The Content of the "New World Order" Established by the Charter of ParisExcerpt from a speech delivered by Hardial Bains in Port of Spain, Trinidad, in August 1991, on the unfolding international developments at that time. Focusing his analysis on the character of the period which was being ushered in, Comrade Bains pointed out: "This new period which has just come into being has many aspects which are characteristic of the old period, but it is a new period because it has its own specific features as well, so we cannot look at the situation from the perspective of the old period." ***The period which just passed was a great period of revolutions on the world scale. This period was ushered in at the turn of the [20th] century with the rise of what was described at that time as a new kind of imperialism, as distinguished from the old kind of imperialism which was based on the direct conquest of peoples and nations on the world scale. The main feature of the old imperialism was colonization with, among other things, its reintroduction of chattel slavery. The most characteristic feature of the new imperialism is that it has all the pretensions of standing for all the freedoms and liberties which any progressive person could stand for; all the pretensions of being against any kind of slavery. Not only did this new imperialism come into being to "civilize" the entire world, to take its message of freedom and democracy from the imperialist countries to all the world, but it was on the basis of these slogans that they fought the First World War in defence of the civilized values and morality "of the empire." At the time this war was going on, in which people from practically all over the world participated, an event took place which they could not predict: the Great October Revolution. The central theme in this revolution was that it was opposed to all the presuppositions of imperialism and all the presuppositions of the old society. There arose a new government which, for the purpose of peace, for the purpose of ending the First World War, was even willing to give away, through negotiations, large parts of its own territories. The first decree of the new government was to declare to the peoples of the world that they would have nothing to fear from it. Furthermore, the new government declared that it would never participate in secret negotiations with other governments; it would not participate in conspiracies and intrigues. In other words, this government came into being with an open policy -- a policy declared, both in terms of its principles and in terms of its tactics, in defence of the rights of the peoples on the world scale. V.I. Lenin, who was the leader of this revolution, gave a call to the colonial peoples to rise up in struggle for their freedom; that this new form of imperialism was a colossus with feet of clay; even though in appearance it seemed so powerful, it could be defeated. The liberation of the colonial peoples was the cornerstone of the policy of this new government. At the same time, this new government supported all those people who were fighting for social emancipation. At that time, there was great danger coming from the fascists in Italy, as well as in Germany and other countries. Working people in Italy, as well as Germany and other places, were on the eve of a social revolution of their own and this new government declared its full support for the working class and other peoples who had risen in revolt against the system there. Against this government, 14 countries, comprising what is called "the west," sent expeditionary forces to crush and destroy the new regime and install the feudalist elements who were overthrown; the generals who would re-establish the czarist regime. These 14 countries failed in their mission as concerns Soviet Russia, but they were successful in terms of stopping the opposition to the rise of Benito Mussolini, and there was not a single "western," "civilized," "democratic" government which did not support the rise of Benito Mussolini. Alongside with this, Hitlerite Germany rose in the process of development of several years, and these governments not only financed the rise of Hitler, facts which are quite well known, but at the same time struck secret deals with Hitler for the subjugation of the peoples in other places. In the 1930s, they were the ones behind the support of Francisco Franco who drowned in blood the struggle of the Spanish people in what is known as the Spanish Civil War from 1936 to 1939. This period, from 1917 to 1939, is a period of greatest perfidy by these western governments in terms of the struggle of the peoples of the world. Today 1991, after so much water has gone under the bridge, the way the history is spoken about one would think that all the revolutionaries who fought in South America, in Europe, in Asia and Africa, were all fascists that fought against freedom, that they all stood for the enslavement of the peoples on the world scale and that it was really the United States of America, or the French, or the Germans, or the British governments which stood for freedom! [...] The history since the Second World War shows that not a single dictator has emerged who did not have direct support from either the U.S. or France or Britain [...] or all of them together. The bloodthirsty dictator Pinochet in Chile survived with the direct support of the United States, Britain, the French and others. They did not call for his hanging. They did not call for the hanging of Imelda Marcos of the Philippines or that of various other dictators roaming around the world. When they failed to convince their own agent Noriega of Panama to remove himself, in like manner they invaded Panama so as to arrest him and take him to face trial in the United States. They are trying to convince the world that they have always stood for freedom, but they would have us forget world colonialism; this perfidious blot on humankind, the reintroduction of chattel slavery; they would have us forget all the crimes which are being committed today -- large scale famine in Africa, large scale famine in Asia, various diseases which are widespread. We are to commit ourselves to the bravado of the victory of Boris Yeltsin and say that now the world is safe from the bloodthirsty communists! This period which was ushered in by the October Revolution is finished. Here is a man called Mikhail Gorbachev who is presented as a good man who we are to support, despite the fact they say he is a communist and we are supposed to oppose communism. How is it? Either we should oppose communism and Gorbachev should be deposed for being a communist, or communism is fine. Which is it? Gorbachev has been in the Party for over forty years, and has been an official at a certain level. He has been the general secretary for over six years. Or are we to consider him a democrat, a person who will speak against communism? In like manner personalities and issues are being created all over the world. For instance, they speak of the Chinese as hard-line communists, at the same time George Bush again gave them most preferred nation status recently. The imperialists carry out all kinds of social, cultural, trade intercourse with China, all the while presenting them as hard-liners and communists, and we are supposed to rise up against communism because China exists. How is it possible? In this period one should never forget that in the United States, in Britain, in France, and Germany, not a single personality of worth has raised the question of why mud is being thrown at J.V. Stalin -- that man who was respected by all the literary and scientific and political personalities of his period. There was not a person of any calibre who did not have great admiration for J.V. Stalin in the 1930s and '40s, including George Bernard Shaw, etc. Why would they be lovers of a dictator and murderer? Or is there something wrong with what is being said about J.V. Stalin? The basis of the formation of the Soviet Union in the 1920s, which they do not even want to admit, was to crush Russian chauvinism; was to make sure that there could not be a Russian government dominating other nations; that there would be a house of nationalities where all nationalities of the Soviet Union are equal. [...] By definition, according to the constitution adopted in the 1930s, the Soviet Union had crushed the legacy of the Russian chauvinism of the czars. It had eliminated Czarist Russia. It had created a new situation of proletarian internationalism, of fraternal solidarity between the peoples of the Soviet Union, whereby they worked together for a common cause. It is shameful on the part of all the scholars and scientists and others today, that not a single one is brave enough to speak in public that what is being said about the history of the Soviet Union -- how it was created and why it was created, and the history of Lenin and Stalin is all false. Some characters seek to cause confusion by saying that in the former Soviet Union the issue is whether you are for Stalin or against Stalin. For a long period of time we have heard enough of this nonsense. If you ask me, it doesn't matter whether in the Soviet Union somebody is for Stalin or against Stalin. I will not deliberate on this matter -- whether I am for Stalin or against Stalin. The issue is: does this situation favour us or not? Do we accept this concept of state relations, whether the United Nations, with entire Europe, can declare that socialism is invalid; that nobody in the world can go for revolution? We don't accept that. Those people who say they are pro-Stalin in the Soviet Union or elsewhere do not speak against what is really happening on the world scale. Thirty-four countries, including Albania, got together in Paris at the Summit of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe (CSCE) last year and declared that a free-market economy and multi-party society are the precondition to establish relations between countries. This is the content of the new period. They describe this as the "new world order." The main thing in the "new world order" is that the Soviet Union must submit to the U.S. and, by submitting to the U.S., the Soviet Union declared that the U.S. now has supremacy everywhere. In the earlier period, for reasons of its own, the Soviet Union took the side of what they called the national liberation movement. They supported countries like Cuba, the PLO, stood with the Arabs and others, and blocked the U.S. from carrying out some of its activities. The U.S. wants the Soviet Union to be prostrate. That is what Gorbachev, this great democrat, has accomplished. From this content flows all the rest. In this new world order, they want to have one superpower, the U.S.; one economic system dominated by the World Bank, controlled by the U.S. which controls over 20 per cent of the World Bank. They want one International Monetary Fund, one United Nations all under their control. The precondition for this new world order is that everybody must submit to these institutions. The United Nations which has never, ever stood for principled positions and enforced any of its own resolutions, disgraced itself by actually sanctioning a war in this new world order against the people of Iraq. The Persian Gulf War was the first act of this new world order. The conflict in the Soviet Union, as you see it today, which is the destruction of the Soviet Union and the rise of Russia, is another act of this new world order. The dismemberment of Yugoslavia and the rise of the fascist forces there is another act. There will be many more infamies of this new world order. This new world order is not the same as the order in the previous period. As far as the overall situation is concerned, it is not devoid of the contradictions of the previous period. This period has inherited all the contradictions of the previous period, the problems stemming from the contradiction between the working class and the capitalists, which remains and has become acute on the world scale; the contradiction between the oppressed people and those countries dominating them which has also become very acute and exists on the world scale. At the same time, the contradictions between the imperialist countries themselves remain and that contradiction can be seen in the Soviet Union, in Yugoslavia, and other countries. Within this present situation when all the old contradictions have been inherited, and transferred, passed on, to the new period, this new world order demands that everyone in this world should find a solution to these problems through any other ways, any other methods, but not through revolution and not on the road of socialism. In other words, that this new world order gives itself the right to impose, by force, its dictate on the world scale; that there will be no revolution and there will be no socialism. However, the objective contradictions, the objective causes for which the quest for socialism arises, for which the demand for revolution takes place -- these objective causes not only exist, but these contradictions have become extremely sharp. The subjective factors also exist. Within Europe, Germany is not thinking in the same way as the United States; there are contradictions between Japan, the U.S., as well as Germany, China and others. Powers will arise which would not want the U.S. supremacy and these contradictions will come into the open. There will be people on the world scale who would not want to submit to the U.S. They would want to have integrity, to fight for their dignity. These subjective causes cannot be eliminated, just as objective causes cannot be eliminated. What will arise, and is arising, not as the basic contradictions, but as the main fight, will be between those who want to impose the new world order by force onto the world, and those who oppose it. For this, all the progressive and democratic forces have to prepare. In our estimation, this period in which neither revolution nor war are immediate prospects is bound to give rise to a period of revolution if all the democratic and progressive forces examine this situation, this period. When we analyze in this way, we are not saying that our era which has been given birth to by the rise of imperialism and revolution has changed. This era remains the era of the victory of socialism. But within this era, the first period of revolutionary assaults against imperialism in the form of colonialism, in the form of various feudalist regimes or fascism, the struggle against fascism itself, is ended and the new period has been ushered in. The new period which has been ushered in is not the defeat of the quest of the peoples for their rights. On the world scale, there is a deepening consciousness among the people, not only about the economic problems -- that they face every kind of deprivation, every kind of insecurity -- but in terms of discrimination against various types or classes of people, as well as the intensification of exploitation on the basis of domination of one country by another, as well as the problems of the environment, the quality of life and so on. This consciousness is developing everywhere. Nowhere, whether it is the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia, or Romania or other places have the peoples given up the struggle for their rights. Of course, this is in a new period, a new situation, not in the old period of revolution. Within this, the champions of the new world order are extremely worried that their activities will end up with their burial. The peoples of Eastern Europe are already protesting that all the changes to bring in a free market economy and multi-party society have not brought any good to their societies. The people should not have any illusion that these big powers are going to set things right but within a short period of less than two years, already masses of the people are arising saying, "You promised all these things. What happened?" In Albania, just before the elections, the U.S. and their agents were promising everyone a colour television. Within a matter of a few months, people were facing worse conditions than before. But the most important thing is that people in no country have reconciled themselves to either the U.S. and its Rambo mentality or to the capitulationist policy of the Soviet Union and people like Boris Yeltsin and others. Within this situation, as far as our Party is concerned, we believe that there is a need for a new alliance of forces. For example, our Party is working on this premise, that for us, just to keep on talking about Marxism-Leninism in the sense of reading the classics, talking about Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin, their revolution, their strategy, their tactics -- is not going to be helpful to us anymore. This is because the problems of philosophy in Canada, which has its roots in British philosophy and the French pre-revolutionary thinking, have to be dealt with. Our outlook has to arise; it must not be an appendage of an outlook of some other country. We cannot go by the experience of other countries alone. This is not a violation of Marxism-Leninism. Far from it, it is its application. All the classics, Marx and Engels, as well as Lenin and Stalin, advocated that we must look into our own condition; ideas do not develop in isolation from the struggles of the people of the nation. According to Lenin, theory develops only in the process of a genuinely mass and genuinely revolutionary movement. This mass and genuinely revolutionary movement cannot exist up in the air. We cannot forget about ourselves, how we think, and start just repeating various things which are written in the classics. Of course, they can be useful as a guide to action, but if we have none of our own actions, if we have none of our own activities, what is this guide going to do? Today, through the IMF, the World Bank, and various other means, imperialism still has the people by their throats. This shows us we still have work to do. But this old Europe is telling us that they will unite against us; they will send armadas in the name of democracy, in the name of human rights, if we go against them. But this world is larger than Europe. These old minds, they are again going to be mistaken. First of all, the European working class has not forgotten the lessons of the Second World War and its aftermath. The European working class suffered a great deal. In South Asia, there are close to one billion people. These south Asians have aspirations of their own. People already know what it means to have a "free market economy" and they know it does not favour the people. There are over one billion people in China. They are trying to suggest that these are faceless people but the Chinese people have stood up and will make their mark. In Latin America and the Caribbean countries taken together, there are millions of people, 130 million in Brazil alone. These are colossal forces but the media are trying to tell us that we should have all our heads stuck in what happens in Europe, with what happens in Moscow and other places. Sooner or later people are not going to worry about what happens in Europe. They will worry about what happens in their own country, what happens in their own regions. The bombs and airplanes of the U.S. are not going to stop the rise of revolution. This gunboat diplomacy, as happened in the Persian Gulf, is a repetition of what the British used to do in the 19th century. They would go to the shores of various countries, and simply bombard the hell out of them and then send forces to take them over. This is what the U.S. and the coalition did in the Persian Gulf. People were able to solve this problem. The weapons which are being used against the people may be terrible; these planes may be very skillful, but still their own newspapers had to admit that the airmen who were sent to bombard were given drugs and alcohol to enable them to do what they did. In other words, a normal person would not do such a thing. There are a lot of normal people in this world. During this period it looks like everything is lost. As far as our Party is concerned, not everything is lost. These are tough times for the working people. It would have been preferable if, for example, the working class in the Soviet Union had arisen and changed the situation there, if the old regimes in the countries of Eastern Europe had been overthrown for the purpose of establishing real democratic new regimes. But, in this difficult situation, all the factors are pointing out that we should occupy the space for change. There is no room for pessimism. On the contrary, we should be optimistic and do our work. This is the way our Party looks at the situation. (Originally published in TML Daily, September 1, 1991)
This article was published in Article Link:   Website: www.cpcml.ca Email: editor@cpcml.ca |
