From: "Charles F. Moreira" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | Block
Address | Add to Address Book
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: [MLL]Marxist-Leninists and the Working
Class Movement
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Fri, 13 Apr 2001 09:03:17 +0800
turning to what George Gruenthal wrote:-
Dear comrades,
>
> I would like to propose this as a subject of
discussion on this list,
and
> hope that we can have some exchange of experiences.
I direct
questions
> particularly to other comrades from the major
capitalist countries,
and in
> particular also to the comrades in Britain, since
the situation there
is
> somewhat closer to that of the United States. (This
is not by any
means to
> downplay the experience of comrades in the dependent
countries - the
> contradictions there are in general on a much higher
level, and even
among
> the imperialist countries the U.S. is still
relatively more
backwards,
> despite some movement.)
This would be a good subject of discussion and I hope
that it will take
into
account new developments in the relationship between
the bourgeoise and
proletariat in the imperialist countries, in the
developing countries
and
the inter-relationship between the two worlds today.
While the basic fact that the bourgeoise in the
imperialist countries
exploit their own proletariat, as well as the
proletariat in the
developing
countries remains the same, the nature of this
exploitative
relationship and
the relationship of the developing countries and the
relationship of
the
developing countries to the imperialist countries has
changed since the
times of Lenin and Mao.
For example, at the time of Lenin, the major
imperialist powers had
their
own sets of colonies which were more or less their
exclusive domain for
extra-territorial exploitation of land, labour,
resources and markets.
Their
colonies provided them with the raw materials for
their industries and
a
market for their manufactured goods.
In the time of Mao, especially after World War II,
when the granting of
formal independence to their colonies left their
former colonies in the
hands of comprador bourgeoise which protected the
respective
imperialists'
economic interests by oppressed their workers and
peasants on the
imperialists' and their own (the compradors') behalf.
Just as in Lenin's time, during Mao's time the former
collonies still
provided their former colonial masters with raw
materials for their
industries and served as markets for their finished
goods.
Today however, the former colonies have opened up to
inviting foreign
direct
investment from various imperialist countries and thus
no imperialist
country exclusively dominates the economies of the
former colonies, nor
exploits their land, labour, resources and capital.
Also, some of the former colonies such as Malaysia
have effectively
nationalised their utilities, generation,
telecommunications,
plantations,
petroleum, mining, airline, banking and other such
strategic
industries,
while allowing the imperialists to set up
manufacturing, marketing,
equipment supply, service and retail industries.
At the same time, home-grown industries have also been
set up in the
developing countries and combined with the output from
the
imperialist-owned
industries, they have more or less reversed the flow
of manufactured
goods
between the imperialist and developing countries,
though the
imeprialists
still gain from the cheaper labour in these countries
and thr profits
generated therefrom.
This reversal has to an extent affected the ability of
the bourgeoise
in the
imperialist countries to continue giving their
bourgeoise the
concessions
they could give them during Lenin's and Mao's time,
while at the same
time,
it has provided employment and income to the
proletariat of the
developing
countries such as Malaysia which is something
Malaysia could not
provide on
its own.
Malaysia opened up it's market to foreign direct
investment from
various
imperialist countries, especially after the ruling
comprador capitalist
coalition government suffered an electoral setback in
the May 10, 1969
elections and the racial conflict which followed on
May 13, 1969, as
the
reason for this frustration was the lack of employment
opportunities.
As a result, American, Japanese, Dutch, Swedish,
German and other
factories
are a common sight in these countries today, apart
from the Kentucky
Fried
Chicken, McDonalds, 7-11, Pizza Hut and other such
franchises and more
recently an invasion of Carrefour, Makro, Tesco and
Jusco megastores.
As a result, this has created a mindset of economic
dependency in the
minds
of not only the comprador bourgeoise but also in the
minds of the
petty-bourgeoise, white-collar workers, professionals
and also the
increasing numbers of the proletariat not only in
Malaysia but also in
other
developing countries in the region -- all of which are
competing like
prostitutes for the imperialists' investment.
Of course, Malaysia is one of the handful of
third-world countries
which
have managed to become fairly wealthy and in some
ways, the
relationship to
the imperialist industrial countries described above
is not much
different
from that which I saw in Australia and New Zealand --
which have near
exclusive control over the land, resources and
agricultural but which
very
much still import or locally assemble manufactured
goods in factories
owned
by the companies in the imperialist heartlands.
The Communist Party of Malaya signed an armistice
agreement with the
Malaysian Government in southern Thailand in 1989 and
I've subsequently
heard that some of it's leaders conceded that the
Malaysian
government's
development efforts had raised the living standard of
the people, thus
taking the wind out of their sails.
This in fact might be one of the possible drawbacks of
the two-stage
new
democratric and socialist struggle, when once people
have achieved the
first
stage, they lose interest in continuing with the
second stage and want
to
get on with their lives instead.
Today, the best Malaysia has in terms of a radical
left party is the
Parti
Sosialis Malaysia which follows in the tradition of
the legal left
parties
like the Socialist Front and subsequently the
Malaysian Peoples'
Socialist
Party which professed Marxism-Leninism and waged legal
and militant
struggle
especially among workers in the urban and rural areas.
Still a very small party, the PSM is involved mainly
with plantation
workers
to organise them to legally fight for their rights
against encroaching
property developers and against exploitation.
Unfortunately, they seem to have relationships with
Trotskyite
organisations
in Britain, Australia and the United States and its
leader, Dr. Mohd
Nasir
Hashim is anti-Stalin and he professes as kind of
ecletic of
Marxism-Leninism with religion and spirituality.
> In particular, the Marxist-Leninist movement in the
major imperialist
> countries has been rather weak for the last several
decades, mainly
because
> it has very weak ties with the working class. (There
are many
historical
> reasons for this, in the US in particular the role
of US imperialism
as
the
> dominant imperialist country since World War II, its
driving out the
great
> majority of revolutionaries from the trade unions in
the McCarthy
period
of
> the late 1940s and early 1950s, and the fact that
the CPUSA succumbed
to
> revisionism and has acted mainly as a tail of the
Democratic Party
and the
> union bureaucrats within the working class.)
>
> What I would like to learn from other comrades is
any examples
(positive
or
> negative) of the experience of MLs working in the
workers movements
in
their
> countries. I am partly inspired on this question by
a short
discussion I
had
> with Harpal Brar from Britain a few years ago,
during which I asked
him
why
> they were spending so much of their effort in the
Socialist Labor
Party.
His
> reply was: "In Britain, everything outside of the
SLP is just a
sect." I
> readily understood his point, as I was then working
in a miniscule ML
group
> (which I am still in and which does irregularly put
out fairly good
> agitation and propaganda), and I replied: "If we (my
group) worked
very
hard
> over the next few years, we might be able to become
big enough to be
called
> a sect."
You should have also asked Brar whether the SLP would
become a
revolutionary
Marxist-Leninist party once it has built up major
support base within
the
working class.
As a starting point in terms of its integration and
linkage with the
British
working class, I'd say that the SLP has the right
approach (and also
the
right legacy) which Marxist-Leninists can learn from
to be able to link
into
the day-to-day struggles and concerns of the working
class, even if it
concerns reformist or economic struggle over housing,
the closure of a
public facility, a strike, racism and sexism.
The party must not tail social democratic parties like
the Labour Party
or
bourgeois parties like the Democratic Party but should
stand on its own
as a
workers' party which will eventually lead them to
emancipation from
capitalism and to socialism but at the same time, it
must be able to
work
with the more progressive members of these
organisations in joint
struggles
over such issues, hopefully to win them over.
> I have been spending a considerable amount of time
since then trying
to do
> some work in the workers movement as such, which I
will try to
describe in
> future posts when I get a chance. But I am
interested in hearing from
other
> comrades about this. I would remind comrades of what
both Lenin and
the
> History of the CPSU(B) said, talking of the period
before Iskra, that
at
> that time the workers movement and the Marxist
movement were
separated
from
> each other, and that this served to the weakening of
both of them.
(IF
> anyone wants the exact quote, I will look it up - I
think the point
is
very
> relevant to those of us in the major imperialist
countries.)
>
> Fraternally,
Ø George
Rafael Writes
Comrades I think that these subjects are very
important I want just appoint some general aspects
based in my observations in Sweden.
First the historical imperialist dominations process I
can say that the evolution is from a colonial form to
a semi- colonial forms in terms of state dominations,
but the exploitation in economical terms is even
harder today than in times of brutal colonialism. But
now the most powerful and active in the unjust
relations is the multinational companies not any more
national states.
In general the left parties specially communists have
reduced a lot in it’s international activities. At the
contrary the bourgeois (ruling) class has intensified
its cooperation form of work globally. They have at
least well globalised coordination en the finance and
communication sectors.
One of the weakest fields for left forces is that we
have too little control or influence of the mass
media, whereas our enemies control almost all means of
communication. In hole world just nine multinational
companies own almost all mass media. In Sweden an
Scandinavia just two familjes.
I thin that if we will grow and defeat the capitalism
we have to conquest the alternative cheaper means of
communications such as Internet, study groups. Now if
we see the left Internet sites for example it is very
inefficient compared with the private commercial
sites. Ok they have much more money but we cannot
change the situation of we don’t discuss globally this
subject and do something.
I think that on order to change this situation we have
to analyze more Antonio gramsci’s theories about
“cultural hegemony of the ruling classes against the
other classes” I mean that the imperialist way to
manage information (maybe disinformation) we have to
oppose with other anti-imperialist way.
If you have some interest in discuss subjects related
to Internet as a strategic mass media for the left
movements I would enjoy to participate in.
Greetings
Rafael
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________
Marxist-Leninist-List mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/marxist-leninist-list
