Unproductive labor: imperialist countries
Maoist Internationalist Movement
mim3 at nyxfer.blythe.org
Sun Sep 10 15:38:53 MDT 1995
Greetings from the Maoist Internationalist Movement.
We agree that there is a place for academic dispute of
Marxism. We are happy to join this group.
What we would like to raise is the academic lag in
handling the changing conditions of the working class
in the imperialist countries this century.
Specifically, working for the COMINTERN, R. Palme Dutt
looked at the 1930 U.S. Census and saw 40 percent
industrial, transport and mining workers. He also saw
a substantial portion of farmers, though it was obviously
By 1980 as J. Sakai has pointed out in the widely
disrespected underground literature, what Dutt would
have seen in the Census was 13% industrial, mining and
transport workers. Meanwhile the non-productive portion
of that increased to one third, and tripled in so doing.
Of course, there is little of the farming sector left.
Hence, there is no stretch of the imagination that can
show a majority of productive workers within the
borders of the United States.
Some at Monthly Review have noticed this and simply
changed the definition of productive labor to include
more white collar work. We at MIM stuck with the more
classic definitions and point to the pudding.
The parasitic working classes of the imperialist countries
show no tendencies to socialism and in fact organize
themselves against immigrants and workers abroad.
Meanwhile, communist parties take up the demands of
a class allied with imperialism and end up throwing
themselves on the rocks, dissolving and vacillating
terribly like the classes they represent.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism