Avoiding de-lousing stage of revolution leads to fascism

The left-wing of parasitism typified by those who say the election of Obama proves “revolution is possible” deny that the Amerikan majority is exploiters. For that reason, the left-wing of parasitism believes that the de-lousing stage of revolution to prepare for the dictatorship of the proletariat is unnecessary.

In contrast, MIM prepared theory, not in the midst of opportunist career moves by various people, but over a decade ago. A book on the 1997 class structure of the imperialist countries spelled it out. Here is what the party voted for unanimously in 2001:


“Even more importantly, the talk of immediate integration the day after socialist revolution, as if dominant nation people were ready for it without whole intervening stages of re-civilization under the dictatorship of the proletariat, unprincipled blabber about “middle forces” (by both the ‘RCP’ and NISPOP revisionists), references to future revolutionary conditions in the ‘Two 90/10s’ discussion, as if they described what had to be done today (the definition of ultra-leftism if there is one, like talking about the day of no exploitation to justify taking a soft line on the bourgeoisie today) and concessions of surplus-labor to the imperialist petty-bourgeoisie and denial of the exploiter status of the imperialist country majority is all spreading illusions instead of preparing for armed struggle.”(1)

I’ve heard countless foolish Democrats and their supporters abroad say that election of Obama IS the revolution. We ask them, where is the worker uprising? I see the scape-goating. I don’t see worker control of factories or other spiritual pursuits motivating a high level of participation in running society without bourgeois managers.

In 2001, the MIM would not have believed if I had told it that the Avakianites were social-democrats already inside the Democratic Party. However, here is what we said, even in 2001: “This sort of ultra-leftism is almost always a cover for social-democratic-style revisionism.”

Now think about it. Why did MIM say that Germany had to be de-loused before it could build socialism and therefore it failed? What did we say about oppressed nations having to live for a while in freedom from white dictatorship? Why did we say integration was not possible right away and oppressed nations would have to be liberated? In other words, why did we deny the one-working-class integrationist line this whole time?

Obviously in 1997 or 2001, MIM did not expect to use my own persynal example as a data point. But now we have it.
1) Whatever signal one counts as “revolution,” white accusations do not disappear the day after.
2) Even if the oppressed nations WANTED to hold office in a situation premised on one-working-class theory, the oppressed nations would be prevented by white accusations.
3) The day after the revolution, there is still an economic basis for the exploiter classes.
4) Even if one cannot admit that one’s own society is still imperialist, if there are other imperialist countries, they are going to set up oppressed nation leaders with national chauvinist accusations.

The de-lousing stage of revolution did not occur yet. The material basis for white accusations still exists and likely will for some time into the future. If anything, my own case proves that there are potentials for feudal holdovers we did not anticipate, not just de-lousing problems in the re-civilizing stage preparing people for joint dictatorship of the proletariat.

Mistaking exploiters for exploited leads to building a fascist movement. There is a big difference between building an international united front for class struggle amounting to de-lousing and building an exploiter movement based in the imperialist country majorities.

Note:
1. Resolution on the “Draft Programme of the ‘Revolutionary Communist Party, USA’ May 2001”

Advertisements

%d bloggers like this: