Jenifer writes: "The life and death struggle being waged in palestine, nepal, peru, colombia, philippines, etc. is not dependent on what is happening here. Since the principal contradiction is between imperialism and oppressed nations.
Ayacucho writes: "the labor aristocracy is a majority (not a token few) in this country. It has a material interest (not because it is brain-washed or misled)in the imperialist war and plunder... That is why the principal contradiction in the world today, is that of between imperialism and oppressed nations."
In an earlier post Ayacucho runs out the same idea as an argument why revolutionaries should not lead struggles of hte masses but should focus on the struggles of others: "It is not because of "lack of sophistication", or being brain-washed by the media or as the trots love to say because of the mis-leaders of the trade-union bureaucracy. The principal contradiction today is between imperialism and oppressed nations. So,i think the party should do its work from the vantage point of the international proletariat. Like how to concretely (besides propaganda work) help the people's wars raging in peru, nepal, turkey, india, philippines. How to stop military intervention in colombia,iraq etc."
Does anyone else catch a theme here? And I think a wrong one.
This argument (which I assume is from the MIM organization) suggests that since the division of the world into imperialism and the oppressed countries, that this contradiction has been "principal" -- meaning (in their view) that the cutting edge of the world revolution has been fixed along those lines.
This is one-sided(to put it kindly).
The split in the world (and the subsequent lopsidedness of its economy and class structure) is a huge aspect of life on the planet earth today -- and deeply impacts the world revolution.
But it is not the only contradiction, and it is possible for other contradictions to produce revolutionary motion.
Maoist analysis has historically held that there are four main contradictions on a world scale:
a) the imperialist vs oppressed countries and peoples
b) the contradiction between capitalism and socialist countries (when there are such countries)
c) the contradiction between the proletariat and bourgeosie
d) the contradiction between imperialist countries.
These contradictions are intertwined and play a complex role in relatinship to each other.
Clearly the interimperialist ocntradiction (in both world wars, for example) have made other contradictions much more acute -- and given impetus to sharp conflict between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, and also to the rise of anti-colongial struggles in the third world (after world war 2).
But it is not true that the imperialism vs oppressed countries is the only one, or the only one that has been principal in the last century.
Perhaps more the point: the fact that this contradiction may be principal today (on a world scale, for now) does NOT mean that the bourgeoisie-proletariat contradiction (in the U.S. or on a world scale) can't intensify, or erupt massively, or lead to revolution in imperialist countries, or even become the principal contradiction for a while.
The interimperialist contradiction has been principal at times (world war 1, world war 2, the 1980s between U.S. and Soiet social imperialism) -- but that didn't prevent the peoples war in Peru (for example) from being launched during the 1980s.
The RCP says today is a "Period of major transition with the potential for great upheaval". There is a lot of flux, including (IMO) affecting all three of the existing "main contradictions on a world scale" (since one of the four contradictions doesn't exist when, like now, there is no existing socialist country).
As opposed to the mechanical, pessimistic view that says "the workers of the imperialist countries are hopelessly corrupt, revolution can only come from the third world, the current principal contradiction is fixed" -- this is a view that sees imperialism and the world as a cauldron of contradictions with possibilities of great leaps.
So whenever these posts use "Principal contradiction" they are using a maoid language, but departing from the larger approach and summation involved in this issue of "four main contradictions on a world scale."
A note on rigid thinking: There is a big component in all of the MIM posts of "what is possible is what is." If some workers today express patriotism, then it must be that it is their interests, their nature (their "virus"?). If for long periods, the world revolution was heavily weighted toward the "storm centers of reolution" in the Third World -- then this historical fact become a fact for the future too.
But didn't the 60s suddenly erupt iin Europe and Norht America too? Didn't May 1968 erupt like a thunder clap in France, and echo the revolutions of the third world (and the Cultural Revolution in China)?
There is a lot of flux and change and potential in the world. Contradictions exist, but they also interpenetrate. That which is secondary now, may shock and thrill us later.
-------------------------------------------------------------
This use of "principal contradiction" also distorts Mao.
Mao wrote on this aspect of dialectical analysis in his famous speech "On contradiction" http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/works/1937/08.htm#s4
"There are many contradictions in the process of development of a complex thing, and one of them is necessarily the principal contradiction whose existence and development determine or influence the existence and development of the other contradictions. "
I.e. the principal contradiction is not "the only one happening" (as the MIM analysis makes it sound) -- it is the one that "influences the development of the other contradictions."
It provides important context for the other contradictions.
It is not a matter of "we shouldn't lead struggle of the masses in the U.S., because the principal contradiction says revolution can only ocme from oppressed countries."
A correct understanding of the principal contradiction leads to a reaffirmation and appreciation of the interdependence of the world revolution, the importance of applying and promoting internationalism as revolutionaries prepare minds and organize forces for revolution in the imperialist countries too.
Obviously we need to provide internatinalist support in varous ways for the cutting edge struggles of the globe Clearly we must fiercely and energetically oppose U.S. interentions, wars and crimes.
But we must not do it in a way (or guided by an outlood) that assumes that nothing more is possible here, or (even worse) that insists that the broad masses of people (and workers even!) can't and won't be won to opposing these U.S crimes because it is in their interests. Becuase that is a swamp of pessimism, passivity, self isolation, and capitulation.
-------------------------------------------------------------
Lenin talked about those who said "
reams
of revolution proved illusory and it is not the job of marxists to fight for
illusions." A tired, beaten approach, of those who can't imagine how the
present can give to a radically different future.