this thread is still embarrassing
the exposures he's talking about are also clearly in context the direct publication of internal state information, not some blanket dismissal of critique as you seem to be implying
the point is that this is simply not what the current conditions are, by any feasible interpretation. lenin explicitly describes the non-militaristic execution of imperialist goals that we're experiencing now in those very theses. a balance of power in which the agreements of the arch-imperialist powers allows the predatory strangling of the weaker nations
your invocation of "war by other means" is useless in this context -- lenin explicitly and avowedly followed clausewitz, in his direct interpretation war is a continuation of policy by other means. war by other means against the weak nations is the norm of imperialist peace.
i'm clearly not making anything like lessons' argument, the existence of active military mobilisation clearly existed in syria, this isn't some shifting arbitrary principle
that's what lenin is explicitly discussing in the words preceding swampman's excerpt he conveniently left out, and it's not what anyone here or in any of the relevant revolutionary parties is doing
Edited by c_man ()
lenin simply wasn't arguing whatever is being implied he was, and if you want to argue that your interpretation is in the spirit of lenin's intention then you have to actually argue that instead of posting an out of context quote from an intellectual authority as if it's an own on everyone
you can make whatever extrapolations about lenin's intention you like but none of them are captured in the sole fragment that was posted
Really phenomenal analysis of US-China trade and the economic impetus behind “trade war” rhetoric from the US. I’ll highlight one bit but definitely read all of it
What our results show is that the United States, as a world hegemonic power, is finding it increasingly difficult to maintain its advantage and come out on top of this competition, and therefore to bear all the implications of free trade, for which it once defined the rules to its advantage. China has indeed succeeded in significantly reducing the importance of this unequal exchange, with its disadvantage in the transfer of wealth gradually diminishing: the proportion of this unfavorable transfer in the Chinese added value fell from -3.7 percent to -0.9 percent between 1995 and 2014. As a matter of fact, China had to trade fifty hours of Chinese labor for one hour of U.S. labor in 1995, but only seven in 2014.
On top of this, the sectoral analyses that can be drawn from the application of our second method of calculating unequal exchange are very enlightening. Although forty-three out of the fifty-five sectors of activity (78 percent of them) considered by our study between 1995 and 2014 highlight transfers of value directed from China to the United States (the most significant being textile, clothing, and leather-goods manufacturing, as well as the manufacturing of furniture and other supplies), twelve other sectors are at the origin of transfers of values going in the opposite direction—that is, operating to the detriment of the United States. These latter activities include: the manufacturing of computer, electronic, and optical products (with $6.9 billion transferred from the United States to China in 2014); agriculture and farming; hunting and hunting-related activities ($3.1 billion); the manufacturing of motor vehicles and trailer and semi-trailer services ($1.1 billion); and the manufacturing of basic pharmaceutical products and pharmaceutical preparations ($422 million, still calculated for 2014).