The Relevance of Marxism-Leninism-Maoism

[Winter]

The proletariat of the first-world must support anti-imperialists and socialists in the third-world.

The first-world proletariat must be informed about class conscioussness. The wages of the first-world proletariat continue to decline while corporate profits soar. Let us rise with the international proletariat by hitting corporate empires where it will hurt them the most: their access to cheap labor and resources.

The fact that socialists within Nepal, India, and Latin America have risen to make their nations free from reactionary governments who work with billion dollar corporations show the relevence of Maoism. By uniting not only urban workers, but peasants as well, the Maoists are utilizing their greatest strength: numbers.

The vast numbers of individual Maoists are growing daily. Negative socio-economic conditions have united the Maoists to free their people from slave labor by driving out corporate imperialism. The reactionaries who support these empires by allowing them access to their country in the first place are guilty of treason against their own people. Their are the first to be dealt with, and violence is the only method to do so.

To shut down the power of corporate empires, we proletariats of the first-world must keep these comrades in mind. World socialism is highly unlikely to begin at home, but abroad by the most downtrodden of workers. They see the first hand reasons why their nations and peoples were never allowed to flourish. The revolutionary spirit thrives within them.

Let us look to the third-world and give our support to their revolutions, for it is from there that a new world will flourish.

[Random Precision]

nevermind

[Niccolò Rossi]

The working class within the United States has gotten far too comfortable.

Yes comrade you are correct! How dare the working class not live in poverty!


The proletariat of the U.S. must be denied a comfortable life for revolution to ever occur. Another insightful point comrade, let us throw the notion of proletarian internationalism out the window, our real enemies are those fat cat American workers. After all, it's not like the proletariat in the first world are exploited or alienated.

What a fucking joke.

[Winter]

Yes comrade you are correct! How dare the working class not live in poverty!

You are totally missing the point. I am making the point that comfort is not a revolutionary spark. Poor living conditions are a means to an end, that end being revolution.


Another insightful point comrade, let us throw the notion of proletarian internationalism out the window, our real enemies are those fat cat American workers. After all, it's not like the proletariat in the first world are exploited or alienated.

Proletarian internationalism is essential. I never said otherwise. American workers are not our enemy either. Where do you get this information from? I never said anything like this. Workers are exploited and alienated in the first world also, but obviously not to a point where revolution is an option. I live in America and can see first hand that workers have lost class consciousness and merely rely upon nationalistic unity. I don't blame the workers of the first world, the blame is on those doing the manipulating.


What a fucking joke.

Make sure you know the context of a writing before making such assertions. It appears you read a few lines and convinced yourself that I am somekind of MIMite who expects people of the third world to actively invade the first world.

Like I said above, you obviously missed the point, and if you can't see that third world workers hold more revolutionary potential than first world workers due to worse conditions you are blind and rely on idealism.

[Socialistpenguin]

Workers movements combined with bad economical conditions paved the way for "The New Deal", which strenghtened labor unions and brought more economic security to the people. In the 1960's, Medicare and social security were brought forth to improve health care costs and save for a citizens retirement funds. These three programs ( The New Deal is actually a series of programs, but for the sake of time we will group them all under one title ) combined with capitalists corporations buying cheap resources and cheap labor are responsible for the working classes' lack of revolutionary spirit.:confused: Not quite sure how you managed to link the issues there. Medicare and Social Security are state-provided measures to assist the elderly sections of the population. Are you suggesting that the American working-class has either grown fat due to minimal state provision for it's elderly members, or that the majority of the American working class IS elderly? Furthermore, you neglect to mention that a sizeable part of the American population (16%, or 47 million) as of 2005 were without this crumb from the table of bourgeoisie, and you can check that figure here: http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf (http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf)


Like dogs being thrown crumbs under a kitchen table, the proletariat of the U.S. is no longer asking for more. So what happened? Labor victories during the early 1900's were going strong. What halted progress? The bourgeois elites knew something drastic had to be done. The working class were uniting. Disunity was what was needed. The middle working class of the U.S. now look upon the lower working class as welfare leeching corner cutters.This doesn't make any logical sense: you say that the bourgeois elites needed to do something drastic: you then hurry on to saying the 'middle-class' workers despise the lower working-class without ANY link between the two statements. Could you clarify please?


They pay taxes to fund these programs, but they see their money going to others. Right-wing politics such as these aim to create individualism and nationalism. "Do not unite as a class" they tell them, "we must unite as a nation, for an external force threatens our comfortable ways of living!" We all saw the U.S. flags waving after 9/11.Appeal to nationalism and 'national brotherhood' has been a part of bourgeois society since 1792, the French Revolution, maybe even earlier than that. There is nothing perculiarly American about it. "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" Capitalism, no matter where it's instituted always seeks to cut across class-lines: why wouldn't it? If it didn't rally people around "the national identity", if it didn't try to rally the workers to the capitalists for the sake of God, King and Country, the capitalists would be in a lot of trouble.


Blinded by nationalism, scornful of the less fortunate, enemies of social programs, and rugged individualists. This is the vast majority of middle class proletariat. Revolution for the sake of the working class is a dead concept within the U.S. and other first-world countries.Would you be willing to provide some proof of these assertions? I also like how you managed to blanket the entire western proletariat as unfit for revolution. Who says internationalism is dead? ;)


Marxism-Leninism is no longer a relevant concept within the U.S....You mean at some point it WAS? :lol: Sorry mate, I couldn't resist making that one....


