>>2357688Not even a third worldist but I can answer both of your questions, because neither have
anything to do with third worldism.
>1. Many seem to presume that capitalism is already global but I don't think that's the case; there are plenty of areas which capitalism has not de/re territorialised as of yet. I am not even sure that the rate of globalisation is decelerating. Is there clear evidence of this?Which areas do you see where capitalism doesn't exist? It doesn't sound like you have an issue with "Third Worldism" here as much as you have an issue with the basic thesis of Leninism and imperialism.
>2. I understand Marxism to be the study of the *development* of material relations, so I would generally assume that the closer you get to the imperial 'core', and the most developed/mature zone, the closer you get to the place where revolution can happen. Don't most revolutions occur in the capital cities of nations because this is where the core of power resides? Why wouldn't a revolution against imperialism therefore occur in the capital 'country' of capitalism (I.E., the country which holds the reserve currency, has most imperial power and is the controller of foreign surpluses).Most revolutions
haven't happened in the capital cities. In China, Vietnam, Cuba, Russia, etc. the strongholds of revolution have been far away from the capital of the country. The last time a major revolutionary movement was actually entirely centered in a capital city was the Spartacist Uprising in Berlin. You are thinking of these areas as simply "developed" but you aren't paying attention to
how. In all of these countries, and looking at the world relationship between the imperial core and everyone else, the "developed" areas are developed precisely because they have an extractive relationship to the countryside. People living within these "developed" areas benefit in material ways from this extraction (better living conditions, higher wages, resources concentrated in grocery stores and shopping centres, etc.) and are disinclined to accept a decline in these benefits in order to wage revolution. This is why, in every modern revolution, the heart of the revolution is in the countryside and/or among the most exploited and extracted-from members of that society. While we like to mechanically think of that as simply "the workers" this ignores looking at the internal contradictions among workers in the hope of preserving an unprincipled and nonexistent "unity".
>I would assume that any pressure would have to destabilise the core in some way and precipitate a revolution there as well.This is true!… in the presence of revolutionary leadership of a conscious mass base. This is a major factor in the success of the Russian Revolution, one which subsequent movements have largely failed to repeat. There is a two-way relationship between revolution in empire and revolution in the periphery, each stands to strengthen the other. However, we can see in the absence of revolutionary leadership the workers of the imperial core will instead turn reactionary and cheerlead — or at least not act to stop — the suppression of revolution in the periphery in order to preserve their relative standing. We can see this today in the rhetoric of Americans around the revolutions in Peru, India, and the Philippines — along with largely cheerleading the invasions of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya — and especially in the complete impotence of "pro-Palestinian" action in the US. The need for a revolutionary party and revolution is greater than ever here.