Why the “Far Left” (and “Far Right”) is Not Radical Enough

If there is one point that I have tried to make clear during the entire 20 years or so that I have been doing ATS, it is that the solution to globalization/globalism/imperialism/whatever one wants to call it is global revolutionary struggle, which is a struggle that (obviously) transcends most other boundaries and conflicts.

Opponents of the Empire may vary infinitely in their specific tribal affiliations: ideological, economic, religious, ethnic, cultural, moral, technological, etc. Yet the first question that has to be asked involves the issue of how the scattered tribes of resistance can collectively fight the common enemy. If one were living in 100 A.D. and trying to determine how to best resist the Roman Empire, the question would obviously be “How can the many tribes that are subject to the Empire engage in effective resistance?” The situation is essentially the same in 2019.

Unfortunately, many folks from various opposition camps have thus far proposed a range of rather weak and dubious positions. One of these is the fetishization of Eastern national-capitalist regimes like Russia and China. Many among the “far left” and “far right” have taken such positions. But Eastern national-capitalism is just another set of provinces within the Empire whose level of political, economic, and social development is generations behind the “imperial center” in the West. Some Eastern fetishishs have even developed a counter-imperialism of their own (“Eurasianism,” for example) rather than actual anti-imperialism. Serious anti-imperialism favors the proliferation of an endless number of independence movements and startup societies worldwide, not merely embracing nominally oppositional states. And true anti-imperialists would be pro-Tibetan, pro-Uygur, pro-Chechynan rather than Russophilic or Sinophilic.

Globalization is producing an exact repeat of the class divisions that were generated during the Industrial Revolution. On one hand, globalization and the tech revolution have been good. They’ve lifted 1 billion people out of total poverty in Asia and the Global South. On the other hand, it’s producing negative side effects like widening class divisions, erosion of the First World working class, social destabilization, mass migration/population dislocation, etc. Again, the same things that happened in the Industrial Revolution. What we need in response is reinvigorated class struggle. But class struggle is not “economic nationalism” (i.e. old-fashioned mercantilism). Class struggle is not bourgeois conservatism (or what passes for “libertarianism” in the USA). Class struggle is not begging the state for more free stuff (the social democratic approach). Class struggle is not centralizing all wealth into the hands of the state (Marxism). Class struggle is attacking the alliance between state and capital that creates capitalist class privilege in the first place, while building an alternative infrastructure for working class self-determination.

As I mentioned in a previous post, the actual class struggle requires solidarity among all enemies of the state. Period. No exceptions. Revolutionary struggle is not about being a do-gooder or having some kind of “Nice People Club.” Too many people from both the “far left” and “far right” are more interested in attack rival tribes than they are in attacking the system per se. This approach has no more value than the Bloods/Crips rivalry. It is to be expected that in the global revolutionary struggle there will be an infinite number of tribes with an infinite variety of tribal values, from exclusive cults, ethno-fetishists, and reactionary primitivists to the transgender, transracial, transgenerationl, transspeicies, transplanetary, and transdimensional. Fortunately, it’s a big world. Many prototypes exist for self-determined cultural tribes, left and right.

1 reply »

Leave a Reply