August 30, 2018
In my last post, (“The new imperialist strategy” 8/20/2018, found in the category US Imperialism or the category Critique of the Left), I discussed the new imperialist strategy of cultivating relations with supposedly leftist intellectuals in nations with socialist and progressive governments, in order to disseminate false claims that these governments are authoritarian and/or corrupt. The strategy has been effective in generating confusion among U.S. intellectuals and activists of the Left, taking advantage of the inherent tendency of the U.S. Left to distrust authority in any form. And taking advantage of the Left’s limited consciousness of the international projection of China, Russia, and the socialist and progressive governments of the Third World, which envisions the construction of an alternative, more just and sustainable world-system, transforming neocolonial structures of domination that are integral to the capitalist world-economy.
My comments referred specifically to the cases of Nicaragua, Cuba, and China, and they were based, in addition to my own experiences, on a perceptive article by Roger Harris in Counterpunch, “Chomsky on Regime Change in Nicaragua.”
With respect to my August 20 post on “The new imperialist strategy,” Harris has written to me as follows:
In my last post, (“The new imperialist strategy” 8/20/2018, found in the category US Imperialism or the category Critique of the Left), I discussed the new imperialist strategy of cultivating relations with supposedly leftist intellectuals in nations with socialist and progressive governments, in order to disseminate false claims that these governments are authoritarian and/or corrupt. The strategy has been effective in generating confusion among U.S. intellectuals and activists of the Left, taking advantage of the inherent tendency of the U.S. Left to distrust authority in any form. And taking advantage of the Left’s limited consciousness of the international projection of China, Russia, and the socialist and progressive governments of the Third World, which envisions the construction of an alternative, more just and sustainable world-system, transforming neocolonial structures of domination that are integral to the capitalist world-economy.
My comments referred specifically to the cases of Nicaragua, Cuba, and China, and they were based, in addition to my own experiences, on a perceptive article by Roger Harris in Counterpunch, “Chomsky on Regime Change in Nicaragua.”
With respect to my August 20 post on “The new imperialist strategy,” Harris has written to me as follows:
Based on my experience, your commentary about the left-in-form/right-in-essence dissident leftists is right on target. We ran into them in Honduras after the 2009 coup that removed Mel Zelaya from office. They called themselves Artists and Intellectuals Against the Coup. They mainly came from middle class backgrounds, were very articulate, associated with NGOs, and spoke English. They were the main contacts with us and other international solidarity activists. Within 2-3 years, however, they imploded due to internal divisions. But by that time, they had turned against Zelaya and were giving lip service to the imperialists. More recently, this same tendency has been popping up in Venezuela (e.g., Marea Socialista) who push the idea that the Maduro government should at this time convert the country to a communal state, which is not unlike the promotion by some U.S. leftists of cooperatives in Cuba.
So Harris and I are on the same road of discovering a tendency in the U.S. Left to be quick to accept the claims of “dissidents,” thus falling into the trap set for us by imperialism and its allies. In my view, in order to prevent being victims of this trap, we need to begin with the premise that we of the U.S. Left have much to learn from socialist and progressive movements that have taken political power, for they have accomplished far more in their nations than we have in our nation. Furthermore, we have to recognize that we have a limited understanding, given the political and social context in which we live, of the alternative project that they are building; so we need to be oriented to doing a lot of listening, including their explanations of why they are doing this rather than that. And we need to be wary, because the “dissidents” are looking for us, for we are integral to their plan. In contrast, the revolutionaries, defending the majority, are busy building; they are happy to speak to us, because they are internationalists, but we have to get their attention. We need to be spending a lot of time listening to those that are active forging the socialist and progressive projects in various Latin American nations, in order to deepen our understanding of socialist and progressive thought and action. It would also empower us to understand in context any critical commentaries made within those nations by intellectuals who present themselves as leftists.
Harris also writes,
Harris also writes,
You mention psychological factors such as ego contributing to this ultra-left dissident tendency. I won’t comment on that, but would add two other factors which I think are important. First is their class basis, which tends to be middle class; they are not the campesinos and workers. They often have ties to the corrupting world of NGOs. Second, ideologically they tend toward anarchism and/or libertarianism. They counter-pose bottom-up with top-down initiatives, rather than seeing a dialectical unity between base and leadership. As you perceptively point out, they are distrustful of the state and have no appreciation for the role of a vanguard party.
Yes, it is a question of anarchistic and libertarian tendencies, with a social base in the middle class. However, the middle class gives rise to a variety of ideological tendencies. In the colonies and neocolonies of the world, the middle class has been the social base of accommodation to imperialist interests; but on the other hand, most of the great revolutionaries have been from the middle class. In our country [the United States], the middle class is the social base not only of ultra-leftism, but also of liberal reformism, consumerist escapism, and the current incipient neofascism. For the middle class in the core region of the world economy, it is a question of how each of us born into this relatively privileged position responds to the situation of relative privilege. Do we ignore it? Do we seek to defend it aggressively? Do we support reforms, but not to the extent that it causes inconvenience? Do we find satisfaction in a posture that presents us as critical thinkers or radicals, blaming our political ineffectiveness on the ignorance of others? Do we dedicate ourselves to the quest for the true and the right, seeking to overcome the limitations on understanding that our social position imposes? It is a personal decision.
I believe that it is possible for middle class intellectuals in the United States, if we have commitment and discipline, to learn the true and the right. And possibly, if we learn well, we could have influence on our nation, explaining fundamental global, historical, and political realities to our people. We could make clear the global structural sources of the relative privilege of our nation’s middle class, and we can demonstrate the incompatibility of those structures with the values that we proclaim. And we could convincingly demonstrate the unsustainability of a world-system shaped by each nation pursuing its interests and each corporation pursing its profits, without regard for the consequences for the nation and the world. Our people are increasingly becoming middle class, albeit a middle class with social insecurity and personal anxiety. I believe that if we were to explain well the dynamics of our situation, the consensual majority would opt for social justice, for themselves and for all.
I also recommend to the reader another article by Harris, “A Specter of Peace Is Haunting Nicaragua.” The article criticizes opposition to Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, the leader of the Sandinista Revolution since it first took power in 1979. It specifically criticizes commentaries by The Nation and by academic Latin Americanist William I. Robinson. Among other issues discussed, Robinson maintains that many on the Left support Ortega because they see him on the good side in an “infantile Manichean view,” which sees a binary world of good or evil. Against Robinson, Harris maintains that we confront in practice a choice between two morally different projects.
I am in agreement with Harris. We intellectuals and academics are able to imagine other possibilities, in accordance with various ideas that we have, and impress each other with our virtuosity. But in political practice, we have a choice between, on the one side, the neoliberalism, incipient neofascism, and aggressive wars of the declining hegemonic power; and on the other side, an effort by the neocolonized peoples of the earth to construct, in theory and in practice, an alternative world-system, more just and sustainable. In the real world, we have a choice between two very different possibilities, in which the global powers systematically attack those leaders, governments, and movements that are seeking to forge an alternative road for humanity. In this situation, we have the duty to take sides; we have the responsibility to understand, appreciate, and defend that alternative more just and sustainable possibility for humanity that is emerging from below. As Fidel said in 1960, when a revolution is under attack, revolutionaries must close ranks.
I believe that it is possible for middle class intellectuals in the United States, if we have commitment and discipline, to learn the true and the right. And possibly, if we learn well, we could have influence on our nation, explaining fundamental global, historical, and political realities to our people. We could make clear the global structural sources of the relative privilege of our nation’s middle class, and we can demonstrate the incompatibility of those structures with the values that we proclaim. And we could convincingly demonstrate the unsustainability of a world-system shaped by each nation pursuing its interests and each corporation pursing its profits, without regard for the consequences for the nation and the world. Our people are increasingly becoming middle class, albeit a middle class with social insecurity and personal anxiety. I believe that if we were to explain well the dynamics of our situation, the consensual majority would opt for social justice, for themselves and for all.
I also recommend to the reader another article by Harris, “A Specter of Peace Is Haunting Nicaragua.” The article criticizes opposition to Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega, the leader of the Sandinista Revolution since it first took power in 1979. It specifically criticizes commentaries by The Nation and by academic Latin Americanist William I. Robinson. Among other issues discussed, Robinson maintains that many on the Left support Ortega because they see him on the good side in an “infantile Manichean view,” which sees a binary world of good or evil. Against Robinson, Harris maintains that we confront in practice a choice between two morally different projects.
I am in agreement with Harris. We intellectuals and academics are able to imagine other possibilities, in accordance with various ideas that we have, and impress each other with our virtuosity. But in political practice, we have a choice between, on the one side, the neoliberalism, incipient neofascism, and aggressive wars of the declining hegemonic power; and on the other side, an effort by the neocolonized peoples of the earth to construct, in theory and in practice, an alternative world-system, more just and sustainable. In the real world, we have a choice between two very different possibilities, in which the global powers systematically attack those leaders, governments, and movements that are seeking to forge an alternative road for humanity. In this situation, we have the duty to take sides; we have the responsibility to understand, appreciate, and defend that alternative more just and sustainable possibility for humanity that is emerging from below. As Fidel said in 1960, when a revolution is under attack, revolutionaries must close ranks.
RSS Feed
