*----------------------------------------------------------* | | | x x x x x xxx x x xxx xx xxx x x | | xx xx x xx xx x x x x x x x x x x Issue #11 | | x x x x x x x x xxxx xx x x xxx xxx | | x x x x x x x x x x x x x x 11/10/87 | | x x x x x x x x xxx xx x x x | | | |----------------------------------------------------------| | Theory Journal of the Maoist Internationalist Movement | *----------------------------------------------------------* MISSING SECTIONS FROM PRINT VERSION: Fudging the national question Confusion over national question L.A. thesis MC6 on L.A. THE LABOR ARISTOCRACY DEBATE CONTINUED By MC5 and MC7 What is the labor aristocracy? Some people found a theoretical explanation useful. As Marx pointed out, in the capitalism of his day, capitalists paid for workers' labor- power, not their labor. This meant that the capitalist only paid as much as was necessary to reproduce the worker's ability to work. That meant paying the worker enough for him to eat and do other things essential to life. It also meant paying enough for the worker to support a family so that the worker would be replaced when he became unable to work through enfeeblement or death. This wage that the capitalist pays the worker is the exchange-value (defined as price in money terms) of labor- power. It is merely the payment for the ability to do work. The ordinary exploitation of Marx's day occurred where capitalists paid the worker his/her exchange-value of labor- power. Super-exploitation occurs where the capitalist manages to pay for less than the exchange-value of labor-power. This usually happens where there is extra-economic coercion of workers just short of outright slavery. An obvious example of super-exploitation occurs where mineworkers in South Africa leave their families behind on the Bantustan. With the wages that South African Blacks get, they die early and they have to let their families fend for themselves on the Bantustans. The families perform subsistence agriculture and otherwise grope for a living. Apartheid is a political system based on race that allows capitalists to pay workers less than necessary for the workers' survival. The profits from super-exploitation are called super- profits. With super-profits the capitalists can pay other workers more than usual. When MIM refers to the labor aristocracy it means that group of people who are paid more than the exchange-value of their labor-power but still do not belong to the petty-bourgeoisie or bourgeoisie. Historically, the labor aristocracy of Engels' and Lenin's day mostly meant those labor union leaders who managed to gain higher salaries and privileges for themselves. Lenin noted that this group was expanding in his time. According to H.W. Edwards, the labor aristocracy is no longer just the labor union leaders, but most of the workers in the imperialist countries. That is to say with the expansion of imperialism worldwide, the capitalists in the imperialist countries have bought off the majority of workers in the mother countries. Below we summarize the three types of workers defined above: 1) Superexploited: Can't feed families, must supplement wages with other means of survival or die young,e.g. South African Black mineworkers. 2) Exploited: Can feed their families. Get paid for full value of labor-power, e.g. industrial workers in England of Marx's day. 3) Labor aristocracy: Not only get value of labor-power, but also substantial privileges beyond that, e.g. U.S. steelworkers today. Class alliances in the era of imperialism Another concept not stressed directly in MIM Theory 9 and 10 is that of class alliance. Commonly on the "Left" one hears that all the struggles out there boil down to the same thing. There is some truth in thinking this way, but it is not true that workers in the United States are fundamentally the same as workers in South Africa. The reason for this is, according to Sakai and Edwards, the majority of workers in the United States are allied with the US imperialists. The labor aristocracy of the United States allies with the imperialists to gain higher wages, better jobs and an easier life. At home, among the privileges of the male labor aristocracy in its heyday was having a housewife. The housewife helped in easing the tensions of the competitive business world. She replenished the workers' energies by doing the chores and errands necessary as well as by offering emotional support. This privilege of the labor aristocracy has been the first to suffer erosion as the US imperialists have had to tighten their belts with the military and economic defeats since the 1960s; however, with the return of women to the work force a moderate increase in luxury consumption became possible. MIM Theory 9 and 10 included a statistical table that showed that real per capita income has increased since 1970. At work, the allies of imperialism merely do the paper- shuffling of imperialism. Deindustrialization has meant that increasingly, the real work of production is done elsewhere. The difference between the US steelworker and South African mineworker (excluding the whites who are also bought off) is the difference between an ally of imperialism and imperialism's most determined enemy. According to Sakai, it isn't even so much that the bulk of the working class in the United States allies with imperialism. There just is no Euro- Amerikan proletariat, only scattered exploited workers and labor aristocrats, a petty-bourgeois class and a bourgeoisie according to Sakai. Labor aristocracy and imperialists: struggle or negotiate? Many "leftists" wishing to see a chance for social change attribute class opposition to every little conflict they see. If workers strike for a few days, that is class struggle. If workers sick-out, that is class struggle etc. according to these "leftists." Especially these days when many workers face wage cuts, most "leftists" see class struggle everywhere. In a certain nominal sense, of course, these "leftists" are correct. When the capitalists struggle with the petty-bourgeoisie or with other capitalists, there might not be much wrong in saying there is "class struggle." Yet, many leftists see that the struggle between Democrats and Republicans is a struggle within the capitalist class. In fact, the struggle more resembles haggling or negotiations more than any real struggle. With a moment's reflection on the Hart sex scandal, the Biden tape scandal and Reagan's "October Surprise" for Carter one can see that the capitalists themselves engage in political struggles. The struggles, however, can only go up to a certain point. The day that Republicans and Democrats are putting each other in prison or executing each other on the battlefield is the day that imperialism is in danger of falling. The same goes for economic relations within the petty- bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie. A store owner might haggle with a supplier. A steel capitalist will negotiate the terms of buying iron ore. There are many potential conflicts but none of these are fundamental in any sense. Honestly facing empirical reality to avoid social democratic dogma When capitalists are able to cut wages without violent disruption or even the need to resort to repression, one must ask, are the workers really in struggle with the capitalists? Or, are they merely negotiating the terms on which they will jointly exploit the Third World? In examining post-WWII history in the imperialist countries, one has to admit that struggle between workers and capitalists resembles negotiations over a common interest more than a life-and-death struggle that Marx would have recognized. There have been exceptions in the United States, but as the last issue of MIM Notes detailed, the battles between police and workers in S. Korea were more significant in one month of action than all of the post-war history of class struggle in the United States. In practice, a militant struggle led among steelworkers would only give the steelworkers better terms in the pact to expand super-exploitation across the globe. In fact, the ironic effect of such a successful struggle will be an increase in the super-exploitation of Third World workers. At the very least, a successful struggle led among the labor aristocracy only tightens the alliance between the imperialists and labor aristocracy. A historical note: where this line comes from Some comrades have pointed out that MIM Theory 9 and 10 reminds them of the failed Revolutionary Youth Movement (I) of the '60s and early '70s. Indeed, it seems that MIM does not realize that Progressive Labor (PL) got the better of its argument with RYM. Some people say this as if to say the RYM line is an ancient failure, when it actually only hit the scene in the United States in the 1960s. Compare the length of time this line has been out there with the length of time that various social democratic and revisionist theories have had to prove their mettle or lack thereof. The fact is that the RYM line never got a good test. Its leading proponents became intertwined with the drug culture and terrorism in such a way that their trend was almost completely destroyed. Then there is also the issue of state repression of this trend, which has been much heavier than for other trends. (For an interesting treatment of this, see the sequel to Sakai's book -- False Nationalism, False Internationalism.) Drugs, terrorism and the state destroyed the historical representatives of the Sakai/Edwards line. A proposal for MIM's line and a moderation of the RYM line The RYM line saw the majority of Americans as part of the enemy. Whether this was a result of the intellectual spontaneity of terrorism or the RYM line that saw no social basis for revolution in the United States, the two lines reinforced each other. As a result, RYM made an intense appeal to the drug and youth culture for a social base. Sakai's line that the majority of the people in the United States are part of the enemy to be overthrown is a plausible line, especially in that it demarcates from simple terrorism and some of the mistakes of the past. Nonetheless, this comrade would not go as far as Sakai in saying that the Euro-Amerikan petty-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy are enemies. At this time, the proletariat should have faith in the vacillating character of these groups. In a period of more intense crisis, these groups will split. That means that on the average, and in the long-run, they should be regarded as neutral. In the short run they are allies of the imperialists. However, proletarian attacks on these allies of the bourgeoisie will only further cement an alliance that the international proletariat is working on severing. Thus, to base a vanguard party in the petty-bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy is to recruit for an alliance with imperialism. Of course, small groups of revolutionary intellectuals may recruit among the labor aristocracy with little impact, but over time, even small groups will thoroughly corrupt themselves with the influence of imperialism. To name names, groups like the Workers' League, Spark and Progressive Labor will do nothing but organize a militant front of the labor aristocracy and the line they put out will boil down to fighting to get the workers another VCR. What keeps these groups away from a revolutionary social base is a refusal to admit the reality that the intersection of class oppression and imperialist oppression is super- exploitation and the basis for revolution in contemporary times. All these groups deny the importance of super- exploitation. What social base for revolution is indicated by scientific analysis? Some people need a cookbook analysis of where to go and how to put together a revolution. Out of a basic hatred for this kind of approach, MIM has always proceded from line and analysis of conditions to an analysis of social base. Yet, some people will not see the difference between, say the Trotskyist line and the Maoist line unless social groups are spelled out. Revolutionary groups in the United States * Super-exploited and exploited workers of national minority groups--Native-Americans, Blacks, Latinos etc. * Youth of all nationalities and classes except the bourgeoisie * Immigrant workers, especially illegal aliens * Prisoners and much of the lumpen-proletariat, who are largely composed of the above three groups. * Women who belong to the above groups are even more objectively revolutionary than their male counterparts. Non-revolutionary or counterrevolutionary groups * Euro-Amerikan workers as a whole including both the labor aristocracy and petty-bourgeoisie * Bourgeoisie * Women in the above two groups will be less committed to imperialism because of their oppression by the patriarchy, but on the whole will still be allies of imperialism. Questionable categories, depends on theory of nation in United States * Labor aristocracy, petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie of national minorities * Any other groups of people who have an anti-imperialist and/or anti-militarist line. US, today Sakai Edwards Bourgeoisie yes, small yes, small Petty-bourgeoisie yes, majority yes, large Labor aristocracy yes, large yes, majority Exploited isolated cases yes, some Super-exploited yes, many in U.S. yes, world majority Lumpen-proletariat yes yes Super-exploited and exploited (not sure there are any merely exploited national minority workers) workers in national minority groups are obviously revolutionary. The youth are generally revolutonary because one of the most important symptoms of imperialism is militarism. Militarism exploits youth most. This is not to say that youth are a class, only that on the average, the international proletariat can have faith in the youth as allies. To the extent that war is simple push-button war or otherwise not costly in terms of the lives of the youth of imperialist countries, the material basis of this alliance is undercut. Again immigrant workers and illegal aliens are almost by definition super-exploited and revolutionary on the whole. The lumpenproletariat has a large section open to the revolution. One must remember thatĘthe lumpenproletariat of the United States may have better conditions than the working classes of other countries. Finally, to the extent that there is a Black colony and Latino colony in the United States, there are also revolutionary Black and Latino bourgeoisies. CORRESPONDENCE WRITER WANTS MIM TO CLARIFY WHO THE ENEMY IS To go on to another comment on "settler populations." Does MIM consider the Mongol hordes who overrode China in the past, and whom China absorbed into her culture as was her way of overcoming enemies, a "settler population," and does MIM now advocate throwing them out or beheading them? To me this would make as much sense as to call white Americans whose ancestors came here in the Seventeenth Century a "settler population." This is only an excuse to make war on us, in my opinion. Does MIM consider the Vandals, the Ostrogoths and the Gauls & Visigoths who overran and ransacked Rome in the Fourth Century A.D. "settler populations?" Should they be routed out of Italy and whatever they owned taken away from them? The Tartars or "Tatars" pillaged parts of Russia at one time. Are their descendants now "settler population," and should they now be routed out by the skin of their teeth and pilloried? Should the Moors be routed out of India as a "settler population" since they overcame the Aryans already living there merged with that population. Or the "Moors" who conquered Spain at one time? Should they now be called a "settler population" and disinherited? I would very much like to see your answer to this very important question. How is MIM received by the Chinese bourgeoisie in this country, who have gotten rich off the sweatshops worked in mainly by women in this country? What is their position? The theory that there is no white proletariat here and that we are all guilty of stealing the Amerind's land and exploiting them, is we might say, "guilt by association" theory. I did not steal their land and have always admired their culture. Am I going to be hung for these crimes? In all hstory all political entities have begun as small, admirable states, rose to a degree of power and wealth, exploited and profitted from other countries and then fell, through over-indulgence, apathy, and corruption. I reject this guilt trip that I and my culture stole the Indian's land. It was a terrible thing and I have no use for the people who did this: the European trading companies and land companies, the empires, and the religiously neurotic Pilgrims and Puritans and sundry others. I long ago stopped worshipping the Pilgrims and the Puritans. However, that is an individual thing and I am doubtless a minority in this philosophy. It is difficult to hang a guilt trip on an emotionally healthy, aware person of any wisdom. Christianity also rules by guilt, and helps its governments control mission lands by guilt. People planning revolutions are also guilty of plotting to take violent control of other people's possessions on one pretext or another, the have vs. the have-nots. Survival of the fittest will prevail. I do not believe in empire, but it has gone on from early history to the present and doubtless will to the end of time, which may not be far off unless we stop making nukes. --Activist from South October, 1987 Response by MC5 It is correct not to accept a guilt trip regarding the genocide of Native-Americans. The main point of reviewing Sakai was not guilt-whipping; although, traditionally, groups in trends related to Sakai's--e.g. John Brown Anti-Klan Committee--have employed this strategy of playing, albeit unconsciously, into Christian guilt/ethics. The point of Sakai, which MC5 obviously did not do sufficient justice to in th review is to understand why Euro- Amerikan workers are not rising up for social change right now. Part of the answer to that is to explain why workers have no socialist tradition in the United States. When asked why the working class movements did not develop in the 1800s, one must answer that the United States was always a country of land-holders. If an industrial working class started to develop in the latter half of the 19th century, one must remember that most people in the United States could at least remember times when land-grabbing and landholding was the rule. So the stealing of Indian land is important in analysis of the history of the proletariat in the United States and also to keep in mind in terms of reparations needed today. More importantly, Sakai did not just talk about the seizure of Indian land, but showed how at each period of history, with brief exceptions, the Euro-Amerikan working class allied with the capitalist class to engage in super- exploitation on non-Euro-Amerikan peoples. Today, a key statistic in Sakai's arsenal is that 54% of white workers are white collar. That has nothing to do with guilt and it is only remotely related to the land question of the 1600s, 1700s and 1800s. It is a statistic that revolutionaries in the United States must reckon with today, not as a moral statement, but as a statement about where revolutionary energies will be best spent. As far as what should be MIM's outlook on the white masses of the US, that is a question answered elsewhere. Sakai has concluded that they are the enemies of the international proletariat, that they must be fought. MC5 personally sees that as a plausible analysis, but offer a different one. As for reparations, it is interesting how some of the writer's arguments could easily be used to oppose something as mild as affirmative action! After all, whites today are not guilty of slave-owning; did not steal the land of the Mexicans or the Indians; why should they suffer reverse discrimination to make up for that? Euro-Amerikans start their lives with an advantage conferred on them for their group membership. That is not to say every white is richer than every Black. It only says that the average white is better off than the average Black. And that has to do with the histories of the two groups and the exploitation of one group by another to this day. Of course, the poor Euro-Amerikans also deserve affirmative action, reparations to some extent. No Marxist revolution would ignore class in issues such as education, job opportunities, access to health care etc. WRITER SUPPORTS POSITION IV (AS DUBBED BY EDITOR): DISENCHANTED LABOR ARISTOCRACY IS MOVING IN CORRECT DIRECTION I take strong exception to the premise that there is no proletariat in the United States anymore!!!!!! What about the poor in Appalachia? What about the homeless? What about single mothers who seldom collect ther money awarded to them and their children in court? Poor elderly women? The working poor? The disabled? I think that the term "bourgeois" is very loosely used. It does not include every poor schmuck driving a truck, pounding a beat, or a typewriter. I see this position as racism--anti-white. For shame, you need us. We need each other. J. Sakai, this is a thinly disguised excuse to rape this country. The "labor aristocracy" if there ever was one, had whatever they had because they fought bloody battles on the strike lines. Today labor is all but extinct in this country due to moving companies to the Third World for more exploitation. Benefits at work are drastically reduced, and "bonuses" take the place of merit salary increases. I have more on thoughts on this business of no white proletariat in the U.S. Firstly, as previously stated, I think that MIM must make use of the disenchanted of this now- losing empire and become the wave of the future. A race war never helps anyone and can boomerang. The Chinese over centuries have absorbed many in invasions and thereby remained afloat as a high-level culture, despite economic difficulties at present. [If I might add, at least partially China has gone the route of integration. Mao brought together many nationalities without giving them their own countries, so if we do not follow Mao's road, are we not contradicting ourselves? --ed.] I think that Mao has shown that the thing to do is to organize the peasants in the countryside, thatĘis what brought his great success. As you may recall, on the Long March he collected the peasants as he went and that led to his success. Now there are doubtless few peasants in the countryside here. BUT conditions are fast approaching desperation here for millions of people. The homeless, the poor on welfare, the working poor, parts of the middle class who are rapidly losing benefits at work such as health benefits, parental leave for childbirth, merit salary increases, and many who can no longer afford to buy homes, the old American dream. Many of these are not people who read, can afford to read, like to read, or have any place to read. they must be organized as Mao did, by collecting them, personally, if need be. As to the factory workers, they are rapidly becoming obsolete, too, and one may catch. Some few strikes seem to indicate that there is life yet: in a few factories (where they are not brutalized), peace activists, the rich football players, and the teachers trying to stay in the middle class. The middle class is being destroyed by Reagan and the capitalists, so here is ripe ground for revolution, sooner or later. In history it is always when the middle class gets so discouraged that they join the lower classes and knock out the top layer that a revolution occurs. So the writers really start a revolution as with Voltaire and others, but the troops then man the barricades. We are getting ripe here, but the middle class is not yet awake as to the situation--just a few of us are beginning to yawn. But people have some gumption and spunk and have strikes and fight for better conditions and earn them so that they are their families live better, then you immediately consign them to hell as "labor aristocracy." This is a no-win situation, and you might as well admit, straight out, that you simply hate whites who have until recently ruled the world, and want an excuse to snatch whatever they have away from them and wipe them out. Isn't that a lot of wasted effort when you might get the cooperation of many disenchanted people like myself? I am working toward the end of changing this white conformity, so deeply ingrained. Some friends and family will complain of different aspects of our society and I have begun to point out that they still support the system, as do many black "bourgeois" or "petit- bourgeois." Of late some are beginning to see the larger picture. However, it take time, patience and finesse. Yours is a different path, and rightly so. I understand it. I also am beginning to understand better that the labor people and some blacks have been bought off with a few more crumbs from the table rather than working to change or overthrow the entire malignant system. I have studied the Lenin piece, Imperialism and the Split in Socialism, which TOS sent me. It has been very helpful in helping me to understand better some of your theorires about the "labor aristocracy" and the lack of a real "white proletariat" in this country. I agree with much that is in the Lenin piece. I have had some of these ideas myself, such as the extreme conformity of the English, for example. Did Mao collect his people by pamphlets and writing in the beginning? Perhaps he did, but my view of it, with limited knowledge, was that he fought and marched and was concerned that the people had "cooking oil and salt," for example, as in th ecopied sheets "Be Concerned with the Well-Being of the Masses, Pay Attention to Methods of Work," (January 27, 1934). --Same friend as above October, 1987 Response by MC5 First, agreed, written propaganda cannot replace the spoken word or even the graphic and pictorial. Once again, there is a difference between an individual and the individual's group. As MIM Theory 9&10 said, MIM accepts anyone who upholds its line, and at this point that is contained only in a handful of documents of which MIM Theory 9&10 is not one yet. However, the fact that one is personally active or that one knows Euro-Amerikans who are progressive or revolutionary does not prove that Euro-Amerikans as a group are in the same boat. Indeed, Sakai does not expect Euro-Amerikan workers to have a response like the one above on average and it is because these workers do not demonstrate proletarian consciousness as a group and because they do not in fact have proletarian interests as a group that Sakai says there is no Euro-Amerikan proletariat. That is not the same thing as saying there are no Euro-Amerikan revolutionaries. Euro-Amerikans can be revolutionary if they are revolutionary defeatists, meaning that they support the defeat of the government of their nation. Also in order to be revolutionary, Euro-Amerikans must be willing to give up the self-interest of their race, nation, class etc. and only take the ideological view of the international proletariat. As for Mao's line on the needs of the masses, we should remember to focus on the needs of the super-exploited and exploited and minimize our conflicts with the needs of the middle classes. Fighting to get workers a raise to buy a new car is not the way forward. WRITER CRITICIZES FORMER BOLSHEVIK LEAGUE/ NEW INTERNATIONAL DISTRIBUTORS: SUPPORTS ELECTORAL POLITICS To comment on one last item of the last issue of MIM Theory 9&10 which was the proposed plan to discredit the Democrats by supporting Jesse Jackson, hoping that that would cause "white flight" from him at voting time, or from the Democrats. First, this is manipulative behavior, and this usually rebounds like a boomerang against the user. Secondly, Jesse Jackson is, first, last and always a Baptist preacher, and thinking people aren't going to vote for him anyway. Besides, many of us dedicated to the separation of church and state are not going to vote for him. If he should be nominated, which I doubt, I would, most probably for the first time in my life, vote for no one at all! This has always been the position of the Socialist Labor Party: to vote supports the present system. I would suggest that we select and run our own candidate if we have a suitable one with the expertise and experience to do so. Run candidates of our own. However, that goes back to the question of how much exposure we want. Are we ready to run our own candidate? The Socialist Party USA is running candidates and scraping hard to do so, both financially and otherwise. Either throw caution to the winds, and run candidates, if we have them, or maintain a discreet silence and work covertly to build a base. It seeems to me rather juvenile to think that if the Republicans won there would be war and conditions more conducive to revolution Wild flights of fancy. If the Republicans win, things will be even more repressive than now!!! --Same person October, 1987 Response by MC5 The only thing I agree with is that the masses can usually tell when someone is being manipulative. Otherwise, MIM disagrees with the above as stated in its founding documents. Mao, however, stressed that the communists in imperialist countries would have to endure long periods of legal class struggles (speech from the sixth plenary session of the sixth central committee of the CCP): "Internally, capitalist countries practise bourgeois democracy (not feudalism) when they are not fascist or at war; in their external relations, they are not oppressed by, but themselves oppress other nations. Because of these characteristics. . . In these countries, the question is one of long legal struggle. . . and the form of struggle bloodless (non-military)." (H.W. Edwards, Labor Aristocracy, p. 394) MIM does not have an official stance on the above quote from Mao. There are two potential issues in it. One is that Mao says non-military struggle, not parliamentary struggle necessarily (sorry, don't have more on this subject by Mao on hand). Secondly, it is a concrete question whether or not the US is involved in war, and particular World War III and what that means for action now. READER SUBSCRIBES TO OTHER PAPERS WITH INFO FROM MIM I have found the lit. to be enlightening and relatively non-sectarian. I keep abreast of what's going on in the world by listening to international (shortwave) broadcasts and by reading leftist papers and stuff. With all the shit that's on TV and domestic radio these days, what else is there? I was thrilled to receive the list of various outfits to the "left" of social democracy. I have written to a bunch of them and have added Challenge and Revolutionary Worker to the list of papers I receive (PDW, The People, the WA, Workers' Vanguard, Workers' World). I'm thinking about adding the National Alliance, Burning Spear and maybe a couple of others. I'm pleasantly surprised to get my hands on this list; since I'm not sure just who's out there and you can't find them all listed in a reference like the Encyclopedia of Societies and Associations. I will comment that I feel your criticism of the Sparts as "agent of the state" and likewise insinuations in "The SL: Working for Two Bourgeoisies" are somewhat gutterish and in poor taste. However, the Sparts do seem to have a record of disruptive/ disparaging/ wrecking activity. Concerning the "agents of the state" part, how am I to know that MIM isn't such? The revolutionary must take a risk and hope that his/her name does not end up in an FBI file under "subversive" or "agent of a foreign power" as they prefer to call us. Since I am not in the demonstrations, protests, etc., how am I to know how people act? The antics of the Sparts, RCP etc. are often mentioned, but how am I to know how MIM behaves? The MLP often bitches about how LOM, SWP, and the reformist crowd tries to "hold them back" or dissuade militant activity, such as recently at the "young" Reaganite convention in Seattle. (See the Workers' Advocate, "To Hell with 'Ollie Mania,'" 8/1/87). What would you have done in this situation? 3) As you recall, in my last letter I was telling you about the books on your book list that I was looking for at the libraries in my area. Recently I have read The Black Panthers Speak, SDS (really enjoyed this one!), Seize the Time, and Turning Point in China (too simplistic). I learned a lot about US radical/ revolutionary/ activist/ history during a time when the struggle heated up a bit. I am appreciative of the contribution that MIM makes to today's struggle and to build a fighting movement. I share my literature and papers with a couple of friends who ahve a half-assed interest. 4) I am still somewhat confused but consider myself as Marxist-Leninist and revolutionary. I must confess I have been "poisoned" by "anti-Mao" propaganda. I ran into your good friends the Sparts and Hoxhaites before I ever found out the MIM and RCP. I do not consider myself as either pro- or anti- Mao; I am still debating it in my head. Mao-Cow, Trotsky-Shitsky, Hoxha-Codger, what does it matter? Their ass is history anyway. Who knows what they would "think" if they were alive today anyhow? Yesterday's Maoists and "third worlders," like the CWP are today's pro-Soviet crowd. Trotskyism, likewise, can be just about anything; from "Hail Red Army in Afghanistan," or "To Hell with Afghanistan and the USSR"! In one of your articles, you mentioned that it was "effectively liquidationist" to call Marxist-Leninist leadership of the anti-intervention movement, and then went on to apologize and make "excuses" for liquidationism and reformism. But then, if you want to be "hip" to adventurism also. My conclusion is that the two faces of Maoism are reformism and adventurism. 5) I will say that US imperialism's crimes against Nicaragua, Grenada, and El Salvador are a strong argument in favor of breaking the anti-intervention movement away from the liberals and social-democrats. Just look at the praises the contragate committee members lavished on Reagan's fascist flunkies during the hearings. Yes, these poraises came from pro-contra and "anti-contra" Democrats and Republicans alike. Oh, the fine words for patriotism! Oh, the many eloquent speeches for "democracy" and "human rights" in Central America! Oh, HOW SICK! But to MIM's way of thinking, we should not get out of line. No we should pray and beg the Democrats ot change their wicked ways! It is "liquidationist" or "sectarian" to build a movement that exposes the Democrats and their Reaganite ways. How absurd! I must wonder why Maoists fall into the traps of social- chauvinism (OL, CPML), anarchism (RCP, Shimo), and outright desertion to social-democracy and reformism (CWP, LOM). And all in the name of "anti-revisionism." You may consider me to be an eclectic, but I consider it "non-sectarianism." Believe it or not, I am trying to overcome my prejudices and suspicions against Maoism. Perhaps Mao had good intentions and the Cultural Revolution was not merely a fiasco and a power struggle within the bureaucracy of the CCP. When I first began to study Marxism, I was amused by the debates and polemics between various parties. Now I take these things somewhat more seriously. If I weren't so serious, I'd be tempted to laugh it all off as a joke. By the way, a recent BBC broadcast mentioned the death of a Chinese youth by drowning. Observers, who watched her struggle without attempting to rescue her, are reported to have said "someone should pay us to save her life," "there are too many people in China anyway," and "it is bad luck to carry a dead person out of water." Self-centeredness, no compassion and superstition is the result of the "get rich" thought of today's China. --Another comrade from the South August, 1987 Response by MC5: Well, it's for polemics like this that MIM Theory is made for, as opposed to MIM Notes, which is for wider distribution. The response is numbered to correspond to the letter. 2) MIM's evaluation of the Spartacist League comes from intensive experience. It is interesting that most people in the US cannot experience the contention of the various "M-L" groups in the major cities. The letter mentions his residence as in a "put-up-and-shut-up, conservative, depoliticized" right to work state and a county where Christian fundamentalists dominate. This letter-writer would not be able to evaluate in practice all the groups that he read about because they do not exist in his area. Maybe such people need to move or at least visit cities occasionally. Indeed, one could do a service by stocking bookstores in the nearest cities with the literature one gets. 4) MIM Notes has had articles about adventurists who get caught up in the court system. MIM is "innocent as charged" by the letter-writer for generally supporting adventurists/terrorists in such a context. Despite his non-sectarian veneer, it's too bad he doesn't recognize it as legitimate to work for Prisoners of War, political prisoners in the US and others that the US government is trying to punish for its own injustice. As for reformism the reference involved is where MIM said it would be better to be liquidationist than armchair dogmatists because even while liquidationist/reformists are incorrect politically, they still have a chance to learn from political practice the truth about the political system in the United States. Armchair dogmatists have no experience with which to compare their dogmas and hence have no hope of advancing politically. 5) This section carries polemics to the point where they start to lose their value because they say too much in too little space. First of all MIM never said not to build anti-imperialist/ militarist movements. The question was whether or not to try to take over specific single-issue organizations. The writer advocates the opportunist strategy of working in such single-issue groups until its members give him/her their trust, so that s/he can break them away from Democrat/social-democratic reformism. The problem is that there is nothing to stop revolutionaries from talking to the people in such single- issue groups and showing them the practices of revolutionaries. There is no need to hide out in these groups, withhold one's fully revolutionary perspective or otherwise slime one's way into people's political consciousness. In Ann Arbor, the largest Latin American solidarity group, which has many satellite groups, is led by the Democratic Congressional candidate of the 2nd district (as of 1986). The people in this group work in the congressional campaign. Yet, the writer implies he would not be satisfied unless MIM helped build up this particular group. In Cambridge, similar groups are led by FDR cheerleaders, presidential aspirants and the CP. What the writer does not understand is that there will always be a material basis for the Democrats and various opportunists to lead in particular single-issue groups. People who want to cut-off aid to the contras do not necessarily have revolutionary ideas; some such groups will be organized solely because its participants don't think the contra solution will work; they want a chance for US invasion or no aid at all. There is no inherent reason revolutionaries should have a strangle-hold on the topic of Central America or the topic of South Africa. The bourgeoisie also organizes on these subjects. They organize their way; we don't need to copy them. 6) The writer has a good attitude on reading the literature of all the groups. The many "M-L" groups may not have earned the role of historical forces yet. At the same time, those who want social change must use their heads to find the best means.