First Worldism is social fascism

First Worldism is Social Fascism by ModernMarxist
There is a reason why Third Worldists refer to First Worldists as “social fascists”. We are living in a day and age where imperialism has advanced capitalist centralization of wealth on a global level. The rich countries rape, plunder, pillage, impoverish and enslave the poor countries, coercing and bombing them into submission. If the “leaders” of the third world will not sell out their people and submit their resources and labor to the imperialists, their countries are subject to invasion, slaughter, and ultimately destruction. This is not some kind of secret that only a chosen few know; there are no conspiracy theories or men in suits lobbying in smoke filled rooms. This is common knowledge. Unfortunately, it is common knowledge which, today, few in the First World choose to think about or even acknowledge. Today, the First World’s primary source of wealth and labor is the Third World. When First Worlders, especially First World workers, want more, when they want an increase in their living standards, they are taking that new barbecue or 3D flat-screen right out of the mouths of Third Worlders. They are using luxury and commodity fetishism to rob the Third World of simple austerity measures.  They are taking more and more from those who are already barely surviving: those who produce but cannot eat from the fruit of their labor.
During his life, Marx spoke of what criteria defines who is of the proletariat and who is of the bourgeoisie. He described the proletariat as a class receiving far less than the value of their labor – of having nothing to sell but their labor and subsequently being alienated from their labor. This does not describe the vast majority of First World peoples. This does define, however, the majority of Third Worlders. One important criterion of the bourgeoisie is consuming much but producing little or nothing in terms of valuable labor. This is very descriptive of most First World peoples, even those on the lowest strata (who are in and of themselves a minority) in the First World. We can gather from this (as well as all other Marxist criteria of what defines each class) that today’s class contradiction is a global one in the current age of globalization and US hegemony. Today there is a global proletariat struggling to survive under the yolk of a global bourgeoisie. It is the duty of a communist to struggle against the bourgeoise in support of proletarian revolution, even if it means becoming a class traitor.
One who does not even recognize these global class contradictions cannot possibly call oneself a communist. It is laughable that today’s First World “communist” parties are so willing to describe themselves as Marxist (or indeed anything even leftist) when they not only fail to recognize today’s material conditions, the way imperialism has changed the game, but they also fail to support the global proletariat against the global bourgeoisie. In fact (and this is almost shockingly dim), these “communist” parties support the global bourgeoisie in their parasitic devouring of the Third World peoples, the global proletariat.  They are the labor aristocracy.  They are completely bought off by imperialism. They call for more. More for First World peoples. More wages. More benefits. More at the expense of those who have nothing. Those who truly have nothing to lose but their chains.
In order to wage a People’s War (which some “communist” parties, hilariously, actually have the gall to say might happen in the First World), or even begin any sort of proletarian revolutionary action, you don’t just need a proletariat (which does not exist in any revolutionary form in the First World), but you also need a social base. People have to desire and work for a revolution, because a communist revolution doesn’t just closely involve common people, but it is subsequently composed of the efforts of common people. First Worlders are asleep. They are too busy wallowing in their decadence and consumerism. First Worlders do not make the basis for revolution. They are not concerned with the proletariat. This is a very basic truth. To refuse to acknowledge this is not science. It is not Marxism. To refuse to acknowledge this is to have your head buried in dogma, the dogmatic idea that all workers are exploited and oppressed, regardless of material conditions.
First Worldists are social fascists because they do not want to force First Worlders to give up their privilege. They do not want to give the Third World back what rightfully belongs to them. They want to establish another Third Reich: material prosperity at the expense of others. The only difference is that First World imperialism is based on bourgeois decadence and a standard of living exponentially higher than that of any imperialist power in history. The First Worldists will not halt imperialism. They are the beneficiaries of imperialism.  Any First World “revolution” by any First World “socialist” movement would be social imperialism.  The First World simply will not receive more from true non-imperialistic socialism: really, they would receive less.  The First Worldists will not and would not do what needs to be done to truly establish socialism, to truly take the world on the road to communism. They remain content consuming more while those they take from starve and die, living under the iron gauntlet of imperialism. First Worldists are enemies of equality and enemies of the global proletariat, regardless of whether or not they paint their imperialism red or blue or gold or white or black.
Historically, communist revolution has always come from the darkest of places. It has always come from those who truly had nothing to lose but their chains. It came from those who, for them, revolution meant survival; for those who fought so that their children might be able to live decent, dignified and meaningful lives. Clean, sanitary water. Food. Clothes. Housing that doesn’t blow away or crumble in front of weather, or tanks. Education. Health care. Never has a communist revolution occurred in the rich countries, where the majority of its people could live without much concern for daily needs. In the rich imperialist counties, a different kind of revolution occurred once it’s people’s living standards took a drop. Once the imperialist privilege of these spoiled populations was threatened, they turned to fascism and bourgeois nationalism. They allied with the bourgeoisie, not the proletariat. The most reactionary elements of society took control and reorganized their economies and societies in order to not just allow but demand imperialism. Death was the answer to everything.
First Worldist “communists” are not communists at all. They are social fascists and social imperialists, demanding more for their own people, and actively working to oppress and exploit others to maintain imperialist privilege. They reject science and today’s reality and material conditions, clinging childishly to dogma and revisionism. Socialist redistribution of wealth on a global level is not in the First Worldists’ interests. “Revisionism” means to cut the revolutionary heart out of communism, and that is exactly what First Worldists do. Leading Light Communists are the only real communists today. Be a Leading Light. Support real communism, not First World revisionism.

15 thoughts on “First Worldism is social fascism

Add yours

  1. Generally in support of this entire article. My question stems from the statement that , “the only difference is that US imperialism is based on bourgeoisie decadence and a standard of living exponentially higher than that of any world hegemony in history” Is it not a fact that the standard of living is higher in Europe than in the US? The USA has a higher standard than Third World nations, but it is not higher than some nations in Europe and possibly Japan.

    1. Good point. There are countries in Europe that have a higher standard of living than the US. There are others in Europe that have a lower one. We should be more careful in making blanket statements. One of the purposes of this blog is for newer writers to cut their teeth. Accuracy is important. Perhaps the statement should be corrected.

    2. I’m guessing that the statement was made in reference more to the wealth of the country as a whole than to the standard of living specifically. The US still has a higher GDP than any individual country, though the EU as a whole is higher. Maybe ModernMarxist can clarify this statement.

  2. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, comrades. I’ll edit that line.

    The standard of living is higher for most western European countries than the United States because they provide more concessions to their people; better wages, more benefits, etc. at the expense of the Third World. From the perspective of total wealth, however, America comes out on top of the other imperialists.

  3. Now we’re waging a struggle with revisionists for recognition Poland as first world contry and polish working class as not exploited. Your article is very helpful for this struggle.

  4. Minimum wage in Poland is 250 euro per month, which constitute “average” Poles in 14,65% richest people in the world.

    Member of polish “working class” is paid about 6515.81 euro per year (543 euro per month). It is in top 13,7% richest people in the world.

  5. With all due respect I’d like to make some points about this interesting article. I understand the concerns expressed by your positions, which I find them genuine, however, I also find some of the supporting arguments to be lacking a big-picture perspective. In all, I think the current imperialist world order has us all fighting and pitting against each other, and the “divide and conquer” stratagem has really worked stupendously for capitalists. We live in a time where the imperialist order has bulldozed down any real hope of redemption and emancipation of the working classes around the world. We are living under conditions dictated by finance monopoly capital and its imperialist aggressive armies and military treaties.
    Capitalism is triumphant nowadays, and the most worrisome feature of the current paradigm is that capitalism stands UNCONTESTEDLY triumphant. Capitalism, the heinous, criminal and outrageously inhuman system, stands victorious and strong over the face of the earth without serious opposition.
    I am not much of a fan of the use of the first, second and third world categorization of the world because such characterization is imperialist, elitist and racist. All we have is a world ordered by finance monopoly capital into imperialist countries and neocolonies because the system is neocolonialism and its main agents of control are the Transnational Corporations (TNCs).
    I am fully aware of your criticism of the communist parties of the imperial countries, but I do not share the view that our prime political objective shall be to fight against each other within the emancipatory movement to liberate humanity from capitalist oppression and slavery. I think that capitalism is too strong for now and that infighting only makes us WEAKER and less serious an alternative to the present imperialist world order.
    I also think that of the big historical lessons that we should have drawn from the fall of Soviet socialism is that we have to fight capitalism first and then if we must, do the infighting after our triumph over capitalism. It doesn’t matter if we are all divided with different and particular perspectives and ways to conduct the struggle. I think at this point of time of defeat, retreat and capitulation we should strive to forge a new open-minded spirit of discussion and of a way to sum forces and not to alienate the people with our own infighting. We cannot claim to be -once again!- the gate keepers of absolute truth. We have to be humble and respectful of the autonomy and equality of other people who think about a better world. In this struggle there are no absolute truths, and this should have been another of the historical lessons learned from the fall of the Soviet model. History should be written by the peoples and their struggles and not by self-proclaimed and self-indulged vanguards or elites. I remind all of you that the original struggle is for the emancipation of humanity, for a fully equal humanity, but this aim cannot be reached if we disrespect other forces who seek their own way. We should strive to strike together from our every particular trench. We must abandon factionalism, dogmatism and elitism once and for all. We should know better after the fall of the Soviet model.
    Revolutionary greetings, for a socialist world! Working Peoples of the World, UNITE!

  6. With all due respect. The First World “communist” parties are not Communist at all. We are not engaging in “infighting.” The LLCO has no concern as to ones background, First World or Third, But we do care about line. And First Worldist “Communist” parties hold an incorrect, and in fact reactionary line.

    It is a scientific fact that the world today cannot live with one billion people living a First World lifestyle, let alone 6+ billion if we brought all to this lifestyle.

    So by survival and scientific necessity Communists cannot advocate more material wealth in any form to go to the First World. In fact, in order for us to live sustainably, the First World lifestyle will have to be eradicated and replaced with Socialism and a proletarian outlook.

    Because of this necessity, the LLCO cannot by all good reason side with any group who advocates the continuation of furthering of the First World lifestyle. This includes groups who call themselves “Communist.”

    The LLCO would be willing to encourage these First World “communist” parties to give up the “Capitalist Road,” and focus on the true struggle. That of the oppressed and exploited in the 3rd world.

    As a further point, it was the Bolsheviks who led the revolution in Russia when there had never been a Socialist country before, and the world was dominated by imperialism and capitalism. So the fact that capitalism is dominant is all the more reason to adopt the New Bolshevism of Leading Light Communism. Because revolution begins on the fringes of power, not the heart of it.

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

A Website.

Up ↑

%d bloggers like this: