Maoist Internationalist Movement

Security update on "selling out"

October 20 2007

As Lenin before us, we have pointed out before that imperialism is late stage capitalism dominated by finance capital, the need to export capital and the concentration of power in large corporations, monopolies. An imperialist is someone characteristic of that mode of production who can live without working if he chose.

The difference between a structural approach and a lifestyle approach is that class is not a matter of choices according to Marxism and its structuralism. We do not raise our class by buying the right pocketbook for example.

We pointed out with Reagan that he received a million dollars for a single speech in Japan after he left office as president. That meant even if he had no assets persynally while in office, he would still be an imperialist by our definition. His power was such that the Japanese wanted to make a point of giving him a million dollars after serving. Some have connected that speech to economic treason on behalf of Japan. Our point is more basic, that before he received that money, he was already an imperialist no matter what else he owned or choices he made with what to do with his days. He had sufficient power that it was in Japan's interest to reward him, perhaps even just to set an example for future U.$. presidents.

The founders of MIM were all exploiters. At least some were imperialists and others gave up the proletarian political struggle to become imperialists by conventional means. We have been asked a number of questions in connection to MIM's class status and so this essay makes MIM more accountable.

According to Michael Scheuer, a CIA officer in charge of studying Bin Laden, Bin Laden is much like a CEO of a multinational corporation with his business capabilities in construction, industry and agriculture. This may be a jarring image for people used to the simple "terrorist" idea, if we picture Bin Laden holding an AK-47.

Likewise, we need to break out of a certain white nationalist paradigm of the struggle in the West. "Selling out" and "conformity" came under attack in the united $tates in the 1960s. For most people using this rhetoric, the underlying issue is that they believe the majority of Amerikans are "exploited." Hence, when a trade union official receives a little too much pay, and then moderates the struggle of his union, we say he "sold out." Movies such as the "Big Chill" use the "sell out" idea as in abandoning struggle to become aluminum foil salespeople or Hollywood actors. It has to do with making the transition out of youth while still being revolutionary. We had a million revolutionaries in the united $tates in the 1960s just among college students, but 99% failed to make the transition out of youth.

In a strict class sense, it is not possible to "sell out" the struggle in the united $tates. If one is already an exploiter, there is no point in saying that one became more of an exploiter and then changed one's political line. Except for prisoners and migrants, all Amerikans are exploiters who cannot "sell out." It is only white nationalists who paint a picture as if that were possible, because they continue to believe that a majority of Amerikans are exploited.

So much of Marx's initial paradigm of struggle for Europe in 1848 no longer applies in Amerika. Only his methods still apply, none of his concrete analyses.

The cell that runs the etext.org MIM website is imperialist. Not all imperialists are equally popular. Ron Paul is telling some truth about 9/11 and the Iraq War. Likewise, Kucinich tells some truth about U.$. wars in general, but neither Ron Paul nor Kucinich is on the radar for the White House any time soon; although, it is rather remarkable that Ron Paul raised only one million dollars less than mainstream imperialist McCain in the last quarter.(1)

Some imperialists take a break from their main occupation. Michael Dukakis is a college professor. Al Gore became one too. College teaching is a traditional petty-bourgeois occupation, not imperialist. Other imperialists do not go to traditional petty-bourgeois professions but dedicate themselves to recreational pursuits full time. Imperialists are not CEOs or presidents all the time. Nonetheless, this MIM cell is imperialist. Sometimes imperialists fall from grace, as Nixon did. Still, Nixon was an imperialist. Of course it is possible to fall from imperialist economic status: it happens all the time. It's easy enough to picture someone doing drugs too much to keep track of anything.

Now that we have clarified all that, this cell favors loosening the screws on the Third World. Our leadership does not mean that there is a mass of revolutionaries ready for action or that there is an individual armed struggle that will get us what we want. That conception of leadership has to be tossed.

What people may really be asking MIM is what sections of finance capital do we have ties with and how much. To ask the question correctly, MIM should admit that it has been approached in a variety of ways by more various actors than one would guess, especially if limited by an 1848 view of the West. If there were an Amerikan proletariat, we have been offered every which way of "selling it out." No matter what we do, there will be some appealing aspects of what we do to other imperialists, again because MIM is not set up with a revolutionary force to upset the imperialists too much.

Our specific answer to the question of our relations with various sections of finance capital is that we are busy putting politics in command, especially in connection to the principal contradiction. We cannot speak for all MIM cells, but this one will not make any vulgar economic choices until after party restructuring is completed. How we assert ourselves as imperialists among other imperialists politically is very complicated. We see ourselves as reasonable people, with no choice but to be reasonable, because there is no Red Army about to close in on Washington, DC and we know that. Hopefully this accountable statement is both disturbing and comforting to our critics. We apologize for not making this statement sooner, as we lacked the words for what we were being asked.

Notes:
1. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB119146668063148662.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
ABC News says that Ron Paul matched McCain in two quarters of the campaign already: http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=3745767&page=1