Globalization

[FalceMartello]

I was discussing with a comrade the other day and he expressed a view which I've never heard before. He said that being against Globalization:

"is anti-Marxist. Globalization in a broad sense makes the world a single community with a single culture, language, politico-economic system etc. Is this not what is needed for the international proletariat revolution? So why should we be against it? Not that we should support the effects this has on people (poverty, hunger, death etc), but do we really want to stop Globalization? Marx expresses in his works that the revolution is becoming more possible because Capitalism is bringing all the world together under the same system and communcation has surpassed farther than it ever has allowing revolution to spread much easier."

What do you think of this and have you heard this before?

[redstar2000]

Yes, I've heard it before...from Marx himself. If I'm not mistaken, he took the position that (1) the working class usually does a little better under "free trade" than otherwise; and (2) free trade would accelerate the "final capitalist crisis".

I do not know if these conclusions are actually valid or not. What I do know is that being "for" or "against" globalization is like being "for" or "against" the rotation of the earth on its axis.

Globalization is just a name we give to something that's clearly been taking place for centuries...the penetration of capitalism into pre-capitalist parts of the world and the integration of those areas into the capitalist "world market".

It's on a far "grander" scale now than it was at the time of Marx, but there seems to be "no way" of "stopping it". One can sometimes "slow it down" a bit...but only temporarily.

Some anti-capitalists think that being "against globalization" is a "useful pose"...it may serve to "win more people" to an anti-capitalist perspective.

I'm dubious about that proposition myself. Globalization is a property of capitalism, not capitalism itself. The anti-globalization folks seem to suggest the possibility of a capitalism "that doesn't globalize".

That's rather like an earth that doesn't rotate. :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[JKP]

Indeed. But Marx only spoke of that in a sense that all nations have become capitalist. Since many third world countries have relations more in line fuedalism, globalization will
hinder the progress of the third world. Indeed globalization is just another form of imperialism.

Additionally, you may want to read this:
http://www.paecon.net/PAEtexts/Chang1.htm

I was greatly influenced by it.

[GiveITall]

I agree with redstar, globalisation is a process that cannot be stopped.

I wouldn't argue that opposing globalisation is anti Marxist as the current global political economic system is exploitative, imperialistic and as redstar has pointed out a by-product of capitalism.

However it is interesting to consider Marx's stance on nationalism and how the process of globalisation could be considered anti-nationalistic given that people can communicate and travel globally with ease and that boarders are now more porous than they once were. Yet I don’t think that globalisation has eroded nationalism and hence I don’t think it can be argued that opposing globalisation is anti-Marxist. In Australia (where I live) there is still a strong sense of national identity and pride. People are more likely to call themselves Australian rather than a citizen of the world.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree with redstar in that globalization is one particular aspect of capitalism and one of the major weaknesses of the anti-globalization movement (at least in the US) was that it never matured to an anti-capitalist movement which lead people to turn to ideas of primativism or petty-bourgoise capitalism as an alternative to "globalization".

However I do think that socialists and anarchists were correct to involve themselves in these movements in order to bring a larger anti-capitalist view to the movements and between the Seattle protests and the decline of the anti-globalization movement, most radical groups in the US grew in size and influence.

If 9/11 hadn't happened and caused disorientation among many in the movement or if the movement had had a few more years to develop and mature, I believe that the anti-globalization movement could have become a more general anti-capitalist movement. Without a full undertanding of imperialism many anti-globalists claiming that states and stae armies were outdated because of globalization and many claimed the Afganistan war was a "distraction" rather than seeing it as part of imperialism just like globalization (just a much more forcefull face of imperilaism).

In general, marxists, as internationalists, should be for globalization! THe problem is, in capitalism, we have globalized capital, but no globalization of people or rights. They've gotten rid of the borders for capital at the same time they are trying to build walls to reinforce borders against humans.

[Bannockburn]

This is the whole point to Negri, Empire, Multitude and globalization.

[anomaly]

Redstar is most accurate here. It is a process which cannot be stopped, that is key.

And so, back to FalceMartello's argumentative friend, perhaps he is right. Globalization is inevitable, so why not accept it, and use it, in some way, to advance our cause? It all is rather simple.

[kurt]

heh, I too believe redstar hit the nail on the head with this one. Globalization is a part of the "package deal" that is capitalism. You can't stop it.

Maybe what communists need to be doing, is rather than try to rally around the cause of anti-globalization, is simply confront such idealist views head on, in the open.

If we were to criticize those who claimed that globalization can somehow be stopped, while still retaining the free market, and all other attributes of capitalism; and instead maintain that globalization is part of capitalism. If you don't want globalization, you need an alternative to capitalism, period.

[red_che]

On the Development of the World Economy



1.

When Southeast Asia plunged into a crisis in July 1997, the imperialists argued that its effects would remain restricted to that region. In fact, at the background of the collapse of the "Asian tigers" was an extraordinary flow of surplus capital from the major imperialist powers to this region. They had tried to solve the problem of the fall of the profit rate by tremendous speculation and by extraordinary overexpansion of the productive capacities which was absolutely disproportionate to the market's capacity to absorb this production. This is a contradiction which the imperialist system engenders in the world.

The fall of the Brazilian Real characterized the beginning of a new wave of the crisis which has been going on for 18 months. This is the third great wave after the first one which began in 1997. The second wave took place in August 1998, when the Russian crash occurred and Russia declared that it would no longer fulfill its obligations to pay. This had repercussions in Europe and the USA.

The development of the crisis has shown that it is a worldwide crisis. It deepened the ongoing crisis in Japan, extended to Russia, the East European countries and Latin America, and is threatening to spread to Europe and to the US economy itself. The imperialists declared it was only a stockmarket and financial crisis, but it is the result of economic wars and of relative overproduction. This cyclical crisis of overproduction demonstrates the contradiction in capitalism between the social character of production and the private appropriation of the product. It is a deep crisis which progresses in waves and has a domino effect; there was economic collapse in some countries while others entered into a recession. The crisis will intensify and aggravate all contradictions of the imperialist system in the current epoch.

Bourgeois propaganda, which speaks of a mere "financial or stockmarket crisis," veils the fact that speculative capital is not independent of productive capital. The gigantic explosion of speculative capital during the past years is the expression of overaccumulation of capital.

Overaccumulated capital is going on a massive scale into speculation in search of investment opportunities yielding maximum profits. The feature of this speculation is that it is speculating on surplus value which has not yet been realized.

The fact that speculative capital is growing at an increasingly rapid pace is an extreme manifestation of the decay and the parasitic character of imperialism. These will only disappear with the disappearance of imperialism itself, but not through the reformist and revisionist concept of "control of finance capital." Finance capital signifies the merger of industrial and bank capital. On the basis of finance capital an all-dominating financial oligarchy has formed. Neither capital can be separated from the other; both dominate the state machinery.

