Prairie Fire: New world, new challenges, new science
New world, new challenges, new science
by Prairie Fire
(llco.org)In 1965, as wars of liberation waged around the world, Lin Biao wrote of the great divide between the global city versus the global countryside, the rich countries versus the poor countries, the First World versus the Third World. This continues to be the principal contradiction today. Lin Biao saw the world revolution through the lenses of people’s war. Just as Mao’s people’s war in China advanced from the countryside to surround, then conquer, China’s cities, so too would global people’s war advance from the global countryside to surround, then conquer, the global city. This basic outlook continues to be correct today, as it was in 1965. However, the world has changed greatly in the last half century. Our political economy, our concepts of underdevelopment, class, revolutionary agency, and practice must all be updated to meet these challenges. Here are some basic points that need to be understood by revolutionaries:
1. Underdevelopment has taken new forms. Imperialism has created a lopsided world. Development has been, and continues to be, uneven from country to country. In the past, those countries that were considered to be developed were industrialized and also had diversified economies. Some of these developed countries were imperialist ones, others were socialist. The socialist ones built themselves up and sustained themselves through their own labor and resources. By contrast, the imperialist countries became developed on the backs of their colonies and neo-colonies. The imperialist countries built up their economies at the expense of others. For example, the industrial-revolution economies of Western Europe and North America were made possible and given a boost by the value created by slavery and value transfers from colonies. Cheap labor and raw materials, plunder of land through genocide, and the opening of new colonial markets aided in the modernization of the West. This process continues in various forms today. However, underdevelopment today differs in some respects than past underdevelopment. In the past, underdevelopment was often linked to both lack of industrialization and lack of diversification of production. In the past, an underdeveloped economy was usually a poor economy that was mainly geared toward production of one or two cash crops or mineral or other resource extraction. These products would then be processed, or refined, or enter into a larger production process in the imperialist developed countries. In other words, in the past, industrialization and diversification was almost always associated with development. And, lack of industrialization and lack of diversification was almost always associated with underdevelopment. Even though this old pattern continues in some places, in other places new patterns are emerging. Today, the wealthy, imperialist countries are no longer industrialized as they once were. Today, in many parts of the First World, fewer and fewer people are employed in factories. Rather, more and more people are employed in distribution, commerce, management, and the public sector. In many parts of the First World, populations consume more and more, but produces less and less. This is the rise of the mall economy of the First World. At the same time, factories are moved to the Third World. Many Third World economies have become industrialized and diversified, yet the primary beneficiaries of this are not Third World populations, but the imperial populations of the First World. In other words, even though the Third World countries are producing, the value is mainly directed outward to the First World. The surplus is not directed into the Third World economies in a way that benefits the population, aids self-determination, or produces truly national capital. Instead, the benefactors are the imperialists and the imperial populations. Thus healthy development is not simply a matter of industrialization and diversification. And underdevelopment is not simply a lack of these qualities. Today both the First World and Third World are increasingly mal-developed. The First World, producing less and consuming more, is increasingly parasitic on the Third World.
2. New Democracy will take new forms. In the past, imperialism divided the world, for the most part, into traditionally developed and traditionally underdeveloped countries. Traditionally underdeveloped countries were described in various ways: “semi-feudalism,” “comprador capitalism,” “bureaucrat capitalism,” etc. These descriptions emphasized various aspects of mal-development in the Third World. One implication of this was that revolution in the Third World could be described as a two stage process. The first stage is the New Democratic stage. The New Democratic revolution unites much of the peasantry, workers, petty bourgeoisie, and even some of the patriotic capitalists of the Third World against imperialism, for land reform, national development and basic democratic reforms. New Democratic revolution lays the basis for the second stage. The second stage is socialism, where the proletariat further reorganizes society in its interest. This lays the basis for communism, the end of all oppression. The changing nature of underdevelopment in the Third World today will affect the revolutionary process. The New Democracy of the future may not necessarily be an agricultural affair based on “land to the tiller.” It may not be based on land struggles at all. It may not be centered on the countryside. The slum dwelling classes and their concerns for shelter, to have their own small trade and businesses, and survival generally, may become a greater and greater part of the early revolutionary process, and of New Democracy. Or, this may lay the basis for a whole new kind of socialist revolution in the Third World: New Socialism.
3. The revolutionary agent will take ever new forms. The world economy has created vast reservoirs of impoverished people in the Third World who do not add to the total social product, but, rather, survive on the edges. Many of these people barely survive in the megaslums of the Third World. Many of them live in refugee camps or survive on aid. At the same time, in some parts of the Third World, the unionized industrial working class has become a relatively privileged strata among the population with less immediate interest in radical social transformation. This working class is sometimes more privileged than the numerous street vendors and small traders who reside in Third World slums. The concept of the proletariat need not be tied exclusively to a role within production per se, but can be tied to overall social position and impoverishment. In some places in the world, those who match Marx’s famous description of having “nothing to lose but their chains” are not always those who sell their labor to capitalists. Thus there is a rise of new proletarians.
4. Just as the class structure of the Third World has changed, so has the class structure of the First World. In the First World, the revolutionary class has passed from the scene. In the 1960s, there was some basis for thinking that a revolutionary social base existed within the ghettos and captive nations of the First World. Such a base is nonexistent today. There is no significant First World revolutionary class, no significant First World proletariat. There is no significant stand-in First World revolutionary class. This means that we must look beyond the First World for a revolutionary social base. This means global people’s war is the primary means of bringing the New Power of the proletariat to the First World.
5. With the growth of the global slum and new proletarians, the shape of future people’s wars will change. In some parts of the Third World, people’s war will follow the traditional Maoist pattern. It will be mostly peasant movement led by the communist line that establishes ever greater base areas and red zones, the new society in miniature, in those places where the state is weakest. It will be tied to New Democratic demands, especially the demand for land. It will be a protracted advance from the countryside to city. However, the changing world will make this pattern not viable everywhere. Some geographies make the traditional Maoist model problematic. Also, the growth in imperialist air power will affect the ability to set up traditional base areas and red zones. Most importantly, the growth of the urban population will make the urban slum more and more important in the people’s war.
6. There is a growing ecological crisis. The capitalist system is based on infinite expansion beyond our means. Yet our Earthly resources are finite. Thus capitalism is incompatible with the continued survival of the planetary ecosystem. First World consumption is out of proportion; it is leading us toward ecological catastrophe. Environments are rapidly changing due to human intervention. Revolutionaries of the future are going to have to adopt strategies that take this into account. Revolutionaries need to examine not just the forces of production and social relations, but also the conditions of production themselves. Revolutionaries need to take the natural world into account. Socialist development cannot treat nature as a never ending resource to be consumed. The New Power of the future will need to be ecologically sustainable. The survival of all life on Earth is on the line.
7. New technology and greater mobility open up new paths for revolution. Greater communication and mobility mean that revolutions may be increasingly dynamic in important ways. Subjective and objective conditions can change in explosive ways, very rapidly. Tempos can accelerate seemingly out of nowhere. Events in one location can quickly influence events and conditions around the world. Revolution will become more globalized in important ways. New technologies will have a profound on impact on how revolutions are made. New technologies will open up new possibilities during socialist construction.
Leading Light Communism has advanced revolutionary science in almost every way. This is a big part of why Leading Light Communism is a whole new stage of revolutionary science. It is the pinnacle of revolutionary science today. Political economy is key to making revolution. However, it is not enough to limit these advances to the realm of theory. To match our advances in theory, we must also advance our organizational forms to meet today’s challenges. We must strike out in ever new, bold ways. We must not be afraid to lead not only in the ideological realm, but also on the ground. We have the plan, the organization, the leadership. Follow the Leading Light. Be the Leading Light.
Monday, April 25, 2011
The Global Slum and the Mall Economy: New Challenges Communist Revolutionaries Face Today
Prairie Fire has authored a very good article on the sorts of new challenges that we face today in terms of how to radically change the world for the better. It is good enough (and short enough) to be worth re-posting in its entirety here:
Saturday, April 23, 2011
A New Vision of Communism
The Leading Lights are the leaders of a new communist movement. Leading Light Communism is a new understanding of communism, the science of human emancipation.
Like earlier communists, Leading Lights aim to establish a world without class distinctions, economic exploitation, social oppression, or corresponding backward ideas. They aim to establish a world without borders or states, without money or barter, without exclusive professions. A world without racism or sexism or gender oppression or heterosexism or any other form of discrimination. A world free of religious illusions and the patriarchal family unit. A world with a balanced population distribution; one without overcrowded urban sprawl or isolating rural countryside. A world in which all possessions are owned in common. A world in which things are produced by those with the ability to produce them and distributed according to need, rather than according to market laws of supply and demand. A world without antagonistic social tensions and thus without war. In short, like earlier communists, Leading Lights seek to establish not a "perfect" world, but a nonetheless much better kind of world characterized by equality. And Leading Lights, like earlier communists, recognize that the only path from here to there is that of a worldwide revolution led by the proletariat, the lowest and most oppressed class of today's world, against the capitalist system and its ruling class, the bourgeoisie. Communists (real ones anyway) are the political expression of the proletariat. In particular, Leading Lights borrow many ideas from such renowned historical communist leaders as Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Mao Zedong.
Unlike earlier communists though, Leading Lights grasp that class distinctions have largely polarized along geographic (often national) lines in the current era, the era of capitalist imperialism. In today's world, the proletariat and other oppressed and exploited classes are overwhelmingly concentrated in the exploited countries, the Third World. The exploiter countries, the First World, consist overwhelmingly of parasites who live in luxury by sucking the resources out of the Third World, thus creating poverty and reinforcing backwardness. This overarching state of affairs is the main source of conflict in today's world. It is the main expression that class struggle takes in today's world. In answer to this problem, Leading Lights, the new vanguard of the proletariat, seek to lead a worldwide popular war from the Third World to overthrow imperialism and feudalism, thus preparing the ground for a revolutionary transition into socialism (a transitional state of affairs wherein the bourgeoisie at least largely no longer exist and wherein society owns the main means of production and primarily distributes the fruits of production according to need) and finally into communism. In keeping with this understanding of the shape of the contemporary world and with this strategy for the forcible overthrow of all existing conditions, Leading Lights can also be distinguished from earlier communists in their vision of what a communist world looks like. Leading Lights understand that it is not possible to generalize First World living standards, precisely because of the means by which those living standards have been achieved. First World living standards are so extravagant that they aren't even ecologically sustainable! Instead, Leading Light Communism is genuine global equality. It is sustainability. It evens out the wealth of the First World with that of the Third World. It balances the needs of humanity with those of the natural environment. In these ways, it represents a new understanding and a new level of equality: one grounded in the reality that our shared world has real limits that need to be respected, not disregarded. Leading Light Communism is shared abundance, not the impossible pipe dream of shared extravagance. The outdated vision of "communism" that advocates shared extravagance is what Leading Lights call First Worldism (or First World chauvinism) because it rationalizes the privileges of the exploiting First World populations; privileges which objectively cannot be generalized and thus made universal standards. All First Worldists in effect support the class enemies of the proletariat on one level or another because they insist on the retention, if not the further extension, of what objectively are their privileges over others.
I am a Leading Light. Leading Lights Communism is the future. All other schools of "communism" are today outmoded. Our understanding of the present shape of the world and corresponding vision of communism matches reality. It is a major, and vital, breakthrough for our science. Are you on board with the future or are you stuck in the past?
Like earlier communists, Leading Lights aim to establish a world without class distinctions, economic exploitation, social oppression, or corresponding backward ideas. They aim to establish a world without borders or states, without money or barter, without exclusive professions. A world without racism or sexism or gender oppression or heterosexism or any other form of discrimination. A world free of religious illusions and the patriarchal family unit. A world with a balanced population distribution; one without overcrowded urban sprawl or isolating rural countryside. A world in which all possessions are owned in common. A world in which things are produced by those with the ability to produce them and distributed according to need, rather than according to market laws of supply and demand. A world without antagonistic social tensions and thus without war. In short, like earlier communists, Leading Lights seek to establish not a "perfect" world, but a nonetheless much better kind of world characterized by equality. And Leading Lights, like earlier communists, recognize that the only path from here to there is that of a worldwide revolution led by the proletariat, the lowest and most oppressed class of today's world, against the capitalist system and its ruling class, the bourgeoisie. Communists (real ones anyway) are the political expression of the proletariat. In particular, Leading Lights borrow many ideas from such renowned historical communist leaders as Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, and Mao Zedong.
Unlike earlier communists though, Leading Lights grasp that class distinctions have largely polarized along geographic (often national) lines in the current era, the era of capitalist imperialism. In today's world, the proletariat and other oppressed and exploited classes are overwhelmingly concentrated in the exploited countries, the Third World. The exploiter countries, the First World, consist overwhelmingly of parasites who live in luxury by sucking the resources out of the Third World, thus creating poverty and reinforcing backwardness. This overarching state of affairs is the main source of conflict in today's world. It is the main expression that class struggle takes in today's world. In answer to this problem, Leading Lights, the new vanguard of the proletariat, seek to lead a worldwide popular war from the Third World to overthrow imperialism and feudalism, thus preparing the ground for a revolutionary transition into socialism (a transitional state of affairs wherein the bourgeoisie at least largely no longer exist and wherein society owns the main means of production and primarily distributes the fruits of production according to need) and finally into communism. In keeping with this understanding of the shape of the contemporary world and with this strategy for the forcible overthrow of all existing conditions, Leading Lights can also be distinguished from earlier communists in their vision of what a communist world looks like. Leading Lights understand that it is not possible to generalize First World living standards, precisely because of the means by which those living standards have been achieved. First World living standards are so extravagant that they aren't even ecologically sustainable! Instead, Leading Light Communism is genuine global equality. It is sustainability. It evens out the wealth of the First World with that of the Third World. It balances the needs of humanity with those of the natural environment. In these ways, it represents a new understanding and a new level of equality: one grounded in the reality that our shared world has real limits that need to be respected, not disregarded. Leading Light Communism is shared abundance, not the impossible pipe dream of shared extravagance. The outdated vision of "communism" that advocates shared extravagance is what Leading Lights call First Worldism (or First World chauvinism) because it rationalizes the privileges of the exploiting First World populations; privileges which objectively cannot be generalized and thus made universal standards. All First Worldists in effect support the class enemies of the proletariat on one level or another because they insist on the retention, if not the further extension, of what objectively are their privileges over others.
I am a Leading Light. Leading Lights Communism is the future. All other schools of "communism" are today outmoded. Our understanding of the present shape of the world and corresponding vision of communism matches reality. It is a major, and vital, breakthrough for our science. Are you on board with the future or are you stuck in the past?
Monday, April 18, 2011
Al Qaeda's Opposition to Qaddafi: Are There Two Outmodeds?
As some are probably aware, Bob Avakian (Chairman of the Revolutionary Communist Party USA) has, for many years now, been putting out a theory on America's global war of terror that he calls the two outmodeds theory. He sums it up this way:
As you can see, it is an excellent polemical response! It clearly shows that, at best, Bob Avakian's formulation is overly simplistic. In fact, in an overall sense, that MSH article is persuasive as a counterpoint to me. In the past, I had not really even thought much about what the practical alternative was for the oppressed if you opposed all their real resistance to imperialism. Back when I first read it, that article got me thinking more deeply about the real world implications of the RCP's line both regarding the two outmodeds theory and more broadly. But what I will call into question here though is whether the two outmodeds theory should be totally disregarded. Is it really accurate to say that there is absolutely no truth to the two outmodeds formulation?
Consider the present situation in Libya. We know that government leader Muammar Qaddafi for much of the last decade has supported and joined his country to America's global war of terror as part of a general rapprochement with the United States and the global Northwest more broadly. Yet when the imperialists began moving toward a direct military attack on his country, Qaddafi retreated from all this and put forward that he would be willing to forge an alliance with Al Qaeda against the U.S. and the West if attacked by his erstwhile patrons. And...
By contrast, what is Al Qaeda's orientation in this situation of actual U.S. and Western military attack on the legitimate government of Libya, that of Qaddafi, in support of their stooge regime in Benghazi? While Qaddafi's claims that Al Qaeda is running the rebellion are obviously untrue exaggerations, they ARE fully supporting it. They claim to be fighting against both the U.S. and the West on the one hand and against the Qaddafi government on the other. Qaddafi offers an alliance against the U.S. and the West and Al Qaeda rejects it and opts to go their own road alone. Thus which side, in Al Qaeda's view, is really the greater enemy? They are willing to support the stooge regime in Benghazi that is also embraced by the United States, after all. Thus we see how, even as they are fighting the American occupation of Afghanistan, they are effectively helping to foster one in Libya. In the latter scenario, is it not indeed transparently the case that "If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ you end up strengthening both” since they are on the same side of the battle lines, even if in an uneasy way?
Well let's dig deeper and get to the real root of this question. What do we mean by "outmoded"? I sought to clarify that matter in this earlier entry. At one point I made the statement that...
The immediate objective of authentic communist revolutionaries in the modern era, the era of capitalist imperialism, is the accomplishment of democratic revolution under the leadership of the proletariat. And while we demand communist leadership of democratic revolutionary struggles against imperialism, it is not always immediately possible to affect that said leadership. But we unite with anti-imperialist democratic forces regardless because they are progressive relative to the principal contradiction. From the time of Lenin we have understood that imperialism stunts and warps the development of the global countryside, the Third World, such that major remnants of feudalism remain permanently intact. Thus, in the era of capitalist imperialism, even the bourgeoisie themselves are incapable of actually rupturing with feudalism in a complete way. That is why imperialism in the main enemy of the proletariat in the contemporary world. But what if you have patriotic, or even more internationalist, feudal forces who are willing to put up a fight against imperialism to an extent, but are, at the same time and in the main, unwilling to support democratic transformation in society? How are you to treat those kinds of forces? After all, they oppose even the very first step that communist revolutionaries insist on: anti-imperialist revolution that is of a democratic quality. That is the essence of what the two outmodeds theory seeks to get at.
While my comrades have made it clear to me that many of the forces BA lumps together in his clumsy theory are, in fact, patriotic bourgeois forces -- forces essentially both against imperialism and for democracy, that is -- such as the government of Iran, as well as Hezbullah, Hamas, and some others...I still tend to see forces like the Taliban and Al Qaeda in a qualitatively different way. Let's get down to the nitty gritty: what is the most basic aspect of democratic revolution? It is the economic dimension, of course. That is, kicking out the foreign capitalists and democratically redistributing agricultural land to tillers. Forces like the Taliban and Al Qaeda tend to support the former key task while opposing the latter. By contrast, the Iranian government, Hezbullah, Hamas, etc. all support these democratic tasks broadly. The likes of the Taliban and Al Qaeda simply oppose imperialism because they see it as an impediment to retrograde national and regional traditions and/or to the spreading of those traditions worldwide. With the patriotic bourgeoisie of the Third World the international proletariat at least has in common the objective of national development. That is the basis for their inclusion as part of the block of four progressive classes. But the likes of the Taliban and Al Qaeda broadly oppose national development. So do they still qualify as part of the block of four progressive classes with whom you can unite? Is not the whole point of our revolution to advance, not to retreat, through the historical modes of production up to communism? What has the proletariat in common with monstrous feudal oppression, even if it is motivated in part by a sense of patriotism or broader Third World unity? There is only one thing I can think of and that is a circumstantially common enemy in imperialism. (And, as I have sought to highlight above, we do not even consistently have that in common in reality.) But that is only the basis for a purely tactical, low-level, temporary united front, not for their inclusion as part of the permanent four-class alliance of progressive classes. I simply cannot imagine non-antagonistically reconciling forces like the Taliban and Al Qaeda to socialism. They are viscerally hostile toward it and toward everything it stands for.
What I am saying is that we should treat Islamic (and other Third World patriotic) forces with nuance rather than adopting these overly generalizing stances toward them, whether they be complete opposition or complete support. Some are qualitatively more progressive than others. Some are essentially bourgeois. Others are essentially feudal. This is grounds for differentiation in our orientation. Some we can ultimately form a grand alliance with. Others we can only ally with on a purely tactical, temporary basis. I hope the reader gets my point.
“What we see in contention here with Jihad on the one hand and McWorld/McCrusade on the other hand, are historically outmoded strata among colonized and oppressed humanity up against historically outmoded ruling strata of the imperialist system. These two reactionary poles reinforce each other, even while opposing each other. If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ you end up strengthening both.”A compelling response to this formulation was provided a couple years back in the Monkey Smashes Heaven theoretical journal. The entire article is worth reading. It was in large part a polemic on the RCP's line provided in response to their position on the U.S.-backed late-2008/early-2009 Israeli attack on the people of Gaza. Below I'll provide some of the key highlights from that article that really sum up its main point on the two outmodeds theory:
According to the RCP (USA), supporting Hamas, who are the main force resisting this latest escalation of the genocidal violence against Palestinians, is tantamount to supporting the United States. To support Hamas, according to Bob Afakean, is to support the imperialist system. For the RCP (USA), Hamas and Amerikan Imperialism are two sides of the same coin. What this amounts to is a call for the Palestinian people to abandon their resistance, which happens to be often led by Islamic forces. The RIM-line, in the concrete, is a call to abandon any real resistance.
...
Maoist-Third Worldists recognize that the principal contradiction in the world is between imperialism and exploited nations. Maoist-Third Worldists support the broad united front against the principal enemy: imperialism, especially Amerikan Imperialism. Maoist-Third Worldists support the oppressed in their struggles against imperialism, even when the resistance against imperialism is not led by the proletariat.
As you can see, it is an excellent polemical response! It clearly shows that, at best, Bob Avakian's formulation is overly simplistic. In fact, in an overall sense, that MSH article is persuasive as a counterpoint to me. In the past, I had not really even thought much about what the practical alternative was for the oppressed if you opposed all their real resistance to imperialism. Back when I first read it, that article got me thinking more deeply about the real world implications of the RCP's line both regarding the two outmodeds theory and more broadly. But what I will call into question here though is whether the two outmodeds theory should be totally disregarded. Is it really accurate to say that there is absolutely no truth to the two outmodeds formulation?
Consider the present situation in Libya. We know that government leader Muammar Qaddafi for much of the last decade has supported and joined his country to America's global war of terror as part of a general rapprochement with the United States and the global Northwest more broadly. Yet when the imperialists began moving toward a direct military attack on his country, Qaddafi retreated from all this and put forward that he would be willing to forge an alliance with Al Qaeda against the U.S. and the West if attacked by his erstwhile patrons. And...
Gaddafi also indicated that certain oil and gas contracts involving Libya and several Western companies, such as Italy's state-controlled energy giant ENI, would be reviewed once the rebellion had been quashed.
'I think and I hope that the Libyan people will reconsider the economic, financial and security ties with the West,' Gaddafi said.
By contrast, what is Al Qaeda's orientation in this situation of actual U.S. and Western military attack on the legitimate government of Libya, that of Qaddafi, in support of their stooge regime in Benghazi? While Qaddafi's claims that Al Qaeda is running the rebellion are obviously untrue exaggerations, they ARE fully supporting it. They claim to be fighting against both the U.S. and the West on the one hand and against the Qaddafi government on the other. Qaddafi offers an alliance against the U.S. and the West and Al Qaeda rejects it and opts to go their own road alone. Thus which side, in Al Qaeda's view, is really the greater enemy? They are willing to support the stooge regime in Benghazi that is also embraced by the United States, after all. Thus we see how, even as they are fighting the American occupation of Afghanistan, they are effectively helping to foster one in Libya. In the latter scenario, is it not indeed transparently the case that "If you side with either of these ‘outmodeds,’ you end up strengthening both” since they are on the same side of the battle lines, even if in an uneasy way?
Well let's dig deeper and get to the real root of this question. What do we mean by "outmoded"? I sought to clarify that matter in this earlier entry. At one point I made the statement that...
The consistent historical meaning of "left" and "right" is that "left wing" refers to those who support a new and historically more advanced mode of production, whereas "right wing" refers to those who uphold the old order, whatever it may be in the given situation (feudalism, capitalism, or whatever).
The immediate objective of authentic communist revolutionaries in the modern era, the era of capitalist imperialism, is the accomplishment of democratic revolution under the leadership of the proletariat. And while we demand communist leadership of democratic revolutionary struggles against imperialism, it is not always immediately possible to affect that said leadership. But we unite with anti-imperialist democratic forces regardless because they are progressive relative to the principal contradiction. From the time of Lenin we have understood that imperialism stunts and warps the development of the global countryside, the Third World, such that major remnants of feudalism remain permanently intact. Thus, in the era of capitalist imperialism, even the bourgeoisie themselves are incapable of actually rupturing with feudalism in a complete way. That is why imperialism in the main enemy of the proletariat in the contemporary world. But what if you have patriotic, or even more internationalist, feudal forces who are willing to put up a fight against imperialism to an extent, but are, at the same time and in the main, unwilling to support democratic transformation in society? How are you to treat those kinds of forces? After all, they oppose even the very first step that communist revolutionaries insist on: anti-imperialist revolution that is of a democratic quality. That is the essence of what the two outmodeds theory seeks to get at.
While my comrades have made it clear to me that many of the forces BA lumps together in his clumsy theory are, in fact, patriotic bourgeois forces -- forces essentially both against imperialism and for democracy, that is -- such as the government of Iran, as well as Hezbullah, Hamas, and some others...I still tend to see forces like the Taliban and Al Qaeda in a qualitatively different way. Let's get down to the nitty gritty: what is the most basic aspect of democratic revolution? It is the economic dimension, of course. That is, kicking out the foreign capitalists and democratically redistributing agricultural land to tillers. Forces like the Taliban and Al Qaeda tend to support the former key task while opposing the latter. By contrast, the Iranian government, Hezbullah, Hamas, etc. all support these democratic tasks broadly. The likes of the Taliban and Al Qaeda simply oppose imperialism because they see it as an impediment to retrograde national and regional traditions and/or to the spreading of those traditions worldwide. With the patriotic bourgeoisie of the Third World the international proletariat at least has in common the objective of national development. That is the basis for their inclusion as part of the block of four progressive classes. But the likes of the Taliban and Al Qaeda broadly oppose national development. So do they still qualify as part of the block of four progressive classes with whom you can unite? Is not the whole point of our revolution to advance, not to retreat, through the historical modes of production up to communism? What has the proletariat in common with monstrous feudal oppression, even if it is motivated in part by a sense of patriotism or broader Third World unity? There is only one thing I can think of and that is a circumstantially common enemy in imperialism. (And, as I have sought to highlight above, we do not even consistently have that in common in reality.) But that is only the basis for a purely tactical, low-level, temporary united front, not for their inclusion as part of the permanent four-class alliance of progressive classes. I simply cannot imagine non-antagonistically reconciling forces like the Taliban and Al Qaeda to socialism. They are viscerally hostile toward it and toward everything it stands for.
What I am saying is that we should treat Islamic (and other Third World patriotic) forces with nuance rather than adopting these overly generalizing stances toward them, whether they be complete opposition or complete support. Some are qualitatively more progressive than others. Some are essentially bourgeois. Others are essentially feudal. This is grounds for differentiation in our orientation. Some we can ultimately form a grand alliance with. Others we can only ally with on a purely tactical, temporary basis. I hope the reader gets my point.
Friday, April 1, 2011
The Periods of the Cold War
This post is just an addition to what I wrote here yesterday, March 31, 2011.
Although yesterday I indicated general agreement with the Workers' World article with the exception of the portion under the heading "Working class enters anti-war movement", my position on one other part should be clarified as well:
This part of the article is obviously key, as it addresses the historical record of the imperialist era of capitalism in very broad strokes. As indicated yesterday, I largely agree with the above quote, but my take on some aspects of the historical record might merit some clarification.
Following their correct summation of the period up through World War 2, Workers' World proceeds to lay out two distinctive periods that corresponded to actual U.S. government policies respectively called the Plan for the American Century (1947-1997) and the Plan for the New American Century (1997-present), which literally laid out/lay out (as applicable) strategies for world conquest. In the first of these post-WW2 periods, the U.S. won the basic victory, establishing itself as the sole surviving superpower. The second, current period is characterized by a drive to consolidate that victory by eliminating the phenomenon of "rogue states". All of this is correct. And yes, in the current period, all the imperialists are essentially united under American leadership against the remaining "rogue states" and those who seek to establish "rogue states".
However, this statement from the above quote..."During the latter part of the 20th century, war and the threat of war were driven by the struggle of imperialism against the socialist camp and the national liberation movements — the Cold War"....is somewhat a mischaracterization stemming from the WWP's persistent refusal to recognize that, for the most of the Cold War, the Soviet Union was not a socialist country, but a mighty imperialist power in its own right. The Cold War had a number of periods:
In the first period, which lasted roughly one decade (1945-55ish), the Soviet Union was still a socialist country and at the head of the socialist and anti-imperialist camp. For most of this period, tensions between the U.S. and the USSR were especially high and even spilled over into actual combat with each other in the Korean War. Tensions gradually cooled from 1951 on, as Soviet leader Joseph Stalin started considering the Korean War a stalemate and spent the next couple years negotiated a cease-fire. Then, after Stalin died and the Korean War ended in 1953, new Soviet leadership emerged at the top that was qualitatively more amenable to re-establishing diplomatic ties with the imperialists.
The second period began in 1956, when a new Soviet leader by the name of Nikita Khrushchev denounced Stalin as a "criminal" and jettisoned the previous view that an atomic/nuclear showdown between the socialist and capitalist camps was ultimately inevitable due to the belligerence of the latter, embracing instead a theory and policy of permanent "peaceful co-existence" with the imperialists. To rationalize this collaborative, anti-antagonistic policy, Khrushchev also put forward the theory of the "peaceful transition" into socialism, i.e. of the possibility of proletarian revolution without warfare. This policy shift on the USSR's part yielded a major split in the global anti-U.S. camp, led generally by socialist China. The Chinese Communists under Mao Zedong's leadership argued that the Soviet leadership was now pointing that country away from the objective of world revolution and in the direction of rapprochement with the imperialists and that the accomplishment of said feat would be impossible unless they abandoned socialism. The abandonment of socialism, they contended, would be a precondition for diplomatic rapprochement with the imperialists under U.S. leadership. Thus, it was argued, Khrushchev was a revisionist: someone who, while claiming to be a Marxist and perhaps even believing themself one, takes up politics that are fundamentally irreconcilable with Marxism. In 1963, Khrushchev did indeed reorganize the Soviet economy along profit lines, thus effectively restoring capitalism under a system of broad state ownership. But try as he did, Khrushchev was never able to establish a close diplomatic relationship with the U.S., and the Soviet Union under Leonid Brezhnev saw an opening through which to make imperialist inroads of the country's own against U.S. imperialism in the Vietnam War and other national liberation struggles. Thus began the third period of the Cold War in the mid-1960s.
Under Brezhnev's leadership, the USSR undertook an aggressive foreign policy, literally taking a large number of semi-colonies and conquering those states under its influence that sought to challenge that influence. Meanwhile, from the start of the second period, China had been seeking to establish its leadership of the Cold War against the imperialist camp led by the United States, recognizing that the Soviet Union wasn't seriously looking to finish the world proletarian revolution. China's Cultural Revolution period (1966-69) marked the height of this effort. But the Chinese Maoists had not initially fully recognized the distinction between the compromising yet still ultimately socialist state of affairs on the USSR's part during the second period of the Cold War and that of the country's aggressive, social-imperialist policies that began in earnest in this new, third period of the Cold War. By the time of the Cultural Revolution, there had been some recognition that the Soviet Union was now basically capitalist, but no clear-cut recognition as yet that it was actually a highly aggressive imperialist power. That recognition came in 1968 and '69, when the USSR invaded and subjugated Czechoslovakia and repeatedly attacked China. It also came out in 1969 that the Soviet Union had developed more extensive plans for a nuclear confrontation with China than it had for one with the United States. Now it was clear: the imperialist camp now definitely included the Soviet Union, and as an aggressive superpower in its own right. From that point on, China wrongly took up an opportunistic policy of establishing a united front with the USA against Soviet social-imperialism. The latter was of much closer proximity to China and thus was viewed as the more imminent danger...to China. Had they thought more about what the greater danger to the world overall was, they might have acted differently and in a more principled way. Anyhow, America happily obliged, thus, over the course of the 1970s and early '80s, wiping out the socialist camp (which, during this period, consisted of China, Albania, North Vietnam, and Democratic Kampuchea) indirectly by bringing the leader of the remaining socialist camp, China, on a certain level, into its camp. By 1986, there were no remaining socialist states on Earth and the U.S. had clearly regained the upper hand in the Cold War against its bourgeois rival, the USSR. Now began the fourth and final period of the Cold War: the capitulation of the Soviet Union to the United States.
So I just wanted to clarify that there were these complex twists and turns to the Cold War. China's rapprochement with the United States in the 1970s and '80s was likely the single most determining factor in the outcome. In that move, one-fourth of humanity lost the socialist system and went back to capitalism, in league with the world's top-dog oppressor: it's main purveyor of violence and exploitation. So I would tend to argue that the Cold War, as an anti-imperialist low-level war, was basically lost in 1971, when the decision was made by the Chinese government to meet with U.S. president Nixon and to oust the opponents of that meet from the People's Liberation Army, and thus from essential control of the state. We are only just now recovering ideologically from that disaster. With the (real) socialist camp out of the way, America found beating out its only significant imperialist rival, the Soviet Union, comparatively easy. As I think you might be able to see by now, my take on the nature of the Cold War differs quite a lot from the WWP's pro-Soviet account. My take is considerably more complex. But on the ultimate outcome of the Cold War, the defeat of the socialist camp generally (IMO completely) and the establishment of America as the sole remaining superpower, we agree.
Although yesterday I indicated general agreement with the Workers' World article with the exception of the portion under the heading "Working class enters anti-war movement", my position on one other part should be clarified as well:
During the first half of the 20th century, imperialist war was driven by inter-imperialist rivalry and struggles over which country would be able to loot the colonial peoples. During the latter part of the 20th century, war and the threat of war were driven by the struggle of imperialism against the socialist camp and the national liberation movements — the Cold War.
Now the permanent tendency of imperialism toward war and militarism is driven by the drive for reconquest of the territories lost in that period.
This part of the article is obviously key, as it addresses the historical record of the imperialist era of capitalism in very broad strokes. As indicated yesterday, I largely agree with the above quote, but my take on some aspects of the historical record might merit some clarification.
Following their correct summation of the period up through World War 2, Workers' World proceeds to lay out two distinctive periods that corresponded to actual U.S. government policies respectively called the Plan for the American Century (1947-1997) and the Plan for the New American Century (1997-present), which literally laid out/lay out (as applicable) strategies for world conquest. In the first of these post-WW2 periods, the U.S. won the basic victory, establishing itself as the sole surviving superpower. The second, current period is characterized by a drive to consolidate that victory by eliminating the phenomenon of "rogue states". All of this is correct. And yes, in the current period, all the imperialists are essentially united under American leadership against the remaining "rogue states" and those who seek to establish "rogue states".
