Criticism of the Maoist Communist Union¶
The details of the context don’t really matter. I will merely focus on substance. The who said what of the whole ordeal is ultimately irrelevant and does not matter.
(mcu-documents)=
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[1] from Maoist Communist Union (MCU). They are as follows:
What is Meant by, and What is, the Fundamental Contradiction of Our Society?
On the Labor Aristocracy
The U.S. Proletariat and the Centrality of the Industrial Proletariat
The Lumpenproletariat
I want to thank the Cadres 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[2] of the MCU organization as a whole, to be willing to engage[3] in criticism and thoughtful dialog on this topic. However, this is not without some criticisms.
(mcu-definitions)=
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.
Note
- Industrial Proletariat
Workers engaged in the production of material goods through industrial processes, particularly in manufacturing, mining, and construction. Distinguished from service workers and agricultural laborers.
- Principal Aspect of a Contradiction
In Maoist dialectics, the dominant side of any contradiction that determines the nature of the thing. As Mao wrote, “The nature of a thing is determined mainly by the principal aspect of a contradiction.”
- Principal Contradiction
The primary contradiction in a given situation that, when resolved, enables the resolution of secondary contradictions. Identifying the principal contradiction is essential for revolutionary strategy.
- Settler Colonialism
A form of colonialism distinguished by the intent to permanently occupy and replace the indigenous population rather than merely extract resources. Unlike extractive colonialism, settler colonialism is a structure, not an event.
General Criticism Independent of the Arguments Made¶
I do have a general commentary regarding the document 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[4] 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 confrontational in its content. It distracts from the message as there are many witty barbs and snappy one-liners that don’t contribute anything constructive 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.
Important
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 about proletarianizing the lumpenproletariat with the intention of organizing them, the MCU cadres who replied to my message completely disregarded what I wrote, and straw-manned me as saying “we should just organize the Lumpenproletariat”[5]. I believe that because I critically but respectfully and firmly questioned the argument being put forth by MCU, that your cadre prioritized saving face by tearing down my argument instead of actually engaging with the substance of my criticism.
I want to be clear: 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 cadres can engage in some self-criticism and self-reflection to acknowledge and, more importantly, change these petit-bourgeois attitudes.
(mcu-document-criticisms)=
My Criticisms of the MCU Documents¶
I will now attend to each of these documents[6], 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.