Buying the right stock at the right time can transform your life. For example, if you had invested $10,000 in electric vehicle (EV) industry leader Tesla in 2014, you would have a whopping $245,300 today. That's a return of over 2,430% in just a decade. Could Rivian Automotive ( RIVN 5.35% ) be the next best thing? Let's explore the pros and cons of this EV start-up to decide if it has multi-bagger potential over the long term. The hype has faded Rivian was at the top of the world when its shares became available through an initial public offering (IPO) in 2021. This was a different time for the EV industry. Tesla had recently become profitable, proving the technology was here to stay. And Rivian's lineup of high-end trucks and EVs promised to fill an overlooked opportunity in the market. With a starting market capitalization of over $100 billion, the company immediately became America's second-most-valuable automaker behind Tesla -- leaving traditional marques like Ford Motor Company and General Motors in the dust. In hindsight, this made very little sense. And the market quickly soured on Rivian as growth stalled and rivals began offering products like the F-150 lighting, Silverado EV, and Cybertruck, which took over its niche. Rivian's third-quarter revenue fell 18% year over year to $874 million on a decline in both production and deliveries. To be fair, the EV industry is much more competitive now than it was when Rivian went public. And macroeconomic challenges like inflation and high interest rates probably aren't helping consumer appetite for its high-end cars. But it's hard to make any excuses for Rivian when rival products like the Tesla Cybertruck are doing so well. According to Kelley Blue Book, Elon Musk's polarizing vehicle has sold a whopping 28,240 units so far this year, trouncing Rivian's R1T, which has only sold 10,387 units. This is despite the Cybertruck's higher sticker price, with a base price of $82,235, compared to Rivian's R1T, which starts at $71,700. Worse still, Rivian lost an average of $39,130 on every car it sold -- up from $30,448 last year. With a gross margin of negative 45%, it costs the company more to manufacture and deliver its cars than it can recoup by selling them. CEO Ryan Scaringe believes he can change the situation. He claims the company is on track to achieve gross profitability in the fourth quarter by improving revenue per unit and variable costs per unit. This will involve selling regulatory credits, improving materials costs, and unlocking manufacturing efficiencies. But this doesn't fix Rivian's core problem with heavy competition and poor top-line growth. Can the situation be turned around? There are several things Rivian can do to try to turn its situation around. The first step will be to secure the funding needed to stay in business. To that end, the company has partnered with industry giant Volkswagen Group to launch a $5.8 billion joint venture to focus on creating EV software and architectures. Rivian will benefit from cash infusions, while Volkswagen will get access to its more advanced technology. While this deal makes sense in the short term, it is alarming to see Rivian giving up part of its economic moat to a potential competitor. Volkswagen vehicles are expected to begin using Rivian's architecture by 2027. All this being said, I'm still cautiously optimistic about Rivian. The company doesn't seem to be a life-changing buy right now. But underneath the noise, it makes quality products that consistently win awards for safety and consumer satisfaction. And eventually, enough buyers might take notice. While it's too early to buy Rivian stock, investors should keep it on their watch list pending more information.Smith scores 23 in Furman's 69-63 win against PrincetonGeorgia QB Carson Beck takes hit on throwing arm before halftime, leaving status uncertain

WEST PALM BEACH, Fla. (AP) — An online spat between factions of Donald Trump's supporters over immigration and the tech industry has thrown internal divisions in his political movement into public display, previewing the fissures and contradictory views his coalition could bring to the White House. The rift laid bare the tensions between the newest flank of Trump's movement — wealthy members of the tech world including billionaire Elon Musk and fellow entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy and their call for more highly skilled workers in their industry — and people in Trump's Make America Great Again base who championed his hardline immigration policies. The debate touched off this week when Laura Loomer , a right-wing provocateur with a history of racist and conspiratorial comments, criticized Trump’s selection of Sriram Krishnan as an adviser on artificial intelligence policy in his coming administration. Krishnan favors the ability to bring more skilled immigrants into the U.S. Loomer declared the stance to be “not America First policy” and said the tech executives who have aligned themselves with Trump were doing so to enrich themselves. Much of the debate played out on the social media network X, which Musk owns. Loomer's comments sparked a back-and-forth with venture capitalist and former PayPal executive David Sacks , whom Trump has tapped to be the “White House A.I. & Crypto Czar." Musk and Ramaswamy, whom Trump has tasked with finding ways to cut the federal government , weighed in, defending the tech industry's need to bring in foreign workers. It bloomed into a larger debate with more figures from the hard-right weighing in about the need to hire U.S. workers, whether values in American culture can produce the best engineers, free speech on the internet, the newfound influence tech figures have in Trump's world and what his political movement stands for. Trump has not yet weighed in on the rift. His presidential transition team did not respond to questions about positions on visas for highly skilled workers or the debate between his supporters online. Instead, his team instead sent a link to a post on X by longtime adviser and immigration hard-liner Stephen Miller that was a transcript of a speech Trump gave in 2020 at Mount Rushmore in which he praised figures and moments from American history. Musk, the world's richest man who has grown remarkably close to the president-elect , was a central figure in the debate, not only for his stature in Trump's movement but his stance on the tech industry's hiring of foreign workers. Technology companies say H-1B visas for skilled workers, used by software engineers and others in the tech industry, are critical for hard-to-fill positions. But critics have said they undercut U.S. citizens who could take those jobs. Some on the right have called for the program to be eliminated, not expanded. Born in South Africa, Musk was once on an a H-1B visa himself and defended the industry's need to bring in foreign workers. “There is a permanent shortage of excellent engineering talent," he said in a post. “It is the fundamental limiting factor in Silicon Valley.” Trump's own positions over the years have reflected the divide in his movement. His tough immigration policies, including his pledge for a mass deportation, were central to his winning presidential campaign. He has focused on immigrants who come into the U.S. illegally but he has also sought curbs on legal immigration , including family-based visas. As a presidential candidate in 2016, Trump called the H-1B visa program “very bad” and “unfair” for U.S. workers. After he became president, Trump in 2017 issued a “Buy American and Hire American” executive order , which directed Cabinet members to suggest changes to ensure H-1B visas were awarded to the highest-paid or most-skilled applicants to protect American workers. Trump's businesses, however, have hired foreign workers, including waiters and cooks at his Mar-a-Lago club , and his social media company behind his Truth Social app has used the the H-1B program for highly skilled workers. During his 2024 campaign for president, as he made immigration his signature issue, Trump said immigrants in the country illegally are “poisoning the blood of our country" and promised to carry out the largest deportation operation in U.S. history. But in a sharp departure from his usual alarmist message around immigration generally, Trump told a podcast this year that he wants to give automatic green cards to foreign students who graduate from U.S. colleges. “I think you should get automatically, as part of your diploma, a green card to be able to stay in this country," he told the “All-In" podcast with people from the venture capital and technology world. Those comments came on the cusp of Trump's budding alliance with tech industry figures, but he did not make the idea a regular part of his campaign message or detail any plans to pursue such changes.

An online debate over foreign workers in tech shows tensions in Trump's political coalition

None

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Receiver Demarcus Robinson will not be suspended by the Los Angeles Rams this week after his arrest on suspicion of driving under the influence. Robinson will be available to play when the Rams (5-6) visit the New Orleans Saints on Sunday, Rams coach Sean McVay said Wednesday. “I think he does understand the severity of this, and how lucky we were that nobody was injured,” McVay said. “I do believe that he's remorseful. We are going to let the legal process take place. The league has a process as well.” Robinson was arrested early Monday morning after California Highway Patrol officers observed a white Dodge sedan driving over 100 mph on the 101 freeway in the western San Fernando Valley, a few miles from the Rams’ training complex in Woodland Hills. The driver, who identified himself as Robinson, had “objective signs and symptoms of alcohol impairment,” the CHP said in a statement released to The Associated Press. Robinson spoke to the team and expressed remorse about his arrest, McVay and quarterback Matthew Stafford said. “I think it was a bad decision he made,” McVay said. “I don't think that makes him a bad person, and I do believe this is something that, with the words that he said, our guys will learn from it, and hopefully nobody is ever going to repeat something like this. Let it be a learning opportunity, and a fortunate outcome that nobody was injured.” Robinson has 26 receptions for 384 yards and a team-leading six touchdown catches while starting all 11 games in his second season with the Rams . He caught a TD pass in the Rams' 37-20 loss to Philadelphia several hours before his arrest. The nine-year NFL veteran has served as a capable No. 3 option for Stafford behind star receivers Cooper Kupp and Puka Nacua. Robinson spent his first six NFL seasons with the Kansas City Chiefs, winning a Super Bowl ring in February 2020, and spent one year with Baltimore before joining the Rams last year. “Let this be a lesson to all of us,” Stafford said. “We're lucky with the result that came of it, to be honest with you, that nobody was hurt or injured. I know that D-Rob is a great person. I love being around him. Love him as a teammate. ... I'm just trying to support him, help him out any way I can.” AP NFL: https://apnews.com/NFLThe vice-president of the Waceya Métis Society is publicly questioning Liberal candidate Madison Fleischer’s claimed Métis identity. Callum Robinson, VP for Waceya, whose office is located in Cloverdale, issued a that said the society was “disappointed” Fleischer was unable to “provide any evidence to substantiate her Métis heritage.” Fleischer is running as the Liberal Party candidate in the upcoming byelection for the riding of Cloverdale-Langley City. Fleischer has identified, publicly, as Métis. According to the statement, at a meeting held Nov. 23, Fleischer “was unable to substantiate her claims with any documentation or historical connections to Métis communities.” Robinson told the , “there were many inconsistencies in her story.” These included: “claimed correspondence with our president, which didn't exist; and “stated her great-grandmother from North Dakota as proof of Métis heritage.” He said the society is "distancing" itself from her claims of Métis identity. “We ask that (Fleischer) take the necessary steps to properly research and verify her Indigenous heritage before making any further public assertions," the statement continues. "The integrity of Métis identity is not to be taken lightly, especially in public office, where the representation of our community must be accurate, respectful, and legitimate.” In an emailed statement to the , Fleischer said she self-identifies as Métis because of what she knows about her great-grandmother’s heritage. “I am currently collecting the necessary documentation to go through the application process to receive Métis Nation British Columbia (MNBC) citizenship,” she wrote. “I have always been vocal about not yet holding MNBC citizenship, and I removed Métis from my social media bios to ensure there was no confusion in my identification.”

Agriculture & Natural Solutions Acquisition Corporation Receives FIRB Approval In Connection with Previously Announced Business Combination

Nunavik police chief stresses healing, rebuilding trust in wake of fatal shooting

Kalshi CEO admits enlisting influencers to dis Polymarket in a now-deleted podcast segmentCARBONDALE, Ill. (AP) — Southern Illinois quarterback Michael Lindauer's coming-out party also was a dazzling farewell. The senior graduate assistant, pressed into duty as a player again when injuries left the Salukis in need of a quarterback, made his first career start — on Senior Day, no less — and threw for a school-record seven touchdowns in a 62-0 victory over Murray State on Saturday. “This was incredible,” Lindauer said. “The guys around me — thank the guys. The receivers were making plays, the O-line's blocking. When you get on a roll like that, stuff just starts happening.” The fifth-year senior, a transfer from Cincinnati, completed 20 of 33 passes for 283 yards. Keontez Lewis caught