The working class and the working masses, instead of pinning illusory hopes on a control of finance capital, must unite and resist the consequences of the crisis, must attack state monopoly capitalism and its rule as a whole.



2.

The development of the world economic crisis deepens and aggravates the general crisis of capitalism. This fact is in complete contradiction to the bourgeois ideology of "globalization," which promises industrialization, prosperity and peaceful development to all countries. In reality, however, the uneven economic development has worsened, particularly between the imperialist and the oppressed countries.

The internationalization of the production—a result of the capitalist restructuring of international monopoly production—sharpens the contradictions of capitalism to their highest limit, rendering the transition to socialism mature and necessary. The material conditions for such a transition are developing. However, only the imperialist countries and a few dependent countries are included within this internationalization. But only the imperialist countries benefit. The much vaunted technological progress advances exclusively in the sectors which are interesting for capital. At the same time, this rapid technological progress is accompanied by a great destruction of the productive forces. Manifestations of the destructive effects are mass unemployment of 1.2 billion persons increasing on a worldwide scale, and deindustrialization in many countries, even including certain regions of the imperialist countries.

The destructive effects of the capitalist mode of production can only be overcome if the productive forces are freed from their capitalist fetters. Only if the capitalist productive relations are overthrown can the productive forces develop in such a way as to be able to satisfy the continuously increasing material and intellectual needs of the society.



3.

The consequences of the ongoing economic crisis on the world situation will be far-reaching . These will not develop in a straight line. The reactions to the crisis will be not only economic but principally political. Neither the USA nor Europe, Japan, Russia and China will come out of the crisis in the same shape as when they entered it. It is impossible to foresee the changes that will take place.

As of now, great masses of the working people in the city and the countryside, hundreds of millions of people all over the world are reeling under the results of the crisis. A drastic increase in unemployment, cuts in already starvation wages, increased exploitation, massive displacement of peasants from their land, greater misery, severe problems in the fields of health, housing and education: these are the results of the crisis. Equally, the high concentration of land, the low international prices of produce and the usurious banking interest rates are generating the bankruptcy of millions of peasants in the oppressed countries, forcing them to migrate into the cities and to an unbearable misery. The monopolies and the reactionary states are taking every opportunity to make the working people pay for the consequences of the crisis. An example are the plans for overexploitation and sellouts being imposed by the IMF and other international instruments of imperialists, and the growing foreign debt. The imperialist plundering of the working class and oppressed peoples and nations has intensified to the extreme.

But, at the same time, the crisis has created the objective conditions for enormous mass movements, which can be observed in various countries of Asia and Latin America, and also in some imperialist countries. Currently we are witnessing a growing revolutionary resurgence and a strengthening of Communist parties which have remained loyal to Marxism-Leninism.

The crisis is a bad thing. But we will gain nothing if we are afraid of it, because it obeys the objective laws of capitalism. We can understand these laws with the help of Marxism-Leninism. Victory will neither be easy nor achieved in a short time. But if the Marxist-Leninists tackle the situation caused by the crisis with a revolutionary line, the people will draw strength from their sufferings and will advance in struggle against the crisis programs of their respective governments as well as the IMF and the World Bank. The masses will advance through revolutionary struggle until the revolution for national and social liberation is victorious, until socialism is achieved.

This is the ICMLPO's resolution no.1 in its 6th conference.

It's anti-Marxist "to go with the flow of globalization". Why go with this if it brings more hardship to the people and the proletariat?



Globalization is just a name we give to something that's clearly been taking place for centuries...

Yet it brings more crisis.


the penetration of capitalism into pre-capitalist parts of the world and the integration of those areas into the capitalist "world market".

Globalization is not the "integration" of pre-capitalist countries into the "world market" but rather the intensification of imperialist control over those countries.

Be careful in defining terms. We are not already in the era where there really is free market. We are in the era of monopoly capitalism. Globalization is just another way of the Imperialist countries to dominate the world economy.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
Globalization is not the "integration" of pre-capitalist countries into the "world market" but rather the intensification of imperialist control over those countries....

We are in the era of monopoly capitalism. Globalization is just another way of the Imperialist countries to dominate the world economy.

On a world scale, I think the word you want there is oligopoly...there are no true monopolies on a global scale (yet).

It's certainly true that huge corporations with their origins in the imperialist countries "dominate the world economy".

But I don't really see anything "new" about this...it's been going on since, well, the British East India Company.

The anti-imperialist revolutions of the last century and this one are not "anti-capitalist", they are anti-foreign capitalist. They don't result in "socialism" but rather in the rise of a new and vigorous native bourgeoisie...ready to become "players" on the world market (instead of servile lackeys of some foreign corporation).

This seems to me to be something that just has to happen...whether one is "for" or "against" it.

It is in our interests, as revolutionary anti-capitalists, to support those anti-imperialist struggles...especially those directed against "our own" bourgeoisie. People need to see that our own rulers are not "all powerful" and that they can be defeated.

But we should neither have nor encourage any illusions about the outcomes of those anti-imperialist struggles. The Leninist fantasies of "third world socialism" should, by now, be outgrown.

Those countries cannot "skip capitalism"...no matter how hard they "try". What they can do in this era is achieve "their own capitalism"...which means breaking the chains that imperialism has placed upon them.

Even that's not easy...but it's doable. Just ask the Russians...or the Chinese. :)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[chilcru]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 05:12 AM
I agree with redstar in that globalization is one particular aspect of capitalism and one of the major weaknesses of the anti-globalization movement (at least in the US) was that it never matured to an anti-capitalist movement which lead people to turn to ideas of primativism or petty-bourgoise capitalism as an alternative to "globalization".

However I do think that socialists and anarchists were correct to involve themselves in these movements in order to bring a larger anti-capitalist view to the movements and between the Seattle protests and the decline of the anti-globalization movement, most radical groups in the US grew in size and influence.

If 9/11 hadn't happened and caused disorientation among many in the movement or if the movement had had a few more years to develop and mature, I believe that the anti-globalization movement could have become a more general anti-capitalist movement. Without a full undertanding of imperialism many anti-globalists claiming that states and stae armies were outdated because of globalization and many claimed the Afganistan war was a "distraction" rather than seeing it as part of imperialism just like globalization (just a much more forcefull face of imperilaism).

In general, marxists, as internationalists, should be for globalization! THe problem is, in capitalism, we have globalized capital, but no globalization of people or rights. They've gotten rid of the borders for capital at the same time they are trying to build walls to reinforce borders against humans.
Globalization is simply imperialism trying to intensify its domination of the global economy the better to exploit the toiling masses the world over. By this definition, we Marxists should be able to see its key elements that should help us define the Marxist position on globalization. The key elements here are intensification of exploitation of the toiling masses (workers, peasants, women, children, indigenous peoples, etc.).

By grasping these key elements, it should be clear that we Marxists, guided by "the mass line", should oppose it primarily because it aggravates the hardships of the toiling masses in both the imperialist countries and the neo-colonies. Or in Marx's words, it will exacerbate the deterioration of the working conditions of the toiling masses. This is the position that should enable Marxists to unite all the toiling masses in both the imperialist countries and the neo-colonies.

To propose, as Comradekurt suggested, confronting in the open the idea that globalization can be stopped is to me erroneous because it will unncessarily pit Marxists against the many diverse anti-globalization forces instead of focusing the revolutionary blow on the imperialists.

[red_che]

On a world scale, I think the word you want there is oligopoly...there are no true monopolies on a global scale (yet).

It's certainly true that huge corporations with their origins in the imperialist countries "dominate the world economy".

You seem to be at lost on what has been going on now. Today, it is not merely huge corporations that consist the monopolies, it's State Monopoly Capitalism where the State (Imperialist states) do the work for these "huge" corporations. The State apparatus is at the expense of the monopoly capitalists.


But I don't really see anything "new" about this...it's been going on since, well, the British East India Company.

Yeah, certainly, even during the Greek and Roman conquers. :rolleyes:

But the thing is today, there is no more division of the free market of the other countries. What these Imperialists are doing were struggling for redivision of the world for the nth time.


The anti-imperialist revolutions of the last century and this one are not "anti-capitalist", they are anti-foreign capitalist.

That is the case if you limit only those struggles to just against the Imperialists. But the fact is, they were not. Those revolutions were not just directed against Imperialism, but those were revolutions with socialist perspectives. Those revolutions were really to establish socialism.


This seems to me to be something that just has to happen...whether one is "for" or "against" it.

Hmm... I suspect you are espousing capitalism.


Those countries cannot "skip capitalism"...no matter how hard they "try". What they can do in this era is achieve "their own capitalism"...which means breaking the chains that imperialism has placed upon them.

There you are! Showing your true color. A bourgeois ideologue brandishing capitalism as a solution.


It is in our interests, as revolutionary anti-capitalists, to support those anti-imperialist struggles...especially those directed against "our own" bourgeoisie. People need to see that our own rulers are not "all powerful" and that they can be defeated.

You even had the guts to call this "in the interest of revolutionary anti-capitalists". :angry:

The struggle against the bourgeoisie, whether "our own bourgeoisie in our country" or "foreign bourgeoisie", is a struggle for socialism. The "New Democratic Revolution" shall extinguish all forms of capitalist relations while building the foundation for socialism. Why the need to build capitalism with all its destructive characteristics? While capitalism itself already reached its peak of development and in fact had already halted the natural development of those backward societies. The semi-feudal societies already became the social base of Imperialism, hence it suppresses these societies to develop in itself through its social agents, the local bourgeois-compradors and feudal landlords. Imperialism maintained the backwardness of these societies for it to become its base for cheap and docile labor, sources of raw materials and dumping site of surplus products.


It has been proven, whether you like it or not, by China and even Russia and all the other former semifeudal societies, that Socialism can be built in other less developed societies. For Capitalism itself has ceased to develop. It is now on its eve of decay.

[Hopes_Guevara]

I agree with GiveITall and Redstar. We can't stop globalization. That is an natural tendency of world economy nowadays. The development of the productive forces (includes science-technology) requires larger markets. The productive forces always tend to cross the border of a nation and rise up scope of the world. I think Redstar was right to say that being against globalization was like being against rotation of Earth. Globalization is a law and we can't be against laws although we like or not them.

However, I don't think the people (the poor, farmers...) who are harmed by globalization and hence against globalizations are anti-Marxist. As a matter of fact, nowadays globalization mostly serves only the rich because globalization essentially is a expandision of imperialism, a neo-colonism. The positions of the undeveloped nations what join the process of globalization is like that of the workers who work for the capitalists. The workers need the bougeoisie for their current lives but they are against the bourgeoisie for their future ones. And that is the law of contradiction Marx said. So is globalization. Joining and being against it are an inevitable tendency and necessary for the development of human society. Now I am seeing in the process of globalization a gradual accumulations of the material conditions for great revolutionary movements in the future.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by red_che
It has been proven, whether you like it or not, by China and even Russia and all the other former semifeudal societies, that Socialism can be built in other less developed societies.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

You certainly are the funniest Maoist on this board!

You should add this Russian joke to your routine...

Socialism is the period of transition between capitalism and capitalism.

So much for your "proof". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[red_che]

I agree with GiveITall and Redstar. We can't stop globalization. That is an natural tendency of world economy nowadays.

It was when capitalism was starting to look for other markets when their own domestic market wasn't enough due to their overporduction crisis. And it is also true that Imperialism has a tendency to expand its base (economic, political and social).

But the thing is, is this globalization the Imperialists are "selling" now really a global competition of all countries? No, it's not! Only the Imperialists are selling this idea of global free trade. Only fools would believe the Imperialists.

Since the start of the 20th century, the world market has already been divided by the Imperialists. It was redivided again and again whenever a general crisis occurred. There has been no part of the globe now that is out of reach/control of the Imperialists. As I was saying, this globalization thing is just an intensification of one Imperialist control over the world market, and it is just a mere competition among and between the Imperialists.



Globalization is a law and we can't be against laws although we like or not them.

The law of accumulation of capital which says that capitalists would certainly look for more market so as to accumulate more capital, that I agree with. But the idea that the underdeveloped countries should accept this thing (globalization) is certainly not I'm in agreement with and certainly unMarxist. The revolutionaries and communists of those underdeveloped nations should take the cudgels in opposing globalization and so should be also for the revolutionaries from the Imperialist and capitalist countries.

"The crisis is a bad thing. But we will gain nothing if we are afraid of it, because it obeys the objective laws of capitalism. We can understand these laws with the help of Marxism-Leninism. Victory will neither be easy nor achieved in a short time. But if the Marxist-Leninists tackle the situation caused by the crisis with a revolutionary line, the people will draw strength from their sufferings and will advance in struggle against the crisis programs of their respective governments as well as the IMF and the World Bank. The masses will advance through revolutionary struggle until the revolution for national and social liberation is victorious, until socialism is achieved."

Nothing in Marxism says that we should allow capitalist exploitation to happen. Nor Social Science dictates that these capitalist expropriations be allowed to bring more harm. We should not just sit and see these things happen before our very eyes. As Marxists, we must be the first to expose the rottenness of capitalism and encourage the broad masses of the proletarians and all exploited classes to rise up against any and all forms of capitalist/Imperialist exploitation and oppression.

To say that globalization can't be stopped is tantamount to saying that Capitalism itself cannot be overthrown. We must remember that what we are fighting against is the capitalist system itself, and this globalization program is part of this exploitative system that we want to overthrow.



redstar2000 Posted on Nov 26 2005, 04:43 PM

You certainly are the funniest Maoist on this board!

You should add this Russian joke to your routine...

Socialism is the period of transition between capitalism and capitalism.

So much for your "proof".

As for you, you petty-bourgeois intellectual horseshit, if you have nothing significant to say, just shut your mouth, neh!
=D =D =D

[KC]

Yeah, certainly, even during the Greek and Roman conquers.

Actually, that isn't true. Ancient Greece and Rome were pre-capitalist societies. They didn't travel to East Asia. There wasn't even a concept of big business. Instead of having a society based around commodities for exchange, they had a society based around gifts for exchange.



There you are! Showing your true color. A bourgeois ideologue brandishing capitalism as a solution.


Capitalism is a solution to feudalism, genius. Or were you against the French Revolution?



The struggle against the bourgeoisie, whether "our own bourgeoisie in our country" or "foreign bourgeoisie", is a struggle for socialism.

No it isn't. What if it is a fascist revolution? Is it a struggle for socialism then?


Why the need to build capitalism with all its destructive characteristics?

Because capitalism needs to evolve fully before it can continue to evolve towards communism.


While capitalism itself already reached its peak of development and in fact had already halted the natural development of those backward societies.

That is untrue. Globalization is raising the quality of life.




It has been proven, whether you like it or not, by China and even Russia and all the other former semifeudal societies, that Socialism can be built in other less developed societies. For Capitalism itself has ceased to develop. It is now on its eve of decay.


If capitalism has ceased to develop then it would die. Russia and China are poor examples as they are now capitalist and have accomplished nothing besides speeding up the transition between feudalism and capitalism.



But the thing is, is this globalization the Imperialists are "selling" now really a global competition of all countries? No, it's not! Only the Imperialists are selling this idea of global free trade. Only fools would believe the Imperialists.

The fact remains that globalization would happen regardless if people are for it or against it.


But the idea that the underdeveloped countries should accept this thing (globalization) is certainly not I'm in agreement with and certainly unMarxist. The revolutionaries and communists of those underdeveloped nations should take the cudgels in opposing globalization and so should be also for the revolutionaries from the Imperialist and capitalist countries.


The underdeveloped countries don't have to "accept" globalization. Whether they accept it or not, eventually someone is going to come into power that isn't opposed to it and it will happen. They can be for it or against it. This is irrelevent because it will still happen.



Nothing in Marxism says that we should allow capitalist exploitation to happen. Nor Social Science dictates that these capitalist expropriations be allowed to bring more harm. We should not just sit and see these things happen before our very eyes. As Marxists, we must be the first to expose the rottenness of capitalism and encourage the broad masses of the proletarians and all exploited classes to rise up against any and all forms of capitalist/Imperialist exploitation and oppression.

Your idea that "we can do anything we want if we try hard enough" gave me a good laugh. The thing that you don't seem to understand is that no matter how hard you try, no matter how much work you put into the cause, you will not be able to sway the masses enough to bring forth communism. Only when the material conditions are just right, will the proletariat be fit to revolt. The material conditions can't be created. This has been proven repeatedly. The system must evolve before it can be changed. People won't do it if they don't feel strongly enough that it is the right thing to do.



To say that globalization can't be stopped is tantamount to saying that Capitalism itself cannot be overthrown. We must remember that what we are fighting against is the capitalist system itself, and this globalization program is part of this exploitative system that we want to overthrow.

To say that globalization can't be stopped is tantamount to saying that Capitalism itself cannot be overthrown when the time isn't right. To say that the material conditions can be created if we try hard enough is tantamount to saying that if you flap your arms fast enough you will be able to fly.

[Hopes_Guevara]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 08:32 AM
But the thing is, is this globalization the Imperialists are "selling" now really a global competition of all countries? No, it's not! Only the Imperialists are selling this idea of global free trade. Only fools would believe the Imperialists.

Since the start of the 20th century, the world market has already been divided by the Imperialists. It was redivided again and again whenever a general crisis occurred. There has been no part of the globe now that is out of reach/control of the Imperialists. As I was saying, this globalization thing is just an intensification of one Imperialist control over the world market, and it is just a mere competition among and between the Imperialists.
Of course, the Imperialism are not charity. The final aim of it is always to gain much profits. Nobody would believes in the impracticable promises of the imperialists. As I said now globalization almost serves only the rich. But Lazar was right to say that the thing was not that whether the undeveloped countries accept, it was that those countries sooner or later will be carried away with the process of globalization. If they don't join it actively they will be also forced to join it because no country all over the world can now exist without any relation with other ones. Now countries always depend together on many fields: economy-finance, the natural resources, geography, politics... Moreover, globalization is not the process that has just happened lately. It has been in germ during the 19th century. At that time it was called, if I am not mistaken, internationalization on what Engels based to assert that a revolution could succeed only if it was carried out in many countries at the same time. Obviously globalization is an inevitable process at modern time. If so, why don't we make use of the advances of it to develop the relative forces and progress the material conditions of our own nations?


But the idea that the underdeveloped countries should accept this thing (globalization) is certainly not I'm in agreement with and certainly unMarxist. The revolutionaries and communists of those underdeveloped nations should take the cudgels in opposing globalization and so should be also for the revolutionaries from the Imperialist and capitalist countries.
It's just not unMarxist if you deny the real events. A genuine Marxist always knows how to accept the fact truth and try to change it within respecting the objective laws for the sake of oneself.


Nothing in Marxism says that we should allow capitalist exploitation to happen. Nor Social Science dictates that these capitalist expropriations be allowed to bring more harm. We should not just sit and see these things happen before our very eyes. As Marxists, we must be the first to expose the rottenness of capitalism and encourage the broad masses of the proletarians and all exploited classes to rise up against any and all forms of capitalist/Imperialist exploitation and oppression.
In capitalist societies, there's always the contradiction of rights and benefits between the working class and the bourgeoise but the former still need the latter. The workers still need jobs to maintain their own lives, they still need money as salaries paid by the bourgeoise to buy food and clothes. They know they are exploitated but they can't refuse jobs. So, they still have to work for their bosses, on the other hand, they evolt against the bourgeoise for their own rights. It's like that, the undeveloped countries still have to join globalization but they will fight against the exploitation of the imperialist countries. We would not just sit and see all things without doing anything. But we should know what we have to be for and what we have to fight against.


To say that globalization can't be stopped is tantamount to saying that Capitalism itself cannot be overthrown. We must remember that what we are fighting against is the capitalist system itself, and this globalization program is part of this exploitative system that we want to overthrow.
Globalization is a process but capitalism is a system. They are not one although they together have the relationship. Globalization in capitalism is bad but in socialism is very good. And, yes, this globalization program is a part of this exploitative system but it is also a material condition of developing the productive forces and the solidarity of the working classes between the countries all over the world, hence ready for revolutions in the futrue.

And finally, I do agree with Lazar for his saying "To say that globalization can't be stopped is tantamount to saying that Capitalism itself cannot be overthrown when the time isn't right. To say that the material conditions can be created if we try hard enough is tantamount to saying that if you flap your arms fast enough you will be able to fly"

[Punk Rocker]

The anti-globalization folks seem to suggest the possibility of a capitalism "that doesn't globalize".

That's rather like an earth that doesn't rotate.

The earth wouldn't rotate if it was blown to pieces.

You have a good point, the free market needs to spread to support itself. But capitalism can't globalize if we burn it to ashes.

Globalism is just the spread of rich ass corporate power through war and corruption. It always exploits people. Take the Colombian workers who are tortured and killed by Coke, or the Iraqis who's freedom has been stolen and packaged for Halliburton. More than enough people hate globalism, we can defeat it through revolution.

[KC]

You have a good point, the free market needs to spread to support itself. But capitalism can't globalize if we burn it to ashes.

People won't revolt until they are ready to. No matter what you say or do, you can't change this.



Globalism is just the spread of rich ass corporate power through war and corruption. It always exploits people. Take the Colombian workers who are tortured and killed by Coke, or the Iraqis who's freedom has been stolen and packaged for Halliburton. More than enough people hate globalism, we can defeat it through revolution.

These countries will develop within the capitalist system; they are not ready for communism. The whole world needs to be ready for communism; this is not yet true. The best the people of these countries can do is to have a socialist revolution which will speed up development "degenerate" into a more advanced capitalist state. These revolutions, however, speed up the process, so we must support them.

[kurt]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 10:41 PM
These revolutions, however, speed up the process, so we must support them.
Not to mention help weaken our own native bourgeois. Which is a very good thing for us in the first world.

[encephalon]

globalization is the process by which the labor aristocracy deteriorates and the global working class becomes unified. It is unavoidable, and while certain individuals--mostly of the labor aristocracy--will suffer from globalization, it is simply something that is happening and must happen in order for a global revolution to occur.

[red_che]

QUOTE


Yeah, certainly, even during the Greek and Roman conquers.



Actually, that isn't true. Ancient Greece and Rome were pre-capitalist societies. They didn't travel to East Asia. There wasn't even a concept of big business. Instead of having a society based around commodities for exchange, they had a society based around gifts for exchange.


QUOTE

There you are! Showing your true color. A bourgeois ideologue brandishing capitalism as a solution.




Capitalism is a solution to feudalism, genius. Or were you against the French Revolution?

You know, read the exchanges between me and redstar in this thread so you will know who I'm referring to here and why I made these comments, okay? Putak ka ng putak, e!


That is untrue. Globalization is raising the quality of life.

Hahaha.... Very funny! You made laugh real hard at this :lol: :lol: :lol:


Because capitalism needs to evolve fully before it can continue to evolve towards communism.

Are you at lost? Where have you been? Have you bee to Pluto or Mars during the last ten or twenty years?

You seem to not know the current condition of humanity in this planet!

You know, Capitalism is already in its decaying state.


If capitalism has ceased to develop then it would die.

It is. What with the two world wars that already happened. Is that not enough evi9dence of the material condition for socialism to arise?

You know, capitalism has already turned into Imperialism, its highest and last stage of development. It canno longer further develop itself, you know why? Because of its parasitism and due to the following characters which will lead itself in its own demise:

1. Concentration of production and monopolies.
2. Financial oligarchy.
3. Export of capital.
4. Economic division of the world.
5. Territorial division of the world and Wars and constant preparations for war.

You know, Lenin have already explained such characteristics in great detail, and as to the current situations, such characteristics of Imperialism are very much alive. Go, read it so you would come to your senses and know the real facts.


Only when the material conditions are just right, will the proletariat be fit to revolt.

So when do you think that material conditions are right? Should we wait till "kingdom come" for it to happen? You know, I agree with you that the conditions cannot be created. But the fact is, such conditions are now here. Never in the history of mankind, prior to capitalism, that people all over the world acted in unison against the many wars of aggression the Imperialist had waged. Isn't that enough to show the proletariat's readiness for revolution? As a matter of fact, several revolutions had already began.

You know, what prevents the proletariat from further advancing its struggle is the insistence of some people, like you, that now is not yet time for action. You were like saying, we have to wait.

If you really think that the conditions are not yet ripe, then wait for your salvation. Just sit there, and watch for events to unfold. Do nothing and let the proletariat act for themselves.


These countries will develop within the capitalist system; they are not ready for communism.

Hahaha... You're really funny... :D

Maybe, visit some thirld world countries so you would know what you are talking here. You're confused.


Not to mention help weaken our own native bourgeois. Which is a very good thing for us in the first world.

And also you. Accompany Lavar in visiting the third world countries, so you would know if this globalization really helped them develop. :lol:


Globalization is a process but capitalism is a system.

Globalization is not a process... It is a program created by the Imperialists to intensify their domination to the thirld world nations, and also to penetrate the market of those other underdevloped countries which are under the control of their opposing Imperialist countries. Got that? It is not a process within capitalism. Such process of integration by the less developed nations had already happened about 100 years ago. And you know what? No capitalist development happened in those feudal societies. What happened was that they became mere economic, political and social bases of the Imperialists.

Stop hoping that these Imperialist countries would allow the development of these undeveloped nations. They wouldn't allow additional competitors for themselves.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2005, 11:18 PM
However I do think that socialists and anarchists were correct to involve themselves in these movements in order to bring a larger anti-capitalist view to the movements and between the Seattle protests and the decline of the anti-globalization movement, most radical groups in the US grew in size and influence.
I'd question whether most of these groups did bring a "larger anti-capitalist view" to those protests...or accomodated to the economic nationalism of the protests, the labor bureaucracy (dumping steel in Seattle harbor), and even ultrarightist figures like Patrick Buchanan (who joined the Seattle protests.)

A couple past threads on globalization:
The WTO (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=41960)

Globalization (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=40514)

Part of one of my posts from the second:
To say someone "opposes globalization" conceals more than it reveals about their political stand. What are they for?

Many workers in Latin America, for example, oppose the "free trade" agreements because they expand imperialist economic domination of their countries, while allowing the imperialists to retain significant import barriers again Latin American products. Workers and trade unions in Latin America have raised demands against those import barriers. The most progressive forces in Latin America have promoted regional trade blocs, which do not include the imperialist countries, as an alternative. This is a form of anti-imperialist resistance.

In contrast, many workers in the U.S., and certainly the union officialdom, oppose the "free trade" agreements for the opposite reason: to save "American jobs" for "American workers". They may oppose the same things, but what they are for is opposite.

This stand has nothing to do with the interests of the world working class, or certainly class struggle! On the contrary, it involves defending the interests of sections of the U.S. capitalist class. The United Steelworkers of America has been "opposing globalization" through a joint campaign with the main steel companies to save "our companies" and "our industry" by means of import barriers. This provides the steel companies with the cover to blame imports and foreign competition as they weasel out of their pension obligations and screw thousands of retirees...with little opposition from the USWA officialdom.

It also converges with the "economic nationalist" demagogy of wannabe Fuehrers like Patrick Buchanan. He kicked off his last presidential campaign at a meeting hosted by the Independent Steelworkers Union in Weirton, PA, a steelmaking town. Those who support protectionism in the name of opposing globalization, are clearing the way for ultrarightist demagogy.

I might comment, incidentally, that despite widespread protectionist sentiment among U.S. workers, neither the labor officialdom nor anyone else has ever been very successful in mobilizing that sentiment in action.

As far as the trade policies of imperialist countries, the stand Karl Marx laid out is still valid today. After pointing out that workers will "go to the wall" under either protectionism or free trade, he said:
But, in general, the protective system of our day is conservative, while the free trade system is destructive. It breaks up old nationalities and pushes the antagonism of the proletariat and the bourgeoisie to the extreme point. In a word, the free trade system hastens the social revolution. It is in this revolutionary sense alone, gentlemen, that I vote in favor of free trade.

(Of course, agreements like NAFTA do not in fact implement free trade; numerous protectionist measures are retained.)

Additionally, we should solidarize with the oppressed countries and the workers of those countries, by demanding the abolition of all trade barriers against their imports in the imperialist countries.

In the semicolonial countries, in contrast, protectionist measures can be a necessary part of resisting imperialist economic domination and developing national industries. Regional trade blocs can also be progressive for this reason.

[kurt]

You know, read the exchanges between me and redstar in this thread so you will know who I'm referring to here and why I made these comments, okay?

I did, and I still think you don't understand the very basics of historical materialism.


Originally posted by RedStar2000
"Those countries cannot "skip capitalism"...no matter how hard they "try". What they can do in this era is achieve "their own capitalism"...which means breaking the chains that imperialism has placed upon them."
This is a very basic tenet of historical materialism. In order to have the neccessary material conditions for communist revolution, the country must have a period of capitalist development. In order to do so, these countries must throw off the chains of imperialism, which will pave the way for their own modern capitalist period of development. By saying this it does not make redstar "A bourgeois ideologue", like you suggest. It simply means he's capable of using historical materialism; something you clearly are not capable of. Or maybe you just don't like using it. After all, it's too "rigid".


And also you. Accompany Lavar in visiting the third world countries, so you would know if this globalization really helped them develop. :lol:
Globalization surely isn't "pretty", but only a fool would claim that being a serf is better than being a wage-slave. Wage slavery sucks, but being a serf sucks even more. This is why capitalism is progressive relative to feudalism.


Stop hoping that these Imperialist countries would allow the development of these undeveloped nations. They wouldn't allow additional competitors for themselves.
You're right in one way, the imperialist countries won't give up their semi-colonial possesions without a fight. But that's why we support revolutions in places like Nepal! We hope for the Nepalise people to throw off the chains of imperialism. However, unlike yourself, we realize that capitalism is the transition from feudalism.

Nepal could well be another "successful" socialist revolution. :lol:

[red_che]

This is a very basic tenet of historical materialism.

I do understand what you want to say here. But what you do not understand is this: Capitalism, on a world scale, is rotten to the core. It is very basic in historical materialism that once a definite social system has reached its peak of development, it will start its process of decay. And capitalism has reached that already, in fact since the start of 20th century.

So, why do these societies have to go through capitalism when it is already rotten to the core? There is no "skip" here. Capitalism is dying, don't you get that?

You are the one who limits your understanding of historical materialism to only a very particular detail, or to be more frank, you really didn't understand historical materialism at all. You're just pretending to be.


This is why capitalism is progressive relative to feudalism.

Of course, I know that! But I am not comparing capitalism with feudalism! I'm already way past that in this topic! I am already proposing socialism!

[KC]

Hahaha.... Very funny! You made laugh real hard at this

Compare it to feudalism/serfdom. Then maybe you'll stop laughing.




It is. What with the two world wars that already happened. Is that not enough evi9dence of the material condition for socialism to arise?

How are the two World Wars evidence of material conditions?



You know, capitalism has already turned into Imperialism, its highest and last stage of development. It canno longer further develop itself, you know why? Because of its parasitism and due to the following characters which will lead itself in its own demise:

1. Concentration of production and monopolies.
2. Financial oligarchy.
3. Export of capital.
4. Economic division of the world.
5. Territorial division of the world and Wars and constant preparations for war.

You know, Lenin have already explained such characteristics in great detail, and as to the current situations, such characteristics of Imperialism are very much alive. Go, read it so you would come to your senses and know the real facts.

Yes. Leninist (and Maoist) theory are of the most powerful. That, of course, is because of its efficiency in developing a peasant/serf/feudalist society into a capitalist one.



So when do you think that material conditions are right? Should we wait till "kingdom come" for it to happen? You know, I agree with you that the conditions cannot be created. But the fact is, such conditions are now here. Never in the history of mankind, prior to capitalism, that people all over the world acted in unison against the many wars of aggression the Imperialist had waged. Isn't that enough to show the proletariat's readiness for revolution?

That most certainly isn't enough to show the proletariat's readiness for revolution. If the proletariat were ready to revolt, they would do it. Of course, there is always the argument that "they don't know how to" (such as most Maoists/Leninists argue). They think that a vanguard is needed to "teach" people how to "revolt correctly". I'm sorry to tell you that that just isn't true. If the proletariat was ready to revolt, then they would. It's very simple.


As a matter of fact, several revolutions had already began.

Oh? There were several revolutions in the past. Guess how they turned out!



You know, what prevents the proletariat from further advancing its struggle is the insistence of some people, like you, that now is not yet time for action. You were like saying, we have to wait.


Really? Me saying that we should wait prevents the proletariat from revolting? People like me saying this? Do you know how many people must be saying this worldwide? Maybe in the thousands somewhere. Clearly not a large percentage of the proletariat. Besides, doesn't this just show how unready the proletariat is to revolt? If the proletariat isn't revolting, then the material conditions aren't right. Nobody has to "tell them" when to revolt. They will know. Me saying we have to wait will have no effect on them (If I was a Frenchman during the French Revolution and I said "Let's wait!" do you think many people would listen to me?!).



