Work in Progress: Unity of the Oppressed – Not Fractured Nations

The question of revolution against imperialism is inevitably bound up with the question of self-determination. In the history of revolutionary struggles, there has been the question of allowing minority groups to exercise their self-determination. All oppressed groups are looked at in a way that would facilitate their liberation. Within many countries, there are simultaneous oppressions being carried out. A prime example would be the indigenous populations of various countries, another would be the Dalits in India. These groups suffer terrible oppression at the hands of other groups in their countries.

As Third Wordlists, we know that revolution must come from the Third World. The First World as beneficiaries of imperialism has received so much from global oppression that they have no real interest in revolution. They cannot be counted upon to carry forward the revolution. So we must turn towards the global poor, those for whom revolution is the only solution. It is there that we must build the revolutionary base.

Our current climate of Marxist revolutionary thought has stagnated in First Worldist self-pity dogma. AS revolution has failed to take off in the advanced countries as Marx predicted, First Worldists have been ever more focused on the national question as a replacement for an already failed theory. It has been made clear that the vast majority of workers in the First World reject revolution and armed struggle as a means to end wage labour and imperialism. Their refusal is the prime reason why the struggling masses of the Third World cannot count on them as allies. They are class enemies by their own actions.

In this dismal climate for revolution in the First World, First Worldists has sought out a stand in proletariat to take the place of the working class which refuses to participate in their college campus guerrilla fantasies. First Nations people and African-Americans have been sought out as marginalised groups that can be radicalised into a stand-in proletariat. These efforts, unfortunately, have been met with failure. The African-American has time-and-time again refused to take revolutionary action. Back in the 1960s, there were great black leaders who agitated for revolution. Unfortunately, these efforts did not bloom into a concentrated evolutionary effort. First Nations people make up such a small percentage of the population as to eliminate their power as a revolutionary force. In most First World countries, they comprise no more than two percent of the population. Such small numbers, no matter how oppressed, could not win a revolutionary war. Revolution is carried out by the masses, not a very small minority group. The will, perhaps, is there, the power is not.

The question of “what is a nation?” has become more of a focal point than ever before for First Worldism. As Black and First Nations populations continually reject revolutionary as a means of liberation, First Worldists have turned to smaller and smaller group. Some of which are more privileged than Black and First Nations people. Some First Worldists have literally invented their own class called the “precariat.” In their view, those who are precarious in work have somehow altered their class relations. As if precarious work situations didn’t exist in Marx’s time! There’s something significant here: the possibility of not having a full-time regular job is somehow a new development in their minds. This is a situation faced by countless workers around the world. This was a situation face en masse at the beginning of the 19th century. They have progressed so forward in living standards, that a relic from the past, or a reality of the Third World is considered a new development!

Some First Worldists have declared so-called gender minorities to be the new proletariat. Some have taken this to such an absurd degree as to claim that only asexual gender-bending persons can be revolutionary. They arrogantly declare that any “cis” male is automatically the enemy as though sex and gender relations were equal to class. They label Third World men, people who don’t have enough to eat or drink dirty water are the enemy. And these people dare label themselves as Marxists!

Each time this issue has come up, First Worldists have advocated separation. All minority groups – racial or otherwise – should be given their own space. Each racial group should be given their own nation. Some ideas have been pushed around declaring autonomous regions for First Nations, African-American, and Chicano. There have been First Worldist groups who have drawn up proposal maps of the United States carved up into different nations.

As they advocate this at home, they do so abroad as well. Anytime there is a conflict in any country, their first reaction is segregate groups into nations. They advocate national self-determination of all minorities. Their first instinct is segregation, almost always is. In their minds, the contradictions between grounds can only be achieved by dividing people further. In many cases, it’s a necessary measure in order for an oppressed group to protect itself and develop. But, it is not a catch-all solution. In some ways, it is wholly reactionary and hinders, if not outright prevents revolutionary struggle.

The Third World and First World are not the same, and this is where First Worldists make their mistake. They assume the struggle is the same regardless of global class position because they see themselves as the same as the global oppressed. If an idea is correct for one, in their minds, it must be correct for another. This is a typical dogmatist First Worldist line where they assume everything is the same. They do not seek to scientifically understand the differences between countries and global classes. To them, there is no global class.

In the Third World, minority groups face an objectively different situation then First World minority groups do. As they face oppression from the majority in their countries, they also suffer from imperialism as well. African-Americans suffer from oppression at home, but Africans minority groups suffer from domestic racial oppression and imperialism. The racial oppression in these two cases exists under different material conditions. Those who oppress in the African country are also oppressed by imperialism as well. First Worldists do not see the contradictions of these particular societies. Instead, they merely project their own conditions onto others.

We understand that imperialism is the primary contradiction in the world today. When revolution is organised, its primary goal is to kick out the imperialists from the oppressed lands. Should the revolution take place in an oppressed country, it must fight its national capitalist oppression and imperialism. Once the initial victory is complete and the capitalist class has been subdued, and the imperialists have been kicked out – the struggle to defend the revolution begins.

A concentrated effort must be made by the country to ward off attacks by the imperialists. Battle tactics are a military question that must be answered by military strategists. However, it will take a coordinated effort by all peoples of the country. The newly liberated country cannot be divided up into smaller nations with full autonomy if imperialism is to be fought. A concentrated effort must be made to organise the resources necessary for defence. It is simply inefficient to hold multiple borders while one single boarder can be maintained. This cannot be accomplished if the country is divided among independent nations. It is a bureaucratic nightmare to organise such resistance. Separate economies, laws, and leadership structures will hinder any efforts – Even severely. The people must stand as one. The breaking down of the country into smaller nations would simply cripple their ability to defend themselves.

This idea of collective defence must stretch across multiple countries as well. If tow nations carry out revolution next to each other, they must unite as closely as possible for their defence. This must not be confused for imperialism or even social imperialism. We are not talking about a domination of one by the other.  We’re talking about an integration and cooperation towards a mutual goal of surviving imperialist aggression. Shared resources, economy, and military power can make the sum greater than its parts. Imperialism is the enemy of all oppressed nations – they all have a stake in defeating it. An anti-imperialist socialist bloc of third world countries would do absolute wonders for freedom of the oppressed countries.

The oppressed must stand united in their opposition to their oppression. They must not be fractured along the identity politics line of First Worldism. Segregation is a goal in First Worldist theory because they are in the heart of the aggressive camp. They face only their own nationalist oppression, not imperialism. The conditions of the first world do not match those of the third world. It is only the dogmatism of First Worldists that refused to see the global class reality.

Advertisements