Sunday, November 25, 2007

"anti-imperialism" and third worldism

There is a very popular trend amongst first world radicals to fetishize the third world in a very dangerous way.

This is pretty problematic in many aspects. For one, there is this dominant "white guilt" that is spread throught the white activist movement. This creates a very intolerable atmosphere of political correctness, to the extent that criticizing "anti-imperialist" third world movements is seen with contempt and sometimes smeared as "western chauvinism". Class analysis and internationalism is thrown out of the window.

For example, this kind of mechanistic "anti-imperialism" has led to all kinds of support to reactionary groups posing as "freedom fighters"--from armed, sectarian nationalist gangs (PKK), to islamic extremists.

This "anti-imperialism" generally see each opressed nation as "homogenous", without taking into account that there is class division, and that the national capitalists have opposing interests to the workers. This class collaborationism is really dangerous, because it generally means the effective disarment of the working class and its subordination to the national bourgeosie. Ghandi's conservatism, and its refusal to confront indian landowners because "they were indian" is an example of how terrible this kind of thinking is.

There is also this prevailing sentiment that "imperialism" is in the economic benefit of most whites. This is far from true. The surplus coming out of the neocolonies generally end up in the wallets of capitalists--not workers. Instead, we see trillions of dollars being spent in the war machine, instead of that money going to healthcare, universities, etc. We also see how our brothers and sisters get sent to be butchered for imperialist interests.

Furthermore, the extreme hatred for the west and the fetishization of the third world sometimes renders the radical unable to criticize reactionary elements in third world culture. One example could be Islam. It is true that the reactionary right, particularly in europe, disguises racism as Islamophobia, and makes out of islam a vile caricature. However, there is also a real threat of militant islam, and it is also true that most muslims worldwide are much more militant than their christian counterparts. Covering your ears and shouting really hard doesn't makes the problem go away.

There is nothing wrong with hating class society, but we must hate it in all its manifestations: not only the western one.

Marx once said that "workers have no country", and the slogan still has relevance. We see how the bourgeosie, in the name of "national interests", both in the neocolonies and imperial countries, effectively supress the rage to live and against civilization in its present state. The war against class society and capital is a global war.







I

3 comments:

RedLenin said...

This is a good piece by Lenin on Imperialism and the right to national self determination. I agree with Lenin, nations should have the right to self determination, but that the workers in both Oppressor and Oppressed must unite, otherwise the workers of the oppressed nation will end up serving their national bourgeoisie.

I am a Marxist-Leninist, so i believe that socialist revolutions will happen in the oppressed nations before they do in the oppressor nations. However, I would not support any random national liberation in the 3rd world, i would only support it if there were some form of workers struggle involved.

V. I. Lenin
Collected Works
London: Lawrence & Wishart, 1960, Vol. 21, p. 409

"The Revolutionary Proletariat and the Right of Nations to
Self-Determination" 1915

"Imperialism means the progressively mounting oppression of the nations
of the world by a handful of Great Powers; it means a period of wars
between the latter to extend and consolidate the oppression of nations;
it means a period in which the masses of the people are deceived by
hypocritical social-patriots, i.e., individuals who, under the pretext of
the 'freedom of nations', 'the right of nations to self-determination',
and 'defence of the fatherland', justify and defend the oppression of
the majority of the world's nations by the Great Powers.

"That is why the focal point in the Social-Democratic programme
must be that division of nations into oppressor and oppressed which
forms the essence of imperialism, and is deceitfully evaded by the
social-chauvinists and Kautsky. This division is not significant
from the angle of bourgeois pacifism or the philistine Utopia of
peaceful competition among independent nations under capitalism, but
it is most significant from the angle of the revolutionary struggle
against imperialism. It is from this division that our definition of
the 'right of nations to self-determination' must follow, a definition
that is consistently democratic, revolutionary, and in accord with the
general task of the immediate struggle for socialism. It is for that
right, and in a struggle to achieve sincere recognition for it, that the
Social-Democrats of the oppressor nations must demand that the oppressed
nations should have the right of secession, for otherwise recognition of
equal rights for nations and of international working-class solidarity
would in fact be merely empty phrase-mongering, sheer hypocrisy. On the
other hand, the Social-Democrats of the oppressed nations must attach
prime significance to the unity and the merging of the workers of the
oppressed nations with those of the oppressor nations; otherwise these
Social-Democrats will involuntarily become the allies of their own
national bourgeoisie, which always betrays the interests of the people
and of democracy, and is always ready, in its turn, to annex territory
and oppress other nations."


[MC5 adds: Thanks to former SDS leader Noel Ignatin for pointing out
this Lenin quote in the defunct Urgent Tasks magazine. About in Lenin's
time after World War I, "Social-Democrats" were renamed communists and
"social-democrat" came to refer to reformist chauvinists. In the above
quote, Lenin still means communist when he says "Social-Democrat."]

Anonymous said...

The problem arises when the "anti-imperialist" struggle is not also "anti-capitalist" at the same time.

Otherwise you end up with hacks ending up in beds with reactionary mullahs.

The PKK doesn't even considers itself communist anymore, and to the PKK, it is more important the question of "being a kurd" than the class division also inherent in kurdistan.

Anonymous said...

Your blog keeps getting better and better! Your older articles are not as good as newer ones you have a lot more creativity and originality now keep it up!