Try just reading the news.

Quote:

BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/business/4674526.stm

Didn't you say something about exporting capital?

OK, just bear with me for 5 minutes.

If some makes a positive ascertion, it is up to them to provide the evidence. Im not the one asserting that "Imperialism as we know it is over".

I never disputed the Imperial status of Russia.

It was China right?

Here....

Quote:

Originally posted by BBC News+--> (BBC News)Chinese Foreign Minister Li Zhaoxing is sweeping through Africa on a concerted charm offensive - signing economic deals, raising Beijing's diplomatic profile and highlighting along the way China's newly trumpeted policy of strategic partnership with Africa.[/b]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/4619956.stm

Plus....

Quote:

BBC News

Quote:

@ CNOOC, one of China's largest state-run oil and gas producers, has agreed to buy a stake in a Nigerian offshore oil and gas field for $2.3bn (£1.3bn).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4594058.stm

And....

Quote:

BBC News

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/4484196.stm

From the Communist Party of the Philippines.

This assertion of yours is partly true. Depending on the general conditions and strength of the proletarian movements in each country can a proleterian revolution be successful.

So far, in the Western Europe and America, there are still no such strong proletarian movements. Most of the workers are involved either in social democratic and revisionist "workers parties" or are strong advocates of globalization.

While in the third world contries, the proletarian movements, along with their strong alliances with the peasant class, are the most ardent revolutionaries so far. Sorry to say this, but this is true.

Depending on what would happen, when these third world countries would be liberated from the yoke of Imperialist neo-colonialism, conditions in the advance countries would certainly change. And when that happens, these social democrats and revisionist left-wing "workers' parties" would eventually disintegrate and genuine revolutionary workers' parties would then emerge and the flow of the proletarian movement and proletarian revolutions can't be stopped.

That, or you will soon be exposed to your nuances.

Redstar writes that "The only "socialism" that's possible in neo-colonies is state monopoly capitalism and it will be a transition...to modern capitalis". This would be true, but for the prospect of internationalism - i.e. that a revolution in an imperialised country can be part of a process which leads to revolution in imperialist countries. THe wealth which becomes available from revolutions in imperialist countries then allows the imperialised country to develop in a socialist direction.

Revolutions in imperialist countries are - theoretically - possible because of the decadence of capitalism. That is the point of the concept of decadence.

WHere the difficulty arises in all this is if an imperialised country moves towards a seizure by a communist party of state power during a period within the epoch of capitalism's decline when revolutions in imperialist countries are - hopefully temporarily - unlikely. In those situations, notwithstanding the decadent character of the epoch, the imperialised country faces grim prospects of autarkic isolation or transition to modern capitalism as REdstar outlines.

Thus, although Redstar proceeds by counterposing his perspective to the recognition of the decadence of capitalism in a way that is not helpful, his perspective contains an important insight - namely the extremely negative prospects for any imperialised country in which communists seize power at this time, this time being a period within the decadence of capitalism wihin which the imperialist countries are politically stable because of the success of globalization in neutralising the trade union movement in the imperialist countries.

THe error for communists is to think that recognising the global decadence of capitalism implies a clear rationale, at all subsequent times, to seize state power whenever the opportunity arises - because uneven and combined development will mean that such a seizure can always (supposedly) be used to push forward the socialist cause on a world scale. Unfortunately, that is not unequivocally true.

Yes, this is what Lenin thought "would happen"...not only with Russia and a German revolution but he thought it would be typical of the whole post-World War I world.

But let's speculate a little about this "option".

The people in a "neo-colony", even its most "advanced" elements, are likely to have a very different perspective than the people in the ex-imperialist country.

The former will be, presumably, "socialists"...while the latter will be communists.

There will be a rather glaring contradiction in what those respective peoples will want to do.

The former will want to establish state monopoly capitalism to economically develop their country; while the latter will be uninterested in states or countries altogether.

What wealth would a communist society be willing to transfer to a state monopoly capitalist nation?

Sure, there's the obvious transfer of the wealth located in the ex-neo-colony from the dispossessed corporations in the ex-imperialist country.

And since information is no longer "intellectual property" in a communist society, anyone there would be free to send useful technical knowledge to anyone in the former neo-colony without charge or hindrance.

Western Maoists have suggested that the former imperialist countries should pay reparations to their former colonies and neo-colonies...indeed, going so far as to hint at "putting off communism" until so much wealth has been transferred to the ex-colonial countries that they have been developed "up to the level" of the ex-imperialist countries.

Sort of Communism for nobody until there's communism for everybody!

Naturally it would require a ferocious despotism in the ex-imperialist countries to "pull that off"...but that sort of thing wouldn't bother a Maoist.

I personally think the best assistance that a new communist society could give to its former colonies/neo-colonies would be ideological.

Offer them textbooks written from a historical materialist viewpoint...ones that would subvert all the pre-capitalist and reactionary cultural artifacts of the ex-neo-colony.

That would do more to "speed up" their readiness for communism than anything else I can think of.

They can't "do communism" until they develop the material foundations; but they might be able to do it sooner if, in the meantime, all their reactionary prejudices have been discredited.

