Some Good Points on Pan-Third Worldism

Just thought I'd go ahead and promote this article as food for my readers' thought: Six Points on Third World Unity.

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?

Libya's "Civil" War in Perspective

I cannot resist re-posting a Workers' World article I recently ran across on the subject of Libya that really helps put things in perspective by focusing on the bigger picture within which this U.S.-led bombing and now apparently rebel-backing campaign is taking place. It's well worth reading. The reader may, however, disregard the final section under the heading "Working class enters anti-war movement" because it is nothing but a pack of First Worldist lies.

Libya and the era of imperialist reconquest

By Fred Goldstein

Published Mar 24, 2011 10:05 PM

However the rebellion in Libya began, it was both inevitable and entirely predictable that it would quickly become an opening for imperialist intervention and counterrevolution in the oil-rich North African country.

The fact that the “rebellion” received sympathetic, screaming headlines, ferociously hostile to the government of Moammar Gadhafi from the very beginning, should have been sufficient to put the entire anti-imperialist movement on guard. The boiler-plate propaganda about “massacres,” without the slightest evidence, was repeated as if it were the gospel truth. That should have been further evidence of the plans for “great power” intervention (“great” in their oppression, as Vladimir Lenin pointed out long ago).

The condemnations were particularly hypocritical coming from the mouths of the same imperialist powers that have been massacring oppressed people on every continent since the dawn of colonialism — from the slave trade in Africa to the cruelty of conquistadors in South America, the genocide of Indigenous peoples in the U.S., the colonization of India, up to the present-day campaigns against the Palestinians in Gaza, Predator drone massacres of civilians in Afghanistan and Pakistan, to say nothing of the wholesale destruction of Iraqi society and the attendant mass killing of civilians.

There have been numerous rebellions and many documented massacres of unarmed civilians in recent months that have not spurred military action by the imperialist powers. Is it even conceivable that Washington would lobby or arm-twist the Arab League to provide a figleaf for U.S. intervention in support of protesters in Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia or Jordan? No, because these have been genuine rebellions against autocratic regimes backed by the White House and the Pentagon.

There have been no campaigns to get U.N. Security Council resolutions authorizing military action in any of these countries. No aircraft carriers, nuclear submarines, missile ships, AWACS planes, spy satellites, etc., moved into position to support these genuine popular uprisings against moth-eaten reactionary monarchies that guard the interests of the U.S. and Western oil companies, as well as the strategic position of the Pentagon in the Persian Gulf region.

Bush, Obama & ‘regime change’

The fact is that the Obama administration, the British and the French have de facto put Libya on the “axis of evil” list started by George W. Bush in his infamous 2002 State of the Union speech, where he singled out Iraq, Iran and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as targets for “regime change.” That is what “Gadhafi must go” means.

What these three countries have in common is that they all threw imperialism out of their countries during the rise of the socialist camp and the national liberation movements after World War II. They were part of a global movement that fought to establish economic and political independence from transnational banks, corporations and the Pentagon.

Libya falls directly into that category, having overthrown puppet King Idris and ousted imperialism in 1969 under the leadership of Col. Moammar Gadhafi. The Libyan revolution, like the revolutions in Iraq in 1958 and Iran in 1979, also nationalized Western-owned oil companies and shut down imperialist military bases. The fact that Gadhafi shifted toward the West later, opening up to oil companies and imposing International Monetary Fund-dictated austerity programs, is not enough to satisfy the voracious appetite of the corporations for profit. They want to take the whole country — lock, stock and barrel.

Libya & the era of reconquest

The invasion of Libya is part of a long-term trend on the part of the imperialist countries that began with the collapse of the USSR and Eastern Europe from 1989 to 1991. That trend is to reconquer territories and riches lost during the 20th-century rise of the socialist camp and the national liberation movements.

That is what the intervention in Libya is about. That is what the two wars in Iraq were about. And that is what the permanent threats to Iran and North Korea are about, not to mention the permanent blockade of Cuba, the military encirclement of China and the attempt to destroy the government of Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe.

In other words, the right to national sovereignty, self-determination and self-defense of formerly oppressed countries is obsolete, according to the doctrine of the New World Order.

The mad adventure in Libya, led by Washington and supported by Britain and France, shows once again that war and militarism are an integral feature of imperialism and of the monopoly-capitalist system upon which it rests.

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.

Imperialism & permanent war

U.S. imperialism now has two wars and a major post-war occupation going on simultaneously — in Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq. It has made northeastern Pakistan a free-fire zone for predator drones. Since the collapse of the USSR and Eastern Europe in 1989-1991, it has launched five wars of conquest — in Iraq twice, in Yugoslavia in 1999. in Afghanistan in 2001, and now in Libya.

It has threatened two other wars — one against Iran and the other against People’s Korea. U.S. troops have been at war continuously for the last decade.

Washington has five aircraft carriers, each accompanied by a flotilla of 10 destroyers, frigates and other warships in the Mediterranean and the Red Sea surrounding Libya. The French and the Italian imperialists each have a carrier in the area as well.

The entire imperialist world, with a combined gross domestic product of more than $20 trillion, a combined population of close to a billion people, and a combined military machine worth at least $2 trillion is bearing down on Libya — an underdeveloped, formerly colonized country of 6 million people with an economy of some $40 billion that is without the capability to defend itself militarily against the juggernaut facing it.

The French and the British capitalist governments were clamoring for a no-fly zone as a pretext for intervention and to guard their oil interests. But it was not until Washington got behind the effort, forcing the Arab League and the U.N. Security Council to go along and moving its military flotilla and air force into position, that the attack could begin.

Working class enters anti-war movement

These wars have cost trillions of dollars. They are eroding the economic foundation of U.S. capitalist society and imposing a huge cost upon the workers, the poor and the oppressed who pay for the wars, both with their tax money and with the loss of vital social services.

This plunge into a new war comes in the midst of a profound economic crisis, a jobless recovery, growing mass unemployment and a budding rebellion of the working class, which has shown itself in the Wisconsin struggle against union busting and austerity budgets.

On March 19 a mass anti-war march took place in Madison, Wis., that was attended by thousands of unionists and their supporters in a joint effort with the anti-war movement. This is a step forward in the U.S. in the direction of giving the anti-war movement a working-class character.

As the wars multiply and the attacks on the workers grow more severe, a genuine working-class rebellion against imperialist war will come onto the agenda. The working class is the only class that can put an end to imperialist war.

---

Articles copyright 1995-2011 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

(Source: http://www.workers.org/2011/world/imperialist_reconquest_0331/)

See what I mean?

Well anyhow, let's briefly look at the the final section I advised the reader to disregard, such as to examine its basic flaws. The author rambles on about how the reconquest of Libya hurts Americans economically by way of tax drainage and "loss of vital social services". (Even Workers' World does not dare claim that there will be a substantial loss of American life.) Yes, I once believed the myth that imperialist war really hurts First world "workers" as well. It is forwarded by seemingly every revisionist organization in America. The purpose is to blur class distinctions between the general populations of the exploiter countries (like the United States) on the one hand and those of the exploited countries (like Libya) on the other and make the case that there is some sort of common interest between the exploited and oppressed on the one hand and their exploiters and oppressors on the other. What I have come to more thoroughly realize in recent months, however, is that this argument quite literally abolishes the labor aristocracy component of the law of uneven development. It separates imperialist conquest in the reader's mind from the logical consequences for Americans. Imperialist conquests occur for a reason. Everyone on the so-called radical left in America recognizes that the interests of the likes of the United States, Britain, France, Italy, Spain, and Canada in Libya have everything to do with increasing the profit margins of their respective oil giants. What they generally neglect to analyze, however, is how this increase in profit margins is realized on the domestic scene. It is realized through the suppression of price rises, and thus through increased consumption. Increased supply of oil lowers, or at least suppresses, the price thereof for its recipients in the First World.

When in the 1970s OPEC imposed an embargo on the sale of oil to countries supporting Israel (like the United States), oil prices soared in the First World as supplies diminished and, in some places, actually ran out. People had less money to spare as a result. Less money for governments to take in as tax revenue with which to fund lavish social services. There was general economic strain. Once supplication was resumed and oil production increased in the exporting countries, things stabilized again and the First World breathed a sigh of relief. This demonstrates how the theft of oil from the Third World is a key factor in Americans being able to drive around in their own private cars, for instance. It is just one small example of what I mean by how the First World populations benefit from the exploitation of the Third World. Imperialism is the method by which the loyalties of the First World population to the capitalist system are bought; the method by which relative social peace is achieved in the imperialist countries.

I believe this picture should adequately do the math for the reader.

Just wanted to clarify that point. And no, the Workers' World Party has by no means been consistently opposed to the imperialist campaign against Libya by the way. They have continually extended support to the various peace offerings...or, in other words, terms of partial surrender...that have been proposed for the government of Libya. Make no mistake: you cannot honestly claim to oppose this U.S.-led campaign of reconquest if you support the American/Western stooge regime in Benghazi that fully supports it and literally depends on it. (They depend on support from foreigners because they cannot find adequate support for their rebellion at home; because they are unpopular.) And you cannot honestly claim to oppose this imperialist reconquest of Libya if you refuse to support the actually existing resistance to it. Supporting the broad united front against imperialism in this context means advocating the complete defeat of the reactionary stooge regime in Benghazi and opposing acquiescence to any surrender terms, either complete or partial, on the part of the legitimate government of Libya: that of Muammar Gaddafi, who has recently claimed that he will no longer allow Western investment in Libya as a result of this direct attack on his country's sovereignty. The battle lines in Libya are clearly drawn. No one should still be under illusions about the desirability of the reactionary, pro-imperialist Libyan rebellion or about the desirability of peace with that clearly pro-imperialist side. As authentic communists, it is our duty to unequivocally support complete victory for the Libyan people and nothing less, not the policies of the U.S.-dominated UN or the comprador alliances around the world that support Western business interests, like the Arab League and the African Union.

And yes, complete victory for the Libyan people is possible, contrary to the claims of Workers' World, which measures military possibilities one-sidedly in terms of tanks and planes, not in terms of people power, of the spiritual atom bomb which the masses possess. The people of China historically rose up against and defeated a far "militarily superior" enemy in their popular war that established a socialist state. They did so by relying on the spirit of the people; on their hatred for being oppressed. Such is the key to victory here as well. However, this spirit can only be fully and consistently unleashed and directed along a socialist and communist path if it gains communist, that is Maoist-Third Worldist, leadership.

Dear Wisconsin Morons: This Land WASN'T "Made For You and Me"!

What follows is my reply to this commentary on recent developments in Wisconsin and where they're headed:

"...what is most important is that we support the union in their struggle..."

I thoroughly disagree!

Here, sharply posed, is the reality of the matter:

The "workers" in question make EXPONENTIALLY more than you do, and probably even two or three times what I do, as things are. They are NOT, as you portray them, desperately poor and just trying to eek out a living on the verge of starvation. They are so wealthy that a very large percentage of them probably even own businesses of their own on the side, as well as stock portfolios, real estate, etc.! 5.8% of $35,000-$70,000+ a year isn't going to kill anyone, or even close.

The hard and painful truth for the American "left" to accept is that these "workers" would actually lose more under AUTHENTIC socialism than is being demanded of them right now by "the Mubarak of the Midwest"! That they compare themselves to the Egyptian masses is an insult to the latter. Their conditions are not remotely similar and their demands are for the retention of their existing privileges OVER the Egyptian and other Third world masses. And moreover there isn't going to be any imperialist bourgeoisie or imperialist government with which to bargain/collaborate under socialism if it can at all be helped.

Even the Tea Party racists can spout out anti-corporate dribble when it is opportunistically convenient. They complain of the bank bailouts, of executive bonuses, of powerful bureaucrats, even sometimes of the Iraq War. Does this make them progressive? That'll be a cold day in hell!

The problem with the union movement in Wisconsin isn't that it's doomed to fail, it's that their objectives are reactionary! There is no "good" or "progressive" side to the debacle in Wisconsin. The situation instead reminds me of a lecture my law professor gave us in college one time. She described to us a case wherein a member of a pair of bank robbers decided he had been cheated by his partner and thus decided to sue for "his share" of the loot. Naturally, the court frowned on the case itself and found that neither of them had the right to stake a claim in the first place, given the means by which they had acquired the money in question.

In that connection, one of the various particularly disgusting features of the Wisconsin action has been the celebration of American patriotism, which is inevitably the celebration of American colonialism and imperialism. Check out Tom Morello's little number. News flash to spoiled Wisconsin morons: this land AIN'T your land! And it ain't my land either. This land WASN'T "made for you and me"! This is stolen land and the debacle in question is over stolen loot! What we are witnessing in that video thus amounts to a celebration of genocide and plundering. And no, throwing in a verse about relief lines does not change that overarching essence.

We shouldn't just "be the best protesters we can be". We need to ask these hard questions about the political contents of protests. We should not support ANY section of American exploiters in fighting for the retention, let alone extension, of their privileges. No one has a right to plunder, no matter how employed or waged they are. The proletariat is more essentially defined by the property-less condition than by the employed status anyway. The property-less condition is what gives the proletariat its class interest in bringing all property under common ownership. That's the only way the proletariat AS A CLASS can acquire property. The former First World proletariat, on the other hand, has acquired it by way of the de facto exploitation of the Third World masses, thereby rendering the latter the place where the international proletariat is overwhelmingly concentrated today. There is no First World proletariat to speak of. And even the 30% of these Wisconsin protesters you describe who allegedly have sympathies with socialism are, in fact, coming from a social-imperialist understanding of that, given the nature of their demands, as explained above.

Does all this mean that real communists, Maoist Third Worldists, have no role to play in this situation? Are we to just sit at home and lament from afar? Of course not! We have a role. Real communists, leading light communists, need to be in really any given "mass" action that arises in America, be it one of these unionist actions or even a Tea Party rally, precisely in order to undermine them and actively attract as many people as will be interested to the genuine communist pole. We are looking for the few First Worlders, for the few Americans, who are willing to betray their own class interests and their country and fight on the side of the world's oppressed and exploited majority in the Third World. We are working behind enemy lines. Genuinely progressive mobilization in this country is bound up with opposing American imperialism and supporting revolution in the Third World.