I disagree with Haz on a lot of things, but Haz’s statement that revolutionary warfare is more than a mere “class war” within a vacuum and also has national-liberation aspects due to the globalistic nature of imperialism is pretty valid
I disagree with Haz on a lot of things, but Haz’s statement that revolutionary warfare is more than a mere “class war” within a vacuum and also has national-liberation aspects due to the globalistic nature of imperialism is pretty valid
I feel like if he replaced “capitalism” with “classical liberalism” or something he might make more sense. But liberalism has always been a grift since the enlightenment. Free markets are only useful to destroy local capital and spread monopolies, they are not the end goal of capitalism.
That’s an interesting perspective. For me it’s a difference of which class guides the development. In the USSR we saw and in modern China we see, the capitalist mode of development being used by and for the proletarian class’ benefit in those countries. And we see what happens when the bourgeois guide this mode of economic development.
I agree on that totally. I think by “chaotic production” he possibly is referring to liberalized economies that rely entirely on free markets. In many ways the idea of “free markets” has never been a very real thing, more like a dogma. His comments almost reminded me Yanis Varoufakis and his ideas about techno feudalism, or “illiberal capitalism.” Usually I’d just say monopoly or imperialism but of course that’s because I like Lenin and I reject our present moment is entirely unique.
It seems like he’s taking the position of the AnCaps, but the opposite. Instead of “not real capitalism so bad” he suggests that “socialism is when the government does stuff”, the state as a neutral or positive force almost always, the opposite of Lenin’s position.