|
Post by redstar2000 on Feb 9, 2004 20:23:41 GMT -5
eat the world wrote: We need to identify trends and underlying dynamics, not start from the surface of current events.
Very well, try this...
We know that U.S. imperialism will require an ever-growing number of combat troops both for invasions and for occupations.
As always, these troops will mostly come from the working class...people who feel compelled by economic necessity to join the imperialist armed forces.
Because a large number of these volunteers are and will be people of color, the imperialist armed forces are the least overtly racist institution in American capitalism...probably by a wide margin. (To be more precise, the racism of the American armed forces is always directed outwards...against the "savages" who have the temerity to resist American power.)
Accordingly, what will be the effects on workers of all colors as they pass through this institution?
The "good news" is that it should serve to weaken racism among white workers...they will form a mental picture of "racial equality" that is not only non-threatening but seen as vital to their personal safety.
The "bad news" is that some people of color will strongly identify with imperialism...it seemingly offers them a part of "the American dream" (upward class mobility) that is really "theirs".
In the long run, this should result in a greater willingness of white workers to unite with workers of color in common class interests. After all, they've seen it can work in armed combat...why shouldn't it work against the boss?
But we will also see more "General Powell's" and the like...people of color who identify their own "success" in life with the success of imperialism. It won't be very pleasant to look at...or listen to.
Linked to these things is also the potential of success or failure of U.S. imperialism itself. We may find consolation in the knowledge that "empires always fall", but that's of little practical use.
It took a very large number of body bags--they call them "transfer tubes" now--to corrode support for U.S. imperialism in Vietnam among white workers. The ruling class knows what happened then and will not willingly be trapped into a similar situation...hence their rather desperate attempts to find other countries willing to supply a few troops, even a token force.
The workers, of every color, who return home from an "unsuccessful occupation" are most unlikely to support the next one...and indeed might well become visibly active in the next anti-war movement. They should appreciate, from first-hand experience, that the only Americans who are "in danger" from the Middle East are the ones who are there.
A note on methodology: one difficulty in locating and evaluating "trends" occurs in periods of reaction...when developments that may ultimately have revolutionary impact are still "below the radar". All of us probably know something of tiny struggles here and there which may be quite promising in some ways...but which are still far too small to have a measurable social impact.
There's a kind of "background" of class struggle that's always taking place in capitalist societies...we "tune it out" because we know it's just something that's just always "there" and doesn't really "mean" anything important.
Except on those rare occasions when it turns out to mean something very important indeed.#nosmileys
|
|
|
Post by Guest on Feb 25, 2004 15:57:25 GMT -5
Excuse me, Im new..... If i tread on any toes, i really didnt mean to
Perhaps now, where the original Marxist idea of the proletariat no longer exists in the same sense, there is no need to identify the "worker"?
Its an idea ive been looking at for a while, and ive thought that really, especially in a country like Britain, where, to my mind, the largest social class is now the "middle class"..... the "middle" class will eventually be the driving force....
Not because they wish to put themselves in power, but that the truly rich have made the cardinal error of educating the masses.....As the class system has changed somewhat, the largest "class" of people is recieving education.
Im not sure.... ive been trying to look at the manifesto and such in the light of (some countires) "middle-class dominated (numbers, not power...) system"
|
|
|
Post by eat the world on Feb 29, 2004 16:02:28 GMT -5
I think it is safe to say (and provable)that the proletariat remains a growing class worldwide -- probably the most fast growing class. And is probably now the second largest class (next to poor peasant farmers) in the world.
It also is a class of tens of millions in the U.S. and (in a larger strategic sense) is politically the class that represents a powerful force for radical change.
There are no countries that don't have workers or proletarians. And all goods and work are all (in one way or another) created and produced by workers (or by machinery and facilities built by workers etc.)
|
|
ComradeRed
New Member
Rid yourself of TV and READ A BOOK!
Posts: 3
|
Post by ComradeRed on May 12, 2004 23:29:50 GMT -5
Well, what is preventing the peasents from being part of the prolterian class? Really, isn't the proletariat everyone save the petty bourgeoisie, corporate tyrants and oligarchs?
NO! The fact of the matter is that we, as communists, fight for the oppressed, and if we do not know who the oppressed are, then who are we fighting for?
Well, yes, BUT -like in all imperialist nations- it is SHRINKING. The position of the oppressed class is being outsourced to third world sweat shops. Which leads to an interesting question: before bourgeoisie so close to the proletarians they could see them, but now, the bourgeoisie are hundreds of thousands of miles away; how would the proletarians (when they seize power) share the wealth if there is none to be shared.
|
|
JC
Comrade
Posts: 76
|
Post by JC on May 13, 2004 16:25:25 GMT -5
The Peaseants are members of the petit bourgoise , they are in favour of small scale production . there not consistintly reveloutionary , and are on occasions the harbringers of all counter-reveloutionary affairs !
|
|
flyby
Revolutionary
Posts: 243
|
Post by flyby on May 21, 2004 11:53:49 GMT -5
Some important issues of class analysis have been raised here.
A question was raised: "Is there a proletariat in the U.S.?"
Comradered wrote: "Well, yes, BUT -like in all imperialist nations- it is SHRINKING."
I don't think this kind of "yes, but" captures the reality.
First of all, there is a proletariat in the imperialist countries -- and great efforts have been made by the ruling classes there over the last decade to increase the lower tiers of that class (by immigration, by lowering wages using the threat of shutdowns, by "give backs," by opening new shops in non union areas, by opening new districts of sweatshops while closing "the good jobs" of rustbelt towns.)
There is a proletariat -- part of the interntional proletariat -- and it is a revolutionary class. Meaning, in its tens of millions, it has a profound interest in overthrowing capitalism and taking the road to a radically different classless society.
Is it shrinking or growing? Well, on our planet, overall, the proletariat is clearly growing. Hundreds of millions of peasants are being driven off their lands, and hundreds of millions of urban small producers (artisans etc.) are being ruined by capitalist production -- and they are streaming into the proletariat. They are gathering in huge shantytown-city centers in the third world (Mexico city is now the world's largest city). But they are also streaming into imperialist countries (Turks into Germany, Mexican and a hunred other nationalities into the U.S., etc.)
Comradered asks: "before bourgeoisie so close to the proletarians they could see them, but now, the bourgeoisie are hundreds of thousands of miles away; how would the proletarians (when they seize power) share the wealth if there is none to be shared?"
The "wealth" a revolution "shares" is not primarily the personal bankaccounts or luxurious lifestyles of the super-rich -- but rather the far more vast accumulated social wealth from production that is the basis of new investment. In other words, the proletariat (by seizing the state and constructing a socialist society) seizes control of what is done with what it produces -- and directs the development of society -- what the social surplus gets used for. This surplus is produced whether or not the bourgeoisie lives in the next town. When china had its socialist revolution in 1949, the revolution expropriated the imperialist owners of factories, mines, etc. And that was a basis for a new revolutionary economy -- even if those owners were thousands of miles away.
JC wrote: "The Peaseants are members of the petit bourgoise , they are in favour of small scale production . there not consistintly reveloutionary , and are on occasions the harbringers of all counter-reveloutionary affairs!"
This is a mistaken view, and not a marxist one at all.
For Marxists (and particularly MLM), the peasantry is its own class. It is a class linked to semi-feudal production -- and in that sense is neither "bourgeois or proletarian" (i.e. the two main classes of capitalist production.)
As the main oppressed class of semi-feudal relations, the peastanry (especially its poorest and largest sections) have a profound interest in agrarian revolution ("land to the tiller") -- a profound revolutionary change, that does not however itself represent a socialist change.
The observation of MLM is that the peasantry, once it carries out agrarian revolution acutely faces two roads: the capitalist road and the socialist road. The capitalist road of "get rich", of class differentiation i nthe countryside, of commodity production for imperialist markets (cocaine, flowers, cocoa, Cuban sugar monoculture etc.), or else the socialist road of self-reliance, cooperatives/collectives and other socialist forms.
