Class Today and the Struggle for a New World

[AvanteRedGarde]

[The is a great breakdown of anti-imperialist politics]

by the Revolutionary Anti-Imperialist Movement (http://raimd.wordpress.com)

http://raimd.wordpress.com


“We want a better world. We want a world based on equality and mutuality. We envision a future in which the full potential of humanity is realized: one without unequal power relations and one of ecological harmony. Creating such a world is our common cause.” Such is the revolutionary refrain.


However pious the statements are, they stand disconnected from the world today: one full of inequality, oppression, coercion, violence, poverty and so on. If we really seek to create such a new, ‘utopian’ world, one thing is clear- we have a lot of work to do. Before we embark on this huge project, we need a plan or some sort of road map. Before we can chart a course towards the world we’d like to see, we must understand where we are now.


The world today is marked by extreme inequalities and stratification. The vast majority of people, around eighty percent, subsist on less than ten dollars a day. (1) Theirs is a world of poverty, toil and deprivation.

Contrasted to this is a privileged minority noted for affluence, consumption and waste. Generally speaking, this social divide breaks down geographically: vast impoverishment being the norm of the ‘Third World’ and widespread affluence characteristic of the ‘First World.’


The scope and depth of this situation is unimaginable. In India alone, seven hundred million people live on less than two dollars dollars a day. (2) This is roughly equivalent to the entire English-speaking world. Around half of the world, about 3.5 billion people, live on less that $2.50 a day. (1) The human effects are devastating. For example, every year over 2 million people die of water born disease and every five seconds a child dies of starvation or malnutrition. (3) (4) All of these deaths are preventable: on a daily basis Amerikans alone have an average intake of 3,700 calories, throw away almost a third of their edible food and use 5.8 billion gallons of potable water just for toilets. (5) (6) (7)


The squalor of the of Third World and the squander of the First are directly related. Each world’s respective condition is the direct result of exploitation. The modern system of exploitation, whereby a global minority in a few rich countries lives at the expense of the impoverished global majority, is called imperialism. That is to say that in relation to the imperialist system and the Third World masses, those in the First World are beneficiaries of the former and a petty class of exploiters towards the latter.


Imperialism is currently the most widespread, fundamental form of oppression. This does not mean that other forms of oppression do not exist. Rather, imperialism is currently the dominant form of oppression: it touches the most people in the most fundamental way; it is the foremost determinant of life-options and class; and other forms of oppression are almost always negated, heightened, co-opted or superseded by imperialist exploitation. Imperialism drives social life today.


Attitudes and trends of thought, or ‘class consciousness,’ confirm this social reality. Whereas apathy and post modernism are common in the West, this is due to the lack of a functional need for a politically charged population. When First Worlders do express political views they are almost always supportive of imperialism. Mindless consumerism, a natural aspect of any society fattened on stolen wealth, is also a major phenomenon in the First World. On the other side of the social world, those in the Third World naturally resist their oppression. Radical Islam, the fastest growing social movement of the last thirty years, is in many regards an opposition movement against imperialism. This amalgamation of religion and anti-imperialism is no accident. Rather, it is evidence of two truths. First, the main social antagonism today is between the Third and First World. Second, oppression and resistance are inseparable.


Insofar as imperialism is the most fundamental form of oppression, resistance and revolutionary struggles are regular features in the Third World and at the margin. It is the Third World’s anti-imperialist struggle which is both the most widespread and common struggle amongst the global masses and by definition one against the core of global power. Containing amazing diversity, flaws and potential, the global anti-imperialist struggle is the struggle of the world’s exploited majority.


The anti-imperialist struggle is the modern day revolutionary struggle. The struggle of the global masses who are exploited by imperialism is of primary importance for those who seek a fundamentally better world: one that cannot freely evolve from the current one.


Anti-imperialist initiatives and revolutions in a single country or territory weakens the imperialist system as a whole and gives a new impetus for further, more widespread change. It is as part of the global fight against imperialism that the foundations for a new world are built and of this process itself from which further revolutionary potential emerges. In our period, the complete abolition of capitalism, patriarchy, youth oppression and other unequal structural relationships as well as arriving at a state of mutuality and ecological harmony are directly tied the destruction of the current order via anti-imperialist struggle.


For revolutionaries around the world the current task is to advance and support the ongoing struggle against imperialism as part the advancement of our radical vision of a world free from all oppression. Those revolutionaries in the First World, who owing to class composition are few and far between and separated from the struggle of the world’s exploited masses, naturally find this task daunting. Nevertheless, for all those who desire a new world, this is the struggle we must engage in.


No doubt, the path before us is long and arduous. However, the place to begin is here; the time to start is now.


(1) http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats
(2) http://www.usaid.gov/locations/asia/countries/india/
(3) http://www.pacinst.org/reports/water_related_deaths/water_related_deaths_report.pdf
(4) http://www.fao.org/docrep/005/y7352e/y7352e03.htm#P1_34
(5) http://www.pacinst.org/reports/water_related_deaths/water_related_deaths_report.pdf
(6) http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/18/weekinreview/18martin.html?partner=rssnyt
(7) http://www.fypower.org/res/tools/products_results.html?id=100139

[Bilan]

Contrasted to this is a privileged minority noted for affluence, consumption and waste. Generally speaking, this social divide breaks down geographically: vast impoverishment being the norm of the ‘Third World’ and widespread affluence characteristic of the ‘First World.’


The geographical seperation only illustrates the contemporary manifestation of the history of colonialism and imperialism. It is sufficient to point out that those which are the big imperialist super powers now (i.e. America and the UK, amongst others) are due to the history of it.
See the modern theory of colonialism.



Each world’s respective condition is the direct result of exploitation. The modern system of exploitation, whereby a global minority in a few rich countries lives at the expense of the impoverished global majority, is called imperialism. That is to say that in relation to the imperialist system and the Third World masses, those in the First World are beneficiaries of the former and a petty class of exploiters towards the latter.

It's meaningless to state this. It has no explanation beyond characterizations of the proletariat in these nations as "Imperialist", which of course negates the actual causes for this.




There the capitalist regime everywhere comes into collision with the resistance of the producer, who, as owner of his own conditions of labor, employs that labor to enrich himself, instead of the capitalist. The contradiction of these two diametrically opposed economic systems, manifest itself here practically in a struggle between them. Where the capitalist has at his back the power of the mother-country, he tries to clear out of his way by force the modes of production and appropriation based on the independent labor of the producer.
...
To this end, he proves how the development of the social productive power of labor, co-operation, division of labor, use of machinery on a large scale, &c., are impossible without the expropriation of the laborers, and the corresponding transformation of their means of production into capital. In the interest of the so-called national wealth, he seeks for artificial means to ensure the poverty of the people
...
Nay, the impulse to self-expropriation on the part of laboring humanity for the glory of capital, exists so little that slavery, according to Wakefield himself, is the sole natural basis of Colonial wealth. His systematic colonization is a mere pis aller, since he unfortunately has to do with free men, not with slaves.
...
The fund resulting from the sale of land at a price relatively prohibitory for the wage-workers, this fund of money extorted from the wages of labor by violation of the sacred law of supply and demand, the Government is to employ, on the other hand, in proportion as it grows; to import have-nothings from Europe into the colonies, and thus keep the wage-labor market full for the capitalists.
source. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch33.htm)



The presumption that consumerism and class are interlinked - in that, classes which consume the products of the proletariat are bourgeois is a fictitious construction. It is purely illogical.





The squalor of the of Third World and the squander of the First are directly related. Each world’s respective condition is the direct result of exploitation. The modern system of exploitation, whereby a global minority in a few rich countries lives at the expense of the impoverished global majority, is called imperialism. That is to say that in relation to the imperialist system and the Third World masses, those in the First World are beneficiaries of the former and a petty class of exploiters towards the latter.This analysis negates itself, through its own fallacy which it in turn knocks down. It is recognised that the 'modern system of exploitation (rests on) a global minority in a few rich countries lives at the expense of the global majority (is the basis of) imperialism' and then asserts that this is the result of a 'petty class of exploiters'. The reality is different.
The basis of imperialism, is of couRse, rooted in expansionist nature of capitalist relations - the desire to accumulate a growing amount of capital necessitates its constant extension, and in turn, the lowest possible wage for the proletariat.

Imperialism is something which has been going on for a long time - and indeed, has its roots in the origins of capitalism - but it has not been going on alone, without any other events (inside the developed capitalist nations, or outside, in the colonies or undeveloped parts).
Imperialism, and the ability for capitalism to sustain itself throughout this period - despite its decline and decomposition - is rooted in a few fundamental areas, and further, the apparent difference between the proletariat in the 'developed', or 'first world' and the proletariat in the 'developing', or 'third world:
(Noting these aren't in order of importance, but simply a mere seperation for the purpose of articulation)
1/ The Labour Movement: the ability for workers in the developed world - the part of the world in which capitalism first developed fully, of which the imperialist states were born out of, and which forced capitalism on the now-developing world - to live in better conditions than that of the developing world is partly rooted in the history of the labour movement. This shouldn't be over emphasised anymore than it should be ignored. The rights of the proletariat in the West, which were established by the continuous struggle in the West by the proletariat, are part of the basis for their better conditions: struggles for things like the 8 hour day, better working conditions, the right to combination, etc.
Marx's chapter on The Working Day depict the conditions of the British working class prior to the existence of any of these rights - at this time the struggle for the 10 hour day was still being bashed into the ground, let alone the 8 hour day.
The error of your, and RAIMs analysis, partly rests in its negation of the role of the labour struggle, and instead reducing its role and importance. These struggles, these rights all came from struggle; these struggles all emerged because of the conditions forced on (what was to become the proletariat by capitalism.

2/ The expanding role of credit. Certainly, it would be absolutely absurd to negate the role of credit in propping up the 'developed worlds' economy. It is indeed is a fundamental for its continued existence, and without it, the economies of the developed world would have collapsed on themselves; poverty would be rampant (due to the out-sourcing of jobs, etc. i.e. the expansion of capitalism, and its decaying body, in which a constant increase of surplus value is becomes increasingly impossible without the existence of fictitious capital).

The interesting point here is that it is not due to the eradication of class in the West, or rather, from the proletariat usurping the reigns of the imperialist bourgeoisie, but rather due to the blow out in credit. Without it, the West would have collapsed - and is indeed beginning to with the global credit crisis.

The presumption that this is because the proletariat in the West has become a petty-class of exploiters (To use your own vulgar phrasing) is both fictitious, ahistorical and a vulgar economic analysis. It fetishises the image, rather than the actual. Indeed, The images detached from every aspect of life fuse in a common stream in which the unity of this life can no longer be reestablished. Reality considered partially unfolds, in its own general unity, as a pseudo-world apart, an object of mere contemplation. (Debord)




Imperialism is currently the most widespread, fundamental form of oppression.Isn't Capitalism?



This does not mean that other forms of oppression do not exist. This is a superficial dichotomoy. The seperation between forms of oppression implies a seperation in their origins, which is false.




I'll respond to the rest later.

[AvanteRedGarde]

This is a superficial dichotomoy. The seperation between forms of oppression implies a seperation in their origins, which is false.


Obviously gender roles and inequalities were cemented far before capitalism.

[Bilan]

Obviously gender roles and inequalities were cemented far before capitalism.

Cemented?
No, this negates the changes in which the family and so on went through throughout history. It has never been 'cemented'.
As for 'inequalities', it's a rather vague notion - what are you referring to in particular? Even so, no inequalities were 'cemented'.

[AvanteRedGarde]

You are nick-picking here and diverting the question. Gender roles and divisions between sexes "developed" far before capitalism. Things like family units and "traditional" marriage developed under feudalism and earlier.

RAIM's point is quite clear,



...other forms of oppression are almost always negated, heightened, co-opted or superseded by imperialist exploitation. Your position is that:


"The separation between forms of oppression implies a seperation in their origins, which is false.

It is your position which is confused and static. Explain yourself.

[Bilan]

You are nick-picking here and diverting the question. Gender roles and divisions between sexes "developed" far before capitalism. Things like family units and "traditional" marriage developed under feudalism and earlier.

I'm not nit picking. If you're going to make a point, make sure it's consistent with history, or don't make it at all.
Divisions between sexes have been in a process of development for a long period of time, which manifested in different shapes throughout the different epochs. The Family unit is a modern phenomenon, surely (Modern referring to the decaying feudal system and the birth and rise of capitalism), but it's not been cemented ever.




It is your position which is confused and static. Explain yourself.

It's not confused. My point is clear: the roots of these oppressions (particularly the strengthened patriarachal structure, etc) have their roots in class structures. Capitalism is the central aspect of these oppressions. That is the point.