The 78th Session of the UN General Assembly
A universal critical Marxist reading
The desire for wealth and power has been the dominant human craving since the agricultural revolution established the material conditions that made possible their accumulation, primarily through conquest of lands and peoples. This prevailing drive of conquest provided the foundation for the construction of the great civilizations of human history, which paradoxically included great advances in philosophy, literature, the arts, and commerce. Empires and kingdoms emerged, known to us today as central to the human legacy.
During the era of the great civilizations, there emerged a spiritual reaction and resistance, formed by prophets that are known and even revered today. They formulated alternative visions of a more just distribution of the material means and needs of human existence and/or attention to the harmony of the soul with the divine. Their extensive followings have made evident the essential human impulse toward spirituality. However, the empires and kingdoms were able to compel accommodation by religious institutions to the material requirements of life and to the predominant human drive toward the accumulation of wealth and power.
Prior to the modern era, Western Europe was backwards. Its late developing feudalism was characterized by relatively small urban settlements and by de facto local rule by feudal lords. However, from the tenth to the fifteenth centuries, expanding commerce led to the rise of a merchant class which allied with monarchs to forge centralization. Spain, England, and France emerged as centralized modern nation-states that, with the aid of advances in navigation and technology, were positioned for the conquest of other regions.
The modern Western European conquest of the world from 1492 to 1914 is the modern and most advanced expression of the human tendency to conquest, and it occurred in two stages. The first involved the Spanish conquest of the region that would become Latin America and the Caribbean, which stimulated the expansion of industry and the modernization of agriculture in Northwestern Europe. And it resulted in the peripheralization of Latin America and the Caribbean as well as Eastern Europe, converting these regions into exporters of raw materials on a base of forced labor; thereby creating the capitalist world-economy. The second stage was driven by English and French conquest of Asia and Africa and the peripheralization of these regions, which stimulated the modernization of industry in Northwestern Europe and the rise of English and French settler societies in North America. The capitalist world-economy thus became global. The peripheralized regions exported raw materials on a base of forced labor; and they provided markets for surplus goods produced by modernized industry and agriculture in northwestern Europe and North America.
The resistance of the conquered peoples began in the eighteenth century. It was driven by a basic human impulse of liberation from foreign oppression. The movements of resistance were developed and sustained on the basis of political/religious ideologies that synthesized concepts of Western modern philosophy and its various critical currents of thought, such as Marxism, with the traditional religious and philosophical currents of thought indigenous to the conquered regions. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the anti-colonial movements and revolutions were able to compel the Western powers to concede political independence.
The result, however, was not true independence, but a new form of colonialism, in which the economic structures imposed during colonialism were preserved. The Western powers adopted imperialist policies, designed to ensure that the policies of the supposedly independent states were accommodated to Western interests in controlling the natural resources and labor of the earth. Imperialist policies were inherently deceptive, pretending to promote democracy in the post-colonial world, obscuring their essential character as defenders of Western interests. The neocolonial world-system attained its highest expression in the period of 1946 to 1965, with the USA as the hegemonic power. Because of its enormous economic advantage, the USA was able to enlist allies in all regions of the world in support of its imperialist project.
Following 1965, the United States began a sustained fall into economic decline and moral decadence. The decline was a consequence of the policies of the elite, which increasingly framed issues in terms of its own short-term interests, leaving aside the long-term interests of the nation and the wellbeing of its peoples. These policies included: the escalation of the Vietnam War beginning in 1965, which exposed U.S. imperialist intentions and also overextended the economy of the nation; the elimination of the gold standard in the early 1970s, thus weakening the dollar; the turn to neoliberal policies and financial speculation in the 1980s, undermining capacity to invest in national productivity; the turn to blatantly imperialist wars in the 1990s and especially after 2001, further exposing the imperialist character of the nation, thereby undermining its influence in the world, and intensifying the overdependency of the nation’s economy on war industries; the targeting of various nations in unconventional wars beginning in 2013, making evident to the world the decadence of U.S. imperialism, no longer able to rule the world through the classic imperialist method of economic power combined with deceptive political formulations; and the dissemination by the elite and their middle class allies of divisive ideologies based in post-modern narratives, thus dividing, confusing, and weakening the people, preventing them from formulating alternative policies that defend the long-term interests of the nation and the wellbeing of its peoples.
Meanwhile, the peoples, movements, and revolutions of the South, learning in political experience and practice, have evolved from anti-colonial resistance to an increasingly mature anti-imperialist consciousness, capable of naming the structures of neocolonial domination and of indicating an alternative road to true sovereignty, that of solidarity, South-South cooperation, and mutually beneficial trade. Reflecting this increasing political maturity, the governments of the South are more and more rejecting a subordinate alliance with the USA and are turning to mutually beneficial partnerships with China and the countries of the South as well as with Russia. This tendency intensified rapidly with the initiation of the war in Ukraine, which is widely seen in the South as caused by NATO expansionism, and which has made clear not only the decadence of U.S. imperialism but also the subordination of European elites to the U.S. imperialist project.
At a recent discussion on the Cuban television/radio news program Mesa Redonda, Jorge Hernández of the Center for Hemispheric and US Studies of the University of Havana, observed that the speeches of the 78th Session of the UN General Assembly indicate that the representatives of the Global South are becoming increasingly bold in naming the injustices of the world.
In today’s commentaries, I provide examples of such declarations by the leaders of the Global South, placing them in three categories.
(1) Rejection of the current international world order
Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel reported on the recently held meetings of the Group of 77 and China, which had been held in Havana.
“During two days, practically without rest, more than 100 representatives of the 134 nations that compose the Group lifted their voices to demand changes that no longer can be postponed in the unjust, irrational, and abusive international economic order, which has deepened, year after year, the enormous inequalities between a minority of highly developed nations and a majority that has not been able to overcome the euphemism of ‘developing nations’ . . .. We who are the principal victims of the present multidimensional crisis, of abusive unequal exchange, of the scientific and technological gap, and of the degradation of the environment are united by the need to change what has not been resolved. But we also are united, and have been for more than a half century, by the inescapable challenge and the determination to transform the present international order that, in addition to being excluding and irrational, is unsustainable for the planet and inviable for the wellbeing of all.”
Luis Alberto Arce, President of Bolivia, declared that one year ago, he came before the same forum to denounce the reality of the world capitalist crisis that places humanity and the very existence of the planet at risk. However, one year later, “the capitalist system, in its eagerness to impose a decadent hegemony, continues practices of domination and exploitation that ought to have been already left behind.” Insightful proposals put forth in the General Assembly debates are ignored by “interests functional to a savage system of capitalist exploitation that prioritizes the production and reproduction of capital above safeguarding the lives of human beings and the existence of the planet.”
Arce noted that, in response to this situation, in a manner that never before has happened, the Global South rises up in a peaceful and constructive manner, through processes of regional and interregional cooperation. Thus increases the clamor for the reconfiguration of the international financial system and for the transformation of our understanding toward the promotion of scientifically based and ecologically sustainable development. As a result of the increasingly strong influence of new initiatives of economic and commercial integration and cooperation, the march toward a multipolar world is irreversible. The emergence of commercial blocs in Asia, Africa, and South America as well as BRICS “today permits nations to access international markets without the need for compromising their sovereignty.”
The present world crisis, Arce maintains, makes necessary a United Nations Organization that is capable of acting in accordance with the principles expressed at its founding in the UN Charter, without subordination to any economic, political, or military hegemonic power. The multiple challenges that humanity confronts can only be addressed through the genuine commitment and political will of all countries, with priority on the common interests of humanity and the needs of the most vulnerable sectors.
Seyyed Ebrahim Raisi, the President of Iran, declared that we are in “a decisive historical period” in which “the world is changing and transitioning to an emerging international order, and this path is irreversible.” He noted that “the formula of Western domination for the world no longer works. The old liberal order, which served the interests of insatiable dominators and capitalists, has been pushed aside and, in a word, the project of Americanizing the world has failed.” He declared that Iran is proud of the fact that, with the help of the Islamic Revolution and together with other nations of West Asia, it has played a decisive role in the failure of the system of domination.
Raisi rejected the Cold War mentality being generated by some powers in response to attempts being taken by independent countries toward cooperation. A new division between East and West should not be permitted to form, he declared. For its part, “the Islamic Republic of Iran supports maximum economic and political convergence within and between regions and is interested in interacting with the whole world based on justice.”
The Iranian President noted that the economic growth of independent countries and the creation of proxy wars are being implemented in the name of defending democracy. “But the whole world, including our nations in West Asia, have seen the true meaning of Western democracy and know that it is just a code name for coup, occupation, and war.” The project of liberal democracy, a velvet glove hiding a cast iron hand, once wanted to be a model for the world; but it is nearing the end of its journey.
Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, President of Türkiye, called for “the establishment of an international system, which eliminates global injustices…, which addresses economic inequalities…[and] which generates peace, security, stability and prosperity.” He further declared that some hypocritically declare DAESH [the Islamic State] and similar organizations to be threats in the Middle East, North Africa, and the Sahel, with the intention of obscuring their own political and economic interests. However,
“the real threat consists of the terrorist organizations, paramilitary groups, mercenaries and some local elements working for the highest bidder, which are nurtured and strengthened to be used as tools of proxy wars. Countries . . . continue to work with terrorist organizations, purely for their own political and economic interests. . . . That is why we argue that we must rapidly restructure the institutions responsible for ensuring security, peace and prosperity in the world, under the leadership of the United Nations. We must build a global governance architecture which has the capacity to represent people of all origins, faiths and cultures in the world.”
(2) The need for a new international financial architecture
Cuban President Díaz-Canel declared that “we [the G77] are not asking for donations or favors. The G77 claims rights, and we will continue demanding a profound transformation of the present international financial architecture, because it is profoundly unjust, anachronistic, and dysfunctional; and because it was designed to profit from the reserves of the South, to perpetuate a system of domination that increases underdevelopment, and to reproduce a model of modern colonialism.”
Argentine President Alberto Fernández maintained that the international financial architecture is showing itself to be abusive, in that it is continuing with the same reasoning and political orthodoxies that deepened inequality and misery in the world. The world financial architecture only serves to concentrate income and to marginalize vast regions of the world. It bets on financial speculation above development. It places cheap labor above the dignity of work.
Yvan Gil Pinto, Minister of People’s Power for Foreign Affairs of Venezuela, declared that “it is crucial to move forward without further delay regarding the reform of the international financial architecture, including the governance and decision-making methods of the Bretton Woods institutions, which serve the interests of a minority of wealthy countries, and they also politicize them to exert pressure and domination over sovereign nations.” He maintained, “in the face of the economic and financial crisis that particularly affects developing countries, we need a new model for the mechanisms of global governance, where the Global South has fair access to international financing.”
(3) Rejection of the aggressive, imperialist policies of the USA
Díaz-Canel expressed opposition to “the unilateral coercive measures, euphemistically called sanctions, which have become the practice of powerful States who pretend to act as universal judges, with the intention of weakening and destroying economies and isolating and subjugating sovereign States.”
Bolivian President Arce also denounced “the unilateral coercive measures and sanctions that are applied against our peoples, attacking their development and their most elemental human rights. These measures are a sample of a dysfunctional system that ignores international law and multilateralism.” He cited as an example the “illegal, inhumane, and criminal economic and financial blockade imposed by the United States against Cuba,” which has been denounced repeatedly by the United Nations. He also denounced the inclusion of Cuba on a list of nations that supposedly sponsor terrorism, unilaterally emitted by the USA in order to impose more restrictive measures on the Cuban people, in violation of the UN Charter.
Saleumxay Kommasith, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs of Laos, maintained that unilateralism, and especially unilateral coercive measures, are opposed to the principles of the UN Charter. Moreover, they have serious negative consequences for innocent people, in that they hinder the national development of many developing countries. Therefore, the Lao delegation joined in the global call for the ending of all coercive measures against Cuba.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs for Venezuela further declared that “the world still faces a major pandemic: the pernicious effects of an aggressive policy, manifested in the illegal imposition of unilateral coercive measures against a third of humanity. The so-called sanctions, which violate all norms of international law and the purposes and principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter, constitute mass violations of human rights for millions of people [in that they] are a deliberate attack on the right to development of entire peoples.” Gil Pinto noted the hypocrisy in the affair: “These measures are applied precisely by those who then present themselves as champions of human rights.”
