MIM on Global Surplus Value

[right to rebel]

from: www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mt/imp97/imp97c4.html
Qouted from _Imperialism and Its Class Structure in 1997_ by MIM

"The culture of the advanced countries has been, and still is, the result of their being able to live at the expense of a thousand million oppressed people. It is because the capitalists of these countries obtain a great deal more in this way than they could obtain as profits from plundering the workers in their own countries." V. I. Lenin, "The Second Congress of the Communist International"(183)

If the United $tates receives on the order of $500 billion a year--maybe 50 percent more, maybe 50 percent less--from its superexploitive relationship with the Third World, then we can safely say that the Amerikan oppressor nation contains no proletariat. We have explained this concept in MT#1 and subsequent issues. The profits of the U.$. economy not going to the oppressor nation labor aristocracy would be accounted for strictly by exploitation of oppressed nationalities. With regard to internal oppressed nationalities, we left open a question of their relationship to the global class structure, mainly because of difficulties in calculation. Everyone within imperialist country borders whether nationally oppressed or not, may be exploiter, not exploited if the transfer of surplus-value from the Third World is large enough.

Read more at www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/mt/imp97/

[Andrei_X]

MIM's theory concerning surplus-value and its effects on the proletariat are deeply incorrect, from the stuff I have read.

If I recall from research, only 8-10% of the surplus-value obtained by the U.S. ruling class comes from outside U.S. borders. There may be a high rate of return than domestic profit-making, but that is mostly important for the relative profitability for specific corporations and the larger capitalist structure. The rest of the surplus-value comes from within U.S. borders from the labor of the multinational, international proletariat inside the borders of the U.S.

The proletariat, by definition, receives more or less the value of their labor power. Basically they are paid just enough to make it back to work, keep alive, and maybe raise a family. They are paid just enough to reproduce their labor power. In oppressed nations, people are often super-exploited and are paid below the value of their labor power- and are living outside of the massively commified system that the U.S. proletariat lives under. While it is undeniable that there is a labor aristocracy in the United States, and it is undeniable that the workers in imperialist nations get a few more crumbs from the table than the rest of the world, it is an exaggeration to say that the majority of the U.S. working class live off the superprofits of the oppressed nations as oppressive labor aristocrats.

Mao recognized the possibility of revolution in imperialist nations, as these 2 quotes from Quotations From Chairman Mao Tse-Tung show:

"The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form of revolution. This Marxist-Leninist principle of revolution holds good universally, for China and for all other countries. But while the principle remains the same, its application by the party of the proletariat finds expression in varying ways according to the varying conditions. Internally, capitalist countries practise bourgeois democracy (not feudalism) when they are not fascist or not at war; in their external relations, they are not oppressed by, but themselves oppress, other nations. Because of these characteristics, it is the task of the party of the proletariat in the capitalist countries to educate the workers and build up strength through a long period of legal struggle, and thus prepare for the final overthrow of capitalism."

and

"I call on the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals, enlightened elements of the bourgeoisie and other enlightened persons of all colours in the world, whether white, black, yellow or brown, to unite to oppose the racial discrimination practised by U.S. imperialism and support the black people in their struggle against racial discrimination. In the final analysis, national struggle is a matter of class struggle. Among the whites in the United States it is only the reactionary ruling circles who oppress the black people. They can in no way represent the workers, farmers, revolutionary intellectuals and other enlightened persons who comprise the overwhelming majority of the white people. At present, it is the handful of imperialists headed by the United States, and their supporters, the reactionaries in different countries, who are oppressing, committing aggression against and menacing the overwhelming majority of the nations and peoples of the world. We are in the majority and they are in the minority. At most, they make up less than 10 per cent of the 3,000 million population of the world. I am firmly convinced that, with the support of more than 90 per cent of the people of the world, the Afro-Americans will be victorious in their just struggle. The evil system of colonialism and imperialism arose and throve with the enslavement of Negroes and the trade in Negroes, and it will surely come to its end with the complete emancipation of the black people."

[Deleted]

oh god, MIM is here. There goes the neighborhood. ;D

[roman]

I have read the MIM document and arguments before. I think they are right about the fact that the American working class is something akin to a bought off labor aristocracy and that the wealth used to buy them off comes mostly from the imperialized world and captive nations. I think it is pretty obvious.

