post

Who and What are Trotsky-cons?

trotsky1937

Who and What are Trotsky-cons?

(llco.org)

The term “Trotsky-con” has become part of the lexicon of populist paranoia in the First World. Despite its currency with red-baiters and anti-Semites, especially during the years of the Bush administration, the term does correctly refer to the  link between Trotskyism and a certain group of policy thinkers within the new generation of conservatives that emerged after World War 2. The SWP USA, a party from which many Trotsky-cons emerged, feebly dismisses any connection as fascist conspiracy theory, as though the link were a pure invention of the paranoid delusions of Lyndon LaRouche and Pat Buchanan. (1) Despite their protests to the contrary, there are deep theoretic links between Trotskyism and imperialism. Neo-con Stephen Schwartz proudly defends his Trotskyist past and prefers that “neo-cons” be called “Trotsky-cons.” (2) He goes so far as to say he will defend Trotsky “To my last breath, and without apology.” (3)

Very early on, Trotsky was engaged in various power struggles within the Soviet Union against the proletarian line of Lenin and Stalin. As early as 1926, in the infamous Clemenceau Declaration, Trotsky sought to use imperialist invasion of the Soviet Union as a way for his forces to seize power. Just as the Bolsheviks were able to take power during World War 1, Trotsky saw his forces similarly positioned to seize power. Into the 1930s, as Europe was polarized between fascists and anti-fascists, Trotsky, even though he criticized fascism, he did not see fascist invasion as the main danger.  Once again, Trotsky increasingly saw Stalin as the main danger to the Soviet Union, even on the eve of World War 2. Once one understands the essence of Trotskyism, it becomes apparent why one of the only times that Trotsky supported national liberation was for the Ukraine in 1939. (4) Trotsky advocated civil war in the Soviet Union and Ukrainian succession on the eve of Nazi invasion:

“In the Russian Bulletin of the Opposition (82-3), February-April, 1940, the following long paragraph appeared in place of the opening two sentences of the Sunday Express version: ‘…I consider the main source of danger to the USSR in the present international situation to be Stalin and the oligarchy headed by him. An open struggle against them, in the view of world public opinion, is inseparably connected for me with the defense of the USSR.” (5)

No doubt Trotsky saw his Clemenceau Declaration in the 1920s and, later, de facto support for the Nazis as having a parallel with 1917. Trotsky was hoping that an imperialist invasion of the Soviet Union, even one carried out by the Nazis, could catapult him to power just as the German invasion of World War 1 was a factor in the October Revolution of 1917. Trotsky was hoping to turn an imperialist war into his own brand of “revolutionary war” against Stalin and Soviet socialism. Trotsky saw himself riding to power on the backs of Nazi tanks. Just as Lenin’s strategy of turning imperialist invasion into revolutionary war has been named “revolutionary defeatism,” Trotsky’s strategy could be called “counter-revolutionary defeatism” since it turns Lenin on his head.

This extreme reactionary position is one element of Trotsky’s politics, a very important one. However, this does not exhaust Trotsky’s politics. Trotsky held contradictory, conflicting, confused positions, which is why Trotsky, at the same time, can appear to be anti-imperialist and anti-fascist. It took another, Trotsky’s follower, Max Shachtman, to work out the kinks, to put forward a more coherent form of Trotsky’s counter-revolutionary defeatist line. Shachtman called Stalinism, “the new barbarism.” In 1939, following the Soviet invasion of Finland, Shachtman followed James Burnham in arguing against the SWP USA’s nominal and weak-kneed defense of the USSR. They argued that the Soviet Union was not socialist and did not even deserve nominal support. Shachtman came to support the Western imperialists against the Soviet Union. Like Trotsky, Shachtman came to see Stalin as the main danger to the world. Like Trotsky, who agreed to testify on the crimes of Stalin to the anti-communist witch hunters in the Congress of the United States,  Shachtman was not above selling himself to the imperialists. The original Trotsky-cons, like Shachtman, are those who evolved from supporters of Trotsky’s so-called “Fourth International” into Cold Warriors for Western imperialism. If Trotsky is the father of the Trotsky-con movement, Max Shachtman is its mother. In addition, there has emerged a second generation of high profile intellectual Trotskyists, who mostly came of age in the 1960s and 1970s, who, like the earlier Trotsky-cons, have converted to become stooges for U.S. empire. Trotsky continues to have imperialist offspring, even to this day there is another generation of First Worldist, so-called socialists who support imperialism for similar reasons.

Although twisted opportunism surely played a role  in uniting Trotskyists and empire, the roots of the Trotsky-con phenomenon are much deeper, found within the ideology of Trotskyism itself. At the core of Trotskyism is the Theory of Productive Forces and its twin, the Theory of Permanent Revolution. The Theory of Productive Forces overemphasizes economic development as a factor in advancing revolution. According to such a  mechanical misreading of historical materialism, a society is unable to build socialism if it has not developed an economic base that approximates that of Western Europe at the time; it is, according to such Trotsky-cons and those with similar outlooks, impossible to build socialism unless a country has already gone through Western style capitalism. Much of Maoism is a rejection of and answer to this kind of phony Marxism. Mao showed how it was possible to bridge the gap between the most backward semi-feudal conditions and socialism with his theory of New Democracy. Mao showed how by harnessing the power of the masses, a communist party can lead countries whose development has been stunted by imperialism forward to socialism. The whole history of socialism validates Mao’s view. In the 1930s, under Stalin’s leadership, the Soviet Union had developed socialism at a breakneck pace in unfavorable conditions. Stalin had correctly predicted that it was necessary to build socialism as rapidly as possible; Stalin famously said the Soviet Union must catch up to the West or be annihilated. Not only were the Soviet masses able to build an economic base, they did so while making ever greater strides toward proletarian democracy. By the 30s, the Theory of Productive Forces had been refuted in practice by the living example of the Soviet achievement. By the late 30s, there was no excuse for anyone to uphold the Theory of Productive Forces or Permanent Revolution. Yet Trotskyists continued to ignore the reality in front of them. They continued to reject “Socialism in One Country” on a priori grounds. As Harry Haywood correctly points out, Trotskyist veered between defeatism and utopianism:

“From late 1922 on, Trotsky made a direct attack on the whole Leninist theory of revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat. He denied the possibility (and necessity) of building socialism in one country, and instead characterized that theory as an abandonment of Marxist principles and a betrayal of the revolutionary movement. He published his own theory of “permanent revolution,” and he contended that a genuine advance of socialism in the USSR would become possible only as a result of a socialist victory in the other industrially developed nations.

While throwing around a good deal of left-sounding rhetoric, Trotsky’s theories were thoroughly defeatist and class collaborationist. For instance, in the postscript to Program for Peace, written in 1922, he contended that “as long as the bourgeoisie remains in power in the other European countries, we shall be compelled, in our struggle against economic isolation, to strive for agreement with the capitalist world; at the same time it may be said with certainty that these agreements may at best help us to mitigate some of our economic ills, to take one or another step forward, but real progress of a socialist economy in Russia will become possible only after victory of the proletariat in the major European countries.” (6)

Many Trotskyists rejected the possibility of socialism in the backward Soviet Union, or they rejected socialism there as “deformed.” According to view of Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution, real socialism’s only hope was for a more developed country to come to the aid of the Bolsheviks. Those who uphold this position today state that revolution in the underdeveloped countries of the Third World is impossible without the help of the “advanced” First World. So, they argue, it is necessary to have a revolution in Western Europe or the United States in order to develop socialism in the  the Third World generally. For these reasons, Trotsky and his modern followers reject the idea that the principal contradiction in the world is between imperialist and exploited nations. They see national liberation movements as incapable of making real proletarian revolution in Third World conditions. They are First World chauvinists who uphold versions of both the Theory of Productive Forces and Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution. This kind of position is echoed today by many overt Trotskyists and many covert ones. Such a view is found, for example, in the writings of many who were in the orbit of the RIM, another defunct fourth international.

James Burnham and Max Shachtman carried Trotsky’s criticism of Stalin to its conclusion. Not only was the mode of production in the Soviet Union not socialist, its mode of production was “bureaucratic collectivist,” worse than capitalism. Shachtman even suggested it was based on slave labor. (7) Anti-communist conservatives and liberals had long made exactly these kinds of claims. Thus it wasn’t long before Shachtman was on the side of the Unites States in the Cold War. Such Trotskyists end up supporting Western imperialism as progressive because it allegedly brings development, paving the way for future social change. In other words, Western-style capitalism and modernity are prerequisites to socialism. And, they argue, since imperialism brings Western-style capitalism and modernity, imperialism is progressive and should be supported. Such lines are CIA lines. Not surprisingly, it wasn’t long before such “communists” dropped any pretense to socialism at all. After abandoning any pretense of socialist revolution, the Trotsky-cons opted to use imperialism to export Western liberalism and modernity as, what they saw as, the best realistic option for the world. Stephen Schwartz noted the parallels between Bush’s grand designs of nation-building and exporting Western modernity with Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution in Bush’s Second Inaugural Address:

“‘The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands.’ This sounds like it came right out of Trotsky’s bottle: The survival of socialism in the Soviet Union increasingly depends on the success of socialism in other lands. Neo-con Stephen Schwartz said that ‘those who are fighting for global democracy should view Leon Trotsky as a worthy forerunner.’” (8)

Trotsky’s Theory of Productive Forces, Theory of Permanent Revolution, and criticism of socialism as it existed in the Soviet Union, are linked. There is a clear path from Trotsky’s First World chauvinism to the imperialism expressed in paternalistic terms by the neo-conservatives. It is no accident that ex-Trotskyists became Reaganites and the movers and shakers establishment far-right policy thinkers. James Burnham founded National Review. Some of these new conservatives passed through Shachtmanite Young People’s Socialist League at one point or another or passed through the Socialist Party when Schachtman was still a leading figure.  Jeane Kirkpatrick, Joshua Muravchik, Carl Gershman, Penn Kemble are worth mentioning. (9) Ex-Trotskyist and Public Interest founder Irving Kristol (father of William Kristol editor of the Weekly Standard) founded an anti-Soviet CIA front, the International Congress for Cultural Freedom. (10) (11) Kristol wrote in 1983 that he was a “proud” member of Trotsky’s Fourth International in 1940. (12) Public Interest co-editor Nathan Glazer was close to the Trotskyist movement. (13) Also, defense intellectual Albert Wohlstetter had been a Shachtmanite in the late 1940s. Later, he was mentor to Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle. (14) (15) These figures were the brainpower behind much of the conservative revival in the past decades.

There is another trend worth mentioning who are similar to Trotsky-cons, but do not identify as conservatives. Christopher Hitchens, an ex-Trotskyist, has been moving in a similar direction as  Trotsky-cons. Hitchens revels in his new found fame as one of the top promoters of war against Afghanistan and Iraq. Faux News never misses a chance to give Hitchens a soapbox to condemn “Islamofascism” and the anti-war movement. Hitchens was also a consultant to the Bush administration despite still claiming to be some kind of “leftist.” Because of his imperial “leftism,” Hitchens, like Sidney Hook who traveled Trotskyist circles and later worked for the CIA, is similar to Trotsky-cons, but is outside their conservative milieu. Some compare him more to the anti-Soviet liberals of the Cold War era. Even so, the underlying phenomenon is similar whether it is Hitchens or Irving Kristol. If one believes that socialism is impossible in the Third World, where development is lacking, one can easily come to see the “civilizing mission” and “manifest destiny” of the West as progressive and necessary — even though, as Lenin understood, decadent imperialism plays no progressive role in the contemporary world.

Another variation is the development of crypto-Trotskyism. Crypto-Trotskyism is Trotskyism under a Maoist cover. It is Trotsky’s Permanent Revolution disguised under false praise for the Cultural Revolution. For example, the RCP USA, at one point, claimed to be a Maoist party even though they rejected global people’s war as Lin Biaoism. (16)  In his infamous Conquer the World, their leader Bob Afakean, in all but name, upholds Trotsky’s Theory of Permanent Revolution and Theory of Productive forces. RCP USA advanced the claim that socialist revolutions can’t be sustained in the Third World without revolution carrying over into the developed First World, “the imperialist citadels.” Like Trotskyists before them, they sought to coordinate Third and First World revolutions through a fourth international led by First World organizations whose revolutions were deemed key, more important than those in the Third World. Thus they turn the Maoist truth, articulated by Lin Biao, that “the whole cause of world revolution hinges on the revolutionary struggle of Asian, African, and Latin American peoples” on its head. They see the First World as the key, not the Third. With such a reactionary ideology, it is no surprise that they have disrupted and spread confusion within the communist movement worldwide.  Today, their Trotsky-con kin denounce “Islamo-fascism,” and the crypto-Trotskyists join the choir with their attacks against Iran. What kind of “Maoist” party holds anti-Iranian demonstrations in a climate where the imperialists are imposing sanctions and on the verge of military action? In fact, their Iranian fraternal party echos Trotsky when it writes that the Islamic state as a bigger enemy than the United States. They issue statements that parrot the imperialist denunciation of the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program and the alleged treatment of women there. They, along with RCP USA and similar groups, were de facto supporters of the recent CIA-backed attempted color revolution in Iran. What is really going on is that the Iranian “Maoists” implicitly seek a confrontation between the imperialists and the Islamic regime in order to advance their own interests, like Trotsky. Along with upholding, in all but name, the Theory of Productive Forces and the Theory of Permanent Revolution, RCP USA and its allies  increasingly attacksthe record of Lenin, Stalin and Mao in the same terms as the Cold War anti-communists. (17) They criticize revolutionary nationalism and reject the true Communists who understand that the vast majority of the First World population is thoroughly reactionary. These are not merely opportunist errors of Maoist organizations, they are systematic, reactionary errors. (18)(19) (20) This isn’t too say that there are not legitimate criticisms to be made of the communist tradition. However, the criticisms made by the Trotskyists and crypto-Trotskyists are, even when they happen to be correct, part of a reactionary package that must be rejected as a whole. Even a broken clock is right twice a day, but that is not any incentive to buy the broken clock.

Contrary to Trotskyist claims, the experiences of the Soviet Union and China are proof that it is possible to build socialism in unfavorable conditions. In fact, revolutions are always born in unfavorable conditions. Revolutions happen, as Lenin stated, in the weakest links. They happen when the old society is failed. The proletariat and its allies are very resilient. They have shown that they can overcome the problem of development. By the end of the Stalin era, for example, the Soviet Union had become an atomic power and had become a match for the West technologically. They had raised life expectancy to nearly the level of the West. (21) Real existing socialism has shown that development and empowerment of the masses is not an antagonistic contradiction. Empowering the masses is key to development, as Mao understood. The Soviet Union and China, under proletarian leadership, traversed in a few decades what took hundreds of years and the bloody legacy of imperialism to accomplish in the imperialist nations.

According to Trotsky-con Stephen Schwartz, there is “a psychological, ideological and intellectual continuity” between Trotskyism and conservatism. (22) Some might suggest that these Trotskyist-to-conservative political evolutions are accidental, just coincidence. Although similar conversions can be found among the social democratic “left,” which has been hostile to communism from the outset, it would be hard to find such a congealed group of Washington ideologues coming out of any other trend claiming to be “socialist.” At bottom, Trotskyism is First Worldism. It fights for the First World against the Third World. In this respect, it is not different than any number ideologies in the First World, including fascism. Long before they embraced conservatism, the Trotsky-cons were advocating imperialism and White chauvinism. All Trotskyists are Trotsky-cons at heart.

Notes

1. Sam Manuel. “Jew-hatred, red-baiting: heart of claims of ‘neo-con’ conspiracy ” The Militant Vol. 68/No. 24 June 28, 2004 http://www.themilitant.com/2004/6824/.html

2. Dale Vree. “What Is A Neocon? & Does It Matter?” New Oxford Review December 2005
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news//posts

3. Stephen Schwartz. “Trotskycons? Pasts and Present.” National Review June 11, 2003 http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-schwartz.asp

4. Writings of Leon Trotsky, , “Ukrainian Independence and Sectarian Muddleheads.” Pathfinder Press, New York: 1973. Also see: http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=trotskyukraine.txt

5. Leon Trotsky. Writings of Leon Trotsky: NY: Merit Publishers, p. 124 (quoted from MIM, http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/classics/text.php?mimfile=trotskystalin.txt)

6. Harry Haywood. Black Bolshevik Liberator Press Chicago, Illnoisa USA 1978 p 178

7. Tony Cliff. The theory of bureaucratic collectivism:A critique 1948 http://www.marxists.org/archive/cliff/works/1948/xx/burcoll.htm#n12

8. Stephen Schwartz. “Trotskycons? Pasts and Present.” National Review June 11, 2003 http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-schwartz.asp

9. John B. Judis. Trotskyism to Anachronism: The Neoconservative Revolution Foreign Affairs, July – August 1995 http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19950701fareviewessay5058/john-b-judis/trotskyism-to-anachronism-the-neoconservative-revolution.html

10. Leon Hadar. “The “Neocons”: From the Cold War to the “Global Intifada”” April 1991 http://www.washington-report.org/backissues/0491/.htm

11. Paul Greenberg. “The ‘Shocked’ Treatment” Commentary December 9, 2005 http://www.washingtontimes.com/commentary/-1714r.htm

12. Flirting with Fascism June 30, 2003 http://www.amconmag.com/06_30_03/feature.html

13. John B. Judis. Trotskyism to Anachronism: The Neoconservative Revolution Foreign Affairs, July – August 1995 http://www.foreignaffairs.org/19950701fareviewessay5058/john-b-judis/trotskyism-to-anachronism-the-neoconservative-revolution.html

14. http://www.lycos.com/info/albert-wohlstetter–paul-wolfowitz.html

15. Trotsky’s ghost wandering the White House National Post June 07, 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/trotskys_ghost_wandering_the_white_house.htm also see

16. Bob Avakian. For a Harvest of Dragons. RCP Publications. USA:1983. p 150-151. “ ….to cling to at least aspects of Lin Biao-ism. Lin Biao was a top leader of the communist Party of China in the 1960s and he is associated with the line of singling out U.S. imperialism for a common onslaught from the “third world,” with simultaneous national liberation wars defeating U.S. imperialism throughout the “third world,” and even possibly destroying it altogether. His line (as expressed in a 1965 pamphlet [written by Lin Biao], Long Live The Victory of People’s War) represented the absolutizing of what was then the principal contradiction in the world (between oppressed nations and imperialism) — raising it out of context of world relations and contradictions in which it actually exists and treating it as a thing unto itself and virtually the only significant contradiction in the world. While recognizing the existence of revolutionary situations and favorable revolutionary prospects in many countries in the “third world” it exaggerated this into a tendency to treat the “third world” as an undifferentiated whole, ripe everywhere for revolution. Related to this, in upholding the importance of armed struggle as a necessary means for replacing the old order with the new and insisting on the fact that in many places in the “third world” it was possible and necessary to make armed struggle the main and immediate form of struggle — in opposition to the Soviet revisionist line that attempted to make economic development the main task in the “third world” neo-colonies — Lin Biao’s line exaggerated this to a point of virtually insisting that everywhere in the “third world” revolutionary warfare could and must be launched right away (in Long Live the victory, whether one dares to wage a people’s war is made the touchstone of distinguishing Marxism-Leninism from revisionism). As part of this whole line, the objective fact that the proletarian revolution had been delayed in the imperialist countries and that there was as yet no proletarian revolutionary movement there was absolutized, so that the prospect of such revolution in the imperialist countries was all but dismissed…
…But to attempt to cling to Lin Biaoism in the world situation of today, with all its profound changes since the 1960s, including the principal contradiction, can only have very serious and disastrous consequences…”

17. Bob Avakian. From Ike to Mao And Beyond Insight Press USA:2005 p 241-245

18.  Bob Avakian in a Discussion with Comrades on Epistemology-
On Knowing and Changing the World Revolutionary Worker #1262, December 19, 2004 http://revcom.u s/a/1262/avakian-epistemology.htm

19. Bob Avakian. Conquer The World https://irtr.org/archive/marxleninmao.proboards43.com/index797a223fb67a05dea8905ab852594d01.html?board=math&action=display&thread=

20. Bob Avakian. From Ike to Mao And Beyond Insight Press USA:2005 p 245

21. Maoist Internationalist Movement. Stalin page http://www.etext.org/Politics/MIM/faq/sovietcomputers.html

22 Trotsky’s ghost wandering the White House National Post June 07, 2003
http://www.prisonplanet.com/trotskys_ghost_wandering_the_white_house.htm

post

Documents show Stalin went to great lengths to stop Hitler

stalin-poster-08

Documents show Stalin went to great lengths to stop Hitler

(llco.org)

In 1939, Stalin tried to make a deal with the West against fascist Germany. Recently declassified archive documents show the extent that Stalin went to in an attempt  to stop Hitler by offering an alliance to Britain and France on August 15, 1939. According to the documents, Stalin offered to commit one million troops to stand watch on the German border to deter Hitler from expanding World War 2. According to one source:

“The Soviet offer – made by war minister Marshall Klementi Voroshilov and Red Army chief of general staff Boris Shaposhnikov – would have put up to 120 infantry divisions (each with some 19,000 troops), 16 cavalry divisions, 5,000 heavy artillery pieces, 9,500 tanks and up to 5,500 fighter aircraft and bombers on Germany’s borders in the event of war in the west..” (1)

Had the deal been taken seriously, Stalin was prepared to up the level of support to double the number of Hitler’s fielded forces at the time. However, Stalin was rebuffed by the West.

A week later, August 23, 1939, Stalin made a treaty with Hitler after Germany attacked Poland. Stalin’s detractors criticize the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact as a purely opportunist move on behalf of a power hungry Soviet dictator. However, these documents indicate that, on the contrary, Stalin attempted to prevent World War 2. According to Major General Lev Sotskov, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact would not have happened had the West accepted Stalin’s offer of an alliance. It was only after being rejected by the West that Stalin was forced to sign a pact with Hitler in order to buy time to build up Soviet military strength.

Conservative leader Neville Chamberlain in Britain and the French had earlier, in 1938, enabled Hitler by allowing the German annexation of the Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia in the Munich agreement. The West warned Czechoslovakia not to invoke its treaty with the Soviet Union. The reality is that the West had more of a de facto treaty with Hitler than the Soviet Union. Later, the Soviet Union, not the West, would do the bulk of the fighting against the German armies.

