Review of the "International Conference of Marxist- Leninist Parties and Organizations"(ICMLPO) Phony "Marxist-Leninist" Party of Germany tells tall tales of parasite productivity by International Minister, December 14, 2000 International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations"(ICMLPO) The "Marxist-Leninist" Party of Germany (MLPD) is one of the key organizers of the annual "International Conference of Marxist-Leninist Parties and Organizations." It is a contender with the "Revolutionary Internationalist Movement"(RIM) that stole our name and the Workers' Party of Belgium (PTB)-led "International Communist Seminar." Before we launch into a criticism of the main participants of the conference, we would like to point out that we have over 90% unity with the TKP/ML's document "General Characteristics of Imperialism" and we will thus have no criticisms to make of its submission to the 6th conference of the ICMLPO. MIM regards the TKP/ML as fully fraternal and we only hope that it will not be overly influenced from its correct positions by the European social-democrats even if they call themselves "Marxist-Leninist." The Turkish people in Western Europe also have an issue of national oppression to face. With regard to the French "Voie Proletarienne", we have little to say against, "Imperialism and dominated countries," but "'Liberal democracy' is dictatorship of capital" is a document we consider social democratic for its assertion in the current context that " Exploitation has become at the same time more brutal and more subtle" in the imperialist countries. ( http://www.icmlpo.de/ICMLPO/IPK/IPK17/ipk17-us/OCML2- US.htm ) A more detailed explanation of the same line comes from the Germans who claim to uphold Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, Mao and the "Gang of Four," the MLPD. The "Marxist-Leninist" Party of Germany The MLPD most keenly feels the pressure of the labor aristocracy in Europe in its social-democratic form and as all too expectedly, the ICMLPO competes more with the PTB-led effort than with the MIM or the RIM. The PTB in turn is competing with Schroeder and Blair for a similar social base with similar demands. (MIM is always careful to distinguish mobilizing the same people but with different demands, which is what is really required when it comes to addressing the oppressor nation petty-bourgeoisie often wrongly referred to as "workers.") "In the past four years, two million jobs alone were eliminated in Germany because of this structural crisis. This was a period of relative recovery or fluctuating stagnation and not of an overproduction crisis. A new wave of a massive job cuts is imminent after having been postponed by the monopolies until the elections in September 1998. This development is linked to an astronomical increase in labor productivity. In 1991, an industrial worker in Germany had to work an average of 37 hours for the same turnover he achieved in less than 25 hours in the third quarter of 1996. The enormous increase in productivity has been achieved mainly by means of the intensification of exploitation through the introduction of lean production in connection with the flexibilization of working time and was not mainly the result of technological renovation. In 1996 gross fixed capital investments of industry in the FRG were 20 per cent below the level prior to the crisis of 1991." The MLPD is telling a very tall tale, namely that after 5 years, the German workers were working 1.48 times harder than they used to per hour, almost 50% harder. MIM has already criticized the MLPD since 1993 for failing to account for the inflow of superprofits into the imperialist countries when accounting for labor productivity. The MLPD is saying that German workers accounted for this increase when in fact it is the Third World workers who are contributing more surplus-value to Germany. As MIM said in 1997, "To back the message of competitiveness materially-speaking, the imperialists conduct cross-country investment. Such investment contributes to the illusion that imperialist country labor productivity is rising, when in fact, the only thing rising is the possibility of sharing more superprofits extracted from the Third World worker in the guise of "productivity gains" of imperialist country workers."("Imperialism and Its Class Structure in 1997," http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mt/imp97/imp97c5.html ) Cross-imperialist investment is a sign of the decadence of imperialism such that investments are made in speculation, financial services and trade services, nothing productive. Such investments do not prove the spectacular productivity opportunities that await from hiring imperialist country labor aristocracy people. The MLPD long ago abandoned the labor theory of value, and no polemics by MIM seem to help in this area. What has happened is not that oppressor nation workers are suddenly working so much harder. No, what has happened is that among other things, since 1976, China's contribution of surplus-value to the imperialist countries has hugely increased. As we reported in 1997, "By now we can say China's exports alone involve more industrial workers than the total of all industrial workers in France, Germany and the "United Kingdom" combined." (http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mt/imp97/imp97c4.html )The dinosaur social-democratic parties of Europe including those calling themselves "Marxist-Leninist" have not accounted for the new facts of the industrial proletariat internationally. They are blind to the super- exploitation of China and the rest of the Third World, because these social-democratic parties represent the labor aristocracy of the imperialist countries. Not surprisingly, the MLPD is unable to endorse People's War in Peru, Nepal or the Indian subcontinent. They'd rather criticize like Trotskyists do without pointing to superior armed struggles in those countries. What is more, the MLPD should go around asking the labor aristocracy if it is working 50% harder than five years ago. If the labor aristocracy were working that much harder, the MLPD can be sure, and MIM would be sure, that there would be a tremendous outcry. Instead, the strike rate in the United $tates just reached its statistical low for all time. If MIM were wrong, then it would be proof that the imperialists have really accomplished something progressive by boosting productivity without major cataclysm--going from total economic collapse to fascist militarization of the economy for instance. So it is that the MLPD delivers praise to imperialism's progressive tendencies in ordinary times. A proletarian government could raise productivity 50% in five relatively ordinary