Bob Afakean’s cult still bashing Iran as imperialists gear up for military strike

Bob Afakean’s cult still bashing Iran as imperialists gear up for military strike

(monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

 

Vice President Joe Biden speaking for the Obama administration recently green-lighted an attack on Iran by Israel:

“Israel can determine for itself — it’s a sovereign nation — what’s in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else.” (1)

 In a recent issue of Revolution, RCP issued a call for a protest at the UN against Iran:

“On September 23 and 24, 2009 Ahmadinejad is expected to take part in a UN meeting. We will be there in order to be a voice of the recent uprising of the people of Iran against the Islamic Republic; in order to show our solidarity with thousands of political prisoners and the families of those who were brutally butchered by the security and police forces of the IRI during street protests or in dungeons of Evin and Kahrizak; in order to show our solidarity with millions of youth who are fighting for a new and liberatory society; in order to show our solidarity with millions of women who are determined not to be crushed by a medieval patriarchal system and today are constituting the front rows of battle against the IRI.

 

We invite the Iranians and people in North America who have wholeheartedly supported the uplifting struggles of the brave people of Iran against the criminal IRI, to join us in this protest.” (2) 

This latest RCP-led event is part of a long series of similar anti-Iranian, pro-war events directed against the Islamic Republic. Once again, the RCP and an exile group known as “the Communist Party of Iran (Maoist)” lay the ideological groundwork within the imperial “left” for war against Iran. Another organization with a similar approach is the People’s Mujahedin of Iran (MEK), a well-known CIA asset that claims to be influenced by Marxism-Leninism. Some of these kinds of organizations, which are based outside of Iran, exist because of continuing patronage from the imperialists. They are objectively pro-imperialist despite their Marxoid rhetoric. Revisionism doesn’t wear a “kick me” sign. Revisionism has to be exposed through science. 

 

A history of Crypto-Trotskyism

 

RCP abandoned Maoism when they criticized the Maoist conception of people’s war as outdated. Bob Avakian, guru of the RCP, criticized the idea that the world revolution should be conceived as a global people’s war as “Lin Biaoist” in the early 1980s. According to the view articulated in Lin Biao’s Long Live Victory of People’s War!, the world revolution is a giant people’s war that advances from the global countryside to the global city. In this struggle, both the Western imperialists headed by the US and the social imperialists are pitted against the masses of Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In this worldwide struggle, the socialist countries are conceived as base areas in the global people’s war. Thus proletarian internationalism plays a big role in this model. According to this view, in the final analysis, the world revolution hinges on the struggles in Asia, Africa, and Latin America. In other words, the traditional Maoist view has a Third Worldist orientation.

 

In place of the people’s war approach, Bob Avakian advances the Trotskyist view of Permanent Revolution. According to the RCP’s view, socialism in a single, Third World country is not sustainable without help of the “advanced” economies of the First World. In other words, it is possible to have a revolution in a single, Third World country, but unless that revolution spreads to “advanced” economies of the First World, socialism will fail in the Third World. Underlying this is the Theory of Productive Forces, a theory criticized by the Maoists during the Cultural Revolution. Whereas Mao criticized the Comintern because of its meddling, the RCP, like Trotsky, attempted to re-invent a Fourth International in order to coordinate their world revolution, in order to place Third World revolutions in the service of the First World. The Maoist model places primary importance on people’s war in the Third World. By contrast, Bob Avakian’s model, like Trotsky’s, sees First World revolution as decisive. Thus, like Trotsky, Bob Avakian advances a doctrine that is both ideologically and organizationally chauvinist and social imperialist, not proletarian internationalist. RCP’s approach is thoroughly First Worldist in orientation.

 

Part of RCP’s criticism of so-called “Lin Biaoism” is also a criticism of the Maoist idea that there is a principal contradiction. Rather, RCP advances the agnostic, post-modern, unscientific view that there is no principal contradiction. Thus RCP does away with the Maoist-Third Worldist view that the principal contradiction is between exploiter versus exploiter countries, the global city versus the global countryside, the First versus the Third World. RCP also does away with the Maoist claim that the principal contradiction is between oppressor and oppressed nations. Rather than seeing the defense of Iran, as a Third World country, as a priority, RCP is spreading anti-Iran sentiment in a war atmosphere. In practice, RCP thinks it is more important to criticize Iran and Islam than to criticize imperialism. Thus, RCP does not land on the side of the oppressed and exploited peoples of the Third World. Rather, RCP has entered into a tacit alliance with the US and other imperialists. RCP has abandoned the Maoist conception of the broad united front against imperialism. 

 

RCP promotes the line of “left” compradorism in Iran. RCP has entered into an alliance with groups like the Communist Party of Iran (Maoist) and similar outfits. These movements know that they have little hope of toppling the Islamic regime at present, which has a degree of popular support because of its quasi-social democracy and quasi-anti-imperialism. So, these “left” comprador movements seek to promote an imperialist invasion of Iran as a means to elevating themselves to power. They have perverted Lenin’s strategy of revolutionary defeatism and replaced it with its opposite. Lenin’s approach was to transform the war between Germany and the Russian Empire into a revolutionary war of the proletariat. In other words, the Bolsheviks struck when the Russian empire had been weakened by World War 1. The key difference here is that Lenin’s strategy was one that led to the defeat of an imperialist country, the Russian empire. By contrast, the strategy of these “left” comprador, fake-communist organizations is one that leads to the defeat of an oppressed country and the strengthening of US imperialism. In other words, these movements are willing to ride to power on imperialist tanks, just as Trotsky toyed with the idea of hitchhiking with the Nazis during World War 2. 

 

RCP reads from the State Department script on Iran

 

Even though the Bush administration is out of power, its neo-con policies have been largely adopted by the Obama administration. During the Bush administration, RCP disseminated anti-Iran and anti-Islamic agitation and propaganda. RCP continues its anti-Iran policies today. RCP has joined the anti-Iranian choir that includes the mainstream media, the Zionists, and the US government. In previous issues of their newspaper, RCP denounced the Islamic Republic’s nuclear program, echoing the neo-con and liberal hawks. Thus RCP takes the line that Third World countries, like Iran, do not have the right to defend themselves from imperialism by any means necessary. Thus RCP agrees with the State Department. RCP also echoes Khrushchev, who was criticized by Mao for backing down during the Cuban missile crisis. RCP condemns Iran over its supposed treatment of women, just as the neo-cons do to split the women’s movement in the imperialist countries from the anti-war movement. According to such an outlook, since imperialism will bring modernity and bring freedom to Iranian women, imperialist control of Iran is progressive. Thus RCP aligns itself with the neo-cons who criticize “Islamo-fascism” in Iran. This is no surprise, since both the RCP and neo-cons share the same Trotskyist outlook.

 

 

Sources:

 

1. http://www.counterpunch.org/leupp07072009.html

2. http://revcom.us/a/175/iran_call-en.html

On the death of Corazon Aquino

On the death of Corazon Aquino

(amihanmalaya.wordpress.com and monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

 

Corazon Aquino died a week ago. The death of a former puppet is the latest talk of the town. As usual, the media has started yet another campaign to glorify her. The media serves its own agenda as a mouthpiece for the one section of reactionaries who trumpet the victory of “democracy” over the Marcos-led dictatorship as some kind of mystical event. Not only does this media-driven charade obscure the real historical narrative, it popularizes grandiose lies that bamboozle the masses under the banner of “peaceful revolution” — as if. Such idealist rhetoric leaves us with nothing concrete. Rather than such empty hype, the masses must embrace science and learn from history.

