Applying Maoism in America

[Winter]

So I've been reading a lot on Maoism. Recently, I purchased a copy of the (in)famous Little Red Book. He says some really interesting things, and I can't say I disagree with him.

But what I am wondering is how one can call oneself a Maoist while living in America or Europe? America, for instance, is not being invaded by a foriegn country, thus the concept of uniting all classes together for national liberation is out of the question. New Democracy is not needed seeing as America is an advanced capitalist country. Plus, the idea of using agricultural peasants as a primary group to fight wouldn't work too well seeing that America is mainly made up of city workers. So what's left? Cultural Revolution?

I understand how this can all work in third world countries, and I understand how there can be Maoist organizations there. But in America, the Maoist method would not be applicable to our situation. I don't mean to be too critical on the Maoist living in the first world, but can you explain to me what I am missing here?

Once again, I am not in attack mode, I just want to learn. Thanks.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ New Democracy is an erroneous, revisionist twist on Lenin's "revolutionary democracy" (workers and petit-bourgeoisie only), as it accommodates "patriotic" segments of the bourgeoisie (never mind the in-practice placement of the peasantry at the head of a Maoist revolution).

[BobKKKindle$]

Maoism asserts the existence of a so-called "national" bourgeoisie which is allegedly a force which can cooperate with the proletariat in their struggle against imperialism and during the period of "new democracy". This stratum of the bourgeoisie is not tied to foreign capital and so has no interest in preserving existing property relations. This theory is used to justify collaboration with bourgeois leaders - which, in the case of China, led to the massacre of workers, due to the betrayal of the Nationalist forces.

[MarxSchmarx]

I understand how this can all work in third world countries, and I understand how there can be Maoist organizations there. But in America, the Maoist method would not be applicable to our situation.

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this kinda the point of Maoism? I always thought Maoism was a path to socialism uniquely applicable for conditions in the third world.

[Devrim]

I suggest you go and start a people's war in the Rocky Mountains, or maybe the Sierra Nevadas (it has a more Latin feel).

I think that it is more than chance that the only place in the West where Maoism has more than a handful of people is Amerikkka.

It is ironic really.

Devrim

[Winter]

Forgive my ignorance, but isn't this kinda the point of Maoism? I always thought Maoism was a path to socialism uniquely applicable for conditions in the third world.

Yeah, but if that's the case, what's the point of someone living in a First world country calling oneself a Maoist? You may support third world Maoist movements, but you can be a leftist in general to do this.

[RNK]

:drool:

I love this shit. I love this site.



^^^ New Democracy is an erroneous, revisionist twist on Lenin's "revolutionary democracy" (workers and petit-bourgeoisie only), as it accommodates "patriotic" segments of the bourgeoisie (never mind the in-practice placement of the peasantry at the head of a Maoist revolution).

This of course assumes that the material conditions in China and the material conditions of 1917 Russia were identical -- which they were not (and hence that China should have followed in the footsteps of Leninism in Russia). China was at a far less industrialized point in its history than Russia was, had a vastly larger population, was fighting against an incredibly dangerous imperialist invasion, and developed at a time when "socio-economic" global history was very much different than during Lenin's time.

What comrades like these are essentially arguing for is that rather than carry out a bourgeois revolution/industrialization under the control of proletarian socialism, they would rather this bourgeois revolution and the subsequent economic development that arises from it be solely in the hands of the bourgeoisie and completely out of the hands of the workers and peasants.

The entire point of New Democracy is for unindustrialized countries which have not yet had a bourgeois revolution (and remember, kids, even Marx argued that the proletariat should side with the bourgeoisie (not petit-bourgeoisie, but the bourgeoisie) -- although Marx went even further, declaring that communists must support the bourgeoisie submissively rather than co-operate with them under the direction of proletarian revolutionary science) are able to carry out a progressive, revolutionary socialist movement while maintaining the progressive aspects of capitalism that will transform the regressive tendencies of fuedalism.

The reason MLM is paramountly important to this day is that incase nobody had noticed, the vast majority of the world is still unindustrialized and still suffers under fuedalistic and semi-fuedalistic conditions. The "industrialization of the world" never took place -- instead, the imperialistic 'founders' of capitalism opted to prevent the development of all other nations and to subject them to the manipulation of their capital and markets and monopolies.

I've said it a thousand times: In a fuedal system, it is in the material best interests of the working class to co-operate with national bourgeoisie. Marx understood this, Lenin understood this, Mao understood this. The shining difference is that while Marx urged complacency and submissive support for the bourgeoisie, Mao urged domination of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat so that they are never allowed to be the dominant class of society in the first place.

As far as MLM in the west is concerned, obviously there is no fuedal system, no mass peasant armies to raise, and very little possibility of any sort of guerilla war. MLM in the west represents several key underlying tendencies which seperate it from "the rest". I won't go into too much detail but just give a brief overview -- ask questions if you want.

First, Marxist-Leninist-Maoists reject bourgeois politics in the West, not from the standpoint of "violent fetishism" but from the standpoint that, quite simply, it accomplishes nothing; that in the material conditions we live in in the west are simply not conducive to any form of reformism. Workers must unite and struggle outside of the harsh iron bars that bourgeois democracy has placed around all of society, independant of the "bourgeois-sanctioned" infastructure whose sole design was to ensure the continuing reign of the ruling class.

Second, Marxist-Leninist-Maoists support violent resistence movements in the third world, and give their solidarity; in places like Nepal, India, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and even Iraq and Afghanistan, where revolutionaries pick up arms or pens and fight against domination by foreign capital and national bourgeoisie, we stand with them.

Third, Marxist-Leninist-Maoists are much more willing to support national liberation struggles, such as those waged by movements in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, where large numbers of people suffer under the direct brutality of imperialist occupation and attack. This does not mean we support anyone who happens to fight US imperialism; it means that we do not reject people in their justified struggle for self-defense simply because they do not dress in red capes 24/7; we understand the progressive nature that many national liberation movements exhibit in contrast to imperialism.

Lastly, Marxist-Leninist-Maoists reject Soviet revisionism as realized by Kruschev and his successors, but we remain highly critical of the Stalinist era, and reject the current revisionist government of China and recognize the internal coup d'etat in China in the 1960s and 1970s which saw these revisionists violently sieze power.

That is about it as far as "practice" goes, and this does not touch on theoretical line issues. It is a very simplistic explanation of "what we're about".

Anyway it's always fun when one of these threads pops up. It adds a lot of weight to the old saying, "If you want to learn about Maoism, ask a Trotskyist!" or "If you want to learn about Trotskyism, ask a Stalinist!" (that's not an old saying, I just made it up now). Atleast nobody's bringing up that one book that that Trotskyist wrote all about Mao -- I'd hate to hate to put all that hard work into irrepairably smashing all of the fallacy in that stack of nonsense.

Anyway, this thread is an example of the importance of No investigation, no right to speak.

[Winter]

I was waiting for your response RNK! And as always I appreciate it. You've clarified many things and answered the questions I asked. Thanks comrade.

[jacobin1949]

Mao wrote much more sophisticated works than "The Little Red Book". You should check MIM Marx2Mao or Marxists.org site for some of Mao's early work. Theres an excellent series by Schram that has ever scrap Mao ever wrote from 1911-1942. If you want to understand Mao's Dialectics read his 4 essay on philosophy especially On Contradiction and On Practice. China and America are vastly different environments. The only part of Mao's philosophy that is truly universal is his Dialectic science. Peasants are NOT leading socialism in America. If your a Maoist fundamentalist I suggest the Rural People's Party.

Frankly I think the only true party in the spirit of Mao is the CPUSA. They are aligned with modern China which contains the most important elements of Mao's philosophy. Mao was not opposed to working within Bourgeois democracy, within coalitions or nonviolently. Chiang is more responsible for the method Mao used to take power than Mao is. Mao would haven preffered a democratic parliament.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I have a question for consideration: considering that more and more food production is the responsibility of proper farm workers (and not peasants), what's the relevance of countryside revolutionary warfare?

On the one hand, Maoists doing this with farm workers are their core supporters wouldn't be accused of sidelining the proletariat in favour of the peasantry. On the other hand, there is a major social divide between those in the urban areas and those in the rural ones.

[Raúl Duke]

Frankly I think the only true party in the spirit of Mao is the CPUSA. They are aligned with modern China which contains the most important elements of Mao's philosophy. Mao was not opposed to working within Bourgeois democracy, within coalitions or nonviolently. Chiang is more responsible for the method Mao used to take power than Mao is. Mao would haven preffered a democratic parliament.

I always thought the RCP was more to the spirit of Maoism (at least compared to the "democrat fans" CPUSA)...

Whether or not Mao preferred a parliament or not we still know that he very much cared for the interests of the peasants (in his limits), unlike the supposed party (CPUSA) that "succeeded" him which fits so well in the left-communist concept of "an organization to the left of capital".

IF modern china is more in tunned as you say to Maoism than surely it's a reactionary ideology (and if the CPUSA is more in tunned to that kind of "socialism" I don't see much of a possibility for any substantial change.).

I don't think the other Maoists would agree with any of that anyway (unless I'm wrong).

[RNK]

considering that more and more food production is the responsibility of proper farm workers (and not peasants), what's the relevance of countryside revolutionary warfare?

The end goal (and result) was the transformation of the peasantry into agricultural workers. As a class, peasants are disassociated from the necessites of proletarian revolution; however, as a source of labour, they are absolutely necessary to a post-revolutionary society. This necessitates transforming them into agricultural workers. This has historically rubbed a few the wrong way; rich peasants and landowners inparticular eschewed collective ownership but for the vast majority collective ownership was quite a blessing compared to virtual slavery to their overseers. While their revolutionary potential does not align fully with proletarian ideals, that potential does exist.

We have to keep in mind that the peasantry made up the vast, vast, vast majority of Chinese. In 1949, if I remember correctly, there were only 2,000,000 true proletarians in a country of 600,000,000; adaptions had to be made, and the full revolutionary potential of the peasantry had to be drawn out -- but this potential was always under the leadership of the proletarian revolution. The inefficiencies of a peasant-based economy were the main reason for the introduction of the two-phase "New Democracy" which saught to industrialize China under socialist ideals, in order to bring China on the road to the transition to socialism (and then, of course, communism). Peasants were collectivized into communes, their farmlands organized under their care, and various attempts at economic stimulus (many of which failed for various reasons) implimented to turn the peasants into proletarians.

[RNK]

Also, please do not listen to Jacobin. He is not a Maoist. He is a Dengist, who have oppurtunistically used Mao's popularity as their tool for hegemony over China and over the past few years foreign capital markets. China from the 1970s onwards was fundamentally different from China during the 1950s and early 1960s; it was during this period that a coup d'etat was launched, with Mao and his supporters overthrown, and a pro-market economy introduced. The Tiananmen Square massacre is not Maoism.

God it's bad enough we have far-left MIM lunatics dirtying our name, we also have to deal with these ignorant revisionists (and I'm not using that term as a shallow insult) going on about "the CPUSA is the only true Maoist party". What the flying fuck is wrong with you?

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I was referring strictly to countryside warfare. When did "transformation into rural workers" come into the picture? :confused:

For example, there are "occupied factories" in Argentina and Venezuela. Alan Maki proposed something similar for a to-be-closed plant in Minnesota. What about "occupied farms"?

[Bomba]

First, Marxist-Leninist-Maoists reject bourgeois politics in the West, not from the standpoint of "violent fetishism" but from the standpoint that, quite simply, it accomplishes nothing; that in the material conditions we live in in the west are simply not conducive to any form of reformism. Workers must unite and struggle outside of the harsh iron bars that bourgeois democracy has placed around all of society, independant of the "bourgeois-sanctioned" infastructure whose sole design was to ensure the continuing reign of the ruling class.

Second, Marxist-Leninist-Maoists support violent resistence movements in the third world, and give their solidarity; in places like Nepal, India, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Turkey, and even Iraq and Afghanistan, where revolutionaries pick up arms or pens and fight against domination by foreign capital and national bourgeoisie, we stand with them.

Third, Marxist-Leninist-Maoists are much more willing to support national liberation struggles, such as those waged by movements in Lebanon, Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan, where large numbers of people suffer under the direct brutality of imperialist occupation and attack. This does not mean we support anyone who happens to fight US imperialism; it means that we do not reject people in their justified struggle for self-defense simply because they do not dress in red capes 24/7; we understand the progressive nature that many national liberation movements exhibit in contrast to imperialism.

So do non Maoists . So as i see there is no point of Maoist existence in the First World !!!

You don't benefit the proletarian movement in your countries. You are useless!

[redwinter]

One good source for information on Mao's contributions to Marxism is Bob Avakian's Immortal Contributions of Mao Tsetung (Chicago: RCP Publications, 1979).

A good brief synopsis is available in the RIM (Revolutionary Internationalist Movement) statement, "Long Live Marxism-Leninism-Maoism!" (http://www.csrp.org/rim/longlivemlm.htm) which I will quote at length for the benefit of people grappling over this:


Mao Tsetung

Mao Tsetung developed Marxism-Leninism to a new and higher stage in the course of his many decades of leading the Chinese Revolution, the worldwide struggle against modern revisionism and, most importantly, in finding in theory and practice the method of continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat to prevent the restoration of capitalism and continue the advance toward communism. Mao Tsetung greatly developed all three component parts of Marxism -- philosophy, political economy and scientific socialism.


Mao said, "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." Mao Tsetung comprehensively developed the military science of the proletariat through his theory and practice of People's War. Mao taught that people, not weapons, are decisive in waging war. He pointed out that each class has its own specific forms of war with its specific character, goals and means. He remarked that all military logic can be boiled down to the principle "you fight your way, I'll fight my way", and that the proletariat must forge military strategy and tactics which can bring into play its particular advantages, by unleashing and relying upon the initiative and enthusiasm of the revolutionary masses.

Mao established that the policy of winning base areas and systematically establishing political power was key to unleashing the masses and developing the armed strength of the people and the wavelike expansion of their political power. He insisted on the need to lead the masses in carrying out revolutionary transformations in base areas and to develop these politically, economically and culturally in the service of advancing revolutionary warfare.

Mao taught that the Party should control the gun and the gun must never be allowed to control the Party. The Party must be built as a vehicle capable of initiating and leading revolutionary warfare. He emphasised that the central task of revolution is the seizure of political power by revolutionary violence. Mao Tsetung's theory of People's War is universally applicable in all countries, although this must be applied to the concrete conditions in each country and, in particular, take into account the revolutionary paths in the two general types of countries-imperialist countries and oppressed countries-that exist in the world today.

Mao solved the problem of how to make revolution in a country dominated by imperialism. The basic path he charted for the revolution in China represents an inestimable contribution to the theory and practice of revolution and is the guide for achieving liberation in the countries oppressed by imperialism. This means protracted People's War, surrounding the cities from the countryside, with armed struggle as the main form of struggle and the army led by the Party as the main form of organisations of the masses, mobilising the peasantry, principally the poor peasants, carrying out the agrarian revolution, building a united front under the leadership of the Communist Party to carry out the New Democratic Revolution against imperialism, feudalism and bureaucrat capitalism and establishing the joint dictatorship of the revolutionary classes led by the proletariat as the necessary prelude to the socialist revolution which must immediately follow the victory of the first stage of the revolution. Mao put forward the thesis of the "three magic weapons" -- the Party, the Army and the United Front -- the indispensable instruments for making revolution in every country in accordance with its specific conditions and path of revolution.

Mao Tsetung greatly developed the proletarian philosophy, dialectical materialism. In particular, he stressed that the law of contradiction, the unity and struggle of opposites, is the fundamental law governing nature and society. He pointed out that the unity and identity of all things is temporary and relative, while the struggle between opposites is ceaseless and absolute, and this gives rise to radical ruptures and revolutionary leaps. He masterfully applied this understanding to the analysis of the relationship between theory and practice, stressing that practice is both the sole source and ultimate criterion of the truth and emphasising the leap from theory to revolutionary practice. In so doing Mao further developed the proletarian theory of knowledge. He led in taking philosophy to the masses in their millions, popularizing, for example, that "one divides into two" in opposition to the revisionist thesis that "two combines into one".

Mao Tsetung further developed the understanding that the "people and the people alone are the motive force in the making of world history". He developed the understanding of the mass line: "take the ideas of the masses (scattered and unsystematic ideas) and concentrate them (through study turn them into concentrated and systematic ideas), then go to the masses and propagate and explain these ideas until the masses embrace them as their own, hold fast to them and translate them into action, and test the correctness of these ideas in such action". Mao stressed the profound truth that matter can be transformed into consciousness and consciousness into matter, further developing the understanding of the conscious dynamic role of man in every field of human endeavour.

Mao Tsetung led the international struggle against modern revisionism led by the Khrushchevite revisionists. He defended the communist ideological and political line against the modern revisionists and called upon the genuine proletarian revolutionaries to break with them and forge parties based on Marxist-Leninist-Maoist principles.

Mao Tsetung undertook a penetrating analysis of the lessons of the restoration of capitalism in the USSR and the shortcomings as well as the positive achievements of the construction of socialism in that country. While Mao defended the great contributions of Stalin, he also summed up Stalin's errors. He summed up the experience of the socialist revolution in China and the repeated two-line struggles against revisionist headquarters within the Communist Party of China. He masterfully applied materialist dialectics to the analysis of the contradictions of socialist society.
Mao taught that the Party must play the vanguard role -- before, during and after the seizure of power -- in leading the proletariat in the historic struggle for communism. He developed the understanding of how to preserve the proletarian revolutionary character of the Party through waging an active ideological struggle against bourgeois and petit bourgeois influences in its ranks, the ideological remoulding of the Party members, criticism and self-criticism and waging two-line struggle against opportunist and revisionist lines in the Party. Mao taught that once the proletariat seizes power and the Party becomes the leading force within the socialist state, the contradiction between the Party and the masses becomes a concentrated expression of the contradictions marking socialist society as a transition between capitalism and communism.

Mao Tsetung developed the proletariat's understanding of political economy, of the contradictory and dynamic role of production itself and of its interrelationship with the political and ideological superstructure of society. Mao taught that the system of ownership is decisive in the relations of production but that, under socialism, attention must be paid that public ownership is socialist in content as well as in form. He stressed the interaction between the system of socialist ownership and the other two aspects of the relations of production, the relations between people in production and the system of distribution. Mao developed the Leninist thesis that politics is the concentrated expression of economics, showing that under socialist society the correctness of the ideological and political line determines whether the proletariat actually owns the means of production. Conversely, he pointed out that the rise of revisionism means the rise of the bourgeoisie, that given the contradictory nature of the socialist economic base it would be easy for capitalist roaders to rig up the capitalist system if they come to power.

He profoundly criticised the revisionist theory of the productive forces and concluded that the superstructure, consciousness, can transform the base and with political power develop the productive forces. All this took expression in Mao's slogan, "Grasp Revolution, Promote Production."

