Detroit newspaper strike chauvinism exposed again

Readers of the Marxism List at gopher.jefferson.village.virginia will

recall that on September 25, 1995 a struggle between MIM and everyone

else on the Marxism List regarding the Detroit newspaper strike

resulted in a rare admission by a critic of MIM:

"I do have to correct one thing I had read about Mexican workers

being used as scabs," said Walter Daum after being challenged by MIM

and how the labor aristocracy line of his inevitably leads to chauvinism.

Daum had originally laid down a challenge to MIM to either choose between

the class struggle or support Third World workers by saying he had heard

that Mexican scabs were being used against the strike. We credit Daum for

facing up to his error.

One year later, none of the other supporters of the Detroit newspaper

strike have condemned the scab rumors and in fact the struggle renewed

itself as the strike continued. We at MIM find the Mexican scab rumor on

the Marxism List of all places as indicative and proof of all MIM's arguments on the "Marxism Space."

If one does not separate oneself from oppressor nation workers (labor

aristocracy), one is going to wind up opposing Third World workers, in

this case with false rumors about Mexican scabs. We turn now to the

rehashed struggle with the many chauvinists ignoring and worming around

the issue of Amerikan nationalism used to whip up the workers.

Menshevik leader, Marxism List, August, 1996:

I haven't been paying much attention to MIM since my pal

Pat #3 got transferred to East Jesus, Nebraska where there is no

Internet connections. But let me see if I get this straight, are you

saying that you wouldn't support the strike of newspaper workers

that took place recently in Detroit? If this is the case, perhaps you

should be seeking out an anti-Marxist list?

Menshevik #2:

Only one problem here, Louis, you use the past tense for the strike.

It's STILL going on, almost 13 months now. MIM not only does not

support the strike, they oppose it!

Menshevik #1: 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 their fascists

unleashed with emotional diatribes unconnected to any analysis,

Menshevik #1 wouldn't know a worker if one punched him in the face,

so I'd advise against any violent response to Menshevik #1 by

any proletarians. The rest of us can read what Marx had to say about the

subject, namely that journalists are not workers.

[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 Menshevik #1 doesn't care what Marx said, fine. He might

even be right, but he should stop calling himself Marxist.

If Menshevik #1 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 Menshevik #1 has to

dedicate a lifetime to distorting Marx. That is apart from

the question that Menshevik #1 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 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.

MIM quote: Are you denying that

these folks regurgitated government press releases

so shamelessly that even some government

officials are probably more independent-minded?

Revisionist #1:

Again, yes I am. Those who regurgitate the government

press releases are the very ones who are LEAST likely

to still be out on strike (or to have gone on strike in the

first place). And most of the people on strike have

absolutely NO say over the content of the paper: the

production and distribution workers.

MIM replies: Excellent Revisionist #1. It took a year

for the Detroit strike supporters on the List, but

you have finally laid bare the tailist political assumptions

of your whole political trend--without our putting

words in your mouth.

1. "Just following orders."

2. Can't do anything about the crimes against the proletariat,

so just tail the struggle as it exists.

Let's hear it for Ms. Global Offensive.

If you read what we said, it was almost a year ago now that

we said that is the semi-proletariat as defined by Lenin. The

Teamsters union is not all truckers!

That is why our critic never provided a precise class breakdown of the

strike. It was a subject to be avoided at all costs.]

Revisionist #1 continues:

And, in spite of the fact that they acknowledge Lenin's concern

with progressive journalists, they don't find it progressive that

the Detroit Newspaper Guild (the striking union that represents

the journalists) refused to make a separate contract with the

Newspaper Agency. They chose to remain in solidarity with

the workers who actually turn their ideas into print on paper

and distribute it to the readers.

I guess it's a good thing they stay out in their little petty

bourgeois student enclave in Ann Arbor. The proletarians

and other workers in Detroit are much better off without these

jerks!

X talking to Lou: I agree that MIM is about as Marxist as the nation of

islam. I wonder what their class background is, being that their located

mainly in Ann Arbour and Cambridge I have a pretty good idea. I would like

to know how the printers, press operatores, drivers and other workers have

committed crimes against the people? Besides many whom MIM calls

imperialist mouthpieces are reporters and columnist who display a million

times more proletarian consciousness than MIM.

MIM replies:

Below are some samples of this great

proletarian consciousness a million times greater than MIM's,

from the strikers' own newspaper. Here is what they have to

say now that they are on their own "independent": "Please

let us back as imperialist mouthpieces! We will bring you

more profit than the replacements!" [Readers can see for

themselves the demands of the semi-proletariat to help the imperialists

make more profit and to print the same old pro-imperialist stories at

http://www.rust.net/~workers/union/union.htm

1. An article reporting the ruling class fight over how

cops should be let go without a word from the oppressed.

2. A UPI article regurgitating the State Dept. on Lebanon with

other usual UPI stories.

3. The local specialty of these mouthpieces, eulogizing the

great Michigan Governor Romney. That article is a fair

indication of the mouthpieces since they are after all Michigan

reporters and Romney should be considered their area of

expertise.

[Articles proving MIM available in the Marxism List

archives of August 15, 1996.]

I thank Y so much for directing all of us to the correct proletarian

politics. I had completely forgotten what a revolutionary service UPI is.

(Barf, barf, barf)

If anything, this proves the nature of the semi-proletarian

alliance with imperialism. It's cast in stone even in this

supposedly so great and militant strike. And it is a militant

strike--for semi-proletarian alliance with imperialism.

What the MIM critics failed to do--

1. None defined the principal contradiction,

took a stand on it and then applied it to Detroit.

Most Maoists today know the principal contradiction

is between oppressed nations and imperialism, not

imperialist oppressor nation workers and the imperialists.

Hence, our efforts should focus on exposing the

Mexican scab rumors, not helping the semi-proletariat

make more profits for the Detroit Free Press and Detroit News

as they say they would like to do.

2. Revisionist #1 mentioned it, but none of the

authors condemned the Mexican scab rumors.

3. No one offered an analysis of the flow

of surplus-value concretely speaking and two

authors refused to retract the obvious distortion

of Marxism that only those directly engaged in

exploiting workers get a cut of surplus-value.

4. None admitted that mouthpieces are not workers

by Marx's standards.

5. Revisionist#1 accepted the Marxist definition of semi-proletariat, but

none of the other critics did. What Revisionist#1 is doing with that

definition still remains to be seen.

6. Y and Revisionist#1 denied that the strikers were mouthpieces

of imperialism, even after being confronted with the

UPI and other articles from the strikers' paper proving

exactly that point.

7. Of those two critics mentioned above who have admitted

that the strike is not led by a proletarian line, neither

has justified their anti-party individualism and their

attacks on the MIM press in the name of a semi-proletarian

led strike expressing straight-up imperialist consciousness.

And neither offered any offensive strategy for changing

the situation where the proletariat is the tail on the

semi-proletarian dog.

Pathetic.

The supporters of the Detroit Strike have petered out

and returned to their usual mode of emotional insults

devoid of any substance. [So ended the discussion in August,

1996]

According to Engels, no strike takes the class (even assuming it's

proletarian) one step forward unless it has political demands targetting

the state in proletarian interests. And as we said a year ago, there are

so many things we could be saying to these strikers, but instead the

supporters of your politics spread Mexican scab rumors and attack MIM.

Why don't you actually discuss these issues above and try, if you must, to

lead the workers forward around those issues?

We have our reasons for thinking you will fail, but

we would not object to such an agenda. It is only a matter

of timing, and you could honestly put forward to the

masses, "we are likely to lose, but we want to

put up this losing but proletarian battle anyway."

We believe we must first build up the proletarian

pole including its independent institutions especially,

organized by a Maoist party. In the imperialist

countries that means destroying the yellow socialists

the way Lenin did during World War I. That is principal

over acting like we already have this huge proletarian

pole and influence.

We don't think it's possible

for Maoists who are honest with themselves to be other

than the tail on the dog when it comes to the Detroit strike

and taking a direct and active role.

Not yet. That comes from having a realistic assessment of

the balance of forces and the level of vanguard organization, which

you do nothing to improve with your current practice.

If that is not clear in the Detroit strike, I don't see how it

could be clearer. There you have the case where the office-

workers are going to lead the strike, based on their weight

in society generally, but also based on their specific experiences.

