this is exactly the kind of perspective that i disagree with completely. the biggest form of aid that communists in the imperial core can provide to those elsewhere is overthrowing capitalism at home. the analysis that imperial core workers "have no revolutionary potential" is not based on actual investigation and actively prevents would-be revolutionaries from developing a revolutionary strategy. i've already written a fairly long post about this here.
the kind of third-worldist analysis of the labour aristocracy put forward by the blekingegade group (i haven't read kuhn's book, but i'm familiar with the perspective of the KAK, the predecessor of the M-KA) does not hold up. i've written a long post about that here. the fifth chapter of a critique of maoist reason does a good job of tracing the history of this tendency, from its origins in the KAK and MIM through to maoist-third-worldist formations between their time and ours. it also does a good job pointing out the fundamental flaw of maoist-third-worldist conceptions of the labour aristocracy (even if i disagree with that book on other levels):
If there is no proletariat in the imperialist metropoles, and thus no proletarian movement, the first world third worldist cannot make a correct assessment of anything since it cannot practice the mass line. With no revolutionary masses in which to embed a revolutionary movement (because these revolutionary masses are elsewhere) how can it test its ideas, struggle with the masses, and thus develop theory through practice? Considering that MTW disagrees with the assessments of the most significant third world Maoist movements regarding the first world proletariat, it is not as if it is learning from the revolutionary masses it claims to valorize, either. Thus, even if MTW is correct it has no way of knowing it is correct, or developing a theory regarding its correctness, since it has no means of testing these ideas in practice. That is, MTW is not falsifiable and thus not scientific.
this elevation of anti-imperialism over class struggle is absolutely not confined to people and organizations that consciously identify as maoist or third-worldist; in fact it is extremely common amongst "anti-imperialist" actionists, activists and organizers in the imperialist countries today (even those who are "marxist-leninist"). for a recent example, see this article from just two days ago about the 2024 A15 palestine solidarity economic blockade actions (i do want to commend the authors of this for actually producing a summation of their practice, something that is really lacking these days). most of the people i have heard express it are young, are not from the "third world" themselves (and those who are from the "third world" are overwhelmingly immigrant petit bourgeois), want to do something that has an immediate impact, probably don't even know who lin biao was, and so on. i've written a post abt the basis for this tendency here.
you write that "demonstrations and protests are best used as a recruitment tool" and i agree. but recruitment of who and into what? since you say that workers have no revolutionary potential, the only recommendations you offer are not-suggesting people participate in illegal direct actions, and doing charity. this is not a revolutionary strategy. the A15 article, while arguing in theory for the need to build a leninist vanguard party of the working class, also says that in the practical action it sums up, "successes were due to existing affinity groups and informal activist communities." this is exactly the approach that would-be revolutionaries in the anglo imperialist countries need to get out of.
i would offer this instead: demos and protests (whether in solidarity with palestine, venezuela, targets of ice, or whoever else) are best used as a tool to recruit ideologically or politically advanced workers into politically independent mass organizations of the working class with workplace committees as their basic units, to recruit advanced students and youth into finding jobs where they can begin to organize and into other forms of mass work like social investigation, to recruit intellectuals with socialist perspectives into supporting the infrastructure of these organizing efforts, and to build up the leading role of these independent working class organizations within a broader anti-imperialist anti-war united front. to paraphrase the A15 article, this is a marathon, not a sprint.
in your reblog you compare the effectiveness of peaceful demonstrations, activist direct action, the flotillas, and individual charity. what is missing from this comparison is the boycotts and strikes by organized workers in, for example, france, italy, greece, and spain. all of these are imperialist countries belonging to the EU and NATO. what do they have that makes this possible that the anglo imperialist countries lack? sure, they are not quite as close to the very peak of imperialism today, but the main difference is communists actually engaged in leading the organized struggles of the working class.
to conclude: in principle i agree with that quote from lauesen, whose writing does genuinely have some worthwhile insights, but i want to add as a corollary this quote from samora machel, a revolutionary actually from the "third world":
International solidarity is not an act of charity; it is an act of unity between allies fighting on different terrains toward the same objectives.
i'm not trying to bite yr head off here, i wanted to write out an honest response because i think this is an important issue. thx for engaging.
further reading: imperialism and the split in socialism, lenin, 1916
ellievsbear
jbbartram-illu
origamiaround
blakekathryn
pixelskylines
kianamaiart
snowghoul
gummygunk
areudirty
