MN Roy, Lin Biao -- revolution from the Third World?

[sunoffreedom]

Indian communist Manabendra Nath Roy and Chinese communist Lin Biao both developed some interesting ideas about where world revolution will eventually develop and spread from.

Here’s a selection from Roy’s piece “The Awakening in the East”:

“The East is awakening: and who knows if the formidable tide, that will sweep away the capitalist structure of Western Europe, may not come from there. This is not idle fancy, nor is it mere sentimental brooding. That the final success of the Social Revolution in Europe will depend greatly, if not entirely, on a simultaneous upheaval of the labouring masses of the Orient, can be proved scientifically.”(1)

And here’s Lin Biao on the international significance of people’s war in his essay “Long Live the Victory of People’s War!”:

“Taking the entire globe, if North America and Western Europe can be called “the cities of the world”, then Asia, Africa and Latin America constitute “the rural areas of the world”. Since World War II, the proletarian revolutionary movement has for various reasons been temporarily held back in the North American and West European capitalist countries, while the people’s revolutionary movement in Asia, Africa and Latin America has been growing vigorously. In a sense, the contemporary world revolution also presents a picture of the encirclement of cities by the rural areas. In the final analysis, the whole cause of world revolution hinges on the revolutionary struggles of the Asian, African and Latin American peoples who make up the overwhelming majority of the world’s population. The socialist countries should regard it as their internationalist duty to support the people’s revolutionary struggles in Asia, Africa and Latin America.”(2)

Is revolution in the First World an unrealistic task until the imperialist-dominated Third World liberates itself? And how are communists to interpret these two statements in the context of internationalism?

1. available at marxists.org, MN Roy Archive "The Awakening in the East" (unable to post links)
2. Lin Biao Archive "Long Live the Victory of People's War!"

Sun of Freedom

[Devrim]

There is a huge difference between these two statements. The first is in line with the Comintern policy in 1920. The second is pure Maoism.

Devrim

[BobKKKindle$]

There are arguments on both sides to support the notion that revolution is likely to (or must) occur in the periphery before it occurs in the core. Although conditions in the periphery are worse than the living standards of the core, we should be aware that the citizens of the countries which comprise the periphery are increasingly influenced by ideas which are a product of popular discontent, but encourage the working class to identify with the national ruling class on the basis of a shared identity; for example, Islamism. This could act as an impediment to working-class revolution. Arguably, however, this problem (of false consciousness) also exists in the core, in the form of prejudice against the immigrant population, which creates divisions within the working class.

This is, of course, connected to the heated question of whether the proletariat of the core benefits from the exploitation of the periphery. There is a small section of the proletariat which benefits, because the bourgeoisie is able to use the super profits generated in the periphery to accommodate demands for improved pay and conditions.

This is the labour aristocracy, but only comprises a small part of the proletariat; most proletarians derive no benefits or suffer as a result of imperialism, because the tend towards monopoly (monopoly capital being one of the key characteristics of the imperialist epoch) allows firms to take advantage of their market power, and thus charge a price above the actual value of the commodity, resulting in increased costs of living, due to a lack of market competition.

I want to see some more posts before I make a clear judgment. I am sure, however, that the relationship between the masses of the core and the periphery is not antagonistic in nature; both have a shared interest in ending capitalism, which means that internationalism is paramount.

[sunoffreedom]

How can the size of the labour aristocracy be calculated?

What are your thoughts on the work done on unequal exchange theories by Arghiri Emmanuel and Ranjit Sau that call into question north/south solidarity?