{"id":879,"date":"2013-08-25T15:02:17","date_gmt":"2013-08-25T15:02:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/rashidmod.com\/?p=879"},"modified":"2014-05-06T23:21:15","modified_gmt":"2014-05-06T23:21:15","slug":"answering-a-revisionist-line-on-the-labor-aristocracy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/rashidmod.com\/?p=879","title":{"rendered":"Answering A Revisionist Line on the Labor Aristocracy"},"content":{"rendered":"

I want as briefly as possible to reply to a letter printed in the April 2013 issue of Turning the Tide<\/em>, which claimed to argue a genuinely Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line in response to Mike Novick\u2019s article, \u201cOn the Correct Handling of Contradictions.\u201d<\/p>\n

The line promoted in that letter claims only 3rd World people (of color) are genuine proletarians because the superexploitation of their labor power by the imperialist country bourgeoisie produces \u2018superprofits\u2019 which is the source of higher wages paid to Euro-Amerikan (EA) workers, and consequently EA workers produce no surplus value; therefore, they are a parasitic labor aristocracy (LA) with no revolutionary potential and are enemies of the international working class.<\/p>\n

We submit that this vulgar<\/em> LA line 1) does not<\/em> by any stretch represent a MLM line, and grossly distorts what constitutes a LA; 2) is refuted by the most basic principles of Marxist political economy (PE); 3) serves the counter-revolutionary ruling class agenda of racially dividing the working class (under a false guise of making\/applying class analysis); 4) serves as an excuse for not doing revolutionary work among EA workers; and 5) is a purely petty bourgeois line in its character and origin.<\/p>\n

Marx himself noted that 3rd World colonies were the very source of the accumulation of wealth and development of capitalism in Europe, and this wealth, obtained by \u201cundisguised looting, enslavement and murder\u201d in the colonies, produced higher wages and full employment for Europe\u2019s workers.\u00a0 Yet he didn\u2019t deem them a\u00a0 non-proletarian, non-revolutionary class.\u00a0 In fact he chose to live amongst, educate, and organize them.\u00a0 Lenin likewise never characterized imperialist country workers as a LA; indeed, he organized the Comintern in Great Britain and the US.\u00a0 His harshest critique of them was that under bourgeois influence<\/em> they were inclined to national chauvinism as against 3rd World peoples.\u00a0 But he\u2014as did Mao\u2014contended it to be the duty<\/em> of revolutionaries to struggle to raise their consciousness above this tendency.\u00a0 Neither<\/em> of them cited it as an excuse not<\/em> to do political work amongst them, as the proponents of the vulgar LA (VLA) line propose.<\/p>\n

As Lenin and Mao taught, political economy (PE) is one of the three \u201cbasic constituents of Marxism.\u201d\u00a0 PE explains the basics of value, surplus value, surplus labor, differences in wages in different countries, etc.\u00a0 Under basic PE we know the core of capitalist relations is the commodity, which is anything<\/em> produced by humyn labor that serves a humyn need or want and is bought or sold.\u00a0 The VALUE of commodities is determined by the amount of labor required to produce them.\u00a0 The capitalist boss does not pay the worker the actual value of the commodity her labor produces, but as low a wage as the boss can hope to get away with, which is but a fraction of the commodity\u2019s actual value.\u00a0 That value for which the worker is not paid is the SURPLUS VALUE.\u00a0 The boss, however, sells<\/em> the commodities at their actual value, which is the source of his profits.<\/p>\n

Now apply these elementary principles of PE to, say, a McDonald\u2019s worker who is paid the $7.25 hourly minimum wage ($58 per 8 hour workday).\u00a0 However, her labor produces, say, $500 in food sales per day.\u00a0 That\u2019s $442 in surplus value (profits) pocketed by the boss.\u00a0 So US workers obviously produce surplus value.\u00a0 In fact, the US fast food industry reaps $200 billion in annual profits.\u00a0 That\u2019s a lot<\/em> of surplus value falling from the sky!<\/p>\n

The proletariat simply is one who must sell her labor power to survive, which is as true for the Amerikan worker as it is for one in Haiti.<\/p>\n

Then, completely independent of the value of commodities produced by labor, is the fact that LABOR POWER is itself<\/em> an object of exploitation by the capitalist boss and produces surplus value.\u00a0 This because labor power is itself a commodity<\/em> that has its own value, which the VLA line ignores.\u00a0 The value of labor is, like other commodities, determined by the amount of labor required to produce it.\u00a0 This, as Marx observed, is determined by 1) the cost of providing for the worker\u2019s and her family\u2019s basic survival needs and education, and 2) the standard of living that prevails in the worker\u2019s particular country and era.\u00a0 This<\/em>, he emphasized, makes the value of labor different in different countries, regions, and eras, with the result that there never has been nor can be an equality of wages; and there will always be lower versus higher wages in underdeveloped versus advanced capitalist countries.\u00a0 This is an inherent<\/em> feature of the capitalist system.<\/p>\n

Marx himself stated those who presume there could be an \u201cequality of wages\u201d under capitalism, harbor \u201can insane<\/em> wish never to be fulfilled,\u201d and those who base political lines on such a notion reflect \u201cthat false and superficial radicalism that accepts premises and tries to evade conclusions.\u201d\u00a0 Which is a true characterization in every sense of the VLA proponents.\u00a0 So, because the cost and standard of living and thus wages are much higher in the US than, say, Nicaragua, does not<\/em>\u2014according to Marx himself\u2014make the US worker any less a proletarian than the Nicaraguan worker.<\/p>\n

Furthermore, Marx noted that a worker could be paid a wage that meets (or even exceeds) her cost and standard of living, and still<\/em> be exploited by expropriation of surplus labor and surplus value by the boss.\u00a0 This can be done by making the worker labor for hours above and beyond those necessary to produce a \u2018living wage\u2019 (SURPLUS LABOR) which produces value that she is not paid for (SURPLUS VALUE).<\/p>\n

So it is blatantly false that the EA worker does not produce surplus value and is thus not a proletarian.<\/p>\n

Also, contrary to the VLA line, Lenin himself recognized the actual LA to be members of the proletariat, just amongst its \u201cupper strata.\u201d He also obviously did not base this classification simply on wage levels either.<\/p>\n

If one but read Lenin, he classifies the actual LA as leading<\/em> elements within the working class movement, unions, and workers\u2019 parties who opportunistically betray their own workers\u2019 cause and class interests.\u00a0 He also characterizes the upper stratum of the proletariat as the vanguard because their higher living standard and better work conditions afford them means of achieving greater political awareness and organizing experience, through which to become either genuine working class leaders or sellouts.\u00a0 So, what makes the LA is they are class-conscious<\/em> elements who knowingly mislead or sell out the proletarian cause.\u00a0 This is why and how Lenin consistently identifies them as sitting at the head of and subverting workers\u2019 unions, movements, and parties.<\/p>\n

The typical EA worker is not<\/em> class conscious nor even an active part of any workers\u2019 organization or movement.\u00a0 In fact, most have no clue that much of Amerika\u2019s wealth comes from 3rd World resources any more than did British workers during Marx\u2019s or Lenin\u2019s day.<\/p>\n

Lenin also noted the tendency of the LA to refuse to \u201cconduct genuinely proletarian revolutionary work of propaganda, agitation, and organization\u201d amongst workers just like the proponents of the VLA line.\u00a0 Also, Lenin didn\u2019t reject the entire LA as counter-revolutionary, but only its upper layers, and he even held they could be revolutionary allies and leaders, but \u201cshould be tested for their loyalty\u201d to the workers\u2019 cause.\u00a0 Besides, he banked the success of world socialism, and even in Russia and the underdeveloped countries, on the workers of the advanced capitalist countries\u2014he clearly did not dismiss imperialist country workers as a collective LA nor as \u2018enemies of the international working class.\u2019<\/p>\n

Neither did Mao.\u00a0 He in fact specifically promoted the EA workers as a potentially revolutionary class, who under the leadership of New Afrikan\/Black revolt would overthrow the imperialist system, which he observed was the only path to genuine freedom for New Afrikans\/Blacks:<\/p>\n

Racial discrimination in the United States is a product of the colonialist and imperialist system. The contradiction between the Black masses in the United States and the U.S. ruling circles is a class contradiction. Only by overthrowing the reactionary rule of the U.S. monopoly capitalist class and destroying the colonialist and imperialist system can the Black people in the United States win complete emancipation. The Black masses and the masses of white working people in the United States have common interests and common objectives to struggle for. Therefore, the Afro-American struggle is winning sympathy and support from increasing numbers of white working people and progressives in the United States. The struggle of the Black people in the United States is bound to merge with the American workers\u2019 movement, and this will eventually end the criminal rule of the U.S. monopoly capitalist class. ((\u201cStatement by Comrade Mao Tse-tung, Chairman of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China, in Support of the Afro-American Struggle Against Violent Repression\u201d (April 16, 1968) ))<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So clearly on no level<\/em> does the VLA line comport with any M-L-M line.<\/p>\n

What it does, however, is perpetuate the racial division within the workers\u2019 ranks that was first manufactured in the 17th century by the ruling class, and, as early New Afrikan socialists like Hubert Harrison recognized, has served as the<\/em> key deterrent to socialist revolution in Amerika.\u00a0 Only thing is, the VLA line uses class categories (\u201cLA\u201d versus \u201c3rd World proletariat\u201d) as a cover for racially dividing proletarian ranks, simply substituting \u201cLA\u201d for \u2018white\u2019 and \u201cinternational working class\u201d for \u2018people of color.\u2019\u00a0 This is exactly what Frantz Fanon (who deeply distrusted the petty bourgeoisie) warned that the petty bourgeoisie within oppressed nationality ranks is wont to do: namely, substitute racialism for genuine revolutionary class analysis and struggle.\u00a0 Indeed, many of the VLA proponents outrightly equate the LA with \u2018whites.\u2019\u00a0 And no one<\/em> can deny that the formulators of the VLA line are themselves petty bourgeoisie.\u00a0 Matter-of-fact, I have their admissions in writing.<\/p>\n

The VLA line incites workers of color and revolutionaries not to unite with EA workers and not to do revolutionary work among them, which is the exact sort of \u2018betrayals\u2019 the true LA commits while proclaiming itself to be genuine revolutionary leaders.\u00a0 Then these elements and their followers denounce as pigs those who expose and oppose their revisionist line, which is itself a reactionary pig tactic.\u00a0 Namely using smear tactics, rudeness, persecution, and humiliation to silence, discourage, or discredit those who disagree with or expose one\u2019s line as bogus.<\/p>\n

Which brings us to proof of Marx\u2019s point that such \u201cfalse and superficial radicalism\u201d as the VLA line \u201caccepts premises\u201d yet \u201ctries to evade conclusions\u201d because the obvious conclusions totally contradict the premises.\u00a0 For instance, if there\u2019s no EA (\u2018white\u2019) proletariat in the US, then there\u2019s also no New Afrikan\/Black one.\u00a0 If a EA working in McDonalds isn\u2019t a proletarian, then neither is one of color.\u00a0 If there\u2019s no New Afrikan proletariat, then there\u2019s no New Afrikan lumpen proletariat either (\u201clumpen\u201d literally means \u201cbroken\u201d\u2014if they were never of<\/em> the proletariat, they could not become a \u2018broken\u2019 proletariat).\u00a0 Yet the VLA proponents recognize New Afrikan prisoners as \u2018lumpen\u2019 who are potentially revolutionary.\u00a0 Which begs the question, why aren\u2019t they doing work within the oppressed New Afrikan communities where they\u2019re less apt to be censored, if<\/em> indeed they compose a lumpen sector?\u00a0 And if the lumpen can be redeemed, why not EA workers?\u00a0 Refusing to do political work among them is to leave them to be used (as Fanon warned about the lumpen) by the bourgeoisie against the revolutionary movement.\u00a0 Even the imperialists recognize and express the real danger of Maoists is that we perceive everyone to be potential allies excepting only the imperialists, who are our only permanent<\/em> enemy.\u00a0 We thus work to turn their own allies against them.<\/p>\n

The New Afrikan Black Panther Party\u2014Prison Chapter and our allies are working to develop revolutionary proletarian consciousness and leadership amongst all oppressed peoples, including EA workers, poor, and imprisoned and unite them into a united front to smash the imperialist system.\u00a0 To \u201cunite all who can be united\u201d to this end is the<\/em> true M-L-M line.\u00a0 And we unite with the comrades of Inter-Communal Solidarity Committee to this end.<\/p>\n

Dare to Struggle, Dare to Win!
\nAll Power to the People!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

I want as briefly as possible to reply to a letter printed in the April 2013 issue of Turning the Tide, which claimed to argue a genuinely Marxist-Leninist-Maoist line in response to Mike Novick\u2019s article, \u201cOn the Correct Handling of Contradictions.\u201d The line promoted in that letter claims only 3rd …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":4,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3],"tags":[6],"class_list":["post-879","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles","tag-party-articles"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/rashidmod.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/879","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/rashidmod.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/rashidmod.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rashidmod.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/4"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rashidmod.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=879"}],"version-history":[{"count":7,"href":"https:\/\/rashidmod.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/879\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1022,"href":"https:\/\/rashidmod.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/879\/revisions\/1022"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/rashidmod.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=879"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rashidmod.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=879"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/rashidmod.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=879"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}