After all, that's what had to happen before communism became a practical possibility in the old imperialist country.

I may be wrong but I think that buying Treasury bonds is how the Chinese (or any government) aquires US debt.

The benefit to the US has to do with the ability to cut taxes for the wealthy and still spend for wars. The benefit to the Chinese is a return on their capital.

The Chinese are exporting capital to the US.

This statement doesn't make any sense. And the rest of it are purely products of mental masturbations that are unsatisfactory.

The neo-colonies will never put up state monopoly capitalism. What they will establish is a socialist state. However, in the first few years after seizure of power, there will be some sort of bourgeois democratic reforms plainly to remove the remnants of feudalism and industrialize the economy. After that, a socialist construction would be done.

As experienced in Russia (pre-Kruschov) and China (pre-Deng), they aimed at modernising their economy and industrializing the countrysides. Thereafter, came socialist construction in which a planned economy was set up and the means of production were socialized. And the state, at first, will be a democratic coalition government which at its core is the dictatorship of the proletariat through the communist party.

That is what the neo-colonies and semifeudal economies would do right after the victory of their revolutions.

While in the capitalist countries, after the revolution, they will immediately socialize production and exchange. And the state will not be dismantled immediately so as to countersuppress bourgeois reactions. Class divisions are still present and will be for a considerable period after the victory of the revolution. In that case, the state will outrightly be the dictatorship of the proletariat.

A "socialist state" is state monopoly capitalism.

It's "capitalism without capitalists" (temporarily).

Then the leading circles of the party become capitalists.

The problem here is that you think Khrushchev and Deng were "accidents of history" or "just plain bad luck".

You cannot grasp that they (or people like them) were inevitable.

Once again you demonstrate your fidelity to Leninist tradition.

We should call you "Lenin's bulldog" as a tribute to your tenacious grip on all the old formulas.

What I assert is that the formula is obsolete.

It was invented during a period in which the proletariat was weak and the bourgeoisie was strong.

Proletarian revolution in the "old" capitalist countries will take place at a time when the bourgeoisie is but a "shadow" of its old self...irrational, demoralized, and disorganized. It will simply not be capable of any significant counter-revolutionary activity.

Consequently, a centralized state apparatus will be unnecessary.

You don't use a tank to swat flies.

The above, once again, proves that RS simply doesn't understand basic Marxism.

"capitalism without capitalists" you say!? Is this serious!? How can any decent Marxist read this and not laugh?

With the sentence; "capitalism without capitalists" RS completely disregards materialism, completely disregards basic Marxism, and replaces it with his own "practical" theory. But is his theory truly "practical", or is it merely intellectual laziness?

The latter is the case here, RS' theory isn't based on materialism, "capitalism without capitalists" is impossible, there has to be a class of expropriators in a society, i.e., a bourgeois class. Trotskyists solve this problem by claiming that the bureaucracy was the bourgeois class, I have to agree with the Trotskyists in this case, the party elite, the bureaucracy, basically took over the function of the bourgeoisie, and became a expropriating class.

That is an analysis based on materialism, that is the correct Marxist analysis, RS utterly fails in performing even this simple task.

It's called reading with comprehension...something that most people can do with a little effort.

When a Leninist party comes to power, it expropriates the old capitalist class...and the old functions of that class are taken over by the party using a new state apparatus.

There are no individual capitalists...but the system still functions in the same ways that it did when there were capitalists.

The party bureaucracy then evolves into a new capitalist class...which then formally restores capitalism.

Most of the people here don't seem to have much of a problem in grasping this: if your social role is to do the things that the old capitalists did, then it follows that you will develop capitalist consciousness and, if you have the chance, actually become a capitalist!

Being determines consciousness, remember?

Consequently, it is entirely reasonable to sum up "socialism" as state monopoly capitalism -- a system that operates just like capitalism but temporarily has no individual capitalists per se.

Clear?

I suggest you do not invent something which is not real. :angry:

Your assertions here were just plainly hallucinations. Without basis.

This stems from your lack of dialectic analysis of the situations which leads to your metaphysical and idealistic assumptions. :P


I do not think of them as accidents of history. Yes, it's true, they were inevitable. They are inevitable only because it manifests how class contradiction exist even during the period of socialist revolutionary transformation of society to communism. It shows that even right after the victory of the revolution, there still exist class contradiction because the bourgeoisie would still fight out for them to regain power. This only shows that the socialist transformation of society would be as long as an epoch of history.

What I assert, on the contrary is that your idea is obsolete even if it was not yet done. In the first place, your ideas weren't even put into practice. Only in your imaginations were they real.

This could only happen when the proletariat is highly organized. If they are politically, ideologically and organizationally prepared to fight against the bourgeoisie. And this, if the proletariat have already established their socialist society. Unless, socialism wasn't still in place, the bourgeoisie would still continue to rule. As is the case today, when even if the capitalist system is already rotten to the core, there are still no major proletarian force, on a global scale, that could challenge their rule.

But when the proletariat's consciousness are already high and they are a mighty organized army ready to fight out the bourgeoisie, the bourgeoisie can't have anything to defend themselves.