Mao Tsetung initiated and led the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution which represented a great leap forward in the experience of exercising the dictatorship of the proletariat. Hundreds of millions of people rose up to overthrow the capitalist readers who had emerged from within the socialist society and who were especially concentrated in the leadership of the Party itself (such as Liu Shao-chi , Lin Piao and Deng Xiao-ping) . Mao led the proletariat and masses in challenging the capitalist roaders and imposing the interests, outlook and will of the great majority in every sphere that, even in socialist society, had remained the private reserve of the exploiting classes and their way of thinking.

The great victories won in the Cultural Revolution prevented the capitalist restoration in China for a decade and led to great socialist transformations in the economic base as well as in education, literature and art, scientific research and other parts of the superstructure. Under Mao's leadership the masses dug away at the soil which engenders capitalism -- such as bourgeois right and the three great differences between town and country, between worker and peasant, and between mental and manual labour.

In the course of fierce ideological and political struggle, millions of workers and other revolutionary masses greatly deepened their class consciousness and mastery of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism and strengthened their capacity to wield political power. The Cultural Revolution was waged as part of the international struggle of the proletariat and was a training ground in proletarian internationalism.

Mao grasped the dialectical relationship between the necessity of revolutionary leadership and the need to arouse and rely on the revolutionary masses from below to implement proletarian dictatorship. In this way, the strengthening of the proletarian dictatorship was also the most extensive and deepest exercise in proletarian democracy yet achieved in the world, and heroic revolutionary leaders came forward such as Chiang Ching and Chang Chun-chiao who stood alongside the masses and led them into battle against the revisionists and who continued to hold high the banner of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism in the face of bitter defeat.

Lenin said, "Only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of the class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat." In the light of the invaluable lessons and advances achieved through the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution led by Mao Tsetung, this dividing line has been further sharpened. Now it can be stated that only he is a Marxist who extends the recognition of class struggle to the recognition of the dictatorship of the proletariat and to the recognition of the objective existence of classes, of antagonistic class contradictions, of the bourgeoisie in the Party and of the continuation of the class struggle under the dictatorship of the proletariat throughout the whole period of socialism until communism. As Mao so powerfully stated, "Lack of clarity on this question will lead to revisionism."

The capitalist restoration following the 1976 counter-revolutionary coup d'etat led by Hua Kuo-feng and Deng Xiao-ping in no way negates Maoism or the world-historic achievements and tremendous lessons of the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution; rather this defeat confirms Mao's theses on the nature of socialist society and the need to continue the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat. Clearly, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution represents a world-historic epic of revolution, a victorious high point for the world's communists and revolutionaries, an imperishable achievement. Although we have a whole process ahead of us, that revolution left us great lessons we are already applying, such as, for example, the point that ideological transformation is fundamental in order for our class to seize power.

[RHIZOMES]

So do non Maoists . So as i see there is no point of Maoist existence in the First World !!!

You don't benefit the proletarian movement in your countries. You are useless!

Care to elaborate? :rolleyes:

[Awful Reality]

None. There is no way, fundamentally, as there is no peasantry. However, there are other Maoist principles that could be applied after the revolution.

[Random Precision]

I've said it a thousand times: In a fuedal system, it is in the material best interests of the working class to co-operate with national bourgeoisie. Marx understood this, Lenin understood this, Mao understood this. The shining difference is that while Marx urged complacency and submissive support for the bourgeoisie, Mao urged domination of the bourgeoisie by the proletariat so that they are never allowed to be the dominant class of society in the first place.

Has that ever happened, though? Even in China, the "national bourgeoisie" pulled out all stops to crush the class-conscious proletariat before it could make a revolution. I don't think I even need talk about what they got up to in Indonesia.

And for the sake of accuracy, you will not find the concept of a "national bourgeoisie" in the writings of either Marx or Lenin. I would guess that it came from Mao, but without more investigation I wouldn't know.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Actually, given some of the more recent CPGB(PCC) readings of mine, "new democracy" was coughed up implicitly, if not explicitly, by the Stalin-Bukharin du-umvirate ("enrich yourselves"). :(

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/653/programme.htm


It was perfectly understandable that in 1905 or 1912 Lenin and Trotsky exchanged polemical cannonades based on nothing more than a few snatched lines or a disembodied phrase - they fought on behalf of rival factional centres or outposts and were star combatants. There was also the material factor of tsarist censorship, police raids and therefore fragmentary information. However, from the elevated heights of the 21st century, Marxists - of all schools - should at least try to discover and come to terms with the true content of the Bolshevik programme and the famous ‘revolutionary democratic dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry’ formulation.

How did the Bolsheviks view this formulation and how did they apply it in practice? Eg, what tactics were used in December 1905? Surely that should be given more weight than the fact that in 1917 Zinoviev and Kamenev, as an isolated Bolshevik minority, sought a cosy peace with those supporting the provisional government, using the ‘democratic dictatorship’ slogan as a flimsy orthodox cover. Ditto, that during the 1920s the Stalin-Bukharin duumvirate grossly misused the same ‘democratic dictatorship’ formulation to legitimise their bloc of four classes in China - this time uniting proletariat, peasantry, petty bourgeoisie and national bourgeoisie!

What is notable about the years before 1917 for me is the consanguinity, the essential brotherhood of the Bolsheviks and Trotsky. Not strategic difference. Though it does not suit those present-day left economists who huddle behind a caricatured mask of Trotsky, the fact of the matter is that his theory of permanent revolution did not imply jumping-over or ignoring the democratic tasks of the Russian revolution.

If true, that actually puts Mao slightly higher up in my books (still having to deal with overemphasis on the peasantry and the crap "Three Worlds" theory), at a further expense to the revisionist Stalin. While following the above revisionism re. Stalin-Bukharin, at least Mao didn't create "new democracy."



Now, nobody has addressed my remark concerning countryside warfare by proper farm workers. :(

[careyprice31]

^^^ Actually, given some of the more recent CPGB(PCC) readings of mine, "new democracy" was coughed up implicitly, if not explicitly, by the Stalin-Bukharin du-umvirate ("enrich yourselves"). :(

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/653/programme.htm



If true, that actually puts Mao slightly higher up in my books (still having to deal with overemphasis on the peasantry and the crap "Three Worlds" theory), at a further expense to the revisionist Stalin. While following the above revisionism re. Stalin-Bukharin, at least Mao didn't create "new democracy."



Now, nobody has addressed my remark concerning countryside warfare by proper farm workers. :(

Now I do not know a whole lot about Chairman Mao, but from the little I have read, as I understood it, Mao embarked on a series of collectivization measures similar to, those Stalin had doner back in the 1930's.

These methods were very strongly opposed by Bukharin and his friends. I do not in anyway see how this can be misconstrued as 'bukharinist' measures, if that is what you imply.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I was referring to the "new democracy" theory that posits the "need" for a popular bloc of workers, peasants, other petit-bourgeoisie, and "national" bourgeoisie.

[RNK]

(still having to deal with overemphasis on the peasantry and the crap "Three Worlds" theory),

About those:

There is only an "overemphasis" on the peasantry in Maoist theory when there is an "overemphasis" on peasantry in the population of a country. ;) In a country, like China, where 99% of the population is made up of peasants, it's kind of hard to ignore them.

A lot of what is attributed to the "Three Worlds Theory" is blurred rantings from far-left Maoist radicals like the MIM who think that the entire first world, including all workers, are parasitic quasi-bourgeoisie who actively exploit all of the third world, and misconceptions from Hoxhaists, and, naturally, other strains.

"Three Worlds" at its base is essentially that along with the two main "worlds", the first and the third, there was (and is) a developing "second world" of bourgeois states which are predominantly dominated by the first world, which were adopting semi-imperialist and exploitive relations globally. One aspect of this which I agree on is that starting in the 1950s and progressing to the 1980s the Soviet Union increasingly became less progressive and more imperialistic (this is using the more generalized definition of imperialism, ie, economic and political hegemony on lesser states, rather than outright military action, though the USSR did exhibit this latter tendency on several occasions). The belief relies upon the fact that even before Stalin's death, the Soviet "beauraucracy" class had risen itself into a priviledged position above the rest of society and had hegemonized political and economic aspects of the country, and that its actions globally during the Cold War were a slightly more progressive mirror of the actions of the outright-imperialist United States; the Soviet Union often gambled politically and economically for control of countries and resources with the United States, not for progressive measures but for control.

And Mao's collectivization may have been similar to Stalin's, but prior and during their conception Mao wrote an extensive critique of Stalin's policy towards peasants. Mao essentially accused Stalin of taking too much and giving too little, resulting in food shortages and lower quality of life for peasant workers. Almost ironically, given that despite this critique, essentially the same thing happened in China.

[Die Neue Zeit]

About those:

A lot of what is attributed to the "Three Worlds Theory" is blurred rantings from far-left Maoist radicals like the MIM who think that the entire first world, including all workers, are parasitic quasi-bourgeoisie who actively exploit all of the third world, and misconceptions from Hoxhaists, and, naturally, other strains.

Unfortunately, the not-so-Marxist SovietPants shares their POV with regards to "white Americans" (see the Learning thread "Are any of you really proletarians?").

[RNK]

Strangely, the view that first world workers are parasitic seems to be more common amount first-world Maoists. Third-world Maoists, who you'd expect to be more inclined to emotionally detesting first-world workers and their "hoarding" of the wealth of the world, show somewhat surprising comradery and solidarity.

Exploitation is relative. Workers in the first world make on average a miniscule amount compared to their bourgeoisie, a difference which is relative to third-world workers and third-world bourgeoisie. Workers in the first world get paid more, but everything also costs more -- try buying an AK-47 for $20, or a pack of smokes for a dollar. Our relative wealth is due more to our physical proximity to the bourgeoisie than our ideological proximity.

But arguing for working-class division is entirely reactionary. The "Little Eichman" theory is just revolting. I'm sitting here having my fucking ass exploited off, and some idiot college kids are calling me parasitic. Hah!

[Die Neue Zeit]

Now, what about the potential (or lack thereof, depending on one's POV) for countryside, revolutionary-epoch warfare by farm workers in "occupied farms" (if you answered this earlier, you weren't very clear) akin to Mao's peasant war?

[black magick hustla]

the thing why "thirdworldist" maoists dislike the first world is because there is not as much gunshooting to give them a surge of adrenaline. i suggest thirdworldists should get healthier hobbies, like watching violent movies, or playing videogames. real communists work with the workers in our surroundings, and dont cheer on the death of workers and peasants sent to die by either the left, or the right of capital.

the simplification of lenin's theory on imperialism by a bunch of brats makes no sense when you see the figures. more than 50% of the mexican workforce come from the service sector. If we applied the same standards these people apply to the US or canada, it would mean Mexico is imperialist which is obviously bullshit.

[RNK]

Now, what about the potential (or lack thereof, depending on one's POV) for countryside, revolutionary-epoch warfare by farm workers (if you answered this earlier, you weren't very clear) akin to Mao's peasant war?

I'm assuming you're generally asking whether PPW (protracted people's war) is viable in a 1st world country?

Usually not. Transportation, communication, intelligence technology and so forth has advanced to the point that urban environments are probably far more suitable for insurrectionary activities than the countryside. However, it is still entirely possible that a raging revolutionary movement may see rural communities galvanized into opposition of the bourgeois state's authority, authority which is still largely contained within urban centers.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I see.

One of the reasons why the Russian civil war erupted was that the Soviet government didn't control much of the non-industrial areas from the outset. On the other hand, PPW took so long to bear fruit because China has so much country and little urban areas.

By "urban environments," I take it you refer to warfare tactics like the extreme house-by-house urban warfare, no? ;)


However, it is still entirely possible that a raging revolutionary movement may see rural communities galvanized into opposition of the bourgeois state's authority, authority which is still largely contained within urban centers.

I think Devrim said that, ironically, Maoist insurrectionism is quite ripe in certain parts of the US (like the not-so-urbanized but vast Midwest). His post, coupled with "occupied factories," inspired me to ask my question above ("occupied farms"). :)

[RNK]

The Rockies would certainly be a good place to hide, but still, far more of the United States is easily accessible by the government than was the case in China in the 40s and Cuba in the 50s and Vietnam in the 60s and so on and so forth.

And yeah, we call that "Maoist mouseholing" ;)

I think events that occured during the riots in France (especially the more recent ones) are some good examples of urban insurrection. Seizing local neighbourhoods, forming armed little "neighbourhood watch" groups, sieging local government offices and public institutions, and launching guerilla-style attacks against police stations.

In one somewhat funny instance, a group of rioters called the police to report a crime, and then waited in ambush. When police arrived, the rioters opened fire with small-arms. :)

Insurrection in urban environments is notoriously hard to control. Look at the LA riots. In the countryside, napalming a dozen square miles of forest is usually all you need to do, if worse comes to worst. In a city, though, state forces are essentially forced to fight mano-a-mano.