years, if there is such a thing as an ordinary socialist year, but it would be no small feat, one we would certainly boast about, and for an imperialist regime to see a 50% rise in labor productivity in five years as opposed to a 50% rise in parasitism per persyn, such is impossible. When the MLPD says such things, it is not only singing the praises of imperialism, but also it demonstrates its lack of any connection to reality, and the masses will rightly distrust handing over leadership of an imperialist country to any of us who talk like the MLPD, which unfortunately is most of us calling ourselves communist in the imperialist countries. Regarding the class structure of imperialism, MLPD does say, " The transition from petty-bourgeoisie to working class has become fluid. During the Fifties and Sixties, the ruling class followed a 'reforms from above' policy which granted a petty-bourgeois life-style to larger parts of the working class, particularly in the major capitalist countries." ( http://www.icmlpo.de/ICMLPO/IPK/IPK17/ipk17-us/MLPD2- US.htm ) Finally responding to the MIM line, however, MLPD then adds: " But this does not mean it would be correct to say that the working class in the imperialist countries adopted of general petty-bourgeois character, a view which would justify petty-bourgeois claims to leadership over the working class. This view completely ignores the objective existence of the proletarian mode of thinking." This is a particularly twisted line of thought. MLPD like many opportunists are saying they have every right to deny the science of the class structure, because they have no choice numerically if they are to organize a majority. The MLPD is placing the principle of having a majority in each country over the principle of advancing proletarian revolution. The MLPD fails to realize that the proletariat has non- negotiable survival "rights" and building toward an imperialist country majority in principle is to deny the essence of the proletariat's condition--which is that it cannot afford to compromise on many questions and hence cannot afford to be in the majority in a country if those interests are compromised by being in that majority. Of course, it would be best if the proletariat had a majority in its class and even just on its side, but failing to have that majority is not a reason for compromising. The starving, homeless and war-stricken cannot be swindled out of their lives by those with principles arising out of relative comfort. Whoever the leaders of the proletariat are and from whatever class, the German people have an objective class structure. It is solipsism to be saying that MLPD cannot present the truth on the class structure, because its leaders would change! It's like doubting that the tree in the forest falls if nobody hears it. The "RCP"-USA has a similar line on the objective existence of oppressed and exploited nations and classes. Addressing such solipsists, as Ray O. Light point out, Stalin said the exploited would row the boat to shore eventually, even if there is no scientific socialism at all! The majority of people in Germany either is or is not petty-bourgeoisie and it does not depend on the factional struggles or politics of the leaders. Writing this way, the MLPD has definitely engaged in sectarianism, substituting small-minded thought with regard to organizational self-interests where only the interests of the international proletariat are really appropriate. One last point about MLPD statistics is that they are typical in using the social-democratic economist trick of focusing on wages, when the workers also receive benefits and pensions. In the United $tates, wages may have stagnated, especially for white men, but not once benefits are counted. With regard to international line, the MLPD addresses MIM's criticisms even more aggressively than in their oafish labor productivity remarks: "the Marxist- Leninist and working-class movement should not hesitate to analyse new conditions just for fear of demagogically being labeled Trotskyite. That would be a case of backing down to international opportunism. The MLPD declares openly: "All over the world, in the industrial centers the working class is more or less in struggle against the same stratum of multinational corporations. . . . ultimately, imperialism can be overthrown only by the revolutionary class struggle of the proletariat in the metropolitan countries themselves." ("MLPD Contribution No. 2 for the 6th International Conference") This is in direct contradiction to MIM's strategic confidence in the international proletariat which is located in the Third World. MIM has said that the joint dictatorship of the international proletariat over imperialism will come to pass, with or without oppressor nation so-called worker support. Hence, we do not do anything which waters down the independent initiative and militancy of the international proletariat and its peasant allies. In contrast, it is not surprising that the MLPD says its first strategic goal is stated as "The fundamental goal is to win the decisive majority of the working class" (in Germany). (http://www.icmlpo.de/ICMLPO/IPK/IPK17/ipk17-us/MLPD3- US.htm ) In this, the MLPD is no different than the social-democrats in its unconditional love of a class with parasitic demands. In contrast, MIM has no fear of being called "undemocratic," because we are happy to oppose the majority in imperialist countries, if that is what it takes to oppose parasitism and support the non-negotiable survival "rights" of the international proletariat. No majority anywhere has a right to vote for Pentagon budgets to kill Third World people and keep them in starvation. Wherever a majority exists that believes it has the right to allow starvation that majority must be repressed, not worshipped for its quantitative nature or coddled for its "false consciousness," which it loses most quickly through military defeat at the hands of the oppressed. Let us be clear in turn: 100 million people in the United $tates just voted for Bush or Gore. Those 100 million currently believe consciously or unconsciously that they have the right to elect governments to perpetrate starvation by the millions each year in the name of private property. We will not tailor our demands concerning the survival "rights" of the proletariat in order to gain a majority of such people. As the Vietnamese taught the Amerikans, the imperialist country people learn the fastest by losing wars against the oppressed and exploited. It is our duty as internationalists to support the People's Wars and maximize the message by not mixing up proletarian and parasitic classes. [To see the ICMLPO home page go to: http://www.icmlpo.de/Eng/English.htm ]