A propagandist-in-chief's war on intellectual imperialism and pursuit of a resistance episteme

Posts Tagged: class struggle

Text

I am posting here an excerpt which I had written for my last article for al-Akhbar, “Supporting Resistance, Not Regime” , but which was edited out by the editors due to space constraints. I feel this passage is important to the consistency of my argument as a few comrades asked why the conclusion seemed incomplete. So here is the relevant section on Lenin and Hizbullah’s understanding of revolutionary action:

As underlined by David Fennell in his illuminating essay on counter-revolution in Libya, “Marxism understands that anything is determined by the totality of the forces acting in it.” Fennell goes on to quote Lenin’s definition of totality as one which takes account “of all the forces, groups, parties, classes and masses operating in a given country’.” In other words, when formulating a political position, an analysis of the working class’ situation alone does not suffice, but must involve all social contradictions, with special emphasis on social contradictions which occur on the world system’s level.

Particularly useful for understanding the basic contradiction on Syria between pro-opposition and Third Way intellectuals and resistance camp intellectuals, is the following insight from Fennell’s essay. Here, Fennell attributes leftist support for popular movements hijacked by imperialism “to a non-Marxist theory which sees the class struggle not as resulting from the total contradictions of all classes in society but from some sort of populist unfolding of the masses – put vulgarly, if people are on a demonstration, or if there is a mass movement, it must necessarily be progressive. Regrettably this is not true – as Marx analyzed from the 1848 revolutions onward. It is perfectly possible to have large movements which are either reactionary from the beginning or seized control of and manipulated by reaction and imperialism. It is not the fact that a lot of people are involved that makes a movement progressive, but which class benefits from its victory or defeat.”

While Hizbullah does not espouse a Marxist- Leninist political ideology, it adopts a similar logic not only with regard to Syria, but also to its own resistance activity. Although it is a grass-roots movement which enjoys popular support in Lebanon and the region as a whole, as Nasrallah readily admits, it is also aware that its resistance is “a controversial national issue” which was never “an object of national consensus”. Popular legitimacy is no doubt desirable for the movement, but it is not necessary: “the resistance does not wait for national or popular consensus but must take to arms and press ahead with the duty of liberation.” Viewed from this perspective, resistance isn’t a right because it is launched by “the people” or because it enjoys mass support, but because it seeks to liberate the oppressed. By the same token, if a movement were to hypothetically enjoy some kind of national consensus, but was positioned on the same side of the political divide as imperialism, it would not qualify as a progressive revolutionary movement as its victory would only serve the interests of the Empire.

div>
Text

One of imperialism’s most widely used tactics today is to ridicule, infantilize, and dismiss charges of imperialism as being so reductionist, oversimplistic, doctrinaire, passé, or conspiratorial, that we shy away from using such terms in our political discourse. For what could be more intellectually imperializing than to relegate what are esssentially social scientific concepts like colonialism, imperialism and class struggle to the realm of ideology, values and norms? By de-scientizing concepts that are no less measurable than “democracy”, “human rights” and “economic development”, Empire de-normalizes this discourse and disarms us of our intellectual armour. And that is how minds are colonized and information wars won.

div>

Lenin versus the early Lukács

While highly theoretical, this essay traces the thinking of imperialist-enabling leftists like Counterfire to the Marxist thought of Georg Lukács.  Lenin’s critique of Lukács, as well as his central ideas on history and revolution as found in his  “Left-Wing” Communism – An Infantile Disorder (a MUST READ btw in the context of the so-called Arab “Spring”), in addition to other cited works, offers profound insights into the very flawed theoretical premises upon which many western and Arab leftists have based their current political positions vis-a-vis Libya and Syria  in particular. 

Some excerpts which are of particular relevance to Third Wayers’ position on Syria:

For Lenin the ‘subject’ of the revolutionary process (that which acted, that which needed to achieve class consciousness) was naturally the proletariat. But Lenin pointed out that what the proletariat needed to understand and therefore to act on, that is the ‘object’, was not only itself but the interrelation of ‘all the forces, groups, parties, classes and masses’ – i.e. the whole of society. ‘Subject’ and ‘object’ therefore were not the same and consequently could not be identical.

This is, for example, precisely the meaning of Lenin’s insistence that even if oppressed classes are completely unwilling to go on in the old way this is not at all sufficient for a revolution. Only if in addition the ruling class is also unable to go on in the old way could a revolution occur. As we already cited, in Lenin’s formula: ‘The fundamental law of revolution, which has been confirmed by all revolutions and especially by all three Russian revolutions in the twentieth century, is as follows: for a revolution to take place it is not enough for the exploited and oppressed masses to realise the impossibility of living in the old way and demand changes; for a revolution to take place it is essential that the exploiters should not be able to live and rule in the old way. It is only when the “lower classes” do not want to live in the old way and the “upper classes” cannot carry on in the old way that the revolution can triumph’ (Lenin V. I., 1920a, p.84).

The Marxist concept of totality necessarily means that a political line can only be derived from the analysis of ‘all the forces, groups, parties, classes and masses operating’. It cannot be derived only from one element – that of the situation of the working class itself.

But a second, wrong, idea is that Marxism is only the study of the ‘below’ – i.e. precisely the concept, paralleling Lukács, that all that is required by the working class is knowledge of itself, or more loosely, all that is required by the oppressed is knowledge of the oppressed. This, as we have seen, is not a Marxist concept. The Marxist concept of history, as of politics, is not to replace the knowledge of ‘the above’ with the knowledge of ‘the below’ but to understand the relation of ‘all the forces, groups, parties, classes and masses’ – that is the totality of society.

div>
Workers’ Day (the tools spell out “the workers” in Arabic)

Workers’ Day (the tools spell out “the workers” in Arabic)

div>
Text

Below are excerpts from a seminal essay on the future significance of information warfare written by the now retired Lieutenant Colonel, Ralph Peters formerly assigned to the Office of the Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence for the US Army War College journal, Parameters. Though the article was originally published in 1997, it was recently re-published in light of its continued relevance, and has since been quoted by Pepe Escobar in his article “”War Porn: the New Safe Sex”, with direct reference to the media war on Syria. Though unabashedly racist and classist in content and offensively triumphalist and jingoistic in tone, Peters’ essay provides a devastatingly honest account of the central role information warfare will continue to have in US military strategy. As if anticipating the current informational onslaught against the resistance axis, the article serves to confirm how the US media has become the most potent tool in its wider war on its “rejectionist” enemies. Excerpts from the 9 page article are below, with particularly interesting/offensive parts highlighted in upper-case. 

“ONE OF THE DEFINING BIFURCATIONS OF THE FUTURE WILL BE THE CONFLICT BETWEEN INFORMATION MASTERS AND INFORMATION VICTIMS.

How can you counterattack the information  others have turned upon you? There is no effective option other than competitive performance. For those individuals and cultures that cannot join or compete with our information empire, there is only inevitable failure (of note, the internet is to the techno-capable disaffected what the United Nations is to marginal states: it offers the illusion of empowerment and community). …. Information, from the internet to rock videos, will not be contained, and fundamentalism cannot  control its children. Our victims volunteer.

These noncompetitive cultures, such as that of Arabo-Persian Islam or the rejectionist segment of our own population, are enraged. Their cultures  are under assault; their cherished values have proven dysfunctional, and the successful move on without them.

THE LAID-OFF BLUE-COLLAR WORKER IN AMERICA AND THE TALIBAN MILITIAMAN IN AFGHANISTAN ARE BROTHERS IN SUFFERING.

These discarded citizens sense that their government is no longer about them, but only about the privileged.

The foreign twin is the Islamic, or sub-Saharan African, or Mexican university graduate who faces a teetering government, joblessness, exclusion from the profits of the corruption distorting his society, marriage in poverty or the impossibility of marriage, and a deluge of information telling him (exaggeratedly and dishonestly) how well the West lives….

Hollywood goes where Harvard never penetrated, and the foreigner, unable to touch the

reality of America, is touched by America’s irresponsible fantasies of itself; he sees a devilishly enchanting, bluntly sexual, terrifying world from which he is excluded, a world of wealth he can judge only in terms of his own poverty.

Most citizens of the globe are not economists; they perceive wealth as inelastic, its possession a zero-sum game. If decadent America (as seen on the screen) is so fabulously rich, it can only be because America has looted one’s own impoverished group or country or region. ….

