I assume this has been covered already (I'm new), and I welcome recommendations of existing material! (E.g. Imperialism by Lenin seems like it'd be relevant)
I'm reading State and Revolution, and am trying to map it to the conditions in the US.
From chapter 2 (emphasis mine):
The overthrow of bourgeois rule can be accomplished only by the proletariat, the particular class whose economic conditions of existence prepare it for this task and provide it with the possibility and the power to perform it. While the bourgeoisie break up and disintegrate the peasantry and all the petty-bourgeois groups, they weld together, unite and organize the proletariat. Only the proletariat — by virtue of the economic role it plays in large-scale production — is capable of being the leader of all the working and exploited people, whom the bourgeoisie exploit, oppress and crush, often not less but more than they do the proletarians, but who are incapable of waging an independent struggle for their emancipation.
My understanding is that large-scale production has largely been moved outside of the US. I imagine this is also true of most imperial core countries.
If that's true, doesn't it follow that the US has a small, relatively weak proletariat?
And if THAT'S true, what's the path to revolution in the US? Without a powerful proletariat, there can't be a proletarian revolution, right?
I could see one answer being:
- Weaken US imperialism (e.g. through revolutions in imperial periphery)
- US is forced to re-develop it's own productive capacity
- Developed productive capacity results in strong proletariat
- (Wait for contradictions to sharpen?)
- Revolution
Another (more likely?) could be:
- Get conquered
In both of those cases, the immediate work is to weaken the power of the US as a whole, right?
What are the main tools the US uses to project power, and how could orgs weaken them from within? Organize, obviously, but organize to do what? Mutual aid and unions seem clear, anything else?
I'd also be curious about any work on other paths to revolution in the imperial core. This might be straying outside of Marxist-Leninism, but has there been any theory around a revolution lead by a different class?
E.g. perhaps a deeply racist country could have a revolution based on race? ...though the majority of people in the US are white. E.g. the black panthers were threatening enough that the state infiltrated and killed them.
Anyway. Interested in y'all's thoughts - sorry if these are basic questions.
Is the financial nonsense still 'production'? In one sense, it certainly produces finance capital. But also... is providing a loan really 'production'?
Re: Marxism, finance itself is not productive in the capitalist political economical sense. It is, at best, more of a necessary element to "grease the wheels" and should be a subordinate feature as it is actually more of a cost than anything. It weighs on production even as it is necessary under capitalist anarchic production to get certain things going. One of the greatest detriments to those in the imperial core is the extent to which finance weighs upon the average person (even as they also benefit from imperialism!). It is the bulk of the reason why housing is so expensive, for example. That's 50-80% of a common person's paycheck right there and it didn't produce anything, it just creates a speculation and investment "market" with deep layering of financial nonsense. College tuition is similar. There are similar rent seeking and leech industries like medical insurance that similarly drive up the burden. A burgerlander might get paid $80k/year for some job but then need to go into $200k medical debt. When countries keep these costs down they achieve more with less. Euros keep medical insurance at bay with various strategies. China handles all of these things fairly proactively except for the misstep with real estate that is now being fixed (at great cost!).
So short answer is "no but sometimes it's necessary under capitalism".
This stuff is covered in both volumes 2 and 3 of Capital, about both circulation of capital and financialisation of capital. Worth getting around to them at some point in your reading lists.