Quote from MIM:

Have you proved that they have put forward any demands

friendly to the proletariat other than to use the proletariat for

its own narrow ends?

[Revisionist #1 says]

I don't claimed to have "proved" anything. I'm simply telling

you that the overwhelming majority of the people who are on

strike against the newspapers in Detroit have absolutely

NOTHING to do with deciding on the content of the papers.

They have no more ability to be "imperialist mouthpieces"

than the kid who flips hamburgers at Micky Dee's.

MIM replies: Well this is honest at least. Again,

it seems you have adopted an extremely defensive

strategic outlook, and in fact, MIM gives the semi-proletariat

more credit than you do. Even the hamburger-flipper

has some power, but your line on those following orders

is really dismal.

MIM believes if the white workers wanted to hand

the imperialists their heads on the plate, they could.

The key is "want." The objective CLASS interests are not

there, though we will rip some white workers away along other

group faultlines, namely youth.

It is typical of the petty-bourgeois outlook

on vanguard organization to see it lurch from

extreme passivity to global generalizations of

offensive as you have thrown against Luis Arce Borja. One

is to make up for the other instead of trying to

get one's line internally coherent in a proletarian

way.

It's truly disgusting and so blatant

the way these pro-Detroit strike folks talk on this list:

"What, tell lies about Mexican scabs

to whip up patriotism? So what?" I guess at least

these are honest and don't try anything

too subtle like Avakian.

BTW, Revisionist #1, what is your stand on the principal contradiction?

And how does that apply to the Detroit strike?

Ditto question for Y and anyone else claiming

the relevant traditions concerning that idea.

As for a general answer to your question it's easy.

The semi-proletariat is enemy when it claims Marxism

for its own use and thereby sabotages the revolutionary

proletarian ideology from within.

Revisionist#1 replies:

????You're saying that the semi-proletarian strata in the

U.S. claims Marxism for its own use? In the U.S.??? In

what parallel universe? The semi-proletarian strata in this

country has been so brainwashed about the "horrors" of

communism and the "uselessness" of Marxism, I doubt if

you would find even one hundredth of one percent of that

strata who would claim Marxism for their own. Certainly

the strata as a whole doesn't.

MIM replies: This is more vulgar sociology. The issue

is one of class representatives, not personal class background.

What, I suppose Engels was bourgeois and didn't have

a proletarian line?

Look around you. The majority of people on this

list including yourself are representatives of the

semi-proletariat, and are seeking to ride

the semi-proletariat to power for its interests.

One last thing, though I will have to come back

to your post again anyway. Don't think that no one

noticed that after a year, you finally tell the

world that there are production sector workers in this

strike, but you had not mentioned the semi-proletariat

until forced to by MIM. That goes for all the

strike supporters on this List. Whether the

semi-proletariat seeks to use the proletariat or not,

that is a more involved issue, but this other question

of your dodging the class issue until now is one of simple honesty.

Revisionist #1 replies:

What a strange and bizarre world MIM inhabits! Not only do

non-proletarian classes, as entire entities, one would assume,

"sneak" or "worm" their way into the proletarian movement in

order to "use it to their own ends," but whole newspapers are

created by nothing but "journalists".

MIM must watch too much TV. "Lois and Clark", "Lou Grant"

and other shows set in newspaper offices never show the actual

work of producing a newspaper. They don't show you the

typesetters, the press operators, the classified ad takers, the

bundlers, distributors, delivery drivers, etc.

No wonder MIM's analysis usually doesn't make any sense;

they're so out of it they don't even know that the VAST majority

of people who work on a newspaper are NOT journalists! They

don't know that the majority of the workers on strike against the

Detroit Newspaper Agency are Teamsters!

[MIM interjects: The above is attempting to mislead the reader into

thinking that the strike is mostly truckers! In fact, as one would expect

at a newspaper, the journalists and sales and sales related workers easily

form the majority—(1998 addendum) regardless of what union they belong to.

