Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

Marxist-Leninist Collective

Proletarian Revolution and the Split in the Working Class


The bourgeoisie within the imperialist nations can bribe the upper stratum of workers due to superprofits obtained from imperialist exploitation and plunder. According to Lenin, superprofits are “a surplus of profits over and above the capitalist profits that are normal and customary all over the world.”[1] The primary source of superprofits are the developing countries and oppressed nations, where imperialist oppression results in a lower wage structure and thus a higher rate of profit. It is particularly important for communists and advanced workers of the oppressor Anglo-American nation to note that a major source of superprofits for the US imperialists is the oppressed nations and peoples within the borders of the US, in particular the Black Nation, the Southwest region, and Native American peoples, and also the Puerto Rican nation, a colony of the US.

An examination of comparative average hourly earnings for manufacturing production workers confirms the existence of superprofits. In 1973 for production workers in the US, the average wage was $4.07/hour, while in Guatemala it was $.44/hour, and in Singapore, $1.08/hour.[2] In the state of Michigan, within the Anglo-American nation, the average hourly earnings for manufacturing is $5.62.[3] in South Carolina, in the Black Nation, it is $3.32,[4] in New Mexico, Southwest region, it is $3.33;[5] and in Puerto Rico, $2.66.[6] These differences between the dominant Anglo-American nation and the oppressed nations and peoples within its borders also are confirmed by statistics measuring the standard of living: infant mortality rate, life expectancy, nutrition, etc.[7]

Superprofits are also obtained from the domination of one imperialist country by another. Due to uneven development and the penetration of foreign capital, wages in some imperialist countries are lower than in others. Investments in Europe, for example, in the postwar period, yielded superprofits to US imperialism.[8]

The monopoly capitalist cannot settle for normal profits, but must maximize profits. Thus, imperialist capital constantly seeks investment outlets which will yield maximum profits. Figures 1 and 2 give an overview of US corporations’ direct foreign investment, the amount of profit obtained, and the rate of profit. Figure 1 was part of a study done by Business International in 1975. The editors concluded:


Despite a worldwide recession with all its effects and an atmosphere of increasing economic nationalism, both the profitability of US foreign affiliates and the scale of US overseas investments continue to rise. These are the primary findings of Business Internationa1’s annual analysis of direct investments by US firms abroad, which reveals how these companies are performing in different marketplaces.[9]


From the figures we can see that the rate of profit is 14.7% for Latin America, 12.6% for Europe, 34.4% for Africa, 105.3% for Asia, and 399.6% for the Middle East. For investment in the US, the average rate of profit is 8-9%.

An understanding of how dependent the largest 500 corporations are upon superprofits from abroad can be obtained from Figure 3. Most of the largest corporations are now approaching a fifty-fifty proportion of domestic profits and profits from abroad. However, all the preceding figures understate the scale of foreign investment, amount of superprofits, and rate of profit, for the following reasons:


1) These figures do not show superprofits obtained from the Black Nation, the Southwest region, Puerto Rico, and so on – that is, from oppressed nations and peoples within the territorial borders of the US. We mentioned the wage differentials for manufacturing. The super exploitation of these nations and peoples is even clearer if we focus on differences in certain industries which the imperialists have concentrated in the Black Nation and the Southwest. In the lumber industry, the average hourly earnings in Oregon (Anglo-American Nation) amount to $5.56; in Mississippi (Black Nation), $2.97. For textiles, the average earnings in Michigan are $5.26; in South Carolina, $3.22. In California, the average wages for machinery are $4.86/hour; in Puerto Rico, $2.92/hour.[10]

2) These figures reveal the rate of profit for direct foreign investment. They do no measure, however, the surplus value transferred from the oppressed nations and colonies to the imperialist countries because of unequal exchange. This means, on the one hand, the sale of commodities (primarily manufactured goods and machinery) by the imperialist countries to the oppressed nations and colonies at prices which are above the value of the commodity and constantly rising. On the other hand is the sale of commodities (primarily raw materials and agricultural goods) by the oppressed nations and colonies at prices which are below the value of the commodity and, in most cases, constantly falling. The bourgeois economists claim that this deterioration in the terms of trade is due to the “laws of supply and demand operating in the world market”. Marxists, however, understand that these prices are determined by imperialist oppression and economic penetration of these nations. From 1951 to 1972, such exchange of unequal values resulted in gains of $122,269 million for the imperialist powers.[11]

3) The figures show only the foreign investment of non-financial corporations. An examination of financial corporations reveals the same pattern. In 1973, Citibank and the Bank of America, two of the US’s largest banks, earned 60% and 32% respectively of their profits from overseas investments.[12] Much of these profits came from loans to countries who borrowed to pay for manufactured goods imported from the developed capitalist countries. A number of countries such as Zaire and Brazil are on the verge of default. This could greatly aggravate the current financial crisis within the imperialist countries.