Secretary-General of the United Nations
Antonio Guterres, Secretary-General of the United Nations, supported the call of the Global South for an international system that responds to the needs of the South. He declared:
We are inching ever closer to a Great Fracture in economic and financial systems and trade relations; one that threatens a single, open internet; with diverging strategies on technology and artificial intelligence; and potentially clashing security frameworks. It is high time to renew multilateral institutions based on 21st century economic and political realities – rooted in equity, solidarity and universality – anchored in the principles of the United Nations Charter and international law. That means reforming the Security Council in line with the world of today. It means redesigning the international financial architecture so that it becomes truly universal and serves as a global safety net for developing countries in trouble. . . . The international financial architecture is dysfunctional, outdated and unjust.
A universal critical Marxist interpretation for our time
I narrated above an interpretation of human history that is rooted in the conceptualizations formulated in political practice by the anti-colonial and anti-imperialist revolutionary leaders of the last 100 years. In this interpretation, the discourses of the leaders of the Global South are indications of a global transition from a capitalist world-economy and neocolonial world-system to an alternative, more just and multipolar world order, in which the sovereign equality of all nations is proclaimed and practiced.
Like the formulation of Marx, the narrative sees meaning in human history. It sees conflict and domination as the prevailing human tendency since the agricultural revolution; and it sees the unfolding of this conflict as culminating in a new stage of social justice, peace, and prosperity. And like the formulation of Marx, it bases its understanding on the arguments and beliefs of the underdog in the conflict, those that are seeking to forge a new reality from below. But unlike the formulation of Marx, it gives priority not to a conflict between classes, but to a conflict between nations, reflecting the human tendency for the stronger nations to conquer the weaker in the quest for wealth and power, and for the conquered to resist and seek a better world. In the narrative, class is significant in the dynamics of political conflict between imperialism and independence.
The difference between this narrative and the interpretation of Marx is not merely a difference of opinion. It is a difference rooted in a fundamental epistemological reality: human understandings are formed in particular historical and social contexts. Writing in nineteenth century Western Europe, when and where movements of workers and artisans were emerging, Marx based his formulations on these emerging movements from below. But in our time, we need an interpretation based in the emerging movements of the world for the last 100 years, which have reached a maturity that intelligently addresses not only conflict among nations but also the questions of class, race, gender, and ecology that agitate the Western mind. That this is so can be seen through listening to the voices of the leaders of the Global South.
The narrative follows Marx’s epistemological method, and thus it could be considered Marxist. But inasmuch as it is written from a different historical and social context, its basic interpretations of the unfolding human story differ from Marx. So, it could reasonably be called critical Marxism. However, it is fundamentally different from the various currents of critical Marxism that have been formulated in the West, which never listened to the voices of the Third World. It is an interpretation of human history based in the universal human experience in the current historical time period, not merely the experience of the West. Therefore, it possibly could be called universal critical Marxism, an interpretation based in the universal human experience in the current historical time period.
In envisioning a stage in which the sovereignty of nations is the norm, the narrative envisions the possibility of a world in which there is political space for socialism, depending on the political conditions of each nation. In fact, two of the leading nations in the current transition, China and Cuba, have placed the construction of socialism at the center of their national projects. But whether or not socialism becomes the norm in the next stage of human history cannot yet be known, especially if we consider the fact that the nations constructing socialism increasingly include space for privately-owned economic enterprises and for a market. In the current transition to a world that respects the sovereignty of nations, the question of socialism is for each nation to decide and define.
Socialism may be less necessary in a world in which imperialism is nullified. But on the other hand, it does appear likely, from today’s vantage point, that the consolidation of the transition to a post-imperialist world would require that nations constructing socialism would be among the vanguard nations. There also is the possibility that Islamic revolutionary nations would play an important role.
A free subscription option is available, with capacity to read, send, and share all posts. A paid subscription ($5 per month or $40 per year) enables you to make comments and to support the costs of the column; paid subscribers also receive a free PDF copy of my book on Cuba and the world-system. Ten percent of income generated through subscriptions to the column is donated to the Cuban Society for Philosophical Investigation.
Follow me on Twitter: Charles McKelvey@CharlesMcKelv14