January 4, 2018 – Fort Russ News – Paul Antonopoulos – Translated from Nova Resistencia.
RIO DE JANEIRO, Brazil – The anti-imperialist struggle, in the political contemporaneity, has a radically third-worldly character, patriotic, antisystemic and multipolar.
The political blocs underlying the current conflicts no longer consist of those old ideological blocs that disputed hegemony during World War II and later during the Cold War. Put another way, concrete policy today is no longer expressed through a tripartite tension between American liberalism, Soviet communism, and Italian-German fascism – let alone between a dual split between a capitalist bloc and a socialist bloc.
With the ultimate victory of American liberalism over its anti-liberal opponents, global hegemony shifted from the virtual scale to the real scale: the US-led expansionist ideology of the West and materially backed by NATO’s strategic-military might, establishment of its project of world domination: increasing export of monopolies to the underdeveloped countries for the purpose of enjoying cheap labor and maximizing the profits of the capitalists; military interventions in strategic national states; promotion of colored revolutions for the overthrow of troublesome governments; instrumentalization of terrorist groups in the Middle East for the same purpose; unilateral economic sanctions; control of the media-cultural apparatus with the aim of promoting modern liberal democracy as the only model of political organization possible and applicable to all peoples of the planet: surreptitious criminalization of those who oppose such a model.
It was the proclamation of the imperative of Economy (and liberal dogmatics) as Destiny. It was the End of History spoken by Francis Fukuyama and the American neoconservatives.
But would the story really be over?
As the late Commander Hugo Chávez observed, in the same fateful year in which Francis Fukuyama published his essay on End of History in 1989, there was a mass revolt carried out by the popular sectors of Caracas against a package of neoliberal structural adjustments imposed by then President Carlos Andres Perez, who responded to the protests with violence, killing hundreds of Venezuelans. It was the rebellion of the people to see their fate being thrown in the wake of bourgeois politics. Similar uprisings occurred around the world in subsequent years, with emphasis on the Zapatista uprising in 1994.
In the same vein, new political forces have risen to deal with the tyranny of the global West and, like fires, to set fire to the various forms of imperialist domination. Although some of these forces date back to pre-Western hegemony, and although they have been influenced to varying degrees by ideologies defeated by liberalism, such forces did not fit the ideographic criteria of modern anti-liberal ideologies. They were syntheses, reconfigurations, transmutations, fusions, sui generis subversive ideologies that had something in common: third-world nationalism, the patriotic impetus of national liberation, and the sharing of a common enemy.
We are talking about ideologies such as Chavismo in Venezuela, undoubtedly patriotic socialist doctrine, based on the political creativity of Hugo Chavez, who managed to forge a Fourth Way in relation to liberal-capitalism, communism and chauvinistic nationalism, reconciling its Peronist and Velasquist influences with perspective of a Communal State based on the productive autonomy of the workers. Its purpose? As outlined in his Plan de la Patria, establishing a multipolar and pluricentric world order and effectively building a socialism based on patriotic values in Venezuela.
Or the Gadhafi’s Jamahiriya, a political doctrine influenced by the ideologies of Second and Third Position, but also sought to forge a Fourth Way in relation to these: while acknowledging the current class struggle and the pre-eminence of the nation, Gaddafi conferred People, and only to this, organized in Popular Committees, the role of historical agent and political subject. Not the working class by itself or the nation, but the People. Its objective? To create a Social State based on organic democracy, natural socialism and Tradition (which he identifies in his Green Paper as the natural law governing societies before the emergence of classes).
What about Hezbollah in Lebanon? Shiite organization and therefore identity: anti-imperialist, anti-Zionist, anti-capitalist, one of the biggest stones in the shoe of the West in the Middle East. His Manifesto calls on all the oppressed in Lebanon and the world to raise their arms against the virus of Americanism. Its goal? Free Lebanese Muslims from puppet governments and establish a state based on Islamic values and anti-capitalist and anti-user social justice.
We could also mention Baath in Syria, the last representative of pan-Arab nationalism, born of a national-revolutionary ideological synthesis, influenced by communism and Third Position, as an authentic patriotic socialism directed at the Arabs, rejecting both Marxism and chauvinism petty-bourgeois.
In sum, even after the fall of communist and nationalist regimes, the struggle continued and was modulated by another logic. No longer the logic of modern ideologies, but the metrics of realpolitik, so that today the only real struggle is that caught between the peoples of the world, with their different matrices, against globalism, representing the long-term interests of the West . That is, between Dissent (periphery) and Conformity (center).
The resistance to the status quo in contemporary times is identity and here, in our land, is naturally third-worldly. Third-world nationalism is the instantiation of the idea of the Fourth Political Theory in the practice of the so-called “third world” countries.
There are only two options. There are only two sides to taking a stand. If you have one, you are automatically against each other and vice versa. Choose your option: we have already chosen ours.
The historical destiny of Brazil, as Patria, depends diametrically on which side it will be situated: Conformity or Dissent. If you choose Conformity, it will no longer exist as a project – it will forever be doomed to be a colony of bankers.
But if it chooses Dissent, sovereignty, assumption of its own historical destiny, then it will have to tread the path of a Revolution that destroys and criminalizes the economic elite and withdraws all right of political representation from the aspirations of the oligarchies. We need a new Vargas, a personality who mocks, who trudges with sincerity of heart, with honest scorn, of the formal political process that exists in Brazil. This should be our way to Dissent.
Long live international anti-globalist solidarity!
Long live the resistance of the Peoples!