4) The amount of foreign investment listed reflects the annual amount of capital exported. However, this does not measure the cumulative total of the historical flow of investment. Investment abroad is self-perpetuating as long as markets exist and the enterprise is not expropriated. Profit is generated by the investment, part of which is repatriated to the US, and another part of which is reinvested. The figures do not show this build-up of investment by both the export of capital and the reinvested profits. One source believes the value of US corporate assets abroad is underestimated by 50-100%![13]

A. The Bribery of the Upper Straturn

With a portion of these superprofits from imperialist exploitation and plunder, the bourgeoisie can permanently bribe an upper stratum of the working class, the labor aristocracy. This aristocracy consists primarily of the trade union bureaucrats, highly skilled craft workers, and better salaried office workers. This upper stratum has a standard of living much better than the masses of working people. All imperialist powers bribe this section of the workers. Lenin stated:

Obviously, out of such enormous super-profits (since they are obtained over and above the profits which capitalists squeeze out of the workers of their ”own” country) it is possible to bribe the labor leaders and the upper stratum of the labor aristocracy. And that is just what the capitalists of the ’advanced’ countries are doing; they are bribing them in a thousand different ways, direct and indirect, overt and covert.[14]

The upper stratum constitutes only a fraction of the entire working class. The Bureau of Labor Statistics classifies 12.7% of the entire workforce as craft workers.[15] In addition, in 1961 there were 450,000 people assigned to jobs in the trade union bureaucracy; 60,000 were full-time, paid employees.[16] On the basis of these figures, we can estimate that the labor aristocracy is no more than 10-15% of the entire working class.

B. Privileges to the Entire Working Class

Moreover, it is possible for the bourgeoisie to extend privileges to the entire class, under certain conditions. Lenin and R. Palme Dutt address this question:

It must be observed that in Great Britain the tendency of imperialism to split the workers, to strengthen opportunism among them and to cause temporary decay in the working-class movement, revealed itself much earlier than the end of the nineteenth and the beginning of the twentieth centuries; for two important distinguishing features of imperialism were already observed in Great Britain in the middle of the nineteenth century–vast colonial possessions and a monopolist position in the world market. Marx and Engels traced this connection between opportunism in the working class movement and the imperialist features of British capitalism systematically, during the course of several decades. For example, on October 7, 1858, Engels wrote to Marx: ’The English proletariat is becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is, of course, to a certain extent justifiable’.[17]

In the metropolitan imperialist country the contrast between the relative privileged situation of the workers, and especially of the better-off upper sections of skilled workers, and the misery of the colonial masses is less obvious and open in daily life. The majority of the workers in an imperialist country share unconsciously in the exploitation–and for the vast majority, is a very small fragment of the exploitation of the colonial peoples. The ’plums’ go to the upper section of the labour bureaucracy, who receive very direct material advantages .... . . and reach a standard bringing them socially close to the bourgeoisie. It is in this stratum that the alliance with the capitalist class reaches full consciousness arid open theoretical expression in the shape of Labour imperialism or Right-wing Social Democracy.[18]

A number of important points made in these passages warrant discussion.

First, what are the conditions which allowed the British bourgeoisie to grant privileges to the majority of workers? Lenin said it was the exploitation of the whole world by Britain, its monopolistic position in the world market, and its colonial monopoly. (We will deal with this more fully later.)

Second, the privileges extended to the lower stratum of the multinational US proletariat, or the ’great mass’, are small in comparison with the bribery of the labor aristocracy. In particular, for the masses of workers in the nations and regions oppressed by US imperialism within its own borders (Black Nation, Southwest, Puerto Rico) they are extremely small. Furthermore, for the great mass of workers in the US, these privileges are temporary, and with the changing of the political and economic conditions in the capitalist world, these privileges are withdrawn.

Third, from after World War II until the late 1960s-early 1970s, the US occupied a position in the world which was similar to Britain from 1848 until 1868. The US accounted for one-half the industrial production, one-third of the world export market, and three-quarters of the capitalist world’s gold in 1945.[19] The US emerged from the war with its productive capacity untouched. The scale and productivity of its industry was much greater than western Europe and Japan, whose industries were destroyed by the war. Due to its industrial, financial, and military strength, US capital penetrated other capitalist countries, particularly Europe, as well as the former colonies and semi-colonies of these capitalist countries. After WWII, neocolonialism became the means by which the imperialist powers competed for economic re-division of the world.

From the outset of this period (after WWII to late 60s-early 70s), US imperialism was the leading imperialist power. It directly exploited most of the world (one exception being the socialist countries) and dominated the world market. Many events of the period substantiate this, such as the Bretton Woods Agreements, signed by the imperialist powers soon after the war. These accords established the dollar as the international reserve currency, interchangeable with gold. This was based on the reality of US hegemony within the imperialist system (the US owned the largest share of gold reserves at this time).

Putting the capitalist countries on their feet after WWII, establishing military bases throughout the world, providing economic ’assistance’ to developing countries and oppressed nations, and financing wars such as in Indochina–in general, the ’costs of empire’-were largely financed by deficit spending; other capitalist countries accepted dollars (as good as gold) in payment for goods and services purchased by the US. However, by the mid-1960s, when the economies of Europe and Japan had again been rebuilt, and capitalism was restored in the Soviet Union, the leading role of the US was threatened by competition from these countries. The expenditures necessary to try to maintain US hegemony within the imperialist system now resulted in an unfavorable balance of trade, leading to a persistent and growing balance of payments deficit. In 1971, Bretton Woods was torn up, and following it came a series of dollar devaluations.

US imperialism was no longer the world banker as other capitalist countries refused to hold the depreciating dollar. The US share of world gold reserves had dropped sharply. These privileges which fall to the leading imperialist power were now seriously eroded.

The fourth point is that during this period (approximately 1945-71), the privileges of the US working class (unemployment compensation, social security, educational and cultural benefits) gave the class as a whole a standard of living higher than the workers in the colonies?[20] and above and beyond what is socially necessary for the reproduction of the workers’ labor-power. Lenin clearly stated:

Is the actual condition of the workers in the oppressor and in the oppressed nations the same, from the standpoint of the national question? No, it is not the same. (1) Economically, the difference is that sections of the working class in the oppressor nations receive crumbs from the superprofits the bourgeoisie of these nations obtains by extra exploitation of the workers of the oppressed nations... To a certain degree the workers of the oppressor nations are partners of their own bourgeoisie in plundering, the workers (and the mass of the population) of the oppressed nations. (2) Politically, the difference is that, compared with the workers of the oppressed nations, they occupy a privileged position in many spheres of political life. (3) Ideologically, or spiritually, the difference is that they are taught, at school and in life, disdain and contempt for the workers of the oppressed nations. This has been experienced, for example, by every Great Russian who has been brought up or who has lived among Great Russians.[21]

Fifth, it is these temporary privileges granted to the majority of the class and the bribery of the narrow upper stratum that provide the material basis for the bourgeoisie and its ’labor lieutenants’ to present its interests as the interests of the entire population. National and white chauvinism are the cornerstone of bourgeois ideology. It is in this light that the bourgeoisie blames the energy crisis on the Arab peoples, or attributes unemployment in the US to undocumented foreign workers. National chauvinism has been a crucial factor enabling the bourgeoisie to wage two wars of imperialist aggression in Asia during the last 25 years.

Sixth, these temporary privileges extended to the entire US working class, but primarily to Anglo workers in the Anglo-American Nation, have been used not only to keep the class divided from other workers outside the US, but also to keep the multinational US proletariat divided against itself. The subjugation of the Black Nation, Puerto Rico, the Southwest region, and Native American peoples throughout the US is part of the material basis of white chauvinism that ’justifies’ the higher unemployment, lower wages, poorer working conditions, and all-round national oppression of the national minority workers and workers of these oppressed nations and regions. Even though the standard of living is lower in the Black Nation, the Southwest and Puerto Rico, than in the Anglo-American Nation, because of the development of capitalism within these oppressed nations and because of their partial integration into the multinational US imperialist state, a fraction of the privileges extended primarily to Anglo-American workers do filter down. However, because these nations and peoples are an important source of superprofits for the US imperialists themselves, as the general crisis of capitalism deepens, they are the first to have such minute relative privileges withdrawn.

Lastly, these temporary privileges explain, in part, the relative success of the bourgeoisie in attempting to keep Marxism-Leninism divorced from the working class movement since World War II. However, the primary factor has been the degeneration of the CPUSA into a revisionist party. Without a revolutionary party, the fusion of communism and the working class movement is impossible.

C. Composition of the Labor Aristocracy

Lenin includes in this section:

...the labour ministers, ’labour representatives’, labour members of war industries committees, labour officials, workers belonging to the narrow craft unions, office employees, etc., etc...[22]

The trade union bureaucracy, or ’labor officials’, would include the officers, business agents, organizers, and other paid functionaries of local and international unions. Journalists, lawyers, researchers and other workers of educational and cultural institutions supported by union funds are part of the trade union bureaucracy. The trustees and administrators of union health and pension funds can also be included in this section. One international union, the United Auto Workers (UAW), has over 1300 employees on its payroll.[23] All of the official ’labor representatives’ in various agencies of city, state and federal government (Department of Labor, National Labor Relations Board, OSHA, etc.) are included as part of the trade union bureaucracy.

The craft workers are another major section within the upper stratum. They are generally highly skilled and have passed through a four-year apprenticeship program to reach journeyman status. Craft workers are particularly concentrated in the construction industry. A partial list of the various construction trades includes: bricklayers, carpenters, masons, electricians, elevator constructors, glaziers, sheetmetal workers, iron workers, cabinetmakers. Outside the construction industry, found principally in manufacturing, are steamfitters, machinists, tool and die makers, operating and stationary engineers, maintenance mechanics, meatcutters, lithographers, auto, diesel and airline mechanics.

The wages and benefits of craft workers are substantially higher than those of unskilled and semi-skilled workers. A comparison between craft workers in the construction industry and manufacturing workers (Figure 4) reveals the wages of craft workers to be 40% higher than those of manufacturing workers.[24] While it is true that some craft workers do not work all year round, a comparison of the average annual wages and benefits in various skilled trades shows the gap between craft workers and manufacturing workers to be large.[25]


The wages of skilled workers in industrial unions are generally lower than the wages of those organized into craft unions. There is now a movement among skilled workers to break away from the industrial unions. The International Society of Skilled Tradesmen has been attempting to organize skilled workers in the auto and rubber industry along craft lines. The strength of this movement is reflected by the UAW’s decision to allow the skilled trades to bargain and ratify contracts independent of the unskilled and semiskilled production workers.[26] As well, the recent United Rubber Workers’ (URW) strike saw the trade union bureaucrats give special attention during the negotiations to the needs of the crafts workers.

There are several unique characteristics of skilled craft workers which should be mentioned. Many own their own tools, or means of production. They can sell their labor-power as private contractors, particularly in various types of repair and maintenance work. The high wages of most skilled workers enable some to accumulate enough capital to start their own business and even hire other workers. Similarly, many skilled workers own some property (generally real estate), and therefore can live, in part, from this income. Moreover, many skilled workers maintain close social and political ties with the petty bourgeoisie by virtue of their special education and training, high wages, ability to pay for services performed by the lower stratum of workers (restaurant, laundry, domestic help, etc.). All of these characteristics give the skilled craftworkers a foot in the petty bourgeoisie and & material stake in the perpetuation of capitalism. As Lenin stated in describing what determines the composition of classes in society:

Classes are large groups of persons, differing according to their places in the historically established system of social production, according to their relations (mostly fixed and formulated in laws) to the means of production, according to their roles in the social organization of labor and consequently according to their methods of obtaining and the size of the share of social wealth over which they dispose. Classes are groups of persons, of which one group is able to appropriate (’take to one’s self as one’s own’) the labor of another, owing to a difference in their respective positions in a definite order of social economy.[27]

Another section of bribed workers is found in the financial, administrative and service industries. Executive secretaries, computer programmers, technicians, registered nurses and skilled health workers, many government and other well-paid ’mental’ workers are a few examples. Their wages and working conditions set them apart from the bulk of clerical and service workers.

