by Persephone Raskova # Documents Before I begin my criticism, a few preliminary points are in order for discussion. First I have taken it upon myself to host four documents in question from Maoist Communist Union (MCU). They are as follows: - [[Fundamental ContradictionFinal.pdf|What is Meant by, and What is, the Fundamental Contradiction of Our Society?]] - [[laboraristFinal.pdf|On the Labor Aristocracy]] - [[The_U_S__Proletariat_and_the_Centrality_of_the_Industrial_Proletariat_Final.pdf|The U.S. Proletariat and the Centrality of the Industrial Proletariat]] - [[Lumpenproliteriat response.pdf|The Lumpenproletariat]] I want to thank the Comrades of MCU for taking their time to thoughtfully respond to each of these subjects, which were prompted by some commentary I made in a group discussion. I think it speaks to the professionalism and the seriousness of the MCU organization as a whole, to be willing to engage in criticism and thoughtful dialog on this topic. However, this is not without some criticisms. # Definitions Secondly, it is necessary before I begin my criticism to offer up some definitions of terms that are repeated often. This is of the utmost importance to any kind of criticism: accuracy of language and common understanding of meaning. Words have meanings, and if we are not precise and clear about what we mean by the words we say, then everything we speak shall be nonsense and we'll just be shouting over each other's heads. Having firm, rigorous, and nuanced definitions offers clarity, insight, and sharpens our criticism. In that spirit, I offer the following definitions of terms or phrases along with (when relevant) a citation of where I am drawing this definition from. - **Industrial Proletariat** - The industrial proletariat are those workers employed in the manufacturing of goods to be used either as inputs in a secondary process or for final consumption. It does not include the first phase of production (extraction of raw materials), nor the final stage of production (service to the end consumer). It is also distinguished from non-industrial manufacturing in its *heavy reliance on machinery as a force multiplier of labor power, the logistical infrastructure for provision of material inputs, and a constant expenditure of energy*. ^industrial-proletariat - [**Labor Aristocracy**](https://www.massline.org/Dictionary/LA.htm) - This is the very best-paid and privileged stratum of the proletariat, which has arisen mostly within imperialist countries in the last century and a half. These are most often skilled workers, whose special training gives them greater bargaining power with the capitalists with regard to wages and benefits, especially where they are organized into strong craft unions. In the richest imperialist countries, such as the U.S., some workers in the labor aristocracy may even acquire some significant investments, such as rental property, stocks and bonds, though the dominant part of their income is still from wages. However, it is still only possible for this labor aristocracy to be as large as it is, and to receive as high wages and benefits as it does along with acquiring some savings and investments in some cases, because of the exploitation of large parts of the world by the imperialist ruling class. That international exploitation leads to constant imperialist wars, and ***it is necessary for the ruling class to pacify at least a major section of its workers at home with some small part of the wealth it rips off from foreign countries.*** ^labor-aristocracy - [**Principal (not fundamental) Contradiction**](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm) - If in any process there are a number of contradictions, *one of them must be the principal contradiction playing the leading and decisive role, while the rest occupy a secondary and subordinate position*. Therefore, in studying any complex process in which there are two or more contradictions, we must devote every effort to finding its principal contradiction. Once this principal contradiction is grasped, all problems can be readily solved. ^principal-contradiction - [**Principal Aspect of a Contradiction**](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm) - In any contradiction the development of the contradictory aspects is uneven. Sometimes they seem to be in equilibrium, which is however only temporary and relative, while unevenness is basic. Of the two contradictory aspects, one must be principal and the other secondary. *The principal aspect is the one playing the leading role in the contradiction. The nature of a thing is determined mainly by the principal aspect of a contradiction, the aspect which has gained the dominant position.* ^principal-aspect - **Settler Colonialism** - A particular form of the general process of colonialism whereby a class of individuals called **settlers** systematically eradicate Indigenous nations with the intention of depopulating the land to be colonized and repopulated by the settlers. The expropriated land is brought into capitalist property relationships for repopulation, ownership, exploitation, and extraction of resources as the outcome of the expropriation and genocide. This contradiction represents an ongoing process which is never completed just as the contradiction between bourgeoisie and proletariat is never completed. This is because the contradiction is one between the settler class and the Indigenous population **over ownership and use of the land**. ^settler-colonialism # General Criticism Independent of the Arguments Made I do have a general commentary regarding the document [[laboraristFinal.pdf|On the Labor Aristocracy]] which I want to address here, because it highlights a larger issue I have noticed with MCU. I raise this criticism not to call anyone out or to humiliate anyone or engage in attacks. Rather I raise this criticism because although I do not at this time wish to join your organization, I believe it has great potential and think that my criticism could enhance and strengthen overall the MCU. I felt that this document, while of a polemical nature, was unnecessarily hostile and confrontative in its content. It distracts from the message as there are many witty quips and snappy one-liners that don't contribute anything to the discourse here. Examples such as: - Regarding the quotes from Imperialism and the Split in Socialism, **it is even more trivial to understand immediately upon reading the essay** - Regarding the quote from Capital, **I invite anyone who has access to an internet connection to visit marxists.org** and refer to Ch. 25 Sec. 5 Pt. D of said book. Not only is Marx clear that he is indeed referring to a minority section of the working class, **but it is exceedingly obvious in context to anyone with the most elementary reading comprehension skills** that Marx uses the term "aristocracy" in a quasi-humorous manner here. I believe this is an uncomradely response to the MIM polemic which gives off the impression to the reader that the authors of the document are less concerned with arriving at the truth of the matter, and more concerned with pettily insulting the MIM and lambasting them with sarcasm because they had the audacity to question your organizations line. I have also noticed this behavior replicated elsewhere. For example when I raised my ideas in the chat about *proletarianizing the lumpenproletariat* with the intention of organizing them, two comrades who replied to my message completely disregarded what I wrote, and straw-manned me as saying we should just organize the Lumpenproletariat. It felt as if again, because I critically but respectfully and firmly questioned the argument being put forth by MCU, that it was more important to save face and tear down my argument than to actually engage with what was written. The issue is not that comrades wanted to disagree with me, but rather that my argument was straw manned blatantly. If there was some sort of misunderstanding or confusion, the comradely and correct approach would have been to ask me directly to clarify. This was immensely frustrating and I hope moving forward that the Comrades can engage in some self-criticism and self-reflection to acknowledge and, more importantly, change these petit bourgeois attitudes. # My Criticisms of the MCU Documents I will now attend to each of these documents, highlighting both what parts I think that MCU gets correct in their line while also criticizing those areas I disagree with. I will also take this opportunity to seek out clarification of the MCU line in those areas where it is unclear what is meant. - [[Criticism of Settler Colonialism Line]]