Maoist Internationalist Movement
mim3 at nyxfer.blythe.org
Fri Sep 15 15:41:45 MDT 1995
On Wed, 13 Sep 1995, jones/bhandari wrote:
> From Pat for MIM:
> >Last I checked, the difference in average home equity of white
> >and Black people exceeded $44,000. Those figures are published
> >in the Statistical Abstract of the United States. Home equity
> >is another word for property--a kind of property that still
> >identifies Euro-Amerikans as settlers. Home ownership remains
> >a key avenue of parasitism that Blacks have yet to catch up in.
> 1. Yes, but what percentage of the peckerwoods, honkies and settlers
> actually own homes?
White 67.8% 68.2%
Black 44.4% 43.4%
Native 53.4% 53.8%
Asian 52.5% 52.2%
Hispanic 43.4% 42.4%
Other 36.9% 36.1%
Table No. 1216, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1994
The figures are the percentage of households in which the household
occupies a unit that the household owns. It doesn't mean everyone
is done paying off the mortgage, just at least on the way.
Even if two workers have the same job, and own a house,
if one is no where on the mortgage yet, and the other has
$100,000 in equity, there is a big difference.
The second worker can expect dividends or interest from investments
using the equity as collateral. That is of importance to class.
> 2. why even keep the statistics in terms of race in the first place? why
> not determine home ownership in terms of some other criterion, e.g.,
> college education, income, job category? We might surely find that lack of
> home ownership is correlated with low educational levels, low income and
> oppressive work conditions.
MIM replies: There is more difference between Blacks and Euro-Amerikans
than say Euro-descended Canadians and English. We all want to read about
the conditions of the English, Canadian, German etc. working classes
individually don't we?
> Are you saying that 'race' explains why people don't own homes? Indeed
MIM replies: Actually we think national oppression is more important than
racism and much national oppression gets mistaken for
Whatever causes the difference, there is a lower percentage of
labor aristocracy in the internal colonies. The percentage is even lower
in the Third World.
> 3. Moreover, where is the argument that any worker who does own a home, no
> matter its value and no matter her perhaps declining capacity to maintain
> the mortgage payments, cannot be revolutionary? I may well be predisposed
> to accept this argument if made, but I note its absence in the post.
MIM replies: We have already pointed out that settlers--workers with
real estate, especially that recently seized--are more reactionary.
No class argument ever applies to every individual in the way
you suggest. That's why
enlightened labor aristocracy and petty-bourgeoisie individuals work
with MIM and Engels was a son of a capitalist and Mao was a peasant.
For many this justifies an idealist abandonment of class analysis.
> 4. Also: your use of the Census shows a very anti-Marxian understanding of
> class. Class for Marx is determined by the relation to the means of
> production. Income differences are possible among those in the same
MIM replies: Did we mention income differences? However, such
differences are relevant when they are large enough to distinguish
exploited from non-exploited workers.
Opportunists have defined proletariat as anyone who draws a salary.
However Lee Iacocca drew a salary, at first it was $1 and then
more. If your salary is large enough to allow you to buy the means of
production and live off their return, you are bourgeois.
Anyway, home equity is property, not income. It is one of the
easiest means by which settlers tap into social capital and the
appropriation of Third World labor.
> objective position vis-a-vis the capitalist class. This same objective
> powerlessness among seemingly differentiated workers is what cyclical
> crises tend to bring out for the vast majority of workers--especially now,
> as Mattick predicted, Keynesian management is coming to its limits. But it
> does not seem that a great crisis will drum dialectics into the head of
> MIM. MIM indeed poses a danger to the development of a class conscious
> movement against American capitalism, for which ill-defined nationalist
> movements among minorities will be no substitute. Anti-racism,as well as
MIM replies: The Black Panthers, Young Lords, organized First Nations etc.
were not ill-defined just because they excluded whites.
Huey Newton said his goals were multinational communism in
the Maoist stage of his party before it was smashed.
He only didn't want to get too far ahead of the masses by
including whites in the party. And he NEVER opposed organizational
alliances with whites out of absolute principle and in fact had several.
> feminism, remain central to the development of a class-conscious movement.
> 5. what are the trends for home ownership in this country? Are young adults
> as a whole all moving into homes, the equity of which will have to serve as
> a compensation for a social security system heading towards collapse?
MIM replies: Yes this is the talk now. You can't take a house with you
when you die, so it's not a front-burner concern while some are starving.
If you look into this more closely, you will further prove our point,
because worker pension-funds own substantial assets in
Pat for MIM
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism