humynity.

1. If you're a communist, you believe that people shouldn't be judged by the conditions they're born into.
2. You judge the american working class by the conditions they're born into.
3. You're not a communist.




In the above, like Lenin later, Engels connected imperialist workers being bought off, bourgeoisifcation, to imperialism.

The workers are never the enemy. Like Chomsky said, you have as much chance of being a gas chamber attendant as the rest of us. People aren't the problem; it is the ideas that are. Once you start looking at people as the problem, then this idea has corrupted you.




Yes, many do actually. But, so what?

What do you mean, so what?! And you call yourself a communist?! You're a joke!


Earning a wage or earning a salary does not automatically mean you are exploited, nor does it automatically mean you should be considered proletarian - certainly not in the sense of being revolutionary.

A proletarian is someone who doesn't own the means of production; i.e. someone who lives off of a wage. Earning a wage does automatically mean you are exploited. If this wasn't true then the business that the employee is working for would go out of business; they wouldn't be making any profit.


Sportsstars and actors sell their labor, it does not mean they are proletarian in any meaningful sense.

If they own the means of production, they are bourgeois. If not, they are proletarian.


There is something obviously wrong with the kind of mechanistic analysis that sees sportsstars as proletarian or closer to proletarian than an Indian rickshaw puller who may own his own rickshaw.


An indian rickshaw puller is a peasant.



The above should show that Marx did not have the simplistic view that Miles has. Marx was willing to call certain wage earners "parasites."

Where?


If you want to say amerikans are exploited, in the Marxist sense, then you have to show that they are receiving less than the value of their labor power. This requires looking at the things like wages, incomes, benefits, etc.

:lol:

It certainly doesn't. If the company they are working for is making a profit, they are being exploited. Profit is what is determined by supply and demand.


But, merely asserting that amerikans are exploited is not a scientific approach.


It is if you have any common sense.


Marx mocked the view that saw every laborer as productive in _Theories of Surplus Value_.

Could you provide a quote and a link?



1. One issue in dispute is are amerikans exploited.


And the answer is yes. And the evidence is one simple word: profit.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2005, 02:23 PM
Even if real wages were going down,...
Nor, would it mean they are getting poorer necesarily.
What? If I'm earning less real money, then I'm poorer. By definition. End of discussion.

[I Watch The Watchers]

I also disagree with the MIM spelling of America. I can spell it correctly, and consider myself leftist and revolutionary because when I see Americans at protests they aren't trading images of their own destruction for porn, they're protesting, just like me. I tend to think of Real Americans as being the ones who disagree with Bush, who actively oppose war, who would (if educated on the issues) be up for a revolution. I don't know if those people represent a majority but I think they are the authentic Americans: the ones who heard that their country was supposed to be a place of Freedom and put that to the test by calling their Government's bluff when it came it workers rights, civil rights, women's rights. All we need to do is make these people understand the poor track record of the US foreign policy, the fact that women, minorities, and the working class (which certainly does still exist) are still not free of all oppression and they will become active because they want to live in a free country which creates freedom, not slavery, throughout the world.

[romanm]

So, what you're saying is that there is no manufacturing in the U.S., or that no value is added to commodities in the U.S.? You really need to get out of that subdivision.

No. I'm not saying that at all. As I already said, I don't think amerikans are, generally, exploited whether employeed in the non-productive or productive sector. The size of the un-productive secotr is indicates how huge the parasiticism is. It points to the fact that the vlaue creation that drives the economy for the most part is comming from somewhere else, the third world. I have already said as much, so I don't see any reason to keep repeating this. The question of exploitation is one which can be answered by a caluclation - as MIM and other have done in numberous places.

As for the history of the white labor movement, anyone who is interested in the white supreamacist history of the u$ labor movement can check out John Sakai's book, _Settlers: the mythology of the white proletariat_. White labor was often at the forefront of white supreamacy. Just as the white labor aristocracy supports imperialism for the most part today.

The reason I cited the paragraph by Marx was did not share your simplistic view that all wage earners are necessarily the same. I could have cited others. Earning a wage is not the same thing as being proletarian as you seemed to be claiming earlier. But, since you seem to agree with me now. The point doesn't really matter. The question is how much exploitation there is in the u$; how big the labor aristocracy is.

As far as your example, it is flawed. It asumes that just because capital is realized at point x, it was created there. Just because a cashier sells a coffee at starbuch's doesn't mean the value is being created there. They aren't growing beans in the back of the starbuch's. Just because your transport worker is involved in the realization process of capital does not mean he is adding value nor does it mean he is more exploited because capital is being realized in an imperialist country. I have already stated this before. Please don't waste both of our time.