Proletarians and peasants are different classes -- in a profound and historic sense -- but they both have acute interests in pressing forward revolution today. And, very important, the highest goals of the revolutionary (and land-despearate) peasantry can only, fundamentally, be achieved under proletarian leadership -- meaning by connecting the demands of agrairian revolution with the larger world-historical revolutionary movement for socialism. That link is made through the Maoist New Democracy -- which is the anti-feudal, and anti-imperialist revolution carried through in semi-feudal, semi-colonial countries under the leadership of the proletariat and its party (which is dedicated to moving the revoluton forward, through New Democracy, and through socialism, to classless communism worldwide.)
Or to directly answer JC's views:
The peasantry is not inherently "in favor of small production." As a class they are generally inolved in it (though also work in plantations) -- but often the poor peasants are in favor of socialist collectivization (if led by revolutionry communist forces). There is class struggle among the peasants over "what to be in favor of."
Stressing a the point that peasants "are on occasions the harbringers of all counter-reveloutionary affairs" is not right. They have been a powerful force for the world revolution throughout the last century.(from the 1917 Russian revolution, the 1949 Chinese revolution, to the 1950a Great Leap forward, to the Vietnamese resistance to the U.S. in 60s and 70s , to the current people's wars of Peru and Nepal.)
This idea that they are petty bourgeois and basically pro-capitalist is a view associated with the euro-chauvinist of trotskyism (and arrises theoretically from the views of figures like Trotsky and Kautsky, not MLM).
|
|
JC
Comrade
Posts: 76
|
Post by JC on May 21, 2004 17:44:10 GMT -5
While the Peasentry is tied down to semi-fuedal modes of production HOWEVER is still a section of the petit bourgoise . With the exception of the poorest section of the peasentry , after land redistribution issued by the prolatariat takes place the peasentry behave's just like there city breavern , the petit bourgoise .
|
|
|
Post by Freddy on Jul 18, 2004 18:12:25 GMT -5
Who is the proletariat within this Imperial State? This is a frankly great question and one that must be realized in order to assume where the revolution will lead. Sincerely the great majority of this nation is the Proletariat, including the majority of oppressed nationalities (africans, chicanos, asians, and so on) and even the White/Caucasian majority. In this country, unlike others, there is a large Middle Starta. In what the Imperial state calls the Middle Class, or as we like to say the "Petite Bourgeoisie" "San Cloutts". This middle strata is, according to the estimations of the Bourgeois State, make up almost 25% of the nation's population. They enjoy essentially more benefits from Bourgeois rule, but even so they are oppressed as well. The recent outsourcing of not only Proletariat work, but even their "trained mental" work has gone throughout the third world, one nation being India. These Classes have enjoyed considerable "Benefits" for a long time under Bourgeoisie. These "benefits" come from the reforms taken by the Bourgeoisie themselves in order to prevent the chance of "revolution" sweeping the States themselves, such stances were made during the Great Depression as when WWI soldiers camped outside the Capital, threathening force, until MacArthur and the Army entered the camp and massacred the Veterans. The reforms made in 1930s' under FDR, were made in order to prevent the revolution. reforms such as Welfare, Social Security, Unemployment, and public works did very little until WWII came about. These reforms were also just cosometic changes to a bloody system, like the Civil Rights Reforms of the 50s' and 60s'. These changes were essential in order to compete world wide with their Social-Imperial rivals, the Soviet Union, for the popular support politically across the globe. Since the death of the Soviet Union, these reforms have actually become a focal point of attacks from the Bourgeoisie, for they are getting in the way of profit. The changes FDR had made, were now obsolete for this Imperialist nation. If you noticed, in a nation were once Unions, for all their corruptness, dominated maual labor. Now they make up a very low constiguent within this Work Force, their decline is showing that our days of riding for reforms within the system is over, and new oppressions are too begin, and the old oppressions to intensify. Yes there is as well, is a White Oppressed in this nation despite MIM's claims. In fact the most backward areas in this nation are also the areas where the white population is the majority. Look at Appalachian region, the southern areas, where we jokingly make fun of their "backwardness" and "patriotism" (I find this a little Hyporcritical). Their uncompelling Nationalist feelings are not much different from that of Russian Peasants in WWI, who enthusiastically supported the Tsar in the beginning. It is no different than the Plebians of Rome, giving unwavering support to their oppressing Senate, than their oppressing Emperors, in name of the "Glory of Rome". This does not mean that they were not oppressed just because in name, the "support" such reactionary and oppressive ideology and rule.
