Below are found posts that form preliminary reflections on the Third World:  
“A blog from the Third World perspective” 6/9/2013;
“What is the Third World?” 7/16/2013;
“What is the Third World Revolution?” 7/17/2013;
“What is the Third World perspective?” 7/18/2013;
“Third World anti-neocolonial movement” 7/19/2013;
“Obstacles to Third World movements” 7/22/2013;
“Revolutionary processes” 7/23/2013;
“Third World and Marxism-Leninism” 7/24/2013.

      The posts were published from June 9 to July 24, 2013, when the blog was launched.  They seek to introduce the reader to the term “Third World,” which was established as an international political project by charismatic leaders from Latin America, Africa and Asia during the 1950s and 1960s, who were seeking to develop an alternative to the neocolonial world-system headed by the United States as well as the socialist world-system led by the Soviet Union.  As Vijay Prashad has written:

     As a political project born in opposition to European colonial domination and to the peripheralization of the once-autonomous economies of the conquered regions, the Third World envisioned the formation of independent and sovereign nations.  It thus was above all a project of national liberation from imperialism and neocolonialism.  But unlike European nationalism, Third World nationalism was and is an internationalist nationalism, for from the vantage point of the colonial/neocolonial situation, the need for solidarity and cooperation in order to create a more just, democratic and sustainable world-system is clearly visible.

     Although in his 2007 book, Vijay Prashad describes the Third World as a project that has died, I maintain that the renewal of the Third World project since 1995 is the most significant aspect of present global dynamics.  It can be said that the Third World project died in the 1980s and early 1990s, assassinated by the unconscionable aggressiveness of the West and the internal class contradictions of the project itself.  But it has been born again, resurrected by the tremendous thirst of the peoples of the world for social justice, the capacity of a new generation of charismatic leaders to denounce the barbarity and the injustice of the global neoliberal project, and the unsustainability of a world-system that does not know how to expand except through domination and exploitation.  The Third World project of Nkrumah, Nyerere and Fidel, renewed by Chávez, Evo and Correa, remains the only viable alternative for humanity to chaos, barbarism and fascism.

     The posts below are placed in chronological order.  The date of publication is found at the beginning of the text for each post.  Please ignore the dates immediate below the post title, inasmuch as these are false dates entered to induce the system to present the posts in chronological order, overcoming its rule to present them in reverse chronological order.

     The first post, “A blog from the Third World perspective,” was published on June 9, 2013.


Reference

Prashad, Vijay.  2007.  The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World.  New York: The New Press.

   The View from the South:

Commentaries on world events from the Third World perspective

 A blog from the Third World perspective

Posted June 9, 2013

  I am launching a blog that will be written from the Third World perspective.  It will educate and inform concerning modern history and contemporary events and issues from the vantage point of the peoples of the world that have been historically colonized.  As you can see by clicking on “Who We Are,” I am a person from the North who has been encountering the movements of the Third World for more than 40 years; and I have come to appreciate the profound understanding formed by those who have been dominated and exploited, yet who persist in hope for the future of humanity.

     The blog will begin with definitions and reflections of key terms: democracy, socialism, colonialism, neocolonialism, and imperialism.  It will describe what is meant by the “Third World,” and it will describe the historical development of Third World movements in opposition to colonial, neocolonial, and imperialist structures of domination and in pursuit of its form of democracy and socialism.  It will inform readers about the thoughts and ideas of important Third World leaders.  It will make commentaries on events, countries, and regions in the news.

       The blog will be like a traditional newspaper political column, but it will be adjusted in style to the norms of blogging.  Thus the posts will be frequent (daily or almost daily) but relatively short (generally 250-500 words).  So some themes, such as socialism, will be discussed over several posts.

      The blog will offer a point of view different from the commentaries of the Left in the United States and other developed countries of the North.  The US and European Left offer critiques of prevailing political-economic structures, but they often do so from a vantage point that is not sufficiently based on encounter with the movements of the Third World.  Although critical of imperialism, typical leftist commentaries generally have a superficial understanding of imperialism and neocolonialism.  Although they offer a critical perspective, they frame issues in a way that reflects the vantage point of the North, and thus is a perspective that in a profound sense is ethnocentric.  In contrast, I will write from a perspective that is based on a foundation of sustained encounter with the peoples and movements of the Third World.

     I write with the premise that intellectual work of value emerges from social movements and functions to further direct social movements.  In accordance with this vision, we intellectuals of the North should seek to write in a form that is connected to social movements, that is influenced by them and in turn influences them.  We sometimes do this well in relation to the feminist and ecology movements, but much less frequently in relation to Third World movements.

     Thus I am seeking to contribute to a process in which the critical energy among the peoples of the North, emerging from contradictions and frustrations, can be channeled toward an informed and sustained social movement that is above all an anti-imperialist movement, emerging from a profound understanding of the various manifestations of imperialism, and is integrally tied to a political project.  I believe that our task as intellectuals of the North is to contribute to the formulation of an anti-imperialist program and political project that could be offered to the people(s) of the United States, a program that seeks cooperation with the nations, peoples, and movements of the earth, based on the belief that global cooperation is necessary to save humanity, and based on the hope that, indeed, humanity can be saved.  However impossible this task appears, it is our duty in the present historic moment, a moment of systemic global crisis, in which the peoples of the Third World are offering, in theory and in practice, an alternative.

      I hope that the blog will be interactive.  Comments and questions by readers are encouraged.  Every effort will be made to respond to commentaries, so that the direction of the blog may well be influenced by commentaries of readers.

      Posts on the blog will often have titles in the form questions, and the post will seek to answer the question, at least in part.  So the next post will address the question, “What is the Third World?”

Posted July 16, 2013

   Today I launch my blog from the Third World perspective, with the goal of making posts each weekday.  Please check each day for new posts.  I begin with discussion of the term “Third World.”

     The term comes from the anti-colonial movements of Africa, South Asia, Southeast Asia, and Latin America.  These movements began to use “Third World” in the 1950s, and they use it to refer to the colonized and formerly colonized regions of Africa, the Middle East, South Asia, Southeast Asia, Latin America, and the Caribbean.

     They saw themselves as constituting a Third Revolution.  The First Revolution was the bourgeois revolution of Western Europe, which established modern capitalism and liberal democracy.  The Second Revolution was the proletarian revolution that established social democracy in Western Europe and socialism and communism in Eastern Europe.   In general, the Third World understood the two revolutions as differing versions of materialism.  They believed that their traditional cultures were more deeply penetrated by spirituality, and they sought to form a revolution guided by spiritual values.  They hoped to establish a Third World, distinct from the capitalist world of the West led by the United States (the First World) and the socialist world of the socialist bloc nations headed by the Soviet Union (the Second World).   In creating a single term to refer to the regions of Africa, Asia, and Latin America, they not only were distinguishing themselves from the other two worlds, but they also were expressing their commonality, in spite of cultural differences among them.  They understood this commonality to be rooted in the common experience of colonial domination.

     Some object to the term “Third World,” thinking that it implies “third rate” or that it obscures the fact that we are speaking of the great majority of people in the world.  Such objections seem to ignore the historical roots and the political agenda of the term.  The use of the term by Third World intellectuals, scholars, activists, political leaders, and news columnists today is commonplace. 

     The Third World political agenda remains unfinished, but it is as vibrant and as important as ever.  It seems to me that we should continue to use the term in order to express our commitment to that unfinished yet still attainable political agenda, which involves, in essence, the attainment of full independence and sovereignty of all of the nations of the world.

