>>2552901>1. why would anyone actively organize for an armed revolt whose ultimate goal is to lower the quality of their own life? Historically, we saw the same process in the Segunda Republica Española (i.e). See, the process of de-colonization that freed millions in Latin-America struck a severe blow to Spain’s wealthy classes. While the old elites yearned for past epochs of glory, stuck in the past, yearned the prestige they had, the imposing power (fuck even one of the kings of Spain was the king of Europe, or what remained as the Roman Empire, known as the
Holy Roman Empire), the problems amounted, the situation was bleak, and poor people grew poorer. their solution was un-material: to return to imperialism. but in bankruptcy, it's impossible.
imperialism isn't a force that can be sustained forever. imperialized countries gain some force and start reclaiming better wages, winning economic battles, better life conditions, like the old Spanish colonies; similarly with China (and one of the reasons goods have become expensive) the conditions of imperialism become weaker, and the resulting system creates a good moment for communists to size control. the same way communists sized power in Spain, and Russia.
CPUSA isn't on its own fed, though their decisions are debatable, they operate under their material conditions. But the DSA it's another story. They have invited NED-funded people to talk in their forums, and have incessantly defended or justified the track record of some of their backed officials, like bernie sanders or AOC. As they will once the NYC mayor fails to deliver meaningful relief.
So
why would anyone actively organize for an armed revolt?when time comes, the only way to guarantee that the ruling elites stop their control, and the wealth is redistributed; and with this I mean the wealth that is stolen from the people, the only way you can take the US out of the current imperialist elites chaos they have set the US people up is through these organizations.
it won't be pretty, it won't be perfect, but it'll be
yours, and that's the point.
>2. if imperialism improves the quality of life of the imperial core proletariat, then why has the last 55 years of neoliberal imperialism resulted in more austerity, more privatization, more deindustrialization, more deregulation, decrease of unionization, decrease of longevity, stagnation of wages, increase of incarceration, etc.?because the system is regressing. it's collapsing as we speak. not close, not
yet, not
there, but the evidence in economic terms is revealing.
>3. Are you open to the idea that imperialism simply decreases the quality of life of proles everywhere, but not equally?that's a possibility.
>4. Did you know that the richest 10% of Americans now account for 50% of all spending in the economy?That's the condition of exploitative systems. they will exploit even their fellow countrymen. that's the point of how bad imperialism is.
>5. Did you know that Americans pay more for healthcare than other imperial core countries?in the internal issue of imperialism, the ruling elites acknowledge that the power they have is shared across different sectors. they cannot sustain the system by simply sizing all the power by a mere number in the order of tens. the power sharing resulted from imperialism distributes from
the center to the periphery inside the core, and the power share is because if they weren't to share at all, they'd face a serious threat inside, with people very close and around them continuously conspiring, then their lackeys get lackeys, and the latter will have some more, and so on. add that to the fact that US politics are unique, in which capital directly influences the institutions and laws disregarding the popular majority. these internal dynamics increase the price of the every-day person, because the power redistribution gives better wages and purchasing power. that, plus the malthusian-oriented, the hoarding-oriented characteristic of US capitalism, and other countries reclaiming less exploitative conditions, account for the main reasons that it got expensive.
>6. If the imperial core bourgeoisie specifically deindustrialized to create a large de-radicalized population and a reserve army of labor that can be shuffled around between service sector jobs, is it really productive to blame the (former) proletariat for this deproletarianization process which was spearheaded by the bourgeoisie?there's no 'depropletarization'. service workers are proles, too.
but no, they are not to blame.