From owner-marxism Tue Sep 12 01:48:26 1995

Date: Mon, 11 Sep 1995 21:48:26 -0400 (EDT)

From: Kenneth Mostern

Subject: Re: MIM

On Mon, 11 Sep 1995, Doug Henwood wrote:

> I'm normally a tolerant guy; I can even put up with Hayekians on a Marxism

> list. But, puh-leeeeze spare us the Maoist International Movement. Adopting

> monikers like MIM3 and JLQ14 to deepen their revolutionary aura, they will

> instruct us on how the white US working class is a privileged stratum

> deserving of nothing but falling wages, and other painfully juvenile

> opinions. Go away, MIM. Dissolve your organization. Read some books. Think.

> Just don't bug us, please! You are a disgrace to Marx - Mao even.

>

>

As someone who has defended a version of third worldism on this list, I

just wanted to say that I ran into a version of this horrifying line in a hot tub at a Mendocino County bed and breakfast. (And yes, that's what this California marxist professional does with his once a year four day vacation--at least back, two months ago, when I lived in California.) I was stunned.

What do you say to someone, claiming to be a radical and sitting in a hot tub in a bourgeois setting, who says that American workers deserve less than they have? I said something like I thought there was quite enough capital in the world for all the workers to get to sit in hot tubs and I didn't wish anyone a lower standard of living, as a matter of fact. In any other setting I'm sure I'd have acted truly furious, but I was trying to relax.

Kenneth Mostern

Assistant P-funkster of English

University of Tennessee

George Clinton: Free your mind, and your ass will follow.

Karl Marx, paraphrased: Free your ass, and your mind will follow.

. . . toward a materialist dialectics of funk . . . peace . . .

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

From owner-marxism Tue Sep 12 23:02:52 1995

Date: Tue, 12 Sep 1995 16:02:52 -0700

From: Tom Condit

Subject: RACHEL and MIM

I find a certain congruence of line on the question of class

politics very interesting. While mim3 (all MIM members use this

number thing, I suppose as some sort of pretense of security

concerns combined with humility) has presented his argument in

Leninese vocabulary, we also find a very similar line in:

"Traditional mass production, with its core of large firms, has

collapsed. As this collapse has occurred, the white male working

class has been displaced as the main focus of struggles for

equality. The class struggle (workers vs. owners) has shifted to

new arenas --race, gender, environmental and economic justice, and

so forth." (RACHEL)

Of course, RACHEL and MIM draw opposite conclusions as to what we

should do about this. Or do they? The widespread popularity of

Maoism among "middle class" radicals in the 1960s was partly a

reflection of the fact that many of them had already been affected

by (or perhaps the better word is "infected with") early versions

of the RACHEL line emanating from places like the Center for the

Study of Democratic Institutions (a Ford Foundation think tank).

According to these early post-industrial thinkers (circa 1962-

1966), automation was abolishing work, our new central problem was

what to do with all our impending leisure time, and the class

struggle at the point of production was therefore obsolete.

According to the MIMistas, we are now in an "information economy",

there aren't any more white workers and ... the class struggle at

the point of production is therefore obsolete. Instead, what we'll

do with all our newfound leisure time is engage in protracted

people's war. Maoism as post-modern ideology! RACHELism as

guerilla struggle!

Of course, the both projects are somewhat askew from reality.

RACHEL puts in clearer form some of the MIM assumptions with

its/her/his/their use of the term "white male working class".

Since classes are by definition made up of families rather than

individuals, how could there be a "male" class? Similarly, it will

be of some surprise to the millions of individual African Americans

and Latinos who made up 35% of the industrial work force in the

U.S. at its high point as a percentage of the population in the

1960s that they were "white males". (This will especially surprise,

of course, those of them who were women).

In the mid-1960s, a key point of transition for many student

radicals from liberalism to Maoism was the adoption of a social-

worky concern with the "poor", defined by color in many cases as

much as by race. You could take two auto workers, one black and

one white, who worked side by side on the same line for the same

pay and benefit, and to these otherwise-intelligent young radicals,

one was "poor" and the other was "middle class." It's out of this

kind of intellectual confusion that MIMista revisionism arises.

There exist in this world several hundreds of millions of people

who exist by selling their ability to work with hand and brain. We

not only directly produce actual, physical commodities, we move

them from place to place, count and store them, supply those who

produce them with the raw materials, feed and clothe them, and

carry out all the millions of tasks of social production. Is the

factory worker a "proletarian" but not the longshoreman? the seaman

but not the ship's clerk? the trucker but not the dispatcher? the

garment worker but not the store clerk? the one who works on the

automated loom but not the one who programs it? the printer in the

mint but not the bank teller? Reflect on these questions.

Stevedores, truckers, seamen, don't "produce" anything (except, of

course, profits for their employers), but no one I know of has ever

claimed that they weren't members of the working class. Why this

drawing of the line at the color of the collar? What makes that

any different from drawing the line at the color of the skin, or

the shape of the genitals?

As we look at the world around us, we can see that the choice of

the future is even more clearly between socialism and barbarism,

with barbarism now in the ascendance. If we are to tilt the scales

in favor of humanity, it means uniting the working class of all

nations, cultures, genders, industries and trades. Those whose

intellectual abilities are devoted to finding ways to read people

out of the class or to declare it non-existent, whether they call

themselves post-modernists or maoists, are simply part of the dust

we need to wipe off our glasses if we're going to see a way

forward.

Tom Condit

From owner-marxism Wed Sep 13 05:24:21 1995

Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 01:24:21 -0400 (EDT)

From: Maoist Internationalist Movement

Subject: Re: RACHEL and MIM

On Tue, 12 Sep 1995, Tom Condit wrote:

> I find a certain congruence of line on the question of class

> politics very interesting. While mim3 (all MIM members use this

> number thing, I suppose as some sort of pretense of security

> concerns combined with humility) has presented his argument in

> Leninese vocabulary, we also find a very similar line in:

>

> "Traditional mass production, with its core of large firms, has

> collapsed. As this collapse has occurred, the white male working

> class has been displaced as the main focus of struggles for

> equality. The class struggle (workers vs. owners) has shifted to

> new arenas --race, gender, environmental and economic justice, and

> so forth." (RACHEL)

>

> Of course, RACHEL and MIM draw opposite conclusions as to what we

> should do about this. Or do they? The widespread popularity of

> Maoism among "middle class" radicals in the 1960s was partly a

> reflection of the fact that many of them had already been affected

> by (or perhaps the better word is "infected with") early versions

> of the RACHEL line emanating from places like the Center for the

> Study of Democratic Institutions (a Ford Foundation think tank).

> According to these early post-industrial thinkers (circa 1962-

> 1966), automation was abolishing work, our new central problem was

> what to do with all our impending leisure time, and the class

> struggle at the point of production was therefore obsolete.

>

> According to the MIMistas, we are now in an "information economy",

> there aren't any more white workers and ... the class struggle at

> the point of production is therefore obsolete. Instead, what we'll

> do with all our newfound leisure time is engage in protracted

> people's war. Maoism as post-modern ideology! RACHELism as

> guerilla struggle!

>

> Of course, the both projects are somewhat askew from reality.

> RACHEL puts in clearer form some of the MIM assumptions with

> its/her/his/their use of the term "white male working class".

> Since classes are by definition made up of families rather than

> individuals, how could there be a "male" class? Similarly, it will

> be of some surprise to the millions of individual African Americans

> and Latinos who made up 35% of the industrial work force in the

> U.S. at its high point as a percentage of the population in the

> 1960s that they were "white males". (This will especially surprise,

> of course, those of them who were women).

MIM replies: We will ignore their jokes about our line

on what to do about imperialist parasitism and its consequence

of making the white working class non-proletarian. If you read

our theory journals, including #1 on this subject, you will

see that we raised this question of oppressed nationality

workers and you will notice that we did not say all workers

within U.S. borders are bought-off. We only denied the

existence of a Euro-Amerikan proletariat.

>

> In the mid-1960s, a key point of transition for many student

> radicals from liberalism to Maoism was the adoption of a social-

> worky concern with the "poor", defined by color in many cases as

> much as by race. You could take two auto workers, one black and

> one white, who worked side by side on the same line for the same

> pay and benefit, and to these otherwise-intelligent young radicals,

> one was "poor" and the other was "middle class." It's out of this

> kind of intellectual confusion that MIMista revisionism arises.

MIM replies: No, this was not their confusion, but your factual

mistake. The two are not in the same CLASS position and that's

what makes the issue so difficult. I will give you one example.

Last I checked, the difference in average home equity of white

and Black people exceeded $44,000. Those figures are published

in the Statistical Abstract of the United States. Home equity

is another word for property--a kind of property that still

identifies Euro-Amerikans as settlers. Home ownership remains

a key avenue of parasitism that Blacks have yet to catch up in.

Two workers will have the same job, but one will have a much

higher net worth thanks to generations of settler property

handed down. (And anyone who knows how the tax structure is

rigged to favor settlers, er, home-owners, knows that that

difference is compounded again at tax time and then again at

the time the workers applies for credit.) So basically

there is absolutely nothing ocular about this class difference,

though it has partially ocular genesis.

The other thing that you missed is that oppressed nationality

workers as A CLASS (and it never ceases to amaze me that

people say "Italian working class," "German working class," etc.,

but when it comes to saying "Black working class" or "Latino

working class," the multiracial integrationist/reformist "Marxists"

cry "MIMerista revisionism"), as a class it is the whites

who are predominantly white collar and have that outlook.

Meanwhile, a Black industrial worker or Latino farmworker does

not have the relatives to look to as examples or expectations

for sharing as massively in parasitism under capitalism;

nor do they have those kinds of connections. Even the most tepid liberals know that affirmative action is necessary, because given two workers one Euro-Amerikan and one person of color, the one set benefits from conscious and unconscious socialized

conformity and the other suffers from lack of connections. So

it is nonsense to speak of two autoworkers, one oppressed nationality

and one Euro-Amerikan as sharing the same class position.

From any reasonable statistical angle, the Euro-Amerikan rationally

expects to own more property, enjoy greater likelihood of

promotion to white-collar work and see children go to college

and "make it" into the white-collar world.

If you doubt any of what I just said factually, I suggest you

purchase MT#1 or get serious and read the Statistical Abstract

of the United States from a few different years. An hour or

two in the reference library anywhere will dispell this mythology

of the white proletariat.

>

> There exist in this world several hundreds of millions of people

> who exist by selling their ability to work with hand and brain. We

> not only directly produce actual, physical commodities, we move

> them from place to place, count and store them, supply those who

> produce them with the raw materials, feed and clothe them, and

> carry out all the millions of tasks of social production. Is the

> factory worker a "proletarian" but not the longshoreman? the seaman

> but not the ship's clerk? the trucker but not the dispatcher? the

> garment worker but not the store clerk? the one who works on the

> automated loom but not the one who programs it? the printer in the

> mint but not the bank teller? Reflect on these questions.

> Stevedores, truckers, seamen, don't "produce" anything (except, of

> course, profits for their employers), but no one I know of has ever

> claimed that they weren't members of the working class. Why this

> drawing of the line at the color of the collar? What makes that

> any different from drawing the line at the color of the skin, or

> the shape of the genitals?

MIM replies: Hooray! I truly applaud you for leading this

discussion back to where it should have gone in the first place.

The answer is simple: we are Marxists. As we recall Marxism

it is centered on obtaining food, shelter and clothing. Others

have been inspired to see Marxism as something else and that's

fine as long as they don't claim to be Marxists. If people read

Marx and became inspired to organize security guards--who are

alone over 1% of the work force--then good for them. But to

claim that such an enterprise is Marxist: that's different.

The fact remains in 1995--thanks to some closely fought

but ultimately failed class struggles this century--it is

in the proletariat's interests to see to food, shelter and

clothing. Even exploited workers who have these things already

have no interest in the war and repression associated with

the property system that prevents fulfillment of those basic

needs.

Hence, we say at MIM that the international proletariat

doesn't need security guards, advertisers, property lawyers,

labor supervisors and other fluff in the economy that is

now well beyond half the Euro-Amerikan economy. (Even autos:

hasn't anyone noticed all the crap the capitalists make

people buy in autos?)

If you read my first post on this subject, you will see

that we included transport workers as necessary. It is

in the interests of the international proletariat to have

some transport--though would it be as much transport as

we use now for essentially parasitic purposes? I don't know.

Some transport would decline and other forms would

increase in a system organized in proletarian interests.

All this is another way of saying: what does the proletarian

worker really need to reproduce h/hself? What would be priority

in a socialist system? We believe Mao answered that question

very well in China.

>

> As we look at the world around us, we can see that the choice of

> the future is even more clearly between socialism and barbarism,

> with barbarism now in the ascendance. If we are to tilt the scales

> in favor of humanity, it means uniting the working class of all

> nations, cultures, genders, industries and trades. Those whose

> intellectual abilities are devoted to finding ways to read people

> out of the class or to declare it non-existent, whether they call

> themselves post-modernists or maoists, are simply part of the dust

> we need to wipe off our glasses if we're going to see a way

> forward.

>

> Tom Condit

>

MIM replies: This is not uniting the working class. This

is seeking to use the proletariat for the benefit of

the labor aristocracy. The labor aristocracy as Lenin pointed

out is the principal prop of imperialism amongst the masses.

What you are doing is developing intellectual abilities to

include parasites as part of one common proletarian class. As we showed

with our quote from Lenin and our quote from the COMINTERN,

white-collar workers did not used to be counted in the

proletariat. You may argue that Lenin and the COMINTERN

were wrong, but let's be clear that it is you taking up a

postmodern enterprise: seeing the vehicle of historical

progress as other than the proletariat in this age of

imperialism. While we see Euro-Amerikan youth as key for the

Euro-Amerikan nation, let's remember that the imperialist

country population is a small minority and let's retain faith

in the real international proletariat, as it was defined in

the COMINTERN's day and as it should be defined now, and as it

concretely exists--over 80% in the Third World.

Pat for the Maoist Internationalist Movement

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