Marx, Engels, Lenin and the labor aristocracy [Archive]

26th July 2007, 12:19

Wow, I've only been away for a week and a half and Revleft has adopted a line RESTRICTING ALL LENINISTS.

I say you all RESTRICTING ALL LENINISTS because while MIM has many very very stupid lines, some of which are just disagreeable (Khrushchev restored capitalism, Stalin was brilliant, Social imperialism exists, Cuba isn't socialist) and at least one i think makes it a rightwing idenitarian feminist rather than leftist organisation (all sex is rape under patriarchy)...

...however the belief that Labour Aristocracy in imperialist states benefit from the super-profits of the exploited third world international proletariat, and that its possible for the majority of people socially classified as 'working class' in a financial export based economy to be, in marxist terms, labour aristocrats and not proletarian, is not something they came up with, its something that Marx and Engel's and Lenin came up with. I *may* be mistaken (and for that matter, so may Marcel), but i believe that this theory a theory adopted by all three of the main founders of Marxist and Leninist theory, is all that MIM's line actually amounts to. In fact, what MIM says about American workers is (unless i don't understand MIM's line properly) is functionally identical to what Engel's said about English workers, and what Lenin said was the case about English workers for a time but not in the period he was writing (likewise, MIM does not as i understand it, think that *all* workers in the geographic boarders of the United States are net-exploiters, they don't think that about latinos for instance they just don't classify them as white american nationals given their Maoist understanding of nationality).

We need to decide, either,

1. How is MIM's position actually different from Marx, Engels, and Lenin's position.

2. If MIM's position is in fact different, then Marcel must be unrestricted as Marcel surely has Lenin's position and not MIM's position as he is a Leninist and not a member of MIM (although in fairness i haven't read the recent coorespondence since i'm in Germany atm and not online often).

3. Otherwise, this will in affect amount to restricting all Marxists who uphold Engels economic writings and his writings on England and all Leninists. Revleft would be a website for the 'revolutionary left' which would restrict the three most important founders of revolutionary leftism based on an essential part of the theory of finance capital and imperialism. In short, it would reduce revleft to a social democratic website.

We need to recognize that Marxism and Leninism are not 'opposing ideologies', it is actually the majority of the revolutionary left, and that advocating Lenin's theories and applying them to contemporary economics is not 'anti-worker' it is in favour of the international proletariat against imperialism, something that entails recognizing the relatively privileged place that people in the cultural (not economic) "working class" of some countries hold compared to others and that the reason for this is imperialism. If people in the CC don't understand marxist economics enough to get this it doesn't mean that Engel's and Lenin and Marcel are 'anti-worker' it simply means that the CC is not up to the level of marxist education that it should be.

Further, it needs to be understood that the international proletariat, that is to say the class recognized by Marx as the class with the ability to transform society through social revolution, the class which Communists support, has a very specific economic definition. It is defined by creating surplus value through labour (not merely working at any job for a wage, then CEO's would count), so that they are paid a smaller value in capital than they produce. This overlaps with but is not identical to the bourgeois cultural definition of "working class" or "middle class" or "lower class" (which might have more to do with someones accent and educational background than their percise relationship to the economy). I believe (and assume this can be verified if he's asked) that Marcel, as Leninist, was refering to the cultural "working class" which also includes labour aristocrats and people engaged in some forms of non-productive work, and not the international proletarian as it is defined in Marxian economics (clearly some of the later exist in America, it is not however clear that they constitute more than 50% of the white anglo population, to determine this would require not abstract faith in the fact but a detailed analysis of the american politicaleconomy, something out of the scale of this thread).

I probably wont be able to respond to this topic until saturday.

Led Zeppelin

26th July 2007, 13:09

All Leninists are not being restricted, only the people who support the MIM line, which is utterly stupid anyway.

Hiero

26th July 2007, 13:12

Only thoose who remind people of thier real position in the world.

RNK

26th July 2007, 13:17

This has absolutely nothing to do with the MIM line and everything about the CC's hard-on for itself and disgust at anyone who would question its glory. Case in point, I'm still here, despite the fact that I have taken up the same position as Marcel. I just haven't made as many "waves" as him.

chimx

26th July 2007, 13:39

Originally posted by Leninism
[T]he exploitation of oppressed nations—which is inseparably connected with annexations—and especially the exploitation of colonies by a handful of “Great” Powers, increasingly transforms the “civilised” world into a parasite on the body of hundreds of millions in the uncivilised nations. The Roman proletarian lived at the expense of society. Modern society lives at the expense of the modern proletarian. Marx specially stressed this profound observation of Sismondi. Imperialism somewhat changes the situation. A privileged upper stratum of the proletariat in the imperialist countries lives partly at the expense of hundreds of millions in the uncivilised nations.

This is the MIM line.

Now, Sandy and Glory extended this position so as to assert that all workers in imperialist nations were parasitic and living off the backs of colonial nations. They were extremely anti-worker.

It was their trolling of American workers that should have been the reason for their restriction, not any (misrepresentation) of MIM positions.

Led Zeppelin

26th July 2007, 13:56

Lenin's line is not the same as the MIM line. I myself believe that there is a labor aristocracy in the imperialist nations, so what? I don't claim that ALL workers are part of it, which is what MIM does, or at least, they say the service sector workers are.

Lenin would never have claimed something that ridiculous, on the contrary, he always said that the succes of the revolution in Russia was dependent on a revolution in an advanced capitalist nation, and in the end he was proven to be correct.

chimx

26th July 2007, 14:04

Lenin said that due to the nature of imperialism, revolution could not be initiated in an imperialist nation because capitalism pacifies workers by increasing their standard of living (i.e.: reducing their degree of exploitation) due to the financial gains of exploiting colonial states.

Now, he may not have called them the labor aristocracy at the time, but he did imply that there was a "parasitic" relationship between workers in the first world and workers in the third world--due to the nature of capitalism.

And as TC suggests, the development of capitalism has continued since Lenin's demise. Imperialism has expanded and the economy of the first world has continued to grow. It isn't such an absurd thought to think that Lenin may have argued a line similar to proper MIM's (who do not attack all western workers) had he witnessed the subsequent developments of capitalism. (though hopefully he would have utilized fewer "$"s and "KKK"s in his writings).

Led Zeppelin

26th July 2007, 14:10

Did you even bother reading my post? Lenin actually DID call them labor aristocrats, but he was only referring to the top layer of the proletariat, that is, the union leaders, social-democrats etc. not the whole class.

And also Lenin always claimed that revolution in a backward nation could never work unless an advanced nation joined in, they were relying on the German proletariat. And yeah I know you can find some quotes of him saying that socialism in one country is possible, but please don't go down that path of Stalinist bullshit.

chimx

26th July 2007, 14:30

I know what Lenin said, and he stole that term from Bakunin. But he also said that the general civilized population saw a reduction of exploitation due to the gains made by colonial super-exploitation. For example, Lenin says, "monopoly yields superprofits, i.e., a surplus of profits over and above the capitalist profits that are normal and customary all over the world. The capitalists can devote a part (and not a small one, at that!) of these superprofits to bribe their own workers, to create something like an alliance . . . between the workers of the given nation and their capitalists against the other countries."

This is why revolution had to begin in the colonial nation and was impossible to begin in the imperial nation. One of the primary criticisms of Marxist-Leninism is the assertion that workers in imperialist nations still have the potential for class consciousness and labor militancy for Pete's sake!

Now of course Lenin said that for the revolution in the colonial nation to succeed, revolution would have to eventually start in the imperialist nation(s) also. Pre-capitalist or proto-capitalist countries such as Russia were incapable of making the jump towards communism because capitalism had not been allowed to run its course. Lenin suggests that revolution in a colonial country (e.g. russia) could spark revolution abroad (e.g. germany). He also suggests an alternative path, that colonial nations can successful revolt from their imperialist yoke and federate amongst themselves while the imperialist capitalist system remains intact (e.g. the USSR).

All of this is basic, and not at all inherently contradictory to the MIM-line.

Led Zeppelin

26th July 2007, 14:32

chimx

26th July 2007, 14:41

Yeah, and MIM claims that no such thing can happen, in fact they claim that the third world should all unite against the imperialist nations and turn them into "one big gulag" or some shit to that effect.

Well Lenin suggested that colonial nations revolt and federate amongst themselves to fight imperial capitalism. See my above comments regarding Lenin's solutions. I haven't read any MIM literature regarding forcing workers in gulags though. Perhaps you could provide me with quotations from MIM publications?

And that term wasn't taken from Bakunin, it was taken from Engels.

Bakunin coined it in 1872:

To me the flower of the proletariat is not, as it is to the Marxists, the upper layer, the aristocracy of labor, those who are the most cultured, who earn more and live more comfortably than all other workers. link (http://a4a.mahost.org/bak1.html) (though I have seen other translations that didn't use the term "aristocracy", so who knows, it isn't that important.)

Edelweiss

26th July 2007, 14:42

I think the real problem is the trollish behaviour of the recently restricted MIM supporters, and also it's the MIM position to generally reject the existence of a working class and therefore of class struggle in western, imperialists nations, which is a ridiculous position to take, which results has nothing but reactionary conclusions. The fact that the western proletariat is living partly on the costs of the underdeveloped nations is obvious, and to take this position is in no way a reason for restriction.

However, I'm against a general rule in banning all supporters of the MIM line, especially in the case of Marcel. Like I have said many times, we shouldn't make the CC some political sect with it's own party line, and we should we very careful with general rules what position are "outlawed" here, and we always should have case by case decisions, this is pretty essential for me. Marcel obviously is involved in class struggle action in Canada like the ARA, and therefore shouldn't be restricted, at least not without a dedicated vote on him, so I have unrestricted him for now.

chimx

26th July 2007, 14:55

I think the real problem is the trollish behaviour of the recently restricted MIM supporters

Exactly. Unfortunately, while the poll primarily dealt with the trollish behavior of the members, the wording of the poll had nothing to do with the member's behavior, but rather their supposed ideological alliances to the Maoist International Movement. Would such a poll have even passed has Sandy and Glory not been around? I doubt it very much.

it's the MIM position to generally reject the existence of a working class and therefore of class struggle in western, imperialists nations, which is a ridiculous position to take, which results has nothing but reactionary conclusions.

The MIM organization RAIL has fought for worker rights in the US, though it has been directed mainly to immigrant labor. See for example this (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/rail/forever21.html).

Hiero

26th July 2007, 15:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 12:32 am
Yeah, and MIM claims that no such thing can happen, in fact they claim that the third world should all unite against the imperialist nations and turn them into "one big gulag" or some shit to that effect.

And that term wasn't taken from Bakunin, it was taken from Engels.
Well I would assume that is topic up for debate inside MIM. Like a lot of parties we don't know inner political debates and struggles that occur in the party. MIM do not have a definite answer, this is seen on the forum IRTR who draw alot of their politics from MIM. It has at times been a topic up for debate, what happens to imperialist nations after 3rd world liberation.

One scenario that is discused is infact revolution in the imperialist nations after their defeat. This is a popular idea, and MIM take this position from Lin Biao, the idea of 3rd world nations circling the imperialist nations like the Chinese communist who circled the cities. After the imperialist lose their neo-colonies they can not pay their "house workers" a decent wage, thus they become "reproleteriatised" and fight against their home bourgeios.

The other scenario is 3rd world invade the imperialist nations. Now this is not as crazy as it sounds. In 1945 the USSR had completed their invasion of an imperialist nation and began reorganizing the country on their terms. Lets face it, the imperialists, especially USA have invaded probally more nations than Nazi Germany. If these nations were capable, like the USSR, USA and Britain in WW2, they would have a long time ago invaded and destroyed the threat.

When the 3rd world nations liberate themselves from imperialism it may be necessary for them to invade and disarm the imperialists. Then to sustain that intervention and to turn the imperialist nations into Socialist Republics it may be neccessary to create gulags to destroy counter revolution.

Thoose are the two positions I get from MIM. With the way things have played out, there being actually succesfull revolutions and attempts at revolution in the 3rd world and very little revolutionary activity of the working class nature in the 1st world, both positions should not be taken lightly and should seriously theorised.

Vanguard1917

26th July 2007, 16:05

3. Otherwise, this will in affect amount to restricting all Marxists who uphold Engels economic writings and his writings on England and all Leninists. Revleft would be a website for the 'revolutionary left' which would restrict the three most important founders of revolutionary leftism based on an essential part of the theory of finance capital and imperialism. In short, it would reduce revleft to a social democratic website.

You're claiming that the position of Marx, Engels and Lenin is somehow similar to the MIM line (which is that most white Amerikkkans are members of the labour aristocracy and thus reactionary), but you haven't shown this.

Care to provide links and quotes to back up this assertion? Because from my reading, MIM's line bears no substantial resemblance (it may bear superficial resemblance) whatsoever to what either Marx, Engels or Lenin had to say on this matter.

Janus

26th July 2007, 16:45

Since it was Severian who originally proposed this rule, I seriously doubt that it was his intention to restrict all Leninists.

I'm not exactly sure if SandyAnon and Glory To Bethune were actually MIM members though the site that they both link to seem to indicate that they are not:

Originally posted by MSH site

MSH’s outlook was influenced by the writings of “M”IM. However, MSH considers “M”IM to presently be a revisionist organization that, consciously or not, out of sheer ineptitude or not, has carried and continues to carry out wrecking activities and pig-work against the revolutionary movement. MSH finds it unlikely that “M”IM can mend its ways.

I'm not exactly sure what MIM's official line concerning labor aristocracies is, but it doesn't reallly matter since the MIM members/supporters who do show up on this site not only believe in a labor aristocracy but additionally think that all 1st world workers are not exploited at all and are in fact enemies of the 3rd world working class. SandyAnon and GTB took this further in placing all Americans as bourgeois and calling for their destruction. Obviously, this goes a bit further than a simple line recognizing a labor aristocracy; something which this new rule was clearly not meant to refer to.

Vargha Poralli

26th July 2007, 17:11

Originally posted by MSH
MSH’s outlook was influenced by the writings of “M”IM. However, MSH considers “M”IM to presently be a revisionist organization that, consciously or not, out of sheer ineptitude or not, has carried and continues to carry out wrecking activities and pig-work against the revolutionary movement. MSH finds it unlikely that “M”IM can mend its ways.

Well any way MIM's line is good for this only IMO. By totally disconnecting from the proletariats in the countries they live - along with the class struggle they are just mudslinging amongst themselves - now they themselves are called revisionists by another group.

Axel1917

26th July 2007, 18:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 01:04 pm
Lenin said that due to the nature of imperialism, revolution could not be initiated in an imperialist nation because capitalism pacifies workers by increasing their standard of living (i.e.: reducing their degree of exploitation) due to the financial gains of exploiting colonial states.

Now, he may not have called them the labor aristocracy at the time, but he did imply that there was a "parasitic" relationship between workers in the first world and workers in the third world--due to the nature of capitalism.

And as TC suggests, the development of capitalism has continued since Lenin's demise. Imperialism has expanded and the economy of the first world has continued to grow. It isn't such an absurd thought to think that Lenin may have argued a line similar to proper MIM's (who do not attack all western workers) had he witnessed the subsequent developments of capitalism. (though hopefully he would have utilized fewer "$"s and "KKK"s in his writings).
This is pure nonsense. Why then did Lenin repeatedly stress the need for revolution in the advanced nations to save the Russian Revolution. Why then did a revolution happen in an imperialist country like Germany? Why did he bother writing a letter to American workers? The list goes on and on.

Your stance is based on misconceptions. As Leninism already explained, Lenin was referring to top level union bureaucrats and the like, not ordinary workers. Most workers in the US have wages that, after adusting for inflation, are stagnating at best, and many wages are in fact dropping. While this happpens to ordinary workers like myself, the hacks at the tops of the unions like Jimmy Hoffa Jr. are getting CEO sized salaries. Life itself clearly proves that Lenin was referring to top level union bureaucrats and the like.

The MIM and Leninism have nothing in common. In fact, I personally think that the MIM line isn't really Stalinist, but rather some ultra-reactionary pseudo Stalinist cult-like thing .

I don't understand how Tragic Clown can call this the "restriction of all Leninists" when in fact only MIM types (anti-Leninist to the core!) have been restricted.

Palmares

26th July 2007, 18:29

Well, if all environmentalists are going to be banned, i guess its fair all the lennists are.

NOTE: I am kidding.

chimx

26th July 2007, 19:09

This is pure nonsense. Why then did Lenin repeatedly stress the need for revolution in the advanced nations to save the Russian Revolution. Why then did a revolution happen in an imperialist country like Germany? Why did he bother writing a letter to American workers?

Again, for the countless time, because Lenin thought that by poking a hole in the imperialist grasp of the colonial world, it could trigger revolution in the imperialist world. Lenin felt that the Russian Revolution was such a hole.

Your stance is based on misconceptions. As Leninism already explained, Lenin was referring to top level union bureaucrats and the like, not ordinary workers.

Well if you read Lenin, union bureaucrats are included in the aristocracy, but he doesn't limit the aristocracy to union bureaucrats, otherwise he would have just said that and saved everyone from the semantical word games. Rather, he meant any worker whose pay exceeded the value of his labor, given the fact that he lists the follow examples of the labor aristocracy in 1916:

And how this little sop [labor aristocracy] is divided among the labour ministers, “labour representatives” (remember Engels’s splendid analysis of the term), labour members of War Industries Committees, labour officials, workers belonging to the narrow craft unions, office employees, etc., etc., is a secondary question.

My emphasis. The inclusion of office employees is quite significant, as it clearly shows he doesn't want to limit his analysis to union representatives.

Axel1917

26th July 2007, 23:02

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 06:09 pm

My emphasis. The inclusion of office employees is quite significant, as it clearly shows he doesn't want to limit his analysis to union representatives.

Again, for the countless time, because Lenin thought that by poking a hole in the imperialist grasp of the colonial world, it could trigger revolution in the imperialist world. Lenin felt that the Russian Revolution was such a hole.

He never arbitrarily tried to state such a thing. It was pointed out that capitalism had arrived too late in Russia to play a progressive role, and that only socialist revolution could take Russia forward, and it would provide a spark in the imperialist nations. Russia was not a mere experiment; the revolution was a product of necessity.

Well if you read Lenin, union bureaucrats are included in the aristocracy, but he doesn't limit the aristocracy to union bureaucrats, otherwise he would have just said that and saved everyone from the semantical word games. Rather, he meant any worker whose pay exceeded the value of his labor, given the fact that he lists the follow examples of the labor aristocracy in 1916:

And how this little sop [labor aristocracy] is divided among the labour ministers, “labour representatives” (remember Engels’s splendid analysis of the term), labour members of War Industries Committees, labour officials, workers belonging to the narrow craft unions, office employees, etc., etc., is a secondary question.

I don't know about upper office workers, but times have changed. It could very well be that offices workers back in those days, with days of lower literacy and perhaps seeming more specialized. Secretaries and the like don't make very much. Either that or you are taking an isolated quotation out of context. This would not be the first time you have done such a thing.

I do need to reread his works on imperialism to refresh my memory as well. Regardless, Lenin never classified it in the same way as the MIM does, so why don't you knock off your pathetic attempts at witch hunting? Someone that isn't even supposed to be in the CC and in an anti-worker cult is in no position to decide of Leninists should be allowed or not.

Labor Shall Rule

27th July 2007, 00:32

Lenin, in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, wrote that since Russia was the weakest chain in the imperialist link, it's victory was only ensured through a victory in the imperialist countries. In other words, he predicted a failure of the revolution far before any of the other Bolsheviks did; it was through this formulation, that “only after the complete world victory of the proletariat and the consolidation of its world power will there ensue a prolonged epoch of intense construction of world socialist economy.” This is what seperates ourselves from MIM - while we expose the real roots of the crisis and foster working class solidarity, they are full of idealistic and utopian venom, and are disconnected from material reality.

I don't think anyone has denied the existence of a labor aristocracy; through their excess capital, they had the capability to bribe certain sections of the working class through their welfare schemes and the fueling of a trade union bureaucracy in order to cool down the strength and independence of the workers' movement. However, this is not an excuse to denounce the class struggle; with the collapse of the social safety net, a rise in the cost of housing, and a universal lowering of wages, we can expect the flames of these antagonisms to arise again, so we can afford to denounce working with 'Amerikkkan' workers.

Besides, they were trolls, they certainly did not deserve to be called 'Leninists'.

bezdomni

27th July 2007, 01:36

I agree with Malte. A blanket rule against MIMites is stupid.

Nothing Human Is Alien

27th July 2007, 02:31

Amerikkkans, Britons, Kanadians, and so on are part of the GLOBAL bourgeoisie. Some rude person recently accused me of being "anti-worker" without even bothering to formulate his argument, but actually I am extremely pro-worker. The key issue here is that Amerikkkan "workers" are part of the global bourgeoisie and the global ruling class.

Almost sounds like something Lenin himself wrote, huh? :rolleyes:

RNK

27th July 2007, 03:09

Do you disagree that the vast majority of American workers would, if revolution arrived tomorrow, pick up arms side-by-side with their bourgeois ruling class masters and defend the capitalist way of life? Do you honestly have such a skewed, idealist vision of the state of the west that you can't see that? All the MIM has done is point this fact out, and propose that these "worker-traitors" who do side with capitalism need to be fought, mainly ideologically but also physically -- capitalism's army is not made up of millionaires in business suits who will flow over the hills and through the forests with assault rifles in their Gucci dress shoes. No, capitalism's armies are made up of workers, ordinary folk like you and I, who believe in the capitalist way of life and will fight and probably die for it. Do you propose we do nothing, then? That faced with the fact that we will have to face "proletarians" who hate every fiber of our being, we shoud lie down and curl into a ball and give up the fight before it starts? Russia's White Army was made up almost entirely of peasants and proletarians -- was the communists' move against them anti-worker as well?

Take your head out of your ass.

chimx

27th July 2007, 03:14

Originally posted by Axel1917+--> (Axel1917)I don't know about upper office workers[/b]

Clearly. And Lenin never said anything about "upper" office workers. He only said "officer workers".

Originally posted by [email protected]
Someone that isn't even supposed to be in the CC and in an anti-worker cult is in no position to decide of Leninists should be allowed or not.

Well if you can't win an argument by providing contrary evidence, you can always resort to throwing sticks and stones. Lucky for me I had a lot of calcium when I was a youngster. I would add that all threads suggesting my removal from the CC have been closed for being baseless, you are more than welcome to try again if you feel so inclined though.

RedDali
Lenin, in Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, wrote that since Russia was the weakest chain in the imperialist link, it's victory was only ensured through a victory in the imperialist countries. In other words, he predicted a failure of the revolution far before any of the other Bolsheviks did; it was through this formulation, that “only after the complete world victory of the proletariat and the consolidation of its world power will there ensue a prolonged epoch of intense construction of world socialist economy.” This is what seperates ourselves from MIM - while we expose the real roots of the crisis and foster working class solidarity, they are full of idealistic and utopian venom, and are disconnected from material reality.

I agree with what you are saying about Lenin's stance, and this is what I was trying to explain. Lenin felt revolution must begin in the colonial world, but would collapse if it didn't trigger revolution in the imperialist world.

As far as the distinction between Marxists-Leninists proper and MIM folk, I certainly understand where you are coming from, but I think the process of developing class struggle in an imperialist country is more complicated than what you are letting on--or so some Leninists could argue. If workers have been pacified through a decrease in exploitation, then it is through the destruction of capitalist super-profits that this "bribery", to use Lenin's term, could stop operating--thus politicizing a pacified workforce. So perhaps they are being venomous to a workforce that would eventually turn to a class consciousness more in sync with Marxist though, but I don't really see anything that is extremely different from Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy.

RNK

27th July 2007, 03:22

There isn't. If the MIM line is guilty of anything, it is being a little too harsh -- nothing more. They are simply pointing out the parasitic nature that western workers have with capitalism, and the parasitic nature of the capitalist system on the innumerably larger world proletariat -- and proposing that we can not simply sit here and wait for workers to politicize themselves (which may never happen considering the effort to do so by most contemporary communists) and rise up against the system that they are, at this moment, completely compliant to.

chimx

27th July 2007, 03:25

Why is it that an anarchist has to clarify these things? I feel like a traitor to my cause! :D

edit add: also, this has been a fun discussion. perhaps a mod or admin could split this into theory when the discussion is done?

Vanguard1917

27th July 2007, 03:43

Do you disagree that the vast majority of American workers would, if revolution arrived tomorrow, pick up arms side-by-side with their bourgeois ruling class masters and defend the capitalist way of life?

If 'revolution arrived tomorrow' in America (who is making this hypothetical 'revolution'?), it would not be successful unless it had the support of the masses of the American people. Otherwise, it's not really a revolution, is it?

And whether or not the American working class can be won over to a revolutionary socialist programme is a subjective problem, as well as an objective one. In this sense, whether a working class is revolutionary or not depends on the active intervention of revolutionary activists - the 'subjective element', if you like. (Of course, no one understood this better, and emphasised it more, than Lenin and the Bolsheviks.)

In other words, MIM's claim that the bulk of the American working class cannot be revolutionary absolves them (rather conveniently) from their own responsibility - as communists - to raise the class consciousness of the American working class.

You cannot write off the working class in the country where you are active, and still call yourself a communist. This is simply because being a communist - by definition - involves intervention in objective, material circumstances.

There are no ready-made movements in society. It's up to activists to create them. The task of communism requires effort, to paraphrase Lenin.

-------

BTW, the US is now a net importer of capital. How does this fit into our analysis of imperialism today?

Axel1917

27th July 2007, 03:52

Clearly. And Lenin never said anything about "upper" office workers. He only said "officer workers".

And again, I will have to reread it sometime (it has been a couple of years, and I was pretty busy back then with college - may not have retained anything.). I am not sure of the position of all office workers today, but this classification may no longer apply; I do know that secretaries in the school districts often make less than janitors.

Although regardless, most workers in the US don't fall into the "labor aristocracy" category. Very few of them are gaining anything. Most are losing wages (or stagnating at best after inflation is accounted for.).

Well if you can't win an argument by providing contrary evidence, you can always resort to throwing sticks and stones. Lucky for me I had a lot of calcium when I was a youngster. I would add that all threads suggesting my removal from the CC have been closed for being baseless, you are more than welcome to try again if you feel so inclined though.

Have you even read works by Lenin about the importance of other revolutions, broad agreement with Trotsky's theory of permanent revolution, etc.?

Yeah, so you are here. Then again, the CC is also 100% broken.

What really annoyed me by your post was not the labor aristocracy point you made, but rather the nonsense that Leninism=MIM and therefore they should all be expelled from the CC.

I agree with what you are saying about Lenin's stance, and this is what I was trying to explain. Lenin felt revolution must begin in the colonial world, but would collapse if it didn't trigger revolution in the imperialist world.

I don't know about this. More like Russia was not capable of advancing under captialism, as it came too late to play a progressive role, and therefore capitalism naturally broke at its weakest link. A successful internationalist based revolution in any country can have an effect on the advanced ones. There is less room for concessions in the Third World, and that is why they tend to be more prone to revolution first.

Although Germany, an advanced one, did come before China, for instance. The whole "it will all be 3rd World first" is extremely mechanical. In fact, many revolutionary events have happened in Europe. They were all put down, though, with the exception of the USSR, or derailed by the leadership.

As far as the distinction between Marxists-Leninists proper and MIM folk, I certainly understand where you are coming from, but I think the process of developing class struggle in an imperialist country is more complicated than what you are letting on--or so some Leninists could argue. If workers have been pacified through a decrease in exploitation, then it is through the destruction of capitalist super-profits that this "bribery", to use Lenin's term, could stop operating--thus politicizing a pacified workforce. So perhaps they are being venomous to a workforce that would eventually turn to a class consciousness more in sync with Marxist though, but I don't really see anything that is extremely different from Marxist-Leninist orthodoxy.

I don't like the term "orthodox," as it is often used by ultra-lefts that reject Leninism/Trotskyism. But regardless, the class struggle does develop at different paces, and conditions can change quickly. As unequal and backward as the US is compared to Europe, it could very well have a revolutionary situation before a good deal of the rest of the world.

chimx

27th July 2007, 04:10

What really annoyed me by your post was not the labor aristocracy point you made, but rather the nonsense that Leninism=MIM and therefore they should all be expelled from the CC.

TC made that conclusion, and I simply agreed with it. Our point is that if you follow the arguments to their logical conclusions, this could be a basis for the restriction of Leninists, because the belief under attack that the Maoist Internationalist Movement holds is a very simple extension of Leninist thought.

orthodox

I use the term as it was meant to be used, free from condescension.

RevSouth

27th July 2007, 05:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 07:36 pm
I agree with Malte. A blanket rule against MIMites is stupid.
This is the bottom line for me.

Vargha Poralli

27th July 2007, 05:41

chimx

Your bullshit Association of MIM's line with Lenin and Leninism is well refuted in this thread. (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62028) I don't know why are you doing it again.

Severian

27th July 2007, 05:43

Originally posted by [email protected] 26, 2007 05:19 am

...however the belief that Labour Aristocracy in imperialist states benefit from the super-profits of the exploited third world international proletariat, and that its possible for the majority of people socially classified as 'working class' in a financial export based economy to be, in marxist terms, labour aristocrats and not proletarian, is not something they came up with, its something that Marx and Engel's and Lenin came up with. I *may* be mistaken (and for that matter, so may Marcel), but i believe that this theory a theory adopted by all three of the main founders of Marxist and Leninist theory,
You're mistaken. Badly mistaken.

MiM is a bunch of crazy people. No other organization calling itself "Leninist" would touch their bizarre line with a ten-foot pole. That includes the RCP and other U.S. Maoist organizations. Let alone Marx, Engels, and Lenin.

Lenin did argue there was a certain layer of labor aristocrats - as the name implies, the best-off part of the working class, skilled trades and so forth. Who, he argued, were a base of support for the labor bureaucracy and social-democratic misleadership. Including the social-democratic leaders' support for imperialism. The kernel of this idea can be found in one letter by Engels.

That's a long way from the MiMites scab line of saying workers are "overpaid" and opposing our strikes, calling everyone racist, etc. Lenin didn't take this attitude even towards the narrow labor aristocracy he described - didn't treat them as automatically deadly enemies, rather as privileged workers with a marked tendency towards reformism.

Contrary to Chimx's nonsense, Lenin in fact hoped revolutions in Germany and points west would rapidly follow the Russian Revolution - and attempted revolutions did. These massive upsurges were contained or put down, however, so pragmatically there was a certain shift of emphasis towards the colonial revolts which were beginning to erupt. But as any look at the history of the Communist International in Lenin's time will show, it continued to assist Communist Parties in the imperialist countries to operate as part of the mass workers' movement, preparing for new revolutionary upsurges in the medium term. (And in fact those opportunities did arrive in the 1930s....and were sabotaged by the Stalintern.)

I've pointed this out to Chimx before, of course, so he must know that he's posting nonsense. Trolling a bit, Chimx? In any case it's like a united front of the board's most useless members, Clown and Chimx, "authoritarian" and "anti-authoritarian", to misrepresent Lenin as a MiM-like crazy person or Clown-like, well, clown. A suggestion: whether you agree or disagree with Lenin, don't assume he's stupid or attribute completely idiotic and ahistorical ideas to him.

I made the proposal, I'm usually labelled "Leninist" and I have no problem with that - and I certainly wasn't proposing to restrict myself. In fact, it doesn't automatically apply to anyone but...wait for it....MiMites.

But hey, if the shoe fits....are you saying you agree with their line, Clown? That you think most workers in the First World are actually not workers at all, but rather exploiters and enemies of the world working class? Do you think workers in the advanced capitalist countries are "overpaid"? Do you support or oppose strikes and economic demands by workers in the imperialist countries?

chimx

27th July 2007, 05:43

g.ram:

I wish I could start that debate over! Its half the reason I would like to see this thread split into theory and Luis to come into it!

chimx

27th July 2007, 05:50

Originally posted by severian
Contrary to Chimx's nonsense, Lenin in fact hoped revolutions in Germany and points west would rapidly follow the Russian Revolution - and attempted revolutions did.

That's what I said. Lenin felt a revolution is Germany was necessary for the success of Russia's revolution. I've said it countless times throughout this thread.

That's a long way from the MiMites scab line of saying workers are "overpaid" and opposing our strikes

If you read my quotations by Lenin, he describes the existence of a labor aristocracy, but also a generally pacified workforce outside of the aristocracy that exists due to the parasitic nature of imperialist capitalism!

misrepresent Lenin as a MiM-like crazy person

Enough of the libel, I acknowledged the distinction. I simply said that MIM sentiments were a logical extension of Leninism based on Lenin's writings on imperialism. Again, see the quoted texts I listed throughout this thread.

The whole point of this was that I thought it was hypocritical to restrict MIMs and not Leninists, the latter group who I obviously don't want to see restricted.

Vargha Poralli

27th July 2007, 06:03

Originally posted by chimx
If you read my quotations by Lenin, he describes the existence of a labor aristocracy, but also a generally pacified workforce outside of the aristocracy that exists due to the parasitic nature of imperialist capitalism!

Do you have any sort of selective blindness ?

MIM advocates a scabbing policy. It have opposed any sort of Strikes by the US workers saying they are just striking because they want a bigger pie or something. Lenin never argued anything over that line. In the Imperialists war he was much angry and critical to the line taken by the Social Democratic parties of that time and never the soldiers who fought against each other.

And even after their idiotic arguments are refuted they still spew the same shit again and again tirelessly. Just like what you are doing now.

chimx

27th July 2007, 06:20

MIM advocates a scabbing policy.

Yeah, and I think that's weak, but what in MIM theory is in contradiction with Marx-Leninism? (I think their primary error is the assumption that the overwhelming majority of workers in the west receive full remuneration for services rendered, and are thus not exploited).

Vargha Poralli

27th July 2007, 10:23

Originally posted by chimx+--> (chimx)Yeah, and I think that's weak, but what in MIM theory is in contradiction with Marx-Leninism?[/b]

Really what has happened to you ?

There is lo of contradiction between MIM and Marxism and Leninism you had been given those differences in the stupid thread you yourself have started and left off after your points are refuted. And Severian again have some what said again about it but you are still asking this shit. Really what is the point you are trying to make ?

chimx
I wish I could start that debate over! Its half the reason I would like to see this thread split into theory and Luis to come into it!

Why split this thread or start a new thread ? Bump up the old thread you have started . You left that thread without providing any arguments to counter Luis and Severian. You could do that there itself.

chimx

27th July 2007, 11:07

Really what is the point you are trying to make ?

We should be careful about making rules to restrict certain members over their ideological beliefs unless the CC itself has a firm grasp of those ideological beliefs and the consequences there of.

Why split this thread or start a new thread ?

I would rather not, as that is an embarrassingly poorly worded thread. In the end, Luis said:

Originally posted by Luis
The idea of a parasitary first world working class is just plain wrong; if Lenin had such ideas, he was wrong too.

In this thread I have quoted Lenin says, "[T]he exploitation of oppressed nations—which is inseparably connected with annexations—and especially the exploitation of colonies by a handful of “Great” Powers, increasingly transforms the “civilised” world into a parasite on the body of hundreds of millions in the uncivilised nations. The Roman proletarian lived at the expense of society. Modern society lives at the expense of the modern proletarian. Marx specially stressed this profound observation of Sismondi. Imperialism somewhat changes the situation. A privileged upper stratum of the proletariat in the imperialist countries lives partly at the expense of hundreds of millions in the uncivilised nations." 1 (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm)

If you read the link, you will see over and over the emphasis of parasitism made by Lenin.

Lenin emphasizes in this passage that it is labor aristocracy which is the primary parasite living off the proletariat in uncivilized nations, and I have provided a definition of this aristocracy used by Lenin that shows he is not speaking simply in terms of union representatives, but skilled craftsman and office workers as well.

Even going beyond the labor aristocracy, I have provided quotations by Lenin that speak of the the "bribery" of workers in an imperialist nation outside of the labor aristocracy: "monopoly yields superprofits, i.e., a surplus of profits over and above the capitalist profits that are normal and customary all over the world. The capitalists can devote a part (and not a small one, at that!) of these superprofits to bribe their own workers, to create something like an alliance . . . between the workers of the given nation and their capitalists against the other countries."

Workers in the first world, beyond the aristocracy, are pacified through a reduction of their exploitation. While Lenin implies that the labor aristocracy has had its exploitation eradicated thanks to the movement of capital, he doesn't stop there, and says that all the workers of an imperialist nation have been "bribed" (i.e. had their exploitation reduced)) due to superprofits reaped by imperialism.

Though they seem pretty clear, if I'm misunderstanding these passages, please let me know! Most of them come from Lenin's work, [i]Imperialism and the Split in Socialism written in October of 1916.

Vargha Poralli

27th July 2007, 11:23

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 03:37 pm

Really what is the point you are trying to make ?

We should be careful about making rules to restrict certain members over their ideological beliefs unless the CC itself has a firm grasp of those ideological beliefs and the consequences there of.
Well I think majority of the CC members have it. That is why I am posting here Severian is posting here. I don't fear claiming that I am a Leninist.

You for some starnge reason keep asserting MIM= Leninism so if we restrict MIMists we should also restrict all Leninists regardless what other thinks otherwise.

Vargha Poralli

27th July 2007, 12:17

Originally posted by chimx quoting Lenin
A privileged upper stratum of the proletariat in the imperialist countries lives partly at the expense of hundreds of millions in the uncivilised nations.

You see the difference between Lenin and MIM wackos ?

chimx

27th July 2007, 12:25

The difference being that MIMites believe that all white Americans constitute the labor aristocracy.

But Lenin does say that parasitism still exists outside of the labor aristocracy, and workers of an imperialist nation still see a reduction of their exploitation due to imperialist super-profits.

And beyond this, I would add that Lenin spoke of the aristocracy being composed of office workers and skilled tradesman, both of which have increased significantly since the time of Lenin. It is easy to look to these passages and see a justification for such a MIM stance, but I agree it ignores any economic reality.

In the end I think the lesson we can learn from this is that we need clear definitions of the things we are choosing to restrict, and often times this isn't done when we enact these kinds of rules on a whim. They are poorly thought out and could have consequences beyond the restriction of the group in question. The anti-MIM rule is an example, and I would include the anti-civilizationist rule as another.

"CC laws are reason, free from passion." -Aristotle

(I got that quote from Legally Blonde, and I'm not ashamed to say so)

Ã‘Ã³ẊÃ®Ã¶ŉ

27th July 2007, 15:56

I am utterly gobsmacked. Are my eyes decieving me, or is MIM's (or whoever they are) racist reactionary crap being taken seriously?

Have we got our heads that far up our collective asses?

Vanguard1917

27th July 2007, 18:11

Chimx is deliberately distorting Lenin's argument by quoting him out of context. This is the full article: 'Imperialism and the Split in Socialism'. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm) It should be read in full for readers to grasp Lenin's point.

Lenin:

The bourgeoisie of an imperialist “Great” Power can economically bribe the upper strata of “its” workers by spending on this a hundred million or so francs a year, for its superprofits most likely amount to about a thousand million. And how this little sop is divided among the labour ministers, “labour representatives” (remember Engels’s splendid analysis of the term), labour members of War Industries Committees,[5] labour officials, workers belonging to the narrow craft unions, office employees, etc., etc., is a secondary question.

Lenin's point is to attack (i) the 'bourgeois labour parties' and (ii) the bourgeois trade union bureaucracy, not the working class itself (unlike MIM). The point of Lenin's attack is to show that, in supporting the imperialist war, these parties and unions are not representing the real interests of the working masses.

And by 'office employees' he's referring mainly to those labour leaders bribed and employed in the offices of the organisations of the bourgeoisie (government organisations, the media, as well as the 'law-abiding' trade unions):

On the economic basis referred to above, the political institutions of modern capitalism—press, parliament associations, congresses etc.—have created political privileges and sops for the respectful, meek, reformist and patriotic office employees and workers, corresponding to the economic privileges and sops. Lucrative an soft jobs in the government or on the war industries committees, in parliament and on diverse committees, on the editorial staffs of “respectable”, legally published newspapers or on the management councils of no less respectable and “bourgeois law-abiding” trade unions—this is the bait by which the imperialist bourgeoisie attracts and rewards the representatives and supporters of the “bourgeois labour parties”.

The 'bourgeois labour parties' are misleading, manipulating and betraying the working class. The fact that workers back these parties is a political problem.

What conclusion does Lenin draw from all this? A revolutionary one, based on the principle of active struggle and socialist intervention:

Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be definitely decided only by the socialist revolution.

The opportunist leaders of the working masses are betraying the real interests of the working class, and the task of revolutionaries is to expose this to the working masses as a whole:

But we know for certain that the “defenders of the fatherland” in the imperialist war represent only a minority. And it is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialists to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the masses, that they are defending the temporary privileges of a minority of the workers, that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution through all the long and painful vicissitudes of imperialist wars and imperialist armistices.

As Marxists know, every class struggle is a political struggle. There are no ready-made revolutionary movements in society. The point is to win the working class over to our side, and against the bourgeois, opportunist, reformist and social-chauvinist leadership. And this is precisely Lenin's conclusion:

The only Marxist line in the world labour movement is to explain to the masses the inevitability and necessity of breaking with opportunism, to educate them for revolution by waging a relentless struggle against opportunism, to utilise the experience of the war to expose, not conceal, the utter vileness of national-liberal labour politics.

I'm sure we can all see just how radically different this is - in content and spirit - to the non-Marxist, utterly reactionary position of the likes of MIM, who have fatalistically written off the bulk of the American working class. In doing so, as i pointed out above, they conveniently absolve themselves from their own responsibility to raise the class consciousness of the working class.

In times of class struggle, the fact that more and more workers are being won over to the side of the bourgeoisie (supporting reactionary parties, imperialist wars, ect.) surely calls for greater effort on our behalf as socialists. It doesn't call for greater defeatism, disillusionment and fatalism. That's the direct opposite of Lenin's message to the workers' movement.

chimx

27th July 2007, 19:03

:rolleyes:

What was out of context? Thank you for reiterating what we have already gone over in regards to labor aristocracy, but you are ignoring a key element that Lenin touches on in that article in regards to labor bribery outside of the aristocracy. You briefly touch on it with your quote, "The only Marxist line in the world labour movement is to explain to the masses the inevitability and necessity of breaking with opportunism," but that's all.

LuÃs Henrique

27th July 2007, 21:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 05:20 am
what in MIM theory is in contradiction with Marx-Leninism? (I think their primary error is the assumption that the overwhelming majority of workers in the west receive full remuneration for services rendered, and are thus not exploited).
They do not understand the concept of surplus value, an accusation that cannot be made against Lenin.

Luís Henrique

Severian

28th July 2007, 07:17

Originally posted by [email protected] 27, 2007 08:56 am
I am utterly gobsmacked. Are my eyes decieving me, or is MIM's (or whoever they are) racist reactionary crap being taken seriously?

Have we got our heads that far up our collective asses?
I'm surprised too. But it's not the first time I've seen some really strange and obviously ridiculous idea, which I've rarely or never encountered n the real-world left*, turn out to be bizarrely widespread on this forum.

By this point it's pretty obvious Chimx is, in fact, trolling, as he often does, and he should probably just be ignored.

*despite its numerous problems.

chimx

28th July 2007, 07:48

I was under the impression we were having a civil discussion on labor aristocracy and parasitism that a significant amount of people here are more than happy to acknowledge was discussed by Lenin, and how it relates to the MIM position which is influenced by what Lenin said.

If you don't want to take part then don't. I would hope it is obvious to anyone reading this thread who the real person trolling this thread is: the person popping in occasional to call names and offer no contribution.

Led Zeppelin

28th July 2007, 14:54

No chimx in fact it is you who is trolling because your line of reasoning was refuted about 15 posts ago but you still keep repeating it.

Here's a short summing up of it:

You: "Lenin said there was a labor aristocracy, MIM's line is a logical continuation of it because capitalism has developed since Lenin spoke of it."

Others: "Uh, no that's not true, even at that time Lenin limited the labor aristocracy to the top layer of the proletariat, and he never claimed that the growth of that aristocracy had anything to do with the development of capitalism. Besides, the development of capitalism must be seen in relation to the development of imperialism as a whole, which actually took a leap backwards after Lenin (and Engels) wrote in those terms. For example no one in their right mind would now say (after the experiences of the last century) that there is no British working-class."

You: "But it's a logical extension of Lenin!!!"

You: "Yes it is."

You: "Yes it is"

etc. etc. etc.

chimx

28th July 2007, 16:45

If you followed the conversation some of us have been having, you would see we already have discussed their differences and misinterpretation of contemporary economic situations. The problem is and always has been the vagueness of the ruling due to the hastiness it which it was passed. As TC has said in the poll prior: "Its never been clearly explained how MIM's line actually differs from Lenin and Engel's line on parasitism and labour aristocracy. Does this poll seek to restrict all Leninists and all Marxists who agree with Engels? If not, then does one distinguish between someone who uses MIM's line and someone who uses Engel's and Lenin's line, because the former uses silly expressions and sounds meaner?"

This is because the thread just stipulates the restriction of "advocates of the MiM-style anti-worker line." But the parasitism of workers in the first world has long been discussed by Lenin and Engels. Some of us just think it is stupid to silence discussion on the nature of worker parasitism or the spread of a labor aristocracy out of fear of being labeled "anti-worker". "MIM" is a label that has already been extended to two members that refuse to describe themselves as members of MIM.

If that rule is going to remain on the books, it has to be clarified that the restriction isn't for "mim-style anti-workers", but people that believe that all [white] workers in imperialist nations constitute the new labor aristocracy.

Vargha Poralli

28th July 2007, 16:55

If that rule is going to remain on the books, it has to be clarified that the restriction isn't for "mim-style anti-workers", but people that believe that all [white] workers in imperialist nations constitute the new labor aristocracy.

Well I have read about this all white workers in imperialists nations are parasites only from MIM. No one else fucking says this. Already I too had the same misconception when I read it from their site but I have changed myself(thanks to you for that (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=62028)).

I don't know why you have suddenly brought Engels in to it too.

Led Zeppelin

28th July 2007, 18:02

Nice job of proving my point of you being a troll chimx.

The difference between MIM's line and the line of Engels and Lenin have been pointed out to you dozens of times in this thread, but you continue to ignore it and you continue to call for a meaningless change of terminology for the rules.

Well fine, change the terminology to what you proposed, who cares? They are both the same thing, because MIM advocates the policy that you just described, namely: "people that believe that all [white] workers in imperialist nations constitute the new labor aristocracy."

chimx

28th July 2007, 21:33

The difference between MIM's line and the line of Engels and Lenin have been pointed out to you dozens of times in this thread

I have pointed out the differences a dozen times.

Well fine, change the terminology to what you proposed, who cares?

Probably the two members who were restricted care, one of whom was a mod, who didn't say that they believe that white workers constitute the new labor aristocracy, but simply believe that worker parasitism exists in imperialist countries.

The vagueness of the rule as it stands now makes it difficult to discuss the issues of parasitism, outside of labor aristocracy--an issue that both Lenin and Engels wrote about. The lack of clarity inhibits discussion of issues intricate to Marxism.

LuÃs Henrique

28th July 2007, 21:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 28, 2007 06:48 am
I was under the impression we were having a civil discussion on labor aristocracy and parasitism
Maybe its external appearance is this, but the real core of the discussion is to retroactively blame Lenin and his ideas about a labour aristocracy for MIM's scab line.

Leninism is a flawed ideology, and it relies in a wrong comprehension of the nature of the working class (a wrong comprehension, by the way, often shared by its "anti-authoritarian" critics). But MIM is a completely different phenomenon, which cannot come to life without serious theorical regressions that contradict Leninism's main tenets. No one can be a MIMite without totally misinterpreting the concept of surplus value. Lenin, whatever his other flaws and faults, perfectly knew what surplus value is; and if someone wants to call themselves Leninist, they should start by making sure that they do not adhere to absurd counterfactions of the Ricardian/Marxist concept.

And so, to put it to rest - even if I oppose the automatical restriction of MIMites - it is not a rule that entails the restriction of all Leninists.

Luís Henrique

chimx

28th July 2007, 21:51

Maybe its external appearance is this, but the real core of the discussion is to retroactively blame Lenin and his ideas about a labour aristocracy for MIM's scab line.

Well it wasn't my intention to blame Lenin, despite the accusations being hurled by Severian. Marx and Engels talked of labor aristocracy. Even Engels was somewhat critical of British labor as a result. Bakunin discussed the existence of a labor aristocracy! If I came off as playing the blame game, I apologize, it was never my intention.

My only point was that one can see a connection, though perhaps a connection based on a misconception, between MIM and Marxism-Leninism. Because of this, if a rule on MIM is going to exist it should be clearly defined. But I would add also that because MIM is based on a weak interpretation of Lenin, it is doesn't deserve to be a restricted ideology provided that the MIM can participate on revleft civilly. Glory and Sandy were incapable of this. IMO, Joesph Ball and Marcel can.

bezdomni

28th July 2007, 22:04

I don't know why you have suddenly brought Engels in to it too.

Engels was the first person to point out the emergence of a Labor Arisocracy and a bourgeoisified proletariat.

"The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that the ultimate aim of this most bourgeois of all nations would apear 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, that is, of course, justified to some extent."

-Engels, 1858

And yes, there is a difference between Engels/Lenin and MiM...but this difference does not stem from disdain for workers or upholding of capitalists, but a misunderstanding of Lenin's theory of imperialism.

We should struggle against this misunderstanding because it does pose a problem in the communist movement, but a blanket restriction against people who take some poorly defined "anti-worker" line is not the way to deal with this.

chimx

28th July 2007, 22:23

SP: exactly, if I said that about British workers, I could easily be restricted for being "anti-worker" for having a position similar to MIM, given how vague the rule is.

Led Zeppelin

28th July 2007, 22:35

If you said that about the British working-class you would be restricted and rightly so because you would be an idiot.

That was true back then when Engels said it, but it isn't true anymore, and only idiots would say it is, for they would be disregarding about a century of class-struggy in that nation.

bezdomni

28th July 2007, 22:49

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 28, 2007 09:35 pm
If you said that about the British working-class you would be restricted and rightly so because you would be an idiot.

That was true back then when Engels said it, but it isn't true anymore, and only idiots would say it is, for they would be disregarding about a century of class-struggy in that nation.
Since it is so obvious, would you mind pointing out specifically at what point in British class struggle the English proletariat lost its parasitism and became identical to say, the third world proletariat?

Led Zeppelin

28th July 2007, 23:08

28th July 2007, 23:25

Originally posted by SovietPants+July 28, 2007 09:49 pm--> (SovietPants @ July 28, 2007 09:49 pm)
Led [email protected] 28, 2007 09:35 pm
If you said that about the British working-class you would be restricted and rightly so because you would be an idiot.

That was true back then when Engels said it, but it isn't true anymore, and only idiots would say it is, for they would be disregarding about a century of class-struggy in that nation.
Since it is so obvious, would you mind pointing out specifically at what point in British class struggle the English proletariat lost its parasitism and became identical to say, the third world proletariat? [/b]
LOL :lol:

Exactly.

Actually the British economy is more not less dependent on finance capital now than it was when Engel's was writing and it has been increasingly so since the Thatcher years. The UK's domestic production is tiny compared to its standard of living, the discrepancy between how much British produce and how much they consume is even greater than in America.

The Revolutionary Communist Group in the UK has a really excellent article about this:

http://www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk/about/FRFI194_07_10.pdf

And they're not Maoists, they're a post-trotskyist group with ties to the youth wing of the Cuban Communist Party.

And in any case, Led Zeppelin's position makes utterly no sense. If it was true then but its not true now, than the question is not an abstract ideological question that answering the wrong way constitutes opposing the left, but a factual, empirical question as to what the numbers look like in terms of capital flow and production, in other words the type of question that needs to be debated within the left not dismissed as being outside of it.

I see that your time with the IMT didn't go to discussions on the history of the orgnaization, that's a shame.

The Poll Tax movement is a great example of the working-class organization of the proletariat taking a stance against the state, the entire history of the Militant Tendency contributes to that actually.

Uh, no. Campaigning against specific policies from a reformist basis and gains within capitalism is not revolutionary. Its taking a stance against a particular government not a stance against the state. The trade unions and labour party weren't calling for revolution.

Incidentally, i attend an IMT Marxist Study Group and IMT branch meetings and a number of IMT london branch members agree with SovietPants and me on this issue (a number also agree with you on it, its a matter for debate even within a single trotskyist organisation, so its clearly a matter for debate on the left)

The English proletariat doesn't have a parasitism, if you believe it has then you should join up with MIM and stop whining about revolution in imperialist nations because it won't work, right?

What do you mean the "english proletariat", who are you talking about exactly? The whole of british manufacturing and construction, which is to say people who are actually involved in producing capital, constitutes less than 20% employment in the UK, and even that figure includes managers and executives and other non-productive employees. The other 80% of the british work force is in non-productive labour. In fact there are more financial services employees (people who just move money around) than there are proletariat in the UK.

When we talk of parasitism, all we are talking about is taking more from the economy than you contribute in absolute terms. That is a fact of life for the majority of English people. If you get paid 50 times more for moving a shoe from a cash register to a bag (adding virtually no value) than the person who made the shoe got paid (adding nearly 100% of its value), than it is obvious that the former is being compensated in extreme disproportion to the amount of value added.

Now, compare the class-struggle in Britain to let's say the class-struggle in a third world nation like Somalia. By your crazy logic Somalia should have had a more intense class struggle because well, it's in the third world, right? They are super-exploited so they should be revolutionary, or at least more so than the British working-class is.

Oh, wait, the class-struggle in Somalia has been pretty much non-existant, I wonder why?

They do have more intense class struggle there, you're just ignorant of the situation in a totally arrogant way. They have more intense class struggle almost everywhere in fact, including Europe and the United States. You'd have to look for city states like Singapore or wealthy tourist "industry" islands to find places with less class struggle then present day Britain.

Yeah, see, that's what you get with the MIMite logic. It would support an organization in Somalia for example while opposing the same organization in Britain, because the latter would be supporting parasitism.

I don't really understand what you're trying to say with this. The fact is that there are no revolutionary mass organizations in the UK with a substantial class basis as there are in say, Venezuela or Bolivia or India or Mexico, and all existing working class organizations in the UK are opportunist (the labour party, the trade unions, etc).
If there was one, we should support it, but theres not, and there are material reasons for this: socialism in the UK would result in a short term collapse of the average standard of living because most of the goods in the UK enjoyed by the whole of the population are produced abroad and purchased through profit made through the financial sector also based on overseas investment; the reverse is true in neo-colonies and states where the industrial bourgeois remains stronger than the finance capitalists.

chimx

28th July 2007, 23:43

in other words the type of question that needs to be debated within the left not dismissed as being outside of it.

And what better place to do it than on a leftist discussion forum?

RNK

29th July 2007, 00:17

"Can you tell me when the British working class lost its parasitic nature?"

"Yeah there was this one movement at some point. But if you believe that it hasn't lost its parasitic nature you're just a looney MIMite anti-worker!"

Way to answer a question.

TC/SovietPants:

Do either of you know of a good article that talks about the shrinking percentage of production workers in capitalist development, and what role that shrinking (and the increase of the services sector) that plays in capitalist economies? I find it very interesting that in the most advanced capitalist nations there is always a relatively tiny workforce involved in production and a massive over-blown workforce involved with the services sector. I'm very interested in this personally, particularly how it plays in with the parasitic nature of the 1st world, specifically, how 1st world economies seem to have all but abandoned actual production (inside the country) and instead, for the majority of 1st world workers, become increasingly involved in the production of capital solely through the manipulation of the production industry of the 3rd world.

bezdomni

29th July 2007, 04:59

I see that your time with the IMT didn't go to discussions on the history of the orgnaization, that's a shame.

The Poll Tax movement is a great example of the working-class organization of the proletariat taking a stance against the state, the entire history of the Militant Tendency contributes to that actually.

No, I am quite aware of the economist and reformist tendencies of the IMT...which is why I am no longer a member of that organization and now support the RCP.

The Poll Tax movement is a great example of the economism that Lenin polemicizes against in WITBD. I can see that the IMT is still picking and choosing what parts of Lenin's works they want to take seriously.

Economic struggle against employers and the state is great, but the workers are capable of maintaing it by themselves without communist leadership..and solely residing in the economic struggle against employers and the state will not lead to communism.

The IMT would be more true to its name if the "M" stood for "Menshevik".

The English proletariat doesn't have a parasitism, if you believe it has then you should join up with MIM and stop whining about revolution in imperialist nations because it won't work, right?

Unlike MIM (and the IMT), I take a materialist analysis and assert that revolution is possible in first world countries...but only under very certain conditions. There are certain elements in the U.S. political economy that could be used to polarize society and create a revolutionary civil war - but really, that is neither here nor there, as it is not my line (nor yours) that is in question here.

I think TC answered the rest of these questions well, and I do not feel the need nor desire to reiterate her arguments.

Do either of you know of a good article that talks about the shrinking percentage of production workers in capitalist development, and what role that shrinking (and the increase of the services sector) that plays in capitalist economies?

Not off of the top of my head...but I'll search around and PM you when I find one. :)

Axel1917

29th July 2007, 05:16

No, I am quite aware of the economist and reformist tendencies of the IMT...which is why I am no longer a member of that organization and now support the RCP.

The Poll Tax movement is a great example of the economism that Lenin polemicizes against in WITBD. I can see that the IMT is still picking and choosing what parts of Lenin's works they want to take seriously.

If we are so economist, then why have we had comrades getting in trouble with the pigs in Oaxaca, Pakistan, etc.? We don't limit ourselves like you claim we do. That is a baseless assertion.

The IMT has also been the only group on the planet that has understood and supported the Venezuelan Revolution from the beginning (the spearhead of the world revolution!). Does the RCP even support it? Or do they oppose it because Bob Avakian can't control it? I never hear them talk about it.

Economic struggle against employers and the state is great, but the workers are capable of maintaing it by themselves without communist leadership..and solely residing in the economic struggle against employers and the state will not lead to communism.

You have to fight shoulder-to-shoulder with the working class to win them over. This is a proven law of Bolshevism and history. The workers will never come to you. You always have to reach out to them! This has been proven countless times in history. No "Dear Leader" cult of a party of "Two men and a dog." will ever achieve anything.

The IMT would be more true to its name if the "M" stood for "Menshevik".

The RCP would be more true to its name if it stood for "Revolutionary Cult of Personality."

Unlike MIM (and the IMT), I take a materialist analysis and assert that revolution is possible in first world countries...but only under very certain conditions. There are certain elements in the U.S. political economy that could be used to polarize society and create a revolutionary civil war - but really, that is neither here nor there, as it is not my line (nor yours) that is in question here.

The contradictions in the USA are very tense, with mass inequality, a mass questioning of the system pushing people to the left, an increasingly ruthless attack on unions and workers' rights, etc. Things are really going to go forward when the people themselves see the DFL as the pro-war, anti-worker types they really are. Trotsky said in 1929 that we should be prepared in the USA, as events could unfold very quickly and bring a revolutionary situation about. These words are very true today.

I think TC answered the rest of these questions well, and I do not feel the need nor desire to reiterate her arguments.

I think that Led Zeppelin's points are valid, and that I was right in suspecting chimx of quoting Lenin out of context.

Wanted Man

29th July 2007, 07:58

Originally posted by Axel1917+July 29, 2007 05:16 am--> (Axel1917 @ July 29, 2007 05:16 am) If we are so economist, then why have we had comrades getting in trouble with the pigs in Oaxaca, Pakistan, etc.? We don't limit ourselves like you claim we do. That is a baseless assertion. [/b]
Your people have been arrested in Pakistan? Well, unless I'm mistaken and Spirit of Spartacus can correct me... I don't think it's very difficult to be an activist and get arrested in Pakistan! It is kind of pointless to use that to prove that the IMT isn't economist. And please, Axel, you're the King of baseless assertions.

Originally posted by [email protected]
The IMT has also been the only group on the planet that has understood and supported the Venezuelan Revolution from the beginning (the spearhead of the world revolution!).
And how long has that been? 1998? I do not think that any of us were even engaged in politics at that time (or indeed, in 2002!), so let's not pretend that this matters to any of us.

Unless, of course, it really is the "spearhead of the world revolution". I just hope that the rest of the world will not respect private property (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69047).

Axel1917
You have to fight shoulder-to-shoulder with the working class to win them over. This is a proven law of Bolshevism and history. The workers will never come to you. You always have to reach out to them! This has been proven countless times in history. No "Dear Leader" cult of a party of "Two men and a dog." will ever achieve anything.
"Dear Leader" and "Two men and a dog" is all relative. The IMT also puts forward Grant and Woods as important figures. Not to the extent of Avakian, but it's there. As for the size, well, I can assume that the great WIL vanguard is about to lead a revolution, then? Sorry, but size is a stupid thing to throw at each other.

Almost all RevLeft members live in countries where the mass support for communism is next to nil. We can attack each other for being small all day, but what's the point? The bourgeois propaganda already does enough of that to prove that we will always fail. It's kind of sad when communists embrace that kind of propaganda as truth, and use it against each other.

Besides those comments, I agree with the paragraph I quoted above.

RNK

29th July 2007, 21:34

The contradictions in the USA are very tense, with mass inequality, a mass questioning of the system pushing people to the left, an increasingly ruthless attack on unions and workers' rights, etc.

No one questions that things are "tense" in the USA. But they are hardly comparable to what workers in the 3rd world face, unless I missed that news report about Microsoft death squads roaming through Silicon Valley, executing entire families and burning down neighbourhoods.

Axel1917

30th July 2007, 07:08

Your people have been arrested in Pakistan? Well, unless I'm mistaken and Spirit of Spartacus can correct me... I don't think it's very difficult to be an activist and get arrested in Pakistan! It is kind of pointless to use that to prove that the IMT isn't economist. And please, Axel, you're the King of baseless assertions.

The IMT has a strong section in Pakistan, unlike the rest of the left. And nowhere is there any economism in the IMT. One can look for eternity, but no economism will be found. The people that charge us with that do not understand the necessity of orientaiton to the working class or how transitional demands work.

And how long has that been? 1998? I do not think that any of us were even engaged in politics at that time (or indeed, in 2002!), so let's not pretend that this matters to any of us.

It is of the utmost importance, as it shows which organization is based on correct theory, tactics, method, etc.

Unless, of course, it really is the "spearhead of the world revolution". I just hope that the rest of the world will not respect private property (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69047).

The masses are engaged in revolutionary action, and expropriations have happened. There are things that we won't agree with Chavez on, but you have to fight shoulder-to-shoulder with the workers. Capitalism remaining will just sharpen the antagonisms and things will have to be resolved one way or the other. Castro himself also had no intention whatsoever to eliminate private property at first; he was forced to due to the constant sabotage of the capitalists. Chavez himself has been on a similar route, forced to take more left measures due to capitalist sabotage, coups d' etat, etc.

"Dear Leader" and "Two men and a dog" is all relative. The IMT also puts forward Grant and Woods as important figures. Not to the extent of Avakian, but it's there. As for the size, well, I can assume that the great WIL vanguard is about to lead a revolution, then? Sorry, but size is a stupid thing to throw at each other.

How so? "Two men and a dog" refers to those countless so-called "Trotskyist sects that have no influence at all, the "Dear Leader" referring to the Cult of Avakian. It is one thing to recognize the accomplishments of a comrade. It is another thing to say that a person is almighty and totally necessary for things to succeed. You won't find us saying "Our leader is Alan Woods," putting articles on "The leader we need," the IMT sites will not bombard you with Ted Grant pictures, quotes, etc. People like Lenin are also held as important figures, yet they are not personality cults.

I was not trying to argue about size, but rather about the nonexistent influence of the countless "Trotskist" sects, "Fourth Internationals," etc. As I have explained before, size is nothing without a good theoretical foundation; the CPSU had millions of members and billions of dollars' worth of funding, yet it got nowhere.

Almost all RevLeft members live in countries where the mass support for communism is next to nil. We can attack each other for being small all day, but what's the point? The bourgeois propaganda already does enough of that to prove that we will always fail. It's kind of sad when communists embrace that kind of propaganda as truth, and use it against each other.

And yet you did this very same thing you accuse me of when you initiated that pathetic witch hunt against me (so baseless were your claims that it did not even get to the poll phase!). How hypocritical.

There are all kinds of groups out there. The same was true of the Bolsheivks. In spite of any fighting that goes on between groups, it will be the one with the correct theoretical foundation that will emerge as the force that wins the masses over, no matter how small it starts out as.

No one questions that things are "tense" in the USA. But they are hardly comparable to what workers in the 3rd world face, unless I missed that news report about Microsoft death squads roaming through Silicon Valley, executing entire families and burning down neighbourhoods.

Yet in the 1930's, the US had it better than most of the Third World too, and yet, there were still all kinds of militant struggles. The class struggle does not follow a mechanical formula, with the weaker capitalist nations necessarily always coming first before the first world (they can come sooner here and there due to the rottenness and dependence on their bourgeoisies on Western capital, as any kind of reform will come up against the constraints of a capitalism that can't even solve the tasks of the bourgeois-democratic revolution), but the worsening conditions of living and predatory wars can very quickly accelerate the First World working class as well. This happened in Germany for instance in 1918. It failed due to the treachery of the social-democratic leadership.

In fact, I will lay odds that the US has a much richer history of revolutionary movements than some places in the Third World!

The USA can erupt very quickly and surprise the world, as Russia did in 1917. We should be prepared for such things so they do not catch us off guard. The USA in spite of its immense wealth and technology does not enjoy the living standards of Western Europe, and the workers want the free healthcare that Western Europe has. The living standards are going down (we are losing on wages, or stagnating at best, after adjusting for inflation. This once and for all demolishes the MIMite myth of most US workers "sharing in the profits."), the housing bubble has burst, and the capitalists are hell-bent on making these standards even lower. This is creating a highly explosive situation. The fate of the world revolution will ultimately be decided on US soil, as it is the heart of world imperialism.

Just because the Third World is poorer does not necessarily mean that a revolution in the US can't happen before one happens there. It was always thought that a revolution in Russia could not happen before one in Western Europe. The cynics and skeptics were wrong that time, and they will be proven wrong again in the future.

RNK

30th July 2007, 15:02

The cynics and skeptics were wrong that time, and they will be proven wrong again in the future.

By restriction?

Anyway, Axel, I disagree with you mostly, though I do agree with some of what you've said. And that's the beauty of it. We can disagree without anyone being restricted.

Louis Pio

30th July 2007, 15:20

And how long has that been? 1998? I do not think that any of us were even engaged in politics at that time (or indeed, in 2002!), so let's not pretend that this matters to any of us.

Speak for yourselve. Actually it is a quite important question. If a socalled revolutionary group can't even recognize a revolutionary situation when it happens that group is totally worthless and their continuing analysis will be flawed since their initial position was the same. This is still quite visible with many on the groups that flip flopped on Venezuela. Like SWP or CWI for example, just to name a few.

Now why the hell can such a discussion develope over MIM? It's a non-existent group for fucks sake....
Also of course people advocating scablines should be restricted, they are just a burden on the movement. Of course if they don't follow their theory to it's logical conclusion their's no ground for restriction.

RNK

30th July 2007, 15:34

There we ago again, talking about "scablines" and "scabbers" and "scabbiness" -- and I agree, by the way, that scabbers should be thrown out, and anyone advocating a scab line, and advocating action against western workers as well -- but the point is, that isn't what Marcel advocated, nor Joseph Ball, and, to my knowledge, SA and GBT either!

If a socalled revolutionary group can't even recognize a revolutionary situation when it happens

You mean like the revolutionary situation that raged in Nepal for over 10 years since 1995, that almost everyone completely ignored and, infact, denounced? Not to mention the revolutionary situation in India which has been raging even longer. Not to mention the revolutionary situationin the Philippines. You guys have been all over those with support.

bezdomni

30th July 2007, 19:45

If we are so economist, then why have we had comrades getting in trouble with the pigs in Oaxaca, Pakistan, etc.? We don't limit ourselves like you claim we do. That is a baseless assertion.

The IMT has also been the only group on the planet that has understood and supported the Venezuelan Revolution from the beginning (the spearhead of the world revolution!). Does the RCP even support it? Or do they oppose it because Bob Avakian can't control it? I never hear them talk about it.

Even economists can get into trouble with pigs because the union struggle is often illegal, especially when it makes somewhat radical demands against an autocratic state (ie: pakistan).

I wasn't aware that the IMT even had a section in Oaxaca. I know that they supported the APPO...but that wasn't an IMT section.

Anybody who wasn't on the side of the pigs got in trouble in Oaxaca. Just because you get in trouble with the pigs doesn't make you a revolutionary.

And if you haven't heard the RCP talk about Venezuela, then you must not be listening very carefully because there was a HUGE article just a few weeks ago about Venezuela. In fact, it was the headline! "Hugo Chavez has an oil strategy...but can this lead to liberation?"

Read it here. (http://http://rwor.org/a/094/chavez-en.html)

You have to fight shoulder-to-shoulder with the working class to win them over. This is a proven law of Bolshevism and history. The workers will never come to you. You always have to reach out to them! This has been proven countless times in history. No "Dear Leader" cult of a party of "Two men and a dog." will ever achieve anything.

More anti-RCP ignorance and economism from the IMT.

The union struggle (which you colloquially seem to refer to as the "shoulder-to-shoulder struggle") is definitely an important one. No Leninist would disagree with this. However, as Lenin points out in What Is To Be Done?, the economic struggle is not the main struggle and will not, on its own, lead to socialism.

Organizations that primarily work within the unions are nothing more than radical trade unionists with Marxist rhetoric. The only way to actually make a revolution capable of leading to socialism is by engaging in political struggle detatched from the purely economic struggle centered around a revolutionary political party with a revolutionary theory expressed in a revolutionary newspaper.

The main way that radical communist ideas should reach the masses is by a communist newspaper, not by making demands in the union. Workers have historically been able to carry on with the economic struggle perfectly fine without communist leadership - communist leadership is only necessary to raise the consciousness of the masses beyond trade union consciousness to revolutonary communist consciousness.

In short, a revolutionary organization's main task is to raise the theoretical level of the masses. :P

Nothing Human Is Alien

30th July 2007, 19:56

There we ago again, talking about "scablines" and "scabbers" and "scabbiness" -- and I agree, by the way, that scabbers should be thrown out, and anyone advocating a scab line, and advocating action against western workers as well -- but the point is, that isn't what Marcel advocated, nor Joseph Ball, and, to my knowledge, SA and GBT either!

So... saying workers (who aren't really workers at all) in the imperialist countries are too high paid, and opposing their struggles for better conditions (which the MIM has done, which was quoted and sourced, and which Marcel agreed with), isn't scabbing?

chimx

30th July 2007, 20:15

It depends what you mean by "opposing their struggles". Physically or ideologically.

Dimentio

30th July 2007, 20:27

Axel1917

31st July 2007, 00:21

Even economists can get into trouble with pigs because the union struggle is often illegal, especially when it makes somewhat radical demands against an autocratic state (ie: pakistan).

Perhaps so, now that I think of it, but your claims of economism are 100% baseless.

I wasn't aware that the IMT even had a section in Oaxaca. I know that they supported the APPO...but that wasn't an IMT section.

I know that we at least have comrades working in such an area.

Anybody who wasn't on the side of the pigs got in trouble in Oaxaca. Just because you get in trouble with the pigs doesn't make you a revolutionary.

The Mexican government was terrified of the IMT section during the events of last year. They repeatedly attacked us in the press, trying to identify us with "urban guerrillas" in an attempt to get public opinion against us. This proves that the bourgeoisie were taking us seriously, i.e. we posed a threat to their dictatorship. We were calling for the spread of the revolutionary situation in Oaxaca. This alone proves that you are 100% wrong in your baseless charges of economism.

And if you haven't heard the RCP talk about Venezuela, then you must not be listening very carefully because there was a HUGE article just a few weeks ago about Venezuela. In fact, it was the headline! "Hugo Chavez has an oil strategy...but can this lead to liberation?"

Read it here. (http://http://rwor.org/a/094/chavez-en.html)

I will get on this when I can, but the fact is that the IMT, and only the IMT, has correctly understood and supported the Venezuelan Revolution from the beginning. That speaks volumes of the validity of our ideas, to understand and support the key to the international situation before anyone else!

More anti-RCP ignorance and economism from the IMT.

The union struggle (which you colloquially seem to refer to as the "shoulder-to-shoulder struggle") is definitely an important one. No Leninist would disagree with this. However, as Lenin points out in What Is To Be Done?, the economic struggle is not the main struggle and will not, on its own, lead to socialism.

Where did the WIL ever maintain that the economic struggle is the only thing to be focused on? Nowhere. This is anti-IMT ignorance and Avakian Bible reading from the RCP.

Organizations that primarily work within the unions are nothing more than radical trade unionists with Marxist rhetoric. The only way to actually make a revolution capable of leading to socialism is by engaging in political struggle detatched from the purely economic struggle centered around a revolutionary political party with a revolutionary theory expressed in a revolutionary newspaper.

We do have a paper, with far better ideas than Revolution does. We also don't just work in the unions. You should have figured this out while you were in the IMT. We don't make a fetish out of any form of organization.

The main way that radical communist ideas should reach the masses is by a communist newspaper, not by making demands in the union. Workers have historically been able to carry on with the economic struggle perfectly fine without communist leadership - communist leadership is only necessary to raise the consciousness of the masses beyond trade union consciousness to revolutonary communist consciousness.[/quote[

So, you are saying that workers are fine in their own in the unions, to be left behind to bourgeois influence? You are contradicting what you said earlier! No, we must enter the unions and help link their basic econmic struggles into struggles against the capitalist system itself, to patiently explain and fight shoulder-to-shoulder with the workers to win them over. This obvioulsy also means the Bolshevik role of the paper and independent work as well. How come when Lenin did it, it was not economism, but when we do it, it is economism?

The reason why we talk so much about entryism is because 99.99% of the left today has abandoned this highly important aspect, not because we make a fetish out of it.

And another thing: Maoism is dead and buried in the West. No one in the USA will ever submit to the will of a bureaucratic stratum. The tastes, customs, and traditions of the US working class will never allow a Stalinist/Maoist stratum to rule over them. Leon Trotsky correctly understood this and pointed out that only genuine Bolshevism-Leninism can win the US workers over and achieve the final victory over capitalism. So, the RCP can never win the workers in the USA over! No one will hail Chairman Bob! That is a fact! Today, it is bigger than the WIL (but not the IMT as a whole) and other groups in the US! Tomorrow, it will be an insignificant footnote in history!

[quote]In short, a revolutionary organization's main task is to raise the theoretical level of the masses. :P

But Avakian worship does not raise one's theoretical level! :P :lol: :lol:

Also, let us sniff out something in the MIA's definition of economism:

1. In Russian Social-Democracy (early twentieth century): The newspaper Rabochaya Mysl (Workers' Thought) (1897-1902) and the magazine Rabocheye Dyelo (Workers' Cause) (1899-1902) were organs of the "economists."

In 1899 there appeared Credo, a manifesto of the "economists," which was drawn up by E.D. Kuskova. When Lenin, then in exile, received a copy of Credo, he wrote A Protest by Russian Social Democrats, in which he sharply criticized the programme of the economists. The "economists" theoretically limited the aspirations of the working class to an economic struggle for higher wages and better working conditions, asserting that further political struggle was the business of the liberal bourgeoisie. They denied the vanguard role of a party with the working class, considering that the party should merely observe the spontaneous process of the movement and register events.

In their deference to spontaneity in the working-class movement, the economists were against the importance of revolutionary theory and class-consciousness, and instead asserted that socialist ideology could arise out of the spontaneous movement. Since they were against instilling working class values in workers, Lenin explained, they then were in fact preaching for the continuation of instilling bourgeois values in workers.

Lenin's Iskra played a major part in polemics against "economism." By his book, What Is to be Done?, which appeared in March 1902, V. I. Lenin brought about a concrete ideological rout of "economism."

Bold is my emphasis.

And again, the IMT clearly does not think that the political struggle is the business of the liberal bourgeoisie (something that can't be said of you Stalinists/Maoists and your two-stage nonsense!). Again, we are just entering the unions and traditional workers' organizations to patiently explain things to them and to get them from just looking toward their own economic struggles to look toward the political struggle. How do you do this? You fight shoulder-to-shoulder with them, you help them with their demands, you gain their trust, while patiently explaining the way forward, making the transitional demands to show that their struggle is ultimately a struggle against capitalism, to use the paper as a collective organizer in this aspect. We also do not shirk off independent work either.

The IMT is also known for its high emphasis on the importance of revolutionary theory as well, certainly no economist trait.

BreadBros

31st July 2007, 02:34

My 2 joules: Even though workers in first world nations are higher paid, the fact that the price level is generally higher and that the costs for housing are higher, creates the same effect on the lives of workers, namely that they need to be worried to end up on the street.

Well, as has been mentioned, MIM does believe there is a proletariat in the First World. The super-exploited "nations". I can't comment on the European situation (haven't been there, don't know a terrible amount about the demographics) but in the US the majority of people who end up on the street, homeless, destitute, etc. tend to be blacks, immigrants, native Americans, rural whites etc. In other words, the people MIM would attribute the tag "proletarian" to, so I'm not sure that really throws them off since I do have to wonder how many of the people MIM attributes the "petty bourgeoise" tag to in the First World (what we would probably call the middle-class) are truly in a state of economic precarity.

I do think there are some inconsistencies in the whole labor aristocracy argument. For example, TC talks about productive vs unproductive workers in the First World. But, it is also true that some of the most "super-exploited" in the First World work in the service sector...whereas many of the bigger productive sectors of the economy are unionized into what some might call "business unions" or economism-based unions. So I'm wondering if we're talking about two different dynamics here...or how they relate. Still, like I said when the original "restrict MIMites" thread was started, these debates are needed and a part of Marxism, not "crazy" as many would allege (although certainly MIM does have some very disagreeable ideas, such as all sex=rape).

I am in disagreement with MIM whether or not the exploitment by the first world is the sole factor determining the differences in standard of life as well. I agree that subsidies on large corporations, the exploitment of natural resources and such has a significant impact in determining the options of the people of the third world nations, but truth is also that the first world nations has had the opportunity to faster reach a high energy state and hence a higher standard of life.

MIM seems to believe that economics is a zero-sum game totally dependent on human input, which is hardly the case.

Good point...although I would probably say that it is not so important "how we got here" as much as what happens as a result. In other words, the disparate economic growth/development might be attributed to more than just mere imperialism, but that would not invalidate any effects such a disparity might have class consciousness/revolution in the present.

Louis Pio

31st July 2007, 02:40

You mean like the revolutionary situation that raged in Nepal for over 10 years since 1995,

Well there's quite a difference, but if we go along with your point that the situation in Nepal has been revolutionary for all these years, then why did the maoists didn't take power when it was recently within their grasp? Im not saying that there hasn't been a revolutionary situation in Nepal at some point, like for example last year. But the maoists joining hands with the liberal bourgiosie has certainly fucked that up quite a bit.

The small bands of Indian maoists fighting totally isolated struggles without reaching out to the vast proletarian masses on the sub-continent can't even be compared to Nepal.

On the whole "parasitism" thing. I think this cannot be put on most workers in the western countries today. Especially if we go from the notion that these layers are caracterised by getting a higher wage than the surplus value they produce.
All in all the idea that all western workers are parasites comes from not understanding marxist economics, so no wonder some maoist groups come up with that idea, they have never been known to have much grasp of marxist theory ;)

RNK

31st July 2007, 04:26

Well there's quite a difference, but if we go along with your point that the situation in Nepal has been revolutionary for all these years, then why did the maoists didn't take power when it was recently within their grasp? Im not saying that there hasn't been a revolutionary situation in Nepal at some point, like for example last year. But the maoists joining hands with the liberal bourgiosie has certainly fucked that up quite a bit.

And what, exactly, is the difference between that, and Chavez? Chavez is certainly no proletarian and neither is his platform; yet you connect him with the various, spontaneous mass action movements popping up in Venezuela (which is also occuring in Nepal, and has occured for years). The Chavez government is still wracked with bourgeois elements. From what I can tell, the Maoists accepted peace and joined the government under the auspices that their massive support from the population would naturally lead them to full power. I don't necessarily agree with this move -- I'm highly critical of this rather sudden decision myself. My problem is mainly the hypocritical nature of some of the criticisms of Nepal that I've seen, particularly from persons like yourself who so adamantly defend Chavez and his bolivarian revolution. You seem to expect that all Communists should give that movement a chance -- why not do the same for Nepal, and root for the revolutionaries there, rather than boo and hiss from the sidelines?

In any case, the MIM is not Maoism and I strongly reject any claims that it is. Marxism-Leninism-Maoism is a very well-defined ideology that expands on the aspects of Marxism-Leninism and adds new factors; mainly, the theories of guerilla warfare against the state, and the "New Democracy" strategy, which calls for the societies of low-industrialized to take an active part in the bourgeois revolution against fuedalism, and then immediately begin the proletarian revolution to destroy the bourgeois (which is not contrary to Marxism at all).

What MIM espouses is some sort of quasi-Maoism and extreme cult.. ness... they take Maoism's concentration on peasantry and attempt to force it over a fully-industrialized nation, and do so from a peasant's perspective. Not only that, but they're incredibly hostile to most "regular" Maoists, such as the RCP USA and people like me. According to them, we're "CIA agents", "government provocateurs", etc.

