Marx: Are journalists workers?

Maoist Internationalist Movement mim3 at
Mon Aug 12 17:58:59 MDT 1996

On Mon, 12 Aug 1996, Maoist Internationalist Movement wrote:

> Karl Marx said:
> As Paul Cockshott has also said before on this list, there is a question

Louis: Never mind what Karl Marx and Paul Cockshott said. I want to know
why you were opposed to the Detroit newspaper workers strike. If it's
because the Detroit newspapers don't support Joseph Stalin, then I suggest
you check yourself into a mental hospital right away and leave this list
alone. Malecki calls workers cockroaches and you hate the strikers in
Detroit. With friends like this, the working-class doesn't need enemies.

MIM replies: The proletariat doesn't need frauds like you posing
as Marxists in order to sneak in the "ideological classes" as Marx
called them, into the proletariat. They don't need your two-bit
demagoguey. Unlike the capitalists and the fascists Proyect
unleashes with emotional diatribes unconnected to any analysis,
Proyect wouldn't know a worker if one punched him in the face,
so I'd advise against any violent response to Proyect by
any proletarians. The rest of us can read what Marx had to say about the

[Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels said:]
Bakunin sought to retain under his personal direction the few groups
scattered in Spain and Italy and the Naples section which he had detached
>from the International. In the other Italian towns, he corresponded with
small cliques composed not of workers but of lawyers, journalists, and
other bourgeois doctrinaires. "FICTITIOUS SPLITS IN THE INTERNATIONAL"

[Karl Marx said:]
Naturally, the ideological cretins of the bourgeoisie, its journalists,
 and such like, had to pass off this palliative of the bourgeois
interests as the real interests of the bourgeoisie, and persuade
themselves and others to believe this.  THE BOURGEOISIE AND THE
COUNTER-REVOLUTION by KARL MARX, Neue Rheinische Zeitung No. 170

MIM continues:
As we said last year, a strike worth actively supporting
is a strike with political demands led by the proletariat.
We here in the imperialist countries have been polluted
by Browder, Hall, Avakian and SWP revisionism so long,
most of us claiming to be "Marxist" don't even know what
a worker is. Instead these revisionists
and wannabe revisionists denounce MIM's proletarian
politics at the top of their lungs.

If you go read what Marx said about journalists, he was
especially concerned with censorship of progressive
journalists. Yet the people on this List are typical of the
sad state of "Marxism" here in that they have done little
or negative action toward fighting censorship of progressive
journalists by the state here. They're too busy inventing
stories about MIM and Mexican scabs while they cheerlead
for the cretins.

If Proyect doesn't care what Marx said, fine. He might
even be right, but he should stop calling himself Marxist.
If Proyect does go on calling himself Marxist,
we thank him for providing such easy target practice
for budding communists needing practice struggling against
revisionism. There are tons of other people
thinking the same thing on this p.b. list, but they don't
have the guts to go on record with their inanities.

Finally, there is the subject of why Proyect has to
dedicate a lifetime to distorting Marx. That is apart from
the question that Proyect is just wrong about classes
and wrong about Marx. On this subject, it is easiest
to destroy a movement from within. Ross Perot would not get very
far in destroying Marxism this way because he would be
known by all the proletarians for his political mischief.
However, the middle classes--the semi-proletariat and the
petty-bourgeoisie--can often pass themselves off as just
another bunch of proletarians. In this way they can also
use the proletariat for their own ends, by claiming to represent the
proletariat and pretending to agree with it interests. Such is the tactic of
of any class. The bourgeoisie claims its rule is
universal and universally beneficial. So too the
classes seeking to worm their way into the
proletarian movement must CLAIM to be proletarian.
However, the jig is up once an analysis reveals exactly
who is counted as proletarian and what exactly
the fakers consider to be proletarian interests.

     --- from list marxism at ---

More information about the Marxism mailing list