If you really think that the conditions are not yet ripe, then wait for your salvation. Just sit there, and watch for events to unfold. Do nothing and let the proletariat act for themselves.


Well here is an interesting contradiction that you have made. You tell me to sit back and wait while the proletariat "acts for themselves". What you fail to understand is that the material conditions are right when the proletariat acts. You can reverse this and say "the proletariat acts when the material conditions are right" but it doesn't make much of a difference. The proletariat will act when they are ready to and no sooner. When they are ready to act is when material conditions are right.

You don't think the proletariat should "act for themselves"? You think they need help? What are you going to do to help them?




Maybe, visit some thirld world countries so you would know what you are talking here. You're confused.


Maybe study historical materialism a little better. A country can't "skip a system" no matter how hard it tries. Sorry, but the conditions just aren't there. If you would like to refute me on this, give me evidence of a country that has "skipped a system".




And also you. Accompany Lavar in visiting the third world countries, so you would know if this globalization really helped them develop. laugh.gif

It's Lazar. Let's not resort to petty name calling here. Let's have a rational debate. After all, I'm not attacking you; I am just attacking your ideas. If you would like to resort to name calling, that just shows how little of a defense you have. If that was a mistake, though, I apologize.

The third world countries have developed. They are better now than they were before globalization. If you have evidence otherwise, please present it.



Globalization is not a process... It is a program created by the Imperialists to intensify their domination to the thirld world nations, and also to penetrate the market of those other underdevloped countries which are under the control of their opposing Imperialist countries. Got that? It is not a process within capitalism.

Globalization is a process of any socio-economic system (the economic part). When a single socio-economic system dominates the globe, it is obvious that the system is going to integrate itself once the means to do so arises. Globalization isn't a "program" that was "created" by anybody. The fact that corporations have moved production overseas is a decision made by people, yes. But it was a necessary one. It was a necessary move for companies that wanted to survive. Capitalism is about competition. Morals have long ago been thrown out the window in search of economic superiority. In order for these companies to be able to compete (and survive) they had to go overseas. All the imperialists didn't one day sit down and say "let's globalize and stick it to those third world countries!" That simply didn't happen. They realized that they had to do it to survive, and they did.


Such process of integration by the less developed nations had already happened about 100 years ago. And you know what? No capitalist development happened in those feudal societies. What happened was that they became mere economic, political and social bases of the Imperialists.

That is because the people never pushed for it (and if they did, they didn't push hard enough). As you say, massive reform (which rarely works) or revolution is needed to develop these countries. Nobody is denying the need of revolution in these countries. What we are denying is the fact that they can go from feudalism to communism. It doesn't happen.



Stop hoping that these Imperialist countries would allow the development of these undeveloped nations. They wouldn't allow additional competitors for themselves.


Again, nobody is saying that.



I do understand what you want to say here. But what you do not understand is this: Capitalism, on a world scale, is rotten to the core. It is very basic in historical materialism that once a definite social system has reached its peak of development, it will start its process of decay. And capitalism has reached that already, in fact since the start of 20th century.

So, why do these societies have to go through capitalism when it is already rotten to the core? There is no "skip" here. Capitalism is dying, don't you get that?

Because the world right now is capitalist. Every country in the world will degenerate into capitalism because of the influence of the rest of the world on said country. The only way that a country could "skip a phase" would be to have a worldwide communist revolution. The "feudal" countries would turn communist (actually, they would disappear, but you know what I mean). So the only way to "skip a phase" would be worldwide revolution.



You are the one who limits your understanding of historical materialism to only a very particular detail, or to be more frank, you really didn't understand historical materialism at all. You're just pretending to be.

Please, refrain from such pointless insults. It does no good to anybody.



Of course, I know that! But I am not comparing capitalism with feudalism! I'm already way past that in this topic! I am already proposing socialism!

If you knew that then why are you telling me how funny I am for saying that globalization has raised living standards in third-world countries?

[red_che]

Compare it to feudalism/serfdom. Then maybe you'll stop laughing.

Kid, we are not talking here of feudalism or serfdom. We are talking here of the present situation. Stop comparing capitalism with the past societies for that is not the topic at hand.


How are the two World Wars evidence of material conditions?

Isn't that a manifestation of the general crisis of Imperialism?!!!


It's Lazar. Let's not resort to petty name calling here.

Ooops! Sorry, my mistake. Coold down. When I refer to your name in this board, is that already petty name-calling? So, how would you like me to call you then?


If you knew that then why are you telling me how funny I am for saying that globalization has raised living standards in third-world countries?

You really are confusing. Are you the one named comradekurt? Are those who appeared here as Lazar and comradekurt the same?

The context of my discussion with comradekurt is different with the one we are discussing. So, do not just enter into somebody else's talk without knowing what they are talking, okay?

[KC]

Kid, we are not talking here of feudalism or serfdom. We are talking here of the present situation. Stop comparing capitalism with the past societies for that is not the topic at hand.

Trying to belittle me by calling me kid is pointless? Why continue with the irrelevent insults? Anyways, what we are talking about isn't feudalist society. We are talking about countries that are still "feudalist". We are comparing capitalism to the current state that these countries are in. That is the topic at hand.



Ooops! Sorry, my mistake. Coold down. When I refer to your name in this board, is that already petty name-calling? So, how would you like me to call you then?

Firstly, my name isn't Lavar. And secondly, I did apoligize if it was an honest mistake. I would like you to call me Lazar, as I stated in my previous post.



You really are confusing. Are you the one named comradekurt? Are those who appeared here as Lazar and comradekurt the same?

No.



The context of my discussion with comradekurt is different with the one we are discussing. So, do not just enter into somebody else's talk without knowing what they are talking, okay?

I will reply to what I wish to reply to. If I feel that I can add to the debate then I will contribute to it. If you want to have a private debate with comradekurt then you are free to do so through PM's.

I am still waiting for you to reply to my post.

[kurt]

I do understand what you want to say here. But what you do not understand is this: Capitalism, on a world scale, is rotten to the core. It is very basic in historical materialism that once a definite social system has reached its peak of development, it will start its process of decay. And capitalism has reached that already, in fact since the start of 20th century.
Capitalism is very advanced in some countries in the world. In others, it hasn't even begun to fully develop. For some reason however, you seem to think Maoists in third world countries can somehow skip over the capitalist stage of development and jump right into socialism/communism. We've already seen what happens when that is attempted, the result is capitalism. Material conditions prevail yet again.


So, why do these societies have to go through capitalism when it is already rotten to the core? There is no "skip" here. Capitalism is dying, don't you get that?
When a country is still locked in the chains of feudalism, they are not capitalist. Attempting to get to socialism is indeed a "skip". Capitalism can't die when it hasn't even been born yet!