[BanderaRoja]

Maoism is not a mere applied formula, so the idea that Maoists advocate a People's War or peasant-led front in the United States is grossly incorrect. Maoist strategy within the First World countries is under-theorized. However, some of the major goals of First World Maoists have traditionally been 1. Organization against imperialist wars 2. Support of oppressed nations within the imperialist countries, such as Black and Latino struggles for political and economic power 3. Anti-fascism, including defense of civil libertires, 4. Support of socialist feminism, anti-patriarchy. That should give you some idea of how Maoism has been applied in America.


So do non Maoists . So as i see there is no point of Maoist existence in the First World !!!

What non-Maoists? Most existing Trotskyist and revisionist movements do not support anti-imperialist national liberation to the extent that Maoists do, for one.


Exploitation is relative. Workers in the first world make on average a miniscule amount compared to their bourgeoisie, a difference which is relative to third-world workers and third-world bourgeoisie. Workers in the first world get paid more, but everything also costs more -- try buying an AK-47 for $20, or a pack of smokes for a dollar. Our relative wealth is due more to our physical proximity to the bourgeoisie than our ideological proximity.

But arguing for working-class division is entirely reactionary. The "Little Eichman" theory is just revolting. I'm sitting here having my fucking ass exploited off, and some idiot college kids are calling me parasitic. Hah!

1. The political line of a Canadian worker is not inherently more correct than that of a petty-bourgeois college student. A great deal of First World workers are chauvinist and reactionary. Look at nationalist movements such as the anti-immigration movement in the United States and Europe or the political ideals of white workers in the American South. Obviously I'm not accusing you of being reactionary, but pointing out that its quite possible that a petty-bourgeois intellectual may hold a more correct political line than a First World worker. Would you support Sartre or a working-class member of the National Front? Ultimately taking identity as political line obscures things and sidesteps the issue.

2. I agree that exploitation is relative. The argument that Maoists make, however, is that Third World workers and peasants are exploited to a greater degree. Even if you do not agree that service labor is parasitic it seems undeniable to me that under the labor theory of value the primary value of commodities comes from the extraction of resources and the actual manufacturing process. This is primarily done in the Third World today. Compound that with the greater political and social repression found in Third World countries. Its because of this that Maoists see the Third World proletariat as being oppressed to a greater degree and therefore the likely spearhead of socialist revolution.

Marx said "The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains". To some degree this is poetic, but to some degree it also reflect political realities. Third World workers literally have nothing to lose but their chains, a great deal literally own no property.

First World workers on the other hand are much more greatly economically tied to the bourgeoisie. Its a possibility that should the imperialist system collapse the living standards for the First World will decline. Also, a great deal of employment and the prosperity that North Americans and Europeans have enjoyed is tied to actions by the state and finance capital. Farm subsidies being the most clear to see, but the credit system set up by First World capital likely having the biggest impact. Mao referred to these overtures by the bourgeoisie as "sugar-coated bullets". To some degree, this is the main stumbling block for First World revolutionaries. The problem is not so much that the worker's movement has committed this or that act of revisonism or failed in some theoretical regard, its that for the most part First World workers have proven themselves content with imperialist warfare and class division as long as these events do not trouble their personal life (as in no conscription) and they have luxuries like iPods to enjoy. Mao recognized this even when the imperialist system was not as developed and so far his theories have proven true: most post-WWII revolutionary movements have occurred in the Third World, while the workers movement in the First World has either sunk into reformism (see most mainstream labor organizations) or irrelevancy (see most Trotskyist groups). Thus, this isn't an act of division, its acknowledging reality. While First World workers may (or may not) be economically exploited, the consciousness of a great % of them (but not all, in my opinion) has changed to reflect petty-bourgeois values and political line.


the thing why "thirdworldist" maoists dislike the first world is because there is not as much gunshooting to give them a surge of adrenaline. i suggest thirdworldists should get healthier hobbies, like watching violent movies, or playing videogames. real communists work with the workers in our surroundings, and dont cheer on the death of workers and peasants sent to die by either the left, or the right of capital.

I'm not sure what you're arguing: are you arguing that First World Maoists are violence-prone or Third World Maoists? Regardless, Maoists advocate anti-militarism and the use of violence only when appropriate. If revolutionaries or the masses are threatened with violence or repression by the state or paramilitaries, then yes, using violence is justified. If you are a minority that is targetted by chauvinist police forces, then carrying a weapon in self-defense is justified. No excuse is necessary for those who understand these situations. Other than that I see no glorification of violence. Mao warned the world about the heights of militarism and the danger that it presented during the Cold War.


the simplification of lenin's theory on imperialism by a bunch of brats makes no sense when you see the figures. more than 50% of the mexican workforce come from the service sector. If we applied the same standards these people apply to the US or canada, it would mean Mexico is imperialist which is obviously bullshit.

Service sector labor is often interpreted as being unproductive (in the sense of the labor theory of value, not in the common usage), not imperialist. There is no Maoist theory that argues that service sector economics translates into imperialism. An economy with 50% service sector employment is not uncommon, in the case of Mexico it likely means that too many labor resources are being poured into tourism and related industries rather than primary industries.

The fact is the Mexican economy is in a subservient position to the imperialist powers. Surplus wealth from Mexican labor is exported to the United States. Mexican labor is used to produce commodities for American consumption (parasitism). All of this is managed by First World financial capital, primarily from the United States, which also exerts undue influence on Mexican politics and disenfranchises workers and peasants. These are the criterion of imperialism, not service sector %s, that is a blatant strawman argument.

Secondly, who are these "brats"? The theoretical advancements of Maoism are primarily from Third World leaders, such as Mao or Comrade Gonzalo, and not from petty-bourgeois college kids (despite the repetitive use of that stereotype on this board). It seems to me extremely condescending to refer to people you dismiss as "brats" when you clearly either do not fully understand what you are critiquing or are purposefully misrepresenting it.

[Random Precision]

^^^ Actually, given some of the more recent CPGB(PCC) readings of mine, "new democracy" was coughed up implicitly, if not explicitly, by the Stalin-Bukharin du-umvirate ("enrich yourselves"). :(

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/653/programme.htm



If true, that actually puts Mao slightly higher up in my books (still having to deal with overemphasis on the peasantry and the crap "Three Worlds" theory), at a further expense to the revisionist Stalin. While following the above revisionism re. Stalin-Bukharin, at least Mao didn't create "new democracy."

