======================================================================
Rule #1: YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
======================================================================


II. Colonies 
 
Politics require the ability to do what is in front of us, pushing for a  
struggle to pass through all its phases so that the next phases does not have 
to  travel the path of the "longest way around." Demanding that 
revolutionaries  fight for the independence of the proletariat when such might 
not be 
possible,  is an exercise in futility. Comrade SA should explain how he has 
in the  flesh fought fort the independence of the proletariat in America. I 
can only  tell you why we failed and why such was not possible. 
 
Without question the historic victims of the "oppressing people and states  
of the imperialist country's" hold a special disdain for their imperial  
murderers. This disdain becomes institutionalized because of continuing  
inequality and very real "imperial militarism." 
 
With few exceptions, equality has the been the inescapable form of the  
proletarian revolution. This is because of colonies, because women are not 
equal  and one section of the workers are not equal with the other sections and 
of  course the color factor. Equality is why workers fight for trade unions 
as  organizations to dampen wage inequality amongst themselves and seek a 
greater  share of the social product. At every stage in the rise and fall of 
the  industrial union form, the unions as a whole acted as imperial 
chauvanists. This  most certainly included many of the black and brown members. 
Such 
was the  inherent nature of trade unions. It was not just the union leaders 
or the  bureaucracy. The conception of union as primary fighting 
organizations of the  proletariat was imported into Marxism by way of  
syndicalism. I 
also fell  victim to syndicalism but did not stay in this swamp. 
 
In the former colonies and amongst the oppressed the proletarian struggles  
must manifest the long standing struggle against imperialism as a condition 
for  its existence. We witnessed in America a form of this insurgency in 
2006, when  six million people protested the attempt to pass anti-immigration 
legislation.  

The very foundation of society are being shaken. Something much  more 
intense that a cyclical crisis is unfolding in real time. The entire  
superstructure encompassing American society is being tossed in the air  
different than 
anything I have witnessed. As things come into focus it becomes  easier to 
write about what is in front of us. A new form of struggle embracing  the 
equality form but different than in the past is emerging from that section  of 
our proletariat increasingly shut out of production. Some of us are going 
to  follow this line of march and see what happens in the next twenty years 
or so.  If this leads to another blind alley that is alright. It is one less 
avenue we  have to try again. 
 
The national-colonial question is a subject of great discord, with some not 
 accepting the language called "national-colonial" coined by Lenin in the 
post WW  I period. In my view "the national question" long ago exited 
history, was  subsumed and morphed into the colonial question in general. Hence 
such terms as  "semi-colonial," which arose in the post WW I period. 
 
The world of today is much different than pre-WW II China. The politics of  
this era - the KMT and the CPC contains very little useful for us today,  
although this policy was 100% correct before the death of Sun Yat Sen. After  
this death and the murder of the left wing policy shift was in order. The 
only  other alternative was for the proletariat in the colonizing states to 
overthrow  their bourgeoisie. Such would have realigned the class forces 
world wide.  Sartesian is simply wrong and devoid of a concept of 
national-colonial. He  demands that others do what he - we, could not and did 
not do. A 
liberated China  governed by capitalist is infinitely better than one governed 
by imperialists.  One can always ask the Chinese people. 
 
To understand the material/political relations between the  
proletarians/capitalist, as collusion and collision with capital - all capital, 
 some of us 
focus on evolution of the working class at the front of the curve of  
industrial/capitalist development. I do not suggest that one must bend to the  
dictates or ideas of those of us as individual and organizations occupying the 
 conditions of existence in the imperial center. One must do what is in 
front of  them at all times and not give in to flights of fancy and pompous 
phrases about  independence of the proletariat. . One must locate their place 
in history and  measure the moment or boundary of the existing struggle. 
During a period of leap  - transition, such as is taking place skipping a phase 
of consolidation means  ones destruction, by braking their connection with 
the masses as they exist.  Today, we can not really entertain the idea of an 
independent proletarian  movement, but the material platform for impendence 
has come into existence. We  can try and chart developments in real time. 
 
Very little in the history of the revolutionary movement of the past  
century can help us. In the past century the world was completing the leap -  
transition, from agriculture to industry and social revolution and insurrection 
 broke out at the back of the curve of the industrial revolution. What we 
face in  America is a massive bureaucracy and intelligence agencies honed in 
a century of  counterrevolution. Our history may or may not provide lessons 
about the  conditions under which the independence of the proletariat 
struggle can be  realized. 
 
Why have these workers at the front - in the American and British Empire,  
never have been able to fight "independent" of their bourgeoisie? 
 
The abstract theory answer is that capital lives based on wage labor and  
wage labor rest exclusively on competition of the proletarians for wages, 
which  sets one section of the working class against another. This means that 
one  section of the proletarians are locked into a battle to preserve their 
unity -  interactions, with capital. A class cannot just get up and walk out 
of a  material relation of production. The concrete answers requires 
unraveling how  this social contract evolves through all its stages. 
 
In the main the Trade unions, most certainly after roughly 1910, evolved  
more than less with the blessing of a section of the state and later as  
appendages to the state department. Consider this: an early union organization  
in America called itself "The Knights of Labor, also known as "Noble and 
Holy  Order of the Knights of Labor," was one of the most important American 
labor  organizations of the 19th century. The evolution of how the proletariat 
 understood itself, not just how the tiny Marxist detachment understood 
"class  struggle," is important. Marxists altered our history with socialist 
ideas and  striving for a different kind of labor organization, with a 
different subjective  disposition but this could not  last for any length of 
time 
under  conditions of an expanding economy. The best we could do was fight 
along the  line of transition to the industrial union form. 
 
The old Knights avoided the colonial areas of America like the plantation  
South as did all the "great unions" in our history. Some unionization took 
place  in the South but virtually none in the plantation South. The failure 
to  "organize the unorganized," is worthy of a separate treatment. Our union  
movement was consolidated based on complicity in colonial exploitation 
beginning  right here in America. 
 
Later, in the post WW II period witnessed the universal growth and  
entrenchment of business unionism. What is business unionism other than a  
semi-fascist labor front, making permanent the organizations of mediation  
between 
labor and capital in an industry? We could not break this material bond  
riveting labor to capital. No one can break this connection at the front  once 
the industrial bourgeoisie consolidated its hegemony over society.  
Conditions can arise where the bond is broken - dislocation, as was the case in 
 WWI 
and II. 
 
Blaming the CPUSA, and I have never been a cheer leaders for them, or  
anyone else for the state of the working class movement in America is  
unwarranted. 
 

WL. 
 
 

________________________________________________
Send list submissions to: [email protected]
Set your options at: 
http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to