Review of Patel and McMichael’s “Third Worldism and the Lineages of global fascism”

The Internationalist Jacobin Club has taken an interest in the conversation started by a couple articles from RAIM late last year.  One was RAIM-Denver’s review of Arun Gupta and the pitfalls of an “anti-imperialism” based on the Amerikkkan people. The other was RAIM-Seattle’s analysis of the “Battle of Seattle,” and the foolhardy illusion of an alliance between the Third World masses and the First World labor aristocracy. In both articles, the First Worldist politics of this newly emergent “global resistance movement” is RAIM’s focus.  There is a common thread among these First Worldist dominated movements in their identification of the amorphous “state” as the main enemy.  The fuzzy reclassification of scientific terms  like “the state,” “imperialism,” and “fascism” cover up the parasitic relationship of the First World towards the Third World.

To delve into these concepts further, we will review “Third Worldism and the lineages of global fascism:  the regrouping of the global South in the neoliberal era,” by Rajeev Patel and Philip McMichael. (1)  Philip McMichael is a Professor of Development Sociology at Cornell University and has authored numerous pieces on the “globalization” phenomenon.  Raj Patel is a writer and “food sovereignty” activist with Via Campesina and was an organizer of the 1999 WTO protests in Seattle.  Naturally, articles like these from the intelligentsia discussing Third Worldism are of interest to the Maoist-Third Worldist movement.

Patel and McMichael present the reader with their paradigm.   They present the trajectory of the “sovereign state” in history as moving towards what they view as “global fascism.”  The history of fascism is discussed as it is known conventionally, represented by Fascist Italy and Nazi Germany.  Patel and McMichael herald Foucault’s concept of “biopolitics,” the use of political coercive power in every aspect of human experience.

The authors point to the positivism of modern philosophers such as Auguste Comte (1798-1857), and its notions of the nation-state during the era of European colonialism, as the unwitting ideological forebears of “fascism.”  The connections are made between the Enlightenment positivist views of social progress and the chauvinist attitudes of European colonialists towards the “backwardness” of the colonies, thus “justifying” colonial domination.  Furthermore, “the sovereign state,” as the positivists’ proposed vehicle for this progress, is this “civilizing” force.  That is, a civilizing force that utilizes biopolitics to socially engineer total human submission to capital.  This omniscience of capital due to the biopolitics of the modern sovereign state is the hallmark of Patel and McMichael’s definition of fascism.

Patel and McMichael point to the rise of Third Worldism during the period of “decolonization” (1940’s-80’s) as a failed promise for the liberation of the exploited and oppressed.  It is explained that the Third World elites, who initially led the decolonization efforts post-WWII sold out the struggles against imperialism.  Political liberation of the colonies wasn’t followed by economic liberation from empire, resulting in neocolonialism. The authors declare that the conception of “state sovereignty” by Third World elites did not fundamentally differ from that of the European colonialists.  This common “statist” ideology is what facilitated this sellout, according to Patel and McMichael.  Beyond the mere sellout, it is asserted that these Third World elites were in a better position to enforce the rule of capital than the more “direct” domination of imperialism (as in the 1800’s).  It is explained that while the Third World elites and imperialists share a common “statist” biopolitical approach to ruling, the Third World elites biopolitics are localized.  The authoritarian, centralized state apparatus in the Third World nations enforcing the neoliberal policies of finance capital is what is referred to as “global fascism.”

However, the reader is not left without an alternative to the failure of Third Worldism.  Patel and McMichael point to the Zapatista resistance and Via Campesina as examples of ” ‘new internationalisms’ arise from the ashes of Third Worldism, with an altered understanding of ‘sovereignty’ that challenges the trajectory of the Third World sovereign state.”  An emphasis is made on rejecting a “universalist” conception of human rights based on state sovereignty.  It is claimed that these movements represent a “decentralized” conception of rights based on single-issues, identity politics, and other “particularities” of oppression.  These movements represent the contemporary resistance to global fascism, as the authors see it.

Fascism, even when globalized, always has a mass base

Many on the so-called “left” have been playing fast and loose with the word “fascism” since 1945.  It became quite common for the left-wing of parasitism use it simply as a pejorative against any authoritarian, right -wing politician (“Bush, that fascist pig!”).  The right-wing of parasitism even started calling their liberal “big government” haute-bourgeoisie “fascists” as well (“Obama’s a Nazi!”).  Eventually, should this nonsense continue, if the paperboy misses an Amerikkkan’s porch when tossing the morning paper, he should be declared a “fascist” as well.  Fascism is more than just a pejorative.  It is a specific phenomenon in the imperialist system.

Comrades Georgi Dimitrov and R. Palme Dutt upheld the view of the Third International that fascism is the “open terrorist dictatorship of the most reactionary, most chauvinistic and most imperialist elements of finance capital.” (2)  Comrade Dimitrov said that “Fascism acts in the interests of the extreme imperialists, but it presents itself to the masses in the guise of champion of an ill-treated nation, and appeals to outraged national sentiments, as German fascism did, for instance, when it won the support of the masses of the petty bourgeoisie by the slogan ‘Down with the Versailles Treaty.’ “ (3)  Comrade Dutt mentioned that the fascist programme in Italy “call[ed] for the hanging of speculators, the seizure of land by the peasantry, occupations of factories by the workers,” and in an additional interesting twist to this populist aspect of fascism, “denounced the State as the enemy- ‘Down with the State in all its forms!’ ” (4)

Patel and McMichael’s’ presentation of “global fascism”, on the other hand, tends to obscure the mass base of petit-bourgeiosie of fascism.  Fascism is not the preferred system of the haute-bourgeoisie, whether in the First World or the Third World.  Liberal bourgeois democracy is the preferred state arrangement of the imperialists.  Bubba and his crackkker pals take up fascist “revolution” when their parasitic class privileges are threatened.  It is not as if a petit-bourgeois class (and a parasite class at that) is capable of running a state on its own, as opposed to the bourgeoisie or proletariat.  However, the populist, even “anti-imperialist” rhetoric of fascism is an emergency imperialist agenda to; 1) radically redistribute the spoils of imperialism to the labor aristocracy, 2) severely limit what national groups can take part in this fascist oppression and  parasitism.  While initially costing the haute-bourgeiosie its normally larger profit margin under liberal imperialism, the emergency measure of fascism is an insurance policy taken out on future uninterrupted superprofit extraction.  Covering their own asses, the imperialists essentially give the increasingly nervous, bitter, and piggish labor aristocracy a “grand new bribe” in jointly crushing the proletariat in an openly terroristic capitalist dictatorship.

Even Leon Trotsky, the ideological guru of many of these First Worldist trends that throw the word “fascism” around meaninglessly (while trying to fruitlessly win the above mentioned crackers to “socialism”) originally agreed that fascism had a populist character. (5)  Since the defeat of the Axis powers, the term “fascist” had been increasingly been used to describe extremely reactionary, militaristic, and anti-communist regimes in the Third World.  The authors advance a similar idea here with their “global fascism” concept.  The peculiar difference here is that the mass base for this fascism is not readily apparent within a nation exploited by imperialism.*  This would normally lead us to dismiss such a definition of fascism as pre-scientific.  Incidentally, this globalized fascism does have a mass base, although not within the fascist-led exploited nation itself.  In essence, the mass base of Third World fascism is that populist movement of displaced labor aristocrats, settlers, and other petit-bourgeois parasite forces within the First World.  This is counter-intuitive to the conventional understanding of fascism, both historically and currently.

The hordes of “Joe the Plumber”-type crackers are the m”Ass” base for Third World fascists like the late Pinochet and Suharto.  These same fascist bastards in the First World cheered on Saddam Hussein so long as he killed revolutionary Shia, and rooted for Manuel Noriega so long as he snitched out peasant rebels in Latin America to the u$.  This new global fascism is a more stable fascism, with its different social components now compartmentalized within the First World and the Third World.  Patel and McMichael, whether they know better or not, leave out the key social force behind the advent of global fascism; the First World labor aristocracy.

Patel and McMichael quote a 1994 Zapatista communiqué:

“When we rose up against a national [Mexican] government, we found that it did not exist. In reality we were up against great
financial capital, against speculation and investment, which makes all decisions in Mexico, as well as in Europe, Asia, Africa, Oceania, the Americas—everywhere.”

We would tell the Zapatistas that they actually did rise up against an existing national government – the government of the united $tates.  Amerikkka, and Amerikkkans themselves, are the enforcers of the financial capital that are behind all lackey regimes in the Third World, whether “democratic” or outright fascist.  Amerikkkans themselves, and their sacred “way of life,”  are ultimately the legitimate targets of national liberation movements.  The end of the First World generally, and Amerikkkan imperialism particularly, will be the final end of fascism.

What is “the state,” anyway?

Patel and McMichael’s view of the sovereign state resembles the views of anarchism, indigenism (“Fourth Worldism”), and deep ecology.  Adherence to this “anti-centralist” impulse amounts to the exploited and oppressed running around in circles.  From the same EZLN communiqué:

“[We call for]…a political dynamic not interested in taking political power but in building a democracy where those who govern, govern by obeying.”

Whether you govern in service of the people or in the service of profits, governing still means wielding state power!  The Zapatistas themselves exercise a form of state power in the Chiapas territories that they hold:

English translation: Top sign: “You are in Zapatista rebel territory. Here the people command and the government obeys.” Bottom sign: “North Zone. Council of Good Government. Trafficking in weapons, planting of drugs, drug use, alcoholic beverages, and illegal sales of wood are strictly prohibited. No to the destruction of nature.” (6)

The above signage proves that, despite the anarchist semantics, that the Zapatistas actually utilize a form of centralized state sovereignty.  Like it or not, it is an exercise of dictatorship.  Otherwise, such statements on prohibiting anti-people activities are meaningless.  Even anarchists during the 1999 WTO rebellion had “house rules” in the squats they occupied.  Rules that they ruthlessly enforced – and rightfully so, with all the pig activity going on.  In 2001, Raj Patel himself seems to endorse the universalist conception of human rights, that Patel himself came to criticize with Philip McMichael later in 2004.  Here is what he said with regards to the role of People’s Global Action (PGA) during the 1999 WTO rebellion:

“The principles of decentralisation and autonomy adopted by many within radical movements can also, unintentionally and remediably, be exclusionary. Many radical groups have anarchist principles behind them – non-hierarchical, consensus decision-making, often no formal structure. One problem with this is that it is often used to dismiss talk of what ‘the movement’ can do about issues of race and gender, on the grounds that we’re not a movement, we’re a collection of individuals and so we can’t make decisions about the ‘movement.’ But UK EF! , or Peoples’ Global Action, for example *are* movements, or at least networks with informal hierarchies and structures and unwritten rules. Every action involves a decision and a choice and it is important that these are open. For example, saying that we cannot exclude fascists from gatherings involves a choice – if people are allowed to say overtly racist comments, you exclude people of color, or at least prevent any chance of us feeling comfortable. This why at its last conference made explicit moves to overtly condemn discrimination.” (7)

Here, Patel argues for a dictatorial approach towards movement organizing, whether he acknowledges it or not.  He is also fighting the real fascists here with such a universalist approach, whether he acknowledges it or not.

Another side of the problem with reflexive anti-authoritarianism is seen in what Patel and McMichael uphold in Via Campesina.  The Via Campesina approach to peasant liberation “is a contradictory understanding of rights—where the state remains a guarantor of the [people's] rights, but where it plays no role in the authorship of these rights.” Via Campesina ought to move beyond the constraints of bourgeois democracy and be both the author and guarantor of rights?  Yes, this requires that you wield some state power, or be centrally organized as such.  If groups such as Via Campesina and the EZLN acknowledge that the state is tool to be used by opposing classes, they would make great advances toward the defeat of imperialism.  The imperialists utilize leadership, centralism, and the state.  Until the day imperialism is wiped off the map, the proletariat should utilize these tools as well.  Comrade Lenin quotes Comrade Engels in The State and Revolution:

“… When I counter the most rabid anti-authoritarians with these arguments, they only answer they can give me is the following: Oh, that’s true, except that here it is not a question of authority with which we vest our delegates, but of a commission!  These people imagine they can change a thing by changing its name….”

“Had the autonomists,” he wrote, “contented themselves with saying that the social organization of the future would allow authority only within the bounds which the conditions of production make inevitable, one could have come to terms with them. But they are blind to all facts that make authority necessary and they passionately fight the word.

“Why do the anti-authoritarians not confine themselves to crying out against political authority, the state? All socialists are agreed that the state, and with it political authority, will disappear as a result of the coming social revolution, that is, that public functions will lose their political character and become mere administrative functions of watching over social interests. But the anti-authoritarians demand that the political state be abolished at one stroke, even before the social relations that gave both to it have been destroyed. They demand that the first act of the social revolution shall be the abolition of authority.“Have these gentlemen ever seen a revolution? A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is an act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon, all of which are highly authoritarian means. And the victorious party must maintain its rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionaries. Would the Paris Commune have lasted more than a day if it had not used the authority of the armed people against the bourgeoisie? Cannot we, on the contrary, blame it for having made too little use of that authority? Therefore, one of two things: either that anti-authoritarians don’t know what they are talking about, in which case they are creating nothing but confusion. Or they do know, and in that case they are betraying the cause of the proletariat. In either case they serve only reaction.” (8)

And here’s Comrade Lenin from “Left-Wing” Communism:

“We hope that the reader will understand why the Russian Bolshevik, who has known this mechanism for twenty-five years and has seen it develop out of small, illegal and underground circles, cannot help regarding all this talk about ‘from above’ or ‘from below,’ about the dictatorship of leaders or the dictatorship of the masses, etc., as ridiculous and childish nonsense, something like discussing whether a man’s left leg or right arm is of greater use to him.” (9)

Patel and McMichael shouldn’t sell themselves, and the Third World, short with the decentralized anti-statist approach and obscuring the role of the First World labor aristocracy’s support for global fascism.  Maoism-Third Worldism provides both the vision for a classless and ultimately stateless future, and the strategy of People’s War to get there.  The EZLN and other groups have the means to enter the early stage of people’s war, the setting up of revolutionary base areas It must not fear the sovereign power exercised in the base areas,  nor the establishment new democracy afterward, nor the dictatorship of the proletariat and peasantry after that.  Also, they must not be fooled by phony claims of solidarity from First Worldists, as they (consciously or not) attempt to rally the “mASS” base for fascism.  This parasite labor aristocracy of the First World need to be expropriated by the Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Exploited Nations (JDPEN), not allied with.

Raj Patel and Philip McMichael are correct that Third Worldism failed, but not because of the existence of state sovereignty.  Rather, Third Worldism’s failure is due to state sovereignty being controlled by the bourgeoisie rather than the proletariat. This is not to say that everything about the dictatorship of the proletariat is rosy – it’s not full communism yet.  As Comrade Marx pointed out, certain inequalities can only be restricted until the proletarian dictatorship abolishes the “4-Alls”:  “Abolition of class distinctions generally, to the abolition of all the relations of production on which they rest, to the abolition of all the social relations that correspond to these relations of production, and to the revolutionizing of all the ideas that result from these social relations.“  (10)  Even Comrade Mao said that because of the inherent inequalities involved with wielding state power, “…it will be quite easy for them to rig up the capitalist system.” (11)  That is why Maoism, and Maoism-Third Worldism by extension, calls for continuing the revolution under the dictatorship of the proletariat.  The egalitarian example set by the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution objectively accomplished more of anarchism’s goals towards building a stateless global society than the anarchists themselves!

Maoism-Third Worldism is the real “new internationalism” rising from the ashes of Third Worldism to confront imperialism.  This is because Maoism-Third Worldism is  Maoism without the First Worldism, and Third Worldism without the capitalism.  Only with Maoism-Third Worldism can the Third World both transcend the traditional bourgeois state, and defeat the real fascist danger coming from the united $nakes of imperialism.

Notes:

1.  Rajeev Patel and Philip McMichael; “Third Worldism and the lineages of global fascism: the regrouping of the global South in the neoliberal era;” article in Third World Quarterly, Vol 25, No 1, pp 231–254, 2004; http://abahlali.org/files/ThirdWorldQuarterlypatelmcmichael2004.pdf

2.  Georgi Dimitrov; The Fascist Offensive and the Tasks of the Communist International in the Struggle of the Working Class against Fascism; http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/dimitrov/works/1935/08_02.htm#s2

3.  Ibid.

4.  R. Palme Dutt; Fascism and Social Revolution; http://www.plp.org/books/dutt.pdf

5. Leon Trotsky; The Turn in the Communist International and the Situation in Germany; http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/germany/1930/300926.htm

6.  hxttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/37/Mexico.Chis.EZLN.01.jpg

7.  Kolya Abramsky; “Cultures of Domination: Race and Gender in Radical movements;” article in Restructuring and Resistance: Diverse Voices of Struggle in Western Europe,  (ed.), March 2001; hxttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peoples_Global_Action

8.  V.I. Lenin; The State and Revolution; http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch04.htm#s2

9.  V.I. Lenin; “Left-Wing” Communism: An Infantile Disorder; http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/pdf/Lenin_Left_wing_Communism.pdf

10.  Zhang Chunqiao; On Exercising All-Round Dictatorship Over the Bourgeoisie; http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/zhang/1975/x01/x01.htm

11.  Ibid. [For more on the true role of Lin Biao in the GPCR, often obscured by those claiming to uphold the so-called "Gang of Four," see Prairie Fire's Two Roads Defeated at hxttp://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2008/08/18/part-one-the-two-roads-not-taken, http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2008/09/17/two-roads-not-taken-part-2-of-3-still-under-revision, and http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2008/11/05/two-roads-defeated-part-3-proletarian-jacobins]

* An exception to this notion are perhaps “fascist” Hindu nationalist movements who have a local Third World mass base (like RSS). Some scholars dispute whether these Hindu religious chauvinists are truly fascistic by definition.

Happy Birthday, Comrade Mao… and happy belated birthday to Comrade Lin Biao!

All apologies to Comrade Lin Biao, we Maoist-Third Worldists (especially IJC) are still updating our celebrated holidays. Forget the Amerikkkan's "Khri$tmass". The revolutionary leadership of Stalin, Mao, and Lin the real gift to the world. This is because the policies that they upheld led to doubling the life expectancies of their respective populations!

Stalin, Mao, and Lin Biao born in December

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

Three great revolutionaries were born in December.

Stalin was born on December 21st, 1887. Stalin is remembered for his great accomplishment of leading the Soviet Union through socialist construction. He is also remembered for making the hard decisions that led to the defeat of the Nazis. Had it not been for Stalin’s leadership, the Nazi tanks would have rolled to the Pacific Ocean.

The exploited and oppressed people today look to the Soviet Union in its glory days as a model of economic development and modernization that did not rely, as the imperialists did, on the plunder and exploitation of other countries.  At the onset of the Soviet revolution, their country was one of the most backward in Europe. It was through the leadership of Lenin, but especially Stalin, that by the end of World War 2, the Soviet Union was able to challenge the Western imperialists on a global scale.

Mao was born on December 26th, 1893. Mao described the oppression of the Chinese people as follows:

“Today, two big mountains lie like a dead weight on the Chinese people. One is imperialism, the other is feudalism. The Chinese Communist Party has long made up its mind to dig them up. We must persevere and work unceasingly, and we, too, will touch God’s heart. Our God is none other than the masses of the Chinese people. If they stand up and dig together with us, why can’t these two mountains be cleared away?”

It was under Mao’s leadership that a quarter of the world’s population stood up, threw off the chains of imperialism, feudalism and comprador capitalism, and sought to create a world without oppression. A quarter of the world’s females were liberated from some of the worst forms of patriarchal oppression. A quarter of humanity sought to radically transform the world, to end oppression once and for all, to embark on the road to communism. It was Mao who initiated the Cultural Revolution to continue the forward motion of the revolution. Although Mao made errors, we recognize that Mao Zedong was, in many respects, the greatest revolutionary leader of all time.

Lin Biao was born on December 5th, 1907. Lin Biao is known as the greatest of China’s revolutionary marshals. Lin Biao was a key military and political leader.

Lin Biao was a strong proponent of egalitarianism in all spheres of life. It was under Lin Biao’s leadership that the Chinese People’s Liberation Army abolished outward sign of rank. The egalitarianism of the People’s Liberation Army became a model for all of society during the Cultural Revolution. Lin Biao and Chen Boda, before they fell, were big proponents of increasing collectivization of the economy during the Cultural Revolution. It was Lin Biao who first published Quotations by Chairman Mao (“the little red book”), in order to put Maoism in a more accessible form for China’s masses. It was first published for the People’s Liberation Army, later it was utilized by all of Chinese society for making revolution. Many of Lin Biao’s reforms of the People’s Liberation Army that began in 1959 were adopted by the Cultural Revolutionaries and applied to all of society. For example, Lin Biao was the first to raise the slogan “Put politics in command!,” a slogan that was later adopted by the Cultural Revolution.

Lin Biao was the first to declare that Mao’s contributions constituted a new, higher stage of Marxism. Lin Biao, along with Chen Boda, did the most to promote Maoism as a system and to raise up Maoism as Maoism.

Perhaps Lin Biao’s greatest contribution is his characterization of the world revolution as a global people’s war where the oppressed and exploited peoples of the global countryside are set against the oppressor and exploiter populations of the global city. Lin Biao’s outlook correctly implies that the peoples of the First World are not friends of the world revolution. From a Marxist point of view, the peoples of the First World are to be written off in the main. Thus Lin Biao’s work foreshadows the global class analysis and other breakthroughs of Maoism-Third Worldism.

Let’s remember the contributions of these and all great revolutionaries this month.

Happy Birthday, Comrade Stalin!

Red Salute to you, Joseph Dzhugashvili, a.k.a. Comrade Stalin on your 130th birthday!  IJC will depart from our usual materialist mode of opposing personality cults for only for a yearly occasion such as this.  The hearts of the peoples of the former Soviet Union, Eastern Europe, the John Browns in the First World, and the exploited and oppressed peoples of the Third World are filled with communist festive cheer for the leader of the victorious worldwide anti-fascist movement.  You literally gave life to millions of people that would have died of preventable disease, starvation, illiteracy, patriarchy, exploitation, and being outright enslaved or slaughtered by the imperialist Axis hordes.

And hey Amerikkka, as you try to continue to twist the meaning of justice in the world and in history, we of the Internationalist Jacobin Club say: FUCK YOUR SANTA CLAUS.  Your $atan Claws is none other than the united $nakes, and it doesn’t have any elves making the toys, but exploited nation labor.  Hungry kids from the Third World making toys for spoiled brats in the First World.  Any system that continues to divide up the children of the world in such a way is a system worthy of being utterly destroyed.  Your $atan Claws gives the kids misery and death every Chri$tmass season.  While he lived, Josef Stalin gave the children all over Eurasia a fighting chance to grow up healthy, to be fully educated, and to actually lead society towards a peaceful communist future.  The amerikkkans have it all backwards as to who the good guys are, but the kids in the Third World will grow up to correct the situation with Global People’s War and the JDPEN.

Here, we reprint an excerpt from a Monkey Smashes Heaven article on Comrade Stalin:

Stalin’s legacy

It was under Stalin’s leadership that some of the greatest humanitarian victories of the last century were won. The Soviet Union was the first. Under Stalin’s leadership, the Soviet countries went from the backwater of Europe to surpassing it in many ways, becoming a modern superpower able to challenge imperialism on a worldwide scale.

Quality of life increased for the Soviet peoples under Stalin. Despite the austerity forced on the Soviet peoples by Stalin’s industrialization program and by World War 2, life generally improved. Public education and health care expanded under Stalin’s regime. Life expectancy doubled under the Stalin regime. (7) Life expectancy under Stalin was greater than it has been in recent times in Russia despite all of the technological advances in medicine. (8) It was under Stalin’s leadership that the majority of the population gained access to full rights as proletarian citizens. It was under his leadership that women, non-Russians, declassed and ex-peasants gained full access to work in the modern Soviet economy. This major social shift not only represented higher pay for the majority, but it also represented more autonomy in the private realm and more political power for the masses. Under Stalin greater numbers gained a voice in the Soviet system. (9)

Under Stalin, the Soviet Union was a beacon of hope to the world’s people. Harry Haywood, a Black communist leader, recounts an encounter with racism in the Soviet Union. In Stalin’s Soviet Union, racism was treated very differently than in was in the United States, which still had legally enforced White supremacy in the form of Jim Crow laws:

“In the Soviet Union, remnants of national and racial prejudice from the old society were attacked by education and law. It was a crime to give or receive direct or indirect privileges, or to exercise discrimination because of race or nationality. Any manifestation of racial or national superiority was punishable by law and was regarded as a serious political offense, a social crime.

During my entire stay in the Soviet Union, I encountered only one incident of racial hostility. It was on a Moscow streetcar. Several of us Black students had boarded the car on our way to spend an evening with out friend MacCloud. It was after rush hour and the car was only about half filled with Russian passengers. As usual, we were subjects of friendly curiosity. At one stop, a drunken Russian staggered aboard. Seeing us, he muttered (but loud enough for the whole car to hear) something about ‘Black devils in our country.’

A group of outraged Russian passengers thereupon seized him and ordered the motorman to stop the car. It was a citizen’s arrest, the first I had ever witnessed. ‘How dare you, you scum, insult people who are guests in our country!’…

‘No, citizens,’ said a young man (who had done most of the talking), ‘drunk or not, we don’t allow this sort of thing in our country…’” (10)

In addition to fighting racism and national oppression in the Soviet Union, Stalin used his influenced to combat White chauvinism within North America. It was Stalin who forced the Communist Party USA to embrace the Black Belt thesis, the thesis that the states of the Southeast U.S. constitute a separate, Black national homeland. Thus, Stalin was one of the first Black nationalists. Stalin’s theory is still upheld by some Black national liberation forces today.

The leadership in the Stalin era faced a dilemma. Stalin famously said that the Soviet peoples must industrialize or face annihilation. Stalin’s austerity programs, breakneck industrialization and collectivization, and modernization programs may have been hard to bear, but they were necessary. Stalin’s prediction proved true in 1941 when Nazi forces invaded the Soviet Union. The Nazi invasion cost the lives of 27 million Soviet people. Had Stalin not wielded a heavy hand, then many more lives would have been lost and Hitler’s tanks would have rolled all the way to the Pacific Ocean. Because of Stalin’s policies, the Soviet Union had the industrial base to defeat the Nazi onslaught. Stalin was the most important leader in saving the world from fascism in World War 2.

At every turn, the capitalists try to misrepresent the true record of socialism. There is a long history of distortion and fraud perpetuated by the capitalists. (11) The verdict of this trial is part of a long history of lies. Communists do not buy into the sensational lies and distortions of the capitalists. Communists also do not dogmatically defend every error or excess that may have occurred. Rather, communists  take a balanced and critical view of our own history. Communists defend what is correct and abandon what is not. This is the scientific approach.

All of his life Stalin fought for socialism. In his earlier days as a revolutionary, he put himself in the line of fire as a guerrilla, robbing banks in order to fund the revolution. Later, he waged struggle against all kinds of revisionism, especially Trotskyism. Stalin led the Soviet Union through very difficult times. The times were hard and called for tough measures. Even in this context, Stalin was able to carry out significant social revolution. As Mao pointed out, Stalin made significant errors, but they are our errors. They are errors that communists take responsibility for. His errors are part of the inevitable trial and error, the zigzag path, of socialist construction.

Sources

7.  http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq/lifeexpectussr2.html
8.  http://www.prisoncensorship.info/archive/etext/faq/lifeexpectussr.html
9.  http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2005/06/13/review-women-at-the-gates/
10.  Harry Haywood. Black Bolshevik: Autobiography of an Afro-American Communist. Liberator Press. Chicago, Il.:USA. pp. 170-171
11.  http://www.chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/vv.html

Gringos should pay their eco-debt II: Reparations for Bhopal under the JDPEN!

With the 25th anniversary of the imperialist eco-massacre in Bhopal, MSH has now (in less than one week) covered major locations among the three major global regions comprising the Third World that have been ecologically ravaged by the First World; Asia, Africa, and Latin America. The common oppression of the Third World makes the Global People's War (GPW) concept, as articulated in Comrade Lin Biao's "Long Live the Victory of People's War", the best vehicle for the eventual establishment of a global socialist system. This foundation of this system, in turn, is the best vehicle for extracting justice and reparations to the Third World from the First World and saving the planet itself: The Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Exploited Nations (JDPEN). If you thought Amerikkka didn't owe massive reparations to the Third World after reading just these past two articles, IJC doesn't know what can be done about your lack of cognition regarding class struggle. Sorry!

25th Anniversary of Union Carbide murders in Bhopal,India

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

Hundreds marched through the city of Bhopal, India to mark the 25^th anniversary of the worst industrial accident on record. The marchers demand clean-up of their poisoned environment. In the face of the public outrage, local politicians read from their scripts. They feign outrage over the human tragedy. They shed their crocodile tears. The imperialists and their agents have ignored Bhopal for 25 years, marching in the streets will not get them to accept their responsibility and act.

In Bhopal, India on December 3, 1984, a gas leak killed about 10,000 people in a few days. Later, 25,000 more are estimated to have died and over half a million who survived the initial effects are thought to have suffered from the aftereffects. Lung cancer, kidney failure, liver disease and other illnesses related to the accident have killed many others in the two decades since the initial gas leak. According to the government of India, 500,000 people were affected by the gas. Local activists claim that the scope of the death and harm is much greater than previous estimates.

After the disaster, Union Carbide simply abandoned the factory, leaving India stuck with the mess. Almost a quarter century since the leak, slums have grown around the site of the accident. Slums now exist side-by-side with millions of tons of toxic waste that has yet to be cleaned up. The Union Carbide factory site has yet to be cleaned up. Authorities have yet to study the effects of the remaining toxic waste on the drinking water and environment of local communities. The assumption here is that the poor of India are not worth the cost involved in removing the waste. The crimes of Union Carbide are typical examples of how First World corporations, literally, get away with murder.

At the time of the initial disaster, Mother Teresa, a whopping fraud, showed up immediately for a press conference at which she simply said “I say ‘Forgive,’” then drifted off like royalty. Although there was a 480 million dollar judgment against Union Carbide, the money went to the Indian state, not directly to the victims. Much of the money did not make it to the victims. In many cases, victims only received 550 dollars per person. Letting the guilty corporate criminals off the hook has been the pattern ever since.

The Indian state and Union Carbide have long neglected the ongoing problems of contamination of soil and water. The fate of Bhopal is symbolic of the fate of the Third World as a whole. Imperialists profit of off and destroy the Third World. The imperialists kill thousands and harm many more. Yet the imperialists and the Indian state face no repercussions.

Capitalism-imperialism is a system that serves the market. Under this system, First World peoples and their agents in the Third World grow wealthy at the expense of the Indian masses. The Indian masses barely survive, or, as in Bhopal, even worse, they are written-off as the cost of doing business. Under capitalism-imperialism, a few First World countries grow rich off of the vast majority of humanity in the Third World. Global socialism, by contrast, advocates an egalitarian and just relationship between countries. Socialism, by contrast, organizes all of society around the principle of serving the people. Under global socialism, the wealth that the First World has stolen will be redistributed to India and the rest of the Third World. The First World owes a debt, only people’s war can collect.

Sources

1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091203/ap_on_re_as/as_india_bhopal_anniversary

2. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/08/04/warrant-issued-for-union-carbide-murderers/

From MSH: Gringos should pay their eco-debt

IJC would remind Greenpeace that consumerism isn't just a lifestyle choice for First Worlders, but a hardwired parasitic class relationship with Earth and the majority of people living on it. Under capitalism, boycotts and "buying green" may slow down but ultimately not stop the imperialist destruction of the planet. Otherwise, IJC gives to Greenpeace kudos for some decent exposure of the consequences of the Amerikkkan way of life for global ecosystem.

Gringos should pay their eco-debt

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

Recently, Brazil’s president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva or “Lula” commented on the First World and the current environmental crisis. Lula said that “gringos” should pay Amazonian countries to prevent deforestation.

“I don’t want any gringo asking us to let an Amazon resident die of hunger under a tree… We want to preserve, but they will have to pay the price for this preservation because we never destroyed our forest like they mowed theirs down a century ago.”

The comments were made at a meeting of Amazonian countries convened in anticipation of the December Copenhagen Summit on the environment.

Lula’s advisor, Marco Aurelio Garcia, added:

“In Europe everyone has opinions about the Amazon, and there are people who think the Amazon is a zoo where you have to pay to enter… They don’t know there are 30 million who work there.”

About 30 million people live in the Amazon, and about 25 million of those live in the Brazilian Amazon. 60 percent of the Amazon is in Brazil, an area that is bigger than Western Europe.

Brazil has reduced the rate of deforestation of the Amazon to its lowest point in decades. Even so, 7,000 square kilometers are deforested a year, an area the size of the US state of Delaware. Because of Brazil’s relative progress, some have paid and some countries are considering paying to stop deforestation. For example, one country, Norway, is making payments of one billion dollars to Brazil through 2015 to preserve the forest. Norway was the first to make payments to the Amazon Preservation Fund. Brazilian officials seek to raise 21 billion dollars to protect its forests, to persuade loggers and farmers to stop destroying trees, also to finance scientific and technological projects to solve environmental problems. Other First World countries, such as Japan, Sweden, Germany, South Korea and Switzerland are considering donating to the fund. It is no surprise that the US is  not reported to be in the list.

Lula is not alone in expressing such sentiments about the First World’s eco-debt to humanity. Similar comments were made by African Union official Jean Ping last year when he demanded “reparations and damages” from the First World for its environmental destruction. Even though the Third World accounts for only a third of greenhouse gasses, it will suffer 80 percent of the damage resulting from climate change. According to Ping, the US state of Texas alone “with 30 million inhabitants creates as much greenhouse gases as the billion Africans taken together.”

First World peoples, especially people from the US, are much better off than Brazilians in the world economic system. About 35 percent, 67 million people, of the Brazilian population live on less than two dollars a day. Brazil’s rural areas are especially poor. 51 percent of the rural population live on less than two dollars a day. Brazil has, for example, 18 million poor rural people living on less than two dollars a day. This makes Brazil the country with the largest number of poor rural people in the Western hemisphere. By contrast, poverty of Brazil’s kind hardly exists at all for First World peoples. All First World peoples fall within the top 20 percent of global income. Every Amerikan falls within the top 13 percent of global income. An Amerikan at the US “poverty line,” for example, is at the richest 13 percent globally.  Also, three-quarters of the private consumption in the world is accounted for by the world’s richest 20 percent, mostly in the First World.  Nearly all adult working Amerikans fall within the richest 10 percent. The richest 10 percent accounted for over half, 59 percent of the world’s private consumption. And, as Brazil’s poor are barely surviving on two dollars a day or less, the average Joe Amerikan has an income of $32,000 per year. And  the median yearly income of a household in the US was $46,326 in 2006. For families in the US it was $56,194.

The majority of the global social product is consumed by First World peoples. The current system serves those in the First World, not those in the Third. Almost all First World peoples have lavish lifestyles by global standards, yet Third World peoples  make enough to survive, if that. Yet the First World often expects the Third World to pay the price for pollution, deforestation, and other undesirable by-products of the system that mainly serves the First World, not the Third.  In addition, the current crisis did not develop overnight. The current crisis is a result of deforestation that has gone on for hundreds of years around the world. And it is the imperialist countries who have historically cut forests down in every corner of their global empires. It is mainly the imperialists and their lackeys who have polluted the skies across the planet in order to maintain the decadent First World lifestyle. To put the burden mainly on the Third World is to excuse the imperialist countries for their bad policies going back hundreds of years.

Destroying the First World is not only necessary to liberate the Third World, but the destruction of the First World is necessary in order to save the future of humanity itself. After all, maintaining the First World way of life is simply not ecologically sustainable. Capitalism serves the populations of the First World, it does not serve the interests of the vast majority. Capitalism is an irrational system that cares not if the Earth is livable a hundred years from now. Profit is the driving force behind the system, not human need, not justice, not rationality. Socialism, by contrast, is organized to serve the people. Socialism seeks to balance current human need with the needs of future generations. Socialism does not sacrifice the future for the present. Socialism does not sacrifice the future so that one section of the population can live at the expense of the rest. The First World owes a huge eco-debt to humanity and the planet. It will take a global people’s war by the Third World masses to collect.

Sources

1. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091127/ap_on_re_la_am_ca/lt_amazon_summit
2. http://www.ruralpovertyportal.org/web/guest/country/home/tags/brazil
3. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/real-versus-fake-marxism-on-socialist-distribution/
4. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/07/24/the-average-joe-amerikan/
5. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2008/07/23/notes-on-exploitation-distribution-and-method/
6. http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/10/13/reparations-demanded-for-eco-destruction-of-africa/

Another timely and appropriate graphic from the RAIL vaults…

Graphic courtesy of the MIM/RAIL Archives at prisoncensorship.info

“Fuck The Troops II: Some People Push Back” from RAIM

A poster from RAIL (now defunct); it's still relevant!

Also from RAIM-D:  The original “Fuck the Troops”.

White settler admits crimes of his parasite class against the Azanian nation

White settler admits crimes of his parasite class against the Azanian nation

By Jacob Brown

Klanada’s Globe and Mail’s Sept. 17 article reads:

Brandon Huntley, a white South African who had overstayed his Canadian work permit, applied for refugee status on the grounds that should he return home, he would be persecuted by black South Africans. He was granted refugee status by an immigration board panel in Ottawa last week. The Canadian tribunal chair ruled that there was “clear and convincing proof of the state’s inability or unwillingness to protect him,” adding: “I find that the claimant would stand out like a ‘sore thumb’ due to his colour in any part of the country.”

The South African government decried the decision as racist, since it was based on the assumption that white people are singled out for persecution in what one Tweeter called an “imaginary pogrom.”

Here’s the kicker:

Mr. Huntley acknowledged that he never pursued charges related to the alleged attacks. “There’s a hatred of what we did to them and it’s all about the colour of your skin,” he told the tribunal.

Who said there wasn’t a parasite who could tell the truth?  In fact, this settler scum is telling more truth about the situation in Azania than the lackey “African National Congress” (ANC) government.  As of 2007, 90% of Azanian land remains captive in white settlers’ thieving clutches.  Does the ass-kissing ANC honestly believe the masses will continue to tolerate their so-called “snail’s pace” to land reform after a full fifteen years of virtually nothing while in power?  The ANC’s once glorious legacy of resistance to white settlerism is being further tarnished as they continue to sell out.  The exploited and oppressed of the Azanian nation are now openly calling for the radical redistribution of their stolen land back to them, their rightful national owners, which is far above and beyond what the lame ANC is willing to lead on.

To achieve this end, we Maoist-Third Worldists call for the JDPEN (2) to be implemented.  This, as opposed to the comprador ANC approach, will give whitey something to really cry about.  But hey, at least it’s a step lighter (3) than “One Settler, One Bullet!” slogan (4) advanced in the 1980’s and early 1990’s, a fortunate situation for these otherwise bullet-deserving parasite scum.

The article continues on to demonstrate the incompetence of the ANC “integrationist” social-democrats:

But there is a story of another type of desperation, this one very real, that has not made the headlines or front pages of international newspapers: The suicide death of 22-year-old Skhumbuzo Douglas Mhlongo in Durban.

According to the Johannesburg newspaper Business Day, Mr. Mhlongo was a part-time employee at a pet-food factory. He was offered a full-time position that he could not start until he got his identity document. The Department of Home Affairs, which issues IDs, sent him from pillar to post. In South Africa, you don’t exist without this document. You’re not a citizen in your own country.

Poor people struggle to obtain IDs and the costs incurred to get them are prohibitively expensive – especially for Mr. Mhlongo, who borrowed heavily to finance his living expenses and then to pay for travelling to and from the Home Affairs department’s offices. Mr. Mhlongo reportedly killed himself after an official tore up his application because he was not convinced that he was indeed South African and not a makwerekwere , as foreign nationals are pejoratively called.

Who, in these two tales, is the threatened minority? The privileged white émigré with recourse to plane tickets and immigration lawyers? Or the poor black factory worker who, shunned by his own government and unable to get citizenship in his own country, saw death as his only escape?

Any serious class analysis would show that the disgusting apartheid regime (5) still exists de facto, even with the “AN”C in power.  Similar “power sharing” class collaborationist alliances (6) by “revolutionaries” in Africa, Asia, and Latin America have led to utter disaster for the overwhelming majority while retaining the privilege of the few.  This is the classic historical shell game of paleo-colonialism to neo-colonialism; phony “national independence”.   For a Maoist-Third Worldist party leading a JDPEN nation, fifteen years in power means a grand total of three “Five Year Plans” (7) to 1.) Collectivize agriculture, 2.) Industrialize, 3.) Wage Cultural Revolution.  You see?  Fifteen years of liberation for a Maoist-Third Worldist means GREAT STRIDES can be made towards revolutionizing the base and superstructure under a genuine socialist dictatorship of the proletariat.  Under JDPEN-style socialism Mr. Mhlongo would be alive, working, and thriving as well as leading and liberating humanity; while Mr. Huntley (the real makwerekwere here) would be doing “involuntary charity work” to help Mr. Mhlongo and other fellow Third World proletarians STAY living, thriving, and pressing toward a communist future.

The ANC government should “speak for itself” when it talks of Azania being safe for white privilege.  Can anyone blame KKKlanada, another parasite settler nation, for taking in one of their own?

See also:  Settler hypocrisy in Zimbabwe at MSH

Notes:

1. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/two-men-two-countries-two-minorities/article1273775
2. “Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Exploited Nations”
3. http://jacobinternationalism.wordpress.com/2009/09/12/maoism-third-worldism-on-the-death-penalty-under-jdpen-part-1
4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Settler,_One_Bullet
5. http://faculty.mdc.edu/jmcnair/Joe8pages/history_of_apartheid_in_south_af.htm
6. That is, making friends out of lackeys and reactionaries as opposed to progressive/patriotic class forces in a “New Democracy” situation.
7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five-Year_Plans_of_China (Particular focus for the purposes of this article are the first three Five Year Plans in the People’s Republic of China, the period spanning 1953-1970, while the basic thrust of the PRC was still socialist.)

Maoism-Third Worldism on the Death Penalty under JDPEN: On the original ‘Plan de San Diego’ in a contemporary context

This article is in part a response to a comment by Serve the People in the JDPEN Outline post.  The comment reads:

Comrade, I agree that things were not perfect in occupied eastern Germoney. I’m not convinced that that part of Germoney ever quite made it to socialism. On the other hand, proletarianizing that fascist population was a task of monumental proportions. I don’t believe that it could have been achieved in the short few years before the Soviet Union itself went revisionist. Proletarianizing a thoroughly reactionary population like Germoney or Amerikkka may take several generations.

I’m not quite sure what you mean by a Soviet version of the Plans of San Diego. Are you saying that the Soviet Red Army should have killed off all Germans?

The short answer is NO.  The same goes for the JDPEN’s settling of accounts with the other First World parasite majority populations.  Just imagine the shit fit we communists would be getting into if we were ever to advocate mass killings of any group of humans, oppressors and net exploiters included!  Fortunately, communists (Maoist-Third Worldists) are humanitarians in the fullest sense.  We do not, and I repeat, DO NOT believe in the democide of the class enemy, whether during initial revolution or JDPEN, because we insist on acting in a scientific and strategic way as we move towards communism rather than acting on vengeful bloodlusts.  This in opposition to fake “Maoists” calling reparations, GPW, and JDPEN as manifestations of the “revenge line”, which they do to backhandedly deny the principal contradiction between First World and Third World.

The anti-communist academics (1) like to point out the grim fates of those “Enemies of the People”  under Stalin and Mao as evidence of this so-called “inherent bloodlust” among the communists and their leadership.  Their bourgeois-idealist accounts leave out all the material facts and contradictions of that period and read as though no world existed outside of these so-called “totalitarian” socialist states, the Soviet Union (pre-1950’s) and China (early 70’s).  The actual historical record disputes their “scholarly” accounts.  Comrade Stalin wrote ‘Dizzy With Success’ (2) to put the breaks on excesses taking place in the struggle for the Soviet Union’s agriculture collectivization in the 1930’s.  Stalin also had Nikolai Yezhov (head of the NKVD) shot for executing and imprisoning many innocent people in the late 1930’s.

Comrade Mao explains in ‘Ten Major Relationships’ (3) under the eighth “major relationship” point (ref. as “MR8″) not only the ethical and security issues around executions but also the science behind it.  KKKasama omits large portions of MR8 and follows up with a liberal, idealist discussion of the “horrific” exercise of proletarian state power, borrowing very much from the paradigm and methods of the anti-communist academics mentioned above!  In contrast,  the full context of what Mao said in MR8 says that communists should always be vigilant against counter-revolutionaries, and some of the worst enemies of the people will most certainly be executed.  However, Comrade Mao puts forward the notion that enemies can be reformed into “new people”, and that the policy of reform of class enemies through labor be the general policy as opposed to executions.

Observe Mao’s analysis of the eighth “Major Relationship” in full context here:

8.- The relationship between revolutionary and counter-revolutionary

What kind of element is a counter-revolutionary element? It is a
negative element, a destructive element. It is not a positive element.
It is a force opposed to positive elements.

Can a negative element turn into a positive element? Can a destructive
element turn into a beneficial element? Can a counter-revolutionary
change? This depends on social conditions.

Completely stubborn, dyed-in-the-wool counter-revolutionaries
undoubtedly exist. But where the majority of them are concerned, given
our social conditions, the day may come when they do change. Of course,
there are some who will not have time to change before they are summoned
by the King of Hell. And, as for some others, who knows when they will
change?

Because of the people's strength, and because of our correct policy
towards counter-revolutionary elements of allowing them to reform
themselves through labor and become new people, there have been many
counter-revolutionaries who have given up being counter-revolutionary.
They have taken part in agricultural and industrial labor; some of them
have become very active and done useful work.

There are a number of points about the work of suppressing counter-
revolution which need affirmation. For instance, should we have carried
out the suppression of counter-revolution of 1951-52? It seems that some
hold that we should not have carried this out. This view is wrong. It
must be recognized that this campaign was necessary.

The methods of handling counter-revolutionaries are execution,
imprisonment, probation and release. Everybody knows what execution is.
Imprisonment means locking people up and allowing them to reform
themselves through labour. Probation means placing them in society to be
supervised and remoulded by the masses. Release means not arresting
those who might or might not be arrested, or releasing those who behave
well after arrest. It is altogether right that we give different kinds
of counter-revolutionary elements different treatment according to
circumstances. These methods all need to be explained carefully to the
common people.

