Aiding Less-Developed Nations under Socialism

[BobKKKindle$]

In recent months I have undergone a political transition from studying class struggle and the class antagonism on a purely national basis; between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat within a country, to studying the international class struggle that exists between 'Imperialist/Developed' Countries and Countries that fulfill the economic role of the proletariat in terms of international class analysis - they do not have control over their economic resources, and do not have ownership of the goods and services that are produced within their borders through the use of their labour and raw materials. In undergoing this transition, I have come to read a great deal of Maoist Literature and have examined historical examples of anti Imperialist Revolution.

Of Particular interest in my studies has been learning about how what at first appears to be a means by which 'poor countries' can gain access to technology and economic development that they might not otherwise be able to access - investement - is in fact an additional form of exploitation. I have also learned about how aid actually benefits the donor countries through the imposition of conditions whereby the recieving state has to spend the aid on commodities produced by the donor country - thereby resulting in 3/4 of the aid returning to the country from which it came.

On a related note, I have also read that Lenin believed that Russia could only attain Socialism with the assisatnce of other, more developed countries, that had undergone socialist revolutions and had undergone greater development of their forces of produciton.

What I would be interested to know is - If Revolutions occurred in Developed and Developing countries - what could developed countries do to close the disparity in wealth and development without forcing new conditions of control and exploitation on these countries? I believe this is a question of fundamental importance, because if we truly believe that the proletariat can cast off the chains of divisive and flawed ideologies such as Nationalism and Racism and unite, we cannot afford to be concerned with the exploitation of the proletariat within our immiediete frame of reference, we also have to consider the needs of the international proletariat - because we are not fighting for the workers of (Insert Country) we are - surely - fighting for The Workers of the World (Who have Nothing to lose but their chains ;) )

[Severian]

Yes, this is very important.

There's some practical experience with it already - since there have been anticapitalist revolutions in countries with considerable differences in development. Even within the USSR alone, there were large gaps - especially between the European and Central Asian republics.

On this one subject, there was something to be said for Soviet policy: it did work to raise up the least developed regions. Industrial development, electrification, education, etc. were subsidized by the more developed. Yugoslavia's another example that's interesting to look at.

In international relations, also, COMECON conducted trade on terms favorable to the less developed countries. Ordinarily, the producers of raw materials are shortchanged by the producers of manufactured goods. That was largely reversed within COMECON.

Within the limits of its lower level of development, Cuba's made an even bigger effort. Mostly what it has to contribute are people and education. Not only does it send doctors and technicians - not only does it educate international students in its own schools - its set up medical and other schools in a number of coutnries.

A revolutionary workers' government in a more developed country, could do even more in this direction. It's necessary to promote a rounded industrial development - not relegating any country to purely raw material or cheap labor industries - but not to promote a reactionary "self-sufficiency." Different countries can combine their different economic strengths and potentials.

So: favorable terms for the exchange of products, educational aid, building/sending means of production or whole factories, help in constructing infrastructure, loans...there are a lot of potential forms of aid. Unlike aid by capitalist countries, it does not have to promote dependency; the factories and so forth would not be foreign-owned.

I've been speaking of aid between different states; which of course would be transitional towards the merger of different countries in a world without borders. But within that world federation the same basic process would have to continue, of raising up the less developed regions.

Che Guevara (http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1965/02/24.htm) once made some very specific proposals on economic relations between the "socialist countries" and the Third World[/url]