top of page

Gssc 同窓会グループ

Jack Brooks
Jack Brooks

New World Order: A Strategy Of Imperialism !NEW!

The following speech was held by the DHKP-C at the annual seminar ofCommunist Parties and Organisations in Brussels, prepared by theBelgian Party Of Work (PTB, Parti du Travail de Belgique) with thegeneral topic of anti-imperialist struggle under the "New World Order".69 parties and organisations from all over the world participated inthis meeting. Parties and organisations who work illegal in theircountries, as well as those who participate in the governments, as wellas some parties of socialist states were represented. The congressaddressed six topics:General theme: The anti-imperialist struggle under the "New WorldOrder". Legal and parliamentary struggle and anti-imperialiststruggle in the Third World. Political mass work, armed struggleand anti-imperialist struggle in the Third World. World strategiesof the main centres of imperialism and reaction. The main centre ofarmed conflict in the present world. The defence of socialism andanti-imperialist struggle.

New World Order: A Strategy of Imperialism

Imperialism is not only worldwide exploitation and plunder, not only anarmed villain in general terms. Imperialism is the main power,maintaining the economic, political and social structures inneo-colonial countries. In the underdeveloped countries, imperialism isthe main responsible for exploitation, injustice and fascist barbarism,it is the main stay and source for all of this. Eliminating all thedynamics of national progress, imperialism itself organises fasciststate structures from top to bottom, using an imported, dependentmisshapen capitalism. The structure of imperialism is not an externalbut an internal development.

We live to see a phase where the demagogies of "world peace" andimperialist villainies get mixed. The biggest barrier for theimperialist to reach their aim of a false American peace of imperialismto make the people's to give up, are the anti-imperialist movements inthe Middle East, Latin-America and Africa.

Given the difficulty of consistently distinguishing between the twoterms, this entry will use colonialism as a broad concept that refersto the project of European political domination that began in theearly sixteenth century. While the national liberation movements ofthe post-World War II era brought formal colonization to an end inmany parts of the world, Indigenous peoples still live insettler-colonial states, and there are on-going struggles to reclaimcontrol of traditional territories. Post-colonialism will be used todescribe the political and theoretical struggles of societies thatexperienced the transition from political dependence to sovereignty.This entry will use imperialism as a broad term that refers toeconomic, military, political domination that is achieved withoutsignificant permanent European settlement.

In this article we will criticise the those two strands of thought challenging the postulates on imperialism, taking up the materialist dialectic approach to analyse world capitalism, in an updated view that shall enable us to grapple with present-day reality.

There is little doubt that the upsurge in the 70s aimed against the two mainstays of the postwar order eroded the partition of the world in three distinct areas (metropolitan countries, "the second periphery" or the degenerate and deformed workers states, and the semicolonial countries or the so-called "Third World") that had shaped the class struggle during that historical period, due to the grip of the counterrevolutionary apparatuses (socialdemocrats, stalinists and bourgeois nationalists). The struggle waged by the Vietnamese masses and the solidarity movement that emerged in the imperialist countries, both of which paralysed the U.S. imperialist military machine, was the most eloquent proof of this. We cannot deny that that mass upsurge drove capital to seek for a response in the direction of undermining the bases of the power of labour, one that later on took the shape of the neoliberal offensive and the so-called globalisation that goes hand in hand with it. But claiming that the "terms and the nature of the capitalist restructuring" were the direct result of such accumulation of struggles overlooking the outcome of those fights is simply to glorify the class struggle in itself. The moments of capitalist accumulation are determined by the different phases and the corresponding shifts in the balance of forces between the classes. During the "dress rehearsal" back in 1968, although the industrial working class fought tooth and nail, the proletariat was unable to find a solution for its decade-long crisis of revolutionary leadership and thus could not win decisive victories over imperialism. In failing to do so, they gave time for it to rally its ranks, thus letting the unfolding of the neoliberal offensive get through. Such policies set in the early 80s, but the Brezhnev counterrevolution that had crushed the 1968 "Prague spring" and the Polish events a decade later paved the way for them. To these, we should add the policy of the CPs and the socialdemocracy that worked for the derailment of the upsurge in France and Italy, as well as the anti-dictatorial struggles in Portugal and Spain, and also the responsibility of the CPs in the debacle of the revolutionary upheaval in South America. 041b061a72




bottom of page