Welcome to Gaia! ::

Problem is, production for most major US corporations gets outsourced, ironically enough, to China. Upon closer examination, this creates more social problems, because it removes jobs from the US, which in turn causes unemployment, and the chain reaction follows. Eventually things could get interesting.

I personally discovered works of communist ideology on my own, stumbled across Marx while teaching myself political philosophy for use in debate, and realized that I agreed with him. Sure, the Industrial Revolution is over, and new advances have made some of the issues he faced obsolete, but the whole world isn't like that. A small portion of the world's population controls a great part of the world's resource, and not everybody lives like people in the US or UK do. There is incredible poverty in the modern world, but people in the US are generally blind to its existance, because they have never personally seen or experienced it.

It could very well be that the NCS isn't, but other portions of Gaia may be.

I would stay away from broad generalizations like "Africa is proletarian" for the most part africa is actually petty bourgeois (as many people just farm). Sure imperialism is a factor, but that doesn't stop africans with the proper money supplies to enter into the ranks of the bourgeois. Our struggle has always been an international one from the start.

One would note that at the same time as the Russian Revolution, copy-cat revolutions occured in many nations (but were put down). Note also that the USSR fermented revolution in South East Asia, and supported the regimes of Allende, Sandina, and Cuba. The russian revolution just didn't spread to western europe (and was stemmed in fact by Stalin with his neutering of the Comintern). The Russian revolution also openly acknowledged that it was fighting Feudalism (the idea was to skip capitalism).

See places and people don't develope on a strict scale, in 1917 Russia had some sections that were VERY well organized and industrialized, and large portions of Russia were still essentially feudal.

Any new revolution will, like Lenin said, likely occur in third world nations, or France, becuase of France's strong socialist history.

So far, since the fall of the Soviet Union, we've seen the rise of Venzuela, Bolivia, the return of the Sandinistas in Nicaragua, the Zapsistas conquest in Mexico, Lukashenko in Belarus (as well as a maintainance of 80% socialization), and a Maoist insurrection in Nepal, as well as the KPRF (Communist Party of Russia) gaining seats and % of the vote every election it sits.


If anything the "global marketplace" has reinvigorated socialism and the working class, and better connected it.

As for China. I know people across the board are very unhappy, due to low living standards amidst large amounts of economic growth, improper operation of democracy, and market liberalization. Could Mandel's revolution occur? I don't know, I don't know much about the situation on the ground in China, or how effective a people's movement would be due to the current situation there.

I've been thinking all day, actually.

Well, most of Chinese does not know the site, I guess.

unfortuantely takai, what you put foward is what as leninism, is actualy blanquism.

blanquism: a small revolutionary force can take and hold power until the rest of the people rise up and join them.
leninism: only a dedicated group of revolutionaries can succeed in keeping their ideology and spread it to the proletariat. in such a way, will the revolutionary party lead the revolution, not accomplish it all on its own.

Well, clearly he missed out on a new stage, but at the time imperialist monopoly was the highest stage of capitalism (we see now only a slight modification- that being imperialist transnational monopoly). So he is still, in essence, correct, it is merely the status quo that changed (national monopoly to international monopolies with no nation).

I'm not going to be overly technical here.


I don't deny imperialism as you can see.

I'll state imperialism to be Nationally based Finance and Industrial capital exploiting various outside entities for economic gain on the basis of monopoly. Whereby, war is the most used means of coercion or expropriation of imperialized entities.


But we can see that this has changed slightly.

Firstly, after the massive imperialist wars were fought, tinier imperialist wars of expropriation and political cliques were fought (for example the anti-communist wars, and the imperialist funded revolutions and coups in favor of pro(pick your imperialist) figures.

But the grand scale has changed mainly because the majority of classical imperialist powers (germany/France/England) lost or gave up many of their holdings internationally in favor of the two new great powers The USA and the USSR. As the USSR began to weaken and after its death we saw a real resurgance of Germany and other economies.

But all of this is standard imperialism.

What has changed is the character of monopoly and finance capital. The majority of imperialist powers no longer seek monopoly over specific nations (at least officially) but only over specific spheres. Hence why Venezuelan oil was monopolized by the US, and their arable land by the British for example- rather than all just one imperialist power. This is becuase the imperialist monopolies have, to some degree, decided that fighting various imperialist powers is a waste- and too dangerous. Instead they make pacts and trade offs, and moderately sovereign states pick how and by whom they are to be exploited in many degrees.

But why the change. Khrushchev would have said it was the balance of power- but now there is no balancing power. Today we see not national monopolies competing against eachother, but rather, titanic trans-national corporations who seek political influence in several states and have no true home state. Thus the transnationals have spheres of control not only in particular imperialist powers, they really act as the limbs of imperialism, and to a large degree control these monopolies independent of any authority- and sell their services to the highest bidder. Thus capitalism replied by establishing international bureaus for governining international capitalism, and it is only obvious that the Trans-nationals have conquered these bodies too.

The old monopolies also had limited spheres of influence, for instance German made cement. Now the transnationals- due to their pick and choose nature on monopolization and lack of ability to fight true wars against eachother, instead monopolize many firms, nations, and spheres of production/finance. A major transnational would be Bechtel corp- and it is entirely impossible to tell just what this corporation's purpose is; other than to monopolize as many foreign and local resources as they can.

Thus we see that the transnationals rather than acting in unison with various imperialist power's wishes, in fact, act on their own initiatives, and instead seek to influence the political spheres of various imperialist (and imperialized) nations. This is a new development since Lenin's times.