|
Post by roman on Apr 16, 2004 5:50:51 GMT -5
Redstar writes: 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.
The quotes were brought up to shown that many Marxists noticed the fact of parasiticism and national classes acting in unison. Obviously the details of parasiticism have changed over 200 years. The point I was making is that analysis of parasiticism, even of imperialist workers, is not alien to Marxism. You are wrong on some details though. Massive land grabs that benefited the white nation continued into the 1900s. The most obvious example is the depopulation of the South West of Mexicans that occurred during the Great Depression up to the 50s. There was an economic dimension to the anti-Chinese and anti-African terror continued in the 1900s. Another obvious example is the confiscation of Japanese property by the USA during world war 2. And, of course, Indian land struggles. Although, you are right that the specific “nation of land owners” scenario Marx wrote about was not plausible after a certain point. It was probably not a realistic possibility even in 1859 when he wrote it. Again, my point wasn’t to say that Marx’s speculation was right in the details that the USA would evolve into a nation of peasants. My point was to say, even Marx noticed the trend and possibility of parasiticism and benefits to the white working classes. My own view is that, eventually, the nature white parasiticism changed from strict settlerism, to a period of classic imperialism, to world wide neo-colonialism after WW2. Of course the details of parasiticism of the 1700s is not the same as today. As my bro used to say, “no duh”.
Redstar writes: But certainly by the end of the 19th century …
Well, the late1800s were a high point for the radical labor movement. Even though “radical” unions like the IWW did capitulate to anti-Chinese terror, the IWW was far more multi-national than mainstream labor movement. But, most unions, even the IWW, were mostly very white supremacist. Unions not only agitated for a better piece of the pie, they also agitated to restrict Africans from the workplace or restrict them to menial jobs like janitorial work. White labor often tried to formalized white supremacy into labor castes. At the same time white labor fought against the capitalists, they also fought to reduce the threat from captive nation peoples. They tended to be anti-Chinese, anti-African, and anti-Mexican. They were anti-immigrant, especially non-white immigrant. Both white workers and their bosses were aligned overall against captive nations, even in a period where white capitalists and workers were at odds with each other.
It is interesting that the most “radical” period of the white labor movement corresponds roughly to the period between the end of the white nation’s formal conquest of North America and the development of neo-colonialism after World War 2. In this period, white labor did have real confrontations with white capital. However, white labor also worked against captive nation peoples. So much for class solidarity. Genocidal campaigns against captive nations continued in this period. I mentioned some above that were explicitly tied to the labor movement. Also, in the early 1900s saw the beginning of American eugenics programs to try to exterminate captive nations through sterilization programs disguised as health care. According to Black, author of _War Against the Weak_, part of the reason that the eugenics programs never came together as systematically nation wide in the USA was that the information technology didn’t exist. (Not long after, Hitler used the US eugenics programs as something of a model for his own. Companies like IBM made info-tech breakthroughs and happily worked for the Nazis.) It was during the Great Depression that major depopulation campaigns were launched against Mexicans (even Mexican-American citizens). These kinds of genocidal policies were perused by liberals like Roosevelt, who at least was perceived as something of a friend to white labor.
Maybe you are suggesting that a re-proletarization occurred between the end of the formal conquest of North America and the development of the neo-colonial order. I don’t really see it that way. The white labor movement pointed its spears upwards and downwards. I’m sure there are exceptions to the overall tendency of the labor movement to wage white supremacist war against captive nation peoples. When I visited the UMW Ludlow monument, there were Mexican names along side Irish and Italian ones. So, there are exceptions.
Continued in next post...
|
|
|
Post by roman on Apr 16, 2004 5:51:37 GMT -5
Continued...
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.
Redstar writes (referring to Engels qoute): It has a superficial plausibility...but is it really true? Is it even consistent with the totality of Marxist economics?
We have discussed this before. I am more concerned with whether it conforms to reality than whether it conforms with the totality of Marx’s economics. Your positions regarding Marx seem both opportunistic and dogmatic at times. You reject Marx’s Hegelianism. You have raised serious questions on che-lives (that you never answered) about the labor theory of value, and by implication, the whole idea of surplus value and Marx‘s theory of exploitation. Yet, you still want to cling to some notion of orthodoxy in “the totality of Marxist economics”. I think what you really want to hold onto is the very simplistic and euro-centered picture of world development in the Manifesto.
I think observations by Engels and Lenin about parasiticism are obviously true. Although people have tremendous capacity for denial, I think most people who identify as revolutionaries know it to be true at some level. Why do you think the parasiticism thesis is merely superficially plausible? I would argue that the bulk of historic evidence suggests it is true. If you want the historical argument about settlerism and parasiticism then read John Sakai or even some of Howard Zinn. If you want economic data about neo-colonialism and parasiticism, then check out dependency theorists or systems theorists. Read some Samir Amin. Or, read Lenin on it. There is more evidence out there for the kind of picture I am raising than the kind of orthodox Manifesto Marxism you talk about. I don’t think any serious intellectual takes orthodox Manifesto Marxism seriously. Even those that have argued against the trend that I identify with aka 3rd world Marxism and c-p theory, don’t really do it on the basis of orthodox Manifesto Marxism. Lefty intellectuals who do argue against 3rd world Marxism and argue for the “two great camps” thesis of the Manifesto tend to talk about the growing replacement of the nation state by international bodies, globalization, the emergence of a global capitalist class, the dislocation of core and periphery from geography, they talk about the 3rd worldization of America, etc. I am thinking of people like Hardt and Negri or even Hobsbaum when he talks about the new historical phase of globalization. Although I thought _Empire_ was one of the most drawn out and badly written books ever, I think their arguments are more plausible than the kind of orthodox Manifesto Marxism you seem to be thinking of. I am only raising this because you raised the issue of superficiality. Are there serious economists and historians that still buy into the simplistic picture of the Manifesto? Because such a picture seems extremely detached from reality to me.
