The 2016 Election and the Failing of First Worldism

The election of Donald Trump has polarised politics in a way that has not been seen for some time. Already there are reports of violence on both sides of the American political spectrum: liberals attacking conservatives, and conservatives attacking liberals. While this may seem like a new development, it certainly isn’t. Elements on the first Worldist “left” are already claiming that this is the beginning of an uprising against capitalism which will propel class struggle to the forefront. Such a claim is devoid of substance. This election has been primarily race driven, the people outraged and committing violence on both sides are entirely driven by racial issues. It is a failing of first worldism to acknowledge that this election has featured White working-class as a collective rallying around a billionaire who has promised tax cuts to the wealthy. Those who have opposed Trump, have done so primarily on racial grounds, fearing the kind of xenophobia that certainly has been emboldened by his victory.

Class has played very little in the minds of the average American. First Worldist-Marxists think that just because they have class on the mind all the time, means that the rest of the population does as well. This certainly wasn’t the case with the election. Race was the forefront and first worldists have refused to see that. They certainly acknowledge that race is a huge aspect to it, but they refuse to acknowledge that class was only a side issue. Angry denial of this can be found anytime someone criticises them for this error. Class consciousness is weak among Americans, it is not as it was during Marx’s time where it the main force behind everything. Race can come to dominate the discussion because class in the first world has been bought off with the spoils of imperialism.

First worldists have been a part of the “anyone but Trump” bandwagon. They do know that bourgeois democracy is not democracy at all. Yet, they so willingly fall for voting against Trump as some kind of way of taking action. They know they’re not going to do revolution, so they content themselves with voting against “the greater of two evils.” Such a reactonary position can only come about as a result of refusing to carry out the revolutionary work necessary to abolish capitalism. The only action they can safely take on is to go to the polling booth and reject what they see as the worst of two options.

I’m reminded of a post recently published by the LLCO which ties to what I’m saying.

The First Worldist “communist” proves they are in unity with imperialism and fascism when elevating an “elect the crook to stop the racist” strategy, rather than elevating the New Power of the Leading Light. The end result is social-fascism. And this is still fascism, just a more “politically correct” fascism by 21st century bourgeois sensibility standards. Something that is heard increasingly often among “progressive” neocolonial talking heads of the First World internal colonies on the major imperialist media outlets is “We are not all poor”[i]. The implication is that the First World internal colonies are increasingly integrated as First World co-partners with the First World white nation in the exploitation of the Proletarian Third World. The political forces backing US presidential candidate Hillary Clinton want a continued “War on Terror”, but with a “compassionate” / “progressive” migration policy towards those displaced by such imperialist aggression. And Clinton has certainly proved herself capable of playing the role of First World empress, as her continued championing of the imperialist destruction of Libya in 2011 is evident of.[ii]

The first worldist refuses to carry out real struggle against capitalism in the first world because they know the first world masses are not on their side. They see no value in real class struggle because they want the system preserved with a few concessions. Those who mention class (who are not Marxists) are liberals who want to preserve the system, with a bit of “economic justice” reform to appease their conscience. The social base for revolution does not exist in the first world. In this election, the first world masses and First Worldist-Marxists have both confirmed that. A new theory must be presented. American so-called Marxism has been a great reactionary force upon theory – one that must be purged so that a new way forward can be formulated. Hurt feelings and angry denial at criticism are not revolutionary science.


Sources:

[i] http://alldigitocracy.org/joy-reid-bernie-sanders-ghettos-in-america-debate/

[ii] http://llco.org/first-world-elections-first-world-divisions/

Advertisements