The proletariat of the U.S. will not be the ones to turn the wheels of socialist progress so long as they live comfortably and have access to the necessities for living.

The proletariat of the U.S. must be denied a comfortable life for revolution to ever occur. But how can this come to be? Now you see, mate, this is blatant Narodnism, stating that the workers must suffer first before they realise they've no other choice to revolt. Because otherwise they're thick and couldn't figure it out for themselves :rolleyes: Wherever I hear this attitude being espoused, I'm sickened by it due to the pronounced arrogance of the position. Who the hell are you to say to workers in the first world have to suffer mass unemployment, lack of necessities, hunger and even death in some cases before they can revolt? You don't have to deal with that: THEY DO. Dunno if you know this, but a lot of first world workers get a bum deal and do live in poverty. Third World workers are superexploited, no-one would disagree. But Marxists rather than Narodniks fight for the better conditions of all workers, to retain the standard of living they've fought for and improve until we can rise and smash capitalism. I'd quite like to see you extol this attitude at a Teamster's Meeting or a PCS union meeting and see how far you get!

[Lamanov]

Poor living conditions are a means to an end, that end being revolution.

Yes comrade. Ingenious. We should fight for poverty of the working class. That will usher in a revolution, and then we can finally take over. Workers have been let to do things alone for too long. The result is their comfort, which is reactionary. Long live Party! Long live marxism-leninism!

[Guerrilla22]

Yes comrade. Ingenious. We should fight for poverty of the working class. That will usher in a revolution, and then we can finally take over. Workers have been let to do things alone for too long. The result is their comfort, which is reactionary. Long live Party! Long live marxism-leninism!

I know. Why should the working class have to suffer the worst conditions capitalism imposes on individuals?

[BobKKKindle$]

Proletarian internationalism is essentialIf Maoists uphold the principle of revolutionary internationalism, why was China one of the first governments to recognize the dictatorship of General Pinochet as the legitimate government of Chile, after the overthrow of Salvador Allende in 1973? The coup was sponsored by the CIA and was an integral part of American strategy in Latin America, which aimed to prevent the emergence of radical governments which might attempt to undermine the overseas interests of American corporations to safeguard the interests of the working class, and during the subsequent period of dictatorship (which lasted until the return of civilian rule in 1990) the government arrested and tortured many political dissidents and activists who were loyal to Allende, and also implemented free-market policies (with the advice of the Chicago School of economists, including Militon Friedman, whom Pinochet invited to Chile to provide advice on how the government should manage the economy) which resulted in a high rate of unemployment and a drastic increase in the level of income inequality, thereby destroying many of the economic gains which had been made in previous years by the struggles of the working class. The principles of revolutionary internationalism dictate that socialists should support the struggles of the working class and oppose the overthrow of democratic and progressive governments throughout the world, and yet China adopted the exact opposite position - recognizing the legitimacy of a brutal dictator. In addition, Maoist party organizations also supported the struggle of the Mujahideen against the Soviet Union, which was consistently funded by the American state as a means to undermine the internal stability of the Soviet Union, and force the Soviet Union to engage in a prolonged and costly struggle against a guerrilla insurgency. This represented a further betrayal of revolutionary internationalism, as the war in Afghanistan was one of the factors which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, an event which has resulted in the elimination of all the gains which were made possible by the planned economy (as shown by the rapid falls in life expectancy throughout the Russian Federation) and the renewed expansion of American imperialism. The Mujahideen also conducted many atrocities against the women of Afghanistan, including throwing acid in the faces of teachers who helped young girls learn how to read, and shooting women who refused to wear the veil, which indicates a lack of principled support for the struggle against gender oppression.


Mao devised a system, that many revolutionaries within the third-world are applying today, to not only rid the people from imperialism, but to walk the path of socialismThe Maoist principle of "New Democracy" dictates that the proletariat should form a coalition with other classes, including the section of the bourgeoisie which is allegedly hostile to the interests of imperialism and willing to participate in the process of national development - the "national" bourgeoisie. How is this relevant to the third world, given that sustaining this alliance (otherwise known as the Bloc of Four Classes) requires the proletariat to reduce the revolutionary content of its demands, and maintain private property when imperialism has been overthrown? The importance of this concept in shaping the behavior of Maoist organizations is shown by the CPN(M) which has promised to safeguard the assets of foreign investors and allow for an extended period of capitalist development before a planned economy can be implemented.


It is because of this access to cheap resources and labor that causes the U.S. consumer to purchase products at an affordable cost.Over the past thirty years (during which the rate of globalization and outsourcing has increased, due to falls in the cost of transporting goods over long distances, and the elimination of barriers to the movement of capital between states) the real wages of American workers have continued to fall (The Fallout from Falling US Wages (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/wolff120606.html), Monthly Review) which invalidates your argument that imperialism can allow for increases in purchasing power. Globalization has allowed firms to maintain downwards pressure on wages, as they are able to use the threat of moving production overseas to a country where people are willing to work for lower wages to prevent demands for wage increases and improvements in working conditions in the first world. The tendency towards the centralization of capital (which Lenin recognized as one of the most important features of imperialism) results in increasing consumer prices as firms do not face the threat of market competition and so are able to raise prices to attain a higher rate of profit without losing market share. These two factors combined account for the persistent decline in real wages and show that first-world workers do not have an interest in sustaining imperialism.

[Trystan]

The working class within the United States has gotten far too comfortable.

How far do you expect to get with such a condescending attitude? People are not stupid, you know, and "living in poverty" is something that nobody should accept willingly. And it's a good thing that people in "first-world" nations have welfare, nationalised health services etc. These have all been victories for socialism.

[PigmerikanMao]

The working class of the first world has lost any revolutionary fervor it once possessed because it has been bought off by the bourgeois and absorbed into the higher echelons of the labour aristocracy. The first world has reached a point where the working class is no longer exploited, but rather- paid in full for their labour value (excluding migrant workers among other pockets of remaining proletariat who are too few to base a revolution off of). The profits seen by the conglomerate and the industrial complex are not made anymore by the exploitation of domestic labour, but instead of that which is foreign as well as the forced extraction of resources without pay in the third world by the first world. The idea of a dependable revolutionary class in the parasite first world is laughable. Orthodox Marxists can't grasp the evaporation of the proletariat in the first world because their's is an ideology based off of industry. "If a worker produces more on an assembly line than in a sweatshop- even if he is worked less, is somehow entitled to more pay" is idiotic. There is no revolutionary class in the parasite first world- world revolution hinges on the third world maoist revolution.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GQGYpkxKZKI

~PMao ;)

[Devrim]

The first world has reached a point where the working class is no longer exploited, but rather- paid in full for their labour value

So what you are saying is that workers in the west are not exploited. It begs the question why do the capitalists employ them.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

The working class of the first world has lost any revolutionary fervor it once possessed because it has been bought off by the bourgeois and absorbed into the higher echelons of the labour aristocracy

If this is actually true, how can you explain the trend towards greater union militancy? In the UK the government has imposed a 2.5% limit on all wage increases in the public sector, despite the fact that the current rate of inflation (measured according to a basket of goods purchased by an average household) is around 4% and even higher for certain categories of goods such as foodstuffs and energy, which means that workers are basically being forced to accept a reduction in salary. In response to this limit, many workers have taken strike action against the government, such as the NUT (National Union of Teachers) strike in March earlier this year, which resulted in the temporary closure of around 8000 schools, although the teachers were not able to win the desired increase in salary and so are still being forced to cut back on essential items. The developing strike movement has the potential to destroy the Labour government, which has consistently betrayed the working people it has always claimed to represent, and could form the basis of a new radical alternative with the power to overthrow capitalism. This would not be possible if the entire working class had been "bought off" which is what you seem to be suggesting.

[Winter]

:confused: Not quite sure how you managed to link the issues there. Medicare and Social Security are state-provided measures to assist the elderly sections of the population. Are you suggesting that the American working-class has either grown fat due to minimal state provision for it's elderly members, or that the majority of the American working class IS elderly?

Workers do age and get old and have to retire eventually. This benefits them. The majority of the working class is not elderly, but becomes elderly.



Furthermore, you neglect to mention that a sizeable part of the American population (16%, or 47 million) as of 2005 were without this crumb from the table of bourgeoisie, and you can check that figure here: http://www.census.gov/prod/2007pubs/p60-233.pdf

You know, you're right. It's being said my generation will never see a social security check, yet I'm paying into it. Thank you for the link by the way :)




This doesn't make any logical sense: you say that the bourgeois elites needed to do something drastic: you then hurry on to saying the 'middle-class' workers despise the lower working-class without ANY link between the two statements. Could you clarify please?

I know. Basically, during the early 1900's when workers were organizing and things were going well the U.S. entered WW1. It was due time for a war because wars unite people through nationalism as opposed to class.


Appeal to nationalism and 'national brotherhood' has been a part of bourgeois society since 1792, the French Revolution, maybe even earlier than that. There is nothing perculiarly American about it. "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" Capitalism, no matter where it's instituted always seeks to cut across class-lines: why wouldn't it? If it didn't rally people around "the national identity", if it didn't try to rally the workers to the capitalists for the sake of God, King and Country, the capitalists would be in a lot of trouble.

Yes, it's a capitalist method in general. I'm not saying "only the U.S. uses nationalism", I'm using the U.S. as but one example.


Would you be willing to provide some proof of these assertions? I also like how you managed to blanket the entire western proletariat as unfit for revolution. Who says internationalism is dead? ;)

My daily experience working with the public tells me this. I hear people complain about "broken" borders and illegal people taking their jobs, I hear people refer to terrorist as muslims in general. I hear all kinds of racism, nationalistic rhetoric. And I didn't blanket the entire western proletariat. I'm part of the wester proletariat for example. Obviously certain revolutionaries are out there, I am not denying this. I'm just stating the vast majority are by no means revolutionary. Workers have come to believe their labor unions can provide change, when in reality these labor unions are ran by the bourgeois elites and intellectuals themselves.


....You mean at some point it WAS? :lol: Sorry mate, I couldn't resist making that one....

What do you mean??? The early 1900's showed alot of progress with class solidarity. The U.S. was closest as it ever was to actually implementing Marxism as opposed to today where Marxism is outright demonized.