scoring passes of 4 and 64 yards. Bradley Clark had TDs of 35 and 23 yards. Nah’shawn Hezekiah had touchdowns of 19 and 35 yards on his two catches. And Jay Jones caught one pass for 1 yard — also a touchdown. Before the game, Lindauer had attempted 27 career passes. “Now, he's in the record book,” Salukis coach Nick Hill said. “It will be a hard record to beat, seven TDs in one game. ... What he's done ... just being so selfless and coming back and being a player. The team needed it. ... It’s a testament that if you stay committed, do the right things, have a great attitude, you’re going to get rewarded at some point, and he was rewarded in a big way today.” Southern Illinois finished the season 4-8 overall and 2-5 in the Missouri Valley Conference, but “to go out like that, that's a good way to go out,” Hill said. Lindauer was named the MVC offensive player of the week for his performance in his first and last career start. He plans to return in the spring, again as a graduate assistant coach, but this time with a resume to lean on. AP college football: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-football-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-football

In a world context marked by the war in Ukraine, the genocide in Palestine, the return of Donald Trump to the White House and the emergence of a new Right, the debates on war and imperialism, notions that seemed to have been filed in the drawer of memories by a large part of critical theories, are coming back to the forefront. But what do we mean when we speak of imperialism, and what is the relationship between imperialism and capitalism? What is the centrality of the anti-imperialist struggle for socialist strategy in the 21st century? On all these issues, there are important divisions on the Left. In what follows, we will focus in particular on some recent debates. On the one hand, there are those who argue that the Marxist theory of imperialism is obsolete, either because of the transformations of capitalism at the global level, or because it has always been wrong. For Vivek Chibber, editor of Catalyst Magazine and other authors of Jacobin Magazine, it isn’t necessary to build an “anti-imperialist Left,” but the key is to develop “class struggle at home” around “bread and butter” demands, namely, the elementary economic demands of the working class. From another angle, there are those who emphasize the inequalities between the “Global South” and the “Global North” while considering China and Russia as new axes of support for the struggle against imperialism. While the former seeks to recreate a kind of “welfare chauvinism,” the latter “Global South” positions denounce Western imperialism, but align themselves with other powers with strong imperialist traits. In the following, we will address some of these debates, in a counterpoint with Vivek Chibber and John Bellamy Foster. The first position is the one defended by the editors of Jacobin magazine in the United States, a magazine linked to the DSA (Democratic Socialist of America). In several articles, such as here and here , Matías Maiello polemicizes with the recovery of Karl Kautsky’s work by these authors and points out that there is no struggle for socialism without anti-imperialism. The debate is not secondary. In an interview published in the Jacobin Review , Vivek Chibber argued that the theory of imperialism developed by Lenin in his classic pamphlet “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism” was wrong. For Chibber, as far as this question is concerned, the “Leninist legacy produced much damage” in the Marxist left. His arguments can be synthesized as follows: 1) imperialism must be distinguished from capitalism, to confuse them would be a serious mistake; 2) the idea that capitalism entered a “new stage” characterized by monopolies is wrong; 3) the thesis that the confrontation between “rich countries” would be a constant in the following decades was “spectacularly wrong”; 4) Kautsky was right with his theory of ultra-imperialism when he “predicted that what there would be would be cooperation between capitalist countries, not competition”; 5) Lenin’s errors led to a mistaken position on “bourgeois revolutions” in countries like China and others, which gave rise to support for “anti-feudal” or “anti-imperialist” bourgeois nationalist sectors; and 6) there never existed a “labor aristocracy” in the central countries. Chibber artificially separates imperialism from capitalism , as if the former referred only to the “aggressions” of some nations over others, and the latter to economic or class relations. On that basis, he concludes that anti-imperialism means nothing more than “collective action in your country against militarism and aggression by your government against other countries, and convincing your working class that its material interests are tied to the de-escalation of conflict and the demilitarization of its own state.” We will return to these conclusions, but first let us address their foundations. The Marxist theory of imperialism, developed by Lenin, Luxemburg, and Trotsky, among others, is precisely counter to the idea that imperialism was a “militaristic excess” of some states, which could be contained by diplomatic means, as if wars between powers or colonial plunder were not inscribed in the tendencies of capitalism itself. In this sense, taking up the studies of Hilferding and other Marxist authors on financial capital, Lenin defined that the transformation of “free competition” capitalism into monopoly capitalism had given rise to a new stage of development of the capitalist system, its imperialist stage. And that this opened the way to an epoch marked by the tendency to wars, crises, and also revolutions. Chibber, like other authors, centered his criticisms of Lenin’s theory of imperialism on the definitions of his classic pamphlet “Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism,” focused above all on the economic dynamics of monopoly capitalism and on the inter-imperialist contradictions. While authors like Bellamy Foster rightly point out that to “understand the complex theoretical and historical issues involved” in this theory, one must put this work “in relation to his entire body of writings on imperialism from 1916-1920,” where the political elements and the question of national oppression have much more weight. In the Second International, the debate on imperialism divided the waters between Marxists and revisionists. At the beginning of the 20th century, the sector headed by Bernstein came to propose that there was a progressive, civilizing colonialism, and that there could even be a “socialist colonialism.” These positions were not in the majority and were rejected by different socialist congresses, which approved internationalist resolutions in the face of the possibility of the outbreak of a world war. At that time, Kautsky was still in the left-wing of the International. However, the chauvinist positions were becoming increasingly more pervasive in the leadership of the social democratic parties, gaining a foothold among the trade union bureaucracies and the labor aristocracy. From 1910 onwards, Kautsky moved towards centrist positions that diluted the struggle against imperialism and conciliated with the reformist and social chauvinist wing. Kautsky–as Chibber now proposes–in his analysis of imperialism, separated militarist tendencies from economic tendencies. He argued that capitalist expansion into new regions could be carried out by violent as well as peaceful means. He asserted that “imperialist methods,” which involved clash and confrontation between powers, were more a hindrance than a foothold for capitalist development, so that the capitalists themselves would seek ways to “coordinate” on an international scale. On this basis, Kautsky formulated the theory of “ultra-imperialism.” Just as capitalism had given rise to monopolies, these could give rise to the “cartelization” of the foreign policy of the states. That is to say, a phase that would not be marked by geopolitical and military confrontation between powers, but by their unification in a “Holy Alliance.” Remarkably, the article in which Kautsky formulated these ideas was published in September 1914, a few weeks after the outbreak of the First World War. We need hardly recall that what followed was not anything like greater concord among the states, but several years of imperialist carnage. The brutal tendencies towards military clashes between powers would explode again on a new scale in the Second World War. Yet, even after the whole 20th century passed with two world wars and was plagued by regional wars, Chibber affirms that Lenin was wrong, since from the 1950s onwards, the world had become “more Kautskyan.” However, in the postwar years, what there was was not an “ultra-imperialist” tendency toward harmony among the powers, but a “ Pax Americana” imposed after the defeat of the Axis powers (with the end of the war being a huge demonstration of imperial power with the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The post-war “boom,” which followed the previous enormous destruction of productive forces, was not the beginning of a new “ultra-imperialist” epoch as Kautsky announced. The pact with the Stalinist bureaucracy at Yalta and Potsdam allowed imperialism to avoid the danger of revolution in the capitalist center for an entire period (not so in the periphery) and to postpone the confrontations between powers. But that would not last forever. That post-war order was questioned on all its flanks at the end of the 1960s, with a profound workers’ and popular upsurge in the central countries, the capitalist periphery, and the countries behind the “iron curtain” (which was combined with the economic crisis from 1973 onwards). The defeats and deviations of these processes gave way to the neoliberal period, the leap in the internationalization of value chains, and the formation of an Atlanticist global order from which all major powers benefited for several decades. Now, was this the proof that Kautsky was right, that as a result of the internationalization of capital a harmonization of the interests of the powers had been achieved in an “ultra-imperialism”? The disputes between the imperialist states were partially suspended during the period of “globalization,” even with the formation of supranational structures such as the WTO, the European Union, or free trade agreements between regional blocs. But that does not mean that contradictions were eliminated. Chibber confuses here American hegemony (undisputed for a long period) with the historical overcoming of the imperialist epoch. And although the tendencies to clash between powers were largely contained since the second post-war period (there was no new world war), the current crisis of the neoliberal order poses its actualization in a violent way. Chibber’s timing for the defense of the thesis of “ultra-imperialism” does not seem much better than that of Kautsky. At present, it is not difficult to recognize the leap towards greater conflagrations between rival powers, with the return of war to European territory. Mainstream analysts write in the latest Foreign Affairs Magazine about a dynamic towards what they call a “total war,” with Donald Trump’s upcoming presidency adding uncertainty to the global outlook. Imperialism’s warmongering tendencies are also on display in the Middle East, with the brutal genocide in Palestine, Israel’s invasion of Lebanon, and Israel’s escalation with Iran. In Gaza, Netanyahu has deployed old-school colonial violence with state-of-the-art weapons provided by the U.S., Germany, and others. Now, Israel’s massacres and the complicity of Western powers have generated a wave of outrage and solidarity with the Palestinian cause not seen for decades. In the streets and on university campuses in the U.S., UK, France, and Spain, a massive youth movement emerged in support of the Palestinian people and against Zionist crimes. Hundreds of thousands of young people point the finger at their own imperialist governments as accomplices of genocide. In the United States, this led many to break politically with the Democratic Party and “ Genocide Joe,” and refuse to support Kamala Harris as the “lesser evil,” as Bernie Sanders or Alexandra Ocasio Cortez called for. Those who believe that the socialist Left in the U.S. can recreate itself with one foot in and one foot out of the Democratic Party, like Jacobin ‘s editors and DSA leaders suggest, are opposed to fighting for an anti-imperialist Left. The theory of ultra-imperialism served Kautsky to reconcile positions with the chauvinist wing of social democracy, which closed ranks with its own bourgeoisie in the war. It enables Chibber to continue to harbor illusions that the Democrats can be a progressive alternative, should they decide to take up the “bread and butter” agenda to seduce the working class. Let us now return to Chibber’s conclusions about what “anti-imperialism” means. In the interview with Jacobin , he states that it would be to push for “collective action in your country against your government’s militarism and aggression against other countries, and convincing your working class that their material interests are bound up with the de-escalation of conflict and the demilitarization of their own state.” In other words, it would be a matter of demanding, on a national level, that less money be allocated to military budgets, to be reinvested in schools and hospitals. This policy, while partially correct, when considered in isolation from a consistent anti-imperialist program, has enormous contradictions. In the first place, it seeks to obtain partial improvements for a sector of the working class in the central countries, without questioning the imperialist oppression of the semicolonial and dependent peoples. In the United States, paradoxically, it has been Donald Trump who has questioned the billionaire funds destined to the war in Ukraine, demagoguing that these funds should be dedicated to “making America great again.” Second, he generates illusions that militaristic tendencies and greater clashes between powers can be moderated with a little union pressure. And, finally, he believes that all of this would be possible with a Democratic government, if it were to adopt some old-fashioned social-democratic policies. In a recent article, John Bellamy Foster puts forward in a very suggestive way that: It is a sign of the depth of the structural crisis of capital in our time that not since the onset of the First World War and the dissolution of the Second International — during which nearly all of the European social democratic parties joined the inter-imperialist war on the side of their respective nation-states — has the split on imperialism on the left taken on such serious dimensions. He finds that “the gap between the views of imperialism held by the Western left and those of revolutionary movements in the Global South is wider than at any time in the last century.” He goes on to list some of the (contradictory) ideas that characterize what he defines as a Eurocentric Left. These include the denial of national oppression by imperialism and the idea that imperialism “is simply a political policy of aggression of one state against another” as we have already seen in the case of Chibber. This is also often accompanied by the justification of a “humanitarian imperialism aimed at protecting human rights.” He also notes the idea that “imperialist rivalry and exploitation between nations has been displaced by global class struggles within a fully globalized transnational capitalism,” or, in other occasions, the idea that “economic imperialism has been ‘reversed’ with the Global East/South now exploiting the Global West/North.” In the article, Bellamy Foster traces various debates on the Marxist Left about imperialism in the 20th century, from the Second and Third Internationals, to the elaborations of dependency theory, world-system theory, the cultural turn of the post-colonial left, and the more contemporary debates on global value chains and uneven development. He rightly points out that at the heart of all Eurocentric positions is the negation of Engels’ and Lenin’s theses on the labor aristocracy. In response, he responds that “existence of a labor aristocracy at some level is difficult to deny on any realistic basis.” As an example, he points out that the AFL-CIO leadership has historically been linked to the military-industrial complex in the United States and “has worked with the CIA throughout the post-Second World War era to repress progressive unions throughout the Global South, backing the most exploitative regimes.” As part of the “abandonment of the theory of imperialism on the left,” Bellamy Foster mentions among others, Empire by Toni Negri and Michael Hardt; David Harvey’s elaborations on the so-called accumulation by dispossession or the positions of Vivek Chibber, to which we refer. In particular, he argues that Chibber’s attack on the concept of monopoly capital shows “his ignorance of the enormous growth in recent decades in the concentration and centralization of capital associated with successive merger waves, leading to the continuing augmentation of monopoly power, along with the centralization of finance.” Now, while Chibber and other sectors of the Left deny the existence of imperialism from an abstract definition of class, Bellamy Foster tends to make the national question absolute in the periphery, diluting the struggle for class independence in what he calls “the Global South.” Vivek Chibber considers that the “Leninist legacy” has been detrimental to the Left, because in the case of revolutions in the periphery it meant support for the national bourgeoisies, with the idea of “anti-feudal” or “anti-imperialist revolutions.” One of the examples he gives is the support of the Chinese Communist Party to Chiang Kai-shek and his nationalist party, the Kuomintang, during the Revolution of 1925-28. However, what he omits is that there was no continuity between the Marxist theses on imperialism and the policy of Stalinism: the latter took up Menshevik stagism, subordinating the workers vanguard to the leadership of the reactionary Chinese bourgeoisie, which led to the defeat of the revolution. The important lessons on the Chinese Revolution and the opposition to that stagist orientation were the basis for the generalization of the Theory of the Permanent Revolution by Leon Trotsky. For his part, Bellamy Foster correctly questions Chibber for denying the national oppression imposed by imperialism on the “third world” or “Global South.” However, he does so by aligning himself politically with the national bourgeoisies (as in his defense of Chavism) and with China, which is another bloc with a strong dynamic of imperialist development. On this particular issue, he deploys several arguments. On the one hand, he argues that it is wrong to present “the People’s Republic of China as an imperialist (and straightforwardly capitalist) power in the same sense as the United States, disregarding the role of “socialism with Chinese characteristics” and the whole Chinese road to development, as well as processes of unequal exchange.” He goes on to state that China’s foreign policy is geared towards “promoting the self-determination of nations, while opposing bloc geopolitics and military interventions. Beijing’s threefold Global Security Initiative, Global Development Initiative, and Global Civilization Initiative together constitute the leading proposals for world peace in our era.” For Bellamy Foster it would be necessary to stand politically with the “underdeveloped nations” (he includes China among them) against imperialism. He points out that this would not mean “abandoning the class struggle in the core capitalist nations themselves, quite the contrary.” But what about class struggle in the nations of the “global south”? What he proposes is a new stagism of the 21st century, as if imperialism could be confronted without fighting the national bourgeoisies in Latin America, Asia and Africa. It is as if there were a progressive way out of imperialist warmongering, on the basis of the proposals “for world peace” of the authoritarian Chinese government. A Left that leaves aside the struggle against imperialism, as Chibber proposes, is evidently contrary to the increasingly warlike tendencies of the world situation and also of the international movement in solidarity with Palestine. But the struggle against imperialism and capitalism are intertwined, so it is not possible to recreate a socialist and anti-imperialist perspective without class independence. To deepen these debates seems more and more necessary. Originally published in Spanish in La Izquierda Diario . Translated by Sou Mi. Capitalism China Imperialism Karl Kautsky

None