The other striking thing about this last quote from Revisionist #1 is that s/he thinks it is "strange and bizarre" to imagine that anyone would infiltrate the proletarian movement on behalf of the bourgeoisie. This is typical Liberalism. No doubt Revisionist #1 would have found Lenin "strange and bizarre" too for saying repeatedly throughout World War I that the petty-bourgeoisie had infiltrated the proletarian movement.

"The industrial workers cannot accomplish their epoch-making mission. . .if they. . . smugly restrict themselves to attaining an improvement in their own conditions, which may sometimes be tolerable in the petty-bourgeois sense. This is exactly what happens to the 'labor aristocracy' of many advanced countries, who constitute the core of the so-called socialist parties of the Second International; they are actually the bitter enemies and betrayers of socialism, petty-bourgeois chauvinists and agents of the bourgeoisie within the working-class movement." V. I. Lenin, "Preliminary Draft Theses on the Agrarian Question," Collected Works, Vol. 31, (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1960), pp. 152-3.

"It is absurd to go on regarding opportunism as an inner-party

phenomenon. It is ridiculous to think of carrying out the Basle

resolution together with David, Legien, Hyndman, Plekhanov and

Webb. Unity with the social-chauvinists means unity with one's

"own" national bourgeoisie, which exploits other nations; it means

splitting the international proletariat." Lenin, 1916, "Opportunism and the Collapse of the Second International"

"But that is not the point,

Messrs. Kautskyites. The point is that at the present time, in the

imperialist countries of Europe, you are fawning on the

opportunists, who are alien to the proletariat as a class, who are

the servants, the agents of the bourgeoisie and the vehicles of its

influence, and unless the labour movement rids itself of them, it

will remain a bourgeois labour movement. By advocating "unity"

with the opportunists, with the Legiens and Davids, the

Plekhanovs, the Chkhenkelis and Potresovs, etc., you are,

objectively, defending the enslavement of the workers by the

imperialist bourgeoisie with the aid of its best agents in the labour

movement. The victory of revolutionary Social-Democracy on a

world scale is absolutely inevitable, only it is moving and will move,

is proceeding and will proceed, against you, it will be a victory

over you." Lenin, "Imperialism and the Split in Socialism"]

**********************Some of the initial Marxism Space skirmish on the Detroit strike below**********

From owner-marxism Tue Sep 26 00:08:20 1995

Date: Mon, 25 Sep 1995 20:08:20 -0400 (EDT)

From: Maoist Internationalist Movement <mim3@nyxfer.blythe.org>

Subject: Re: Detroit strike

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 should 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 owner-marxism Tue Sep 26 06:21:08 1995

Date: Tue, 26 Sep 1995 02:21:08 -0400 (EDT)

From: Maoist Internationalist Movement <mim3@nyxfer.blythe.org>

Subject: Re: Detroit strike

Some additional comments:

1. Can anyone imagine that a movement that consciously

or unconsciously calls forth prejudices against

foreign workers has any chance of being progressive and

historically durable? We at MIM do not believe it is possible

for the Amerikan workers to proceed in history without the

leadership of the international proletariat more than 80%

located in the Third World.

2. Can anyone doubt that this question is different in an

imperialist country than in an oppressed country?

Do the Filipinos on strike against Dole or the Central

American banana workers or the Kenyan pineapple pickers

on strike against their fruit companies argue against "scabs"?

Maybe. But do some rednecks stand around and call for stopping

all the Yankee scabs from crossing their picket line?

Never, because imperialist country workers who are supposedly

so exploited don't go to the Philippines in search of jobs.

Hence, even if they got a mind to, the Third World workers'

nationalism against imperialist country workers doesn't have quite

the practical impact. Mostly that nationalism will be easily

directed against imperialists alone. Hence, opposing GATT, NAFTA

etc. is great in the Third World. On the other hand, even just

having a strike for working class demands in the imperialist countries

leads in the wrong direction. It can't help having that impact,

because imperialist country workers have the unproductive labor jobs

on the cushy side of the division of labor and they know it.

When they go into political action it is to mandate "buy

American" and to close the borders.

This does not mean that there are no enlightened workers,

only that fighting for the labor aristocracy's demands qua

class demands can lead no where good. We should hit against imperialist

waste/pollution, imperialist war and imperialist decadence in

everything from gender relations to production of scientific knowledge.

Pat for MIM

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