However, this statement from the above quote..."During the latter part of the 20th century, war and the threat of war were driven by the struggle of imperialism against the socialist camp and the national liberation movements — the Cold War"....is somewhat a mischaracterization stemming from the WWP's persistent refusal to recognize that, for the most of the Cold War, the Soviet Union was not a socialist country, but a mighty imperialist power in its own right. The Cold War had a number of periods:
In the first period, which lasted roughly one decade (1945-55ish), the Soviet Union was still a socialist country and at the head of the socialist and anti-imperialist camp. For most of this period, tensions between the U.S. and the USSR were especially high and even spilled over into actual combat with each other in the Korean War. Tensions gradually cooled from 1951 on, as Soviet leader Joseph Stalin started considering the Korean War a stalemate and spent the next couple years negotiated a cease-fire. Then, after Stalin died and the Korean War ended in 1953, new Soviet leadership emerged at the top that was qualitatively more amenable to re-establishing diplomatic ties with the imperialists.
The second period began in 1956, when a new Soviet leader by the name of Nikita Khrushchev denounced Stalin as a "criminal" and jettisoned the previous view that an atomic/nuclear showdown between the socialist and capitalist camps was ultimately inevitable due to the belligerence of the latter, embracing instead a theory and policy of permanent "peaceful co-existence" with the imperialists. To rationalize this collaborative, anti-antagonistic policy, Khrushchev also put forward the theory of the "peaceful transition" into socialism, i.e. of the possibility of proletarian revolution without warfare. This policy shift on the USSR's part yielded a major split in the global anti-U.S. camp, led generally by socialist China. The Chinese Communists under Mao Zedong's leadership argued that the Soviet leadership was now pointing that country away from the objective of world revolution and in the direction of rapprochement with the imperialists and that the accomplishment of said feat would be impossible unless they abandoned socialism. The abandonment of socialism, they contended, would be a precondition for diplomatic rapprochement with the imperialists under U.S. leadership. Thus, it was argued, Khrushchev was a revisionist: someone who, while claiming to be a Marxist and perhaps even believing themself one, takes up politics that are fundamentally irreconcilable with Marxism. In 1963, Khrushchev did indeed reorganize the Soviet economy along profit lines, thus effectively restoring capitalism under a system of broad state ownership. But try as he did, Khrushchev was never able to establish a close diplomatic relationship with the U.S., and the Soviet Union under Leonid Brezhnev saw an opening through which to make imperialist inroads of the country's own against U.S. imperialism in the Vietnam War and other national liberation struggles. Thus began the third period of the Cold War in the mid-1960s.
Under Brezhnev's leadership, the USSR undertook an aggressive foreign policy, literally taking a large number of semi-colonies and conquering those states under its influence that sought to challenge that influence. Meanwhile, from the start of the second period, China had been seeking to establish its leadership of the Cold War against the imperialist camp led by the United States, recognizing that the Soviet Union wasn't seriously looking to finish the world proletarian revolution. China's Cultural Revolution period (1966-69) marked the height of this effort. But the Chinese Maoists had not initially fully recognized the distinction between the compromising yet still ultimately socialist state of affairs on the USSR's part during the second period of the Cold War and that of the country's aggressive, social-imperialist policies that began in earnest in this new, third period of the Cold War. By the time of the Cultural Revolution, there had been some recognition that the Soviet Union was now basically capitalist, but no clear-cut recognition as yet that it was actually a highly aggressive imperialist power. That recognition came in 1968 and '69, when the USSR invaded and subjugated Czechoslovakia and repeatedly attacked China. It also came out in 1969 that the Soviet Union had developed more extensive plans for a nuclear confrontation with China than it had for one with the United States. Now it was clear: the imperialist camp now definitely included the Soviet Union, and as an aggressive superpower in its own right. From that point on, China wrongly took up an opportunistic policy of establishing a united front with the USA against Soviet social-imperialism. The latter was of much closer proximity to China and thus was viewed as the more imminent danger...to China. Had they thought more about what the greater danger to the world overall was, they might have acted differently and in a more principled way. Anyhow, America happily obliged, thus, over the course of the 1970s and early '80s, wiping out the socialist camp (which, during this period, consisted of China, Albania, North Vietnam, and Democratic Kampuchea) indirectly by bringing the leader of the remaining socialist camp, China, on a certain level, into its camp. By 1986, there were no remaining socialist states on Earth and the U.S. had clearly regained the upper hand in the Cold War against its bourgeois rival, the USSR. Now began the fourth and final period of the Cold War: the capitulation of the Soviet Union to the United States.
So I just wanted to clarify that there were these complex twists and turns to the Cold War. China's rapprochement with the United States in the 1970s and '80s was likely the single most determining factor in the outcome. In that move, one-fourth of humanity lost the socialist system and went back to capitalism, in league with the world's top-dog oppressor: it's main purveyor of violence and exploitation. So I would tend to argue that the Cold War, as an anti-imperialist low-level war, was basically lost in 1971, when the decision was made by the Chinese government to meet with U.S. president Nixon and to oust the opponents of that meet from the People's Liberation Army, and thus from essential control of the state. We are only just now recovering ideologically from that disaster. With the (real) socialist camp out of the way, America found beating out its only significant imperialist rival, the Soviet Union, comparatively easy. As I think you might be able to see by now, my take on the nature of the Cold War differs quite a lot from the WWP's pro-Soviet account. My take is considerably more complex. But on the ultimate outcome of the Cold War, the defeat of the socialist camp generally (IMO completely) and the establishment of America as the sole remaining superpower, we agree.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)