Why MIM is wrong ?

[Leo]

Why MIM is wrong ?

users.compulink.gr/[e-mail]//Why%20MIM%20is%20wrong.pdf

[eat the void]

there is also a detailed thread on this issue on 2changetheworld.info

in the "road to revolution" forum (in a discussion of the united front, and whether there is a working class to lead it.)

[Leo]

Do you know any other forums to put this link, comrades ?

[Deleted]

Fortunately, I think a vast majority of people on the Left have little trouble seeing the MIM for what is is ;D

[Comrade Joseph]

It is hard to take a group (like MIM) seriously, that says "revolution is impossible in imperialist countries", and their "justifications" for this argument are even more pathetic.

They are not communists.

[roman]

MIM isn’t that off on their analysis of the traditional US working class. It is very obvious, especially in big imperialist nations that the working class is not going to be nearly as revolutionary as in oppressed nations. MIM’s analysis flows pretty straight forwardly from Lenin’s writings on the labor aristocracy and Mao's 3rd world turn in Marxism - you can goto MIM's web page to see their citations. MIM is not the only group that has made the argument that the real revolutionary classes are the workers and peasants of the imperialized world. 3rd worldist Maoism was the main way people thought about Maoism during most of the 60s and 70s. I’d say that this is still true outside of RCP circles. Many of the urban guerrilla movements in the USA and Europe, and even the Panthers sometimes advocated this point of view. Anyways, to say MIM isn’t in the communist tradition or is a “sham” or whatever, is pretty silly. What is silly about MIM isn’t their view that the traditional “white” working class isn’t revolutionary. What is silly is their highly jargonistic, ideological style; their phrase mongering, putting faces of Mao on everything, etc. But, many groups are guilty of this kind of off putting weirdness.

In this century, except for the depression, the revolutionary left has never made great inroads into the traditional American working class. Most of the people in the movement here are intellectuals, students, artists, counter-culture types, youth, and minorities, captive nation peoples, etc. This is exactly what you would expect if the non-revolutionary white working class theory was true. There are several good histories of the Maoist and Trotskyist movements in the USA, usually when these sects send their cadre off to the factories. It ended in failure. Whether it is admitted or not, this is also the reason most sects confine themselves to propaganda work and not shop floor organizing. Most movements in practice admit the fact that MIM says out loud. And, everyone poo-poos MIM.

For Marx, exploitation was understood to be primarily economic. In capitalism, exploitation took the form of capitalists extracting surplus value from their workers. This is another way of saying that the workers aren’t getting the full value of their labor. This is part of Marx’s explanation of the origin of profit. MIM is arguing something like the following:

1. capitalists extract x amount of surplus value from American workers
2. American workers receive y amount extracted 3rd world surplus value from the super profits (in terms of social benefits, cheap products, etc)
3. If y is greater than x, then Americans are not strictly speaking exploited (at least in terms of surplus value).

Now, I happen to think MIM is half right about this. In other terms, whatever surplus value is stolen from American workers tends to be offset by the benefits they receive being so close to the center of imperialism. However, that doesn’t mean Americans aren’t oppressed at all. Americans are oppressed in terms or sexism, racism, patriarchy, etc. And, even if Americans do “break over even” in the world equation, they still have no say in how their lives are organized. Americans live a very regimented, very alienated, very mechanized existence. I think where MIM goes wrong, isn’t so much in their analysis of the distribution of wealth worldwide. Where they go wrong is not recognizing that there is more to exploitation than just being horribly poor and breaking less than even in the world equation. Even though Americans are not that poor when compared to the world proletariat, they still suffer in their own ways. And, instead of completely giving up on the white working class, we can do some limited work with them. But we need to be realistic. The white working class at present isn’t revolutionary. And we shouldn’t pretend it is.

As revolutionaries, we need to acknowledge this limitation and refocus our efforts to support to the fullest the worldwide anti-imperialist struggle and the struggle for the liberation of captive nations within the USA, etc.

[redstar2000]

roman wrote: 3rd worldist Maoism was the main way people thought about Maoism during most of the 60s and 70s. I’d say that this is still true outside of RCP circles.

Why do you exclude the RCP from this general observation?

[romanmeal]

Because they go against the whole "Maoism is (just) 3rd world Marxism" position and adopt an interpretation of "Maoism is the 3rd higher stage of Marxism" position that believes that Maoism is universally true. Maoism is as relevant for the white working class of technologically advanced imperialist nations as it is for semi-feudal peasent societies.

If you have seen my other posts, you know I don't think that the white working class is revolutionary at all. So, any ideology that orients toward the white working class as though it were revolutionary is wrong.

[POROL]

You almost understand the RCP's position around certain things. (I am responding from the way I understand the RCP to view these questions, not trying to speak for the RCP)

The RCP does not think everything Mao said and did was universal, certain things were particular to China. The RCP sees some advances from China as being particular to oppressed countries, similar to China, where semifedalism and/or feudalism still hold sway in the majority of the country/area. An example of an advance that is particular to oppressed nations is protracted peoples war.

However there are a number of universal lessons from China, most importantly, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution. Which shows communists the way to oppose a new bourgeoisie from taking control of the socialist state. Though eventually the revolutionaries were defeated in a major battle in China, and capitalism was restored, the war is far from over.

Also the RCP does not see a seperate white working class in the US. They see the working class in the US as being multinational, and white proletariats as a part of this multinational working class.