Redstar writes: And, presuming they wanted to do this for "political" reasons, how did they manage to make such a decision and keep it secret?
Short answer: They haven’t. Most proletarian revolutionaries, even as early as Marx and Engels, noticed parasiticism. Lenin noticed it. Certainly the Indians noticed it. Most Marxists in the 3rd world have noticed it. Academics have noticed it, especially in ethnic studies, dependency theory, and systems theory. Fox news, if I remember correctly, did a poll asking Americans if they would support a war if it lead to cheaper prices for gas. Most would. At some level, it seems, even the majority of America knows it. The capitalists certainly knows it. I recall articles in the economist about it. I really don’t think it is a secret from anyone. I think most left intellectuals, even party hacks and dogmatists know it is true on some level. They just deny it due to the point you raise at the end of your post when you mistakenly say it leave little for revolutionaries in the 1st world.
Redstar: 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.
Actually, modern imperialism aka neo-colonialism usually enforces its order with proxy armies. Although US interventions still happen, on the whole, the bulk of the fighting is done by mercenary armies like the Samosa-ists/contras in Nicaragua. As for the tax question, that is an empirical one. Do the benefits of imperialism cost more than its cost for most Americans? Are the high wages, cheap and plentiful consumer goods, high technology, plentiful resources, social benefits, and cheap land gained though settlerism and imperialism worth it for the average American? I think most Americans know that they benefit from imperialism and war, that is why most people support it. A recent poll showed something like 80% of Americans approve Bush’s handling of the war. Maybe all these Americans are just suffering from false consciousness or bad ideas or whatever - I think you have suggested this in the past. Or, maybe they support war because it is in their interest to do so. I think the later explanation is a lot more plausible.
Redstar says of revolutionary anti-imperialism: 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.
This sounds a bit like the RCP’s slippery 90/10 orientation. My take is a bit different, I think we need to be as radical as reality itself - even if that appears dismal to some. We have to be materialists. We have to face up to reality.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Apr 16, 2004 23:26:52 GMT -5
roman wrote: I think what you really want to hold onto is the very simplistic and euro-centered picture of world development in the Manifesto.
Perhaps because it makes more long-range sense to me than the "third world-centered" picture that you offer.
roman wrote: Although people have tremendous capacity for denial, I think most people who identify as revolutionaries know it to be true at some level.
That's pretty mystical...how could you "know" something like that?
roman wrote: Why do you think the parasitism thesis is merely superficially plausible?
Because it centralizes a pre-capitalist form of accumulation -- loot and plunder -- as the "main engine" of capitalist accumulation. It is deeply contrary to Marx's theory of how capitalism actually works.
You have pointed out that there are theoretical problems with the labor theory of value and that I have not "answered" those questions. That is true; I'm very definitely not a trained Marxist economist.
Nevertheless, Marx made quite a number of empirical observations on how capitalism could be expected to develop as a consequence of his theories...nearly all of which have been borne out. We may even be seeing the early stages of a decline in real wages of the proletariat in the advanced capitalist countries...something long held by bourgeois economists as the "definitive refutation" of Marx.
Indeed, the very fact that anti-imperialist revolutions in the "third world" under the flag of "socialism" actually resulted in the creation of modern bourgeois economies in those countries verifies Marx's "euro-centered" paradigm. They pass from semi-feudalism to capitalism...they don't "leap" to socialism (much less communism), regardless of their rhetoric.
roman wrote: I don’t think any serious intellectual takes orthodox Manifesto Marxism seriously.
I've never concerned myself with what "serious intellectuals" take "seriously". I've lived long enough to see an enormous number of bourgeois intellectual "fads" come and go...many of them claiming to "supersede Marx".
I've also seen "radical" and even so-called "revolutionary" fads come and go. The "flavor-of-the-month" approach to theory doesn't interest me.
I've already noted that the Sakai hypothesis is an interesting "take" on the history of the modern American proletariat, containing much valid empirical observation.
But I also pointed out, and will do so again: all the "settlers" are dead! Whatever the ultimate merits of Sakai's historical observations, they clearly can no longer be operative. The "actors" have left the "stage".
roman wrote: Lefty intellectuals who do argue against 3rd world Marxism and argue for the "two great camps" thesis of the Manifesto tend to talk about the growing replacement of the nation state by international bodies, globalization, the emergence of a global capitalist class, the dislocation of core and periphery from geography, they talk about the 3rd worldization of America, etc.
Good for them. If your point is that I am "unfashionable", I agree; I probably am.
You know what? I don't give a rat's ass!
roman wrote: Are there serious economists and historians that still buy into the simplistic picture of the Manifesto?
I have heard that there are Marxist economists that continue the struggle with the problems of the labor theory of value...but I haven't actually encountered their writings (and would probably not be able to understand them if I did).
I suspect that every reputable historian uses historical materialism as a matter of course (without ever mentioning Marx) -- only "popular history" is still written in terms of "great men", "great ideas", "great nations", etc.
Even the theory of "parasitism" is, at root, a historically materialist theory, is it not? That is, the "settlers" were not "great villains" but rather a "class" of humans acting in accordance with their real material interests.
roman wrote: Short answer: They haven’t. Most proletarian revolutionaries, even as early as Marx and Engels, noticed parasitism. Lenin noticed it. Certainly the Indians noticed it. Most Marxists in the 3rd world have noticed it. Academics have noticed it, especially in ethnic studies, dependency theory, and systems theory.
That's a good answer...but not responsive to the question that I actually asked.
redstar2000 wrote: 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?
Where is the public record of such a debate and of such a decision being made?
Where are their public appeals to the working class: "support imperialism and we will raise your wages"?
Where is the explicit appeal to imperial glory "because you will directly and materially benefit"?
Why should the ruling class constantly polemicize against "excessive wages" if they plan all along to pay them with the proceeds of imperial plunder?
You'd think, instead, that they would boast to the "imperial" working class about paying "the highest wages in the world".
roman wrote: Fox news, if I remember correctly, did a poll asking Americans if they would support a war if it lead to cheaper prices for gas. Most would.
Well, I already conceded that workers tend to support successful imperialism. I doubt if Fox News is conducting any polls at the moment...as gasoline prices continue to rise and the war is not going...well.
roman wrote: They just deny it due to the point you raise at the end of your post when you mistakenly say it leaves little for revolutionaries in the 1st world.
If I am "mistaken", then tell me how. If the "parasitism" hypothesis is "true", then I'm a "parasite". So are you!
What, then, is to be done?
I don't think I'd make a very good peasant revolutionary (too old & feeble); how about you?
roman wrote: Actually, modern imperialism aka neo-colonialism usually enforces its order with proxy armies.
They seem to be running out of those. The next invasion may require the re-introduction of conscription in the U.S. -- something to remind American workers of the burden of empire.
roman wrote: I think most Americans know that they benefit from imperialism and war, that is why most people support it. A recent poll showed something like 80% of Americans approve Bush’s handling of the war.
Clearly, not a "recent" poll.
roman wrote: My take is a bit different, I think we need to be as radical as reality itself - even if that appears dismal to some. We have to be materialists. We have to face up to reality.
Indeed. If the "parasitism" hypothesis is really "true", then the logic of our material position as residents of the leading imperial power is to become conservative Republicans or imperial Democrats.
That doesn't just apply to me -- it applies to you as well...unless you already have your Colombian visa and your plane ticket to Bogotá.
You cannot both stay here ("benefiting from imperialism") and claim to be any kind of a "revolutionary"...that's the "iron logic" of the "parasitism" hypothesis.
Tough one, ain't it?
|
|
|
Post by roman on Apr 23, 2004 7:01:22 GMT -5
This discussion is beginning to run in circles. You made a claim that my analysis was superficial. So, I tried to supply some sources, historical and economic. I am sorry that you aren’t more into reading works that might support your claim. I was trying to elevate the debate a little. Because your argument is mostly made up of hunches. Redstar says that the parasiticism thesis is superficial: Because it centralizes a pre-capitalist form of accumulation -- loot and plunder -- as the "main engine" of capitalist accumulation. It is deeply contrary to Marx's theory of how capitalism actually works. You are oversimplifying the issue yet again. I have, on several occasions in the previous posts, said that I am advancing two parasiticism arguments. 1. One is a thesis about the parasiticism of settlerism. 2. Another, about the parasitism of neo-colonialism. Although they are involved with each other, they are different. 1. In regards to early settlerist period of the white nation, loot and plunder was one of the main, if not the main, form of accumulation. The statistics (see previous post) Sakai cites show this pretty convincingly. I think that Marx’s observations of 1859 about the possibility (an implausible one imo) of a nation of white peasants showed that even he saw the tremendous amount of accumulation via plunder that was going on even as late as 1859! 2. Now, in regards to neo-colonialism, I think that direct transfer/plunder still plays a big roll in accumulation, but this continues alongside more and more exploitation of wage labor in the neo-colonial countries. MIM uses traditional orthodox Marxist categories to carry out calculation of neo-colonial surplus value extraction. See: www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mt/imp97/index.html. I think that similar conclusions can be reached by reading underdevelopment theory & core-periphery theory. Redstar says: We may even be seeing the early stages of a decline in real wages of the proletariat in the advanced capitalist countries...something long held by bourgeois economists as the "definitive refutation" of Marx. I assume here you are talking about declining wages of the American working class. Are we seeing the decline? Can you provide a source? What do you mean here? Wages go up and down - no doubt. But, in terms of things like household item indexes, buying power, etc. most of the stuff I have read indicates the trend is exactly the opposite. In a recent MIM notes, there is a chart of household income trends from 1970 to 2001 from the US Census Bureau. Although the chart does show a slight drop from 2000 to 2001, I think the overall pattern is apparent. See: www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mn/mn298.pdf (page 3) Here is an interesting passage cited by someone on another forum: "In 1971, 31.8% of all households had air- conditioners. In 1994, 49.6% of households below the poverty-line had air-conditioners.(pp. 14-5) The poor also do better than 1971 U.S. households in clothes dryers, dishwashers, refrigerators, stoves, microwaves, VCRs and Personal Computers. That is not comparing the poor of now with the poor of the past. We are comparing the poor of now with all households of 1971 and the poor of now are better off."- Myths of Rich and Poor: Why We're Better Off Than We Think by W. Michael Cox and Richard Alm (New York: Basic Books, 1999), 256pp. This is a measurement in terms of household living indexes. Someone under the poverty line today is better off in terms of household items than an average American in 1971. Maybe, as you seem to think, we are on the verge of the reversal of these trends. But I doubt it. The trend of increased wealth for white (and most American) workers has been very strong for a very long time. It would take dramatic reversals to take them back even to 1971. Redstar says: Indeed, the very fact that anti-imperialist revolutions in the "third world" under the flag of "socialism" actually resulted in the creation of modern bourgeois economies in those countries verifies Marx's "euro-centered" paradigm. They pass from semi-feudalism to capitalism...they don't "leap" to socialism (much less communism), regardless of their rhetoric. There is a lot that is questionable in the assumptions here. There is a vast literature out there that complicates the simplistic stage-ist picture of development. There are those who place a big role on slavery and plunder. There are others like Brenner or Ellen M. Wood, who ignore plunder and slavery, who emphasize the agrarian origins of capitalism in England. There is Immanuel Wallerstein who suggests that capitalism is not a natural development of societies, but more like an anomaly that spread. It is a complicated issue. I don’t really want to get into it here. Instead, I will focus on the second half of Redstar’s statement. Why do you think that the Soviet Union, China, or Cuba were merely capitalist revolutions? These revolutions abolished private ownership of most production, they carried out land reform, collectivized agriculture, eliminated markets, positions of power were occupied by people from worker and peasant background, they revolutionized culture, democratized the military, etc. Did the law of value opperate in a serious way on a large scale in these countries in their revolutionary phases? These nations usually embraced internationalism. What kind of capitalism is this? - you can’t be serious. Just because some of these revolutions were defeated doesn’t mean that they failed or weren’t socialist. There is no a priori rule that says a socialist society can’t be overturned or invaded. Counter-revolution is always a possibility. Redstar asks: Where is the public record of such a debate and of such a decision being made? Where are their public appeals to the working class: "support imperialism and we will raise your wages"? Don’t be thick. These processes are often unconscious. It is more a process of the threshold of what is acceptable as a wage being raised over the years as the neo-colonial system of exploitation develops. White workers fight for higher wages and the capitalists are able to concede to them because so much of the burden of exploitation is put onto the neo-colonial world. Wages aren’t the whole story though. The bribe is reflected in lower consumer prices, the ability of society to offer a greater social cushion, etc. As living standards increase, white workers support the system and its wars in a general way. Funny enough there are actually discussions of the bribe, especially if you read magazines like the Economist. Chomsky cites a couple discussions of this nature among capitalist think tanks that talk about shifting the burden onto the 3rd world in order to pacify 1st world labor with social reforms. Redstar: Why should the ruling class constantly polemicize against "excessive wages" if they plan all along to pay them with the proceeds of imperial plunder? You'd think, instead, that they would boast to the "imperial" working class about paying "the highest wages in the world". They do boast about how high wages are and how good life is for White America. They boast about it all the time. I am not sure what you are getting at in the first part. The capitalists offer enough to the white working classes to keep them generally content and in line. Why would they offer them more? Capitalists are capitalists after all - they operate generally according to the law of value. As I said before, there are distinctions within the white nation. Redstar: If I am "mistaken", then tell me how. If the "parasitism" hypothesis is "true", then I'm a "parasite". So are you! … Indeed. If the "parasitism" hypothesis is really "true", then the logic of our material position as residents of the leading imperial power is to become conservative Republicans or imperial Democrats. That doesn't just apply to me -- it applies to you as well...unless you already have your Colombian visa and your plane ticket to Bogotá. You cannot both stay here ("benefiting from imperialism") and claim to be any kind of a "revolutionary"...that's the "iron logic" of the "parasitism" hypothesis. This is a valid question. What to do? I think I answered this before. I think we need to support captive nation land struggles - especially those lead by vanguard organizations, we need to support campaigns like the demilitarization of the police, demilitarization of the boarder, land struggles, fight against police brutality, cop-monitoring groups, fight to free political prisoners, fight against supermaxs and SHUS, etc. I also think we need to organize and educate the lumpen element - as the Panthers did. Organize our communities. I think that promoting Sakai’s work is also important. I would also think it is good to take a look at MIM’s literature. Use your privileged position to help movements, especially captive nations, that desparately need resources. I am not sure why you think there is nothing to do. There is lots to do. Redstar says: Tough one, ain't it? As for you alluding to my background or activity. You can guess what you like about me - I don‘t care what you think about me.
|
|
JC
Comrade
![*](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/stars/star.png)
Posts: 76
|
Post by JC on Apr 23, 2004 14:33:08 GMT -5
Yo Comrade
I would like to Inject the fact that white workers may be bettwer off then black workers - they dont earn beyond the value of there own labour , however the union bosses certanly earn beyond the value of there labour , and goverment employees have a tendency to earn beyond the value of there labour .
Secondly , i would like to add that internal semi-colonies do not exist ! That would require them to be there own nation . There is no common language , territory , culture or lack of economic cohesion with US Nation . The Exception to the rule of couse is first nation peoples.
Thirdly , Regarding socialist reveloutions in the "third" world . These will be real , tru reveloutions in the non-democreeatic sense , becuase the "thrid" woorlds bourgoise is evaporated .
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on Apr 23, 2004 18:03:11 GMT -5
JC said: 'i would like to add that internal semi-colonies do not exist ! That would require them to be there own nation . There is no common language , territory , culture or lack of economic cohesion with US Nation'
while I deeply disagree with the idea that the white working class in the US is simply parasitic and exploitative -- there is a Black Nation within the US. We cant just say that the whole working class is one homogenous mass because there are in fact very deep differences.
These differences lead to contradictions within the class that have to be dealt with appropriately in order to make revolution. We cant just ignore it with simplistic calls for unity. The experience growing up, living and working for Black people in the US is very different than that for white. The history is also very different.
They key moment in history that welded Black people together as a nation was after the civil war. They were forced to work in serf-like conditions as share croppers. They became an oppressed nation with a common territory, common language, common economic life and culture separate from that of the oppressor nation.
later, with two great waves of migration from the black belt south, great numbers were transformed from peasants into proletarians -- but they were still subject to national oppression and became concentrated in the most exploited sections of the working class. They are still brutally oppressed.
Now, one objective I have heard raised is that Black people speak English. However, that is still a common language. Nothing says that the language has to be a distinctly different language. for example - the people of many different nations speak Spanish but are obviously different nationalities.
|
|
|
Post by RosaRL on Apr 27, 2004 6:30:44 GMT -5
A few things on 'Parasitism' Both Engels and Lenin had HIGH HOPES for the proletariat in Europe and did not (ever!!) think that the majority of those workers were permanently "corrupted" by imperialism. The argument that this view is Engels' view or Lenin's is obvious and crudely false. However that doesn't mean that this analysis is true, or that it still applies (we have to make our own materialist analysis of THIS moment!) But it does mean that those (like MIM) who quote Engels or Lenin to "prove their point" -- are distorting the truth (or are honestly confused about what Engels and Lenin said). Lets look a little at what Lenin said and his method. For example, Lenin says: "Engels draws a distinction between the "bourgeois labour party" of the old trade unions -- the privileged minority -- and the "lowest mass", the real majority, and appeals to the latter, who are not infected by "bourgeois respectability". This is the essence of Marxist tactics!
Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be definitely decided only by the socialist revolution. But we know for certain that the "defenders of the fatherland" in the imperialist war represent only a minority. And it is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialists to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. " www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm This is true, and important. However, all this talk about parasitism... negates Lenin's basic approach. What Lenin analyzed was the connection between opportunism (pro-imperialist politics within the working class) and the affect of imperialism on the situation of some workers. The point of his analysis was to find a way to revolution (i.e. a break with opportunism, based on "going lower and deeper") and the whole idea of turning this analysis of "parasitism" into a defeatist death-sentence runs against what Lenin said, and was trying to do -- and what we are trying to do.Also, the fact that a country oppresses others, doesn't mean (and has never meant) that it didn't have a proletariat -- and that it didn't have a possibility of revolution. The term oppressor nation doesn't mean that everyone within the nation is an oppressor (or that there are no oppressed people and classes within that nation.) i mean, look at homeless vets., coal miners and so on. It is not very dialectical. But it is seeing one (if important) side of the contradiction. There are nations that oppress others. But does that mean they can't have revolution? Didn't the Russian nation oppress the Caucasus? under tsarism? wasn't there national oppression of that kind? wasn't there Great Russian oppression of Jews? did that mean that the Russian workers of Petrograd were "oppressors" and incapable of revolution? isn't that mechanical? We have a complex world, with many contradictions. Only seeing one (true and important) dynamic -- while negating other (important and true) dynamics -- all leads to a false picture. again: I think lenin's point and above all his method are worth looking at after all the USA in 2004 is not Europe in 1914 so we can't assume his analysis applies directly here. There has (if anything) been more intensification of the north-south national divide since then. However, he correctly says "we can't know" what portion of the masses follow which line in a rev crisis. That will only be known/settled by the struggle itself. The idea that we can know, and therefore give up -- runs completely against a communist approach and against the lessons of history. Again, when Lenin talks about parasitism... he is not talking about the masses, but the increasing parasitism of capitalism (which doesn't even focus on organizing production as much). he says: "The fact that imperialism is parasitic or decaying capitalism is manifested first of all in the tendency to decay, which is characteristic of every monopoly under the system of private ownership of the means of production. The difference between the democratic-republican and the reactionary-monarchist imperialist bourgeoisie is obliterated precisely because they are both rotting alive (which by no means precludes an extraordinarily rapid development of capitalism in individual branches of industry, in individual countries, and in individual periods). Secondly, the decay of capitalism is manifested in the creation of a huge stratum of rentiers, capitalists who live by "clipping coupons". In each of the four leading imperialist countries -- England, U.S.A., France and Germany-capital in securities amounts to 100,000 or 150,000 million francs, from which each country derives an annual income of no less than five to eight thousand million. Thirdly, export of capital is parasitism raised to a high pitch. Fourthly, "finance capital strives for domination, not freedom". Political reaction all along the line is a characteristic feature of imperialism. Corruption, bribery on a huge scale and all kinds of fraud. Fifthly, the exploitation of oppressed nations-which is inseparably connected with annexations-and especially the exploitation of colonies by a handful of "Great" Powers, increasingly transforms the "civilised" world into a parasite on the body of hundreds of millions in the uncivilised nations. The Roman proletarian lived at the expense of society. Modern society lives at the expense of the modern proletarian. Marx specially stressed this profound observation of Sismondi. [2] Imperialism somewhat changes the situation. A privileged upper stratum of the proletariat in the imperialist countries lives partly at the expense of hundreds of millions in the uncivilised nations. " And even here he says "lives partly" at the expense. It is bullshit that even the upper stratum of workers don't perform productive labor (and even suffer some extraction of surplus value) People are free to sum up whatever they want about the working class in the U.S. but they can't (with any honest or truth) claim that this analysis that says that the majority of the US working class is hopelessly corrupt, parasitic and could not benefit from Revolution is Lenin's or Mao's analysis.
|
|
|
Post by kasama on Apr 28, 2004 13:25:40 GMT -5
I want to reply to some notes by roman on the history of the working class.
Roman wrote: "Well, the late1800s were a high point for the radical labor movement. Even though “radical” unions like the IWW did capitulate to anti-Chinese terror, the IWW was far more multi-national than mainstream labor movement. But, most unions, even the IWW, were mostly very white supremacist. Unions not only agitated for a better piece of the pie, they also agitated to restrict Africans from the workplace or restrict them to menial jobs like janitorial work. White labor often tried to formalized white supremacy into labor castes. At the same time white labor fought against the capitalists, they also fought to reduce the threat from captive nation peoples. They tended to be anti-Chinese, anti-African, and anti-Mexican. They were anti-immigrant, especially non-white immigrant. Both white workers and their bosses were aligned overall against captive nations, even in a period where white capitalists and workers were at odds with each other.
It is interesting that the most “radical” period of the white labor movement corresponds roughly to the period between the end of the white nation’s formal conquest of North America and the development of neo-colonialism after World War 2. In this period, white labor did have real confrontations with white capital. However, white labor also worked against captive nation peoples. So much for class solidarity. Genocidal campaigns against captive nations continued in this period. I mentioned some above that were explicitly tied to the labor movement. Also, in the early 1900s saw the beginning of American eugenics programs to try to exterminate captive nations through sterilization programs disguised as health care. According to Black, author of _War Against the Weak_, part of the reason that the eugenics programs never came together as systematically nation wide in the USA was that the information technology didn’t exist. (Not long after, Hitler used the US eugenics programs as something of a model for his own. Companies like IBM made info-tech breakthroughs and happily worked for the Nazis.) It was during the Great Depression that major depopulation campaigns were launched against Mexicans (even Mexican-American citizens). These kinds of genocidal policies were perused by liberals like Roosevelt, who at least was perceived as something of a friend to white labor. Maybe you are suggesting that a re-proletarization occurred between the end of the formal conquest of North America and the development of the neo-colonial order. I don’t really see it that way. The white labor movement pointed its spears upwards and downwards. I’m sure there are exceptions to the overall tendency of the labor movement to wage white supremacist war against captive nation peoples. When I visited the UMW Ludlow monument, there were Mexican names along side Irish and Italian ones. So, there are exceptions."
First, let me say that this analysis is more dialectical than the views of Sakai or MIM.
In other words, roman doesn't as coldly overlook currents that contradict his thesis.
Roman writes: "The white labor movement pointed its spears upwards and downwards."
This is true, but confused. There were currents within the ranks of the working class that (politically) pursued different courses.
Some working class formations mainly focused on "restricting the labor market" -- by Asian exclusion, supporting jim crow, establishing craft union monopolies etc.
Some more revolutionary formations mainly waged class struggle with the oppressors -- i.e. the Wobblies and even early formations like the UMWA, and various socialist/communist movements. And their approach was often to oppose (as divisive) various racist programs. And some formations did a little of both.
It is not like "white labor" was simply unified-but-contradictory, ie was (in some slimy way) always both "defending itself while attacking captive peoples" but there were different, opposed currents.
There was class struggle within the ranks of the working class -- and between its various political formations and organizations.
This is the sleight of hand of the Sakai method: in a nationalist way, the reactionary currents are assumed (a priori) to be the dominent general line of all workers, and representative of their fundamentally reactionary interests. And the counter currents are merely "exceptions."
I think Roman strays into that park when he writes: "When I visited the UMW Ludlow monument, there were Mexican names along side Irish and Italian ones. So, there are exceptions."
Yes there are other things going on (not just "race war" between white workers and oppressed peoples). Are they "exceptions to a rule" -- no, they are part of a class struggle within the working class.
And such struggle takes place in all working classes (including in oppresssed nations!) Any time you have strikes and scabbing (for example) there is a struggle among workers over how to see their interests. There national contradictions among working people in oppressed countries (chinese vs. malay, Mexican vs. 'Indios,' muslim vs. hindu in India.) This is not identical to the dynamics in an IMPERIALIST country like the U.S. -- but lets not pretend that such "class struggle within the working class" is unique to oppressor countries.
As for the exceptional thing: "The dominant ideas of the epoch are the ideas of the dominent class." It is generally true that the lives and even the struggles of oppressed people are commonly dominated by bougeois ideas (that is lenin's point about spontaneity.)
Also, it is worth pointing out that in the early days, there were few Black workers in the capitalist labor market (Black working people were mainly share croppers in semifeudal bondage in the south.)
So the main challenge for the working class (which was objectively at that historical point overwhelmingly "white" i.e. Euro-American) was to make a larger strategic alliance with the Black peasantry in the south (including by upholding the revolutinary struggle for black democratic rights, tied to agrarian revolution in the semi-feudal plantation south -- i.e. land to tiller, 40 acres and a mule and death to jim crow.)
Your analysis misses this point.