[FalceMartello]

Prehaps a scenario would make this easier to understand, Redche. You are very correct in saying that Capitalism is at it's highest stage of development and will soon begin to decay, however, capitalism has not dominated the world completely yet. All of the 3rd world nations will defintily throw off the chains of imperialism, but will not build socialism after that, they will all build capitalsim, because the material conditions are not there. Then, the entire world will be capitalist on a more equal scale than today. As competition builds, natrually, the misery of the international proletariat also builds, then the material conditions will be there.

Globalization is helping to build the material conditions for the revolution. It will cause anti-imperialist revolutions in the third world that will only lead to capitalism. However Globalization does another thing that makes the international proletariat revolution much more possible. It destroys national character, national culture, it creates an international language and former national languages are reduced to something similar to dialects in Italy. It also build the means of communication to a level unseen before. (Just read the Manifesto...this is in there)

Prehaps this will make more sense to you.

[red_che]

Capitalism is very advanced in some countries in the world. In others, it hasn't even begun to fully develop. For some reason however, you seem to think Maoists in third world countries can somehow skip over the capitalist stage of development and jump right into socialism/communism. We've already seen what happens when that is attempted, the result is capitalism. Material conditions prevail yet again.

Okay, I will keep on insisting you that capitalism is rotten, that it has ceased to further develop.

While it is true that the productive forces in capitalism continue to develop, most notably the means of production and the skills of the workingmen, its corresponding relations of production, i.e. wages, lagged behind. The vast majority of humanity cannot buy the products they made. The capitalists are beset with the crisis of overproduction which cannot be consumed by the populace. The relations of production became the barrier to capitalism's further development. As such, this contradiction between the forces of production and relations of production have resulted into ever-deepening and unprecedented crises that burst out into destructive steps by the Imperialists (WWI and WWII, and the many wars of aggression by the Imperialists).

Such conditions made it ripe for the proletariat to act now and overthrow the capitalist system. Such is the material condition for the establishment of socialism even in the 3rd world nations.

Now, as to this "skip" thing you are insisting, there is no skip that would happen. As I have said, the capitalist system already had reahed its highest stage of development so there is no need for the less developed societies to establish capitalism.


All of the 3rd world nations will defintily throw off the chains of imperialism, but will not build socialism after that, they will all build capitalsim, because the material conditions are not there.

The material condition needed for establishment of socialism is modern industry. And that is what these less developed countries have to do, modernize the industry without the need of establishing the corresponding capitalist relations of production. That is not a skip. Capitalism isn't the call of time now. Capitalism already needs to be overthrown. The socialist revolution had began. It had started already since the Paris Commune and the 1917 October revolution. It needs to be continued now.

[KC]

Red che, please reply to my last two posts.

[Severian]

Originally posted by comradekurt+Nov 29 2005, 08:54 PM--> (comradekurt @ Nov 29 2005, 08:54 PM)
RedStar2000
"Those countries cannot "skip capitalism"...no matter how hard they "try". What they can do in this era is achieve "their own capitalism"...which means breaking the chains that imperialism has placed upon them."
This is a very basic tenet of historical materialism. In order to have the neccessary material conditions for communist revolution, the country must have a period of capitalist development. [/b]
I'm sorry, no. That's a total oversimplification of historical materialism.

Historical materialism says that society's development is based on economic foundations. It does not say that every country must go through the same stages of social development, regardless of what's happened in the social and economic development of the world!

Those who do say that are demonstrably wrong, since the history of different countries has certainly followed different paths!

It's this kind of ridiculous oversimplification that contributes to many people understandably rejecting Marxism. Understandably, if this schema is mistaken for Marxism.

Also, you refer to countries "locked in the chains of feudalism" and "not yet capitalist."

What countries are you talking about? There are no countries where feudal property relations or serfdom and similar forms of unfree labor predominate.

There are countries which still have semifeudal remnants mixed with capitalist forms of exploitation, all ultimately in service to imperialist finance capital.

The mere development of capitalism is not going to abolish those, nor is the bourgeoisie, in any country, going to lead a revolution against semifeudal crap and imperialist oppression.

Only workers' and peasants' revolution is going to deal with that...

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Severian
Historical materialism says that society's development is based on economic foundations. It does not say that every country must go through the same stages of social development, regardless of what's happened in the social and economic development of the world!

Oh?

How then do you propose to develop a proletarian consciousness in countries where the majority of people are still peasants?

I know! You will impose a despotism on them that will "make them into communists" no matter what.

News Flash: It's been tried! It didn't work!

Of course, your reply is "that's because of evil Stalinism. Give us Trotskyists the chance and we'll prove we can get the job done right."

I can just imagine. :lol:

Still, your criticism of my interpretation of what historical materialism really means is not without interest.

It illustrates the idealist core of the Leninist paradigm rather well.

We can do whatever we want and objective material conditions are irrelevant.

Gramsci understood Leninism better than the Leninists...and still supported them.

I draw different conclusions.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[RedJacobin]

Originally posted by [email protected] 25 2005, 01:49 AM
I was discussing with a comrade the other day and he expressed a view which I've never heard before. He said that being against Globalization:

"is anti-Marxist. Globalization in a broad sense makes the world a single community with a single culture, language, politico-economic system etc. Is this not what is needed for the international proletariat revolution? So why should we be against it? Not that we should support the effects this has on people (poverty, hunger, death etc), but do we really want to stop Globalization? Marx expresses in his works that the revolution is becoming more possible because Capitalism is bringing all the world together under the same system and communcation has surpassed farther than it ever has allowing revolution to spread much easier."

What do you think of this and have you heard this before?
Do the words "globalization" and "free trade" even mean anything? In practice, "free trade" means the removal of protective tariffs by oppressed countries and the maintenance of tariffs by the imperialist countries. Just look at the huge subsidies that US agribusiness receives from the state every year.

[red_che]

We can do whatever we want and objective material conditions are irrelevant.

Don't put words over our mouths. :angry:

Read my posts so you would know if I ever have said that phrase! :angry:


Still, your criticism of my interpretation of what historical materialism really means is not without interest.

It illustrates the idealist core of the Leninist paradigm rather well.

Your historical materialism is one that is immobile materialism and one that is just waiting for something or waiting for "kingdom come". That is not materialism.

The material conditions you were saying is really nothing. I wonder you are calling yourself a revolutionary while doing nothing but to wait for your "material condition" to arise!

You are blind with the realities of today.

The real condition for socialist revolution to erupt at any place of the globe was now put in place. Since no part of the globe is left untouched by capitalism (except maybe the jungles where the chimpanzees were living or the deepest part of the the Pacific Ocean), any country can start their socialist revolution by building the necessary foundations for socialism, that is, modern industry and planned economy. After all, the technology needed for modern industry has already been developed by capitalism itself.


Red che, please reply to my last two posts.

Just read my posts! They are intended to all.