Excerpts On the White Working Class pt 1

[redstar2000]

roman wrote: Who watches westerns? Probably the same people who want to build a wall and use the military to keep Mexicans out.

But are those people significant?

I don't really think they are and whatever significance they do have will decline even further.

Most people, I think, have at least a "crude" understanding that it's not the immigrant who took your job; the boss took your job to another country where he could pay lower wages and have union organizers disappeared.

And I think that "crude" understanding will grow...because it's much closer to the real truth of the situation.

(What seems to be actually happening is that the job disappears altogether. The capitalist that shuts down his domestic plant and builds a new one abroad often uses the latest labor-saving devices, automated production lines, etc. He hires a much smaller number of workers, trains them extensively, and puts them to work.)

roman wrote: As interesting as this is, this really isn’t what Sakai means by Settlerism. Sakai reserves the term for concrete kinds of national formations that have their origins in garrisoned colonies: USA, South Africa, Zionist Israel, N. Ireland, etc.

Yes, I gathered that. But the "settler mentality" that he claims displaces class consciousness has to be reinforced by real material conditions.

Will the Protestant "settler mentality" endure in Northern Ireland after it is reunited with the rest of that country?

Is there still a "settler mentality" in Australia or New Zealand?

What of Central and South America? Are the Hispanics in those countries still "settlers" as opposed to the indigenous populations? Or the descendants of African slaves?

Whites in South Africa are moving to Australia -- so I've read. And some young Israelis are moving to the EU...though Israel remains very much a "garrison state" -- probably the closest thing to ancient Sparta in the modern world.

My impression -- and I could certainly be wrong about this -- is that most people who are born and grow up in the United States today regard themselves as "native-born" in the same sense as someone born in England or France or wherever.

Time "legitimizes" conquest -- when enough time has passed, it no longer seems relevant to discuss "how it happened".

Is there anyone in England who still wishes to expel the Norman "settlers"?

Of course, the United States is a much younger "nation" and many memories are still relatively "fresh". Historically speaking, for example, the use of the phrase "occupied Mexico" to describe the territories conquered in the war with Mexico is fully justified.

But there's a difference and I think a crucial one. When we speak of "occupied Iraq" or "occupied Afghanistan", we are speaking of places where there are actual resistance movements to the occupations. American domination means something to those people and they find that meaning so distasteful that they're willing to fight and die to expel the invaders.

There's no resistance in "occupied Mexico"...at least at this point. There hasn't been any to speak of since the brief career of Pancho Villa.

roman wrote: One version of this view says that racism is somehow a pre-capitalist hang up. So, as time goes on, racism will go away and capitalism will oppress all workers equally.

That seems to be the trend...which is not to deny, of course, the enormous weight of racism that still exists. But I expect things to look quite different in that regard by 2104...even if there has not yet been a proletarian revolution.

roman wrote: The suggestion here is that Capitalism has a two faced nature. It is rational, scientific, anti-religious, etc. Yet, when it needs to it can bring all kinds of "pre-capitalist" barbarity to suffer on the oppressed classes.

Yes it can and at times it does. But as time passes, the "barbarity" becomes more obvious -- the measures taken clash more sharply with bourgeois ideology itself.

The more a capitalist ruling class resorts to "pre-capitalist" ideologies or methods or both, the more it discredits itself...even by its own standards.

To act in such a manner may well serve to "save their asses" in the short run...but it is a deadly risk. They know from their own history that "a simple little massacre" can blow up in their faces with disastrous consequences.

(And from an economic standpoint, of course, the more they depart from the "cold rational search to increase profit", they more they undermine the material foundation of their power and wealth.)

roman wrote: Then there is the even more likely view, that genocide and racism are pretty much business as usual for an capitalist oppressor nations. Racism is not a hold over from pre-capitalism or whatever. It is an integral part of the system to justify its predatory and parasitic nature.

It's probably fair to say that the rise and fall of the "modern" slave economy (say 1500 to 1900, roughly) more or less took place simultaneously with the rise of modern capitalism...and the two forms were deeply involved with each other. Thus racist ideologies were constructed to "justify" slave economy...and, in a much diluted form, still survive.

But the material foundation of racist ideology (slavery) has been gone for quite a while; John C. Calhoun (d.1856) would be shocked and appalled by what passes for "racism" now -- he would consider it hopelessly weak and incoherent.

It's a dying ideology. Which should not be understood to mean that it would not be a "good thing" to help it die faster.

roman wrote: Pat Buchanan has nightmares about barbarians at the gates, the re-conquering of occupied Mexico, and the downfall of the white civilization.

I daresay he probably does. And there are probably many millions of white Christian Americans (including many white workers) who share his nightmares.

But you understand that they are nightmares...those people "sense" that their most precious beliefs (racist, theological, imperialist) are not only "under siege", but losing the war.

Their worst fears are justified; they are losing the war.

roman wrote: I think Sakai would say that Settlerism is very alive today and is perpetuated by imperialism, higher standards of living for white labor aristocratic workers, identity with the oppressor nation, etc. It’s alive in the fascist behavior of the white working class...

He could say it, but it would ignore the trend.

[honky tonk]

Israel and South African apartheid represented (and still represent) settler states of imperialism in the modern world.

However, it is not simply true that every society *founded* as a settler state remains that.

In particular, the U.S. had a development quite parallel to South Africa for its colonial period and perhaps the first century after independence. And Jim Crow south continued elements of that far into the twentieth century.

However, within that process there were some very real changes. Israel and South Africa (like the thirteen original colonies) represented a euro-toehold in a larger continent of "indigenous" people. They represented initially base areas for colonial expansion, and also "Fort Apache" type garrisons for the domination of regions.

The U.S. (by contrast) became an imperialist country itself -- and especially in the process after the Civil War (by the most gruesome means of conquest and genocide and ethnicl cleansing and forced assimilation -- plus waves of new immigration from europe) essentially transformed from a settler garrison state, to a coherent national market and nation state much closer to Europe's than to Israel in type.

None of this is to negate the continuation of national opporession -- the colonial domination of Puerto Rico, and the savage lynch law domination of the Black Nation (concentrated until WW2 in the southern plantaiton areas), or the contining domination of formerly Mexcian areas of the south west.

However, the determining contradictions of this emerging imperialist/capitalist multinational state were not those (mainly) defining a "settler state" -- but something else.

A key part of that is the emergence of a single multinational working class -- and the increased transformation of the black nation (after the world wars) into a largely proletarian nationality. And also another key part is the ending of the frontier (the completion of their process of genocide, conquest and reservationization). The earlier U.S. had been *characterized* in many ways by its frontier expansion against native peoples -- but not after 1880s.

It was still one of the most vicious expansionist and reactionary states in the world -- but now its "focus" was overseas (puerto rico, cuba, philippines, haiti, china etc. etc.)

None of this is to negate or deny (!!) the intensely reactionary nature of U.S. imperialism. On the contrary!

However it is a way of explaining why the U.S. is not (fundamentally) defined (today!) as a "settler state" dominating "captive nations." Nor is the working class in the U.S. fundamentally (or permanently) divided into "white settlers and captive peoples." This is a misread both of the last century of history, and of the dynamics defining modern imperialist Amerikkka.

On Sakai: His history is highly selective. He takes all the profound and shocking examples of white genocide and racist reaction -- and gathers them together.

And that alone is rather useful and eyeopening. But he marshalls all that in the service of a false theory -- and to do so he needs to pursue an opportunist and metaphysical methodology (i.e. he denies, omits, distorts anything that doesn't fit his false thesis.) I.e. he "cuts the toes to fit the shoes."

[honky tonk]

BTW: almost every argument redstar makes is fundamentally wrong.

he writes for example: "But the material foundation of racist ideology (slavery) has been gone for quite a while... It's a dying ideology."

An example of false logic -- rooted in a false starting assumption.

Actually the material basis of "racism" (i.e. white chauvinism) is not just slavery, but a larger historical phenomenon of white supremacy and domination over the Black nation.

This was origionally rooted in slavery, but after the abolition of slavery there remained a deeply rooted structure of white supremacy (built on sharecropper semifeudalism). And after the abolision of sharecropper semifeudalism (i.e. the emergence of mechanized capitalist agriculture in the south), white supremacy remained, but was now rooted inth highly profitable national oppression of largely proletarian black people.

I.e. the roots of racism are the objective and material domination of one nation over another (the dominant white euro-american nation over the oppressed African-American nation) -- and the tremendous capitalist profitability that affords.

Is it a dying ideology? well that depends on what happens historically, and what we do. History could show it as a reemerging and consolidating ideology, or it could show racism as lying on its death bed. It depends (in part) on what we do and how well we succeed.

[redstar2000]

honky tonk wrote: Actually the material basis of "racism" (i.e. white chauvinism) is not just slavery, but a larger historical phenomenon of white supremacy and domination over the Black nation.

This was originally rooted in slavery, but after the abolition of slavery there remained a deeply rooted structure of white supremacy (built on sharecropper semifeudalism). And after the abolition of sharecropper semifeudalism (i.e. the emergence of mechanized capitalist agriculture in the south), white supremacy remained, but was now rooted in the highly profitable national oppression of largely proletarian black people. (Emphasis added)

Every argument I make may be "fundamentally wrong" -- at least as seen through the prism of Maoist theology -- but this statement is simply incoherent.

How does a capitalist make a profit of any significance from "national oppression"? In particular, how does he do so within the boundaries of his own nation?

From the standpoint of Marxist economics, that simply makes no sense.

Nation A conquers Nation B. Nation A compels the inhabitants of Nation B to enter the capitalist marketplace (usually be destroying Nation B's subsistence economy); a marketplace already dominated by the capitalists of Nation A.

When that entry begins, the capitalist "law of value" begins to take effect in Nation B; labor power is purchased at its social cost of reproduction and surplus value is generated -- profits which are either repatriated to Nation A or reinvested in Nation B or elsewhere.

If Nation B is annexed by Nation A and ceases to exist, then Nation A can impose its cultural artifacts on ex-Nation B -- force the people in the ex-nation to learn the language and customs of the conquerers.

But there's no "profit" in that; in fact, it's an expense.

Many years ago, I ran across a work that suggested that while imperialism is enormously profitable for the leading capitalists in an imperialist country...it can be a "loss-maker" for the imperialist economy as a whole. The costs of conquest, occupation, repression, etc. can be greater than the repatriated profits.

Of course, the conquering power gains prestige and influence from its successes...but converting such things into hard cash is not as easy at it looks.

Returning to the specifics of American history, while African-Americans have developed a rich ethnically-based culture, the appeal of nationalism has always been marginal. No significant number of black people in North America have ever articulated specifically nationalist aspirations -- which is not to say it will never happen...but the material conditions are unpromising. First they were slaves and then they were quasi-serfs -- and racism was the ideological "justification" for those relations of production.

