Louis, > In fact, the USA has used every means within its disposal since the > Mexican revolution of Zapata and Pancho Villa (which actually predates > the Russian revolution) to crush attempts to control the wealth of a > nation for its own benefit--even when this is under the direction of a > substantial fraction of the bourgeoisie as was the case in Peron's > Argentina.
>From the viewpoint of US capital it makes no difference whether it is excluded from a capitalist protectionist state or a socialist one. > I have no idea what the fact that 50 percent of a workforce being in the > public sector has to do with socialism. Unless you address the > underlying class relations, it is a meaningless statistic. You had state > owned oil in Algeria, but this had nothing to do with socialism. Maybe not in Algeria but it did in some developed countries during the 1970s. In reality I don't really think there is much difference between state socialism and state capitalism, although the former is distinguished by the support of the working class and the stated intention to abolish the state, at some point in the future. > > And as Marx predicted, once industrialisation (e.g the establishment of > > functioning ISI) is achieved, as far as the bourgeoisie is concerned, > > protectionism has served it's purpose, can be dispensed with and the > > Venezuelans, English, Australians or Filipinos are no closer to a > > society in which "the free development of the individual is the condition for the > > free development of all." > > I can't understand why you would mix imperialist and imperialized > countries together as you do above. Well, maybe I can... I "mix" them because when the free development of individuals in one of them really does exist in one, it will exist in all of them. _That_ is how we will know when we've won. We will not have won at the time when the Bolivarians succeed in creating something like Norway, if in fact they do succeed. regards, Grant.