This discarded foreigner’s desire may be to attack the “Great Satan America,” but America is far away (for now), so he acts violently in his own neighborhood. He will accept no personal guilt for his failure, nor can he bear the possibility that his culture “doesn’t work.” The blame lies ever elsewhere. The cult of victimization is becoming a universal phenomenon, and it is a

source of dynamic hatreds.

Contemporary American culture is the most powerful in history, and the most destructive of competitor cultures. ..The genius, the secret weapon, of American culture is the essence that the elites despise: ours is the first genuine people’s culture. It stresses comfort and convenience—ease—and it generates pleasure for the masses. WE ARE KARL MARX’S DREAM, AND HIS NIGHTMARE.

Secular and religious revolutionaries in our century have made the identical mistake, imagining that the workers of the world or the faithful just can’t wait to go home at night to study Marx or the Koran. Well, Joe Sixpack, Ivan Tipichni, and Ali Quat would rather “Baywatch.” America has figured it out, and we are brilliant at operationalizing our knowledge, and our cultural power will hinder even those cultures we do not undermine. There is no “peer competitor” in the cultural (or military) department. Our cultural empire has the addicted—men and women everywhere—clamoring for more. And they pay for the privilege of their disillusionment.

As more and more human beings are overwhelmed by information, or dispossessed by the effects of information-based technologies, there will be more violence. Information victims will often see no other resort. As work becomes more cerebral, those who fail to find a place will respond by rejecting reason.

THE DE FACTO ROLE OF THE US ARMED FORCES WILL BE TO KEEP THE WORLD SAFE FOR OUR ECONOMY AND OPEN TO OUR CULTURAL  ASSAULT. TO THOSE ENDS, WE WILL DO A FAIR AMOUNT OF KILLING. WE ARE BUILDING AN INFORMATION-BASED MILITARY TO DO THAT KILLING. THERE WILL STILL BE PLENTY OF MUSCLE POWER REQUIRED, BUT MUCH OF OUR MILITARY ART WILL CONSIST IN KNOWING MORE ABOUT THE ENEMY THAN HE KNOWS ABOUT HIMSELF, MANIPULATING DATA FOR EFFECTIVENESS AND EFFICIENCY, AND DENYING SIMILAR ADVANTAGES TO OUR OPPONENTS. ..

Our informational advantage over every other country and culture will be so enormous that our greatest battlefield challenge will be harnessing its power. Our potential national weakness will be the failure to maintain the moral and raw physical strength to thrust that bayonet into an enemy’s heart. We will outcreate, outproduce and, when need be, outfight the rest of the world. We can out-think them, too. .. Our national appetite for information and our sophistication in handling it will enable us to outlast and outperform  all hierarchical cultures, information-controlling societies, and rejectionist states. The skills necessary to this newest information age can be acquired only beginning in childhood and in complete immersion. Societies that fear or otherwise cannot manage the free flow of information simply will

not be competitive. THEY MIGHT MASTER THE TECHNOLOGICAL WHEREWITHAL TO WATCH THE VIDEOS, BUT WE WILL BE WRITING THE SCRIPTS, PRODUCING THEM, AND COLLECTING THE ROYALTIES. OUR CREATIVITY IS DEVASTATING.

It remains difficult, of course, for military leaders to conceive of warfare, informational or otherwise, in such broad terms. BUT HOLLYWOOD IS “PREPARING THE BATTLEFIELD,” and burgers precede bullets. The flag follows trade. Despite our declaration of defeat in the face of battlefield victory in Mogadishu, the image of US power and the US military around the world is not only a deterrent, but a psychological warfare tool that is constantly at work in the minds of real or potential opponents. Saddam swaggered, but the image of the US military crippled the Iraqi army in the field, doing more to soften them up for our ground assault than did tossing bombs into the sand. Everybody is afraid of us. They really believe we can do all the stuff in the movies. If the Trojans “saw” Athena guiding the Greeks in battle, then the Iraqis saw Luke Skywalker precede McCaffrey’s tanks. OUR UNCONSCIOUS ALLIANCE OF CULTURE WITH KILLING POWER IS A COMBAT MULTIPLIER NO GOVERNMENT, INCLUDING OUR OWN, COULD DESIGN OR AFFORD. WE ARE MAGIC. AND WE’RE GOING TO KEEP IT THAT WAY.”

Source: Ralph Peters, “Constant Conflict”, Winter 2010-11. pp. 126-134.

http://www.carlisle.army.mil/usawc/Parameters/Articles/2010winter/Peters.pdf

Source: http

div>
samimnot:

basically

samimnot:

basically

(via cultureofresistance)

Source: samimnot

div>
Text

NOVEMBER 9, 2011

Over the last few years, the word socialism has become more and more common. Usually, it’s used in an extremely negative way and in almost all situations the politician or commentator uttering the word either has no idea what it means or is being intentionally misleading. We publish the following to set the record straight.

Myth #1: Socialists want to take away your property

This myth confuses private property with personal property. When socialists talk about the abolition of private property, they are referring to the socialization of the means of production—the resources and equipment that create wealth. Working people do not own this type of property—which is why we have to work to survive.

Right now, the wealth of the 1,000 billionaires is equal to that of the 3.5 billion poorest people on the planet. In order to provide everyone with more, that wealth must be commonly owned, and not the property of those few capitalists.

Socialists have no interest in taking away one’s home, car or individual items intended for personal use. In reality, as the foreclosure crisis has shown, under capitalism the banks own most of this property as well—and will take it away as they please.

Myth #2: Socialists are against democracy and for a dictatorship

The two-party “democratic” system under capitalism is in fact a dictatorship of the rich. Under it, working people create all the wealth, but capitalists—who own the corporations and banks—have all the economic power and use it to control politics. That fact never changes, even if we have the right to vote. We get to vote on who will oppress us next, while all the important decisions are made in executive boardrooms.

Under socialism, society’s vast resources cannot be privately hoarded. They are used and distributed according to a plan that the working class and its organizations decide. Because wealth will not be concentrated in the hands of a tiny elite, it creates the basis for genuine democracy — real “rule of the people” — for the first time.

Historically, there have been various political forms to defend the rule of the working class. In U.S. schools, they teach us that the Soviet Union, China and Cuba are evil dictatorships because of their single-party systems. But we never learn that they developed such governments to prevent counter-revolutions that would have brought back the dictatorship of the rich.

Myth #3: Under socialism, there is no incentive to work

Socialism rewards hard work, while under capitalism the richest people are the ones who do no work at all. In a socialist society, the working class controls the means of production and the fruits of its own labor and therefore has a real stake in the realization of its full capacity to produce. The main incentive to work under capitalism is the threat of being fired and starvation.

Under socialism, a person is paid according to the work they do. Under capitalism, the least productive members of society—the bankers and CEOs—grow obscenely wealthy while working class people live paycheck to paycheck.

Myth #4: Socialism is against human nature

Human “nature” changes depending on the type of society you are living in. Marx explained that the ruling ideas and behaviors of a society are those of its ruling class. We are taught to believe that humans are naturally violent, exploitative and selfish because those are the principles on which our society is built. Looking through human history, including thousands of years of communal, class-less societies, we can see that another “nature” exists. Even in our present society, we can see in our daily lives tremendous examples of shared sacrifice and solidarity—even if those don’t make the evening news.

Myth #5: Socialists don’t respect freedom of religion

Socialists consider religion a private matter, and actively fight against discrimination on the basis of religion.

Marx never called for the banning of religion. He pointed out how historically religious institutions have discouraged people from fighting against oppression. They instruct poor and working people to wait instead for a better after-life.

There are many examples, however, of movements that have used religious ideology while struggling for a better world. While many socialists are atheists, the PSL whole-heartedly welcomes people of all faith backgrounds that want to fight to make that world a reality.

Myth #6: Socialists only care about class oppression—not other forms of oppression

PSL members are tireless fighters against all forms of oppression. We believe that racism, sexism, anti-immigrant bigotry, homophobia and all other kinds of discrimination divide poor and working people and must be fought if we ever want to move forward. We put ourselves in that revolutionary tradition of socialists who take up the banners of Black liberation, women’s liberation and LGBT liberation.

Myth #7: Socialism collapsed when the Soviet Union collapsed

Socialism as a concept is not dependent on any single state. It will exist as long as the exploitative system of capitalism exists. It existed before the Soviet Union and therefore exists after it. It is a theory of how to organize society in a way that eliminates scarcity and puts the producers in control.

A few governments do exist that are trying to build socialism. Cuba, a country that had been impoverished by colonialism, is an example of what can be accomplished when the resources of society are used to meet the needs of the people, as opposed to enriching the capitalist class.

The Soviet Union was the first experiment of poor and working people taking power. Despite its own contradictions, it provided universal health care, free education, the right to a job, free childcare, as well as guaranteed maternity leave and vacation days for all workers. Since the Soviet Union’s overthrow, life expectancy and living conditions have plummeted in Russia. 

The Soviet Union also developed a privileged, bureaucratic leadership that departed from revolutionary socialism. But it must be remembered that it inherited a legacy of underdevelopment. For its entire existence, the world’s most powerful countries worked to weaken and overthrow it.

Myth #8: Socialism has no historical roots in the United States

Socialists have been consistent and dedicated participants in all the major struggles the U.S. working class has engaged in. Some of the main socialist holidays—International Worker’s Day and International Women’s Day—began in the United States. The first unions were established by radicals who wanted to abolish capitalism. During the Great Depression, socialists were leaders in the labor movement and organized the unemployed. In the 1960s, leading figures of the struggles against racism, war and sexism recognized that only socialism could put a final end to these injustices. 

 http://www.pslweb.org/liberationnews/news/10-09-23-eight-myths-about-socialismand.html

 *Source: Liberation, Newspaper of Party for Socialism and Liberation 

Source: http

div>
thepeoplesrecord:

Every morning I wake up on the wrong side of capitalism. 

thepeoplesrecord:

Every morning I wake up on the wrong side of capitalism. 

Source: thepeoplesrecord

div>

The Broke Versus the Poor--Both Oppressed

A blogger friend of mine deconstructs the concept of the “99%” and in so doing distinguishes between being broke and poor, in the link below. While I find this distinction a very important one, I think we need to include both the poor and the broke/overqualified and underemployed class in a larger category called “the oppressed”. Although the degree of oppression would vary, I think it’s a useful term for the global solidarity movement in that it unites all those who are subject to economic, political, social , cultural, and intellectual injustice and domination and represents a nexus for the struggle against Western neo-colonialism/Zionism and class struggle; the struggle against Euro-American imperialism and the struggle against class hegemony. The oppressors in both categories are one and the same.
Excerpts from the blog post:
“Despite the current economic downturn, being white, healthy and educated means upward mobility is within your reach, and automatically places you on top, regardless of your actual income. If you are white, healthy, educated and don’t have money, you are broke, not poor….It’s not that overqualified, underemployed people don’t have a right to be pissed off, or that the majority shouldn’t be united by outrage against a system that is rigged to favor a superwealthy minority, but white college grads claiming to speak for the disenfranchised masses isn’t solidarity–it’s appropriation.” 

div>

(via fuckyeahmarxismleninism)

Source: h-e-r-o-i-n

div>

Ten myths about capitalism - English pravda.ru

‎”Myth 4. Capitalism means freedom
True freedom is only achieved under capitalism with the help of the so-called “market self-regulation.” The goal is to create something similar to a religion of capitalism, where everything is taken as is, and deny people the right to participate in making macroeconomic decisions. Indeed, the freedom in decision-making is the ultimate freedom, but it is only enjoyed by a narrow circle of powerful individuals, not the people, and not even the government agencies. …
Myth 5. Capitalism means democracy
Democracy can only exist under capitalism. This myth, which smoothly follows from the previous one, was created in order to prevent the discussion of other models of social order. It is argued that they are all dictatorships. Capitalism is assigned such concepts as freedom and democracy, while their meaning is distorted. In fact, society is divided into classes and the rich, being ultra-minority, dominate over all others. This capitalist “democracy” is nothing but a disguised dictatorship, and “democratic reforms” are processes opposite to progress. As the previous myth, this one also serves as an excuse to criticize and attack non-capitalist countries.
Myth 6. Election is a synonym of democracy
Election is synonymous with democracy. The goal is to denigrate or demonize other systems and prevent a discussion of political and electoral systems where leaders are determined through non-bourgeois elections, for example, on the virtue of age, experience, or popularity of candidates. In fact, it is the capitalist system that manipulates and bribes, where a vote is a conditional term, and election is only a formal act. The mere fact that the elections are always won by representatives of the bourgeois minority makes them unrepresentative. The myth that bourgeois elections guarantee presence of democracy is one of the most entrenched, and even some left-wing parties and forces believe it.”

div>