It is estimated that around 50 million people died in World War 2. The Soviet peoples suffered 27 million deaths, more than all the other allied nations put together did. Stalin tried to prevent this catastrophe, the West sold-out humanity and enabled the Nazis. More than any single leader, Stalin prevented the victory of fascism in Europe.

The Western view of Stalin was shaped by imperialists, fascists, and other anti-communists, especially Trotskyists. In Russia, Stalin is viewed very differently. In poll after poll, Stalin, a Georgian, tops the lists as a great Russian leader. (2)(3)(4)(5) This latest revelation about Stalin shows just how skewed Western history is.

Notes

1. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew….ops-to-stop-Hit ler-if-Britain-and-France-agreed-pact.html�

2. Surprisingly enough, many Russians still miss Stalin’s strong handhttp://english.pravda.ru/russia/history/10-07-2008/105747-stalin-0

3. Last Tsar Leads Stalin in Poll on Greatest Russian http://www.javno.com/en/world/clanak.php?id=165426

4. GEORGIA: GEORGIAN PUBLIC CHOOSES STALIN AS IDEAL LEADER – POLL.(Brief Article)http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6465/is_200108/ai_n26275688�

5. Could Josef Stalin be made a saint? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnew….de-a-saint.html

post

Which side are you on?

revisionism

Which side are you on?

(llco.org)

There are many characteristics of the New Power of the Leading Light, the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.  The New Power is the collection of revolutionary institutions created to replace the Old Power, the bourgeois state, institutions of civil society, etc. Leading Light states:

“Marx wrote that the old society is pregnant with the new. The New Power is, in part, the new state in miniature that arises within the old society. For awhile, both the Old Power and New Power exist side by side, which is why Lenin called this phenomenon “dual power.” The New Power is composed of independent institutions of the oppressed. The New Power includes the network of people’s institutions led by the Communist Party that rise up within the old society to challenge the Old Power. All of these institutions are directed by communist leadership to battle for hegemony with and, eventually, sweep away and displace the Old Power. In Lenin’s time, the main organs of the New Power were the Soviets, or worker’s councils. The Bolsheviks, led by Lenin, rejected the call to participate in a coalition government within the old state. Instead they demanded ‘All power to the Soviets!’”

The institutions that make up the New Power must move toward and aim at Leading Light Communism, the end of all systematic oppression. To achieve this the New Power has to be led by the most advanced revolutionary science. This means that the New Power is led by the Leading Light. These are important features of the New Power. However, there are other important aspects of the New Power.  The New Power is a state of a new type in miniature. And, as Lenin pointed out, all states by their nature are instruments of class rule. All states have a dictatorial aspect whether they are outwardly democratic or authoritarian. Thus the New Power is an instrument of class rule. It is an instrument by which one class oppresses another. The New Power is a weapon that the proletariat wields against the reactionary classes. Mao quoting Lenin:

“Why did Lenin speak of exercising dictatorship over the bourgeoisie? This question must be thoroughly understood. ‘Lack of clarity on this question will lead to revisionism. This should be made known to the whole nation.’”

One of the underlying themes of revisionist literature is the denial of the necessity of the New Power,  the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, as an instrument of class rule by which the proletariat protects and advances the revolution against reactionary classes. A common theme of revisionism is rejecting the need to destroy exploiting and oppressing classes as classes, destroying Old Power. A common theme of revisionism is to deny this aspect of the New Power in favor of collaboration with the class enemy.

The New Power should be understood as the most advanced scientific rule by those social groups that have a material interest in the elimination of all systematic oppression. The New Power is the most scientific rule by those social groups with an interest in Leading Light Communism over those that do not. While it may be true that all humans, conceived in the abstract, have an interest in ending all oppression, the reality is that humans are situated in social structures, in the here and now. Aristotle famously stated that humans are social animals. The human experience is always already situated in society, mediated by society. Thus individuals occupy very different positions in existing social hierarchies. An individual’s social position tends to determine the potential range of an individual’s behavior. People with wealth and power tend to seek to preserve the system that has given them wealth and power. For the rich and powerful to seek to preserve and expand their position and power is for them to be class consciousness. When they act to preserve or increase their position, they are acting in accordance with their class interest. At times, those without wealth and power can also seek to preserve the power of their exploiters and oppressors.  However, in such cases, the poor are acting against their own class interests. Therefore, when the poor act to preserve the system, they have false consciousness because they are acting against the interests of those in similar social positions. False consciousness amongst the poor is very common because they lack education, organization and proletarian leadership. The exploited and oppressed are taught that the system is just and necessary. Even so, because the poor are exploited and oppressed, they have less interest in maintaining the system. The poor, as a group, can be motivated for revolution in a way that the wealthy cannot be. The poor can be mobilized to fight for their class interest for revolution. This is why the proletariat, the global poor, is the social base for revolution just as the bourgeoisie, the global wealthy, is not. The job of the Leading Light Communist is to advance the class consciousness of the global poor, to give them to tools to liberate themselves, to arm the poor with revolutionary organization and science, to build New Power, to serve and lead the people.

The revisionist rhetoric from Kautsky to Khrushchev to Liu Shaoqi to Deng Xiaoping, in various ways, rejects the class nature of power, especially state power. Instead, the revisionist downplays or outright rejects the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, the New Power, as an instrument of class rule over the exploiters and oppressors.  Their rhetoric states or implies an abandoning of the goal of communism in favor of  a dictatorship of the whole people, of all social classes. Instead of advocating proletarian New Power to eliminate all class, they advance the position that all social classes can live in harmony, that the contradictions between social groups can all be mediated through the state, and, ultimately, through themselves. Lenin criticized the outlook of the social democrats that sought to eliminate contradictions within their own countries by cannibalizing other countries through imperialist war. Later, fascists would adopt a similar view to the social-democratic imperialists of Lenin’s day. They saw the state, as an expression of nation, as standing above social conflict, above class struggle. Mao identified a new type of bourgeoisie that had arisen in the Soviet Union and China to reverse the revolution. This new bourgeoisie expressed itself in similar terms. They tended to see themselves as a technocratic, managerial elite above class struggle. Whatever their self-conceptions and rhetoric, the reality is that their rhetoric is an expression of class struggle by the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. They restored capitalism by neutralizing and suppressing class struggle by the exploited and oppressed in the name of social harmony. They rejected the state as an instrument of class war. The revisionists did not do so openly at first. They sought to mask their bourgeois nature.  Later, after their counter-revolutions were completed and capitalism restored in the Soviet Union and China, the revisionists openly declared their capitalist sympathies. However, at first, they “waved the red flag to oppose the red flag.” In order to expose revisionism, it is necessary to see through its many disguises. Study the past.

downattwinoaks-preview-preview-1

The first eight words of Mao’s Selected Works are: “Who are our enemies? Who are our friends?” Mao called the question of friends and enemies the question of first importance for revolutionaries. To answer this question incorrectly can transform a communist into a fascist. To answer it incorrectly can turn a servant of the people into a servant of Empire. To answer it incorrectly can lead to a rejection of the New Power, of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, in favor of the bourgeoisie. Today, First Worldism is one of the main forms of revisionism. First Worldism intersects with almost all other forms of revisionism. Two of the most common and poisonous revisionist forms are First Worldist feminism and First Worldist workerism. Both fail to understand the correct balance of forces in the world. First Worldists answer the question of friends and enemies incorrectly.  Thus, like the revisionists of old, they end up rejecting class struggle by the real proletariat in the Third World in favor of social unities that do not exist. They end up serving the bourgeoisie in its attempts to neutralize class struggle by the proletariat. The First Worldists dumbly claim that a basis for unity exists between most First World and most Third World peoples even though all evidence points to the contrary. They agitate on behalf of “all workers” without pointing to the fact that First World workers have long ceased to be part of the proletariat, that they have long entered the ranks of the bourgeoisie. First World workers are really just a First World working bourgeoisie. First Worldists agitate on behalf of “all women,” which mostly means First World women, without pointing out that the privilege of First World women is to a large degree a result of the imperialist, semi-feudal, patriarchal oppression of Third World women and men. First Worldists do not advocate the New Power of the proletariat of the Third World over the First World. They do not advocate for a reduction of First World privilege and power. Instead, they advocate more privilege and power for enemy classes, more privilege and power for most First World peoples. In the real world, this means a tightening of the screws on Third World peoples, including Third World workers, Third World women and men. When First Worldists agitate on behalf of the working bourgeoisie of the First World or the First World gender aristocracy, they are agitating for more privilege and power to those who already have more than their fair, equal share on the global level. They agitate for those whole lifestyles and privilege are incompatible not only with socialism, but incompatible with planetary survival. Some First Worldists tell their audiences in the First World that they are entitled to their wasteful consumerist lifestyles. Other First Worldists teach they are entitled to more “alternative lifestyles,” “community,” “gardens,” “wild spaces,” counter-culture, etc. This isn’t to say it is always wrong to agitate around “alternative lifestyles,” “community,” “gardens,” “wild spaces,” counter-culture, etc. However, such agitation must be done so under Leading Light leadership, within the context of Global People’s War, with politics firmly in command. Such agitation has to be done in the context of strengthening the New Power and reduction of First World entitlement. Despite superficial differences in style amongst First Worldists, they all agitate on behalf of First World groups for more entitlement. Whether it is a shopping mall or a hippy commune, both exist on Indigenous land, both exist within the context of Empire. Agitating for more First World entitlement implies more imperialism against the Third Word to prop up the diverse range of lifestyle options for First World peoples. Whatever the intentions of the First Worldists, they objectively advocate for less for Third World peoples, including the vast majority of those who work and the vast majority of women. And what happens when the small pockets of First Worldist sects and collectives cannot deliver on their utopian promises to raise everyone’s boat globally? Those they politicized, the lower and middle strata in the First World, will turn to those who may deliver the promise to increase First World privileges. First World lower and middle strata will back their own overlords in yet more imperialist policies and wars in order to receive the increase in power and privilege that the First Worldists have claimed they so deserve. Similarly, First World women align over and over with First World men against both Third World women and men. Just as First World workers have been transformed into a labor aristocracy, a type of new bourgeoisie, due to imperialism, so too have First World women been transformed into a global gender aristocracy, an aristocracy made up of First World men and First World women that align against Third World men and Third World women. In whatever forms they take, the social-democratic expansion of life options in the First World is connected to the restriction of life options in the Third World.  Expressions of First Worldism in the First World are always expressions of Empire:

“There is the socially conservative fascism of the Nazis and there is the social fascism that disguises itself as ‘left,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘social-democratic,’ ‘socialist,’ ‘communist,’ ‘feminist,’ etc… The Leading Light is about ending all oppression, including all gender and sexual oppression. However, one does not fight gender oppression globally by creating a happier empire, by creating more privilege in the First World, by smoothing over contradictions among First World enemies. Unless such work is providing some service to the Leading Light such activism simply becomes another face of the system.”

First Worldism has many faces. First Worldists can be more openly fascist or they can be wolves in sheep’s clothing. First Worldism has many flags, the pink or rainbow flag of liberal Empire and the black flag of traditionalism. They can even wrap themselves up in red, leftism, humanism, utopianism, hippy and new-age counterculture, etc. Mao warned us of those who “wave the red flag to oppose the red flag.” Regardless, First Worldism of all colors is reactionary. First Worldism rejects the New Power of the proletariat in favor of advancing class enemies. It is yet another face of the Old Power. Ultimately, First Worldists deny that an antagonistic contradiction exists between the First World and Third World, between the First World working bourgeoisie versus Third World workers. They deny that an antagonistic contradiction exists between First World women versus Third World women. First Worldism rejects class struggle in favor of non-existent social unities. Whatever the First Worldist intentions, the result is imperialism. By contrast, the New Power of the Leading Light is an instrument of proletarian rule. The New Power is an expression of the Global People’s War by the Leading Light against the First World and its agents. The New Power will be imposed on the First World whether the people of the First World desire it or not. The New Power is an instrument of global equality and sustainability. The New Power is a weapon to abolish the wealth and power of the First World.  The New Power is an instrument of rule by the global proletariat over its enemies. The New Power fights against the First World as a whole, including the global bourgeoisie and gender aristocracy. As Marx stated, “the proletariat cannot achieve victory without breaking the resistance of the bourgeoisie, without forcibly suppressing its enemies.” Today, this means breaking the resistance of the First World as a whole, including the First World working bourgeoisie, First World men and women. The New Power of the Leading Light is a mighty weapon to elevate the Third World in its struggle against exploitation and oppression.

post

A letter from a reader: Do all Americans live like Bill Gates?

suburbia-01-obs

A letter from a reader: Do all Americans live like Bill Gates?

(llco.org)

We received the following letter:

“I do not agree with the positions of Leading Light

At the time of Marx sub continent was a colony of British Imperialism. Many other Asian countries along with Afrcian and Latin American countries were colonies of European Imperialist Countries. But there was also exploitation going on in Britain , France , Holland and other world powers.

Marx condemned this Imperialist exploitation along with the exploitation of workers inside those European countries and raised the slogan of “workers of the world unite!”

At the time of Lenin difference between First and Third world was also there. Russia was a backward country whereas Germany , Britain , USA etc. were advanced capitalist countries. But Lenin always emphasized the role of International unity of working class.

Lenin and Trotsky built Third International which was also called Communist International or Comintern. In which comrades from all countries around the world were welcome.

If we will condemn the workers of advanced countries or consider them same as capitalists and Imperialists then we will make a big blunder theoretically.

There is a big class divide even in advance capitalist countries of West. There are billionaires and there are people who live in poverty. Many live in difficult economic conditions.

Though these conditions are much better than those in backward countries but how can one say that there is no class divide exist in USA , Britain , France .

Does all people in USA live like Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, Oprah Winfrey etc? No”

LLCO replies:

Thank you for raising important issues. True revolutionary scientists, Leading Light Communists, do not fear debate. True revolutionary science, Leading Light Communism, is an all-powerful weapon that can solve the problems facing humanity and our planet today. We thank you for having the courage to engage with new scientific breakthroughs. Dogma must be left behind if we are to really win. The exploiters, their intellectuals and intelligence agencies, have been perfecting the science of oppression. To defeat the oppressors, we must perfect the science of revolution. It is absolutely imperative that we spread Leading Light consciousness amongst the masses.

There are several points that need to be addressed.

1. It is true that Marx witnessed the birth of earlier phases of imperialism. Marx commented on the crimes of imperialism across the world, in places as diverse as Ireland and India. Also, Marx raised the slogan “workers of the world unite!” in the Manifesto. Even so, just because Marx raised a particular slogan does not make it true. Similarly, just because Lenin and Mao asserted something does not make it true. Marx, Lenin, and Mao were not infallible gods. Marxism is not religion. True Marxism is not simply what Marx said. True Marxism, today Leading Light Communism, is the most advanced form of revolutionary science. True Marxism, Leading Light Communism, is applying the most advanced science to the problem of ending all oppression. Real scientists do not appeal to Marx the way that Christians appeal to the Bible. Just because Marx called on all wage earners to unite a century and a half ago does not make such a slogan eternally true. Just because something may have been true then does not make it true now. It is important to elevate science, not metaphysics.

Marx raised that slogan a century and a half ago when  the world was very different. Marx looked at the trends he witnessed in Western Europe at the time, especially industrial England. He saw that as England was industrializing, two great classes were emerging: the capitalist class and the class of wage earners. Marx identified the latter class as the proletariat of his day. In the Manifesto, Marx projected that this pattern would be repeated globally. As it turns out, the world developed in more complex ways. In his more scientific works, like Capital Vol. 3, Marx began to note that all workers did not have the same relationship to the means of production. Even in Capital, Vol. 1, Marx speaks of “how industrial revulsions affect even the best-paid, the aristocracy, of the working-class.” In addition, Engels, toward the end of his life, noted that imperialism had a profound impact on the class structure of what would become the First World. For example, Lenin quotes Engels as early as 1858 as stating:

“The English proletariat is becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy, and a bourgeois proletariat as well as a bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world, this is, of course, to a certain extent justifiable.”

Arguing with the social-imperialist revisionist Kautsky, Engels stated:

“You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy? Well exactly the same as they think about politics in general. There is no workers’ party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal Radicals, and the workers merrily share the feast of England’s monopoly of the colonies and the world market.”

Lenin too noted changes in class structure resulting from imperialism:

“Imperialism has the tendency to create privileged sections also among the workers, and to detach them from the broad masses of the proletariat.” (1)

China’s great Maoist general Lin Biao pointed to important transformations in the global system since World War 2:

“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.” (2)

Great Marxists of the past stated many things. At times, they noted the tendency of imperialism to transform some workers into a new type of bourgeoisie. At other times, they made statements contradicting this. Other writers have also noted the effect of imperialism on the class structure of the First World. However, the Leading Light was the first to fully understand and synthesize  global class analysis scientifically. It is not important to list all the quotes one way or another. Reality is what important, not what Marx, Engels, Lenin, or Mao may have said. It is important to realize that, in the case of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, they were writing at a time when the First World had not fully formed as the First World. The different statements in their work reflect the transitory period of the time in which they wrote. Today, there are imperialist countries of the First World, like the United States, that lack a significant proletariat. There are also imperialist, semi-imperialist, and emerging imperialist countries that retain a significant proletariat as Russia did in 1917. It may have been correct in Marx’s day to raise the slogan “workers of the world unite!” even in imperialist countries. However, it does not apply to today’s First World.

2. When Marx described the proletariat, the modern revolutionary agent, in his day, he was describing the emerging industrial worker in Europe. Marx described the proletariat as only making enough to reproduce his own labor from day to day. Marx described a class that was only paid enough to survive, not enough to accumulate. Marx described the proletariat as having no other income source but its labor. Marx described a producer class. Marx described an exploited class. Marx described a class that toiled in misery, a class that “has nothing to lose but its chains.” Marx described it as a revolutionary class.  Even if we were to accept Marx’s description of the modern revolutionary social base, the proletariat, as religious scripture, Marx’s characterization of the proletariat would not describe most workers in the United States and other First World countries. Firstly, most workers in the United States do not produce. Most are employed in management, services, and distribution. Industrial production has been in decline for a long time in the United States. The value that props up the economy of the United States is mostly created outside the United States. Just as the traditional bourgeoisie is parasitic, so too does the working bourgeoisie of the First World receive its income through exploitation of the Third World. Secondly, the First World working bourgeoisie often receives income and wealth from sources other than its labor. Many earn interest on bank accounts, receive social-democratic benefits, own stock — often through retirement plans, own small businesses, etc. They are not the simple worker that Marx described. Thirdly, they are not exploited in any significant sense. They currently earn more than they would under an equal system, a socialist system. Their lifestyle of consumption isn’t even ecologically sustainable. They would lose out under socialism, materially speaking. Fourthly, they do not toil in absolute misery as Marx described. They usually work in relatively comfortable environments. They earn vacation time. Their experience and lifestyle are closer to their own bosses than they are to the average Third World person. Fifthly, they have far more to lose than their chains. Sixthly, there is a whole history that confirms that the working bourgeoisie of the First World aligns more with its own overlords than with the proletariat of the Third World. They are not a revolutionary strata.

3. You ask the question whether all people in the USA live like Bill Gates? Does the man who makes a billion dollars (83,272,800,000 BDT) live the same as the man who makes a million (83,272,800 BDT)? Does the man who makes a million dollars (83,272,800 BDT) a year live as the man who makes 60,000 (4,910,000 BDT) dollars a year? Of course not. There is a great deal of stratification amongst exploiters (and exploited) everywhere. This is true in the First World also. A billionaire receives more of the social surplus than a millionaire. This does not mean that the millionaire is exploited. A millionaire receives more of the social surplus than a man who makes 100,000 (8,327,280 BDT) dollars a year. This does not mean the man who makes 100,000 dollars (8,327,280 BDT) a year is exploited. A person who makes 30,000 dollars (2,498,000 BDT) a year is not exploited either. The average person in the United States is not exploited either:

“The average ‘Joe American,’ who is 25 or older, has an income of 32,000 dollars (2,665,000 BDT) per year.  By contrast, most people in the world barely survive on less than 1,000 dollars (83,000 BDT) a year. For example, there are more people in India who make under a dollar a day than there are people residing in the United States. With his high income, the average Joe has access to luxuries and a lifestyle that is far out of reach for most people in the world. With this income a decent house, a car, a computer, stereos, a modern kitchen, swimming pools, education, vacation travel, entertainment, investments, are all within reach of Joe. Joe earns far in excess the value of his labor. With this income, Joe has more access to capital than many capitalists in the Third World. Joe earns far in excess of the amount that would be entailed by an egalitarian distribution of the social product worldwide. In other words, socialism would entail a big pay cut for Joe. He would lose most of his income according to a global, socialist distribution of income. He would lose his American lifestyle under socialism. In other words, Joe has about as much interest in socialism as the imperialist bourgeoisie. And he knows it, which is why again and again Joe lines up with his own bourgeoisie against the Third World.

According to the myth, Joe is a blue-collar worker… The reality is different. The average Joe holds a white-collar office job. These jobs are not the backbreaking, body-wrecking, life-ending jobs that many in the Third World endure. By comparison, Joe’s job is incredibly high paying, comfortable,  with short hours and long breaks. The culture associated with this kind of job has less in common with the work culture of the proletariat of the Third World, and more in common with the work culture of the bourgeoisie. Also, Joe does not identify himself with the global proletariat, those Marx described as ‘having nothing to lose but their chains.’ It is more common that Joe identifies himself with the imperial bourgeoisie.” (3)

We do not oversimplify. Even though the poorest working people in the United States are within the richest 15 percent globally, pockets of genuine poverty and exploitation do exist in the First World, especially amongst the homeless, migrants, drug addicts, etc. However, these pockets of poverty and exploitation tend to be unstable, scattered, and small. They do not provide a significant social base capable of making revolution in the First World. These pockets are surrounded by class enemies. In addition, because of class mobility in the First World, even the most impoverished tend to align with the system rather than against it. Asking people to make revolution is asking them to make sacrifice. It is asking them to risk losing their home, family, and life. Even the poorest in the United States have too much to gain by aligning with capitalism-imperialism. Revolution is the hope of the hopeless. Even amongst the most impoverished in the First World, too much hope remains.

There is only so much value created in the world. The vast majority of people in the First World earn more than the value of their labor. In other words, they directly and indirectly appropriate value from others. They are exploiters. The vast majority of the population in the First World would lose out under an equal distribution of the global social product, under a sustainable socialist system. This is true of both the traditional bourgeoisie and the working bourgeoisie in the First World. Organizing the First World working bourgeoisie around their immediate and mid-term economic interests, organizing around their class interest, is organizing them to secure a bigger piece of the global social product. It is organizing them for a bigger piece of the global pie. However, both the traditional bourgeoisie and working bourgeoisie of the First World already receive more than their fair share due to imperialism. To dangle the carrot of more wealth in front of First World peoples is to agitate for more imperialism. The Third World pays the price. In addition,  the vast majority of the population in the First World have lifestyles that are unsustainable. The bourgeois way of life that most First World people enjoy cannot be maintained forever. The planet simply cannot endure such a parasitic way of life forever. The vast majority of First Word people would see their incomes and wealth reduced under socialism. The global bourgeoisie, including most First World people, as a class have no economic interest in socialism.

Generally speaking, organizing First World peoples along economic lines is a characteristic of fascism and social-fascism, not genuine socialism. Both traditional fascism and social-fascism are an alignment of social forces where the lower bourgeoisie puts pressure on the upper bourgeoisie in order to secure a better deal for itself. The upper bourgeoisie enters into this arrangement with the lower bourgeoisie in the First World in exchange for social stability in the First World and to launch attacks on the global proletariat in the Third World. Since the upper bourgeoisie’s main source of income is imperialist exploitation, increasing the lot of the lower bourgeoisie in the First World usually means an increase in imperialist exploitation of the Third World. Fascism in the First World can take on two varieties. It can appear as traditional, conservative, rightist. Or, it can appear social-democratic, liberal, socialist, communist, leftist. This latter form often “waves the red flag to oppose the red flag.” The latter form is social-imperialism or social-fascism. Currently, there is a resurgence of fascism and social-fascism in the First World due to the economic crisis. The Occupy protests in the United States, for example, do not aim at global socialism or communism. They do not aim to return the wealth stolen by the United States to the Indigenous peoples of North America and Third World peoples. The Occupy protests aim to protect the imperial standard of living of the lower bourgeoisie in the United States. The Occupy movement is contradictory and diverse, but its overall direction is social-democratic and social-imperialist.  This is repeated over and over in the First World. Almost all revisionist parties, all First Worldist parties, are social-fascist in some aspects. By contrast, Leading Light Communists do not advocate for more wealth for the First World. Leading Light Communists advocate true equality and sustainability. For true equality and sustainability, for true socialism, for Leading Light Communism to exist, the First World way of life and the First World must cease to exist as it has. In the First World, the Leading Light organizes First World peoples not for their class interests, but against their class interest to stand with the exploited and oppressed in the Third World. The Leading Light organizes for true global equality and sustainability, not more privilege and consumption for the First World. Leading Lights in the First World advocate a healthier life that is based on global equality and sustainability. Since most First World peoples are class enemies at present, most will reject the communist message.

4. The Third International or “Comintern” welcomed all comrades of all countries. This is the correct line. Politics should be in command, not identity. There are true communists in the First World just as there are true communists in the Third World. Just because the First World as a whole is bourgeois does not mean that true communists do not exist there. Engels was one of the Leading Lights of his day. He came from a bourgeois background. Marx too was not a traditional proletarian. He was from an intellectual background. Lenin was trained as a lawyer. Mao was a privileged peasant who was able to go to school in the city. Che Guevara was trained as a medical doctor. Many of the greatest revolutionary leaders had access to bourgeois education. They had access to the world of science. They also had a foot in the world of the masses. They were bridges, conduits. The most advanced ideas of science passed through them to the masses. They forged ideological weapons that could be wielded by the masses. There are many First Worldist revisionists in the Third World just as there are many First Worldist revisionists in the First World. Also, there are Leading Light Communists, true communists, who are from the First World just as there are Leading Lights from the Third World. The criterion for whether one is a member of the true communist movement is not whether one is rich or poor, First World or Third World, etc. The criterion is whether or not one upholds the most advanced revolutionary science, Leading Light Communism. Leading Light Communism is what it means to be a true communist today. Politics in command. Leading Light Communism in command.

5. There is no scientific reason to claim that the working bourgeoisie of the First World and the workers of the Third World are the same class in any meaningful sense. There is no real evidence to suggest that there is potential for a revolutionary alignment amongst these groups; there is no evidence they share material interests. There is little history of genuine solidarity of any kind. Again and again, the First World working bourgeoisie aligns with its own traditional bourgeoisie in support of the capitalist-imperialist system. Again and again, it aligns against the Third World. The First World working bourgeoisie has far more in common with those above it than they do with the vast majority of humanity in the Third World. Real science is not dogma. Science is about predicting and explaining the world. First Worldism generates false predictions over and over about the revolutionary potential in the First World.  It does not explain the real world. First Worldism is fantasy. Leading Light Communism, by contrast, predicts and explains how people actually align and potentially align. Reality is the basis of science, not what Marx may or may not have said.

The world is much different than Marx described in the Manifesto. Not all those who are paid a wage or salary are revolutionary or potentially revolutionary. Even CEOs are employees of big corporations. They receive a salary, but that does not make them revolutionary. Police earn salaries yet are some of the biggest defenders of the system. The same can be said of management even though they earn wages or salaries. This has long been recognized by revolutionaries. This point can be extended to most First World people as a whole. The First World working bourgeoisie has far more in common in terms of its interests, culture and lifestyle with those above it than with those below it. Many First World working bourgeoisie have more access to capital than many capitalists in the Third World. They have access to capital in the form of loans, credit, homes, land, cars, etc. Just because they happen to earn a wage or salary does not make them revolutionary. Some, not all, earn more than capitalists in the Third World. In addition, ownership in the modern world is not as simple as it was in Marx’s time. Maoists began to discuss a new type of bourgeoisie that emerged in China within the Communist Party. It was not as though Liu Shaopqi or Deng Xiaoping literally owned factories. Yet Mao still called them a new bourgeoisie. Earlier, Lenin began to discuss the role of banks in the socialization of ownership across the bourgeoisie. Today, this socialization has democratized in various ways in the First World. Many of those who work in the First World buy stocks in corporations or own them through retirement plans. They earn interest on their bank accounts from their bank’s investments, exploitation of the global poor. They receive social-democratic benefits and the benefits of their state’s imperialist adventures. Many of those who work in the First World also own small businesses. The person who works in the First World is not the worker or proletarian that Marx described. There has been a kind of socialization of wealth across First World society. What makes First World affluence possible is imperialism, the impoverishment of the Third World. This is why there are never any real, significant socialist movements in the First World. This is why there is no history of real revolution, even though there is a long history of fascism and social-fascism. This is why there is a long history of social democracy, but no socialism.

Real communists represent the exploited, not the exploiters. They represent those who have a material interest in socialism, not those who have an interest in capitalism-imperialism. The world’s resources are not infinite. For the Third World to be equal, the First World must reduce its standard of living. Real communists do not stand for inequality; they do not stand for the preservation of the First World and continuation of exploitation. Real communists stand for global equality and sustainability, not for the continuation of First World privilege and  mindless consumption. We do not stand for the continuation of the imperialist, unsustainable, consumerist, First World, American way of life. We stand for a healthier, simpler, funner, more colorful, more intelligent, more heroic way of life. Leading Lights stand with the global poor who are overwhelmingly concentrated in the Third World. Leading Lights serve the people.

Saying Marx said so is no argument, especially since Marx’s real views are not as simple as they have been presented in your letter. If we are really to make revolution, we must look at reality, not dogma. We are raising the scientific bar. The way forward is clear. Leading Light Communism is the weapon of the most advanced revolutionary science. Armed with Leading Light Communism, led by the Leading Light, the masses will wipe away the old world. Down the First World and its agents! Up the poor peoples of the Third World! Global People’s War of the Leading Light! Our day will come.

Leading Light Communist Organization
June 28, 2012

Notes

1. http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/mt/imp97/imp97b1.html
2. http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/lin-biao/1965/09/peoples_war/index.htm
3. http://llco.org/the-average-joe-amerikkkan/

* currency conversions from June 28, 2012 http://wwp.greenwichmeantime.com/time-zone/asia/bangladesh/currency-bangladesh/index.htm

post

First World Elections, First World Divisions

trumpclinton

First World Elections, First World Divisions

— Jacob Brown

(llco.org)

The Bourgeois First World’s absolute dominance of the world is in decline. Rising labor productivity in the Second World “BRICS” countries is decelerating imperial expansion into and penetration of the Third World. Despite the recent imperialist subversion and aggression against Third World countries across the MENA region and in Latin America, the First World cannot contain the rising Second World (1). The consequences for the internal life of the First World countries has already been felt in Greece and Spain after the financial crisis, with “austerity” measures being imposed by European banks.

This decline of the First World has led to a flaring up of the political divide in the ruling circles of the bourgeois First World. Initially after the end of the so-called “Cold War”, political centrism and moderation was the trend across the First World, with the “end of history” being declared by the First World intelligentsia. Other forces within these imperialist ruling circles, with a Soviet bulwark of opposition gone, saw an opportunity to crush the leadership of Third World nation-states who rejected this “New World Order” in various degrees (2). All of the imperialist aggression, mass murder, displacement, and meddling against the majority of humanity even as recently as 2001 is enough of a testament to this.

But the tendency towards greater unity amongst the Bourgeois World that came into being at the fall of the Soviet Union in 1991, and especially during the so-called “War on Terror” in 2001 is just about finished in 2016. This is a form of inter-imperialist rivarly within the First World that is distinct from inter-imperialist rivalries of the 20th century, which formed around opposing blocs imperialist powers. The rhetoric between the “progressive” bourgeois forces employing pseudofeminist rhetoric and phony “internationalist” NATO intervention and open trade trade on the one hand, and the macho white nationalist forces calling for closed borders and genocide of Third World migrants to the First world on the other hand, has never been more intense with Europe and North America. The essence of this is fascism of two types; fascism (3) and social-fascism (4).

The First Worldist “communist” proves they are in unity with imperialism and fascism when elevating an “elect the crook to stop the racist” strategy, rather than elevating the New Power of the Leading Light. The end result is social-fascism. And this is still fascism, just a more “politically correct” fascism by 21st century bourgeois sensibility standards. Something that is heard increasingly often among “progressive” neocolonial talking heads of the First World internal colonies on the major imperialist media outlets is “We are not all poor” (5). The implication is that the First World internal colonies are increasingly integrated as First World co-partners with the First World white nation in the exploitation of the Proletarian Third World. The political forces backing US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton want a continued “War on Terror”, but with a “compassionate” / “progressive” migration policy towards those displaced by such imperialist aggression. And Clinton has certainly proved herself capable of playing the role of First World empress, as her continued championing of the imperialist destruction of Libya in 2011 is evident of.

Conversely, an embrace of white nationalist upsurge as a means to disrupt ongoing imperialist relationships benefiting the First World as a whole tends to have a political “boomerang effect” that ends up with the crushing of revolutionary forces and their allies. White nationalist revanchist rhetoric claiming to “oppose imperialism” is hollow, and a doubling down on militarism is always accompanied. From the rise of Golden Dawn in Greece, the white nationalist forces backing the “Brexit” from the European Union, to US presidential candidate Donald Trump declaring “we should not have invaded Iraq to begin with, but if we were already there we should take oil”, these are fundamentally anti-people forces even as they employ “anti-establishment” rhetoric that superficially appears “anti-imperialist” at times. Regardless of the First Worldist social-fascist using this more “stereotypical” white chauvinist fascist as a political foil, fascism of all stripes is to be materially opposed by all genuine communists –Leading Light Communists.

Leading Light Communists do not have a political stake in First World elections. Whoever or whatever the Bourgeois World chooses, the Proletarian World loses. While it is true that “the game is rigged”, it is primarily rigged to benefit the populations of the Bourgeois First World, and not rigged to their detriment. It may be the case that the splits between the imperialist camps within the First World are deep enough that new dimensions of strategic depth have opened up for Leading Light Communists to build the New Power around the world (7). And this would depend on whether or not we can predict what the First World enemy will do, given a particular political configuration of theirs. Nevertheless, building the New Power and the global united front is where the focus needs to be.

Down with the First World elections! No savior from on high delivers! Build the New Power!

Notes:

1. “Think Again: The BRICS”, http://foreignpolicy.com/2012/10/08/think-again-the-brics/

2. “The End of History” Francis Fukuyama, The National Interest, Summer 1989

3. “What is Fascism?”, http://llco.org/what-is-fascism/

4. “Old Power, New Power, Reform versus Revolution”, http://llco.org/old-power-new-power-reform-versus-revolution/

5. http://alldigitocracy.org/joy-reid-bernie-sanders-ghettos-in-america-debate/

6. http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/08/donald-trump-thinks-america-was-too-nice-to-iraq/495971/

7. http://llco.org/leading-light-simple-talking-points-to-use-with-other-peoples-forces/

Relevant quote:

“6. We call for a new internationalism; we cannot rely on enemy help. We should not count or rely on intra-imperialist conflict. The overall trend has been toward a system of global imperialism, the global domination of the Bourgeois World as a whole. This situation is similar to how Lin Biao said imperialism and social-imperialism still had contradictions, but that they had reached reconciliation overall in their joint exploitation of the global countryside…”

 

post

What is fascism?

mussolini

What is fascism?
from MIM (2002)

(llco.org)

Here MIM culls some of the defining characteristics of fascism from classic texts of the Third International: Dimitrov’s report to the 7th world congress of the COMINTERN (1) and Dutt’s “Fascism and Social Revolution.”(2) Applying these principles today, we can say that even though the imperialists have not implemented fascist measures against the exploiter majority in First World countries, the imperialists are the principal prop of fascism in the oppressed nations. This is why MIM wages a concerted fight against nationalist social-democracy and fascism in Europe. Both are strains of militant parasitism; both support the status quo of oppression in the Third World.

1. Fascism is “the open terroristic dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic, and most imperialist elements of finance capital.”(Dimitrov, p. 2)

2. Fascism is an extreme measure taken by the bourgeoisie to forestall proletarian revolution; it “expresses the weakness of the bourgeoisie itself, afraid of the realization of a united struggle of the working class, afraid of revolution, and no longer in a position to maintain its dictatorship over the masses by the old means of bourgeois democracy and parliamentarianism.”(Dimitrov, p. 2) “The conditions [which give rise to fascism] are: instability of capitalist relationships; the existence of considerable declassed social elements, the pauperization of broad strata of the urban petit-bourgeoisie and of the intelligentsia; discontent among the rural petit-bourgeoisie, and finally, the constant menace of mass proletarian action.”(Dutt, p. 88)

3. Fascism concentrates each imperialist bloc into a single economic unit while at the same time increasing between-bloc antagonisms and advancing towards war. (Dutt, pp. 72-73)

4. Fascism promotes chauvinist demagogy (e.g. reducing the problem of parasitism to the “Jewish Question”) and anti-science obscuratinism (e.g. Dutt, pp. 54-58 or any Jerry Bruckheimer film). Fascism hypocritically adopts Marxist critiques of capitalism, and bourgeois democracy.(Dimitrov, pp. 6-7) It does this to “utilize the discontent of the petit-bourgeois, the intellectual, and other strata in society.”(Dutt, p. 89)

5. Still, fascism may not completely dispense with bourgeois democracy–e.g. banning revolutionary parties or even competing bourgeois parties–depending on “historical, social and economic conditions.”(Dimitrov, p. 4)

6. Both bourgeois democracy and fascism are forms of the class dictatorship of finance or comprador capital (in imperialist and semi-colonial countries, respectively)–that is, both use organized violence to maintain the class rule of the oppressors over the oppressed.

Hence, any differentiation between bourgeois democracy and fascism is a strategic or tactical matter–not a matter of Marxist principles.

7. The difference between bourgeois democracy and fascism is a matter of quantitative changes leading to a qualitative change. The qualitative differences are relevant to us in terms of their effect on our policies towards non-proletarian classes. “The accession to power of fascism is not an ordinary succession of one bourgeois government by another, but a substitution of one state form of class domination of the bourgeoisie–bourgeois democracy–by another form–open terrorist dictatorship. It would be a serious mistake to ignore this distinction, a mistake liable to prevent the revolutionary proletariat from mobilizing the widest strata of the working people of town and country for the struggle against the menace of seizure of power by the fascists, and from taking advantage of the contradictions which exist in the camp of the bourgeoisie itself. But it is a mistake, no less serious and dangerous, to underrate the importance of, for the establishment of fascist dictatorship, of the reactionary measures of the bourgeoisie at present increasingly developing in bourgeois-democratic countries–measures which suppress the democratic liberties of the working people, falsify and curtail the rights of parliament and intensify the repression of the revolutionary movement.”(Dimitrov, pp. 4-5; emphasis in the original)

8. Social democrats of the Second International ilk paved the way for the fascists by closely identifying itself with the national interests of their respective imperialists states, denying internationalism, placing their faith in bourgeois democracy and scuttling the extra-legal struggle for state power. Hence they earned the epithet “social fascists.”

9. The COMINTERN United Front policy was based on its assessment that “[f]ascism is the most viscious enemy of the working class and working people, who constitute nine-tenths of the people in [the] fascist [and proto-fascist] countries.”(p. 12) Furthermore, the working class in these countries constituted a unified proletariat. Fascism was eroding the material basis for differences between communist and social-democratic workers.(E.g. Dimitrov, pp. 24-34)

10. The labor aristocracy is majority in the imperialist countries and not proletarian. The fact that the imperialist allow the labor aristocracy bourgeois democracy is an example of the alliance between these two classes and consistent with the following observation from Dutt: “Fascism strives to establish political and organizational unity among all the governing classes of capitalist society (the bankers, the big industrialists and the agrarians), and to establish their undivided, open and consistent dictatorship.”(Dutt, p 89; emphasis added)

Notes:

1. George Dimitrov, Against Fascism and War, New York: International Publishers, 1986.
2. R Palme Dutt, Fascism and Social Revolution, New York: International Publishers, 1934.

On the inverse cripples

On the inverse cripplesthumb-1

(llco.org)

Through Zarathustra’s remarks on the inverse cripples, Friedrich Nietzsche is criticizing modern intellectuals who are revered as geniuses:

“[F]or there are human beings who lack everything, except one thing of which they have too much — human beings who are nothing but a big eye or a big mouth or a big belly or anything at all that is big. Inverse cripples I call them.

‘And when I came out of my solitude and crossed over this bridge for the first time I did not trust my eyes and looked and looked again, and said at last, ‘An ear! And ear as big as a man!’ I looked still more closely — and indeed, underneath the ear something was moving, something pitifully small and wretched and slender. And, no doubt of it, the tremendous ear was attached to a small, thin stalk — but this stalk was a human being! If one used a magnifying glass one could even recognize a tiny envious face; also, that bloated little soul was dangling from the stalk. The people, however, told me that this great ear was not only a human being, but a great one, a genius. But I never believed the people when they spoke of great men; and I maintained my belief that it was an inverse cripple who had too little of everything and too much of one thing.’

When Zarathustra had spoken thus to the hunchback and to those whose mouthpiece and advocate the hunchback was, he turned to his disciples in profound dismay and said: ‘Verily, my friends, I walk among men as among the fragments and limbs of men. This is what is terrible for my eyes, that I find man in ruins and scattered as over a battlefield or a butcher-field. And when my eyes flee from the now to the past, they always find the same: fragments and limbs and dreadful accidents — but no human beings.” (1)

There is the great chemist who knows nothing of Ludwig von Beethoven. There is the engineer who has never read Immanuel Kant. There is the economist who has not read William Shakespeare. There is the historian who knows nothing about Albert Einstein. There is the artist who has never read Karl Marx. There is the sociologist who knows nothing of Isaac Newton’s laws. There is the great physicist who believes in the devil.

Bourgeois education, the university system, is highly specialized. It aims to develop an extreme level of specialization in a single area, usually discouraging broader education. This is not just true of the physical sciences and engineering, but it is true of the humanities. An individual might be highly adept at looking at the world through the lenses of his specialty, but that is all he can do. This allows him to see the problems within his specialty very clearly, but it makes him blind to the broader problems of the world. It also leads to a kind of compartmentalization of knowledge. People are not trained to connect their specialized knowledge to everyday life or to other areas. They have a very disjointed, unbalanced world view. It is kind of like a blind spot in reverse. A very tiny corner of the world can be seen very clearly, but the majority goes unseen and unnoticed.

This phenomenon ripples across broader bourgeois society. The United States has one of the most literate, educated populations in the world. Yet, according to a recent poll, more Americans believe in the existence of a literal hell and the devil than believe in Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution. Eighty-two expressed belief in a god. Seventy-two percent believed that Jesus is God or the Son of God. Belief in hell and the devil was expressed by 62 percent. Seventy-nine percent expressed belief in miracles. (2)

In Zarathustra, the description of inverse cripples passes into a description of society as “fragments and limbs of men,” “ruins and scattered as over a battlefield or a butcher-field,” “fragments and limbs and dreadful accidents — but no human beings.” Nietzsche’s politics are far from perfect, but he is correct that complete humans or what is described as human is not found in capitalism. What Nietzsche should have seen is that the “battlefield or butcher-field” was a humanity ravaged by the violence of imperialism, the exploitation of capitalism, the banality and stupidity of bourgeois society. It is a humanity scarred by bourgeois society where even its great intellectual accomplishments are accompanied by deformity and monstrosity. Nietzsche echoes Karl Marx when he describes the contradictions within and imbalances of bourgeois society, the contradiction of great intelligence and disability, great accomplishment and great banality, existing at the same time, in the same individuals and societies. It is a characteristic of bourgeois society that it can only produce feats of intelligence at the expense of a greater crippling of itself.

Nietzsche’s response to the catastrophe is confused, a mix of nihilism, irrationality, individualism, and traditionalism. Zarathustra places his hopes in a vaguely-described “overman” to surpass man. This is why Nietzsche could be appropriated and misappropriated by German fascism and eugenics. Fascism promised a rebirth of society, vitalism, heroism, but delivered only greater carnage and deformity, both physically, but, more importantly to Nietzsche, intellectually and culturally. Fascism resulted in a great brain drain in many fields, and only produced its own inverse cripples: advances in war technology, and little else. Martin Heidegger actively joined the Nazi movement, hoping for a way out of the spiritual void of modern society. By the end, he too recognized fascism as just another face of a system that promotes techne divorced from more meaningful ways of understanding the world. Following Heidegger, Herbert Marcuse saw both Western liberalism and Soviet society as two sides of the same coin. Despite claims to be very different from each other, both elevate “How to” knowledge over “Why?” knowledge. Knowledge about how to get from A to Z is emphasized without asking why should we be trying to get to Z. They both represent the rise of “instrumental reason” to the exclusion of other modes of thought.

The Soviet experiment was the first really sustained attempt at constructing socialism, attempting to reach communism. Soviet socialism was very influenced by the theory of the productive forces, a view that overemphasizes the role of technology in creating communism and underplays the role of revolutionizing power relations, culture and ideology, i.e. class struggle. It makes sense that if one sees the development of technology as the main force leading to communism, then one’s cultural and educational policies will echo this outlook. Techne will be overemphasized to the exclusion of broader knowledge. Divisions of knowledge and power will be consolidated that echo the liberal West, which has always seen technology as the key to creating prosperity, raising all boats, etc. It makes sense that Soviet society would come to measure itself by the goal posts of the liberal West. And, when Soviet leaders found socialism lacking, Soviet revisionists restored capitalism. Although the Maoist revolution made greater strides in understanding revisionism, capitalism was restored in China in similar ways.

Marx’s answer to the catastrophe, “battlefield or a butcher-field,” of capitalism is communist revolution.  Capitalism produces its own grave digger: the proletariat. In capitalism, science, its methods and approaches, are originally the product of an intellectual world populated by Zarathustra’s inverse cripples. However, it is when science is able to cross from the bourgeois intellectual world to the world of the dispossessed that revolution, overcoming the catastrophe of the modern world, surpassing current society, becomes possible. The great revolutionary leaders are not one-dimensional cripples. Great revolutionary leaders more approximate the ideal of communist multi-dimensional man. They have always had a foot in the world of high culture, the bourgeois-intellectual world, and a foot in the world of the masses. Marx was from a middle-class background, married a minor aristocrat’s daughter, and earned a doctorate. Even so, he dedicated his life to proletarian activism and writing, which landed him in poverty. Marx had a foot in both worlds. Lenin too was from a somewhat privileged background such that he received a university degree. A life of serving the people, of revolutionary work, transformed Lenin into a proletarian intellectual and leader. Mao was from a peasant background, but privileged and well-off enough to be sent off to the city to receive an education. He was radicalized by his exposure to science and ideology from all over the world. Both Lenin and Mao had their feet in both worlds as thinkers and men of action. Revolutionary leaders, the Organization itself, is a bridge by which science, its methods, approaches, etc. cross into the hands of the people, but in this process the ideas are transformed by the revolutionary leadership into weapons that can be wielded by the masses. Genuine Leading Lights act as a kind of transformative bridge to the masses. And in that process, science becomes transformed, forged into a new weapon, into revolutionary science, into all-powerful, awesome, glorious Leading Light Communism. Just as capitalism produces its own demise, so too does the culture of inverse cripples inadvertently aids in its own destruction. The proletarian struggle to end all oppression led by the most advanced revolutionary science ultimately destroys not only the physical brutality foisted upon society, but also the intellectual and cultural deformity. The inverse cripples of bourgeois society are replaced by proletarian intellectuals, people’s warriors, heroes, Leading Lights. The Old Power is killed. A New Power is born. A new, vital, healthy culture is born. Leading Light succeeds where Nietzsche fails.

The revolutionary movement is at a critical juncture. After great defeats in the Soviet Union and China, the proletarian movement is struggling to survive. Leading Lights are just now piercing the darkness. A more advanced revolutionary science, all-powerful, awesome, glorious Leading Light Communism, is emerging. It is the transformative stage. It is moving from leadership to the masses. It is being forged into a mighty sword to place into the hands of the people. The seeds of New Power are just beginning to sprout. True heroes are emerging. At the same time, the effects of bourgeois culture ripple, even more strongly toward the revolutionary movement as our successes mount. Class struggle can intensify as the revolution gains ground. Victories can lead to increased attacks on the Organization by class enemies. In this instance, it manifests as Do Nothingism and Cowardly Lionism. These overlapping errors are often a result of inverse cripples infiltrating or posing as the revolutionary movement.

There are numerous revisionists who mine quotes from the Marxist tradition. They pontificate on all kinds of subjects. They debate on social media about the history of socialism or political economy as perceived through dogmatic lenses. In terms of practice, these “Marxist-Leninists” and “Maoists” are not that different from each other, or heaven forbid, the Trotskyists they so despise. Despite their over-the-top rhetoric, they do very little. At best, they do small forays into First Worldist, movementarian activism. Although they can quote monger the works of Marx, they still have not grasped “Philosophers have hitherto only interpreted the world in various ways; the point is to change it.” (3) They can quote Lenin and Mao, but they have not grasped their meaning. They do not see what should be obvious: Revolution is about power. It is about seizing power, not merely talking or fantasizing about it. The Peruvians use to promote the slogan “Without state power, all is illusion.” The whole orientation of the revolutionary movement must be toward seizing power. If it is not, then all words, all posturing, is just fantasy, illusory. The inverse-cripple revisionist thinks himself oh-so revolutionary, but really he has simply honed the skill of parodying past revolutionaries. Thinking themselves revolutionaries, even revolutionary intellectuals, they have gone to incredible lengths to master this strange talent. They have fine-tuned their art, becoming masters of dogma and cos play. Sometimes they might even appear to the less advanced more sincere and passionate about revolution than real revolutionaries. At the same time, they have developed no other talents. And, whatever potential they once may have had has long since withered away. So, they are nothing but big mouths wearing Mao hats on social media. A few people claim that with binoculars, one can see withered dangling bodies attached to the mouths. Others believe the mouths ate the bodies.

Deviations have always plagued the revolutionary movement. Revolutionary leaders are marked by their origins and the societies in which they exist. The Organization too is marked by its birth. Marx’s works are filled with polemics against the revisionists of his day. They are filled with analysis of the problems of the revolutionary movement. The Communist Manifesto ends with an analysis that traces revisionism and deviation back to its class origins. Lenin advanced this method further. One of the greatest works by Mao is On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party. In this work, Mao looks at the class origin of the mentalities that lead to deviations within the Organization. More than that, Mao proposes specific methods of rectification for each deviation. Part of the idea of criticism and self-criticism is to hammer out and destroy deviations using the collective wisdom of the Organization, to forge the cadre into a mighty weapon: people’s warriors, Leading Lights.

The inverse cripples and other effects of bourgeois decay will remain for the time being. The yappers will yap. The cowardly lions will roar. The jesters jest. Tumblr will reblog. Such is the air of capitalism. Lenin said that we have to be as radical as reality itself. We are scientists and warriors with revolutionary genius and heart. Organization. Leadership. Sacrifice. Duty. Courage. Honor. Respect. Loyalty. These are not mere words, they are the code for winning power. Serve the people; serve the Earth. Live and die for the people and the Earth. We carry our lives on our finger tips. Long Live the all-powerful, awesome, glorious Leading Light! Our sun is rising. Our day is coming.

Notes

1. Nietzsche, Friedrich. Thus Spake Zarathustra. The Portable Nietzsche edited by Kaufmann, Walter. Penguin Books. (USA: 1968) p. 250

2. http://uk.reuters.com/article/2007/11/29/us-usa-religion-beliefs-idUKN2922875820071129
3. Marx, Karl. “Theses On Feuerbach.” 1845 http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/theses/

Summing up "Black Lives Matter" and the rebellions against police terror in the USA

Summing up Ferguson USABuyjzAxCUAENMa6

(llco.org)

On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown, an unarmed, 18-year-old Black man, was fatally shot by Darren Wilson, a 28-year-old white police officer, in Ferguson, Missouri, USA, a suburb of St. Louis. The evidence suggests that the shooting was unwarranted and, in part, racially motivated. As a result, protests occurred throughout the United States highlighting the problem of police brutality  and racism. In Ferguson itself, protests have been continuous since the shooting. A militarized police department occupied the streets there, occasionally harassing and arresting protesters in the mostly Black community. And, after the grand jury chose not to indict Darren Wilson, riots broke out. This resulted in many arrests and much damage to property. Cars and businesses were seen burning in the media. On social media, a new phrase began to find its way across peoples profile pages: “Black Lives Matter”, which then became a loose network of activists across the US seeking to end police terror of Black communities in the United States. While the phrase “Black Lives Matter” was originally coined during the acquittal of self-styled “neighborhood watchman” George Zimmerman in his trial for the murder of 17-year old Black youth Trayvon Martin, the phrase didn’t become widely used until the death of Mike Brown at the hands of Darren Wilson.

It goes without saying the the resistance to police should be supported and strengthened. It goes without saying that national oppression and police terror must be opposed by any means necessary. Those who stood up and spoke up against injustice deserve support. We salute all those who took to the streets against injustice. Leading Light has advanced the line of “resistance in the First World; revolution in the Third World.” Standing against the police terror, white supremacy, and internal colonialism certainly counts as resistance. Even so, we must be materialists about the facts on the ground.

Some First Worldists see the events of Ferguson as heralding some great, new wave of discontent that can be channeled into First World revolution. They embrace ridiculous rhetoric about the Ferguson riot being a people’s war or the beginnings of a new anarchist world. There is even a meme floating around that borrows an image of an Irish Republican woman with a gun that states “arms up, shoot back.” Even with virtually the entire “far-left” of the United States focused on Ferguson, sending activists, etc., it is significant to note that the reports of shots fired on police from the resistance in the past couple years has been few and far between. This is in a country where firearms are legal and easy to acquire. There is a big reality gap between “far-left” rhetoric of First Worldists and conditions on the ground. Ferguson is not the Third World. It is not even Northern Ireland, as the meme suggests. There also is a big reality gap between the rhetoric of the First Worldist “far left” and what they are really prepared to do. This kind of over-the-top rhetoric, guerrilla pornography, might have some limited use at the level of low science, it may work to recruit the unadvanced, but we should not mistake this kind of myth making for reality.

Police terror and mass incarceration exists, and the most directly affected have been overwhelmingly Black and Brown people. National oppression is still an issue in the United States, although the contradiction between the white nation and these internal colonies is not nearly as acute as it once was. As scientific revolutionaries, we have to understand long-term trends, not get swept up in what happens to be in front of us at a given moment. There are very real, material reasons that national liberationist politics do not resonate in the United States nearly as much as they once did. The long-term trend is toward integrating the African diaspora of the United States into a multi-national First World. National oppression will continue within the First World. Every so often, these colonial contradictions may even lead to rebellion and resistance. However, the contradictions are not so great that they will lead to revolution at present. Nor are the contradictions within the First World so great that they can sustain a people’s war. To think as much is simply delusional utopianism.

All things being equal, having people resist the system inside the United States is better than having them not resist. This is true even if the First Worldists doing the resisting are delusional about the revolutionary possibilities within the heart of empire. For those who are not particularly advanced, this kind of resistance can be a healthy way to learn. It can also be a learning moment for others about what is possible at present. Resistance is a good thing. Even so, the most advanced, should not lose sight of the real task. The Global People’s War of the Leading Light will not emerge from within the First World. Our people are the real proletariat, the masses of the Third World. Our duty is to the global poor. Those who are advanced enough to be channeled into real revolutionary work should not get distracted from the main task, even as we offer our material support for such resistance within the United States. We must concentrate our forces against the weakest links of the imperial system. This means our battle is principally in the Third World.

Our future is our own. Long live the Great Strategic Plan! Follow the Leading Light! Be the Leading Light! Long live the Leading Light! Our sun is rising. Our day has come.

Summing up “Black Lives Matter” and the rebellions against police terror in the USA

Summing up Ferguson USABuyjzAxCUAENMa6

(llco.org)

On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown, an unarmed, 18-year-old Black man, was fatally shot by Darren Wilson, a 28-year-old white police officer, in Ferguson, Missouri, USA, a suburb of St. Louis. The evidence suggests that the shooting was unwarranted and, in part, racially motivated. As a result, protests occurred throughout the United States highlighting the problem of police brutality  and racism. In Ferguson itself, protests have been continuous since the shooting. A militarized police department occupied the streets there, occasionally harassing and arresting protesters in the mostly Black community. And, after the grand jury chose not to indict Darren Wilson, riots broke out. This resulted in many arrests and much damage to property. Cars and businesses were seen burning in the media. On social media, a new phrase began to find its way across peoples profile pages: “Black Lives Matter”, which then became a loose network of activists across the US seeking to end police terror of Black communities in the United States. While the phrase “Black Lives Matter” was originally coined during the acquittal of self-styled “neighborhood watchman” George Zimmerman in his trial for the murder of 17-year old Black youth Trayvon Martin, the phrase didn’t become widely used until the death of Mike Brown at the hands of Darren Wilson.

It goes without saying the the resistance to police should be supported and strengthened. It goes without saying that national oppression and police terror must be opposed by any means necessary. Those who stood up and spoke up against injustice deserve support. We salute all those who took to the streets against injustice. Leading Light has advanced the line of “resistance in the First World; revolution in the Third World.” Standing against the police terror, white supremacy, and internal colonialism certainly counts as resistance. Even so, we must be materialists about the facts on the ground.

Some First Worldists see the events of Ferguson as heralding some great, new wave of discontent that can be channeled into First World revolution. They embrace ridiculous rhetoric about the Ferguson riot being a people’s war or the beginnings of a new anarchist world. There is even a meme floating around that borrows an image of an Irish Republican woman with a gun that states “arms up, shoot back.” Even with virtually the entire “far-left” of the United States focused on Ferguson, sending activists, etc., it is significant to note that the reports of shots fired on police from the resistance in the past couple years has been few and far between. This is in a country where firearms are legal and easy to acquire. There is a big reality gap between “far-left” rhetoric of First Worldists and conditions on the ground. Ferguson is not the Third World. It is not even Northern Ireland, as the meme suggests. There also is a big reality gap between the rhetoric of the First Worldist “far left” and what they are really prepared to do. This kind of over-the-top rhetoric, guerrilla pornography, might have some limited use at the level of low science, it may work to recruit the unadvanced, but we should not mistake this kind of myth making for reality.

Police terror and mass incarceration exists, and the most directly affected have been overwhelmingly Black and Brown people. National oppression is still an issue in the United States, although the contradiction between the white nation and these internal colonies is not nearly as acute as it once was. As scientific revolutionaries, we have to understand long-term trends, not get swept up in what happens to be in front of us at a given moment. There are very real, material reasons that national liberationist politics do not resonate in the United States nearly as much as they once did. The long-term trend is toward integrating the African diaspora of the United States into a multi-national First World. National oppression will continue within the First World. Every so often, these colonial contradictions may even lead to rebellion and resistance. However, the contradictions are not so great that they will lead to revolution at present. Nor are the contradictions within the First World so great that they can sustain a people’s war. To think as much is simply delusional utopianism.

All things being equal, having people resist the system inside the United States is better than having them not resist. This is true even if the First Worldists doing the resisting are delusional about the revolutionary possibilities within the heart of empire. For those who are not particularly advanced, this kind of resistance can be a healthy way to learn. It can also be a learning moment for others about what is possible at present. Resistance is a good thing. Even so, the most advanced, should not lose sight of the real task. The Global People’s War of the Leading Light will not emerge from within the First World. Our people are the real proletariat, the masses of the Third World. Our duty is to the global poor. Those who are advanced enough to be channeled into real revolutionary work should not get distracted from the main task, even as we offer our material support for such resistance within the United States. We must concentrate our forces against the weakest links of the imperial system. This means our battle is principally in the Third World.

Our future is our own. Long live the Great Strategic Plan! Follow the Leading Light! Be the Leading Light! Long live the Leading Light! Our sun is rising. Our day has come.

Bangladesh is in chains, literally

Bangladesh is in chains, literallyChild working in a brick crushing factory in Bangladesh

(llco.org)

In his Communist Manifesto, Karl Marx wrote that the proletariat had nothing to lose but their chains. Marx was speaking figuratively. By the time Marx wrote, Europe had mostly abolished slavery, at least officially. Marx was speaking to the wage slavery of the free laborer, who nonetheless suffered intense poverty in the Europe of the past just as free laborers suffer today in the Third World. In our land, our people suffer not just from “wage slavery” of the free laborer, but also slavery in its most vicious and barbaric form still exists even though it is now the twenty-first century. And it is only getting worse with the globalization of capitalism. Slavery, human trafficking, in Bangladesh is now tightly bound to the global market.

In 2012, it was estimated that between 330,000 and 360,000 of our brothers and sisters are enslaved. Bangladesh was tenth on a list that ranked the countries in which slavery was practiced.  Slavery has historically been concentrated in the countryside, where semi-feudal conditions and traditions are strongest. Much of the land and power in the countryside is held by landlords. The masses are so poor that we live on a razor’s edge. Many of our families live under constant threat that we will lose everything. Many of our families have already lost everything. We are driven off the land. We are hungry. We are sick. We fall into debt that we can never escape from. Ourselves and our children become slaves to the local landlords, userers, capitalists, and criminal organizations. Many flee to the city for a better life only to be met with dissappointment. There the feudal barbarism mingles and mixes with the cruety of liberal capitalism. The innocent suffer the most. Our children are turned into beasts of burden by the overlords of the country and city. Or women and daughters are stolen and placed into bondage by sex traffickers. Their bodies are sometimes exported to be consumed on the global market. The bodies of our people are just another commodity to the empire:

“She comes into the room swaddled in a red sari, carrying big premature black bags under her eyes. She tells her story in a slow, halting mumble. Sufia grew up in a village near Khulna in the south-west of Bangladesh. Her parents were farmers; she was one of eight children. ‘My parents couldn’t afford to look after me,’ she says. ‘We didn’t have enough money for food.’  And so came the lie. When Sufia was 14, a female neighbor came to her parents and said she could find her a good job in Calcutta as a housemaid. She would live well; she would learn English; she would have a well-fed future. ‘I was so excited,’ Sufia says.  ‘But as soon as we arrived in Calcutta I knew something was wrong,’ she says. ‘I didn’t know what a brothel was, but I could see the house she took me to was a bad house, where the women wore small clothes and lots of bad men were coming in and out.’ The neighbour was handed 50,000 takka – around £500 – for Sufia, and then she told her to do what she was told and disappeared.”

Another story:

“‘Jesse used to tell me that she had bought me as a slave at Tk 40,000 from Monira and Joyati, and therefore, I have to work for free,’ Bedena said.   The couple used to torture her by spraying hot water on her body, stabbing her with hot kitchen knives, and beating her up with sticks and rolling pins, alleged Bedena.   Jesse as usual tortured her Tuesday morning on the pretext that Bedena could not prepare breakfast in time, leaving her unconscious.    She discovered herself in the bathroom after regaining her consciousness.”

And:

“In the face of acute poverty, his father, a farmer, sent him at this early age to the capital to work as a domestic help, said Mohammad Sadek Ali, a cousin of the boy. Another cousin Yasmin brought him along from Kishoreganj to Dhaka city around two and a half months ago and arranged a job for him at a house in Mohammadpur near the mosque.

‘The people at the house where I worked fed me once a day. I was given some rice in the morning and that was it,’…

Masum’s body was scarred all over. Deep purple welts were seen on his back that is already crisscrossed by old scars.  He said he had been hit on the head with a rod and that the scars were from the injuries when the homemaker had flogged him with a bundle of wires.  A black blister was seen on his left elbow. ‘She burnt me here with a hot iron spoon,’ Masum said.  His cousin sister rescued him on Friday as she discovered him in this appalling state.

The child said he had to sleep inside the bathroom. ‘The floor used to be wet.’  He used to do the laundry, drag mattresses up to the rooftop to put them out in the sun and sweep and mop the floor.”

And:

“The exploitative practices centring Bangladeshi workers in Malaysia constitute nothing other than human trafficking; the governments of Bangladesh and Malaysia have not been able to protect the workers’ rights, said Irene Fernandez, a veteran migrants’ rights activist of Malaysia.

When they brought workers in surplus numbers to Malaysia, they were only interested in making fast cash. The outsourcing companies told Bangladeshi job brokers ‘you pay me 500 ringgit per worker and find jobs for them and do whatever’. So, Bangladeshi job brokers then bought the workers from the outsourcing companies, and literally made them slaves. The brokers then told the workers ‘you go and work, I will give you food and lodging’. And the workers were put to work for two, three, or four months.”

The First World is happy with slavery of our people. They do not have to feel or see our pain. They are pleased with the cheap goods that fill their homes. The global corporations say that it is good for business to keep the population controlled. Our sweat and tears fuels the prosperity of their empire. The corrupt politicians do not care about our pain. Their ears do not hear our cries, but only the orders of their imperial masters who pay them well to keep us in chains. The Islamists do not care about the poor, they declare slavery is acceptable in their twisted minds. They would have us be slaves to their barbaric caliph who feeds on the blood of the people. The feudalists and local capitalists do not care, they are the ones who hold the whip for the empire. The liberal NGOs use our pain to extend capitalist control over our lives.

We have nothing to lose but our chains. We say “no.” No to slavery, poverty, hunger, violence, disease, ignorance, cruelty. We are the ones who create the wealth. We are the ones who work. We are the ones who grow the food. We are the vast majority. They need us. We do not need them. We can have the power if we have the courage. We say “yes.” Yes to liberty, land, homes, prosperity, health, jobs, education, dignity. Today we planting seeds in ourselves, in our families, in our communities. Total liberation, total revolution, for our children and their children. We will harvest a revolution, a better world. The future is our’s. One fight. One land. One people. One organization. One leadership. One truth. One Leading Light.

Sources

http://www.irinnews.org/report/85617/bangladesh-the-modern-face-of-slavery

Bangladesh

http://gvnet.com/humantrafficking/Bangladesh.htm

http://bdnews24.com/bangladesh/2013/10/18/bangladesh-10th-on-slavery-list