Our Day is Coming

(llco.org)

The world cries out in pain. Two futures, two roads are before us: communism or barbarism, the Leading Light or endless night. There is a choice to be made.

We must transform ourselves for revolution. Do away with pettiness, greed, ego, smallness of mind. We must think beyond ourselves. An offense against one is an offense against all. When one bleeds, we all bleed. We must think as humanity and beyond. Not only is this a battle for our future, it is a battle for the future of our planet.

We, warriors of the people, must also act as guardians of the animals, the plants, the lands, the seas, the skies that sustain us all. The war to liberate the poor of the Third World is also a war for the future of our planet. It is through this righteous struggle that we become lights in a world of darkness, it is through this righteous struggle that we become who we really are. it is through this struggle that we forge the future.

Unity is strength

Capitalist culture teaches every individual that they are the center of the universe, that they are a castle unto themselves. We must break down the walls that keep us apart. It is only through organization, discipline, loyalty, leadership that we can really win.

Duty. Patience. We must be humble. We must find our roles. Learning to lead is also learning to listen and to follow. Well all stumble at times. Everyone makes mistakes. To be human is to fall. Pick yourself up when you have fallen. To learn from mistakes is the nature of science. To go forward against all obstacles is to be great.

To create we must destroy. We must pursue our cause to the end. To be ruthless, decisive and bold, to do everything that it takes to win. To the old world, we are a firestorm, to burn away, to annihilate, to turn to dust all that stands against us. We must be the sword of history. At the same time, we must have bigness of heart, humility, kindness. One hand holds the sword, the other must be extended outward to help.

We must dare go beyond the horizons.

New possibilities. We will not win by repeating the past. The last waves of revolution were defeated. We do not go forward by cobbling together the fragments of the past. We must understand the past, learn from the past, but we must go beyond it. The next wave of revolution is made by boldly striking out, casting aside dogma, by putting the most advanced revolutionary science, Leading Light Communism, in command.

We declare total war on the old ways, the Old Power. We declare total war on the First World. We demand nothing less than a whole new world, a world without poverty, without suffering, without cruelty, without war, without hunger, without chauvinism, without rape.

We demand a world of equality, a world of peace, a world of justice. Happiness. Joy. Serve the people. Imagine true freedom where we can be our best selves.  A better world is possible, an equal world is possible, but we must fight hard and to the end.

Global people’s war all the way to Leading Light Communism. To give oneself over, to lie and die for justice, for revolution, for our world is to be great. To this we pledge everything, our resources, our talents, our lives. The future is there for the taking if we dare. Never surrender.

Follow the Leading Light. Be the Leading Light. Our sun is rising. Our day is coming.

(llco.org)

“Dear Leading Light,

What is does the error of “economism” refer to?”

Leading Light replies:

Thank you for writing.

“Economism” is a term used to refer to a certain type of error. “Tailing” or “tailism” is another term often used for this error. Continuing rightist errors lead to rightist revisionism, a certain way of abandoning the revolution. It is the error of overemphasizing the more immediate, short-term, local, etc. interests of the masses to the detriment of their more distant, long-term, universal, etc. interests. For example, to only focus on the immediate interests of the masses (or recruits) such as higher wages or political reform, without connecting those the distant interests of abolishing class, ending patriarchy, liberating the Earth, actually reaching Leading Light Communism is to make this error.  Lenin criticized those who tailed the trade-union movement of his day. Lenin saw that tailing the trade unions was an error that would not lead to revolution, but only reform. Similarly, Lenin criticized those who held that revolution could be achieved by tailing political reformists through social-democratic, legislative victories within the bourgeois state. Mao criticized those who tailed after the united front to the point of liquidation of the leading role of the Party. Revolution is not made by gaining small, piecemeal concessions from the capitalist order. Revolution is not made primarily through reforms within the bourgeois order. Leading Light Communism is not reached by making small steps within the current system. There is no compromise with the old system, the Old Power. The Old Power is fundamentally an instrument of oppression. Rather,  the Old Power, must be swept away. It must be replaced by a New Power. To sweep away the Old, to create the New, to really win, requires the strong leadership, organization, discipline, political line, science of Leading Light Communism.

Right errors are errors of tailing the masses (or recruits) or their organizations, rather than leading them to Leading Light Communism. In a sense, all errors are errors of political line, errors that can be solved through political rectification, education, training, discipline, etc. However, right errors are also tied to bourgeois or petty-bourgeois character. Such political errors can be exacerbated and caused in part by bourgeois and petty-bourgeois traits, a bourgeois or petty-bourgeois mentality: cowardice, lack of courage, lack of discipline, liberalism, putting superficial unity with others above political line, big ego, etc. Rather than taking on the burden of leading people to Leading Light Communism, those who make this error tail after everything under the sun. They tail after the immediate demands of the masses (or recruits) they tail after their friends and family, they tail after nationalists, First Worldist fake-feminists, or others. They do not have the courage to stand up, point out errors, teach and lead. They make the fundamental mistake of thinking that the way to lead people is by pretending to agree with them, not criticizing them, not educating them, etc. Although they do not see it, they are usually not respected by those they compromise with. Spinelessness is not an attractive characteristic. Rather than pulling the masses (or recruits) to revolution, the masses (or recruits) pull them to reformism and First Worldism.

By contrast, left errors are usually when you are too far ahead of the masses (or recruits). Left errors are usually when your demands on the masses (or recruits) are so advanced that you are unable to effectively reach or positively influence your audience. For example, anarchist demands to immediately end all hierarchy, to dispense with leadership, discipline, organization, etc. are ultra-left. The demand to end marriage or the traditional family immediately is ultra-left at present. The radical green attempt to save the Earth without regard for human need is ultra-left. The demand that people change every aspect of their personal lives immediately is ultra-left. You cannot simply wave a magic wand and change the world. You cannot change the world by fiat. Also, you cannot simply command change at bayonet point. You can demand anything you want, but really changing the world means meeting people where they are and pulling them forward, leading them. Mao called this “mass line.” You connect local, immediate issues to the big picture. Peasants want land. Mao used the issue of land as a way to advance people in stages to socialism then communism. Just as land is not an end in itself, better wages are not either. Land and wage struggles amongst poor peoples should only be seen as bridges to further revolutionary advances. They are not ends in themselves, by themselves they are not revolutionary. Another left error is the inability to make limited alliances with social groups or forces. For example, those who fail to support the united front against imperialism make a left error. Those who fail to side with patriotic-bourgeois, Third World regimes and forces that are attacked by imperialism make a left error. The Leading Light neither tails, neither cheerleads, neither liquidates into the united front nor to abandons it. The Leading Light line is “Uphold the broad united front! Hold the Red Flag high!” In other words, critical support to all those fighting imperialism while at the same time contending for leadership of the united front. Those who seek to remain so pure that they cannot make alliances engage in a destructive left error. Like all errors, left errors are political errors, but they too can be exacerbated or caused in part by a bourgeois or petty-bourgeois character, bourgeois or petty-bourgeois mentality. Meanness, impatience, big ego, lack of love for the people, lack of compassion, lack of empathy, lack of humility, for example, often accompany left errors. Compounded left errors can lead to left revisionism just as compounded right errors lead to right revisionism.

Right and left errors often are found in the same individual. Individuals who make errors will often zigzag between the right and left. Sometimes right errors hide left errors; sometimes left errors mask right errors. This is because both kinds of errors result from lack of revolutionary science, from lack of solid Leading Light Communism, organization and discipline. They stem from lack of fully understanding Leading Light Communism, but also from lack of implementing its political line at the level of your character. Both types of errors can lead to revisionism, do nothingism, wrecking, pig work, snitching, gossiping, and other counter-revolutionary behavior.

As always, remember that the First World is very different from the Third World. The First World has no significant revolutionary social base, no proletariat. The vast majority of the Third World is made up of proletarian classes, poor peoples. This means that techniques of leadership will be very different in the First World than the Third World. In the Third World, mass line is an important tool. While some of Lenin’s and Mao’s approaches are still useful in the First World, Leading Lights in the First World will need to be much more creative. In the Third World, Leading Lights must mobilize the revolutionary social base. In the First World, Leading Lights must gather up anomalies for resistance against the First World. Since there are no significant masses in the First World, mass line does not apply broadly in the First World as it does the Third World. Those who attempt to simply apply mass line in the First World as you would the Third World end up in First Worldism, tailing reformism, tailing NGOs and non-profit organizations, bourgeois parties, etc. Accommodating First Worldists generally does not help the cause of the proletariat unless it is generating resources and recruits for the Leading Light. Those who muddle First Worldism with Leading Light Communism end up lying to the real masses in the Third World and giving cover for First Worldism of various kinds. Leading Lights in the First World will need to find new ways to recruit, new ways to educate, etc. that do not pretend the populations of the First World are revolutionary. In the course of implementing the glorious strategic plan of the Leading Light, the leadership has developed new, creative methods that will gather First World anomalies and transform them into Leading Light cadre.

Currently, the main problems are rightist ones. Rectify this by increasing the level of political education within the organization. Every cadre must deepen their grasp of the general line. Those rightists who tail so much that they let First Worldism slide do no favors to our cause. Every cadre should make an effort to educate at least one recruit or fence sitter. Those cadres with a better grasp of leadership should make an effort to educate those who have slipped into errors, especially rightist errors. Every cadre must increase their discipline as we go forward. Leading Lights are soldiers as well as teachers. Every cadre must put in work, sacrifice, donate on a regular basis. Be a red soldier of the Leading Light! Follow the Leading Light! Be the Leading Light! The sun is rising. Our day will come.

(llco.org)

The First World currently has no significant social base for revolution. This means that in the United States there is no social group that as a whole can be consciously mobilized along its class, gender or, generally speaking, even national interests to support the revolutionary proletariat of the Third World. Although there may be conflicts within the First World, and within the United States, the US populations find more unity with each other than they do with the revolutionary proletariat of the Third World. When the populations of the First World are aligned for their immediate and mid-term interests, when push comes to shove, they unite against the revolutionary proletariat of the Third World. Even if some communities are better recruiting pools, this does not mean there is a significant social base for revolution in the United States.  This does not mean that these contradictions within the First World can’t be exploited at times by Leading Lights and popular forces. This does not mean that we should give up on the First World. On the contrary, it means that we have to be even more intelligent and creative in our approaches inside the “Belly of the Beast.” Leading Lights should take the following into account, in no particular order:

1. Crisis. Capitalism is inherently unstable. The capitalist system is crisis ridden. Cycles of boom and bust are part of the system. Capitalism is constantly generating its own grave diggers, as Marx pointed out. Stability in one area is a result of crisis in another just as comfort in the First World is a result of suffering in the Third World. The system is constantly creating the conditions for its own destruction. By shifting the burden onto poor peoples, onto the Third World, capitalism creates those who will do away with the system. Also, as the process of globalization continues, a crisis in one area spreads more rapidly to other areas. A local crisis can become global very quickly. The process of globalization has strengthened capitalism, but also brought about a situation where its crises is not as easily localized or managed. This can be exploited by Leading Lights.

2. Global People’s War. Oppression creates resistance. The imperialist system has consigned the vast majority of humanity to grueling poverty. The median income worldwide is under 3 dollars a day. This means half of humanity is barely surviving from day to day. As resources are exhausted, the First World tightens the screws on the Third World to maintain its privilege. Famines, lack of water, genocide, ecological catastrophe, crisis all increase. People of the Third World fight back in various ways. Like anything else, learning to fight is a process. People learn from successes and failures. This is the nature of science. Eventually, the exploited majority will pick up revolutionary science, the most powerful weapon available in the task of liberation. The next wave of revolution is coming. The world will be set ablaze with people’s wars that will merge into a single global people’s war of the Leading Light. The global people’s war will begin in the global countryside and global slum of the Third World. It will cut off and encircle the global city of the First World. Finally, the First World will be conquered by revolutionary forces from within and without. The exact contours of the global people’s war cannot be known in advance. In many places it will take the shape of classic Maoist people’s wars, moving from rural areas in poor countries to the cities. However, new technologies and changing demographics open up more and more possibilities.  It will involve re-proletarization of the First World. It may involve a people’s war that spills over into the United States. For example, a people’s war in Mexico could spill over into the southern areas of the United States. There may be literal invasions of the First World by peoples of the Third World. Parts of the First World could find themselves conquered in the same way that the Soviet Union destroyed fascism and imposed a new system on Nazi Germany.

3. Re-proletarization. Currently, social tension within US borders is lessened, contradictions made non-antagonistic, due to imperialism. The United States receives so much value from the imperialist system by exploiting the peoples of the Third World that economic, gender, and even national struggles within its borders have been transformed in important ways in the United States. The First World way of life is propped up by the massive exploitation of the peoples of the Third World. Economic conflict within the United States, generally speaking, has become less and less antagonistic because the burden has been so shifted onto Third World peoples. Gender conflicts, generally speaking, also become less and less acute because of the relative autonomy that is available to First World individuals. Even conflicts between oppressed nations in the United States and their oppressor nations become less antagonistic. As more and more oppressed nation peoples receive the benefits of their status as First World peoples, there is less and less desire to assert themselves as distinct nations, generally speaking. The relative peace of First World, and US society, is created by shifting the exploitation onto Third World peoples. However, this system is unstable. Capitalism is unstable, crisis ridden. People fight back. As more and more people become organized in the Third World, as Leading Light and anti-imperialist struggles beat back the imperialists, more and more Third World peoples will conquer state power and de-link their economies from the capitalist-imperialist system. Thus the First World, including the United States, will be denied access to their labor and resources. The imperialists will have to fight more and more wars to defend their privilege. They will have to tighten the screws on other Third World peoples, which will cause more resistance. They will need to dedicate more and more value and resources toward fighting the Third World peoples. They will, ultimately, have to turn inward, to cannibalize their own First World people, to maintain their power. In other words, as Third World peoples become free, the imperialists will need to begin exploiting their own populations again to make up the difference. This will mean that First World peoples will become poorer and poorer as Third World peoples become free and prosperous. As this process happens, some First World populations will break right and embrace fascism and social fascism in order to try to protect their privilege as First World peoples. Others will break left, will begin to stand with the vast majority of humanity in the Third World. At first, the majority will break right, but eventually, the process of re-proletarization will spread. Eventually, a proletarian class will arise in what was the First World. This class can then be organized by the Leading Light to overthrow its capitalist overlords. This class will be part of the international proletariat.

4. Balkanization. The United States has a long history of brutal oppression of oppressed nations within its borders. The United States was founded on White supremacy and racism. The United States waged the greatest genocide in history when it exterminated most of its indigenous population. The land was cleared of indigenous peoples to make way for westward expansion.  Indigenous peoples were herded into prison camps that later became reservations. Social tensions of early capitalism were lessened because European-descended peoples, and later Blacks, Asians, and others could graduate from workers to land owners, from proletariat to bourgeoisie and petty bourgeoisie. The frontier was a safety valve for social tensions not only in North America, but also Europe. The marginalized of Europe and elsewhere made their way to North America to settle on Indigenous land. In addition, slavery played a key role in the early development of the capitalist system.  Africans and Blacks were brutally enslaved to grease the wheels of early capitalism. Even after slavery was formally abolished, the Black population of the United States found itself living under the constant terror of an apartheid system.  Slavery’s legacy remains. Deep racism still exists in US society. As the United States is weakened by Third World resistance and economic crisis, it is possible that national contradictions will once again become heightened. As Third World people gain their freedom, the White population may try to maintain its privilege by shifting the burden onto oppressed nations within US borders. As their First World lifestyle is eroded and as they face more racism and national oppression, oppressed nation peoples may strike out on their own. The result could be wars of national liberation, wars between national populations, and a Balkanization of the United States. Other kinds of Balkanization can occur. If capitalism enters a big enough crisis or there is a catastrophe of some kind, the federal government may not be able to maintain its power. Warlordism could arise in the United States in a big enough crisis or catastrophe. Remnants of the federal government, governors, mayors, military officers, police agencies, criminal organizations, religious organizations, and the Leading Light could battle for power under extreme crisis conditions.  Balkanization will weaken the system, help destroy the First World, and allow greater opportunities for the Leading Light to maneuver.

5. Catastrophe. Ecological and other mass catastrophes could play a key role in bringing about the conditions for revolution in the First World. Capitalism is based on infinite growth. However, there is a finite amount of resources. As those resources are depleted, there will be more and more ecological crisis. Ecological crisis and catastrophes weaken and impoverish the First World, thus speeding up the revolutionary process, speeding up re-proletarization, speeding up Balkanization, etc. As the ecological crisis deepens, greater numbers of both Third and First World peoples will mobilize against the system in their own interests and interests of their children.

6. War, nuclear and mass destruction. Similarly, nuclear or other forms of war could also weaken the state and other institutions and create conditions for revolution in the First World.  In general, wars weaken economies. However, the use of nuclear weapons by state or non-state actors against the United States has the potential to quickly weaken imperial power. Nuclear conflict is one possibility that revolutionaries need to prepare for.

7. Resistance and subversion of the First World. Weakening the First World from within can play a role in the revolutionary process. Lenin used the crisis of World War 1 to transform that war into a revolutionary war. Lenin sought to bring down the empire of the Czar and, later, revisionists. The Bolsheviks advocated a policy of revolutionary defeatism. They aimed to defeat their own imperial country. Similarly, the Leading Light extends its power within the First World in order to subvert from within the heart of empire. Leading Light gathers those anomalies in the First World who will fight against their First World interests. Leading Light gathers those who will truly stand with humanity. Leading Light creates the institutional structures needed for when conditions change in our favor, when re-proletarization and global people’s war advance to higher stages. Leading Light seeks to neutralize and ideologically transform as much of the First World population as possible. As capitalist crisis, ecological crisis, and global resistance deepen, more and more First World resistance is possible. At this stage of development, Leading Light’s line can be summed up “Revolution in the Third World; Resistance in the First World!”

Our world is much different than Lenin’s. It is much different than Mao’s. Dogma is not going to create the next great wave of revolution. Cheerleading will not. Only the most advanced revolutionary science in the hands of the people can create a new future. Leading Lights can handle the reality of today’s world. There is nothing more radical then reality itself. The Leading Light is for the most advanced. Leading Lights don’t sit on the sidelines.  Surrender is First Worldism. Surrender is not an option for Leading Lights. Communism is not a spectator sport. Science, organization, leadership are key to victory. Lead.

We live in dark times. Poverty. Endless war. Starvation. Disease. Cruelty. Rape. Suffering. Ecological catastrophe. It may seem hopeless. However, there have been moments when humanity reached higher, tried to be something better. What seemed impossible became possible. Revolution. A red wave spread across the globe. Humanity walked another road for a time. Even though the past revolutions have ended, they showed that the system is not invincible. We can do better. We can take power. Next time, we will hold power longer and take the revolution even further. Even our failings are better than the “success” of capitalism. The last great revolutions taught us many things, However, we need to understand that they are over. The last great waves of revolution have ended, even though scattered, shattered fragments remain. We will not go forward by merely looking backward. We will not go forward by trying to opportunistically cobble together the remnants of the past. Instead, we must learn from the past in order to surpass it, to go forward. We must study the past, sum up the past, advance the science, prepare ourselves, build the organization, cultivate the leadership, to initiate the next great wave of revolution. The Leading Light has the science, the organization, and leadership to really win. In any revolution, some are more advanced than others. Some people see farther. They guide. They help others to see. They pull others forward, sometimes kicking and screaming.  They are leaders of leaders, teachers of teachers. They are lights in the dark. They lead. The most advanced. The vanguard. The Leading Light.