As for the "parasite" theory.. I semi-agree with it. Like I've said, most workers in the west are completely won over to the capitalist mode of production, and are, infact, our ideological enemies, not the objects of our veneration as so many Communists seem to think. Most workers will, atleast at first, actively fight agianst us, for they want to protect their system of existence -- which (and nobody can disagree logically to this) is based mainly upon the exploitation of the 3rd world. Infact, these days, the only commodities mass-produced in countries like the US and Canada are beef and pigs. Almost everything else comes from one 3rd world country or another, which has been invaded by a western multinational corporation who employs 3rd world workers for pennies an hour. And I believe that this fact, and the fact that most western workers are inherently hostile to our movement, must be accepted.

Also...

The small bands of Indian maoists fighting totally isolated struggles without reaching out to the vast proletarian masses on the sub-continent can't even be compared to Nepal.

What are you talking about? Just a few months ago the Indian Maoists held a national congress which drew in hundreds of supporters and was guarded by over a thousand armed comrades of the People's Liberation Army. And last March they organized an attack consisting of 300 armed soldiers against an armed forces encampment. I'd hardly call that "small bands of maoists fighting totally isolated struggles". You don't raise an army of 10,000 fighters without some sort of stable mass support base.

chimx

1st August 2007, 05:51

but calling workers in the imperialist countries parasites is.

MIM is anti-worker too, full of scabs, and saying "I agree with them" means you share their anti-worker outlook.

Using that logic, we should restrict Marxist-Leninists given that Lenin (and Engels) said this about workers in imperialist countries--that they were bribed into pacifism through the profits gained under imperialist exploitation. I don't understand how or why one would call themselves a Marxist-Leninist, and deny that.

Nothing Human Is Alien

1st August 2007, 06:10

So.. you think that if you just keep repeating the same nonsense over and over it will become true, or people will believe you?

No, more likely you're up to your usual trolling and playing "Devil's advocate."

It's been explained to you numerous times that companies couldn't continue on if they were not exploiting their workers.

Of course there is a labor aristocracy, labor lieutenants.. trade union bureaucrats and the like..

All workers -- or even the majority or a large portion -- cannot belong to this aristocracy. The workings of capitalism (the very ones that gave rise to this upper crust) don't allow it, and the aristocracy itself could not live without a mass base of workers to rest on.

And of course workers in the imperialist-oppressed countries often have it subjectively worse than workers in the imperialist countries.. and indeed the capitalists in the imperialist countries super-exploit the workers in the imperialist-oppressed countries, and use the cheap consumer goods they make as they spread consumerism in their imperialist countries, taking workers’ minds off of their exploitation, alienation and the like..

But it cannot be confused that the majority of the population in the imperialist countries, like the imperialist-oppressed ones, are workers, and to advocate a scab line against them lines you up with the capitalist bosses, no matter the color of the flag you fly.

Instead, what this means, is that we must whole heartedly support the struggles in the imperialist-oppressed countries, which can deal death blows to imperialism, bring crisis to the imperialist countries, and signal the beginning of the end for capitalism.

chimx

1st August 2007, 06:39

Of course there is a labor aristocracy, labor lieutenants.. trade union bureaucrats and the like..

I'm not talking about Lenin's views of labor aristocracy. Just labor generally.

Nothing Human Is Alien

1st August 2007, 07:15

I'm not talking about "Lenin's view" either. I'm talking about objective fact.

1st August 2007, 15:56

Vanguard1917 and CDL you are using bad logic, either to distort Marcel (and indeed, Lenin's) position or (i hope) because you are just making incorrect assumptions.

The fact, and it is a fact, that some finance capitalist states (US, UK, maybe Japan) culturally defined "working class" (not the same as proletariat) wages and benefits are subsidized above the level of the surplus they add through labour means that they are living partially off the exploitation of the third world; this does not however mean that collective action on their part further exploits third world workers because it merely shifts the ratio of the third world suprlus taken by labour aristocrat parasitism to that of financial capitalist parasitism, it doesn't change the overall amount.

Moreover among labour aristocrats who are not financial parasites (remember these are overlapping but distinct categories) agitating for increased wages only cuts the profit of the industrial bourgeois it doesn't even affect the shares of the super-profits from imperialism (since non-parasitic labour aristocrats may remain surplus-value producing in unionized heavy industry).

So Marcel's position in no way leads to a "scab line". The only way that would make sense would be if one assumes that parasitic first world non-productive workers (again, these are not proletariat) had some mechanism where they could agitate to increase the rate of exploitation of the third world industrial proletariat; this is however improbable, in reality they only agitate to increase their share of the existing superprofits since the financial capitalists intend to maximize the amount of surplus generated from hyper-exploited third world proletariat anyways, they don't need parasitic labor aristocrats to motivate them to do that.

Now the fact that this isn't obvious to you does not mean that Marcel has succumb to the same logical error that you've made, that is a totally unsubstantiated assumption, in fact one thats contradicted by what Marcel wrote.

I think this vote should be redone since it has been based on a misunderstanding of the implications of Marcel's position, which i have hopefully just clarified.

Nothing Human Is Alien

1st August 2007, 22:36

That is an assload of ignorant assumption. So ignorant, infact, that I suspect you are purposely trying to sensationalize and demonize Marcel.

Yes, that's definitely my goal!

Again, Marcel came right out and said that if MIM did scab, then it is obviously wrong. How exactly does that equate, in your mind, with supporting a scab line?

MIM has an anti-worker line; a scab line (which has been explained numerous times).

Marcel says he supports MIM's line.

Marcel supports a scab line.

It is important to add "..compared to workers in the 3rd world, who suffer much more and are given much, much less."

Look, the fact that the workers in the imperialist-oppressed countries are superexploitated doesn't mean that workers in the imperialist countries make "too much".

Saying workers in the imperialist countries make "too much" is something a boss would say. What communist says any workers anywhere make "too much"?? What is "too much"? Workers either receive the full product of their labor (socialism) or they don't (capitalism). We live under capitalism, and it's impossible for workers to make "too much."

Marcel himself has been fighting for better conditions for workers and poor for the better part of a decade; he's organized anti-government campaigns, he's deeply involved with the Ontario Coalition Against Poverty, he's run for elections on a platform of bettering the lives of working/poor, he's campaigned for better benefits, better living conditions for Natives, etc etc... now, would a person who, according to you, doesn't think western workers should struggle for better conditions, do the struggling himself? That doesn't make sense now does it?

A lot of things MIMites say don't make sense.

But anyway, according to Marcel, his work hasn't accomplished much. He says revolution in the imperialist countries is a "magical, mystical" dream.

If I recall correctly, his explanation for that is that workers in the imperialist countries are parasites, which is his current position.

As I have now irrefutably disproven your assumptions about Marcel (irrefutably as I have applied proven evidence to the contrary of your accusations)..

No you haven't.

"Another idiotic assumption" is not "irrefutable" "proven evidence." Sorry.

The fact, and it is a fact, that some finance capitalist states (US, UK, maybe Japan) culturally defined "working class" (not the same as proletariat) wages and benefits are subsidized above the level of the surplus they add through labour means that they are living partially off the exploitation of the third world; this does not however mean that collective action on their part further exploits third world workers because it merely shifts the ratio of the third world suprlus taken by labour aristocrat parasitism to that of financial capitalist parasitism, it doesn't change the overall amount.

Moreover among labour aristocrats who are not financial parasites (remember these are overlapping but distinct categories) agitating for increased wages only cuts the profit of the industrial bourgeois it doesn't even affect the shares of the super-profits from imperialism (since non-parasitic labour aristocrats may remain surplus-value producing in unionized heavy industry).

Marcel agrees with the MIM line that the majority of workers in the U.S. belong to the aristocracy and are parasites. I already explained this.. and so did Marcel:

"I agree with their [MIM's] theory on the imperialist country workers as labour aristocracy class." Notice he says "the imperialist country workers," not 'some workers,' not 'labor tops,' the imperialist country workers.

"you have no real arguments that can show western "workers" aren't parasites. So you use weasel words instead. Go ahead and keep dreaming about your magical mystical western revolution, and that western "workers" are going to stop exploiting the third world by becoming conscious."

"The only anti-workers are the parasites that don't care they live on the real proletarians sweat and blood"

So Marcel's position in no way leads to a "scab line". The only way that would make sense would be if one assumes that parasitic first world non-productive workers (again, these are not proletariat) had some mechanism where they could agitate to increase the rate of exploitation of the third world industrial proletariat; this is however improbable, in reality they only agitate to increase their share of the existing superprofits since the financial capitalists intend to maximize the amount of surplus generated from hyper-exploited third world proletariat anyways, they don't need parasitic labor aristocrats to motivate them to do that.

So what's this?

"Two thousand, five hundred employees of the Detroit News Agency (DNA)
have been on strike since July 13th. MIM takes the Maoist line and upholds the perspective of the international proletariat: the Labor Aristocrat strikers are in a bloody alliance with the big corporate capitalists. The DNA employees want better benefits in exchange for their service, even though these benefits can only be proffered at the expense of the Third World proletariat." MIM newspaper, autumn 1995 (http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/rail/rn_fall_1995.txt)

If you believe that Western workers are 'overpaid', should you really be supporting their struggles for more pay?

At least someone here can connect the dots.

LuÃs Henrique

2nd August 2007, 16:41

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 01, 2007 09:36 pm
MIM has an anti-worker line; a scab line (which has been explained numerous times).

Marcel says he supports MIM's line.

Marcel supports a scab line.
He said, once, that he supports MIM's line. Implying that he supports MIM's theories, not necessarily MIM's actions or lack thereof. He also said that he does not support scabbing.

The worse that can be said about him is that he is perhaps inconsistent; that he does not take MIM's line to its logical consequences.

Not that I defend inconsistency with Wilde quotes, but I don't think inconsistency is a restrictable offence.

Luís Henrique

Nothing Human Is Alien

2nd August 2007, 23:07

chimx & RNK, thank you for replying to my post in such a thoughtful manner.

The worse that can be said about him is that he is perhaps inconsistent; that he does not take MIM's line to its logical consequences.

You think? He says workers in the imperialist countries are "parasites" that live off of "real workers' in the imperialist-oppressed countries; but also says he's not opposed to those "parasites" fighting for better conditions, which could only come, according to him, at expense of the "real workers". :wacko:

black magick hustla

3rd August 2007, 00:32

MIM's line is ridiulous, and if that was true, the real "communists" in advanced capitalist natons wouldn't be fighting for freedom, rather, they would be sacrificing for a "cause" that doesn't beliongs to them, like many liberals.

RNK

3rd August 2007, 00:50

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 02, 2007 10:07 pm
chimx & RNK, thank you for replying to my post in such a thoughtful manner.
Like anything you (or almost everyone who's voted to restrict Marcel) have said is "thoughtful".

"Restrict the fuck"
"De-mod, kick out, and restrict the fucka."
"I don't support the "armchair" objection from people who support dead ideologies."

etc.

Not to mention CDL using the word "scab" in every-other sentance. "Marcel's a scab" "scab line" "scabbing on workers" etc, etc. When it's blatantly not true. Again, repeatedly saying something doesn't make it fact. It makes you a very sorry excuse for a leftist, and a reactionary prick.

Anyway, I don't see why I'm getting so worked up over some pathetic forum where leftist wannabes come and have power trips and dellusions of their own self-important grandeur. Restrist him. And me too. So long as I can get on livechat, I don't really give a damn.

Nothing Human Is Alien

3rd August 2007, 00:57

Like anything you (or almost everyone who's voted to restrict Marcel) have said is "thoughtful".

Let's see. I:

1. Posted direct quotes from Marcel.

2. Explained how Marcel's / MIM's line has nothing to do with anything Marx, Engels, Lenin, or any other serious leftist with half a brain has ever put forward.

3. Took that line to its logical conclusion for those incapable or unwilling to do so.

Not to mention CDL using the word "scab" in every-other sentance. "Marcel's a scab" "scab line" "scabbing on workers" etc, etc. When it's blatantly not true. Again, repeatedly saying something doesn't make it fact. It makes you a very sorry excuse for a leftist, and a reactionary prick.

I'm not sure where "Marcel's a scab" comes from. You used quotations, but I don't recall typing that anywhere. As for the rest, I was using the term appropriately, as opposed to (for example) your use of the term "reactionary" for me.

Anyway, I don't see why I'm getting so worked up over some pathetic forum where leftist wannabes come and have power trips and dellusions of their own self-important grandeur. Restrist him. And me too. So long as I can get on livechat, I don't really give a damn.

No need to have a temper tantrum. If you don't want to post here, you don't have to. After all, why would you want to visit a site full of "leftist wannabes"?

Either respond to the points I raised, or don't, but leave your emotional outbursts on that side of the computer screen, please.

chimx

3rd August 2007, 02:37

Originally posted by CdL+--> (CdL)chimx & RNK, thank you for replying to my post in such a thoughtful manner.[/b]

My bad. It is difficult for me to maintain interest in the topic because I disagree with the MIM line, and very much disagree with Marcel on most issues. This has become a case of "whoever yells the longest, wins". Anyway:

CDL
Workers in the imperialist countries are "parasites" that feed off of the "real proletarians" in the imperialist-oppressed countries, but he doesn't oppose their parasitism?!?

Yeah, he is taking a stance similar to Lenin and Engels. Parasitism is an effect placed onto workers by capitalists/imperialists. Again, this is Marxism 101 stuff. I'm sorry if you don't get it. Many of us have tried to explain it to you and have provided reading links that go into greater depth.

But they're not workers, so what kind of "consciousness" are they building? Labor aristocracy-parasite consciousness?? Any why is that good??

I don't think anyone has called it that. Consciousness means a consciousness of the conflict and exploitation between capitalists and workers. One can be conscious of this conflict and still receive the wages given to them by capitalists.

Marcel seems to think that any sort of hit on the capitalists is ultimately good, because it helps makes workers aware of the production relationship and potentially hurts capitalists.

Even if the only "real workers" were those in the imperialist-oppressed countries, this guy's line would be an anti-worker one. He's saying that (1) workers in the imperialist countries steal from "real workers" in the imperialist-countries, but (2) he doesn't oppose that theft.

Workers aren't the thieves, capitalists are. Some workers simply benefit from the theft.

Remember, we restrict people so we don't have to debate whether or not leftist ideology is valid all the time, making room for us to discuss the ideology itself.

No, restriction is to root out people that question the need for worker liberation, whereas revleft is to discuss the means of worker liberation. Marcel and MIM are in favor of worker liberation, but seem to feel this can currently only occur in third world, thus their support for national liberation movements--a trait not-at-all uncommon with most Marxist-Leninists.

Nothing Human Is Alien

3rd August 2007, 23:16

Yeah, he is taking a stance similar to Lenin and Engels.

No he's not. You're just repeating the same shit over and over even though it has been refuted.

Again, this is Marxism 101 stuff.

No, it's not. This has nothing to do with "Marxism". This has been pointed out to you several times, by several communists.

I don't think anyone has called it that. Consciousness means a consciousness of the conflict and exploitation between capitalists and workers. One can be conscious of this conflict and still receive the wages given to them by capitalists.

Class consciousness is what he's talking about.. which means not only being conscious of class conflict, but of the position of one's class in that conflict. If one is not a "real worker," how can they gain a proletarian class consciousness?

Marcel seems to think that any sort of hit on the capitalists is ultimately good, because it helps makes workers aware of the production relationship and potentially hurts capitalists.

How is it a "hit on the capitalists" if the "real workers" in the imperialist-oppressed countries are the ones who pay more??

Workers aren't the thieves, capitalists are. Some workers simply benefit from the theft.

Parasites, thieves, bloodsuckers, it's all relative. The point remains that Marcel says workers in the imperialist countries benefit at the expense of workers in the imperialist-oppressed countries, and that if they fight for better conditions, that will come at the expense of said workers; but he doesn't oppose that fight.

No, restriction is to root out people that question the need for worker liberation, whereas revleft is to discuss the means of worker liberation. Marcel and MIM are in favor of worker liberation, but seem to feel this can currently only occur in third world, thus their support for national liberation movements--a trait not-at-all uncommon with most Marxist-Leninists.

Communists support national liberation for several reasons, the weakening of imperialism being a major one. Many communists see revolutions in the imperialist-oppressed countries as necessary precursors to revolution in the imperialist countries. Communists do not, however, call workers in the imperialist countries parasites, say that they are overpaid, or that they are enemies of "real workers" in the imperialist-oppressed countries. Only a weirdo fringe element, that has no place in the left, pushes that utter bullshit.

MIM and their handful of "followers" are to communism what Lyndon LaRouche is to the Democratic Party, a minor section that is unwanted, not taken seriously, and that has gained much more notoriety than is due.

Nothing Human Is Alien

4th August 2007, 00:04

MIM propaganda:

http://images.socialist.in/anti%2Dimperial...ters/yahooo.pdf (http://images.socialist.in/anti%2Dimperial/anti%2Damerica%5Fposters/yahooo.pdf)
http://images.socialist.in/anti%2Dimperial...ters/amvote.pdf (http://images.socialist.in/anti%2Dimperial/anti%2Damerica%5Fposters/amvote.pdf)

Good stuff.

:rolleyes:

chimx

4th August 2007, 00:49

No, it's not. This has nothing to do with "Marxism". This has been pointed out to you several times, by several communists.

Yes, by communists that ignore the writings of Engels and Lenin.

Listen CDL, clearly there isn't going to be any convincing you. You are too emotionally attached to your argument to even have a discussion with, its utterly futile. It was Lenin and Engels that originally wrote of worker parasitism, of capitalists "bribing" workers, to use Lenin's favorite term.

If you are serious about calling yourself a Marxist-Leninist, than I strongly suggest you revisit some of the literature. Personally I don't care that you disagree with the analysis, it tells me there is hope for you. I disagree with aspects of it myself. But you are just ignoring fairly clear facts at this point; again due to your apparent emotional attachment to your views. If that is how you are going to debate, without counter-evidence from texts by Lenin, then I don't really even see how debate can either get anywhere or be productive.

--

I do not think Marcel should be restricted for his theoretical views.

Axel1917

4th August 2007, 01:00

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 03, 2007 11:04 pm
MIM propaganda:

http://images.socialist.in/anti%2Dimperial...ters/yahooo.pdf (http://images.socialist.in/anti%2Dimperial/anti%2Damerica%5Fposters/yahooo.pdf)
http://images.socialist.in/anti%2Dimperial...ters/amvote.pdf (http://images.socialist.in/anti%2Dimperial/anti%2Damerica%5Fposters/amvote.pdf)

Good stuff.

:rolleyes:
I am shocked to see that they did not spell it "AmeriKKKan."

Nothing Human Is Alien

4th August 2007, 04:42

Yes, by communists that ignore the writings of Engels and Lenin.

Unless you're using the word "ignore" to mean "understand," I'm afraid you're incorrect.

If you are serious about calling yourself a Marxist-Leninist, than I strongly suggest you revisit some of the literature.

I don't call myself a "Marxist-Leninist." I have never called myself that at any point of my life.

Personally I don't care that you disagree with the analysis, it tells me there is hope for you. I disagree with aspects of it myself.

I don't disagree with it, I understand it.

If that is how you are going to debate, without counter-evidence from texts by Lenin, then I don't really even see how debate can either get anywhere or be productive.

Funny, I don't recall ever seeing you "be productive."

But anyway, communists are not rigged dogmatists. We don't have to refer to historical texts like they were Holy Writ to put forward our outlook on something.

Communist theory has been developed of a period of time, with contributions from people like Marx, Engels, Lenin, Che, etc. Communists today continue to develop that theory and put it into practice.

Of course, numerous works, historical and more recent, could be cited to prove that you are dead wrong (probably purposely, in your usual manner)..

"The bourgeoisie was able to buy off the bulk of the labor bureaucracy, what American Marxist Daniel De Leon called the “labor lieutenants of the capitalist class”—as well as a tiny minority of the working class, the labor aristocracy—through the spoils of imperialist plunder." Marxism, War and the Fight For Socialist Revolution (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/archives/oldsite/2003/WAR795.HTM), Workers Vanguard Nos. 795 and 796.

* * *

"So the LRP also claims that white workers are a “labor aristocracy,” which means that they’re bought off, and they lump them with the white racist rulers. This is how they put it: “Black workers no longer have to wait upon whether or not white workers will lead a struggle or not. Black—and Latino—workers are now strategically placed in major industries and in the dominant cities. Their militancy and their actions can be a decisive pole in what the white workers do.” This is a pseudo-leftist rejection of the centrality of the working class in the fight to abolish the racist capitalist system. If white and black workers don’t have common interests, which means a common fight against the racist exploiters, then you drive the white workers into the arms of the white ruling class and, at worst, the fascists!" We Are the Party of the Russian Revolution! (http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/archives/oldsite/2003/SLPres.html), WV No. 805.

* * *

"...imperialist capitalism creates both in colonies and semicolonies a stratum of labor aristocracy and bureaucracy..." [so, the aristocracy is not just in the imperialist countries]. - Trotsky, “Trade Unions in the Epoch of Imperialist Decay.”

* * *

"The epoch of imperialism is one in which the world is divided among the “great” privileged nations that oppress all other nations. Morsels of the loot obtained as a result of these privileges and this oppression undoubtedly fall to the share of certain sections of the petty bourgeoisie and to the working-class aristocracy and bureaucracy. These strata, which form an insignificant minority of the proletariat and of the toiling masses, gravitate towards “Struvism”, because it provides them with a justification of their alliance with their “own” national bourgeoisie, against the oppressed masses of all nations." - V.I. Lenin The Collapse of the Second International (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/csi/iii.htm#v21pp74h-217)

* * *

"German Communism became a mass movement when tens of thousands of well paid metal workers left the Independent Socialists and joined the Communists in 1921. The French and Italian Communists also became mass parties through the recruitment of thousands of machinists who led the mass strikes of the postwar period. These highly paid workers were also overrepresented in the smaller Communist parties of the United States and Britain." - Debate on working class consciousness (http://www.internationalviewpoint.org/spip.php?article1110), International Viewpoint 381

Etc., etc., etc.

chimx

4th August 2007, 06:48

Nothing Human Is Alien

4th August 2007, 08:11

"You [Kautsky] ask me [Engels] what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general. There is no workers’ party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England’s monopoly of the world market and the colonies." -Frederich Engels, Letter to Kautsky September 12, 1882

Ouch!

Right....

That's one letter, and what's being said there has nothing to do with the MIM/Marcel line.. What's being said there is that the lack of a workers party has left workers supporting capitalist parties, and something I explained much earlier in this very thread, namely:

"...indeed the capitalists in the imperialist countries super-exploit the workers in the imperialist-oppressed countries, and use the cheap consumer goods they make as they spread consumerism in their imperialist countries, taking workers’ minds off of their exploitation, alienation and the like.."

But, as I pointed out in the same post:

"..it cannot be confused that the majority of the population in the imperialist countries, like the imperialist-oppressed ones, are workers, and to advocate a scab line against them lines you up with the capitalist bosses, no matter the color of the flag you fly."

This is in line with what Lenin said in the passage I quoted a short while ago, which directly contradicts the MIM line that you've tried to attribute to him: "These strata [the aristocracy and bureaucracy], which form an insignificant minority of the proletariat and of the toiling masses."

Perhaps we shouldn't, but many people still look towards historical texts as having significant importance.

Significant importance ≠ needing a passage from "scripture" to verify an analysis.

We should debate the development of capitalism, not restrict people who we simply disagree with.

..as if that was the question here.. whether or not to restrict people who we disagree with about the development of capitalism.

I thought I would look at the change in average real earnings between 1882, when Engels said that of the British working class, through to the present day

1. That's off topic.

2. Real wages in the imperialist countries have gone down over the last few decades. You should try reading some of the pieces I linked to.

chimx

4th August 2007, 08:53

What's being said there is that the lack of a workers party has left workers supporting capitalist parties

Well that's one interpretation. :)

Personally I disagree though. There is a tone of contempt.

This is in line with what Lenin said in the passage I quoted a short while ago, which directly contradicts the MIM line that you've tried to attribute to him: "These strata [the aristocracy and bureaucracy], which form an insignificant minority of the proletariat and of the toiling masses."

Yes yes yes, I know. Lenin is speaking of a labor aristocracy, which he has always claimed to be a minority. But I can just as easily drag up the quotes I used in the MIM thread that clearly shows Lenin speaking of a general bribery of the working class--completely distinct from what he calls the labor aristocracy. We can go back and forth forever, as Lenin seemed to describe this phenomenon in both optimistic and pessimistic terms.

Real wages in the imperialist countries have gone down over the last few decades. You should try reading some of the pieces I linked to.

Oh I certainly am aware of that. But those declining "real" earnings are still significantly higher than in 1882 when Britain's workers were gaily feasting off of imperialist exploitation. ;)

Nothing Human Is Alien

4th August 2007, 09:24

Well that's one interpretation.

This isn't about interpretation. This isn't the bible, it's a letter by Engels.

If you were familiar with his entire body of work, you'd be able to better understand what he meant when writing the piece in question.

Yes yes yes, I know. Lenin is speaking of a labor aristocracy, which he has always claimed to be a minority. But I can just as easily drag up the quotes I used in the MIM thread that clearly shows Lenin speaking of a general bribery of the working class--completely distinct from what he calls the labor aristocracy.

Right... and I already talked about that, several times. That "bribery" is not the same as MIM/Marcel's insane theory that workers in the imperialist countries belong to the labor aristocracy.

You're mincing your words now and squirming around your original positions and statements.

Sorry, you can't pin the idiocy coming out of the MIM-internet camp on genuine revolutionaries like Marx, Engels and Lenin.

We can go back and forth forever

That seems to be your intention.

Anyway, your bogus claim that this scab nonsense has anything to do with Marx, Engels or Lenin has been thoroughly refuted, several times, in this and other threads; and I have spent much too much time on this.

If anyone is seriously interested in the actual communist position on this question, they can go back through this thread, especially the last 3 pages.

chimx

4th August 2007, 20:26

If anyone is seriously interested in the actual communist position on this question, they can go back through this thread, especially the last 3 pages.

And they should go through the anti-MIM thread too, where I did the majority of my discussion and where many Marxist-Leninists members here agreed with what I was saying.

Also, I'm not squirming. I'm bored of talking about it with you because you aren't getting it.

Louis Pio

5th August 2007, 23:18

Just home from a small trip. The discussion on "parasitism" are quite interesting so I will respond to it when am not deadbeat tired.

Just a small comment.

What are you talking about? Just a few months ago the Indian Maoists held a national congress which drew in hundreds of supporters and was guarded by over a thousand armed comrades of the People's Liberation Army. And last March they organized an attack consisting of 300 armed soldiers against an armed forces encampment. I'd hardly call that "small bands of maoists fighting totally isolated struggles". You don't raise an army of 10,000 fighters without some sort of stable mass support base.

In the context of India this is nothing more than a sect, a very small sect even.
Problem is you don't change society by a small group of people going out and doing actions that are nothing more than substituting the mass fight.
In that respect anarchist "direct action" and maoist guerillaism has much in common. I can see why it appeals to some middle class youths in the west, it proposes easy sollutions instead of all that "tirering day to day work"..... (and it's "exotic" and "exiting" yet another appeal factor)

RNK

6th August 2007, 13:08

it proposes easy sollutions instead of all that "tirering day to day work".....