But now they are workers...and a great many of them live "just like white folks", while overt racism has "a bad image".

It is true that that African-Americans still suffer from the overt and explicit racism of the "criminal justice" system; but you know as well as I that "this too will pass". For one thing, capitalists don't "like" riots that result from police violence -- they are "bad for business".

Maoists have a marked tendency, it seems to me, to see "proto-nations" everywhere...even where they don't exist. "Nationhood", it must be remembered, is an ideological construct -- not some kind of "organic" phenomenon.

I really don't see it as the task of communists to get involved in "nation-building".

[roman meal]

roman wrote: Who watches westerns? Probably the same people who want to build a wall and use the military to keep Mexicans out.

redstar: But are those people significant?

Well, these people have little significance to MY revolution. But, since you seem to believe that the majority of American workers are revolutionary or potentially so at the moment, then it seems that there is a bit of a burden here for you to show why it is that the American workers have historically tended to support imperialism and fascism and not internationalism and communism. From Bacon’s rebellion, to Jackson, to extermination of the Indians, to reconstruction, to depopulation of Mexico, to anti-Chinese terror and depopulation, etc. The American worker has been settlerist. Today, the same kind of thing continues, although alongside imperialism. I don’t know how you can think these are things of the past. The attacks against the underclass and captive nations have been relentless. Almost everyone I knew as a child is dead, in prison, or strung out, living on the extreme margins. Whether you think so or not, the flooding of communities with heroin, coke, marijuana, etc, is genocidal. And as we suffered this genocide, most of the white classes called for law and order - more police. You seem to think the average white member of the middle strata who has a house, car, Tvs, pets, etc, is just captive to “bad ideas” or suffering from false consciousness or something. I think they are well off, they know it, and are very aware that their interests do not lay with mine. On the international level, they support war pretty consistently. So, YES, they are very significant fact that you have to explain.

Redstar: Yes, I gathered that. But the "settler mentality" that he claims displaces class consciousness has to be reinforced by real material conditions. Will the Protestant "settler mentality" endure in Northern Ireland after it is reunited with the rest of that country? Is there still a "settler mentality" in Australia or New Zealand?

Well, I guess you could argue, as you seem to be suggesting at times. That since the settlers have been so successful, that the genocide has been so complete, that the settlers as settlers don’t exist. Well, I think that in a way, that could be true in the abstract. But, in the USA we have two periods: one where the settler classes primarily advanced themselves through destruction or enslavement of other nations - manifest destiny, slavery, occupation of Mexico, etc. Then, a second period of imperialism/neo-colonialism. What you call the “settler mentality” became not only serviceable to imperialism on a worldwide scale, but also, continued to be useful to suppress the remaining captive nation peoples. Lots of things could happen, the whites could fully promote the remaining captive nation peoples into the settler class. The Irish and Italians became white members of the settler nation. Even if this did happen, it would just mean that the class of parasites on the 3rd world has become larger. These things are always conflicted, at the same time the settler class makes overtures in terms of civil rights, etc. it also floods the streets with drugs, builds more prisons, militarizes the police in color communities.

*Actually there is long history of genocide and brutality in Australia, and its settler mentality is very alive.. It wasn’t long ago that Australia was doing radiation tests on Aborigine communities. I would expect the same is true of New Zealand. However, in these cases, these nations did not develop into global imperialist powers - so you would expect some differences.

Redstar: What of Central and South America? Are the Hispanics in those countries still "settlers" as opposed to the indigenous populations? Or the descendants of African slaves?

Actually, this is an important question. As you know there is a kind of caste system of sorts in many 3rd world nations. “Hispanics” on the top, mestizos and Indians on the bottom. In Mexico, this is a huge issue. Even members of the “left” Mexican national bourgeoisie are actively trying to create an alternative history and identity which is not Euro-centered and colonial. You see the revival of pre-Colombian culture all over Mexico, especially in universities. Sometimes this turn into a narrow cultural nationalism of a sorts - as was part of the problems with the Zapatistas/CNI - they did not reach out to mestizo masses. The real revolutionary forces work with the mestizo masses and Indians. I’m not sure why you think this is an issue. The mestizo masses tend to be as poor as the Indians. They are often of the same stock. They are dark like the indigenous. They are real proletarians. The live in the same shanty towns, the same crowded apartments. In some cases Indians are better off than mestizos living in slums. This would probably be different on a country by country basis. And, as I said before, the development of imperialism/neo-colonialism makes American settlerism unique - at least in terms of making revolution now. What you have to remember is this is not an issue of “every group gets to make its own revolution”. It is the Marxist point that the economically oppressed make revolution - oppression tends to historically happen along national, cultural, and class lines. I have no problem welcoming the truly oppressed into the revolution, no matter what they look like. I just think it is a lie to think that the wealthiest 10% in the world really have a stake with the bottom 90%. Revolution is about redistribution of wealth.

Redstar: My impression -- and I could certainly be wrong about this -- is that most people who are born and grow up in the United States today regard themselves as "native-born" in the same sense as someone born in England or France or wherever.

Well, this could be true. Actually something like it is. Legal rights, more minorities in congress, etc. At the same time other elements wage vicious campaigns to depopulate Mexicans, to imprison and impose greater control on new afrikans, to dump drugs into urban communities. The parasitic nation has historically debated the question of whether to absorb or wipe out various communities.

Redstar: Of course, the United States is a much younger "nation" and many memories are still relatively "fresh". Historically speaking, for example, the use of the phrase "occupied Mexico" to describe the territories conquered in the war with Mexico is fully justified. But there's a difference and I think a crucial one. When we speak of "occupied Iraq" or "occupied Afghanistan", we are speaking of places where there are actual resistance movements to the occupations. American domination means something to those people and they find that meaning so distasteful that they're willing to fight and die to expel the invaders.
There's no resistance in "occupied Mexico"...at least at this point. There hasn't been any to speak of since the brief career of Pancho Villa.

Actually is a long history of resistance. There is a whole buried history of resistance. There were Mexican guerrillas since the original invasion to the through the 1900s with Villa. The USA wage a massive depopulation campaign through the depression and 40s. Systematically deporting millions of Mexicans from the USA, many were technically citizens of the USA. Today this continues as the US needs Mexican labor it allows them to enter the country, when it doesn’t, it kicks them out (of their own country!). But there has always been resistance. There was a big upsurge of it in the 1960s and 70s. There were confrontations between police and Mexicans on universities, there were confrontations in parks, schools, police stations were burned down, etc. The Aztlan conferences in Colorado - the whole Chicano movement. And, it was violently attacked by the government and white supremacists just like the Panthers were. Several leaders were murdered or assassinated: Jr Martinez, Ricardo Falcon, los seis, and many others. As occupied Mexico is reconquered, I expect things only to get worse in terms of white violence. But I am hopeful, as Ho Chi Mihn said, “After Sorrow comes Joy”.

I think it is important to remember we are talking about two things, although they are involved with each other. Settler parasitism and neo-colonialism. Both are kinds of parasiticism. Even what Honky and Redstar think was true, that captive nations no longer exist in an important way, that still would not speak anything to the larger issue of parasitism of the neo-colonialism. I think the oppressor nation itself is conflicted on how to deal with captive nations - some segments of the ruling class want to integrate them into the larger parasitic nation, while other segments want to continue genocidal attacks.

[redstar2000]

roman wrote: But, since you seem to believe that the majority of American workers are revolutionary or potentially so at the moment, then it seems that there is a bit of a burden here for you to show why it is that the American workers have historically tended to support imperialism and fascism and not internationalism and communism. Emphasis added.

No, I don't think they are revolutionary, actually or potentially, "at the moment".

My point all along is that they will become potentially revolutionary when imperialism runs into difficulties; the greater those difficulties, the more revolutionary they will become.

Your thesis appears to be, if I don't misunderstand you, that American workers will embrace fascism if imperialism runs into difficulties -- and the greater the difficulties, the "more fascist" they will become.

Obviously, there is evidence which supports both arguments...but it seems to me the greater evidence is "on my side". In periods of economic crisis, American workers have generally moved to the "left" while in periods of prosperity and imperialist "success", they have moved to the "right" or at least to the "center".

Indeed, this seems to be a pattern that has existed throughout the capitalist world generally...there may possibly be some occasional exceptions, but none spring to my mind at the moment.

roman wrote: I don’t know how you can think these are things of the past.

I don't think they are "of the past"...I think rather that their days are numbered, that they are (slowly) fading...at least to the extent that they are genuine pre-capitalist cultural artifacts.

Some of them may not be; prison slave-labor may well emerge as a prominent feature of late capitalism itself...I think it's too soon to tell, but it could be happening that way.

If so, this is a "loser" for the system as a whole, even if incredibly profitable for the corporations that "employ" prison-slave labor. The reason is that someone must pay the cost of repression and incarceration -- enslavement -- which is far higher than employing wage labor.

Shifting that cost onto the working class (probably in the form of increased consumption taxes) can only result in alienating workers even more.

roman wrote: You seem to think the average white member of the middle strata who has a house, car, TVs, pets, etc, is just captive to "bad ideas" or suffering from false consciousness or something. I think they are well off, they know it, and are very aware that their interests do not lay with mine. On the international level, they support war pretty consistently. So, YES, they are very significant fact that you have to explain.

They are, by your standards (and mine, for that matter), "well off". I think their feelings are "mixed" by their own standards; they often measure their "achievements" by what they see on television -- you could call that "being captive of bad ideas" if you like.

On the international level, they are pro-successful war. A ruling class so inept as to start losing imperialist wars is in deep trouble.

If you assume that U.S. imperialism will go from success to success indefinitely, then I think your view would prevail -- the American working class would never even remotely approach revolutionary class consciousness and a sizable proportion would probably end up with a quasi-fascist ideology.

But I ask you: is that going to happen? Will America someday "rule the whole world" and be "the eternal empire"?

Is there anything in history to suggest that as a realistic perspective?

I recall reading some time ago a book on the last days of the western Roman Empire. The point was made that many ordinary Romans were so totally disgusted with the Empire that they deliberately "opened the gates" to the barbarian invaders...even when they were pretty sure that they'd be (initially) worse off under barbarian rule than under the rule of the imperial aristocracy.

Any alternative was preferable to the continued rule of the crooks and incompetents that they had come to despise.

In the end, why should not American workers be at least as perceptive?

roman wrote: Revolution is about redistribution of wealth.

Not exactly. Communist revolution is about the abolition of wage-slavery and class society. It's not "just about the money".

Which leads to an interesting possibility. When your living standards are depressed to the point where daily survival has to be your highest and even only priority, revolution "is about the money"...you'll have a marked tendency to support any political cause that plausibly promises to get you some more of what you so desperately need.

On the other hand, what of a "well-off" working class in a fully "westernized" country that (1) sees it's living standards stagnate or even decline; and (2) has become at least vaguely aware that all the "stuff" doesn't really compensate for wage-slavery?

Or, how is it that whenever the "left" enters a period of growth, the initial impulses seem to come mostly from a lot of pretty well-off kids who seem to "have everything"? Why the hell should they care?

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that they can, by observing their parents' lives, develop a suspicion that a lifetime of wage-slavery, even at the "highest" levels, leaves...something to be desired.

"First comes the grub; then comes the morals" wrote Bertolt Brecht. Perhaps a communist consciousness can only develop among those who've already seen the bourgeois "road to suck-cess" and want no part of that.

roman wrote: I think it is important to remember we are talking about two things, although they are involved with each other: Settler parasitism and neo-colonialism. Both are kinds of parasitism.

I'm unclear on your meaning of "parasitism" in this context. It would seem you are suggesting something "above and beyond" the routine exploitation of wage labor that takes place wherever capitalism is the dominant economic system.

Or do you mean parasitism in a "moral" sense?

[eat the world]

I see parasitism (mainly) as a change that has happened to monopoly capital -- where the emergence of finance capital separates the governing heights of the system more and more from any serious production decisions.

It characterizes the increasing separation of the "accumulation locus" from the "management" of production (except in the largest sense of allocating capital itself by profitability).

The idea that working people (in imperialist countries) are "parasitic" is deeply unscientific and unmaterialist.

And it has involved a factually mistaken argument that workers in the U.S. (and similar countries) no longer produce surplus value etc.

And it involves a mistaken notion about the role of surplus value. Under modern capitalism, significant sections of the working class are involved in the "realization" of surplus value, rather than its creation. (I.e. transportation, warehousing, distribution etc.) But the fact that a waitress doesn't "create surplus value" in the most narrow scientific sense, hardly makes her a parasite.

This is connected to our earlier discussion: in which Redstar falsely equated "proletariat" only with those who produce surplus value. Our class is the class that produces most value (includng surplus value) -- but many of us are exploited and oppressed in other ways (including in the ways we are denied employment or places in the legal economy etc.)

The idea that workers are "parasitic" invents a new moralistic concept that is rather contrary to MLM -- and to a historical materialist understanding of class society.

[redstar2000]

eat the world wrote: Under modern capitalism, significant sections of the working class are involved in the "realization" of surplus value, rather than its creation. (i.e. transportation, warehousing, distribution etc.) But the fact that a waitress doesn't "create surplus value" in the most narrow scientific sense, hardly makes her a parasite.

This statement raises an interesting question: are "services" commodities?

Granted, when Marx discusses commodities in Capital, he always appears to speak of physical objects -- corn, iron, etc.

However, why should services not be considered commodities?

If "Mr. Moneybags" hires a woman to clean his mansion, there is a purchase of labor-power and a service (house-cleaning), but nothing is produced from that exchange for the market.

But if Mr. Moneybags starts a "house-cleaning agency", then he hires house-cleaners on the market and uses their labor to produce a "commodity" (house-cleaning) that is sold on the market for a profit. The wage he pays his house-cleaners is the one necessary for the reproduction of the next generation of house-cleaners; he extends the working day or the intensity of labor or both beyond this point and appropriates the surplus-value as profit.

The employees of a restaurant -- cook, waitress, busboy, etc. -- collectively produce a commodity that is sold in the market place: a cooked and served meal and cleanup afterwards. Its exchange value is determined by the labor-power that went into its production (and into the raw materials that were used in its production).

Consequently, it seems to me that all those involved are producing surplus-value/profit...though it would be quite difficult to quantify the contribution of each person to the total.

It seems to me that anything produced for sale in the market "at a profit" must involve the creation of surplus value. Only the "self-employed" individual escapes this; the surplus is used to meet the individual's personal living expenses, and never returns to the market to purchase labor-power from someone else.

I will readily grant that this is "my take" on Marxist economics...I don't think I've ever seen it explicitly spelled out this way before. But it seems to me to be consistent with Marx's outlook.

Almost all "service workers" are, therefore, workers.

[viva mexico]

Redstar: Of course, the United States is a much younger "nation" and many memories are still relatively "fresh". Historically speaking, for example, the use of the phrase "occupied Mexico" to describe the territories conquered in the war with Mexico is fully justified. But there's a difference and I think a crucial one. When we speak of "occupied Iraq" or "occupied Afghanistan", we are speaking of places where there are actual resistance movements to the occupations. American domination means something to those people and they find that meaning so distasteful that they're willing to fight and die to expel the invaders.
There's no resistance in "occupied Mexico"...at least at this point. There hasn't been any to speak of since the brief career of Pancho Villa.

Roman meal: Actually is a long history of resistance. There is a whole buried history of resistance. There were Mexican guerrillas since the original invasion to the through the 1900s with Villa. The USA wage a massive depopulation campaign through the depression and 40s. Systematically deporting millions of Mexicans from the USA, many were technically citizens of the USA. Today this continues as the US needs Mexican labor it allows them to enter the country, when it doesn’t, it kicks them out (of their own country!). But there has always been resistance. There was a big upsurge of it in the 1960s and 70s. There were confrontations between police and Mexicans on universities, there were confrontations in parks, schools, police stations were burned down, etc. The Aztlan conferences in Colorado - the whole Chicano movement. And, it was violently attacked by the government and white supremacists just like the Panthers were. Several leaders were murdered or assassinated: Jr Martinez, Ricardo Falcon, los seis, and many others. As occupied Mexico is reconquered, I expect things only to get worse in terms of white violence. But I am hopeful, as Ho Chi Mihn said, “After Sorrow comes Joy”.

I would also add to Roman meal's account. There was also Ricardo Flores Magon. Magon did bring the Mexican Revolution to the occupied territories and was assassinated around 1918 in Leavinworth prison serving time for sedious conspiracy. Many strikes: the pecan
strikes with Emma Tennayuca, the Ludlow massacre in Colorado, Cananea, and many others. The so called "zoot suit riots" where US servicemen attacked the Mexican communities. And, alot happened durring the Chicano movement and civil rights movement. There was also the Brown Berets who formed military structures to defend the community on (I think it was) Catalonia Island. This organization suffered assasinations of memebers, two died in Albuerquerque. Of course COINTELPRO and infiltration had alot to do with this. There was on and off under and above ground resistance of alll kinds durring the 60s and 70s. Mexicans participated and did solidarity actions for Wounded Knee. Mexican Liberations went to prison for refusing to cooperate with the US investigation of the Puetro Rican struggle for socialism and independence. In 1988 the Mexican people of Tierra Armarilla took an armed possition to reclaim 216 acres of land.

I hope this helps a little.

[romanomeal]

Redstar says: My point all along is that they will become potentially revolutionary when imperialism runs into difficulties; the greater those difficulties, the more revolutionary they will become.
Your thesis appears to be, if I don't misunderstand you, that American workers will embrace fascism if imperialism runs into difficulties -- and the greater the difficulties, the "more fascist" they will become.
Obviously, there is evidence which supports both arguments...but it seems to me the greater evidence is "on my side". In periods of economic crisis, American workers have generally moved to the "left" while in periods of prosperity and imperialist "success", they have moved to the "right" or at least to the "center".

I’m not sure what evidence you think supports your case. All kinds of crises for the settler classes resulted in more aggression and genocide against Indians, Africans, Asians, and Mexicans. A white supremacist might say that during the great depression, the white working class moved “left” at least in terms of organizing against the white bourgeoisie. However, at the same time, the liberal Roosevelt government and the white unions that supported it were throwing Asians in concentration camps, imposing an official and more systematic caste system on African workers, murdering Puerto Rico political activists, and depopulating the majority of the Mexican population from the “South West“. This kind of thing is the historical pattern. The white labor movement has historically been some of the biggest supporters of attacks on captive nations. The white story about Bacon’s rebellion, the American revolution, Jacksonian democracy, the white labor movement as progressive and in the interest of the real proletarians is simply a lie. If you want to check out the historical argument, then check out Sakai’s _Settlers_. He provides hundreds of pages documenting this.

This is just bizarre:

Redstar: If you assume that U.S. imperialism will go from success to success indefinitely, then I think your view would prevail -- the American working class would never even remotely approach revolutionary class consciousness and a sizable proportion would probably end up with a quasi-fascist ideology.
But I ask you: is that going to happen? Will America someday "rule the whole world" and be "the eternal empire"? Is there anything in history to suggest that as a realistic perspective?

I am not sure what point you think you are making here. Let me clarify my view: I think that reproletarization of the white working classes might be possible if the defeat of imperialism was on a worldwide scale and a long drawn out process. When white worker living standards begin reaching that of the world proletariat, maybe then, the white working classes will truly be a part of the multi-national proletariat. But, this would take a massive reversal of empire, much more than you seem to think is required for the white working class to “move left” as you put it. The other scenario of bringing socialism to the white labor aristocrats is that of imposing it militarily - like Stalin did to NAZI Germany, the neo colonial liberation forces will have to occupy and impose socialism on the white nation.

roman wrote: I think it is important to remember we are talking about two things, although they are involved with each other: Settler parasitism and neo-colonialism. Both are kinds of parasitism.

Redstar: I'm unclear on your meaning of "parasitism" in this context…Or do you mean parasitism in a "moral" sense?

I’m not sure why you are confused. The white nation is parasitic in the simplest sense of the word. It exists by sucking the wealth of other peoples. It is parasitic on captive nations. It is parasitic on the neo-colonial countries. Marx often spoke of capitalists as being vampires - there is nothing moralistic about it. In fact there are ways to document it. Some do surplus value calculations, some measure core-periphery transfers. I’m surprised you find this confusing.

[redstar2000]

romanomeal wrote: The white nation is parasitic in the simplest sense of the word. It exists by sucking the wealth of other peoples. It is parasitic on captive nations. It is parasitic on the neo-colonial countries.

I sort of thought that is what you meant but I wanted to be sure.

Now, is it the "white nation" that is parasitic or the capitalist class of the "white nation"?

That is, do "nations" as a whole operate as "economic actors" (or "decision-makers") or is it particular classes that predominate?

Likewise, is it "nations" as a whole that are captive or neo-colonized, or is it the laboring masses within those nations that are truly exploited? After all, it can hardly be denied that there are elements of the ruling elites within captive/neo-colonial nations that enthusiastically collaborate with the imperialists for a share of the plunder.

In other words, do you really follow a form of "ethnic/nationalist" determinism as opposed to Marx's class-based determinism?

Because if you do, then only history itself can resolve the conflict between our "world-outlooks". For Marxists, nations are "social constructs" and have no "ultimate and perpetual legitimacy" as such. There was a time when they didn't exist; there will come a time when they are utterly forgotten.

All things considered, they were not one of humanity's better inventions.

[eat the world]

romanomeal wrote: The white nation is parasitic in the simplest sense of the word. It exists by sucking the wealth of other peoples. It is parasitic on captive nations. It is parasitic on the neo-colonial countries.


I hope it is not nit-picking to point out that when someone says some big global process is "simple" -- that it probably isn't.

in fact, this dynamic is "simple" only if you ignore or deny other major processes and contradictions.

One process is that (under imperialism) the world is divided into oppressor countries and oppressed countries. This is one of the major facts about the world (and the world system of monopoly capitalism). It defines much about life, culture and class struggle at both poles.

However it is not the only thing going on. There is interpenetration of contradictions. There are also oppressors within the oppressed countries. And there are oppressed people and classes within the imperialist countries.

So while the U.S. (as a social formation) clearly suck resources, capital, labor, even ideas from much of the surrounding world -- it is also true that there are oppressed people and classes within the U.S.

And there are oppressed people (and a proletariat) even within the dominant white nation of the U.S.

[eat the world]

it is not true to say "it exists by sucking the wealth..."

this confuses classes and nations.

The white nation (one of several nationalities within the multinational u.s.) does exist at the "oppressor end" of world events.

But it is the oppressor ruling class that *exists* by sucking the wealth. And millions of white people (who are part of the larger Euro-American naiton) exist (more fundamentally) by being exploited.

Put another way:

the white working people gathered with other proletrian people at the bottom of the U.S. class structure have more in common with the workers of Brazil than either of them have in common with the ruling classes of those two countries.

Black workers have more in common (i.e. class interests) with white workers, than they do with the Black (african american) bourgeois forces. And so on.

In short: there is an international working class with common (and revolutionary) class interests.

This is a very important basic fact of our world, and our lives.

[roman]

Etw: it is not true to say "it exists by sucking the wealth..."…this confuses classes and nations…The white nation (one of several nationalities within the multinational u.s.) does exist at the "oppressor end" of world events.

Redstar2000 wrote: Now, is it the "white nation" that is parasitic or the capitalist class of the "white nation"?…That is, do "nations" as a whole operate as "economic actors" (or "decision-makers") or is it particular classes that predominate? Likewise, is it "nations" as a whole that are captive or neo-colonized, or is it the laboring masses within those nations that are truly exploited? After all, it can hardly be denied that there are elements of the ruling elites within captive/neo-colonial nations that enthusiastically collaborate with the imperialists for a share of the plunder…In other words, do you really follow a form of "ethnic/nationalist" determinism as opposed to Marx's class-based determinism?

Etw and redstar raise a similar point here. Let me clarify my position. I do think that nations as a whole can become economic actors, but, only insofar as the classes in those nations align in certain ways. This isn’t nationalist reductionism or whatever - if anything my position is that nations as actors are explained in terms of the class actors that compose them - this is class reductionism. The white nation is not ultimately a single block. It is made up of different classes: a bourgeoisie and a bourgeoisified labor aristocracy. And for most of the white nation’s history these classes have aligned together against captive nations and the neo-colonial world. The fact that I make room for the possibility of re-proletarization of the white working classes is enough to demonstrate that this is a class analysis, not some “national/ethnic determinism” as redstar2000 put it. If the white nation were simply an unchangeable “single block”, then re-proletarization wouldn’t be possible. This doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t or can’t talk about “nations” as single actors when their constituent classes act in unison. For example, this is obviously the case in early settler history. In the early United States where the entire settler people as a whole were involved in a massive land grab of Indian land. Sakai cites some impressive statistics showing that the average settler member of the working class in the early days of the USA became a land owner rather quickly. And, how from the beginning the US working classes made higher wages than their British counterparts in similar positions. This is not some historical anomaly. There are real reasons for this. Even as late as 1859 Marx wrote: “The United States of North America, where, though classes already exist, they have not yet become fixed, but change and interchange their elements in constant flux..” Also, “Hence, the relatively high wages of the United States. Capital may try its utmost. It cannot prevent the labor market from being emptied by the continuous conversion of wage labors into independent, self sustaining peasants.” The dispossession of Indian land, both provided an avenue for the white working classes to graduate quickly to land owners and also created a flux in the labor market that lead to higher wages. In a general sense, the white capitalist class as a whole (even having to pay higher wages) and the white working classes benefited from plunder of Indian land. You can break it down to classes like Marx and Sakai do, but it isn’t a big stretch to just say that the entire white nation benefited from this land grab. Of course when you use “nation talk” it should always be understood that ultimately we are talking about alignment of classes. I kind of feel that I am talking in circles, because I covered this is a previous post in this thread when I said that *class* oppression tends to happen along cultural, ethnic, and national lines. Maybe I am not being clear enough, but I don’t know how else to explain this. I would recommend checking out John Sakai’s _Settlers_.

There is nothing un-Marxist about my position, Sakai cites Marx all over the place. Here are some quotes by Engels and Lenin from the MIM theory www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mt/imp97

Engels on the bourgeoisification of the imperialist English nation as a whole : "The English proletariat is becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy, and a bourgeois proletariat as well as a bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world, this is, of course, to a certain extent justifiable."

Lenin and Engels: “Imperialism has the tendency to create privileged sections also among the workers, and to detach them from the broad masses of the proletariat." Writing to the same Kautsky who later betrayed everything, Engels said, "You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy? Well exactly the same as they think about politics in general. There is no workers' party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal Radicals, and the workers merrily share the feast of England's monopoly of the colonies and the world market."

Lenin said about the imperialist country workers in general: "The export of capital, one of the most essential economic bases of imperialism, still more completely isolates the rentiers from production and sets the seal of parasitism on the whole country that lives by exploiting the labour of several overseas countries and colonies."

In "Imperialism and the Split in Socialism," Lenin said, "On the one hand, there is the tendency of the bourgeoisie and the opportunists to convert a handful of very rich and privileged nations into 'eternal' parasites on the body of the rest of mankind, to 'rest on the laurels' of the exploitation of Negroes, Indians, etc., keeping them in subjection with the aid of excellent weapons of extermination provided by modern militarism. On the other hand, there is the tendency of the masses, who are more oppressed than before and who bear the whole brunt of imperialist wars, to cast off this yoke and to overthrow the bourgeoisie. It is in the struggle between these tendencies that the history of the labour movement will now inevitably develop."

The term parasite, like vampire, is not alien to Marxism. It is a deceptively simple term. It is a general way to describe complex processes of exploitation and class alignments.

Etw writes: the white working people gathered with other proletarian people at the bottom of the U.S. class structure have more in common with the workers of Brazil than either of them have in common with the ruling classes of those two countries.

What do you mean “at the bottom”? This is a very slippery term. If you are talking about the extreme bottom, the homeless wage labors, the dire poor, workers with major chronic health issues, the famous “white worker in the chicken farm” who gets brought up a lot in these discussions, then, yes. I wouldn’t deny that they are possibly proletarians, although it is very hard for these whites to form class consciousness when they are surrounded by a labor aristocracy which constitutes the majority of the population. It is a possibility that the very bottom rungs of the white nation might have more in common with their neo-colonial counterparts. These bottom rungs are small, even if they are politically meaningful in some sense, they are certainly not going to be decisive - at least not until there is some kind of re-proletarization of the majority of Americans. However, this is obviously not the case of the broad middle strata of the white nation. I will happily grant the possibility that there are extremes within the white nation who are proletarian. However, this is very much opposed to the RCP line that 90% of the people in the USA have to be looked upon as potential allies. This is RCP delusional thinking at best, chauvinism at worst. I think it is obviously the case that most white Americans have more in common with their own bourgeoisie than they do with neo-colonial workers working at starvation wages.

[redstar2000]

Marx wrote: The United States of North America, where, though classes already exist, they have not yet become fixed, but change and interchange their elements in constant flux...Hence, the relatively high wages of the United States. Capital may try its utmost. It cannot prevent the labor market from being emptied by the continuous conversion of wage laborers into independent, self sustaining peasants.

Yes, I agree. I suspect an examination of the class character of the immigrants that settled the United States in the 19th century would reveal that they were mostly peasants. When they saw the opportunity to become "rich peasants", they took it as quickly as they could. They did not "want" to be proletarians.

But certainly by the end of the 19th century if not a decade or two earlier, escape to the "frontier" had become effectively closed off to most immigrants. "Like it or not", only as workers could they hope to survive in "the new country".

If their conditions were to improve, it was only through class struggle that they could hope to improve them.

And, indeed, beginning as early as 1877, class struggle was very sharp right up until 1917 and American entry into World War I.

Engels wrote: The English proletariat is becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy, and a bourgeois proletariat as well as a bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world, this is, of course, to a certain extent justifiable.

There's no indication here whether Engels was referring to the political outlook of the English working class or to their material conditions.

In fact, it strikes me as an ad hoc "analysis" -- something thought up on the spur of the moment to "explain" why there was no Marxist party in England corresponding to German Social-Democracy.

It has a superficial plausibility...but is it really true? Is it even consistent with the totality of Marxist economics?

Why should the bourgeoisie of an imperialist nation "share the plunder" gained from the captive/colonized nations?

And, presuming they wanted to do this for "political" reasons, how did they manage to make such a decision and keep it secret?

If you look at the public deliberations of the American ruling class from 1865 right up to the present day, bourgeois statements "in favor" of higher wages for workers are few and far between. The "public line" of the American ruling class has always been that "wages are excessive". Further, this line has been consistently carried out in practice whenever the ruling class has been able to do so: union busting, moving plants to low-wage areas within the U.S. or to other lower-wage countries, replacement of skilled workers by machinery and unskilled labor, etc.

I suppose that one could argue that class struggle on the part of the American proletariat has "forced" our imperialist bourgeoisie to "share" some of the plunder...and in that limited sense we have a "material interest" in successful imperialism.

But even if this were true, it has to be remembered that the burdens of imperialism are always borne by the working class of the imperialist country...through both taxes and military service.

Whatever we might "gain" through imperialism, I think we lose a lot more.

In the last two or three decades, of course, we've gained nothing at all; if anything, the American working class is losing ground. Our "middle class" standard-of-living is now the product of two-earner families and enormous credit-card balances; any kind of really serious economic crisis would shatter this facade within months.

Meanwhile, the burdens of empire are growing...and more of the same appears to be in the offering.

Accordingly, I remain deeply skeptical of the "white labor aristocracy" hypothesis. It doesn't really "fit" within Marxist economics nor does it seem to correspond with present economic trends.

Most glaringly of all, it leaves nothing for revolutionaries within the imperialist countries to do...except cheer-leading for revolutions in the "third world".

That is such a dismal prospect that, even if there were no other objections, I would suggest that we should proceed "as if" the hypothesis was false.

There's nothing to be gained by assuming its truth.