Could you please explain what perceived benefit there is to be had from concocting a revisionist definition of the fundamental nature of the proletarian condition to disqualify the vast majority of wage laborers within a country from the status of proletarian, simply because they have preferential access to social services in the country they are nationals of?!
By this same reasoning you could disqualify the majority of the worldwide proletariat that reside in the countries that they are nationals of, and deny class unity with them as well!
Are not dutch-national wage laborers having the surplus value of their productive labor power extracted by the bourgeoisie? Of course they are!
Do dutch-national wage laborers somehow own the Means of Production? No!
Therefore, dutch wage laborers are Proletarians.
If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I would assume you mean to say that due to their specific material conditions migrant proletarians represent a potential vanguard of the class struggle in the netherlands, or that they are the currently the most class-conscious sector of the proletariat. As an immigrant myself, I think that would be a reasonable, materialist position, though still debatable.
But if I follow my intuition it leads me to thinking that, though you have not openly stated it here, this wild notion might be the recuperated remnants of some Maoist third-worldist ideology in which only the workers and peasants of so-called developing nations are worthy claimants to the revolutionary subject in contrast with and the "pampered", "decadent", first-world wage-laborer who is (of course) passively complicit with imperialism and settler-colonialism.
Such ideology only serves to mystify the true nature of the Global Class that is the Proletariat and alienate the class bonds that unite one comrade in the struggle with another, hindering it from uniting and acting as a single force to realize its historical task, meaning the necessarily Global abolition of class society and alienated labor; the abolition of nations and states; the abolition of commodity production and exchange.
I hope that the 'Anarchist organization for reconstruction of militant proletariat' will reflect on this and correct their dialectical error in order to forge ahead as truly proletarian initiative.
Could you please explain what
Could you please explain what perceived benefit there is to be had from concocting a revisionist definition of the fundamental nature of the proletarian condition to disqualify the vast majority of wage laborers within a country from the status of proletarian, simply because they have preferential access to social services in the country they are nationals of?!
By this same reasoning you could disqualify the majority of the worldwide proletariat that reside in the countries that they are nationals of, and deny class unity with them as well!
Are not dutch-national wage laborers having the surplus value of their productive labor power extracted by the bourgeoisie? Of course they are!
Do dutch-national wage laborers somehow own the Means of Production? No!
Therefore, dutch wage laborers are Proletarians.
If I give you the benefit of the doubt, I would assume you mean to say that due to their specific material conditions migrant proletarians represent a potential vanguard of the class struggle in the netherlands, or that they are the currently the most class-conscious sector of the proletariat. As an immigrant myself, I think that would be a reasonable, materialist position, though still debatable.
But if I follow my intuition it leads me to thinking that, though you have not openly stated it here, this wild notion might be the recuperated remnants of some Maoist third-worldist ideology in which only the workers and peasants of so-called developing nations are worthy claimants to the revolutionary subject in contrast with and the "pampered", "decadent", first-world wage-laborer who is (of course) passively complicit with imperialism and settler-colonialism.
Such ideology only serves to mystify the true nature of the Global Class that is the Proletariat and alienate the class bonds that unite one comrade in the struggle with another, hindering it from uniting and acting as a single force to realize its historical task, meaning the necessarily Global abolition of class society and alienated labor; the abolition of nations and states; the abolition of commodity production and exchange.
I hope that the 'Anarchist organization for reconstruction of militant proletariat' will reflect on this and correct their dialectical error in order to forge ahead as truly proletarian initiative.