You mean, it proposes solutions period? And by tiring day-to-day work, do you mean the reformis-- I mean, "entryism"? :rolleyes:

Wanted Man

6th August 2007, 13:18

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 11:18 pm
In the context of India this is nothing more than a sect, a very small sect even.
Problem is you don't change society by a small group of people going out and doing actions that are nothing more than substituting the mass fight.
In that respect anarchist "direct action" and maoist guerillaism has much in common. I can see why it appeals to some middle class youths in the west, it proposes easy sollutions instead of all that "tirering day to day work"..... (and it's "exotic" and "exiting" yet another appeal factor)
Yeah. I like how they are "substituting the mass fight" by organizing thousands of people fighting the agents of capitalism head-on.

But fair enough, maybe they should drop "exotic" and "easy solutions" for the real mass work: going into the petty-bourgeois neighbourhoods and trying to sell newspapers. :) That would make some nice headlines. No more "People's Army liberates hundreds of prisoners" but "Committee for the Creation of the Foundation of an International Marxist Workers Tendency sells hundreds of papers".

LuÃs Henrique

6th August 2007, 15:13

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 10:18 pm
I can see why it appeals to some middle class youths in the west, it proposes easy sollutions instead of all that "tirering day to day work"..... (and it's "exotic" and "exiting" yet another appeal factor)
It is also at a safe distance, from where bullets cannot reach them.

Luís Henrique

Vanguard1917

6th August 2007, 16:38

Like those lefties in Britain who eagerly wore Sandanista badges and Palestinian scarves as a show of solidarity, but shied away when it came to supporting the national liberation struggle happening in their own backwards (i.e. Ireland).

Vargha Poralli

6th August 2007, 18:26

Originally posted by Dick Dastardly
Yeah. I like how they are "substituting the mass fight" by organizing thousands of people fighting the agents of capitalism head-on.

Well there is the problem. India has a billion population and thousand armed people cannot liberate the workers and peasants of India who constitute 80% of the population.

Naxalites have many problems. One of their first is the armed struggle they have taken on. The splits within themselves sometimes creates the problem and also they cannot defeat the Indian paramilitary forces and Police which is second biggest in the world next to China. And the fact that they have taken armed struggle as a tactic had lead them to next normal disadvantages that comes with it. They cannot trust people easily and people in turn cannot trust them easily.No one can be sure the support they receive is truly earned because people respect them or through fear of their guns. The fact that the movement have not and cannot extend beyond the areas it started proves my point.

In the city I live in some 20 people are arrested on the grounds of Naxalite activity and been released recently after the charges against them are proved to be false. But no one is going to give back the lifetime they spent on jail and the arrest of 20 people in turn raises fear of people to be associated in any chance with the Naxalites.

And there is really a false image that India countryside is dominated by Naxalites. In fact the Naxalites are active in jungle areas of 3 states in central India- Chattisgargh, Northern Andhra Pradesh(Telengana) and Jharkhand. The rest of the states countryside and some Urban cities is dominated by Caste based politics - not even CPI and CPI(M) have much stronghold here.

The problem of Naxalites is the blind and wrong hope they have put on Guns. And the very guns are the greatest barriers to themselves. Some of them have abandoned the weapons to build a from Grass roots - Kanu Sanyal is one but it is too early to give a judgement of them. The rest - well they can kill some cops here and there but certainly they cannot do what Mao did in China.India is very much different from China of the Chiang and Warlords.

RNK

7th August 2007, 00:05

Axel1917

7th August 2007, 02:22

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2007 11:05 pm
I'd much rather see the CPI(M) actually accomplishing something, rather than see them resort to reformism and paper-selling, waiting around for the revolution to fall into their laps, which is what the majority of communist organizations do. For all the talk about the overexhageration of the CPI(M)'s influence, their's is a hell of a lot larger than that of communist organizations in the West, most of whom can only sell papers, gather together a few dozen people every once in awhile, and, perhaps in anarchist groups' case, smash up a recruiting office or a McDonalds.

In any case, the MLM strategy has made loads of progress over the past 30 years, while the ML, Trotskyist, and Anarchist movements have regressed significantly. And I believe it is due to the critical lack of initiative and determination plaguing the revolutionary movement. Afterall, how is a revolution supposed to happen when so few of us are willing to risk the comfort of our lives to make it happen?
A small group of such attackers substituting their actions for mass struggle won't accomplish anything. If anything, it will accomplish a strengthening of reaction ("Propaganda of the deed" has been proven by history time and time again to be a total failure. Just look up the results of the Narodnik individual terrorism, for instance.).

I don't know about anarchism, but Trotskyism has definitely not regressed, especially since Hugo Chavez has been stating that Trotsky's internationalist approach is correct and Stalinist nationalism is wrong.

Selling papers is not the only thing we do. The Bolshevik role of the paper was explained by Lenin. It is not some mere fundraiser or something to do just for the hell of it. There are other things to be done as well.

Louis Pio

7th August 2007, 02:41

I'd much rather see the CPI(M) actually accomplishing something, rather than see them resort to reformism and paper-selling, waiting around for the revolution to fall into their laps, which is what the majority of communist organizations do. For all the talk about the overexhageration of the CPI(M)'s influence, their's is a hell of a lot larger than that of communist organizations in the West, most of whom can only sell papers, gather together a few dozen people every once in awhile, and, perhaps in anarchist groups' case, smash up a recruiting office or a McDonalds.

In any case, the MLM strategy has made loads of progress over the past 30 years, while the ML, Trotskyist, and Anarchist movements have regressed significantly. And I believe it is due to the critical lack of initiative and determination plaguing the revolutionary movement. Afterall, how is a revolution supposed to happen when so few of us are willing to risk the comfort of our lives to make it happen?

I have to admit I think your views are bound by a total lack of involvement in the fight. It seems my first post was spot on.
Let me try to show what I mean. You will never get people fighting against the state by trying to do it for them, at worst people would think they didnt have to do anything because others took care of it. But normally we just see the maoist groups being the laugh of the month because they don't care bout workers in the west.

Seriously what can I as a worker use u for? Nothing really, why do I even discuss with you? You don't even have a role to play other than in remote areas were you split the fight and make sure it will never win...

Vargha Poralli

7th August 2007, 08:54

Originally posted by RNK
I'd much rather see the CPI(M) actually accomplishing something, rather than see them resort to reformism and paper-selling, waiting around for the revolution to fall into their laps, which is what the majority of communist organizations do. For all the talk about the overexhageration of the CPI(M)'s influence, their's is a hell of a lot larger than that of communist organizations in the West, most of whom can only sell papers, gather together a few dozen people every once in awhile, and, perhaps in anarchist groups' case, smash up a recruiting office or a McDonalds.

Well you mean CPI(Maoist) because CPI(M) usually refers to Communist Party of India(Marxist) (http://www.cpim.org/) who is the biggest Stalinist/Revisionist party in India. They head the Left Democratic Front which is in ruling Coalition in 2 states West Bengal and Kerala.

And main point of my post just before yours is that CPI(Maoists) - who are called Naxalites cannot accomplish anything apart from killing some Policemen here and there. Indian government is too strong to be defeated Militarily and the worst case for them it is not tyrant enough for people to rally behind some armed adventurists in Jungles. They are fighting for about 30 years and they still have gained no footage outside their own Bases.

Afterall, how is a revolution supposed to happen when so few of us are willing to risk the comfort of our lives to make it happen?

That is the problem of your way of thinking I suppose. Socialism is not an adventure to risk our lifes for. If you are not aware majority of Indian workers and peasants have nothing to lose in this struggle. The main problem is most of them are so disconnected from themselves that all the actions do not get completed for example within this years there had been at least 30 strikes and Hartals in the state I live. But most of them did not create big revolutionary situation because of the lack of this connection and co-ordination among the various sectors of the workers. The trouble with Naxalites is they cannot be the ones who co-ordinate these independent and isolated actions as they have no connection to these struggles and majority of these workers and peasants have no connection with their adventure.

Hiero

7th August 2007, 13:51

Even though workers in first world nations are higher paid, the fact that the price level is generally higher and that the costs for housing are higher, creates the same effect on the lives of workers, namely that they need to be worried to end up on the street.

There are millions of workers in the third would who live on the "street". I don't believe that arguement, I actually think no one has really compared prices and wages to find purchasing power (is that the correct term?).

1st world workers have higher living standards, better housing, better nutrition, compare the most popular problem in the USA, which is obesity to malnutrition and starvation of the 3rd world workers and peasants. Prices are higher yes, however it seems that alot of 1st world workers seem to be able buy the basic neccisities and sometimes a bit more compared to workers in the 3rd world. Also don't forgot the fact that 1st world countries have a welfare state (some are being rolled back) that are paid for through imperialism.

Alot of people use that arguement, but don't really see any sources. Yes prices are different, but if we compare wages does it really mean anything? From what I know from comparing standards of living it just does not make sense. Unless you were going to use the cultural relativist arguement and claim that we just don't understand the benifits of living in squalor

Nothing Human Is Alien

7th August 2007, 14:24

1st world workers have higher living standards, better housing, better nutrition

But none of that was gifted to them. There was a hard and long fight for that. Today, a lot of those gains are slipping away as better paid, organized jobs in manufacturing, transportation, etc., give way to temporary 'white collar' and low-paid, part-time 'service sector' jobs.

Also don't forgot the fact that 1st world countries have a welfare state (some are being rolled back) that are paid for through imperialism.

You defeated your own argument here.

The maintenance of a welfare state comes at the expense of the profits the bourgeois makes from the exploitation of workers. The welfare state itself was created as class struggle sharpened, workers became more organized, and the threat of revolution loomed. It's not like the imperialists just decided to give workers in their own countries better pay and conditions because they were happy about all the new markets and workers they were able to exploit, there was a struggle!

Today, the reforms are being rolled back (as you say), because the bourgeoisie are no longer willing to sacrifice a portion of profit they could keep for themselves -- nor do they have to, as the position of the international working class has become weaker.

Alot of people use that arguement, but don't really see any sources. Yes prices are different, but if we compare wages does it really mean anything? From what I know from comparing standards of living it just does not make sense. Unless you were going to use the cultural relativist arguement and claim that we just don't understand the benifits of living in squalor

If anyone is being a relativist here comrade, it is you. You say "I don't believe it" after admitting you really have no sources or information to base your analysis (which is little more than an opinion in this case) on.

You're asking for statistics and sources, but you have none of your own. In the second sentence you admit that you're not even sure what terms are used and how such things are calculated.

This question requires serious investigation, with all the time and energy that entails. We shouldn't jump to conclusions based on emotions.

Clearly, workers in the imperialist countries in general have a better standard of living; but there are multiple reasons for this. "First world workers are parasites that live off the exploitation of 'real workers' in the Third World" is not one of them.

RNK

7th August 2007, 20:05

According to you. You admit that workers in the 1st world have reached such a standard of living through countless years of struggling for it -- they've managed to wrestle from the bourgeoisie a slightly smaller piece of pie. The problem is, that pie is still being baked mainly at the expense of the 3rd world. 50 years ago things may have been different; but since the mass exodus of manufacturing from the 1st world to the 3rd, the 1st has been running almost solely on the economic energy generated in the 3rd world. Oil, for instance, comes at the expense of severe exploitation; in Saudi Arabia, where US taxpayer dollars go to engorging the corrupt royals in return for a massive cut of oil; in Iraq, where as many as 100,000 or more have died to secure more oil; in Iran, where a theocratic religious cult maintains power atleast in part thanks to their domination of their own oil; etc. All of the huge amounts of oil that workers in the 1st world guzzle to do their jobs comes at the expense of thousands of ruined or destroyed lives in the 3rd world. This fact is indisputable. Now, you can run up and down the aisles claiming that 1st world workers are also exploited (to a lesser extent) and are therefore somehow immune to criticism (and that's all this is -- criticism. Not some call for genocide as you seem to be trying to make it sound like). I do not believe this. I believe workers in the 1st world do need to be criticized, and their selfish outlook does need to be exposed as such, and that more consideration needs to be paid to the billions of workers who would cut their own legs off to have as high a standard a living as workers in the imperialist countries. That's all.

LuÃs Henrique

7th August 2007, 20:46

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2007 07:05 pm
The problem is, that pie is still being baked mainly at the expense of the 3rd world. 50 years ago things may have been different; but since the mass exodus of manufacturing from the 1st world to the 3rd, the 1st has been running almost solely on the economic energy generated in the 3rd world.

http://people.hofstra.edu/geotrans/eng/ch1en/conc1en/img/carprod1950-1999.gif

Automobile production of the world. As you see, the three main imperialist countries still produce half of the world's cars. Add to that France and Italy's production - and it is clear that at least that sector of industry still makes most of its surplus value in the first world.

Luís Henrique

Nothing Human Is Alien

8th August 2007, 03:51

RNK,

The thing you don't seem to understand boils down to a basic communist understanding of capitalism.

The workers in every country are oppressed and exploited, that's how capitalism functions. The same capitalist class is doing the exploiting and oppressing all around the world. The capitalist elite that exploit my uncle in a coke mill in Pittsburgh are the same capitalist elite that exploit another brother in another mill in Mexico, and another in Colombia.

Another problem you seem to have is your failure to understand that the world economy is not a zero sum game.

No one denies that there are all kinds of horrors being waged by imperialists all over the world, but to try to pin those on working people is as disgusting as it is un-communist.

You want to "criticize" someone? Criticize the bourgeoisie and organize against their rule. Even if every worker in the imperialist countries voluntarily gave up a large chunk of their wages (which they wouldn't do, as its against their material interests, and people act in their material interests--another basic communist understanding) the super-exploitation of workers in the imperialist oppressed countries would continue as it is, and even get worse (gains by workers in one place have a tendency to lead to gains by workers in other places as well). The only people that would benefit are the capitalist elite. In that regard, your line serves them well.

Communism isn't about working people anywhere taking the hit; it's about working people everywhere wrestling the means of production out of the hands of the bourgeoisie to reorganize society along democratic lines, in the interest of meeting human need.

Nothing Human Is Alien

8th August 2007, 03:54

Automobile production of the world. As you see, the three main imperialist countries still produce half of the world's cars. Add to that France and Italy's production - and it is clear that at least that sector of industry still makes most of its surplus value in the first world.

Add to that the fact that the bourgeoisie in the imperialist countries has -- for its own reasons of course, and also because it has been forced to -- created better educational systems (in general) and other things which lead to more productive workers. According to statistics, workers in the U.S. are still the most productive workers in the world. Better trained and better educated workers are able to win better conditions from the bourgeoisie, because they create more profit.

Nothing Human Is Alien

8th August 2007, 03:57

Then there's the fact that industrial production has increased in the imperialist countries since the 1980's.

That's the case in the U.S., Australia, Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, Japan, Portugal, Spain and the UK.

Source (http://allcountries.org/uscensus/1381_index_of_industrial_production_by_country.htm l)

chimx

8th August 2007, 04:43

Communism isn't about working people anywhere taking the hit; it's about working people everywhere wrestling the means of production out of the hands of the bourgeoisie to reorganize society along democratic lines, in the interest of meeting human need.

Human needs in the imperialist worlds are being met. I already showed you British data that shows in the increase in wages in proportion to living costs. Communism is about materialism, and material conditions that are required for class struggle.

Nothing Human Is Alien

8th August 2007, 04:59

Human needs in the imperialist worlds [sic] are being met.

Indeed (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?332) .. they (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/02/eveningnews/main2755159.shtml) .. are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Understating_poverty) .

RNK

8th August 2007, 05:14

...Cars? Car production has increased? Glory be.

but to try to pin those on working people is as blahblahblah

I'm getting tired of your sensationalist bullshit. I say "deserving of criticism" and suddenly I'm blaming warehouse workers in Plattsburgh, Vermont for the murder of 100,000 Iraqis :rolleyes:

You want to "criticize" someone? Criticize the bourgeoisie and organize against their rule.

That's going well.

Even if every worker in the imperialist countries voluntarily gave up a large chunk of their wages (which they wouldn't do, as its against their material interests

So we've established that. And who said anything about asking 1st world workers to give up a chunk of their wages? All I'm asking is that they stop building the bourgeoisie's weapons and capital.

Communism isn't about working people anywhere taking the hit; it's about working people everywhere wrestling the means of production out of the hands of the bourgeoisie to reorganize society along democratic lines, in the interest of meeting human need.

And 1st world workers are in the better position when it comes to doing this, and, unfortunately, they are the least likely to actually do it.

Add to that the fact that the bourgeoisie in the imperialist countries has -- for its own reasons of course, and also because its been forced to -- created better educational systems (in general) and other things which lead to more productive workers. According to statistics, workers in the U.S. are still the most productive workers in the world. Better trained and better educated workers are able to win better conditions from the bourgeoisie, because they create more profit.

Yes, we've established that 1st world workers have it better.

I'm really getting this feeling that you're technically agreeing with everything I say, but stubbornly refusing to admit that agreement.

1st world workers have it better.
3rd world workers are suffering far more.
It is against the material interests of the 1st world workers to fight against the exploitation of the 3rd world.
Everyone's being exploited.
There are different levels of exploitation.
A black man in the US is still oppressed, but not nearly as much as he was 100 years ago.

Unfortunately, trying to "organize" and "educate" workers in the 1st world is taking far too long. And not only that, but it really seems to not be working. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the revolutionary movement in the west -- and inparticular the USA -- is at its weakest point since the bourgeoisie initially took the reigns of power. Revolutionary movements' "political power" (ie ballot returns) account for a hundredth of a percent in most of the West (not counting, of course, reformist petty-bourgeois "communists" and social-democrats). For all of the propaganda, leaflet distribution, paper selling and spending a couple thousand dollars to get a couple dozen people to talk about how society is on the eve of revolution, there really isn't much being accomplished. And you can throw around words like "materialism" and "communist theory" all you want -- it only goes to show how ridiculously dogmatic you are, and how blind you've become to the realities of socioeconomic dynamics. You're addicted to a severely out-dated mode of thought which serves no other purpose than to allow you to live your life with the false satisfaction that your knowledge will some day, magically, make the world a better place, without you actually having to do anything to risk your material well-being, or, Marx forbid, exercise a little self-criticism. But anyway, I don't have a problem with you. As long as you don't get in the way of real revolutionaries, then I have no problem with whatever scientific opinion you manage to pull out of that dusty head of yours.

And as for MIM and Leninism, they are completely different. They may discuss the same topics but their analytical methods are completely alien to one another. Leninism calls for an ideological and material struggle against worker aristocracy. MIM calls for the use of force against workers that do not submit to their ideological line and have abandoned entirely the thought of organizing workers in the 1st world to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

RNK

8th August 2007, 05:27

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 08, 2007 03:59 am

Human needs in the imperialist worlds [sic] are being met.

Indeed (http://freepeoplesmovement.org/fpm/page.php?332) .. they (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/05/02/eveningnews/main2755159.shtml) .. are (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States#Understating_poverty) .
1 out of every 3 Africans suffers from malnutrition.
Less than 1 out of every 2 Africans has access to even the most primitive healthcare.
Average life expectancy in Africa is half of that of the 1st world (41 years).
1 in 6 Africans die before the age of 5.

Again, not saying that Americans are immune from exploitation. But honestly, put it into "material" perspective.

chimx

8th August 2007, 06:47

Look at your own website's statistics. 88% of the American population is not living in poverty.

Leninism calls for an ideological and material struggle against worker aristocracy.

That's all MIM advocates too. There is just a difference of opinion between contemporary orthodox Marxist-Leninists and MIM over the size of this labor aristocracy.

Nothing Human Is Alien

8th August 2007, 06:48

...Cars? Car production has increased? Glory be.

Industrial production in general has increased, did you miss my post or just ignore it? ...and great, in-depth and principled response, by the way.

I'm really getting this feeling that you're technically agreeing with everything I say, but stubbornly refusing to admit that agreement.

You should check your spidey-sense, 'cause it isn't working.

1st world workers have it better.
3rd world workers are suffering far more.

Of course this is true.. and I, as a materialist, have provided reasons for this, instead of just using emotional appeals and the like (which can lead to a poor understanding of things and bad approach).

It is against the material interests of the 1st world workers to fight against the exploitation of the 3rd world.

That's absolutely wrong.

It is in their interests to struggle against the exploitation of workers in the imperialist-oppressed countries because (a) the workers in imperialist and imperialist-oppressed countries share a common enemy and (b) the betterment of conditions in the imperialist-oppressed countries would prevent the worsening of conditions in the imperialist countries (when the bourgeoisie doesn't have a place with cheaper labor to run to, or lower-paid workers to bring in, when workers start fighting). This is all basic communist theory.

A black man in the US is still oppressed, but not nearly as much as he was 100 years ago.

That's a whole other issue; and what does it have to do with the issue at hand?

1 out of every 3 Africans suffers from malnutrition.
Less than 1 out of every 2 Africans has access to even the most primitive healthcare.
Average life expectancy in Africa is half of that of the 1st world (41 years).
1 in 6 Africans die before the age of 5.

Again, not saying that Americans are immune from exploitation. But honestly, put it into "material" perspective.

I responded to a claim that "human needs are being met in the imperialist world [sic]," and you responded to my response by pointing out the obvious fact that people in Africa are suffering under horrible conditions?

Unfortunately, trying to "organize" and "educate" workers in the 1st world is taking far too long. And not only that, but it really seems to not be working.

Well, if by "organizing" and "educating" you mean trying to get workers in bourgeois-democratic imperialist countries to join "vanguard parties" based around the theories, ideas and even personality of the leader of a revolution in a peasant-majority imperialist-oppressed country in the 20th-century, then I'm afraid it will never work.

And then there's the fact that most existing organizations have been doing the same old tired shit for decades, even though it's clearly not working. This was the case decades ago, which is something Che pointed out and actively struggled against (not the least of which by going on without these outmoded sects).

We need to step up and change our practice, based on what works (and leaving out what doesn't), but even then, we can't just "will" a revolution in the imperialist countries into existence.

It is for this that the FPM was formed a few years ago. We need to base ourselves on a synthesis of the communist/working class movement over the last period and continue to develop our theory and practice.

An overview of history and current material conditions, and the application of communist theory tell us that we must:

1. Organize locally/nationally everwhere, as a part of an international structure and overall plan.

2. Form the strongest and widest possible movements in the imperialist and imperialist junior partner countries, with dedicated communist militants at the center of more open groupings of supporters. These movements must have have roots in the working class (among organized workers in vital industries as well as among the poorest and more exploited sections-including the unemployed) and among small-time farmers, and they must exercise influence throughout society through cultural work (i.e. music, television, internet, and other popular forms), survival programs (i.e. providing food, healthcare, childcare, etc. to working people to allow them participate in the political process), struggling for democratic rights, forming truly popular assemblies, militant fighting in labor and student unions, etc. These movements must constantly be organizing and ready to act when cracks emerge in the system (such as when Katrina hit in New Orleans, the L.A. riots, etc.) and must build support and solidarity with struggles in the imperialist oppressed countries (which ties into the next point).

3. Form wide, democratic liberation fronts -- with militant, fighting vanguards at their core -- in the imperialist-oppressed countries. These fronts must encompass all those who can be united (and especially the vast masses of unemployed, women, oppressed nationalities, small farmers, slum dwellers and the members of the agricultural and industrial working class) under the banner of national independence, the overthrow of imperialist domination and neo-colonialism (or in the cases of places like Puerto Rico, outright colonialism), and genuine democracy. They must be expanded greatly, through hard work on the part of cadres, so that they can be mobilized at a certain point to support armed struggle initiated by the militant vanguards at their core (through which, they will continue to grow).

The armed struggles initiated in the imperialist-oppressed countries will not all be successful in their immediate goals, but they will set an example for the world. Some will be successful, and the odds of success will increase as these struggles break out simultaneously (i.e. what Che called creating "many Vietnams"), thus lessening the then over-spread-out imperialists' ability to intervene. The work of the previously mentioned movements in the imperialist countries will also weaken that ability by organizing mass opposition, and militant struggles against, any intervention.

Each successful struggle in the imperialist-oppressed countries will weaken the imperialist system, thus causing crises and making openings in the imperialist heartland for the by-then growing movements in them to take advantage of. A significant weakening of the imperialist system can and would bring about a crisis in the imperialist countries along the lines of the great depression, when class struggle was at an all time high.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the revolutionary movement in the west -- and inparticular the USA -- is at its weakest point since the bourgeoisie initially took the reigns of power.

I don't know if it's at its weakest point ever, and revolutionary movements on a world scale are gaining strength, but in a general sense you're on point. Of course, this is a direct result of the current strength of imperialism (unrivaled in all of history, even though it has its problems, contradictions, and cracks emerging) and betrayals and mistakes on the part of leaders of the workers' movement.

Revolutionary movements' "political power" (ie ballot returns) account for a hundredth of a percent in most of the West (not counting, of course, reformist petty-bourgeois "communists" and social-democrats).

Well, if you judge political power or support by election returns, what do you think about the 2007 French elections, in which 'communists' won around 9% of the vote (i.e. almost 1 in 10 ballots cast)? Or, how about the recent Indian, Moldovan, Japanese, etc., elections?

Of course, that's not really an indication of anything.

For all of the propaganda, leaflet distribution, paper selling and spending a couple thousand dollars to get a couple dozen people to talk about how society is on the eve of revolution, there really isn't much being accomplished.

I agree, see above (though there is not nearly enough propaganda/education work being done; and what is being done isn't being done in the correct ways, for the most part).

And you can throw around words like "materialism" and "communist theory" all you want -- it only goes to show how ridiculously dogmatic you are, and how blind you've become to the realities of socioeconomic dynamics. You're addicted to a severely out-dated mode of thought which serves no other purpose than to allow you to live your life with the false satisfaction that your knowledge will some day, magically, make the world a better place, without you actually having to do anything to risk your material well-being, or, Marx forbid, exercise a little self-criticism. But anyway, I don't have a problem with you. As long as you don't get in the way of real revolutionaries, then I have no problem with whatever scientific opinion you manage to pull out of that dusty head of yours.

This is little more than a run-on personal attack, full of baseless slander and general ignorance (it's clear you have little to know understand of my politics or my history), and is not deserving of a response.

And as for MIM and Leninism, they are completely different. They may discuss the same topics but their analytical methods are completely alien to one another. Leninism calls for an ideological and material struggle against worker aristocracy. MIM calls for the use of force against workers that do not submit to their ideological line and have abandoned entirely the thought of organizing workers in the 1st world to overthrow the bourgeoisie.

That was the original point of this thread, and the removal of posters with the MIM-scab line.. You were one of the loudest opponents of that, remember?

Nothing Human Is Alien

8th August 2007, 06:56

Look at your own website's statistics. 88% [sic] of the American population is not living in poverty.

No, according to a statistic from the U.S. government listed on "my own website," 13% of the population in the U.S. is "officially" living in poverty by the the government's standards.

