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?
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?
S O C R A T I C D I A L O G U E
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.
I don't know.
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.
Nice. That is very informative. Thanks a lot.
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.