Posted July 17, 2013

     European colonial domination of vast regions of the world has been a central part of the modern story, establishing underdevelopment and poverty in the vast colonized regions of the planet, and promoting development for the colonizing societies.  The conquest by Spain and Portugal of what is today Latin America and the Caribbean occurred during the 16th century, and the conquest by England, France, and other European nations of Africa, South Asia, Southwest Asia, and much of Southeast Asia occurred in the period of 1750 to 1914.

     The conquered peoples from the outset consistently resisted their conquest and enslavement.  In every region of the colonized world, the armed resistance to the conquest was a central part of the story, often attaining heroic proportions.  And among the enslaved peoples captured in Africa and transported to the New World, slave rebellions and other forms of resistance were important dimensions, creating a general climate of fear among those who lived a privileged life in intimate relation with their slaves. 

     Ultimately, however, armed resistance was overcome, and slave rebellions were contained.  The world system was consolidated.  Once formed, the world system itself would generate a more serious threat to the established order: sustained revolutionary social movements established on a foundation of universal human values.

     The revolution of the peoples of the Third World (see ¨What is the Third World¨ 7/16/2013) began in Latin America in the 19th century, and it expanded to include Asia and Africa in the 20th century.  In Latin America, anti-colonial revolutions led to the formation of independent republics in South America, Mexico, and Central America (but not the Caribbean) in the period of 1810 to 1824.  In Africa and Asia, anti-colonial revolutions began in the early 20th century and ultimately culminated in the establishment of independent nations for most of the colonized peoples of Africa and Asia (as well as those of the Caribbean) during the period of 1948 to 1963. 

     But this was not a true independence.  The politically independent nations found themselves limited by the global economic structures established during the colonial era.  In Latin America, the former Spanish and Portuguese colonies became semi-colonies of England during the second half of the nineteenth century.  During the twentieth century, Latin America nations became neocolonies of the United States, as this rising imperialist power was able to establish a system of neocolonial domination.  When the colonies of Africa and Asia became independent in the post-World War II era, they too found themselves in what Nkrumah called an “economic stranglehold” of the United States and the ex-colonial powers.

      Thus the Third World revolutions attained independence and formal political and civil rights for nearly all peoples of the earth, but they did not attain the emancipation of the colonized peoples.  The movements provoked a transition to neocolonialism, giving rise to further popular movements in opposition to neocolonial structures. 

     During the course of the twentieth century, the anti-colonial and anti-neocolonial movements emerged as a dynamic social force, displacing the workers’ movements of the North as the principal force of opposition from below.  In the North, the unions and political parties supported by workers adopt a mixture of reform and conservatism in the context of parliamentarianism; whereas in the Third World, the movements challenge the fundamental philosophical suppositions of capitalism as a social and cultural system, and they challenge the fundamental structures of the capitalist world-economy.  They seek to establish the self-determination of peoples, the true sovereignty of nations, and a just and democratic world-system.

Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Cuba, Latin America

Posted July 18, 2013

     The Third World perspective has been formulated by intellectuals and academics integrally related to the anti-colonial and anti-neocolonial movements of the Third World (for more on the movements, see “What is the Third World Revolution,” posted 7/18/2013).  Some are organic intellectuals, whose capacity to formulate insights was developed in the movements.  Others are academics whose search for understanding led them to encounter the movements and take seriously their insights.  The formulation of this perspective reached a zenith in the 1960s and 1970s, suffered setbacks with the imposition of the neoliberal project after 1980, and since 1995 has experienced a renewal that has brought it to its most advanced stage. 

     The Third World perspective is fundamentally anti-colonial: it seeks to overcome structures of colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, and neoliberalism and to establish the self-determination of peoples, the sovereignty of nations, and true independence for all countries.  The formulators of the perspective of the Third World Revolution include:  Simón Bolívar, José Martí, Frantz Fanon, Albert Memmi, Kwame Nkrumah, Julius Nyerere, Fidel Castro, Ho Chi Minh, y Salvador Allende.  In its renewal since 1995, important leaders include Hugo Chávez, Evo Morales, and Rafael Correa.   Thousands of intellectuals, known and unknown, whose work includes the careful study of the speeches and writings of the charismatic leaders, also have contributed to its formulation and dissemination among the people.

     The Third World perspective has been constructed on the common experiential foundation of colonialism.  For the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean, colonial domination occurred principally in the 16th century, in the aftermath of the Spanish and Portuguese conquest of vast regions of America.  The peoples of Africa, South Asia, and Southeast Asia were conquered and colonized during the period 1763 to 1914 by England, France, and other European powers.  The conquest and colonization of these regions involved the destruction of traditional autonomous empires and societies and the incorporation of the conquered peoples into a world economy as suppliers of cheap raw materials and purchasers of surplus goods of the manufacturing center of the world system. 

     The formulators of the Third World perspective, integrally tied to anti-colonial movements, sought to form the consciousness of the people and to participate in the transformation of colonial structures through mass movement, seeking the autonomy and genuine independence of their nations and the self-determination of their peoples.  Many, most notably Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro, forged their understanding through a creative synthesis of Marxism-Leninism and an anti-colonial perspective of national liberation.

Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Marxism-Leninism, Cuba, Latin America

Posted July 19, 2013

     In the face of global neocolonial situation of the post-World War II era (see “What is the Third World Revolution?” 7/17/2013), two mutually contradictory tendencies of reform and revolution emerged in Latin America.  The two tendencies reached their zenith in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, when the revolutionary tendency received a boost from the inspiring example of the triumph of the Cuban Revolution, and the reformist tendency was following the developmentalist model under the direction of the industrial bourgeoisie.  In Africa and Asia, the national bourgeoisie of the newly independent nations, a class of much more recent formation than its counterpart in Latin America, was similarly divided between moderate and radical approaches, with the latter symbolized by such leaders as Ho Chi Minh, Nasser, Nkrumah, and Nyerere.

     Thus, by the end of the 1960s and the beginning of the 1970s, there had emerged reform and revolutionary movements in virtually all of the nations of the Third World, shaking the world-system by its foundation.  However, economic and political conditions did not permit that either revolution or reform could attain its goals.  In the 1980s, taking advantage of the external debt of the Third World nations, the global powers imposed neoliberal policies on the peoples of the Third World.  In response to this barbarous war against the poor, the Third World movements have experienced a resurgence and renewal since 1995.  Whereas in the 1960s and 1970s, the reform and revolutionary tendencies were in tension and conflict, the renewed post-1995 movement is a hybrid of reform from below and revolution.  The renewed revolutionary/reform movement seeks to establish the sovereignty of Third World nations in the face of the intentions of the United States and the ex-colonial powers to preserve the neocolonial system.  The Third World anti-neocolonial movement today is a political, intellectual, and moral challenge to the capitalist world-economy, offering alternative understandings as well as developing alternative structures of international relations in practice.

Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, African Nationalism, Nyerere, Nkrumah, Cuba, Latin America

Posted July 22, 2013

     Thank you, Vera Vratusa,* for your excellent questions submitted in the Comments form. The questions address issues that we are going to explore more fully in future posts, but I would like to take a moment to succinctly address them now.  

      Vera poses questions concerning the internal and external contradiction confronted by Third World reform and revolutionary movements in the 1960s and 1970s.  The questions are formulated in a way that points to a correct understanding.  
 
     The basic  internal contradiction is that the national bourgeoisie in the neocolony is allied with the international bourgeoisie, whose bases of operations are found in the developed nations in the core of the world system.  The national bourgeoisie was formed during the colonial process, and it was constituted by European settlers and their descendants (especially in Latin America) as well as by an educated elite created by educational systems imposed by the colonizer (more common in Africa).  The national bourgeoisie has an interest in independence from colonialism, but in a form of independence that preserves the basic structures of colonialism, especially its economic structures.  The national bourgeoisie benefits from neocolonialism and has an interest in maintaining it.  Thus the national bourgeoisie in the neocolony acts in opposition to the popular movements consisting of the petit bourgeoisie, workers, peasants, students, women, ethnic minorities, and indigenous populations as well as renegade individuals from the national bourgeoisie.  These popular movements seek true sovereignty and independence by means of the transformation of neocolonial  structures.  The national bourgeoisie has considerable influence, although few in numbers, because of its accumulated wealth.

