It is often thought that nations are like individuals. Under the impact of momentous events they undergo swift changes in mood, which can carry them from the heights of optimism down to the depth of the most despondent pessimism.
But nations are not autonomous, independent entities. They are social structures ruled by definite classes.
No nation, whether oppressed or oppressing, is ruled or governed without a class structure — a leadership that answers to the class in power but speaks in the name of the whole nation.
Epochal revolutionary developments like the October socialist revolution in Russia or the Chinese socialist revolution throw the imperialist bourgeoisie into a tizzy. And its ideologues invariably reflect the mood of the ruling class, often in great literary strokes.
Thus Oswald Spengler wrote The Decline of the West in the 1920s. It was largely a lament over the rising proletariat and the socialist revolution in particular.
Spengler represented the pessimism of the ruling class, particularly in Europe. The victory of the October socialist revolution in Russia, the growing revolutionary crisis in Germany, and the generally sad state of European capitalism were soon to be greatly magnified by the worldwide collapse of the economic system, led by the Wall Street crash of 1929.
A more extensive and learned form of the same phenomenon is contained in Arnold Toynbee's A Study of History — a massive exposition on the decline and fall of what he refers to as many civilizations. It conveyed a mood of pessimism for which he blamed the Cold War.
But in reality his disappointment reflected the rising insurgency of the Western proletariat — including the coming to power of the Labour Party in Britain — immediately after the Second World War.
There have been innumerable examples of optimism or pessimism playing a great role in connection with the objectives of this or that ruling class.
Pessimism, however, can never be an instrument for class liberation of the workers, even though the ability to describe with talent and foresight the sordid character of capitalist exploitation and imperialist oppression is an instrument of class deliverance. Revolutionary optimism is congenital to the proletarian movement, which doesn't have the luxury of an extensive outpouring of pessimism that only facilitates the ruling class attack.
We are reminded of all this by an utterly incredible article in the April 18 (1993) New York Times Magazine of April 18 with the startling title: "Colonialism's Back — and Not a Moment Too Soon." In case this might be regarded as facetious, the secondary head made it clear: "Let's face it: Some countries are just not fit to govern themselves."
It was written by Paul Johnson, who is described as the author of Modern Times — who ever heard of that? — and is "at work on a history of the American people."
We wonder whether the Johannesburg Post would care to publish such an article at this time. We surmise that the publishers would shake in their boots at the very thought of putting something like that in print at a time when the South African working class has achieved, in depth and in numbers, a virtually unprecedented level of proletarian activity. So far, no amount of terror has been able to subdue them. Nor do we hear of the ruling cliques, from Pretoria to Johannesburg to Cape Town, exuding any of the confidence displayed in this utterly incredible article in the New York Times.
Evidently his article was written before the magnificent general strike that took place after the assassination of South African Communist leader Chris Hani. However, the Times must have thought his article was still valid in light of the Pentagon's recent victories in Somalia.
We cannot but conclude that Johnson's paean to colonialism is representative of the mood of at least a section of the ruling class, if not the orientation of contemporary imperialism in general.
This article concludes that people in the former colonies are clamoring for Western intervention, and that "the civilized world has a mission to go out to these desperate places and govern." By "civilized world," Johnson writes he means first and foremost the United States, Britain and France, but also their opponents in the last world war — Germany and Japan.
In return, says Johnson, they will earn "the unspoken gratitude of millions of misgoverned or ungoverned people who will find in this altruistic revival of colonialism the only way out of their present intractable miseries."
Where does this extraordinary optimism of the imperialists over their role in history come from? Of course, it is easy for ruling class servants to exude confidence and optimism, even when there is no basis for it. They are simply doing a job.
However, an objective basis for their optimism does exist, although it does not exactly confirm the author's viewpoint. It is the collapse of the USSR.
When the USSR was a formidable world power and one of the five permanent members on the UN Security Council, it was unthinkable for the imperialists to openly praise colonialism. Nor could they use the UN as a cover for military intervention in the oppressed countries. (The U.S. got UN endorsement of the Korean War in 1950 only because the USSR had walked out of the Security Council.)
However, the disintegration of the USSR is not all that is happening in the world. Nor has the last word been said.
The anti-colonialist, anti-imperialist movement is experiencing a resurgence in many places, particularly in South Africa. And, as in the last great upsurge of the oppressed peoples after World War II, they are looking to genuine communist leadership to stand up to the imperialists.
Red-baiting may work in Washington, but it doesn't in Johannesburg.
In the meantime, the ruling classes are in a downhill slide with a worldwide capitalist recession. A dozen years ago, they could point to Japan as an exception to capitalist crisis. Now they are unable to do even that.
In his article, Johnson waxes lyrical on the "high standards" set by the British and French colonialists in Africa. He praises their skill and efficiency in building "a superb infrastructure of roads and ports." Yes, the very things needed to extract the riches of the continent as quickly as possible. How in the world can he write such drivel in the face of the universal hatred of the colonial rulers in all their former and present territories, from India to Africa to northern Ireland, where the longest continuing rebellion against colonialism continues unabated?
Britain, it should be said, is a country in debt to U.S. imperialism. Without that prop, it wouldn't be able to stand on its own feet. But the U.S. itself is the biggest debtor country in the world. Without the prop of super-exploitation in all of Latin America, the South Pacific and the Middle East, U.S. imperialism wouldn't survive.
Colonialism involves not only economic super-exploitation but openly setting up a governmental administration. The small country of Somalia was brought to utter ruin and then invaded under this very pretext of restoring a government — which Johnson praises because "some states are not yet fit to govern themselves."
But the truth is that the search for oil constituted the objective basis for the imperialist invasion. Whether they'll find it in quantity and quality is another matter. That is the objective.
Still it has nothing to do with the governance of the Somalis, who ran their own society for centuries.
In the longer view of history, the destruction of this country may be only a temporary setback in the overall struggle of the working class together with all the anti-imperialist forces against the tiny minority of exploiters and oppressors who run the world.
After all, Rome was seemingly all-powerful, but how many times was it sacked in ancient times? In the end, no matter how many volumes could be written on "the grandeur that was Rome,'' it disintegrated because it was based on slavery.
How really lasting can the occupation of Somalia be in the face of the availability of modern weapons of education as well as destruction?
Inside the U.S., many rebellions have been suppressed, in Watts, Newark, Detroit, Harlem, and most recently Los Angeles. This gave the ruling class temporary relief.
But the ruling class was unable to solve any of the problems that confront the ever-increasing number of the oppressed people. Since last year's rebellion in Los Angeles, even the bourgeois press has to admit that not one problem has been solved. How can that be a basis for optimism?
The rebellions have been spontaneous. And while they result in huge human loss and the destruction of property, it is also incontestable that all the legislative concessions made over the years have been byproducts of these struggles.
The bourgeoisie tries to negate their significance. But scarcely any progress would have been made without the intervention of the masses on a huge and violent scale.
One must take into account not only what happens in the immediate aftermath of the rebellions. In the broader perspective of the struggle as a whole, these rebellions have been the backbone.
And what are they but rebellions of an internal colony of U.S. imperialism? How different are they from anti-colonial rebellions, except in form? As Marxists, we know that it's the essence that lies behi
nd the form that is significant.
The Reagan-Bush years marked a massive attack on the living standards of the masses, Black and white. But most remarkable has been the devastation to Black America. The State of Black America, a series of highly detailed annual reports put out by the Urban League, presents reliable statistics on how both relative and absolute poverty have increased in the Black communities. The only period of slight improvement was in the early 1970s, after the last great round of rebellions.
The rebellion in Los Angeles, while triggered by the decision in the Rodney King beating, was a response to these conditions. The rebellion raised the level of the struggle and showed that the deterioration of capitalism is not bringing back colonialism — it is bringing insurrection.
This great struggle also lays the basis for unity between Black and white workers against their common enemy. As Marx said, "Labor with a white skin cannot be free while labor with a Black skin is branded."
Last updated: 15 January 2018