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?
To add to what others has said, the Navajo Nation and Black Belt (at a minimum) are areas that should constitute independent nations. I don't see a revolution succeeding without a balkanization of the country
Two characteristics of USAmerican society that are hurdles to mass organisation are:
- Placation of the working class by an elevated standard of living paid for by the imperialist exploitation of the global south.
- The fact that USA is a country built on stolen land, by the labour of slaves seized from their homelands, the fruits of which are borne not only by the bourgeoisie, but by large sections of the working American people who are predominantly white.
Because of these I don't see a successful ML movement that is not led by African-Americans and natives of America. Many American left movements watch their tone as to not offend the White working masses of America and in doing so play in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
Additionally, the vast apparatus of the surveillance state omnipresent in American life making it easy for the state to predict who radical elements are.
Many American left movements watch their tone as to not offend the White working masses of America and in doing so play in the hands of the bourgeoisie.
And here we run into a giant contradiction. How then will the American left movement ever reach a point where they might take power without the support of said white working mass?
The idea isn't to exclude the working white masses from the revolution because even though they benefit from the oppression that USA is founded on, they are oppressed themselves in one way or another.
My point was that a movement in USA to unite the working people will not have the idelogical basis to succeed as long as imperialism is not addressed as the major force it is in shipping the contradictions of its capitalist society to the global south. There can be many ways to deal with this. Like disseminating propaganda that makes it clear to the people what the role of imperialism is. Or something like the global south freeing itself from imperialist chains so that the USAmerican society is forced to come face to face with the contradictions of capitalism, with no imperialism to ameliorate their life despite the ongoing oppression.
Here's also why I think BIPOC masses of USA have an important role to play because they, especially African-Americans and the indigenous Americans, almost feel like countries on their own where they are used as tools to uphold USAmerican society while themselves being locked away from the opportunities that the USA has to offer. They are suited better as a group to understand the role of imperialism and why it needs to be done away with.
One thing I haven't seen articulated too often is what has to come first. Does the US have to fall before imperialism is stopped (the intuitive position) or does imperialism have to stop before the US falls (the not so intuitive position)? Here you are making the case that the US cannot see a change unless imperialism stops but also, how will imperialism ever stop if the US does not change?
We are already deep into uncharted territory but a lot of it depends on to what extent USA and allies are willing to go to war when their hegemony is threatened. Personally I see something like China's belt and road initiative (something like that if not exactly that) to help in the transfer of knowledge that would enable the downtrodden nations especially the ones in Africa and Middle East to cast off the chains of IMF debt traps and of the hyper-specialised industrial bases that come with it and able to achieve the basic requirements of self-sustenence like food security.
The reason I see this as the more important factor is that anti-war movements of all flavours in the USA have not been able to achieve much and the country has proceeded to squat in all corners of the world without any serious opposition. Despite this, countries like Venezuela, Cuba, DPRK, etc. have managed to resist USAmerican imperiliasm with varying degrees of success. As long as some threat of nuclear weapons exists on the side of these countries, the chances of an all out war will be curtailed to some extent.
I don't know how history will play out but I feel one of the winning scenarios, if one does exist before civilisation is devoured by climate change, could look something like this.
The reason I see this as the more important factor is that anti-war movements of all flavours in the USA have not been able to achieve much
I wasn't talking about anti-war movements though. I was referring to a case of US collapse where logistical support would be cut off from the military, forcing a withdrawal. In other words, material action. Let's be honest, peaceful protesting and anti-war marches of the like are ultimately just noise to an uncaring ruling class.
downtrodden nations especially the ones in Africa and Middle East to cast off the chains of IMF debt traps and of the hyper-specialised industrial bases that come with it and able to achieve the basic requirements of self-sustenence like food security.
Why do you think they haven't done this yet? Why would they even need the aid of the PRC in the first place?
For many reasons. A lot of countries have bourgeois states that are aligned to NATO and don't have the political will to like in India. Then there are countries who don't have the knowledge and technological basis since their economies since their inception have been centred around catering to the imperialist core.
The need for aid from PRC or somewhere else comes from the fact that diffusion of knowledge is right now the biggest driver in increasing output. Unless all countries simultaneously turn communist, this can be one of the ways in which the unipolar economic hegemony is disturbed and the unequal terms of trade that come with it.
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:
Or something like the global south freeing itself from imperialist chains
And then later you mentioned this with regards to 3rd world liberation:
help in the transfer of knowledge that would enable the downtrodden nations especially the ones in Africa and Middle East to cast off the chains of IMF debt traps and of the hyper-specialised industrial bases that come with it and able to achieve the basic requirements of self-sustenence like food security.
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?
Anyway, why do they have to restructure?
It's in the terms of the loans.
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?
I'm not sure about these.
It’s in the terms of the loans.
Ok, so why not spit on the terms? Take the money and ignore everything else the IMF says.
The loans aren't a one time thing. If a hypothetical 3rd world country refuses to meet the terms or defaults, the IMF will simply cut them off.
Ok now that I've answered this question for you, I'll provide the next lines of questioning. What I'm doing is I'm asking questions over and over again, each time trying to get us both deeper into the root of issues like this.
Why then, would they even need the loan in the first place?
Answer: Because they lack the money to do what they want to do.
What do they want to do?
Answer: Develop, become rich, so they can feed, house, clothe their people.
Why do these things require money? Just fucking do them.
Answer: They lack the natural resources and the technology since they've been plundered by the imperialists. The best way to acquire them now is via trade and to do trade with the global market requires money AKA participating in capitalism.
Of course, now they've figured out that the PRC gives them a better deal and they can break off 1 chain of imperialism. The 2nd chain is much harder to break. That one as you know is laced with spikes as the DPRK, Vietnam and other socialist nations can tell you.
Marxism-Leninism under an American guiding ethos would be the ideology of the Black Panther Party and the radical movements for racial liberation within the United States. No American left movement has a right to exist, if it doesn't secure the rights of black Americans first, this is a nation build directly on the back of slavery and racial separation and there can be no socialism in America without racial liberation. Everything the BPP fought for in the civil rights movement can - and is being - fought for today.
Marxism-Leninism with American characteristics must be the radicalization of the Black Lives Matter movement and the decolonization of the nation. Anything short of that lacks materialist basis, and therefore lacks dialectical theory.
Marxism-Leninism with American characteristics must be the radicalization of the Black Lives Matter movement and the decolonization of the nation. Anything short of that lacks materialist basis, and therefore lacks dialectical theory.
I feel like this is a great overview on what some of the immediate objectives are. I'd like to delve further into the analysis of American civil society to really explore the scope of this enormous question down to it's technical aspects, with a mind to break it down into it's constituent parts and then analyse their relations so we might identify contradictions that both work for or against us. What, if any, significance does the urban/rural divide, religion, demography, physical geography, mass media, technology, art, the state apparatus, commerce, international relations, unique relations of production etc have on this objective? Can you identify any other significant sources of contradictions?
I seriously feel that unless our analysis is both comprehensive and contemporary we can't call it scientific. For example, the analyses of the BPP, while still enormously relevant on the questions of race which haven't really changed since their era, falls short of a comprehensive analysis of America's national characteristics as both the base and superstructure of America have changed significantly since their time. For example, the internet didn't exist in what you could call it's modern form until the early 90s, not becoming culturally relevant until the mid 90s and not achieving maturity into it's current role until the early 2000s. They didn't have the chance to comprehensively attack this issue from every angle, that task falls to the current generation.
