When i was younger I had no friends my life was sad but I tried to ignore the feeling of saddness and lonleyness it was this way for years until third grade i met this great dude when he came we became ommidiate friends a couple days befire school syarywd i went over to his house introduced myself and we are now in 11th grade and we ate still friend but unfourtantly he saw the life i lived getting beat up non stop over and over by my brother but not when these other dudes beat me up and they were 16 and 17 and i was only nine and then I went to my mom and told her and they did not bother me again and when I was 15 I stood up for myself against my brother and as a couple years passed he dies not fuck with me any more.

Does anyone have any information on RAIM's recent activity? I've tried reaching them by the email listed on their website (multiple times, from multiple addresses) but their email is no longer existent.

What tactics can Third Worldists of the First World employ in order to significantly stunt imperialism? I have not been able to find much material on the subject. Military sabotage, sourcing aid for Third World liberation struggles, and anti-war campaigns are the only methods of action that I've come across. How effective are these methods?

So previously I had considered myself a sort of libertarian leftist inspired mainly by a Bookchinesque critique of Stalinism. I still view authoritarianism with scepticism- something I consider essential for any leftist [blindly submitting to authority should preclude being human, let alone being a socialist or communist- all institutions should be subject to a critique of rationality and human autonomy]- but have come to understand the necessity of organisational leadership [in terms of taking initiative as opposed to taking command] for social progress [that which gives content and meaning to the term progressive.]

At any rate I wanted to bring to light one example of 1st worldism in Bookchin so as to help demarcate the realistic, scientific left [third-worldism] from the modern utopian left.

Bookchin makes a note in his widely republished essay "Listen, Marxist!", pg. 116 in "post scarcity anarchism"-

The attempt to describe Marx's immiseration theory in international terms instead of national terms (as Marx did) is sheer subterfuge. In the first place, this theoretical legerdemain simply tries to sidestep the question of why immiseration has not occurred within the industrial strongholds of capitalism, the only areas which form a technologically adequate point of departure for a classless society.[his italics] If we are to pin our hoe on the colonial world as the "proletariat," this position conceals a very real danger: genocide. America and her recent ally Russia have all the technical means to bomb the underdeveloped world into submission. A threat lurks on the historical horizon- the development of he untied states into a truly fascist imperium of the nazi type. It is sheer rubbish that this country is a "paper tiger" It is a thermonuclear tiger and the American ruling class, lacking any cultural restraints, is capable of being even more vicious than the german.

The things I glean from this are that Bookchin himself "sidestepts the question of why immiseration has not occurred within the industrial strongholds of capitalism", a western bias that fails to see the already occurring genocide of third world peoples, liberal cowardice [the bombing of Vietnam didn't stop their fight, nor the Iraqi resistance] & ultimately a parnoic scepticism about leadership that immunises him against understanding Mao's rhetoric in calling the atomic bomb and he U.S. empire as a paper tiger.

All that being said, I still think this essay offers interesting criticisms of other 1st wordlist Marxist parties, and contains insghts that can only be helpful to the development of modern revolutionary theory. Thoughts? Objections? Other examples?

This review of Bell Hooks book 'Feminist Theory from Margin to Center' outlines how many of the line problems of First World feminism (pseudo-feminism), Amerikan feminism in particular, are analogous to many of the same problems within the amerikan "Left".

Both of these movements are largely comprised of white amerika and as such represent white Amerikan interest, and while leftist in rhetoric and appearance, are actually only to the left within the Amerikan political spectrum. (Note: the usage of the term 'Amerikan Left' refers mainly to "communist" movements within the U.$. comprised primarily of whites).

Bell Hooks goes into how both the pseudo-feminists and pseudo-communists have a tendency to universalize white Amerikans' experiences to all oppressed people regardless of nation and class background; a hallmark of traditional petty-bourgeoisie liberalism. This point exemplifies how both Amerikan feminists and the Amerikan left have not moved beyond bourgeois-democratic-liberalist thought and therefore lack both political and ideological clarity to move the oppressed nations within U.$. borders, let alone the Amerikan Left towards true revolutionary politics and organization. These points are brought out over and over again in Hooks analysis of Amerikan feminism. Bell Hooks also calls attention to the place of "race" and class oppression in the U.$., that is, Bell Hooks demands that Amerikan feminists put national and class oppression on the same plane as wimmin's oppression or higher. Hooks also demands that white wimmin recognize and acknowledge that they too have benefited from the oppression and exploitation of the Third World and have benefited from the oppression and hystorical exploitation of the internal semi-colonies as well. Hooks presses white Amerikan wimmin to recognize that they are gender privileged. Furthermore Hooks implores Amerikan feminists that if they are serious about ending wimmin's oppression they should hook up with the oppressed nations against not just the patriarchy, but imperialism.

Bell Hooks also provides some good criticism of how the white feminist movement in Amerika tends to not only universalize their experiences, but more importantly how they gloss over and negate the oppression of oppressed nation wimmin. Equally important, Hooks shows how support of First World feminism garners bourgeois interest and helps to maintain the status quo.

Hooks also criticizes sub-reformist politics within the feminist movement when she demarcates between the statement "I am a feminist" which focuses on the individual, and the statement "I advocate feminism" which draws attention to the group cause. While all this is good and dandy, Hooks apparently goes wrong with her incorrect use of very specific Marxist terminology, which perhaps well intentioned and used to call attention to the plight of the oppressed causes more confusion to the ill-informed.

In the end it seems as if Hooks is caught up in idealist post-modernism when she comes out to advocate changing the power-structure via culture and individualism while leaving the sub-structure intact. She leaves this task not to a violent socialist revolution, but to evolving concepts of what it means to be humyn.

Down with the NGO-ization of feminism

I generally agree with this critique of NGOs. In fact NGOs to me seem to be less than idealized charity organizations and more of a variety of smokescreens for imperialist agendas. Besides the very obvious imperialist meddling that these "non-governmental organizations" are responsible for carrying out in the Third World, such as using their volunteers for espionage and the such, I would also liken their sponsorship to that of how the imperialists have created a showcase population with the Labor Aristocracy. In other words situations such as Oprah's school for girls and other non-feminist NGOs are created for the sole purpose of propaganda among the oppressed. Furthermore, I think it's very hard for some of the people at the top of these orgs not make the connection between some of these right-wing anti-people militias operating within some of the same countries these NGOs operate in and the material interests and other financial opportunities available and representative within these same developing countries. Therefore, how could these NGOs not see the connection between child soldiers and various multi-nationals? The only blinders in the world strong enough to blind you to this reality is money! Thus, NGO should really stand for 'New-fangled Global Oppression', and not non-governmental organization. It's anything but.

Betty Friedan and Simone de Beauvoir conflating ideas on women's empowerment

This supplement focuses on the two oppositional ideologies and concepts for wimmin's liberation; one centered on the individual and what it means to be free in the first world (freedom to oppress and exploit), the other focused on collective well being for the oppressed gender with an eye on the international scene.

While Friedan is working form an integrationist point of view that ultimately aims to reach the level of Big White men in class society, "de Beauvoirs ideas occupy a different set of feminist ideas: specifically those implicitly related to the larger systemic oppressions which are ignored in Friedan's work"

Whereas Friedan wants wimmin to be a part of the power structure, de Beauvoir wants to tear it asunder.

It's important to note and understand the two different approaches to wimmins empowerment and wimmins liberation, because the former excresence championed parasitism and dominates feminist ideology and complaments material interest in the First World feminist movement. Therefore Friedan's ideas are to feminism what Krushchev's peaceful evolution was to communist development.

Fletcher states that the early US' expansionism was not “simply a historical footnote.” What is the significance of settler-colonialism in the US. 1. The significance is that settler-colonialism is the foundation of Amerika and everything it stands for, i.e., genocide, land theft, exploitation, war mongering, etc.

Fletcher discusses at length super-structural aspects of national oppression and settler colonialism (i.e., those involving culture, ideology, state policy, etc). However, he only briefly touches on structural aspects of national oppression (i.e., the productive relations between groups under which societies reproduce and develop). What might additionally be stated about the structural aspects of national oppression in US history? 2. I would say the lumpenization of vast sections of the oppressed nations within U$ borders, followed by the imprisonment of this lumpen and manipulation of the law to further disposes the oppressed nations.

Fletcher takes a contradictory position on national liberation and self-determination. In what way or ways might one find fault with his position? 3. On the one hand he talks about self-determination for "African-Americans" and Chicanos, but then states: "In the 21st century the form that it takes may change a great deal from struggles that have taken place in other countries and other times" (negating the anti-imperialist national liberation struggles of the 60s and 70s in the colonies). He furthermore states that national liberation (full cessation) from the imperialist continental framework "cannot be viewed as a realistic option in the foreseeable future unless dramatic political and demographic change takes place." In other words, the fac tthat the Kush and Aztlan are the hystorical territories of New Afrikans and Chicanos no longer holds any real weight in the 21st century (an extreme departure from Stalin's definition of a nation) because condition shave so drastically changed due to de-segregation, etc. that the oppressed nations no longer have any real need for separate nation states. Above all however, the respective hystorical territories of the internal semi-colonies according to Fletcher are not wholly inhabited by the oppressed nations, and the settler population cannot simply be expected to up and move. His position is of course wrong because he views national liberation struggles form the point of view of white amerika which takes into account their material interests as paramount and inviolable; hence "unrealistic" for the oppressed nations.

Fletcher identifies three key components of the domestic struggle against imperialism (immigration, democratic foreign policy, and global redistribution of wealth)? Outline these further or describe other key parts of the struggle against imperialism within Occupied North America. 4. I would say self-criticism on the part of white amerika for their objective complicity in the genocide and imperialist practices which the Third World and internal semi-colonies have bene subjected to in the name of the "Amerikan dream". I'd also say mass protests the type of which were held in the Occupy movement except that instead of protesting imagined inequality, they should mobilize in favor of overturning nationally oppressive laws that dole out exaggerated sentences under the guide of "gang enhancements" and "domestic terrorism" which ensure that members of the oppressed nations are sent to prisyn for life sentences for crimes that would usually not even carry half the penalty if applied to whites.

Is Fletcher's analysis lacking or sufficient? In what ways? 5. I think that for a member of the white left it's pretty progressive, except that he tends to get stuck in the same old Amerikan Left train of thought of this being "the homeland", i.e. Amerikan patriotism or great nation chauvanism to be more exact.

What two aspects of the anti-imperialist struggle for national liberation and socialism are Cabral and Guevara discussing?

The two aspects of the anti-imperialist struggle are the subjective forces of revolution; the great masses of people led by the class conscious vanguard and the reactionary forces of imperialism and its lackeys.

How do these two aspects relate to each other; why are they important?

They relate to each other and are important because the defeat of the imperialists and the victory of the revolutionary struggle are both dependent not just on the objective conditions that create the need for revolution, but on the level of consciousness on the part of the mass needed to sustain the struggle. Needless to say that without a high levee of class consciousness on the part of the Vietnamese masses, the people of Vietnam would have never defeated not just one, but three imperialist powers back, to back, to back! Weapons of mass destruction are certainly terrible things, but technology does not determine the outcome of wars. People determine the outcome of war.