This description of who constitutes the labor aristocracy in no way contradicts the fact that individuals within the upper stratum may become revolutionary fighters. Every class and stratum in society will contribute individuals to the revolutionary movement. What we are emphasizing is the existence of an entire stratum of the working class, which in turn represents a bourgeois ideological and political trend within the workers’ movement.

D. Who Constitutes the Lower Stratum of Workers?

Which workers make up the lower stratum, or that section of the class given small and temporary privileges by the bourgeoisie? This section is made up of the unskilled and semi-skilled workers in large-scale industry, principally in the basic industries such as steel, auto, rubber, electronics, mining, textiles, and agri-business, to mention the major ones. In addition, the lower-paid clerical and service workers are part of this section. Here it is important to note that in differentiating the upper strata from the lower, much more than just wages must be taken into account. Concretely, which workers are the most oppressed and exploited, and thereby most free from the influence of bourgeois ideology? Working conditions, intensity of labor, and mandatory overtime are some of the factors which determine this. For example, semi-skilled auto workers may make more money than relatively well-paid office workers, but since these office workers do not produce surplus value, and their conditions of work are much better than those of the auto workers, they cannot be classified as part of the most oppressed and exploited. The executive secretary would be considered part of the upper stratum, whereas the unskilled or semi-skilled auto worker would be part of the lower stratum. A genuine Bolshevik party must be based within this lower stratum of the most oppressed and exploited workers, who have no material interest in the capitalist system. It is here, in the large-scale basic industry, that the party must make “every factory our fortress”.

E. What Are the Forms of the Bribery of the Upper Stratum and Temporary Privileges to the Lower Stratum?

The three main forms that the bribery of the upper stratum and privileges granted to the lower stratum take are economic, political, and social. Let’s examine each form more closely.

Economic – Earlier we touched upon the differences in wages and standards of living between the labor aristocracy and the lower stratum. We also explored the national differences within the US proletariat, as well as between the US working class as a whole and workers in the oppressed nations. In addition, other economic privileges of the US proletariat relative to the oppressed nations and colonies outside the boundaries of the US include: unemployment insurance, workman’s compensation, disability insurance, welfare, food stamps, veterans’ benefits, medicare, medicaid, and social security.

Political – At every level of city, state and federal government are to be found jobs reserved for the labor aristocracy. The city government of San Francisco is a good example. In the current and last three administrations of Moscone, Alioto and Shelley, respectively, over 30% of the appointments to various city agencies have been from the ranks of the trade union bureaucracy.[28] George Evankovich of the Laborers Union is on the Housing Authority; Harry Bridges of the ILWU is on the San Francisco Port Commission; John Henning, President of the California Labor Federation, is on the Public Utilities Commission (PUC); Mattie Jackson of the ILGWU is on the Board of Permit Appeals. This is only a partial listing. To underline the type of ’political plums’ handed out to the labor traitors, Dave Jenkins of the ILWU was paid $110,000 as a ’labor consultant’ to the Redevelopment Agency between 1968-73.[29] While these privileges are reserved for the upper stratum, the majority of workers receive political privileges as long as the rule of the monopoly capitalists takes the form of bourgeois democracy. Most workers have the ’right’ to free speech, assembly, and to vote in bourgeois elections. For the workers in the colonies and oppressed nations, these privileges don’t exist. Imperialist terror and fascist rule characterize most governments in the oppressed nations and colonies. Likewise, we must recognize the lack of political rights for oppressed nations and colonies within the US, such as the Black Nation, Puerto Rico, and the Southwest region., Through the use of many tactics, including military occupation and fascist terror, the basic democratic rights of workers within the oppressed nations are denied. Even though Blacks were legally given the right to vote as a result of the civil rights movement, today throughout the Black Belt: South millions of poor and working Black people remain disenfranchised.

Social – Lenin spoke to this aspect when he said:

The whole thing boils down precisely to bribery. It is done in a thousand different ways: by increasing cultural facilities in the largest centers, by creating educational institutions, by creating thousands of soft jobs for cooperative leaders, trade-union leaders and parliamentary leaders.[30]

The US proletariat has certain social privileges that workers in the colonies and oppressed nations do not: an extensive system of public education, recreation and sports facilities, libraries, cultural institutions, etc. Further, within the US proletariat there are important national differences. The workers of the oppressor Anglo-American Nation have the right to speak their native tongue, English, whereas the languages of oppressed nations and peoples are suppressed.

1. Trade Union Capitalists

In terms of the three forms of bribery of the upper stratum, the trade union bureaucracy deserves special attention. Given the high salaries and access to capital through pension and welfare funds, many labor bureaucrats are capitalists themselves. In 1973, there were 21 union presidents receiving $40,000 or more in salary and benefits.[31] This hides the fact that many union hacks hold several jobs and collect salaries from each one. The Wall Street Journal commented, “An informal, incomplete sampling indicates that hundreds of union executives now hold two or more jobs and make over $100,000 a year.”[32] The same article gave the example of one local labor bureaucrat, Bernard G. Rubin of Miami, Florida. Rubin’s multiple jobs and salaries give him a total salary of $130,000/year and a $50,000 expense account.

Position Held.............................................................................. Salary
1) Local 478, Laborers International Business Manager (Miami) $21,600
2) Local 666, Laborers International President (Miami) $51,167
3) Southeast Florida District Council Laborers International, President $51,167

In addition, Rubin’s wife Gerri holds the positions of Executive Secretary of Local 666, and Secretary-Organizer for the District Council. Combined, she makes $29,606. It is not just the labor bureaucrats at the International level, clearly, who can accumulate and invest capital from their salaries, but also many 1oca1 labor traitors.

Another major source of working capital for the trade union bureaucrats is pension and welfare funds. Here we will focus our attention on the Teamsters Union. PROD, a group of rank and file Teamsters struggling for democracy and union reform, gives a rundown of state and local Teamster officials in New York who receive salaries as trustees or administrators of the funds:

A number of New York State Teamster officials also do very well by their Local trust funds. Utica Teamster boss Rocco dePerno drew nearly $20,000 in allowances and expenses from the various funds affiliated with his 3,000-member Local 182 on top of the $46,216 salary he received directly from the Local and the $30,897 he received from Fitzsimmons for serving as a General Organiser. Down in New York City, Local 805 President Abe Gordon supplemented his $26,000 salary in 1974 from that 3,000-member Local with an additional $32,000 which he drew from the Local’s health and pension funds for serving as the ’administrator’.[33]

The Crapanzano family dominates another small Teamsters local in New York. All together they received $160,000 in 1974 from their various union-related activities. Of this sum, nearly $40,000 came from the two pension funds.[34]

The Central States and Southwest Area Pension Fund covers some 400,000 Teamster members and has $1.3 billion in assets, making it one of the largest investment funds in the country.[35] Yet only one in ten Teamsters actually collects a pension when retirement age is reached. Where does the money go? The trustees of the fund make all investment decisions themselves. These trustees include representatives of both the International Brotherhood of Teamsters (IBT) and the trucking monopolies, who pay $22/week/ employee into the fund. The relationship between these capitalists is one of extreme cooperation.

In return for ’sweetheart contracts’ which set pay rates at below union scale, the employer trustees approve loans to Teamster officials and friends. The fund has over $900 million tied up in speculative land deals and Las Vegas casinos.[36] The Mafia is widely known to rely on the fund for capital used in real estate business and other ventures. From 1959 to 1974, nine top union officials were given loans from the fund ranging from $5,000 to $40,000.[37] This practice of loaning money to Teamster officials from health and pension funds is widespread at the local level. Much of it is never repaid. Another regular recipient of loans from Central States Fund are the trucking companies which employ Teamsters. In 1972, $45.6 million was loaned out to employers, and only $10 million has been repaid.[38] Quite often in return for approving the loans, the Teamster trustees will receive ’kickbacks’ from employers. An attorney representing Teamsters who are suing the union because they were declared ineligible for pensions estimated that for every 1000 Teamsters ruled ineligible, the Central States Fund saves about $3.5 million.[39] This is extremely important when the outright rip-off of large chunks of capital, and the high risk nature of the Fund’s investments are considered. In a land deal in Southern California, the Fund lost over $13 million.[40] Moreover, the secrecy and corrupt practices which surround the accounting and administration of the Fund are also typical of many union pension funds, regularly milked by the labor bureaucrats.


[1] V.I. Lenin, “Imperialism and the Split in Socialism”, op. cit.. p. 114.

[2] UN Statistical Yearbook, 1974, pp. 582-583.

[3] “Employment and Earnings; States and Areas 1939-1974”, US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, Bulletin 1370-11

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Wall Street Journal, April 22, 1976

[7] See Statistical Abstract of the US, 1974.

[8] For a comparison of wages of European, Japanese and American workers, see the San Francisco Chronicle, April 22, 1975. Up until 1970, wages of US workers in manufacturing were nearly twice that of European workers, and four times greater than those of Japanese workers.

[9] Business International, January 2, 1976. A study of 178 large companies in eleven industries in July, 1972 revealed that 122 received a higher rate of profit overseas than from their US business. Furthermore, in absolute terms, 90 corporations of the sample earned at least 25% of their total profits abroad, and 38 earned 507 or more. Among those firms earning more than half their total profits overseas in 1972 are such giants as IBM, Uniroyal, Honeywell, Woolworth, Coca Cola, Upjohn, Mobil, Pfizer, Gillette, Reynolds, and Standard Oil (NJ). See Joyce Kolko, America and the Crisis of World Capitalism.

[10] Figures from the Anglo-American and Black Nations are from: “Employment and Earnings”, op. cit. Figure from Puerto Rico: Wall Street Journal, April 22, 1976.

[11] Peking Review, September 19, 1975.

[12] San Francisco Chronicle, March 16, 1974.

[13] Robock and Simmonds, The Multi-National Enterprise in Transition

[14] V.I. Lenin, “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism”, CW, Vol. 22, pp. 193-194.

[15] “Employment and Earnings”, US Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, May, 1976, p. 34.

[16] Filip Kota, Two Opposing Lines in the World Trade Union Movement, Tirana, 1974 (reprinted by Gamma Publishing Company), p. 69.

[17] V.I. Lenin, “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism”, op. cit.. p. 283.

[18] R. Palme Dutt, The Crisis of Britain and the British Empire, International Publishers, New York, 1953, p. 327.

[19] Marxist-Leninist Organizing Committee, “Proletarian Revolution and the General Crisis of Capitalism”, Communist Line #5, April 30, 1976, p. 4.

[20] For a breakdown of facts and figures comparing the standard of living for US workers with that in the developing countries and oppressed nations, see UN Statistical Yearbook. 1974.

[21] V.I. Lenin, “A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism”, CW, Vol. 23, pp. 55-56,

[22] V.I. Lenin, “Imperialism and the Split in Socialism”, op. cit., p. 115.

[23] US Department of Labor, “Labor Organization Information Supplement”, Form LM 1-A.

[24] California Statistical Abstract, 1975, p. 27.

[25] “Building Trades Wage Rates”, State of California Agriculture and Services Agency, Department of Industrial Relations, Division of Labor Statistics and Research, September 1975. ”Union Pay Rates and Supplemental Benefits: Ten California Cities, 1970”, Division of Labor Statistics and Research.

[26] Business Week, March 1, 1976.

[27] V.I. Lenin, “The Great Initiative”, CW, Vol. 24, p. 337.

[28] Frederick M. Wirt, Power in the City: Decision-Making in San Francisco, pp. 174-175.

[29] Chester Hartman, Yerba Buena: Land Grab and Community Resistance in San Francisco, pp. 62-63.

[30] V.I. Lenin, Speeches at the Congresses of the Second International, Int’l. Pub., p. 45.

[31] US News and World Report, January 21, 1974.

[32] Wall Street Journal, August 17, 1973.

[33] PROD, “Teamster Democracy and Financial Responsibility: Factual and Structural Analysis”, Washington DC, May, 1976.

[34] Ibid.

[35] San Francisco Examiner, July 11, 1976.

[36] Ibid.; see also PROD, op. cit.

[37] PROD, op. cit.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Newsweek, November 24, 1975.

[40] Ibid.