Posted July 25, 2014
​
       South-South cooperation was identified as an important goal, necessary for the autonomy and development of newly independent nations, in the 1950s and 1960s.  Two of the giants of African nationalism, Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana and Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, were among its advocates.  They called it “non-alignment,” referring to their desire to avoid political alliance and economic dependency on both the former colonial powers of the West, among which the United States had become hegemonic, as well as the socialist bloc headed by the Soviet Union.  In accordance with the strategy of non-alignment, the newly independent nations of Africa and Asia would develop economic and commercial exchanges with one another and with Latin America, seeking to sever economic dependency on the former colonial powers, with which the colonies were locked in a core-peripheral relation, providing cheap raw materials and superexploited labor and purchasing surplus manufactured goods, thus promoting their underdevelopment.  The strategy of non-alignment was integral to the worldview of the leaders of the newly independent nations, which viewed the nations, cultures, and peoples of Africa, Asia, and Latin America as forming a “Third World,” distinct from the First World of capitalism led by in the United States, and the Second World directed by the Soviet Union, which had developed a bureaucratic form of socialism based in the particular conditions of Russia and Eastern Europe.  They understood the anti-colonial revolution as the Third Revolution, following the bourgeois and proletarian revolutions (see “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).

      But the vision of the Third Revolution and the strategy of non-alignment confronted insurmountable barriers (see “Obstacles to Third World movements” 7/22/2014).  The most important obstacle was the opposition of the United States and the former colonial powers of Western Europe, which rejected out of hand any thought of cooperating with the newly independent nations in order to promote their autonomous development, thereby creating a more just and democratic and politically stable world-system.  Instead, the global powers used all means at their disposal to preserve the essential economic and commercial characteristics of the colonial relation in the new era of political independence.  Taking advantage of the class and ideological divisions within the national liberation movements, the core powers supported moderate elements and sought to destroy radical and revolutionary tendencies.  Their mechanisms included strategically placed aid, political maneuverings, deceptions, ideological distortions, economic sanctions, wars and military interventions, and assassinations of radical leaders.

     Beyond the hostility of powerful global actors, the Third World revolutionary vision of a more just and democratic world had to confront the legacy of the colonial situation.  There was not sufficient capital for investment in industry and in the diversification of industrial and agricultural production.  The domestic markets of the newly independent nations, necessary for the expansion of industry and trade with other newly independent nations, were weak.  The necessary infrastructure for the movement of goods within or among nations of the South did not exist, inasmuch as the colonial transportation infrastructure was oriented to the service of the core-peripheral relation with Europe and the United States.

      In spite of the obstacles, enormous efforts were made, and modest gains were registered.  But through the collaboration of the national bourgeoisie with core governments and the international bourgeoisie, most newly independent nations of Africa and Asia and the independent republics of Latin America were neocolonies, and the colonial legacy of underdevelopment and poverty endured.  In the 1980s, as the world-system was beginning to feel the effects of a structural and possibly terminal crisis (see “The terminal crisis of the world-system” 3/28/2014), the global elite turned to the neoliberal project, an aggressive economic war against the poor, casting aside the modest gains that had been registered by the national liberation movements.

     But since 1995, there has been a stunning reversal, and today the dreams of Nkrumah and Nyerere are being made real.  A new global political environment has been established, constructed on a foundation of popular movements in opposition to the neoliberal project.  The process has been especially advanced in Latin America, where popular movements resulted in the taking of power by political forces of popular sectors in Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador and by a progressive coalition of forces that includes popular sectors in Nicaragua, Brazil, Argentina, and Uruguay, all of which have been developing economic, commercial, and cultural accords of mutual benefit.  This dynamic has affected other nations of the region, and it has culminated in the establishment of the South American Union of Nations (UNASUR for its initials in Spanish; see “Latin American union and integration” 3/13/2014) and the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC; see “The Declaration of Havana 2014” 3/14/2014), which are dedicated to the strengthening of relations among the nations. 

     Now, as a further step in this process of South-South cooperation, CELAC and UNASUR are expanding relations with China and with BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), as we will discuss in the next posts.

     In the context of the structural crisis of the world-system and the persistent efforts of the global powers to sustain an unsustainable neocolonial world-system, the governments and peoples of the South are developing alternative norms of international relations, based on mutual respect and cooperation.


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, non-alignment, South-South cooperation

Posted July 26, 2014

     At the Second Summit of CELAC (Community of Latin American and Caribbean States), held in Havana, Cuba in January (see “The Declaration of Havana 2014” 3/14/2014), the creation of a China-CELAC Forum was approved.  On July 17, hours after the conclusion of the Sixth Summit of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) in the Brazilian city of Fortaleza, the heads of state of China and the countries of Latin American and the Caribbean, meeting in Brasilia, formally established the China-CELAC Forum.  This is an important step in the strengthening of commercial and social relations between the Asian giant and the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean and in advancing South-South cooperation (see “The fall & rise of South-South cooperation” 7/24/2014). 

     China has a unique history.  In the pre-modern era, the Chinese Empires were the most advanced and the largest of the world-empires.  But during the nineteenth century, China was forced to make economic and commercial concessions to the expanding European powers, undermining its autonomy and reducing its power.  But on the other hand, it was sufficiently powerful to prevent European conquest, colonization, and peripheralization, as had occurred in the rest of the empires and societies of Southeast Asia, South Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and the Americas, except Japan.  All three of the twentieth century political currents in China (republicanism, nationalism, and communism) envisioned the restoration of Chinese power and prestige in the world.  The triumph of Chinese communism made possible the reconstruction of the political-economy in accordance with popular needs and interests and facilitated an autonomous, if isolated, development.  Since the 1980s, the “opening” has built on this socialist foundation to develop trade with all nations of the world and to facilitate commercial and productive advances.  Thus, in the fundamental global divide between colonizers and colonized, China pertains to neither: it was never colonized, and in the modern era, its development has not been built on a foundation of colonial domination and imperialist penetration of other lands. 

     In the present global reality, in which the modern world-system has reached the geographical limits of the earth, the possibilities for an emerging power to ascend through colonial domination and imperialism is far more limited than in the past.  The entire planet is under imperialist domination, and any effort by an emerging power to penetrate areas neocolonized by a global power would pose a threat to the interests of the global powers, which have demonstrated their ability to cooperate in defense of interests threatened by rising semi-peripheral nations.  These conditions favor an alternative strategy by an emerging semi-peripheral nation, involving cooperation with other semi-peripheral and peripheral nations, making an end run around the global powers and avoiding a direct confrontation, while invoking universal human values.  This alternative strategy contributes to the formation of an alternative world-system, based on respect for universal human values rather than on domination and exploitation (see “Universal human values” 4/16/2014).  The alternative world-system could have increasing viability as the best option for humanity as the global powers demonstrate their inability to resolve the global crisis and increasingly turn to militarism and new forms of fascism (see “The future of the world-system” 7/22/2014; “Imperialism, fascism, and democracy” 7/23/2014).    

     This alternative strategy of development through cooperation has been followed by China in recent years, as is indicated by the growing Chinese relations with Latin America.  China has become the first trading partner of Brazil and the second of Argentina, Venezuela and Cuba, nations that pursue equitable trading relations.  The development by China of accords with Latin America and the Caribbean, which are based on the assumption that the participants are equal partners, puts the process of Latin American and Caribbean unity and integration on more solid ground, and it strengthens the movement toward South-South cooperation.

     Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China, recently traveled to Brazil for the BRICS Summit and for the meeting, establishing the China-CELAC Forum, with the heads of state of the nations of CELAC, including Raúl Castro of Cuba, Nicolás Maduro of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and Rafael Correa of Ecuador.  And he subsequently visited Argentina, Venezuela and Cuba.  Prior to his trip to Latin America, the Chinese President responded to questions by journalists from Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela and Cuba.  He describes China as a large nation, not a global power, and in a phase of development similar to Latin America and the Caribbean nations.  He maintains that China is seeking to develop through trade based on cooperation and win-win relations of mutual benefit.  He advocates the promotion of South-South cooperation in order that underdeveloped nations can attain autonomous and sustainable development, and he considers the expanding economic and social relation between China and CELAC to be an example of South-South cooperation.  He affirms that China is committed to a more just and reasonable international economic and political order (Xi 2014).  An English translation of the interview can be found at: Xi Jinping, Long distance does not weaken close friendship.


References

Xi Jinping.  2014.  “Cooperación entre China y América Latina y el Caribe: La larga distancia no borra la íntima amistad,” Granma: Órgano Oficial del Comité Central del Partido Comunista de Cuba, La Habana, 15 de julio, Págs. 3-5.


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, South-South cooperation, China, CELAC

Posted July 29, 2014

     On July 25, an article on the China-CELAC Forum by Cuban journalists Yaima Puig Meneses and Leticia Martínez Hernández appeared in Granma , the official organ of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba, which also functions as the daily newspaper in Cuba.  Granma is an excellent source of news on international events.  It differs from the major international news media both in the items that it selects for news coverage as well as the perspective taken.  It represents the current perspective of the Cuban Revolution on world affairs.

     The article by Puig and Martínez describes the formal establishment of the China-CELAC Forum (see “China-CELAC cooperation” 7/25/2014) as “an historic milestone for the nations that compose it. Our region, historically plundered and beaten by foreign powers, now receives respectful treatment and gratitude from the Asian giant” (2014:9).

     Puig and Martínez summarize the major points of the Joint Declaration emitted by China and CELAC on July 17.  In addition to confirming that the First Ministerial Meeting of the China-CELAC Forum will be held in Beijing, the document emphasizes the need to strengthen capacity for the flow of goods and information among the participating nations, and to this end to develop the infrastructure of transportation and communication, including railroads, roads, ports, airports, and telecommunications, and it affirms that the participating nations seek to establish an  association based on equality, mutual benefit, reciprocal cooperation, and common development.  Here it should be noted that in the core-peripheral relation, the core powers financed the construction of an infrastructure designed to facilitate the flow of raw materials from the periphery to the core and of manufactured goods from the core to the periphery.  But what is envisioned in the Declaration is the development of an infrastructure to facilitate commerce among the nations of the South, the lack of which was a significant obstacle to putting into practice the historic Third World vision of non-alignment (see “The fall & rise of South-South cooperation” 7/24/2014).   

      The Cuban journalists describe the project that China proposes as a program for the integral development of cooperation, driven by three engines: commerce, investment, and financial cooperation.  The commercial accords should be designed to increase the economic growth of both parties.  Investment should be reciprocal, and oriented toward the productive sectors and the diversification of production. This will require financial cooperation between the central banks, which will liquidate the commercial exchanges in national currencies.  With respect to Latin America, the priorities of cooperation fall into six areas: energy and natural resources, infrastructure construction, agriculture, manufacturing, technical innovations, and computer technology.  As an initial concrete step, Chinese President Xi Jinping announced the establishment of a Special Credit for Chinese and Latin American and Caribbean infrastructure, which will provide lines of credit under preferential conditions to Latin American and Caribbean nations.  (See an interview with Xi Jinping, in which the Chinese president describes China’s program for integral development on an international scale).

     The China-CELAC Forum envisions not only commercial relations of mutual benefit but also the establishment of space for dialogue between CELAC and China with respect to global political issues of common interest, such as the democratic reform of the United Nations.  As the Chinese President expressed in his address to the China-CELAC meeting,

     Puig and Martínez conclude that

References

Puig Meneses, Yaima y Leticia Martínez Hernández.  1914.  “Foro China-CELAC: Una plataforma para el diálogo y la cooperación,” Granma: Órgano Oficial del Comité Central del Partido Comunista de Cuba, La Habana, 25 de julio, Págs. 4-5.


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, South-South cooperation, China, CELAC

Posted July 30, 2014

     BRICS is composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa.  These nations comprise 41.6% of the world’s population, 19.8% of the world GDP, and 16.9% of world commerce.  Whereas the combined GDP of the developed nations has grown 60% in the last decade, the combined GDP of the BRICS has increased 300%.

     BRICS was established in 2009 with the intention of facilitating economic and commercial cooperation among the member nations.  But BRICS is now taking a further decisive step.  It is connecting itself to an alternative process that is unfolding in Latin America and the Caribbean.  This alternative process is not merely an integrationist project of ascent in the world-system but a project that seeks to develop alternative structures that can serve as the foundation for an alternative and more just and democratic world-system.

      The Latin American process has roots in the Latin American independence movements of the early nineteenth century, which established republics that were semi-colonies rather than truly independent.  Popular movements during the twentieth century followed one of two roads.  The first, the more common, was a reformist project of ascent through import-substitution, supported by an alliance of the national industrial bourgeoisie and the popular sectors.  It could not succeed, because the neocolonial situation provides limited possibilities for autonomous industrial development and for the satisfaction of popular needs.  The second path was the revolutionary taking of power through armed struggle by the popular sectors, which triumphed only in Cuba.  With the emergence of the structural crisis of the world-system in the 1970s, the global powers launched the neoliberal project, sweeping aside the modest gains of the import-substitution project.  Meanwhile, Cuba, battered by the collapse of the Soviet Union and the neoliberal global environment, nevertheless endured.

     But the neoliberal assault, a true economic war against poor, politically backfired.  It provoked popular movements that sought to cast aside governments and political leaders that had violated the dignity of their nations by implementing the neoliberal agenda of the global powers.  And as the popular movements gained momentum, there stood tattered but proud revolutionary Cuba, a model of Latin American and human dignity.

     Venezuela was the first government to fall to the popular outrage at the neoliberal project, bringing to the presidency Hugo Chávez, whose soul was nurtured by the Bolivarian dream of a single country of all Latin America and by the warnings of Martí of the imperialist intentions of the great power to the North.  When Chávez began to speak at an international meeting, in which Fidel also was present, the Cuban revolutionary passed a note to him, saying, “I think I am no longer the only devil in the room.”  Chávez would become like a son to Fidel, a relation for all the world to see.  Bolivia would soon follow in the change that was beginning to sweep the region, led by an indigenous coca farmer association leader who soon mastered the art of international diplomacy and formulated a Latin American popular perspective with an indigenous ecological emphasis.  And then came Ecuador, led by an economist in expensive suits who had studied in the United States and who, once he arrived to the presidential office, hit the ground running with his insistence of the development of alternative political-economic structures.  Others emerged, a little less radical but nonetheless participating in the process of change: Brazil, Argentina, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and El Salvador.  Ultimately, the entire region was affected, and all of the nations of Latin America and the Caribbean would affirm the basic principles of the alternative process and would bury the Pan-American project of the United States, once the dominant project in the region.

      So the connection being established between BRICS and CELAC has significant global political implications, for in establishing formal relations with CELAC, the nations of BRICS are casting their lot with the alternative popular project of CELAC.  They are not merely seeking ascent in the established world-system, but seeking to promote their development through the construction of an alternative world-system, more just and democratic.

     Sensing the importance of the historic moment, and appreciating the leadership of China and Russia in the process, Fidel Castro has recently written that Russia and China are “the two countries called to head a new world that would permit human survival, if imperialism does not beforehand unleash a criminal and exterminating war” (2014:4).


References

Castro Ruz, Fidel.  2014.  “Es hora de conocer un poco más la realidad,” Granma: Órgano Oficial del Comité Central del Partido Comunista de Cuba, La Habana, 22 de julio, Págs. 4-5.


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, South-South cooperation, China, CELAC

Posted July 31, 2014

     We have seen that BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) was established in 2009 for the purpose of promoting commerce among its members, and that it has evolved to active support for South-South cooperation (see “BRICS advances to South-South cooperation” 7/29/2014). 

     Beginning in 2013, BRICS began to move toward the development of alternative global financial structures.  On July 15, 2014, on the opening day of the Sixth BRICS Summit in Fortaleza, Brazil, the BRICS Bank of Development was established.  Its headquarters will be in Shanghai, and it will have an initial authorized capital of 100 billion dollars.  With its initial funding coming from the members of BRICS, the Bank of Development will provide financing for projects as well as credit to countries in development.

      Evo Morales, President of Bolivia, asserted that the BRICS Bank of Development “will help Latin American countries to free themselves from the speculation and financial extortions of neoliberalism and neocolonialism.”  In a similar vein, Cristina Fernández, President of Argentina, noted that the BRICS Bank of Development will promote development “without the hostile intention” of the established organisms of credit.

      We have seen that the peoples of the Third World, historically colonized and today for the most part neocolonized, are taking decisive action in the development of alternative structures of political-economy within and among nations.  These alternative structures form the foundation of a potential alternative more just and democratic world-system, which could replace the reigning neocolonial world-system, which has been in crisis since the 1970s and which cannot resolve its contradictions within the context of its logic of domination, which its leadership, blinded by parochial assumptions and by short-term interests, cannot escape. 

      The potential alternative of a more just and democratic world-system has been emerging since 1995, when popular movements in opposition to the global neoliberal war against poor nations and peoples began to emerge.  In nations like Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Nicaragua, popular movements, or coalitions that include popular sectors, have taken control of states, which have taken steps to enable national control of natural resources.  They have utilized income generated by the sale of raw materials in the global market to provide for the social and economic needs of the people and to develop forms of production that are more profitable.  They have sought to put into practice the historic Third World vision of non-alignment, developing structures of South-South cooperation, in which trade is mutually beneficial, and in which exchanges among people include not only the economic and the financial but also the social and the cultural (see “The fall and rise of South-South cooperation” 7/24/2014.  They are seeking to develop alternative financial structures, like the Bank of the South and the Bank of Development, so that global financial resources can be used to provide support and impetus to the projects that are necessary to move forward in the construction of a more just and democratic world.  They are making real the dreams of Bolívar, Martí, Nkrumah, and Nyerere.  In this global process, Cuba, persistent in its socialist revolution, is an important symbol and participant.  And China, overcoming the serious problems that it found in its socialist road, has emerged to play a significant leadership role in the building of a more just and democratic world-system.  That the Chinese leadership is prepared to play a leading role in this time of crisis for humanity is evident in the July 15 interview of Xi Jinping, President of the People’s Republic of China.

      The notion of a world-system on a foundation of justice and democracy is not merely a good idea.  It is an idea that is being developed in practice by global political leaders with understanding of global dynamics and commitment to universal human values.  And it is an idea that promises the survival of humanity, seeking to detour humanity from its present road of self-destruction (see “A change of epoch?” 3/18/2014; “The alternative world-system from below” 4/15/2014).

       In order to understand global dynamics and to do what is right, we who form the peoples of the North need to encounter the movements of the Third World and to cooperate with them in the construction of a more just and democratic world-system (“What is personal encounter?” 7/25/2013; “What is cross-horizon encounter?” 7/26/2013; “Overcoming the colonial denial” 7/29/2013).  If the history of revolutions is a guide, intellectuals must play an important role in this process, establishing the subjective conditions that would enable an alternative political leadership to emerge in the nations of the North, displacing the ruling political parties and leaders that have demonstrated their incapacity to respond constructively to the challenges that humanity confronts.


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, South-South cooperation, China, CELAC

Posted July 18, 2014

​     In response to my post and announcement that mentioned the participation of China in the development of alternative international structures by the governments of the South, Alan Spector, Past President of the Association for Humanist Sociology, posted the following message to the Progressive and  Critical Sociologist Network discussion list.

    The position taken by most Cuban scholars is that China has exploitative commercial relations to the extent that the commercial partner accepts it, as had occurred with respect to Chinese relations with some African nations, but that China accepts more equitable terms of exchange, if required by the partner nation, as has occurred with respect to progressive Latin American governments.  The latter tendency has been more prominent in the last ten years, as an increasing number of nations are beginning to search for mechanisms of autonomous development.  Thus, Chinese foreign policy is fundamentally different from US policy, which seeks to overthrow governments that insist upon exchange that is more equitable.

      An analogy between the United States 100 years ago and China today is interesting.  Certainly, both the USA then and China today can be seen as in the early stages of a project of ascent.  But the historical and global context is different.  The United States had begun its ascent in the eighteenth century on the basis of geographical expansionism, super-exploitation of slave labor in the Caribbean and the US South, and the beginnings of US imperialist penetration in Latin America and the Caribbean (see “Slavery, development, and US ascent” 8/30/2013; “Cotton” 9/9/2013; “The origin of US imperialist policies” 9/18/2013; “US Imperialism, 1903-1932” 9/19/2013).  At the dawn of the twentieth century, the United States could envision its continuing ascent through the deepening of imperialist penetration in colonized and neocolonized regions, and thus imperialism emerged as the foundation for US foreign policy during the twentieth century.

       But the possibilities for ascent through imperialist penetration are much more limited today, as a result of the fact that the world-system has reached its geographical limits, and thus is itself facing a structural and possibly terminal crisis (see “The terminal crisis of the world-system” 3/28/2014).  As a result, China sees a different road to ascent:  relations with semi-peripheral nations that also are seeking ascent, on the basis of the more equitable relations upon which all insist.  China, although a larger and more powerful nation that has never been colonized, has in common with other semi-peripheral nations the persistent struggle for autonomy in the face of European expansionism.  For China, the most practical strategy in the present global context is to cast its lot with other semi-peripheral nations seeking ascent, who see the defense of their national interests as requiring the democratic transformation of the world-system. Recognizing that there is strength in unity, the semi-peripheral nations also are inviting the poorer peripheralized countries to participate, nations that also have been victimized by the same process of Western colonialism and imperialism. 

     In following a different road, the emerging semi-peripheral nations are redefining the meaning of ascent.  Rather than pursuing national interests through superexploitation of labor in other lands and at the expense of other nations, the emerging nations seek national development through cooperation with other nations, seeking to identify forms of economic, commercial, and cultural exchange that are mutually beneficial, and to develop political alliances on this basis. They are following a logic of national development that is integral to a process of change that seeks a more just and democratic world, recognizing that the neocolonial world-system has reached the geographical limits of the earth and has surpassed its ecological limits, and appreciating that the utilization of structures of neocolonial exploitation as a basis of ascent is no longer possible.  In the present historic moment, advances in development for any nation have to occur on a foundation of cooperation with other nations.  Not recognizing this fundamental fact of our time, the established global powers continue to aggressively pursue interests through super-exploitation of the peoples of the earth, and in the process, they are establishing the foundation for a new form of fascism or an era of chaos.

     So there is emerging a global project from the South that seeks to develop an alternative to the North American-European-centered neocolonial world-system.   China, Russia, Brazil, Venezuela, Argentina and others are among the principal actors in the creation of alternative international structures (see “A change of epoch?” 3/18/2014; “Is Marx today fulfilled?” 3/20/2014; and “The alternative world-system from below” 4/15/2014).

     Alan is not necessarily among them, but many people believe that “power corrupts,” and to believe that every powerful nation will be imperialist is perhaps a social application of this maxim. The notion that persons with power and governments of powerful nations invariably ignore universal human values is a cynical and pernicious belief, for it implies that a more just and democratic world cannot be created. Against this notion, I maintain that the Third World revolution of the last 200 years shows that there are persons who possess power in the form of charismatic authority who are committed to universal values, and that there have emerged governments controlled by popular social movements that have acted in accordance with international norms and democratic values.  And I maintain that the structural and possible terminal crisis of the world-system is establishing conditions that favor this possibility.  Today, as the neocolonized peoples of the earth are in movement, proclaiming that a more just and democratic world is possible and necessary, we intellectuals of the North have the duty to recognize and support this process, helping our peoples to cast aside cynicism and to embrace hope.


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, China, ascent

July 21, 2014

​     In response to my post of July 18 (“China and the alternative world-system”), Alan Spector has posted the following message in the Progressive and Critical Sociologist Network discussion list.

     In using the phrase “commercial partner,” I was referring to the government of a nation that signed a commercial agreement with China.  Most of the governments of Africa and Asia do not represent superexploited workers; rather, they represent the national bourgeoisie or a sector of it, such as the landed estate bourgeoisie, and they often represent the interests of international capital.  This reality, inherent in the neocolonial situation, is being challenged by the Third World popular revolution that has emerged with a renewed force since 1995.

     China does not use coercive measures, the threat of force or sanctions to induce governments to accept commercial agreements, and for this reason, Cuban scholars tend not to view China as an emerging imperialist power, even though some of these agreements, particularly with respect to Africa, are in opposition to the interests of workers and to the autonomy of the nation.  Certainly, neocolonized nations are not truly independent, and the neocolonial situation is itself coercive; but China takes no particular aggressive action, and in this respect, it departs from the conduct of the global powers, which also have historic responsibility for the establishment of the neocolonial world-system.  At the same time, China has increasingly moved toward the signing of agreements with progressive governments in Latin America that are controlled by popular sectors or a coalition of forces that include the popular sectors, agreements which have positive consequence for the people and for national development.  Such cooperation by China with progressive and Left governments contrasts sharply with the hostility of the United States and Western Europe toward these governments, and for this reason, China is held in high regard by the popular movement in Latin America.

       I take the notion of states as central actors in the modern world-system from the world-systems perspective of Immanuel Wallerstein, which was formulated in the 1970s on the basis of Wallerstein’s personal encounter with the African nationalist movements of the 1960s (see “Immanuel Wallerstein” 7/30/2013; “Wallerstein: A Critique” 7/31/0213; “Wallerstein and world-systems analysis” 3/25/2014). The idea makes a great deal of sense from the Third World perspective, inasmuch as states were the principal actors in the imposition of colonialism and neocolonialism; and to the extent that Third World movements have been able to reduce the effects of colonialism and neocolonialism, or to transform the colonial reality into a more democratic situation, it was accomplished by national liberation movements that took control of governments and implemented alternative policies.  So in the modern world-system, states have been central actors in domination and liberation.

       When we take the modern world-system as our unit of analysis and seek to understand its origin and development, we arrive at the understanding not only that nation-states are the principal actors in the world-system, but also that there is a fundamental division between colonizing and colonized nation-states (see “Overcoming the colonial denial” 7/29/2013; and “Dialectic of domination and development” 10/30/2013).  And we see that this colonial divide effects the character of exploitation.  In the colonial situation, the workers are not only exploited in Marx’s sense, receiving wages that are less than the value of the products that they produce; but they also are “superexploited,” receiving less than what is necessary for life (“Unequal exchange” 8/5/2013).  In contrast, in the core region of the world economy, where colonizing nations are located, workers were superexploited during an earlier phase, but as the capitalist world-economy developed, the capitalist class was able to utilize profits from the exploitation of the colonies to make concessions to workers’ movements in the core, thus creating a situation in which core workers, for the most part, are exploited but not superexploited (see “The modern world-economy” 8/2/2013).  The colonial divide also created a difference with respect to the characteristics of social movements.  In the core, the first movements to emerge were formed by workers, artisans, and intellectuals tied to them, leading Marx to formulate the concept of the proletarian vanguard (“Marx on the revolutionary proletariat” 1/14/14).  But in the colonies, the movements from the outset were formed by multiple classes seeking independence from colonial rule in addition to the protection of the social and economic rights of the people, as was illustrated in the Vietnamese Revolution (see ““Ho reformulates Lenin” 5/7/2014).  These national liberation movements were able to attain political independence, but the economic function of labor in providing superexploited labor was preserved in most of the newly independent nations, creating a global neocolonial situation (see “The characteristics of neocolonialism” 9/16/2013). 

      Recognizing the role of the nation-state as the principal actor of the modern world-system in no sense involves overlooking class division in the colony or the neocolonized nation.  Class divisions are central to the dynamics of colonies and neocolonies, and they are the principal factor in shaping the action of states.  The national bourgeoisie typically is composed of an estate bourgeoisie dedicated to the export of agricultural products to the core; and an emerging national industrial bourgeoisie tied to the domestic market.  Mining and banking are generally under foreign ownership, but national ownership also exists in these sectors.  The popular classes include the petit bourgeoisie, industrial workers, artisans, agricultural workers, peasants, and the lumpenproletariat.  During the independence struggle, the popular classes and the national bourgeoisie are allies; but when political independence is attained, their opposed interests become manifest. As the Cuban scholar Jesús Arboleya has noted, during the struggle for independence, the national bourgeoisie represents the interests of the emerging nation before the colonial power; but once independence is attained, the national bourgeoisie represents the interests of the former colonial power within the newly independent nation.  In most cases, the national bourgeoisie controls the “independent” government of the neocolony, and it governs in accordance with its interests and the imperialist interests of the global powers. 

     These social dynamics are generally understood by Third World intellectuals tied to popular social movements.  Knowledge of social dynamics is rooted in social position, and what Third World intellectuals are teaching us is the possibility of combining the vantage point of the worker and the vantage point of the colonized.

     Popular revolutions in the Third World reached an earlier zenith in the 1960s, and since 1995, they have experienced renewal and have reached their most advanced stage.  They seek to take control of governments and to govern in defense of the popular classes and sectors.  When popular revolutions have succeeded in taking control of the state, they typically have engaged in an ideological attack against the national bourgeoisie, accusing it of betraying the nation by virtue of its complicity with imperialism.  As Hugo Chávez would say of the Venezuelan bourgeoisie after the triumph of the popular revolution in Venezuela, “They were on their knees, there is no other way to say it, they were on their knees before the imperial power.” 

     The Third World popular revolutions are anti-imperialist revolutions, seeking to abolish neocolonialism; and they are class revolutions, seeking to dislodge the national bourgeoisie from power and to place the state under the control of delegates of the people, who are charged to govern in defense of the interests and the needs of the people.  The Third World popular revolutions are at the vanguard of the global socialist revolution; they are redefining the meaning of socialism, and they are making significant contributions to the evolution of Marxist-Leninist theory and practice. 

      Recognizing the important role of Third World popular revolutions in constructing an alternative to the neocolonial world-system does not imply support for repressive Third World governments.  Repression is normal in the neocolonial situation, for in representing the interests of the national bourgeoisie and international capital, Third World governments must repress popular movements.  The great majority of repressive Third World governments have been allies of imperialism. The Third World popular revolution seeks to displace them with governments that defend popular interests and needs, and that therefore do not have need of repression.  When in power, Third World popular revolutions have developed structures of popular democracy and/or representative democracy, and have succeeded in ending repression and establishing citizen participation.  The global Third World popular revolution does not support Third World governments that repress popular movements, even when such governments have anti-imperialist dimensions.

Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, China, world-systems perspective

Posted July 22, 2014

     In his post to the Progressive and Critical Sociologist Network (see “States as actors in the world-system” 7/21/2014), Alan Spector writes, “The limits to the capitalist world system are indeed getting squeezed.  Whether the historical pattern of capitalism's limits will be resolved by ‘democratic’ alliances of semi-periphery forces or whether it will be resolved by inter-imperialist war is the question.”

      I do not think that there are signs that the world is moving toward an inter-imperialist war, which I understand as a war between imperialist powers.  Inter-imperialist conflict was a normal tendency of the world-system during the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and it culminated in World Wars I and II, which Wallerstein describes as a thirty-year war (1914-45) between two rising imperialist powers, the United States and Germany, fought in the context of the fall from hegemony of the United Kingdom (Wallerstein 1995: 48, 253; 2003:14, 32).  The inter-imperialist war of 1914-45 culminated in US hegemonic domination in a world-system in transition to neocolonialism.

     But the wars since 1990 have a character different from the inter-imperialist conflagrations of the twentieth century.  The wars since 1990 have been directed by the United States, with the support of Western European imperialist powers, against semi-peripheral nations that were violating in some way the rules of the neocolonial world-system and/or challenging the interests of the imperialist powers, although the governments of the attacked nations were not necessarily defending the popular sectors. 

     The US directed wars since 1990, which also can be understood as a continuous war, point not to inter-imperialist war but to the possible emergence of a new form of global fascism, characterized by: military intervention by the global powers in semi-peripheral and peripheral regions to attain economic and commercial goals; repression of radical popular movements by governments in semi-peripheral and peripheral zones allied with the global powers; efforts to destabilize progressive and radical governments in semi-peripheral and peripheral zones, through various means, including ideological manipulation, attacks on production and commerce, and the formation of violent gangs that attack leaders and the people in popular organizations; and within the core, attacks on gays, immigrants, affirmative action programs that defend women and minorities, and social programs that protect the unemployed and the middle and working classes, which have the effect of diverting the attention of the people by creating scapegoats.  With reference to these dynamics, Fidel Castro recently used the phrase, “global military dictatorship.” 

       But an alternative possibility to global neo-fascism and global military dictatorship is the construction from below of a more just and democratic world-system, a process that has been unfolding since 1995, in the form of a global popular movement in opposition to neoliberalism and neocolonialism.  This possible option is represented by the Non-Aligned Movement, the Group of 77 and China (see “The nations of the Global South speak” 6/19/2014), the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC for its initials in Spanish) (see “The Declaration of Havana 2014” 3/14/2014), and the Bolivarian Alternative for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA) (see “The rise of ALBA” 3/11/2014).  The leading countries in the emerging alternative world-system include Russia, China, Brazil, Argentina, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Cuba, Uruguay, and South Africa, all of which have strong traditions of socialist movements.  In Latin America and the Caribbean, the popular movement for an alternative world-system has acquired such force that governments that are still controlled by the national bourgeoisie and the traditional political parties and allied with the United States are compelled to make concessions, such that one may speak of a new political reality in Latin America and the Caribbean.

     A third option is chaos, indicated by growing levels of crime and criminal violence, the increasing use of private security, uncontrolled international migration, the reemergence of religious fundamentalism, and the emergence of ethnic separatist movements.  The neocolonial world-system is characterized by increasing disorder, and it could fragment into regions, each ruled by a regional neo-fascist military dictatorship or by local war lords.

      These three projections for the future of the world-system are observable.  They are emerging in the present, each being pushed by particular political forces and dynamics.  In response to the structural crisis of the world-system, the global power elite is moving core governments toward the development of a neo-fascist global dictatorship.  Various social movements in the core have criticized this turn of the global elite, but the core social movements are limited in depth, and they do not address the systemic problems that are provoking the turn to neo-fascist global military dictatorship.  The core movements, therefore, slow the march toward global dictatorship, but they do not to redirect it.  But another kind of opposition to the global project of the elite is emerging in the Third World, where the movements and governments are seeking to develop an alternative world-system with more just and democratic norms among and within nations.  However, chaos increasingly emerges in social and territorial space where neither the elite nor the popular forces have control. Chaos can emerge as the prevailing global tendency, if neither the bourgeois-fascist adjustments from above nor the anti-colonial and democratic political forces from below can consolidate control. 

     We cannot know or predict the future.  But we can understand the future possibilities that are emerging in the present, and that the final resolution of the structural crisis of the world-system will depend on the mobilization of global political forces.  Inter-imperialist wars have occurred in the past, because colonialism and imperialism have been central to the development of the world-system, and thus competition among imperialist powers is a normal tendency.  But we are now in a new situation.  The world-system has entered a structural crisis, provoked by the fact that it has reached the geographical and ecological limits of the earth.   As a result, new dynamics are emerging; and the world-system is moving toward either a neo-fascist global dictatorship, or a transformation to a more just and democratic world-system, or world-wide chaos.

     Our task as intellectuals of the North is to understand these emerging possibilities and to explain them to our peoples, who are confused by the ideological distortions of the media and the false assumptions of “democratic” political cultures, and they are distracted by consumerism.  The fulfillment of this duty confronts obstacles that we must overcome.  To some extent, we who are intellectuals, like the people, are confused by ideological distortions and false assumptions. Moreover, for those of us who are academics, the development of our understanding is limited by the epistemological assumptions and the fragmented organization of the bureaucratized university.  I believe that the key to an emancipation that would enable understanding is personal encounter with the Third World revolution of national liberation (see various posts in the section on Knowledge).

       The Third World Revolution is the third revolution of the modern world-system.  The first was the bourgeois revolution of Western Europe and North America, which ultimately protected its own interests, sacrificing the rights and needs of the people.  The second was the European proletarian revolution, which in Western Europe and North America became reformist, seduced by the concessions made possible by colonial domination; and which in Eastern Europe became bureaucratized, ultimately collapsing as a result of its limitations and contradictions.  The third revolution is of the Third World, and it is now reaching its most advanced stage, offering for humanity the only viable alternative to the militarist project of the global power elite.  The Third World revolution has accumulated more than 200 years of experience, having begun in 1791, when Toussaint L’Ouverture, a 45-year-old slave with administrative experience, gave political direction to a slave rebellion in the French colony of San Domingo, today known as Haiti (see “Toussaint L’Ouverture” 12/10/2013).


References

Wallerstein, Immanuel. 1995. After Liberalism. New York: The New Press.

­­­­__________.  2003.  The Decline of American Power: The U.S. in a Chaotic World.  New York: The New Press.


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective,

Posted July 23, 2014

     In yesterday’s post, which is part of a dialogue with Alan Spencer, Past President of the Association for Humanist Sociology, I maintained that the militarist foreign policies and the conservative domestic policies of the global elite since 1990 point to the possible emergence of a neo-fascist global dictatorship (“The future of the world-system” 7/22/2014).  This leads to the question, how are the US-directed wars since 1990 different from the US imperialist wars of the period 1945 to 1990?

     The US imperialist wars and interventions of 1945 to 1990 had precedents in various military occupations, military interventions, and diplomatic maneuvering in Latin America and the Caribbean during the first half of the twentieth century.  They included military occupations of Cuba (1898-1902 and 1906-9), Haiti (1915-34) and the Dominican Republic (1916-24); and numerous military interventions in Central America from 1906 to 1932.  And they included the sponsoring of the secession of Panama from Columbia in 1902, in order to facilitate construction of the Panama Canal on US terms; and the establishment of military dictatorships through diplomatic maneuvering during the administration of Franklin Delano Roosevelt (Regalado 2007:116-18; Arboleya 2008:105-7; “The origin of US imperialist policies” 9/18/2013; “US Imperialism, 1903-1932” 9/19/2013; “Imperialism and the FDR New Deal” 9/20/2013).

     The pre-1945 interventions involved imperialist interventions by a rising imperialist power in the context of an expanding world-system.  Imperialism had emerged as the foundation to US foreign policy in the 1890s, as a result of the need of industrial and agricultural producers to find new markets beyond the frontiers of the United States.  Public debates concerning imperialism were provoked by the acquisition of territories through what US historians call the Spanish-American War, and various perspectives were taken with respect to the implications of US interventions in other lands.  But in these debates, all parties assumed that Africans and persons of African descent, Latin-Americans, indigenous peoples and Asians belonged to “inferior races,” and thus they were incapable of self-government.  This prevailing racist belief made unnecessary any ideological justification of military interventions in Latin America or of European colonial domination of vast regions of Africa and Asia.  It was assumed that all such interventions by the United States and the European colonial powers had a civilizing and beneficial effect (Arboleya 2008; Weston 1972; Wilson 1973).   

     National liberation movements in the Third World and the African-American movement in the United States challenged and overcame the assumption of white superiority.  The movements led to a fundamental change in political culture with respect to “race,” and they made necessary the protection of political and civil rights of all citizens and respect for the sovereignty and equality of all nations and peoples of the world.  Thus, there occurred the political independence of the colonies of Asia and Africa, and a transition to a neocolonial world-system, in which the formal political independence of nations is recognized.  However, the neocolonial world-system would be characterized by structures to facilitate economic, commercial, and financial penetration by the global powers, thus preventing true independence or sovereignty (see “The characteristics of neo-colonialism” 9/16/2013).

     The United States emerged from World War II with unchallenged productive, commercial and financial dominance, and thus the transition to a neocolonial world-system roughly coincided with the emergence of the United States as a hegemonic core power.  In the post-World War II era, US public discourse no longer debated the question of whether or not the United States should intervene in other lands.  A liberal-conservative consensus in support of imperialist policies emerged, with disagreements confined to debates concerning the practical wisdom of a particular intervention.  But US imperialist policies could no longer be based on a presumed assumption of “inferior races.” Justifications would now have to be made on the basis of democratic principles, and thus the Cold War ideology emerged as a powerful ideological weapon, for its portrayed Western “democracies” as threatened by an international communist conspiracy directed by the Soviet Union and China, making necessary US interventions to protect democracy.

      Thus, during the period of 1945 to 1990, the United States undertook a number of imperialist wars, military interventions, and covert actions, designed to protect US control of the natural resources, labor, and markets of the vast peripheral and semi-peripheral regions of the world-economy.  The Cold War ideology presented the United States as a defender of democracy, obscuring its true character as a hegemonic power seeking to preserve structures of imperialist penetration and neocolonial domination. In spite of its democratic claims, US military interventions and covert actions were designed to impede any social movement that sought to act politically to reduce the US economic advantage, which had resulted from the historic capacity of the United States to insert itself in an advantageous manner in the evolving structures of the colonial and neocolonial world-system (see “Slavery, development, and US ascent” 8/30/2013; “Cotton” 9/9/2013; “The military-industrial complex” 8/29/2013).

     But by 1990, the world-system had entered a new situation.  It had reached the geographical limits of the earth and had surpassed its ecological limits, thus constraining profits, expansion and growth.  Meanwhile, the United States had experienced a relative productive, commercial and financial decline, a process that began in the late 1960s as a result of various factors, including its being overextended economically and financially by the Vietnam War.  By 1990, the United States no longer possessed unchallenged productive, commercial, and financial advantage, but it continued to have unchallenged military advantage, a legacy of its earlier hegemony.  In this new situation, the United States intervenes militarily in order to achieve economic and commercial objectives that it no longer has the economic and commercial capacity to attain. 

     Fascism has various components: military expansionism in order to fulfill economic goals through military means as part of a nationalist project of ascent; repression of popular movements, including assassinations, imprisonment, and torture; the formation of violent gangs for the attack of popular organizations; concessions to moderate workers’ organizations; and a nationalist and populist rhetoric that celebrates popular culture.  Fascism has been present as a component of military dictatorships in the Third World that have been tied to imperialism.  And since the Western democracies are based on colonialism and neocolonialism, fascism can be understood as an integral component of the world-system.  Nevertheless, in the evolution of the political culture of the world-system, there has emerged a form of representative democracy that stands against fascism and that affirms the civil and political rights of all citizens and the rights of all nations to sovereignty and independence.  But in the context of the structural crisis of the world-system, the global powers are moving away from these principles of representative democracy and are beginning to move toward a new form of fascism.

     Thus, the US directed wars, interventions, and covert actions since 1990, carried out with the support of Western European imperialist powers, are like the imperialist interventions of the period 1945-90, in that they have been conducted against semi-peripheral nations that were violating in some way the rules of the neocolonial world-system and/or challenging the interests of the imperialist powers, although the governments of the attacked nations were not necessarily defending the popular sectors.  But the wars and interventions since 1990 are also different from 1945-90, because they are being carried out by an economically declining power that still has military dominance, and it is using its military strength to attain economic objectives, and thus they are beginning to acquire the characteristics of fascism.

     The emerging neo-fascist global dictatorship is structurally different from the neocolonial world-system.  Neocolonialism seeks to control ideologically rather than through force, even though its foundation lies in force, conquest, and colonialism.  Neocolonialism endeavors to give the appearance of democracy, and thus it requires providing support to key actors, such as the middle and working classes in the core and the national bourgeoisie in the periphery and semi-periphery.  But the world-system has reached the geographical limits of the earth, creating a situation in which it is not sustainable.  Confronting this reality, the limited forms of democracy and sovereignty allowed by the neocolonial world-system have been increasingly abandoned by the global elite since 1980, as it turns to a new form of fascism. 

     The emergence of a neo-fascist global dictatorship would not mark the end of the world-system but the evolution of the world-system to a new stage.  It would mean the end of the dominance of the idea of democracy, which emerged during the eighteenth century, but which, under the constraints of the established structures of the world-system, could go no further than representative democracy and formal political independence.  The world-system was established on a colonial foundation of force and conquest, and by turning to fascism in its hour of crisis, it is returning to its roots. 

     But the other possibilities projected for the future, namely, an alternative more just and democratic system and the emergence of chaos and fragmentation (see “The future of the world-system” 7/22/2014), would represent the end of the world-system itself.  A just and democratic world-system established by popular movements from below would emancipate the world-system from its colonial foundation, thus establishing a different world-system.  Perhaps we should call it something to help bring it about, something like “Socialism for the twenty-first century.”  It was so named by Hugo Chávez, and he is present, calling on all of us to participate in its construction (see “Chávez and the Bolivarian Revolution in Venezuela.”

      From the vantage point of universal human values, the transformation of the world-system to a different and more just and democratic world-system is the best option for humanity.  It would represent a fulfillment of the hopes of Marx and the hopes of the peoples of the Third World, who have demonstrated that, in the words of Fidel, “this humanity has a tremendous thirst for social justice.”


References

Arboleya, Jesús.  2008.  La Revolución del Otro Mundo.  La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales.

Regalado, Roberto.  2007.  Latin America at the Crossroads: Domination, Crisis, Popular Movements, and Political Alternatives.  New York: Ocean Press.

Weston, Rubin Francis.  1972.  Racism in U.S. Imperialism: The Influence of Racial Assumptions on American Foreign Policy, 1893-1946.  Columbia, South Carolina: University of South Carolina Press.

Wilson, Willam J. 1973.  Power, Racism, and Privilege: Race Relations in Theoretical and Sociohistorical Perspectives.  New York: The Free Press.


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, fascism, dictatorship

     “In the year 2000, Russia began to recuperate strength in the international arena, and its effects we are seeing at present . . . in a new type of relation that Cuba is developing with the Russian government and people.”  So stated Raúl Castro, President of the Council of State and of Ministers of Cuba, during the visit to Cuba of Vladimir V. Putin, President of the Russian Federation, on July 11, 2014.

      Raúl also stated, with reference to the cooperative relation between the Soviet Union and Cuba during the 1960s, 1970s, and 1980s, that “the decisive aid of the USSR . . . was a generous aid, without which, we are able to affirm, the Revolution would not have been able to endure.”

      During the visit of the Russian President, the Russian and Cuban governments signed ten documents that establish instruments of cooperation.  These include an agreement to study the conditions of the petroleum deposits and oil wells in Cuban territory, in order to maximize the process of extraction and to increase efficiency.  They include a Russian commitment to construct four electric generating units in Cuba and to cooperate in the modernization and construction of hydroelectric energy installations.   And they contain a program of cooperation in culture and the arts, including music, dance, visual arts, and sculpture, and including as well museums and libraries.

     In addition, Putin announced the cancellation 90% of the Cuban debt with Russia, which had emerged during the time of the Soviet Union, and which had reached 35 billion dollars.  The remaining 10% will be reinvested by Russia in Cuba in programs of cooperation that will continue until 2020.  Raúl described the cancellation of the debt as “another and recent example of the great and clear generosity of the Russian people toward Cuba.”

     During the visit, Putin met with Fidel Castro.  They discussed the historic ties between the two nations and peoples as well as the growing commercial and economic interchange between the two nations in the context of the present international situation.  In addition, the historic leader of the Cuban Revolution explained the results of Cuban scientific studies that are creating real possibilities for increased food production in countries with limited resources that confront threats derived from Climate Change.

     Putin’s visit to Cuba is the first stop in a four-nation tour that includes Nicaragua, Argentina and Brazil, where he will attend a summit of the countries of BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). The visit by the President of the Russian Federation to Latin America is an indication of an emerging network of political alliances and economic and cultural relations, which includes the countries of BRICS; the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC; see “The Declaration of Havana 2014” 3/14/2014); the relations of Russia as well as China with CELAC and with Latin American nations; the emerging relationship between Russia and China; and the relations of Russia and Latin America with the Islamic Republic of Iran.  This alternative network consists of the formerly colonized nations of the Third World plus China and Russia, and it seeks to develop relations among nations that are mutually beneficial. It represents a potential and real alternative to the international projection of the United States and Western Europe, which seeks, in the context of a structural crisis of the world-system, to preserve the neocolonial core-peripheral relation with the nations of the South.  We have entered a new stage in international relations, in which the unsustainable neocolonial world-system is being challenged, and an alternative more just and democratic world-system is being constructed from below (see “A change of epoch?” 3/18/2014; and “The alternative world system from below” 4/15/2014).


Key words:  Third World, revolution, colonialism, neocolonialism, imperialism, democracy, national liberation, sovereignty, self-determination, socialism, Marxism, Leninism, Cuba, Latin America, world-system, world-economy, development, underdevelopment, colonial, neocolonial, blog Third World perspective, Russia