From: Maoist Internationalist Movement <mim3-AT-blythe.org>
Subject: Detroit Summary: Representatives of the labor aristocracy continue self-exposure
Date: Sun, 18 Aug 1996 22:39:27 -0400 (EDT)


What the MIM critics failed to do--

1. None defined the principal contradiction,
took a stand on it and then applied it to Detroit.

2. Gina mentioned it, but none of the
authors condemned the Mexican scab rumors.

3. No one offered an analysis of the flow
of surplus-value concretely speaking and two
authors refused to retract the obvious distortion
of Marxism that only those directly engaged in
exploiting workers get a cut of surplus-value.

4. None admitted that mouthpieces are not workers
by Marx's standards.

5. Gina accepted the Marxist definition of semi-proletariat,
but none of the other critics did. What Gina
is doing with that definition still remains to be seen.

6. Tony and Gina denied that the strikers were mouthpieces
of imperialism, even after being confronted with the
UPI and other articles from the strikers' paper proving
exactly that point.

7. Of those two--Gina and Tony--who have admitted
that the strike is not led by a proletarian line, neither
has justified their anti-party individualism and their
attacks on the MIM press in the name of a semi-proletarian
led strike expressing straight-up imperialist consciousness.
And neither offered any offensive strategy for changing
the situation where the proletariat is the tail on the
semi-proletarian dog.
Pathetic.

The supporters of the Detroit Strike have petered out
and returned to their usual mode of emotional insults
devoid of any substance. One even provided false factual
information on Black and white workers while defending
the mythology of the white proletariat of the imperialist
countries.



     --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---