That would fit with my own understanding of the subject. Thanks.

I see no one has replied to my comment on the "national bourgeoisie". :(

[RNK]

1. The political line of a Canadian worker is not inherently more correct than that of a petty-bourgeois college student.

I agree, but the political line of petty-bourgeois college students claiming exploitation in the first world does not exist is incorrect.


Look at nationalist movements such as the anti-immigration movement in the United States and Europe or the political ideals of white workers in the American South.

You don't have to argue the fact that workers are not infallable and not immune to incorrect understanding of social and economic issues.


The argument that Maoists make, however, is that Third World workers and peasants are exploited to a greater degree. Even if you do not agree that service labor is parasitic it seems undeniable to me that under the labor theory of value the primary value of commodities comes from the extraction of resources and the actual manufacturing process.

Yes, I agree that 3rd world people are exploited to a much greater degree than us in the first world and that by design their labour is "more exploited" than ours. But I stand by my stance on the parasitic (or lack of parasitic) nature of the services industry. While the position according to production has changed the services worker still has no more control over the surplus profit of the sale of commodities or his own labour than the industrial worker and in an age where manufacturing jobs are becoming increasingly rare proletarians have little choice but to take work wherever it may be. This is not excusing managers or entreprenuers who're simply trying to become bourgeoisie themselves, but I fail to see how a 58-year-old gas station worker who only has that job because the factory he worked for 30 years in was shut down and shipped to India makes him parasitic or more exploitive of other workers.


First World workers on the other hand are much more greatly economically tied to the bourgeoisie.

As I said, this is mainly due to our proximity to the bourgeoisie and the "trickling down" of profit. We must keep in mind that much of the "gains" of the past century and a half on the part of western workers has only come after bloody struggles and the capabilities that come with industrialization. The progressive nature of capitalism in terms of allowing workers the necessary tools to organize and struggle is something that the third world has lacked.


To some degree, this is the main stumbling block for First World revolutionaries. The problem is not so much that the worker's movement has committed this or that act of revisonism or failed in some theoretical regard, its that for the most part First World workers have proven themselves content with imperialist warfare and class division as long as these events do not trouble their personal life (as in no conscription) and they have luxuries like iPods to enjoy.

It would be silly to ignore the actions of the bourgeois state regarding this tendency. While I agree many (if not most) of the first world has grown completely complacent and uncaring, I see it more as a manifestation of extreme propaganda and manipulation of social tradition than a consciencious choice on the part of first worlders. Most people wouldn't hesitate to condemn the terrible suffering of the people of the third world; the problem arises when it comes down to why they suffer and how they can be helped. Most believe in the capitalist dream that capitalism is the best way to help the people of the world and that economic and social development is a natural occurance largely immune to outside interference. We don't even have to begin to explain how erroneous an arguement this is, but that is what they've been fed for 100 years (along with a healthy dose of institutionalized counter-progressiveness).

Long and the short of it, I recognize the material differences and social contradictions present in the first world but I see it more as an attestation to the success of capitalism's ability to manipulate and disarm 1st world workers than a conscious choice by 1st world workers to abandon progressivei ideals.

Sorry RP, I'll address it now;


Has that ever happened, though? Even in China, the "national bourgeoisie" pulled out all stops to crush the class-conscious proletariat before it could make a revolution. I don't think I even need talk about what they got up to in Indonesia.

Yes, the KMT, which was quasi-bourgeois and quasi-fuedal (a generic, even "reductionist" ;) term, but for simplicity's sake) spared no effort squashing proletarian consciousness, but this was at a point where the bourgeoisie could remain ignorant no longer to the revolutionary potential of the proletariat. However, with the defeat of the KMT and victory of the socialist revolution elements of the national bourgeoisie who were more sympathetic to anti-imperialism were allowed to "stay" as the far-right cronies of the KMT fled to Taiwan. They were given limited freedom in accordance with helping develop China's economy. The CCP argued that so long as they did not become hostile to the aims of a proletarian revolution they would not be squashed.



And for the sake of accuracy, you will not find the concept of a "national bourgeoisie" in the writings of either Marx or Lenin. I would guess that it came from Mao, but without more investigation I wouldn't know.

Marx and Lenin wrote from the perspective of much more highly advanced societies; Marx inparticular did not have to fear rampant imperialism, and while Lenin did, the proletariat in Russia in 1917 was strong enough that there needn't really be any real emphasis on co-operation with non-proletarian sections of Russian society to build and industrialize Russia. China on the other hand was almost completely unindustrialized and essentially a third world country, which necessitated some form of bourgeois industrial revolution. China was also, from 1937 until 1945, being invaded by Japan, and then after 1945, met with increasing hostility from the United States. The term "national bourgeoisie" was really only created to differentiate from the tendency towards capitalist globalization and point out the bourgeoisie of a specific nation (so when Mao called for an alliance with elements of the national bourgeoisie, he was directly referring to the bourgeoisie in China, being careful not to let it be mistaken with an alliance with the entire, global ruling class).

[Die Neue Zeit]

That would fit with my own understanding of the subject. Thanks.

I see no one has replied to my comment on the "national bourgeoisie". :(

To both you and RNK, I'm aware of the actions of the Guomindang which decimated the Chinese proletariat (partly because of inaction by the Chinese communists as a result of the line held by the true founders of the revisionist "new democracy," one of whom also coughed up the similarly revisionist "popular front" BS that killed the Spanish revolution), thus transforming Mao's movement into a peasant one.

I am also aware of what happened in Indonesia: Mao repeated the same revisionist BS with the Indonesian proletariat that Stalin and Bukharin did with the Chinese proletariat.

[BanderaRoja]

Yes, I agree that 3rd world people are exploited to a much greater degree than us in the first world and that by design their labour is "more exploited" than ours. But I stand by my stance on the parasitic (or lack of parasitic) nature of the services industry. While the position according to production has changed the services worker still has no more control over the surplus profit of the sale of commodities or his own labour than the industrial worker and in an age where manufacturing jobs are becoming increasingly rare proletarians have little choice but to take work wherever it may be. This is not excusing managers or entreprenuers who're simply trying to become bourgeoisie themselves, but I fail to see how a 58-year-old gas station worker who only has that job because the factory he worked for 30 years in was shut down and shipped to India makes him parasitic or more exploitive of other workers.

Some thoughts...

As I said to Marmot, I'm not sure where the emphasis on service industries comes from. Yes, the fact that the US is so heavily service-sector is an example of how parasitical it is. But it is not the determining factor. What makes the US an imperialist exploiter is that it exports capital, exploits Third World labor and re-imports the commodities for consumption/sale.

A worker is a exploiter if he benefits from this system. Its unlikely that a gas station worker is benefitting. However, someone who works in an industry where wages have gone up due to greater or more efficient exploitation of Third World labor is. More to the point, a wide swath of the First World working class indirectly benefits. The expansion of imperialism has restructured the First World economies. A much greater percentage of people work in unproductive fields such as advertising or retail that are parasitical to a greater extent. Take an commodity like textiles as an example. Third World workers add the primary value by manufacturing it, yet are often unable to afford basic necessities such as housing and healthcare, let alone consumer goods. On the other hand the First World service worker who merely sells the product generally enjoys a much high standard of living. The relationship is parasitical because the First World worker is making their living off of the back of Third World labor, not merely because they happen to have a non-manufacturing role, which is found in all econmies.



As I said, this is mainly due to our proximity to the bourgeoisie and the "trickling down" of profit. We must keep in mind that much of the "gains" of the past century and a half on the part of western workers has only come after bloody struggles and the capabilities that come with industrialization. The progressive nature of capitalism in terms of allowing workers the necessary tools to organize and struggle is something that the third world has lacked. Just because workers fought and achieved gains does not mean they are progressive or worth keeping.




If, in desiring to prepare the workers for the dictatorship, one tells them
that their conditions will not be worsened 'too much', one is losing sight of
the main thing, namely, that it was by helping their 'own' bourgeoisie to
conquer and strangle the whole world by imperialist methods, with the
aim of thereby ensuring better pay for themselves, that the labor
aristocracy developed. If the German workers now want to work for the
revolution they must make sacrifices, and not be afraid to do so. . . .
-Speech on Terms of Admission to Communist International

Surely you must be aware of Lenin's critique of economistic demands?




It would be silly to ignore the actions of the bourgeois state regarding this tendency. While I agree many (if not most) of the first world has grown completely complacent and uncaring, I see it more as a manifestation of extreme propaganda and manipulation of social tradition than a consciencious choice on the part of first worlders. Most people wouldn't hesitate to condemn the terrible suffering of the people of the third world; the problem arises when it comes down to why they suffer and how they can be helped. Most believe in the capitalist dream that capitalism is the best way to help the people of the world and that economic and social development is a natural occurance largely immune to outside interference. We don't even have to begin to explain how erroneous an arguement this is, but that is what they've been fed for 100 years (along with a healthy dose of institutionalized counter-progressiveness).


Long and the short of it, I recognize the material differences and social contradictions present in the first world but I see it more as an attestation to the success of capitalism's ability to manipulate and disarm 1st world workers than a conscious choice by 1st world workers to abandon progressivei ideals.I don't necessarily disagree. I wasn't attempting to fault anyone or morally condemn people for being "uncaring". It seems to me far less important how it happened than whether or not it is true. It seems to me to hold massive strategic importance. There was an expectation that the Soviet revolution would spread to Western Europe, the fact that it did not had negative consequences. If there are also false hopes today about First World revolution then this could also derail revolutionary movements.

I'm not arguing that all First World workers are reactionary. But many people on this board seem to opportunistically poo-poo this idea as completely preposterous while I think it of paramount importance. First of all, so many revolutionary movements have driven themselves into irrelevance because they've been perpetually searching for some historical or theoretical mistake to justify their continual failure, while the answer is staring them in the face.

Secondly, to me it seems to smack of being out of touch with reality, of holding up an idealized conception of a worker rather than knowing the reality. Lets take a hypothetical situation where anti-imperialist struggle breaks out across multiple continents, US economic networks are disrupted and the dollar tanks.

Are all those politically apathetic suburbanites that have spent their life working to accumulate consumer goods suddenly going to form worker's councils? Are all those anti-immigrant nationalist militants suddenly going to fight for socialism? What about the hardcore pro-militarism, racist Southern workers? Or those workers who were laid off and turn to nationalist by raising the spectre of a China threat or India threat, the kind that Lou Dobbs caters to? These make up a significant amount of the American working-class public. Historical precedent shows me that these people are more like to move towards reaction and support any last-ditch effort to salvage imperialism. Yet stating this reality is anti-worker?

[BIG BROTHER]

So what should a first world worker do? Or is it that as long as imperialism gives him benefits he'll never be concious about the explotation of fellow workers in opresed countries?

[BanderaRoja]

Well if he/she *is* class conscious he should organize with other revolutionary workers and keep an independent proletarian political line and do the type of things I mentioned in my initial post in this thread.

[BIG BROTHER]

And about service workers, they don't get paid enough but how could we prove scientificaly that they're exploited?

[RNK]

The most simplistic/reductionist way would be: during the average 8-hour or whatever shift a cashier or whatever service worker works, do they make the same amount of money as the corporate executives in the same period of time?

[BIG BROTHER]

The most simplistic/reductionist way would be: during the average 8-hour or whatever shift a cashier or whatever service worker works, do they make the same amount of money as the corporate executives in the same period of time?

nice way to put it.

[RNK]

And statistically, aren't many service sector jobs some of the lowest-paid?

[BIG BROTHER]

And statistically, aren't many service sector jobs some of the lowest-paid?

I think so, but since people in service sector don't do work as heavy as factory workers, farmers, etc. Not only do they consider themselves better off, but mos even consider themselves part of the middle class!

[Entrails Konfetti]

You mean the guy with rotting teeth and slurred speech who works at Burger King?

[BIG BROTHER]

You mean the guy with rotting teeth and slurred speech who works at Burger King?

I mean more like someone working as teller in a somewhat "nice" store where he doesn't earn minimun wage, has some benefits etc.

[RNK]

A friend of mine worked in a large international retail outlet, and after something like 8 years he only makes about $12/hr (Canadian).

[BIG BROTHER]

Just for the record I never meant to imply that worers in the service sector are wealthy...

[Entrails Konfetti]

Are you telling me that there aren't a segment of workers in developinmg nations that aren't pretty far over the average: Union-Bureaucrat or otherwize?

[RNK]

Of course there are. Executives, mid-level managers, union beauraucrats, there's a huge section of the working population in the West that are parasitic in nature and ideology.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Hopefully I'll get the chance to elucidate further on my class relations stuff tonight. Things became more complicated this morning than I realized. :(