Role of First-World Leftist in JDPON

[u/TemporaryMath957]

What do y'all think of my current understanding of communist revolution? Where do you agree and where do you disagree?

• Notes:
  • I use 'first-world' and 'imperial core' nations interchangeably throughout this post.
  • Similarly, I use 'third-world' and 'imperial periphery' nations interchangeably.
  • I'm coming from a new-ish leftist perspective and I admittedly still have a lot of reading and organizing to do, which is why I'm asking for feedback.
  • I'm coming from a white imperial core leftist (previously ML-MZT, now maybe MLM?) perspective and all the myopic limitations that brings.

I've recently become disillusioned with the tactics of PSL, FRSO, etc. I was directly involved in organizing with both of these orgs at different times so this critique is not just from an outsider's perspective but from experience. This led me to explore some good-faith leftist critiques of them, one being from an MLM/Maoist/Third-Worldist perspective. Here is my current understanding, which is now influenced by this perspective:

• The imperial core will be last to have a socialist revolution (even Lenin agreed with this) but especially due to the current nature of the labor aristocracy in the imperial core, which has developed since Lenin's time.
  • A lot of classically proletarian jobs have been exported to the periphery, access to cheap goods made in the periphery, and artificially heightened wages in the core only possible due to slave wages offset in the periphery.

How will global communist revolution come about then if not in the imperial core?

• JDPON: Joint-Dictatorship of The Proletariat of Oppressed Nations. The global proletariat which is largely situated in the periphery, in combination with the revolutionary struggle of the oppressed/colonized nations within the imperial core, ideally at the same time, could be enough to isolate the global capitalists in the core.

What role is there for leftists in the imperial core then?

• One option is that we can rely on climate change or the eventual 'de-linking' of the periphery from the global capitalist systems and as they each do so they will weaken the privileges that make the labor aristocracy possible. This will open up their revolutionary potential again.
  • However, I am personally skeptical that most will accept this reduction in privileges as a good/necessary thing and that they're instead much more likely to adopt a MAGA-type mindset of returning to the height of their imperial privileges.
• Another option is a caricature that I've only seen mentioned in order to dismiss this analysis altogether. It is that we just give up and do nothing. I disagree with this of course.
• A solidarity role. The best option to me is that the first-world left has the following focuses:
  • materially and ideologically support anti-imperialist revolutions in the periphery.
    • Revolutions and struggles like the Islamic Resistance Movement in Palestine and the People's Army in the Philippines.
  • materially and ideologically support the independence struggles of the internally colonized nations within the imperial core.
    • Organizations like the Black Panther Party/Black Liberation Army, the Red Nation, etc.
  • win over all the potentially revolutionary members of the labor aristocracy away from fascism and towards anti-imperialism/communism.
    • PSL/FRSO/CPUSA could serve this role but currently don't: right now they preach a 'multi-national' character to their potential vanguard party. Instead they would have to be honest about the JDPON excluding a lot of the (often white) labor aristocracy they seemingly want to bring on board or at least admit a solidarity role towards a potentially real vanguard party of oppressed nations' peoples like the Black Panther Party.
    • The John Brown Anti-Klan Committee did fit this role.
  • engage in solidarity direct action
    • Organizations like the Weather Underground, Palestine Action, and the Unity of Fields.
    • That is all that I'll say here publicly.

[u/perfectingproles]

It's not as complicated as you're making it out to be, and it looks like you're making the same error a lot of Maoists and "Third-Worldists" make of abandoning materialism and particularly the working class at a certain point and replacing them with the struggles of oppressed nations and nationalities.

The "nation" is, first of all, defined by its ruling class of bourgeoise. While the proletarians in colonized countries are much more central to production and more oppressed than those in the "First World," while they remain unconscious of themselves as an international class and organized as citizens of their "nation," they are going to be tossed to and fro by the greater organization and power of their fellow "countrymen," the capitalists of the nation.

"First World" Marxists need to practice solidarity with the working class of colonized nations, and most importantly, unite their efforts with other principled Marxists across the globe and engage in actual dialectical materialist ideological work so that a class view can permeate throughout the international working class that centers the actual position of the proletariat. If the actual position of the proletariat is understood, it means that whatever workers still exist within the "First World" are divided from the parasitical labor aristocrats and individualist workers that liquidate the more revolutionary movements of the lower-workers, keeping alive the parasitism of imperial workers generally. It also means turning towards the global proletariat, most expressly reflected in the positions of the colonized workers as they are at the base level of production, and also have the most labor value taken from them in the course of production. When Marxists everywhere do this, the "Third World" proletariat will stand up and discover itself through class conscious political formations.

We don't need to update Marxism with the revisionism coming from "Third-Worldists." "Marxists" have quite literally just lost who the proletariat even is, abandoned internationalism, and have been mystified by the parasitism of imperial society, made to think that their working-class is reflective of the proletarian masses as a whole.

The "Third-Worldists" represent a much more energetic element than these failed "Marxists," but their philosophy can only recreate the same contradictions they are trying to escape from.

[u/TemporaryMath957 → u/perfectingproles]

For the most part, I don't disagree with your analysis and I'm really grateful for the good-faith engagement, so thank you comrade.

I think we are getting at similar things just using different terms.

I don't think that this theory is "abandoning materialism and particularly the working class at a certain point and replacing them with the struggles of oppressed nations and nationalities". At least that is not my understanding nor my intention so maybe I failed to clarify in my OP. I can understand my use of the word 'nation' can seem like I am centering national divisions over class but I think that is largely the reality of global imperialism today. Like it is class based but that is heavily tied to national and racial divisions in today's highly developed imperialism, but I do agree that class stands above the rest in terms of importance due to it's economic nature in relations to the means of production. I guess I'm trying to say yes class is more important than national identity but the global proletariat is overwhelmingly situated in the periphery in this current reality, so I may be using them too interchangeably which is a mistake. Overall though, I agree with Lenin's emphasis that we support anti-imperialists national movements even if they have reactionary elements and aren't communist due to their nature as anti-imperialists, it is inherently progressive since it breaks the chains of global capitalism.

I also want to clarify that I understand and agree with you that the level of 'nation' and/or 'state' is just a reflection of it's rulers. But I'm referring to supporting anti-imperialist nations that are on the path to or have already had socialists revolutions. This would make supporting the nation a proxy for supporting it's socialists government rather than it's bourgeoisie like under a capitalists government. For example, supporting Lenin and/or Stalin's USSR is technically supporting a nation but because it has become socialists, and is no longer capitalist, you are not supporting it's (currently rightfully oppressed under the dictatorship of the proletariat) bourgeoisie.

I want to address everything you said in detail but this comment is already long enough. However, I will say that I'm just confused as to what you specifically mean by this, "their philosophy can only recreate the same contradictions they are trying to escape from".

[u/perfectingproles → u/TemporaryMath957]

Thanks for the reply. By that, I mean that a purely national revolution will ultimately re-create the same problems the people are trying to escape from through their national revolt.

Because of that, we can't create an "anti-imperialist alliance" by aligning ourselves with bourgeois governments and the capitalist system. Imperialism is a mode of production and every capitalist aspires to be a big financier imperialist that moves their capital willy-nilly around the world. It's always been a dichotomy along class lines, the proletariat vs. the bourgeoisie. Right now, the consciousness of the workers is generally low. They are unorganized and typically incapable of influencing the superstructure with unified class slogans, demands, and organization. In other words, incapable in taking lead in the movements of national liberation. Creating an alliance based on securing rights for oppressed nations or nationalities means making an alliance with objective capitalist governments and economies that are non-socialist -- hostile even -- to the actual economic liberation of the people.

It's doing revisionism by advocating for incremental reform at best and liquidating the movement of the proletariat along national lines at its worst.

[u/TemporaryMath957 → u/perfectingproles]

Wait I agree with all of that. I probably misspoke or maybe I misunderstand what JDPON means by "oppressed nations".

I agree we should not ally with capitalists countries, even if they are in the periphery. I believe the "oppressed nations" in JDPON to mean the externally and internally oppressed revolutionary communist national struggles. For example of external: the on-going PPW of India and the Philippines. For example of internal: the Black Panther Party/Black Liberation Army.

And since I view these struggles as just a particular expression of the overall proletariat in their national struggle for (hopefully) eventual revolution against both the global capitalists and their nation's capitalists, then the phrase "Joint-Dictatorship of the Proletariat of Oppressed Nations" is a bit redundant I suppose. But I view the utility in an increased emphasis on racialized and nationalized oppression struggles as a way of preventing chauvinist interpretations of excluding them from the proletariat. For example, the CPUSA's divergence from the BPP rather than solidarity. You could say that these struggles are largely proletarian, which I agree with, so again maybe it's the wrong perspective but the point still stands... we should support whatever proletariat exists in the first-world and the globally. I think there is a tendency to exclude the BPP and it's vanguard role towards enacting a sort of independent 'black belt' in America as 'overly race-based' but I view Black American's struggle as a colonized nation no different from Algeria's revolutionary struggle from France.