Maoist Internationalist Movement mim3 at nyxfer.blythe.org
Fri Sep 15 20:03:35 MDT 1995

On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, jones/bhandari wrote:

> I have read some of MIM's literature.
> 1. productive labor
> What a joke! MIM uses this criterion to bash the proletariat in the
> imperialist countries  but then do they support productive labor in the
> semi-colonies? No, they urge alliances with the national bourgeoisie.  So

MIM replies: Why stop there? We support Stalin's pact with Hitler in 1939.
We also think it was great to take material aid from the imperialist Allies
to defeat Hitler after 1941 (Hitler's invasion of the USSR). We also had
no objection when the Kaiser sent Lenin back to Russia in a train car.

The national bourgeoisie is easier to handle than Hitler and Churchill

This is another post which has turned some dogma written in some book
into an absolute moral principle--a practice we call idealist and pre-
scientific. Mao notes in his writings that capitalists in China paid
Trotskyists to write and distribute such stuff, because it attacked
the revolutionaries for not being "pure" enough. If the bourgeoisie
succeeds in getting
the movement to split into a part using science that can win and a part
that has no chance of winning anything but a poetry contest, then
the bourgeoisie figures it was money well-spent.

Many well-meaning people are attracted to such idealism, and they
are allowed to go un-rebutted by right opportunists and metaphysicians
who think such idealism is not worth dealing with.

> it turns out that their criterion of productive labor is not used to defend
> a principled proletarian exclusivism at all.  It is merely used to dismiss
> the importance of revolutionary class struggle in the imperialist countries

MIM replies: You are calling white labor activism "revolutionary."
We see it as fine negotiations of parasitism. If you can't recognize that,
you can't do what is dialectically possible for revolution within
existing material conditions.

> (the importance of which is brilliantly discussed in Walter Daum's book The
> Life and Death of Stalinism).  And where's the proof that the proletariat
> has to be productive (of surplus value) in order to be revolutionary? Many
> wage slaves in the service industries make less than some of those in the
> manufacturing industries in the imperialist countries. In Carchedi's
> analysis, workers can be oppressed without being formally exploited.   And

MIM replies: So why can't a national bourgeoisie or a section of it
as Mao said, be oppressed but not exploited? You are so sympathetic to
imperialist country workers and so hostile to the oppressed nation
classes oppressed by imperialism. When the bombs dropped on Vietnam,
they didn't land only on proletarians.

> what about the growing technologically unemployed or in the phrase of JE
> Cairnes 'non-competing groups'?

MIM replies: What about the facts of the white working class's
material conditions overall since World War II? (Read MT#1)
[portion deleted]
> > 3. misuse of Lenin
> in that passage from Lenin, it is clear that he did not take the labor
> aristocracy to be as encompassing as claimed by MIM.  And in Engels

MIM replies: Did you read it? I post two lousy quotes and you didn't read
them. The one from Lenin said "entire nations." How could the labor
aristocracy not be all encompassing unless the revolution has won
victory and I didn't notice?

> comments on the topic, it is clear the persistence of labor conservatism on
> a mass basis depended on the monopolistic position of British capital, sure
> to whither away.

MIM replies: No quite the contrary, it was not sure to whither away
(immediately) and in fact, according to Lenin and
the COMINTERN (that included Trotsky), the labor
aristocracy spread to several other
imperialist countries which previously had no labor aristocracy.

> 4. MIM on Black nationalism
> MIM has suggested that it is treasonous to fight fascist nationalism in the
> Black community.

MIM replies: As Mao suggested, we take an independent stance
toward the national bourgeoisie. We have criticized the
Nation of Islam in our paper. We also uphold it like anyone
else when it/they are correct. Of the two evils, narrow nationalism
by oppressed nations and great nation chauvinism of the
imperialist countries, we believe the situation is
unchanged since Lenin's day and great nation chauvinism
is the greater danger. That is to say the position of jones/
bhandari hostile to non-proletarian classes of oppressed nations
is a greater evil than NOI.

The petty-bourgeoisie and smaller bourgeoisie of the Black
nation is not allowed to exploit Black workers on the scale
that the imperialists are. Indeed, the Black nation is still
occupied and posts that the the Black bourgeoisie lusts for,
contracts it wants etc. are taken by whites. For this reason,
we can make a temporary alliance with the Black bourgeoisie
so affected.

The Trotskyists and some anarchists stress how evil we in
the tradition of Stalin and Mao are for the alliances we make.
It's little wonder that the Trotskyists haven't led any
successful armed struggles against imperialism since Lenin died.

The COMINTERN said communists should find a way to ally with
semi-proletarians like office workers, after
they allied with the peasants. There is nothing new in what
MIM says, which doesn't mean MIM is correct, just that those
claiming we are outside the victorious traditions of Marx and Lenin
are wrong.

Pat for MIM

     --- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---


More information about the Marxism mailing list