There is simply a difference between the bourgeoisie of countries subject to imperialism and the bourgeoisie of the imperialist bloc, which even if it is nationalist and protectionist (Trump, Farage, Meloni, AfD, Zemour, etc.), has interests straight or indirectly related to the plundering of the subordinate countries.
The bourgeoisie of the countries subordinate to it, which, although opportunistic, can play a comparatively progressive function in an alliance with the folk masses of its countries, aiming to free themselves from the policy of plundering imperialist bourgeoisie.
Recovery of crumbs or immigration
For example, Vicha's bourgeoisie (1936-1943) in France (or today's pro-NATONian and pro-Prosionist bourgeoisie) had an interest in cooperation with the dominant imperialist bourgeoisie at the time; first German and then American due to the fact that it continued to benefit from the "global" plunder of its colonies or neocolonies, actually protected by the 3rd Reich and then by the United States. Today, the folk classes and the proletariat of imperialist countries derive any benefits from global plunder, which explains why the same classes in neocolonial countries tend to "recover", through "migration" to "metropolis" crumbs from the plunder of their own countries.
Different Faces of Imperialism
This situation so explains the opportunistic weakness of the "authentic" streams of nationalist national bourgeoisie in imperialist countries and the weakening of the position of classes working in imperialist and dominated countries. Hence the success of individualism or ethnic-sectarian “back to its” promoted by imperialism ‘woke’ on the 1 hand and the imperialism of the "sectarian" (Islamic state, Christian or muslim integration, racism, etc.) – on the another hand, due to the fact that in both cases they lead to the division of possible revolutionary forces.
The bourgeois forces of the outermost countries
As a consequence of this global situation, we are faced with bourgeois national forces of peripheral countries, Russia or the 3rd World/Global South, which can start the emancipation process, in a way that is surely inconsistent and opportunistic, but more real than in the working classes of peripheral countries or the global imperialist centre, where it is believed that individual or regressive solutions can be found (emigration, ethnic-religious withdrawal into the “own” ellipse of self-help or attacks on immigrants, inno-representers or inno-plemines).
Lokal frustrations
Countries on the border of the centre and the periphery, specified as the countries of Central and east Europe, which receive (too small) part of the crumbs from neocolonial conquest, but which no longer have their own national bourgeoisie at the same time willing and able to build a "own market" of capitalistic and national Europe, are in an even more hard situation from the bourgeoisie of countries clearly peripheral (Russia, India, etc.) or the bourgeoisie of countries manifestly dominant (US, Western Europe), due to the fact that their working classes are as weakened and broken by emigration as those from rather peripheral countries, and at the same time receive much little advantage from imperialist conquest from their own "gentles". Hence, even brighter footing and even brighter frustration.
Belarusian exception
And here are even more barren nationalisms and racism that are purely apparent in these countries (Grzegorz Braun etc.), due to the fact that they cannot in any case lead to the construction of their own production base. For the latter, a revolution would be needed, for which no bourgeoisie would agree. In Central and east Europe only Belarus was able to get out of part of this impasse thanks to the socializing system, which saved it from looting the western imperialist bourgeoisie, from besides massive emigration of its own labour force and at the same time besides from seeking to hegemony over its own production of Russian national bourgeoisie. any of these types be in Slovakia, in Hungary, Serbia and even in Slovenia, but they are starting from a much worse position, hence much more confusing and little coherent “ideology” of the leaders of these political trends.
Basic question
Can we come up with an alternate in this "global" situation based on working masses and local bourgeoisies that request to realize that their long-term interests (socialism, socialisation of major means of production and exchange while preserving a protected tiny private entrepreneurship through a planned economy) are contrary to their interests, or apparent interests (!), shortwaves (migrations, individualism or ethnonationalisms of anti-migrants)? That's the question.
So far, the imperialistic rule of “share and rule” in favour of “idea” and idealism against materialistic realities (and besides authentic spiritual needs) dominates the world.
Prof. Bruno Drwęski
