Imperialism and Its Class Structure in 1997 by MC5, July 22, 1997, Edited for Proofreading Mistakes August 8, 1999

Maoist Internationalist Movement Imperialism and Its Class Structure in 1997 by MC5, July 22, 1997, edited for proofreading mistakes August 8, 1999 A. Marxist-Leninist-Maoist definitions 1. Internationalism in the era of imperialist war From the perspective of communists in the United $tates the class structure in the imperialist countries of Western Europe is important, because the conditions are similar. Many comrades have asked us if we have done a concrete analysis to show that the class structure in Europe is similar to the one in the United $tates. We exclude Greece, Portugal and Spain; although the latter in particular may be an imperialist country as gauged by the existence of monopoly capitalist corporations. We exclude these countries, because an analysis of their imperialist character is not so clear-cut. By covering just the four big imperialists--England, France, Germany and Italy, we cover a population approximating that in the United States. However, in this essay we also include other imperialist countries including Japan. Of course, we have also taken the position that some countries of Europe such as Albania are not imperialist at all. In Albania and Russia there is in fact a white proletariat unlike the situation of the majority of Western Europeans. A. Marxist-Leninist-Maoist Definitions 1. Internationalism in the era of imperialist world war Engaging in a polemic amongst European communists, Lenin put forward the ideological orientation and tactics of internationalism in the imperialist countries. “I must argue, not from the point of view of ʻmyʼ country (for that is the argument of a wretched, stupid, petty-bourgeois nationalist who does not realize that he is only a plaything in the hands of the imperialist bourgeoisie), but from the point of view of my share in the preparation, in the propaganda, and in the acceleration of the world proletarian revolution. That is what internationalism means, and that is the duty of the internationalist, of the revolutionary worker, of the genuine Socialist.” V. I. Lenin (1 ) The opposite of internationalism when taken up by people calling themselves socialist is social-chauvinism. 1 Imperialism and Its Class Structure Maoist Internationalist Movement the bourgeoisie in the communist movement have pinpointed the place of “Social-chauvinism is advocacy of the idea of ʻdefence of the fatherlandʼ attack-Leninʼs idea of “superprofits” and anything Zinoviev did that Lenin in the present war. [World War I-ed.] This idea logically leads to the sanctioned or signed on to. In this way, these revisionists attack Lenin from abandonment of the class struggle during the war, to voting for war credits, page one of his preface to “The Proletarian Revolution and the Renegade etc. In fact, the social-chauvinists are pursuing an anti-proletarian bourgeois Kautsky.”(4 ) policy, for they are actually championing, not ʻdefence of the fatherlandʼ in the sense of combating foreign oppression, but the ʻrightʼ of one or other 3. Proletariat vs. semi-proletariat of the ʻGreatʼ Powers to plunder colonies and to oppress other nations. The social-chauvinists reiterate the bourgeois deception of the people that At the very best, the majority of workers in the imperialist countries are the war is being waged to protect the freedom and existence of nations, semi-proletarian. This is clear from the definition of the semi-proletariat thereby taking sides with the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. Among that all the major communist leaders of the time knew so well, unlike our the social-chauvinists are those who justify and varnish the government movement generations later so used to flattery and social-patriotism. The and bourgeoisie of one of the belligerent groups of powers, as well as those COMINTERN had a program for the European countries and it had a who, like Kautsky, argue that the socialists of all the belligerent powers are section called, “Our Attitude to the Semi-Proletarian Strata.” equally entitled to ʻdefend the fatherland.ʼ Social-chauvinism, which is, in effect, defence of the privileges, the advantages, the right to pillage and “In Western Europe there is no class other than the proletariat which is plunder, of oneʼs ʻownʼ (or any) imperialist bourgeoisie, is the utter betrayal capable of playing the significant role in the world revolution that, as a of socialist convictions.”( 2) consequence of the war and the land hunger, the peasants did in Russia. But, even so, a section of the Western-European peasantry and a considerable 2. Imperialism part of the urban petty bourgeoisie and broad layers of the so-called middle During World War I, Lenin may have hated no revisionist and chauvinist class, of office workers etc., are facing deteriorating standards of living and, more than Kautsky. Kautsky Lenin said was a renegade from his own earlier under the pressure of rising prices, the housing problems and insecurity correct positions. Kautsky was most dangerous because of his Marxist are being shaken out of their political apathy and drawn into the struggle credentials and willingness to use Marxist rhetoric to the maximum extent between revolution and counter-revolution. only to yank the movement along with him into the bourgeois camp at the last possible moment. To counter Kautsky, Lenin published this concise “It is also important to win the sympathy of technicians, white-collar definition of imperialism: “I gave my own definition of imperialism: workers, the middle- and lower-ranking civil servants and the intelligentsia, ʻImperialism is capitalism in that stage of development in which the who can assist the proletarian dictatorship in the period of transition from dominance of monopolies and finance capital has established itself; in which capitalism to Communism by helping with the problems of state and the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the economic administration. If such layers identify with the revolution, the division of the world among the international trusts has begun; in which the enemy will be demoralized and the popular view of the proletariat as an division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers isolated group will be discredited.”(5 ) has been completed.”(3 ) We also point out three things about the above quote from the Contrary to modern-day Mensheviks and social-chauvinists seeking to COMINTERN which requires being read several times. First is that it is carry on Kautskyʼs legacy of 1) muddying the distinction between oppressor significant as a use of definitions. It is not accurate for economic conditions and oppressed nations 2) jumbling the definition of imperialism and turning in Europe today. Living standards are not generally deteriorating in it into a peaceful entity 3) gutting the dictatorship of the proletariat, Lenin the imperialist countries; there is no war there anymore and there is no started his attack on Kautsky with two lengthy quotes from works in revolution going on as was once the case in Russia and Eastern Europe. which G. Zinoviev was the lead author. Todayʼs revisionists are busy at Secondly, it is important to notice that the COMINTERN regarded the work trying to corner the market Kautsky sought in his day by straddling peasantry of Russia as a better ally of revolution than the semi-proletariat. internationalism and national chauvinism. To do this, some spokespeople for We can extend that notion to oppressed nations in particular, because 2 3 Imperialism and Its Class Structure Maoist Internationalist Movement the bourgeois classes including the agrarian petty-bourgeoisie known as imperialist societies and there continues to be a petty-bourgeoisie. peasants have a progressive role to play while there is still an agrarian question, a question of feudalism or feudal remnants. In contrast, the Shaikh and Tonak, as Marx before them, show that capitalists have to COMINTERN regarded the urban semi-proletariat as less progressive than hire salespeople and guards. The government also hires workers. These the agrarian petty-bourgeoisie. occupations produce nothing, and cannot produce surplus-value. Within the capitalist system, they help the capitalists make or appropriate profit, but In other mentions of “semi-proletarians,” Lenin speaks of agricultural they do not produce surplus-value. workers who receive the wage-form of payment and some who are part- time peasants and part-time industrial workers. We also have the impression The military--a typical unproductive sector occupation that semi-proletarians could especially in peace-time, be petty-bourgeoisie. Lenin mentions all these together in explaining the class background Number of people per 1,000 in the population in the armed forces, of donors to Bolshevik newspapers and liquidationist newspapers. First 1993(9 ) he explains the donations from workers. Then he goes to the next case of “non-workers.” “The contributions obviously came from lower-paid Australia 1.9 office workers, civil servants, etc., and from the petty-bourgeois elements Belgium 7.0 of a semi-proletarian character.”(6) So in addition to signing on to Canada 2.7 COMINTERN statements, Lenin wrote his own that did not count office Finland 6.1 workers as proletarians. We ask our readers to re-read the above passages France 8.8 until these points are clear, because we in the imperialist countries have Germany 4.9 spent the last 50 years incorrectly altering the very definition of proletariat. Israel 36.8 Italy 7.8 4. Productive vs. unproductive labor Japan 1.9 Netherlands 5.6 Though

Load more