 

Let’s take a look back, in the late 80s and in the 90s, when the movement was in turmoil. Sison, as a leading theoretician, had the daunting task of putting the revolution back on track, to rectify the entire revolutionary movement. Sison outlined everything from organizational errors to ideological deviation. Sison was absolutely correct in reasserting Maoism as the universal ideological weapon of the oppressed and exploited peoples. In many of the party documents, Sison evaluates the aftermath of the EDSA 1986 “revolution.” He states that conditions under the U$-Aquino regime was as bad or worse than its predecessor. (1) An alternative news source, the Bulatlat describes Aquino’s regime:

“Aquino also implemented the same militarist solution to the armed conflict by ‘unsheathing the sword of war,’ displacing more than a million people in rural areas. The ‘low intensity conflict’ strategy that the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) learned from the US Armed Forces and was implemented by the Aquino government included arming anti-communist vigilante groups, which was responsible for brutal attacks against the people in rural areas.” (2)

State terrorism was higher under Aquino than under either Marcos or Arroyo. The U$-Aquino regime unleashed many cutthroat vigilante groups, baranggay defense units, and other mercenaries, even calling them “defenders of democracy.” These were simply goons of the Aquino-Cojuanco clan, especially clerico-fascist cult outfits, Tat-tad, Ilaga to name a few. This also includes the heightened formal anti-insurgency operations of the repressive police and the military.

 

Now Sison has reversed himself. Two decades after, Sison implies that Cory is a “progressive.” In recent interviews with Sison himself, he reminisces about the friendly ties he had with the Aquinos prior to the downfall of the U$-Marcos regime. According to Sison, he had maintained a good relationship with the Aquinos even though he publicly opposed them. (3) (4) Now the misleaders of the popular movement in the Philippines, the NDF, not only conveyed their condolences to the Aquino family, they also align themselves with Aquino, the hated fraud. The NDF even states that the U$-backed Aquino regime promoted human rights, civil liberties, nationalist and progressive programs, land reform, etc. as called for by the 1986 Constitution. (5) To set the record straight, the U$-Aquino regime upheld such idealist rhetoric only on paper; to say otherwise is to betray the masses, whom the NDF claims to be fighting for. Nobody with a brain believes such nonsense. The Aquino government was an instrument of class rule. Like the Marcos dictatorship before it, Aquino’s regime inflicted terror upon the masses as an instrument of the comprador bourgeoisie, landlords and land thieves.

 

This unprincipled media stunt by Sison and the NDF is an effort to gain popularity with certain segments of the population, especially the middle classes. For decades, these segments have had a negative opinion of the popular movement for the most part. So, Sison sacrifices Maoism to win some points as a bourgeois politician.

 

This degenerate forgive-and-forget bullshit is unacceptable. These statements by Sison and the NDF are a betrayal of those who have suffered abuses under Aquino’s reactionary government. Sison only confuses the masses by making such opportunist statements. Such opportunism undermines Maoism as revolutionary science. It is now clear that the NDF has joined the yellow flag waving horde of intellectually bankrupt hippies. They have lost their revolutionary character many times over. And, they have lost their very minds by joining in the Pro-Aquino chorus. Nothing distinguishes the NDF from their predecessor groups. Revisionists are revisionists. And, they have misled the proletariat for far too long. If they can’t even distinguish friends from enemies, how can we expect them to lead the masses to socialism? Unlike the NDF and Sison, Maoist-Third Worldists are steadfast and determined to take principled stands. Genuine revolutionaries speak the truth. The shining path to communism is Maoism-Third Worldism. We shed no tear for a fraud such as Corazon Aquino: the death of an oppressor means nothing to the poor peasants, whom they kill and starve.

 

Notes

 

1. http://www.philippinerevolution.net/cgi-bin/cpp/pdocs.pl?id=reafe;page=05

2. http://www.bulatlat.com/main/2009/08/01/cory-aquino%E2%80%99s-place-in-history/

3. http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/breakingnews/nation/view/20090803-218598/CPP-founder-Aquino-was-true-to-her-word

4. http://www.josemariasison.org/jumi02/inps/Coryexceprel.htm

5. http://www.philippinerevolution.net/cgi-bin/statements/stmts.pl?author=ndfnp;date=090802;lang=eng

 

