I don’t know about you, but saying that Marxists should prioritize dismantling their own country’s bourgeoisie over global imperialism seems a bit ultra-leftist
Also a bit weird that they didn’t talk about Donbass
I don’t know about you, but saying that Marxists should prioritize dismantling their own country’s bourgeoisie over global imperialism seems a bit ultra-leftist
Also a bit weird that they didn’t talk about Donbass
I have not listened to this or any other episode of theirs, so I’m unsure of their politics…
I’ll unpack a few ideas to see where it gets us (I’ll be talking from the perspective of someone within the imperial core)…
Does it depend on where one lives?
Where I live, struggles against the bourgeoisie are also, naturally, struggles against global imperialism. And that bourgeoisie comprises national and foreign capitalists. A mix of US, British, French, German, and Canadian, mainly.
Should the struggle be against all the bourgeois operating in one’s own country? Or only against the citizen-bourgeois? Is there even such a thing as a domestic bourgeoisie today? The US capitalists are everywhere. And in the US, even Chinese investors have a stake (which may or may not be imperialism – I’m inclined to say it is, although I don’t have a view on whether it’s ‘successful’ in the way that US imperialists successfully use their power for, well, evil).
What about in a colony? In, say, 1920s Ireland or 1960s Algeria? Surely siding with the national bourgeoisie to oust the Brits and French is acceptable by Marxist standards? But it is complicated… Like, we know that the Catholic Church betrayed the Irish revolutionaries… Then more history happened, until the ‘national’ bourgeoisie sold out to the EU after 2008. And how can one separate comprador bourgeois in Africa from a national or domestic bourgeois? Isn’t that exactly why outsiders use compradors?
So my main question is: what is the difference between one’s
There’s probably a different answer for people who live nearer to and further from the imperial core. For example, it would not make much sense to me for a Libyan to struggle against the Libyan bourgeois before 2008 because realistically this would only ever support global imperialism by creating another route into Africa for Anglo-capital. But struggling for socialism within that framework, without weakening the country’s defenses against the West? That seems different.
However, I do agree that the focus should be domestic. Within liberal discourse, any criticism of domestic capitalism is brushed off because there’s always a bigger enemy somewhere else. How can you criticise our government at a time like this, don’t you know [Putin is on a warpath / COVID is indiscriminate / China… such and such]?
So part of the problem is convincing liberals that (i) even if ‘outside’ is as bad as they suggest, this does not excuse their ‘own’ bourgeoisie, and (ii) they better start thinking about what they can do at home because they cannot do much from France/Denmark/Wales, etc about Russia/China, etc. They could blockade arms manufacturing or shipping that happens on their own soil, for example.
Focusing on what one can achieve within an hour’s journey from one’s front door does not mean forgetting about internationality or imperialism. Indeed, it’s the opposite: it’s realising that helping the people that Western liberals claim to pity means taking action at home and not expecting the Global South to do all the hard work.
Class consciousness is mostly absent in the West. So if turning the gaze onto a ‘domestic’ bourgeoisie helps people realise that there is a national and international class struggle, then the message isn’t terrible. I do not know if this podcast makes these points or others.
What do we think? Is this a better way of seeing it?
I would perhaps caution against ‘global imperialism’. Imperialism is inherently global already. And there seems to be a rise in anti-Semitism in which ‘globalism’ is used as a synonym for Jewish people organising in secret. So (i) the addition may be redundant, and (ii) we probably want to avoid accidental support for anti-Semitism.
Edit: typos.
(Let me know if I misunderstood any of this.)
Yes, I would definitely say so, either entirely (e.g. smaller corporations) or mostly (e.g. domestic private banks)
Theoretically, I agree. In practice, I can’t see how this could apply to modern-day Russia or any other country under serious threat from the imperialist countries
If I understood this correctly, you’re saying that you believe that some individual Chinese corporations are imperialist (not the government itself). If so, that might be true
This is true in the imperial core. Russia, on the other hand, is currently acting as a force against imperialism (regardless of what the individual politicians and capitalists personally want) – IMO, a revolution would be extremely risky at the moment unless the military was already on board, because it would leave the country more or less defenseless for a significant period of time (enough for Amerika to take advantage of it). This also applies to reactionary but anti-imperialist governments like the one in Iran, which is largely why Amerika is trying so hard to vilify it
Sure, that may be a good starting point for liberals in the imperial core, but I don’t think this applies for Russian liberals
I was using “global” to mean basically every single country. Imperialism can be more concentrated
So if bigger countries have to wait for revolution because of foreign threats, how do we decide when is a good time? It seems like this thinking could lead to a whole lot of idling. Or are there other actions that can be taken without threatening the integrity of the countries security?
If it’s a country that’s integral to the downfall of imperialism, unless you’ve managed to convince the military and other potential internal dangers to side with your organization (so that there’s no significant security gap right away), I don’t think it’s a good idea to attempt a revolution as long as the outcome would almost certainly be a foreign invasion. Of course, that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t prepare for a revolution (you definitely shouldn’t be idling, as you said), but the foreign imperialists are far more of a threat than the internal bourgeoisie is, to the world’s proletariat
If you’re in the imperial core (excluding Amerika), while a revolution certainly would put your country in danger of an invasion or the like, a successful counter-revolution likely wouldn’t have a worse outcome (in terms of foreign policy, at least) than what you had before the attempt
You understood my points. And I think we’re on the same page. (Yes, I meant individual investors from China rather than China itself.) These follow up comments help, too.
Perhaps the only two things stopping NATO sending troops (with NATO badges, at least) into Ukraine or directly into Russia are Russia’s military forces and nukes. Any communist revolution in Russia that did not immediately / simultaneously take control of both the soldiers and the nukes would likely be invaded straight away. And however less powerful are the US / NATO than their military budgets suggest, some of their ‘losses’ (e.g. in Afghanistan) are not really due to weakness or incompetence. I.e. they could do a lot of damage to a fledgling socialist state.
At first, I was critical of the deprogram headline (not necessarily the content, as I never listened to it) because I saw no significant distinction between a national bourgeoisie and global imperialism (with my imperial core goggles on). So I thought it strange to distinguish them in this way.
But now I’m inclined to accept there is still an important difference there. And that, given the difference, it may make sense in the imperial core to fight the national bourgeoisie (because it’s interests are closely aligned with global imperialism – two birds, one stone, and all that) but in the periphery, the main struggle remains to be against global imperialism (and only against the national bourgeoisie when the time is right).
In reflection, I’ve also repented on the caution against ‘global’. The far right can’t steal all the useful words.
Sounds a lot like Russia itself tbh
No way it can be worse than this. I think nowhere is worse than the 6 Yugoslav countries, maybe the rest of the Balkans compares and war torn countries.
No, not worse. Just similar
Apologies, I replied to this several days late, on the day that our posts were lost. I cannot fully remember my comment. But…
I think you have understood what I was saying.
I did not mean to suggest that China itself / the CPC is imperialist.
And I agree with you.
After reflection, I’ve also come to reject my caution against using ‘global’. It’s a useful word, as you note. Fuck the anti-Semites turning every word they can into dogwhistles, still.
Yeah, I read your first reply (it should still be available on lemmy.ml). I’m glad we agree 👍