On First Worldist Third Worldist Practice!

Background

A few days ago I was venting to a good third worldist friend about how much I h*te the state of Ukraine (it’s not because I like Russia!). Basically they were fine with limiting their work to the strictly local issue of immigrants, without much if any work on the national issue of their government’s and Ukraine’s roles in the escalating and prolonging the war.

I won’t go into many details on the person because it’s possible I unintentionally misrepresent their points and this was from a private discussion so I don’t want to make them out to hold positions they don’t, etc., although obviously I’m trying my best to be as honest with it as possible!

The justification for this isolation was the supposed impossibility of any revolutionary movement in the global north and, thusly, their country - it would be a waste of time, then, to misdirect work from the immigrants who depend on it. And, shit, to an extent this is true! But (and I normally hate saying this but I will expand on what I mean in a way I believe should be pretty clear to have it not be as obnoxious), it would be undialectical to deny the double character of the anti-war effort and the relationship between local and national work.

What makes a national movement if not the coalescing and sublation of the local for the national? And, more importantly, if revolution in the global north is nominally impossible, as we both accept, how can we secure the future of such a revolutionary movement when the time is right (and possible) to strike?

The necessity of an international, communist movement

Liberalism, and postmodernism more generally (read: generally, I withhold a full opinion on the value of postmodern analyses in every situation - for this reason I will stick to the use of “liberalism” as its application toward political practice particularly), is woefully impotent in affecting change for one obvious reason more than any other: its choice of struggle. Liberalism doesn’t have a transhistorical, world-changing ideology; instead, it’s content with tackling problems little by little, in an endless game of cat and mouse.

Where Marxism differs, then, is in its belief in historical materialism and the role of the proletariat in the ultimate goal of abolishing other classes and itself. So far, so good, everyone should know that much! But when faced with direct political confrontation it can be harder to navigate between the here and now and this ultimate goal. Oftentimes, the present struggle is given priority over the greater one, taking great comfort in the small victories. Chairman Mao says:

It often happens, however, that thinking lags behind reality; this is because man’s cognition is limited by numerous social conditions. We are opposed to die-hards in the revolutionary ranks whose thinking fails to advance with changing objective circumstances and has manifested itself historically as Right opportunism.

To take comfort in this state of impotence is to err on the side of right opportunism because by losing sight of the greater picture you fight on the side of liberalism, of capitalism - running behind the capitalist culture and cleaning up its dirty laundry. The revolution is put on indefinite hold to repair the greatest excesses of capitalist destruction and ensure its survival for another decade. This is what Mao means when he says:

they simply trail behind, grumbling that it goes too fast and trying to drag it back or turn it in the opposite direction.

And, well, I don’t mean to be rude, but! For a first worlder third worldist to drag back revolution in the imperial core, the centre of oppression over the Global South… it’s a little weird! While of course I am sure intentions are good I am writing this to (maybe) reach others in a similar position, or be educated by them on how I could be wrong, etc. In essence, it’s like the polar opposite of the common perception of third worldism, or an overcompensation of said perception by overvaluing “direct[, local] action” and crossing back to the lame tankies who are go “oh, yeah, well you just talk about movements in brazil xd i actually do direct action” and it’s like, yeah, but where’s it getting you?

More concretely, if we recognise revolution in the first world as untenable, how could we possibly build one? Well, as mentioned before, while that may be true, it is also true we are communists, not liberals - and so, even if we cannot possibly imagine how we can take power, we must subordinate all political work to this goal. This is not an empty phrase: while conditions are unripe, we must develop our power wherever possible so that, when they are ripe, we will not have been sitting on our hands. This is crucial, because without a communist base in the core, the AmeriKKKan and KKKlanadian masses, and EuropeanSS, will fall deeper into fascist reaction as their social welfare diminishes and their only hope is a return to the welfare states of old and imperialist violence on the South and its emigrants on imperialist land.

Developing direct action into a broader movement

Again Chairman Mao:

As social practice continues, things that give rise to man’s sense perceptions and impressions in the course of his practice are repeated many times; then a sudden change (leap) takes place in the brain in the process of cognition, and concepts are formed. Concepts are no longer the phenomena, the separate aspects and the external relations of things; they grasp the essence, the totality and the internal relations of things. Between concepts and sense perceptions there is not only a quantitative but also a qualitative difference.

This is how as our local struggle develops quantitatively, so too must it develop qualitatively to meet the needs of our growing responsibilities, through (and only through) an ideology like Marxism, that can see these to the end. But how do we connect this to political work concretely? I’m sure you can already tell! Let us use a contemporary example, the one that started this entire debate: the Ukrainian War and its implications for the West. As the number of Ukrainian immigrants grow, undoubtedly efforts should go into ensuring their safety and good treatment. But, at the same time, one must recognise the responsibility the not just one’s own imperialist country but of the Ukrainians’ themselves, whom they are allied with and whom fights for Western, over Russian, imperialism. We turn to my (cheeky) claim of hatred for the state of Ukraine. The dialectical opposite of the local struggle is the national one, or, the (local) immigrant struggle and the (national) imperialist, comprador struggle. When organising for Ukrainian immigrants one cannot fall for the liberal trap of organising primarily against Russia (who without a doubt shares a lot, if not most, of the blame). Most have already fallen for this trap.

Rather than fly Ukrainian flags, the communist position is - as proven a century before! - the revolutionary defeatist one, as much against one’s own government as for Ukrainian dignity! That means, in turning the local to the national (and back to the local in the act of self-preservation of the movement), organising the detached and revolutionary Ukrainians and locals against this common enemy. Of course, we should help and fight for every single one of them, but it would be a mistake to give up the greater struggle and subsume ourselves into the cultural mass of liberal struggle and give in blindly to their demands (we must keep in mind, too, that the ones leaving for Europe are not the most alienated and poor that their own government is using as meat shields and forcing to stay behind to secure their borders - what more can we expect from such bald-faced vendepatrias?). It’s enough to see how the minorities and poor of Ukraine are treated to know the Ukrainian flag is not one we must stand for.

Conclusion

Basically, if you are third worldist without that chef’s kiss essential Maoist touch, please pay him good attention! It is not for nothing that this theory has inspired countless more movements worldwide than any other for the time being, and to see it as unique, to not follow their example and play only a backup role, is to do them a disservice in the grand scheme of things. Thank you, I hope I was not too preachy or obnoxious, I’m not good at writing…

Read: https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_16.htm