The website also says (in the section that I linked to) "...poverty in the United States is understated, meaning that there are more households living in actual poverty than there are households below the poverty threshold. A recent NPR report states that as much as 30% of Americans have trouble making ends meet and other advocates have made supporting claims that the rate of actual poverty in the US is far higher than that calculated by using the poverty threshold. The issue of understating poverty is especially pressing in states with both a high cost of living and a high poverty rate such as California where the median home price in May 2006 was determined to be $564,430. With half of all homes being priced above the half million dollar mark and prices in urban areas such as San Francisco, San Jose or Los Angeles being higher than the state average, it is almost impossible for not just the poor but also lower middle class worker to afford decent housing."

But that's neither here nor there.

The reason I linked to that page, and the others, was to counter your ridiculous claim that "Human needs in the imperialist worlds [sic] are being met."

I am interested in having a serious discussion here, as a lot of issues vital to the direction of the approach of revolutionaries in the current conditions have come up.

I'd ask that if all you have left to post are one-liners aimed at defending your mistaken position on the relation between the insane MIM-scab line and what comrades like Marx, Engels and Lenin have written, you just don't post at all.

Nothing Human Is Alien

8th August 2007, 07:01

I would ask that I be able to merge some of the more important sections on theory (including discussions over what Marx, Engels and Lenin had to say about the labor aristocracy) from the thread on Marcel with this one, and that I can move this thread to the theory forums, so that more people can view and get involved in this discussion.

Are there any objections?

chimx

8th August 2007, 07:06

From your website:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/89/Percent_below_poverty_line.png/800px-Percent_below_poverty_line.png

Perhaps you subtracted wrong?

I'd ask that if all you have left to post are one-liners aimed at defending your mistaken position on the relation between the insane MIM-scab line and what comrades like Marx, Engels and Lenin have written, you just don't post at all.

Oh lolz. How about I provide an equally snippy retort: why don't you drop the condescending presumptuous attitude that reeks of male chauvinism? Just because you have an opinion doesn't make you right, captain ego. Many Marxists here understand and agree with what I have said on Lenin's understanding of imperialism and how that has transcended into the MIM position. I don't care if you disagree, just drop the alpha-male trolling.

chimx

8th August 2007, 07:08

Are there any objections?

I would prefer to have a discussion in theory on labor aristocracy that does not involve the MIM crap. Having the two side-by-side would lead to a confusing discussion IMO. I'll start one tomorrow if you want.

Nothing Human Is Alien

8th August 2007, 07:21

No, I want this thread out there, because there is some confusion on the part of some comrades on what the labor aristocracy is (i.e. that it has anything to do with the bizarre MIM position on the subject).

Perhaps you subtracted wrong?

Nope. "Currently roughly 13% of the US population fall below the federal poverty threshold." 100 - 13 = 87.

I didn't even look at that graph, which is apparently based on a different source (the CIA fact book).

Again though, it's neither here nor there.

Oh lolz. How about I provide an equally snippy retort: why don't you drop the condescending presumptuous attitude that reeks of male chauvinism? .. I don't care if you disagree, just drop the alpha-male trolling.

Male chauvinism? Seriously? I guess its hard for you to keep your trolling semi-clandestine once your bullshit is exposed by reasoned argument and objective fact.

If you're really not going to keep making these kinds of spam posts, I'm going to have to ask another, impartial moderator to delete them, so the points in this thread can be addressed with the seriousness they require. Failing that, I guess I'll just have to ignore you.

Nothing Human Is Alien

8th August 2007, 08:58

I forgot to respond to one part of RNK's post earlier:

And who said anything about asking 1st world workers to give up a chunk of their wages?

What else would be the point of "criticizing them" for "their selfish outlook"?

All I'm asking is that they stop building the bourgeoisie's weapons and capital.

Well, you need to explain them why they should "stop building the bourgeoisie's weapons," educate them on what is done with those weapons, and show them, in practice, why they should listen to a word you have to say. That's what class conscious workers (assuming you are one) do.

LuÃs Henrique

8th August 2007, 13:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2007 05:47 am
Look at your own website's statistics. 88% of the American population is not living in poverty.

Leninism calls for an ideological and material struggle against worker aristocracy.

That's all MIM advocates too. There is just a difference of opinion between contemporary orthodox Marxist-Leninists and MIM over the size of this labor aristocracy.
Not so.

MIM comes to believe in an enormous worker aristocracy (which encompasses all, or almost all, workers in imperialist countries), because they misunderstand the concept of surplus value. They believe that anyone earning more than some miscalculated vital minimum is having a share on surplus value, which is manifestly wrong.

So, it is not a disagreement over size, it is a primary miscomprehension, by the MIMites, of the basic concepts of the theory they profess to uphold.

Luís Henrique

Led Zeppelin

8th August 2007, 14:25

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 08, 2007 07:58 am

All I'm asking is that they stop building the bourgeoisie's weapons and capital.

Well, you need to explain them why they should "stop building the bourgeoisie's weapons," educate them on what is done with those weapons, and show them, in practice, why they should listen to a word you have to say. That's what class conscious workers (assuming you are one) do.
Yeah. That "argument" is stupid anyway. Workers in the third world also work in the arms industry to produce weapons for their own bourgeois.

If workers were already class-conscious we wouldn't be having any problems, now would we?

Nothing Human Is Alien

8th August 2007, 14:35

Not to mention telling workers to "stop building the bourgeoisie's ... capital" in practice means telling them to stop eating.

Workers create profit for the bourgeoisie when they work, and they work because they have to.

...

Also, I wanted to post something that Lenin wrote which addresses much of what RNK posted earlier:

"The period that preceded the Russian revolution and prepared it bears a certain resemblance to the period of the Napoleonic yoke in France. In Russia, too, the autocratic clique has brought upon the country economic ruin and national humiliation. But the outbreak of revolution was held back for a long time, since social development had not yet created the conditions for a mass movement and, notwithstanding all the courage displayed, the isolated actions against the government in the pre-revolutionary period broke against the apathy of the masses. Only the Social-Democrats, by strenuous and systematic work, educated the masses to the level of the higher forms of struggle—mass actions and armed civil war." - Lenin, Lessons of the Commune (http://www.marx.org/archive/lenin/works/1908/mar/23.htm)

chimx

8th August 2007, 16:59

Originally posted by CDL+--> (CDL)"Currently roughly 13% of the US population fall below the federal poverty threshold." 100 - 13 = 87.[/b]

if 13% is below the poverty line, than the 87% is above the poverty line. Which is what I said. (I would add that these numbers don't even take into account food stamps, government housing etc.)

Originally posted by Luis+--> (Luis)MIM comes to believe in an enormous worker aristocracy (which encompasses all, or almost all, workers in imperialist countries), because they misunderstand the concept of surplus value. They believe that anyone earning more than some miscalculated vital minimum is having a share on surplus value, which is manifestly wrong.[/b]

That's possibly true. I haven't read about how MIM gets their numbers, and if I had to guess I would side with you. But given what was said between MIM and Lenin, I wanted to clarify the similarity in their positions on labor aristocracy.

CDL quoting [email protected]
isolated actions against the government in the pre-revolutionary period broke against the apathy of the masses.

What Lenin is saying here is that the the work of the Narodnichestvo, whom he liked very little, or possibly other early revolutionary groups in Russia, was courageous but in vain. You can do all the clandestine revolutionary activity you want, but if the material conditions are not correct, all revolutionary activity will "break" under a wave of worker apathy.

CDL
I'm going to have to ask another, impartial moderator to delete them, so the points in this thread can be addressed with the seriousness they require. Failing that, I guess I'll just have to ignore you.

Do whatever it is you have to do to make yourself feel the victor in your own eyes.

Nothing Human Is Alien

8th August 2007, 17:33

Originally posted by chimx now+--> (chimx now)if 13% is below the poverty line, than the 87% is above the poverty line. Which is what I said. [/b]

...

chimx a few posts ago
Look at your own website's statistics. 88% of the American population is not living in poverty.

Nothing Human Is Alien

8th August 2007, 17:34

What Lenin is saying here is that the the work of the Narodnichestvo, whom he liked very little, or possibly other early revolutionary groups in Russia, was courageous but in vain. You can do all the clandestine revolutionary activity you want, but if the material conditions are not correct, all revolutionary activity will "break" under a wave of worker apathy.

"What Lenin is saying here" is obvious. I posted it, as I said, because it addressed a number of issues raised by RNK earlier.

chimx

8th August 2007, 17:38

Originally posted by CompañeroDeLibertad+August 08, 2007 04:33 pm--> (CompañeroDeLibertad @ August 08, 2007 04:33 pm)
Originally posted by chimx [email protected]
if 13% is below the poverty line, than the 87% is above the poverty line. Which is what I said.

...

chimx a few posts ago
Look at your own website's statistics. 88% of the American population is not living in poverty. [/b]
Living above the poverty line means not living in poverty.

Nothing Human Is Alien

8th August 2007, 18:28

Look, I'm not going to play your game.

87 ≠ 88, and
Originally posted by [email protected] a few posts back
13% of the population in the U.S. is "officially" living in poverty by the the government's standards.

The website also says (in the section that I linked to) "...poverty in the United States is understated, meaning that there are more households living in actual poverty than there are households below the poverty threshold. A recent NPR report states that as much as 30% of Americans have trouble making ends meet and other advocates have made supporting claims that the rate of actual poverty in the US is far higher than that calculated by using the poverty threshold. The issue of understating poverty is especially pressing in states with both a high cost of living and a high poverty rate such as California where the median home price in May 2006 was determined to be $564,430. With half of all homes being priced above the half million dollar mark and prices in urban areas such as San Francisco, San Jose or Los Angeles being higher than the state average, it is almost impossible for not just the poor but also lower middle class worker to afford decent housing."

But that's neither here nor there.

The reason I linked to that page, and the others, was to counter your ridiculous claim that "Human needs in the imperialist worlds [sic] are being met."

chimx

8th August 2007, 20:08

You said 87% (or 88%, depending on the source) of people are "living in poverty." You are misreading the quote. 87/88% of people are NOT living in poverty because they are above the poverty line.

This isn't a game. You are misreading or misunderstanding something very basic.

Nothing Human Is Alien

8th August 2007, 20:34

Yeah, that was an obvious typo, shoulda been the reverse... I'll edit it.. and I said in "official poverty" which isn't poverty.

chimx

8th August 2007, 20:37

Well hopefully this confusion is past us then.

RNK

9th August 2007, 02:40

Would anyone who isn't such a pretentious drama queen like to come forward and take up CDL's position? I can't stand the egotistical Trot "1 + 2 = 3 and therefore I'm right" nonsense any longer.

That's all MIM advocates too. There is just a difference of opinion between contemporary orthodox Marxist-Leninists and MIM over the size of this labor aristocracy.

Originally posted by Programme of the MIM+--> (Programme of the MIM)We believe that socialism in the imperialist countries will require the dictatorship of the international proletariat and that the imperialist- country working-classes will need to be on the receiving end of this dictatorship.[/b]

Did Lenin advocate that?

Also:

RPP "Manifesto"

We uphold Comrade Jim Jones, People’s Temple and the People’s Temple Agricultural Project as being the highest level of communist advance ever emerging specifically from north amerikan soil.

chimx

9th August 2007, 04:33

Did Lenin advocate that?

Well obviously not. He looked towards the workers in the imperialist worlds [not sic] with hopeful eyes. But I presume that he thought the dictatorship of the proletariat had the right to deny representation to members of the labor aristocracy. As I understand it, MIM just believes that the grand majority of American/European workers are part of the labor aristocracy.

Nothing Human Is Alien

9th August 2007, 05:08

Would anyone who isn't such a pretentious drama queen like to come forward and take up CDL's position? I can't stand the egotistical Trot "1 + 2 = 3 and therefore I'm right" nonsense any longer.

Throwing around terms like "Trot," as pejoratives, when they have zero to do with the question at hand, does not say much for your position -- which you apparently cannot even defend.

LuÃs Henrique

9th August 2007, 05:31

Originally posted by [email protected] 09, 2007 03:33 am
As I understand it, MIM just believes that the grand majority of American/European workers are part of the labor aristocracy.
And as it was explained before, this is not a disagreement about the numbers of the workers aristocracy, but fundamentally a result of MIM not knowing what surplus value is - which makes them not only non-leninist, but also non-marxist at all.

Luís Henrique

bezdomni

9th August 2007, 06:11

MIM's analysis differs from the actual marxist-leninist (and maoist) analysis of the labor aristocracy in the sense that they think the labor aristocracy is some sort of static class that doesn't change at all.

They fail to realise that because the labor aristocracy is so dependent on finance capital and imperialism that when this system collapses, so will the labor aristocracy. Most labor aristocrats will become proletarians when imperialism collapses.

That's where this whole "one big gulag" and "forced re-education camps" nonsense comes from, along with the disdain for first world workers.

BreadBros

9th August 2007, 13:23

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+August 08, 2007 01:25 pm--> (Led Zeppelin @ August 08, 2007 01:25 pm)
Compañ[email protected] 08, 2007 07:58 am

All I'm asking is that they stop building the bourgeoisie's weapons and capital.

Well, you need to explain them why they should "stop building the bourgeoisie's weapons," educate them on what is done with those weapons, and show them, in practice, why they should listen to a word you have to say. That's what class conscious workers (assuming you are one) do.
Yeah. That "argument" is stupid anyway. Workers in the third world also work in the arms industry to produce weapons for their own bourgeois.

If workers were already class-conscious we wouldn't be having any problems, now would we? [/b]
What specific states are you referring to? I know some consumer small-arms are produced in Latin America and E. Europe. But when it comes to purchases for armed-forces (the kind of purchase/production the bourgeoisie would make), I'm pretty sure those are overwhelmingly all produced in a small # of states: US, Russia, China, Europe (UK, Germany, France, Belgium), Japan, etc. Thats even true for states that might be considered on the left or progressive (Cuba, Venezuela, etc). With the exception of maybe North Korea I can't even think of a third-world state that signficantly produces armaments, so unless I'm totally wrong I think your point is nitpicking.

9th August 2007, 13:39

Originally posted by Soviet Pants

They fail to realise that because the labor aristocracy is so dependent on finance capital and imperialism that when this system collapses, so will the labor aristocracy. Most labor aristocrats will become proletarians when imperialism collapses.

Of course you're correct but do they actually disagree with you on this point? I'm pretty sure that MIM recognizes that Labor aristocracy is dependent on finance capitalism, as did Lenin, as does almost everyone who understands the concept.

Of course labour aristocrats will become proletarianized after imperialism collapses (due to revolutionary expropriations of the third world).

I think MIM's point, though, which is an obvious one and one that Lenin recognized, is that labour aristocrats, and indeed parasitic service industry employees, don't want to become proletarian so it then follows that they don't want imperialism to collapse.

When you have an economy like the US or England that produces very little of the goods it consumes, should it go socialist it would no longer receive any imports because its imports are based largely on the financial services "industry" and banking and not export of goods but export of capital. This means that while socialism for a third would country would result in a rise in the standard of living, socialism for a finance capitalist economy would result in the total collapse of the standard of living across the board (the service sector would be wiped out over night).

It doesn't take a genius to guess that Trotskyist internationalism is not going to convince labor aristocrats and service sector employees that committing economic suicide is a good idea; thus Lenin concluded that people in such a financial situation would largely side with imperialism when it comes to issues like war and revolution. I suspect that MIM's position is similar.

As to the "one big gulag" line, i suspect that "one big hurricane Katrina over New Orleans" would be more apt, should imperialism collapse.

The main difference though between the Leninist understanding and those who reject Lenin's theory of imperialism such as certain supposed Trotskyists (like the SWP-UK) is that Lenin recognized that imperialism due to these factors will only collapse from the colonies without not from revolution at its centre, the psudo-Trotskyists expect first world workers to do the bulk of bringing down imperialism...which is as i've described, economically implausible.

Nothing Human Is Alien

9th August 2007, 14:30

I guess you'll just ignore the things Lenin actually wrote, which were posted in this thread, and make a bunch of baseless assertions.

In that case, you're not being serious, so don't expect any serious, point-by-point replies.

Still, some of this has to be commented on...

I think MIM's point, though, which is an obvious one and one that Lenin recognized, is that labour aristocrats, and indeed parasitic service industry employees, don't want to become proletarian so it then follows that they don't want imperialism to collapse.

Sorry, Marx nor Engels nor Lenin considered "service industry [tertiary industry] employees" to be "parasitic" (and if they would have, they would have been wrong). They assist in the realization of surplus value; in the "expansion of capital"

When you have an economy like the US or England that produces very little of the goods it consumes, should it go socialist it would no longer receive any imports because its imports are based largely on the financial services "industry" and banking and not export of goods but export of capital.

Between Jan and May, the U.S. imported $791,560,000 worth of goods, and exported $644,123,000. Source (http://www.census.gov/foreign-trade/Press-Release/current_press_release/exh1.txt)

That fluctuates up and down, but not by much.. from 91-97 it was almost 50/50 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:ProportionUSexportsimports1960-2004.gif) for example.

"In 2005, U.S. refineries produced over 90 percent of the gasoline used in the United States." Source (http://www.eia.doe.gov/neic/brochure/gas06/gasoline.htm)

"In 2000, about 13.1 million acres were harvested, producing an estimated 17.2 million bales [of cotton] ... Over the last five years, 31 percent of the U.S. cotton supply was
exported." - Source (http://www.cotton.org/edu/faq/index.cfm)

Also, "Unfilled orders for manufactured durable goods in June, up twenty-five of the last twenty-six months, increased $10.4 billion or 1.4 percent to $736.1 billion, revised from the previously published 1.5 percent increase. This was also at the highest level since the series was first stated on a NAICS basis in 1992 and followed a 0.9 percent May increase... Inventories of manufactured nondurable goods, up four consecutive months, increased $1.2 billion or 0.6 percent to $203.9 billion. This was led by petroleum and coal products, which increased $0.5 billion or 1.4 percent to $34.6 billion... Work in process increased 0.3 percent in durable goods and decreased 0.1 percent in nondurable goods. Finished goods increased 0.5 percent in durable goods and 0.6 percent in nondurable goods." Source (http://www.census.gov/indicator/www/m3/)

There's a trend of some on the left pretending all manufacturing has disappeared in the U.S., that nothing used here is created here and that no good or agricultural products are exported from here (even though the U.S. is one of the top 3 exporters). It's usually a self-serving mistake (if that's what it is), used to cover bad politics and explain away failures in organizing.

The U.S. has huge economic influence because it is the major imperialist power in the world today. If it were to "go socialist" that would have huge ramifications on much of the world. No doubt revolutions would break out everywhere..

It doesn't take a genius to guess that Trotskyist internationalism is not going to convince labor aristocrats and service sector employees that committing economic suicide is a good idea..

Yup, the "parasite" ripping tickets at the AMC theater on 42nd St for 7$ an hour would definitely be committing "economic suicide" if the means of production and wealth were ripped out of the hands of the elite capitalist minority. :wacko:

Seriously, this has nothing to do with communism.

The main difference though between the Leninist understanding and those who reject Lenin's theory of imperialism such as certain supposed Trotskyists (like the SWP-UK) is that Lenin recognized that imperialism due to these factors will only collapse from the colonies without not from revolution at its centre, the psudo-Trotskyists expect first world workers to do the bulk of bringing down imperialism...which is as i've described, economically implausible.

Can you show where Lenin voiced this "understanding"?

It's most likely that revolution the imperialist countries will come about as a result of crisis caused by revolution in the imperialist-oppressed countries; but Lenin never ruled out revolution in the imperialist countries, nor did he ever recommend communists stop organizing and fighting for it in them.

9th August 2007, 17:59

You are conflating currency with capital, they aren't the same thing.

The trade deficit is a deficit in liquid currency; the deficit in real production is many times greater.

The real numbers that work at the point of production in the US constitute a minority. The fact that the US produces most of its own oil doesn't mean that most of the US workforce is productive; the fact is that it doesn't take a huge amount of people to run an oil well and many of those who are involved aren't even productive (managers aren't obviously).

Simply drawing some anicdotes about cotton or oil doesn't change the fact that manufacturing has been in decline for a very long time and now represents a small portion of the US economy in terms of the number of people employed in it.

Engel's and Lenin considered anyone who does not produce significant surplus value but receives a cut of that surplus, even a small one, to be parasitic. This is explained in many places and i've already posted Lenin and Engel's quotes elsewhere on the forum so i'm not going to go through it again.

Sorry, Marx nor Engels nor Lenin considered "service industry [tertiary industry] employees" to be "parasitic" (and if they would have, they would have been wrong). They assist in the realization of surplus value; in the "expansion of capital"

No CDL, Lenin was quite explicit in this view.

Lenin sayz:

Originally posted by [email protected] Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism Chp VIII Parasitism and Decay of Capitalism
We have foreshadowed the possibility of even a larger alliance of Western states, a European federation of great powers which, so far from forwarding the cause of world civilisation, might introduce the gigantic peril of a Western parasitism, a group of advanced industrial nations, whose upper classes drew vast tribute from Asia and Africa, with which they supported great tame masses of retainers, no longer engaged in the staple industries of agriculture and manufacture, but kept in the performance of personal or minor industrial services under the control of a new financial aristocracy. Let those who would scout such a theory (it would be better to say: prospect) as undeserving of consideration examine the economic and social condition of districts in Southern England today which are already reduced to this condition, and reflect upon the vast extension of such a system which might be rendered feasible by the subjection of China to the economic control of similar groups of financiers, investors, and political and business officials, draining the greatest potential reservoir of profit the world has ever known, in order to consume it in Europe.

In other words, Lenin is saying that financial capitalism was in 1916 capable of supporting massive parasitism in a service sector (not a tiny group of labour aristocrats but 'great tame masses of retainers' not engaged in productive work but personal services!) in southern england; and it would be capable of doing it across Europe if they were able to create a European Union and invest in China.

So Lenin has predicted precisely the course of social development as it actually happened.

The U.S. has huge economic influence because it is the major imperialist power in the world today. If it were to "go socialist" that would have huge ramifications on much of the world. No doubt revolutions would break out everywhere..

Sure, but it wont. As Lenin argued, capitalism breaks at its weakest links not its strongest, and imperialist states are only likely to have revolutions if they're either sparked by a revolution in a colony spilling over (like say, Mexico if you want to talk about the case of the US) or the total collapse of the finance capitalist system by a sustained series of colonial and semi-colonial revolutions.

Yup, the "parasite" ripping tickets at the AMC theater on 42nd St for 7$ an hour would definitely be committing "economic suicide" if the means of production and wealth were ripped out of the hands of the elite capitalist minority. wacko.gif

Yes, they would. Thats a perfect example of parasitism, any time your job is merely to limit access to something rather than create something you're living off of something else, rather than others living off of you.

ripping tickets is a non-productive activity, it merely services a capitalist industry, such a job is not worth 7$ an hour because it doesn't produce any surplus value, it is 'parasitic' even though its not well compensated.

For instance, if the theatre were socialist and not part of a profit driven industry there wouldn't be ticket rippers making sure people had paid.

Such people don't add any real tangible value they only help to produce profit for business in currency; which is to say that they merely facilitate the transfer of liquid capital not the expansion of capital.

In other words, they do what a stock trader does but on a much smaller scale.

Having a parasitic relationship to the economy is not a moral issue, it doesn't even make someone a 'labour aristocrat'.

black magick hustla

10th August 2007, 02:22

The tertiary sector in Mexico holds the biggest percentage of workers...

So this means all of them are basically parasites huh?

BreadBros

10th August 2007, 04:11

Under the definition TC provided, yes probably. As she pointed out though, parasitism does not equate to being a labor aristocrat. MIM says the principle contradiction is imperialist countries vs. exploited countries and I'm pretty sure they see Mexico as an exploited country. So despite it's economic/demographic make-up those people would likely still constitute a revolutionary proletariat.

Led Zeppelin

10th August 2007, 08:30

Originally posted by BreadBros+August 09, 2007 12:23 pm--> (BreadBros @ August 09, 2007 12:23 pm)
Originally posted by Led [email protected] 08, 2007 01:25 pm

Compañ[email protected] 08, 2007 07:58 am

All I'm asking is that they stop building the bourgeoisie's weapons and capital.

Well, you need to explain them why they should "stop building the bourgeoisie's weapons," educate them on what is done with those weapons, and show them, in practice, why they should listen to a word you have to say. That's what class conscious workers (assuming you are one) do.
Yeah. That "argument" is stupid anyway. Workers in the third world also work in the arms industry to produce weapons for their own bourgeois.

If workers were already class-conscious we wouldn't be having any problems, now would we?
What specific states are you referring to? I know some consumer small-arms are produced in Latin America and E. Europe. But when it comes to purchases for armed-forces (the kind of purchase/production the bourgeoisie would make), I'm pretty sure those are overwhelmingly all produced in a small # of states: US, Russia, China, Europe (UK, Germany, France, Belgium), Japan, etc. Thats even true for states that might be considered on the left or progressive (Cuba, Venezuela, etc). With the exception of maybe North Korea I can't even think of a third-world state that signficantly produces armaments, so unless I'm totally wrong I think your point is nitpicking. [/b]
I was specifically referring to Iran, the nation I know of that has a significant armaments production industry. Of course there are some other third world nations that have armaments industries, however the point is being lost.

The point was that if workers in the imperialist nations are "guilty" for building arms, then so should workers in third world nations be "guilty" for building arms and arming their own bourgeoisie, either directly or indirectly, for how else can the bourgeoisie of a nation buy weapons from those main producers? Of course, by capital, and how do they get capital? Exactly, workers produce it.

The idea that workers are guilty for the things they're building is ridiculous and anti-worker in nature. What is the alternative after all? Starvation, poverty...

Another great example of this is infrastructure. Are the workers who build stock markets/banks/financial centers, and thereby help in the establishment of exploitation sources, guilty for exploiting themselves and their fellow workers globally??

This line leads to very ridiculous theoretical conclusions, which is why my point was not "nitpicking", but actually very important to note.

Nothing Human Is Alien

10th August 2007, 14:01

Before I reply, I want to ask again if there any serious objections. This discussion shouldn't be held to the CC, and I'd like to move it to Theory before replying again.

BreadBros

10th August 2007, 15:28

Originally posted by Led [email protected] 10, 2007 07:30 am
I was specifically referring to Iran, the nation I know of that has a significant armaments production industry. Of course there are some other third world nations that have armaments industries, however the point is being lost.

The point was that if workers in the imperialist nations are "guilty" for building arms, then so should workers in third world nations be "guilty" for building arms and arming their own bourgeoisie, either directly or indirectly, for how else can the bourgeoisie of a nation buy weapons from those main producers? Of course, by capital, and how do they get capital? Exactly, workers produce it.

The idea that workers are guilty for the things they're building is ridiculous and anti-worker in nature. What is the alternative after all? Starvation, poverty...

Another great example of this is infrastructure. Are the workers who build stock markets/banks/financial centers, and thereby help in the establishment of exploitation sources, guilty for exploiting themselves and their fellow workers globally??

This line leads to very ridiculous theoretical conclusions, which is why my point was not "nitpicking", but actually very important to note.
I'm going to disagree on several points.