Whom have we executed? What sort of people? Elements for whom the masses
had great hatred, and whose blood-debt was heavy. In a great revolution
of 600 million people, if we did not kill some tyrants, or if we were
too lenient to them, the masses would not agree. It is still of
practical significance to affirm that it was correct to execute these
people. Not to give that affirmation would be bad. This is the first
point.

The second point needing affirmation is that counter-revolutionary
elements still exist in society, though there are now far fewer of them.
Our social discipline is very good, but we still should not relax our
vigilance. To say that not one counter-revolutionary remains and then
sit back and take things easy would be wrong. There is still a small
number of counter-revolutionaries carrying out sabotage; for example,
killing cattle, burning grain, wrecking factories, stealing information,
peddling counter-revolutionary slogans, etc.

In future, in suppressing counter-revolution in our society we must make
fewer arrests and carry out fewer executions.

We should hand the majority of counter-revolutionaries over to the
agricultural cooperatives so that they may participate in productive
work under supervision, and be transformed through labor. But we should
not declare that we shall never execute anyone. We cannot abolish the
death penalty. If a counter-revolutionary were to commit murder or to
blow up a factory, do you think he should be executed? He most
definitely should.

The third point which should be affirmed concerns the work of
suppressing counter-revolutionaries in government offices, schools and
the army. We must keep up the policy which we started in Yenan: "No
executions and few arrests". There are some whom we do not execute, not
because they have done nothing to deserve death, but because killing
them would bring no advantage, whereas sparing their lives would. What
harm is there in not executing people? Those amenable to labor reform
should go and do labor reform, so that rubbish can be transformed in
something useful. Besides, people's heads are not like leeks. When you
cut them off, they will not grow again. If you cut off a head wrongly,
there is no way of rectifying the mistake even if you want to.

If government departments were to adopt a policy of no executions in
their work of suppressing counter-revolutionaries, this still would not
prevent us from taking counter-revolution seriously. Moreover it would
ensure that we would not make mistakes, or if we did they could be
corrected. This would calm many people. If we do not execute people, we
must feed them. So we should give all counter-revolutionaries way out of
their impasse. This will be helpful to the people's cause and to our
image abroad.

The suppression of counter-revolution still requires a long period of
hard work. None of us may relax our efforts.

IJC sees no reason why Comrade Mao’s  observation cannot apply today, even when dealing with Amerikkkan counter-revolutionary “mASSes”.  These anti-communist academics always claim that Comrade Stalin’s call to “liquidate the kulaks as a class” was about democide.  Wrong.  Stalin was talking about liquidating CLASSES, not physical human beings as a matter of policy.  This is not to say violations of human rights and other excesses never occurred under proletarian watch, but the key to the goals of the communists is the abolition of classes not “Kill all the white people and then we’ll be free” or such simplistic vengeful nonsense, however deserving Amerikkkans might be. Naturally, it follows that some classes, namely the exploiter and oppressor classes, will disappear before the exploited and oppressed classes disappear in the course of losing their privileges in the socialist regime (the JDPEN) that precedes totally classless,  global communism.  It also follows that the role of revolutionary violence is an unpleasant, unfortunate necessity.  (With regards the new bourgeoisie that inevitably arises under any socialist regime, that class of sellouts will also disappear well before the proletariat and peasantry do, to be followed by the withering away of all class distinctions globally.)

The longer answer would be to go point by point through the original ‘Plan de San Diego’ applying the method used by Comrade Mao in MR8, as well as a contemporary Maoist-Third Worldist analysis on various points.  We will demonstrate that the original ‘Plan de San Diego’ is a document whose literal prescriptions (especially the no quarter policy) have largely passed their relevant time.  We will do this while keeping in mind that Amerikkkans are no less guilty today of benefiting from imperialist war and plunder that kills millions globally every year than in the decades surrounding 1915, when lynchings of exploited and oppressed peoples (Mexicanos, the First Nations, the Black Nation and the Asian Nations) were happening on a daily basis by Amerikkkan hands.  Add to this the birth of u.$. Imperialism (in the Leninist sense) with the occupation of the Philippines and Cuba after the $panish-Amerikkkan War.  Here are the original 15 points of ‘El Plan de San Diego’ grouped by relevant subject matter:

1. On the 20th day of February, 1915, at 2 o’clock in the morning, we will rise in arms against the Government and country of the united States and North America, on as all and all as one, proclaiming the liberty of the individuals of the black race and its independence and segregation of the States bordering on the Mexican nation, which are: Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, Colorado, and Upper California, of which States the Republic of Mexico was robbed in a most perfidious manner by North American imperialism.

Genuine anti-imperialists uphold the proclamation of this first point in the main.

2. In order to render the foregoing clause effective, the necessary army corps will be formed under the immediate command of military leaders named by the supreme revolutionary congress of San Diego, Texas, which shall have full power to designate a supreme chief who shall be at the head of said army. The banner which shall guide us in this enterprise shall be red, with a white diagonal fringe, and bearing the following inscription: “Equality and Independence,” and none of the subordinate leaders or subalterns shall use any other flag (except only the white for signals.) The aforesaid army shall be known by the name of “Liberating Army for Races and Peoples.”

3. Each one of the chiefs will do his utmost by whatever means possible, to get possession of the arms and funds of the cities which he has beforehand been designated to capture in order that our cause may be provided with resources to continue the fight with better success, the said leaders each being required to render an account of everything to his superiors, in order that the latter may dispose of it in the proper manner.

4. The leader who may take a city must immediately name and appoint municipal authorities, in order that they may preserve order and assist in every way possible the revolutionary movement. In case the capital of any State which we are endeavoring to liberate be captured, there will be named in the same manner superior municipal authorities for the same purpose.

9. All appointments and grades in our army which are exercised by subordinate officers (subalterns) shall be examined (recognized) by the superior officers. There shall likewise be recognized the grades of leaders of other comlplots which may not be connected with this, and who may wise to co-operate with us – also those who may affiliate with us later.

12. None of the leaders shall have the power to make terms with the enemy without first communicating with the superior officers of the army, bearing in mind that this is a war without quarter, nor shall any leader enroll in his ranks any stranger unless said stranger belongs to the Latin, the Negro, or the Japanese race.

13. It is understood that none of the members of this complit (or anyone who may come in later) shall upon the definite triumph of the cause which we defend, fail to recognize their superiors, nor shall they aid others who with bastard designs may endeavor to destroy what has been accomplished with such great work.

14. As soon as possible each local society (junta) shall nominate delegates, who shall meet at a time and place beforehand designated, for the purpose of nominating a permanent directorate of the revolutionary movement. At this meeting shall be determined and worked out in detail the power and duties of the permanent directorate, and this revolutionary plan may be revised or amended.

These points reflect key organizational strategy, something that will obviously have to be modified to what is appropriate in contemporary conditions.  Whatever forms of economic or armed struggle to a particular People’s War as well as organizational forms the Third World proletarian vanguards takes (whatever variations of democratic centralism, cell organizing, etc.) are their own duty to determine.  The only two things the Maoist-Third Worldists in the First World insist upon our Third World comrades is; a.) That the Third World proletariat be UNITED against the parasite First World, and b.)  That the Third World drop all illusions about economic “Western Progress” being the product of technology and bourgeois democracy, as well as a notion of a “proletariat” lying in wait in the First World, and the notorious “Theory of the Productive Forces” from which all these revisionist deviations from revolutionary theory have their root.

5. It is strictly forbidden to hold prisoners, either special prisoners (civilians) or soldiers; and the only time that should be spent in dealing with them is that which is absolutely necessary to demand funds (loans) of them; and whether these demands be successful or not, they shall be shot immediately, without any pretext.

6. Every stranger who shall be found armed and who cannot prove his right to carry arms, shall be summarily executed, regardless of race or nationality.

7. Every North American over 16 years of age shall be put to death, and only the aged men, the women, and children shall be respected. And on no account shall the traitors to our race be respected or spared.

As mentioned above, MR8 applies here.  “Heads are not leeks”, as Comrade Mao said.  “No quarter” is no longer applicable, either during an actual revolutionary GPW campaign or during JDPEN.  Following this, also no longer applicable are differentiations between Amerikkkan males of a certain age range and “the aged, the women” with the probable exception of the children.  EVERY Amerikkkan is going to have the chance to go to a certain required summer camp that never really ends (4), as all ages of majority and genders are have an “equal opportunity” to be parasites nowadays.  Comrade Serve the People’s teachings on the form of JDPEN in 2006 demonstrate the benefits of dispersing the First World parasite populations over the original ‘Plan de San Diego’s’ prescription.

8. The Apaches or Arizona, as well as the Indians (redskins) of the territory, shall be given every guarantee, and their lands which have been taken from them shall be returned to them, to the end that they may assist us in the cause which we defend.

10. The movement having gathered force, and once having possessed ourselves of the States above alluded to, we shall proclaim them an independent republic, later requesting, if it be thought expedient, annexation to Mexico without concerning ourselves at that time about the form of government which may control the destinies of the common mother country.

11. When we shall have obtained independence for the Negroes, we shall grant them a banner which they themselves shall be permitted to select, and we shall aid them in obtaining six States of the American Union, which States border upon those already mentioned, and they may from these six States from a republic, and they may therefore be independent.

15. It is understood among those who may follow this movement that we will carry as a singing voice the independence of the Negroes, placing obligations upon both races, and that on no account shall we accept aid, either moral or pecuniary, from the government of Mexico, and it need not consider itself under any obligations in this, our movement.

The response to these points in today’s context comes from the fountainhead of IJC’s JDPEN Programme, ‘Anti-Kolumbus Program for the Destruction of the White Nation’(5), issued by St. Patrick’s Battalion (SPB):

1. The White Nation (Amerika and Klanada) will be removed from all lands it occupies and abolished forever. The Dictatorship of the Proletariat of Exploited Nations will oversee the long term management of the imperialist nation populations.

2. Occupied land will be returned to the Mexican people. We support the national liberation, self-determination and socialist reunification for the Mexican people.

3. First Nations will have much of their historic land returned to them. We support their national liberation and self-determination.

4. Land will be given to the Black Nation, possibly in the Black Belt Lands as identified by the Comintern. We support national liberation and self-determination for the Black Nation.

5. National liberation and self-determination for all U$ colonies and neo-colonies.

6. Massive reparations from the imperialist nations to all peoples that they have exploited or oppressed.

The Third World global majority demanding justice be done to united $nakes’ internal parasite majority is not “the revenge line”, as crypto-Trotskyites of both the zombie and liberal variety assert.  By denying parasitism, the First Worldist fakes tell the Third World that it is WRONG to rebel!  Dispersing, reeducating, and extracting reparations from Amerikkkans are essential for the proletariat in overcoming all exploitation and oppression and realizing communism.  And now, with Maoism-Third Worldism, the Third World proletariat has the ideological tools necessary to give the trusty ole’ Jacobin guillotine a much needed break in the process of “de-Amerikkkanizing” the Amerikkkan sheeple.  Killing Amerikkkans ultimately isn’t the most decisive thing in People’s War… but resisting, defeating, and abolishing Amerikkka as a whole is.

How’s that for a 9/11 tribute?

Notes

1.  http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2009/09/05/mim-on-the-black-book-of-communism

2.  http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1930/03/02.htm

3.  http://www.rrojasdatabank.info/mao1.htm

4.  http://monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com/2007/07/23/the-form-of-the-joint-dictatorship-of-the-proletariat-of-oppressed-nations

5.  http://lossanpatricios.wordpress.com/our-program

From MSH: Dear Maoist-Third Worldist… Will First Worlders benefit from socialism?

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

Dear Maoist-Third Worldist,

Will First Worlders benefit at all from socialism?

Thank you for writing.

Socialism will lead to a lower-material standard of living for First World peoples. First World peoples earn many times more than the value of their labor. They earn many times more than an egalitarian, socialist distribution worldwide would entail. First World populations get more than their share of the pie. They live off the labor of the Third World. Under socialism, First World populations will have to give up their privileges, their lives of luxury, based on extracting super-profits from the Third World. The Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of Exploited Nations (JDPEN) will occupy and rule over the First World until First World populations can live as contributing members of global society. Here are some positive things that the JDPEN has to offer First Worlders:

1. Healthier lives. Even though socialism will entail a drop in the overall standard of living of peoples of the First World, in some ways life will improve for First World populations under socialism. With socialism, the capitalist food industries will not be free to control the diets of the population. First World peoples, generally, do not want for food. However, the food they consume can be extremely unhealthy. This is especially true of fast food and snacks. This has led to some of the highest obesity rates in the world being amongst First World populations. This situation won’t be allowed to exist under socialism. People will come before profits under socialism. Thus science will govern the dietary choices that people have available to them. In addition, socialism will encourage and may even require exercise as part of the work or school day. Time at work or at school may be allocated for an exercise regimen. In addition, people will receive health care under socialism. Health care should be considered a human right under socialism. Thus First World population, even though materially poorer, will generally lead healthier lives. A healthy population is a happier one.

2. Meaningful lives. Maoists in China thought that people could change. Maoists had a strong belief in people power. Under the Maoists, Chinese society was seen as a giant school of Maoism that had many elaborate practices that all aimed to educate and remold the entire population, both friends and enemies. These elaborate measures ran the range from criticism and self-criticism before the masses to Mao Zedong Thought teams and classes to labor and prison reform. In labor reform, people were sent to do hard work alongside the masses to be humbled and to learn. This was often the prescription for communist cadres who had acted as high-handed bureaucrats toward the people. Such cadres were sent to the countryside to be humbled, to learn of the plight of the masses, and to learn from them. This practice was an old one, it pre-dated the Cultural Revolution. It went at least back to the Great Leap Forward in the late 1950s. It was also practiced, with limited success, during campaigns such as the Socialist Education Movement prior to the Cultural Revolution. However, the Cultural Revolution raised this practice to new levels. An entire system of May 7th cadre schools were set up at the height of the Cultural Revolution as part of the process of rehabilitating and remolding cadres through labor. In addition, an entire generation of red guards was sent down to learn from the peasantry from 1968 onward. Many of these red guards would participate in the radical push to reestablish the collective economy of the countryside from 1968 to 1970. Just as those who needed to be humbled and reeducated were sent to the Chinese countryside, First Worlders too will be sent to the “global countryside,” the Third World, to do work for and alongside the truly oppressed. This process need not be one that is seen as punishment. Rather, this process will be one that ends the empty, decadent, and often boring and dreary lives of First Worlders. Instead, First Worlders will be sent on an adventure to reinvent themselves alongside the masses of the Third World. What is more exciting than self-reinvention and creating a whole new, just world? Capitalism limits the horizons of people, socialism will open First Worlders up to new possibilities. What is considered the good life should not be endless consumption, it should be a life of adventure, excitement, creativity, and doing good by humanity. Capitalism offers meaninglessness. Socialism offers meaning.

3. A future. The First World way of life is not sustainable. If First World populations continue to live as they do, then they will not only destroy themselves but also the entire planet. Socialism entails a more sustainable, balanced relationship between man and nature. Capitalism ensures a future that is an ecological hell. Socialism ensures that future generations will be happy and prosperous.

4. Peace. Capitalism is a system that has generated countless wars for profit. Many First World people die in these wars. The worst wars of this century were intra-imperialist wars, both World War 1 and 2 killed tens of millions, including many First World peoples. Socialism will guarantee that nobody will die in a war over profit. Nobody will die to maintain a class of parasites. Nobody will die in this senseless way. Socialism will provide peace from imperialist war.

Unfortunately, these benefits of socialism do not establish First World peoples as a social base for revolution. First World peoples are, and will continue to be, the most reactionary populations in the world for the time being. However, socialism is not about punishment, it is about liberation. However, we cannot let sentimentalism stand in our way from setting the world right. Let there be no mistake, liberation of humanity will entail the destruction of the First World way of life. In the end, in the long run, this will even be good for First World peoples themselves.