Academia's Shift Right

RT was not surprised that Karl Rove, Bush's brain, will resign soon from his influential position in the Whitehouse. He completed most of his work and has posted substantial victories. The little Eichmanns succeeded in firing Ward Churchill, and a recent NYTimes article stands as another bellwether of the political shift to the right of U$ academia.

First, before commenting on the specific article and entering the trenches of the gender theory war, RT wishes to point out that queer and transgender people have been oppressed within the U$ for years now, and only recently have revisionist parties such as the RCP abandoned the position of homosexuality being a symptom of capitalist decadance. Not surprisingly, reports periodically come out of Prachanda Pathers persecuting glbts.

The NYT article clearly takes a reactionary point of view, siding with the "researcher" J. Michael Bailey defending his right to free academic inquiry in the face of criticism from peers. Even though Dr. Bancroft, director of the Kinsey Institute criticized Bailey's book as "not science," and later admissions from Alice Dreger, a biased investigator cited as somehow offering the definitive review on Bailey, that Bailey's research was anecdotal at best, the article considers Bailey a de facto scientist because he upholds a reactionary line despite great personal difficulty.

Strange how the media suddenly becomes concerned with the personal toll of professional attacks when it comes to reactionaries such as Bailey but takes delight in the suffering of true academic pioneers such as Ward Churchill. RT considers the article as indicative of the general media propaganda pushing the public and academia to the political right. Maoist insight and scholarship will remain underground in such a hostile environment until the time comes for it to surface and wage war openly against the imperialists. Only when the time is right and the fascism of the first world labor aristrocracy has suffered substantial defeats at the hands of a potracted people's war of the oppressed.

Peasant Movement in Hunan

The next work in RT's chronological trek through the writings of Comrade Mao Zedong is his Report on an Investigation of the Peasant Movement in Hunan. The investigation has some interesting information on how the organized peasant associations transformed a feudal China into a revolutionary one. RT considers the peasants' overthrowing of the political power of the county magistrates and his bailiffs particularly applicable to today's U$. Major economic and political interests drive the high rate of incarceration within the United States. Small, rural areas benefit economically from the growth and proliferation of prisons. The prisons bring jobs and revenue if they have surplus capacity to house inmates from other municipalities.

Non-whites are disproportionately represented in the prison populations. Prisoners are the only people in the U$ who aren't paid even the full value of their labor. Many are politically disenfranchised even when released as they lose their right to vote. Even the white nationalist liberals see the roots of the disenfranchisment system in racism. The injustice sytem itself, with its system of fines, probation fees, and repayment of court costs is a major revenue stream for local governments.

Comrade Mao saw the corruption of judges and other law enforcement authorities in China:

To get rich, the magistrate and his underlings used to rely entirely on collecting taxes and levies, procuring men and provisions for the armed forces, and extorting money in civil and criminal lawsuits by confounding right and wrong, the last being the most regular and reliable source of income. In the last few months, with the downfall of the local tyrants and evil gentry, all the legal pettifoggers have disappeared. What is more, the peasants' problems, big and small, are now all settled in the peasant associations at the various levels. Thus the county judicial assistant simply has nothing to do. The one in Hsianghsiang told me, "When there were no peasant associations, an average of sixty civil or criminal suits were brought to the county government each day; now it receives an average of only four or five a day." So it is that the purses of the magistrates and their underlings perforce remain empty.

RT sees the same kind of "confounding right and wrong" with wrong "being the most regular and reliable source of income" in the U$. Surely the future joint dictatorship of the proletariat of oppressed nations (JDPON) should have a similar approach to transforming the injustice system into a system of justice through adjudicating cases through the peasant's associations and eliminating the corrupt parasitic judges and law enforcement who ensure the continuance of capitalism through the systematic defense of private property.

In enumerating the fourteen benefits of the peasant movement, Comrade Mao includes overthrowing religious authorities and the masculine authorities of husbands. The prospect of a similar movement in the imperialist nations horrifies the labor aristocracy. Women in the imperialist nations receive lower pay than men in the same position and often rely on men for shelter and survival. Imagine brown-skinned people occupying and organizing the megachurches of the suburban U$ and using the technology in order to promote the benefit of all people over the enrichment over a parasitic minister. RT has difficulty imagining the labor aristocracy smashing its own theocratic superstitions.



Mao denounces Chiang Kai-shek and other reactionaries who on the one hand agitate for revolution to overthrow the imperialists yet fear when the peasant's revolution comes with all its anger and justice:

A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.

Lessons from Mao on China

The Bitter Sufferings of the Peasants of Kiangsu and Chekiang, and Their Movement of Resistance by Mao Zedong provides some important lessons for contemporary communists. The article deals with a student, Chou Shui-p'ing who organized farmers to demand lower rent from landlords. Before the farmers could totally organize, the landlords acted swiftly and executed Chou Shui-p'ing, leaving the farmers leaderless. The farmers were hungry for revenge and exacted it upon a police station and local powerful familieis.

Some landlords escaped and went to the city to report what had happened. Within days, soldiers and police arrived. According to Mao:

There was widespread propaganda about 'Violation of the Law' and 'Crimes', the farmers became fearful, and thus the movement was suppressed. The reason for the failure of this movement is that the masses did not fully organize themselves, and did not have leadership, so that the movement barely got started and then failed.

