Look, I actually have to spend my time around Americans. I dislike them probably more than a lot of people who say stuff like in [https://www.reddit.com/r/TankieTheDeprogram/s/eHww4UALHm](this thread). But it’s not out of lack of trying.
But that’s besides the point. No other country’s people gets treated this way. And no, I’m not going to say I’m more oppressed than people in the global south or whatever. In fact a lot of psychological problems result from the fact that I’m privileged to be in the global north.
But Americans are so often…dismissed. That’s the only term i can come up with. But everyone talks about it in such idealist matter. They always talk individuals or idealism or whatever. The closest to material analysis is “the proletariat’s material conditions are closer aligned to the imperialist Bourgeoisie.” But that doesn’t just apply to Americans.
But, look. Why doesn’t any other people get treated this way? Genuinely. I don’t think Stalin sat down and said “well Germany lost a major world war and went through multiple economic crises and still hasn’t had a socialist revolution. So obviously it’s a lost cause, kill all of them.” Japan and South Korea are never treated this way, despite being very arguably in similar boats. And if we want to talk about material conditions, what about Indonesia or Iran or Cambodia or so many other nations? They haven’t had socialist revolutions yet despite their material conditions, so does that mean these people are useless treatlerites too?
I’m sorry. I know, again, we’re in the imperial core, we’re privileged. I don’t know what part of my mentally ill brain it is, but it’s just that the logic completely fails for me and that gives me anxiety, because reasons. Not just that, but the actual oppression of the communist and self determination movements here are also just ignored.
i think one of the most integral parts of correctly-applied marxism is understanding that the masses make history, and that the masses are rational: that the masses act and think in service of their material interests, wherever they lie in the multifaceted world of class contradictions. that means to accept the fact that, were you truly able to live in another’s shoes you would think and act exactly like they do, having experienced the same experiences and totality of material interests.
this applies to all the people you’re complaining about: of course non-americans would complain about the actions of the most successful and exploitative empire, and the global hegemon for decades. even within the global north non-americans get the short end of the stick, let alone the more exploitative relationship between the US and the global south. it makes sense that these people would be frustrated for this reason
but, this also applies to americans as well: of course revolutionary politics, theory and organization would be the weakest in the state in which people on the whole have the most to lose from upending the global status quo. this is complicated by the settler-colonial nature of the US, meaning that in a sense there is both internal and external imperialism, but i think most can agree that external imperialism is primary given the lack of revolutionary movement.
the correct marxist analysis accepts the validity of both sides, and synthesizes them. if history is any guide (which as marxists it definitely should be), then imperialism is the primary class contradiction globally, socialist revolutions are more likely (and perhaps only initially possible) in countries in which capital and the bourgeoisie is less developed, the proletariat’s anti-bourgeois class interests are aligned with anti-imperialism class interests, and countries in which imperialist class contradictions are particularly acute. non-socialist, anti-imperialist revolutions are still historically progressive.
for the most part, the material conditions in the US are the exact opposite of this, so anyone expecting revolution to occur within the US is anti-historical. anyone attributing its actions, the complacency of its inhabitants, or the backwards nature of its theory to a unique “evil” is not a marxist: the masses are just acting and thinking in accordance with their material interests.
i do think as the world becomes more legitimately multipolar the imperialist nature of internal american relations represents a relatively unique opportunity for revolutionary change, compared to europe for example. however, the vestiges of american hegemony would need to dissipate first: dollar hegemony, global military hegemony, etc., and we’re just not there yet.
in the meantime, instead of action for action’s sake, i think the best thing people can do within the imperial core and america specifically is to become disciplined, expert communists. if we truly think socialism is scientific then it can only come to be via the same expertise and academic rigor within the natural sciences. learn how to study, study, and study with others. use that expertise to write, edit and publish theory to advance scientific socialism within the imperial core. without revolutionary theory there can be no revolutionary movement.
This is hands down the best perspective I have ever read on the imperial core. THIS is how I understand marxism after like 10 Books or more and praxis. I aspire to become this good at analysis and concise at formulating the results.
thank you, i really appreciate that! i definitely enjoy writing and analysis, but like everyone have a lot to learn before i truly consider myself a practicing scientific socialist. we’re all in this struggle together!
And humble too! o7
Excellent commentary, comrade. The crux of the issue isn’t that the masses are correct or moral, but rational, and in the US Empire they just aren’t at that revolutionary moment yet. However, a historic opportunity is most likely coming, and the task is to prepare for this so that they don’t squander it. Advancing scientific socialism, agitating among the masses against imperialist aggression, and building disciplined and serious cadre to lead that mass movement are the only ways this historic opportunity can succeed.
thank you! for the most part i agree with you: i really see party formation as the first and primary task, because the more i investigate existing parties in the US the more i am disappointed in them. lack of internal party democracy coupled with incorrect theory and incorrect application of theory to material conditions in the US (not recognizing settler-colonialism as the primary internal contradiction, not understanding patriarchy as a set of class relationships in relation to reproductive labor, etc) makes for ossified, non-revolutionary organizations. and, i think studying and using studying as an organization tool is the first and primary task of party formation: how can we learn to build our own party without having thoroughly and collectively learned from all successful attempts at revolutionary party formation?
and yeah, i think not just one but many historic opportunities are on the horizon for the next century or two, because i think it will take multiple acts of spontaneous unrest for the masses to come to the correct conclusion. and these will obviously increase in likelihood the worse material conditions in the core become, whether via increasing multipolarity possibly leading to a world war, or climate change (which as a ticking time bomb is both a gift and a curse), or other means. but i think for success ultimately two things must occur: global north masses’ material interests must align with those in the global south more than not, and a truly revolutionary party must be present and organized enough to make the masses aware of this qualitative development the moment it occurs. the former will happen sooner for those more exploited within the core (black, indigenous, latino, but also queer and disabled folk), making a multi-vector class analysis critical for any revolutionary org within the core.
Very well said!