From reading the Militant and other communist writings, I long ago got the impression that competition in the context of private ownership of the means of production is the deepest force and the defining feature of capitalist exploitation—even in the imperialist epoch. Didn’t Lenin say that imperialism doesn’t resolve any of capitalism’s contradictions, it just adds its own? It’s my sense that the imperialists use their monopoly enterprises, their state power, their interimperialist pacts, and their superexplotation of the semicolonies to temporarily manage and defuse capitalism’s crises. But it’s the contradictions of “classical” competitive capitalism that still build up and explode in time—with even greater force and in more forms (including those mentioned in part 2 of Sam’s article, in issue no. 36 of the Militant) than were imagined before imperialism.

Am I on the right track? If not, could you suggest something to read that might help me clear up my confusion about “competition then” vs. “competition now?”

Dave Segal
New York, New York
 
 
Third World revolution?
First and foremost may I thank and congratulate you all in what you do; I am 16 years old, and a college student in England, and am in regular contact with the Communist League in London. I go to the bookstore there as much as I can, and what you people do for the paper and the web site is just amazing. I am e-mailing to see what your views are on my idea about world history in the coming years.

As I see it, communist revolution must strike at the Third World first and foremost, because this is the West’s new class for exploiting and although we are obviously exploited here, we are not as brutally exploited as the working class in the Third World, who would be more inclined and open-minded towards communist revolution. Then, once the West has lost influence there, by these countries following the Cuban example of nationalization, then the rulers will have no choice but to return to the old days of brutally exploiting the working class back at home, which is when revolution strikes here.

If you could comment at all to me about this, I would be hugely appreciative.

James Haywood
London, England
 
 
Young Socialists in Tucson
Ma’mud Shirvani spent a weekend in Tucson with the Young Socialists at the University of Arizona here. One hundred people came to hear Shirvani’s lecture on “50 Years after the Coup in Iran: a history of imperialist intervention and Iranian resistance.”

His talk was part of a weekly series of anti-imperialist films and lectures sponsored by Voices of Opposition to War, Racism and Oppression, a local coalition in which the Young Socialists are active. Two students signed up for the Young Socialist weekly Marxist class series. One of them appeared at our class on lessons of the Utah coal miners’ strike.

Betsey Stone, Arrin Hawkins, and Bill Schmitt drove from Los Angeles to join the Young Socialists in a potluck for Ma’mud and to help at the weekly literature table on the campus. Twelve Militants, one subscription, and a couple of Pathfinder titles were sold.

Chris
Tucson, Arizona

The letters column is an open forum for all viewpoints on subjects of interest to working people.

Please keep your letters brief. Where necessary they will be abridged. Please indicate if you prefer that your initials be used rather than your full name.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home