It purely exists for advertisers to profile age groups, and for capitalists to use generational warfare to distract the working class from their real enemy. Shit is fucking stupid.
It purely exists for advertisers to profile age groups, and for capitalists to use generational warfare to distract the working class from their real enemy. Shit is fucking stupid.
Isn't that just liberal individualism though? Because living in the core means that you're closer to the general means of production, coercion, and exploitation used in the periphery, its a different dimension of the same indicator to me.
Its also a bit strange to paint someone born into poverty in a first world slum with the same brush as an heir to a grocery business no?
Not entirely, both Bangladesh and the US are capitalist "democracies" in terms of government. What revolutions/movements since 2000 are you thinking of that led to socialist rule within the origin countries? Asking in good faith since I only know of Bolivia and Nepal.
No, it's class analysis. Marx, Engels, and Lenin all talked about the revolutionary potential of various nations. They all talked about imperialist spoils bribing workers. Marx supported Irish nationalism specifically because the British working class was becoming more reactionary due to their reliance on colonial spoils.
I can't tell what this means. The people in the periphery live closer to the things they're oppressed by than people in the Imperial Core do. Unless you're saying Americans building guns to be used on foreigners makes them more proximal to those guns than the people they're being used on?
I don't know why you would restrict it to the last 20 years. Socialism has been set back enormously since 1991, but every Socialist revolution (barring the first) before that was in the periphery. Even the Russian Empire was among the most backwards nations in Europe. What Imperial Core nations have ever had revolutions, in the last 20 years or prior?
Right yes the revolutionary potential of various nations, not necessarily individual actors within these nations.
Yes.
Turn of the century, around when I estimate the current neoliberal world order was established and solidified.
Backwards yes but no less mighty afaik, the Russian Empire was a world superpower at the time with a military force that the even the british empire was worried about.
None but other than Nepal no other nation had an armed socialist revolution since 2000 right?
Nations are made of people. I don't see why this is a necessary distinction.
Making guns and being shot by guns are completely different things with completely different relations. I don't even know how to address this. Violent dispossession happens at the end of the barrel, not the butt.
Alright. I don't know any that match that criterion.
Might is extremely difficult to quantify. Moreover, it's not a nation's might or lack thereof that primarily leads to revolution, it's the conditions of the people. Russia sending millions of peasants to die was the primary contradiction.
That said, a nation's lack of might can very well lead to poor conditions for the people, as with China's Century of Humiliation.
None that I know of.
It is because nations are more than individuals, they are made up of groups of people, histories, traditions, culture, socioeconomic systems of governance, not just individual population units. I don't think there is much use in analyzing things based on an individual case by case basis. Individuals don't matter in the grand scheme of things, revolutions don't spring up because all of a sudden everyone decides to have a revolution right?
According to muh wikipedia the Russian Empire was the third largest empire in modern history. The angloids were scared of them invading India.
Idk whether this is the primary reason but it certainly plays a part. Problem is that there are many countries around the world where the populations live in worsening miserable slavery, however there have been no revolutions post 2000 save for Nepal. However, what points of hope do you see from the third world?