Social peace and unrest in the First World: the Greek events
75 Comments 
Posted under: economy, Europe, fascism, First Worldism and social imperialism, Greece, statements, USA
Social peace and unrest in the First World: the Greek events
(llco.org)
We have often stated that social peace in the First World is a result of terrible violence and oppression inflicted on the Third World. Contradictions in the First World have become non-antagonistic due to the tremendous amount of value that flows from the Third World to the First World. First World peoples as a whole align against Third World peoples as a whole. Even so, important distinctions can be made within the First World. Here are some important things to remember:
1. First World countries are not all the same. There are wealthier and less-wealthy First World countries. The wealthier First World countries are countries like the United States, Canada, England, Australia, Japan, Germany, etc. The less-wealthy First World countries include many countries in eastern Europe, Greece, Portugal, etc. What we are talking about is a continuum here. Some countries fall toward the ends of the continuum. Switzerland falls toward wealthier pole, for example. Others in eastern Europe fall toward the border between Third World and First World. Many countries fall in the middle of the First World continuum. In addition, there are more stable First World countries and ones that are crisis-ridden or unstable. For example, the United States and Canada are very stable First World countries, Greece is unstable at present.
2. Contradictions in these countries can play out in very different ways, often corresponding to where a First World country falls on the continuum and whether it is crisis-ridden or stable. In the most wealthy countries of the First World, the high standard of living among the population eliminates antagonistic contradictions from their societies. So much value flows into these societies that their populations become well-fed, complacent, docile, depoliticized. Their populations fall asleep in a kind of Disneyland of consumerism. The populations of these countries as a whole are too busy partaking of the consumerist free-for-all to consciously care about much at all about articulated politics. Apart from supporting the system as a whole, the lower strata of society in these countries do not fight especially hard for their particular interest vis-à-vis the upper strata, because they are largely satisfied and do not have to do so. Stability within the First World also deadens contradictions. The entire populations, for the most part, of these First World countries, more or less, align as part of the imperialist bourgeoisie. A kind of political nihilism prevails. Although overt and aggressive fascism can exist, it fails to gain the kind of traction it does elsewhere. In the United States, for example, overt and aggressive fascist groups like the Ku Klux Klan exist, but they are marginal today. Anti-migration groups and pundits exist, but their ability to affect society is limited to a set of small-range of policies and culture. At present, the idea that an overt and aggressive fascist organization could take over the United States to enact a radical and overt reorganization of society is far fetched. This is also true of neo-Nazi groups in Germany. Although they exist, they are not poised for a takeover. They do not have the ability to significantly disrupt and radically reorganize society as a whole.
3. Contradictions within less-wealthy or crisis-ridden countries within the First World play out differently. In these countries, contradictions, although non-antagonistic, can still become sharp. In terms of potential alignment, there are important differences between the upper and lower sections of society. In these countries, the “working class” or “labor aristocracy” can still fight especially hard to protect its interests within society as a distinct subgroup; it still fights hard against the upper strata. The First World populations as a whole are part of a global bourgeoisie, but there are still potentially sharp conflicts within that bourgeoisie in the less-wealthy countries of the First World. This is also true of crisis-ridden and unstable First World countries. Instability and sharp changes in standard of living downward can sharpen contradictions within the First World in a reactionary way. The part of the bourgeoisie known as “the labor aristocracy” in these countries, in seeking to protect and advance its position, can become a living and active social base for the most aggressive and militarist forms of fascism. As the standard of living falls drastically or becomes threatened, the lower strata reacts sharply. In seeking to advance and protect itself, this section of society can be mobilized in support of a more militarist and more aggressively imperialist radical reorganization of First World society. While the upper sections of society can advocate a more regularized, orderly, globalized kind of imperialism, the lower sections can advocate for a more nationalistic, militarized, racist, arbitrarily brutal form of imperialism. Such overt, aggressive fascist calls are almost always tied to an economic carrot being dangled in front of the lower or middle sections of First World society. This is why economist demands for First World populations, whether by the social-democratic left or racist right, amount to largely the same thing.
4. We must guard against movementarianism. We must not romanticize action and numbers. In places like the United States today, there are more sports riots than political riots of any kind. There are more beer riots on campuses than political riots nowadays. This points to a general malaise within the wealthier and stabler countries within the First World. By contrast, in places like Greece, there is still a sharp, but non-antagonistic contradiction within society. The current demands on the streets of Greece are not communist, socialist, progressive demands that Greeks give up their First World standard of living and consumption level to benefit the proletariat in the Third World. It is not an internationalist demand. Instead, the First Worldist populists in Greece, both “left” and right, are advocating for an accommodation with the system that protects and advances their First World way of life. They are protesting to retain their imperial standard of living. Just because people are on the streets, just because some wave red flags, just because the break windows or set fires, just because a few intellectuals pretend it is 1917 all over again and spout off internationalist slogans, does not mean a movement is progressive. Social imperialism, social fascism, is a very real phenomenon.
The flow of value to the First World is not uniform throughout the First World. There are some areas of the First World that are much richer than others. There are also some countries in the First World that are richer than other countries in the First World. There are also areas and countries within the First World that are more more stable and less crisis-ridden. Those countries whose populations are the most well-fed, whose life is secure and stable, are, in important senses, the most docile. Those countries that are closer to the middle between the First World and Third World and those countries in the First World that are more unstable and crisis-ridden, will have the potential for having more reactionary volatility. The rise of overt and aggressive fascism to challenge and reorganize the status quo in these countries is a more realistic possibility. We need a science of revolution that describes the actual reality of social alignments, not make-believe ones. Not every protest is progressive. Not everyone who waves a red flag is a communist.
75 Comments + Add Comment
Deja un comentario / Leave a comment / Mag-iwan ng komento / Hinterlasse einen Kommentar / Αφήστε ένα σχόλιο
Leading Light Essentials
The section numbered ’4′ does not correspond either with what is going on in Greece in June 2011 nor what I witnessed there in 1957. What seems actually to be going on is that the First Worldist capitalist class has been and continues to treat poor workers there as Third World people. Even the poorest Greek workers are generous to even poorer workers, as I witnessed when visiting the family of a tobacco worker who was being held on a prison island. Come on guys, be fair to the Greek workers – they would be only too happy to help workers elsewhere if only they weren’t so poor themselves.
In the past we have stated that in case of economic and political crisis, when the First World standard of living is being reduced or endangered, it is more sensible that the First World masses move to the right, engaging in more and more reactionary politics, than moving to the left, demanding of the grand bourgeoisie more drastic measures against the weak, in order to save their position. This position is now confirmed by the latest events in Greece.
Being in the lower positions of the First World continuum, this country has been an intermediate situation. Both apolitical consumerism and episodes of class struggle, riots have been present. However, the past two years, along with other countries, Greece is in deep crisis, near bankruptcy. Austerity measures are being taken, the Greek labor aristocracy had not seen for 60 years. Public fortune is being sold quickly and cheaply to the loaners. It is indeed the most difficult conditions the Greek labor aristocracy has faced in decades. In their blindness, the First Worldist prophets think this is finally their chance. How did the labor aristocracy respond to the new situation however?
As we speak Greece is preparing to sign a second memorandum (that’s how it is called here) in order to receive a huge loan of around 100 billion Euros, following the first memorandum of 110 billion that was signed in 2010 with EU and IMF. This also means a new austerity program following the first of 2010 but this time also the quick selling of the country’s state companies, like the public company of electricity, national service of water supply etc as other natural resources like nickel, lignite, gold, petroleum, gas and so on.
The First Worldists have the habit of telling that the First World masses are deceived, in order to explain their behavior. To make this more convincing, they treat class as many individuals separately. This way it is possible to find examples that support all opinions. What we need to do here is to understand the resultant, how and why a class is moving the way it moves, not how each individual expresses and conceives this movement.
Facing this situation the Greek labor aristocracy has practiced a careful and balanced policy. Contrary to what the First Wordlists expected, during the year of the first memorandum, save one large demonstration, there was no other massive response to the austerity program that accompanied it. Not only Greek society was able to absorb the consequences, due to the already high standard of living, but she chose to show good behavior towards the First World family.
Now that the second memorandum approaches, and following the example of Spain, there is a movement in Greece of the “frustrated citizens” gathering in city squares protesting the austerity measures. This is the first really massive and persistent response since the crisis began. Not only did not the Left organize this movement, but its presence is violently forbidden by the “frustrated” masses parliamentary or not. The organizations of the Left have to strip themselves of their identity, in order to be present. A strange coexistence is also evident in this movement. Anarchists, social democrats, nationalists, fascists, everybody is in the square all united while disguising as apolitical. The momentum seems to be with the nationalists and the fascists. Truly enough, this movement is reactionary both in style and goal. The goal is to secure the right to a First World way of life. As the article says, it is not an internationalist movement. Keep in mind that the NATO bombers are still flying from Crete to Libya. There has been absolutely no protest against this.
At the same period, animosity against immigrants is growing rapidly. There have been race riots. Even many of the First Wordlist left parties openly say that most of them must leave, bowing in front of the will of the masses.
Now there seems to be a split in the Greek labor aristocracy. Despite all of the above, according to a recent poll, only 47,5% is against signing the new memorandum. An 11% has no opinion. The rest say the memorandum must be signed. It seems that the wiser minority is afraid that if Greece goes against the memorandum Greece’s FW status is immediately endangered through uncontrolled bankruptcy both economically and politically. The others perhaps believe that there is room for pressing against austerity, thinking the EU is not simply going to abandon Greece. Also populism has prevailed among them.
Inside this situation polls indicate that the two big bourgeois parties are losing much of their popularity. The light bourgeois nationalists are gaining a bit, a party that supported the first memorandum but does not dare to support the second. The left is not gaining much.
The revolutionary fascists in Greece seem to become more and more popular. A few years ago there was no such thing as a fascist demonstration. Nowdays :
χhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VF7DRWIpZz0
χhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2NpFNAdljj4&feature=related
χhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uH0rze3scqM&feature=player_embedded
This is not neither to say that a fascist takeover is imminent, nor to think that the Greek society was progressive before. A fascist revolution is unlikely in Greece, because revolutionary fascism cannot apply a program that is in the interests of the majority yet. Despite the current crisis, Greece is still a First World country and this is the most essential condition. It all depends on how the current crisis will continue. What we say see however, is that today the radical segments of Greek society, that are a minority still, tend to turn more to fascism and reactionary racist politics than to the left.
Summarizing, we believe that the Greek labor aristocracy is practicing a carefully balanced policy of complaint and pressure against the government, the EU and the IMF so as to reduce the intension of the austerity program on one hand, of outright aggression against the immigrants on the other. There is no discussion of leaving the EU or any anti – Western sentiment. Not even the First Worldist rhetoric is popular. Far from being ignorant and deceived, ironically the Greek labor aristocracy puts politics in command. Even if it means with a lower standard of living, remaining in the First World family and particularly inside the EU, proves to be the most important thing for her.
If a nation in the low places of the First World continuum behaves that way, we should not expect any better from the richer nations of the First World during a crisis.
Helios states that in the past ‘we’ (does he mean the LLCO ?) have said that it is more ‘sensible’ for the First World masses to move to the right. Surely most communists would only regard that as ‘sensible’ for capitalist interests ! We should remember that the Greeks hated being occupied by the nazis, fought against them and, after World War II, fought in a civil war against the right-wing dictatorship. Large numbers of workers support the communist movement in Greece today, as distinct from any pro-fascist minority radical segments trapped in bourgeois ideology.
I don’t think that ‘the Greeks hated being occupied by the Nazis’ is a very strong argument. If every country which has resisted Nazi occupation must be uncritically regarded as having revolutionary potential then that would include many imperialist ones.
After World War II and the Civil War, the sheepish ‘communists’ were torn between Yugoslavia and the USSR and were no longer seen as being able to satisfy the material interests of the masses. The Greek economy then was opened up to the extreme, currency was lowered and foreign investment flowed boosting infrastructure development and creating the foundations for what would soon be a new addition to the list of parasitic countries.
Stalin realized the lack of revolutionary potential in Greece. He knew that it was in the western imperialists interests to have a Greece with social peace, that it was in their interests to buy them out. This is what made the ‘miracle’ of the Greek economy possible as well as being initially an affordable and profitable investment destination.
“Large numbers of workers support the communist movement in Greece today”?? What kind of communist movement thinks that a mainly (40% services, 12% non exploited ‘productive’ sector) unproductive workforce with some of the highest wages in the developed world, and ease of access to great amounts of capital can possibly deserve more?
It is simple, the Greek ‘working class’ has no material interest in a more egalitarian distribution of the world’s wealth.
In reply to Comrade XJ, of course imperialist countries should not be regarded uncritically, but if he thinks that all imperialist countries lack revolutionary potential, whether or not they were once occupied by the nazis, then that seems to be at variance with Leninism.
The interests of the First World mAsses are capitalist. Comrade Helios’s comment is correct.
There was a strong communist movement in Greece; the united $nakes had to install a junta to get rid of it. What sort of communist movement is there in Greece today? As Comrade Helios said, the Greek “left” doesn’t even oppose the use of Greek territory as a military base for the imperialist invasion of Libya. The Greek “communist” movement, such as it is, is mostly First Worldist and therefore reactionary.
Yes the LLCO.
It is more correct to say that there is a percentage of the Greek population that supports First Worldist “communist” parties in Greece . This percentage varies, having peaked to around 10%. Most of these “communist” parties demand a basic salary of 1400 Euros. Not bad at all, but not communist. We could promise 3000 Euros basic salary, but that wouldn’t make us more communist, on the contrary it lead us to become pro imperialist socialists, social imperialists.
No wonder you had to go back to the 40′s in order to support your arguement. One of the reasons the “communist” movement you refer to is still breathing, is the fact that it continues to capitalize in a hideous fashion on the anti – Nazi struggle and the Civil War. Back then, the fighters of the Democratic Army of Greece, fighting the fascists while starving with the american napalms flying over their heads, could not imagine that Greece would achieve such a high standard of living under imperialist hegemony, be it American or European.
We will expand in this. Greece was a friction point between the imperialist bloc and the socialist bloc, an interesting case worth analyzing. Before the war, Greece was the second poorest country of the Balkans, surpassing only Albania. We all now what happened the decades after the war.
Roughly two thirds of that €1400 monthly base salary would be superprofits stolen from the Third World. The demand for that much money is imperialist, even it comes from the Greek “workers”.
Roughly two thirds of that €1400 monthly base salary would be superprofits stolen from the Third World. The demand for that much money is imperialist, even if it comes from the Greek “workers”.
Thank you for your reply. I cannot read greek, so I have no way of knowing that the demonstrations you linked on Youtube are fascist. Also, can you please elucidate on how fascists are revolutionaryh?
Thank you.
At about 54 seconds in, there is a banner with a swastika-like symbol. This is the Greek fascist group Golden Dawn. The Greek flags are a big clue.
“Revolutionary fascism” refers to militant fascists who want a revolution and want big fascist changes in society. I think that is how it is being used here. This doesn’t mean they are proletarian revolutionary. They are big-time reactionaries. There are fascists with more radical goals and fascists and less radical goals. I believe he was referring to the radical fascists.
This statement by the LLCO is very provocative. I believe that LLCO is the only organization in the world that has put forward this theory about Greece. Will LLCO be confirmed or the first worldists? This is a test event.
I believe in the scientific method and confirmation. The LLCO trend got it right on Nepal before anyone else. They got it right on Libya. I believe LLCO will get it right on Greece. When the Greek events settle, I believe the dinosaur left will have more egg on their face. I am closely watching Greece. This is the test case. This will make or break who is to lead the ICM.
Excellent analysis by Comrade Helios. Red salute!
http://trzeciswiat.wordpress.com/2011/06/24/porzadek-spoleczny-i-rozruchy-w-pierwszym-swiecie-wydarzenia-w-grecji/
This is polish translate of this article.
Greetings and red salute from Poland, Comrades!
Comrades I have a question. Pardon me if it is stupid or a waste of time to answer. I was wondering whether all countries that form part of the First World are Imperialist in the strictest sense. I have not seen this made explicit, I probably have missed it.
I do understand that the overwhelming majority of the populations that make up these countries earn much, much more than the value of their labor and hence are net beneficiaries of imperialism and exploiters of the Third World, enemies of the proletariat. But what if this is in the absence of monopoly capitalist corporations, one of the defining characteristics of an imperialist economy?
Is it accurate to see it this way: that these countries (the lower First World with little or no direct military or corporate presence in the Third World yet high recipients of the unequal distribution of global wealth) are to U$ Imperialism what non communist anti-imperialists are (or will be) to Maoist Third Worldists?
Just as the Broad United Front Against Imperialism (consisting of communist and non communist anti imperialist movements) will be lead by the LLCO opposed to this we can say that the First World consists of a ‘coalition of reaction’ led by US Imperialism where all members are not explicitly imperialist but have a material interest in the continued oppression and exploitation of the Third World.
I’ve realized that all First World countries have majority non productive workforces, wages much higher than the monetized value of labor, high standards of living, great access to capital, healthcare etc. but not all First World countries have large financial sectors and monopoly capitalist corporations.
Sorry if it seems like I’m babbling, I just want to ensure that I use the world ‘imperialist’ correctly, whether or not it is interchangeable with ‘First World’.
Also I was wondering how valid “Purchasing power parity (PPP)” is in conducting research on global inequality?
Red Salute comrades! I hope everyone is donating and translating so the glorious LLCO can continue the construction of the spiritual atom bomb which will do away with all class distinctions, economic exploitation, social oppression and backward ideas!
Imperialism, as defined by Comrade Lenin, is the stage of monopoly capitalism, in which the imperialist powers export finance capital to the Third World so as to extract superprofits from the Third World. You are right, comrade, to observe that not all First World countries are major exporters of finance capital. Some First World countries may therefore not be imperialist themselves, but they are part of imperialist formations. A few First World countries that may not be imperialist are Liechtenstein (essentially a tiny extension of Switzerland), Kuwait (whose wealth comes almost exclusively from exports of petroleum), and the Cayman Islands (offshore banking and tourism). Note that these places tend to be very small. More importantly, they owe their First World status to their relationship to imperialist countries.
Purchasing-power parity is a means of adjusting exchange rates to account for differences in prices in the various countries. We may use it sometimes, for certain purposes.
I don’t think that we need to confine ourselves to Lenin’s view. The imperialist system has been evolving for the last century. It would make sense that it has changed in important ways. Instead of seeing individual countries as imperialist, perhaps we should look at countries as part of the broader imperialist formation, part of the First World. The imperialism of today takes different forms than the empires of the past.
Indeed, we don’t have to confine ourselves to Comrade Lenin’s view. Although Liechtenstein does not run a monstrous empire that ships superprofits from Asian and African neo-colonies to Vaduz, it is part of an imperialist formation. Liechtenstein gets its wealth not from neo-colonies under its thumb but from German imperialism, Swiss imperialism, Brutish imperialism, French imperialism, Yankkkee imperialism, and so on.
Red Fred,
The situation in Greece in 2011, is a very different one to what you have probably witnessed back in 1957, and this should not be a surprise. Today’s Greece is a First Word country with a good proportion of its population being parasitic. The alignment of Greece with the west and the First World in general, was becoming apparent from the end of the Greek Civil War in 1949. The outcome of the 1946-1949 Civil War was of special importance with massive short and long term effects, and it is not an excageration to say that formed the modern Greece. Not to mention that this was the third time during the 20th century that Greece found on the side of the powerful and final winners of the confrontation. The continuing post war inequalities on the allocation of the social product laid the foundations for the construction of the post war left in Greece, with indeed significant social base during the 50′s. However this development did not lead to a new Civil War (or anything like it), which is largely attributed to the options offered by the western world, which Greece was gradualy becoming part of it. The large amounts of money poured in the country in conbination with the massive immigration towards the Belgium mines and the German factories, absorbed the concentrated tension and had an immediate effect on the political developments internaly (Many Greeks are still spending, in the infinite coffee places across Greece, money from the German pensions of their imigrant workers parents, which by the way are the equivalent of one or two daily salaries in third world terms). During the first half of the 1960s, as social peace was evolving the left started loosing vital space from a new political coalition the ‘Kentro’ (Centre) which was expressing the interests of the new bourgeois. The junta that followed later appears to be a small parenthesis to something that was already on the way, Greece to become part of the First world. The last nail on the coffin of the Greek left put during the 80s with the ‘socialist’ party ‘PASOK’ that significantly raised middle and low incomes.
Although during the current economic crisis, the Greek labour aristocracy is in crisis as well, this is not affecting the essential condition that Greece is part of the First World, as correctly stated by Helios. On the other hand, in these crisis conditions for a first World country like Greece, the potential for proletarianisation of small parts of the population exist, but this should not be confused with the illusion of the First wordists for revolutionary potential.
Excellent assessment of the reactionary nature of the Greek Protests and their tendency to move to the right. It is important that the LLCO comments regularly on these First World protests in order to avoid the romanticism that First Worldists would apply to the Greek, Spanish, and Portuguese situations.
These are not revolutions, they are reactionary protests that only seek to uphold the FW standard of living.
And Red Fred: just because the Greeks fought against the Nazis does not mean that social fascism cannot grow in its ranks. The US fought the Nazis and its staunchest “patriots” are Tea Party advocates that support fascist imperialist policy. Fascism hides under many different names and appearances.
Thank you to comrades for all their views criticising some of mine as from June 24, 2011.
I have just received a pack of books and two DVDs from LLCO, which I will study.
Have you seen the websites LALKAR.ORG and CPGB-ML.ORG ?
The archive of Lalkar has articles on Maoism as in editions of Nov/Dec 2009,
Jan/Feb 2008 and July/Aug 2002.
The CPGB-ML website has a recent youtube opposing the NATO attack on Libya,
which runs for about 30 minutes, with the first half showing an address by Harpal Brar,
who has been editing Lalkar for over 25 years and is Chair of the CPGB-ML and a
founder of the Stalin Society in the UK.
The LLCO sells books? And they have more than one DVD???
We have MSH1 and MSH2 and Leading Light 1 and Leading Light 2. We also have LLCO dvd and Troublemaker dvd. Leading Light 3 is in production. We will also be publishing in several other languages soon: Polish, Greek, Portuguese, Tagalog, German, Spanish, etc. By the end of the year, we will have several more publications and another dvd. We also publish local materials through our front organizations.
Comrade XJ, when I wrote that I’d received ‘books’ from LLCO, I was referring in a vernacular way to what strictly should have been described as journals or magazines, namely MSH1, MSH2 and two ‘Leading Light’ editions. Whether or not LLCO sells actual books, please ask LLCO.
The title of the journal ‘Lalkar’ means ‘challenge’, as from languages of northern India.
I haven’t had time to read the whole article nor the responses it has elicited, but I think I understand the arguments on both sides. I think that the “workers” protest movements in the First World are part of a reactionary approach to the question of the crisis. It’not as if we were living in the time of Lenin when the economic side of the struggle was intertwined with the political side. The latter refer to the final goals of the worker movement: the destruction of capitalism and the seizing of power by the proletariat lead by the communist party. Not anymore. You could say that the imperialists have long put a wedge between the economic and the political sides of the First World “proletarian” struggles. More than that, the preservation of capitalist social relations, such as they are constituted in an imperialist continuum which cover the whole world, reinforces the ability, leverage and strength of the First World “workers”. They stand a far better chance of gaining social advantages and improve their wages and purchasing power by making sure the Third World is properly squeezed for ever. If the Chinese workers could increase its purchasing power, the First World workers wouldn’t be able to live the “amerikkkan way” they do thanks to debt. The truth is sometimes hard to swallow. It’s true that the Greek communists fought their fight against the Nazis and in the civil war. But they are totally bought off today. You can’t say there is a communist will of REAL change to true SOCIALISM among the “masses” in Greece today. They are angry because they have lost some of the advantages coming from their status as a FW labour aristocracy, they don’t want to make revolution, they don’t want to destroy capitalism, much less to go through the sacrifices such an endeavour would entail. I`m sorry to acknowledge this. Marx used to say that the proletariat was the force which had nothin to lose, no privileges to worry about, that they could only lose their chains, and because of that, only their particular interest –among all the particular interests in capitalist society— could be the interest of everyone. Only they could fight for total liberation. This is not the case in Greece, Spain, Portugal… Sorry guys, as comrades say around here, Revolution will come from the darkest places. United Front politics is another thing I’m not able to elucidate as yet.
I believe what you are seeing in Greece is symptomatic of what is happening in the West and First World in general.
The Western labor imperialist class is in “revolt”–not against capitalism–but against the erosion of the privileges and wealth that they have historically benefitted from for decades as citizens of imperialist nations.
Behind all their Leftist propaganda rhetoric is their real agenda: to maintain their own imperialist wealth and privilege against the Third World.
This is why you will most likely see populist nationalism and related fascist ideologies gaining ground in Europe and Anglophone countries, as their standards of living decline.
Furthermore, the idea that there are no imperialist nations (only a broader “imperialist formation”) is disingenous at best. The political effect of this argument will be to provide political cover for American, European, and alllied imperialist nations to deny their own imperial nature.
The fact that this assertion is most likely being promoted by “leftists” of America, Europe, or allied nations is thus purely self-serving and not coincidental.
Most of these “international” or “globalist” imperial formations like NATO, IMF, World Bank, etc. are merely internationalist proxies and puppets for the United States and its criminal allies.
I think we may be talking about two different things.
There are plenty of “self-serving” so-called “leftists” who deny the imperialist aspect of lesser European powers, Japan, or even the Black nation because they act as though the only imperial culprits are the White nation or the United States and England plus the larger European powers. There is even a party calling itself Marxist-Leninist in Australia that claims that the current regime there is comprador and the country is a neo-colony to the United States or something along these lines. To deny that all of these populations are part of a broader imperialist formation, i.e. the First World, downplays global class analysis. It tends to gives a pass to all of these populations. It also gives a pass to various anti-American fascist and social fascist groups.
The real question in the background here is: how should we think of imperialism? Does the world today look like Lenin’s world? Lenin was in a world where the European powers, literally, occupied and divided up Africa for themselves. They fought over colonial possessions. They drew and redrew borders as they pleased. King Leopold appropriated the Congo as his own backyard. This scramble to exploit colonies eventually led to cycles of world war. Intra-imperialist contradictions were very sharp. They led to world wars that severely weaken capitalism as a whole. The Bolshevik breakthrough happened as the capitalist system was in the crisis of the first world war. The Chinese revolution, which involved a quarter of humanity, came about in the context of another world war, another world crisis. Does imperialism today look like the imperialism of Lenin’s day with national empires slugging it out? Will the USA go to war with France? Germany? Russia? Will there be another cycle of intra-imperialist world war that will weaken the system enough for another revolutionary breakthrough? Or is the world situation more like the one that begins to emerge in Long Live the Victory of People’s War! by Lin Biao? Where the imperialist countries are spoken of as belonging to a “global city,” a First World, a broader unit of analysis? And does this deaden intra-imperialist rivalry? And is the enemy really the First World as a whole, with the United States playing a special role within that broader formation? Is the main trend toward disintegration of imperialist unity and toward intra-imperialist conflict? Or is the main trend toward a kind of pan-First World integration? Or is it something different? How we answer these questions play a big part in how we make revolution. For example, if one has the Lin Biao view, one tends to write-off the idea of playing one imperialist against another. One tends to stand for pan-Third Worldism, pan-Third Worldist self-reliance, and global people’s war. Unity of the Third World is the answer to how to fight unity of the First World. Now, if one doesn’t think the First World is a kind of whole, if one thinks it is about to bust apart at the seams in intra-imperialist conflict, then a rebel force in one country might choose to ally with one imperialist power to launch itself into power there, while another rebel force might ally with the competing imperialist power to launch itself into power. Instead of pushing Third World unity, you end up pushing a kind of divide and conquer approach to the First World. Some people call it “divisor politics.” Instead of pushing for pan-Third Worldism and global people’s war, one might push for a kind of people’s war that only looks inward and local, that does not look at how its tactics impacted the broader Third World struggle. These are tendencies.
I don’t think we will see imperialist rivalry as we did in Lenin’s day. And I do not see how speaking of the broader category of First World somehow lets the United States or Europe off the hook. Obviously power and wealth are not evenly distributed within the First World. Obviously, the United States has had a special role within the First World at least since World War 2.
No one here has said that there are no imperialist nations. On the contrary, we’ve said that there are imperialist nations, such as the united $nakes of amerikkka, the “united” kkkingdumb of great brutes in the north of Ireland, and Germany.
The question is whether the First World is equivalent to the set of imperialist countries. Opinions may differ. By the classical Leninist definition of imperialism, it is hard to argue that Liechtenstein and the Cayman Islands are imperialist. Yet they plainly are First World countries. MIM considered the case of occupied Aotearoa (New $tealand) and concluded that it is an “outpost of imperialism”—not an imperialist country per se (although it has a few colonies), but an extension of Brutish imperialism. Similarly, various small, non-canonical First World countries such as Liechtenstein, the Cayman Islands, Kuwait, and Iceland are outposts of imperialism. They exist within imperialist formations.
This discussion shows me that we need to promulgate and use a clear, consistent definition of “imperialism”.
That’s exactly what I was getting at, comrade. In the final analysis, the First World in its entirety is the enemy of the proletariat. I think it is important to define an imperialist country not only as one which has monopoly corporations and the compulsion to export capital abroad to increase profit, but also as one which consists of a population which has a clear material interest in the status quo.
From what I have seen, the dogmatic ‘Maoist’ parties always referring to the enemy as ‘Imperialists and their lackeys’ runs parallel with their incorrect global class analysis. By upholding this, lackeys, being the ‘non imperialist’ countries and their Third World comprador allies, one might get the idea that all countries not explicitly imperialist are in the same camp. This puts the ‘non imperialist’ First World countries in the same boat as the Third World comprador ruled countries.
This leads to incorrect thinking. The overwhelming majority of the people in First World ‘non imperialist’ countries have a clear material interest in the superexploitation of the Third World peoples while the overwhelming majority of the people in Third World comprador ruled countries obviously do not.
I do not think that nitpicking First World countries as imperialist and non imperialist does any favors for the proletariat. Nor would it be unscientific not to do so, since the LLCO’s global class analysis supports these claims. If an imperialist in the past could be defined as being a member of the ruling class in a society with the highest stage of capitalism then we must apply this same definition to today’s world which has become strung together further and further by the globalization of production. Global city/ global countryside, global capitalist class/ global proletariat. The ruling class is the exploiting class, all First World peoples are exploiters.
I think its a case of consistently applying Marxist definitions formed in an earlier part of history to the 21st century world.
There are many analyses of imperialism–and especially imperialist Americanism–today. You don’t need Lenin, Marx, or any other secular Leftist deity to understand it.
Samir Amin, for instance, talks about the “triad” that is the basis of so-called modern imperialism and just so happens to be led by America.
http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/amin070210.html
Moreover, United States is not just another imperialist power.
America is the most powerful empire in human history.
Former National Security Agency (NSA) official, John Perkins, for instance, calls the United States “the World’s First Truly Global Empire.”
Self-Described Economic Hit Man John Perkins: “We Have Created the World’s First Truly Global Empire”
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11964.htm
And Liberal economist Michael Hudson exposes how America’s system of Dollar “super imperialism” has allowed the United Snakes “to obtain the largest free lunch in history.”
Super Imperialism: The Economic Strategy of American Empire
http://michael-hudson.com/books/super-imperialism-the-economic-strategy-of-american-empire/
http://michael-hudson.com/2003/03/press-release-super-imperialism/
You will hear very few supposed US Leftists, for instance, exposing–never mind challenging–this system of American dollar super imperialism.
People like former CIA academic Chalmers Johnson and others have exposed “America’s empire of military bases,” in which the USA has so many imperial outposts that it’s hard to even keep count of them:
Does the Pentagon Really Have 1,180 Foreign Bases?
Empire of Bases
http://www.voltairenet.org/Empire-of-bases
Yet, despite all this evidence, certain (American) Leftists seem allergic to even calling out America or its murderous empire by name.
This refusal to explicitly name and shame America *consistently* in favor of reified abstractions like “First World” has the political effect, if not intention, of minimizing the nature of the enemy or deflecting responsibility from it.
As I said earlier, the fact that many American “leftists” are the ones promoting this political line is not coincidental. They are at base American chauvinists–albeit, with more sophisticated Left political cover.
Whereas the American Right Wing or mainstream attempts to cover for the American Empire (and its crimes) with euphemisms like “Leader of the Free World,” “the international community,” “Coalition of the Willing,” or most hilarious “defending freedom and democracy,” the American Left tries to divert guilt from the USA using Leftish euphemisms like “imperialism,” “First Worldism,” etc.
In all instances, the political effect is the same: to deflect blame away from the USA.
It is very damning that former NSA and CIA figures or pro-USA liberals are more honest and critical of what America truly represents than self-styled Leftists in the USA and elsewhere, who prefer to focus on safer political targets.
Comrade, I’m not aware of large numbers of self-styled leftists that talk about First Worldism. We’re the main ones that use this term. So I suspect that your criticism of the terms “imperialism” and “First Worlism” is directed at us.
We in no way deny Amerikkka’s status as the largest and most vile jackbooted empire in human history. As you’ve noticed, we do focus our fire on the united $nakes. At the same time, we acknowledge that the world has been polarized into two camps—the Third World and the First World, with very little in between. That is an important fact that we should not neglect while attacking Amerikkka as the leading enemy of the international proletariat.
A common reactionary tendency in Europe and elsewhere is to focus on the united $nakes to the point of letting the other imperialist countries off the hook. For instance, many “leftists” will condemn the united $nakes while praising Sweden as a supposedly more egalitarian and progressive society. These “leftists” are correctly anti-Amerikkkan but incorrectly First Worldist. Sweden, which couldn’t exist as such without the united $nakes and its empire, is very much a part of the global enemy, namely the First World.
I am just throwing out ideas here but I am aware that there isn’t comprehensive help for unemployed people in Greece, i.e. no real welfare state (please correct me if I’m wrong). I have heard some Greek unemployed people are going hungry. Surely there is a minority here who are ‘proletarian’ in some sense. OK. maybe this is not enough for revolution but surely these are important allies of the world proletariat. Maybe they are not in a position to seize state power just yet but they could be organised to perform some useful tasks. The world’s proletariat needs to find all the allies it can, surely.
I’d like to see evidence of hunger among the unemployed in Greece.
People unemployed for long periods usually are not proletarian; they’re more likely to be lumpenproletarian or, in the First World, bourgeois (like everyone else in the First World).
If—and it’s a big if—there are a few hungry unemployed people in Greece, they are not necessarily “important allies of the world proletariat”. Do they ally themselves with Third World proletarians, or do they rather clamor for exploiter-level “wages” paid for out of superprofits?
Nobody said life was perfect in the First World. Nobody said pockets of poverty don’t exist. Nobody said, in extreme cases, exploitation doesn’t exist. These populations tend to be numerically insignificant and in flux. This does not add up to any kind of social base nor does it usually add up to any possible alliance between these populations and the Third World. Anyone with a shred of honesty who has any experience in First World organizing knows that we are not dealing with mass bases. We are what we call “gathering up anomalies.” We are not winning people on the basis of their economic interests, but winning people against them. As far as organizing people for useful tasks, we should be doing that. There is no reason that we cannot win hundreds, even thousands, of people in the First World. We just need to win them the correct way. We should not dangle economic carrots in front of them that encourage social/fascism. We need to win them on the basis of appealing to their heart and head, their altruism and their intelligence.
‘Useful tasks’ are mentioned by ‘pf’ on June 29, 2011, 5.25pm. Which tasks by workers in the First World does LLCO regard as useful, along with donating to LLCO ? To know what those are should help to avert a sense of futility, when the main hopes are placed by Maoists on Third World revolutionaries.
I must admit my knowledge of unemployment in Greece is based on anecdotes. I have a lot more contact with unemployed people in the UK. At last count there were 1.48 million people on ‘Job Seekers’ Allowance’ (JSA) in the UK. This give you £65 a week plus your rent paid (if you live in low-rent accommodation). You get £10 less if you are under 26. From my knowledge of life for people on JSA, it is nothing like the experience of the poor in the Third World but it is not a luxury lifestyle either. You can buy cheap food, fuel and cheap clothes and that’s about it. These days you can be forced to work 30 hours a week for this money + having to do ‘jobsearch’ which is monitored by the benefit officials. If you don’t fulfil the latter you can lose 40% of your benefit for 6 months. Bit by bit their existing entitlement is being eroded further by the government.
I do acknowledge the argument about what everyone’s income would be if we distributed existing world income on a socialist basis-and taking everything into account (public services etc.) it would be rather lower than JSA level. But can’t we aim a bit higher than this? Socialism means full employment which would boost world income as there are a hell of a lot of unemployed an underemployed in the world in capitalism. We don’t want ‘equality in poverty’, we want everyone to have a job, a decent, healthy home (i.e. without disrepair, damp, overcrowding etc.), free healthcare (especially by promoting public health- no junk food, tobacco, alcohol, narcotics etc.), free education, cheap public transport and so on. I accept that people on £30,000 a year are difficult to unite with because they have so much to lose in world socialism but I do think a more subtle approach than ‘All First Worlders are bad, (most) Third Worlders are good’ is needed. The world is a dynamic, changing place. It might be that the middle sections of some Third World working classes achieve some sort of affluence (in Brazil?, Argentina?) wheras the lower sections of some First World working classes (in Greece?, Portugal? Spain?) fall into the abyss. We need to be open to a changing world.
Even £65 a week for at most 30 hours of work is a non-proletarian wage. With free rent, it is well above the proletarian level.
Socialism will indeed boost world income. But the boost may not happen quickly enough to improve material conditions for unemployed Britons whose income exceeds that even of many Pakistani engineers, let alone Third World proletarians. Furthermore, the dictatorship of the proletariat will allocate much of the world’s wealth to the improvement of infrastructure and other conditions in the Third World. While we guarantee that everyone in the former First World will have food, housing, education, health care, and work, we cannot promise a chicken in every pot or an SUV in every three-car garage. Material conditions in the former First World are likely to deteriorate substantially before they improve.
We do understand that conditions change. If a revolutionary situation emerges in the “U”K, you’ll hear it here first.
Luckily, there are new great leaders out there who are showing us the way forward. Exposing First Worldism. Michał Rakulski is one such leader. Amihan Malaya is another. Helios and the Greek Leading Lights are another. The Leading Lights here give us hope. They are shining stars. Great leaders are always targeted by little jealous flies. Ignore them. They are insignificant. Stay strong, comrades.
Sure there’s no social base for Revolution in the First World, only for fascist revolution. The situation is similar to that of German Communists living in Third Reich Germany, and even in the aftermath of the Second World War. They had to face and work inside a very hostile society. The problem with FW so-called Communists is that they end up defending social-imperialist policies, because the pressure coming from the labor aristocracy (which covers whole nations) makes revisionism inevitable. To be a Third Worldist is difficult, it’s to be in the minority inside your country, town, company, family, etc., but every Third Worldist should know there is a big majority backing her outside the First World. ¿Futile? A true Communist shouldn’t be faithful to the bourgeioisie but to the proletariat, shouldn’t be nationalist but internationalist, and if the proletriat today lives mostly in the countries of the TW, a true Communist must join forces with them against the countries where 98% of the population are petty-bourgeois and imperialist. The best thing a true Communist could do is to join the People’s War in the Third World, personally. There are examples of this in the history of the Chinese revolution. Edgar Snow went to China, and many others did the same…
My question is: ¿Do you have to be Communist to be a Third Worldist? I don’t think so. I think the case is that many who are not Communist have cast their lot with the oppressed.
Epanastasi wrote on June 30 2011 ‘that the best thing a true communist could do is to join the People’s War in the Third World, personally’. Well, for lesser mortals, I must repeat my earlier question as to what the LLCO wants workers in the First World to do, as well as donate to LLCO ? If we are not going to set off to the Third World, should we confine our ‘activity’ to reading and maybe spreading LLCO publications?
Is there not a very real danger that workers in the First World will become demoralised when told that our only long-term prospect is one of being destroyed by the Third World? Surely a serious communist organization should provide workers in the First World with ‘useful tasks’. What are they?
There are several problems in the way these issues are raised.
Communists should not organize First World workers per se. They should organize anyone they can in the First World for anti-imperialist and communist ends. And they should not focus on workers specifically. In fact, there may be good reason to think that it is less fruitful to go amongst the workers than other First World social groups. Communists should organize First World peoples, but they should not organize them as a class. To organize them as a class is to organize for imperialism and fascism since First World workers are part of the global bourgeoisie. Dangling economic carrots in front of the First World peoples is reactionary whether one waves a red flag or not. Communists need to organize everyone they can in the First World, but they need to organize them against their class, nation, and gender interests. Communists need to organize First World people to stand against their economic interests. Communists need to “gather up the anomalies” in the First World to support the global struggle against imperialism and for communism. Communists in the First World need to appeal straight to the heart and head, not to the stomach. Communists in the First World need to appeal to a sense of justice and intelligence.
What do we do with the anomalies that we gather? First of all, LLCO is a semi-clandestine organization. No serious revolutionary organization wears its detailed plans on its sleeve. LLCO is a democratic centralist, serious, disciplined organization. Our cadre are red soldiers, not interlopers. LLCO is a mighty red fortress. Those who are serious will find their way in. The Leading Lights are the real internationalist communist movement, the true vanguard. We are emerging in many countries in both the First and Third World. What you see online is the tip of the ice berg. Anyone who understands revolutionary science, will understand what LLCO is about. Pay your dues. Get involved. Prove yourself. Politics in command. Secondly, it is not hard to imagine some very broad things that anomalies in the First World can do to help the Third World struggle: anti-militarism, peace struggles, anti-police struggles, anti-racism, revolutionary anti-imperialism, support for national liberation, scientific research, ideological leadership, etc. These are fairly obvious things that can be done. Many activists already do these things to various degrees, although they mix up their progressive work with a bunch of reactionary revisionist garbage (First Worldism, social imperialism, social fascism, idiotic cheerleading instead of real solidarity, etc.).
Donating should not be underestimated. It is an incredibly useful act. We do not make anyone sell items for us. We send more material to the Third World than the First World. LLCO circles are popping up all over. This is not cheap. I give about every dime I make to this cause. I also spend most of my free time writing and organizing. We are advancing the international communist movement to the next stage. It is not a easy thing. We are talking about creating an ideological ripple across the globe, a ripple that will turn into a mighty wave. We have just started. We are only one year old. Even with our early mistakes, the truth of our core message and work we have done in political economy, history, and other areas cannot be denied. We are having a big impact. A storm is coming.
People can nitpick as anarchists and petty bourgeois, opportunist interlopers do about this or that minor aspect of our work. They can pick on marginal issues as a way of distracting from the truth of the core message. Mao called this “pointing one finger against the many.” Is there more work that can be done, refining the analysis? Of course there is. However, even at this early stage of the development of the new stage of science, we can see that Leading Light Communism is far more accurate than anything out there calling itself revolutionary. All true communists are Leading Light Communists today.
I was just just thinking, I didn’t really mean every Communist should go to, say, India and take a gun with the Indian rebels. That would be a foolish thing to do if it’s not organised the way it was in the Spanish Civil War when Stalin ordered the formation of the IB. Communists from the FW are now more useful agitating in the FW and internationally in favour of the oppressed nations and peoples of the world.
No-one is asking for an insight into the internal workings of the LLCO but I do think LLCO needs to have some more idea of what people do if they live among the 1 billion or so ‘First Worlders’. I mean, say you are in Greece and you are unemployed and you are at the intersection of the old Second World and the Third World, geographically speaking…. Are you a class enemy because you are over the Greek border? Not every Turkish worker lives in tragic poverty these days, although the Turkish economy seems to be headed for a fall, admittedly. Is the class divide between Greek workers who are on average still about 3 times better off than Turkish workers (I believe) more than that between Turkish workers and Liberian workers?
As I say, I’m just throwing ideas out here. I think the essential principle of LLCO is that socialists have ignored the question of equality between nations in the past and this has had very negative consequences. I agree with this but the world is a complicated place. Who knows, First World bad, Third World good MIGHT be the underlying correct analysis but I think we have to do a lot more deeper analysis to establish this. Also, the world economy is at a real turning point. It’s very hard to determine its future trajectory.
Don’t forget classic ‘Third Worldism’ states that the bourgeoisie of the Third World has more in common with the Third World proletariat than the Third World proletariat has with the First World proletariat. Is this true? The Tatas will never unite with the Indian proletariat against the US. Are the Third World proletariat friendless in the world, with the First World and Third World bourgeoisie united against them?
I have always rather hoped the poor in the First World (or some of them) could be a friend to the Third World bourgeoisie. We have the example of the Black Panthers, working class nationalist communities in Northern Ireland, Mexican US citizens who support the rights of the ‘illegal’ Mexican immigrants.
You raise some good points about Turkey. The same could be said, I believe, about the “BRIC” countries, Mexico, Argentina, and other countries. It wouldn’t be too much of a stretch to say that the faultlines of “First World / Third World” isn’t necessarily tied to the geographic borders of these countries. Nevertheless, it would be incorrect for us to call India (despite its expansionist policy) or even China “imperialist”, whereas Russia certainly is imperialist in the Leninist sense. Even then, Russia can’t be regarded as “First World” in the same way the United States, Europe, and Japan are. The Russian Federation seems to have the distinction of being a net exploiter nation with a proletarian majority. These are complicated issues regarding global class analysis. You are correct to point out that not everything in the world can be reduced to a crude binary, despite the very real principal contradiction between the First World and Third World.
However, you are incorrect to suggest that the Third World national bourgeoisie is altogether solidly against the Third World proletariat in alliance with imperialism. The example you give of the Tata Group in India is far from universal. For example, Muammar Qaddafi represents the national bourgeoisie in Libya. Right now, in the face of NATO aggression, he is certainly more of a friend of the international proletariat than the Greek labor aristocrat majority could ever be, or any other social group in the First World for that matter. This is true despite Qaddafi’s dalliances with the imperialists in recent times. Such is the vacillating nature of our Third World national bourgeoisie today.
The Tata Group in India is simply part of the comprador bourgeoisie. Its interests are aligned with those of the imperialists that it serves, not with those of the Indian proletariat that it exploits.
Third World and First World do not necessarily line up with national borders, although it does tend to be geographic. When we speak of these things, we are speaking in generalities. Of course these categories can be refined. Even so, even speaking in the most general way, the analysis of Leading Light Communism is far more accurate than the alternatives. If you think part of Turkey is First World or whatever, do an analysis. At some point, we plan to produce a more accurate map of the First World and Third World. However, we need to conceive of this as a continuum. There are paradigmatic First World and paradigmatic Third World areas. And there are other areas that fall elsewhere in the continuum. This is how we need to look at it. Not all of the First World is exactly the same. Not all of the Third World is. This is obvious. And, we have written about this and plan to write more. However, such concerns are rather secondary. Even our rough analysis is more accurate than the refined dogma of the First Worldists. This is a new stage of revolutionary science. It does not simply come into the world fully matured.
You ask us for a deeper analysis. Deepening one’s analysis is always good. However, I have to ask: deeper compared to what? The First Worldism you cling to is based on next to nothing. It is all dogma. The emperor wears no clothing. The First Worldist bubble has been popped. First Worldism has been totally exposed at this point. We will probably continue to kick the dead corpse of First Worldism in an upcoming issue of MSH, but it is hardly necessary. At this point, the First Worldists have lost the ideological struggle. The ICM is moving forward without them.
The last bastion of First Worldism is the attempt to cobble together or invent a social base when there is none. The same individuals who used to condemn MIM, to make fun of them, to sabotage them, are now turning to a dumbed-down version of MIM Thought, although they are too dishonest and ego-centric to call it that. MIM reached their conclusions over a quarter century ago. It is a case of “first time tragedy, second time farce.” MIM’s failures were a tragedy, but pushing it today is a kind of farce. This is not the 1960s. A wave of narrowly-conceived national liberation is not sweeping the planet, China is not rising up in a Cultural Revolution. Conditions are very different. First Worldists are grasping at straws: the Black Panthers, Irish Republicans, Mexican migrants, etc. Whatever proletarian memory remains is rapidly fading in most of these communities. While I hope that these national liberation and civil rights struggles, such that they exist at all, can be channeled in an internationalist direction, they truth is that that wave of national liberation is over and it shows little indication of coming back. In the US, for example, it is foolish to deny that the Democratic Party, liberal activist groups and non-profits are not the main vehicle to address “community” issues. I wish it were not the case. In fact, we generally support national liberation in the First World, even though we recognize that — at present –it is tilting at windmills just as other First Worldism is. We truly wish them well regardless. The simple reality is that nationally oppressed peoples in those communities are simply not looking to sweep away the whole system, to leave their First World privilege. For example, many migrants migrated from Mexico to the US to escape poverty, to survive and partake of First World benefits. We are not dealing with mass bases, we are dealing with anomalies even among the most oppressed segments of First World society. To blame the lack of traction in those communities on the White far left or whatever simply does not correspond to reality. The White far left is a joke, it can barely survive itself, let alone hold back a supposed mass revolution of millions.
We should organize as many First World peoples as possible to stand with the Third World. However, we need to do it without mixing it up with a bunch of First Worldism. We should not pretend there is a social base when there isn’t. We need to stop telling the Third World it can expect revolution or progressive mass resistance in the First World. And to tell those in the Third World otherwise is to lie, it is a betrayal of the proletariat.
In the United States, there are probably more Hare Krishnas than there are members of all nominally communist groups combined. This should tell us something about the movement. No matter where we are in the First World we are dealing with anomalies, not a mass base. We are dealing with 2s and 3s, not thousands coming over en masse to our cause. This isn’t just true of communist work, but also most revisionist work. It isn’t like the revisionists in the United States have any traction spouting First Worldism.
First World communists need to gather up the anomalies in the First World who are willing to give their lives for communism. They need to appeal broadly and in a good way to gather as many anomalies as possible. We need to appeal straight to the best in people, their hearts and heads, not their stomachs. We need to appeal to their sense of justice, altruism, their communist self, so to speak. Our message will fall on many deaf ears, but we should expect that. We are trying to win an exceptional minority in the First World who can put justice ahead of their own interests. Win the anomalies in the First World to ally with the Third World masses.
In its last two or three years, MIM helpfully calculated that the entire Amerikkkan “left”—by a very generous definition that includes communists, revisionists, and social-democrats—had far fewer than 100,000 people, or much less than 0.03% of the U$’s population. The largest “leftist” group that MIM considered in this calculation was the so-called Democratic Socialists of America, which has fewer than 10,000 members. Few people in the united $nakes consider themselves to be communists, and the majority of them are revisionists. There are indeed more Hare Krishnas than nominal communists in the united $nakes.
Note that the united $nakes has admitted to employing more than 100,000 professional spies, so spies in the U$ greatly outnumber “leftists”.
I was wondering what is LLCO’s stance on the Brezhnevite theory of “state-monopoly capitalism”. I find it very First-Worldist, but it may explain the redistribution of stolen wealth from the TW inside the FW, and the reduction of severe boom and bust cycles into chronic financial crisis. There are revisionist books on http://leninist.biz.
The comments by ‘pf’ of June 30, 2011, include some which are summarized as follows:
‘First World workers are part of the global bourgeoisie’.
‘To organize them as a class is to organize for imperialism and fascism’.
‘Communists need to organize First World people to stand against their economic interests.’
‘We are only one year old’. (End of quotes).
Now workers should be told of how the LLCO was formed and of how its policies were made.
How many workers met to form the LLCO ? If there is a democratic centralist procedure for forming
and leading the policies, is that explained to the workers ? ‘Pf” described LLCO as (quote) ‘a semi-clandestine organization’. On the other hand, at the end of the Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels
wrote that (quote) ‘The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims’.
In considering views of history and politics, it is as well for workers to remember Lenin’s observation
that every word is a generalisation. Thus when talking about, for instance, The First World or The Third World, or anything else, the combination of components should be borne in mind. Also, it would be as well to remember the view of psychologists that people tend to adopt behaviour which they find rewarding. Although certainly many workers in the First World are not in such desperate poverty as many in the Third World, any struggles in the First World against the capitalist class ought to have some advantages for workers everywhere. Quoting again from The Communist Manifesto: ‘In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things. In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.’ (end of quote).
This is in reply to Red Fred’s comment: “Thus when talking about, for instance, The First World or The Third World, or anything else, the combination of components should be borne in mind. Also, it would be as well to remember the view of psychologists that people tend to adopt behaviour which they find rewarding. Although certainly many workers in the First World are not in such desperate poverty as many in the Third World, any struggles in the First World against the capitalist class ought to have some advantages for workers everywhere.”
Socialism and communism will have various advantages to everyone. Even individual members of the bourgeoisie may receive some benefits from it. However, that does not mean we organize the bourgeoisie as a class for communism. The bourgeoisie as a class has far more to lose than to gain from socialism. It knows this, which is why it fights against socialism. This applies to the First World working bourgeoisie (First World workers) also. They will make some gains under socialism, as will almost everyone. However, that does not mean that they have an interest in socialism as a class. As a class, they will be overall losers in any proletarian revolution. Just like other members of the bourgeoisie, the First World workers receive more than the value of their labor, which means they are an exploiting class. In addition, their consumption level is not even ecologically sustainable. Revolutionary science is premised on the idea that group behavior and potential group behavior is a function of material interests. There are some people who reject this idea. They simply believe everyone can be won regardless of their class interests. These people have a religious-type conviction that everyone can be won. There are no enemies, only confused friends. These are Christians and humanists, not Marxists. There are plenty of these utopians posing as Marxists, especially in First Worldist circles.
LLCO was formed by the coming together of several forces in many countries. LLCO itself is a year old, but the trends it emerged from go back decades, even to the Cultural Revolution. More and more Leading Light forces are emerging. The ICM is in the process of reconstituting around Leading Light Communism. Eventually, this history will be told. Its history is very complicated. However, we are a semi-clandestine organization. There are people to protect. LLCO’s most direct ideological predecessor is the Chinese Communist Party of the Cultural Revolution and MIM, although LLCO has broken in important ways from these influences. Politics in command.
Two things regarding the Marx quote. Firstly, just because Marx said something does not make it true. What kind of argument is yours? LLCO has left that sort of dogma behind a long time ago. Secondly, Marx was writing a pamphlet for a broad audience. And nowhere does Marx’s words demand we reveal detailed information about our inner workings. Our views are available on this web site. Our aim is simple: communism. Our aims are stated very openly. You should not misuse Marx quotes to try to ferret privileged information out of underground organizations. Do you seriously think any real revolutionary party wears its detailed plans on its sleeves? Did not Lenin call for the expulsion of Zinoviev and Kamenev for breaking centralism when they revealed the Party’s inner workings and unpublished decision? See: http://www.marx2mao.com/Lenin/LPM17.html Again, nobody with any experience in serious revolutionary organizing is going to reveal their inner workings in any detail. Our aim is communism. We have written extensively on the subject. We have even made videos on it. We support revolution everywhere by the proletariat and its allies (which do not include the First World workers as a class) against capitalism.
Get involved. Pay your dues. Prove yourself. And, if you are not ready yet to lead, then hold off. Not everyone is advanced or disciplined enough to be in the vanguard. LLCO will only grow. As Mao taught: line is decisive.
We welcome all serious revolutionaries to join us in this long march. We welcome all real communists — no matter where you are from. We come from different places, but we must all be leading lights to guide humanity forward to true communism.
You obviously haven’t read our materials carefully, else you would know that “the capitalist class” in the First World includes the entire population. Everyone in the First World belongs to the global bourgeoisie.
We do indeed “support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things”. But the struggles of First World “workers” are not revolutionary and do not oppose the existing social and political order.
As Comrade PF said, we don’t divulge the details of our operations to every First Worldist who comes down the pike. Even our comrades are not privy to every detail of everything.
Responding to the LLCO views as provided by ‘pf” on July 2nd, 2011, and earlier, please consider the following points. The capitalist millionaire leaders of the Conservative government in the UK try to persuade the working class majority that ‘we are all in this together’, and, if that were so, would tend to confirm the argument that workers in the UK are part of the bourgoisie. But the facts are that workers only buy cheap goods manufactured in Third World sweatshops because they are cheaper and so less unaffordable than other goods in the shops. The miners’ strikes against the Thatcher government showed the clear class differences between the bourgoisie and the proletariat. On a recent protest rally of workers struggling against the capitalist government’s attacks on workers’ precarious security of jobs and pensions, a worker pointed out that even if a worker has a ten-foot telly (bought by a loan), he is still part of the working class. Marx didn’t say workers of the world unite unless you happen to live in the First World in which you should expect to be wiped out by the Third World. It is a serious error to argue that proletarian workers anywhere are part of the bourgeoisie, whether or not they have been confused, distracted and misled by bourgeois ideology.
Red Fred,
Your comments are a joke. There are no “proletarian workers” in the UK.
It has already been pointed out here that struggles exist within the First World. Nobody is denying that there is a gap between the millionaire’s of David Cameron’s government and the average ‘worker’ in the UK. Nobody is saying the miners’ did not have a grievance with the Thatcher regime. But this does not automatically cast the two parties as proletarian and bourgeois as you suggest. A Maoist-Third Worldist analysis clearly identifies that such squabbles are fights between bourgeois elements, over exactly how the booty plundered from the Global South is to be shared out between the imperialists.
Additionally, even if expensive consumer electronics are occasionally purchased on credit, why do you think it is that these groups have access to credit third world people’s could only dream of? The very fact that these electronics are available in the first place is a testament to the exploitation of third world workers who produced them. “Ten-foot tellies” would likely not even exist under socialism. It is only because of capitalism-imperialism that such a product is around and has a market amongst the net-exploiters.
Your appeal to Marx’s popular writing (and specifically to his popular works, nothing of his scientific outlook) is childish and dogmatic. You say it is an error to argue that proletarian workers anywhere are part of the bourgeoisie, but have completely failed to explain how you can consider net benefiters of imperialism, those paid more than the value of their labour, to be proletarian. By your definition, we might as well include CEOs as proletarian. After all, do they not sell their labour for a wage?
This weekend was the annual “Marxism” festival in the UK. This is the largest far-left conference in the country and is organised by the Trotskyite Socialist Workers Party (UK). I have to say, you would be amazed at the number of people I saw there thoroughly ignorant of their privilege. “Socialists” talking about how the UK government is furthering their “exploitation” whilst they check twitter on their iPhone’s. iPhones made by actually exploited workers imprisoned in factories run by Foxconn on behalf of Apple. It was a joke. A disgusting joke that dared call itself the “left”. Maybe you would be more comfortable there, “Red” Fred.
Fred, you really don’t get it. First World workers aren’t *siding* with the bourgeosie. They are *part* of the bourgeoisie on a global level. They produce little but consume much. They receive far more than the value of their labor. They have much, much more to lose than their chains – their imperialist privilege. They either support their own big bourgeoisie or do not care enough to oppose them in a mass movement. There has never been a successful communist or even revisionist struggle in the First World. All successful communist movements have been in the Third World. They have been led and worked by the oppressed, by the real proletarians. Not some basement dweller in San Francisco farming his crops on Facebook and playing World of Warcraft all day.
Responding to remarks by Malema and Baby Buffalo of July 3, 2011, readers will decide for themselves whether mine of July 3rd were ‘a joke’ and/or childish as you say. However, when I read your views,such as that (quote) ‘There are no proletarian workers in the UK’, or to suggest that the struggle between the miners and Thatcher was a ‘squabble between bourgeois elements’ for booty plundered from the global south, it is tempting to abandon any further dialogue with you until you have given more thought to local and world situations. Why did you spend time on attending the SWP “Marxism” festival of the SWP in London ? I am well aware of its Trotskyist line and those of very many other political organisations in the UK and don’t belong to any of them. I have been studying politics and Marxism almost all my life, and working on all sorts of proletarian jobs. I read Mao’s red book 44 years ago, and then some of his other writings on philosophy and solving problems. Obviously I cannot offer a full explanation of everything covered in all these exchanges, but would advise against jumping to simplistic conclusions.
We should indeed abandon dialogue, because you are dismissing key observations, such as Comrade Malema’s correct analysis of First World “workers’” struggles as being between factions of the First World bourgeoisie—the “workers” and the big capitalists. Come back when you’re prepared to discuss these issues rationally.
Fred, facts are facts. Workers in the UK and the rest of the First World simply do not meet the criteria of what makes a proletarian. You can’t call anyone who works for a wage a proletarian, because by that logic, even many people who are obscenely wealthy (more so than the general First World populations who are already rich) could be considered proletarians.
In reply to Baby Buffalo’s comment of July 4, 2011, at 2.05am, it is perfectly true that in the First World, but also in the Third World, a small percentage of the population is extremely rich. It is also true that many workers in the First World are far less poor than millions in the Third World. It is also true that First World imperialist countries have grossly exploited the Third World and thus have gained more wealth in the heartlands of imperialism. However, the difference between people, workers, who can only survive by selling their labour to capitalists, and capitalists who live by exploiting that labour and living off capital, is the difference between proletarians and capitalists. Proletarians do not get extremely rich, unless they cease being proletarians and become capitalists. Unemployed proletarians in some capitalist states manage to survive by so-called ‘welfare state’ unemployment benefits, job-seekers allowances and so on, but they are still proletarians rather than capitalists. A large number of unemployed workers provide a pool of cheap labour for the capitalist class, but the capitalist states know that unless they pay out unemployment benefit to stop the unemployed becoming totally desperate, things are likely to ‘turn ugly’ and threaten to overthrow the parasites with revolution. When millions more become unemployed and the capitalist states can no longer ‘afford’ (as they are already starting to claim) to continue paying out in the same way, then revolution will be on the agenda. But we should also remember that unemployed workers tend to seek another employer first of all, until it becomes obvious that there aren’t any available and millions are out of work and thousands of factories and other sorts of places of work have been closed down. However wide the variation between levels of poverty of workers in different parts of the world, we all have a common interest in overcoming wage-slavery. There is sufficient technological knowledge and raw materials for us to turn this planet into a paradise, but the capitalist class is damaging it and blocking the way and trying to get us to fight each other to make vast profits from armaments.
Red Fred,
If we could turn this planet into a paradise, an absolute term, it would had happened a long time ago. There would be no reason or material interest for not to happen. We should try to be materialists in our thinking.
Imperialism is not a handful of selfish capitalists. It’s not the Bildeberg club, the protocols of Zion, the almighty evil Jews, the Red Shield and all these nonsense. Capitalism – Imperialism is not a conspiracy of some hundreds of families to serve their egoism, their desire for ultra luxury. Your outlook is close to those conspiracy theories. If it was that way, the system would have collapsed. Every system in history had a broader social base than the ruling class. Take ancient Athens for example. It wasn’t only the few slaveowners that benefitted from and supported the system. It was also the free population.
The nature of imperialism is around us, is what happens this period, it’s not what’s written in the books. When Lenin witnessed the phenomenon of the formation of the labor aristocracy, he did not dismiss reality, because the books did not write anything about it. He did not bring reality to the frames of dogma. He did the opposite, as he should. We must bring theory to correspond with reality, not “shape” reality to correspond with dogma.
Back to Greece, a few days ago, some left organizations that dared to be in Syntagma Square were violently attacked by groups of “frustrated” citizents, others were revolutionary fascists, others were petty bourgeiosie neo fascists, it matters little. This should open the eyes of the First Worldists, if they are honest. Every honest communist should watch closely Greece this period. There is a lot to learn, a lot to be confirmed.
Helios,
You are completely mistaken in thinking that if we could have turned this planet into a paradise, that it would have happened long ago. A historical materialist can see that until the mass of humanity gain adequately nutritional food and advanced health and medical provision, there is a long way to go, plus, of course, all of the other desirable factors for a collectively decent life. In earlier times life was short, brutish and short, seemingly with little prospect of getting better.
As for your charge that my ‘outlook is close to conspiracy theories’, I see no basis for that remark whatsoever.
I agree that we should ‘watch closely Greece this period. There is a lot to learn, a lot to be confirmed’.
The LLCO view that workers in the First World have become part of the bourgeoisie seems to me to be suggesting that capitalism has met all our needs. How many of the thousands of workers currently being sacked in Britain would agee with that??!! As history develops, sometimes slowly, sometimes rapidly, and as capitalism becomes its own gravedigger, sooner or later workers in the heartlands of imperialism seem likely to become major factors in its overthrow. A kettle gradually comes to the boil. It is perfectly possible to accept the best of intentions of the LLCO, but to consider critically, positively and negatively, as workers, for workers, some of what it or any other political organisations advocate. I will close this comment with a quotation from Mao Tse-tung, which presumably many workers interested in Marxism will think about and maybe act upon.:-
“Marxist philosophy holds that the law of the unity of opposites is a fundamental law of the universe. This law operates everywhere in the natural world, in human society, and in man’s thinking. Opposites in contradiction unite as well as struggle with each other, and thus impel all things to move and change. Contradictions exist everywhere, but as things differ in nature, so do contradictions; in any given phenomenon or thing, the unity of opposites is conditional, temporary, and transitory, and hence relative, whereas struggle between opposites is absolute.”
Red Fred, this is getting too much. I do not see why you are wasting your time with (or rather, wasting the time of) the LLCO when there are dozens of so called communist parties and organizations in the First World which will more than agree with your dogmatic blabber.
Instead of trying to grasp a bit of reality all you seem to be doing is quote mongering and desperately trying to include the majority of the world’s richest 20% as exploited, a shameful objective. It’s beyond ridiculous. Why can’t you just face reality? I know it’s ugly, and will most likely mean you’ve been living a lie for a long time but there’s no shame in learning from your mistakes.
You seem to have taken an interest in the LLCO thinking that you, as a FW worker, are entitled to a larger piece of the pie. If I am correct, you are sorely mistaken.
Open those eyes, clear out those ears, break with old reactionary thinking and ideas or just join one of the many First Worldist ‘Maoist’ parties around.
Comrade XJ, studying reality needs patient work. It is not advanced by personal insults. Your sweeping assertions do not provide reasoned answers to the points I made. I hope that workers will think about political statements, question and test them, for the good of workers of all lands. I hope that this won’t be ‘getting too much’ for you. Goodbye.
Maybe I have committed an error saying what I said. But your comments show that you have not spent the time to become familiar with the advancements made by Leading Light Communism. Dealing with responses, suggestions or criticisms from someone who hasn’t fully grasped the highest stage of revolutionary science is just not worth anyone’s time. There are much more important things to do, like getting this advanced revolutionary science into the hands of those who need it, the exploited Third World proletariat.
Your arguments/views are nothing new. LLCO has responded to them time and time again. Here is a good example:
http://llco.org/part-1-response-to-the-american-party-of-labor-it%E2%80%99s-too-bad-word-processors-don%E2%80%99t-have-a-factcheck
http://llco.org/part-2-response-to-the-american-party-of-labor-more-slop
The only ones who have dared to question dogma, test dogma have been the Maoist Third Worldists.
Throwing a thousand and one claims and expecting a response to each and every one of them, when your starting point is incorrect is a bit selfish. Take the time to really grasp something before carelessly criticizing it.
Also I would like it to be clear that I am a supporter of the LLCO, am not formally a part of any organization and speak on my own behalf. If I have erred I am the one responsible. Long Live the Leading Light! Long Live the Victory of People’s War! My life is yours!
The First World populations already, in general, have much more than adequately nutritional food and advanced health and medical provision. In fact, they have more than they are entitled to. I doesn’t matter much if the British workers are unsatisfied with the material hypostasis of their lives, this is by no means an arguement to prove that they are exploited. In pre history, the food collector was not happy we can guess. She was not exploited either.
The First Worldist outlook – your outlook – considers that while there is enough technology, raw materials, productive forces, to turn this planet into a “paradise” (a consumerist one?) a handful of grand bourgeoisie families halt this developement in order to serve their selfish interests, while deceiving the good masses of the FW through the media etc.
We must look far beyond the yachts and the jets or the chaviar of the grand bourgeoisie, as material interests that keep this system going. A handful of families alone cannot control the planet, what’s so hard about that? That’s why the FWist outlook tends to be a conspiracy theory. It fails to present material interest strong and broad enough to support the global imperialist system. Only the selfishness of some families remains and their magical control over the masses for the FWism to explain the current situation.
We should try to avoid insulting people unnecessarily. Although I have disagreements with him, Red Fred seems to be here in a good way to have a conversation with us. Although we may feel frustrated because we encounter dogma over and over again, we should not assume that everyone who comes here and challenges us is a hardcore enemy. Red Fred has legitimate questions that we should answer patiently. We have to remember that the First Worldists have hijacked the communist label, so there is a lot of confusion out there.
MIM often attacked people who were sympathetic to their cause rather than patiently trying to educate them. We should not reproduce their errors. This doesn’t mean we should tolerate revisionism though.
There are hardcore revisionists and there are others who are revisionist simply because they have not understood our line. There are hardcore revisionists and there are those who have simply fallen into their circles. There are hardcore revisionists and there are those who know we are correct, but simply do not have the courage to stand with a new movement. We need to know the differences. We need to isolate the hardcore revisionists. We need to neutralize or win over the others.
What we are offering is a way out of the madness for humanity. We need to get people to listen to us. We have the most advanced line in the world. We have the most advanced leaders. We are going to rebuild the international communist movement. We are the Leading Lights. We need to project a positive image. Lead by example.
I totally agree with this, comrade, and will struggle to be more patient.
The only problem I have is that I think it is vitally important to constantly see things from the viewpoint of the most wretched of the earth and behave accordingly. The LLCO is the political expression of the Third World proletariat. I am not accusing anyone of anything and have no right to do so, it’s just the way I make sure I never forget class struggle. Of course patience is crucial in leading. But if we are aspiring to be leaders of the ones who truly have nothing to lose but their chains, the slum dwellers of Chennai, the campesinado of Peru and Bolivia, the countless miners who are worked to death in the continents of Asia, Africa and Latin America and billions more, how can we help not tremble with rage and fury at a member of the class enemy who has obviously come across the ideology of the proletariat for the wrongest of reasons.
I think we must assess the true reasons (which most of the time are blatantly obvious) someone decides to join us before investing time on that person. If a member of the FW class enemy has clearly come here primarily as one who seeks more for her class instead of one who desires to be part of the revolution which will take mankind to total liberation (even if it means her class will not be the vehicle), then the whole premise for this person’s interest in the organization is falsely based.
Thank you for everything comrade.
Que se vaya al carajo el primer mundo! Viva el tercer mundo! Viva La Luz Guiadora! Guerra popular hasta el comunismo!
I agree with Comrade XJ: we shouldn’t waste our time on First Worldists that come here with the same old tired dogma about “exploited” First World “proletarians”. We should develop a FAQ list rather than wasting hours answering every revisionist question. “Red” Fred has contributed nothing new or interesting, just another variation on the same old First Worldist tripe.
Personally, I think Greece and Portugal (and maybe Ireland and Spain) face reproletarianisation. Their manufacturing industry is not competitive at West European levels of wages so they can’t earn money by exports. Their banking sectors are a car crash so they can’t pay for imports through capital exports (and repatriation of profit) that way. You can’t exploit the Third World through unequal exchange if you have nothing much to exchange. I think they will be forced to slash minimum wages and end up competing with Poland and Turkey as exporters into western Europe.
I know LLCO’s line is this will lead to Fascism not socialism but this is a bit dogmatic. It will lead to a big Fascist movement but surely this creates an opportunity for Communists to organise as they did in Germany in the 1930s. Ok, the communists in Germany lost but they were a mass movement with about 2/3rds the support of the Nazis in 1930 (13% of the vote vs. 18%). Nothing is inevitable. Let’s say Greece collapses so badly that the world average household income (about $20000 a year before tax for a family of four at purchasing power parity) starts to look attractive to many, especially if it come with guarantees of a job, a home, free health-care, free education etc. The country could become socialist surely. You can’t have it both ways-when workers go above the global average they cease to be workers, whatever their past experience, when workers go below it they are still bourgeois because they want to get back their former privilege. If capitalism has irrevocably failed in Greece, then might not the Greek worker start to reach out to the Third World proletariat to make common cause?
Your analysis is too static. You also fail to explain why Greek “workers” would ally themselves with the Third World proletariat rather than struggling to restore their former privileges.
Greek “workers” continue to receive exploiter-level “wages”. When their “wages” fall to proletarian levels, they will of course be proletarian—but that doesn’t mean that they will not put up a fascist struggle to regain what they have lost. A person of proletarian class may not be proletarian in outlook.
I agree with Comrade Ball’s observation that reproletarianisation is likely to be an extremely important phenomena in the coming half century. And Comrade Serve the People makes the correct point that a person of proletarian class may not be proletarian in outlook. We should be extremely cautious to assume that in such a situation a population will necessarily become fascist or revolutionary.
Reproletarianisation will not happen overnight. It took many years for the proletariat to be eliminated from the First World via imperialism, and it seems reasonable to assume that it would take a similarly long time for the proletariat to be reintroduced in significant numbers. This is where the fascist threat lies. Even if Greece falls out of favour with the core imperialist countries tomorrow, it will take decades for Greece to truly join the Second World, let alone the Third. And this I think is a key point. Greece becoming Second World, moving towards the margins between exploiter and exploited, does not imbibe it with revolutionary potential. Much more likely is those countries already on the edge making such a turn.
On the question of reproletarianisation, I think this is a key area where we will have to judge each situation (i.e., basically each country) by its specific material conditions.
The key point though, is that for the foreseeable future, it doesn’t matter if a population becomes reproletarianised or not.
“Can’t Greece become proletarian again and join our ranks?!” Within a few decades, perhaps. Perhaps not. But right now, the world is on fire. Right now, the First World is committing a genocide against the Third. We do not need to wring our hands about potential future allies with some or other currently imperialist population. We know where our allies lie – in the Global South. So that is where we should concentrate our efforts.
Reproletarianization will happen when numerous Third World countries become socialist and cut off the flow of stolen superprofits into the First World, which will then be unable to sustain its population at a bourgeois standard of living. But First World residents will not peacefully relinquish their privileges. Just as the haute bourgeoisie wages class struggle against the rising socialist tide, so too will the global bourgeoisie—which includes the entire First World. That struggle will be a fascist struggle to subdue the Third World.
I agree.
Usually there is a phase differential between the change of material conditions, and the readjustment to correspondive ideology. As late as the early 80′s, the student organizations of the Left were quite strong, be it Chruchevite revisionists or Marxist Leninists. PASOK – social democrats – while doubling the wages through cheap EU loans or EU support packages had to keep a sharp antiimperialist, antiamerican and anti – NATO rhetoric, which in fact was still popular these days, at least for a large part of the population. It was a really ironic situation. Years passed, the american bases never left as the rhetoric used to say. Greece remained in NATO, despite that the goverment of PASOK was calling it a syndicate of war, along with EU. (EU and NATO – syndicate of war, that was the slogan). In the end, the masses had no problem with that hypocricy. The doubling of the wages in the early 80′s and much more that followed made the masses more sympathetic to the West. It was that period that the Left in Greece faced a major crisis, resulting in losing most of its members, not a single organization excluded.
Greece has not collapsed yet. She would have, but our imperialist protectors were there to save us. Greece in 5th of May 2010 signed a memorandum with EU and IMF that compels her to indroduce structural reforms regarding everything in the economic life, in order to receive 110 billion euros. A few days ago, she signed a second one to receive 100 – 120 more billion euros, accompanied with more structural reforms, which are painful for the Greek labor aristocracy, true. Does this seem like imperialism is pushing Greece towards collapse? I don’t think so. Does imperialism want that the question of socialism reopens in Greece? If yes, it could have happened without 230 billion euros in such a small period.
We cannot know if Greece will collapse in the end. We are not prophets. If it happens, it will mean many important things. It will propably mean the imperialist bloc cannot continue to sustain the Greek parasite reality anymore. This will be an important developement, but it has not happened yet. Keep in mind that Greece may be important for the West for various reasons, but it’s not a core – let’s say – FW country. If a collapse happens, we will be able to consider other possibilities as well.
However, despite being in crisis, we have not collapsed yet. We are still FW. We are interested in how FW masses are behaving during a crisis, where their FW status may be endangered. In Greece the experience says, that they are attacking left organizations that dare to be present at the Syntagma Square where the masses are gathering for protest. This is more reactionary than before. The animosity towards the left among the masses, strangely enough for the First Worldists, increases as class struggle becomes more tense. Now, how can the First Worldists explain this? It’s the labor aristocracy status. These protests have the goal of preserving this status, they can’t have any other goal. The fact that masses with reactionary goals attack leftists at the city squares should be no surprise.
If this status is gone at some point, and the reactionary behavior continues, then and only then, one will be able to say, that Greek labor has ceased to be aristocratic, yet it still clings to the past. The “phase differential” works both ways true.
Fascist behavior is one thing, organized fascist movement is another. If for Germany during the 30′s fascism was a realistic option the German working class gave birth to, this would seem unrealistic for the Greek working class of 2011, unless we talk about broader fascist alliance engulfing more countries.
It is time for everyone to get involved. We all have baggage. We have all made mistakes. It’s time to put that all aside and get serious. We need translations. We need organizers. We need educators. We need red soldiers. We need donations — a simple and incredibly helpful act. Promote our work.
Get involved with the Leading Light. All of our work will make a difference. Look at what we have done in this small time.
Comrades, we can make this happen. We are the vanguard. We are the leaders. Our hand is open to all real communists. Take it. Join us.