*

Review of ‘The Old Future’s Gone: Progressive Strategy Amid Cascading Crisis,’ a talk by Robert Jensen

Review of ‘The Old Future’s Gone: Progressive Strategy Amid Cascading Crisis,’ a talk by Robert Jensen

(raimd.wordpress.com)

Last month, author and activist Robert Jensen spoke in Denver at an event sponsored by Argusfest entitled “The Old Future’s Gone: Progressive Strategy Amid Cascading Crisis.”  It was based on a writing that has circulated among left-liberal websites.  A professor of journalism at the University of Texas in Austin, he also has written many books and articles on topics such as imperialism, capitalism, white privilege and patriarchy.  He doesn’t quite go to our line, but he at least asks the right questions and approaches the right topics. Because of this, a few members of RAIM went to check out the event.

At best his talk could be summed up as eclectic with a sub-reformist emphasis.

Jensen also carries a sense of honest despair, admitting he sees little in the way of widespread, fundamental change. Rather than seeking out revolutionary means to revolutionary ends, he instead prefers to deal in ways in which he feels he’s made a more immediate, though irrelevant and fleeting, impact.

In talking about strategies for change, Jensen sees the Amerikan left engaged in three types: electoral politics, movement politics and local projects. He sees no use in electoral politics. Movement politics have their limits also, especially in their emphasis on protest marches. Bringing up the February 15, 2003 worldwide marches against the invasion of Iraq, the largest coordinated protest in history, which the New York Times said made world opinion a second superpower, he noted that they did nothing to stop that war. He sees more hope in local projects, things like community gardens and such. According to Jensen, the potential for dialogue and debate among others is increased in local projects, though he didn’t specify to what concrete end. The example he raised as his own efforts with local projects was a worker-owned cafe in Austin, though he admitted this effort failed to get off the ground.

While we understand the frustrations in observing the seemingly immovable state of Amerika and the world, the lack of radicalism in Amerikan mass politics, and the inability for radicals to act effectively in a minoritarian context, there were limits to Jensen’s insights beyond this.

When prodded by a RAIM comrade, Jensen admitted that the First World benefits from the exploitation of the Third World. When asked how this phenomenon of entire populations benefiting from others related to and could perhaps be overcome by local projects, he didn’t have an answer.  When asked about a solution in putting local projects to tackling this global issue of exploitation, he said the question was too big and too complicated to solve.

Jensen’s inability to answer straight questions were illuminating to the level of confusion within the Amerikan left, even amongst its intellectuals.  Jensen is one of the better intellectuals on the left, as he critiques metaphysical liberal ideas in favor of more radical analyses.  Jensen’s desire for revolutionary change is in some ways genuine, though Jensen himself is unable to come up with an effective model for widespread fundamental change.  Instead he promotes feel-good sub-reformism in the form of local projects, something he himself admits won’t work all the time. As once stated by Stokely Carmichael (later Kwame Ture), “Confusion is the greatest enemy of revolution.”

Much of this confusion can be seen in the trappings of left’s First Worldism.  Many on the left nominally go against imperialism while simultaneously campaigning to make Amerikans even better off. Jensen falls in this camp: he wants a better world but doesn’t want to alienate Amerikans. The truth is, Amerikans benefit from the global capitalist economic system as it is and have little material interest in working to create a new one.  This in part explains why revolutionary change seems so untenable within Amerika, even to those who genuinely desire it.

Unlike Jensen, we at RAIM apply global class analysis fully.  Doing simple math, Amerika is only 5 percent of the world population but the consumer of over 25 percent of the world’s resources.  The poorest half of the world lives on less than $2 a day, and the bottom 1.3 billion live on less than $1 a day.  Although Jensen admits this, RAIM-Denver plainly says the obvious truth and takes it to its logical end: Amerikans are part of the problem; they are a force which must be overcome during the course of progressive change. Unlike Jensen who is fruitlessly engaged in various forms of pandering to a population of petty exploiters and polluters, RAIM champions the cause of the world’s exploited and oppressed majority as the most direct route to creating a new world.