It took Marxism Leninism to actually teach (liberally from without) the socialists of the U.S. to view Black people as a "national questoin." (Not just an issue of "overcoming unity within our class.") And (by that time) Black people were entering the working class in their millions -- and the possibility of connecting the Black liberationi struggle with the socialist revolutionary struggle was deepening in many ways.
Ultimately, the CPUSA (the communists of the twenties and thirties) did not solve the strategic theoretical issues of making rev in a country like this. Though their practice did include major "exceptions" to the onesided history of "white labor betrayals" -- i.e. the Scottsboro boys struggle, opposition to lynch law by communists and other radicals, the struggle for multinational trade union organization (the lessons of Gastonia are deep and revealing) etc.
The history is contradictory but not onesided. The revolutionary attempts at unity are not "exceptions" but the other side of the story.
And the core of the Sakai/MIM method is to start with a nationalist assumption, and then pre-select the facts that fit the thesis. You can build a false argument out of true (but selected) facts.
|
|
|
Post by roman on Apr 30, 2004 19:17:47 GMT -5
On Rosa's Lenin qoutes. It seems perfectly plausible to me that Lenin may have said contradictory things, or that his thought evolved over time. Simply pulling some decontextualized qoutes out of a hat doesn't show anything. I have provided a link on several times to the MIM page on Lenin. They make the point that to understand Lenin you need to understand the context in which he was speaking. You really should check out the MIM Lenin page in their online MIM Theory. I don't have a particular interest in the debate about the "true" Lenin, but if you want your arguments to be taken seriously, then you have to do a little more than post a single qoute without context. You need to address all the other places that MIM cites where Lenin is clearly talking about parasiticism. Setting up a strawman convinces nobody. MIM on Lenin: www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mt/imp97/imp97b2.htmlPlus, none of my arguments are of the form: "because Lenin said so". I wasn't ignoring your post as you said in another thread. And, although, I have a respect for Lenin, this thread is more about Gilbert and Sakai, not interpretations of Lenin. I am glad you have moved your post to another thread. I didn't respond because it was off topic. Rosa was more on topic when she says: Also, the fact that a country oppresses others, doesn't mean (and has never meant) that it didn't have a proletariat -- and that it didn't have a possibility of revolution. Who is arguing this? I'm not. Sakai isn't. Your example of Russia is a good example that actually tends to support Sakai that there is a unique kind of oppression understood as settlerism. Yes, Russia oppressed the jews and Russia was also revolutionary. I am not sure your point here, Sakai's claim is about SETTLERISM and NEO-COLONIALISM as forms of parasiticism. The relationship between the Russians and Jews was not settlerist nor neo-colonialist. Are you trying to confuse the issue with the old RCP lies about bundism? So, your point is confused at best, an attempt to confuse (ala dolly Vaele) at worst. On Kas. Kas makes an interesting point. He claims that the few and short lasting exceptions of solidarity shown by the white working class with capitive nations show that the white working class was divided into different currents. He cites the IWW as one of these opposing currents. Sakai would actually agree with Kas that the IWW in the 1800s represents the high point of class struggle for white labor. However, Sakai also shows how the IWW silenced Chinese labors in the interests of increasing their appeal to white workers. They capitulated to the anti-Chinese terror that was widely supported by white workers. Even an "opposing current" like the IWW was pretty white supreamacist. Sakai goes into alot of this. He untangles all the white myths about the labor movement. I don't think anyone reading this discussion can really get a sense of the power and detail of Sakai's analysis without reading _Settlers_. On another note. The few exceptions to white supreamacy in the white labor movement do not constitute a different progressive current. In a real way the material interest of the white settler workers were opposed to the interests of capitive nations. This is an obvious implication of Marx's 1859 statement. The few "exceptions" don't really show anything. This is like saying that because there were a few progressive religious bourgeoisie or intellectuals that may have supported Indian land claims that there were "diverse currents within the bourgeoisie". This would be nonsense. There was a real material interest for white labor aristocratic workers to side with their bourgeoisie against other peoples.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Apr 30, 2004 20:57:25 GMT -5
V.I. Lenin wrote: We have to begin with as precise and full a definition of imperialism as possible. Imperialism is a specific historical stage of capitalism. Its specific character is threefold: imperialism is monopoly capitalism; parasitic, or decaying capitalism; moribund capitalism.Imperialism and the Split in SocialismGranted that it seemed like an accurate perception in 1916, it's pretty clear that it was wrong.I do not know if monopoly (actually oligopoly) is more or less prevalent now than it was in 1916. But it's clear that modern capitalism has not yet begun "decaying", much less become "moribund". Well, ok, you could make an argument that some time in the last three decades it has begun to decay...but it certainly was not decaying in 1916 (even if it "looked" that way). V.I. Lenin wrote: The fact that imperialism is parasitic or decaying capitalism is manifested first of all in the tendency to decay, which is characteristic of every monopoly under the system of private ownership of the means of production.This is an especially curious assertion...though perhaps the situation in 1916 made it seem plausible. As a rule, an effective monopoly on some highly desirable commodity is a "license to print money". Monopolies can be broken up and sometimes they crash because some technological innovation as robbed the monopoly of its value. But they rarely "decay". V.I. Lenin wrote: Secondly, the decay of capitalism is manifested in the creation of a huge stratum of rentiers, capitalists who live by "clipping coupons".That "stratum" is probably substantially larger now than it was in 1916...but as a "symptom" of "decay", I don't see its utility. V.I. Lenin wrote: Fifthly, the exploitation of oppressed nations-which is inseparably connected