JC1
13th February 2007, 03:39
The US invaded Iraq to make super profit's off of its natural resources and other sector's. To secure the Iraqi's loyalty they set aside funds for schools hospitals and basic nessitys (I believe if they had of built schools and hospitals there would be no war). This was however gobbled by corrupt entity's (allegedly), and so the social struggle was delayed. The world's "only superpowers" failure in iraq prooves capitalisms completely decadent, even more so than in the 20th century. I believe this means the demand for socialism is now correct in all country's, and because capitalism is a WORLD system every country it infects becomes decadent.
Iraq disproves the RedTsar/Anarchist/Menshevik thesis that 3rd world country still need to experience democratic revolution. These country (e.g. Iraq) all have some industrial bases (to varying degree's), even though they experience backwards class relations and foreign relations. Iraq prooves the marxist thesis SOCIALIST revolution is nessecary, because in Iraq the Alternatives are total barberism (Shiite Death Cult's) or Imperialist Barberism (The US raping the country and developing only one sector of the economy) .
Does anyone still advocate the Menshevik/Anarchist strategy of two stage revolution in the 3rd world. I say anarchist because they advocate anarchist revolution, witch in Ukraine and Mexico was a peasant land grab, and in spain was that mixed with Anti fascist, radical liberal posturing, and fake workers rule (most anarchists did not expropriate bosses property). That in my opinion is a petit bourgoise democratic revolt.
Iraq disproves the RedTsar/Anarchist/Menshevik thesis that 3rd world country still need to experience democratic revolution. These country (e.g. Iraq) all have some industrial bases (to varying degree's), even though they experience backwards class relations and foreign relations. Iraq prooves the marxist thesis SOCIALIST revolution is nessecary, because in Iraq the Alternatives are total barberism (Shiite Death Cult's) or Imperialist Barberism (The US raping the country and developing only one sector of the economy) .
Does anyone still advocate the Menshevik/Anarchist strategy of two stage revolution in the 3rd world. I say anarchist because they advocate anarchist revolution, witch in Ukraine and Mexico was a peasant land grab, and in spain was that mixed with Anti fascist, radical liberal posturing, and fake workers rule (most anarchists did not expropriate bosses property). That in my opinion is a petit bourgoise democratic revolt.