1. In terms of surplus value the production of armaments in and of themselves is not any worse than the production of any other commodity. What distinguishes armaments is their use in warfare and subjugation. Therefore what we have to look at is what those armaments are actually used for and who they serve. The arms built in Iran, North Korea, Cuba or any other Third-World country are primarily used for defense from the world's imperialist powers. The arms built in the United States, Europe and China are primarily used for the subjugation and exploitation of the rest of the world. Asking Iranian workers in an arms factory to stop working is to ask them to commit national suicide via US invasion. Asking American workers working for aerospace and defense corporations to stop building jets and tanks is to ask them to stop making the arms that are used to subjugate millions around the world and prop up fascist governments all over Latin America, Asia and Africa. Those aren't equal, at all.

2. I don't recall saying anyone was "guilty" of anything, nor did RNK. That was your invention and you added it either because you look at things moralistically or in an effort to distort the opposing argument. In regards to your example, financial and capitalist infrastructure does support capitalism and it is in the interest of workers to halt that work, subvert it or in some way challenge it. The fact that they don't indicates something is wrong. CdL seems to argue that it is an exhibition of false consciousness. MIM would argue for the labor aristocrat theory. Thats the argument. I'm not sure where "guilt" came into the picture or why you think I would such a logical leap. In other words, you're arguing against a strawman argument.

The idea that workers are guilty for the things they're building is ridiculous and anti-worker in nature. What is the alternative after all? Starvation, poverty...

3. First of all, either I'm not understanding what you're saying here or this is an absurd question. What is the alternative? Class struggle obviously. Are you proposing that workers never take risks, never actively challenge the system (you know, in a way more substantive than selling newspapers)? Even your compatriot-in-argument CdL seems to understand this: hes helping to organize a general strike with the aim of stopping the imperialist war in Iraq. The point MIM and others are making is...the fact that such an efforts are perpetually led by small groups (in relation to the entire American working class as a whole) instead of a group with mass membership (such as unions or a political party) indicates that something is a-foul. In fact most unions in the First World explicitly shun this (and in the case of US unions and Vietnam, many of them supported the war) and instead rely on economism-type gains to pacify the first world working class. Better wages alone will not bring the revolution, it will require an explicit challenging of capitalism by the workers which, yes, does bring risks. Do you find something shocking in the idea that workers might take an objective look at the industries they work in and use that strategically to fight capital? You are a Trotskyist, no? The build-up to the Russian revolution involved munitions workers going on strike and refusing to build the arms meant for the inter-imperialist warfare Russia was engaged in. Were the Bolsheviks anti-worker? Where they saying "You workers are guilty of all this!"? :rolleyes:

4. Second of all, this comment could easily be construed as proof for what MIM, TC, RNK, et. al. are explicitly arguing. What you just said amounts to "How can we expect First-World workers to challenge imperialism, the alternative is poverty". If your statement is true, then you just completely agreed with MIM's central thesis which is that if First-World workers challenged imperialism it would in fact lower their standard of living because they are parasites of that imperialism, which is why they are so complacent and don't challenge imperialism as most "revisionists" expect them to.

Led Zeppelin

10th August 2007, 17:35

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 02:28 pm
1. In terms of surplus value the production of armaments in and of themselves is not any worse than the production of any other commodity.
I know, and I never said they were, RNK brought that up.

What distinguishes armaments is their use in warfare and subjugation. Therefore what we have to look at is what those armaments are actually used for and who they serve.

The ruling class, in all nations, either for self-defense of their rule against other ruling classes, or for self-defense against their own population.

Most of the time it's the latter.

The arms built in Iran, North Korea, Cuba or any other Third-World country are primarily used for defense from the world's imperialist powers.

Yeah, right, and the workers in those countries aren't able to overthrow the state at home because they're so fat and lazy, right?

See, this is where idiotic MIMite logic leads you to; idiotic conclusions.

The ruling classes of those nations you mentioned (and no, I am not interested in another "is Cuba socialist" discussion so ignore that part) are also capitalist, something which you seem to forget. Another thing you seem to forget is that they, like any other capitalist ruling class, want to extend their power as far as they can.

What do you think Iran is doing in the middle-east today? You can say that is "anti-imperialism", which would be true, but it's an anti-imperialist imperialism from another capitalist state. If you can't see that fact, I'd wonder what you'd be calling for during the first world war; you'd probably support voting for war credits in Russia to "fight the bigger evil!".

With Marxists like you around we don't need social-democrats.

Asking Iranian workers in an arms factory to stop working is to ask them to commit national suicide via US invasion. Asking American workers working for aerospace and defense corporations to stop building jets and tanks is to ask them to stop making the arms that are used to subjugate millions around the world and prop up fascist governments all over Latin America, Asia and Africa. Those aren't equal, at all.

That's quite a leap of faith, something you must be used to as a Maoist (or whatever the hell you describe yourself as).

If the US army wasn't as powerful, the Iranian army would be. If the US didn't dominate the middle-east, Iran would. This is simple Marxist theory; capitalist states only serve their own interests. Do you believe that the anti-imperialism of Iran would lead to them being anti-imperialist if they had superiority in terms of arms?

That's quite ridiculous. Putting faith in nationalist regimes is a Maoist special trade though, the example of Indonesia springs to mind, where the Stalinists decided to trust the nationalist bourgeoisie, and guess what? They were slaughtered. The same goes for Iran itself by the way; the main communist party (i.e., Stalinist party) supported the Islamic revolution, refusing to call for its extension....a few years later the kind national bourgeoisie slaughtered them.

If we call for the American workers to stop working in the arms industry while not calling the same for Iranian workers, we're essentially being nationalist in our attitude towards proletarian liberation, something key to Maoism, but alien to Marxism.

2. I don't recall saying anyone was "guilty" of anything, nor did RNK.

Stop playing stupid semantic games with me. Why the hell do you think I put "guilty" in quotation tags, because it looks cool?

I know no one said it literally, however it was definitely implied as such. Further on in your post you still support that bullshit line by the way, which I will demonstrate below.

What is the alternative? Class struggle obviously.

No shit sherlock.

One thing though that you probably haven't noticed because you were busy reading all those MIM movie reviews; the proletariat isn't class-conscious. :o

Of course class-struggle is the alternative but it isn't seen as such by the working-class in current society, and not just in imperialist nations, but also in third world nations. If it was seen as such we wouldn't be having any problems.

Anyway, so we got that clear, the vast majority of workers aren't revolutionary (pretty sad that I have to make that point), so what is the alternative to them then according to you? Don't work! Yup, just don't work, instead of buying food and all that petty-bourgeois shit, just starve, that's how proletarians must live!

No wonder your movement has no appeal to the working-class, can you fucking blame us?

Are you proposing that workers never take risks, never actively challenge the system (you know, in a way more substantive than selling newspapers)?

Of course we as class-conscious workers will try to argue this and spread consciousness as much as we possible can (one paper sold by us will achieve more than you talking to one worker, which will actually set our cause back instead of forwarding it, since you spread such utter bullshit and claim it's communism).

I never said any different, but it's typical of you to try to slander other members. That's what Stalinists like yourself specialize in, after all.

Do you find something shocking in the idea that workers might take an objective look at the industries they work in and use that strategically to fight capital? You are a Trotskyist, no? The build-up to the Russian revolution involved munitions workers going on strike and refusing to build the arms meant for the inter-imperialist warfare Russia was engaged in. Were the Bolsheviks anti-worker? Where they saying "You workers are guilty of all this!"?

First of all stop rolling your tankie eyes.

Secondly; it's pretty hilarious that you bring up the Russian situation, as it is actually a situation which I should've brought up to support my point. Thanks for that though.

The difference between Russia and the US today is of course that the workers in the arms industries in Russia 1917 actually went on strike, and wanted to go on strike, and they were organized and therefore powerful enough to do so.

Right now only a few individuals in the US arms industry might go on a strike....whoa, real damage to the war effort there.

The Bolsheviks weren't idiots of course, they didn't approach the workers in the arms industry by telling them "you should stop working, instead just starve!", no, instead they told them "you should organize, take over your workplace, and run the factories yourself!", which in turn lead to them still making arms, only for the right people; their own class.

What you and MIM are calling for is not the same, for what attempts have you done to organize workes in the US arms industry? How could you even organize them if you are of the opinion that they are all labor aristocrats bought off by the bourgeois and therefore they are part of the problem themselves.

There's the difference between the Bolsheviks and you, they never considered the workers to be part of the problem; the considered them to be the solution to the problem.

Second of all, this comment could easily be construed as proof for what MIM, TC, RNK, et. al. are explicitly arguing. What you just said amounts to "How can we expect First-World workers to challenge imperialism, the alternative is poverty". If your statement is true, then you just completely agreed with MIM's central thesis which is that if First-World workers challenged imperialism it would in fact lower their standard of living because they are parasites of that imperialism, which is why they are so complacent and don't challenge imperialism as most "revisionists" expect them to.

The good ol' Stalinist school of falsification; I missed that.

Nice try, but you fail. My argument was not to be passive and do nothing. On the contrary, we must be very active and organize workers in all fields of industry, including the arms industry, and call on them to their workplace into their own hands.

Organizing the workers is not the same as telling them to quit their job, the former is revolutionary, the latter is reactionary.

Now, I believe I have put forth my stance enough in this debate; debating Stalinits is a soul-destroying task, something which I am not in the mood of doing at the time. So have fun replying to me, but I won't reply back.

I'm sure the good ol' school of falsification will be used again, but you can't fool us twice.

BreadBros

10th August 2007, 20:14

I know, and I never said they were, RNK brought that up.

No he didn't. He used that as one example of the lack of revolutionary consciousness of the First World proletariat. He didn't say anything about arms production being more exploitative than other commodity production.

Yeah, right, and the workers in those countries aren't able to overthrow the state at home because they're so fat and lazy, right?

Where did I even imply, let alone say, anything close to this?

The ruling classes of those nations you mentioned (and no, I am not interested in another "is Cuba socialist" discussion so ignore that part) are also capitalist, something which you seem to forget. Another thing you seem to forget is that they, like any other capitalist ruling class, want to extend their power as far as they can.

I never claimed they were socialist nor do I actually consider any of them (even Cuba) to be so. The fact is that if you accept Lenin's view of imperialism you understand that imperialism as a system props up capitalism internationally. It's defeat is progressive, even if the government isn't socialist. Most socialists opposed imperialist intervention in Iraq even though Saddam Hussein's government was far from being socialist in any way, shape or form. I have to wonder what your conception of imperialism is. One of the defining features of socialist states is that they've led a successful anti-imperialist struggle. So if the only time you oppose imperialism is when a socialist government is on the receiving end then you might as well chuck the concept out immediately, because its lost any distinction.

What do you think Iran is doing in the middle-east today? You can say that is "anti-imperialism", which would be true, but it's an anti-imperialist imperialism from another capitalist state. If you can't see that fact, I'd wonder what you'd be calling for during the first world war; you'd probably support voting for war credits in Russia to "fight the bigger evil!".

Except I never said anything about supporting a lesser evil or fighting a greater evil. I said I oppose imperialism and I believe my opinion on that point is consistent. I'm not sure what you mean by "anti-imperialist imperialism". If you are referring to funding organizations in Lebanon and Palestine, then, while I don't necessarily support those organizations because they are nationalist in orientation, I do not see that as being "imperialism" any more than the USSR giving aid to organizations abroad was imperialism. If what you are referring to is Iran bullying neighbors on foreign policy matters, then I do oppose that. I still think that the small scale Iranian imperialism that may exist pales in comparison to the type of imperialism the United States engages in (which involves the extraction of mass wealth from the states it exerts influence upon, outright political manipulation, physical violence, etc). For that reason, like I said, I would oppose American imperialism there. I also do think that the situation of the Iranian people is much better under the current independent bourgeois republic than it was while Iran was ruled by the Shah (who was really a proxy for the UK and British oil interests).

With Marxists like you around we don't need social-democrats.

How are my political positions similar to social-democracy? In the US social-democrats are pretty much explicitly nationalist and many of them are even agitating for war in Iran. While I bet the situation is a bit more moderated in Europe, I would be surprised to hear that social-democrats are even talking about imperialism let alone arguing against US imperialism.

If the US army wasn't as powerful, the Iranian army would be. If the US didn't dominate the middle-east, Iran would. This is simple Marxist theory; capitalist states only serve their own interests.

So? If historical development was different and Iran was in the place of the US we would be opposing Iranian invasion of X. Whats your point? That any state is capable of becoming imperialist depending on development? Thats not really a novel theory...especially considering the fact that in the past 100 years we've seen Russia shift from imperialist empire to anti-imperialist federation to the current Russian national chauvinism. These identities aren't static.

If the US army wasn't as powerful, the Iranian army would be. If the US didn't dominate the middle-east, Iran would. This is simple Marxist theory; capitalist states only serve their own
That's quite ridiculous. Putting faith in nationalist regimes is a Maoist special trade though, the example of Indonesia springs to mind, where the Stalinists decided to trust the nationalist bourgeoisie, and guess what? They were slaughtered. The same goes for Iran itself by the way; the main communist party (i.e., Stalinist party) supported the Islamic revolution, refusing to call for its extension....a few years later the kind national bourgeoisie slaughtered them.

I'm familiar with the situation in Iran and I'll take your word on Indonesia as I don't know much about it. That should serve as a warning to anti-revisionists (and I'm interested in what their response is, RNK? TC?). Neither of those refutes anything I've been saying though. The fact that Iran exiled the Worker's Party doesn't change the fact that the Iranian revolution was a. a blow to British imperialism b. a progressive step for the Iranian society as a whole and c. a step forward in the collapse of international capitalism, albeit not as forward a step as had the Worker's Party won out and made the state socialist.

If we call for the American workers to stop working in the arms industry while not calling the same for Iranian workers, we're essentially being nationalist in our attitude towards proletarian liberation, something key to Maoism, but alien to Marxism.

Thats only true if you view both states as being equal. As I've said, in my opinion American workers went on strike or challenged the arms industry, it would be extremely beneficial for working people of the world. It would set back the American bourgeoisie's goals while solidifying working-class strength in the US. If Iran were to invade another country or revolution were to emerge, I would also support similar action there. However, right now, with neither of those in sight and the threat of America invasion present I think such an action would only benefit the American bourgeoisie. The class that would lose the most would be the Iranian working-class who would lose what little land and resource reform was gained during the 1979 revolution while the majority of the current Iranian bourgeoisie would just transform itself into proxies.

Stop playing stupid semantic games with me. Why the hell do you think I put "guilty" in quotation tags, because it looks cool?

I know no one said it literally, however it was definitely implied as such. Further on in your post you still support that bullshit line by the way, which I will demonstrate below.

What semantic word games am I playing, exactly? You rebutted me using a word in quotes that I never used and that completely misrepresented what I had said. How should I know why you did that? If I'm going to guess, it would be because you wanted to imply that I was morally indignant against workers, when I wasn't.

No shit sherlock.

One thing though that you probably haven't noticed because you were busy reading all those MIM movie reviews; the proletariat isn't class-conscious. :o

Of course class-struggle is the alternative but it isn't seen as such by the working-class in current society, and not just in imperialist nations, but also in third world nations. If it was seen as such we wouldn't be having any problems.

Anyway, so we got that clear, the vast majority of workers aren't revolutionary (pretty sad that I have to make that point)

You know, if I wanted to respond like a jerk I would throw that "No shit sherlock" back at you.

Originally posted by Me+--> (Me)In regards to your example, financial and capitalist infrastructure does support capitalism and it is in the interest of workers to halt that work, subvert it or in some way challenge it. The fact that they don't indicates something is wrong. CdL seems to argue that it is an exhibition of false consciousness. MIM would argue for the labor aristocrat theory. Thats the argument. I'm not sure where "guilt" came into the picture or why you think I would such a logical leap. In other words, you're arguing against a strawman argument.
[/b]

Me
The point MIM and others are making is...the fact that such an efforts are perpetually led by small groups (in relation to the entire American working class as a whole) instead of a group with mass membership (such as unions or a political party) indicates that something is a-foul. In fact most unions in the First World explicitly shun this (and in the case of US unions and Vietnam, many of them supported the war) and instead rely on economism-type gains to pacify the first world working class

The whole point of all 6 pages of this thread is: First world worker's aren't class consciousness. MIM proposes the theory of labor aristocracy to account for this. How does this relate to Leninism as a whole.

In both of those snippets I just quoted I identify the issue as being a lack of revolutionary consciousness on the part of the First World working class. So you didn't point out anything at all to me. In fact, I even went one step further than you and identified the two competing theories presented in this thread as being labor aristocracy (favored by the anti-revisionists) and false consciousness/bourgeois social influence (favored by CdL).

so what is the alternative to them then according to you? Don't work! Yup, just don't work, instead of buying food and all that petty-bourgeois shit, just starve, that's how proletarians must live!

Yes, I do think that people should avoid work in munitions/arms factories. Barring that, I would advocate that if they do work there they use their position to strike against the bourgeoisie as much as possible. I never said I advocated people starving and it's pretty ludicrous that you would accuse me of that. I also advocate that people not become police officers, prison employees or any other occupation that acts as the tool of the bourgeoisie, something that many other communists and anarchists across the world and on this forum agree with me on. That doesn't equate to people starving and of course I use common sense (obviously if its someone's last recourse I wouldn't chastise them for taking up that work). With that being said, you seem to take a curious position. There have historically been times where vital strikes have required people to make personal or financial sacrifices. Do you think such a circumstance is anti-worker?

I never said any different, but it's typical of you to try to slander other members. That's what Stalinists like yourself specialize in, after all.

:lol: I'm not a Stalinist and what member am I slandering? You? That was intended for all. And I never said "me talking to other people" was the counter-point to you selling papers. Unlike you, I'm not a cocky bastard. I was referring to actual substantive challenges. The example I used was the SDTWM campaign CdL is organizing and while I have pretty big political differences with him (not the least of which are found in this thread) I still stand by that.

The difference between Russia and the US today is of course that the workers in the arms industries in Russia 1917 actually went on strike, and wanted to go on strike, and they were organized and therefore powerful enough to do so.

Right now only a few individuals in the US arms industry might go on a strike....whoa, real damage to the war effort there.

You: Asking American workers to stop making munitions is anti-worker.
Me: No, its not. Example: Russia.
You: The difference is that Russian workers were class-conscious, American one's aren't atm.

So....the fact that American workers aren't class-conscious means that I'm anti-worker if I advocate class-consciousness? Thats an extremely bizarre viewpoint and one that paints the vast majority of this board as anti-workers.

Not to mention that once again this part of your post avoids the main argument that people have brought up in this thread. The anti-revisionists have argued that First World workers aren't class conscious because imperialism puts them into a labor aristocracy. Your response is that the difference is that First World workers aren't class conscious. You are re-iterating part of what they are saying, not counter-arguing it.

The Bolsheviks weren't idiots of course, they didn't approach the workers in the arms industry by telling them "you should stop working, instead just starve!", no, instead they told them "you should organize, take over your workplace, and run the factories yourself!", which in turn lead to them still making arms, only for the right people; their own class.

Right, because thats exactly what I advocated <_< . LZ, your post amounts to insults and strawmen.

What you and MIM are calling for is not the same, for what attempts have you done to organize workes in the US arms industry? How could you even organize them if you are of the opinion that they are all labor aristocrats bought off by the bourgeois and therefore they are part of the problem themselves.

There's the difference between the Bolsheviks and you, they never considered the workers to be part of the problem; the considered them to be the solution to the problem.

I haven't organized them for obvious reasons: organizing an entire industry is far outside of the scope of one individual, let alone most of the major leftist groups out there. Nor do I think that organization would prevent or create economic conflicts. Organization may give political cohesion to collaborative efforts, but if it is in the interest of munitions workers to fight against imperialism they would have done so if only in a crude way, the fact that they haven't indicates something is in the way...whether that be false consciousness or labor aristocracy. That is basic Marxism, something you seem to fail to grasp since you think economic struggle only emerges when a Party points it out you. What you are basically saying is "Workers are too stupid to understand their economic interests, its up to you to tell them!".

Nice try, but you fail. My argument was not to be passive and do nothing. On the contrary, we must be very active and organize workers in all fields of industry, including the arms industry, and call on them to their workplace into their own hands.

Umm, I don't recall saying you were "passive", I said your initial viewpoint supported the MIM thesis. As for these other points, great, but they are without controversy.

Now, I believe I have put forth my stance enough in this debate; debating Stalinits is a soul-destroying task, something which I am not in the mood of doing at the time. So have fun replying to me, but I won't reply back.

I'm not a "Stalinist", far from it. My opinion on this issue is that there is a significant labor aristocracy in the First World, albeit nowhere near as all-encompassing as MIM would indicate. I would also agree with CdL that false consciousness and bourgeois hegemony also plays an important factor, a point that MIM ignores. Apart from that, I don't share much at all in common with most of the anti-revisionists on this board, as any of my past posts will indicate. Anyway, I thought your comments were so off-base that I decided to reply and post my rebuttals to your points. Feel free to reply or not, I'm mostly posting this to further the debate and show the complete lack of refutation in your reply.

I'm sure the good ol' school of falsification will be used again, but you can't fool us twice.

Another way of saying "Whatever he says, HES WRONG!!111" and a conveniant way for you to avoid having to back up what you said.

bezdomni

10th August 2007, 23:45

Breadbros - why do you have a link to that STALINIST ORGANIZATION the IWW in your sig? Are you like...a STALINIST OR SOMETHING?!

You must be - because you disagree with a trotskyist!

:o

I'm appalled.

RNK

11th August 2007, 00:05

Naturally, any disagreement with Trotskyism (which is, afterall, the only true form of Marxist theory) automatically means you are some sort of brutal totalitarian tankie Stalin-lover. And no measure of fact or truth will prevent that. No sir.

:rolleyes:

I've never seen such an enormous post contain such little actual worth.

Led Zeppelin

11th August 2007, 06:54

Originally posted by [email protected] 10, 2007 10:45 pm
Breadbros - why do you have a link to that STALINIST ORGANIZATION the IWW in your sig? Are you like...a STALINIST OR SOMETHING?!

You must be - because you disagree with a trotskyist!

:o

I'm appalled.
If he isn't a tankie, at least we all know you've degenerated into one. :rolleyes:

Axel1917

11th August 2007, 07:13

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 10, 2007 01:01 pm
Before I reply, I want to ask again if there any serious objections. This discussion shouldn't be held to the CC, and I'd like to move it to Theory before replying again.
Go for it. I was considering raising moving this to theory before the CC, but you beat me to it.

Nothing Human Is Alien

11th August 2007, 07:22

I'm going to merge some posts from the thread on Marcel and move it in a bit.

Wanted Man

11th August 2007, 08:11

Originally posted by Led Zeppelin+August 11, 2007 06:54 am--> (Led Zeppelin @ August 11, 2007 06:54 am)
[email protected] 10, 2007 10:45 pm
Breadbros - why do you have a link to that STALINIST ORGANIZATION the IWW in your sig? Are you like...a STALINIST OR SOMETHING?!

You must be - because you disagree with a trotskyist!

:o

I'm appalled.
If he isn't a tankie, at least we all know you've degenerated into one. :rolleyes: [/b]
And of course your politics have had such a great development over the last 2 years! :o

Seriously, just because you've slowly degenerated into the most opportunist kind of anti-Stalinism (the right-winger Bukharin is your hero? LOL), it does not mean that you have to be a wanker to everyone who disagrees with you who isn't a Trotskyist.

Now, if you want to "drain your soul" (materialism FTW) any further, please do so here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69112).

Led Zeppelin

11th August 2007, 09:44

Bukharin a right-winger, haha, typical for a tankie to believe such a thing. Go read some books, I recommend Ten Days That Shook The World; Bukharin was known to be "more left than Lenin" back in those days (I never said I particularly cared for his political career after the revolutionary era).

Of course I wouldn't expect tankies such as yourself to read such books, as they are nothing but anarcho-trotskyite propaganda.

And when something improves it's not called degeneration; it's called progression. Go read a dictionary as well.

Nothing Human Is Alien

11th August 2007, 10:06

Moved from CC to Theory.

black magick hustla

11th August 2007, 10:18

MIMites should move to the third world and if they feel so guilty of being labor aristocrats.

In fact, why not take a real harcore proletarian job in the maquilas just outside my town, where they pay you 40 dollars the week?

chimx

11th August 2007, 10:26

That's one thing I certainly don't understand about MIM, is that it comes our of mainly first world countries, but is extremely critical of people in the first world. Themselves included I presume.

Nothing Human Is Alien

11th August 2007, 10:52

That's one thing I certainly don't understand about MIM, is that it comes our of mainly first world countries...

Oh, but that's one of the only things that is understandable about them.

Nothing Human Is Alien

11th August 2007, 12:55

Simply drawing some anicdotes about cotton or oil doesn't change the fact that manufacturing has been in decline for a very long time and now represents a small portion of the US economy in terms of the number of people employed in it.

Those aren't "some anicdotes [sic]," they are stats I dug up in about 10 seconds via google. Those just happened to be two on the first page, there are surely more.

And actually, the absolute number of people employed in manufacturing has increased.

The percentage of the proletariat overall that engages in manufacturing is what has decreased, as technology requiring less labor input has been developed, and as the intensity of labor has increased, exactly as Marx predicted.

The real numbers that work at the point of production in the US constitute a minority. The fact that the US produces most of its own oil doesn't mean that most of the US workforce is productive; the fact is that it doesn't take a huge amount of people to run an oil well and many of those who are involved aren't even productive (managers aren't obviously).

I posted that to counter your claim that most of what's used here isn't made here. A lot (often important) things that are used here are still made here.

Of course I'm not doubting the existence of imperialism, it's rise, etc., which were best described by Lenin.

But as Lenin wrote, "The causes are: (1) exploitation of the whole world by this country; (2) its monopolist position in the world market; (3) its colonial monopoly. The effects are: (1) a section of the British proletariat becomes bourgeois; (2) a section of the proletariat allows itself to be led by men bought by, or at least paid by, the bourgeoisie* [the aristocracy-CDL]."

* The reason for this, Engel's wrote, is that "There is no workers’ party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals..."

So, communists have to fight to expose the aristocracy, as Lenin pointed out ("No preparation of the proletariat for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie is possible, even in the preliminary sense, unless an immediate, systematic, extensive and open struggle is waged against [the aristocracy]," Collected Works, V.31).

We don't just write off all workers!

Engels wrote that "during the period of England's industrial monopoly the English working class have, to a certain extent, shared in the benefits of the monopoly. These benefits were very unequally parcelled out among them; the privileged minority pocketed the most, but even the great mass had, at least, a temporary share now and then."

Temporary meaning it's not a permanent feature. For example, the workers in the U.S. saw a rise in living standards coming out of WW2, but that's all but been rolled back now. Workers in the U.S. have seen their standard of living continually decrease over the last thirty years. And even when workers have "a temporary share now and then" it doesn't mean they're not still exploited! They have to be, that's how capitalism works!

Engel's and Lenin considered anyone who does not produce significant surplus value but receives a cut of that surplus, even a small one, to be parasitic.

Humor me, please, and link me to the "many places," including those "elsewhere on the forum."