with annexations-and especially the exploitation of colonies by a handful of "Great" Powers, increasingly transforms the "civilised" world into a parasite on the body of hundreds of millions in the uncivilised nations.Here is the heart of MIM's assertion that they are the "true heirs" of Lenin...and I don't see how one could avoid conceding that they have a powerful point. The problem that Lenin is trying to answer here is in his opening paragraph... V.I. Lenin wrote: Is there any connection between imperialism and the monstrous and disgusting victory opportunism (in the form of social-chauvinism) has gained over the labour movement in Europe?Lenin is attempting to offer a materialist explanation for the collapse of the 2nd International...Europe, including the most conscious and developed part of its working classes (Social Democracy), have become "parasitic" on the "uncivilized world" -- they are supporting imperialism because it's in their material interests for "their own" bourgeoisie to triumph over rival capitalist classes in other imperialist countries and win a larger share of the plunder stolen from the "uncivilized world". V.I. Lenin wrote: It is clear why imperialism is moribund capitalism, capitalism in transition to socialism: monopoly, which grows out of capitalism, is already dying capitalism, the beginning of its transition to socialism.No it isn't clear at all...and turned out to be wrong.V.I. Lenin wrote: ...objectively the opportunists are a section of the petty bourgeoisie and of a certain strata of the working class who have been bribed out of imperialist superprofits and converted to watchdogs of capitalism and corruptors of the labour movement.That makes two assumptions: (1) That there actually is such a thing as "imperialist superprofits" (as opposed to just profit); and (2) That a portion of these "superprofits" has been used to "bribe" a "certain strata" of the working class into supporting imperialism. MIM, of course, not only embraces these assumptions but "runs with them...hard!" Lenin's "certain strata" has, in their view, ballooned to embrace nearly all of the working classes in the imperialist countries. We have no way of knowing, of course, what Lenin himself would have thought of this "natural extension" of his views. But time does not "stand still". If Lenin's views of "partial bribery" were accurate in 1916, there's little reason to doubt that the process would continue. I've already discussed why I think Lenin's assertions were wrong in other threads. I don't think that there's any such thing as "superprofits" (except as a transient phenomenon resulting from temporary monopolies); I don't think "imperialism" is a "special stage" of capitalism (imperialism is just a special case of capitalism's restless search for new profit opportunities and has always been present); and I don't think workers are ever "bribed" by capitalists at all. But then, you may ask, what's my "materialist explanation" for the collapse of the 2nd International? Or, in general, the "conservatism" of the "western" working classes in the 20th century? It's my view that revolutionary class consciousness arises only from the failures of capitalism -- usually lost imperialist wars and/or economic crises. When you look back at the last century, the twin peaks of revolutionary class consciousness in the west were the post-World War I period (also involving an economic downturn) and the Great Depression of the 1930s. And the peaks were not very high...the failures of capitalism were serious but not fatal. Today's bourgeoisie say that they've put all that behind them now; there will be "no more" catastrophic wars or great depressions. I don't believe them.
|
|
|
Post by redstar2000 on Apr 30, 2004 21:33:16 GMT -5
roman wrote: Why do you think that the Soviet Union, China, or Cuba were merely capitalist revolutions? These revolutions abolished private ownership of most production, they carried out land reform, collectivized agriculture, eliminated markets, positions of power were occupied by people from worker and peasant background, they revolutionized culture, democratized the military, etc. Did the law of value operate in a serious way on a large scale in these countries in their revolutionary phases? These nations usually embraced internationalism. What kind of capitalism is this? - you can’t be serious. Just because some of these revolutions were defeated doesn’t mean that they failed or weren’t socialist. There is no a priori rule that says a socialist society can’t be overturned or invaded. Counter-revolution is always a possibility.
It's precisely because they didn't fall to invasion or counter-revolution that I think they were, beneath the rhetoric and even the nominally socialist policies, really bourgeois revolutions.
"Peaceful transitions" from one form of class society to another are quite rare in history. If the working class had really had power in Russia, China, Yugoslavia, etc., the transition "back" to capitalism should have been accompanied by massive strikes, pitched battles and even civil war...those things didn't happen. They were all "velvet revolutions"...that is, not revolutions at all.
The leaders of all the vanguards divided up "the people's property" among themselves, donated their party cards and red flags to a museum, and set themselves up openly as what they had been for a very long time covertly...a new capitalist ruling class.
The workers didn't see much difference at all...except a further sharp decline in an already wretched standard-of-living.
roman wrote: I think we need to support captive nation land struggles - especially those lead by vanguard organizations, we need to support campaigns like the demilitarization of the police, demilitarization of the boarder, land struggles, fight against police brutality, cop-monitoring groups, fight to free political prisoners, fight against supermaxs and SHUS, etc. I also think we need to organize and educate the lumpen element - as the Panthers did. Organize our communities. I think that promoting Sakai’s work is also important. I would also think it is good to take a look at MIM’s literature. Use your privileged position to help movements, especially captive nations, that desperately need resources. I am not sure why you think there is nothing to do. There is lots to do.
Yes, there are a lot of choices here...but none of them are communist.
Specifically, none of them hold out any future prospect of proletarian revolution and classless society.
They are "good things" (most of them...you know my opinion of "vanguards") but the world is full of "good things".
What I notice the marked absence of is any significant movement for the abolition of wage-slavery.
That doesn't seem to be on your agenda...or, for that matter, MIM's.
|
|