Debunking maoist "antiimperialism"

[black magick hustla]

I dont really know if this position is inherently maoist but I see it thrown around by many maoist organizations.

There is from crazy to crazy and obviously MIM is much more crazier than the RCP, but I think the essence behind their "anti-imperialism" line is deeply flawed, and in some aspects, deeply anticommunist.

According to many maoists, western workers have privilieged lifestyles due to the superprofits extracted from third world workers by the imperialist bourgeosie. Following this logic, it means largely that first world workers are being paid excessively, and therefore form a "labor aristocracy". Without imperialism, american workers would live much more worse.

Basically, they argue that imperialism is in the interest of the white worker.

The simple fact that there is a local bourgeosie that is able to thrive not from finance capital, but from industrial capital in the first world, debunks all this theory. General Motors in Detroit still manages to extract a surplus value from the "excessively well paid" unionized auto workers. The GM can afford to paid "first world labor" and still profit millions and millions (possibly billions) of dollars!

Not only imperialism is not in the interest of the first world workers--but it runs counter to it. The state spends billions of dollars of resources annually in imperialist activities instead of spending them on healthcare, infrastructure, or education. Jobs get outsourced by overseas cheap labor, and workers are sent to be butchered in imperialist wars.

Imperialism is only in the interest of the bourgeosie and possibly some sectors of the petty bourgeoisie.

Besides, an economy where finance capital plays an important role doesn't means imperialism, it also can mean advanced infrastructure. Finance capital plays a very important role in mexico, seeing that most of the 50% of workers work in the service sector. When the means of production develop to a certain extent, there isnt need of that many workers in the "first and second sectors". Capitalism can't handle this contradiction, and therefore, needs to create the "service sector".

To quote Guy Debord:


Automation, which is both the most advanced sector of modern industry and the epitome of its practice, obliges the commodity system to resolve the following contradiction: The technological developments that objectively tend to eliminate work must at the same time preserve labor as a commodity, because labor is the only creator of commodities. The only way to prevent automation (or any other less extreme method of increasing labor productivity) from reducing society’s total necessary labor time is to create new jobs. To this end the reserve army of the unemployed is enlisted into the tertiary or “service” sector, reinforcing the troops responsible for distributing and glorifying the latest commodities; and in this it is serving a real need, in the sense that increasingly extensive campaigns are necessary to convince people to buy increasingly unnecessary commodities.

Imperialism is the enemy of all the workers, including first world ones. This is a very impórtant thing to understand, because implying otherwise would mean that organizing workers (other than immigrant latino workers or certain black workers) in the first world is counterproductive). Rejecting first world proletariat and instead embark in third world adventures is extremely counterproductive. This kind of vacuum in the left has led to some disillusioned workers to choose fascist organizations like the BNP.

[Labor Shall Rule]

This doesn't debunk anything.

I would argue that it is counterproductive, and even reactionary, to refuse to organize with the more privileged sections of the working class. As you mentioned, their position was gained through struggle, rather than by being handed down by default.

The example that you used is incorrect, considering that auto industry averages a five percent return for investors, with many companies, especially manufacturers in our own country, losing a lot of money. A study also showed that there is over a two thousand dollar disadvantage for the industry every year. The carving up of these companies, the slashing of their wages and benefits, and the ongoing downsizing of their jobs reveals their thirst for profits, and how they are simply not profiting off of the "first world labor" that you mentioned.

The fact is that we extract the surplus-value of workers in undeveloped countries, simply because in our country they pay workers more than the cost of their reproduction, which would lead to a definite profit disadvantage for the industrialists involved. The colonies that are controlled by the superpowers of foreign investment do sustain that strata of workers that are paid pass the value of their labor.

Also, it is not a 'Maoist' theory, it was formulated by Lenin.


"The epoch of imperialism cannot permit the existence, in a single party of the revolutionary proletariat's vanguard the semi-petty bourgeois aristocracy of the working class, who enjoy morsels of the privileges of their 'own' nation's 'Great Power' status. The old theory that opportunism is a 'legitimate shade' in a single party that knows no extremes has now turned into a tremendous deception of the workers and a tremendous hindrance to the working class movement."

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 04, 2007 02:19 am
This doesn't debunk anything.

I would argue that it is counterproductive, and even reactionary, to refuse to organize with the more privileged sections of the working class. As you mentioned, their position was gained through struggle, rather than by being handed down by default.




The fact is that we extract the surplus-value of workers in undeveloped countries, simply because in our country they pay workers more than the cost of their reproduction, which would lead to a definite profit disadvantage for the industrialists involved. The colonies that are controlled by the superpowers of foreign investment do sustain that strata of workers that are paid pass the value of their labor.

Also, it is not a 'Maoist' theory, it was formulated by Lenin.


"The epoch of imperialism cannot permit the existence, in a single party of the revolutionary proletariat's vanguard the semi-petty bourgeois aristocracy of the working class, who enjoy morsels of the privileges of their 'own' nation's 'Great Power' status. The old theory that opportunism is a 'legitimate shade' in a single party that knows no extremes has now turned into a tremendous deception of the workers and a tremendous hindrance to the working class movement."
As I said before there is a layer of "aristocrats" that arent bourgeosie that profit directly from imperialism. I perfectly know that lenin introduced the theory of imperialism, but he didnt include most of the "first world" workers in it.

There was a thread about this not long ago, with sources etc


The example that you used is incorrect, considering that auto industry averages a five percent return for investors, with many companies, especially manufacturers in our own country, losing a lot of money. A study also showed that there is over a two thousand dollar disadvantage for the industry every year. The carving up of these companies, the slashing of their wages and benefits, and the ongoing downsizing of their jobs reveals their thirst for profits, and how they are simply not profiting off of the "first world labor" that you mentioned.

Five percent is a shitload of money.

If they werent profiting, why dont they just close down the factories?

Besides, there are still other very succesful first world industry, including cars made in France and Japan.

Even if your argument was correct, it still proves exactly my point. The bourgeosie's existence relies on profit, if they were liquidated as a class, we wouldn't have that problem. Cutting off imperialism doesn't necessarily mean that the worker looses.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Yeah, he did. His entire analysis on monopoly capitalism was based on economic stratistics gathered from Europe and America.

And they have been shutting down the factories. Have you heard how Cerberus recently purchased Chrysler? They plan to "reconstruct" the auto industry by shutting down plants. Auto-analyst firms have even stated that it is 'necessary' for companies to start relocating production to low-cost regions.

[Rawthentic]

Marmot, are there not a section of super-exploited proletarians in the US? Mainly black and latino?

And acknowledging this, dont the super-exploited proletarians have a more direct stake in making communist revolution. ?

I don't believe that the "well-off" workers should be ignored, but it does need to be recognized that because they are materially better off than the black and latino tier of the proletariat, their consciousness is much less revolutionary. Not to mention that they form part of most of the unionized section of the proletariat, something that, for the most part, the black and latino proletariat dont enjoy.

I think this is about who will be at the forefront of a revolution in the US, taking into account the history of more thorough exploitation of black and latino workers.

MIM-ites say that all workers in the 1st world nations are part and parcel of the imperialist system, and that only the black and latinos need be worked with. Now thats reactionary.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 04, 2007 02:56 am
Yeah, he did. His entire analysis on monopoly capitalism was based on economic stratistics gathered from Europe and America.

And they have been shutting down the factories. Have you heard how Cerberus recently purchased Chrysler? They plan to "reconstruct" the auto industry by shutting down plants. Auto-analyst firms have even stated that it is 'necessary' for companies to start relocating production to low-cost regions.
Dont be silly.

Obviously they try to relocate because it is much more profiteable. However, the fact that there has been factories in the US for so much time, even in the age of imperialism, debunks that theory.

So you are basically arguing that american workers have nothing to win in socialism because they are paid off by imperialism?

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Live for the [email protected] 04, 2007 03:13 am
Marmot, are there not a section of super-exploited proletarians in the US? Mainly black and latino?

And acknowledging this, dont the super-exploited proletarians have a more direct stake in making communist revolution.

I don't believe that the "well-off" workers should be ignored, but it does need to be recognized that because they are materially better off than the black and latino tier of the proletariat, their consciousness is much less revolutionary. Not to mention that they form part of most of the unionized section of the proletariat, something that, for the most part, the black and latino proletariat dont enjoy.
Black and latinos are objectively worse off, and therefore more revolutionary--noone is denying that.

I am arguing that if imperialism is objectively in the self interest of white proles, then it means that there is "nothing for them" in socialism and therefore most of the socialist movement in the first world would be a sham.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Exactly, and why is it 'more profitable'?

It seems that you accepted Lenin's analysis, and that you have purported the theory of the labor aristocracy. The period of deindustrialization which continues to this day in other mass industries ultimately indicates how you 'debunk' nothing. I am not trying to be hostile, but while you concur that it is more fiscically advisable to seek cheaper labor-power overseas (for the reasons I mentioned), you have, at the same time, suggested that it is reactionary to uphold such an opinion. That is somewhat contradictory.

I am not saying that they have 'nothing to gain' from socialism. How did you get to such a conclusion?

The white worker was already in a better social position than their latino and black counterparts, simply because the capitalist thrived off of superexploitation. If you look at the history of the labor movement, you can clearly see that colored workers did not receive the same benefits gained by unions, and were refused membership. You can also see that welfare programs, in the first few decades preceding their creation, excluded many black workers.

Since this strata was built by giving workers benefits, who worked primarily within the unions, then the white worker inevitably had a better standard of living than the other workers. So, it may not be in their self-interest, but it is certainly a fact that they are far less militant than blacks and latinos, because they received the booty of imperialist ventures, while their colored class brothers did not. This is precisely why conservatism is more prevalent with white workers.

[black magick hustla]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 04, 2007 03:33 am


It seems that you accepted Lenin's analysis, and that you have purported the theory of the labor aristocracy. The period of deindustrialization which continues to this day in other mass industries ultimately indicates how you 'debunk' nothing. I am not trying to be hostile, but while you concur that it is more fiscically advisable to seek cheaper labor-power overseas (for the reasons I mentioned), you have, at the same time, suggested that it is reactionary to uphold such an opinion.


I think we are having a problem of communication comrade--maybe its my still tenous grasp of english? =)

I am simply arguing that imperialism is only in the interests of the bourgeosie. The bourgeosie move their factories etc overseas because they can objectively profit more. However, this action of "moving away overseas" is not in the interest of first world workers.

I was trying to simply debunk that workers in the first world would be worst off without imperialism, which is a very reactionary pósition.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Originally posted by Marmot+November 04, 2007 03:45 am--> (Marmot @ November 04, 2007 03:45 am)
Labor Shall [email protected] 04, 2007 03:33 am


It seems that you accepted Lenin's analysis, and that you have purported the theory of the labor aristocracy. The period of deindustrialization which continues to this day in other mass industries ultimately indicates how you 'debunk' nothing. I am not trying to be hostile, but while you concur that it is more fiscically advisable to seek cheaper labor-power overseas (for the reasons I mentioned), you have, at the same time, suggested that it is reactionary to uphold such an opinion.


I think we are having a problem of communication comrade--maybe its my still tenous grasp of english? =)

I am simply arguing that imperialism is only in the interests of the bourgeosie. The bourgeosie move their factories etc overseas because they can objectively profit more. However, this action of "moving away overseas" is not in the interest of first world workers.

I was trying to simply debunk that workers in the first world would be worst off without imperialism, which is a very reactionary pósition. [/b]
I am arguing that there will never be socialism as long as there is a labor aristocracy that is not only seperated from other discontented sections of the working class, but is also quite reactionary in many occasions and holds notions that 'immigrants are taking our jobs,' or that certain imperialist interventions are 'justified'.

[PRC-UTE]

Originally posted by Labor Shall [email protected] 04, 2007 02:19 am
Also, it is not a 'Maoist' theory, it was formulated by Lenin.

I know the Lenin was a big theoretician behind this idea, but was it not first theorised by Engels? I could be wrong about that.

[Axel1917]

As I said before there is a layer of "aristocrats" that arent bourgeosie that profit directly from imperialism. I perfectly know that lenin introduced the theory of imperialism, but he didnt include most of the "first world" workers in it.

There was a thread about this not long ago, with sources etc

Indeed. Anyone who has bothered reading what Lenin wrote will know that the "Labor aristocracy" composes a very small percentage of Western workers. Someone should dig that thread up if it proves necessary in the future.

[Cooler Reds Will Prevail]

We are not saying that Western workers cannot be organized for revolution or would be otherwise averse to it. However, let me give you another example for comparison.

It could be said that racism against Black and Latino people in the United States has had certain "benefits" for White people, including the White worker. It makes him feel powerful, gives him the sentiment that there is somebody beneath him that he can oppress. Patriarchy works the same way: Men are given a position of power over women, and this is precisely why both racism and patriarchy need to be eradicated for revolution to be possible. Despite the appearance of benefit for the White worker, it is still the case that neither racism nor patriarchy is for the real benefit of anybody other than the bourgeoisie, though some White, male proletarians might see a fraction of the spoils from such social organization. The same applies for imperialism: Though the Western proletarian might see some of the spoils of imperialist endeavor by the bourgeois government, imperialism is not in his/her true interest because is sustains the worldwide system of exploitation, whether on a national or global scale.

It's not that the 3rd World bourgeoisie does not understand the way in which the 1st World capitalists are able to temporarily pacify the proletariat with certain concessions, it is the simple fact that they do not have the super profits to make such concessions without sacrificing anything. Unlike Western nations, they do not have anywhere to export their cheap labor to and otherwise decrease the costs of production and thus increase or at least maintain their profit margin. The 1st World bourgeoisie has been able to pacify the proletariat specifically because of imperialism, specifically because they have been able to provide certain benefits to the Western worker while not sacrificing a lot of their profit. Of course, this leads to the situation of lost jobs as certain labor is exported overseas, but unfortunately this exportation of jobs seems to invoke a stronger feeling of reactionary nationalism than the revolutionary internationalism that it should. A sentiment we should, of course, work to change.

This situation is changing and workers are starting to gain consciousness again as the bourgeoisie is attempting to retract benefits and cut wages in a world of decreasing profit as the fundamental contradictions of capitalism are exposed. However, we must be sure to educate the masses on the flaw of compromise with the capitalists and the historical ramifications of such action.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Most of this has already been argued out, and most of those claiming to follow in the footsteps of Lenin have been shown to be upholding positions completely alien to his own. Here: http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=69157

[Entrails Konfetti]

In every single country there is a group of "aristocrats" that profit off the exploitation of the workers. Trade union officials, for example.


Hello, its not just a western phenomenon!

Capital is global

[obsolete discourse]

To be crass about it, Lenin frames the debate in terms of "imperialism" and "anti-imperialism" as Gramsci in terms of "hegemony" and "counter-hegemony" because that is the logic that legitimates The State. Only a devil can fight the devil (or god or whatever.) But capitalism is a social relationship not a conspiracy by a few evil white men and Lenin is just being kind of bourgie...

In my eyes it's a simple matter of class-interest and aesthetics. Neither Lenin, nor Gramsci, nor anyone foolish enough to quote them in this day in age, can do much more than dream about the utility and instrumentality of The State (or economic systems.) They see The State: it's machinery, it's divisions of labor, it's efficiency, and they see a beautiful system that could be put in the hands of history's protagonist's faithful seeing- eye dog. Such people have strange boring fantasies and only engage with the crowd through the eye-site of machine guns.

Clearly alienation and misery are not merely located within the starving stomachs of the oppressed people of where-ever. Furthermore, neither is a total change in society the motive of charity, nor acted out by the most shat on. Marx's concept of the prole was specific to a historical and social force of industrial capitalism--the industrial worker--not because they were the most oppressed, but because the condition of industrial-working was becoming common to most and that the tendency of humanity to change it's conditions was most alive and possible within the conditions of shared experience of both being exploited and knowing a collective sense of power.

Those who would frame our struggle as "anti-imperialism" dream of being on the Committee of Public Safety.

[bolshevik butcher]

Originally posted by PRC-UTE+November 05, 2007 02:52 am--> (PRC-UTE @ November 05, 2007 02:52 am)
Labor Shall [email protected] 04, 2007 02:19 am
Also, it is not a 'Maoist' theory, it was formulated by Lenin.

I know the Lenin was a big theoretician behind this idea, but was it not first theorised by Engels? I could be wrong about that. [/b]
Yes, it was mentioned in his study of the working class in Manchester I'm pretty sure.

It's not enitrey correct to frame the Labour Aristocracy question in terms of white and black. While I'm sure that the Labour Aristocracy is predominantly white, there will also be small numbers of black and latino workers in it, but more to the point most white American workers are not according to Lenin's theory Labour Aristocrats.