Subject: Let's Get Real: The Proletariat
Posted by: QED

Also from http://2changetheworld.info

Bryant writes: When it is said that the majority are labor-aristocrats who have a stake in the imperialist war and plunder it means their xenophobia, jingoism, chavinism, hegemonism, militarism emanates from their material interest, not because they are mis-informed. For example the largest public investor is the california public employees union with its 500 billion investment portfolio :cattle-ranching in argentina, shares in a colombian oil company or a gold mine in peru or a stake in a golf-course in philippines or in a himalayan tour company in nepal. It doesn't like its property to be confisicated or the value of its stocks to decline.

The argument is made that most people in the U.S. have an objective interst in the system and in the empire. Arguments have been made in this discussion that imply that most people are profoundly reactionary, and that their reactionary politics actually correspond with their interests. This is obviously a pessimistic approach.

It leads some participants to argue that it would be good thing (for the people of the world) if all demand by people in the U.S. for a better life were defeated by their oppressors. Since that (in this upside down view) this victory by the oppressors would make these people less privileged etc.

This argument is (as has been said) both counterrevolutionary and wrong.

I'd like to touch on a few points, and I hope others will join in.

One chilling statistic: The poorest ten percent (economically) in the U.S. makes more than twice the top ten percent in Nigeria. Now standard of living is not just a matter of income (Peasants who grow their own crops often have no money but eat ok.) But still that is a stark example of inequality on the world scale.

This is true, but it is not the only truth.

I think the argument that denies that there are any white people who are oppressed in the U.S. (which is what MIM says, I believe) or that talks about the lower sections of the proletariat in the U.S. "infected with the parasitism virus" (as Jenifer did in this thread) raises a secondary aspect to deny the principal aspect of the contradiction.

Do people living in the U.S. benefit from living at the heart of an empire? Yes. This is obviously especially true of the ruling class, and also those with real money -- the many different layers of wealth and privilege.

And this is also true (I believe) of all strata, frankly, to some degree -- but that question of degree is exactly part of the issue.

Homeless people in St. Louis are homeless, but the garbage they rummage through may be better garbage than in (say) San Salvador.

A kid beaten by the cops in Baltimore may end up in a more high tech hospital than a kid beaten by the cops in Cairo.

Miners die deep underground in the U.S. (as dolly pointed out in her post) -- but the conditions are even more monstrous and murderous in India's mines.

But does that mean that the kid in Baltimore has an interest in the death of that kid in Cairo?

What then defies the class interests of people? Is any passing connection to imperialism a "virus" that taints those touched with "parasitism"? Is that how we tell?

If you eat a banana or drink coffee (that is harvested with the suffering and sweat of the people) does that mean that supporting imperialism is in your ultimate and largest interests?

I think that view is superficial, wildly moralistic, pessimistic and frankly unreal.

Bryant pulls the following argument out with a flourish: For example the largest public investor is the california public employees union with its 500 billion investment portfolio :cattle-ranching in argentina, shares in a colombian oil company or a gold mine in peru or a stake in a golf-course in philippines or in a himalayan tour company in nepal. It doesn't like its property to be confisicated or the value of its stocks to decline.

Well again, does that mean that because the bankers running these portfolios would rage at confescation, every retired social worker (with years of contact with the masses and intimate knowledge of their conditions) must of necessity have interests against confiscation?

Don't people have passing, partial, immediate, and superficial interests that are sometimes in deep contrast to their larger, overal, historic interests?

Just because a white worker may have an easier time getting a job than a Black kid -- does this mean that white racism is in the deepest interests of white workers, and does it mean that uniting together to create a new world and real equality is not in their interests?

I don't believe it.

And the proof of this lies in a deeper look at the lives of the oppressed in the imperialist countries, the dynamics of their lives and struggle.

There are tens of millions of proletarians in the u.s. who literally have nothing to lose but their chains. They are proletarians in that "classic" Marxist sense. And many are Black and immigrants. But there are tens of millions among them who are white. (including the majority of people on welfare who have always been white etc.)

Those truly with an interst in imperialism are small.
And those inbetween are sizable -- and among them are the more stable, and sometimes even relatively privileged sections of the working class (relative to the other workers, not comparable to real ruling class privileges.