     At the same time, there are important external contradictions that the movements confront.  The first external factor is the interest of the international bourgeoisie in maintaining the neocolonial structures of the world system and its capacity to mobilize enormous economic, financial, military, political, and ideological resources on a global scale in defense of its interests.  And the second factor is the undeveloped nature of South-South structures of commerce, finance, transportation, and communication, making it difficult for a neocolony to put into practice an alternative world system. 
 
     These powerful internal and external factors present formidable obstacles to Third World governments that seek true independence, making it difficult for them to improve the standard of living of the people, leading to an erosion of popular support for the governments and movements that seek an alternative world system.  In the 1980s, the global elite was able to take advantage of the difficulties confronted by the movements to engage in a global war against the poor, in a desperate effort to maintain the structures of the neocolonial world system.  Although successful at first, this global neoliberal project was so detrimental to the basic needs of the people that it provoked a revitalization of the popular movements after 1995, creating a global political crisis for the neocolonial world-system.

     The three obstacles to the movements are still with us. But now the conditions are less unfavorable to the movements, making possible the definitive turn that the movements have historically sought.  We will be pursing these themes in future posts.

     I encourage all to follow the fine example of Vera and to submit comments and/or questions.

     Greetings from Havana, Cuba.

 
* Vera Vratusa is Professor of Sociology at the University of Belgrade, Serbia.  Visit http://veravratusaesociology.wikispaces.com/

Posted 7/23/2013

     Like yesterday, I am devoting today’s post to responding to the stimulating comments sent by Vera Vratusa.*  We will be discussing these themes in future posts, but I think it will be useful to discuss them succinctly now, in order to indicate the direction in which we are going.

     If we look at the cases of the revolutionary processes that have had significant gains in Latin America (Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador), the key to unifying the people was a clear explanation of the causes of their concrete problems combined with a clearly formulated program of action.  The revolutionary discourses were patriotic: they identified with the historic national movements for true national independence; they accused the global powers and international bourgeoisie of disrespecting the sovereignty of the nation, in violation of the norms that the global powers themselves proclaimed; they portrayed the national bourgeoisie and the traditional political parties as traitors to the nation, for their collaboration with the global powers; and they promised to lead the people in the construction of a dignified and sovereign nation that would be committed to the wellbeing of all and to solidarity with other nations and peoples. 

     In addition, the revolutionary discourses were characterized by concrete plans to take power.  The idea was not merely to protest existing conditions, but to substitute a government that responded to the interests of the national and international bourgeoisies with a government that responded to the interests of the popular sectors.  The plans to power involved a guerrilla strategy in the case of Cuba and electoral strategies in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia.  In the three cases involving electoral strategies, all three formed new political structures that were alternatives to the traditional political parties.

     The petty bourgeoisie is a diverse class that includes: bureaucratic officials; small-scale business persons; doctors and lawyers; teachers and academics (from pre-school to higher education); researchers and scientists; military officers (except for the highest ranking military officers); priests, nuns, and ministers (including the highest officials of national religious associations and organizations); local politicians; and journalists.  Unlike the national bourgeoisie (owners of large-scale economic enterprises), which has an interest in maintaining neocolonialism, the petty bourgeoisie of the neocolony has an interest in revolutionary transformation.  The revolutionary project involves overcoming the legacy of underdevelopment, thus raising the standard of living of the people, thereby expanding the need for the goods and services that the petit bourgeoisie provide.  But because of their relatively privileged living conditions, the members of the petit bourgeoisie are often confused by bourgeois ideologies that distort reality in order to justify privileges for the few.  Thus, some members of the petit bourgeoisie are active in the counterrevolution.  At the same time, many of the important Third World revolutionary leaders are members of the petit bourgeoisie who have come to understand that the fate of their own class is tied to the fate of the popular classes and sectors.  The petit bourgeoisie is a divided class, but an integral part of the revolutionary process.

     Thus the unification of the popular classes and sectors in opposition to the national and international bourgeoisies is accomplished on a foundation of significant intellectual work that has enabled the emergence of a leadership that grasps the structures of domination, that formulates concrete plans of action for the construction of a more just and democratic society, and that understands the people so profoundly that it is able to find the discourse that strikes a responsive chord among the masses.

      Each nation must find its own road to revolutionary transformation.  But we can learn important lessons from those nations that have developed relatively advanced revolutionary processes.

     Vera and I encourage all to participate in the discussion.

     Greetings from Havana, Cuba.

* Vera Vratusa is Professor of Sociology at the University of Belgrade, Serbia (former Yugoslavia).  Visit http://veravratusaesociology.wikispaces.com/

Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia, Latin America

Posted 7/24/2013

     Whereas Marxism-Leninism sees the exploitation of workers by capital as the fundamental axis of domination, the Third World perspective focuses on colonial  domination.  Whereas  Marxism-Leninism sees a fundamental class division between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, the Third World perspective perceives a world divided between the colonizer and the colonized.  Marxism-Leninism, therefore, engages in class analysis, whereas the Third World perspective engages in colonial analysis.  

     And this difference shapes visions of the future: Marxism-Leninism sees the possibility for a socialist society on a foundation of automated industry, characterized by structures of popular democracy, worker control of production and of political structures, and the gradual elimination of the state bureaucracy, with administrative functions carried out by workers themselves, whose productive labor time would be reduced by the advances of automated industry.  In contrast, the Third World perspective sees the possibility for a post-colonial society characterized by the self-determination of peoples, solidarity and cooperation among peoples, and the true sovereignty of nations, thus enabling the peoples and nations to eliminate poverty and to promote their economic and cultural development as well as protect and conserve the planet.

      To be sure, Marxism-Leninism discerned elements that would later become central to the Third World perspective.  Marx understood that capitalism is an international system, and he understood that the source of the primitive accumulation of capital is force.  Lenin understood the role of imperialism in the advanced stage of capitalism, and he affirmed the principle of self-determination in relation to the oppressed and exploited nationalities of the Russian Empire.  Nevertheless, it is a question of a basic frame of reference in the context of which these elements are understood.  Marxism-Leninism, on the basis of observation of bourgeois and proletarian revolutions in Europe, established a frame of class analysis; whereas the Third World perspective, on the basis of the experience of the conquest and peripheralization of the Third World, established a frame of colonial
analysis.

     From a Marxist-Leninist perspective, it is tempting to view the Third World Revolution as not a true revolution, as representing merely reform within the structures of capitalism.  But if we pause for personal encounter and reflection, we find that Third World intellectuals and leaders have developed in theory and practice a process of change that involves the replacement in power of one social group by another, the formulation of alternative concepts and understandings, and the development of structures with fundamentally different practices and consequences.  And these are precisely the elements that Lenin, Trotsky, and Luxemburg defined as essential components of revolution, as distinct from reform.  The Third World Revolution does not look like the revolution that they envisioned, but it has the characteristics that they understood to be essential to the revolutionary process.

      The most advanced of the Third World leaders, Ho Chi Minh and Fidel Castro, who themselves were formed by advanced anti-colonial and anti-neocolonial movements, forged a creative synthesis of the Third World perspective with Marxism-Leninism.  Their formulations thus can be understood as stages in the development of Marxism-Leninism.  
 
Key words: Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, Vietnam