The keystone authorities in the application of dialectical materialism to political problems, from the Bolsheviks in Russia to Mao and Ho Chi Minh in East Asia, have all postulated that socialism cannot be developed in a universalist sense; that there is no one size fits all model for achieving the revolution and Marxists should instead seek to adapt their doctrines to the specific national circumstances of their time and place.
This process of adaptation is most evidently the case with Mao’s application of Marxism-Leninism to the national characteristics of his native China in the early 20th century, from which he and his cadre was able to identify a method and programme through which to build and organise a mass movement capable of not only seizing order out of the chaos of the Chinese civil war but also subsequently establishing a dictatorship of the proletariat capable of both effectively governing their country while at the same time quashing push back from reactionary social forces bent on safeguarding the old feudal privileges of the old society.
If the principles of this theory hold true, it should be possible to analyse the national circumstances of 21st century American society and identify a modus operandi for developing dual power, with an eventual mind to overturn the old society and establish a dictatorship of the proletariat. What American social phenomena do you think demand adaptations necessary for the organisation of an American mass movement capable of carrying a proletarian revolution through to it’s conclusion? What is your analysis of American society? What obstacles stand in the way of class consciousness, what is the mechanism of their action and how do we defeat them?
Sure, but your answers don’t really get to the root of the issues. Why are these countries bourgeois states? Why are they aligned with NATO? Why DON’T they have the political will?
I can’t speak for every country like that. India gained independence primarily due to the effects of WW2 on England and the Atlantic Charter and the independence thus gained was on their terms, which meant they could choose to give the state powers to a political party that allied with England like the Indian National Congress. Brazil is aligned with the USA because they helped install Bolsonaro after a judicial coup etc.
Right, but my point was, why even bother with the IMF? Just say fuck it and do what Sankara did.
I wish. Even Venezuela have paid off their IMF debt.
India is a special case like Brazil and Colombia where it is an appendage of NATO outside the Euro-American geography. We have been doing S-tier bootlicking where we blocked IMF’s SDRs (basically emergency money) for poor countries to appease the USA and have joined them in being hostile towards China while China has been building alliances with Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka. I don’t think our current government even considers throwing off the yoke of imperialism as a priority, ironic considering our fascist rhetoric motto is “self-sufficiency”. And the ruling party faces no credible threats because the rest are liberal failures who got us where we are or toothless idpoliticians who are unable to enact any changes in the rare occassions they have come to power. The main communist party are socdem revisionists and the only revolutionaries are fighting a losing battle alongside indigenous tribals.
Covid could change the climate but that remains to be seen. I have also been doing a terrible.job at keeping up with current events due to personal issues.
I don’t think you understand what I’m saying. I’m not asking so many questions because I’m ignorant. I’m attempting to herd you towards a certain train of thought.
You mentioned this earlier with regards to toppling the US:
And then later you mentioned this with regards to 3rd world liberation:
How does the latter point achieve the former point? How would casting off IMF debt traps free a country from imperialism?
Because countries which are burdened with IMF loans have to restructure their economy which prevents them investing in social services and open up their countries to foreign investment which leads to them being a low value added node in the global supply chain where their labour is exploited and they gain no technological advantage.
If you disagree with something feel free to say it. I am always down to learn.
Well I’m not actually disagreeing with anything you’ve said so far. I’m just asking in a rhetorical way to make a point.
Anyway, why do they have to restructure? Why not just take the loan and then give the IMF the finger if they wanna collect? Actually, why even take the damn loans in the first place?
It’s in the terms of the loans.
I’m not sure about these.
Ok, so why not spit on the terms? Take the money and ignore everything else the IMF says.
S O C R A T I C D I A L O G U E