|
|
|
Post by Freddy on Jul 18, 2004 18:20:42 GMT -5
A dictatorship of "Petit Bourgeoisie" is illogical, and proven by historical consquences not to work. Look at the French Revolution, The Jacobin Expirerence leading the revolution for a moment, ultimately failed because they sided with Bourgeois interests in the end over Peasant and Proletarian interest. Jacobins tried to create a society that was to be lead by their class, and fairly help ALL classes. Their rule ultimately becamse destroyed by the motion of history, in an economic system that required Bourgeoisie dictatorship. Capitalism is founded upon Bourgeoisie explotation of the Proletariat, these two classes are alone the dialectics of this system. Petite Bourgeois rule, is impossible within a Capitalist system of production, and leads to no change within the system of Oppressed and Oppressors.
|
|
|
Post by RedFlagOverTrenton on Aug 15, 2004 12:11:39 GMT -5
While the proletariat in this country is indeed shrinking, I think it's also important to note that it still retains its status as the majority class of American society. Avakian said something to this effect on the Revolution DVD and by and large he's right. What's worth examining, I think, is not whether the proletariat in the US is disappearing but in how it's changing its character.
Right now, the 'proletariat' as people like Marx envisioned it in his era is declining, moved out of the country where the labor is exponentially cheaper. In place of the traditional industrial proletariat (miners, factory workers, etc) we are seeing a vast increase of the proletariat in the service sector. The ratio of people employed in industry versus service has practically reversed itself in the past few decades.
Now the service sector proletariat is different from the industrial proletariat, I think, in a number of important ways. On the lower end of the spectrum, you have your Wal-Mart greeters and your burger slaves, etc.. people in occupations where wages are incredibly small with little hope of getting higher and where the workers in this occupations are by and large disposable. In a factory or a mine, for instance, experiance is valued and worker retention is much higher, making it easier for workers to organize and eventually develop class consciousness. In the aforementioned situation you have people living essentially hand to mouth who are totally expendable and can be replaced at a moment's notice, who are perhaps too concerned with the struggle of daily servival and in retention of their tenuous employment to develop these things as easily.
Now on the higher end of the service sector spectrum you have people who aren't in this sort of situation, professionals like accountants or office workers and the like, who are more likely to be sympathetic to bourgeoisie class interests than the interests of the great majority of people.. the middle class, I would suppose.
Now assuming I'm not totally off the mark as this is my first post of substance here besides a quick 'hi' in the introductions, how does this change the way anti-capitalists (be they Marxists, anarchists, whatever) wage class struggle and develop the class consciousness of the mass of workers, which is arguably the most important task to be accomplished before we find ourselves in a revolutionary situation?
|
|
|
Post by nightbreed on Oct 9, 2004 14:41:37 GMT -5
Guest. What you are saying about the British working class is crap.Could you show some kind of analysis to your claim because as a 'British' worker and active trade unionist I fail to see how you draw these conclusions.
|
|
|
Post by RedBook on Feb 7, 2005 15:44:47 GMT -5
The thing is, you see all these proletarian people with nice Nikes, dvd players, big-screen tv's, vcr's, nice-ass trucks, and all these "rednecks" waving their American flags and sayin' "Kill then ragheads! Nuke Baghdad! Yeeeeehaw!!!"... seeing that as the majority of white proletarians really makes it hard for me to see their revolutionary potential. So, yeah... that's why MIM's line and Sakai's thesis really seems to make sense to me... I don't WANT to believe it, but to me it really makes sense (as well as the fact that MIM has tons of facts, figures, statistics, and a lot of convincing quotes by Lenin and Mao to back them up)... As a materialist, you are obliged to accept reality for what it is, not what you would like it to be. In this case, that means acknowledging the correctness of MIM's line. Many of those whites were proletarian seventy or eighty years ago, back when they did not have all those fine possessions but worked in mines and factories for low pay. Today the u.$. has become so corrupt and decadent that even the Blacks are by and large beneficiaries of imperialism who are not exploited even though they are nationally oppressed. MIM's work on the labor aristocracy is the most important development of socialism to come from the imperialist countries in the past quarter of a century. It answers the questions that Mao cited as being of primary importance to the revolution: "Who are our friends? Who are our enemies?" As you correctly perceived, Amerikans as a group are the enemy of the world's proletariat and have very little revolutionary potential at this time. Sad to say, this is true even of most of Amerika's internal semi-colonies.
|
|
JC
Comrade
Posts: 76
|
Post by JC on Feb 7, 2005 18:13:19 GMT -5
As a materialist, you are obliged to accept reality for what it is, not what you would like it to be. In this case, that means acknowledging the correctness of MIM's line.
Many of those whites were proletarian seventy or eighty years ago, back when they did not have all those fine possessions but worked in mines and factories for low pay. Today the u.$. has become so corrupt and decadent that even the Blacks are by and large beneficiaries of imperialism who are not exploited even though they are nationally oppressed.
MIM's work on the labor aristocracy is the most important development of socialism to come from the imperialist countries in the past quarter of a century. It answers the questions that Mao cited as being of primary importance to the revolution: "Who are our friends? Who are our enemies?" As you correctly perceived, Amerikans as a group are the enemy of the world's proletariat and have very little revolutionary potential at this time. Sad to say, this is true even of most of Amerika's internal semi-colonies
most whity's make 13 bucks an hour and althought they make signifagant wage , they dont make the full value of there labour . What they do have is a Yearly wage that greatly exceeds that of people even in other devoloped countrys . every time i cross the border i'm told by factory worker's they make 80g's a year . My fathers a profesinol and he make 30 g's , and that cancuck money .
Also the so-called internal semi-colonies have been taken that status away by them by the fact that they enjoy a simalar SOL as Whgite americans . This is to the opint where america is the only country in the imperialist epoch to intergrate its natnol minorities ( to a limited extent ) .
|
|
|
Post by RedBook on Feb 7, 2005 22:50:02 GMT -5
most whity's make 13 bucks an hour and althought they make signifagant wage , they dont make the full value of there labour . I'd like to see the evidence that they do not get the full value of their labor. How much is that value, on average? And where does it end up, if not in the pockets of labor aristocrats? That's true: Amerika is so decadent and overloaded with superprofits that it has even managed to integrate the internal semi-colonies into the labor aristocracy for the most part. They are still oppressed, however, just not exploited.
|
|
JC
Comrade
Posts: 76
|
Post by JC on Feb 8, 2005 16:32:48 GMT -5
Red Book Said : I'd like to see the evidence that they do not get the full value of their labor. How much is that value, on average? And where does it end up, if not in the pockets of labor aristocrats?
The average factory worker make's 250 $ of value an hour in america ( acording to the ILO and various reformiist think tanks ) . The value minus the wages , go to a low level of costs for materials ( e.g. a car has less 100 $ of steal in it ) and transportation , the rest goes to profit and re-investment .
Redbook saidThat's true: Amerika is so decadent and overloaded with superprofits that it has even managed to integrate the internal semi-colonies into the labor aristocracy for the most part. They are still oppressed, however, just not exploited.
How can somthing be oppresed and not exploited ? if something isnt exploited capitial see's no resaon in oporesing it .
|
|