“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.
No comments:
Post a Comment