Earth First! misses the revolutionary boat

Greetings MIM!

Recently I wrote a letter to be published in the EarthFirst! 
Journal. I am sending you a [revised] copy of that letter in hope 
that MIM will use it, or the general concept, to generate public 
opinion.

Dear Revolutionary Bashers,

I see a lot written about stopping corporate America from 
dominating the destruction of the world. Excellent! Now please 
read slow so you do not get lost.

The revolution that separated the American colonies from England 
was funded by the wealthy landowners. When the U.S. constitution 
was written "We the People" did not include slaves, bondsmen or 
serfs. These people along with the paid labor class and women were 
thought of as property. "We the People" of 1787 translates into 
those who are capable of spending millions of dollars to get 
officials elected and corporations that employ professional 
lobbyists in the 19th, 20th and 21st century. With the exception 
of the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s little has 
changed socio-politically in America since the colonies.

If you are seeking an end to corporate destruction of the 
environment and not seeking political reform, I am afraid that you 
are fighting a losing battle. The U.S. constitution was written to 
insure corporations' hand in government (through legislation) 
while the executive branch protects private property and corporate 
rule. It should be either a fight for the welfare of the worlds' 
environment or a fight for the welfare of the U.S. constitution: 
you can fight for both but you will be fighting yourself.

I hope you, pseudo-environmental revolutionary bashers, start 
supporting and stop bashing revolutionary work.

-- a Colorado prisoner, 20 February, 2000

MIM responds: We appreciate this comrade's comments on the 
irreconcilability of the health of the U.$ constitution and the 
health of this planet. Where the Colorado prisoner refers to 
"political reform," we talk about revolution to replace 
imperialism with socialism. In general, Earth First!-type radical 
environmentalists shy away from this kind of concrete talk of 
class war by pretending to speak for "Nature." EF!ers avoid 
talking about the proletariat's non-negotiable right to survival 
in a non-toxic environment, and so fail to address the first 
barrier to stopping ecological destruction.

Environmentalism that does not address classes in humyn society 
will fail. As the Colorado prisoner points out, refusing to 
address imperialism as the existing world economic and political 
system is no way to loose the deathgrip imperialism has on the 
environment. We Communists understand that private ownership of a 
patch of soil, a cubic mile of air, or a 12-mile stretch of ocean 
water is a mystical idea and not a physical reality. Pollution 
does not remain within the individual industrialist's private 
airspace, and collective ownership of these resources is our best 
chance for aborting the destruction of the earth by humyns.

While MIM agrees it is reactionary to put forth 1787's best ideas 
as progressive for today, we must be materialist and recognize the 
role of the u.$. constitution in its time. In fact, seeking 
capitalism over feudalism was progressive, as were both the 
abolition of slavery and Reconstruction. The recognition that big 
planters must be expropriated and that Blacks would gain the vote 
by force were both progressive if limited developments. Today we 
have examples of how to fight and overthrow capitalism. MIM points 
to the Black Panther Party and to Mao for leading the struggle to 
replace imperialism with socialism, rather than just seeking the 
vote again.

Comrade takes up MIM line

Dear MIM,

As I told a comrade whom I met last summer, I first discovered Mao 
while planning on a career as a soldier. As Mao's strategy led to 
the victory I wished to understand that strategy in order to 
defeat it. My study led to the conclusion that Mao's strategy, 
correctly implemented, cannot be defeated. Which led me to 
question the societal causes of that strategy. A study in depth of 
the u.$ form of government led me to conclude that

1) it is driven by and for money 2) it is systematically racist, 
sexist and homophobic 3) its structures are thoroughly 
undemocratic which led to the conclusion that this colossal 
edifice of greed and hatred can and must be imploded.

I am willing to admit my error in becoming a soldier. Essentially, 
like so many, I was brainwashed into believing in a giant lie. 
Fortunately I killed no one. Were this 1900 I would probably have 
been an imperialist. As I indicated in earlier correspondence, the 
lesson of two world wars is clear: imperialism is a manifestation 
of capitalism and can in no way control capital. The only way to 
end mass slaughter of workers is Maoism.

Oh, the only other resource, [besides oil] the deprivation of 
which would collapse an economy founded on speculation and greed, 
is water. Southern California imports water from Colorado. 
Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico (all "growing" economically) are 
equally unsustainable (the Rio Grande is shrinking). Saudi Arabia 
refines saltwater into freshwater. I do not know of other places 
literally dependent upon water, though I expect parts of south 
Africa and Australia would be. So I guess (and it is only a guess) 
if oil goes up too much the imperialists would deny water to the 
Arab states (schemes of importing water from the poles as icebergs 
to Saudi Arabia have been considered without success).

--A RAIL France member, March, 2000

MIM replies: This letter writer raises the important question of 
capitalism's control of natural resources for profit. We only 
disagree that there are only two resources that could collapse the 
world economy. 

In April we saw much activism around "Earth Day" in imperialist 
countries but little focus on the root of the problem of 
environmental destruction under imperialism. See the article in 
this issue about the Biodevestation conference in Boston for an 
analysis of the reformist and back-to-nature environmental 
movement compared with revolutionary environmentalism.

CLARIFICATION

In our response to the revolutionary minded ex-soldier in MIM 
Notes 207 (April 1, 2000), we missed an opportunity to explain 
important tenets of MIM's line, namely anti-imperialism and anti-
revisionism. We have much potential unity with the writer in 
opposition to U.$. foreign policy and other matters. But we also 
have a duty to explain our line.

The problem with the CP-USA is not its passivity, but its 
revisionism. In the 1950s, the CP-USA abandoned Marxism to follow 
the Soviet Union into "peaceful co-existence" with imperialism. 
Changing from a proletarian party, the CP-USA became an advocate 
for Soviet social-imperialism. With the Soviet Union gone, the CP-
USA has lost its purpose. For that reason , in the late 1990s we 
saw the CP-USA cozy up to the Democratic Party and it's also why 
we call the CP-USA political dinosaurs and predict extinction.

The principal problem with Amerika is that it is an imperialist 
nation. As the ex-solider noted, the United Snakes oppresses and 
exploits people all around the globe. But where do those stolen 
super-profits go? Some go to the pockets of the capitalists, but 
more of it goes to buy the allegiance of the majority of workers 
in the middle class within U.$. borders. Bribed by imperialism, 
these workers become not proletarians, but labor aristocrats, 
receiving from imperialism more than what they produce. This 
subsidy makes Amerikan workers closer to being proponents of 
fascism than proletarian revolution. So while its true that 
"consumerism" is inefficient and alienating, that it's even 
possible at all is one of the mechanisms imperialism uses to keep 
its workers loyal. Rather than robbing Amerikans, the U.$. economy 
subsidizes this small (on a global scale) population at the 
expense of the rest of humanity.

There is also imperialism within the borders of the United Snakes 
as well. MIM looks at the U.$. not as one nation, but as many. The 
white nation, called Amerika, holds state power and has colonized 
the Black Nation, Latino Nations and First Nations. On these 
grounds, MIM calls for self-determination for all oppressed 
nations and the imposition of a Third World dictatorship over the 
imperialist nations.

Because we support self-determination, MIM says the question of 
who rules Iraq is principally a question for the people of Iraq to 
decide. While we do point out hypocrisies in U.$. policy, we do 
that only to point out what the real motives are. Given some of 
the U.$. rhetoric, it might be "realistic, practical" to "remove 
... [Saddam Hussein] ... and move on to other business" but that's 
not our role. Given the choice between a "realistic, practical" 
imperialist policy and an unrealistic, impractical imperialist 
policy, MIM doesn't care. The United Snakes has no authority to 
determine the destiny or leadership of Iraq; and that is a point 
that MIM comes back to frequently.