MIM replies to Matt on burger-flippers
Maoist Internationalist Movement
mim3 at blythe.org
Thu Aug 15 13:22:26 MDT 1996
Date: Wed, 14 Aug 1996 13:30:36 -0400
To: marxism at jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
From: "Matt D." <afn02065 at afn.org>
Subject: The only real Maoist party in the world
MIM replies: MIM never said we are the only Maoist party in the world.
We have said there are no others in the imperialist countries.
Of course, from your Eurocentric point of view along with
the view of similar chauvinists on this list, the imperialist
countries are the whole world.
On the other hand, the Quispe you defend on this list has
said repeatedly that there is only one Maoist party in the world--
Gina writes, re: MIM's identification of drivers, press oper-
ators, and others as enemies of the proletariat:
>They have no more ability to be "imperialist mouthpieces"
>than the kid who flips hamburgers at Micky Dee's.
Well, Gina... I think you have got down to the heart of the
matter. The kid flipping burgers down at McDonald's *is*
the class enemy. You may think his surliness and
poor complexion result from low wages, unrewarding
labor, and a greasy environment -- this would be
typical of your petty-bourgeois mindset.
This reminds me of another issue. You should read what
Lenin says happens to the class status of people who leave
their manufacturing jobs even a year or two accidentally
during war, revolution and upheaval.
What you are talking about here is people who realistically
can expect not to be working as hamburger-flippers very long.
If you had read MT#1, you would know that already.
Working a summer or a year or two at McDonald's doesn't make
you a proletarian. In fact, Marx did not regard service
workers as proletarian.
Work at McDonald's for "kids" as you say is just part of the
social contract of the labor aristocracy with the imperialists.
It is in no way reflective of any definable class of proletarian
You and Gina talk like politicians running for office how
they overcame great difficulties to get there. You'd
make great reformists, but you stink for Maoist scientists.
Class is not something you achieve by a simple lifestyle
choice, like the rest of your post-Modern post not worth
repeating implies. It will be difficult for you to
go beyond your analysis of skin color and lifestyle choices
to understand what is correct, but if you study Mao you will
eventually come to an understanding of the scientific method.
I'll give you a hint: it's not based on who says it, but
what is said.
With regard to youth, a white youth working even in a
manufacturing job has much different future prospects
than the 53-year-old oppressed nation worker in the same job.
The white youth accurately expects to be promoted into
white-collar work, maybe go to college. Such a youth is
NOT the same class as the 53-year-old machine worker who
is going to stay in that job, unless the older machine worker
is also labor aristocracy already. One is semi-proletarian and the
other is likely unexploited productive sector. But the
point is even if you took the Paul Cockshott line and
said the machine worker is exploited, the white youth
would be in a starkly different class. It's not a matter
of skin color, but hard factual reality.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism