Mike Ely and myself share many commonalities. We desire a better world, understand this can only happen through socialism, and have confidence that such a socialism can only emerge via class struggle and revolution. Between these areas of unity, we have many differences, largely stemming from different analyses of class structure in modern society. In […]
In two major articles already on anti-imperialism.org, we have defined in a preliminary way how we conceive of Global People’s War, and what we consider to be the basic role of revolutionaries in imperialist countries today. The theory of Global People’s War and what role First Worlders are to play in it of course needs […]
In 4 paragraphs and 376 words from the book “Anarchism – Arguments For & Against”, the anarcho-communist theoritician Albert Meltzer, following a long tradition of anarchist shallowness of critique, tried to take down the Marxist concept of the vanguard. He made the following arguments: The vanguard party was conjured by Lenin in a country where […]
First and foremost let’s begin by recognizing the historical importance of anarchism as a broad political philosophy. While anarchism is fundamentally flawed in many ways most anarchists can be seen as allies in the struggle against monopoly capital. The contradiction between anarchists and communist forces on the ground can be characterized as non-antagonistic, a contradiction […]
The Tide of the People’s Anti-Imperialist Revolutionary Struggle is Irresistible [This article is reprinted from Peking Review, #4, Jan. 21, 1966, pp. 16-18.] THE First Afro-Asian-Latin American Peoples’ Solidarity Conference came to a successful conclusion in Havana on January 15. It adopted a resolution, firmly supporting the Vietnamese people’s struggle to resist U.S. aggression and save […]
By Nikolai Brown Cope, Zak. Global Wage Scaling and Left Ideology: A Critique of Charlie Post on the ‘Labor Aristocracy.’ Research in Political Economy, Volume 28. (89-129). 2013 Not long ago, a PDF of Charlie Post’s 2010 essay, Exploring Working-Class Consciousness: A Critique of the Theory of the ‘Labor Aristocracy,‘ was circulated around the internet. […]
Generally, we are not interested in posting any and all testimonials regarding the personal adoption of Maoist (Third-Worldist) analysis. However, this recent article, posted at Gonzo Times by one of their former writers, is exceptional in countering some of the criticisms leveled against Maoism (Third-Worldism). In addition, we congratulate the author of this piece for their bold, […]
English: Lin Biao (Lin Piao) (1907 – 1971) 日本語: 林彪 (1907 – 1971) 中文: 林彪 (1907 – 1971) (Photo credit: Wikipedia) Many associates of the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement uphold, in contrast to ‘official’ history, the revolutionary internationalism of Lin Biao, author of ‘Long Live the Victory of People’s War!’ This document was originally published by Gran Marcha Hacia […]
In one of their most brazen attacks this year, the Communist Party of Indian (Maoist) attacked a Congress Party convoy traveling in Chhattisgarh on Saturday, May 25th, killing top Party leader Mahendra Karma. Karma and around twenty other Congress Party members were killed after Maoist forces, also known as Naxalites, ambushed their vehicles around 5:30 […]
Note: I apologize to the reader for the extensive use of quotations in this article, but they are necessary as most of the Rothbardian critique is a misrepresentation of Marxian arguments which require textual evidence to be refuted. “[Marx] created a veritable tissue of fallacies. Every single nodal point of the theory is wrong and […]
Anti-Imperialism.com and its associates have consistently opposed imperialist meddling in countries such as Libya and Syria and struggled against ‘left-wing’ supporters of imperialist intervention. Recently, Third Worldist comrades in Denver took the time to attend a local meeting of the International Socialist Organization. The goal was simple: to discredit the ISO’s position of so-called support […]
Bangla, Italian, Spanish, and Turkish translations included.
This article was authored and published by MIM-Prisons. Recently comrades at Anti-Imperialism.com have brought up the question of how First Worldism sets back the revolutionary movement within the oppressor nation itself.(1) When anti-imperialists begin banging their heads against walls of cops, it seems a good time to consider this question. Over the Amerikan KKKolumbus Day […]
This essay by Samir Amin discusses the possibility of forming a revolutionary Fifth International. I’ve abbreviated it for brevity and presentation and to give folks the opportunity to read it in full at the Third World Forum website, where is was originally published. As usual, re-posting here does not imply endorsement or agreement, but is to promote discussion around the broader topics. Rather than promoting the following as an answer, I hope it provokes further questions. – Nikolai Brown
Capitalism is a world-wide system. Therefore, its victims cannot effectively meet its challenges unless they organise themselves at the same global level. Yet “the Internationalism of the Peoples” has always had to confront serious difficulties produced by the unequal development associated with the globalisation of capital.
The historic lessons of the socialist and communist Internationals
The diversity of the conditions of reproduction of the different partners of global capitalism has always constituted a major challenge to the success of struggles conducted by the victims of the system. The Internationals of the workers’ movement were conceived precisely to surmount this major obstacle.
After a century and a half of the history of the Internationals it would be useful to draw some lessons which may clarify the present challenges and the options for strategic action.
The first International, which was called the International Working Mens’ Association, was created precisely to surmount the national dispersion of which the European revolutions of 1848 had showed the negative effects. The new social subject, the primary victim of the expansion of capitalism in Western and Central Europe, which had expressed its socialist or communist dreams in the year 1848, ended up being broken by the counter-revolution. It called itself “the proletariat” which at that time was composed of a minority assembled in the large factories and mines of the era, and a large circle of handicraft workers. The new proletarian class was exclusively localised in the North West region of Europe and spreading to the United States, meaning that the possibility of an intervention of the International made itself felt only within the borders of this region.
Despite its limitations, the first International was able to manage the diversity of social and political struggles in a democratic spirit which placed it at the forefront of its generation. The association brought together organisations of varying nature and status, (embryonic) political parties, unions and cooperatives, civic associations and personalities (like Marx, Proudhon, Bakunin!). Their range of intervention, analysis of challenges, strategies, visions and mobilising ideologies were diverse – extremely so. The limitations of the ideas of this generation are easily enumerated: the patriarchal notion of the relations between men and women, the ignorance towards the rest of the world etc. We could also thrash out one more time the nature of the conflicting ideologies (infant Marxism, anarchism, workers’ spontaneity et cetera), of their relevance and efficacy and so on, but this is certainly not the objective of this paper. We should keep the only lesson given by the first experience: the democratic respect for the principle of diversity. This is an important lesson for us today.
The Second International was conceived on wholly different principles. The accelerated proletarianisation of the epoch had given birth to new forms of workers’ parties with relatively important numbers of followers and influences on the working classes. The parties differed in many ways, going from English labour to the Marxist social democrats of Germany to the French revolutionary trade unionism. Nevertheless these parties rallied – at least at the beginning – to the objective of substituting the capitalist order with socialism. However, of greater importance was the principle of “one” single party for each country, “the” party that was supposed to be the exclusive representative of “the” class which in itself was seen as the unique historical subject of social transformation, “the” party that was potentially the bearer of “the correct line”, regardless of whether the party opted for – as history was later to show – moderate reform or revolution. Engels and the first Marxist leaders (Kautsky, Labriola and others) certainly considered these options as proof of progress in relation to the First International, as they probably were, at least in part. The new generation of leaders of the International did not always ignore the dangers of the main options of the time, as some were too hastily to observe (but that is not a matter of discussion in this paper). Still the limits to democratic practices in the political and social movements which were inspired by the parties of the Second International stemmed from these original fundamental options.
On the whole these parties drifted towards imperialism and nationalism. The Second International very rarely addressed the colonial question and imperialist expansion. It often legitimised imperialism by claiming that its consequences were “objectively” positive (that it forced retarded people to enter into capitalist modernity). This historical perspective, however, was refuted by the imperialist nature inherent in the global expansion of capitalism. “Social imperialist” is an apt description of this alignment of the social democratic parties with the linear bourgeois economism (with which I pretend that Marxism has nothing in common), and continued to be one of their features up until the period after the second world war with their rallying atlanticism and subsequently social liberalism.
The drift towards imperialism reinforced the chances of a parallel alignment with the nationalistic visions of the leaders of capitalism, at least regarding international relations. As is well known, the parties of the Second International foundered in the chauvinism produced by the First World War.
The Third International was created to correct this drift, and it did at least partially. It did in fact make its presence felt globally, supporting the creation of communist parties in all the peripheries of the world system and proclaiming the strategic character of the alliance of the “Workers of the West” with the “Peasants of the East”. Maoism expressed this development when it enlargened the call for internationalism to include the “oppressed peoples” at the side of the “workers of the world”. Later the alliance between the Third International (which had become Kominform), the Non-Aligned Movement following Bandung (1955) and the Tricontinental (1966) reinforced the idea and the practices of the globalisation of anticapitalist struggles on a truly world scale.
Even so, the Third International not only conserved the organisational options of the Second, but also reinforced its traits: one “single” party per country, and that party being the bearer of the one and only “correct” line and the catalyst of all the demands the trade unions and mass organisations considered as “transmission belts”.
In addition, the Third International found itself in a situation that was unknown to the First or the Second: it had to protect the first socialist state, and later the camp of the socialist states. How this necessity evolved and what (negative) effects it had, in relation to the evolution of the Soviet system itself, is not the object of this paper.
The Fourth International, which reacted against this evolution, did not bring innovations with respect to the forms of organisation initiated by the Third, to the origins of which it only wanted to return. Continue reading
Like others RAIM has been observing and interacting with the Occupy movements in our region. In contrast to the colonialist messaging of “occupying” many have pointed out that Amerika is already occupied stolen land. And that the 99 percenters in Amerika are still part of a small percentage of the richest in the world. MIM […]