Post by maoista on Feb 10, 2004 20:41:55 GMT -5
II. Class structure and exploitation
a. Genocide
One of the main reasons that MIM has had difficulty with pinning down the
class structure of the internal semi-colonies is understanding the role of
genocide and past appropriations of labor in class formation. Today, when
it comes to answering what class various oppressed nationality people are
in, we finally answer that historical genocide and exploitation should be
thought of as affecting the property passed down from generation to
generation.
When it comes to understanding whether oppressed internal semi-colonies
are net exploiters through imperialism or whether they are exploited, it
seems that genocide should be accounted for as an historical and
continuing debt. Recently, a former member of CP-USA circles apparently
decided that MIM is slightly more correct than both the CP-USA and the
Workers World Party and started working with MIM. He wrote to MIM various
anti-Semitic comments that also showed a confused understanding of
fascism. Not surprisingly the same persyn contended that First Nation
people cannot be said to be exploited. He says they were killed, so no
labor was extracted. This brings us in a crude way to the question of the
impact of genocide on class structure.
In the main, oppressors carry out genocide in the capitalist context to
ease the appropriation of labor both past and present. Past labor known as
"dead labor" is capital, unless we mean property of the sort that is land.
Of course, land also has congealed labor that goes into it as a means of
production. The work of First Nations to remove rocks from agricultural
fields and to build various improvements is something stolen when land is
stolen.
It is the accumulation of the means of production through genocide that
establishes the basis of class society from the earliest existence of
class society. Thus genocide can be thought of as a pre-condition for
capitalist exploitation. It is much easier to extract super-profits once
an oppressor nation has established its ability and willingness to use
genocidal force.
Genocide is thought of as something requiring reparations as a matter of
justice. Does such a concept relate to our understanding of class
structure? According to an informative APSP pamphlet we reviewed in ITAL
MT8 END, the debt owed for slavery is in the trillions of dollars. During
the Vietnam War, the Black Panthers suggested that the U$A pay $10 billion
for 1 million killed in Vietnam in reparations. How do we relate such
calculations to our understanding of class structure? And what do we do
with the fact that any repayment of First Nations must surely make each
remaining First Nation member a millionaire, a new capitalist?
Aside from the theft of the products of labor that usually goes along with
genocide, we should look at the economic meaning of genocide. People are
after all congealed labor themselves. It took so much food, shelter,
clothing and education to make the persyn before s/he was killed by the
imperialists or their allies.
When a persyn with one day left to live is killed by imperialists, his or
her people are deprived of his or her labor or creations for that one day.
When a persyn is struck down at age 13, a whole adult lifetime of labor is
lost to the oppressed nation. Genocide involves both the appropriation of
labor and labor-power.
As scientists, we must admit that killing is not part of what Marx called
the "productive sector." Rather it is a kind of appropriation more in the
waste sector. The military, police and oppressor nation lynch-mobs are
part of the unproductive sector. (See a forthcoming ITAL MT END on the
controversial subject of the ideological ramifications of the
"unproductive" sector.)
Oppressor nations appropriate the labor and labor-power of other peoples
either to waste them in order to seize control of resources and sometimes
to take them home and use them. The commodities they steal after killing
involve the theft of labor. Much other destruction is appropriation
through waste.
When we look at an oppressed nation and wonder why its national
bourgeoisie is so weak and why there is either semi-feudalism or dependent
capitalism in place, the reason can often be traced to genocide. To be a
strong and vibrant bourgeoisie, a bourgeoisie has to have had labor to
appropriate. If the people in one's area of economic intercourse have been
killed off, it is difficult to appropriate labor and become thriving
bourgeoisie. Genocide stunts the upper ranks of the petty-bourgeoisie and
bourgeoisie.
Not surprisingly the same writer in MIM circles formerly of CP-USA circles
also failed to understand that home and real estate ownership are class
and national in nature. The fact that an oppressor nation persyn rarely
owns the exact farm his/her great grandparents took from the First Nations
does not mean those great grandparents did not trade within their nation.
Classes and nations are groups of people not individuals or families. That
property ended up in the hands of oppressor nation people one way or
another, usually through sale in exchange for other capital. To this day,
people of the same occupation but different nations--e.g. Black versus
white--have different average amounts of property. Genocide increases the
development of the petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie proper in the
oppressor nation.
The debt owed by the oppressor nations to oppressed nations of the
internal semi-colonies is in the trillions. The problem for our analysis
of the class structure is that the oppressor nation is now paying it back
through economically integrating the semi-colonies with imperialism: Now
the internal semi-colonies appropriate the labor of the Third World with
the help of Uncle Sam. Thus the payback is not with Euro-Amerikan labor
but with Third World labor.
The APSP is correct to say that the main issue of reparations is not cash.
It is control of institutions. The trillions owed to the oppressed nations
mean control of the land and institutions on top of it. The First Nations
must control their land here and the Africans must receive control of
Africa. In Europe, Blacks can receive their reparations by control of
institutions of the economy and in the U$A, Blacks can work out something
with the First Nations to seize land. We do not mean to favor transferring
the wealth of Third World people to internal semi-colonies. Quite the
opposite, we seek to inspire the internal semi-colonies to be a bridge
back to the Third World for the flow of reparations from ex-imperialism
under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
a. Genocide
One of the main reasons that MIM has had difficulty with pinning down the
class structure of the internal semi-colonies is understanding the role of
genocide and past appropriations of labor in class formation. Today, when
it comes to answering what class various oppressed nationality people are
in, we finally answer that historical genocide and exploitation should be
thought of as affecting the property passed down from generation to
generation.
When it comes to understanding whether oppressed internal semi-colonies
are net exploiters through imperialism or whether they are exploited, it
seems that genocide should be accounted for as an historical and
continuing debt. Recently, a former member of CP-USA circles apparently
decided that MIM is slightly more correct than both the CP-USA and the
Workers World Party and started working with MIM. He wrote to MIM various
anti-Semitic comments that also showed a confused understanding of
fascism. Not surprisingly the same persyn contended that First Nation
people cannot be said to be exploited. He says they were killed, so no
labor was extracted. This brings us in a crude way to the question of the
impact of genocide on class structure.
In the main, oppressors carry out genocide in the capitalist context to
ease the appropriation of labor both past and present. Past labor known as
"dead labor" is capital, unless we mean property of the sort that is land.
Of course, land also has congealed labor that goes into it as a means of
production. The work of First Nations to remove rocks from agricultural
fields and to build various improvements is something stolen when land is
stolen.
It is the accumulation of the means of production through genocide that
establishes the basis of class society from the earliest existence of
class society. Thus genocide can be thought of as a pre-condition for
capitalist exploitation. It is much easier to extract super-profits once
an oppressor nation has established its ability and willingness to use
genocidal force.
Genocide is thought of as something requiring reparations as a matter of
justice. Does such a concept relate to our understanding of class
structure? According to an informative APSP pamphlet we reviewed in ITAL
MT8 END, the debt owed for slavery is in the trillions of dollars. During
the Vietnam War, the Black Panthers suggested that the U$A pay $10 billion
for 1 million killed in Vietnam in reparations. How do we relate such
calculations to our understanding of class structure? And what do we do
with the fact that any repayment of First Nations must surely make each
remaining First Nation member a millionaire, a new capitalist?
Aside from the theft of the products of labor that usually goes along with
genocide, we should look at the economic meaning of genocide. People are
after all congealed labor themselves. It took so much food, shelter,
clothing and education to make the persyn before s/he was killed by the
imperialists or their allies.
When a persyn with one day left to live is killed by imperialists, his or
her people are deprived of his or her labor or creations for that one day.
When a persyn is struck down at age 13, a whole adult lifetime of labor is
lost to the oppressed nation. Genocide involves both the appropriation of
labor and labor-power.
As scientists, we must admit that killing is not part of what Marx called
the "productive sector." Rather it is a kind of appropriation more in the
waste sector. The military, police and oppressor nation lynch-mobs are
part of the unproductive sector. (See a forthcoming ITAL MT END on the
controversial subject of the ideological ramifications of the
"unproductive" sector.)
Oppressor nations appropriate the labor and labor-power of other peoples
either to waste them in order to seize control of resources and sometimes
to take them home and use them. The commodities they steal after killing
involve the theft of labor. Much other destruction is appropriation
through waste.
When we look at an oppressed nation and wonder why its national
bourgeoisie is so weak and why there is either semi-feudalism or dependent
capitalism in place, the reason can often be traced to genocide. To be a
strong and vibrant bourgeoisie, a bourgeoisie has to have had labor to
appropriate. If the people in one's area of economic intercourse have been
killed off, it is difficult to appropriate labor and become thriving
bourgeoisie. Genocide stunts the upper ranks of the petty-bourgeoisie and
bourgeoisie.
Not surprisingly the same writer in MIM circles formerly of CP-USA circles
also failed to understand that home and real estate ownership are class
and national in nature. The fact that an oppressor nation persyn rarely
owns the exact farm his/her great grandparents took from the First Nations
does not mean those great grandparents did not trade within their nation.
Classes and nations are groups of people not individuals or families. That
property ended up in the hands of oppressor nation people one way or
another, usually through sale in exchange for other capital. To this day,
people of the same occupation but different nations--e.g. Black versus
white--have different average amounts of property. Genocide increases the
development of the petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie proper in the
oppressor nation.
The debt owed by the oppressor nations to oppressed nations of the
internal semi-colonies is in the trillions. The problem for our analysis
of the class structure is that the oppressor nation is now paying it back
through economically integrating the semi-colonies with imperialism: Now
the internal semi-colonies appropriate the labor of the Third World with
the help of Uncle Sam. Thus the payback is not with Euro-Amerikan labor
but with Third World labor.
The APSP is correct to say that the main issue of reparations is not cash.
It is control of institutions. The trillions owed to the oppressed nations
mean control of the land and institutions on top of it. The First Nations
must control their land here and the Africans must receive control of
Africa. In Europe, Blacks can receive their reparations by control of
institutions of the economy and in the U$A, Blacks can work out something
with the First Nations to seize land. We do not mean to favor transferring
the wealth of Third World people to internal semi-colonies. Quite the
opposite, we seek to inspire the internal semi-colonies to be a bridge
back to the Third World for the flow of reparations from ex-imperialism
under the dictatorship of the proletariat.