When any great revolutionary breakthrough occurs, the science takes several forms. There are levels of understanding. People do not advance all at once. We have prepared this issue of Leading Light for those just entering our circles. It is meant as an introduction. All new cadre and supporters should familiarize themselves with these answers. These answers are the beginning of knowledge, not the end. Keep advancing. Prove yourself. Follow the Leading Light all the way. Be the Leading Light.

1. What is the Leading Light?

Leading Light Communist Organization (LLCO) is the vanguard organization of a new type. It is an internationalist organization to initiate the next great wave of communist revolution. It exists in many countries, both in the Third World and First World. The Leading Light is mostly clandestine. The Leading Light is guided by the new breakthrough, the highest stage, the revolutionary science of our age, Leading Light Communism. Only the Leading Light has the science, organization, and leadership to reach true communism.

2. What is the vanguard?

Not everyone is at the same place in their development. Some people have very reactionary views. Some people have confused views. Some people are just beginning to wake up. Some people have moderately advanced views. Some are more advanced. Others even more advanced. When the most advanced organize themselves, they form the vanguard. The vanguard has the most advanced revolutionary science. They are the most advanced who have come together to actually lead. They are the ones who will wake others up. They elevate humanity. They are teachers of teachers. They are leaders of leaders. They are the ones who will lead humanity out of the darkness. In this era, the Leading Light is the global vanguard.

3. What about other groups that claim to be revolutionary?

There are many other groups that claim to be revolutionary. Some are progressive, but flawed. Some are actually reactionary. Some are fascist. Some are revisionist. Some are wreckers who betray the revolution. Some are false-flag operations. The way we determine who is right and who is wrong, who is the vanguard and who is not, is by the methods of science. Revolutionary science in command. Only the Leading Light of revolutionary science can show us the road to freedom.

4. Should we unite with other groups?

As a matter of principle, we should unite as many people as possible under revolutionary-scientific leadership, under Leading Light leadership. However, not everyone is scientific. Not everyone shares our goals. Not everyone represents the proletariat, the exploited and oppressed. Not everyone is at the same place. Not everyone will follow revolutionary science. We unite with other, less advanced groups when it serves our aims, the aims of the proletariat. We do not unite for the sake of uniting. When we do unite with less advanced groups, we unite on a tactical basis and in a critical way. We always fly the red flag high. We always vie for leadership within coalitions and united fronts.

5. Why is the Leading Light mostly clandestine?

The Leading Light is clandestine because state repression and paramilitary repression are very real. We seek to destroy the Old Power by any means necessary, they seek to preserve it. We build the New Power. They seek to destroy it by any means necessary. Again and again, the state and their agents target revolutionary organizations, their leaders, and their followers. We should not be naive.

6. What is your goal? What is Leading Light Communism?

Nothing is more revolutionary than Leading Light Communism. Leading Light Communism means the end of all oppression. No classes. No poverty. No exploitation. No gender oppression. No sexism. No national oppression. No racism. No oppression of the young or old. No heterosexism. No oppression of the Earth, our common home. All chains must be broken. Communism is organized around the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” Collectivity. Altruism. “Serve the people.” Communism means no state. Since no antagonistic social forces exist, no antagonistic contradictions, no state exists. Communism means equality. Communism is sustainability. Communism is true freedom. Communism is a society where every individual is the best that she can be, while at the same time serving the people. Everyone helps others to thrive, to flourish. Communism can only happen on the  global level. New culture. New song. New dance. Communism means a whole new way of life.

Past conceptions of communism were flawed in some respects. Past conceptions often failed to understand the full scope of oppression, instead it focused too much on the oppression only of workers. Oppression is much more complex. Past conceptions also failed to take into account the importance of nature. Nature was seen as something to be conquered, instead of liberated. Past conceptions tended to overemphasize the role of the technology of production — as though technology, in and of itself, could eliminate scarcity and serve up happiness and communism. While the technology of production plays an important role, the most important factor in creating communism is reorganization of social relations, i.e. class war, power struggle. Society was too much seen through a machine paradigm. Past attempts at communist revolution also became dogmatic. Science was abandoned. Only by putting revolutionary science in command can we reach true communism. Leading Light Communism is the next stage of communism. Leading Light has advanced a new conception of communism that breaks with the limited conceptions of past revolutions. Leading Light Communism is the only real communism today.

7. That sounds great, but doesn’t it go against human nature?

Humans have lived in all kinds of social configurations. Some of these configurations were very stratified, like feudalism and capitalism. However, for most of humanity’s existence, humans lived in more egalitarian tribal societies. The indigenous societies of North America, for example, were much more egalitarian than today’s capitalism. In much of the world, people lived in a similar manner for thousands of years. Marx called these societies “primitive communism.” In addition, the great socialist revolutions of the twentieth century proved that humans can live in more egalitarian and communal ways than capitalism provides. At the height of China’s revolution, a quarter of the world’s population was living in some kind of communal arrangement. Even in today’s world, there are pockets of people living in tribal societies. In addition, religious sects and others have chosen to isolate themselves and live in more egalitarian and communal ways — although often this has been within an imperial context. So, the claim that a more communal and egalitarian way of life is contrary to human nature has been proven false by the historical and empirical record.

Even if it were the case that perfect communism or perfect egalitarianism were impossible or not sustainable, this does not mean that it we should not aspire to realize as much of that ideal as possible.  Studies have shown that people are more happy and healthier in more egalitarian societies.  Humans are empathetic. There are less problems in egalitarian societies. So, we should aspire to realize as much of the communist ideal as possible.

Humans can use society to improve themselves. We can use society to encourage what is best in our natures and discourage what is not. We can use the New Power, the new society, to create a New Humanity, a better humanity.

8. Aren’t humans naturally greedy?

Humans are not naturally greedy. For most of their existence, humans have lived in more communal and egalitarian ways. Soldiers sacrifice themselves for their comrades. Parents sacrifice themselves for their children. Martyrs sacrifice themselves for their cause. Leading Lights sacrifice themselves for the liberation all of humanity and the Earth. Humans are naturally empathetic. We are social animals.

The reason that there is a widespread belief that humans are individualistic and greedy is because we live under capitalism. Capitalism teaches people they need to be individualistic and greedy to get ahead. This society teaches people that it is good to get ahead at the expense of others. This society teaches people that endless consumption is good. The reason that people think everyone is greedy is because so many people are greedy in this society. People are projecting the nature of the capitalist onto human nature. They are projecting the nature of the global bourgeoisie, of the First World, onto humanity.

Even if it was the case that humans were naturally greedy in some way, this does not mean that society should encourage this. Humans have the ability to change. Human nature is very malleable. Humans use society to modify their behavior. So, even if there were bad traits that are currently part of our nature, then we should use society to eliminate these. Society should be used to help perfect humanity, not encourage what is bad in us. We will create a New Humanity.

9. Are you talking about social engineering?

Yes, but so what? All societies are engineered. The question is what are they engineered for. This society is designed so that the few countries of the First World and their allies benefit by exploiting the vast majority of humanity in the Third World. This society is designed so power and wealth are unevenly distributed. This society is designed to encourage inequality. This society is a dictatorship of the global bourgeoisie. This society is designed to keep them in power. This society is designed to sacrifice people and the Earth for profits. Poverty, endless wars, ecological catastrophe are part of this system. The culture of the current system teaches people that the capitalist system is good and natural. The reality is that it is not good and it is not natural in any special way.

Leading Light Communism is a whole new system. We have designed a system that is governed by revolutionary science, Leading Light Communism. Leading Light Communism puts people and the Earth over profits. Leading Light Communism serves the people. It eliminates oppression. It eliminates poverty. It eliminates inequality. It promotes real altruism. It perfects humanity. It is sustainable. Leading Light Communism is engineered to  liberate everyone and the Earth.  Leading Light Communism aims at a New Humanity.

10. How will we take power? What form will our revolution take?

We are in the middle of a great war by the First World against the Third World.  Poverty. Famine. Suffering. Cruelty. Violence. Bombs. The imperialists of the First World turn the Third World into a giant graveyard. Those in power will not give up without a fight. The system can’t be reformed out of existence. There is a right way and a wrong way to fight back. Those who rush into battle without preparation will only meet defeat. Those who rush off without scientific, communist leadership will be defeated. Those who have no discipline will  be defeated. Those who have no organization will be defeated. Those who have no plan will be defeated. Such attitudes are those of the petty-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie. Real change requires Leading Light Communist leadership, organization,  and discipline. If you want to make real change in the real world, then you put aside your individualism, emotionalism and pettiness. Drop your ego. You accept the Leading Light Communist leadership. Leading Light Communists will lead a global people’s war to actually win.

Our war is global people’s war. It is a war to end all war. It is a war of liberation. If we do not stand up and defend ourselves, nothing will ever change.  Global people’s war is the road to global liberation, to global power. In this sense, People’s war, broadly construed, is universal. Global people’s war is internationalist.
It is important to understand that people’s war is not just a military affair. Where it is possible, we need to create base areas, red zones. In these red zones, we create New Power. We create independent institutions of the oppressed. We create a new state in miniature. We create the people’s army, a mighty red army. We create a new culture. We create a new society in miniature. We create schools for the people. Literacy. We create a revolutionary culture. New art. New song. New dance. We carry out land reform. We begin the liberation of women and youth. We create people’s courts. We create a people’s committees. We create a new, collective economy. We create a new, sustainable relationship between ourselves and nature. We serve the people. We solve their problems. We live the revolution.  The red zone will be a beacon to the world’s oppressed and exploited. From there we go forward to conquer power across regions, countries, then, the world.

The world revolution is a global people’s war led by the Leading Light. The liberation struggles in many countries unite into a single global struggle led by the most advanced revolutionary science, Leading Light Communism. Our revolution will come from the darkest places. It will come from the global countryside. It will come from the global slum. It will come from the jungles and mountains of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The revolution will spread across the Third World, then to the First World. It will dismantle the First World as it currently exists; the New Power will be imposed on the First World whether the populations want it or not. It will sweep away imperialism, capitalism, and all injustice and suffering. It will be a glorious prairie fire of liberation. A new humanity will arise out of this struggle to build a new world.

11. Does the revolution have to be violent? Why not pacifism?

Let’s look at history scientifically. All the great social transformations of the past were complex phenomena. They were conflicts between social forces. Marx said that all of history is the history of class struggle. Past revolutions have had a commandist aspect and a mass aspect. They had a violent aspect and a non-violent aspect. Revolution is not a dinner party. Communist-led revolutions are the radical reorganization of society at the fundamental level. They are transformations of culture, economy, the state, and civil society. One social group takes power from another. Creating Leading Light Communism in our world will necessarily be a revolutionary process. Power and privilege will be radically reorganized. Wealth and its distribution will be radically altered. Entire ways of life will become incompatible with the new social order. Some will support it. Some will oppose it. The transformation will not happen through prayer. It will not happen through magic. It will not happen though hoping and crossing our fingers. To make Leading Light Communism a reality takes reorganization of social forces.  We must align friends against enemies. It takes building of institutions of the exploited and oppressed, New Power. It takes education and ideological remolding. And it also takes defending the revolution from those social forces that will destroy it: imperialists, capitalists, feudalists, fascists, First Worldists and other reactionaries. We must dismantle the First World as it currently exists. The reality is these struggles will necessarily have a violent aspect.

12. What about Gandhi and MLK? They won without violence.

Firstly, there is a lot of myth surrounding Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. It is important to know the real history, not the white-washed history that they teach in school.

Secondly, neither Gandhi nor MLK were really out to radically reorganize society at a fundamental level as we are. They were out to reform the current system, to cut a new deal with Old Power. In the case of Gandhi, colonialism and direct British rule was replaced by semi-colonialism, partial and indirect imperialist rule. In the case of MLK, we are not talking about ending empire and capitalism, but expanding its franchise, including full political rights to include Blacks, in the USA. Of course the system is going to be more accommodating to movements which are more reform oriented. If your demand is merely that you want taxes lowered, then, obviously, the system is not going to react the same way to you than if you want to abolish capitalism itself. Liberating all of humanity is not a reformist demand like lowering the drinking age, lowering taxes, changing noise ordinances, etc. Its not even a major reformist demand as Gandhi’s or MLK’s demands were. Leading Light Communism is a radical, fundamental, deep reorganization of the social order. It is the reorganization of all of society. It is taking wealth from some and giving it to others. It is taking power from some and giving it to others. It is changing thousands of years of entrenched social programming. It’s not the kind of thing that gets on the ballot. Leading Light Communism is a revolutionary demand.

In addition, Gandhi was not the alpha and omega of the Indian independence movement. A big factor leading to the success of the Indian independence movement was World War 2. The European empires had destroyed and weakened  themselves in that war. They were no longer able to hold onto their colonial possessions. India’s semi-independence occurred in the wider context of anti-colonial struggles worldwide. Not only did the violence of  World War 2 allow for the success of that struggle, so did the successful independence movements elsewhere — which were not all non-violent. A struggle in one colonial possession aided the struggle in another because it forced the weakened European empires to become further extended. Armed struggle in one part of the empire indirectly aided the struggle in India, just as World War 2 did. In addition, Gandhi was not the only one fighting for independence. There were other forces too that were not describing themselves as non-violent. The independence process was a complex one. The British turned over power to those they felt they could work with, the Gandhians. This applies to the Black movement too. It occurred in a broader de-colonial struggle globally — all of which were not professing non-violence. There were other forces besides MLK also. Ghettos were burning. The system was forced to bend by a broad spectrum of forces, not all were non-violent. It is simply a myth that non-violence alone led to these cases of reformist change. The actual history is more complex.

Power is not given, it is taken. Obviously, revolution will be met with massive opposition by those who do not want to lose their power and privilege. It is necessary to defend the revolution from those who would destroy it. This defense will entail imposing one’s will on others. Not everyone will just “go along.” There are people who will oppose it and will fight tooth-and-nail to keep capitalism going. The capitalists are willing to butcher and bomb Third World peoples for their resources. Do you think they will stop just because you ask them to?  We need real revolution, not fantasy.

13. Can’t we just reform the system?

No. To reach Leading Light Communism, we need to destroy the old world and start over. We are going against thousands of years of entrenched reactionary social programming within society. We plan on eliminating all oppression. We will build a whole new society. We will build a New Power. We are working for a massive reorganization of society. We will take wealth from the global rich and give it to the poor, mostly in the Third World. We will communalize life. We will give real political power to the exploited and oppressed, especially in the Third World. We will give political power to armies of youth. We will dismantle the First World as it currently exists. We will eliminate current conceptions of gender. We will eliminate the state. We will reorganize society around the needs of humanity and the Earth, not the market, not capital, not the First World. We will create new culture, new art, new song, new dance. We will eliminate the distinction between the sphere of work, the domestic, and play. Our revolution cuts the deepest. Leading Light Communism is the most advanced revolution yet known.

Obviously, it will be opposed by those with power and wealth, by those who benefit from the current system. Those with power will compromise on certain issues, but they will never be willing to give up power and change the system at the fundamental level. The idea that we can reach communism by gradually reforming the system is a form of revisionism. Those with power will oppose us at every turn. If it comes down to it, they will always use violence to try to stop the revolution. Power is not given, it is taken. This has been proven over and over by history. The only way to change a system at the fundamental level is through revolution, not reform.

14. Why do you say “science in command?” Isn’t science used to oppress people?

Science is the best set of tools that we have for solving complex problems. Changing all of society, undoing thousands of years of oppression, creating a whole new, communist world based on peace, equality, and justice is going to be very difficult and complex. We will not get there through prayer or magic. The answers are not carried in our veins or identity. Science allows us to look at different paths and see which one will most likely lead to a better world. It allows us to see farther than we otherwise could. Science is a form of collective experience that allows us to overcome the limits of our individuality. Under the current system, science is sometimes used to oppress people. However, this does not mean that science itself is the problem. The answer is not to reject science, but to turn it around, against the oppressor. Revolutionary science, Leading Light Communism, is the opposite of the science of the oppressor. When we say “science in command,” we mean “revolutionary science in command” or “Leading Light Communism in command.”

15. Why do you say Leading Light Communism is the highest stage of revolutionary science?

The oppressors have been perfecting the science of tyranny. They pay some of the best and the brightest from elite colleges to perfect ways to oppress people. They spend billions researching how to keep the capitalist system running smoothly. We must meet force with force. We must meet brain power with brain power. Just as they have developed the science of human oppression, we have been developing the science of human liberation for almost 200 years. Marx was the first to really apply the tools of science, in a rigorous and systematic way, to the problem of reaching communism, total liberation. Since, Marx, there have been many great social experiments — involving billions of people — that have added to this knowledge. We must study the past, especially the Bolshevik and Maoist experiments. We must look at history as a great laboratory. As we go forward, we will face many of the same problems that past revolutions did. We must understand what past revolutions that aimed at communism did right and what they did wrong. We must learn what laws govern social forces. However, it is not enough to look backward. We must also look at how the world has changed. The last great revolutionary breakthrough was the Maoist offensive in China. It reached its peak in the Cultural Revolution. That was almost a half century ago. It is important that we understand how the world has changed since then.

The Leading Light has the most advanced understanding of the past attempts to reach communism. The Leading Light has also advanced political economy to a whole new stage with its theory of global class analysis, new theories of exploitation and value, new proletarians, new socialism, and global people’s war. The Leading Light has expanded our understanding of how gender works on the global level. The Leading Light has also expanded our understanding of counter-revolution and revisionism. The Leading Light has also advanced our understanding epistemology and method. The Leading Light has also put forward a new vision of communism that corrects the mistakes of the past. The Leading Light’s internationalist practice, theory of New Power over the First World, and global people’s war also radically breaks from the past in many respects. There is simply no other paradigm from which to understand the world and change it. The Leading Light is the only communism today.

16. How big are you? What are your backgrounds? What do you look like? How do you work? What is your big plan?

We don’t reveal our numbers or capacities. If someone claims they represent the Leading Light, they probably do not. If someone claims to have insider information about the Leading Light, they are either lying or misinformed. We do not answer questions about our identities. There is no reason for anyone to know these things. People are curious. We understand. But revealing this information only helps the state. We operate in a clandestine manner. We infiltrate. We subvert. We build New Power. We are compartmentalized. Information is on a need to know basis. We do not wear our concrete plans on our sleeve. Study the science. Grasp deep politics. Understand what is said and unsaid.

We are white and black, First World and Third World, male and female, heterosexual and queer, old and young. We are everywhere. We are the ones who are leading humanity out of the darkness. We are making revolution for real. We are the pure hearts. No ego. We are disciplined, red soldiers of the Leading Light. Loyalty. Discipline. Intelligence. Science. Sacrifice.

17. What can I do to help?

Educate yourself. Study revolutionary science. Begin the process of ideological remolding. Familiarize yourself with Leading Light Communism. Drop your ego. We do not have time for it. Donate. Contact the Leading Light. Become a red soldier of the Leading Light. Follow the Leading Light. Become the Leading Light. We will find the role that best suits you.

You will have to prove yourself before you advance. This will take time. You will advance in stages. We are a mostly clandestine organization. Do not expect to understand everything or how we operate.

If you cannot be a Leading Light in this struggle, you can still help us. Donate to us. Donating should not be underestimated. It is what allows us to continue functioning. Promote our work and ideas far and wide.

Put Leading Light Communism in command. Be the Leading Light! Follow the Leading Light!

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 beneficiaries 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  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.

What is revisionism?

(llco.org)

Some people falsely think that revisionism is to deviate from an orthodoxy, to “revise” a tradition. This is an incorrect view of what revisionism is in a Marxist context. We should not treat Marxist writers the same way that Medieval Church scholars treated Aristotle. Mao was right when he said we must oppose book worship. We should not quote the classics of Marxism in the same way that Jesuits quote the Bible.  Marxism is not a dogma, it is simply revolutionary science. Marxism is simply applying science to the task of total liberation, to the task of reaching communism. Like any science, revolutionary science evolves over time. If any deviation from Marx’s original works were revisionism, then everything published after Marx’s lifetime would be revisionist. This is not the case. So what  is revisionism?

Revisionism does not mean simply to “revise” Marxist works. Sometimes we need to “revise” in order to advance science. Some “revising” is good. Marxism requires us to deviate from the revolutionary classics sometimes. Revisionism is something very different. Revisionism is to revise the revolutionary heart out of Marxism. Revisionists are those who turn revolutionary science into its opposite. It is putting a “Marxist” face on counter-revolution and oppression. Revisionists “wave the red flag to oppose the red flag.” There are different kinds of revisionism. They often overlap and imply each other.

1. Reformism. Reformists often say that we do not need revolution. They say that the system can be gradually reformed. They think that we can reach socialism (and communism) through legal and parliamentary means. They do not see the current state as an instrument of reactionary class rule. They see it as a semi-neutral or independent agent that stands above class struggle. According to this view, the reactionary state can be contested; the reactionary state can be a place where class antagonisms can be negotiated. The people’s forces can gradually extend their influence over the state trough legal means, according to this view. They believe that  the people’s forces can get elected, lobby, etc. This is related to the view that communist consciousness evolves spontaneously from economist struggles for things like better wages. This gradualism and evolutionism was held by the revisionists of the Second International. Sometimes these forces are referred to as “social democrats.”

Lenin sharply criticized these revisionists. Lenin advanced another view of the state. Lenin advanced the view that the state is not neutral. It is always a dictatorship of one class against another. The state is always an agent of repression. It cannot be captured in its current form by the revolutionary forces. It cannot be wrangled away from the forces of reaction. There is the parable of the man who drops his bag of gold into the oceans and dives in after the gold. He drowns. Did he own the gold or  did the gold own him? Such is the nature of the reactionary state. Those revolutionaries who try to enter the state only end up  getting captured in the process. They do not capture the state, the state captures them. Rather, the old state must be smashed. A dual power must be built within society to contest with the old power.  A New Power must be built from the ground up. A New Power must be built up to replace the old power. This New Power is the order of the proletariat. To embrace reformism is to deny the New Power.

2. Social imperialism/social fascism. There are those who claim to be Marxist, yet they advocate imperialism. They wrap their imperialism in a red flag. The original social imperialists were the social democrats of the Second International. The German and French social democrats supported the war efforts of their imperialist homelands in World War 1. They reasoned that a victory in the war would benefit their homeland’s workers. They sought to advance their population’s interests with the spoils of imperial conquest. The revisionists placed their own peoples, their own workers, ahead of the global proletariat. These social democrats were narrowly nationalist. By contrast, Lenin was internationalist. Lenin advocated the policy of “revolutionary defeatism” for imperialist countries. Lenin sought the defeat of the Czarist empire in the hope that a defeat for his imperialist homeland could lead to a revolutionary situation. Contrary to Lenin, the revisionists of the Second International were the social imperialists and social fascists of their day. They were socialist in name, but in reality, they were imperialists and fascists.

Other kinds of socialism imperialism have existed. For example, the Soviet Union stopped moving forward toward communism in the mid-twentieth century. The Soviet bureaucracy became a new capitalist class. They began implementing capitalist policies. Even though they claimed to be socialist, they acted like a big imperialist power. They exploited other countries. They imposed their own colonial order across parts of the Third World. Like the imperialists before, the USSR and the Western imperialists divided  up the world into “spheres of influence.” Both imperialist blocs, the West and East bloc, worked together to control the Third World. The imperialists as a whole reconfigured the world economy to the benefit of the imperialists at the expense of the Third World. The USSR carried out its imperialist ambitions under a red flag.

3. First Worldism. First Worldism is a widespread variant of social imperialism. First Worldism is a form of revisionism that claims that there exists a significant social base for revolution in the First World or that there exists widespread, significant exploitation in the First World. First Worldism recognizes various enemy classes of the First World as progressive. Some First Worldism claims that the wage-earning and working bourgeoisie (the “labor aristocracy” or so-called workers) in the First World is exploited and potentially revolutionary. Other First Worldism claims that the lumpen bourgeoisie in the First World is so oppressed that it constitutes a stand-in proletariat. Other First Worldism claims that the majority of non-Whites in North America are a stand-in proletariat. Other First Worldism claims that women or youth in the First World are a stand-in proletariat. Other First Worldists say they will create a “social base” in the First World, as though one can, without state power, simply will a revolutionary agent into being. All of these social groups are, on the whole, enemies of the Third World majority. To advocate on their behalf along economic and gender lines is, on the whole, reactionary. First Worldists, whether they know it or not, end up supporting imperialism against the Third World to one degree or another.

4. The Theory of the Productive Forces. This revisionism downplays the need for class struggle in the revolutionary process. Instead, this revisionism sees development of technology as the main key to creating a better world. This view overemphasizes technology’s role in the revolutionary process. It sometimes acts as though technological development will serve up communism. These revisionists set the goal wrong. Instead of setting the goal as the end of oppression, they see creating a bountiful society filled with consumer goods as the goal. Third World socialism will not measure up to First World capitalism in terms of creating a consumer society because socialism is based on sustainability and not based on imperialism. When Third World socialism fails to measure up to First World capitalism in terms of creating a consumer society, these revisionists argue that socialism itself should be rejected. They dangle the carrot of consumer society in front of the masses to encourage reactionary thinking. This is related to economism.

5. Failure to go all the way to communism. Some revisionists say that we do not need to go all the way to communism. This revisionism is one that downplays the need to continue class struggle under socialism. These revisionists say that class struggle simply dies out under socialism. They do not see socialism as a transition to communism. Rather, they see socialism simply as nationalization of industry and a welfare state. By contrast, communists of Mao’s era held that if one isn’t advancing to communism, then the revolution will slide back into capitalism. If one doesn’t continue to push forward, counter-revolution will defeat the revolution. Inequalities left over from the old society and new inequalities will solidify and a new capitalist class will arise within the organs of power. Reactionary ideas spread, reversing revolution. This is why Mao said, “Never forget class struggle!” Revolutionary struggle must continually be waged against inequality and reactionary culture, otherwise a new bourgeoisie will arise and reverse the revolution. This is “continuing the revolution under the New Power of the proletariat.”

This list is not exhaustive. It only covers some of the bigger forms of revisionism. There are many other forms. These revisionisms are almost always intertwined. They usually imply each other. To embrace one is to embrace the others. Of these, today, the critique of First Worldism covers the critique of all others. The struggle against First Worldism is the main anti-revisionist struggle of our day. No revisionism is safe when one targets First Worldism; no revisionism is safe when one advances Leading Light Communism. The only anti-revisionism today is real revolutionary science, Leading Light Communism.

Revolutionary science in command, not identity politics

(llco.org)

The true communist movement is guided by the Leading Light of revolutionary science. Marxism was the first synthesis that applied science to the task of total revolution, of reaching communism. Marxism-Leninism was the next breakthrough. Marxism-Leninism synthesized the universal lessons of the first wave of sustained proletarian revolutions, especially the Bolshevik revolution led by Lenin. Mao’s contribution or “Marxism-Leninism-Maoism” was the next. It represented the revolutionary synthesis of the greatest revolutionary upsurge in history. For a moment, a quarter of the world’s population in China cast their lot in with the Maoists to try to build a better world. When Mao’s theories represented the highest synthesis of revolutionary science, communists raised the slogan of “Mao Zedong Thought in command!” Later, this became “Maoism in command.” It has been almost a half century since the beginning of the Cultural Revolution, the last Maoist breakthrough. Those who came before, including the Maoists, achieved great things, but also made many mistakes. Plus, the world has changed. The imperialists have been updating and perfecting their science of oppression. The Leading Light is the answer. Science learns. The Leading Light has elevated and advanced revolutionary science to a whole new, fourth stage. Leading Light Communism is the highest and fourth stage of revolutionary science. It is the pinnacle of revolutionary thought today. Today, putting revolutionary science in command means putting Leading Light Communism in command. Other movements do not put revolutionary science in command. Many movements embrace emotionalism. Many movements make anti-science and anti-intellectualism a matter of principle. Many movements are based on identity. Many so-called Marxists claim to uphold revolutionary science, but few actually do. The capitalists have been so successful in their anti-communist propaganda that many “goodhearted newbies” are barely aware of the almost two centuries of scientific revolutionary thinking that has come before. Imagine claiming to be a physicist today, but not knowing anything about Newton or Einstein. There are many who claim to be revolutionaries, but know next to nothing about Marx, Lenin, or Mao. The reactionaries have been very successful in spreading lies about the communist movement. The task is on revolutionary leaders to raise the bar. The task is on us to increase political education. We are initiating the next great wave of revolution. If we are to go further toward communism, we must understand the past. We must put the most advanced revolutionary science in command, not identity. Here are some points to consider:

1. Only science can solve complex problems. The rejection of revolutionary science destroys the ability of the exploited and their allies to solve problems of poverty, of development, of the environment, of health, of power, etc. Those who attack revolutionary science only help the oppressors.

2. Those who oppose revolutionary science sabotage the efforts of the exploited and oppressed to liberate themselves. It sabotages revolution. It sabotages Third World liberation. It sabotages national liberation. It sabotages the efforts to create revolutionary leadership. It creates a climate of anti-intellectualism among the oppressed and exploited and their allies. It creates a virtue out of the ignorance that  the oppressors have foisted upon the oppressed. Like the imperialists, such an outlook teaches the exploited and oppressed not to think, not to educate and advance themselves. It lowers the bar. It hinders the development of revolutionary leadership. It destroys the ability of the masses to become masters of their own destiny. It prevents the masses from becoming capable of self-rule. Such an outlook creates a climate where wealth, identity, charisma, popularity, position, connections, tradition are put in command. It creates a climate of corruption. It disempowers the masses. It hinders our advance toward socialism and communism.

3. The claim that revolutionary science is Euro-centric is the internalization of the European narrative that only Europeans develop and understand science. Revolutionary science is not “European.” Revolutionary science is not “White.” In fact, since Marx, world revolution has moved “east.” Our last great seizure of power occurred not in the “West,” but in China. Every human society has developed science and technology to various degrees. While the scientific revolution that helped usher in the capitalist era began in Europe, other civilizations have scientific traditions going back hundreds and thousands of years. Every complex society has developed intellectual and scientific traditions: China, India, the Middle East, Africa, the Americas, Europe. The rejection of revolutionary science is the internalization of the imperialist narrative that oppressed peoples are too primitive and ignorant to understand science. Those who reject science do a disservice to the masses.

4. To place identity over science does a disservice to national liberation. Not only does it lower the bar generally, disempower the masses and weaken revolutionary leadership, it empowers comprador forces who use identity as a way to manipulate the masses toward reformist ends. It also undermines revolutionary feminism in favor of First Worldist so-called feminism. It is no accident that identity politics has become mainstreamed in the First World. It is the language of the Democratic Party, liberals, social democrats, pseudo-intellectals, pseudo-revolutionary academics, and other weenies. Identity politics is widely promoted within state (especially municipal) governments and non-profits. It is a fake “radicalism” to swindle the masses. If a political line cannot stand on its own without wrapping itself in identity or personal narrative, what does that say about the line?

5. Identity politics is not the answer to chauvinism. The way to answer chauvinism is not to disempower the masses, but to empower them with revolutionary science. This means giving the masses and revolutionary leaders the real tools they need to liberate themselves, not the tools they need to advance themselves within the reformist, pre-scientific and individualist-oriented systems.

6. Identity politics and narrow nationalism in the Third World lead to national oppression and fratricidal war. Such narrowness of mind only divides the masses. Only science can unite the world because science is rooted in reality.

7. Identity politics, especially in the First World, is itself a form of chauvinism. It empowers First World nationalism against Third World liberation. While we should support the struggles of First World captive nations, we should not do so at the expense of the Third World. We should not support the self-determination of First World captive nations at the expense of the Third World. To attack revolutionary science with First World identity politics is simply another form of First Worldism in disguise.

8. Ideology is a weapon, not a con. Not all ideologies are the same. Some ideologies are spoons. Some knives. Some bricks. Some guns. Some atomic weapons. Leading Light Communism, the highest form of revolutionary science to date, is a hydrogen bomb. If we want the Third World free, if we want communism, then we arm the exploited and oppressed with the most powerful weapon available. If we want to end all oppression, we follow the Leading Light of revolutionary science. What else can unite humanity?

9. Revolutionary science is not a dogma. If another more powerful system of revolutionary science becomes available, then we arm the masses with that. If the fourth stage of revolutionary science gets surpassed, then our obligation is to embrace a fifth stage. If people want to surpass Leading Light Communism, then they need to do the real work necessary to advance science. Retreating into skepticism, relativism, nihilism, post-modernism, identity politics and other pseudo-intellectual weenie-isms does not help the exploited and oppressed. People need to get over their personal narratives and egos. Serve the people. Serve the Third World. Serve humanity.

10. Putting anything other than science in command is a security risk. Identity politics creates a climate where people are encouraged to reveal everything about themselves. It creates a climate where people are encouraged to tell their personal narrative, rather than discuss political line. It encourages a situation where people not only challenge others based on identity, but it encourages a situation where everyone is expected to give their personal information to establish their credentials. Politics should not look like a 12 Step meeting, it should be about power structures. Not only does identity politics make it easier for the state to collect information, it makes it easier to infiltrate activist circles. Identity politics is pig work.

There was a saying from the Stalin-era Soviet Union that the exploited and oppressed will row the boat to shore of communism with or without communist leadership. This is an incorrect outlook based on a teleological view of history. Our revolution is not inevitable. Our revolution is not chiseled into the atoms themselves. Our victory is not foretold by the stars. The Maoists began to see this. They understood that not only can revolutions go forward, they can go backward too. What is to stop the exploited and oppressed from rowing the boat in circles forever? There is one thing that will keep us moving forward: science. Science learns. Science adapts. This is why we must be guided by the Leading Light of revolutionary science. Today this means we must be guided by Leading Light Communism.  Leading Light Communism in command! Revolutionary science in command! Follow the Leading Light! Be a Leading Light, not a dim bulb.

Beginning talking points on the Cultural Revolution era

(llco.org)

Communism is the final goal of our revolution. There is an old Maoist saying that you cannot break every chain but one. It does not matter if you are chained to a wall with one or a hundred chains, you are still chained to a wall. We must break all chains. The end of all oppression. The end of exploitation. No rich. No poor. No racism. No national oppression. No sexism. No gender oppression. There is no more oppression of the youth. Communism is total liberation. No groups have power over others. As Marx and Lenin taught, the state is a weapon for one group to oppress another. Since no group has power over another, there is no need for a state in communism. Communism is equality. A society organized around human need. No greed. No individualism. No longer will people see themselves merely as individuals under communism. Communism is collectivism. The common good. Sharing. Private property is eliminated under communism. Communism is altruism. The ethic of “serve the people” will govern all human interactions. The people will be one under communism. No more me, me, me. Communism is sustainability. No longer will people destroy the earth, our common home. We have  an obligation to future generations. Antagonistic contradictions no longer exist under communism. Communism is peace. Under communism, the revolution is self-perpetuating. Total communism has never existed, although there have been various indigenous societies that have shared many aspects with communism. Marx and Engels called some tribal societies ‘primitive communism.’

There have been three breakthroughs, three main waves of revolution that have advanced humanity into socialism toward communism. Sometimes people count the Paris Commune as the first wave, but it really was not sustained. It was a city uprising that was quickly defeated. Rather, the next waves  of revolution was initiated in 1917, the Bolshevik revolution led by Lenin. Although this revolution was irredeemably reversed and capitalism restored by the 1950s, we learned much from the Soviet experience. We learned much from Lenin and Stalin era, which we uphold in a critical, general, and non-dogmatic way. The third wave of revolutions were the social revolutions that occurred after World War 2 as part of the struggle against imperialism. The best representative and most important of these is the Chinese revolution led by Mao. A quarter of humanity stood up and tried to build a better future. Of all our attempts into socialism and toward communism, the furthest advance was the Cultural Revolution period within the Chinese revolution. There is some debate about the exact date of the Cultural Revolution. For our purposes here, we can say that the Cultural Revolution period began  around 1966 and ended in the 1970s, it peaked from 1967 to 1970. The Cultural Revolution is a key part of the Maoist contribution to revolutionary science. Lin Biao stated that the Cultural Revolution was Mao’s most important contribution to theory:

“Comrade Mao Zedong has not only enriched Marxism in the area of the conquest of political power by the proletariat. He has also made a creative contribution to its development, marking a new historical era when he tackled the most important problem of our time: the consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, the struggle against all danger of restoring capitalism.”

Here are some important things to understand about this general period:

1. The Cultural Revolution period was an attempt to advance further into socialism and toward communism, total liberation. The Maoists understood that if we did not continue to go forward toward communism, the revolution would degenerate. Mao said, “there is nothing worse than a stagnant pond.” Socialism can only be understood as a transition to communism. Maoists called this “continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.”

2. Maoists identified the problem of counter-revolution as a problem of the rise of a new bourgeoisie within the Party and state. This new reactionary class arises within the organs of power. Inequalities in power, privileges and wealth crystallize. Reactionary ideas spread. Elements within the bureaucracies of society turn into a new reactionary class that seek to advance their own interests instead of the interests of the masses. They gradually reorganize society completely to advance themselves. They seek to advance their own class interests instead of heading for communism, instead of ending class itself. They seek a counter-revolution to restore capitalism.

3. One line that was advanced by the new bourgeoisie was the theory of productive forces. This line was one way that the new bourgeoisie consolidated and advanced its position. This line overemphasizes the role of the productive forces, of technology, in the revolutionary process. This line tends to see communism as mainly a matter of advanced technological development. Socialism, the transition between capitalism and communism, is merely a matter of creating the technology capable of creating a society of plenty, as though advances in technology will serve up communism. This theory discounts the role of power struggle. It discounts revolutionizing social relations. It discounts revolutionizing culture and the super-structure. It discounts the power of the people. The theory of productive forces is also related to First Worldism. It sets the bar for socialism incorrectly. It fails to recognize that wealth in the First World is a result of exploitation of the Third World. Instead, this revisionist theory holds that socialism should compete with the First World, capitalist standard of living. When socialism fails to deliver a consumer society because socialism is not based on imperialist exploitation, the revisionists blame socialism itself. Revisionists begin to say socialism doesn’t work and communism is impossible. The revisionists conclude that capitalism is a better way to advance technology and raise the standard of living. Leading Light communists reject revisionism. Leading Lights say that our goal should not be merely to match the accomplishments of the rich capitalist countries, but to create a better and sustainable way of life that isn’t based on exploitation and inequality. We need a whole new society.

4. Contrary to the revisionists, the Maoists of the time emphasized people power. Maoists unleashed the creativity of the masses to make up for lack of capital and technology. The masses, led by revolutionary science, can overcome these obstacles. This is what Mao meant when he said political line is decisive. People power under the correct leadership can move mountains. This meant using mass mobilizations and campaigns to solve the problems confronting society. This meant class struggle. This meant social experiment. This meant the mass line. This meant incorporating input from the bottom in the leadership of society. This meant a kind of mass democracy. The Cultural Revolution included huge mass movements for actually reaching communism, millions on the streets for communism itself.

5. Maoists held that revolution was a train on two tracks: class struggle and development of the productive forces, i.e. technology. However, class struggle is principal. Revolutionizing the social relations, reorganizing power, is principal. Mao said, “never forget class struggle!” Maoists unleashed spontaneous mass movements by red guard students, rebel workers and even soldiers against the authority of the entrenched new bourgeoisie in the organs of power.  A big part of this was allowing the masses the space to voice their grievances. The masses posted essays and posters all over the campuses, streets and workplaces. The Maoists called for “mass democracy” and “big debates.” Mao raised the slogan “it is right to rebel against reactionaries!” Mao called on the masses to “bombard the Party headquarters!”

6. As part of this class struggle, from late 1966 into 1968, a controlled chaos was unleashed. The masses were allowed to overthrow the bureaucrats and other reactionaries. They were allowed to seize power and reorganize society from below. Rebel workers, students, youth, and soldiers rose up. Women were empowered to fight remaining patriarchy. Youth had significant political power for the first time. The masses were allowed to tear down significant parts of the state and build anew. Lin Biao’s People’s Liberation Army held back and created a protective bubble that allowed the chaos to run its course. New organs of power emerged.

7. “Mao Zedong Thought” and Mao were promoted far and wide. The masses used Mao’s words and theories to justify their rebellion against the bureaucracy, the new capitalist class. For a time, the “cult” made it so that individuals (armed with “little red books”) had the ability to challenge bureaucratic rule. In this struggle, Mao’s personal authority became mixed up with the science of Maoism. This mixing was probably unavoidable, especially given the conditions in China. However, it is important to understand the complex nature of the “cult.”

8. The Maoists broke with both the Soviet view of development and counter-revolution. Much of the Soviet outlook was marked by its origin in the industrial revolution. Revolutionaries of the time looked at the world through the lenses of the machine. Many saw socialist development as creating a kind of machine that served up happiness. They saw development as a kind of perfect central plan whose goal was mainly the creation of wealth. When things did not work out, instead of questioning the underlying model, they tended to see the problem as one of wreckers and agents. In other words, when problems arose, they failed to look at the system. Instead, they concluded that the problems were a result of conscious sabotage. Thus the solution was better policing. Leading Lights refer to this flawed outlook as “the police paradigm.” Maoists began to break with this outlook. They did not fully break with it though. They began to see that socialism itself creates problems. Socialism itself generates a new bourgeoisie. Maoists began to understand the problem structurally, scientifically.

9. Maoists identified two general areas of battle in the fight for revolution during socialism. It is necessary to constantly wage war against remaining inequalities of power, wealth and privilege. If inequalities are not continually reduced, they grow. Eventually, a new bourgeoisie emerges and counter-revolution occurs. It is also necessary to constantly wage war in the culture, in the super-structure. Reactionary culture must be replaced. If reactionary culture is not eliminated, it spreads, infects and reverses revolution. It is a cancer on the collective brain of society. Revolution must be continually waged in these two realms.

10. Culture is society’s program. For thousands of years we have been taught that some are better than others: the rich better than the poor, men better than women, whites better than blacks,  the old better than the young. It’s going to be hard to change that overnight. Everyone is corrupted by old ways. We have to  neutralize reactionary culture. When possible, we must make the old serve the new; old culture must be made to serve our new society. In addition, we must create new, revolutionary culture. Just as the proletariat must take conscious control of the economy, the proletariat must take control of society’s program. It has to be rewritten to serve the people. This emphasis on changing society’s program, on making the revolution self-perpetuating, lays the basis of the end of the state.

11 Altruism and egalitarianism were advanced as part of this process. A new, communist morality of “serve the people” was advanced. Material incentives were reduced and sometimes abolished entirely. Moral incentives were promoted. “Fight self, repudiate revisionism” was raised as a slogan. Life was directed more toward community and less toward the individual. Life was collectivized in a democratic fashion. Outward signs of rank and privilege were abolished. For example, outward signs of rank were eliminated by Lin Biao’s People’s Liberation Army. Maoists aspired to create a society of equals.

12. All of society was thought of as a giant school for the study and advance of revolutionary science. This begins the process of making the people capable of ruling themselves without a hierarchical division of labor. Society became a great experiment. The Maoists tried to overcome the divisions between mental and manual labor, between town and countryside, between practice and theory, and other traditional divisions. Those who had positions of power were also required to spend time on the factory floor and in the field. They even experimented with the free supply system and the elimination of the commodity economy. They sought to make “to each according to his needs” a living principle.

13. The Cultural Revolution experience demonstrated the shortcomings of the metaphysical conception that the official party  is always the vanguard. Instead, it showed that the party itself can become corrupt. The vanguard of the revolution can shift from the official party to other structures and forces. It moved from the official party to certain mass organizations and even to parts of the People’s Liberation Army for a time. In other words, there can be a difference between the official party and the vanguard. The vanguard, the true communist party, does not always correspond to the official communist party. Thus the Maoists began to introduce a more fluid concept of revolutionary leadership. This conception is very different than the one inherited from the Soviets.

These points are not exhaustive. These are just some basics. All comrades should familiarize yourselves with these points. However, we should not merely repeat the past. We have to be scientists. We need to learn the lessons of the past. The Maoist revolution was glorious. It inspired the world. However, that wave, like the one before it, is over. Sum up the past. Make the new breakthrough of the Leading Light. We must go beyond what has come before. The revolution of the Leading Light will look very different than what has come before. The future is bright! The future is ours!

Equality and Global Alignments
by
Prairie Fire
(llco.org)

“To tell the workers in the handful of rich countries where life is easier, thanks to imperialist pillage, that they must be afraid of ‘too great’ impoverishment, is counter-revolutionary. It is the reverse that they should be told. The labour aristocracy that is afraid of sacrifices, afraid of ‘too great’ impoverishment during the revolutionary struggle, cannot belong to the Party. Otherwise, the dictatorship is impossible, especially in West-European countries.”  — V. I. Lenin, Speech on the Terms of Admission into the Communist International July 30 (1)

“Taking the entire globe, if North America and Western Europe can be called ‘the cities of the world’, then Asia, Africa and Latin America constitute ‘the rural areas of the world’. Since World War II, the proletarian revolutionary movement has for various reasons been temporarily held back in the North American and West European capitalist countries, while the people’s revolutionary movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America has been growing vigorously. In a sense, the contemporary world revolution also presents a picture of the encirclement of cities by the rural areas. In the final analysis, the whole cause of world revolution hinges on the revolutionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples who make up the overwhelming majority of the world’s population.” — Lin Biao, Long Live the Victory of People’s War! (2)

The first eight words of Mao’s Selected Works are “Who are our enemies? Who are our friends?” Marxism is revolutionary science. Marxism applies science to the task of reaching communism. And communism is nothing less than total human liberation, the end of all oppression. Mao called the question of friends and enemies the question of first importance. If an organization can’t answer this question correctly, then everything else is moot. If one’s class analysis is off, then one won’t be able to make communist revolution anyways. Visions of social revolution mean nothing, they are merely utopian dreams, if they are not based in material analysis. Only by understanding the material basis for revolution, only with a correct class analysis, will one be able to align the necessary social forces to bring the proletariat to power in order to begin socialist construction, to begin the long march toward communism. In order to understand who can and cannot be aligned against imperialism and aligned in favor of socialism, it is necessary to ask: who will benefit and who won’t under socialism? Those social forces that do benefit from socialism will fall on the side of revolution. Those that do not will not. This is basic materialism.

In some sense, everyone will benefit from communism. Ultimately, life under communism will be more fulfilling and healthier for everyone, even those who were once members of reactionary classes. Also, capitalism’s destruction of the environment is so great that, in a sense, it is in everyone’s long-term interest to support an alternative. In that distant future, classes will have ceased or nearly ceased to exist. Nearly everyone will benefit then. Even though everyone will benefit from communism in the long run, in the short run, many will lose out. Socialism is about redistribution of wealth and power. And, in the real world, these are finite and limited. For the vast majority to have more, the minority must have less. This is the material reality that prevents the wealthy from aligning with the poor worldwide. The real world is a world of class conflict. In other words, we must orient toward classes as they currently exist.  Just because a member of the bourgeoisie may cease being so decades from now does not mean that we appeal to him today as though he were a proletarian. To do so is to toss class analysis in favor of bourgeois humanism and vague moral appeals. We must orient toward the present, not toward some distant, possible future.

The single most glaring fact about the world is the gap between the First World and the Third World. The capitalist-imperialist system is one where power and wealth are concentrated in some places and not others. Power and wealth are channeled to some populations at the expense of others; a minority of countries benefit and a majority do not. Looking at income globally, across populations, we get a good sense of who is wealthy and who is not. After all, income will roughly tend to correlate with other indicators of wealth, such as assets. Looking at income will give us a good picture of how wealth is distributed globally. It is no secret that wealth and power are correlated. Those social groups that have more wealth tend to have more power; those that tend to be poorer have less. Looking at income distribution globally will give us a rough picture of where First World workers stand in relation to the world system.

Let’s use a thought experiment to show what a world would look like if income was evened out. This is not a real image of socialism, obviously. Socialism is a much more profound transformation; it is not just about income. However, the thought experiment will give us a sense of which populations are benefiting from the imperialist distribution and which ones are not. The median income per household member in the United States for a year is roughly 19,400 dollars. (3) Income is not just wages and salaries, but also  includes such items as unemployment payment, welfare, disability, child support payments, regular rental receipts, as well as any personal business, investment, or other kinds of income received routinely. The average Joe American, who is 25 or older, has a total income of 32,000 dollars per year. (4) Hardly anyone in the United States is merely paid the minimum wage of 7.25 dollars per hour. Most entry-level jobs, for example, employ workers at 10 dollars or more per hour. Very few make merely this wage either. The rare individual who only makes minimum wage who works full time in the United States makes about 15,000 dollars a year, plus he may have other sources of income too. (5) By contrast, the median income globally is about 850 dollars a year. Most do not even make 3 dollars a day in the exploited countries of the Third World. Most of humanity in the Third World just subsists, just survives. What would things look like if equality governed the global economy? What would incomes look like under a system where income was distributed equally, where everyone receives an equal share of the global social product? If the world’s income were divided up equally among the world’s population of 6.7 billion, each person would be entitled to the equivalent of roughly 8,000 dollars (PPP) (5,500 dollars using Atlas method). (6) (7) (8) In other words, each worker in the United States is, at most, entitled to a share of the pie equal to roughly 8,000 dollars of total income under this distribution. Even the rare person who makes minimum wage in the United States would stand to lose out substantially under an equal distribution. Such a person would lose about half of their total income. Also, a person receives all kinds of secondary benefits simply by living in the First World including: greater class mobility, public and social services, access to infrastructure, greater public education, greater security, etc. Even the very poorest of First World workers is unlikely to benefit under a more equal system. In addition, such an equal distribution scheme does not even take into consideration the need to rectify the historically entrenched, uneven development globally. The exploiter countries of the First World have benefited due to centuries of plunder, exploitation and underdevelopment of the Third World. To truly even out the situation, extra value would need to be directed to the exploited and poor countries. In other words, the population in the United States and First World generally would be entitled to even less, Third World peoples even more. There are those utopians who object to this.  They baldly assert that First World wealth can be maintained under an equal distribution if production were, as if by magic, increased by leaps and bounds. Firstly, it is not possible to even-out the consumption level between the top 20 percent, where nearly all First World peoples fall, and the rest of humanity even if the social product dedicated to consumption were doubled with all of the extra product going to the bottom 80 percent. It would take, roughly, a tripling of the pie. (9) Secondly, First World consumption and the First World lifestyle generally are not even ecologically sustainable. First Worldism is killing the planet and our future.

What our thought experiment shows is that First World peoples receive more than their share of the global social product. They do not have a material interest in an equal distribution of private income, let alone socialism. Socialism aims for an egalitarian or near egalitarian distribution. However, this obviously doesn’t mean socialism is merely about evening-out incomes. Real socialism will end up reducing private wealth even more than our hypothetical distribution does. This is because socialism aims to collectivize property, not to just even out private property. Socialism is about radically altering society in order to reach communism, to end all oppression. However, using equality as a regulative idea shows us what most people with common sense already know. There are winners and losers in any unequal distribution. First World peoples lose out under a global distribution that evens out income. Under a truly socialist system, not only would equality govern the global distribution of value, socialism has the goal of  eliminating of private property and bourgeois right altogether. In other words, under real socialism, First Worlders would lose more than their wealth, their lives would be turned upside down.

Socialism has always been closely linked to the idea of equality. Just as class society is a system based on inequality of power and wealth, so too is the current world order based on inequality. The criticism of imperialism is a criticism of inequality. Rather than a global system where some countries have wealth and power at the expense of other countries, real Marxists advocate a system where countries have equality. To advocate, as Lenin did, for the self-determination of nations is to advocated for a transnational system that is organized around equality. After the Soviet Union fell to revisionism and became imperialist itself, Lenin’s flag was raised to new heights by Maoism. Maoism too criticized imperialism, social imperialism, chauvinism, hegemony and global inequality. Maoism was an explicit plan of action to destroy the old global order and replace it with the new. It was Chen Boda and Lin Biao who articulated Maoism as Maoism, as a new stage of Marxism. Chen Boda’s conception was of Maoism as the universal Marxism of the colonial and neocolonial countries. Lin Biao too linked Maoism to the collapse of imperialism worldwide. Lin Biao’s conception included Maoism at the forefront of a global people’s war that advances from the poor countries to the rich ones. Maoism advanced our understanding significantly, but it took Leading Light Communism to make the total breakthrough. It was Leading Light communism that finally dispensed with all First Worldism, that purified the global people’s war and socialism. A socialist distribution globally is one that rectifies the inequalities of wealth and power that exist under the current order. Socialism may not always deliver. Errors are made. Poor planning exists. However, the gross inequalities that exist under imperialism are a far cry from what will exist under socialism even at its worst. If inequalities are tolerated, they will be inequalities that benefit the poorest countries. Equality, in a general sense, is what socialism aspires to. True communists reject all First Worldism.

The First World is simply incompatible with socialism worldwide.  Even those at the bottom of First World societies will, for the most part, be entitled to less under socialism. This is why First World workers have always aligned with their own bourgeoisie against the popular classes of the Third World. First World workers align with imperialism against the vast majority of humanity, including the vast majority of workers. This is one reason why First World workers should be regarded as part of the imperial bourgeoisie. The First World workers are not a social base for proletarian revolution because they are not a proletariat. They are not an exploited class nor are they a revolutionary class. First World workers sometimes have more access to capital than Third World capitalists. Marx linked poverty to revolution. For Marx, the proletariat has nothing to lose but its chains. It is an immiserated, exploited class, a class  reduced to subsistence or near subsistence. It is the class that is made up of those who have only their labor to sell. The proletariat is the main source of value under capitalism. Marx’s description of the proletariat hardly describes the First World worker. However, it does describe many in the Third World. Marx’s description should be uncontroversial. Those who rebel are those the system has failed. The social peace in the First World is a product of the high standard of living there. It is no great mystery why the past century witnessed many revolutions in the Third World and, yet, there has never been one in the First World. Thus Mao’s question of first importance is answered.

Revisionism is very powerful. Neither the Soviet Union nor China were conquered militarily. Capitalism was restored to both. It was the enemy within that reversed socialism and restored capitalism. Sugar coated bullets proved the most dangerous, as Mao warned. Revisionism has been criticized by every great leader since Marx. Lenin criticized the revisionists of the Second International for their narrow, chauvinist outlook. The revisionists of the Second International voted for imperialist war when it worked to the benefit of the working class of their individual countries. French social democrats voted for French imperialism. German social democrats voted for German imperialism. Lenin, by contrast, took the outlook of the global proletariat. Lenin advocated for the defeat of his own country and for an end to imperialist war. The First Worldist so-called socialists deserve to be labeled as social imperialists and social fascists just as Lenin labeled the revisionists of his day. Just as the revisionists advocated imperialism in the name of socialism, so to do First Worldists today. First Worldism seeks to increase the wealth of those who already receive more than their fair share at the expense of the proletariat in the Third World. By contrast, the Leading Light communist movement advocates on behalf of the vast majority, the exploited and truly oppressed. Leading Light Communism explains our world as it really is. Our banner is at the head of the global people’s war. The Leading Light shines the way forward.

Notes

1. V. I. Lenin, , “Speech on the Terms of Admission into the Communist International July 30,” Collected Works, Vol. 31, (Moscow: Progress Publishers, 1960), pp. 248-9.
2. Lin Piao, Long Live the Victory of People’s War!, (Foreign Language Press,1965) http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lin-biao/1965/09/peoples_war/ch07.htm
3. Household Income for States: 2008-2009, (U.S. Census Bureau, 2010),  p. 1 (50,221 dollars was median household for 2008-2009. Divide this by 2.59, the average number in a U.S. household to get roughly 19,400 dollars.)
4. The Average Joe Amerikkkan, (Leading Light Communist Organization, 2010), llco.org
5. http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_do_you_calculate_work_hours_for_a_year (multiply hours per year by 7.25 dollars.. either way, the figure is roughly 15,000)
6. Income of the Average Person on Earth, http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/MateNagy.shtml
7. Per Capita Income around the world, http://www.success-and-culture.net/articles/percapitaincome.shtml
8. Average Earnings Worldwide, Boston Globe, October 7, 2007. http://www.boston.com/news/world/articles/2007/10/07/average_earnings_worldwide/ also http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-median-income-worldwide.htm  (These sources use another method that would reduce First World entitlement even more)
9. Prairie Fire, Real versus fake Marxism on socialist distribution, (Leading Light Communist Organization, 2010) llco.org