Detroit strike

Maoist Internationalist Movement mim3 at nyxfer.blythe.org
Mon Sep 25 18:08:20 MDT 1995



On Mon, 25 Sep 1995, Marc Luzietti wrote:

>
>
> >
> > MIM replies: This is where anti-MIMerism leads--to attacks on foreign
> > workers. It's in the line of the anti-GATT and anti-NAFTA CPUSA
> > and other similar organizations. There are so many things that
> > journalists could be doing and real Marxists could be doing
> > to lead the journalists, but instead they go down this path that
> > INEVITABLY leads to social-chauvinism in the current context,
> > a fight over the re-division of surplus-value.
>
> Where did this come from? The point I believe he was trying to make was
> that the capaitalists are using Mexican scab labor (although the vast
> majority of the scabs are actually anglos) to break the strike, i.e.,
> oppress the striking workers.

MIM replies: If you follow our posts this month, you will see that we
said failure to use the correct analysis of the imperialist country
working classes would lead to attacks on foreign workers.
This is not an isolated example. It happens again and again
as Daum just proved in this example from reality. Daum is able
to correct his own view, but for most of the class it won't
happen that way.

Mexican "scabs" are workers too. There is also a Mexican
working class that is exploited. The same cannot be said
of the u.s. imperialist working class. It produces no
surplus-value, because it is mostly composed of unproductive
laborers. In addition, they are paid more than the
value of their labor-power (forgetting what that
labor power is used for.)

>
> So, when you say that the American working class is *not* exploited, you
> are saying that the American working class recieves *FULL* renumeration
> for their labor? If not, then please explain whyu your definition of
> exploitation differs from Marx's. If so, please back up your assertion
> with some facts. As I understand it, American workers recieve 1/4 of the
> value of their labor back in wages & benefits (Gus Hall, 1980). In real
> dollar terms, the American working class is one of the most exploited
> classes in the world, even if they are better off than the working
> classes in the rest of the world.

MIM replies: We have provided the facts and calculations
in MT#1. The Gus Hall thing is not even close. It's disgusting
chauvinism when you get right into the nuts and bolts. It
amounts to saying how much more valuable Amerikan workers
are than other workers--empty boasting, which if true
would mean that trillions in wealth accumulate in the
hands of capitalists every year. (There is no evidence
for that.)

Send $5 to MIM, PO Box 3576, Ann Arbor, MI 48106
For another $19 get issues 2-7 as well.

Since you are interested in this, I think you should buy
it and review it for the list. Also there is a forthcoming
follow up to MT#1 from what I am told, so your reply
has every chance of being published if you look into this
MIM stuff.

> The racist ruling classes of this country have spent over three hundred
> years attempting to inculculate us in their idelogy, and no wonder.
> Whenever racism breaks down, the combined forces of the working class
> threaten the capitalists position, from Nat Turner's Rebellion through
> the Progressive Party to the Civil Right's movement. Calling the workers
> backwards and in bed with management does not win them over. If all I

MIM replies: It wins over the advanced ones. And the rest aren't
as thin-skinned and weak as you make out. Besides, what you are
saying is an example of opportunism almost as a matter of
definition. They can't handle the truth so you tell them what
they want to hear. That's the style of the bourgeois electoral
parties that we should not mimic.

> ever did was to call MIM race-baiting, wannabe radical, trust fund babies,
> you wouldn't be very inclined to work with me. If you were to repeat your

MIM replies: J. Sakai calls us Maoists "bourgeois" and "armchair."
However, we distribute more of her book than probably any other
organization. We would, however, get pissed at you if all you
ever did was call us names (like some people on this list
do in their one paragraph blasts unsubstantiated by
anything.) At least you told us what you were thinking and we are now
able to criticize it.

> theories to a typical unionist, I believe you'd get a well deserved punch
> in the nose.
>
MIM replies: Hitler's brownshirts would've said the same
and in the name of the German workers who are the greatest
so that they are worth so much more than other workers and yet
paid so much less than they should be.

> [snip]>
> The fact that the labor aristocracy (i.e., the union bosses) regularly
> betrays the rank-and-file is a well known phenomina among both

MIM replies: You need to read Lenin and the COMINTERN more carefully.
You and others may have renamed certain phenomena to fit your line,
but union bosses shold be referred to as labor bureaucrats, not
labor aristocracy. Even Trotsky made this distinction in the last year
of his life according to the documents published by Merit publishers.

> revolutionaries and unionists. You do not help matters be insulting the
> workers. In fact, one of the reasons for the upsurge in unoin militancy
> is because the rank-and-file has begun to battle their leadership.

MIM replies: We have heard the above sort of thing about
upsurge for 50 years now. By now we should be in communism
with all the bragging Amerikans do about Amerikan workers.

>
> > Meanwhile, in the Third World, the state imprisons people
> > for organizing or kills them regularly and the classes
> > really do engage in class struggle, not class collaboration
> > or negotiation.
>
> Oh, and what are state run unions? I seem to see them throughout the
> third world?

MIM replies: This is a perfect example. In Korea now, workers
sacrifice their lives to build real unions and even more go
to prison, while students fight in the streets to back them up.
Meanwhile, here, apologists continually talk about how
the labor bureaucrats are just misleading the workers.
Face it: the Amerikan working class hasn't the energy for
struggle against imperialism that Koreans or Puerto Ricans
or Azanians or Peruvians have, and there is a material reason for it.

Pat for MIM



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

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



More information about the Marxism mailing list