On Third World Struggles

 [Original article by Ngo Van Xuyet.]

What does “national liberation” mean for workers and peasants? The imperialist powers speak of “the right of peoples to self-determination,” and this phrase is adopted by the parties striving for power in colonial and semicolonial countries. We propose to banish the word “people” from our vocabulary: it implies an equality of right between the exploiting classes and the exploited masses. Who “selfdetermines” whom in the new national “peasant” states? In countries within the Western sphere of influence, national independence hands power over to the local bourgeoisie, which exploits the proletariat, and to the landowning class, which exploits the peasantry; in countries within the so-called “Communist” bloc, the state-capitalist bureaucracy exploits proletariat and peasantry alike. For workers and peasants, national liberation means nothing more than a change of masters.

Needless to say, in countries like India, where imperialism has handed power over to the local bourgeoisie, peasants die of hunger or live on the verge of starvation, at the mercy of greedy landowners. In countries where immense peasant uprisings have brought “Communist” parties to power, bureaucratic-military states have emerged that have introduced agrarian reform for their own ends: they abolish land ownership, eliminate the landowning classes, and redistribute land to the peasants in order to secure their support during the initial phase of their rule; but once state capitalism is established, the superexploitation of the peasants forms the basis of primitive accumulation for industrialization.

We live in an era of permanent war. The major powers confront each other, either directly or through the states under their dominion, and, as in the past, they each lay the responsibility on the other side.

Whatever the country, the victims are always the workers and peasants. “A people that oppresses another people is itself oppressed.” We have no country to defend, even if that country claims to be “communist.” For all the exploited, the struggle for self-emancipation means the duty to fight against their own exploiters, and war is nothing other than the most extreme form of that exploitation. The peace or war promoted by our masters, be they bourgeois, landowners, generals or “Communist” bureaucrats, is no concern of ours. We have no interest in the defense of the “Free World” or the defense of a “workers’ and peasants’ government.” No matter where we live, we must struggle directly against those who send us to slaughter by refusing to manufacture or to bear arms; and that struggle is an integral part of our struggle for self-emancipation, across all borders.

[From Cahiers de discussion pour le Socialisme des conseils #8, April 1968]

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Interview With A Vietnamese Anarchist

We've recently had the opportunity to interview a Vietnamese Anarchist. Because Vietnam is a police state, we thought it would be best to not ask them too many questions which may be used by the State to incriminate them. Apologies in advance. If you would like to see something specific about Vietnam, please email us. Q: For our readers who are unfamiliar with the philosophy, could you explain what Anarchism is? A: Anarchism is an ideal where the autonomy of the individual is of most importance. Q: What methods of change are preferred by Anarchists? Could there be ballot-box Anarchism? A: Anarchism requires revolution, it's impossible to destroy societal hierarchical classes by submitting yourself to the game of the powerful. Q: And for social organization, how would society look if it was anarchist? A: I think there will be organizations within local communes, which will cooperate together on the basis of mutual assistance and free association. Q: What or who would you say was
Read more

Thesis on the Vietnamese Revolution

  There is a common tendency on the Left of Capital to either critically or uncritically support “socialist” states. While the usual targets of this support usually include Cuba and China, many likewise support the “Socialist” Republic of Vietnam. However, just like the two aforementioned countries, there is nothing socialist about Vietnam. In fact, it is capitalist. And it’s capitalist and bourgeois characteristics were visible from the very onset of its revolution. From Marx, we know that the history of humanity is the history of class warfare, and that each society humans pass through is a class society. We go from primitive communism, to slave society, to feudalism, to capitalism, and now we must go to communism. Likewise, this was the case in Vietnam. However, uneven development meant that Vietnam was still in the feudal stage of society prior to colonization by the French. French colonization did eventually develop capitalism in Vietnam. The proletariat and bourgeoisie materializ
Read more

The Bloated Bureaucracy of Vietnam

  Before we dive into the discussion of the bureaucracy which chokes Vietnam like a boa constrictor, it would be useful for us to define “bureaucracy”. Many Communists throw the word around but do not know what it means. We take our definition from Alexandra Kollontai. Writing for the Workers Opposition, she states: “ Bureaucracy is a direct negation of mass self-activity. [...] Restrictions on initiative are imposed, not only in regard to the activity of the non-party masses [...] The initiative of Party members themselves is restricted. Every independent attempt, every new thought that passes through the censorship of our centre, is considered as ‘heresy’, as a violation of Party discipline, as an attempt to infringe on the prerogatives of the centre, which must ‘foresee’ everything and ‘decree’ everything and anything. If anything is not decreed one must wait, for the time will come when the centre at its leisure will decree. Only then, and within sharply restricted limits, will one
Read more