However, I think trying to calculate these things in terms of surplus value usually confuse a lot of things. I think when dealing with real political economy, we have to remember that Marx’s model in _Capital_ of the way capitalism works is an abstract model of a pure capitalist economy. And, I hope we can agree, that a pure capitalist “widget” economy has never existed.

I don’t know how much of the surplus value in the US comes from exploitation of US workers vs. imperialized workers. 8-10% seems very low to me, but I imagine it depends on how you calculate it: do you included just surplus value proper, or more meaningfully, surplus product, where do you draw the line between productive and nonproductive labor, etc. There are lots of issues here.

Even if only 8% of the surplus value generated by US capitalists was from the imperialized world, that still wouldn’t settle the question. Because exploitation and profit isn’t just about surplus value.

To do the calculation to compare how much the American worker benefits from imperialism, you need to ask all of the following and probably more:

1. Surplus Value. How much surplus value is generated from American workers vs. imperialized workers and captive nation workers? How much trickles down to the benefit of American workers.

2. Surplus Product. How much surplus product is eventually appropriated by the American capitalists from the imperialized/captive various direct producers, peasants, petty bourgeoisie, indigenous, etc? And, how much of this trickles down to the American worker.

3. Pure Transfer. How much product is simply stolen from the imperialized world and captive nation workers, peasants, petty bourgeois, indigenous, etc? And, how much of this trickles down to the American worker. An example of this would be the United States going in and simply stealing Iraqi oil.

4. Historic opportunity cost. How do past injustice continue to benefit or oppress a people? For example, a more advanced nation goes in to a less advanced nation and steals all its oil, iron, or whatever. And, the advance nation uses this wealth to industrialize and raise the standard of living for its workers. The less advanced nation is forever robbed of the commodity and it is forever lost the ability industrialize itself.
Even if the advanced nation is no longer currently robbing the less advanced one, both nations still feel the effects of the historical injustice. How much does the American worker benefit and how much do the imperialized and captive peoples suffer from past

I think trying to reduce all these calculations to some greater notion of surplus value (as I think MIM sometimes tries to do - it is hard for me to follow some of their articles and I haven‘t read MIM #1 that they allude too) is the wrong way to go. I think there are a lot of problems with orthodox Marxist economics and I think his theory of exploitation is too thin. To get at the issue, I would formulate the question a differently: How much does the America worker benefit for current and historic unjust relations between the core and periphery? How much does the America worker benefit from unjust relations between the imperialized world and captive peoples?

I think that the American working class is part of an colonizer oppressor nation. They benefit directly and indirectly in a billion little ways from their past and continued imperialist practices.

Andre says, “The proletariat, by definition, receives more or less the value of their labor power. Basically they are paid just enough to make it back to work, keep alive, and maybe raise a family. They are paid just enough to reproduce their labor power.”

Does this describe the majority of the white American working class today? I think this is obviously wrong. American workers have cars, televisions, pets, computers, cell phones, stereos, cd collections, many have houses, many even own stocks and go to college. When Marx made this kind of formulation he was talking about just enough to pay for slum housing, gruel food, and a couple sets of clothing, and shoes, etc. Your formulation doesn’t describe the American worker at all, it describes the worker in the imperialized world to the tee. When Marx made this formulation, he was talking about JUST GETTING BY, in a literal sense; he meant barely having enough for food, having just enough to live, work and have kids. The American worker throws away as much food as he eats. How can you describe him as fitting this formulation of the proletariat?

Andre goes on, “In oppressed nations, people are often super-exploited and are paid below the value of their labor power- and are living outside of the massively commified system that the U.S. proletariat lives under.”

You really have it backwards. It isn’t that the American worker is the exploited in the Marxian sense and the imperialized worker is super-exploited. It is that the imperialized/captive nation worker is exploited in the Marxian sense of just getting by, and the American worker, well, is something like a labor aristocrat - not exploited in the “just getting by sense“ you cited.

I want also to make a qualification. There are anomalies. There are American workers and members of an underclass who are really living day to day. But, for the most part, as a class, this “just barely surviving to work the next day” does not describe the American worker. And, those in America who this does describe tend to be captive nation peoples, or, white people whose situation in the underclass is temporary. You can cite statistics about white Americans living in real poverty, however, you will find the number shrinks greatly when you look at those living in real poverty over a 6 month period or whatever.

These questions have profound implications on how to organize a revolution. I think they are probably the single most important questions for revolutionaries in the imperialist countries.

[roman]

I don’t want to get into Mao quote mongering. I’m not a Maoist. But, I am not sure what you are trying to say with them.

"The seizure of power by armed force, the settlement of the issue by war, is the central task and the highest form of revolution. This Marxist-Leninist principle of revolution holds good universally, for China and for all other countries. But while the principle remains the same, its application by the party of the proletariat finds expression in varying ways according to the varying conditions."

“Internally, capitalist countries practise bourgeois democracy (not feudalism) when they are not fascist or not at war; in their external relations, they are not oppressed by, but themselves oppress, other nations. Because of these characteristics, it is the task of the party of the proletariat in the capitalist countries to educate the workers and build up strength through a long period of legal struggle, and thus prepare for the final overthrow of capitalism."(MAO)

I don’t see why Mao would have particular insight into the class dynamics of a modern imperialist nation. He didn’t write a lot about it. So, I’m not sure why it is all that relevant to the discussion. After all, the CP China didn’t seem to have a great grasp of how things were shaping up here. After all, they didn’t seem very informed about it when they recognized their US fraternal party. If I remember, they recognized the CPML as their fraternal American party and Patria Roja in Peru. I make this point not to criticize Mao or anything like that, but to criticize quote mongering - “Mao said this, so it is true“.

But, on another note, it should be noticed that Mao makes the recommendation that communists should work for “education of the [imperialist-nation] workers” and a “long period of legal struggle” with the qualification “when they are not fascist or not at war”. Well, since America has basically been in perpetual war since at least WW2 and becoming more and more an fascist-like police state, it is hard to see how this quote applies to the USA. Nor does the quote necessarily go against anything MIM says, MIM could just say “Mao is right, the workers have to make revolution. But the white so-called working class aren’t really workers. Mao is not talking about the white labor aristocracy.” I might be wrong here, I am not trying to speak for MIM or anything.

"I call on the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals, enlightened elements of the bourgeoisie and other enlightened persons of all colours in the world, whether white, black, yellow or brown, to unite to oppose the racial discrimination practised by U.S. imperialism and support the black people in their struggle against racial discrimination. In the final analysis, national struggle is a matter of class struggle. Among the whites in the United States it is only the reactionary ruling circles who oppress the black people. They can in no way represent the workers, farmers, revolutionary intellectuals and other enlightened persons who comprise the overwhelming majority of the white people. At present, it is the handful of imperialists headed by the United States, and their supporters, the reactionaries in different countries, who are oppressing, committing aggression against and menacing the overwhelming majority of the nations and peoples of the world. We are in the majority and they are in the minority. At most, they make up less than 10 per cent of the 3,000 million population of the world. I am firmly convinced that, with the support of more than 90 per cent of the people of the world, the Afro-Americans will be victorious in their just struggle. The evil system of colonialism and imperialism arose and throve with the enslavement of Negroes and the trade in Negroes, and it will surely come to its end with the complete emancipation of the black people." (MAO)

I think this second Mao citation is much more interesting because although it does indicated that Mao sometimes thought the white imperialist working class was central to revolution. Although, I would say here, he is wrong and probably wasn’t familiar with the conditions here - or didn’t think through his words here. Anyways, what is interesting here although Mao doesn’t say it outright, Mao seems to being seeing black liberation in the USA needs to be part of the revolution of the white working class. This goes against the overall emphasis of Mao on the imperialized nations and self-determination. MIM could probably produce a lot of Mao quotes for their position also. In fact, I think they have a web page of Lenin, Stalin and Mao quotes on oppressor nations and the labor aristocracy. I don’t see what is gained from a war of quotes. Anyhow, it is interesting in this quote that Mao seems to see the issue as mainly one of black discrimination and not black national liberation. This seems to me a very conservative kind of position, ironically, it was exactly the rejection of this kind of position from which the Revolutionary Youth (from which the RU/RCP, among others, emerged), Panthers and liberationists, split from the PLP in the SDS. It also seems less revolutionary than the traditional Stalinist black belt national liberation line. I may be reading too much into it. It is after all only a single quote, out of context. I do believe though that by recognizing the captive nation issue in terms of discrimination/national minority and not national liberation and if your practice reflects this, then you are objectively racist and imperialist to some degree.

[eat the world]

Roman writes: "I don’t want to get into Mao quote mongering. I’m not a Maoist. But, I am not sure what you are trying to say with them."

MIM writes the word "Maoist" in their name -- but one of their "cardinal" principles is deeply and profoundly opposed to the stand of communism (and Maoism), when they portray the working class as a whole as an enemy of revolution.

Obviously refuting this requires analysis and data and explanations.... etc. But it is also worth pointing out that all communists in history (including both Lenin and Mao who MIM claims support their analysis) oppose their counter-revolutinary view on the people.

That is the point of quotes from Mao on this crucial issue of "are white working people an enemy?"

Roman writes: "I don’t see why Mao would have particular insight into the class dynamics of a modern imperialist nation. He didn’t write a lot about it."

Mao had many insights into class soceity, and pointed out some things that are univeral (apply GENERALLY to all class societies.)

There are insights of science (and Marxism) that work that way. I can study gravity here, and mention in passing that key parts of what i discusover will apply anywhere on earth (including places I have not been) -- and this has to do with the universality of some dynamics. At the same time SOME things about gravity vary with altitude, so that SOME studies need particular invetigation at sea level or at the heights.

Many things about imperialism require specific study (and for example Mao did not write on the political economy of imperialism). But there were things he felt he could grasp from afar, and he did write on them (like underscoring the internatonal significance of the struggle of Black people in the U.S., and pointing out that it is a national struggle which is very important to the larger class struggle for socialism.)

Roman writes: "After all, the CP China didn’t seem to have a great grasp of how things were shaping up here. After all, they didn’t seem very informed about it when they recognized their US fraternal party. If I remember, they recognized the CPML as their fraternal American party and Patria Roja in Peru."

You DON'T remember correctly.

The CCP did not recognize the CPML as the "fraternal American party" until AFTER the revisionist coup. In other words the Dengists embraced the CPML because they saw a common politics. This had nothing to do with Mao or the Maoists -- who (rather wisely) had bilateral relations with a number of revolutionary parties in the U.S., and thought that people should work out lines and relations without micro-management from afar.

Roman writes: "I make this point not to criticize Mao or anything like that, but to criticize quote mongering - “Mao said this, so it is true“. "

No one here has used that kind of dogmatic methodology. And if you think so, tell us where.

Quoting someone doesn't prove it is true, it proves that this is what they thought. And, it provides (in some cases) a set of concentrated insights from revolutionary leaders that we can study and think about.

Mao's suggestion: "Study critically, test independently."

Mao's suggestion is correct -- not BECAUSE he said it, but because it is objectively correct. But we are also lucky he said it, and we can quote it, because that helps us stay firmly committed to critical thinking and scientific investigation.

Roman writes: "it should be noticed that Mao makes the recommendation that communists should work for “education of the [imperialist-nation] workers” and a “long period of legal struggle” with the qualification “when they are not fascist or not at war”. Well, since America has basically been in perpetual war since at least WW2 and becoming more and more an fascist-like police state, it is hard to see how this quote applies to the USA."

This is an interesting question.

Mao is saying: Experience shows that in impeialist countries (which have a strong internal state) it is not possible to wage a protracted peoples war. So the "October Road" applies.

the exception to that has been cases (in the middle of major wars crossing borders) where imperialist countries have been occupied and fascist (i.e. when germany seized france, and a resistance was possible under those conditions.) The war he is referencing is World War, where the INTERNAL situations in major combatants (especially countries that were occupied or on internal martial law).

This is not some mechanical legal thinking: "Mao said when you aren't at war, and the U.S. is always at war, so Mao's quote is irrelevent." The point is Mao is seeking to explain that in "normal" conditions, in imperialist countries, the state is too strong and stable for certain kinds of direct challenges, and so you need to "prepare minds and organize forces." Then, in crisis, major war, internal clampdown, etc. conditions can change (and obviously need to be evaluated based on concrete conditions).


Roman says: "Nor does the quote necessarily go against anything MIM says, MIM could just say “Mao is right, the workers have to make revolution. But the white so-called working class aren’t really workers. Mao is not talking about the white labor aristocracy.”"

Mim could (and often does) say any kind of absurd and ridiculous thing they want. But playing with words is not playing with reality. We could play stupid games all day long: "Women are oppressed by men, but we define baseball players as 'not men' -- so we can't assume that the communist analysis of patriarchy applies to baseball players."


Mao wrote: "I call on the workers, peasants, revolutionary intellectuals, enlightened elements of the bourgeoisie and other enlightened persons of all colours in the world, whether white, black, yellow or brown, to unite to oppose the racial discrimination practised by U.S. imperialism and support the black people in their struggle against racial discrimination. In the final analysis, national struggle is a matter of class struggle. Among the whites in the United States it is only the reactionary ruling circles who oppress the black people. They can in no way represent the workers, farmers, revolutionary intellectuals and other enlightened persons who comprise the overwhelming majority of the white people. At present, it is the handful of imperialists headed by the United States, and their supporters, the reactionaries in different countries, who are oppressing, committing aggression against and menacing the overwhelming majority of the nations and peoples of the world. We are in the majority and they are in the minority. At most, they make up less than 10 per cent of the 3,000 million population of the world. I am firmly convinced that, with the support of more than 90 per cent of the people of the world, the Afro-Americans will be victorious in their just struggle. The evil system of colonialism and imperialism arose and throve with the enslavement of Negroes and the trade in Negroes, and it will surely come to its end with the complete emancipation of the black people." (MAO)

Roman writes: "I think this second Mao citation is much more interesting because although it does indicated that Mao sometimes thought the white imperialist working class was central to revolution. Although, I would say here, he is wrong and probably wasn’t familiar with the conditions here - or didn’t think through his words here."

Actually Roman is wrong here.

First Mao never said anything like "the white imperialist working class is central to revolution."

He said that the majority of white people (i.e. of that nationality) are composed of people with an interest in progressive change.

And he never talked about a "white working class" at all.

The working class in the u.s. is multinational.

Second he did not say that this "white working class" (which he doesn't talk about) is "central to revolution."

Mao had a very different analysis. He said that the struggle of Black people was "bound to merge" with the working class struggle for socialism. This is what is "central to the revolution" -- i.e. this merger.

And after "studying critically and testing independently" -- modern Maoists in the U.S. formulate their understanding of this centrality as "the solid core of the united front"


Roman says: "Anyways, what is interesting here although Mao doesn’t say it outright, Mao seems to being seeing black liberation in the USA needs to be part of the revolution of the white working class."

This is, as i have said, not what Mao said at all. He saw Black liberation movement (of an oppressed people) merging with the struggle of a multinational working class (not "white workers').

Roman writes: "This goes against the overall emphasis of Mao on the imperialized nations and self-determination."

If you can find any discussion in Mao of either "imperialized nations" or "self-determination" i'll kiss your ass. It is certainly NOT an "emphasis" of mao.

He led the struggle of national liberation for colonized people, and developed a great deal of theory around that.

He wrote little on the issues of self-determination OUTSIDE THAT CONTEXT of specifically colonial and semi-colonial countries.

Roman writes: "Anyhow, it is interesting in this (Mao0 quote that Mao seems to see the issue as mainly one of black discrimination and not black national liberation."

What is really intersting to me is that Roman assumes that the profound struggle against discrimination in the U.S. (at that time) is not fundamentally part of the struggle for black liberation -- it is roman that separates the two as something distinct. Not Mao (and not the black revolutionaries of that day either.)
(go on to part 2)

[eat the world]

[part 2]


Roman writes: "This seems to me a very conservative kind of position, ironically, it was exactly the rejection of this kind of position from which the Revolutionary Youth (from which the RU/RCP, among others, emerged), Panthers and liberationists, split from the PLP in the SDS."

This is factually wrong -- completely wrong. Mao's two statements of the struggle of black people had a profound impact on all these forces, and on their way of viewing the struggle of black people and the working class. It is not conservative at all, but profoundly Marxist and revolutionary.

Roman writes: "Mao's postion also seems less revolutionary than the traditional Stalinist black belt national liberation line."

I would love to hear a discussion of this (rather insane) summation. In fact, by the time Mao was writing, there no longer WAS a Black majority in the rural black belt. So the "traditional" (when did revolution become a "tradition"??!!) line of the Comintern just didn't apply.

Roman writes: "I do believe though that by recognizing the captive nation issue in terms of discrimination/national minority and not national liberation and if your practice reflects this, then you are objectively racist and imperialist to some degree."

There is much to unravel here, in this profoundly confused statement. It is a good example of bourgeois logic that starts with a false assumption and ends with an absurd conclusion (that Mao was "objectively racist and imperialist to some degree.") I'm not going to unravel it all. But here is one key point: The African American nation is an internally oppressed people. It is not a colony (or a "captive nation") in the sense that Puerto Rico is, or in the sense that Algeria was colonized by France. This has a profound difference in how the liberation process unfolds -- and the most profound difference is that the working people of the Black nation are not off by themselves, in some separate working class, working in some separate natonal market -- they are employed largely in the bottom tiers of a much larger multinational class scattered throughout the U.S. This gives them great cntrality in the empire, great power, and great potential for uniting with broader forces (including sections of that larger class) and bringing this system down.

[roman]

There is a lot to respond to here. I still don’t think that throwing out two Mao quotes pasted onto an end of a message without any historic explanation or explanation of context or relevance is anything but quote mongering. I guess I saw the thread as an issue about imperialism and economics, not an issue about: “MIM writes the word "Maoist" in their name…””(Eat the world). Your clarification on the quote about what Mao meant by “when a country is at war” was very helpful. I misread the first quote, which again, shows the danger of frivolously throwing out (and responding on my part!) Mao quotes with no explanation or context.

Anyways, I found your post helpful on some things, unfair or unclear on a some others. I think most people can weed through the specifics of it if they want and see what applies and doesn’t. So, I will leave things at that.

Instead, I would like to focus on what I think it the real issue, which is:

Eat the World says, “But here is one key point: The African American nation is an internally oppressed people. It is not a colony (or a "captive nation" in the sense that Puerto Rico is, or in the sense that Algeria was colonized by France. This has a profound difference in how the liberation process unfolds -- and the most profound difference is that the working people of the Black nation are not off by themselves, in some separate working class, working in some separate national market -- they are employed largely in the bottom tiers of a much larger multinational class scattered throughout the U.S. This gives them great cntrality in the empire, great power, and great potential for uniting with broader forces (including sections of that larger class) and bringing this system down. “

It is obvious that the African American Nation isn’t captive in the same sense that other nations are captive. And, if it was true that the white working class could be genuinely revolutionary, then the scenario you suggest would be more plausible. Are white workers oppressed? Yes - in some ways. Do they gain from imperialism? Also, yes. Does the latter offset the former? I think it does - the unjust fruits of imperialism are everywhere. You do raise a good point, that the black nation works in the lower tiers side by side with white working class . You could also add that they also benefit to some extent from imperialism. And they do. Imperialist booty does trickle down to them; Black people have Tvs, radios, pets, cds, movies, cameras, cars, etc. However, white supremacy is so entrenched, has been and is, so vicious and violent toward the black community. Even though they work side by side with white workers, even though they have modern luxury items, they still exist in a system that can violently lash out at them at anytime. I have read appalling statistics on the number of black people, especially black males, in the prison system. Black people are terrorized by the police on a daily basis. They are disproportionately sent off as cannon fodder in imperialist wars. I read an article that showed that black male life expectancy actually went down in the 80s. On top of this, in the past century there were various attempts at various levels of the government to exterminate black people as a race. It is well documented that American empire financed its contra-wars and puppet states by importing massive amounts of drugs and targeting Black communities - a kind of chemical/biological genocide in the ghettos. Also, most of these and other appalling trends are probably getting worse. So, there is more to the story than the fact that they work next to whites. I support black national liberation as the only realistic way forward for socialism.

[eat the details]

What you say is mainly true and important. Black workers suffer a double oppression -- even when they work side-by-side with white workers.

Is it possible to win significant numbers of white workers to a movement that is firmly against national oppression? I think it is. I think the history on this is not as onesidely racists (as the Sakai's of the world claim). There are broad and positive sentiments among the population, including among white workers (exactly as Mao pointed out in the famous quote we were discussing.)

Of course there is nothing obvious, or automatic, or spontaneous about this. Ultimately, this is a major part of the new conditions that COMMUNISTs have to create.
(As mao says "forge positive new conditions through struggle.")

But, and this is the importance of our exchange here, communists won't lead this process if they are convinced it is futile. Unwarranted pessimism and defeatism can turn even favorable conditions into defeat.

The only path to Black Liberation in the U.S. (which is a central goal for any revolutionary) is the socialist revolution. There is no other path.

And the strategy for that socialist revolutino is the United Front under the Leadership of the proletariat -- of which there is a solid core: the alliance of the black liberation (and othernatinal liberation struggles) with the struggle of the multinational proletariat for socialism.

That is the particularity of a multinational imperialist state with internally oppressed nations. Black liberation is a central part of "what this revolution is about."