capitalist imperialism our ally?

[spartan]

let me put it this way is thee revolution not a revolution or the revolution but thee revolution ie the big one which will kill off capitalism and inaugurate socialism likely to occur in some backward thinking third world dictatorship or in a world unified by capitalist imperialism. this place is split into those who think a revolution is only possible in the third world and those who think that a revolution will only occur when capitalism reaches its highest stage and the necessary conditions require a revolution.

[Tower of Bebel]

The revolution will succeed where the bourgeoisie is weak and the socialist forces are strong enough to overthrow them. You had both in russia in 1917. The revolution will happen where the social and economic crisis (amongst workers) is translated in a political uprising of the workers (St. Petersburg, February/March 1917).

So you could look for a region, a country, where socialist forces are strong and/or bourgeois forces are weak, and where a social and/or economic crisis can be predicted.

[spartan]

should we oppose capitalism trying to reach its ultimate stage by invading economically attractive nations such as iraq. i mean surely capitalism is getting rid of a problem that we wont have to deal with when the revolution comes.

[spartan]

yes but socialism is not really strong in the west sure some students find it fashionable until they become buissnessmen and social democratic parties are the most popular in europe but the fact is these are not the vanguard as students become disalushioned and the mainstream social democratic parties are now firm liberal capitalist parties. the only place socialism is popular is in the third world but even if they were united they still could not defeat the first world. that is why capiutalist imperialism should not be resisted for it will bring capitalism to its ultimate stage quicker and thus the global socialist revolution. only then may we resist capitalism.

[Tower of Bebel]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 04:37 pm
should we oppose capitalism trying to reach its ultimate stage by invading economically attractive nations such as iraq. i mean surely capitalism is getting rid of a problem that we wont have to deal with when the revolution comes.
What are you trying to say? The invasion of Iraq created a much bigger problem. It wasn't a solution.

[spartan]

yes but it isnt a communist problem its a capitalist problem.if the us gets kicked out of iraq by the extremists this will not only be a capitalist loss but also a socialist loss for one more state would have gone backwards meaning if there is a socialist revolution in the region iraq will be a bigger problem than if it was the capitalist imperials puppy.

[Tower of Bebel]

The problem is that capitalism, in whatever stage, is the enemy of the working class.

[spartan]

yes capitalism is our biggest enemy but the fact is you cannot tackle capitalism with religious and nationalist movements like the extremists are doing in iraq. nor can you tackle capitalism with socialism for the fact is the whole world is not completly under the control of pro capitalist imperialists. the us has done a good job with pax americana but they have ultimately failed(evidenced by the idiotic vietnam like war in iraq). all this has done is allow the next three capitalist superpowers of brazil,china and india to significantly close the gap to america to the point where some time very soon these next three superpowers will be dictating how the capitalist world is run.this century is going to be capitalism last big century where things get to such a stage that things can only get worse for capitalism. but it will be brazil,china and india leading us then not the us. we should not tackle capitalism until the necessary conditions are here nor should we support these extremists even if they fought capitalists in the middle of a socialist revolution for the fact is having a large group with a completly different ideology to us as are allies is very dangerous for us for they could stab us in the back anytime they like for they dont have anything in common with us socialists.

[Tower of Bebel]

I believe you believe in the theory of the two stages? First capitalism and only then socialism?

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 17, 2007 11:10 am
nor can you tackle capitalism with socialism for the fact is the whole world is not completly under the control of pro capitalist imperialists.
So the logical conclusion from this would be: help the imperialists get control of the "whole world".

And worse: postpone all struggle for socialism until that day (which will never arrive.) No one group of capitalists will ever control everything.

In reality, capitalism is predominant everywhere, and Uncle Sam's "Islamic fundamentalist" opponents, represent rival gangs of capitalists as well as rural landlords. Capitalism does dominate the world, and yes every part of the world. There are important remnants of feudalism in some countries - and heck, there's leftover garbage that sure ain't completely bourgeois-democratic in every country.

But capitalism is not going to fix this. Its revolutionary period is over - it has not led a thoroughgoing revolution since the late 18th or maybe early 19th century. In 1848 it became apparent, through experience, that capitalists now feared to lead that kind of revolution since it might set the working class in motion for our own goals.

Certainly Uncle Sam is not in the business of making that kind of revolution. One of the closest things to a "feudal" force in modern politics was the Afghan mujahedeen, who rose up because they were enraged by the land reform and secularism promoted by the People's Democratic Party of Afghanistan. The mujahedeen were, of course, backed by Uncle Sam.

No, only the working class can today lead a revolution that will thoroughly smash what's left of feudal crap in the world today. The Russian Revolution, the Chinese Revolution, the Cuban Revolution - whatever else you think of them, they did away with all that antiquated crap - more thoroughly than the French, the English, the American Revolution, even.

Part of that, of course, is smashing imperial domination. Bourgeois-democratic revolutions have always involved fighting for a united and independent nation - ever since the Dutch war of independence against Spain which set up the first bourgeois-democratic republic - the United Provinces.

That bourgeois-democratic revolution, BTW, proceeded in the name of religion. Those 17th-century Dutch Calvinists could be downright fanatical about their religion, which expressed their bourgeois class interests....

I digress. The point is, that clearing the way for capitalism worldwide does involve fighting against imperialism, which holds the Third World in economic subjection and underdevelopment - that's why so many capitalist forces have come in conflict with imperialism while seeking to economically develop their countries.

[Severian]

BTW, Spartan is actually making the same argument as the people who support Islamic fundamentalists or anyone else as long as they're against imperialism. Maybe it's even a deliberate devil's-advocate argument.

Anyway, it's a lesser-evil argument - he just figures imperialism is the lesser evil, while other people figure Islamists are the lesser evil.

I'd make basically the same counter-argument in either case. Raccoon's basically pointing at the same thing, the false "two stage" strategy which supposes the capitalists can be left to lead the first stage of the revolution.

Spartan's profile says: "the enemy of my enemy is not my friend unless the enemy of my enemy is a socialist." Well, George W. Bush is not a socialist.

[spartan]

capitalism right now is not in a the stage that would lead to a socialist revolution. the fact is supporting capitalist imperialists current enemies such as religious extremists is not going to help progress capitalism and thus socialism.

[Idola Mentis]

Just to test your conviction here, presenting the same argument with a different evil:

Would you defend and promote the practice of baby juggling if you could be convinced that the progress of this art would hurry the coming of the socialist revolution?

[spartan]

if it would help wouldnt you or do you like living under capitalism! anyway baby juggling dosent help anyone except lunatics.

[chimx]

So the logical conclusion from this would be: help the imperialists get control of the "whole world".

And worse: postpone all struggle for socialism until that day (which will never arrive.) No one group of capitalists will ever control everything.

But imperialism isn't working the same way as it was in the late 19th century. 1st world countries aren't the industrial powerhouses that are simply exploiting colonial resources. Instead we are seeing a movement currently towards bilateral free trade pacts, where "third-world" countries have an industrial basis and are then able to create finance capital abroad.

Recently there was the creation of the US-ROK FTA, and analysts generally agree that while it is indeed going to create hard times for Korean farmers in the short terms, it will have a significantly better effect on Korea's economy to that of the US.

And of course the world is moving away from bilateral trade agreements and beginning to favor multilateral free trade arrangements. The point is that these trade agreements is creating a breakdown of the colonial/imperial relationship as finance capital is being rushed into colonial countries. As colonial economies become stronger and stronger, there will inevitably be the necessity of imperial countries re-industrializing. I support only time will tell...

I agree with Lenin that it is only through the breakdown of the imperialist web that we can see socialist revolution, but I do disagree that national liberation movements are the answer--especially when these national liberation movements advocate theocratic measures that will ultimately not be in the interests of the countries working class. I'm fairly sure this is all Spartan is trying to say.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 07:20 am
capitalism right now is not in a the stage that would lead to a socialist revolution.
You just keep repeating yourself. How about you actually back up your points, and address the counter-arguments that I and others have made?

If you can't at least try to back up your points, I'll have to conclude you're just trolling.

[Severian]

Originally posted by [email protected] 18, 2007 10:17 am

So the logical conclusion from this would be: help the imperialists get control of the "whole world".

And worse: postpone all struggle for socialism until that day (which will never arrive.) No one group of capitalists will ever control everything.

But imperialism isn't working the same way as it was in the late 19th century. 1st world countries aren't the industrial powerhouses that are simply exploiting colonial resources. Instead we are seeing a movement currently towards bilateral free trade pacts, where "third-world" countries have an industrial basis and are then able to create finance capital abroad.

Recently there was the creation of the US-ROK FTA, and analysts generally agree that while it is indeed going to create hard times for Korean farmers in the short terms, it will have a significantly better effect on Korea's economy to that of the US.
You mean, the spokespeople for the bourgeoisie say. You gotta ask: if this was true, why would the U.S. be promoting it?

Truth is, Korea built up a significant base of Korean-owned corporations through protecting its domestic market, while the U.S. for Cold War reasons allowed Korea access to the U.S. market as well.

The experience of NAFTA shows that in fact these agreements reinforce economic dependency. Also that these "free trade agreements" are not about free trade - the dominant economic power insists on retaining all kinds of provisions to protect its own domestic market.

Which is why the more progressive forces in Latin America, including the labor movement, typically oppose these imperialist-sponsored trade agreements. Additionally, the sections of the capitalist class that favor a more rounded and independent development of national capital are trying to create their own trade agreements, excluding the U.S.: Mercosur, ALBA.


And of course the world is moving away from bilateral trade agreements and beginning to favor multilateral free trade arrangements.

It'd be more accurate to say: the world is seeing the emergence of contending trading blocs, as one form of rivalry between the different capitalist classes. EU vs the US-sponsored trade agreements vs ASEAN and maybe other Third World trade blocs.


The point is that these trade agreements is creating a breakdown of the colonial/imperial relationship as finance capital is being rushed into colonial countries.

Again, if it was breaking down the colonial/imperial relationship, why would Washington be promoting them?

The export of finance capital to the colonial countries is actually a classic feature of modern imperialism, which was described by Lenin and others in the early 20th century. While its currently allowing a certain degree of industrialization - and good, since that increases the numbers of the world working class - that's a one-sided, dependent, and limited industrialization. For example, it's heavily skewed towards those industries most dependent on lots of cheap labor, like garment. Also towards heavily polluting industries.

[chimx]

You mean, the spokespeople for the bourgeoisie say. You gotta ask: if this was true, why would the U.S. be promoting it?

Because it isn't hurting the American economy, just benefiting it less than Korea. According to the Korean Economic Institute, a full trade liberalization would create a GDP increase of 2.4% for South Korea, or about $10.8 billion. Comparatively, the US is only expecting to see a GDP increase of 0.13%, which works out to be about $8.9 billion. source (http://keia.org/4-Current/KORUSFTASternWebFinal.pdf)


Truth is, Korea built up a significant base of Korean-owned corporations through protecting its domestic market, while the U.S. for Cold War reasons allowed Korea access to the U.S. market as well.

I'm not one to disagree here. Park Chung-hee's emphasis on industrialization and creating an export-oriented economy is what made it so successful. And unlike China, Korea seems to be able to transform itself away from an export-oriented model.


The experience of NAFTA shows that in fact these agreements reinforce economic dependency.

If you have any finance discussion links, or would like to elaborate on this I would be interested to hear about it. While NAFTA may have hurt parts of the Mexican agrarian sector, it is my understanding that Mexico's overall exports have increased since the creation of NAFTA.

Also, the US has lots of trade agreements. The Chile-US FTA is one example.


It'd be more accurate to say: the world is seeing the emergence of contending trading blocs, as one form of rivalry between the different capitalist classes. EU vs the US-sponsored trade agreements vs ASEAN and maybe other Third World trade

Yes that is precisely what I meant. From what I have read, this is actually one of the largest criticisms of the current free trade model from the neo-liberal camp. The argumentation being that the creation of trading blocs ultimately hinders free trade.

[Whitten]

Imperialism keep capitalism alive by maintaining conditions in the Imperialist nations which are unsuitable for socialist revolution. Imperialism breeds its own distruction, anti-imperialism (in any form). Once anti-imperialist revolutions have succeeded throughout most of the world, the conditions in the Imperialist nations will deteriate to a point where they suit socialist revolution.

The reason anti-imperialist national-democratic revolution so often follow on to socialist/quasi-socialist revolution is because the material conditions with the third-world nations under national-capitalism are (or rapidly become) such that proletarian uprising is supported.