djones at uclink.berkeley.edu
Fri Sep 15 23:14:34 MDT 1995
MIM characterizes me in the following terms:
>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.
And then MIM accuses me of
> calling white labor activism "revolutionary."
And then MIM notes:
> If you can't recognize that,
>you can't do what is dialectically possible for revolution within
>existing material conditions.
MIM then has the gall to say that
> You are so sympathetic to
>imperialist country workers and so hostile to the oppressed nation
>classes oppressed by imperialism.
That you could accuse me of hostility is in bad faith, to say the least,
though you are quite right that I am hostile to the oppressor classes
abroad, many of whom wash up on US shores to get an education and seem to
get side-tracked in petty bourgeois Maoist politics, along with people who
equate their middle class position with something they call they call the
objectivity of whiteness.
I did argue that revolutionary class struggle in the US was important;
indeed I think it would be a great service for the world revolution.
But I am not going to even respond until you read Lenin's Imperialism and
the Split in Socialism, which seems to be your key theoretical text.
You asked me
> Did you read it? I post two lousy quotes and you didn't read
I will not pursue the argument further; you are clearly abusing Lenin's
concept of the labor aristocracy (and I think Lenin actually underestimated
how important colonial tribute, as materialized in cheap foodstuffs and
raw materials, was in staving off an attack on the working class as
necessitated by the decline in the rate of profit in the imperialist
countries for some time, but that counter-tendency did have limits, setting
the stage for a mass-based revolutionary class struggle in the imperialist
Moreover you have never corrected your contradiction: on the one hand you
argue that whites are beneficiaries of the international transfer of value
(which you think you have established in your theoretical journal) but now
you argue that their living standards have been sustained by debt-financed
government activity as if these are the same things. But if what has been
critical for the mass of the workers in this country is the latter--and if
the latter is already showing its limits--then you are underestimating the
mass basis for revolutionary class struggle in this country. And who do
you think you are making happy with that?
Then you told me
> That is to say the position of jones/
>bhandari hostile to non-proletarian classes of oppressed nations
>is a greater evil than NOI.
First, my name is Rakesh Bhandari (jones is my roommate); second, you are
blind-- the NOI is merely doing the work of the capitalist state. Why
don't you see how effusive an ideologue like George Gilder is about the NOI
in his Men and Marriage. Perhaps that will clue you in a bit.
Moreover, you have said nothing concrete about the NOI, and you seem to
know little of what is materializing as the one of the greatest
organizational threats to the revolutionary activity of the black masses in
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism