— Violence As Protest: A Study of Riots and Ghettos (via ninjabikeslut)
— Violence As Protest: A Study of Riots and Ghettos (via ninjabikeslut)
Well, yes. This IS America.
(US Army attacks homeless veterans protesting in Washington, DC in 1932)
1960s Birmingham, Alabama
1970 attack on unarmed student protesters at Kent State University
Police action at peaceful UC Davis Occupy protest
Let’s not pretend like the police actions taken this week are anything new. It’s just the most recent manifestation of a problem America has had for a very long time.
America, and many other countries
Carry on the traditions of the revolution, masses of fellow workers and peasants unite with each other! ☭
2014 Getting Back to Our Roots
Change though Collective Power of the People!
5 Days of Action’s, Education, Events and Connecting…….
The aim is to give the people the tools to engage in there own struggles against economic, social and political forces and injustices and to continue the long-standing tradition of radical social change though collective power building.
Wall Street is taking a Dump on the world #Occupywallstreet2014 #OwsSpag #S17NYC2014 #S17OWS2014 #S17OccupyWallSt2014
marxism-leninism-maoism Tumblr isn’t letting me post this in a reblog for whatever reason so I apologize for cutting out the original post and your response.
Perhaps I misspoke in some parts of the op. When I mentioned moving away from the question of “revolutionary potential,” I meant that the concept was no longer a central tenant of mtw, not that it was being done away with.
Net exploitation, however, I think isn’t a particularly useful concept. It’s definition is: the process in which workers are paid more than the amount of value they produce through their labor via the appropriation of surplus-value produced by other workers. This is obviously a very real phenomenon. However, it is a phenomenon that occurs in more ways than one.
Example a.) the labor aristocrat as they are typically understood-the industrial worker making extremely high wages largely sourced from the surplus value produced by super-exploited laborers in other parts of the production process.
Example b.) the low wage retail or service worker who produces little or no surplus value, but receives a wage derived from the surplus created by productive, low-paid workers located primarily in sites of production in the third world.
In example a, the worker obviously has little or no stake in overthrowing imperialism and is quite likely to take on a fascistic politics when push comes to shove.
Example b, on the other hand, may be working multiple jobs to piece together 40+ hr/week and still has trouble making ends meet. This person has a radically different relationship to capital and has much to gain from communist revolution.
The second element of the net exploitation concept is the idea that there is a certain income by which one can determine whether a worker is exploited-and by extension whether they are proletarian-based on if they make more or less than that amount per year. This income is generally postulated at $15-20,000 per year.
This is patently absurd. Income is only one element among several in determining the social standing of individual or groups of workers. For example, an auto-worker in Mexico may have the same nominal wage as a undocumented farm worker in the US, but the undocumented farm worker is in much more dire straits than the auto-worker due to the social position each holds in their respective social formations.
The MLM line also views the contradictions between the imperialist countries and the oppressed nations as a part of the principle contradiction.
In their points of unity, the NCP(OC) states the principle contradiction contains three primary contradictions:
“(i) Between imperialism and the oppressed nations and peoples;
(ii) Between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the capitalist and imperialist countries;
(iii) Between competing imperialist countries.”
They later go on to state:
"There are three fundamental contradictions in present-day U.S. society:
(i) Between the U.S. bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the U.S.;
(ii) Between the U.S. bourgeoisie and the oppressed nationalities in the U.S.;
(iii) Between the oppressing Euro-American nation and the oppressed nationalities in the U.S.
The principal contradiction, which currently plays the leading and decisive role, determining and influencing the existence and development of the other contradictions, is the contradiction between the U.S. bourgeoisie and the proletariat in the U.S. This contradiction determines the other contradictions between the U.S. bourgeoisie and the oppressed nationalities in the U.S., between the oppressing Euro-American nation and the oppressed nationalities in the U.S., within the U.S. bourgeoisie, between the U.S. bourgeoisie and its international capitalist rivals, between the petty bourgeoisie and other classes, between men and women within the proletariat, between straight/cis people and queer people within the proletariat, and between proletarians of different nationalities.
At the same time, the principal contradiction on the world scale between imperialism and the oppressed nations and peoples determines and influences the development of the three fundamental contradictions in U.S. society.
The position of the U.S. as an imperialist country and the sole superpower enables it to appease the upper stratum of the proletariat and other classes in the U.S. with material benefits, even while suppressing the lower stratum of the proletariat with its police, courts, and prisons. This position furthermore determines the composition of the proletariat in the U.S. through, on the one hand, forced migration from the colonial and semi-colonial countries and, on the other hand, the globalization of U.S. production and the growth of the massive service, sales, and office sectors of the U.S. economy. The existence of a relatively large petty bourgeoisie is also deeply connected to the international status of the U.S.
On the nationality question, the bourgeoisie uses the oppressed nationalities in the U.S. as instruments in various ways against the other oppressed nations and peoples of the world, even while subjecting the masses among them to ruthless domination.
Historically, the U.S. state has cultivated the identification of the oppressing Euro-American nation most closely with U.S. imperialism and this continues to be the strategy of a section of the U.S. bourgeoisie. However, the dislocating economic and political transformations of U.S. imperialism, the interest of the U.S. bourgeoisie in promoting immigrant labor and production globalization, and at the same time its constant whipping-up of U.S. social chauvinism is generating a mass base for fascism among petty bourgeois and lumpen proletarian sections of the Euro-American nation. This fascism is the contemporary form of the right-wing populism that has been a defining aspect of U.S. settler-colonial society from its founding.
Thus, the three fundamental contradictions in U.S. society must be understood in the context of the international situation, the three fundamental contradictions on the world scale, and the principal contradiction on the world scale.”
They also claim that the proletariat does not make up the majority of the population of the US. Like MTW, MLM posits that the petty-bourgeoisie are the largest class in the american social formation. As a result, MLM’s have broken from much of the vulgar workerism that haunts most of the left.
With all of this being said, I don’t really see enough of a difference between the line put forth here and the MTW line to necessitate such a distinction.
-Both regard the white working class as a labor aristocratic layer of workers who receive economic, social, and political benefits from their national relationship to the bourgeoisie, and thus are the mass base of fascism in the US. While MTWs and MLMs disagree on whether they are part of the proletariat, they both more or less agree on their social function which is arguably the most important.
-Both regard workers of oppressed nations here and abroad to be the core of the proletariat and the mass base of revolution and that revolutionaries should focus their efforts first and foremost on those communities.
-both call for the liberation and self-determination of oppressed nations here and abroad
-both put forth the idea that the level of development and standards of living are higher in imperialist countries than in the peripheries because of the parasitic relationship between them which can only be remedied by the defeat of imperialism. This defeat then clears the path towards independent development of oppressed nation economies via New Democratic/socialist revolution.
To be fair, MLMs haven’t always taken these lines, especially in the US. The RCP, for example, upholds the utterly revisionist and opportunistic line on who constitutes the masses. But it would appear that the most advanced elements within MLM have transcended those shortcomings. Similarly, some MTWs have made a number of important self-criticisms in the past year that we have discussed before.
Ultimately, I feel these changes have been a step in the right direction towards completing the unity-struggle-transformation dialectic between these two Maoist trajectories.
"As the protesters marched through the streets, it began to storm. Every time the thunder crashed, the protesters would cheer louder and louder. It seemed as if mother nature herself were cheering them on."
— Paulo Friere (Pedagogy of the Oppressed)
Revolutionary praxis must stand opposed to praxis of the dominant elites, fo they are by nature antithetical. Revolutionary praxis cannot tolerate an absurd dichotomy in which the praxis of the people is merely that of following the leader’s decisions - thus reflecting the prescriptive methods of the dominant elite. (via proletarianinstinct)
okay but when you have holocaust survivors and people who were activists during the civil rights movement supporting mike brown and then KKK members and neo nazi’s supporting the officer you should be able to figure out which side is the right one.
History takes sides, whether it be the oppressor or the oppressed. And if you choose to stand on the side lines you’ve already chosen.