MIM

glevy at acnet.pratt.edu glevy at acnet.pratt.edu
Fri Sep 15 22:22:54 MDT 1995


Maoist Internationalist Movement wrote:

> The national bourgeoisie is easier to handle than Hitler and Churchill
> were.

Huh? What kind of logic is this?

  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.

Talk about Stalinist propaganda! Where's the evidence? (quotes from Mao's
writings aren't sufficient proof). This is a very serious charge against
revolutionaries -- you better be prepared to back it up.

> 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.

You people must really hate the working class. What do you mean by "white
labor activism." Are trade unions organized to defend the interests of
"whites" only?

> 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.

You are ready to condemn the working class in the advanced capitalist
countries and support the national bourgeoisie in the "Third World."
Did you ever think about how the native bourgeoisie (those poor oppressed
people) exploit workers in their own countries?

Yes, bombs drop on workers and peasants (and workers and peasants are
cannon-fodder for imperialist wars). Why the concern for those who
exploit workers and peasants? Do you believe that workers and peasants
are only exploited and oppressed by the imperialist powers? If so, you
should go on a world cruise and visit some of those nations.

> MIM replies: As Mao suggested, we take an independent stance
> toward the national bourgeoisie.

You just supported them above -- that's not neutral. In any event, since
when are Marxists class-neutral?

 That is to say the position of jones/
> bhandari hostile to non-proletarian classes of oppressed nations
> is a greater evil than NOI.
>
Rakesh -- I guess you know what that means if (talk about a crazy
fantasy) MIM comes to state power?

> The COMINTERN said communists should find a way to ally with
> semi-proletarians like office workers, after
> they allied with the peasants.

As the name indicates, office workers are workers. Get it? Where did you
read a COMINTERN statement that such an alliance should be achieved by
communists *after* they allied with the peasantry?

Instead of convincing us to wear "Mao More Than Ever" T-shirts, your
posts make us want T-shirts that read: "Wow more than ever!"

Jerry


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

     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list