>>2795564>Every national liberation war, no matter how just, eventually found itself capitulating to the new imperialismThis is a matter of internal revisionism and class collaborationism rather than a matter of the external strength of imperialism. Between internal and external contradictions it is always the internal that is decisive. Imperialism can be powerful, but it cannot stand against greater internal unity and political clarity. In the Tanzanian context, for example, we saw the furthest possible extent of unity between the workers and petty bourgeoisie. In this we saw Pan-African unity put into practice in the merger of Tanganyika and the People's Republic of Zanzibar, a historically progressive move recognizing the borders set by formal "independence" granted by Europe as being illegitimate. What halted this progress wasn't then a reaction by Europe and the US, but the rapid formation of a new bureaucratic bourgeoisie within the once-revolutionary TANU Party enabled by its revisionism. This revisionism is exemplified in Julius Nyerere's
Ujamaa, where he states that class struggle is a phenomena
external to Africa, and that it doesn't exist within African society independent of Europe. As such, capitulation took place not simply because imperialism is powerful, but because of internal weaknesses in the revolution. This
does not mean that they shouldn't have tried in the first place, or that they should have waited for some future moment where imperialism was weaker. Rather, future Tanzanian revolutionaries will have to consolidate the good (TANU's vision of unity and economic self-sufficiency) and reject the bad (TANU's rejection of class struggle).
This is a truth that rings within every revolution back to the Paris Commune, and why the Cultural Revolution in China remains so important. Now, neither Marx nor we look at the Paris Commune and conclude that it was simply doomed from the start due to the strength of this or that Empire. Marx's insights are so valuable because he looked deeper than that, at the internal weaknesses, and formulated the dictatorship of the proletariat as the solution. He didn't conclude that the revolutionaries should have defeated Britain or Germany or whoever first, but instead were not properly organized and unified
internally to consolidate power against their class enemies. The Cultural Revolution likewise was the first time any revolution stepped beyond that. The Russian Revolution proved the dictatorship of the proletariat universally correct in defending the revolution against
external forces, the Chinese revolution then took this concept and explored how it must be driven further to defend against
internal revisionism. Like the Commune, its failure can't be boiled down to a statement that they shouldn't have tried in the first place, but instead looked at as the baseline for the next revolution.
>I’m not convinced there is another imperial power that could possibly take its place if it fellThen you need to get a deeper understanding of imperialism and history. Do you understand that this is
exactly the kind of view that Lenin tore apart when the first inter-imperialist World War began? Many a "socialist" claimed that the German empire was historically progressive because it was at war with British imperialism, and that a defeat of Britain meant an absolute defeat of imperialism, that the vacuum left behind would present an opportunity for socialist revolution. This error would even be made by those claiming to align with Lenin's view of "revolutionary defeatism", and all the same Lenin exposed this view as incorrect.
>I don’t mean this in a chauvinist “US is the only place that matters”, much like Israel, it is a settler entity that needs to be dismantled and its settlers sent back to Europe.I believe that you believe this, and I agree that the US must be dismantled, but articulating this as a necessary prerequisite for other revolutions to survive is
in essence saying that the "US is the only place that matters" and espousing a Trotskyist "permanent revolution" line for the global majority. All you're doing is twisting revolutionary language and ideas synthesized since Trotsky's time to fit back into that old mold.
>The US will not and cannot be dismantled from within by its own workersCertainly not right now, no. There is far too much revisionism around the questions of imperialism and national self-determination for this to happen. I'm not under any illusion that the majority of workers here have an interest in revolution the way that Filipinos, Indians, or Peruvians do. They don't, and it falls to what few advanced revolutionaries exist within the US to overcome past chauvinism and link up with the lowest and deepest masses to create an embryo of what can become a revolution in the future. The third world will not do the work for you.
>everyone from outside the NATO/Zionist sphere has to unite and destroy it.This is a frankly bizarre bastardization of the JDPON concept that I'm fascinated by. What exactly would be the basis for this unity? These nations are somehow meant to unify and take down US imperialism without there first being a socialist, anti-imperialist struggle within them? This idea is absurd on its face. At least MIM had the sense to think through their understanding and base it in the necessity of socialist revolution. Without socialist revolution, all you're proposing is a third inter-imperialist world war to reshuffle the existing capitalist system. Reformism, but with a side of mass-murder.