I was all into electoralism up until the 1-2 punch of Corbyn and Bernie getting screwed (and just straight up losing) within the span of 2 months. From there I thought electoralism still had it’s place but was thinking more about how we’ll never get to “vote” for socialism, and started leaning towards being an ML. And then recently, I’m just really down on the hope for any sort of internal change within the imperial core. I think change is going to have to be forced upon the global north by the global south. And even though Iive in the US, I just feel more and more disconnected from this place. I find I’m way more interested in what’s going on in places like Cuba, China, Good Korea, Peru, Bolivia, India, etc. I find myself not even really caring about US politics except for when it comes to issues of foreign policy.
And in my observation, it feels like a lot of comrades here seem to be following this trajectory.
Of course as I move along this path, I still don’t seem to have a really good feel on what I’m supposed to do, you know?
After the Bernie thing, someone posted in r/CTH a picture of Lenin with the text “where did all that being you, back to me…”. And then I started reading Lenin.
The real horseshoe theory is when you go past Maoist/Third Worldist and end up back at anarchism because the best thing to do from within the imperial core is to prioritizing dismantling the whole thing and building mutual aid networks to support people that will otherwise either suffer and die or be caught up by reactionaries.
This doesn’t seem incompatible with Maoism at all. Gotta adapt to your conditions and shit
Yeah I think there’s definitely synthesis to be found with Maoism and anarchism especially with regard to mass line tactics.
Yes, even recently, the furthest left politicians will speak out against the blockade of Cuba (good), but then hedge that by decrying the Cuban government as authoritarian or undemocratic.
Giving up on workers in the most powerful parts of the world (no matter how pampered they are by capital) means just giving up and watching third world workers throw themselves at the empire’s tanks and jets over and over again until something different magically happens. It also implies that your revolutionary potential comes only from how exploited you are. If that were the case then socialist revolutions (not nationalist ones) would have happened in every former colony instead of just a few (like China or Burkina Faso) and that political consciousness isn’t real force.
Western workers have a responsibility to build a left in their countries that is capable of throwing its weight around instead of shirking that responsibility and turning leftism into a “its not happening, its too hard, someone else far away will do it”. Finally, if and when left revolutions do happen in the third world, they are likely to have mutate into nationalist reactions when the west attacks them. There is no future in which the left succeeds for good in which workers of the most industrialized countries are asleep.
There is no future in which the left succeeds for good in which workers of the most industrialized countries are asleep.
But which are the industrialized countries now? America has moved from industrial capitalism to financial capitalism.
But which are the industrialized countries now?
The same countries which were industrialized 50 years ago, now adding China, SK, India etc to the mix. Organizing workers doesnt mean only factory and farm workers.
Industrial capitalism vs financial capitalism is a non-scientific distinction. It’s a common complaint from the petit-bourgs and even fascists that “real productive” capitalism is being replaced by “unproductive parasitic” financial capitalism. It is objectively false, first world countries have massive industries, they are just automated more and employ less.
I mean, industrial vs financial is a distinction even some marxist economists (i.e. Michael Hudson) make. Not that industry is no longer here, but that growth is in the “financial” sector instead of the real world. I just meant to say that (arguably) the most important industrial country is already socialist.
Exactly this. I don’t disagree that imperial core workers benefit from the exploitation of the global south and even that this is an obstacle to revolution, but the third worldist argument that this is the reason revolution isn’t happening in the imperial core never made sense to me. First because most workers in the first world are not educated on the basic principles of socialism, let alone imperialism, unequal exchange and all that;* and second because like you said revolution isn’t happening in the third world either. It seems to me third worldists dismiss the role of capitalist ideological hegemony and anti-communist propaganda too much.
*In fact, to the extent that people are aware of these things they see them as bad. Most people who know about the sweatshops and the child labor that make our clothes and phones think it’s fucked up, they just don’t see it as something they have the power to fix
When change is forced upon the global north, it will still be an internal change, just one triggered by external conditions. And that internal change, whenever it happens, will need local principled and organized communists. So, the thing to do is the same as always, educate yourself and others, agitate, organize.
This is really good, because as a white person in the global north, while I agree with third worldism it can also make me feel kinda useless.
idk shit really but does it make sense to think in terms of “ml in the global south, mutual aid in the imperial core”?
Someone has to drive towards balkanization and also organize mutual aid groups to support those in need. I get that feeling of helplessness, but thankfully there is very real work to be done in the core.
if you want to do a revolution then why would you want to force balkanization, it would just make it easier for reaction.
