Re: [A-List] Romantizing working classes - about workers(2) logic and thinking

[Waistline2@xxxxxxx]

In real life there is no way for any of us to unite a very poor segment of
workers with the economically stable section of workers because they manifest a
 variance in class needs. The high paid worker knows - intuitively, that he
is  high paid on the basis of the low paid and unemployed. Everyone in our
society  already understands that compounded labor - skilled labor, fetches a
better  price in the market. The more stable segments of the working class cannot
step  outside the boundary that is their actual and daily relationship as part
of a  system of production, even if they subjectively - intellectually,
wanted to do  so. Their spontaneous movement is always against the bourgeois power
as a pillar  of the social system that their productive laboring expresses.

We most certainly do not ignore those section of the working class that are
moving in a direction of moral opposition to bourgeois rule.

What section of our society is in spontaneous combat with the  state?

Los Angels 1992 was not an uprising of the so-called lumpen proletariat or
the surplus population - however one defines it, but a complex of various
layers  of the working class with the most poverty stricken at its core. This
uprising,  its multi national or multi racial character was obvious and its
stubborn  resistance to the state forces means all the elements of real revolution or
 social revolution are in place. The age of electronics, with its step by
step  elimination of the industrial working class - a path we have chartered and
spoken of in unmistakable terms since 1992, bring to birth a new class or a
new  form of the laboring class (working class) just as sure as the industrial
revolution brought forth not workers, but the industrial working class. The
serf  was a worker but is called a serf to describe a specific form of the
working  class.

The Los Angels rebellion was contemptuous of anything  smacking of bourgeois
law, order or property relations.  In this respect  the real world taught the
combatants more than the revolutionaries and much more  than the classical
Marxist dare to contemplate. All one has to do to catch up  with the real world
is review the actual footage shot on the day of the Rodney  King verdict and it
is sinning against reality to suggest that this mass in  motion was something
akin to the low grade proletariat or lumpen proletariat  that is a refuge of
the break down of feudal society. Here was a real  spontaneous uprising of the
workers.

That the greatest spontaneous  fight back against the state - THE STATE,
rather than the fight that  arises on the basis of the unity of labor and capital
as the production of  value, takes place and arise from the most poverty
sticken sector of the working  class; and that section of our society with the
least connection with capital is  so obvious and undeniable and confirmed by
events over the past 60 years, that  the proponents of the classical Marxian point
of view, can offer no evidence to  sustain their ideological proclamation.

What capital being a  social relations and not a machine has to do with not
lying to our eyes about an  actual uprising and movement of the lowest section
of the working class is  beyond me.

***************

>>CB: Best approach  is to seek to unite the working class as a whole. The
Communist workers must  come from every sector,strata,department, region of
the  proletariat.<<

MP: If we have learnt nothing else during the  past 50 years of the social
struggle in America, it is that unequal cannot be  united. They can only be
forcefully fused together on the basis of the  continuation of their inequality.
Competition - bourgeois competition as value  production, makes it impossible
to unite the working class. If unequals cannot  be united then how can the best
approach be to unite the working class as a  whole - a concept, Lenin does
not employ and a political projection rejected by  the Third International.

Abstractions of an ideological  disposition generally gets one in trouble
because upon inspection it contains  nothing real.

"(U)nite the working class as a whole" means nothing  or rather means what
ever the individual who puts forth such a proposition  means. Our task as
communists is simple. Our task is to win the working class  over to support of
economic communism as they understand it on the basis of  championing the demands
of the poorest workers. Those who cannot be won over but  are in moral
opposition to bourgeois rule can be won to a benevolent neutrality.  Those section of
the working class based in the more economically stable workers  are to be
fought in the political arena and in the streets.

I  totally reject the classical Marxian presentation of this issue. I state
categorically the political projection that the "Best approach is to seek to
unite the working class as a whole" is the program of the Democratic Party or
right wing communism because it means subordinating the spontaneous demands
of  the most poverty stricken proletarians to the wage demands of the more
economically stable section of the workers.

The issue  was never whether we recruit converts - individuals, to the cause
of communism.  Here we are not limited to the working class at all but seek to
extend our reach  into the intelligence community, the diplomatic corps, the
armed forces and  absolutely every segment of society. With the possible
exception of American  lawyers and car salesmen, the two most despised segments of
our society  according to the American people. :-)

Just joking . . . Marx and Lenin studied law but did not  sale cars.

No . . . I believe you confuse the issue and have  not thought matters out,
which is why an entire generation of classical Marxist  totally ignore the
historical juncture that was the Los Angels Rebellion -  uprising, of 1992. The
reason is simple . . . the ideology of the classical  Marxist is political
syndicalism and they look to the industrial working class  to do something it
cannot do, even as it decays in front of all of our eyes.

>From the standpoint and history of say East Texas, looking North by way of
Louisiana, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and swing back to glance at Florida .
.  . and then remembering that California, New Mexico and Arkansas is also in
America,

>>the running away from the U.S. national territory of so
much of  industry, of  the actual points of industrial production, there  may
arise in the remaining  industrial proletariat of the U.S. a  new
dissatisfaction with the system and  militancy ,in that they are  being
impoverished by the process.<<

is frightening coming from a communist, but understandable coming from a
communist in the Midwest or the Rustbowl.

Sounds a tad bit too much like Yankee imperial ideology and Yankee national
chauvinism for my taste.

Melvin P