Posted March 8, 2017
​
      The Third World project of national and social liberation is a comprehensive project that embraces universal human values, including respect for the sovereignty and equality of nations, the social and economic rights of all persons, and the rights of nature.  It continues to present itself to the colonized and neocolonized peoples of the world as an alternative to accommodation to the West, to traditionalism, and to terrorism.  And it continues to present itself to the global powers as the best hope for the future of humanity.  It seeks, through popular democratic political processes, to take control of states, and from this position of political power, to reduce global political and economic inequalities and to conserve ecological stability.  

     Since the Third World emerged with a definable global project in the 1950s, the West has consistently tried to destroy it.  The global powers have supported and cultivated politicians who are oriented to accommodation to the West, including many who were brutal dictators; they have assassinated charismatic leaders who could not be bought; and they have utilized all kinds of military, economic and ideological attacks against Third World nations that persisted in an autonomous road.

       The attack on the Third World project, which stands without moral and reasonable defense, must be understood by the leaders and intellectuals of the Left in the North, and it must be central to the narratives that they are formulating for presentation to their peoples. Alternative narratives of the Left in the North must be moral indictments of the global powers, for their irresponsibility in rejecting the proposals of the Third World project and in leading humanity to a condition of deep and sustained global crisis.  In the United States, such a narrative would enable the Left to mobilize the people in opposition to the neoliberal policies of Reagan-Bush I-Clinton-Bush II-Obama as well as the neofascist project of Trump and his team.  It would delegitimate both neoliberalism and neofascism for their false “war or terrorism.”  It would discredit the former for failing to respond to the sources of uncontrolled international migration, and the latter for attacking the human rights of immigrants.  

     The Left narrative ought to include a number of key points.  (1)  It ought to include an alternative narrative on Islamic history.  It ought to defend and explain the project of Nasser as form of Islamic modernism, which took a middle position between accommodation to the West and Islam traditionalism, and which envisioned modern, independent and republican nation-states in the Arab world.  It ought to make clear the strategy of Western governments to block the project of Nasser, whose crime was a desire to be truly independent and not subject to the neocolonial domination of the West.  And it ought to expose the support of the United States and its accommodationist allies for Islamic traditionalism and Islamic extremism, in its efforts to destroy Nasserism (see Ansary 2009:261-68, 324-26; Prashad 2007:31-34, 51-52, 96-99, 148; Schulze 2000:148-52, 174-75).

     (2)  A narrative of the Left ought to explain the formation of OPEC in 1960 as an example of the general Third World strategy of creating public commodity cartels that united raw materials exporting nations.  It ought to defend this Third World strategy as justified, for it had hoped to curb the power of the private cartels that had been formed by the manufacturers and distributers of the West, with the belief that public primary product cartels would enable exporting nations to set prices for their raw materials, thus generating more income for investment in national industry and social development (Prashad 2007:69-70, 180-86; 2012:16-21).  The narrative of the Left ought to support all Third World efforts to promote the economic and social development of the Third World, declaring that the development of the poor nations is necessary, if humanity is to attain a world-system that is not only just, but also politically stable and economically and ecologically sustainable.

     (3)  A narrative of the Left ought to expose the strategy of the U.S. government in the 1970s to pressure Arab governments to invest oil surplus money in the banks of the North and to purchase arms manufactured in the West, thus severing the oil surplus revenues from the Third World project of national and social liberation.  The goal of the strategy, in addition to obtaining funds for the banks and arms manufacturers of the North, was to stimulate a limited form of development in the Arab world that was consistent with the interests of the West.  This successful strategy led to an accommodation between the Arab elite and the West, an accommodation that included support for an Islamic version of religious fundamentalism (Ansary 2009: 335-42; Prashad 2012:21-24).  As we have seen (see “Trump and the war on terrorism, Part Two” 2/21/2017), Islamic literalism grew significantly with U.S. and Saudi support as the Nasserist project was unable to attain its hopes for social and economic development.
      
     (4)  A narrative of the Left ought to make clear that the United States turned to direct support for Islamic insurgency, rather than indirectly through Saudi Arabia, in Afghanistan in the 1980s.  As we have seen (see “Trump and the war on terrorism, Part Two” 2/21/2017), the anti-Soviet war in Afghanistan led to the establishment of the country as a base of operations for jihadists who were undertaking a war against the West, including the adoption of a new form of terrorism, consisting of a strategy of indiscriminate killing of civilians.

     (5)  A narrative of the Left ought to present an alternative approach to the war on terrorism.  It ought to make clear that by blocking the reasonable and just changes sought in theory and practice by Nasserism and other Third World projects of national and social liberation, the West created a political and social environment favorable to terrorism.  Although the capture and criminal prosecution of terrorists is necessary in the short-term, the most effective way to eliminate the scourge of terrorism in the long term would be for the global powers to support and cooperate with movements and governments of the Third World.  This would require that the global powers cease their efforts to preserve the basic structures of the neocolonial world-system, which would require an alternative political will.  

    The Left must be present with a politically effective narrative, explaining that a more just, democratic and sustainable world-system is necessary for the survival of humanity and for the continued development of human societies and human civilization.  The Left should present to the people a well-formulated alternative to the neoliberalism that reigned from Reagan to Obama and the neofascism of Trump.

References
 
Ansary 2009:, Tamim.  2009.  Destiny Disrupted: A History of the World Through Islamic Eyes.  New York: Public Affairs.
 
Prashad, Vijay.  2007.  The Darker Nations: A People’s History of the Third World.  New York: The New Press.
__________.  2012.  The Poorer Nations: A possible history of the Global South.  London: Verso.
 
Schulze 2000:, Reinhard.  2000.  A Modern History of the Islamic World.  New York: New York University Press.


​

Posted March 9, 2017
​
    As I have maintained (see “Trump on immigration” 2/22/2017), the Left makes a strategic error in defending the rights of immigrants in a form that explicitly or implicitly advocates non-enforcement of immigration laws.  Instead, the Left should make specific proposals for more just immigration laws, and it should make clear its commitment to a legal, controlled, and orderly process of international migration, developed and enforced through the cooperation of various nations.  

     Some have defended the rights of immigrants by noting that the United States has a history of openly receiving immigrants, and that departing from this tradition violates American values.  Such an argument, however, ignores fundamental aspects of the history and contemporary reality of the United States and the world-system.  Yes, it is the case that following a period of colonization and settlement by people from England, the British Isles, and Northwestern Europe, there occurred, during the period 1865 to 1914, open and legal mass migrations to the United States from Ireland and Southern and Eastern Europe.  However, we should understand the context of these migrations.  During that period, the world-economy was expanding, as a result of the peripheralization of vast regions of Asia and Africa; and the United States was ascending, as a result of rapid industrialization, utilizing capital that had been accumulated through trade with the slave region of the Caribbean and the U.S. South.  The United States needed workers for its rapidly expanding industrial economy, and it therefore had an open immigration policy.  

      But the situation today is entirely different.  There is a significant illegal international migration, and it is provoked not by the expansion of the economies of the North, but by the collapse of economic and social structures in peripheral and semiperipheral regions of the world-economy.  That such a collapse would occur is entirely predictable, if one understands the structures of the neocolonial world-system, which deepen underdevelopment and poverty in the peripheral and semiperipheral zones.

     In looking at the history of immigration in the United States, we should be aware that the immigration of 1865 to 1914, even though it was a legal and economically necessary migration, provoked hostility from native-born U.S. citizens, because of the ethnic and religious makeup of the immigrants.  Such hostility gave rise to a nativist movement and to a curbing of immigration in the 1920s as well as to cultural pressures for the “Americanization” of the immigrants.  If in a favorable economic context, a legal migration provoked hostility among a sector of the people, certainly it would be expected that, in today’s uncertain times, an illegal immigration would become a politically exploitable issue.  So the issue has to be intelligently addressed by the Left.

      A narrative of the Left ought to explain the sources of the uncontrolled international migration in the structures of the neocolonial world-system.  And it ought to explain that international migration would be reduced by the transformation of neocolonial structures and the development of a just and sustainable world-system, which among other things, would respect the right of all nations to economic and social development and the right of all persons to have the possibility to earn a decent standard of living in their native lands.  To this end, the narrative of the Left should include proposals for North-South cooperation, in which the governments of the North cooperate with the governments and movements of the Third World in developing mutually beneficial trade and in promoting the economic and social development of the Third World.

     The Left, however, does not explain to the people the source of the problem of uncontrolled international migration, and even less does it offer a solution.  It does not propose a comprehensive project of North-South economic and social cooperation, so that the problem of uncontrolled international migration could be attacked at its source, which would include cooperation among governments to ensure a legal, controlled, orderly and safe process of international migration. The Left acts as though the problem is simply xenophobia, rather than an international situation that is out of control on many levels, with elites behaving in interested and irresponsible ways, all of which is sensed by the people. 

      In his address to the Congress on February 28, Trump declared that “it is not compassionate, but reckless, to allow uncontrolled entry from places where proper vetting cannot occur.”  In this declaration he was correct.  There is an historic tendency in the Left to indulge in extreme and reckless proposals, with disdain for laws and structures of authority in any form, even those that are legitimate and necessary for social order.  But if we observe revolutionary processes in Russia and in the nations and colonies of Asia, Africa, Latin American and the Caribbean for the last 225 years, we see that revolutions involve the taking of power by leaders who have the backing of the people, and that the leaders do not obtain popular support through irresponsible and reckless proposals or behavior.  Far from being revolutionary, reckless proposals and behavior are examples of infantile Left-wing radicalism, which Lenin condemned as a significant threat to revolutionary processes (see “The infantile disorder of the Left” 12/19/2016).  The Left must recognize that uncontrolled international migration is a social problem that reflects social disorder and insecurity in the migrants’ countries of origin, and it implies a level of social disorder and insecurity in the countries where the migrants arrive, provoking popular concerns in said countries.  The Left must intelligently analyze the problem of uncontrolled international migration, and it must formulate politically intelligent proposals that defend the rights of the migrants and that also attend to the social disorder that is both source and consequence of the international migration that exists in the world today.

     In defending the rights of the immigrants, the Left is morally right.  But its response is politically and analytically weak, not informed by an historical and global analysis that would be the basis for proposed solutions that address the fears and concerns of the people.  In contrast to the Left, Trump appears to be acting decisively against the government bureaucracy and in defense of the concerns of the people.  On the issue of immigration, the Left has the moral advantage, but Trump has the political upper hand.  On this as in other issues, the Left has to reconstruct its formulation.

Posted March 10, 2017

    In his Inaugural Address, Trump declared that “it is the right of all nations to put their own interests first.”  True enough.  However, no nation has the right to defend its national interests in a form detached from internationalist consciousness.  All nations have the moral obligation to seek mutually beneficial trade with other nations, and to defend their interests in the context of negotiations based on mutual respect and respect for the sovereignty of other nations.

     Moreover, those nations that have benefitted from colonial domination have a historic and social debt to those nations that have been victimized by it.  There can be no moral justification for the United States, having economically benefitted from trade with slave states and slave nations and from inserting itself into semi-colonial structures established by Spanish conquest and colonial domination of Latin America, to now proclaim that it has a right to protect the advantages and privileges that have been accumulated at the expense of other peoples.  As Ecuadorian President Rafael Correa asserted at the 2017 Summit of CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States), the protection of their economies by nations historically colonized is necessary for their sovereignty, and it is fundamentally different from economic protection by a superpower, the exercise of which will have serious negative repercussions for the nations of the world (read more on Rafael Correa).

       The dominant school of thought in foreign relations during the twentieth century has maintained that nations must be guided primarily by interests rather than moral considerations, and that a nation does not have a right to sacrifice its interests in the name of a moral principle (see Morgenthau 1973:3-15).  This indeed has been the guiding principle of the major powers throughout the history of the modern world-system.  But the belief that each nation should pursue its economic interests, leaving moral considerations aside, ensures the unsustainability of the world-system in the long term.  No world-system could be sustainable, if the political entities that compose it, in the conduct of foreign policy, were to ignore the values that are shared by all. In the case of the modern world-system, universal values have been articulated and enshrined in important documents and declarations of international associations, and they include moral concepts such as the rights of all nations to sovereignty and to economic and social development.  All nations have the obligation to respect these rights and to develop their foreign policy accordingly. The global elite does not understand this moral duty, and as a result, they are leading humanity to chaos, violence and possible extinction. In an earlier stage, the amoral conduct of the global elite was sanctioned by historians and social scientists.  Today, however, it is increasingly evident that philosophers, historians and social scientists have the duty to condemn policies that ignore universal human values.

       The possibility and the necessity of a U.S. foreign policy of North-South cooperation, in accordance with the universally accepted principles of the sovereignty and equality of nations, the social and economic rights of persons, and the duty of humanity to defend itself and to defend nature, must be declared and explained to the people. It is the duty of the Left to formulate and proclaim this explanation, so that the people, who are increasingly rejecting neoliberal globalization, will have a concrete alternative to the neofascism of Trump.

Reference
 
Morgenthau, Hans J.  1973.  Politics Among Nations: The Struggle for Power and Peace, Fifth Edition.  New York: Alfred A. Knopf.

Posted March 13, 2017

      In the forging of independence movements in the colonies of what would later become the Third World, movement leaders and intellectuals defined the issue of independence in a form that integrated issues of national liberation and class.  The leaders understood that national liberation could not be achieved without a national unity that overcame class differences.  Although the leaders and intellectuals came mostly from the national bourgeoisie and petit bourgeoisie, they recognized that the attainment of their goals could not be accomplished without significant mass participation, and this required the formulation of platforms that addressed the specific needs of peasants and workers, as felt and understood by them.

      In the Caribbean, where African slavery was significant, as well as in those African colonies in which there were significant numbers of European settlers, race also was an inescapable factor.  Accordingly, the movements also embraced the principle of racial equality. 

       Thus, the Third World movements of national liberation were born with an integrating dynamic, in which the most politically astute understood the necessity of integrating issues of national liberation, class and race.  They evolved in this integrated form from the end of the eighteenth century to the twentieth.  Other issues later emerged: women during the twentieth century; and ecology and the original peoples of America during the second half of the twentieth century.   As a result of the historic integrating dynamic of the movements, leaders were able to include these new sectors and issues, such that by the beginning of the twenty-first century the movements of the Third World had accomplished an integration of issues of national liberation, class, race and ethnicity, gender and ecology.

       The integration of the issue of women faced challenges.  The women’s movement emerged in the West, so Third World women leaders, who always had been present but not as spokespersons for the cause of women, had to formulate their proposals in ways that made clear that they were not the unwitting transmitters of a form of cultural imperialism.  They thus re-formulated the Western women’s agenda, not only because it was an intelligent political strategy, but also because doing so reflected their deepest beliefs, as citizens of the emerging Third World.  As one dimension of this, they left aside the issue of lesbianism, not wanting to create divisions among the people and to risk rejection of the demands and issues that affected the great majority of women (see “The rights of women” 11/11/13; “Gender and revolution” 1/21/2016). 

        The integration of the issue of ecology also was complicated.  In its initial formulation in the West, the ecology movement viewed economic growth and environmental protection as opposites.  But the Third World, in conditions of underdevelopment, had to increase production. Recognizing the essential validity of the claims of the ecology movement, the Third World arrived to the notion that it was necessary to expand production, but in a sustainable form, thus giving birth to the concept of sustainable development, which today is a central demand of the Third World movements of national and social liberation (see “Sustainable development” 11/12/13).

      The integration of the indigenous movements of America into the struggle of Third World national and social liberation was the least complicated.  It emerged late, in the last decades of the twentieth century, by which time the integrating dynamic had been consolidated as a movement tendency.  The historic exclusion of indigenous nations from the Latin American movements of peasants and workers came to be recognized as unjust and as an historic error.

        Thus, the Third World movements arrived to be movements that integrated the various issues that today are in debate, except for the issue of gay rights.  On this issue, there is some marginal discussion and debate in the Third World, but by and large it is left aside as potentially undermining the necessary unity of the people.

       In the Third World, the various issues are integrated around the organizing principle of the nation.  The theoretical integration does not give primacy to race, nor to gender, nor to class, as occurs with grand narratives developed in the West.  Rather, primacy is given to the nation: the right of the nation to exist and to be sovereign; the historic development of the nation; the values that are the foundation of the nation; the place of the nation in the world; and the values that ought to guide relations with other nations, especially respect for their sovereignty.  

     Patriotism, therefore, is fundamental to the Third World movements: love for the nation; loyalty to the nation; and heroic sacrifice in defense of the nation.  In the Third World narratives, patriotism is the foundation of commitment to the cause of justice that is formulated with respect to the various issues of national liberation, class, gender, race and ethnicity, and ecology.

     The Third World example of giving centrality and primacy to the nation could serve as an inspiration for those committed to social justice in the North.  All modern nations have a story that includes a struggle for democracy in some form or other, even those nations that became colonizing or imperialist nations in the world-system.  These stories can be the foundation for national narratives that mobilize the peoples in defense of the true and the right.

     The integrated movements of national and social liberation of the Third World are comprehensive.  Not only do they integrate a number of key issues, but they also have a historical and global perspective. They possess consciousness of the historic development of the nation, largely understood as a dialectal and evolving contradiction between domination and democracy.  And they possess global consciousness, with a scientifically-based understanding of the position and function of the nation in the modern world-system.

      When we intellectuals and activists in the North look at the Third World revolutions, we should appreciate what they have accomplished, for in truth, in spite of the significant political, economic and military obstacles they have encountered, they have accomplished much more than have the movements of the North.  If we were to ask how they did it, we would find that they constructed an integrated movement that was attentive to the sensibilities of each sector of the people.  This could inspire us to formulate narratives for our own peoples that are integral and comprehensive, rooted in knowledge and in historical and global consciousness.

     Perhaps the most important lesson to be learned by the Left in the North from the Third World is the centering of the concept and sentiment of patriotism.  In these times, we should note the importance of patriotism in the neofascism of Trump and his team.  They want to defend the nation, against foreign companies that steal our jobs and sell their products in our land; and against immigrants who enter the country without an adequate process of regulation.  So they have a patriotic discourse that is effective among the people.  But their patriotism is narrow, for it wants to ignore the rights of other nations. The Left can effectively counter their narrow patriotism not with a belief that patriotism is an antiquated sentiment, possessed only by those who lack sophistication; nor with a posture that gives insincere lip service to narrow patriotism.  Rather, neofascism can be effectively countered with a form of patriotism that is guided by an internationalist spirit, that recognizes that all nations have rights, and that proclaims that such was the full intention of the American promise of democracy, even though the founders of the American republic could not, in the context of their times, grasp its full implications.  We today, with the greater wisdom that results from experience, must further develop the great work that the Founding Fathers began.

​

Posted March 14, 2017
​
     In his address to the Congress on February 27, Donald Trump attacked the U.S. government.  He maintained that it: imposes high taxes on corporations, restricting the capacity of corporations to invest in production, thus reducing their capacity to generate jobs for the people; regulates corporations excessively, limiting their capacity to produce goods and generate jobs; and demands high taxes of the middle class.  But, according to Trump, even though the government does too much with respect to taxes and regulations, it does not do enough with respect to the application of force:  the government has failed to enforce laws with respect to ordinary crime, international migration, and drug trafficking, thus creating insecurity for the communities of the nation; it does not have sufficient military expenditures; and it does not adequately support law enforcement officers.

      The Trumpian critique, a state too strong with respect to the economy but too weak with respect to the application of force, has been a central motif of U.S. conservativism since the end of World War II.  Support for a strong military has been constant since 1945, and it received a boost with the simplistic worldview of Reagan and the post-September 11 “war on terrorism.”  With respect to the economy, the prevailing view from 1945 to 1979 was that government had an important role to play in regulating production and redistributing income; during this time, the conservative view a present in the public debate, but clearly a minority view.  With the post-1980 turn to neoliberalism and the Washington consensus, the conservative view, with its orientation of reducing the role of the state in the economy, became ascendant.

      So our people have been subjected to an ideological attack on the state for some time, and it has created much confusion among the people. As a result, the discourse of the Left ought to include an explanation of the function of the state in society.

      We ought to understand that the true function of the state in a democracy is to represent to the interests of the people.  But immediately there is a confused situation, because in representative democracies, the state pretends to represent the people, when in fact it represents the interests of corporations.  This situation dates back to the Constitution of 1789, which established the substitution of the appearance for the essence of democracy.  In those days, the central mechanisms for ensuring elite control were large-voting districts, restriction of the franchise, and a checking of the power of the democratically-elected congress by the senate and the judiciary, whose members were not elected; and by a president, elected indirectly.  In our time, the substitution of the appearance for the essence of democracy is achieved through corporate campaign contributions, creating a situation of the dependency of elected officials on corporate support; and by corporate control of the media and think tanks, which more than shaping public opinion, frame the issues concerning which the public has opinion (see “The US popular movement of 1775-77” 11/1/13; “American counterrevolution, 1777-87” 11/4/13; “Balance of power” 11/5/13; “Popular democracy” 11/6/13).

       So the Left must develop an effective discourse that exposes the essentially undemocratic character of the political process of representative democracy.  And it must make specific proposals for a more genuinely democratic process that would make possible the control of the government by the people.  The Green Party Platform, although characterized by the lack of historical consciousness and Eurocentrism, has good proposals with respect to the democratic reform of the electoral process in the United States (“The Green Party Platform” 8/26/2016; “Can the Green Party evolve?” 8/29/2016).

      If we can envision a situation of power in the hands of the people, then we can envision what the state could be: a powerful collective force in defense of the interests of the people.  Unlike the private sector, governments have the capacity to mobilize resources in defense of political goals.  Governments can mobilize resources to build transportation and communication networks, to develop systems of education and health, and to invest in production and scientific development.  To be sure, its legitimate functions will include the application of force, in order to ensure national defense and safe communities, but this function is one of many, and it must be fulfilled in ways that are integral to community and national development.  

       The Trump proposals give excessive emphasis on the application of force and insufficient attention to other functions, exploiting the confusions of the people that have resulted from years of ideological attack on the state.  Some of the people sense that the Trump emphasis on force is not the right road, but they do not have sufficient understanding to formulate an alternative approach that is comprehensive and politically effective.  The result is a divided people, with hostile and superficial debate.

      So the Left must call people to unity, in a form that embraces the divisive rhetoric of neither side.  It must call the people to the establishment of a government that faithfully fulfills its functions, under the direction of the people, and in accordance with the interests of the people.  It must invoke a vision of a government of, by, and for the people, a government that would function as a political balance to the power of the corporations and the corporate elite, which has demonstrated, since the age of the robber barons in the second half of the nineteenth century, its indifference to fundamental ethical and moral values and to the good of the nation and humanity.

Posted March 15, 2017

     In his speech to the Congress on February 28, President Donald Trump proclaimed a renewal of the American spirit.  The nation will be strong again, he affirmed, and it will once again assume a leadership role in the world.  To this end, there will be a significant increase in the military budget.  He declared that “all the nations of the world — friend or foe — will find that America is strong, America is proud, and America is free.”

     It was a masterful speech.  Trump portrayed his administration’s hardline policies on immigration as necessary for protecting hard-working, patriotic and family-loving Americans from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers and gangs, all of whom undermine the security of our nation and the safety of our communities.  He maintained that what is needed is not the misguided compassion of liberals but a commonsense firm line: deport illegal immigrants, starting with criminals; establish a merit-based system of legal immigration, rather than one that favors the least educated; and give officials the necessary support for the enforcement of laws.

      He also promised a firm line with respect to international commerce.  His government will make trade deals that are fair and protect U.S. companies and workers.

     The speech also attacked government regulations as restricting the productive capacity of American corporations, thereby reducing their capacity to generate jobs.  It cited the Dakota Access pipeline as a case in point: government regulations had halted its construction, but Trump has taken decisive action and has issued executive orders to move the construction forward, ensuring more petroleum and more jobs for the people.

      Thus Trump presented himself as a defender of the people against big government, one who can lead the people toward the restoration of American greatness.  He framed the issues in ways that would generate positive popular response, as was reflected in the fact that three-quarters of respondents polled by CBS approved of Trump’s message.

     Especially shrewd was the proposal for a merit-based system of immigration.  In implying that lower-skilled immigrants are more inclined to crime or terrorism, the proposal was cleverly subtle in its scapegoating of legal immigrants to the United States.  

      In spite of its effectiveness in appealing to the people, the Trump project has two fundamental limitations.  First, it is not a genuinely popular and patriotic project.  It seeks to manipulate the people, in defense of the interests of corporations.  

     Secondly, as did neoliberal globalization, the Trump project ignores the Third World.  It has no sense of the need for social justice for the peoples of the world, and thus it has no capacity to understand the sources of the structural crisis of the world-system nor to indicate the road to a politically, economically and ecologically stable world-system. From such an ethnocentric perspective, the problems of the United States cannot be addressed, since fate of the United States is inexorably tied to that of the world-system.

     But these fundamental flaws of the Trump project should not cause us to underestimate Trump’s political capacities.  He has had the political intelligence to formulate a discourse that connects to the frustrations, anxieties and resentments of the people; and to form a team highly capable of implementing the ambitious project that he has in mind.  The capacity of the Trump team to influence the people and to restructure the state should not be taken lightly.

      The politically intelligent but analytically weak project of Trump will not be deterred by superficial analysis or by shouting slogans in street demonstrations.  The Left must formulate a politically and analytically intelligent alternative, effectively explaining to the people, as we will discuss in the next post.

Posted March 16, 2017

       This is the final in a series of nineteen posts on the Trump administration.  In these posts, in addition to describing the Trump project, I have maintained that the rise of Trump is in part a consequence of the failure of the Left to formulate an alternative narrative.  Historically, radical thought emerged as a critique of liberalism and conservatism for their inadequacy in bringing to fruition the promises of the bourgeois democratic revolutions, a critique formulated from the vantage point of the working and lower classes. Today, the Left has a duty to fulfill its historic function, and to formulate an alternative narrative from the Left, in accordance with the promise of democracy, and in the name of the people.

     The Left narrative should be integral, global and historical.  It should be formulated on the basis of encounter with the social movements of the Third World, which speak on behalf of a humanity that is neocolonized, dispossessed and excluded.  In response to the prevailing ahistorical and ethnocentric public discourse in the nations of the North, the narrative of the Left should explain the historical development of the structures of the world-system.  As a rejoinder to the myopic concept of American exceptionalism, the Left narrative ought to explain the historic insertion of the United States in colonial/neocolonial structures, thus facilitating its spectacular ascent. In recognition of the fears and anxieties of the people, the alternative narrative should explain the global structural sources of the new form of terrorism as well as uncontrolled international migration, and it should offer analytically sound and politically intelligent proposals with respect to these two phenomena.  In response to the ideological attack on the state of recent decades, the alternative narrative should explain the necessary role of the state as defender of the interests of the people, and that this role includes regulation and active engagement in the economy.  And as a rejection of imperialist and neoliberal polices, the Left narrative ought to affirm the obligation of all nations to develop foreign policies that respect the sovereignty of all nations, as a necessary precondition for a politically stable world-system.

     Writing in a similar vein, Laurence Davis, College Lecturer in Government at University College Cork, Ireland, maintains that the current historic moment calls for an alternative proposal that is bold, radical and popular.  In “Only a bold and popular left radicalism can stop the rise of fascism,” he maintains that neoliberal globalization has collapsed, and that two alternative worlds are struggling to be born.  The first is signaled by the new fascism represented by Trump; the second, which has various signs and manifestations, is a more just, democratic and sustainable world that is rooted in commitment to equality, democracy and solidarity.   

      Davis maintains that for the latter to prevail, a bold Left radicalism is required.

And he maintains that this will require a reconnection with our revolutionary roots, with the history of revolutionary ideas and revolutionary movements.

      I am in agreement with Davis, but I would go further.  I believe that present conditions make possible and necessary a politically effective alternative political party of the Left.  Its success in attracting the support of the people would depend on its capacity to formulate explanations and proposals that are analytically sound and politically astute, taking advantage of the current historic moment, which is characterized by the demonstrated moral and intellectual incapacity of the global elite to respond to the sustained crisis of the world-system, and by the growing disgust of the people with the established order and the political establishment. 

      Alternative political parties, therefore, must be formed in the nations of the North.  They should be political parties dedicated to taking power from corporations and putting it in the hands of the people’s delegates, a process that should be projected as requiring twenty or twenty-five years.  The new parties should not be merely electoral parties, but political parties that also educate and organize the people.  Accordingly, they should generate manifestos that provide grand narratives that scientifically explain the sustained structural crisis of the world-system in historical and global context.  And they should develop platforms that constructively address the concerns and anxieties that are rooted in the confusions of the people.  They should develop a discourse that is sensitive to the values of the people, a discourse that is confident, without being arrogant or morally righteous; and hopeful, without being idealist.  The new political parties should form and lift up exceptional leaders who have the gifts of the great revolutionaries of the past, whose teachings are constantly informing the discourses of the present.

     For further reflection on these themes, see “A socialist revolution in the USA” 2/1/2016.