Non-violent paths to power are only available in colonized nations, where the national bourgeoise will split from the comprador bourgeoise.
In the imperial core there is no split and there is no non-violent path to power. Due to America’s position as hegemon and empire it cannot transition to socialism peacefully.
You say all this as if it's written in stone, but in reality no one knows how to build socialism in the imperial core. We certainly can't afford to ignore the most accessible and most visible levers of power (electoral politics) when we don't have the infrastructure to do anything else.
you say this like we just got dropped in the middle of nowhere with no understanding of class mechanics or history and just make vague obfuscatory statements that further mystify and forestall action
How many socialist movements have succeeded in the imperial core?
Read all the theory you want, but know that people in your same shoes have done that for decades, have tried to act on it, and have all failed. Every single one of them. Most socialist states outside of the imperial core ultimately failed, too. Existing theory should be thoroughly re-evaluated because looking globally there's enormous room for improvement, and looking only at the imperial core it's worked exactly zero times.
Defeatist revisionist nonsense detached from reality and history and the real proletarian movement. I’m really tired of your libbery in every thread, twisting and defanging everything you can touch. People like you have done this since before Marx, you aren’t some new brilliant type of leftist you are the oldest and most failed type.
GDR was an actually existing socialist state in the former imperial core. Ireland got very close. France got very close on several occasions. Italian communists were strong but destroyed by fascist violence and their inability to fight against it adequately. The Spartacus uprising got very close. The closest we ever got were all violent paths to power, and those that failed would have succeeded if the reformists like you got on board instead of betraying the proletarian movement
Non-violent paths to power are only available in colonized nations, where the national bourgeoise will split from the comprador bourgeoise.
unfortunately mariátegui was correct to point out that there's no relevant national bourgeoisie in countries that were created by colonizers, it's all compradores
so that's not a viable path for places like latin america
There is absolutely relevant national bourgeoise in colonial states, are you even aware of the class composition of the Chinese, Venezuelan or Algerian anti-colonial socialist revolutions for instance? The national bourgeoise played a large role in all of these.
i said this precisely so that you could deduce places like china weren't included
and i have no idea how it is for africa, but the venezuelan bourgeoisie is made of compradores. there will be exceptions obviously, but not enough to constitute a single, separate class
i mentioned mariátegui because he's kind of one of the founders (if not the founder) of latin american marxism (as in marxism specifically targeting latin american material conditions), and his explanation of how our bourgeoisie developed from this colonial origin (as opposed to merely a colonial past like in china) makes them essentially compradores
bear in mind, i'm not glad that this happens to be our case, because it makes everything that much harder for us, so if you find a way to show me mariátegui was wrong it'll make me a little less hopeless. most communists around here agree with him though, because it becomes very obvious when we see the discourse and attitude coming from our capitalists - it's just like mariátegui describes, they lack national identity and always show a profound contempt for our culture and history, and have a weird sort of pride in their subservience to imperial interests, acting like geopolitical PMCs (think PMC liberals sucking off billionaires - they think they're the same kind of people, it's really sad)
i imagine algeria being vastly muslim helped them with this, because it's a clear identifier to contrast against the colonizer's culture
Non-violent paths to power are only available in colonized nations, where the national bourgeoise will split from the comprador bourgeoise.
In the imperial core there is no split and there is no non-violent path to power. Due to America’s position as hegemon and empire it cannot transition to socialism peacefully.
FUCKING WORD exactly what happens ib my country when lucky winds blow
You say all this as if it's written in stone, but in reality no one knows how to build socialism in the imperial core. We certainly can't afford to ignore the most accessible and most visible levers of power (electoral politics) when we don't have the infrastructure to do anything else.
you say this like we just got dropped in the middle of nowhere with no understanding of class mechanics or history and just make vague obfuscatory statements that further mystify and forestall action
How many socialist movements have succeeded in the imperial core?
Read all the theory you want, but know that people in your same shoes have done that for decades, have tried to act on it, and have all failed. Every single one of them. Most socialist states outside of the imperial core ultimately failed, too. Existing theory should be thoroughly re-evaluated because looking globally there's enormous room for improvement, and looking only at the imperial core it's worked exactly zero times.
Defeatist revisionist nonsense detached from reality and history and the real proletarian movement. I’m really tired of your libbery in every thread, twisting and defanging everything you can touch. People like you have done this since before Marx, you aren’t some new brilliant type of leftist you are the oldest and most failed type.
GDR was an actually existing socialist state in the former imperial core. Ireland got very close. France got very close on several occasions. Italian communists were strong but destroyed by fascist violence and their inability to fight against it adequately. The Spartacus uprising got very close. The closest we ever got were all violent paths to power, and those that failed would have succeeded if the reformists like you got on board instead of betraying the proletarian movement
You mean the state that was invaded by the USSR, occupied, set up as a satellite state, and that ceased to exist when the USSR ceased to exist?
You mean the formerly-colonized state where today every multinational is setting up an HQ to avoid taxes?
Still not hearing any successes.
unfortunately mariátegui was correct to point out that there's no relevant national bourgeoisie in countries that were created by colonizers, it's all compradores
so that's not a viable path for places like latin america
There is absolutely relevant national bourgeoise in colonial states, are you even aware of the class composition of the Chinese, Venezuelan or Algerian anti-colonial socialist revolutions for instance? The national bourgeoise played a large role in all of these.
i said this precisely so that you could deduce places like china weren't included
and i have no idea how it is for africa, but the venezuelan bourgeoisie is made of compradores. there will be exceptions obviously, but not enough to constitute a single, separate class
i mentioned mariátegui because he's kind of one of the founders (if not the founder) of latin american marxism (as in marxism specifically targeting latin american material conditions), and his explanation of how our bourgeoisie developed from this colonial origin (as opposed to merely a colonial past like in china) makes them essentially compradores
he gave a good enough sum up in 1929, you can see it here
bear in mind, i'm not glad that this happens to be our case, because it makes everything that much harder for us, so if you find a way to show me mariátegui was wrong it'll make me a little less hopeless. most communists around here agree with him though, because it becomes very obvious when we see the discourse and attitude coming from our capitalists - it's just like mariátegui describes, they lack national identity and always show a profound contempt for our culture and history, and have a weird sort of pride in their subservience to imperial interests, acting like geopolitical PMCs (think PMC liberals sucking off billionaires - they think they're the same kind of people, it's really sad)
i imagine algeria being vastly muslim helped them with this, because it's a clear identifier to contrast against the colonizer's culture