JC1
28th September 2007, 04:19
In the media ya here some guys talking like "3rd world" countries like cKhina, india, et cet tra, are going to to surpass the us\/. Ya here alotta noise about about the us\/ trade defict with china. I^ had some thoughts percolatin' in my head about the current international class structure my self.
If china, for example called in the loan on the us\/, all there direct investment would collapse and alotta of domestic sectors would collapse because thats where the cash for em comes from.
Realy, the "China/India/Brazil/Mexico/Iran/whatever" threat the pig media is just most ficticious threats. In reality these country's cant posture against imperialist\/ powers because there country's wealth is based on "western" investment and consumption. Iran sells its oil to us\/, and china/mexico/india'z factory's are eithier owned directly by us/eu/japan/whatever\/ (meaning said imperialists just shut em down in a trade war and move em), and the ones who are joint ventures or domesticly owned sell there shit to us too. Country's like saudi arabia operate like big indian reperations, with the population eithier paid off or totaly excluded, but neithier section have any say in anything.
These country's dont have the capacity for independent policy, and the most succsesful capitalist there emigrate or have dual-citizenships. Most are just managers for us\/ capital. The diffrence between 21st century imperialism and 20th is that in the 21st century the underdevelopment of the "3rd" world cant happen as effectivly. Now the imperialist\/ in the "3rd" world are not just looking for natural resources, there looking for modern production but in a much larger way, there even looking for new markets (albeit limitid in comparison to home country's).They have much less of a feudal structure to prop against domestic capital and labour.
Nowadays there alotta "3rd" worlds country's that like in the 20th century have ruling classes pretty much impotent against imperialism, negating the capitalist class as the developer/national libarator's of these country's. Although this goes against the popular thesis on revleft that a qualitive change has occured (i.e. these country's have/are breaking there colonial changes, capitalism is positive there, capitalism is all that will occur but maybe call its self something else, et cet tra), locals here are correct to have to observed a change. A quantative change. In many "3rd" world country's, the colonial status remains unchanged, but the landlords and peaseants are not present/disapearing, and only the prolatariat and the colonizier appear. In some countrys places like africa have huge lumpen prolatariats (including unemployed peaseants) and even primitive communist society's, but the balance of forces is the same (the presence of labour and forign capital).
My point is that if charecters like rockstar2k were right to say socialism in the colonial\/ status places wouldnt work in the 20th century, there still wrong to say it wont work out in 21st century colonial\/ country's. Maybe Leninism was ahead of its time, designed for prolatarians in the early 21st century combating mainly forign capitalists in colonial country's that in some ways of counsince (e.g. womans rights and the lack of religon in china) and balance of class forces (eg larger prolatariats by gross number) are ahead of the west.
sorry for rambling/poor spelling, I^ usualy only post on message boardz when im blasted^.
If china, for example called in the loan on the us\/, all there direct investment would collapse and alotta of domestic sectors would collapse because thats where the cash for em comes from.
Realy, the "China/India/Brazil/Mexico/Iran/whatever" threat the pig media is just most ficticious threats. In reality these country's cant posture against imperialist\/ powers because there country's wealth is based on "western" investment and consumption. Iran sells its oil to us\/, and china/mexico/india'z factory's are eithier owned directly by us/eu/japan/whatever\/ (meaning said imperialists just shut em down in a trade war and move em), and the ones who are joint ventures or domesticly owned sell there shit to us too. Country's like saudi arabia operate like big indian reperations, with the population eithier paid off or totaly excluded, but neithier section have any say in anything.
These country's dont have the capacity for independent policy, and the most succsesful capitalist there emigrate or have dual-citizenships. Most are just managers for us\/ capital. The diffrence between 21st century imperialism and 20th is that in the 21st century the underdevelopment of the "3rd" world cant happen as effectivly. Now the imperialist\/ in the "3rd" world are not just looking for natural resources, there looking for modern production but in a much larger way, there even looking for new markets (albeit limitid in comparison to home country's).They have much less of a feudal structure to prop against domestic capital and labour.
Nowadays there alotta "3rd" worlds country's that like in the 20th century have ruling classes pretty much impotent against imperialism, negating the capitalist class as the developer/national libarator's of these country's. Although this goes against the popular thesis on revleft that a qualitive change has occured (i.e. these country's have/are breaking there colonial changes, capitalism is positive there, capitalism is all that will occur but maybe call its self something else, et cet tra), locals here are correct to have to observed a change. A quantative change. In many "3rd" world country's, the colonial status remains unchanged, but the landlords and peaseants are not present/disapearing, and only the prolatariat and the colonizier appear. In some countrys places like africa have huge lumpen prolatariats (including unemployed peaseants) and even primitive communist society's, but the balance of forces is the same (the presence of labour and forign capital).
My point is that if charecters like rockstar2k were right to say socialism in the colonial\/ status places wouldnt work in the 20th century, there still wrong to say it wont work out in 21st century colonial\/ country's. Maybe Leninism was ahead of its time, designed for prolatarians in the early 21st century combating mainly forign capitalists in colonial country's that in some ways of counsince (e.g. womans rights and the lack of religon in china) and balance of class forces (eg larger prolatariats by gross number) are ahead of the west.
sorry for rambling/poor spelling, I^ usualy only post on message boardz when im blasted^.