The farmer's movement collapsed on itself due a lack of leadership. Focoism has been a controversial wing of the revolutionary struggle in the imperialist nations, one which has proven disastrous in realizing any serious revolutionary gains. The capitalist forces aren't invincible, but we must consider what tactics best serve the current conditions. The Weather Underground undertook an armed struggle against the U$, but only saw its own demise and the dissolution of the militant anti-imperialist groups such as the Students for a Democratic Society.

A Note on our Archives

RT has edited some if its archives to remove sexist language and some sentiments that readers could misunderstand as not upholding the primary contradiction between oppressor and oppressed.

Chinese Classes

In Analysis of the Classes in Chinese Society, Mao Zedong indicates the presence of five classes in China: the landlord and comprador class, the middle-bourgeois, the petty-bourgeois, the semi-proletariat, and the proletariat. Mao lists them from least revolutionary to most revolutionary and RT will follow the same format. The landlord and comprador class constitue a reactionary force with no stake in the revolution. The middle-brougeois represents a class with some revolutionary potential. They have a motivation in seeing the imperialists and warlords removed from power, but at the same time, they fear the revolution because their interests aren't aligned with the masses of the semi-proletariat and proletariat.

Mao further breaks down the petty-bourgeois into three different sections, those who have surplus money or grain, those who have enough money or grain, and those whose standard of living is declining. Each subsection of the class has varying levels of revolutionary interest, but Mao sees even the right wing of the petty-bougeois pushing for revolution if the tide of struggle favors othe communists.

The semi-proletariat consists of semi-owner peasants (they own some land, but must rent some to farm or sell labor power in order to survive), the poor peasants (who own no land and work for the landlords) ,the small handicraftsmen, the shop assistants and pedlars. In the proletariat, Mao points out the effect industrial strikes have had on winning improvements in material conditions for laborers. He also included the "rural proletariat" who have neither land nor means of production and must sell their labor power under savage conditions.

Apart from these five classes, Mao briefly engages the problematic lumpenproletariat, who according to their social position should have some interest in revolution and have some ability to struggle, but end up becoming a reactionary force. This seems to emerge from the lumpen's corrupt practices finding refuge under captialism. Mao advised: "they can become a revolutionary force if given proper guidance."

What's the application to classes within the imperialist nations, U$ in particular? The labor aristocracy falls within the "landlord and comprador" class so the majority of the U$ population constitutes a reactionary force. They are the enemies of the revolution and agents of the counter-revolution.

Tobacco in China

Tobacco played an important role in the early days of the Amerikkkan colonies, and Mao Zedong noted the presence of Amerikkkan and Briti$h merchants making cigarettes in China in 1923. He calls the Chinese government "the counting house of our foreign masters" and points out that when the foreign merchants ask the Chinese ministers to cut taxes, the ministers reply, "How low?"

With lower taxes, the price of cigarettes falls, and if more Chinese people can afford cigarettes, they will buy them. Addiction ensures loyalty. That means more money for the foreign companies operating in China.

Tobacco has remained a major industry in China. The nation accounts for roughly 30% of the world's tobacco consumption. According to a World Bank report on Chinese tobacco:

73% of tobacco revenues accrue to the state (49% in taxes, 24% in profits), 20% is absorbed in marketing and production, 7% goes to private business as profits and only about 0.1% of total revenues goes to the farmers.

A 7% net profit is a good profit margin for sustaining corporate growth. The World Bank also reports on the corrupt measures the government uses to keep tobacco production up:

farmers who refuse to grow tobacco have their other crops ripped out. Farmers who resist may be detained for awhile, have their livestock taken, or are fined, a widespread practice in the country.

RJR Nabisco, Altria Group, Rothman's and Universal Leaf Tobacco company have all entered into joint ventures with Chinese companies. The disparity between the corporate compensation and peasant compensation reveals the true nature of the Chinese Communist Party: the counting house of its foreign masters. Don't worry, Google has agreed to participate in the pig work of censoring anti-revisionist websites.

The Role of the Merchants in National Revolution

At first glance, Mao Zedong's The Role of Merchants in National Revolution might appear to represent an opportunism on Mao's part of turning his back on the proletariat and peasantry to advance the cause of the petit-bourgeois. Mao points out that the Shanghai Chamber of Commerce and merchants actually had revolutionary capability. To communists in the imperialist nations, the notion seems impossible. U$ chambers of commerce and petit-bourgeois usually uphold the most reactionary line. The merchants of China, however, suffered under a "two-fold" oppression from the imperialists and militarists. He shows how the interests of merchants, foreign powers, and militarists were at odds over likin and customs duties. Mao sought a united front for revolution:

The only solution is to call upon the merchants, the workers, the peasants, the students, and the teachers of the whole country, as well as all the others who constitute our nation and who suffer under a common oppression, and to establish a closely knit united front. It is only then that this revolution will succeed.

Such a union in the U$ or imperialist nations would not be possible. The merchants, workers, students, and teachers in general have no interest in seeing a communist revolution succeed. RT cannot think of whom in the U$ would qualify as a peasant. A minority of students and teachers have advanced beyond the "democratic" sham elections and primogeniture.

Were the peasants of China more oppressed than the merchants? If they were, could that explain the greater militancy of the peasantry, which is where Mao ultimately saw the best conditions for revolution?