Originally posted by Lenin @ Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism Chp VIII Parasitism and Decay of Capitalism
We have foreshadowed the possibility of even a larger alliance of Western states, a European federation of great powers which, so far from forwarding the cause of world civilisation, might introduce the gigantic peril of a Western parasitism, a group of advanced industrial nations, whose upper classes drew vast tribute from Asia and Africa, with which they supported great tame masses of retainers, no longer engaged in the staple industries of agriculture and manufacture, but kept in the performance of personal or minor industrial services under the control of a new financial aristocracy. Let those who would scout such a theory (it would be better to say: prospect) as undeserving of consideration examine the economic and social condition of districts in Southern England today which are already reduced to this condition, and reflect upon the vast extension of such a system which might be rendered feasible by the subjection of China to the economic control of similar groups of financiers, investors, and political and business officials, draining the greatest potential reservoir of profit the world has ever known, in order to consume it in Europe.

In other words, Lenin is saying that financial capitalism was in 1916 capable of supporting massive parasitism in a service sector (not a tiny group of labour aristocrats but 'great tame masses of retainers' not engaged in productive work but personal services!) in southern england; and it would be capable of doing it across Europe if they were able to create a European Union and invest in China.

So Lenin has predicted precisely the course of social development as it actually happened.

Wow, you completely misquoted Lenin.

The passage you quote comes from "the non-Marxist Hobson" who Lenin was quoting in Imperialism. The first part of that passage in the book is "Hobson gives the following economic appraisal of the prospect of the partitioning of China:".

Lenin followed Hobson's quote by writing:

"The author is quite right: if the forces of imperialism had not been counteracted they would have led precisely to what he has described. The significance of a “United States of Europe” in the present imperialist situation is correctly appraised. He should have added, however, that, also within the working-class movement, the opportunists, who are for the moment victorious in most countries, are “working” systematically and undeviatingly in this very direction. Imperialism, which means the partitioning of the world, and the exploitation of other countries besides China, which means high monopoly profits for a handful of very rich countries, makes it economically possible to bribe the upper strata of the proletariat, and thereby fosters, gives shape to, and strengthens opportunism. We must not, however, lose sight of the forces which counteract imperialism in general, and opportunism in particular, and which, naturally, the social-liberal Hobson is unable to perceive."

In other words, we can't lose site of the proletariat, which is a force that can destroy imperialism and the opportunism of the labor aristocracy... something Hobson, and apparently you, have done.

Sure, but it wont. As Lenin argued, capitalism breaks at its weakest links not its strongest, and imperialist states are only likely to have revolutions if they're either sparked by a revolution in a colony spilling over or the total collapse of the finance capitalist system by a sustained series of colonial and semi-colonial revolutions.

The capitalist system can collapse (and run into big problems) from its own contradictions. It can even do so in the imperialist countries without revolutions in the imperialist-oppressed countries (though revolutions in those countries carried out in a certain number and in certain ways would certainly bring it tumbling down).

Your line really leaves communists in the imperialist countries no basis for existence. If we follow it to its logical conclusions, comrades should take Marmot's advice.

(like say, Mexico if you want to talk about the case of the US)

But Marmot says, "The tertiary sector in Mexico holds the biggest percentage of workers...". I guess Mexico is an imperialist state with a parastic working class that can't have a revolution! :lol:

Yes, they would.

No, they wouldn't. Even if their job was abolished, they'd have opportunities in other industries.

Honestly, how do you expect to win over workers who make minimum wage by telling them 'when the revolution comes, you'll take the hit along with the capitalists'? I'd like a serious answer.

Thats a perfect example of parasitism, any time your job is merely to limit access to something rather than create something you're living off of something else, rather than others living off of you.

ripping tickets is a non-productive activity, it merely services a capitalist industry, such a job is not worth 7$ an hour because it doesn't produce any surplus value, it is 'parasitic' even though its not well compensated.

For instance, if the theatre were socialist and not part of a profit driven industry there wouldn't be ticket rippers making sure people had paid.

Such people don't add any real tangible value they only help to produce profit for business in currency; which is to say that they merely facilitate the transfer of liquid capital not the expansion of capital.

No, a perfect example of parasitism is a guy who inherits a factory and becomes a millionaire without ever lifting a finger.

A ticket-taker at a movie theater is a perfect example of a prole, who helps in the realization of profit and expansion of capital.

Let's say a capitalist owns a movie theater. He buys a reel of a new movie that comes out (do they still use reels? doesn't really matter) for $10,000.. Then he shows that movie for three weeks and makes $500,000. Where did that 490,000 come from? Without workers to run the theater he would just have a $10,000 reel. Those workers create value for him by providing a service*.

It's the same with the actors in the movie, who don't have anything to do with the production of the film it's recorded on, but still play a role in the expansion of capital by adding their acting to it. The final movie is a shared product of the actors, the folks that put the film together, the camera operators, etc.

* Marx wrote, "Productive labor is therefore—in the system of capitalist production—labor which produces surplus-value for its employer ... It follows from what has been said that the designation of labor as productive labor has absolutely nothing to do with the determinate content of the labor, its special utility, or the particular use-value in which it manifests itself.. The same kind of labour may be productive or unproductive... For example Milton, who wrote Paradise Lost for five pounds, was an unproductive labourer. On the other hand, the writer who turns out stuff for his publisher in factory style, is a productive laborer... A singer who sells her song for her own account is an unproductive laborer. But the same singer commissioned by an entrepreneur to sing in order to make money for him is a productive laborer; for she produces capital." (Theories of Surplus Value, Addenda to Part 1) -- emphasis added.

In other words, they do what a stock trader does but on a much smaller scale.

No, that's different. That sort of job really is parasitic and unproductive, though it is still necessary to capitalist production. Marx wrote "The increase of this labor is always a result, never a cause of more surplus value." (Capital V.3)

Having a parasitic relationship to the economy is not a moral issue, it doesn't even make someone a 'labour aristocrat'.

Then you're misusing the word parasitic; especially as it relates to this thread which is about workers in the imperialist countries supposedly living as parasites off the work of those in the imperialist-oppressed countries.

Marx wrote "The capitalist increases the number of these laborers whenever he has more value and profits to realize" (Capital V.3); he didn't say that would [i]prevent revolution from happening! If anything, the increase in the number of unproductive workers (which does not include people like restaurant workers, btw) indicates the advance of capitalism, which Marx showed, brings us closer to communism (or at least, brings the conditions for the creation of communism forward).

Hiero

11th August 2007, 13:34

Originally posted by Compañ[email protected] 08, 2007 12:24 am

1st world workers have higher living standards, better housing, better nutrition

But none of that was gifted to them. There was a hard and long fight for that. Today, a lot of those gains are slipping away as better paid, organized jobs in manufacturing, transportation, etc., give way to temporary 'white collar' and low-paid, part-time 'service sector' jobs.

Also don't forgot the fact that 1st world countries have a welfare state (some are being rolled back) that are paid for through imperialism.

You defeated your own argument here.

The maintenance of a welfare state comes at the expense of the profits the bourgeois makes from the exploitation of workers. The welfare state itself was created as class struggle sharpened, workers became more organized, and the threat of revolution loomed. It's not like the imperialists just decided to give workers in their own countries better pay and conditions because they were happy about all the new markets and workers they were able to exploit, there was a struggle!

Today, the reforms are being rolled back (as you say), because the bourgeoisie are no longer willing to sacrifice a portion of profit they could keep for themselves -- nor do they have to, as the position of the international working class has become weaker.

Alot of people use that arguement, but don't really see any sources. Yes prices are different, but if we compare wages does it really mean anything? From what I know from comparing standards of living it just does not make sense. Unless you were going to use the cultural relativist arguement and claim that we just don't understand the benifits of living in squalor

If anyone is being a relativist here comrade, it is you. You say "I don't believe it" after admitting you really have no sources or information to base your analysis (which is little more than an opinion in this case) on.

You're asking for statistics and sources, but you have none of your own. In the second sentence you admit that you're not even sure what terms are used and how such things are calculated.

This question requires serious investigation, with all the time and energy that entails. We shouldn't jump to conclusions based on emotions.

Clearly, workers in the imperialist countries in general have a better standard of living; but there are multiple reasons for this. "First world workers are parasites that live off the exploitation of 'real workers' in the Third World" is not one of them.
Sorry for the late reply.

All I have got to say is that we are back to sqaure 1. Without provding sources that shows wages of 3rd world workers against prices of common goods, then comparing it to wages of 1st world workers against prices of common goods it is irrelevant to talk about the cost of living being cheaper in the 3rd world. If it cost $3 a day to feed a family compared to say $20 in the 1st world, it doesn't mean shit if you get paid $1.50 a day.

Now on the welfare state. I have always held the position benifits for workers were won through strong trade unionism. However these benifits had to come from some where. You say it came from expliotation of 1st world workers. That hardly makes sense, "1st world worker's living standards improved by the welfare state, wining award wages and fighting for a safe working environment through futher expliotation of the 1st world workers"? That's impossible. However just looking at how much money is made in the 3rd world, how little is paid to workers and how little stays in the country it is more reasonable to see that super expliotation of the 3rd world paid for the welfare state.

Nothing Human Is Alien

11th August 2007, 14:30

No, it's not impossible.

Say worker A lives in New York and creates $500 a day for capitalist Z. Capitalist B pays him the lowest amount he can get away with, $100 a day (thus leaving him with $400 profit). A few years later, worker A joins workers B through X and organizes and fights for better conditions. Workers A still creates $500 a day for capitalist Z, but capitalist Z now has to pay him $200 a day (thus leaving him with $300 profit), or risk having his operations shut down completely.

That's a simplified version, but you understand.

chimx

11th August 2007, 20:01

Originally posted by CDL
Of course I'm not doubting the existence of imperialism, it's rise, etc., which were best described by Lenin.

But as Lenin wrote, "The causes are: (1) exploitation of the whole world by this country; (2) its monopolist position in the world market; (3) its colonial monopoly. The effects are: (1) a section of the British proletariat becomes bourgeois; (2) a section of the proletariat allows itself to be led by men bought by, or at least paid by, the bourgeoisie* [the aristocracy-CDL]."

* The reason for this, Engel's wrote, is that "There is no workers’ party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals..."

So, communists have to fight to expose the aristocracy, as Lenin pointed out ("No preparation of the proletariat for the overthrow of the bourgeoisie is possible, even in the preliminary sense, unless an immediate, systematic, extensive and open struggle is waged against [the aristocracy]," Collected Works, V.31).

We don't just write off all workers!

Engels wrote that "during the period of England's industrial monopoly the English working class have, to a certain extent, shared in the benefits of the monopoly. These benefits were very unequally parcelled out among them; the privileged minority pocketed the most, but even the great mass had, at least, a temporary share now and then."

Temporary meaning it's not a permanent feature. For example, the workers in the U.S. saw a rise in living standards coming out of WW2, but that's all but been rolled back now. Workers in the U.S. have seen their standard of living continually decrease over the last thirty years. And even when workers have "a temporary share now and then" it doesn't mean they're not still exploited! They have to be, that's how capitalism works!

Personally I don't necessarily disagree with any of this. The beef TC and I had with this CC thread was that MIM was using writing like this on 19th century and early 20th century society and attempting to apply it to contemporary living. I'm sure you would agree that capitalism has advanced or at least changed significantly in the past 100 years. The whole point of this thread originated over the issue that we shouldn't restrict MIM, at least with such a hastily constructed rule. This is because, as I said from the beginning: "[the writings of Engels and Lenin] are not inherently contradictory to the MIM-line."

It is the application of Engels and Lenin's writings to contemporary life that is the issue. You have repeatedly said that the quality of life has dropped in the past few decades (what about since 1916?), whereas I have shown that in Britain the cost of living has decreased in connection to an increase in wages. In the US the poverty level is 12%, and in most European countries it is even lower. No doubt it is things like this that make MIM want to reconsider the nature of what Lenin and Engels wrote and apply it to this sort of situation. For them it means an extension of the labor aristocracy--something that Lenin said includes officer workers and skilled workers.

I don't know which side I agree with because I have yet to see any convincing economic analysis that would point to one side or the other. That is why we should be discussing the MIM line, and not simply sweeping the issue under the carpet by restricting such thought to OI.

--

And to answer your question, yes movies still come on reels. My friend is a projectionist.

The Author

12th August 2007, 04:00

This thread is very interesting. MIM's line is very reactionary, and I agree with CompañeroDeLibertad. If 100% of the working class in the imperialist countries are labor aristocrats, why is there poverty? Why is there homelessness? Why is there crime? Some sections may have been bought off, but that doesn't explain away the vast majority of people who are poor and struggling with their lives.

Originally posted by Led [email protected] August 11, 2007, 04:44 am
Bukharin a right-winger, haha, typical for a tankie to believe such a thing. Go read some books, I recommend Ten Days That Shook The World; Bukharin was known to be "more left than Lenin" back in those days (I never said I particularly cared for his political career after the revolutionary era).

Of course I wouldn't expect tankies such as yourself to read such books, as they are nothing but anarcho-trotskyite propaganda.

I'm a "tankie," I've read some books. Here's a quoted passage from one of them:

"Bukharin has a place as the father of market socialism in view of his determined defence of the co-existence of market and plan and his vicious opposition to the views of the left opposition who held that they were necessarily conflictual. That the...Soviet socialists took a more conciliatory view of the market indicated the growth of a more deeply rooted market socialist tendency under conditions of a Stalinist turn to the market and its ambiguous theorisation by Stalin and Bukharin. It was this tendency which re-emerged under Gorbachev, when he rehabilitated Bukharin as his forerunner, but its high period was brutally cut short by its own contradictions." -- Market Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists By Bertell Ollman, David Schweickart, pp.56-57.

Although how the authors came to the conclusion that Stalin advocated markets is odd, given that he never advocated market socialism, nevertheless their remarks about Bukharin's ideological status as a rightist and who upheld his position is clear.

Perhaps in future you would choose your words and insults more carefully before trying to come off as some type of smartass.

Led Zeppelin

12th August 2007, 05:51

Originally posted by CriticizeEverythingAlways+August 12, 2007 03:00 am--> (CriticizeEverythingAlways @ August 12, 2007 03:00 am)

Originally posted by Led [email protected] August 11, 2007, 04:44 am
Bukharin a right-winger, haha, typical for a tankie to believe such a thing. Go read some books, I recommend Ten Days That Shook The World; Bukharin was known to be "more left than Lenin" back in those days (I never said I particularly cared for his political career after the revolutionary era).

Of course I wouldn't expect tankies such as yourself to read such books, as they are nothing but anarcho-trotskyite propaganda.

I'm a "tankie," I've read some books. Here's a quoted passage from one of them:

"Bukharin has a place as the father of market socialism in view of his determined defence of the co-existence of market and plan and his vicious opposition to the views of the left opposition who held that they were necessarily conflictual. That the...Soviet socialists took a more conciliatory view of the market indicated the growth of a more deeply rooted market socialist tendency under conditions of a Stalinist turn to the market and its ambiguous theorisation by Stalin and Bukharin. It was this tendency which re-emerged under Gorbachev, when he rehabilitated Bukharin as his forerunner, but its high period was brutally cut short by its own contradictions." -- Market Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists By Bertell Ollman, David Schweickart, pp.56-57.

Although how the authors came to the conclusion that Stalin advocated markets is odd, given that he never advocated market socialism, nevertheless their remarks about Bukharin's ideological status as a rightist and who upheld his position is clear.
[/b]
Why do tankies never learn to read? If you quote me I expect you to read the part you quoted, you idiot:

Led [email protected] August 11, 2007, 04:44 am
Bukharin a right-winger, haha, typical for a tankie to believe such a thing. Go read some books, I recommend Ten Days That Shook The World; Bukharin was known to be "more left than Lenin" back in those days (I never said I particularly cared for his political career after the revolutionary era).

Of course I wouldn't expect tankies such as yourself to read such books, as they are nothing but anarcho-trotskyite propaganda.

There, I highlighted it for you, this time read it and shut up.

Labor Shall Rule

12th August 2007, 22:14

CompañeroDeLibertad, your posts are fantastic.

The fact is that the bottom 80% of Americans only own 14% of the national wealth. 10VW live at or below the poverty line. An increasing number of working familes have to take on record levels of debt just to sustain their current standard of living. Even if the traditional class lines have been somewhat blurred, these are still sharp indicators of inequality. Contrary to what the Maoist Internationalist Movement believes, the great majority of the American workforce (roughly 80%) is comprised of wage-laborers who earn a weekly paycheck and not a fixed yearly salary that they've been able to negotiate. And out of those, less than 10% are unionized and that number is declining every year.

Lenin, as CompañeroDeLibertad made clear, thought that the contradictions of the capitalist system would be enough to fuel a socialist revolution, even in a imperialist country! In the United States, I wouldn't be suprised if we had a revolution here within the next few decades.

chimx

12th August 2007, 23:01

XD

Well if you want to ignore facts then sure. If you look at the census records of the United States, the median income has increased:

1965 $28,599
1975 $33,148
1985 $42,847
1995 $39,186
2005 $41,386

And yes, those numbers have been adjusted for inflation.

If you look at the Misery Index, which is unemployment rate added to the inflation rate, the United States has been dropping dramatically from the 1960s up to today. Look at the average household networth in the US over the decades:

1965 $254,740
1975 $268,234
1985 $292,143
1995 $345,321
2005 $465,970

The average American's purchasing power has also been increasing over the past few decades. What is interesting is that there is also a drop in savings done by most Americans, yet despite the drop in savings and the increase in spending power, the elderly people are less and less poor than in any other time in history.

The fact is that the bottom 80% of Americans only own 16% of the national wealth.

While there has been a semi-steady increase in wages of American workers, look at the numbers in regards to productivity:

1965 (baseline)
1975 +24%
1985 +42%
1995 +66%
2005 +220%

There is an inconsistency between productivity increases and wage increases. Essentially, if you look at the numbers through history, people are making more and more than the generations before, but rich people are seeing significantly greater wage increases. Both classes are making more, but the increase is occurring at different rates!

In the United States, I wouldn't be suprised if we had a revolution here within the next few decades.

:D Okay buddy. I'll buy you a Pabst if that's the case, so long as you buy me one when you're shown to be wrong.

Labor Shall Rule

13th August 2007, 00:22

\that have faced their miserable lives.

The Author

13th August 2007, 01:17

Originally posted by chimx+ August 12, 2007, 06:01 pm--> (chimx @ August 12, 2007, 06:01 pm)Okay buddy. I'll buy you a Pabst if that's the case, so long as you buy me one when you're shown to be wrong. [/b]

Never say never. Some things may change over a period of years, and some things may change in a matter of days. We can't predict the future of course, but we certainly could focus on the situation in the here and now. The way things are going, with the housing market collapsing and the constant cutting of jobs, and like RedDali said, the rise in the cost of living, there's always a possibility of progressive or revolutionary activity occurring in the near future. I mean, we saw a promising increase over the past couple of years of activity around May Day, and although people voted Democrat last year hoping that things would change when we know that the Democrats are just as opportunist as their Republican "opposition," the fact a twelve year status quo in Congress came to an end and that people were demanding change is evident. The big problem is that the real leftist movement has not yet inspired political class consciousness in the proletariat and the oppressed strata, and that they still are clinging to the "legality" of the old system. But with patience and determination, we certainly could turn this situation around.

Originally posted by Led [email protected] August 12, 2007, 12:51 am

Led [email protected] August 11, 2007, 04:44 am
Bukharin a right-winger, haha, typical for a tankie to believe such a thing. Go read some books, I recommend Ten Days That Shook The World; Bukharin was known to be "more left than Lenin" back in those days (I never said I particularly cared for his political career after the revolutionary era).

Of course I wouldn't expect tankies such as yourself to read such books, as they are nothing but anarcho-trotskyite propaganda.There, I highlighted it for you, this time read it and shut up.

Yeah, you've highlighted the fact that you're a complete hypocrite. On the one hand, you say "Bukharin a right-winger, haha, typical for a tankie to believe such a thing." But on the other hand, you say the opposite, "I never said I particularly cared for his political career after the revolutionary era." You said it because you knew full well of Bukharin's right-wing actions, which is what we "tankies" criticize, and which you apparently think is amusing; yet you're fully aware of what we're talking about. Rather than going down the road of merely saying Bukharin was a rightist, I demonstrated how he was a rightist with material proof. I also demonstrated that we "tankies" are not so thick-headed and dogmatically blinded as you were so quick to dismiss us as so. But hey, you want to continue to be an arrogant little shit to everyone you ideologically disagree with, that's fine. The feeling is mutual.

chimx

13th August 2007, 01:39

As so, median income may go up, but living costs may skyrocket ahead of real wages

But living costs aren't going up in proportion to wages in imperialist countries. On page 4 of this thread I already linked you to statistics from 1916 through to 2005:

In Britain, wages have been increasing at a higher rate than the consumer price index (http://www.google.com/search?q=define%3A+consumer+price+index&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a). This means that the Average Real Earnings have been increasing over the past 100 years. READ THIS SOURCE AND SEE (http://eh.net/hmit/ukearncpi/results?CHKcpi=on&CHKnominalearn=on&CHKrealearn=on&year1=1882&year2=2006).

So please pardon my cynicism. It doesn't mean I'm not hopeful, but realistically I most certainly don't think the material prerequisites for social upheaval are anywhere close to being met.

syndicat

13th August 2007, 17:43

Well if you want to ignore facts then sure. If you look at the census records of the United States, the median income has increased:

1965 $28,599
1975 $33,148
1985 $42,847
1995 $39,186
2005 $41,386

And yes, those numbers have been adjusted for inflation.

But this averages in the incomes of the super-rich plutocracy and the coordinator class (lawyers, doctors, managers etc) and other elite classes with the working class. The average real wage of the American worker declined by 13% from 1973 to 1998, and has continued to fall since 2001. The USA is become progressively more unequal in income, more so than any other First World country. the average wage is currently about $13 an hour. a person working a 40 hour workweek all year would be making about $27,000 a year, not $41,000 a year. and most of the working class have less job security than used to be the case in the '60s/'70s period and experience more unemployment.

Look at the average household networth in the US over the decades:

1965 $254,740
1975 $268,234
1985 $292,143
1995 $345,321
2005 $465,970

Again, you're averaging the capitalist class with the working class. Given the huge concentration of net worth in the capitalist elite, this is not an honest way of portraying the reality. Ownership of assets has become increasingly concentrated in recent years. About half the working class in the USA own their homes, which is their only net worth, and often it is totally overloaded with debt. often to keep their homes they've been enticed by predatory lenders to take out very risky mortgages, which is why there is the huge spike in foreclosures going on now.

The average American's purchasing power has also been increasing over the past few decades.

there is no such thing as "the average American." purchasing power is related to income. only the capitalist and coodinator classes have experienced increasing incomes in recent decades in the USA. the working class has experienced a drop in its income, and thus in its purchasing power.

While there has been a semi-steady increase in wages of American workers,

No, just the opposite. there's been a steady decline in average wages.

look at the numbers in regards to productivity:

1965 (baseline)
1975 +24%
1985 +42%
1995 +66%
2005 +220%

increases in productivity do not automatically generate increases in wages. the working class can only force the capitalists to share a part of the increase in productivity if they have the bargaining clout to force them to do so, typically through things like unionism. but unionism has shrunk to less than 8% of the private sector workforce in the USA.

high productivity is, however, the explanation for an historically higher level of wages and thus standard of living in the First World countries. but higher productivity only makes it feasible for the capitalists to pay higher wages, it doesn't mean they will do so.

chimx

13th August 2007, 23:48

But this averages in the incomes of the super-rich plutocracy and the coordinator class (lawyers, doctors, managers etc) and other elite classes with the working class. The average real wage of the American worker declined by 13% from 1973 to 1998, and has continued to fall since 2001. The USA is become progressively more unequal in income, more so than any other First World country. the average wage is currently about $13 an hour. a person working a 40 hour workweek all year would be making about $27,000 a year, not $41,000 a year. and most of the working class have less job security than used to be the case in the '60s/'70s period and experience more unemployment.

First of all, please note that it is "median" and not the "average". That does make a significant difference when discussing outliers in your data, in this case a small amount of super rich people.

Also, where do you get your numbers from? From what I have read in Forbes and elsewhere, they specifically say that rich people are getting rich at a faster rate than working class people, but there are still wage increases across the board.

Or are you predominately speaking of the 12% of Americans that live below the poverty line?

Nothing Human Is Alien

14th August 2007, 15:34

Study shows only the richest 10% gained at all between 1966 and 2001 in the US

A new study [Ian Dew Becker and Robert J. Gordon, Where did the Productivity Growth Go? (National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, Massachusetts, 2005)] shows that between 1966 and 2001 only the richest 10 percent enjoyed a growth rate in their real wages and salaries that was equal to or above the average rate of growth in productivity.

The study finds that "Growth in median real wage and salary income barely grew at all while average wage and salary income kept pace with productivity growth, because half of the income gains went to the top 10 percent of the income distribution, leaving little left over for the bottom 90 percent."

The study also shows that while the pay of CEOs increased by 100 percent in the period 1989-1997, the pay of workers in occupations that required skills in mathematics and computing only increased by 4.8 percent. Engineers' pay actually decreased by 1.4 percent over the same period.

http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseacti...blogID=91281944 (http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=46117257&blogID=91281944)

Karl Marx's Camel

14th August 2007, 16:23

but he was only referring to the top layer of the proletariat, that is, the union leaders, social-democrats

When did social democrats become "the top layer of the proletariat"?

syndicat

14th August 2007, 22:42

me: "But this averages in the incomes of the super-rich plutocracy and the coordinator class (lawyers, doctors, managers etc) and other elite classes with the working class. The average real wage of the American worker declined by 13% from 1973 to 1998, and has continued to fall since 2001. The USA is become progressively more unequal in income, more so than any other First World country. the average wage is currently about $13 an hour. a person working a 40 hour workweek all year would be making about $27,000 a year, not $41,000 a year. and most of the working class have less job security than used to be the case in the '60s/'70s period and experience more unemployment."

First of all, please note that it is "median" and not the "average". That does make a significant difference when discussing outliers in your data, in this case a small amount of super rich people.

bad argument. a median is a type of average. also, you're apparently looking at household income, not earnings of individuals. but if you have a working class household with three income earners making $13 an hour, if they work all year, their household income is around $80,000. but you want to then compare this to a judge making $80,000 whose wife can stay at home and not work.

secondly, median means that half the households in the USA earn less than that amount. now, it so happens that the working class is 62% of the population of the USA. that means that if we assume that income earners are evenly distributed per household, only 12% of the working class would be making more than your median household income and 88% would be making less. but as I've pointed out, due to pervasive low incomes quite a few working class families end up doubling up in the same household. so your median household income ends up being merely the top end of working class income levels, not a typical working class income level.

Also, where do you get your numbers from? From what I have read in Forbes and elsewhere, they specifically say that rich people are getting rich at a faster rate than working class people, but there are still wage increases across the board.

so you'd rather believe the blather of some organ for the bourgeoisie than the stats from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as reported in the book "The Living Wage." Why do you think there is a living wage movement, an anti-sweatshop movement in the USA, a movement to increase the minimum wage, etc? it's because wages have dropped dramatically over the past 30 years.

Or are you predominately speaking of the 12% of Americans that live below the poverty line?

no, i was not speaking only of those in poverty. and here again you are taking the official establishment line when you characterise the official 12% figure as an accurate tally of those in poverty. the poverty measurement was devised in the '50s by a sociologist working for the government who looked at what people would need to consume to live, in that era. they've never changed the criteria over the years. a better standard of the poverty line is earning less than 50% of the median income. and it so happens that is twice the official poverty leve, that is, around a fourth of the population.