?

Log in

No account? Create an account
red

rotte_volf in add_a_radical

The global anti- imperialist strategy.

The problem of the world uneven development, the problem of widening gap between rich and poor countries identified by bourgeois ideology as one of the main “global problems" which threatening the stability of existing world order. Bourgeoisie have a gut feeling where there may be the most serious challenges to its class rule. Proletarians and oppressed nations are not interested in the existence of the capitalist system of exploitation and oppression. Therefore, through its foremost, class-conscious groups - the communist parties, they should be able to find such weak points in the capitalist system, the revolutionary exposure to which inflicts capitalism the greatest damage. This weak point, the main contradiction of the capitalist world system, is currently a conflict between the most economically developed and most backward countries, between the richest and poorest countries of the world.


Imperialism against the Third World.


In order to understand the depth of the contradiction between rich and poor nations and come to a correct method of solving this contradiction we must first examine the facts. According to statistics, in 2008 the share of the U.S., Canada, European Union, Japan, Australia and South Korea accounted for 63% of global gross domestic product (GDP). At the same time the share of the 42 poorest countries account for only 1 - 2% of world GDP (1). The average per capita incomes in the 20 richest countries is 37 times higher than the corresponding figure in the 20 poorest countries, and over the past 40 years this gap has doubled (2). According to estimations of analysts of the UN Development Program, the combined wealth of 225 world's richest people exceeded $ 1 trillion at the beginning of the XXI century, it equates to an annual incomes of the poor 2.5 billion, who constituting 47% of the world's population (3). U.S., Canada, EU, Japan and Australia, where approximately one billion of nearly seven billion of global population resides, consume most of world's natural resources and most of the world's electricity. In their territory starts or ends more than 80 percent of world trade flows.

Since the goal of capitalist production is a profit, not satisfaction of the reasonable material and cultural needs of people, the capitalists consciously spread perverted consumerism. Mass consumption in the U.S. and the EU often assumes an ugly, degenerative form, while 925 million people suffer from chronic hunger in developing countries (4).


Economic inequality is supported by the incompatibility of military power between rich and poor countries. Military spending of all countries totaled 1.2 trillion $US in 2007. The total military budget of NATO countries amounted to 850 billion dollars in the same year (5). That is, the share of the most aggressive imperialist bloc accounts for almost 71% of global military spending!


For understanding basic, class aspect of the conflict between rich and poor countries we have to take into account the following facts. From 1997 to 2007, the share of employed workers in India and South Asia increased by more than 6% - from 15.4 to 21.7%, in China and East Asia - from 24.3 to 26.9%, in Indonesia and Southeast Asia - from 17.1 to 19.1%, in Latin America - from 20,7 to 22%, in sub-Saharan Africa - from 8,5 to 9,6% (6). Contradictory economic development of third world countries and shifting into them industrial production by multinational corporations (MNCs) has led to the fact that the vast majority (nearly 80%) of the class of wage earners are concentrated today in Asia, Latin America and Africa. If we take into account that the working class becoming very bourgeois in Western Europe and U.S., the contradiction between wage labor and capital almost coincided now with the contradiction between oppressive and oppressed nations.


Globalization. The new old face of imperialism.


Many people talk and write about globalization now. There are a lot of ideological myths around this concept. One of them is the assertion that globalization is a new phenomenon which began to evolve with the 80s of XX century. In a broad sense, globalization began in the period of "Age of Discovery" in the XV-XVII centuries. The processes of globalization, the processes of economic, political and cultural integration and unification on the basis of capitalist mode of production to permeate through the whole history of capitalism as a world system. The term "globalization" was first used by Karl Marx in one of his letters to Engels in the late 50s of the XIX century. Stating that with the U.S. conquest of California and unequal treaties between Japan and European powers the world market has become truly global (because the circles of trade flows has closed, covered the entire planet) he wrote: “Now the world market actually exists. With California and Japan's appearance at the world market globalization has accomplished”.


It's more correctly to speak about new stage of capitalist globalization. What is its specificity and originality? There is no doubt that the main reason for the acceleration and deepening of modern globalization processes is the emergence and development of the international capitalist super monopolies - MNCs. MNCs are in need of the global division of labor, free migration of capital and human resources, standardization of legislation, economic and technological processes, in a postmodern blending of cultures in different countries. The scale of the economic power of MNCs in the modern world clearing up by the following characteristics: they control about 2/3 of world trade, they account for about 1/2 of world industrial production, and they control about 4/5 of the world's patents, licenses and know-how. The budgets of the largest MNCs exceed the budgets of some states. MNCs have their own centers of analysis and long-term planning, its own network of “agents of influence” around the world - from lobbyists in the government to affiliated non-profit organizations in civil society.


The conquest dominant position of the MNCs in the global economy is dictated by the logic of capitalism. That is not a surprise to Marxist thought. Analyzing the conditions and mechanism of creating such supermonopolies Lenin wrote “monopolistic capitalist associations, cartels, syndicates, trusts, divide primarily domestic market among themselves. They are capturing production of the country in its more or less full possession. But under capitalism the domestic market is inevitably linked with the outside. Capitalism created a worldwide market long ago. As the export of capital grew and foreign, colonial ties and "spheres of influence" of major monopolistic unions expanded in every way, the things were "naturally" heading towards a worldwide agreement between them, to the formation of international cartels” (7). The emergence of such supermonopolies Lenin considered as a new stage of “global concentration of capital and production” that was an incomparably higher than the previous one (8).


An important feature calling forth emergence and growth of MNCs is the capital's need for the exploitation of cheap labor. In turn, this need is caused by the immanent laws of capitalist mode of production - the tendency of the rate of profit to fall. Roughly speaking it's not a technique creates a profit but working hands of the proletarians. Therefore, to counteract the tendency of the rate of profit to fall capitalists are compelled to seek the cheapest labor force, and in the modern world, they can find it only on the world periphery, in the third world countries. In addition, hook or by crook MNCs seek to get their hands the natural resources of third world countries with the lowest cost to themselves.


Interrelations between MNCs and capitalist state are a discrepant and complicated process. On the one hand international supermonopolies can not manage without a state as a condition for the existence of the capitalist system as a whole, as an instrument of class domination. The MNCs need for the state to provide military, political and economic pressure on the weaker, developing and poor countries. When economic crisis comes, the monopolies face financial and other problems, and bourgeois state is always in a hurry to their aid. The inter-imperialist contradictions between the most developed capitalist states have not also disappeared (for example, between the U.S. and EU countries). On the other hand the process of relative reducing the role of the national bourgeois state is obvious. The bourgeois state is delegating some of its powers to supranational globalist structures such as WTO, IMF, World Bank, OECD, etc. in economy, the UN, G8, etc. in politics. Relative weakening of the role of nation-state is accompanied by the increasing role of regions in the politics and culture. We see, therefore, contradictory trend of development (9). But it is crucial to understand that, despite these internal contradictions, the camp of world imperialism (both its interconnected factions - the "old" faction of the state-monopoly capitalism and the "new" globalist faction MNCs) is a single whole as antagonistic opposite to camp of the world anti-imperialism. Here, in the issue of economic subjugation and plunder of third world countries all capitalists and bourgeois politicians are united. Controversy between them can only be on who and how many will get the pie.


A new stage of capitalist globalization is nothing more than a continuation of the old imperialist policy by the new means.


Anti-globalism or anti-imperialism?


One can often hear that the so-called anti-globalization movement is a real opposition to the negative phenomenon of modern globalization. But is it really? What is the essence of anti-globalism, what social forces are behind it? Firstly, we note that the anti-globalization movement is far from homogeneous. There are different forces from rightists to leftists collected under this brand - pacifists, traditionalists, environmentalists, left humanitarians and so on. Their ideological, political, social, economic and cultural views are very different and often just contradict each other. In general, however, one can distinguish moderately liberal, traditionalist and radical trends in this movement. Moderate anti-globalists (French ATTAC for example) insist on purely cosmetic measures such as taxation of financial speculations (0.1% of the amount of transactions) and dispatching these funds to fight poverty in the Third World. They naively believe that such a paltry sop could solve the problem. Traditionalist anti-globalists are in opposition to limiting the sovereignty of nation states, they support protectionist economic policy. The farmers and trade unions of European countries and USA often advocate these positions. In fact, they are talking about maintaining privileged position of the labor aristocracy in the imperialist centers. On the other hand, it must be admitted that when the same issue raised by the representatives of Third World countries, then the strengthening of national sovereignty against the globalists encroachments is profoundly fair and progressive requirement. But this fair demand encountered with hostility by the radical anti-globalists trend which mainly represented by the various anarchists and semi-anarchists. Western anarchist anti-globalists do not distinguish between the national state of the First World, which is an instrument of imperialist expansion, and the national state in the world's periphery, which serves as a barrier to this expansion in many cases.


The socio-political alternatives proposed by the anti-globalists such as "participatory democracy", "strengthening of civil society", "autonomous zones", etc. are quite illusory. In essence it is nothing more than a rehash of old and unsuccessful reformist projects. The question that must be raised in this context is as follows - whose social interest satisfies this ideological agenda? The process of dismantling the so-called "social state", the process of liquidation of social guarantees has been running since the 80-90s of XX century in developed capitalist countries. Certainly, this process hurts the unemployed, the most unsecured segments of Western society. But it is aimed also against the "labor aristocracy", against Western middle class, petty bourgeoisie and white collars. The so-called "Welfare state" was created after the WW II with the active participation of the Western Social-Democrats (and the reformists of all kinds) in conditions of economic recovery, and last but not least thanks to the neo-colonial exploitation of the oppressed nations. Now, however, the global capital sees no need to keep "Welfare state" in the metropolis. Naturally, this causes dissatisfaction among the labor aristocracy and petty bourgeoisie. The ideological and organizational core of anti-globalist movement expresses the interests of Western labor aristocracy and petty bourgeoisie. The Western petty bourgeoisie and labor aristocracy primarily seek to stop neo-liberal attacks on their "Welfare state". Their class nature does not allow raising the issue of a radical transformation of society and, consequently, their ideological program does not remove the antagonism between the metropoly of capitalism and its periphery.


Upon closer inspection anti-globalism turns false alternative in the imperialist centers. At the same time, however, it is necessary to consider that the part of anti-globalist movement which is based in developing countries could be an ally to the anti-imperialist movement. At the same time, however, it is necessary to consider that the part of anti-globalist movement which is based in developing countries could be an ally to the anti-imperialist movement. It is necessary only to focus efforts on the separation of Third World's anti-globalism from the First World's anti-globalism.


Classification of the countries of contemporary world.


Labelling some countries as belonging to these or other large groups is organically inherent in the theory of Marxism. Such labelling must be carried out under certain visual angle according to certain criteria of classifying. In 1920, at the II Comintern Congress, Lenin clearly divided the countries of the world into three groups and took this division as the starting point for determining the strategy and tactics of the international proletariat. Lenin said: “Thus, you get a picture of the world in its main features as it formed after the imperialist war. Billion and a quarter people in the oppressed colonies, in the countries which are being divided alive (as Persia, Turkey, China), countries that have been defeated and thrown into the position of colonies (in these group of countries Lenin included the Central block countries, as well as the Soviet Russia, that was dropped to almost colonial position as a result of the war - D.K.). No more than quarter of a billion people - these are the countries that have survived in the old position, but all they fell under USA economical dependence and all they'd been in military dependence during the war because the war spread worldwide and prevented any State to remain neutral on the matter. And we have finally no more than a quarter billion people in the countries (Lenin was referring here to U.S., Japan, England and other countries, D.K.), in which, of course, only the top, only capitalists benefited from partitioning of the land ... I would like to remind you this picture of the world, for all the basic contradictions of capitalism, imperialism, which lead to the revolution, all the basic contradictions within the labor movement, which led to a severe struggle with the II International, ... - all these are connected with the division of the world population between imperialists” (10).


If we take the economic parameters as the basis of classification (it is also measure the degree of political and military power, because, as Lenin pointed out, the imperialists divided the world “according to capital”, “according to their force”, (11), all countries of the modern world can be divided into three large groups.


The first group embraces the United States, Canada, the European Union, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and South Korea. It is the centre of the empire of world capitalism. The world's financial centers and the headquarters of multinationals concentrated here. Here is highest share of the labor aristocracy too. Here the lion's share of the surplus value that created by the work of hundreds of millions of proletarians on the periphery of capitalism flow down. These countries are home to 1.05 billion people.


The second large group includes countries which are occupying an intermediate position. Being the objects of imperialist expansion in many respects, at the same time they are carry out their own expansion, export of capital, etc. These are China, India, Indonesia, Brazil, Mexico, Turkey, South Africa, Russia and Kazakhstan. The economy of these countries is characterized by a huge income gap between the majority of population, who live by the standards of the “third” (or even “fourth”) world and a relatively small share of the local labor aristocracy, the petty and middle bourgeoisie, the bureaucracy, who live by the standards of the “first world”. In addition, some of these countries are characterized by huge regional disparities in economic development and living standards. For eg., there is a huge disproportion between the coastal and hinterland in China. India has a disparity between several industrialized regions and agricultural regions. The acute contradictions, such as high levels of social inequality, uneven development of various regions, coupled with the expansion of MNCs and imperialist powers impart rather precarious position to those countries and it makes them possible candidates for a falling away from the system (12). About 3.2 billion people reside in these countries.


Finally, the third group contains oppressed nations, the countries which are the goal to imperialist expansion and exploitation. About 2.6 billion people reside in these countries. That is the reality of contemporary world order, fully confirming the Lenin's law of uneven economic development of capitalist countries in imperialist era.

Now let's take another basis for classification, namely the attitude towards imperialism. If we want to consider that issue from a really scientific point of view it is necessary to move away from ideological, and especially from abstract humanistic moral appraisals. Any State which has conducted radical anti-imperialist complex of measures in the domestic and foreign policy, regardless of its form of government, political regime, compliance with human rights or not, etc. objectively strikes the world capitalist system, reduces the sphere of influence and resource base of capitalism. From this point of view all countries of the modern world could be divided into four groups.


The first group includes the countries which are “strong anti-imperialist”. This is primarily the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, with its fifth (according to other sources - the fourth) largest army in the world. The DPRK leadership, headed by the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party of Korea, Supreme Commander of the Korean People's Army Marshal Kim Jong Il successfully resists the pressure of imperialist encirclement and does not intend to follow the path of capitalist “reforms”, i.e. to open the country to imperialist expansion. This group also includes the Republic of Cuba, Libya, and Republic of Zimbabwe (13).


The second group includes the countries which are “vacillating anti-imperialists”. These are the countries in which radical anti-imperialist transformation had not yet implemented. These countries sometimes forced to make certain concessions to imperialism in foreign policy. This group of countries includes Venezuela, Bolivia, Syria, Belarus, Ethiopia, and several others.


The third group includes the countries which are “pro-imperialists”. That is the vast majority of countries, the political leadership of which directs them (voluntarily or involuntarily) into a fairway of imperialist policy.


And, finally, the fourth group - it are the imperialist predators. In turn, this group can be divided into three subgroups. The first subgroup - it are the most aggressive predators on a global scale - the U.S. and European NATO countries. The second subgroup - it are predators on a regional scale - Japan and Australia. And the third subgroup - it are the satellites of predators - Canada, Israel, New Zealand, South Korea.


The minimum program and the maximum program of anti-imperialism.


What is the meaning of anti-imperialist struggle? Because of severity and intensity of main contradiction of capitalist world, the series of anti-imperialist revolutions in Third World inevitably coming. What global strategy should they be guided by?


Most part of the XX century, until the collapse of the Soviet Union, the socialist idea was a pole of attraction for most anti-imperialist movements. And nowadays it is so in Latin America, several countries in Asia and Asia-Pacific region. Meanwhile the pole of radical Islamism has formed and strengthened. It is clear however, that only socialism is a real opposition to imperialism, because only socialism can put an end to the foundation of the global imperialist expansion - the capitalist mode of production, only socialism can prevent the emergence of new imperialist countries in the world. Communists and socialists should make every effort to push on inevitable anti-imperialist revolutions towards the socialist transformations in economy, politics and culture, and where conditions permit, to raise the question of transition of full power in the hands of workers and peasants, that is, about socialist revolution itself.


The anti-imperialistic minimum program aimed at restoring national sovereignty and, depending on local conditions, it may include a range of measures. For eg., from a heavy taxation to partial or full nationalization of foreign monopolies, implementation of a truly independent political line, critique of imperialism on the international arena and supporting anti-imperialist forces around the world. A wide range of progressive, democratic, patriotic and leftist forces could be united around this program. United anti-imperialist front based on it have to be created.

The anti-imperialist maximum program aims to exit of a certain country from the world capitalist system and transformation it into a genuine base of radical anti-imperialist and global resistance. The maximum program provides for the nationalization of major industries of the country (including, without exception, the foreign monopolies), the nationalization of banks, the state monopoly on foreign trade and other radical socialist transformations. The implementation of this program into practice is a task for all radical left-wing forces, particularly for the communists.


“A Global City” and “Global Countryside” nowadays.


Both the above programs serve a single meta-goal, fit into a single global strategy of anti-imperialist struggle. The purpose is to eliminate capitalism and eradicate imperialism. The global anti-imperialist strategy must be based on such factors as the high proportion of labor aristocracy, parasitic non-proletarian strata in the social structure of first world and its huge dependence from raw materials, energy and labor extorted from the third world (14) .


Having developed and concretized the Leninist vision of the problems of war, peace, and revolution in imperialist era, prominent figures of international socialism Mao Zedong and Che Guevara have made a great contribution to the theoretical development of anti-imperialist global strategy and world socialist revolution. Guided by the Mao Zedong's strategy of “surrounding the cities from the countryside” the Chinese people accomplished a victorious anti-imperialist, anti-feudal, democratic revolution. Later on that strategy got a global interpretation among the Chinese Communists: “If we consider the question in a global scale then the North America and Western Europe can be called “a world city”, while Asia, Africa and Latin America – “a global village”. .. In a sense, the current situation in the world revolution could be described as the situation of encirclement the city from the countryside” (15). Having watched that U.S. imperialism borne enormous military, economic, political and moral losses in the shameful Vietnam War, the hero of revolutionary struggle Ernesto Che Guevara came to the conclusion that to the elimination of global imperialist domination it was necessary to surround imperialist centers by the ring of points of anti-imperialist resistance, that is “... to create two, three, many Vietnams” (16).


But what is “a Global City” and “Global Countryside” nowadays? Half a century ago, in Mao and Che's epoch, such countries as China, India, Brazil, could be confidently attributed to the “third world”, to the “global village”. But now those countries have highly developed industry. It is wrong to identify "a world city" only with highly developed countries of Europe and United States because a differentiation between the "city" and "village" has occurred within the modern "second world" countries (such as China, India, Brazil, etc.). The non-uniformity regional development, the growing gap between rich and poor and other imbalances and disparities - all these are clearly manifesting there.


Given the pace of economic growth and huge resources of China, India and Brazil, in the near future these countries probably will start an open fight with U.S. and EU for spheres of influence according to their increased strength. Capitalist development has led to the expansion of "global city" and at the same time, to a deepening gulf between it and "global village". Accordingly, we must not confuse a real socialist anti-imperialism with "anti-imperialism" of the modern "second world". The first is aimed at the eradication of imperialism per se while the second one seeks to replace one imperialist’s hegemony by another. As the opposition to socialism the world imperialism is single and unitary. This does not mean however that a consistent anti-imperialism should not use the contradictions between different groups of imperialists.


The fact that the "global city" now can no longer be strictly and clearly correlate with the countries of Western Europe and U.S. should logically lead at a conclusion of an incorrectness of the simplified, linear understanding of the world revolutionary process. Some authors present a simple scheme - the revolutionary movement in the "Third World" deprives Europe and U.S. the possibilities of parasitize on the resources. Accordingly, the level of welfare of "First World" middle class drops down dramatically. As a result of it, the class struggle intensifies in Europe and U.S. and then a revolution takes place there. And then these "advanced" countries set up socialism and help the less developed ones to complete socialist transformations. But what is currently "advanced" character of European and North American capitalism? Perhaps it only lies in the fact that the U.S. and EU are the holders most of the world's scientific and technical information (mainly due to the artificial reasons, such as the regime of so-called "intellectual property"), they own high technologies (especially military ones). The industrial strength of capitalism and skilled manpower are concentrated not in the U.S. and Western Europe but in the countries of "Second" and "Third" worlds. Perhaps the advantage of U.S. and Western Europe is in the cultural sector? But modern Western culture is the culture of postmodern. It is the culture of decadence and decay, its progressive development has stopped (no matter how sad it sounds for us, people brought up in the European cultural tradition). Perhaps the Western leftist movement shows us examples of outstanding theoretical and practical achievements? Alas, we do not see them. It is no accident that the real theoretical and practical achievements of the world left-wing movement in the last hundred years connected with the names of Lenin, Mao and Che Guevara. Perhaps, it is no exaggeration to say that Western Europe and United States have turned to the reaction zone and reformism nowadays. Certainly, the class struggle in Europe and U. S. has a great importance and many things depend on it. But to portray things so that it affects the ultimate success of the world revolution would be wrong in current circumstances. It is not Europe and U.S. but countries of Asia and Latin America determine the fate of socialism.


The strategy of "encirclement the Global City from the countryside" is absolutely correct. The success of this strategy will deprive the imperialist centers (the U.S. and EU) their global hegemony and heighten the class struggle there. Thereby, the hotbed of world reaction and reformism will be eliminated. Consequently, the revolutionary struggle in the countries that have now crucial to the victory of socialism on a global scale - China, India, Brazil and several countries in Asia and Latin America - will be significantly enhanced and facilitated.


The Global anti-imperialist front.


In the historical sense, XX century began in 1914 and ended in 1991. Its historical content related to a series of imperialist wars for the division of the world and an attempt of the oppressed classes and nations to go beyond capitalism to a new society. XXI century has not started yet historically, but the same problems of war, peace, and revolution would stand at the center of its historical notional field.


Certainly, it is impossible to predict what specific forms of anti-imperialist struggle will take place in concrete country - people's war or a general strike and mass protests in the cities. However, in order to be maximally successful, the fight against imperialism, the struggle for socialism in one, separately taken country, should be based on a clear vision of a global strategy, it have to consider itself as a part of an international struggle for the strengthen of the international solidarity of the oppressed classes and nations.


It follows the need for maximum unity of all anti-imperialist forces. For this purpose it seems necessary to establish an international center of solidarity and coordination of the struggle - The Anti-Imperialist League, with national sections in each country. The League's activity should be aimed at forming a strong anti-imperialist front, with the ultimate goal - to defeat and abolish capitalism and establish a popular rule.


The world anti-imperialist movement is weak and disorganized today, while imperialism is powerful enough. Nevertheless, the oppressed peoples will never accept the current state of affairs. The youth in Asia, Latin America and Africa has an enormous revolutionary potential. Today, there are 2.8 billion of young people under the age of 24 years in the world. And 95% of them live outside of the "First World". It is quite clear that in the next 15-20 years it is this generation will be the most active in the struggle for better conditions of its existence. This is a huge reserve of anti-imperialism and the struggle for socialism.


Notes:


1. Sources: IMF, World Economic Outlook Database, 2009 and the Human Development Report 1999. UNDP. - New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. P.2. Calculation of GDP at purchasing power parity (PPP)

2. World Development Report 2000/2001. The fight against poverty. Review. - Washington: World Bank. 2001, P. 3.

3. Human Development Report 2003. Millennium Development Goals: an interstate agreement to end human poverty / trans. from English. Minsk: Unipack, 2003, P. 39.
4. Source: Report "The situation in relation to Food Insecurity in the World" (SOFI). UN Food and Agriculture Organization

5. Source: CIA World Factbook.

6. Шапинов В. “Пролетарии всех стран”.http://www.rabkor.ru/analysis/1605.html

7. Ленин В.И. “Империализм, как высшая стадия капитализма”. Полн. собр. соч. 5-е изд. М., т. 27, с. 364.

8. Ibid. с. 364-365.

9. In politics it is often expressed by the neo-liberal struggle against conservatism, traditionalism, etc.

10. Ленин В.И., «II конгресс Коммунистического Интернационала. Доклад о международном положении и основных задачах Коммунистического Интернационала», Соч., 4 изд., т. 31, с. 194.

11. Там же, т. 22, стр. 241.

12. Only Russia seems pessimistic in this regard to date. Unlike China, India, Brazil and other countries of the second group, the abovementioned contradictions are proceeding in Russia on the background of the downward direction of development.

13. A special case is Iran. While Iranian leadership conducts anti-imperialist foreign policy but its domestic one is quite reactionary. Speaking against U.S. imperialism and its satellite of Israel the Iranian leadership intends to turn Iran into a leading regional imperialist.

14. Averaging the data of six different global economy guides, a well-known left sociologist Alexander Tarasov gives the following figures about first world's dependence on the third world's resources: energy - 52% (if we take only hydrocarbons - 79%), metals - 81%, raw materials for chemical industry - 89%, raw materials for food and agricultural products - 46%, raw materials and finished products of light industry - 67%. See: A. Tarasov, “The World Revolution 2” Journal "Left politics", № 10, 2010

15. “The People's Daily”. 3.IX.1965.

16. Эрнесто Че Гевара “Статьи. Выступления. Письма” Пер. с исп. Вороновой.Е. М.: Культурная революция, 2006. с. 514.


Dmitry Kremnev.

Comments