At one point, Jensen said that he struggles to identify as part of humanity and not Amerikan, white or male. In reality, to stand with humanity is to stand against Amerika and the First World.

The First World is destroying the planet and exploiting its people. On a structural level, this mean that the principal antagonism is between imperialism and the people of exploited nations. Exploitation-driven consumption and related environmental destruction affect the Third World the most, while benefits, even indirectly, trickle up to the First World.  The solution for this problem isn’t for those in the First World to engage in local projects. Rather, real change will come when Third World peoples wrestle stolen wealth out of the hands of First World imperialists. While this includes worker-owned industry on the part of currently exploited people, history has proven that this itself requires a fight and involves actual confrontations. Amerikans are not simply going to stop being exploiters: unlike the fluffy revolution of values Jensen dreams up, revolutions actually require revolution.

Review: Communist Party (U$A)

Reviewed: Communist Party (U$A) (cpusa.org)

 

(linez.wordpress.com)

 

The Communist Party, USA (CPUSA) is a revisionist, First Worldist, social democratic, patriotic pro-Amerikkkan, social imperialist and social fascist party posing as a communist party. Today, they are led by Sam Webb. The CPUSA was, historically, the pro-Moscow party within the US. They moved away from Stalin, even liquidated at one point under the influence of Earl Browder. They supported Khrushchev’s turn away from Stalin in the 1950s and his later attacks on Maoism. Thus they supported the social imperialist turn by the Soviet Union. Even though they rejected China in its Maoist period, today they support revisionist , counter-revolutionary China and other similar states falsely claiming to be socialist. Today, there is nothing communist about the CPUSA except for its name. They have thrown the ABCs of Marxism out the door.

 

CPUSA have dropped revolutionary Marxism entirely. They reject scientific, global class analysis. They are typical First Worldist revisionists. CPUSA sees the majority of Amerikans as an exploited, working class even though the poorest, employed Amerikans fall within the richest 15% of the world’s population. They seek to increase the Amerikan standard of living, even though the Amerikan standard of living is already one of the highest in the world as a result of exploitation of the Third World.  Amerikans already receive more than the value of their labor. Amerikans receive a larger share of the global social product than a worldwide, egalitarian distribution would entail. Amerikans would lose out in any socialist, just distribution of the global social product. Thus by seeking to increase the Amerikan share of the global pie, CPUSA seeks to increase the exploitation of the Third World. Thus they are social imperialist: socialist in name, imperialist in content.  They are also social fascist since, to this end, they pander to the same social forces as the Minutemen. 

 

They share the typical, White chauvinism of the social base they try to appeal to. CPUSA claims that there is one “multi-racial” working class within the United States. They do not see Blacks, Chicanos and Mexicans, Indigenous peoples, etc. as separate nations that are worthy of independence. Instead they see these groups as “racial minority groups” who are a part of Amerika. Their slogan is “Black, Brown and White unite.” Like most First Worldist revisionists, they see national liberation movements as attempts to divide the working class. Thus they reject national liberation within US borders. 

 

Overall, CPUSA have little solid criticism of US imperialism. What criticism they do have tends to be thoroughly confused and nationalist, not internationalist. In other words, not unlike the fascist Pat Buchanan, their criticism is based on the supposed effects of imperialism on US citizens, not on the effects of imperialism on the vast majority of humanity. They point out that funding the war machine takes money away from schools and social programs. Their “anti-militarism” and “anti-imperialism,” such that it is exists, is US-centered. Lacking all science, like most of the First Worldist “left,” they fail to point out that Amerikans mostly benefit from imperialism.  

 

They are bourgeois liberals. They believe in gradual reform through bourgeois institutions, not revolutionary leaps. They have abandoned the lessons of Lenin for run-of-the-mill bourgeois, electoral reformism. They call this approach “Bill of Rights Socialism.” CPUSA’s politics attempt to pull the bourgeois establishment to the left, especially the Democratic Party. Being partisans of the Democratic Party, they even go so far as to dedicate significant time attacking bourgeois, third parties such as the Green Party as “spoilers” who aid the Republicans. They often justify their work for the Democratic Party by claiming that there is an eminent, fascist threat in the form of the “ultra-right” Republican Party. They also pander to the union bureaucracies and non-profit organizations.  

 

CPUSA’s main web page is here: http://www.cpusa.org/ 

 

Here is an article on their conception of socialism: Socialism, USA

 

Their weekly paper is the People’s Weekly World and their journal is Political Affairs. 

Review: Workers World Party

Workers World Party (workers.org)

 

(linez.wordpress.com)

 

Workers World Party (WWP) is one of the larger parties in the United Snakes calling itself socialist. They are revisionist in numerous ways: First Worldist, Trotskyist, etc. They are arch-opportunists who stay away from theory. They see real Marxists are ultra-left, sectarian, and so on. Their core members may be united around a line, but most of their members don’t know the difference between a Trotskyist and a Maoist. Their general membership is united in WWP because WWP tends to be one of the more visibly active groups around. So, they attract activists and movementarians who don’t care about political line. 

 

WWP has an odd history that reflects the arch-opportunist nature of the organization. The WWP began as a Sam Marcy-led split from the Trotskyist Socialist Workers Party (SWP) in the 1959. They split from the SWP over various issues, one of which was that WWP supported the Soviet intervention in Hungry in 1956, which SWP opposed. WWP supported the Chinese revolution. They also supported Henry Wallace’s Progressive Party in 1948. 

 

WWP, even if it identifies as Trotskyist at its core, swims in First Worldist “Marxist-Leninist” and “Stalinist” waters. They have attended international seminars that seek unity within the international communist movement on a “Marxist-Leninist” or “anti-revisionist” basis. First Worldism has blurred traditional lines of demarcation in the First World; thus, Tortskyists and “Stalinists” can rub shoulders as First Worldists. WWP calls its view the theory of “global class war.” According to this view, struggles in various countries, even if they are not led by communist parties, can still be objectively advancing the proletarian struggle. This is standard Marxism-Leninism, nothing unique to WWP. Thus, WWP correctly supports Third World countries in their struggles against imperialism. However, because of WWP’s First Worldism, WWP, at the same time, incorrectly supports more imperialism in order to raise the First World stand of living. Of course, WWP isn’t smart or honest enough to admit that they are working cross-purposes by supporting anti-imperialism and imperialism at the same time. In addition, WWP waffles in its support of national liberation within US borders. Even though they lend nominal support to some of these struggles, like so many other chauvinist outfits, they are known for trying to co-opt such national liberation movements. 

 

WWP was one of the larger parties calling itself socialist in North America before its split with the ideologically identical Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL). So, now WWP is much smaller. Of course, all parties in North America are miniscule because the so-called working class in North America has no interest in real or fake socialism of any kind. The so-called working class in North America knows that its interests are served better by out-and-out bourgeois parties than by tiny, fake Marxist sects and cults. In chasing after every First Worlder from the Archie Bunkers to the PC crowd,  WWP goes in for lowest common denominator politics. They are also known for organizing the bigger anti-war demonstrations in the United Snakes for the past decade or so. They do solidarity work for Cuba, Venezuela and northern Korea. This solidarity work falls silent on Amerikan ears. Workers World has never seen a revisionist in power that it didn’t like. Thus they seek to be the fraternal, North American franchise of any revisionist with state power that will have them. Of course, revisionists with state power don’t really care about such things anymore.  

 

Even though they support the revisionists in China today, WWP supported the Maoists during the Cultural Revolution. Sam Marcy’s analysis, although primitive and confused, correctly saw that the fall of the leftist leadership in the PLA under Lin Biao in 1971 was a major turning point in the Chinese revolution. Sam Marcy also supported the Gang of Four at the time of their fall in 1976. Strangely, WWP published an article praising Lin Biao on the anniversary of his birth by Caleb T. Maupin. Again, the leadership of WWP is not intelligent enough to see that  everything in Lin Biao’s writing points against their approach, their First Worldism and Trotskyism. Perhaps they are trying to capitalize on the recent interest in Lin Biao. Who knows.

 

Their paper is Workers World.

 

Here are some typical First Worldist, social imperialist articles: No Jobs on the Moon, Wall Street Profits Soar 

Here is some decent coverage of Iran on their Iran page. 

 

Review: Monkey Smashes Heaven

Review: Monkey Smashes Heaven (monkeysmashesheaven.wordpress.com)

(linez.wordpress.com)

Monkey Smashes Heaven (MSH) describes itself as the online journal of the fourth stage of revolutionary science. That’s a mouthful, but it’s accurate. MSH evolved out of various movements, but its main ideological predecessor was the It’s Right To Rebel Group (IRTR) that existed from May 2005 through June 2007.  MSH provides the ideological leadership to a large, autonomous, global movement calling itself “Maoist-Third Worldist.” MSH provides the general line, the general framework for the Maoist-Third Worldist movement as a whole that has cells from the Philippines to Mexico to North America. This movement includes such notable organizations as Shubel Morgan, Amihan Malaya, Internationalist Jacobin Club, It’s (Radio) to Rebel and others. These other pages will be reviewed at a later date.

What distinguishes MSH from most of the so-called “left” is MSH’s Third Worldism and Maoism. MSH has been the principal vehicle for Maoism-Third Worldism, the fourth stage of Marxism. Today, what distinguishes real Marxists from fake Marxists is one’s attitude toward Maoism-Third Worldism. MSH is adamant that its Third Worldism has nothing to do with Mao’s Three Worlds Theory of the 1970s. Rather, MSH’s outlook is closer to that of Lin Biao’s Long Live the Victory of People’s War!  MSH sees the world revolution as a global people’s war from the global countryside (the Third World) to the global cities (the First World). The principal contradiction is exploited versus exploiter nations, the Third versus the First Worlds, global countryside versus global cities, etc. 

Maoist-Third Worldists hold that there is no significant proletariat in the imperialist nations, in the First World. There is no revolutionary subject nor an exploited class in a meaningful sense in the First World.  Rather, the First World is comprised of parasite classes that exist through super-exploitation of the Third World. The working class of the First World is not a revolutionary class, but a class of bought-off, labor aristocrats who are the social base for fascism. Because the working class and lower stratas in the First World already receive more than their fair share of the global pie, those “leftist” organizations that advocate on their behalf are not agitating for socialism. Rather, they are agitating for social fascism, i.e. socialism in words, fascism in reality. They are advocating for more imperialism in order to increase the share of parasites.  For this reason, MSH correctly denounce the entire First Worldist “left.” 

Maoism is also a big part of MSH. MSH upholds the universal truths of Maoism. According to Maoism, the Chinese Cultural Revolution was the furthest advance toward communism in human history. The Cultural Revolution was a response to, what Mao accurately described as, “a new bourgeoisie” that arises out of the structural and ideological problems of socialism itself. Unless this new class is combatted, they will restore capitalism. The counter-revolution occurred in the Soviet Union in the 1950s, and in China in the 1970s. A big part of MSH’s work has been an honest accounting of past socialist experiences, especially the Cultural Revolution. As part of this, MSH has rehabilitated Lin Biao, which is a controversial point among many who claim to be Maoist.

MSH’s research far outshines anything else out there. Their work in political economy, history and other areas of theory sets the bar for serious, scientific work. However, they also write culture reviews and news articles covering current events. 

Here are some examples of MSH’s political economy: A rough estimate of the value of labor, Global Inequality or Socialist Equality, A Maoist-Third Worldist position on Unequal Exchange, Some tentative thoughts on “the social factory”

Examples of history work: Two Roads Defeated part 1, part 2, part 3, Some of Us Reviewed part 1, part 2, part 3, Socialism and Reversal part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5

Movie reviews: Reds (1981): Goldman vs. Reed vs. Zinoviev, To Live (1994), Bandidas (2006)