I think this could fall into what Mao called “leftist” adventurism, and I do believe that in the context of international and national levels there are situations where the national bourgeoisie takes a revolutionary role, such as it is the case of, for example, Bolivia or Venezuela, where the lack of a scientific Marxist socialism leads to, in some form or another, the national bourgeoisie to be in the power. Still, in the geopolitical game, they play a revolutionary role as the material conditions are not set for a true people’s movement due to the West interventionist policies (coups and installments of fascists regimes in Latin America, and so on). I am not saying that in this way they would be liberated from the exploitation, but it would be one dialectical step further into true emancipation from the ruling classes.
I think this could fall into what Mao called “leftist” adventurism, and I do believe that in the context of international and national levels there are situations where the national bourgeoisie takes a revolutionary role, such as it is the case of, for example, Bolivia or Venezuela, where the lack of a scientific Marxist socialism leads to, in some form or another, the national bourgeoisie to be in the power. Still, in the geopolitical game, they play a revolutionary role as the material conditions are not set for a true people’s movement due to the West interventionist policies (coups and installments of fascists regimes in Latin America, and so on). I am not saying that in this way they would be liberated from the exploitation, but it would be one dialectical step further into true emancipation from the ruling classes.