PROLETARIANS of the world unite!
Maoist Internationalist Movement
mim3 at blythe.org
Wed May 22 18:45:38 MDT 1996
u961680 at student.canberra.edu.au wrote:
The MIM argument that there are no Euro/Amerikan, Euro/Aussie or
'white' (whatever that means) proletarians in the imperialist countries
(USA, Australia) proletarians is, at least for me, thoroughly unconvincing.
The quotes advanced by MIM below don't assist their racial analysis of
the working class.
In Australia there is a split in the working class between the labour
aristocracy and the 'real masses' which Lenin spoke of, and urged
communists to principally organise amongst. These propertyless
proletarians include immigrant and indigenous workers as well as some
"Aussies." In between these two sections of the working class are the
numerically significant semi-proletarians referred to in the quotes
extracted by MIM.
In Australia the proletariat's strategy for coming to power is a
Communist Party-led united front in which the proletariat, through its
Communist Party leads the revolutionary masses to seize state power
through People's War. People's War in Australia is basically a lengthy
period of preparation, leading to insurrection and then civil war as was
the case with the Bolshevik Revolution.
Lenin's COMINTERN's definition of semi-proletariat from
> section titled "Our Attitude to the Semi-Proletarian Strata."
> "In Western Europe there is no class other than the proletariat which is
> capable of playing the significant role in the world revolution that, as a
> consequence of the war and the land hunger, the peasants did in Russia.
> But, even so, a section of the Western-European peasantry and a
> considerable part of the urban petty bourgeoisie and broad layers of the
> called middle class, of office workers etc., are facing deteriorating
> standards of living and, under the pressure of rising prices, the housing
> problems and insecurity, are being shaken out of their political apathy
> drawn into the struggle between revolution and counter-revolution."
> Alan Adler, ed., ITAL Theses, Resolutions and Manifestos of the First>
economic administration. If such layers identify with the revolution, the
> enemy will be demoralized and the popular view of the proletariat as an
> isolated group will be discredited."On Tactics," in Adler, op. cit., p. 294.
mim3 at nyxfer.blythe.org
MIM replies: Then I gather from the above that you accepted this
definition of "semi-proletarian." If you don't like what we said, why don't
you apply it to Australia and give us the breakdown of the society into
proletarian and semi-proletarian etc. Class analysis is not a matter of
sentimentally picking dogmas that sound good without doing a concrete
analysis. Right now your position is no different than the RCP-USA's--say
some vague things about a labor aristocracy existing but then not applying
Lenin's concepts in a thorough-going way. Just say the semi-proletarians
are "numerically significant"--a real vague cop-out.
As for those who call MIM's analysis "racialistic," let's recall that's what
Khruschev said about Mao's analysis too. Where do you stand on the
principal contradiction? Is that a "racialistic" theory too?
Within your "racial" view, how do you explain that MIM considers
Albanian workers and peasants oppressed and exploited? Where do you fit
MIM's theory about Turkey? Do you consider them white? Where do you
stand on MIM's stand on the Six Counties of Ireland that MIM says
contains a "proletarian community"? Are the Irish not white? Do you
consider them "white"? How can you say MIM's theory is racialistic?
MIM's theory is not racialistic; it's a theory of imperialist nation working
classes. "Race" is a very secondary concept for us.
It is the political representatives of the labor aristocracy who like
Khruschev paint MIM as having a "racialistic" theory in order to draw
sympathy for the semi-proletarians and petty-bourgeois they represent.
We're glad you uphold the definition of semi-proletarian. That can be a step
forward if you have the stomach to apply it. What usually happens is that
revisionists start out wanting to use that definition, but then they find that
there is no proletarian majority in the oppressor nations of imperialist
countries. Then out of partly bourgeois democratic prejudice ("we have to
have a majority!") they go back and alter the very definition of proletariat.
Talk about revisionism! They lose their perspective, because they forgot
that the majority of proletarians are Third World and they take out their
frustration on Marxism.
But anyway, it's easy to criticize MIM. Where's your class analysis of
Australia? We hope you stick with the definition and stick with it
scientifically and not just give it up for sentimental reasons.
P.S. Weren't you the one asking us for the quote about the RCP-USA and
RIM and accusing us of inventing it? Did you see it a couple days later on
this discussion list? Just checking to see if you are napping on the job.
--- from list marxism at lists.village.virginia.edu ---
More information about the Marxism