Now you see, mate, this is blatant Narodnism, stating that the workers must suffer first before they realise they've no other choice to revolt. Because otherwise they're thick and couldn't figure it out for themselves :rolleyes:

I'm not trying to be arrogant, I'm just stating facts. I see not one iota of revolution even being considered here in the U.S. Whenever revolutions occur is due to tyranny, poor living conditions, and class conflict, you can't deny this!


Wherever I hear this attitude being espoused, I'm sickened by it due to the pronounced arrogance of the position. Who the hell are you to say to workers in the first world have to suffer mass unemployment, lack of necessities, hunger and even death in some cases before they can revolt?

I don't like the fact that poor conditions cause people to do desperate things, like revolt, this is the way it works.



You don't have to deal with that: THEY DO.

As a member of the U.S. proletariat, I would have to deal with it, but at the same time inform my fellow man of the options of revolution and Marxism.


Dunno if you know this, but a lot of first world workers get a bum deal and do live in poverty. Third World workers are superexploited, no-one would disagree. But Marxists rather than Narodniks fight for the better conditions of all workers, to retain the standard of living they've fought for and improve until we can rise and smash capitalism. I'd quite like to see you extol this attitude at a Teamster's Meeting or a PCS union meeting and see how far you get!

But you know damn well that these are but mere social democratic measures. The system will stay in play, some form of exploitation will always be around so long as their is no outright revolution against the bourgeois.

Do you want to actually change things for the advancement of socialism or do you want to play reactionary politics???

[Winter]

How far do you expect to get with such a condescending attitude? People are not stupid, you know, and "living in poverty" is something that nobody should accept willingly. And it's a good thing that people in "first-world" nations have welfare, nationalised health services etc. These have all been victories for socialism.

Bourgeois elites and politicians cannot bring socialism about. IF it worked this way, they would still be the exploiting class.

We need a revolution. Only this can smash the capitalist system.

[Socialistpenguin]

Workers do age and get old and have to retire eventually. This benefits them. The majority of the working class is not elderly, but becomes elderly.
But is this not a positive gain made by the working class? Should this not be defended and fought for if the bourgeois try to repeal it?



I know. Basically, during the early 1900's when workers were organizing and things were going well the U.S. entered WW1. It was due time for a war because wars unite people through nationalism as opposed to class.
But what about the waves of action that occurred 1917, all over the globe? Even somewhat after these events, significant movements of workers were effected in Western Europe, i.e. the 1926 General Strike and Jarrow March in 1936 in Britain spring immediately to mind. From what period of time do you consider the western proletariat neutered for revolution? I'm not asking for a specific date, you understand: just a general period of time.


My daily experience working with the public tells me this. I hear people complain about "broken" borders and illegal people taking their jobs, I hear people refer to terrorist as muslims in general. I hear all kinds of racism, nationalistic rhetoric. And I didn't blanket the entire western proletariat. I'm part of the wester proletariat for example. Obviously certain revolutionaries are out there, I am not denying this. I'm just stating the vast majority are by no means revolutionary. Workers have come to believe their labor unions can provide change, when in reality these labor unions are ran by the bourgeois elites and intellectuals themselves.

Your hearing that racism because those people compete with "illegal people" for the menial jobs. But this has been the case throughout history, wherever a new migrant group are used and exploited in the first world. Irish, Chinese, West Indian, Pakistani, Mexicans: you name it. These attitudes have existed since before WW1, and yet in your words the proletariat of THESE times were far more revolutionary than they are today. That attitude isn't going to be changed until they are made to change, till they are convinced on at least an individual scale that class solidarity is better than national or racial solidarity: and that is where we come in. Of course these attitudes are going to be held: the entire capitalist machinery feeds this fuel of hate as a divide and rule tactic. That is why Marxists must work to convince that a migrant labour is not the enemy: the capitalist and his system his.

Your point about trade unions is true, many of them are headed by "the labour lieutenents of capital", but not all of them. Workers are right to look to the unions for change: why shouldn't they? These are the primary organs of class struggle, they are the school that teaches the class war to the workers in the most effective way: for they are the workers' natrual organisations.



I'm not trying to be arrogant, I'm just stating facts. I see not one iota of revolution even being considered here in the U.S. Whenever revolutions occur is due to tyranny, poor living conditions, and class conflict, you can't deny this!

We accept it as inevitable that capitalism will bust as it booms, and the unfortunate consequence is that many workers will suffer, yes. But there is a world of difference between recognising this and supporting it. To be quite frank, I think your attitude is somewhat dangerous for Marxists to hold if your aim is revolution: if you encourage the speedy downfall of the working class in the first world, when they are booted by a recession, what's to stop them saying, "Hang on a minute. This joker wanted us in poverty to begin with: how can they be said to be on our side? He's never supported our struggles: how's his lot worthy of support?"


But you know damn well that these are but mere social democratic measures. The system will stay in play, some form of exploitation will always be around so long as their is no outright revolution against the bourgeois.

Of course it is, I know that, and I agree that revolution is the only solution to capitalism. However, whatever the gains the working class makes or can make now, I will fight tooth and nail to defend and uphold.

[PigmerikanMao]

So what you are saying is that workers in the west are not exploited. It begs the question why do the capitalists employ them.

Devrim

It would be strategical idiocy for the bourgeois to center their military industrial complex in the nations they are simultaneously exploiting. The first world bourgeois have built up their respective regions in such a way that, although it relies on wage slavery in the third world for profit, it needs the "proletariat" to maintain the first world so that the power base of the bourgeois does not crumble. Those who are tasked with the upkeep of the military industrial complex are sure to be treated with more rights (in a sense) than those of foreign subjugated states. This ensures that the first world worker does not attempt to corrupt or dismantle the military industrial complex on which the nation is built, but rather, continues to maintain it.

As for the wage drops in the UK, these are minor decreases and those paid are still paid more for their labour than what it is worth. Just because they are bought off with a little less money then before is not the same as a renewal in exploitation. Furthermore, a minor rift in the British left such as that would most likely not be a deciding factor in the abolishing of capitalism- Bob Kindles, don't get your hopes up.

~PMao ;)

[Rawthentic]

The Maoist principle of "New Democracy" dictates that the proletariat should form a coalition with other classes, including the section of the bourgeoisie which is allegedly hostile to the interests of imperialism and willing to participate in the process of national development - the "national" bourgeoisie. How is this relevant to the third world, given that sustaining this alliance (otherwise known as the Bloc of Four Classes) requires the proletariat to reduce the revolutionary content of its demands, and maintain private property when imperialism has been overthrown? The importance of this concept in shaping the behavior of Maoist organizations is shown by the CPN(M) which has promised to safeguard the assets of foreign investors and allow for an extended period of capitalist development before a planned economy can be implemented.

Lets keep in mind something here: Mao developed the theory of 'New Democratic Revolution' as a result the specific conditions of China and the imperialist occupation by Japan. This process is a tactic that is subordinate to the overall strategy of the seizure of power and socialist construction. What happened in China during the period of NDR was that the property of the national bourgeoisie and those who pledged allegiance to the CCP and the revolutionary struggle was protected - but only to maintain their MUCH needed support, and this, in any case, was temporary. After victory, full expropriation of their property, and "land to the tiller" (crucial for socialist construction in the countryside) was implemented.

Were the politics of the CCP "watered down"? If so, then why did the NDR lead to the liberation of all of China and the beginning of the long, protracted struggle of building socialism? Was it wrong to ally with these classes, even though they objective interests in opposing imperialism?

On the CPN-M: the conditions are very different. The Maoists have strong support all over Nepal during their revolutionary process (something the CCP did not have as much as the Nepalis do). The conditions there call for a protracted process of national development. Would it be smart to start a full expropriation of private property at a time when Nepal is faced with being amongst one of the most underdeveloped and poorest countries in the whole world? Lets also keep in mind that this is development is not an ends, its a means, it's a tactic within the wider revolutionary process (that is now facing hot contradictions). Do you think that because the Nepalis are safeguarding property that this makes them revisionists? capitalists? Or do you understand that this whole process is much more complex than saying "oh, look, the maoists are protecting property, they are now traitors!" Its sort of like taking one step back to take even more forward. It is a necessary process, unique to Nepal.

Even under socialism, there will inevitably be a planned economy that coexists next to a smaller state capitalist economy (in the 3rd world), and the latter is subordinate to the former. yet this is all within the context of continuing socialist construction and the socialist road. China went through this phenomenon as well.

[Winter]

But is this not a positive gain made by the working class? Should this not be defended and fought for if the bourgeois try to repeal it?

It is a positive gain and ought to be defended. My point is that if we want to perfect these type of programs we are going to have to oust capitalism completely. I think you can agree with me on that.


But what about the waves of action that occurred 1917, all over the globe? Even somewhat after these events, significant movements of workers were effected in Western Europe, i.e. the 1926 General Strike and Jarrow March in 1936 in Britain spring immediately to mind. From what period of time do you consider the western proletariat neutered for revolution? I'm not asking for a specific date, you understand: just a general period of time.

I think that the early 1900's showed alot of progress for workers' movements. I feel it is our duty to help reclaim this progress. As for the western proletariat being neutered, I do not believe it is impossible for revolutions to occur in the first-world, PigmerikanMao was the one who said this, not I. It's highly unlikely unless something drastic were to happen. I think that many workers lost alot of revolutionary spirit in the late 60's/early 70's thanks to the expansion of mass media.


Your hearing that racism because those people compete with "illegal people" for the menial jobs. But this has been the case throughout history, wherever a new migrant group are used and exploited in the first world. Irish, Chinese, West Indian, Pakistani, Mexicans: you name it. These attitudes have existed since before WW1, and yet in your words the proletariat of THESE times were far more revolutionary than they are today. That attitude isn't going to be changed until they are made to change, till they are convinced on at least an individual scale that class solidarity is better than national or racial solidarity: and that is where we come in. Of course these attitudes are going to be held: the entire capitalist machinery feeds this fuel of hate as a divide and rule tactic. That is why Marxists must work to convince that a migrant labour is not the enemy: the capitalist and his system his.

I agree that racism has always been an issue. But in the U.S., the government is scapegoating Mexican immigrants. They know by doing this they will creat conflict within the working class. I'm all for making change, and I believe we must all unite to do this.


Your point about trade unions is true, many of them are headed by "the labour lieutenents of capital", but not all of them. Workers are right to look to the unions for change: why shouldn't they? These are the primary organs of class struggle, they are the school that teaches the class war to the workers in the most effective way: for they are the workers' natrual organisations.

Until us revolutionaries can get into these workers groups the system will keep being based on exploitation. Unions do not consider scrapping the whole system. I'm all for working with Unions. Many hard-working people see subjects such as communism as being a demonic state of dictatorship. Unfortunately, mass propaganda has prevailed amongst most of the proletariat.




We accept it as inevitable that capitalism will bust as it booms, and the unfortunate consequence is that many workers will suffer, yes. But there is a world of difference between recognising this and supporting it. To be quite frank, I think your attitude is somewhat dangerous for Marxists to hold if your aim is revolution: if you encourage the speedy downfall of the working class in the first world, when they are booted by a recession, what's to stop them saying, "Hang on a minute. This joker wanted us in poverty to begin with: how can they be said to be on our side? He's never supported our struggles: how's his lot worthy of support?"

My emphasis was never on encouraging "the speedy downfall of the working class". My emphasis was on supporting Maoists and anti-imperialists of the third-world.

Saying that, I was simply stating that the results of their victories would result in the first-world losing a comfortable living condition. I think it's obvious that bad socioeconomic conditions lead to a collective call for change through a violent over-throw of the bourgeois system.

I do not like the fact that through the darkest times people will advance. As being part of the western working class, I don't want to go through troubled times, I don't want to lose the little I do have. But what I do want is a new world. I want what you want. We must endure through certain periods so that good can overcome evil.



Of course it is, I know that, and I agree that revolution is the only solution to capitalism. However, whatever the gains the working class makes or can make now, I will fight tooth and nail to defend and uphold.

I totally agree. I too will fight to uphold the progress we have. But if we want to further this progress, the downfall of the capitalist system is our only option.

I think we agree on more than what you may think.

Supporting all workers, whether in the third-world or first-world, is vitally important. Only through working with and educating them can we ever see socialism become a reality. Let us work with labor unions as well as anti-imperialists of the third world.

I hope I have cleared up some misconceptions.

[Winter]

If Maoists uphold the principle of revolutionary internationalism, why was China one of the first governments to recognize the dictatorship of General Pinochet as the legitimate government of Chile, after the overthrow of Salvador Allende in 1973? The coup was sponsored by the CIA and was an integral part of American strategy in Latin America, which aimed to prevent the emergence of radical governments which might attempt to undermine the overseas interests of American corporations to safeguard the interests of the working class, and during the subsequent period of dictatorship (which lasted until the return of civilian rule in 1990) the government arrested and tortured many political dissidents and activists who were loyal to Allende, and also implemented free-market policies (with the advice of the Chicago School of economists, including Militon Friedman, whom Pinochet invited to Chile to provide advice on how the government should manage the economy) which resulted in a high rate of unemployment and a drastic increase in the level of income inequality, thereby destroying many of the economic gains which had been made in previous years by the struggles of the working class. The principles of revolutionary internationalism dictate that socialists should support the struggles of the working class and oppose the overthrow of democratic and progressive governments throughout the world, and yet China adopted the exact opposite position - recognizing the legitimacy of a brutal dictator. In addition, Maoist party organizations also supported the struggle of the Mujahideen against the Soviet Union, which was consistently funded by the American state as a means to undermine the internal stability of the Soviet Union, and force the Soviet Union to engage in a prolonged and costly struggle against a guerrilla insurgency. This represented a further betrayal of revolutionary internationalism, as the war in Afghanistan was one of the factors which led to the collapse of the Soviet Union, an event which has resulted in the elimination of all the gains which were made possible by the planned economy (as shown by the rapid falls in life expectancy throughout the Russian Federation) and the renewed expansion of American imperialism. The Mujahideen also conducted many atrocities against the women of Afghanistan, including throwing acid in the faces of teachers who helped young girls learn how to read, and shooting women who refused to wear the veil, which indicates a lack of principled support for the struggle against gender oppression.

I didn't know anything about support for Pinochet, but I'm not here defending the actions taken by Mao Tse-tung and the CPC.

I am trying to explain how Maoist theory is relevent for these modern times. "Mao Tse-tung thought" has motivated many people in the third-world, and first-world, to rise up and battle inequalities and imperialism. By gathering up all classes of people under a single cause, implementing guerrila tactics, and to always have the people to keep the party in check, a true road towards socialism can be established.



Over the past thirty years (during which the rate of globalization and outsourcing has increased, due to falls in the cost of transporting goods over long distances, and the elimination of barriers to the movement of capital between states) the real wages of American workers have continued to fall (The Fallout from Falling US Wages (http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/wolff120606.html), Monthly Review) which invalidates your argument that imperialism can allow for increases in purchasing power. Globalization has allowed firms to maintain downwards pressure on wages, as they are able to use the threat of moving production overseas to a country where people are willing to work for lower wages to prevent demands for wage increases and improvements in working conditions in the first world. The tendency towards the centralization of capital (which Lenin recognized as one of the most important features of imperialism) results in increasing consumer prices as firms do not face the threat of market competition and so are able to raise prices to attain a higher rate of profit without losing market share. These two factors combined account for the persistent decline in real wages and show that first-world workers do not have an interest in sustaining imperialism.

It's funny, because being a citizen of the U.S. it is self evident what is happenning. Prices are going up. My wages cannot keep up with sky-rocketting costs. You're absolutely right. Thanks for pointing that out. :blushing:

And quite honestly, I am not ashamed to admit I was dead wrong about that. This is exactly what this forum is for. I am glad that this forum has taught me so much. It seems I over-intellectualized common sense perceptions. Thanks again Bob!

[BobKKKindle$]

I agree that racism has always been an issue. But in the U.S., the government is scapegoating Mexican immigrants

Throughout the world, governments attempt to create divisions within the working class to prevent workers from from recognizing that they all have interests in common. In Iraq, the ongoing sectarian violence and religious hatred between the Sunni and Shi'ite Muslim groups is obstructing the united struggle against the occupation forces, and has been used by the United States to argue that the occupation forces must retain an active presence in Iraq for the indefinite future, because immediate withdrawal would allegedly lead to the collapse of Iraq as a result of intense fighting between the two religious sects. In Russia there is also an emerging fascist movement, which has conducted attacks against vulnerable immigrants, such that many people who are seen as "black" by the majority Slav population (even though they would not appear "black" to observers from outside Russia) are afraid to use the underground system or walk on the streets alone at night, because of the danger of racist attacks. This shows that racism is not specific to the first world, but can be observed in every country, and every socialist should recognize that removing the influence of racism is a necessary precondition for the overthrow of capitalism, because racism turns workers against each other and encourages them to identify with their respect ruling classes, and so obscures the fundamental importance of class antagonisms.

[Devrim]

It would be strategical idiocy for the bourgeois to center their military industrial complex in the nations they are simultaneously exploiting. The first world bourgeois have built up their respective regions in such a way that, although it relies on wage slavery in the third world for profit, it needs the "proletariat" to maintain the first world so that the power base of the bourgeois does not crumble. Those who are tasked with the upkeep of the military industrial complex are sure to be treated with more rights (in a sense) than those of foreign subjugated states. This ensures that the first world worker does not attempt to corrupt or dismantle the military industrial complex on which the nation is built, but rather, continues to maintain it.

This is a bizarre idea.

Do companies that all have production in the West make profits? If so (and they do) how?

Devrim

[turquino]

So what you are saying is that workers in the west are not exploited. It begs the question why do the capitalists employ them.

Devrim
How high does a wage have to be for its recipient to no longer be considered proletariat? Capitalists employ advertising executives who make 6 figures, does that mean they're an exploited class ally? This question shouldn't be about whether every person payed a wage is exploited, but what portion aren't.

While it's evident real wages have stagnated for the most part in the West, i don't see how that's proves the privileged workers are now exploited, and in a revolutionary position. In the short term, the capitalists can get a little bit more from imperialism, and the workers a little bit less, without upsetting the whole system.

*note on Allende: it's naive to blame the CIA for everything to do with the demise of Allende's democratic socialism. There were serious problems with the Popular Unity government and its mismanagement of the economy; its downfall was pretty much inevitable.

[Devrim]

While it's evident real wages have stagnated for the most part in the West, i don't see how that's proves the privileged workers are now exploited,

Real wages in the west have in fact been falling since the seventies. 'The rate of Exploitation' though isn't connected to how much you are paid, or 'privileged'. It is a measure of how much surplus value is extracted from your labour. Thus it is highly likely that computer programmers in Silicon Valley are exploited more than workers in sweatshops in the 'third world'. That doesn't mean that their lives are worse. They are obviously not. They are more exploited though.


How high does a wage have to be for its recipient to no longer be considered proletariat? Capitalists employ advertising executives who make 6 figures, does that mean they're an exploited class ally? This question shouldn't be about whether every person payed a wage is exploited, but what portion aren't.

Again it is about basic Marxist concepts. This time the relationship to the means of production. If you look at it that way it is very obvious that executives, and workers are parts of a different class.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

Capitalists employ advertising executives who make 6 figures, does that mean they're an exploited class ally?

There are many workers who do not produce surplus value because they are not part of the productive workforce, and yet are still forced to live in conditions of intense material deprivation and so have the same class interests as the "productive" section of the proletariat. This category is comprised mainly of workers who are engaged in the distribution and sale of finished products (which accounts for a large share of the workforce in the first world, due to the loss of jobs in the manufacturing sector) and these workers are often forced to endure low wages and poor working conditions due to low levels of union participation. This shows that even though someone may not be objectively "exploited" (if exploitation is understood to mean paying someone less than the value of what they produce to generate surplus, which is then appropriated by the bourgeoisie) they are still part of the proletariat and are still capable of developing a revolutionary class consciousness.


There were serious problems with the Popular Unity government and its mismanagement of the economy; its downfall was pretty much inevitable.

This is debatable, as many of the economic problems experienced under Allende were the result of fluctuations in the price of copper on the world market, as copper exports accounted for more than fifty percent of total foreign exchange earnings, and so Chile was highly vulnerable to any unfavorable change in market price. Even if Allende was responsible for the collapse of the economy, this does not excuse China's recognition of Pinochet immediately after the military had taken power.

[RHIZOMES]

If Maoists uphold the principle of revolutionary internationalism, why was China one of the first governments to recognize the dictatorship of General Pinochet as the legitimate government of Chile, after the overthrow of Salvador Allende in 1973?

I personally think Mao was nothing more than a senile figurehead at this point.

[turquino]

Real wages in the west have in fact been falling since the seventies. 'The rate of Exploitation' though isn't connected to how much you are paid, or 'privileged'. It is a measure of how much surplus value is extracted from your labour. Thus it is highly likely that computer programmers in Silicon Valley are exploited more than workers in sweatshops in the 'third world'. That doesn't mean that their lives are worse. They are obviously not. They are more exploited though.

How are you treating productivity? Bourgeois economists usually measure it as monetary value added per worker, but existing wage differences are already incorporated into this measurement even though they’re what is being justified. Productivity measurements like these might make sense in subjectivist theories of value, but not in Marx's LTV. A better measurement would be the amount of commodity units produced by the worker for each dollar of renumeration, adjusted for capital. Difficult perhaps, but better than commodity fetishism.


Again it is about basic Marxist concepts. This time the relationship to the means of production. If you look at it that way it is very obvious that executives, and workers are parts of a different class.

DevrimAnother question then: do the class interests of a street vendor in Lahore align more closely with those of the textile workers in the nearby factory, or with the New York advertising executive?

[Devrim]

How are you treating productivity?...

I am not discussing productivity. I was discussing the rate of exploitation.


Another question then: do the class interests of a street vendor in Lahore align more closely with those of the textile workers in the nearby factory, or with the New York advertising executive?

I didn't claim that the advertising executive had anything to do with the working class. I think their interests are not is anyway similar to that of factory workers either in the US, or India. The street vendor's interest is also not that of the working class though.

Devrim

[Trystan]

The proletariat of the first-world must support anti-imperialists and socialists in the third-world.

The first-world proletariat must be informed about class conscioussness. The wages of the first-world proletariat continue to decline while corporate profits soar. Let us rise with the international proletariat by hitting corporate empires where it will hurt them the most: their access to cheap labor and resources.

The fact that socialists within Nepal, India, and Latin America have risen to make their nations free from reactionary governments who work with billion dollar corporations show the relevence of Maoism. By uniting not only urban workers, but peasants as well, the Maoists are utilizing their greatest strength: numbers.

The vast numbers of individual Maoists are growing daily. Negative socio-economic conditions have united the Maoists to free their people from slave labor by driving out corporate imperialism. The reactionaries who support these empires by allowing them access to their country in the first place are guilty of treason against their own people. Their are the first to be dealt with, and violence is the only method to do so.

To shut down the power of corporate empires, we proletariats of the first-world must keep these comrades in mind. World socialism is highly unlikely to begin at home, but abroad by the most downtrodden of workers. They see the first hand reasons why their nations and peoples were never allowed to flourish. The revolutionary spirit thrives within them.

Let us look to the third-world and give our support to their revolutions, for it is from there that a new world will flourish.

Um . . . what happened to the original post? Wow, that so . . . Orwellian. :confused:

[trivas7]

The working class of the first world has lost any revolutionary fervor it once possessed because it has been bought off by the bourgeois and absorbed into the higher echelons of the labour aristocracy.
Third-Worldism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_worldism) is alive and well on RevLeft.

[PigmerikanMao]

Third-Worldism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_worldism) is alive and well on RevLeft.
You say I'm a third worldist as if its some big secret. Maoism-Thirdworldism is communism adapted to meet the needs of the modern global society- not one of 50 to 150 years ago.
:rolleyes:

[trivas7]

You say I'm a third worldist as if its some big secret. Maoism-Thirdworldism is communism adapted to meet the needs of the modern global society- not one of 50 to 150 years ago.
:rolleyes:
Not all Maoists are Third-Worldists. Third-Worldism is anti-Marxist because it splits the solidarity of the worldwide proletariat. Why do you find this vision at all compelling?

[PigmerikanMao]

I never implied all maoists were third worldist, some march in lock step wiht the first world oppressors. Yes, third-worldism is anti-marxist, because marxism is the idea that revolution hinges on the first world labour aristocracy, something which may have been plausible in the 19th century, but is no longer so. Marxism itself is a very dated and useless concept. Only when it is molded to meet the needs of our modern situation, can it be useful to the people.
~PMao :rolleyes:

[Chapter 24]

Marxism itself is a very dated and useless concept. Only when it is molded to meet the needs of our modern situation, can it be useful to the people.
~PMao :rolleyes:

But Maoism is a variant of Marxism. Yes, Marxism as a dogmatic concept to be followed strictly is not desirable, but neither is saying that it is outdated and useless. How is the solidarity of the worldwide proletariat any less important than those of the third world?

[Winter]

We must unite with the proletariat of all the capitalist countries, with the proletariat of Japan, Britain, the United States, Germany, Italy and all other capitalist countries, before it is possible to overthrow imperialism, to liberate our nation and people, and to liberate the other nations and people of the world.

- Mao Tse-tung

[PigmerikanMao]

- Mao Tse-tung
Although Mao was a brilliant man, this was his greatest of errors, placing hopes on a revolutionary class in the first world. Mao was not infallible- this is an instance where he was wrong and forgot the main contradiction between the first world imperialist class and the proletariat of the third world. Here's another video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9UZg_-LxUE


But Maoism is a variant of Marxism. Yes, Marxism as a dogmatic concept to be followed strictly is not desirableSorry, poor choice of words. I was implying that following marxism as a dogmatic concept is useless, not the root ideology itself. Apologies.


Do companies that all have production in the West make profits? If so (and they do) how?There are other means of exploiting in the creation of a product besides production. For example, where do all the raw materials (or the majority of them) needed for production come from? The Third world.

~PMao :D