Hail Gina-Henwoodism! Down with Marxism!

Maoist Internationalist Movement mim3 at blythe.org
Wed Aug 7 16:37:55 MDT 1996

Marx said:

The capitalist who produces surplus-value -- i.e., who extracts unpaid
labour directly from the labourers, and fixes it in
commodities, is, indeed, the first appropriator, but by no means the
ultimate owner, of this surplus-value. He has to
share it with capitalists, with landowners, &c., who fulfil other
functions in the complex of social production.
Surplus-value, therefore, splits up into various parts. Its fragments fall
to various categories of persons, and take various
forms, independent the one of the other, such as profit, interest,
merchants' profit, rent, &c. It is only in Book III. that we can
take in hand these modified forms of surplus-value.

Part VII "The Accumulation of Capital" in Capital vol. I

Engels used almost the exact same words in his preface of a later date.

Now however, we have learned that Marx and Engels were mistaken.
Gina and Doug Henwood have proved it and the rest of the list
agrees with the possible exception of Paul G. and Chris B.

Date: Mon, 29 Jul 1996 11:04:15 -0500
From: dhenwood at panix.com (Doug Henwood)
Subject: Re: New Discovery! Henwood's Law of Speculation

At 7:35 AM 7/29/96, Maoist Internationalist Movement wrote:

>Henwood's law of speculation
>Surplus-value accrues to property-owners
>in imperialist countries, including
>those in real estate and housing, unless of course,
>MIM is calling the owners settlers, labor aristocrats
>or petty-bourgeoisie. Property held by such classes
>is unaffected by the speculative processes governing
>the rest of wealth in the imperialist countries.

[Henwood said:]
Your claims are reminiscent of those of bourgeois economists, who regard
speculative price gains as indistinguishable from gains extracted from
production. Surplus value requires an engagement with living labor,

[MIM replies:] Right you are and Marx was wrong. That fella Marx
was too academic and actually believed surplus-value sloshed
around according to who owns property, not who directly exploited
productive sector workers. Thanks for saving me a lot of trouble,
because Capital Vol. I and III was always too much work anyway.


>> 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.>>>

So here they say the fight is over the re-devision of surplus value:
meaning that the newspaper workers are exploiters of their own labor?
Meaning that the workers are actually the same as the owners of
two of the largest media conglomerates in the U.S., Knight-Ridder
and Gannett?

 >> MIM:"The class struggle" according to Daum is something that
 doesn't even target the state. Even if we presume that these
 workers are exploited, which they aren't, >>>

And where does this ridiculous idea come from?  MIM needs to go
back and seriously study political economy.  For workers to "not be
exploited" either the workers would have to collectively own the means
of production, as in socialism, which is obviously not the case, or the
owners of the industry employing them would have to be stone crazy!
Where would the surplus value that MIM talks about above come from,
if not from the exploitation of the workers?  What capitalist in his/her
right mind would employ a worker for compensation greater than the
value that the worker adds?

[MIM replies:] Gosh, after recalling that the Spartacist League said the
same thing, I realized again that Marx must have been wrong. Capitalists
do business with other capitalists and petty-bourgeois and they don't have
to get their surplus-value from their own workers I used to think
foolishly. I wouldn't want to think the capitalists are crazy or do
themselves in as a class dialectically-speaking. That would be errant
Marxism when we have Gina-Henwoodism.

[Gina says:]
ARE exploited.  Their labor still produces
surplus value for the capitalists,

just not as much as the labor of someone who is paid at or below the
value of their labor power.  If that were not the case, the capitalist would
go out of business.  That's the internal law of capitalism.  It has not been
done away with in Detroit or any other U.S. city or industry.


MIM replies: Right you are Gina! If someone is called a worker,
that someone must be producing surplus-value for his/her
individual capitalist exploiter. Hail Gina-Henwoodism!

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

More information about the Marxism mailing list