Leading Light Communism

This seems to be the bit of the forum where we ask if other ideologies concur with ours, so I'll ask here:
Is the Leading Light Communist Organisation consistent with revolutionary socialism and left-wing nationalism? Their Third World Maoist emphasis on the revolutionary movements of the Third World seems to put an extra emphasis on left-wing nationalism (although it begs the question of what exactly a revolutionary in the First World is to do), and they certainly advocate revolution, but on the other hand they, like so many other revolutionary socialist groups, don't seem to have a clear plan for how to create a successful socialist/communist system after the revolution happens.

On the other hand, RevLeft doesn't like them, so that's a recommendation in itself.

The Leading Light Communist Organization adheres to Maoism-Third Worldism, which is a revisionist sect of Marxism that holds that First World workers are not currently exploited, and are instead the beneficiaries (a "labor aristocracy") of capitalist imperialism. Needless to say, these views are complete nonsense and have no basis in the Marxian tradition. RevLeft members, as surprising as it may sound, have a legitimate reason to dislike the LLCO.

They do support national liberation movements, but strictly as a means to an end—the end being cosmopolitanism.

Oy vey. It's an uphill battle for us left-wing nationalists, isn't it?

Also, are there any other revolutionary socialist organisations that the RSF could possibly work with, or that at least have a sufficiently developed plan for a post-revolution society that we could argue with them?

RedSun wrote:Oy vey. It's an uphill battle for us left-wing nationalists, isn't it?

It would be if we were concerned with persuading contemporary socialist and communist organizations of the legitimacy of the left-wing nationalist position. However, considering the meager size and marginal status of such groups, I believe that time and resources shouldn't be wasted in such an endeavor. Our efforts would be better utilized on establishing class consciousness among common working class individuals.

Also, are there any other revolutionary socialist organisations that the RSF could possibly work with, or that at least have a sufficiently developed plan for a post-revolution society that we could argue with them?

With respect to the first half of your question, I'm not sure. Hopefully there are such organizations, or at least there will be soon. As for the latter half on your question, there are a few organizations possessing solid programs for economic transformation. The only programs I find problematic are those which retain petit-bourgeois social relations for any period of time, and those endorsing "free access communism" or centralized economic planning.

Alright. I just like the idea of uniting with other revolutionary socialists around the world, so I'm always on the lookout for another organisation which seems to be on the right track.

Looking more closely over the writings of the LLCO, I have to say that Revolutionary Syndicalism addresses most of the issues that Third World Maoism tries to, and does it better. This policy of pretty much rejecting any chance of revolution in the First World sounds a lot like Trotsky's 'permanent revolution' flipped around backwards, while the RSF's plans for 'fair trade not free trade' and generally creating a rather more self-sufficient state would end the issue of First World proletarians exploiting Third World workers.

EDIT: Is this article still indicative of cosmopolitanism? I find it hard to tell when they start talking about national self-determination within larger multinational blocs (especially since I'm not sure how it's different from socialist multinational states such as the USSR or what the USA will become, come the revolution). I know they have a hard time telling the difference between nationalistic support of First World peoples and nationalistic support of the First World itself.

I've been reading LLCO articles and I want to try and address their points more carefully, so in addition to the above question, could you explain exactly how Third World Maoism is baseless nonsense?

RedSun wrote:Alright. I just like the idea of uniting with other revolutionary socialists around the world, so I'm always on the lookout for another organisation which seems to be on the right track.

I understand. I too would appreciate working with like-minded organizations.

Is this article still indicative of cosmopolitanism? I find it hard to tell when they start talking about national self-determination within larger multinational blocs (especially since I'm not sure how it's different from socialist multinational states such as the USSR or what the USA will become, come the revolution). I know they have a hard time telling the difference between nationalistic support of First World peoples and nationalistic support of the First World itself.

It's not indicative of cosmopolitanism prima facie, but upon closer examination you can sense where the author likely stands on the issue. For example, they stress the LLCO's unequivocal support for Third World national liberation struggles, but under the strict condition that those movements aren't supported by First World nations—presumably they feel that any movement which is supported by the First World must, in some way, be reactionary. Although it's fair to criticize national liberation struggles which are supported by the Western bourgeoisie, once an organization starts setting limits on self-determination, (as I mentioned in my first post) you can begin to detect their view of self-determination as being but a means to an end, as opposed to a fundamental human right.

I've read through several of the LLCO's articles, and their visceral hatred of all things First World, including the Western working class, knows no bounds. The ironic thing is they're probably a North American or European group.

I've been reading LLCO articles and I want to try and address their points more carefully, so in addition to the above question, could you explain exactly how Third World Maoism is baseless nonsense?

It's baseless nonsense because it completely disregards the exploitation of labor which occurs in the First World. The Western proletariat don't view themselves as being the beneficiaries of imperialism, and they would have no legitimate reason to believe they are anyway. In point of fact, globalization has done nothing but lower their standard of living. Further, the notion that only sweatshop workers in the Third World possess revolutionary potential is, quite frankly, ridiculous—it's essentially a vindication of the bourgeois view that capitalism can produce a standard of living capable of permanently pacifying the working class.

My favourite bit is their assertion that since First World workers are paid more than Third World workers, First World workers receive more than the value of their labour. Because that makes more economic sense than simply paying Third World workers an even smaller amount.

RedSun wrote:My favourite bit is their assertion that since First World workers are paid more than Third World workers, First World workers receive more than the value of their labour. Because that makes more economic sense than simply paying Third World workers an even smaller amount.

They clearly don't understand the first thing about how capitalism functions. Their "analysis" (if you can even call it that) makes absolutely no sense.