White people, it is argued, are such useless trash that they should be removed from North American and, as reparations, worked to death as slaves in the Third World. One advocate of this “Dispersion Plan” was Bill Ayer’s Prairie Fire; Ayer was one of Barack Obama’s intellectual mentors.
Monkey Smash Heaven, Journal of the Leading Light Communist Organisation, on the ‘Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of the Oppressed Nations’. Leading Light Communist Organisation (LLCO) (www.llco.org), N.D. [September 2006].
The form of the Joint Dictatorship of the Proletariat of Oppressed Nations: [These are slightly edited excerpts of IRTR posts made by comrades in April and September of 2006. MSH is republishing this to encourage readers to think about the kinds of measures that are needed to impose socialism on imperialist nations where the vast majority of the populations are hardcore class enemies. MSH agrees with Lenin’s discussion of proletarian “Jacobinism”: The Jacobins of contemporary Social-Democracy — the Bolsheviks, the Vperyodovtsi, Syezdovtsi, Proletartsi, or whatever we may call them — wish by their slogans to raise the revolutionary and republican petty bourgeoisie, and especially the peasantry, to the level of the consistent democratic centralism of the proletariat, which fully retains its individuality as a class. They want the people, i.e. the proletariat and the peasantry, to settle accounts with the monarchy and the aristocracy in the “plebeian way,” ruthlessly destroying the enemies of liberty , crushing their resistance by force, making no concessions whatever… (From Two Tactics of Social Democracy, written in the period of the 1905 revolution in Russia. Quoted in Chen Boda’s Notes on Mao Tse-tung’s “Report of an Investigation into the Peasant Movement in Hunan”, Foreign Language Press. 1954. pp 34)
First Nations activist Russell Means addressed the white so-called “socialists,” the “Girondists” of so-called “social democracy,” the phony allies of the oppressed nations and international proletariat: You can’t judge the real nature of a European revolutionary doctrine on the basis on the changes it proposes to make within the European power structure and society. You can only judge it by the effects it will have on non-Europeans. (RC Polemic II First Nations and the Environment, MIM Theory 12. 1997. pp 29)
MSH advocates a proletarian “Jacobin” settling of accounts with the imperialist nations. Maoism seeks to smash the entire First World, especially White, power structure to dust and place power in the hands of the oppressed nations.]
Serve The People wrote on IRTR on April 22 of 2006: I have proposed, in the past, that the JDPON should disperse the Amerikkkans throughout the Third World instead of allowing them to remain in occupied North America. Here are some of my reasons:
(1) A geographic concentration of Amerikkkans would facilitate counterrevolution. It would also be difficult to exercise proletarian dictatorship over hundreds of millions of enemies: we would need to import a huge unproductive sector of police and such from the Third World. As a practical matter, it would be better to thin the Amerikkkans out, making them minorities in the Third World, where they could easily be controlled and supervised by the international proletariat.
(2) Amerikkkans will need to undergo re-education. It would be very difficult to re-educate them in their own kkkountry. They need to be in a proletarian environment where they can learn from the masses.
(3) There are land claims to settle, mainly for the First Nations, but also for Aztlan [occupied Mexico — MSH) and perhaps the Black nation. Conceivably some other nations could be moved to North America if they wished to be, such as Nauru or the small nations in Ghana whose land has been ruined by imperialist corporations. Amerikkkans are going to have to move out of much of North America and make room for other nations.
(4) Amerikkkan kkkulture is almost totally reactionary. There is little worth saving in Amerikkkan kkkulture. It would be better to force Amerikkkans to assimilate to the more culturally and politically advanced peoples of the Third World. There is also historic justice in forcing Amerikkkans to assimilate, just as they destroyed so many other nations and cultures.
(5) In the early stages of socialism, the Third World will require skilled workers and technicians of various kinds, including medical personnel. These persyns are disproportionately concentrated in the First World. Moving them to the Third World will be a practical way to address an urgent need.
(6) The Third World is also owed big reparations. An excellent way to make those reparations is to put Amerikkkans to work building infrastructure in the Third World: roads, housing, water supplies, sewage, electricity, telecommunications, schools. Amerikkkans can also work in Third World factories and fields to expand production for the benefit of the Third World.
(7) Part of the process of civilizing and proletarianizing Amerikkkans will be putting them to productive work–for a change. Amerikkka has so little productive capacity that there may not be many ways to put all those people to work in occupied North America. They may have to go to the factories and fields of the Third World.
(8) Amerikkkans will need to be reduced to a Third World standard of living. If they stay in occupied North Amerikkka, they will benefit from the vastly better infrastructure and all the stolen wealth that they currently hold. It would be better to move them to the Third World as a way of accelerating the process of re-education.
(9) There are historical precedents for relocating large numbers of enemies. Millions of Germans were forced to move after the Soviet victory over fascism in World War II. Even enemies like the united $nakes and the “united” KKKingdom agreed that it was necessary to move Germans off land that was needed for Poles, Czechs, and others. Again, this is related to the national question of the First Nations, Aztlan [occupied Mexico — MSH], and the Black nation.
Is this a good idea? What are its advantages and disadvantages? How can we improve upon it?
Prairie Fire [Bill Ayer] wrote on IRTR on September 13, 2006: Marx wrote in the Manifesto how the bourgeoisie was horrified when confronted by communism. It’s no surprise that the labor aristocracy finds socialism “over the top.” The labor aristocracy of the first world thinks the same thing of Stalin and Mao, not to mention Lenin. Is that not the kind of language we hear from crypto-Trotskyists in their attacks on the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution? That it was too extreme and “one sided” and so on. There is nothing as radical as reality itself as Lenin said; class war has always been radical, extreme. The dispersion plan is extreme, but revolution itself is extreme. Once you get a sense about the degree of parasitism, you’ll see that any solution to parasitism will be extreme. And, it will be nightmarish in the eyes of the exploiters. As Mao said, “A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.” For those who oppose the dispersion plan, the question is: how do we overthrow the reactionary classes for a prolonged period of time in the First World where the vast majority of the population are hardcore class enemies?