Tahir: As someone who lives in South Africa, I'm very willing to answer this kind of third-worldism. The assumption appears to be that third world countries cannot aspire to anything better than nationalist pseudo-marxist forms of development. Here are some points to consider:
The "movements" that you refer to, which have usually based themselves on Lenin's theory of imperialism and sometimes on Mao's much more explicitly political formulations on the subject, have never showed any potential whatsoever for advancing beyond the same capitalist project. This unfortunately is turning out to be as true of Cuba as it is of China. It has been claimed that this is the only viable model of development that emerged in the twentieth century. It is not - I'll return to this issue below. It is one model that has showed some spectacular successes, notably China itself, but this is only valid if you accept the capitalist-productivist and non-democratic limitations which the model imposes. Among the drawbacks linked to this must be mentioned: the highly unfortunate equation of socialism and marxism with a repressive form of capitalism, which even today still discredits marxism in general; a rate of environmental degradation which is possibly even worse than that!
o! f western capitalism; a repulsive emphasis on national interests masquerading as anti-imperialism. This last helped to discredit both the Soviet Union and China, as well as all the parties linked to them, amongst the labouring poor of the world, including the third world. So a model of success yes - but with successes like this who needs failures?
My view is that imperialism is inherently part of capitalism, always has been, and that any struggle against imperialism that is also not properly anti-capitalist is simply another form of nationalist mumbo jumbo. We don't have to get into all the obvious horror stories (Pol Pot, etc.) to show that anti-imperialism is not a good in itself. Actually an excellent example is Iran. All the leftist parties showed deference to the mullahs during the struggle. Why? Because they were anti-imperialist of course and, as all Iranian Maoists and Leninists knew, the principal contradiction in Iran was the people against imperialism. So here we have the classic case. Support the anti-imperialist struggle and you get two for the price of one: national liberation and a giant step closer to socialism! But unfortunately the theory was wrong as it always is and the leftists got slaughtered for their troubles. And not only is socialism now more remote than it ever was, but there are even fewer ! de! mocratic freedoms than there were under the Shah.
Now a couple more specific points in response to your main question: 1. Only where the direct, head-on struggle against capitalism is possible can the end to class society (and by implication imperialism) be achieved. 2. It IS necessary to point out that this is not possible in all its facets and in all places and times. In some contexts the working class and the revolutionary people need instead to fight for bourgeois democratic freedoms, better working conditions and the strengthening of civil organisations that are beneficial to the people. This situation is typical of countries that are backward in those particular respects. The point of this is not reform but strengthening of the conditions that are necessary for socialism. It means creating the social conditions, and especially expanding the cognitive and affective resources, that will be required in the head to head with capital, i.e. in becoming more human rather than more like a machine. 3. What else is advocated here? Complete unity of those fighting against capitalism across all national boundaries. There is absolutely no marxist basis for uniting with one's 'own' bourgeoisie against the foreigner in the name of anti-imperialism (But that is exactly what happens in national struggles - 'our' bourgeoisie somehow becomes benign in relation to 'theirs'). 4. The domain where direct anti-capitalist struggle is impossible is shrinking all the time. This is because of globalisation. The third world is moving into the US and the US is moving into the third world. Let's not get too attached to our stereotyped categories here. 5. A very specific myth needs to be put aside in relation to the above point: this is that autarchic quasi-marxist movements are more effective in developing capitalism and that this constitutes an additional justification for their existence (i.e. beyond the fact that they will somehow 'lead to' socialism at some point in the future). But there are and have always been other models of authoritarian capitalism. South Korea is a recent one. But Franco's Spain is an earlier one. Who says that the Stalinists would have done a better job of capitalist modernisation? As Bordiga says: Capitalism is the agrarian revolution. It doesn't require bourgeois democracy at all. It can be done by authoritarian rightists just as well as by authoritarian 'leftists'. Each one of these also sets back the socialist cause as much as the other (but only one discredits marxism).
The idea that crap notions of struggle and development are somehow OK because they are located in the third world is patronising hogwash.
Tahir