MIMorMLM?ConfrontingtheDivergentPoliticsofthePetty
Bourgeois“Left”OntheLaborAristocracyandOtherBurning
IssuesinToday’sRevolutionaryStruggle
ByKevin“Rashid”Johnson,MinisterofDefense,NewAfrikanBlackPanther
Party(PrisonChapter)
“Itisinevitablethatthebourgeoisieandpettybourgeoisiewillgive
expressiontotheirownideologies.Itisinevitablethattheywill
stubbornlyassertthemselvesonpoliticalandideologicalquestions
byeverypossiblemeans.Youcannotexpectthemtodootherwise.
Weshouldnotusethemethodofsuppressionandpreventthem
fromexpressingthemselves,butshouldallowthemtodosoandat
thesametimearguewiththemanddirectappropriatecriticismat
them.Undoubtedlywemustcriticizewrongideasofevery
description.Itcertainlywouldnotberighttorefrainfromcriticism,
lookonwhilewrongideasspreaduncheckedandallowthemto
dominatethefield.Mistakesmustbecriticizedandperniciousweeds
foughtwherevertheycropup.”
‐MaoTseTung,
“OntheCorrectHandlingofContradictionsAmongthePeople”
Introduction
Thereisa‘ThirdWorldist’linecirculatingwithin‘FirstWorld’Leftist
circles.ItclaimsthatworkersintheU.S.andotherdevelopedcapitalist
countriesarenotpartoftheinternationalproletariat.Itsaysthe‘real’
proletariatexistsonlyintheThirdWorld,andthatFirstWorldworkersarea
1
laboraristocracy(LA)andenemiesofthe‘real’proletariat.Amongthosewho
promotethisline(whichweintheNewAfrikanBlackPantherParty‐Prison
Chaptercallthevulgarlaboraristocracy[VLA]line),aresomewhocall
themselvesMaoists.
Westeppedforwardduringlatter2013torefutethislineinourarticle,
“AnsweringaRevisionistLineontheLaborAristocracy”.Therewe
demonstratedthattheVLAlinerepresentsnotaMarxistorproletarian
position,butisratherrevisionistandoriginatedwiththepettybourgeoisie
(PB).1Inresponse,theMaoistInternationalistMinistryofPrisons(MIMP),
whichsharestheVLAline,publishedapolemicalreply.2Wenowrespond.
Sincewewerefoundedin2005,theNABPP‐PChasputforth
considerableefforttoworkinunitywithMIMPanditsnowdefunctparent
organization,theMaoistinternationalistmovement(MIM).Ourcadrehave
workedwithinMIMP/MIM’sprisonerstudygroupsand“mass”organizations,
we’vehelpedkeepthemabreastofconditionswithintheEmpire’sprisonsin
supportoftheirworktopublicizesuchconditions,we’vepublishedsomeof
theirwritingsinournewslettersandhavewrittenfortheirs,we’veworkedto
helpthemfightcensorshipoftheirmedia,etc.Butunitywithoutstruggle
resultsonlyindegeneration,isnon‐dialectical,andinpoliticalworkamounts
toPBliberalism.
Itisthereforeincumbentuponustoopenlystruggleagainstwhatwe
seetobeerroneousinMIMP’stheoryandpractice,andthePBframework
withinwhichthesepositionshavedeveloped.Thisisespeciallynecessary
1Kevin“Rashid”Johnson,“AnsweringARevisionistLineontheLaborAristocracy,”August25,
2013,canbereadatrashidmod.com/?p=879
2WiawimawoofMIM(Prisons),“Rashid’sEmptyRhetoricontheLaborAristocracy,”UnderLock
andKey,No.34(Sept./Oct.2013),pp.8‐9.
2
becauseMIMPrepresentsitselfasaMaoistrevolutionaryleadershiptomany
prisonersinAmerika.
Whileourcriticismsheremaybeparticularlysharponsomepoints,our
aimistobuildafirmerbasisforgreaterunitywithMIMP,bystrugglingwith
themtoidentifyandcorrectpositionsweseeasideologicallyandpolitically
divergentfromagenuineMaoistline.ThesameappliestootherLeftistswho
sharesomeorallofMIMP’spositions,especiallyontheLAquestion.Mostof
whomarealsoPB.
InthisresponsewewillnotonlyanswerMIMP’spolemic,butwill
critiquetheirclaimtorepresenttheMaoistline.WewillalsoaddresstheirPB
originandresultantrevisionistpolitics,andtacklerelatedquestionsof
fundamentalimportancetogenuineproletarianrevolutionaries,suchaswho
areourrealfriendsandenemiesandhowwecorrectlyidentifythem,the
determinativeroleofclassandclassanalysisincorrectlyresolvingthese
questionsandsoon.
ThereisOnlyOneRevolutionaryClass
KarlMarxwasthefirsttoscientificallyapplypolitical‐economytomake
athoroughanalysisandstudyofhumansocietyanditsstagesofdevelopment.
Subsequently,V.I.LeninandMaoTseTungrespectivelyadvancedMarx’s
political‐economy,philosophy(DialecticalMaterialism)andprinciplesof
scientificsocialism,whichwenowcallMarxism‐Leninism‐Maoism(MLM)or
simplyMaoism.
Throughhispolitical‐economicanalysisMarxincollaborationwith
FrederickEngels,identifiedthefundamentalcomponentofcapitalist
production(namelythecommodity)andtheprincipalhumanrelationship
3
andclassstrugglethatformsthebasisofcommodityrelationsincapitalist
society,namelythestrugglebetweentheclassofproductivewagelaborers
(theproletariat)andtheemployingcapitalistclass(thebourgeoisie).AsMao
observed,“[b]eginningwiththecommodity,thesimplestelementof
capitalism,[Marx]madeathoroughstudyoftheeconomicstructureof
capitalistsociety.Millionsofpeoplesawandhandledcommoditieseveryday
butweresousedtothemtheytooknonotice.Marxalonestudied
commoditiesscientifically.”3AndfromthisstudyMarx,“wentontorevealthe
relationsamongpeoplehiddenbehindcommodities.”4
MarxsetoutthesestudiesinhisclassicworksCapitalandWages,Price
andProfit.Therewefindhisidentificationoftheproletariatwhomustsell
theirlaborpoweratlessthanitsactualvaluetothebourgeoisieinorderto
survive,andthebourgeoisiewhointurnsellsthecommoditiesproducedby
theproletariatonthemarketattheiractualvalueandpocketsthesurplusas
profitstobecomeimmenselywealthy.
Thisinherentlyexploitativerelationshipleavestheproletariat
producingeverythingthatsustainssocietywhileowninglittletonothing,
whereasthebourgeoisproducesnothingyetownstheentireproductive
systemandmeansofproduction,includingproductiveland,factories,
transportationinfrastructure,machinery,communicationsystems,etc.
Marxthereforerecognizedthattheproletariatistheonlyclasswhose
interestsareindiametricaloppositiontothebourgeoisie’s,andistherefore
3MaoTse‐tung,“RectifytheParty’sStyleofWork,”Feb.1,1942.
4MaoTse‐tung,“ReadingNotesontheSovietTextPoliticalEconomy,”CritiqueofSovietEconomics,
trans.MossRoberts(NewYork:MonthlyReviewPress,1977),p.110.
4
theonlyclasswithnothingtoloseandeverythingtogainbyoverthrowingthe
capitalistclassandsystem.IntheCommunistManifestoheandEngels
thereforemetaphoricallycharacterizedtheproletariatastheonlyclasswith
“nothingtolosebutitschains,”andconsequentlytheonlygenuinely
revolutionaryclassexistingundercapitalism.
Heestablishedthatahigherandmoreperfectproductivesystemwould
comeaftercapitalism,namelycommunism,whichwouldeliminateclass
divisionsandexploitativehumanrelations.Hedemonstratedthatthiswas
boundtocometopassbecauseallpreviousphasesofhumansocial‐historical
andtechnologicaldevelopmentpreparedthebasisforit.
Communismwouldcomeaboutthroughpolitical‐economicrevolutions
wheretheproletariatoverthrewthebourgeoisie,destroyingitsoldstate
systemandcreatinginitsplaceproletarianstatesthroughwhichtheworkers
inalliancewithotherpreviouslyoppressedsectorswouldexerciseitsown
classdictatorshipoverthebourgeoisieinallspheres–ideological,economic,
political,militaryandcultural.Thisprocesswouldadvancesocietiesthrough
“theabolitionofclassdistinctionsgenerally,totheabolitionofalltherelations
ofproductiononwhichtheyrest,totheabolitionofallsocialrelationsthat
correspondtotheserelationsofproduction,totherevolutionizingofallthe
ideasthatresultfromthesesocialrelations.”5
WiththeexceptionoftheshortlivedParisCommuneof1871,itwasn’t
untilafterMarxandEngels’lifetimesthattheproletariatbeganseizingstate
powerandtransformingsocietyasthey’dpredicted.Thiswasduringthestage
5KarlMarx,“TheClassStruggleinFrance1848to1850,”MarxandEngelsSelectedWorks(Moscow:
ProgressPublishers1973),Vol.1,p.282.
5
wherecapitalismdevelopedinseveraladvancedcapitalistcountriesintoits
finalandhigheststage,namelyimperialism.Inhispamphlet,“Imperialism,the
HighestStageofCapitalism,”Leninthoroughlystudiedanddescribedthis
development.Hewentontoproveinhispolemicalstrugglesagainstvarious
Marxistrevisioniststhatimperialismdidnotchangethebasicclass
contradictionsofcapitalismnorMarx’sbasictheoryofpoliticaleconomy,but
onlyraisedthemtoahigherlevel.Healsoshowedthattheriseofimperialism
markedthedawnoftheproletarianrevolutionsthatMarxhadforetold.Itwas
withtheseunderstandingsthatLeninwashimselfabletoleadtheRussian
proletariatinmakingthefirstsuccessfulproletarianrevolutionjustasMarx
hadpredicted.
Althoughimperialismhasnotchangedcapitalism’sfundamental
contradictions,wehaveseenasteadychangeinitstacticsandtheconsequent
conditionsofcrisis,chaosandhumansufferingithasunleashedacrossthe
worldinitsconstantruthlessdriveforprofitsandinitscontinuouslifeand
deathstruggletomaintainworldhegemonyovertheproletariatandother
oppressedsectors.
HavingestablishedinMarxisttermsthattheproletariatistheonly
revolutionaryclassundercapitalism,wenowturntothePBorliterallythe
‘littlebourgeoisie’.AsourquotefromMaoatthetopofthispapermakes
plain,thePBisnotarevolutionaryclass,doesnotpresentarevolutionary
ideologicalorpoliticalline,andwemustnotallowtheirpretensionstogo
unchallenged.
ThePBisanintermediaryclassthatliesbetweenthecapitalistruling
class(the‘big’bourgeoisie)andtheproletariat.Assuchittendstomuddleand
6
vacillatebetweentheopposingclassinterestsandvaluesofthebourgeoisie
andtheproletariat.AsMarxdescribedit,“thepetitebourgeois...isatransition
class,inwhichtheinterestsoftwoclassesaresimultaneouslymutually
blunting.”6Hencetheyareliterallythe‘middleclass’.
Asnotedabove,ourearlierarticlerefutingtheVLAlinepointedoutits
PBorigins.IntheirpolemicalreplyMIMPstatedtheyfeltourarticlewas
directedatthemamongothers.AclearadmissionoftheirPBidentity,ontop
ofthefactthattheyneverdeniedbeingaPBgroup.Andwhy?Becausethey
can’t.InfactbytheirownclassanalysisofAmerika,theyadmitthemselves
andbyextension,theirviewsandideologytobefirmlyPB.Thisiswhywhile
theyendlesslydisparageFirstWorldworkersasanoverallcounter‐
revolutionaryclass,theyneverapplyacriticalclassanalysistothemselves.
Andthey’vealwaysplacedthehighestpremiumonhidingtheiridentities
fromeventheirownfollowers,apointwe’llreturnto.
Butaswe’vemadeclearandistheverybasisofourcritiqueoftheVLA
line,weintheNABPP‐PCcompletelyrejectMIMP’sclassanalysisasanti‐
Marxist.YetevenwhenagenuinelyMarxistanalysisisappliedtoMIMPthey
stillprovetobePB.So,howeveronelooksatitMIMPlackstheclassidentity
andconsciousnesstoproclaimitselfanditspositionstoberevolutionary.And
this,aswewillthoroughlydemonstrate,iswhytheyproduceallmannerof
revisionistandanti‐Maoistpositions,includingtheVLAline.
Andso,ourreaderscanbethejudge,wewillrefuteMIMP’spositions
andclaimstoMaoistpracticeusingnoneotherthanthefoundersofMLM,
namelyMarx,Engels,LeninandMao,aswellasJosephStalin,whomtheyalso
6KarlMarx,TheEighteenthBrumaireofLouisBonaparte(Moscow:ProgressPublishers,emphasis
inoriginal),pp.43‐44.
7
claimtoupholdandciteasanauthorityforpositionstheytake.Thiswillallow
theirimprisonedstudentswhohaven’thadthemeanstobroadlystudyand
contrastthevoluminousworksoftheseMarxistswiththeMIMline,to
determinewhoindeedarethe“revisionists”ofMLM.
WhatClassisMIMPReppin’?
MIMPopenedtheirpolemicagainstuswiththeobservation–correctin
thisinstance–thatitisafirstprioritythatCommunists(whichinMarxist
termsmeansadvancedclass‐consciousproletarians)correctlydistinguish
betweenrealfriendsandenemies.Failuretodothisandrelatetopeople
accordinglycanonlyresultinourpushingalliesintotheenemy’sarmsand
ourselvesembracingpoisonousvipers.
MaotaughtusthattheCommunistmethodofdistinguishingbetween
realfriendsandenemiesisbyanalyzingtheirclassorigin,standandpractice.7
Thisbecause,asheobserved,“[i]nclasssocietyeveryonelivesasamemberof
aparticularclass,andeverykindofthinking,withoutexception,isstamped
withabrandofclass.”8Meaningthateveryone,basedupontheirsocial‐
economicconditioning,seesthingsdifferentlyandlive,thinkandact
accordingtotheirownclassvalues,interests,influencesandaspirations.This
realityisbasedfirmlyinwhatMarxdescribedasthe“guidingprinciples”of
hisstudies.
7Maoasked“Whoareourfriends?Whoareourenemies?...Todistinguishrealfriendsfromreal
enemies,wemustmakeageneralanalysisoftheeconomicstatusofthevariousclassesin...society
andoftheirrespectiveattitudestowardtherevolution.”“AnalysisoftheclassesinChinesesociety,”
March1926.
8MaoTse‐tung,“OnPractice:OntheRelationshipBetweenKnowledgeandPractice,Between
KnowingandDoing,”July1937.
8
“Inthesocialproductionoftheirexistence[people]enterinto
definite,necessaryrelations,whichareindependentoftheirwill,
namelyrelationsofproductioncorrespondingtoadeterminate
stageofdevelopmentoftheirmaterialforcesofproduction.The
totalityoftheserelationsofproductionconstitutestheeconomic
structureofsociety,therealfoundationonwhichtherecorrespond
definiteformsofsocialconsciousness.Themodeofproductionof
materiallifeconditionsthesocial,politicalandintellectuallife‐
processingeneral.Itisnottheconsciousnessof[people]that
determinestheirbeing,butonthecontraryitisthesocialbeingthat
determinestheirconsciousness.”9
Sowhenwehearanyone–includingMIMP–claimingtogive
revolutionaryleadership,wemustlookcloselyattheirclassoriginand
orientation.Otherwise,asLeninwarned,wesetourselvesuptobemisled.
“People”,hesaid,“alwayswereandalwayswillbethefoolishvictimsof
deceptionandself‐deceptioninpoliticsuntiltheylearntodiscoverthe
interestsofsomeclassbehindallmoral,religious,politicalandsocialphrases,
declarationsandpromises....”10
LikeMarx,Engels,LeninandStalin,Maomaintainedthattheroleof
revolutionaryleadershipliesexclusivelywiththeproletariat.Maonoted,
“anythingthatistrulyofthemassesmustnecessarilybeledbythe
proletariat,”and“wemustnecessarilytaketheclassstandoftheproletariat
9KarlMarx,“PrefaceandIntroductiontoAContributiontotheCritiqueofPoliticalEconomy,”
(Peking:ForeignLanguagePress),p.3.
10V.I.Lenin,“TheThreeSourcesandThreeComponentPartsofMarxism,”March1913.
9
andnotthatofthepettybourgeoisie.”11Leninsimilarlycautioned,“eventhe
mostrevolutionarypettybourgeoisiecannotwantwhattheclass
consciousnessproletariatdoeswant....”12Headded,itis“thatpettybourgeois
diffusivenessandinstability,thatincapacityforsustainedeffort,unity,and
organizedaction,whichifencouraged,mustinevitablydestroyany
proletarianrevolutionarymovement.”Because“throughtheirordinary
everyday,imperceptible,elusiveanddemoralizingactivities,theyproducethe
veryresultswhichthebourgeoisieneed....”13
Lenin’swordshaveprovenalmostpropheticintheconstantsubversion
andderailmentoftheproletarianmovementsinFirstWorldcountriesbyPB
‘left’groupsandindividualsandtheirrevisionistpolitics,whichincludesthose
embracingtheMIMline.
SoitisabundantlyclearthatthegenuinelyMLMlineholdsthatthePBis
persenotarevolutionaryclassnorsuitedtogiverevolutionaryleadership.
Ratherthisroleliesonlywiththerevolutionaryproletariat,whomustavoid
becomingtaintedbythePBatmospherewhich“permeatesandcorruptsthe
proletariatandconstantlycausesamongtheproletariatrelapsesintopetty
bourgeoisspinelessness,disunity,individualism,andalternatingmoodsof
exaltationanddejection.”14
WhichbringsusagaintoMIMP’sclasscharacter,which,ifitisindeed
PB,meansitsclaimstogiveauthenticrevolutionaryleadershipare,inLenin’s
words,puredeception.
11MaoTse‐tung,“TalkattheYenanForumonLiteratureandArt,”May1942.
12V.I.Lenin,“‘Left‐wing’childishnessandthePettyBourgeoisMentality,”May5,1918.
13V.I.Lenin,“‘Left‐wing’Communism‐AnInfantileDisorder,”April/May1920.
14Ibid.
10
Aswe’vealreadypointedout,bytheirownclassanalysisofAmerika
MIMPclassifiesitselfasPB.Indeedtheiressentialargumentagainstusisthat
thereisnoproletariatinAmerika(whichiswhereMIMPisbased),butonlya
homogeneousLAwhichtheysay“formanewpettybourgeoisie.”15Theonly
otherclassandsub‐classtheyrecognizeasexistentintheFirstWorld
countriesarethebourgeoisieandwhattheycallthe“FirstWorldlumpen”.
MIMPmaintainsthepositionthatthereisnoFirstWorldproletariatas
oneoftheir“cardinalpoints”anddeclaresanyonewhoeven“consciously
disagrees”withittheirenemy.16Whichisproblematicandanti‐Maoiston
severalpoints.FirstitdemonstratesthatMIMPdeterminesfriendsand
enemiesnotbyclassbutratherbyone’swillingnesstoblindlyanduncritically
acceptwhatevertheysay.Andnotonlymustonenotspeakoutin
disagreement,theymustnotevendisagreeinconsciousthought.Eventhe
liberalbourgeoisdoesn’ttakethoughtpolicingthisfar!TheU.S.constitutionis
eveninterpretedbyitsbourgeoiscourtstoprotectonefrompunishmentfor
theirbeliefs.Weneedonlygoasfarasthequoteatthebeginningofthis
articletoseethatMaoistsdon’trepresscontraryviews,noteventhoseof
actualenemiesandreactionaries.ButMIMPopenedtheirpolemiccontending
thatthey“cannotforgive”usfordaringtodisagreewiththeirclassanalysisof
AmerikaandVLAline.Butlet’slookatthePB.
15MIMPmaintainsthepositionasoneofitssix“CardinalPrinciples,”thattheLAisanewPB,stating
inthefrontofeachissueofitsUnderLockandKeynewsletter:the“so‐calledworkers”oftheFirst
Worldcountriesare“boughtoffbyimperialism[and]formanewpettybourgeoisiecalledthelabor
aristocracy.”
16Ibid.IneachissueofUnderLockandKeyMIMPstatesastoitssixCardinal“Principles,”“We
considerotherorganizationsactivelyupholdingthesepointstobefraternal”.Andastoitsprisoner‐
basedgroups,“membersdon'thavetoagreewithMIM(Prisons)’scardinalpoints...buttheycan't
consciouslydisagreewithanyofthemeither.”
11
ThePBormiddleclassconsistsofeducators,doctors,intellectuals,
lawyers,smallbusinessowners,middleandlowermanagementandsoon.
Essentiallythoseprofessionalswholivebymentallaborandindividual
achievementratherthanworkingascollectivemanuallaborersandinthe
servicetradesandindustries.Whatdistinguishesthemfromtheproletariatis
theirmentalasopposedtomanuallabor,andtheirlackofownershipofthe
meansofproductiondistinguishesthemfromthebigbourgeoisie.Butwhat
theyhaveincommonwiththeproletariatistheirbeingcompelledtoselltheir
laborpowerforawagetosurvive,andtheyhaverelianceonindividual
achievementandspecializinginmentallaborincommonwiththebig
bourgeoisie.Hence,basedontheirsocial‐economicpracticetheirthinkingand
practicefluctuatesbetweenandmuddlesthemutuallycontradictoryinterests
oftheproletariatontheonehandandthebourgeoisieontheother.
ThisconditioninggeneratesinthePBanoutlookthatisinconsistent,
individualistic,idealistic,opportunistic,disparagingofmanuallabor,anda
tendencytoelevateintellectualwork(andtheroleofideas)abovemanual
work(andtheroleofpractice).Thisiswhyevenamongthe‘radical’PBwesee
atendencytowardintellectualizingandendlesslytheorizingpoliticalstruggle
asopposedtobringingitdowntothelevelofsolvingproblemsthrough
practicalapplicationandjoiningtheranksofthemanuallaborers.
MIMP’smembersfallfirmlyintheclassofPBintellectualsandblatantly
exhibitPBprejudices.Theyalsoproveabsolutelyunwillingtoandincapable
ofsolvingrealworldproblemsintheirapproachtopolitical‘work’.Theyexcel
attalkingshitbutfailmiserablyatpractice.Andtheirapproachtopolitical
organizingisdistinctlyPBandanti‐Maoist.RatherthanpracticetheMaoist
MassLinetheyoperatewithinasmallclosedcircleintellectual‐orientedclique
12
thatisdivorcedfromplayinganactiveroleinanyproletarianstruggle,and
indeedremainsalienated,aloofandself‐isolatedfromthebroadmasses.
Whereas,converselyeveryrevolutionaryMarxist–withexamplessetbyMarx,
LeninandMao–livedamongstandbasedtheirpoliticalworkand
organizationsfirmlywithinthebroadmassesofproletarianandpoornon‐
proletarianworkers.Andallatgreatpersonalsacrificeanddanger.
OncewerecognizeMIMP’sPBcharacter,theirembracingtheVLAline
becomesanobviousexpressionoftheirclasstendencytogeneratedivision
withintheranksoftheproletariat,andtoavoidpracticingtheMassLineand
integratingwiththeproletariatbyclaimingthereisnoproletariatinAmerika
wheretheylivetodomassworkamongst.Furthermore,theydemonstrate
that"spinelessness"thatLeninobservedistypicalofthePBintheiradmitted
terrorofgovernmentrepressioniftheyevertriedtodomasswork,citingthe
experiencesoftheBlackPantherParty(BPP).
ContrarytothesePBexcuses,wehavedemonstratedinourpriorarticle
andwillfurthershowhereinthatasizableproletariatdoesexistinAmerika,
andwhiletheBPPdidinfactsufferextensivegovernmentrepressionthey
persevered;andLenin,Maoandtheircomradesledsuccessfulrevolutionsin
theteethofrepressionvastlyworsethantheBPPexperience.
Apartfromtheirmassstyle,whatsetLenin’sandMao’sPartiesapart
fromMIMPandsimilar‘Leftist’groupswasfirsttheirproletarianclassstand
andloyalty,andsecondlytheirtacticalingenuity,fearlessaudacityand
flexibility.AlthoughtheBPPwasaudaciousandhadamassstyle,whichis
largelywhatsustaineditdespiteconstantofficialattack,itleftmuchtobe
desiredintheseotherareas.
13
AndunlikeMIMP,LeninandMaorecognizedtheindispensableroleand
needofthevanguardrevolutionaryPartytopoliticallyawaken,uniteand
organizetheproletariatPartytheproletariatandotheroppressedsectors.
Theydidn'tpretendasMIMPdoesthatthemassescouldaccomplishthison
theirown,andupontheirfailuretodosoandfallingunderswayofbourgeois
influence,denouncethemasanunredeemableandbourgeoisifiedLA.Nordid
theylookforexcusesnorcitefearofrepressiontojustifysittingontheir
handsintrepidation.
Theyknewthemassescouldn'tmakerevolutionalone,andifleftto
theirownspontaneousactivismwouldpursuenothingmorethaneconomic
andsuchliketradeunionbenefits,andbemisledandcorruptedbybourgeois
andPBmisdirection.JustasU.S.workershavedoneintheirdecades‐long
absenceofamass‐basedrevolutionaryCommunistParty.Thiswastheentire
purposebehindLenin’sstruggletodeveloptherevolutionaryPartytoleadthe
proletarianrevolution.Asheobserved,“[without]apartyofironthathas
beentemperedinthestruggle,apartyenjoyingtheconfidenceofallhonest
peopleintheclassinquestion,apartycapableofwatchingandinfluencingthe
moodofthemasses,suchastrugglecannotbewagedsuccessfully.”17
Likewise,Maostated:
“Ifthereistobearevolution,theremustbearevolutionaryparty,
withoutarevolutionaryparty,withoutapartybuiltontheMarxist‐
LeninistrevolutionarytheoryandtheMarxist‐Leninistrevolutionary
17Op.cit.note13.
14
style,itisimpossibletoleadtheworkingclassandthebroadmasses
indefeatingimperialismanditsrunningdogs.”18
YetMIMPturnsthingsontheirhead,blaminginsteadUSworkersfor
lackofrevolutionaryconsciousnessandstruggle,whileproclaimingitselfto
bearevolutionaryleadership,thatisarevolutionaryvanguardwhichexplains
thelackofanyrevolutionarymovementinAmerika.AsMaooftenpointedout,
“whenrevolutionfailsitisthefaultofthevanguard,”notthemasses.
Furthermore,Leninsaidthosewhofleetherealrevolutionary
movementforfearofrepressionaretobepitiedandcounseled,butasfor
thosewhotrytoblametheworkersandportraytheirflightaspolitically
principled,hedenouncedthemas“apostates”and“disgustingrenegades,”
stating[t]heserunawaysthenbecomestheworstadvisorsfortheworking
classmovementandthereforeitsdangerousenemies.”19
AndwhileMIMPisfondofcallinganyonewhodisagreeswiththem
‘revisionists’,everyseriousstudentofLeninknowsitwasagainstPB
“revisionists”whodistortedMarxismthatheandMarxbeforehim,waged
mostoftheirpolemicalstruggles.Thiswasbecauseoncetheyhadsoundly
discreditedtheopenlybourgeoistheoriesandtheirproponents(bourgeois
andPBalike),theseelementshadtoresorttothesneakiertacticoftryingto
reviseMarxismfromwithintoconformtotheirownclassinterests.Thisis
whytheywerecalled“revisionists”.EveninLenin'sdaythestruggleagainst
revisionismwasoflongduration.Ashepointedout,“thesecondhalf‐century
oftheexistenceofMarxismbegan(inthe[1890s])withthestruggleofatrend
18MaoTse‐tung,“RevolutionaryForcesoftheWorldUnite,FightAgainstImperialistAggression!”
November1948.
19V.I.Lenin,CollectedWorks,Volume19(Moscow:ProgressPublishers,1960‐1970),p.398.
15
hostiletoMarxismwithinMarxismitself.”20Healsoobservedthatafirstand
keyMarxistprincipletherevisioniststrytoreviseisscientificpolitical
economy,whichasweshowedinourpreviousarticleandwillfurther
demonstratebelow,isexactlywhatMIMPhastriedtodo.
MaolikewisestruggledceaselesslyagainstPBrevisionists,
characterizingthemasthosewho“wavetheredflaginordertoattackthered
flag”,anddeclaredtheirsasamostdangeroustendencywhichMarxistsmust
unceasinglycombat.
ConsidernowMIMP’srevisionofMarxistpoliticaleconomywiththeir
totallyinventedclassdefinitionsusingabstractmetaphorslikepeoplewho
wear“rags”(whichishowtheydefinewhattheycall“FirstWorldLumpen”),
and“thosewhohavenothingtolosebuttheirchains”(whichishowthey
definetheproletariat).21Theyactuallyhadtoresorttosuchmetaphors
becausetheinstantAmerikanclassesareanalyzedusingMarxistpolitical
economy,everythingMIMPprofessespoliticallycollapseslikeahouseofcards
inawindstorm.
Indeed,thattheydefinedobjectiveconditionsorthingswithabstract
metaphorsispersecontrarytoMarxism.Maoexplained:
“WeareMarxistsandMarxismteachesthatinourapproachtoa
problemweshouldstartfromobjectivefacts,notfromabstract
20V.I.Lenin,“MarxismandRevisionism,”April1908.Leninalsorecognizedrevisionismtobethe
continuationofpre‐Marxistsocialismorutopiansocialism.
21Seeop.cit.note2.
16
definitions,andthatweshouldderiveourguidingprinciples,
policiesandmeasuresfromananalysisofthesefacts.”22
ThisiswhyMarxmadeathoroughandscientificstudyofcoreobjective
productiverelationsinordertoidentifyanddefineclasses,anddidn'tbase
thatdeterminationonabstractandarbitrarymetaphorslike“chains”and
“rags”.
Leninidentifiedasoneofthemain“tendenciesofpetty‐bourgeois
revolutionism”againstwhichhisBolshevikswaged“ruthlessstruggle”was
theanti‐Marxisttendencythat,likeMIMP,“refused(or,itmightbemore
correcttosay:wasunable)tounderstandtheneedforastrictlyobjective
appraisaloftheclassforcesandtheiralignment,beforetakinganypolitical
action.”23
Butwhat’smostproblematicwiththeMIM/MIMP’suseofabstract
metaphorstodefineclass,isthisissomethingtheyopportunisticallyinvented
asaresultoftheirinabilitytoprevailininpastdebateswithuswherewetook
ontheirVLAline.Hereiswhathappened.
In2006MIMopenedadialoguewithNABPP‐PCfollowingtheirreading
anissueofourRightOn!NewsletterwherewemadereferencetotheU.S.
proletariat.OfcoursetheyarguedthattheU.S.hasnoproletariat.Inaletter
datedFebruary26,2006,MIMwrotetous:“Aproletarianisawageearner
whoisgettingpaidlessthanthevalueoftheirlabor.”Ourreadersshouldnote
thatthiswasagenuinelyMarxisteconomic‐baseddefinitionoftheproletariat,
notthemetaphortheylateradopted.MIMwentontosay,“Ichallengeyouto
22MaoTse‐tung,“TalkstoanEnlargedCentralWorkConference,”January30,1962.
23Op.cit.note13.
17
show”thatworkersinAmerika(NewAfrikanworkersinparticular)arepaid
lessthanthevalueoftheirlabororinotherwordsthattheyproducesurplus
value.Thisisexactlywhatweshowedinourpriorarticle.(1)24Soasaresult
MIMPabandonedtheMarxistdefinitionoftheproletariatandsaidtheynow
“prefer”touseanabstractmetaphorofthosein“chains”todescribethe
proletariat.
Furthermore,MIMalsorecognizedaU.S.lumpenproletariat,conceding
asmuchinseveralletterstous,includinganApril28,2006,wheretheywrote,
“Huey[P.Newton]spokeofthegrowinglumpenproletariatintheU$thatwill
betheforceforrevolutioninthiscountry.Wearefriendlytothisline.”Inturn
wepointedoutthatlumpensimplymeans“broken”proletariat.Tobebroken
meansthisstratahadtofirstbelongtoanactual“whole”‐proletariat.Apoint
wealsomadeinourpriorarticle.ItwaswiththisthatMIMPopportunistically
abandonedrecognizinga“lumpenproletariat”andinventedtheabstractterm
“FirstWorldLumpen”.Infact,theyadmitthisintheirpolemic,stating,“We
completelyagreewithRashid’slogichere.Andthat’swhyMIM(Prisons)
startedusingtheterm‘FirstWorldLumpen’todistinguishfrom
‘lumpenproletariat’.”
SoweseethatwhentheirlineisshowntorunafoulofgenuineMarxism,
MIMPwillabandontheMarxistlineandinventabstractconceptstojustify
holdingontoerroneouspositions.ThisispurePBopportunism.
SoMIMP'ssocial‐economicstatus,objectivepractice(orlackthereof),
andclassanalysisallruncountertotherevolutionaryproletarianlineof
Maoism,andreflectthePB“revisionism”thatMarx,LeninandMaofought
24Op.cit.note1.
18
against.AndthatMIMPcallsitselfMLMdespitetheirstarkdeviationsfrom
thislineinnowaycontradictstheirrevisionism.Itactuallycomportswithit.
AsLeninrecognized,“[t]hevictoryofMarxismintherealmoftheoryforcesits
enemytoposeasMarxist.Thisishistoricaldialectics.”
RemoldingthePB
BeforeMIMP,MIManditscadrealsorefusedtobasetheircadreandto
dopoliticalworkamongthemasses.Insteadofpracticingthemasslinethey
hidoutoncollegecampuses(amidstthenascentintellectuals),andnow,upon
MIM'sdemise,MIMPisasmallcellthatfocusesonprisoners.
MIMPadmitschoosingprisonersbecausetheyprovemostreceptiveto
its‘leadership’whichinessencemeansMIMPhaslatchedontoaparticularly
vulnerableanddesperatesocialgroup,anisolatedgroupwhoseseverely
miserablepredicamentleavesthemdesperateforanysympatheticearand
tendingtobelesscriticalofthosewhopresentthemselvesassympathetic.
Alsoprisonersgenerallylackpoliticalawarenessandtrainingandaccessto
thevoluminousMarxistandrelevantworks.Sotheyareleastsuitedto
criticallychallengeMIMP’sMaoistrepresentations.
FurthermorethatMIMPisbasedinsocietywhileprisonersareconfined
(andMIMPrefusestoallowprisonerstojoinitsgroup),providesMIMPthe
perfectexcusefornotphysicallybasingitselfamongstitstargetedbase.They
canthereforealwaysavoidthedirectchallengesanddangersofactually
participatinginthedaytodaystrugglesofthatbaseastheMaoistMassLine
demandsofrevolutionaryleadership.ThisiswhyweintheNABPP‐PClive
andstrugglerightalongsidethoseweaspiretolead,andleadnotbypreaching
butratherbyexample.
19
MIMPobviouslyrecognizesthatprisonersareoneoftheonlysectors
thattheycaneasilyconvincethattheirteachingsaregenuinelyMaoist.Infact
nootherMaoistgroupormovement(especiallyintheThirdWorldwhere
MIMPsaystheproletariatislocated)takestheMIMlineseriously.Thisiswhy
MIM/MIMPhasalwaysdisparagedeverymodernMaoistleaderandgroupas
revisionist–thatiseveryoneofthemexceptMIMandMIMPandtheir
offshoots.
AlsoMaospecificallydenouncedMIMP’sPBformofpolitical
organizationas“closeddoorism”and“sectarian”.HesaidastoCommunist
groups,“wearenotasmallopinionatedsectandmustlearntoopenourdoors
andcooperatedemocraticallywithnon‐Partypeople,andhowtoconsultwith
others.”25InthistalkherejectedCommunistsorganizingin“smallsectsor
cliques”typicalofPBgroupslikeMIMP.
ButthereishopeforMIMP.Howeverthathopeliesindoingexactly
whattheyhavenotdone,refusetodo,andadmittedlyfear.Thatbeingto
remoldtheirclassconsciousnessfromthatofthePBtotheproletariatby
integratingthemselveswiththemassesandtakinguptheirstrugglesand
lifestyleasitsown.Maoexplainedthisdifficultprocessofcommitting“class
suicide,”whichheunderwenthimself:
“Ifyouwantthemassestounderstandyou,ifyouwanttobeone
withthemasses,youmustmakeupyourmindtoundergoalongand
evenpainfulprocessoftempering.HereImightmentionthe
experienceofhowmyownfeelingschanged.Ibeganlifeasastudent
andatschoolacquiredthewaysofastudent.Ithenusedtofeelit
25MaoTse‐tung,“SpeechattheAssemblyofRepresentativesoftheShenshi‐Kansu‐NingsiaBorder
Region,”1942.
20
undignifiedtodoevenalittlemanuallabor....AtthattimeIfeltthat
intellectualsweretheonlycleanpeopleintheworld,whilein
comparisonworkersandpeasantsweredirty.Ididnotmind
wearingtheclothesofotherintellectuals,believingthemclean,butI
wouldnotputonclothesbelongingtoaworkerorpeasant,believing
themdirty.ButafterIbecamearevolutionaryandlivedwith
workersandpeasantsandsoldiersoftherevolutionaryarmy,I
graduallycametoknowthemwell,andtheygraduallycametoknow
mewelltoo.Itwasthen,andonlythen,thatIfundamentallychanged
thebourgeoisandpettybourgeoisfeelingsimplantedinmeinthe
bourgeoisschools.Icametofeelthatcomparedwiththeworkers
andpeasantstheunremouldedintellectualswerenotcleanandthat,
inthelastanalysis,theworkersandpeasantswerethecleanest
peopleand,eventhoughtheirhandsweresoiledandtheirfeet
smearedwithcow‐dung,theywerereallycleanerthanthebourgeois
andpettybourgeoisintellectuals.Thatiswhatismeantbyachange
infeelings,achangefromoneclasstoanother.”26
LeninlikewiserecognizedthatthePB“can(andmust)betransformed
andre‐educatedonlybymeansofveryprolonged,slowandcautious
organizationalwork.”27
MIMPclearlyhasnotundergoneanysuchremoldingprocess.First,
becauseitrefusestobaseitselfamongstUSworkerswhomitdeclarestobe
entirelynon‐proletarian.Second,becausetheydon'tliveintheThirdWorld
26Op.cit.note11.
27Op.cit.note13.
21
wheretheyclaimtheonlyrealproletariatexists,andintheirpolemicthey
makeclearthattheyhavenointentionofmovingthereeither.
SooverallitisnomysterywhyMIMPadmittedlylackstheresourcesto
doanyreallyrevolutionarywork,andfunctionsasnothingmorethanatiny
sectarian“prisonfocusedcell”.28Andthisdespitethatitsmembershavehad
decadesofpriorexperienceandfailureofthesamesortunderMIM.Again,it
isduetotheirPBlineandpracticewhichshunsthemassesandthegenuinely
MaoistproletarianMassLine.WithMaoists,proofisintheproduct.AsMao
explainedanddemonstrated:“[t]hecorrectnessorincorrectnessofthe
politicalandideologicallinedetermineeverything.Withthecorrectlinethe
partywillgaineverything;evenifonehasnotasinglesoldieratfirst,there
willbesoldiers;ifonehasnoguns,therewillbeguns;andevenifthereisno
politicalpower,politicalpowerwillbegained.Withanincorrectline
everythingwillbelost.”HelloMIM?
In“MasteringBolshevism”(March3,1937)Stalinmadeasimilar
observation,especiallyconcerningthestrengthofarevolutionaryPartylying
initsremainingbasedintheworkingmassesanditswillingnesstolistento
theircriticisms.HesoundstospeakasifdirectlytotheMIMline.
“Inordertoguidecorrectly,theexperienceoftheleadersmustbe
supplementedbytheexperienceofthepartymasses,bythe
experienceoftheworkingclass,bytheexperienceofthetoilers,by
theexperienceoftheso‐called‘smallpeople’.
“Andwhenisthispossible?
28UnderLockandKey,Vol.39,p.8.
22
“Itispossibleonlyiftheleadersarecloselyconnectedwiththe
masses,iftheyareboundupwiththePartymasses,withthe
workingclass,withthepeasantry,withtheworkingintellectuals.
“Contactswiththemasses,thestrengtheningofthesecontacts,
readinesstolistentothevoicesofthemasses–inthisliethe
strengthandimpregnabilityofBolshevikleadership.
“ItmaybetakenasarulethatsolongasBolshevikskeepcontacts
withthebroadmassesofthepeople,theywillbeinvincible.And,
contrariwiseitissufficientforBolshevikstobreakawayfromthe
massesandlosecontactwiththem,tobecomecoveredwith
bureaucraticrust,forthemtolosealltheirstrengthandbecome
convertedintononentities.
“InthesystemofmythologyoftheancientGreekstherewasone
famoushero,Antaeus,who,asmythologydeclares,wasthesonof
Poseidon,thegodofthesea,andGaea,thegoddessoftheEarth.He
wasparticularlyattachedtohismother,whoborehim,fedhimand
broughthimupsothattherewasnoherowhomthisAntaeusdidnot
vanquish.Hewasconsideredtobeaninvinciblehero.Whereinlay
hisstrength?Itlayinthefactthateverytimehewashard‐pushedin
astrugglewithanopponent,hetouchedtheearth,hismother,who
hadbornehimandfedhim,andthusregainednewstrength.
“Butnevertheless,hehadaweakspot–thedangerofbeing
separatedinsomewayfromtheearth.Hisenemiestookaccountof
thisweaknessofhisandwaitedforhim.Andanenemywasfound
23
whotookadvantageofthisweaknessandvanquishedhim.Thiswas
Hercules.ButhowdidHerculesdefeathim?Hetorehimfromthe
earth,raisedhimintheair,deprivedhimofthepossibilityof
touchingtheearth,andthusthrottledhimintheair.
“IthinkthatBolsheviksremindusofAntaeus,theheroofGreek
mythology.LikeAntaeus,theyarestronginkeepingcontactwith
theirmother,withthemasses,whoborethem,fedthem,and
educatedthem.Andaslongastheykeepcontactwiththeirmother,
withthepeople,theyhaveeverychanceofremaininginvincible.
“ThisisthekeytotheinvincibilityofBolshevikleadership.”
ContrarytoStalin'sadmonition,MIMPneitherhasitsfeetplanted
withinthemasses,norisitwillingto“listentothevoices”ofitsfollowers,or
anyoneelseforthatmatter.Apointweshouldlookatcloser,fromaMaoist
standpoint.
MaoistsEmbraceCriticism,MIMPDoesn't
Asalreadynoted,toeven“consciouslydisagree”withMIMPmeans
beingdeclaredanenemybythem.Suchintoleranceofbeingcriticizedisone
ofMIMP’smosttellingPBcharacteristics,andatendencythatMaorebukedso
oftenandinsomanyways,wecouldcompileabookofhiswritingsonthis
subjectalone.
AndtoshowtheconsistencyofMIMPsaversiontobeingdisputed,let's
takeafewmoredocumentedexamples,becausethey’recertaintoarguethat
theyactuallyinvitecriticism.
24
Inadditiontotheirstatementthatthey“cannotforgive”usfordisputing
theirVLAline,inreplytoasubsequentletterfromusMIMPcontendedthat
theywouldn'thavecriticizedusintheirpolemicifwehadn'twrittenour
criticalarticlefirst.29
Thatsuchapositionisblatantlyanti‐MaoistandsmacksofPBliberalism
ismadeclearbyMao'sarticle“CombatLiberalism”.Therehepointedoutthat
Communistshaveadutytospeakupwhenevertheyhearerroneouspositions
advancedbyproclaimedrevolutionaries,andourfailuretodosoforwhatever
reasonincludingtostayingoodfavorwithothers,istopracticePBliberalism.
YetMIMPsaysonemustnotdisagreewiththemifoneexpectstostayintheir
goodgraces.Theirstatedpositionwithus(adressedupversionof“youhitme
first...”)alsorevealstheiruseofcriticismnottoidentifyandcorrecterrorsin
aprincipledmanner,butratherasreprisalagainstthosewhomtheyfeelhave
criticizedanddisputedthem.Butwhiletheyseektodiscourageandavoid
criticism,anyonewho'sreadtheirpublicationscannotbutnotethatMIMP
sparesnoopportunitytocritiqueanddisputeeveryoneelse.
Maodescribedsuchpeopleasliberalswho“lookupontheprinciplesof
Marxismasabstractdogma.TheyapproveofMarxism,butarenotpreparedto
practiceitortopracticeitinfull;theyarenotpreparedtoreplacetheir
liberalismbyMarxism.ThesepeoplehavetheirMarxism,buttheyhavetheir
liberalismaswell–theytalkMarxismbutpracticeliberalism;theyapply
Marxismtoothersbutliberalismtothemselves.Theykeepbothkindsof
29ThiswasstatedbyMIMPinalettertousofDecember2013.
25
goodsinstockandfindauseforeach.Thisishowthemindsofcertainpeople
work.”30Andthose‘certainpeople’heidentifiedarethePBinparticular.
ButMIMPdoesn'tpracticecriticismasMaoproposed,toidentifyand
correcterrorsandsolveproblemsthataffectthestruggle,butrathertheyuse
criticismtobelittleanddisparage.Theyarebothpersecutoryandhyper‐
critical.Indeed,weknowofnotjustafewcomradeswhohaveintheirown
words,grownwearyandquitMIMPgroupsbecauseofitsendlessvitriolic
criticismsofeveryoneandeverythingelse,despiteitsownabjectfailureto
produceanypracticalsolutionstoanyproblems.
Furthermore,MIMPkicksprisonersoutofitsstudygroupswhodareto
disagreewiththem.OneexampleappearedintheApril2013issueofTurning
theTidenewspaper,whichpublishedaletterfromMIMPexpellingananti‐
imperialistprisonerfromoneoftheirstudygroupsbecausehevoiced
disagreementswiththem.
Hewasrebukedforspeakingout.MIMPwrote,“It'sawasteofourtime
tostudywithpeoplewhoconsistentlydisagreewithus,”andtoldhim“ifyou
wouldliketostudywithusagain,pleasesendusaself‐criticismandwewill
considertheprospect.”Maospecificallyandsharplycondemnedsuchefforts
tosilencepeopleandcoercethemtoacceptone'sviewsascontraryto
Communistprinciples.Herearejustafewexamples:
“[T]herearesomecomradeswhoareafraidofthemassesinitiating
discussionandputtingforwardideaswhichdifferfromthoseofthe
leadersandleadingorganizations.Assoonasproblemsare
30MaoTse‐tung,“CombatLiberalism,”September7,1937.
26
discussedtheysuppresstheactivismofthemassesanddonotallow
otherstospeakout.Thisattitudeisextremelyevil.”31
“Theonlywaytosettlequestionsofanideologicalnatureor
controversialissuesamongthepeople,isbythedemocraticmethod,
themethodofdiscussion,criticism,persuasionandeducation,and
notbythemethodofcoercionorrepression.”32
“Ourcomradesmustunderstandthatideologicalremoldinginvolves
long‐term,patientandpainstakingwork,andtheymustnotattempt
tochangepeople'sideologywhichhasbeenshapedoverdecadesof
theirlife,bygivingafewlecturesorbyholdingafewmeetings.
Persuasion,notcompulsionistheonlywaytoconvincethem.
Compulsionwillneverresultinconvincingthem.”33
“Therearesomecomradeswhocannotbeartolistentoideas
contrarytotheirownandcannotbeartobecriticized.Thisisvery
wrong.”34
Herejectedthepracticeofthosewhocreateanatmospherewhere
peoplefeartospeakopenlyinoppositiontotheirviewsasMIMPpractices,
stating,“whenthiskindofatmosphereisengenderedandpeopledon'tdareto
speakinyourpresencethenitisuptoyoutokeepaway.”35Soaccordingto
Mao,itwasn'tthecriticalthinkingprisonerwhoshouldhavebeeneliminated
fromthestudygroup,butratherMIMP.Butthere'smore.
31Op.cit.note22.
32MaoTse‐tung,“OntheCorrectHandlingofContradictionsAmongthePeople,”February27,1957.
33Op.cit.note8.
34Op.cit.note29.
35Ibid.
27
“Communistsaredutyboundtoco‐operatewithpeopleoutsidethe
Partywhoareagainst[theimperialists],andhavenorighttoshut
themout.Thisprinciplemeansthatweshouldlistenattentivelyto
theviewsofthemasses,keepinclosetouchwiththemandnotbe
alienatedfromthem…Communistsshouldcooperatedevotedly
withnon‐Partypeopleandmustnotactarbitrarilyorkeep
everythingintheirownhands…Communistsmustlistenattentively
totheviewsofpeopleoutsidethePartyandletthemhavetheirsay.
Ifwhattheysayisright,weoughttowelcomeit,andlearnfromtheir
strongpoints;iftheyarewrong,weshouldletthemfinishwhatthey
aresayingandthenpatientlyexplainthingstothem.ACommunist
mustneverbeopinionatedanddomineering,orthinkheisgoodin
everythingwhileothersaregoodinnothing;hemustnevershut
himselfupinhislittleroomorbragandboastandlorditover
others.Apartfromdie‐hardreactionarieswhoareinleaguewiththe
[imperialists]andwiththetraitorsandaresabotagingresistance
andunity,andwhoofcoursehavenorighttospeak,everyoneis
entitledtofreedomofspeech,anditdoesn'tmatterevenifwhathe
saysiswrong…HenceCommunistshavethedutytoco‐operate
devotedlywithnon‐Partypeopleandhavenorighttoexcludethem
andmonopolizeeverything.”36
36Op.cit.note23.
28
Stalinheldlikewise:“Itisgenerallyrecognizedthatnosciencecan
developandflourishwithoutabattleofopinions,withoutfreedomof
criticism.”37
NotonlyisMIMPintolerantofbeingcriticizedanddisputed,wehave
seenfewifanyinstanceswherethey–andMIMbeforethem‐didn’tname‐call
orhurlinsultsatthosewhodisputethemordon'tconformtotheirviews.Itis
thereM.O.even,todenouncetheircriticsornon‐conformistsasFirstWorld
chauvinists,Trotskyist,crypto‐Trotskyists,anarchist,fascist,pigsand/orpig
agents.Matteroffactintheirpolemic,theyslylyclassifiedusasamongstthe
“anarchistsandcrypto‐Trotskyists”withwhomthey've“drawnalineof
distinction.”YetanothertendencyMaodisapprovedof–namely,putting
labelson,name‐callingandinsultingpeople.
“Wemustnever…permitthebadoldhabitof‘stickinglabels’on
peopletocontinue.”38
“LuHsunoncesaidincriticismofsuchpeople,‘Hurlinginsultsand
threatsisnotfighting.’Whatisscientificneverfearscriticism,for
scienceistruthandfearsnorefutation.Butthosewhowrite
subjectivistandsectarianarticlesandspeechesintheformofParty
stereotypesfearrefutation,areverycowardlyandthereforerelyon
pretentiontoovercomeothers,believingthattheycanthereby
silencepeopleand‘wintheday.’Suchpretentiousnesscannotreflect
37JosephStalin,MarxismandtheProblemofLinguistics(Peking:ForeignLanguagePress,1972)p.
29.
38MaoTse‐tung,“TheRoleoftheChineseCommunistPartyintheNationalWar,”October1938.
29
truthbutitisanobstacletotruth.Truthdoesnotstrikeaposeto
overcomepeoplebuttalksandactshonestlyandsimply.”39
Andhere'sMaospeakingtotheabsolutefutilityofthosewholikeMIMP
tryandcompelpeopletokeepsilentasthougheveryonecanbeintimidated.
“Thoseofyouwho…donotallowpeopletospeak,whothinkyou
aretigers,andthatnoonewilldaretouchyourarse,whoeverhas
thisattitude,tenoutoftenofyouwillfail.Peoplewilltalkanyway.
Youthinkthatnoonewillreallydaretotouchthearseoftigerslike
you?Theydamnwellwill!”40
OnmanyoccasionsMaoexplainedthatCommunistsmustgivefullplay
todemocracyamongthepeople,whichmeansallowingthemtoopenlyand
freelyexpressanyandallcriticismsanddisagreementstheyhave.That
refusingtodothisistopracticecommandismanddictatorship,whichis
unacceptableagainstthepeople.Thosewhodon'tpermitfulldemocracyhe
criticizedasthosewhowantallunityandnostruggle.Whichisnon‐dialectical
andcompletelycontradictsbasicMarxistphilosophy.Aswe’venotedhe
rejectedtendenciestotryandshutpeopleup(evenourenemies)orforce
ideasonthepeoplethattheydon'tyetgrasp,becausethisalienatesthem,
violatestheirrighttovoluntarilyandintelligentlyacceptCommunist
leadership,andreflectsPBimpetuosity.
Andhedidn'tencouragethepeopletocriticizeusasamereformality.
Hemeantthatwetakeandponderthosecriticismsseriously.Here'sMaoonce
more.
39MaoTse‐tung,“OpposeStereotypedPartyWriting,”February8,1942.
40Op.cit.note29.
30
“Ifwearetopromotedemocracy,wemustencourageothersto
criticizeusandlistentotheircriticisms.Tobeabletowithstand
criticismwemustfirsttakemeasurestocarryoutself‐criticism.We
mustexaminewhateverneedsexaminingforanhouroratmosttwo
hours.Ifeverythingistobebroughtoutintheopen,itwilltakeas
longasthat.Ifothersconsiderwehavenotdoneenough,thenlet
themsayso.Ifwhattheysayisright,wewillaccepttheiropinion.
Whenweallowotherstospeak,shouldwebeactiveorpassivein
ourattitude?Ofcourseitisbettertobeactive.Whatcanwedoifwe
areforcedontothedefensive?Inthepastwewereundemocratic
andsowefindourselvesonthedefensive.Nomatter.Leteverybody
criticizeus.Asforme,Iwillnotgooutduringtheday;Iwillnotgoto
thetheateratnight.Pleasecomeandcriticizemedayandnight
(laughterfromaudience).ThenIwillsitdownandthinkaboutit
carefully,notsleepfortwoorthreenights,thinkaboutituntilI
understandit,andthenwriteasincereself‐explanation.Isn'tthat
thewaytodealwithit?Inshort,letotherpeoplespeakout.The
heavenswillnotfallandyouwillnotbethrownout.Ifyoudonotlet
othersspeak,thenthedaywillsurelycomewhenyouarethrown
out.”41
AndhereisyetanotherexampleofMIMP’seffortstoevadehavingtheir
positionsopenlydisputed,andpresentingsucheffortsaspolitically
principled.AndagaintheyaredirectlycontradictedbytheMarxistline.
41Ibid.
31
InDecember2013weproposedthatMIMPpublishbothsidesofour
ongoingdebatesintheirprisoner‐basednewsletterUnderLockandKey.They
refusedstating,“wedon'thavespacetospare...forarticlesthataresooffthe
mark,”speakingofoursideofthepolemics.Butconverselytheysaidthey
werelookingtoenlargetheirnewslettertofitinmorearticlesthatreflect
theirownviews.Lenin'spositiontotallyrefutesthem.“Weshall”,hesaid,
“gladlyaffordspaceinourpaperforarticlesontheoreticalquestionsandwe
inviteallcomradesopenlytodiscusscontroversialpoints.”42
HefurthermorecontendedthatCommunistpapersbecomeblandand
losetheircombativeedgeandmassinterestwhentheydon'tpublishsuch
polemics.HerebukedtheeditorsofhisBolshevikParty’spaperthuslywhen
theydidexactlywhatMIMPpromotes.
“Youcomplainaboutmonotony….Byavoiding‘painfulquestions’,
PravdaandZvezdamakethemselvesdry,monotonous,uninteresting,
uncombativeorgans.Asocialistorganmustconductpolemics”.43
WhenwerecognizethatMIMP,consistentwithitsPBclasstendency,
fearsbeingcontradictedbythecommonpeople,whereas,asMaopointedout,
themasseswillstillspeakout,itbecomesapparentwhyMIMPrefusesto
integrateitselfanditsworkwithinamassbasewhosevoicestheycannot
readilycensorandcontrolastheycanwithprisoners.Anddogmaticlineslike
theVLAlineserveonlytofalselyjustifyrefusingtobaseitselfandits‘work’
withinthebroadmassesinsociety.
42Op.cit.note27.
43QuotedinRalphCarterElwood,“LeninandPravda,1912‐1914,”SlavicReview,Volume31,No.2,
June1972.
32
AgainontheLaborAristocracy
ReturningnowtotheLAquestionandwhotheproletariatareandwho
areitsfriendsandenemies,wemustbeginagainwiththefundamentalsof
class.
InourearlierarticleweelaboratedinMarxistpoliticaleconomicterms,
thattheproletariatisthatclasswhichmustsellitsmanuallaborpowertothe
bourgeoisieforawageatlessthanitsactualvalueinordertosurvive.That
thebourgeoisexpropriatesandpocketsthesurplusvalueasprofit,whichis
valuerealizedintheproductionofcommoditiesforwhichtheworkerisnot
paid.Wepointedoutthatlaborpowerisalsoitselfacommodity.CitingMarx’s
Wages,PriceandProfitweexplainedthatworkersinAmerikaaresubjectto
stolensurplusvaluejustasareThirdWorldworkersandarenoless
proletarianseventhoughtheyearnhigherwagesthantheirThirdWorld
counterpart.Wewentontoexplainthatthedifferenceinwagescalesisthe
resultofdifferentstandardsandcostsoflivingindifferentcountriesbased
upontheunevenlevelsofdevelopmentundercapitalistimperialism.Andthat
ofcoursethecost,standardandqualityofgoodsandservicesinthedeveloped
FirstWorldimperialistcountrieslikeAmerikaaresimplymuchhigherthanin
thelessdevelopedThirdWorldcountries.Whilewedorecognizeother
factorsarealsoatplayintheexistenceofgreaterwealthintheFirstWorld
countriesversustheThirdWorld,whicharefundamentaltotheimperialist
system,theydonotchangethefactthatworkersintheimperialistcountries
producesurplusvalueandarethusproletarians.
MIMPdisputedus,denyingthatUSworkersareproletarianssimply
becausetheyreceivehigherwages.MIMPdidconcedehoweverthatwewere
infactcorrectlyapplyingbasicscientificprinciplesofMarxistpolitical
33
economy.Buttoavoidtheseprinciples,MIMPdeniedthatproletariansare
thosewhomustselltheirlaborpowerforawage,statinginsteadthatthey
“preferMarx’sdefinitionthattheproletarianarethosewhohavenothingto
losebuttheirchains.”
Aswe’vealreadypointedout,Marxdidnotusethe“chains”metaphorto
definetheproletariat,butratherfigurativelytomakethepointthatunder
capitalismtheproletariatistheonlyclassthathasnothingtoloseand
everythingtogainbyoverthrowingcapitalism.
MIMP’srevisionismhasgonetototallyredefiningthemostfundamental
questiontoeveryMarxist,namelyhowclassesareconstitutedandhow
identified.Ifonecannotcorrectlyidentifywhoistheproletariat,everything
elsetheyadvanceinthewayofstrugglingagainstcapitalismmustnecessarily
bewrong.Aswemadeclear,fortheMarxist,theproletariatformsthesocial
baseofanysuchstruggle.Itisthisveryclasswhichwenecessarilyaimto
organizetoseizeandexercisepoliticalpowerandestablishitsownclass
dictatorshipoverthebourgeoisie.Anylinethatdeviatesfromthisis
necessarilyonethatadvancesthebourgeois.
Classes,asMarxscientificallydemonstrated,aredeterminedby
objectiverelationspeopleenterintowithintheproductivesystem.Onecannot
objectivelyshowhowtheabstractconceptsofwearing“rags”orexistingin
“chains”reflectactualrelationstocommodityproductionandthecapitalist
system.Inthiscontextsuchconceptsareabstractatbestandabsurd.Thisis
revisionisminitsmostliteralsense.
ButwerealizethatMIMPhadtododgeMarx’sactualeconomicbased
definitionoftheproletariat,becauseunderthatdefinitionUSworkersfall
34
firmlyintotheproletarianclassasourpriorarticledemonstrated.Andto
acknowledgethatFirstWorldworkersareindeedproletarianswoulddeny
MIMPitsfalsejustificationforrefusingtobasethemselvesamongthem,
committingclasssuicide,anddoingrealrevolutionarywork.AsLeninstated,
“Marx’seconomictheoryalonehasexplainedthetruepositionofthe
proletariatinthegeneralsystemofcapitalism.”44Andasheobserved,the
adventofimperialismdidnotchangetheclassbasisofcapitalism,although
thePBhasalwaystriedtoreviseMarxistpoliticaleconomyandproclaimits
principlesobsolete.Leninstatedthecaseclearly:
“HithertothedoctrinesofMarxandEngelswereconsideredtobe
thefirmfoundationofrevolutionarytheory,butvoicesarenow
beingraisedeverywheretoproclaimthesedoctrinesinadequateand
obsolete…WetakeourstandentirelyontheMarxisttheoretical
position….”45
MIMP,however,claimsMarxistpoliticaleconomyisoutmoded,
renderedobsoletebyimperialismanditstransferofimmensewealthtothe
FirstWorld(aconditionthathasalwaysbeenafundamentalcomponentof
imperialismandeventheprimitiveaccumulationofcapitalduringMarx’s
time),anddismisseditsfundamentalprinciplesthatwecitedtodemonstrate
thatUSworkersareproletariansas“numbers”made“justforshow”and
“emptynumbers”whichtheypresumedtocounterbypromotingaPB
‘economist’solution(we'lladdressMIMP’sPBEconomismbelow).Butaswe
quotedearlier,Maoheldfirmlythat“weareMarxists.”
44Op.cit.note10.
45V.I.Lenin,“OurProgramme.”Firstpublished1925.
35
AndlikeLenin,Maoupheld,“[t]hethreebasicconstituentsofMarxism
[which]arescientificsocialism,philosophy[dialecticalmaterialism],and
politicaleconomy.Thefoundationissocialscience,classstruggle.”Andthat
strugglebeing“betweentheproletariatandthebourgeoisie.”46SoMaoalso
upheldMarxistpoliticaleconomicanalysisofclasses(specificallyofthe
proletariat)andthisiswhyhe,likeus,andlikeLeninandStalin,recognized
thatthereisindeedaFirstWorldproletariat(includingawhiteproletariat–
whichMIMPvigorouslydenies).Andallofthemrecognizedtheneedforunity
ofstrugglebetweenthisFirstWorldproletariatandthesuper‐exploitedThird
Worldasessentialtotopplingtheimperialistsystem.InfactLenin,Stalinand
Maorecognizedtheexistenceofaproletarianversusbourgeoisclassstruggle
withintheFirstWorldcountriesasoneofthethreefundamentalcomponents
oftheimperialistsystem.YetMIMPclaimstherehasneverbeenaproletariat
inAmerikaandespeciallyno“white”proletariat,andusedrevisingwhat
constitutestheproletariatasaclassinvokingabstractmetaphorsandciting
differentwagelevelstospeciouslyvalidatethisposition.
Nowlet'slookathowLenin,StalinandMaocomparetoMIMPonthe
questionoftheexistenceofaFirstWorldproletariat.Maodidn’tlump
everyoneinAmerikaintoahomogenousoppressorLaborAristocracy(LA).He
specificallymadeadistinctionbetweentheUSrulingclassastheoppressor
classandthemassesasboththeoppressedandasalliesoftheinternally
oppressednationalities.Hestated,“Itisthereactionaryrulingcirclesamong
thewhiteswhooppresstheNegropeople.Theycaninnowayrepresentthe
workers,farmers,revolutionaryintellectualsandotherenlightenedpersons
whocomposetheoverwhelmingmajorityofthewhitepeople.”Nordidhe
46MaoTse‐tung,“TalksonQuestionsofPhilosophy,”August18,1964.
36
characterizeUSwhitesasoverallexploitersoftheThirdWorld.“Atpresent,it
isthehandfulofimperialistsheadedbytheUnitedStates,andtheir
supporters,thereactionariesindifferentcountries,whoareinflicting
oppression,aggressionandintimidationontheoverwhelmingmajorityofthe
nationsandpeoplesoftheworld.”47
AsforLeninandStalin,inhisdefinitivework,“TheFoundationsof
Leninism”,StalininpartelaboratedLenin'sanalysisofimperialismandits
practicalpurposesinthestruggletodefeatit.48Therehewrote:
“Leninismgrewupandtookshapeundertheconditionsof
imperialism,whenthecontradictionsofcapitalismhadreachedan
extremepoint,whentheproletarianrevolutionhadbecomean
immediatepracticalquestion,whentheoldperiodofpreparationof
theworkingclassforrevolutionhadarrivedatandpassedintoa
newperiod,thatofdirectassaultoncapitalism.
“Lenincalledimperialism‘moribundcapitalism’.Why?Because
imperialismcarriesthecontradictionsofcapitalismtotheirlast
bounds,totheextremelimit,beyondwhichrevolutionbeginsof
thesecontradictions,therearethreewhichmustberegardedasthe
mostimportant.”
Heidentifiedthefirstandmostimportantofthesecontradictionsas
“thecontradictionbetweenlaborandcapital,”thatisbetweentheproletariat
andthebourgeoisiewithintheimperialistcountries.Thesecondcontradiction
47MaoTse‐tung,“StatementCallingonthePeopleoftheWorldtoUnitetoOpposeRacial
DiscriminationintheUSandSupporttheAmericanNegroesinTheirStruggleAgainstRacial
Discrimination,”August8,1963.
48JosephStalin,“TheFoundationsofLeninism,”April1924.
37
wasthatbetweentheimperialistforcesthatis“thecontradictionamongthe
variousfinancialgroupsandimperialistpowersintheirstrugglesforsources
ofrawmaterials,forforeignterritory.”Thethirdcontradictionwasthat
“betweenthehandfulofruling,‘civilized’nationsandthehundredsofmillions
ofthecolonialanddependentpeoplesoftheworld,”thatisbetweentheFirst
WorldimperialistpowersandtheThirdWorld.Thesebeingthethree
fundamentalcontradictionsthatmakeupthephenomenonofcapitalist
imperialismandexisttilltoday.Lenin,StalinandMaoalwaysmaintainedthis
understandingofwhatconstitutesimperialism.YetMIMPproclaimsthefirst
andprincipalcontradictionofimperialism,namelytheexistenceof
proletarianversusbourgeoisieclassstrugglewithintheimperialistcountries,
doesnotexistandhasneverexisted.Butthatratherthereisareconciliation
betweenthebourgeoisieandwhattheycallaLA.SoMIMPhasrevisedthe
MLMunderstandingofwhatconstitutesimperialism.Theyhavetransformed
imperialismintoanewanddifferentsortofcapitalism.Eitherweacceptthis
absurdnotionandthatLenin,StalinandMao(andevenMarx)weredead
wrongintheirpoliticaleconomicanalysesorthatMIMPisrevisionist.In
eithercaseit'snotpossibletocallMIMPMarxist,LeninistorMaoistsincethey
clearlydonotfollowthefundamentalteachings,studiesorpracticeofanyof
them.
What'smore,inblatantcontradictionofMIMP,Lenin,StalinandMao
sawtheunityoftheFirstWorldproletariatwiththeThirdWorldasessential
tothesuccessofthestruggleagainstimperialism.Here'sLenin:
“thesocialistsoftheoppressednationsmustinparticular,defend
andimplementthefullandunconditionalunity,including
38
organizationalunityoftheworkersoftheoppressednationand
thoseoftheoppressornation.Withoutthisitisimpossibletodefend
theindependentpolicyoftheproletariatofothercountriesinthe
faceofallmannerofintrigues,treacheryandtrickeryonthepartof
thebourgeoisie.”49
AndhereagainisStalin.
“Thevictoryoftheworkingclassinthedevelopedcountriesandthe
liberationoftheoppressedpeoplesfromtheyokeofimperialismare
impossiblewithouttheformationandtheconsolidationofa
commonrevolutionaryfront;
“Theformationofacommonrevolutionaryfrontisimpossible
unlesstheproletariatoftheoppressornationsrendersdirectand
determinedsupporttotheliberationmovementsoftheoppressed
peoplesagainsttheimperialismofits‘owncountry’,for‘nonation
canbefreeifitoppressesothernations’(Engels)”50
Moreover,StalinheldtheFirstWorldproletariattobetheSoviet
Union’skeyally!Hestated:
“Thefirstally,ourprincipalally,istheproletariatinthedeveloped
countries.Theadvancedproletariat,theproletariatintheWestisan
immenseforce,anditisamostfaithfulandmostimportantallyof
ourregime.Butunfortunately,thesituation,thestateofthe
revolutionarymovementinthedevelopedcapitalistcountries,is
49V.I.Lenin,CollectedWorks,Volume20,pp.411‐412.
50JosephStalin,op.cit.note46.
39
suchthattheproletariatintheWestisunabletorenderusdirect
anddecisiveassistanceatthepresentmoment.Wehaveitsindirect
moralsupport,andthisissoimportantthatitsvaluecannotevenbe
measured,itisinestimable.Nevertheless,itdoesnotconstitutethat
directandimmediateassistancethatweneednow.”51
Lenin,StalinandMaoallmaintainedthesepositionswhilerecognizing
thattheFirstWorldcountriesreapedmassivewealthasaresultofthesuper‐
exploitationoftheThirdWorldtothegeneralsocial‐economicbenefitofthe
developedcountries.Yettheyclearlydidnotcharacterizetheirworkersasa
LAandenemyoftheworkersoftheunderdevelopedcountriesasMIMPdoes.
MIMPalsocitestheexistenceofbourgeoisviewsandvalues,and
attitudesofnationalandracialchauvinismonthepartofUSworkersas
groundsforcharacterizingthemasaLAandenemyofoppressednationality
andThirdWorldworkers.Yetanotherbogusanti‐Marxistview.Marxists
recognizethatwhenthebourgeoisieistherulingclassitperpetuatesits
valuesacrosstheothersocialclassesthroughdominatingthecultural
institutions.ThisiswhytherevolutionaryPartyisneededtoperpetuatea
revolutionaryproletarianculturetocombattheprevailingbourgeoisculture.
AsMarxobservedin1845“Theideasoftherulingclassareineveryepochthe
rulingideas,i.e.theclasswhichistherulingmaterialforceofsocietyisatthe
sametimeitsrulingintellectualforce.”
Recallitwasn'tuntilafterMarxandEngel’sdaythatLeninfirstdevised
aworkableprogramfordevelopingtherevolutionaryProletarianParty.Soit
isnowonderthatascapitalismstrengtheneditsholdinEngland,Engelssaw
51JosephStalin,“ConcerningtheQuestionoftheProletariatandthePeasantry,”January27,1975.
40
anincreasingbourgeoisificationoftheEnglishproletariat,whichisinevitable
intheabsenceofarevolutionaryPartytoorganizeandleadthem.Weseethe
sametrendhereinAmerikaintheabsenceofamassbasedrevolutionary
Party.Infactbourgeoisideaspredominateevenundersocialismminusa
persistentseriesofculturalrevolutionstorootthemout.Maowasthefirstto
recognizethisandcombatteditwiththeGreatProletarianCulturalRevolution
inChinawhichheledfrom1966untilhisdeathin1976.
Evenbeforehecametotermswiththisreality,herecognizedand
confrontedthephenomenonofthemassesentertainingnationalandracial
chauvinistandoverallbourgeoisideasevenafterthebourgeoisiehadbeen
overthrown.ThecureherealizedwasthatthePartyeducatethemassesin
Marxism,hesaid,“bourgeoisideasdominatethemindsofthosecomradesand
peoplewhohavehadnoMarxisteducationandhavenotgraspedthe
nationalitypolicyofthe[CommunistParty].”52SoanotherargumentofMIMP
insupportoftheirVLAlinefallsflatandisdefeatedbythewordsofthevery
authoritiestheyclaimtouphold.
Finally,wecometotheirmainargumentthatbymeritofhigherpaythe
upperstrataofworkersareaninherentlycounter‐revolutionaryLA.Wrong
again!ActuallyLeninrecognizedthehigherpaidworkerstobethemost
potentiallyrevolutionaryandthevanguardstrataoftheworkingclass.Lenin:
“Thehistoryoftheworkingclassmovementinallcountries,shows
thatthebetter‐situatedstrataoftheworkingclassrespondtothe
ideasofsocialismmorerapidlyandmoreeasily.Fromamongthese
come,inthemain,theadvancedworkersthateveryworkingclass
52FrederickEngels,quotedinV.I.Lenin,“Imperialism,theHighestStageofCapitalism.”
41
movementbringstothefore,thosewhocanwintheconfidenceof
thelaboringmasses,whodevotethemselvesentirelytothe
educationandorganizationoftheproletariat,whoacceptsocialism
consciously,andwhoevenelaborateindependentsocialist
theories.”53
AndwhileMIMPpromotesthe“lowerstrata”ofworkersasthemore
advancedproletarians,Leninmaintainedtheimportanceofthe“upperstrata”
astheleadershipof“themassthatconstitutesthelowerstrataofthe
proletariat[who]itisquitepossiblethatasocialistnewspaperwillbe
completelyorwell‐nighincomprehensibleto....”54ThisiswhyStalinsawthe
proletariatofthedevelopedcountriesasthekeyalliesofSocialistRussia.
ItistellingthattheverystrataofworkersthattheseMarxistleaders
recognizedtobethemoreadvancedandreceptivetorevolutionary
leadership,MIMPdenouncesasacounter‐revolutionaryenemyofthe
proletariat.ItsimplyprovesLeninwasright,toallowthePBtoleadthe
proletariatwill“inevitablydestroyanyrevolutionarymovement”asthey
“producetheveryresultswhichthebourgeoisieneed.”
Leninandcompanyunderstood,asdowe,thattheLAisnotthehigher
paidworkersperseasMIMPclaims.Butitisratherthoseamongthisupper
stratawhoasleaderswithintheworkingclassmovement(recallLenin
identifiedthelabortraitorsas“thelaborleadersandtheupperstratumofthe
labouraristocracy”)haveallowedthemselvestobebribedbythebourgeoisie.
Andtheyarenotbribedwithmerehigherwages.Leninnotedtheyarebribed
53MaoTse‐tung,“CriticizeHanChauvinism”March16,1953.
54V.I.Lenin,“CollectedWorks,”Volume4,p.280.
42
“inathousanddifferentways,directandindirect,overtandcovert.”55Clearly
theLAarethoseupperstrataofworkerswhowerepoliticallyconsciousand
activeleadersinthelabormovementandorganizationswhoweregranted
benefitsandprivilegesbythebourgeoisieto–againinLenin'sownwords–
serveas“therealagentsofthebourgeoisieintheworking‐classmovement,the
laborlieutenantsofthecapitalistclass,realvehiclesofreformismand
chauvinism.”56Sotheyaren'tmerelybackward‐thinkingandunconscious
workerswhoinevitablybecomebourgeoisifiedintheabsenceofaproletarian
Partybutinsteadtheyareconsciousworkerswhodeliberatelybetraythe
workingclassandservethebourgeoisietomisleadtheotherworkers.Which
describespreciselythebureaucraticandconciliatorylaborunionandlabor
movementleadershipandneo‐colonialagentswhohaveservedtomisdirect
theworkersandoppressedinternalnationalitiesandintegratethese
oppressedsectors’so‐calledlaborPartiesandunionsintothemainstream
politicalstructuresinthedevelopedcapitalistcountries.
AndwhatMIMPdoesineffectistotryanddividetheproletariatbyrace
andnationalitybyemphasizing“whiteness”andwhetheroneisaFirstWorld
workerversusaThirdWorldworkerinclassifyingwhoisaproletarianoran
enemythereof.ThisisoneoftheveryreasonsLeninfoundedtheComintern,
namelytocombatthePBrevisionistswhowere,asMIMPpromotes,
advocatingsplittingtheproletariatbaseduponnationalitysotheywouldbe
effectivelypittedagainsteachotherinimperialistworldwarsinserviceto
‘theirown’bourgeoisie.
55Ibid.,p.282.
56V.I.Lenin,PrefacetoFrenchandGermanEditionto“Imperialism,theHighestStageof
Capitalism.”
43
ThenMIMPcontendedthatwe“made”themostcommonstrawperson
argumentoftherevisioniststhattheMIMlineiswrongbecauseMarxand
LeninneverabandonedorganizingamongEuropeansandAmerikans.”That's
notwhatwesaid.Wesaidnotonlydidtheyneverabandontheimperialist
countryworkers,butthatMarxandLeninbankedtheverysuccessofthe
worldproletarianrevolutionontheproletariatoftheseFirstWorldcountries.
ThatiswasinfactinthesecountriesthatLeninformedtheCominternto
organizeCommunistPartiestogiveFirstWorldleadershiptothesecountries’
workersandtheworldCommunistmovement.Andaswe'vealreadyshown
Lenin,StalinandMaoclearlysawtheFirstWorldproletariatasaproletariat
andindispensabletothestruggleoftheThirdWorldworkersagainst
imperialism.
SoLeninandcompanytotallydiscreditMIMP’sclaimsthat1)thereis
notandneverhasbeenaproletariatintheimperialistcountries2)thereisno
needorbasisforunitybetweentheseworkersandthoseintheThirdWorld,
3)wearerevisionistforcontendingthatMarxandLeninalwaysrecognizeda
FirstWorldproletariat,and4)weareFirstWorldchauvinistsforholdingthat
thisupperstrataofworkerscouldorshouldgiveworkingclassleadershipor
supporttothelowerstrataofworkers,etc.
FromhereMIMPsanti‐MaoistPBrevisionistpositionsonlybecame
moreapparent.
MIMPsPettyBourgeoisEconomism
MIMPwentontosay,“IfAmerikansareexploited,thentoend
exploitationwouldmeantheyneedtogetpaidmoremoney.”NoMarxist
wouldmakesuchastatement.Toendtheexploitationofworkersthey’dneed
44
tobeunitedandorganizedtooverthrowtheiroppressorcapitalistclass,to
seizestatepower,andbuildasocialistsocietywhichmeansforthemto
exerciseallroundproletariandictatorshipoverthebourgeoisie.AsEngels
stated,“Theonlymeans”ofendingexploitation“ispoliticaldominationofthe
proletariat.”57
MIMP’spromotinghigherwagesasananswertocapitalistexploitation
oftheworkersisonethateveryMarxistbeginningwithMarxhimself
denouncedasaPBpositionandoneLeninspecificallyfoughtasPB
“economism”.Assaid,beginningwithMarxsuchan‘answer’hasbeenlong
rejected.Hesaid,thePB
“farfromwantingtotransformallofsocietyintheinterestofthe
revolutionaryproletariatonlyaspiretomaketheexistingsocietyas
tolerableforthemselvesaspossible.
“....Asfarastheworkersareconcernedonethingaboveallis
definite:theyaretoremainwageworkersasbefore.However,the
democraticpettybourgeoiswantbetterwagesandsecurityforthe
workers;inshorttheywanttobribetheworkers....”
Leninstatedwhentheworkers’strugglebecomesoneforonlyeconomic
gainswhilerevolutionariesrefrainfrom“explain[ing]tothemthesocialist
aimsandthepoliticaltasksofthemovementasawhole”theinevitableresult
isthat“theworking‐classmovementbecomespettyandinevitablybecomes
bourgeois[inideology].Inwagingonlytheeconomicstruggle,theworking
classlosesitspoliticalindependence,itbecomesthetailofotherpartiesand
57Ibid.
45
betraysthegreatprinciple:‘theemancipationoftheworkingclassmustbe
conqueredbytheworkingclassesthemselves.’”58Inhisessay“Whatistobe
Done?”Leninpointedoutthatlefttoitsown
“spontaneousdevelopment...theworkingclassmovementleadsto
itssubordinationtobourgeoisideology,toitsdevelopmentalongthe
linesoftheCredoprogramme;forthespontaneousworking‐class
movementistrade‐unionism,isNur‐Gewerkschaftlerei,andtrade‐
unionismmeanstheideologicalenslavementoftheworkersbythe
bourgeoisie.
“Hence,ourtask,thetaskof[communists],istocombatspontaneity,
todiverttheworkingclassmovementfromthisspontaneoustrade‐
unioniststrivingtocomeunderthewingofthebourgeoisie,andto
bringitunderthewingofrevolutionary[communism].”
SowehaveLeninhereexplainingthattheworkersinevitablybecome
bourgeoisifiedwhentheyarenotledbyarevolutionaryvanguardto
understandandpursuethepoliticalandclassstruggleandnotmerely
economicgains.ComparethistoMIMP’srevisionistpositionthatsaystheyare
justifiedinrefusingtheworkersrevolutionaryleadershipandtodenounce
themasenemiesbecause,intheabsenceofsuchleadership,theyare
bourgeoisified,andeveniftheyareexploitedthesolutionistopursuepurely
economicstruggle(formoremoney).TheMIMPlineistheexactposition
Leninrejects.Infactitiseconomism.
58V.I.Lenin,CollectedWorks,Vol.4,pp.366‐367,368.
46
Economismwasanopportunistlinethatwantedworkerstoconfine
themselvestothepurelyeconomicstruggleforhigherwages,betterwork
conditions,etc.andtoallowtheliberalPBtoleadthepoliticalstruggle(the
exactpositionMIMPpracticesandpromotes‐itonlypayslipserviceto
proletarianstruggle).Lenindenouncedeconomismasaliberalbourgeoisline
intheworkers'movementandthroughhisIskranewspaperwagedcontinued
struggleagainstit.Butitwasinhisessay“WhatistobeDone?”thathe
decisivelydemolishedeconomismandelaboratedhisperspectiveontheneed
androleoftherevolutionarypartyinleadingtheworkersmovementintoa
successfulrevolutionaryseizureandexerciseofpoliticalpower.AsStalinwas
toobserve,“[t]hefightoftheoldIskraandthebrilliantcriticismofthetheory
of‘kvostism’inLenin'spamphletWhatistobeDone?notonlysmashedso‐
called‘Economism’,butalsocreatedthetheoreticalfoundationsforatruly
revolutionarymovementoftheRussianworkingclass.”59
MIMP’seconomismfurtherrevealsitselfintheirpracticingthesortof
political“amateurishness”identifiedbyLeninthatendsinbecoming“lostin
narrowstudycirclelife....”60Aswe’venotedMIMPadmitsbeingasmallgroup
thatconfinesitsworkprimarilytoprisonerstudygroups.61
ItisimportanttonotethattheyarriveattheVLAlinebyapplyingan
economistanalysiswhichclaimsFirstWorldworkershaveovercome
oppressionasasoleconsequenceofeconomicbenefits.SoMIMP'sentire
claimthatUSandotheradvancedcapitalistcountryworkersareaLAisbased
onanexplicitlybourgeois(economist)analysisandonewhichLeninfiercely
59Op.cit.note46.
60V.I.Lenin,CollectedWorks,Vol.4,p.217.
61Op.cit.note28.
47
foughtagainst.ButtheyclaimthemselvestobeinheritorsofLeninistpractice
andline.
Anadditionalfactorinthehigherwagesofimperialistcountryworkers
includesthathistoricallytheproletariat’sstrugglesinthesecountrieswhere
theworkershavebeenmoreorganizedanddevelopedandengagedlongerin
struggle(andmetwithparticularlyviolentrepressionatthat)againsttheir
bourgeois,haswonthemgreaterconcessionsthantheless‐developed,
organizedandlegallyprotectedThirdWorldproletarians.YetMIMPconsiders
themerefactofhigherwagesasbasisforchargingUSworkerstobeenemies
oftheirownclass.AsMarxsaid:
“Bylookingonlyuponthechangeinwagesandoverlookingallthe
otherchangesfromwhichtheyemanate,youproceedfromafalse
premiseinordertoarriveatfalseconclusions.”62
MIMP'sMisrepresentations
Inadditiontotheir“strawpersyn”argumentwhichwe'veaddressed
above,MIMPmadeseveraloutrightmisrepresentationsofwhatwesaidinour
priorarticleemployingdirtytacticsofthesortthatLenincritiquedKarl
Kautskyfor,namelyfalselyclaiminganopponentinapolemictohavemadea
patentlyfoolishargumentandthenrefutingitasifrespondingtoaposition
wetookratherthanonetheywhollymanufactured.
InonecaseMIMPclaimedweclassifiedasUSproletariansthosewho
own$20,000cars,$200,000homesandmultiplehand‐heldcomputers.Which
refersobviouslytothemiddleclass(PB)sectorthatmembersofMIMPcome
62KarlMarx,Wages,PriceandProfit(Peking:ForeignLanguagePress),1975.
48
fromandnotanyproletariansweknow,especiallynotthosemultitudeswho
liveintheurbancentersthatwecomefromandisourtargetedsocialbase.
Infactatleast40%ofAmerikanworkersownnothingandmostofthe
restliveoneortwopaychecksawayfromhomelessness.But,inthatMIMP
describes“peoplesittingbehindcomputerstypingkeys”asnon‐exploited,
they’reagainobviouslydescribingtheirownPBclassandfurthermoretheir
ownpeculiarformofpolitical‘activism.’Andconsidertoo,evenifAmerikan
workerscouldbesaidtoenjoyapetty‐bourgeoislifestyle,thisdoesnotmake
themenemiestobedenouncedbyrevolutionaries.In“Imperialism:The
HighestStageofCapitalism”,Leninheldtheexactopposite.Hestatedit“isthe
boundeddutyofthepartyoftheproletariat[to]winawayfromthe
bourgeoisiethesmallproprietorswhoaredupedbythem,andthemillionsof
workingpeoplewhoenjoymoreorlesspetty‐bourgeoisconditionsoflife.”
ThentheyclaimedwesaidUSandThirdWorldworkersearndifferent
wagesbecauseUSlaboris“worth”morethanthatofThirdWorldworkers.We
saidnosuchthing.WhatwesaidandrepeatisUSworkersreceivehigher
wagesinpartbecausethecostsoflivingandthestandardoflivingarehigher
intheUSthanintheThirdWorld.AndwecitedMarx’sown“scientific”
politicaleconomicanalysesinvalidationofthispoint.AndcontrarytoMIMP’s
furtherfalsestatement,wherewecitedMarxinWages,PriceandProfithe
wasn'tcomparingweakversusstrongnorskilledversusunskilledworkers‐
MIMPdemonstrablydoesn'tevencomprehendwhatMarxwrote.Hewas
talkingaboutdifferentlevelsofeconomicdevelopmentindifferentcountries
asdetermininghigherversuslowerwageswhichagainbringsustothepoint
thathigherwagesdoesnotmakeFirstWorldworkersnon‐proletarianandthe
enemyofThirdWorldworkers.
49
Let'slookatMarx’sownstudyinWages,PriceandProfit.Recallthathe
revealedthatthecommodityliesattheverycoreofthecapitalistsystemand
itsproductiverelations.What'smoreislaborpowerisnotonlyitselfa
commoditybutthecorecommodityofthecapitalistsystem.It'simportantto
pointoutherethattheMIMlinehasalwaysavoidedthefactlaborisa
commodityinadvancingitslinethatFirstWorldworkersdon'tproduce
surplusvaluebecausetheyclaimtheseworkersdonotproducecommodities
atall.ButMarxexplained,“laborisonlyacommoditylikeothers,”andits
costs“correspondtoitsvalue.Itwouldbeabsurd,”hesaid“totreatitonone
handasacommodity,andtowantontheotherhandtoexemptitfromthe
lawswhichregulatethepriceofcommodities.”
Hewentontoexplainthatthevalueoflaboritselfiswhatdetermines
thevalueandcostofallothercommodities.“But”,heexplained“thereare
somepeculiarfeatureswhichdistinguishthevalueofthelaboringpower,or
thevalueoflaborfromthevalueofallothercommodities.Thevalueofthe
laboringpowerisformedbytwoelements‐theonemerelyphysical;theother
historicalorsocial.”Thephysicalelementheobserved,simplyrelatesto
providingforthebasicphysicalneedsoftheworkerandher/hisfamilyto
reproducethemselvessotheycancontinuetoprovidetheirlaborpower.This
istheCOSToflivingwhilethesecondorsocialelement,whichiswhatwe
referredtoastheSTANDARDofliving,Marxexplainedthusly:
“Besides[the]merephysicalelement,thevalueoflaborisinevery
countrydeterminedbythetraditionalstandardoflife.Itisnotmere
physicallife,butitisthesatisfactionofcertainwantsspringingfrom
thesocialconditionsinwhichpeopleareplacedandrearedup.The
50
EnglishstandardoflifemaybereducedtotheIrishstandard:the
standardoflifeofaGermanpeasanttothatofaLivonianpeasant....
“Bycomparingthestandardwagesorvalueoflaborindifferent
countriesandbycomparingthemindifferenthistoricalepochsof
thesamecountry,youwillfindthatthevalueoflaboritselfisnota
fixedbutavariablemagnitude,evensupposingthevaluesofallother
commoditiestoremainconstant.”
SoincompletecontradictionoftheMIMVLAline,Marxmadeclearthat
differentwagelevelsbetweendifferentcountriesinhereinthecapitalist
systemandtheirdifferentlevelsofdevelopmentandstandardoflivingin
them.Aconditionthathasofcoursebeenenhancedwiththe
internationalizationofcapitalismunderimperialistmonopolywhich
developedafterMarx’stime.So,differentwagelevelscertainlydoesnotmake
onemoreorlessaproletarian.Leninalsoobservedthattopresumethere
couldpossiblybeanequaldistributionofwagesundercapitalismasMIMP
implies,“issheerProudhonism,stupidphilistinism.”63
NoProletariatNoState
YetanotherMarxistprincipleprovestheVLAlinetobeabsolutely
absurd.Namely,thatifthereisnoproletariatinAmerikathereby
consequencecouldbenobourgeoisnationstate.Whichsoundslikevulgar
Intercommunalism.
Asweknowthestateissimplytheorganizedcoercivepowerbywhich
oneclassexercisesitsdictatorshipoveritsoppositeandirreconcilable
internalclass.Inthecaseofthecapitaliststateitisabourgeoisdictatorship
63Op.cit.note13.
51
overtheproletariatprincipallyandothergroups,inthecaseofthesocialist
stateitisadictatorshipoftheproletariatinalliancewithothernon‐
proletarianworkersoverthebourgeoisie.Leninelaboratedtheseprinciples
refutingtherevisionistPBinTheStateandRevolution,August1917.Hereisa
keypassage:
“Thestateisaproductandmanifestationoftheirreconcilabilityof
classantagonisms.Thestateariseswhere,whenandinsofarasclass
antagonismsobjectivelycannotbereconciled.And,converselythe
existenceofthestateprovesthatclassantagonismsare
irreconcilable.”
MIMPadmitsthatAmerikaisanationstate.IndeedlikeLenin,Stalin
andMaotheyaccountitan“oppressornation.”YetMIMPturnsaroundand
claimsthattheUSbourgeoisiehasreconcileditscontradictionswithUS
workersbymeansofconvertingthemintoahomogenousLA.MIMPalso
claimsNewAfrikansandotherinternallyoppressednationalitiesareaLAtoo.
IfMIMP’slinewerecorrectthentheUSwouldnotandcouldnotexistasa
state.
Statepower,asLeninobserved,“consistsofspecialbodiesofarmed
men[andnowwimyn‐Rashid]havingprisons,etc.attheircommand.”He
furtherspecifiedthata“standingarmyandpolicearethechiefinstrumentsof
statepower.”ItiscertainlynodoubtthatAmerikaboaststheworld'slargest
prisonsystemandoneofitslargestandmostformidablemilitary/police
apparatuses.
SoifwearetobelieveMIMPthattheUShasnoopposinginternalclass
thatisirreconcilablyoppressedbythebourgeoisie(i.e.aproletariat),whoare
52
wetoimaginearethesubjects‐andcompelsuchanextensiveneed‐ofits
massiveinternalsurveillance,police,prisonsystemandstandingarmy?If
everyoneinAmerikaissosecurelyandhappilybribedbyandreconciledby
thebourgeoisrulingclasstherewouldandcouldbenosuchrepressive
institutionsofbourgeoisstatepowerintheUS.
ButhereagainLeninrevealstheclassofpeoplewhoareinclinedto
arguesuchrevisionistpositionsasMIMPdoesonthispoint.Whatismost
revealingisthatallofwhatMIMPpromotesMarx,Engels,Lenin,Stalinand
Maoconfrontedintheirowntimesandopposed.ButhereisLenin:
“Ontheonehand,thebourgeoisandparticularlythepettybourgeois
ideologists,compelledundertheweightofindisputablehistorical
factstoadmitthatthestateonlyexistswherethereareclass
antagonismsandclassstruggle,‘correct’Marxinsuchawayasto
makeitappearthatthestateisanorganforthereconciliationof
classes.AccordingtoMarx,thestatecouldneitherhavearisennor
maintaineditselfhaditbeenpossibletoreconcileclasses.Fromwhat
thepettybourgeoisandphilistineprofessorsandpublicistssay,with
quitefrequentandbenevolentreferencestoMarx,itappearsthat
thestatedoesreconcileclasses.”
AndherewecometoyetanotherofMIMP’srevisionist“cardinal
principles”thatitclaimstobeMaoistandforbidsanyonetodisagreewithlest
theybedeemedanenemy.ThatbeingwhatMIMPcallsaJointDictatorshipof
theProletariatoftheOppressedNations(JDPON).UnderthisnotionMIMP
says:
53
“Inadictatorshipoftheproletariattheformerlyexploitedmajority
dictatestothemajority(whopromotedexploitation)howsocietyis
toberun.Inthecaseofimperialistnations,aJointDictatorshipof
theProletariatoftheOppressedNationsmustplaythisrolewhere
thereisnointernalproletariatorsignificantmassbasefavoring
communism.”64
ThisnotionofoverthrowingtheUSrulingclass(andthere'snotevena
hinthowthatmightbedoneunderMIMP’sclaimedMaoistleadership)and
creatingasocialiststaterunbyanexternalThirdWorldproletariatis
nonsensicalsincestatepowerreflectsinternalclasscontradictions.This
absurdJDPONtheoryispredicatedonMIMP’slinethatthereisnoFirstWorld
proletariatbecausetheimperialistcountrieshavereconciledtheirinternal
classcontradictionsbymeansofpayingtheirworkershigherwagesthan
ThirdWorldworkersreceive,andthereisthusnointernalproletariattoseize
andexercisestatepower.Apositionthataswe'vepointedoutisrefutedby
LenininTheStateandRevolution.
Anysortofclassdictatorshipsignifiestheexerciseofstatepower.How
doesMIMPsupposestatepowermightbeexercisedbyaThirdWorld
proletariatwholiveoutsideofUSbordersoverAmerika'seconomic,political,
educational,military,ideologicalandculturalinstitutions?Apparentlythey
supposethatwiththeoverthrowofthebourgeoisstateborderswillinstantly
vanish.Thatwouldbecommunism,wherenationalstatesandnational
bordersnolongerexist.Theinstantdisappearanceofstatepowerisexactly
whatanarchistscallfor,andistheverynotionLenindispelledinhisessayon
64MIMPpublishesthisstatementasoneofitsCardinalPrinciplesineachissueofUnderLockand
Key.
54
thestate.TheJDPOMreflectsexactlywhatLenindescribedas“pettybourgeois
revolutionism,whichsmacksofanarchism,orborrowssomethingfromthe
latterand,inallessentialmattersdoesnotmeasureuptotheconditionsand
requirementsofaconsistentlyproletarianclassstruggle.”65
PathofLeastResistance
MIMPconcedesthatprisonerswillnotmakerevolution,butfocuseson
thisstratabecausesubjectivelythey’re“onthemargins,theweakestlinksin
thesystem,thatiswhereyoufocusyourenergy.”YetMIMPwentontoadmit
torefusingtodoanylevelofworkthatgenuinelythreatenstheUSrulingclass
becauseoffearofrepression,whichmeanstheyarereallyatbestareformist
group.Indeed,theyaresofrightenedthattheymakeapointofhidingfromthe
verypeoplethey’resupposedtolead,justasMIMbeforethemhidits
members’identitiesfromtheirfollowersunderclaimedconcerntohidefrom
pigrepression.SuchaconcernwouldhavesomemeritperhapsifMIMPand
MIMwereactuallyrevolutionarygroups.
HoweverMIMPisadmittedlynothreatanddoesn'tintendtobe,soit
hasnoneedtofearretributionandthereforenoneedtohide.Butwhatreally
discreditstheirclaimsisintoday'ssuper‐surveillanceAmerika,it'srather
absurdforMIMPtopretendtobelievethepigsdon'tknowwhotheyarewhen
theyhaveapublishingoutlet,emailandinternetaccounts,attendrallies,table
literature,deliverandcollectmailfromadecades‐oldpostofficebox,etc.Is
MIMPserious?
WhatalotofMIMPfollowersmightfindsurprisingsincemostofthem
areracialandnationalminoritieswho’veboughtintoMIMP’santi‐PB,anti‐
65V.I.Lenin,“OntheSloganforaUnitedStatesofEurope,”August23,1915.
55
whiteworkingclass,andanti‐“U$A”rhetoric,isMIMistshavealwaysbeena
smallcliqueofPBwhiteAmerikans,asmanyontheoutsidewho’veinteracted
withthemwellknow.EnaemaehkiwTupacKeshena,apastmemberofthe
AfricanPeoplesSocialistPartywho’slongengagedtheMIMline,observed
thatMIMPisamongseveralsplintergroups“thatemergedfromthecollapse
ofthesomewhatinfamousAmericanwhiteradicalgroupknownastheMaoist
InternationalistMovement.”66AccordingtoitsoldhandbookWhatisthe
MaoistInternationalistMovement?67theoldMIMsaiditwasfoundedbya
majorityofnationalminoritiesandwimyn,butthiscompositionquickly
changedtoamajorityofwhitemaleAmerikansaccordingtovarioussources
thatinteractedwithMIMoveritsyearsofexistence.
Onemustquestion,inlightofMIMP’sracial,classandnationalmake‐up,
whethertheinsistenceonconcealingitsmembers’identitiesfromevenits
mostloyalfollowersisn'ttoavoidhavingtoconfronttheblatanthypocrisy
andcontradictionbetweenitsyearsofblisteringdenunciationsofwhite,PB,
Amerikan“settlers”,andthefactthatthisistheverycharacterofitsown
membership.Especiallygiventhelonghistoricalexperienceofpeopleofcolor
inAmerikahavingtheirstrugglesandmovementscoopted,subvertedand
takenoverby“whiteAmerikansettlers”,whichisthethemeoftheJ.Sakai
bookthattheMIMistsconcoctedtheVLAlinefrom.68Thisactuallycomports
morewithrealitythantheirclaimedconcerntoavoidpigrepression,when
theyadmitunwillingnesstoengageinanypoliticalworkthatmightactually
provokeanysuchrepression.
66EnaemaehkiwTupacKeshena,“ACriticalLookatthePoliticsoftheLeadingLightCommunist
Organization”.
67WhatistheMaoistInternationalistMovement?(Firsted.July1991/Seconded.September1995).
68J.Sakai,Settlers:MythologyoftheWhiteProletariatFromMayflowertoModern(republished
Montreal:Kersplebedeb,2014).
56
MIMPisofcoursefondofadvertisingthatitsnewslettersarerandomly
censoredbyvariousprisons,asifcensorshipgivesthemrevolutionary
credibilityandevidencesthattheirworkisthetargetofpigrepression.Quite
thecontrary,asprisonofficialsfrequentlyandwithmuchgreaterunanimity
andregularitycensorculturalpublicationsespeciallyonIndigenous,New
Afrikan/Black,Latinohistoryetc.,allvarietiesofpornography‐fromthe
mildesttohardcore‐rapmagazineslikeVibe,Source,XXLandsoon.Noneof
whichhastheslightestrevolutionaryorientation.MIMP’sgreatest“threat”to
thestatusquowefeelisthatbypromotingMarx,Engels,Lenin,Stalinand
Mao,theydogetprisonersintoreadingtherightmaterialandsome,withabit
ofcriticalandpersistentstudydomakethedistinctionbetweenMIMand
MLM,andcometoembracethegenuinelyrevolutionaryline.Quiteafewof
whomarenowmembersofNABPP‐PC,orareinformedbyouranalysesand
practice.
Butonthepointsofchoosingtheeasiestpathandbeingparalyzedby
fearofretribution,letusreturntocontrastingthelineofMIMPwiththatof
MLM.
Theclaimofpursuingthepathofleastresistanceandgreatersafetyasif
politicallycommendableforcommunists,fliesinthefaceofMLM.Asoneof
Lenin’sclosestPartycomradesandwifeNadezhdaKrupskayarecalled,
Lenin’srevolutionaryPartywastemperedbystrugglingunderthemost
difficultadversitiesanddidnotseekcomfortandease:
“PriortotheRevolutionof1905theBolsheviksshowedthemselves
capableofmakinggooduseofeverylegalpossibilityofforging
aheadandrallyingthemassesbehindthemunderthemostadverse
57
conditions.Stepbystep,beginningwiththecampaignforteaservice
andventilationtheyhadledthemassesuptothenationalarmed
insurrection.Theabilitytoadjustoneselftothemostadverse
conditionsandatthesametimetostandoutandmaintainone's
high‐principledpositions‐suchwerethetraditionsofLeninism.”69
In“‘Left‐wing’Communism:AnInfantileDisorder”,Leninhimself
arguedatlengththatrevolutionariesmustgowherevertheworkersare,even
inthemostdifficultplaces,includingreactionarytradeunionsandeventhe
bourgeoisparliaments.HespecificallyopposedthePBlineofgoingwhere
workwaseasiest.
WeofcourserecognizeprisonersinAmerikatobeanimportantstrata
oftheoppressedand,contrarytoMIMP’sline,seethemasoriginatingfrom
amongtheproletariatandlumpen(“broken”)proletariat,andassuchhave
theclassbasistobecomegenuinerevolutionarycommunists,especiallyif
exposedtoacorrectrevolutionaryproletarianline.MIMPdoesnotsee
prisonersinthislightsodoesn'tworktopoliticizethemtothisend.
Wedorecognizethatwhileontheinsideprisonerscannotrealistically
impacttheimperialistsystematthepointofproduction,buttheirstruggles
anddevelopedrevolutionaryinsightcancatalyzeworkandstrugglesonthe
outside.Also,90%ormoreofthemwillbereturnedtosocietyatsomepoint
sotheyrepresentavastbodyofpotentialrevolutionarycadre.Andassaid,the
PrisonChapteroftheNABPPaimstoeducate,organize,uniteandenlistthem
whilelivingandstrugglingrightalongsidethem,sharingtheirhardshipsand
learningfromtheirsameexperiences,notpreachingatthemfromaseparate
69NadezhdaKrupskaya,ReminiscenceofLenin(NewYork:InternationalPublishers,1970),p.167.
58
andisolatedpositionofleisureandprivilege,sittingsafelybehindakeyboard
talkingshitwithoutashredofexperiencenorsuccessinsolvinganyoftheir
problems.DoingasMaodenounced,“trailingbehindmassspontaneitywaving
one'shandsandcriticizing.”Wealsohaveastrategyandprogramthat
extendstobuildingoutsidebroadlybasedrevolutionaryPartieswithrootsin
alloppressedsectors.
MIMP’sexclusivefocusonprisonerswhilecallingitselfarevolutionary
MarxistleadershipiscontradictedbyLenin,whoexplainedthatanysuch
leadershipmustfocusoneverystrataandbuildhundredsofgroupstoeducate
andorganizethem.Orcollapseorendinbecomingtinybureaucraticgroups,
whichistheexactexperienceofMIMandMIMP.YetMIMPportraystheirtiny
clique,commandistpostureandself‐isolationfromthemassesas
commendablepractices.Here'sLenininhisownwords;Arevolutionary
leadership,hesaid:
“mustbesuretoorganize,organize,organizehundredsofcircles,
completelypushingintothebackgroundthecustomary,wellmeant
committee(hierarchic)stupidities…Eitheryoucreatenewfresh
energeticbattleorganizationseverywhereforrevolutionarySocial
Democraticworkofallvarietiesamongallstrata,oryouwillgo
underwearingtheaureoleof‘committee’bureaucrats.”70
AlsocontrarytoMIMP’sresortingtoasmallexclusivistorganizational
responseinfearofandresponsetothehistoryofrepression,Lenininfact
“openedwidethedoorsoftheParty”inresponsetointenserepressionnot
onlytocountereffortstoreduceittoasmalllocalizedclique,butbecause
70V.I.Lenin,CollectedWorks,Volume8,pp.145‐146.
59
undersuchrepressiononlythemostsincereelementswouldbedrawntojoin
thePartyandfacepigattack,thusexpandingitsrankswithaformidablebody
ofrecruits.71
AsforMao,heofcoursenevershunneddifficulty.Hispositionisexactly
theoppositeofwhatMIMPhassaid.Here'swhathestatedinOctober1945:
“Whatiswork?Workisstruggle.Therearedifficultiesandproblems
intheseplacesforustoovercomeandsolve.Wegotheretowork
andstruggletoovercomethesedifficulties.Agoodcomradeisone
whoiseagertogowherethedifficultiesaregreatest.”
AndagaininDecember1945:
“Wemustthoroughlyclearawayallideasamongourcadreof
winningeasyvictories,throughgoodluck,withouthardworkand
bitterstruggle,withoutsweatandblood.”
MatteroffactMaonotonlydidn’tshunworkthatmightprovokeenemy
repression,butinsteadhemeasuredtheeffectivenessofrevolutionarywork
byhowextremethelevelofenemyrepressionitgenerated.Andpeoplelike
MIMPwhoaimtoreduceandavoidrepressionhedeemedlittlebetterthan
theenemy.Infactthetitleofhisarticlefromwhichtherelevantpassageis
takensaysitall.Thetitlebeing,“TobeAttackedbytheEnemyisNotaBad
ThingButaGoodThing”(May26,1939).Here'swhathesaidinrelevantpart:
“Iholdthatitisbadasfarasweareconcernedifaperson,apolitical
party,anarmyoraschoolisnotattackedbytheenemyforinthat
71Op.cit.note13.
60
caseitwoulddefinitelymeanthatwehavesunktothelevelofthe
enemy.Itisgoodifweareattackedbytheenemysinceitprovesthat
wehavedrawnaclearlineofdemarcationbetweentheenemyand
ourselves.Itisstillbetteriftheenemyattacksuswildlyandpaints
usasutterlyblackandwithoutasinglevirtue;itdemonstratesthat
wehavenotonlydrawnaclearlineofdemarcationbetweenthe
enemyandourselvesbutachievedagreatdealinourwork.”
MIM'slineandpracticereflectwhatistypicaloftheunremoldedPB.As
Marxsaid,theywanttomakecapitalistsocietyascomfortableandtolerable
forthemselvesaspossible.MIMPoutofadmitteddreadandadesiretoatall
costsavoidofficialattack,refusestobaseitselfamongandunitewiththe
broadmassesandontopofthistheyembracecompletelycontrivedanalyses
ofclassesinAmerikasotojustifyrefusingtounitewiththeactualproletariat
inAmerika.
AndMIMPdemonstrablyfearsthemasses,electingtofocusexclusively
onprisonersbecauseMIMPfearsbeingchallenged,whichasMaoobserved
theycouldnotsoeasilypreventtheoutsidemassesfromdoing.Whereasthey
cansilenceprisonersbythreatofwithdrawingsupport,newsletter
subscriptions,ortheirparticipationinMIMPstudygroupsand
correspondence(whichreachesaneedforsocialinteractionthatmanyUS
prisonersaretorturouslydeniedandthusindesperateneedof).Andwhat's
ironicisMIMPrecognizesalloftheforegoingtobePBtendenciesandhave
identifiedandcritiquedtheminthepracticeofothers,theyjustdon'twantto
recognizethattheypracticethemandarethemselvesPB.Maoistspractice
equallycriticismandself‐criticism.
61
Racial/NationalChauvinism–TacticsofDivideandConquer
Aswe'vementionedtheworkcentraltothecreationoftheMIMistVLA
linewasJ.Sakai’sSettlers72andanti‐Marxistanalysisofrace(whichreplaces
raceforclassastheprincipalformofoppressioninAmerika).Settlerscites
episodesfromtheextensivehistoryof“white”racialoppressionofpeopleof
colorinAmerikaandtherelativeprivilegedstatusthat“whites”atallsocial‐
economiclevelshaveenjoyedattheexpenseofpeoplesofcolor,andwhich
hasallowedevenworkingclassandpoorwhitestobetraytheinterestsof
theircounterpartsofcolor.ThemainthemeofSettlersis“white”racial
treachery,betrayal,brutalityandprivilegethatclaimstoknownoclass
distinction.Theconclusionbeingthatthesefactorscombinetocreatea
uniformclassof“whiteness”thathasnoproletariansector.
WecontrastSakai'snarrowworkwiththebroaderandexhaustive
worksofMarxistproletarianintellectualTheodoreAllen,particularlyhistwo
volumestudyTheInventionoftheWhiteRace.Applyingapoliticaleconomic
analysishedemonstratesthatraceandracismwere/arecreatedand
manipulatedbytherulingclassasatooltodividetheworkingclassagainst
itselfandonlytothebenefitoftherulingclass.
Sakai’sworkisgearedmoretotheincitementofvisceralreactionsto
thehorrorsofthepracticeofwhitesupremacyanddrivinghomethe
subjectivethemeofinherenttreacherousnessof“whites”.Thistotheendof
incitingpeopleofcolortolookuponall“whites”asacollectiveoppressor
classandtoerasetheclasslinesthatexistbetweenandseparaterulingclass
andworkingclass“whites”.Sakai’snon‐materialiststudyreadilyappealsto
theaffectivemind.Allen'sworkbycontrastmateriallyexaminesthemethods
72Op.cit.note68.
62
andhistorybehindtherulingclass’sschemesthatcreatedraceandracism,
andincitedworkersandotherstrataagainsteachotherinthenameofracial
supremacyandcounter‐racialnarrativeswhichhaveperpetuatedongoing
racialalienation,competition,subordinationandsoon.Thishasservedto
suppressanddivertthecollectiveoutrageoftheoveralloppressedmasses
intochannelsthathaveprotectedandadvancedthewealth,powerand
interestsoftherulingclass.Allenalsoexamineshowtheconceptof
“whiteness”hasbeenusedandservestoblind“whites”tothesufferings
imposedby“whiteness”onracialized“others”andhefurtherdemonstrates
thatultimately“whites”donotbenefitfromracismorthesenseofracial
privilegeandentitlement.Allen'sworkisgearedmoretothecognitive
materialistmindthatisinterestedinunderstandingtheorigins,rootsand
purposeofraceandracismandhowtocounteritsdivisiveandoften
catastrophicimpactonoppressedpeoplesofallcolorsandespeciallythe
proletariat.
Allen'streatmentofthequestionraceandwhitesupremacycomports
withthatwithwhatMaohimselfsawandinfactstruggledagainstwithgreat
effectinChina.Infacttherevolutionthatheledconfrontedaconditionin
ChinanotmuchdifferentthantheracialdivisionsinAmerika,asbetweenthe
historicallyandsociallyprivilegedHanmajorityandmanydozensofminority
nationalities.AsMaonoted:
“Overnine‐tenthsof[China's]inhabitantsbelongtotheHan
nationality.Therearealsoscoresofminoritynationalities,including
theMongol,Hui,Tibetan,Uighur,Miao,Yi,Chuang,Chungchiaand
Koreannationalities,allwithlonghistoriesthoughatdifferentlevels
63
ofculturaldevelopment.ThusChinaisacountrywithaverylarge
populationcomposedofmanynationalities”.73
UnlikeMIMPandtherevisionistVLAline,hedidn'taccounttheHanof
whichhewashimselfamember,anon‐proletarianLAbecauseofitshistory,
uptilltheperiodofChina'srevolution,ofrelativeprivilegeanddomination
overtheotherChinesegroups.Rather,heapproachedthestruggleasoneof
allnationalitiesbeingoppressedbyimperialismandtheChineseruling
classes.HealsoledthestruggleoftheHanagainsttheirconditionedsenseof
“entitled”socialprivilege,dominationandsuperiorityoverothers.Andnot
onlythisbutalsotheneedforstruggleoftheminoritygroupswhoalso
entertainandpracticetheirownformsofchauvinismagainsttheHanand
othernationalities.WhichisexactlywhattheVLAlineis–apositionthat
postulatesthebasisforminoritynationalandracialchauvinismagainst
“white”Amerikans.HereagainisMao:
“[Minoritynationalities]inhabitextensiveregionswhichcomprise
50to60percentofChina'stotalarea.Itisthusimperativetofoster
goodrelationsbetweentheHanpeopleandtheminority
nationalities.BothHanchauvinismandlocal‐nationalitychauvinism
areharmfultotheunityofthenationalities;theyrepresentonekind
ofcontradictionamongthepeoplewhichshouldberesolved.”74
EvenafterthecommunistoverthrowoftheoldoppressiveChinese
systemHanchauvinismpersistedinmanyareas.AndMaocorrectlyidentified
thisasacontinuationoffeudalistandbourgeoisideaswhichcouldonlybe
73MaoTse‐tung,“TheChineseRevolutionandtheChineseCommunistParty,”December1939.
74Op.cit.note30.
64
curedbythemasses’masteryofMarxismandacorrectcommunistnational
policy.InhisMarch1953article“CriticizeHanChauvinism”,75Maoidentifies
theproblemandleadsitsresolution.Althoughwepreviouslyquotedinpart
fromthisarticleinadifferentcontextitwarrantsquotinghereatlength:
“Insomeplacestherelationsbetweennationalitiesarefarfrom
normal.ForCommuniststhisisanintolerablesituation.Wemustgo
totherootandcriticizetheHanchauvinistideaswhichexisttoa
seriousdegreeamongmanyPartymembersandcadres,namely,the
reactionaryideasofthelandlordclassandbourgeoisieortheideas
characteristicoftheKuomintang,whicharemanifestedinthe
relationsbetweennationalities.Mistakesinthisrespectmustbe
correctedatonce.Delegationsledbycomradeswhoarefamiliar
withournationalitypolicyandfullofsympathyforourminority
nationalitycompatriotsstillsufferingfromdiscriminationshouldbe
senttovisittheareaswherethereareminoritynationalities,makea
seriouseffortatinvestigationandstudyandhelpPartyand
governmentorganizationsinthelocalitiesdiscoverandsolve
problems.Thevisitsshouldnotbethoseof‘lookingatflowerson
horseback.’
“Judgingfromthemassofinformationonhand,theCentral
Committeeholdsthatwhereverthereareminoritynationalitiesthe
generalruleisthatthereareproblemscallingforsolutionandin
somecasesveryseriousones.Onthesurfaceallisquiet,butactually
therearesomeveryseriousproblems.Whathascometolightin
75Op.cit.note51.
65
variousplacesinthelasttwoorthreeyearsshowsthatHan
chauvinismexistsalmosteverywhere.Itwillbeverydangerousifwe
failnowtogivetimelyeducationandresolutelyovercomeHan
chauvinisminthePartyandamongthepeople.Theprobleminthe
relationsbetweennationalitieswhichrevealsitselfinthePartyand
amongthepeopleinmanyplacesistheexistenceofHanchauvinism
toaseriousdegreeandnotjustamatterofitsvestiges.Inother
words,bourgeoisideasdominatethemindsofthosecomradesand
peoplewhohavehadnoMarxisteducationandhavenotgraspedthe
nationalitypolicyoftheCentralCommittee.Therefore,education
mustbeassiduouslycarriedoutsothatthisproblemcanbesolved
stepbystep.Moreover,thenewspapersshouldpublishmorearticles
basedonspecificfactstocriticizeHanchauvinismopenlyand
educatethePartymembersandthepeople.”
ManythinkthatChinaisandhasalwaysbeenaterritorycomposedofa
singlerace,ethnicityornationalityofpeople.Notso.HueyPNewton,the
BPP'sco‐founderdiscoveredthisuponhis1971visittoandtourof
revolutionaryChina.Butwhathealsofoundandwasamazedby,washowthe
revolutionhadresolvedmuchofthechauvinismanddiscriminationbetween
groupsthatMaoidentifiedandledthestruggleagainst.Notonlythat,but
Hueywassoimpressedbywhathewitnessed,thatitprofoundlyinfluenced
andinformedhisownstrategyofbuildingself‐sufficiencyinNew
Afrikan/BlackcommunitiesinAmerika,anddevelopingtiestothoseofother
nationalandracialminoritiesinAmerika,andalsothe“white”Amerikan
majority.Here'swhatheborewitnesstoanditsimpactonhisthinking:
66
“Isawcrystalclearhowwecanstarttoreducethekindsofconflicts
thatwe’rehavinginthiscountry.IsawanexampleofthatinChina...
WhatIsawwasthis:whenIwentthereIwasveryunenlightened
andIthought,asithasbeensaidsooften,thatChinawouldbea
homogenouskindofracial/ethnicterritory.ThenIfoundthat50
percentoftheChineseterritoryisoccupiedbya54percent
populationofnationalminorities,largeethnicminorities.They
speakdifferentlanguages,theylookverydifferent,theyeatdifferent
foods.Yet,thereisnoconflict.Iobservedonedaythateachregion‐
wecallthemcities‐isactuallycontrolledbytheseethnicminorities,
yetthey’restillChinese....I'mtalkingaboutageneralconditionin
ChinawhereethnicminoritiesI'veobservedcontroltheirwhole
regions.TheyhavearighttohaverepresentationintheChinese
CommunistParty.Atthesametimetheyhavetheirownprinciples....
Thecitiesinthiscountrycouldbeorganizedlikethat,with
communitycontrol.Atthesametime,notblackcontrolsothatno
whitescancomein,noChinesecancomein.I'msayingtherewould
bedemocracyintheinnercity.Theadministrationshouldreflectthe
populationofthepeoplethere.”76
ActuallytheRussianrevolutionalsoconfrontedandovercameasimilar
conditionofcontendingnationalandracialgroups,ofwhichtheRussians
werethemajority.InfactinhisstruggleagainstStalinforPartyleadership
followingLenin'sdeath,LeonTrotskyattemptedtoinciteanimosityagainst
StalinbecausehewasamemberoftheGeorgiannationalminority,which
76DavidHilliardandDonaldWeiss,eds.,TheHueyP.NewtonReader(NewYork:SevenStories
Press,2002)pp.279‐280.
67
Trotskycitedasthebasisforwhatheattackedasasourceofgenetic
inferiority,namelyabasicracistattackonStalin.Inhishugebiography
Stalin,TrotskywenttogreatlengthstoundermineStalin’srevolutionarywork,
lifeandeven“moralstature”astheresultofhisracialinferiority,firstraising
thequestionofwhetherStalinhad“anadmixtureofMongolianblood”,then
attributedtheflawsTrotskyimputedtohimascharacteristicofStalin's
Georgianethnicity,where“inadditiontotheso‐calledSoutherntype,whichis
characterizedbyacombinationoflazyshiftlessnessandexplosiveirascibility,
onemeetscoldnaturesinwhomphlegmiscombinedwithstubbornnessand
slyness.”
Leninalsocombattedthenationalchauvinismwhichtheimperialists
incitedintheproletariansoftheirrespectivecountries,towintheirallegiance
sothey'dfightworldwarsagainstotherproletarians,andcarryoutatrocities
againsteachotherasgrimandheinousasthoseinflictedby“white”Amerikan
racistsagainstotherso‐calledraces(whowere/areactuallyminority
nationalities,i.e.NewAfrikans,Mexicans,Asians,PuertoRicans,etc.).
ButLenindidn'tdenouncetheseFirstWorldproletarianswhowere
massacringeachotherbythemillionsashopelesslycounter‐revolutionary,
becausethey'dbeenmanipulatedbytheir“own”nationalbourgeoisieto
commitatrocitiesagainsteachother,whichtheso‐calledrevolutionary
leadershipofthesecondCommunistInternationalsupported.Insteadhe–
recognizingthatitwasaleadershipproblem–foundedtheThirdCommunist
International(Comintern)tocreate,coordinateandorganizerevolutionary
MLPartiesintheimperialistcountriestoroottheirmassesinMarxismand
“turntheWorldWarintoCivilWars”,wheretheproletarianswouldinsteadof
killingeachotherforthebourgeoisieturntheirgunsontheir“own”national
68
bourgeoisieandengageincivilwarstooverthrowthem.This,asMao
recognizedinunitingthevariousChinesenationalitiesagainsttheimperialists
andtheirChinesebourgeoispuppets,isthesameideologicalpolitical
approachwemusttaketocounternationalandracialchauvinisminAmerika
asopposedtothenational/racialchauvinistVLAlinethatMIMPandotherPB
“theorists”promote.
Conclusion
TheLAisveryrealandhasbeenincontroloftheso‐calledlabor
movementandmainstreamlaborgroupsandPartiesinFirstWorldcountries
(andintheThirdWorld)sincethemajorimperialistcounter‐revolutionary
driveagainstCommunismpost‐WorldWarIandespeciallysinceWorldWar
II.ButtheunremoldedPBhasproventobethemosttreacherouscounter‐
revolutionaryelementduringthisperiodinunderminingandoverthrowing
socialiststrugglesandstates.
Whatdoeshistoryteachus?WhodrownedtheParisCommunein
blood?‐theliberalbourgeoisie.WhowastheRussianRevolutionmade
against?‐theliberals,MensheviksandSocialDemocrats.TheChinese
RevolutionwasmadeagainsttheformerlyrevolutionaryKuomintang(KMT)
20yearsaftertheChineseCommunistPartywasnearlywipedoutbyChiang
KaiChek’sbetrayalandtheShanghaiMassacre.Theformerlyrevolutionary
KDPputdowntheGermanRevolution(Spartacist)andpavedthewaytothe
Nazi’srisetopower.TheCommunistPartyofIndiabloodilyrepressedthe
NaxaliteRebellioninIndia.CapitalistrestorationinRussia,China,Albania,etc.
wascarriedoutbytherightwingoftherevolutionarymovementand
leadership.TimeandagainithasbeenthePBwithintherevolutionary
movementwithitsrevisionistpoliticsandideology,thewould‐beand
69
formerlyrevolutionarycomradeswhohaveproventobethedie‐hard
enemiesoftheproletariat.Maoaboveallunderstoodthiswell,andthisiswhy
heenjoinedustonotbeliberalandnotallowthePBanditscontentionstobe
givensway.Theclassbasisoftheideologicalandpoliticallineiswhatmakes
thefundamentaldifferencebetweentheteachingsandpracticeofMLMversus
theMIMline.Theformerisproletarianandrevolutionary,thelatterisPBand
revisionist/reactionary.
Wequiteliterallycouldgoonandon,butourpointisnottoharpon
MIMP’smanyerrors.Ouraimistopointoutfundamentalharmfuldeviations
fromarevolutionarycommunistperspectiveandencourageMIMPandtheir
followersandotherswithsimilarviewstohonestlyreflectupon,self‐criticize
andstruggletocorrecttheirmistakes.Becauseasitstands,theirlineand
objectivepractice(orlackthereof)putsthematoddswiththeproletariat
whiletheypromoteinemptywordstobeitschampion.Andwhilewedonot
accountMIMPtobearevolutionaryPartyoftheproletariat,itposturesasa
revolutionaryleadership,soweclosewiththefollowingquotefromLenin:
“ApoliticalParty'sattitudetowardsitsownmistakesisoneofthe
mostimportantandsurestwaysofjudginghowearnestthepartyis
andhowitfulfillsinpracticeitsobligationstowardsitsclassandthe
workingpeople.Franklyacknowledgingamistake,ascertainingthe
reasonsforit,analyzingtheconditionsthathaveleduptoit,and
thrashingoutthemeansofitsrectification–thatisthehallmarkofa
seriousParty;thatishowitshouldperformitsduties,andhowit
shouldeducateandtrainitsclass,andthenthemasses.Byfailingto
fulfillthisdutyandgivetheutmostattentionandconsiderationto
70
thestudyoftheirpatenterrorthe‘Lefts’...[prove]thattheyarenot
apartyofaclassbutacircle,notapartyofthemassesbutagroupof
intellectualistsandofafewworkerswhoaretheworstfeaturesof
intellectualism.”77
DaretoStruggleDaretoWin!
AllPowertothePeople!
77Op.cit.note13.
71

World Revolution vs. Socialism in One Country

MAO-catalyzed Friedel–Crafts reactions of toluene

The Ethnographical Notebooks of Karl Marx