In all seriousness this last year on leftypol has convinced me more than ever that most people who call themselves socialist are basically just fascist or developmental capitalist-nationalist who don't like the west. At best they are like Meiji Restoration-era 19th century Japanese nationalists rather than socialists/communists. They care nothing for the classical socialist goals of workers control of the means of production which is why they're always droning on about bullshit. In this last year I've heard motherfuckers on leftypol arguing that marxist economics should be replaced with neoclassical microeconomics, planned economies are slavery, market based economies produce higher growth, and how its good that Russia is funding Benny Johnston anti socialism daily wire prager bullshit in the west.
The post '91 left is literally parroting talking points Ronald Reagan, Milton Friedman, and Hayek could have said, but for non western nations. If radlibbery is the unholy marriage of friedrich hayek and judith butler, modern so-called anti imperialists are just the unholy marriage of edward said and milton friedman.
I didn't base this on CNN but by talking to actual socialists from so-called 'socialist' countries like vietnam on this very website who will openly shit on CHAZ and call western leftists idiots. The Baizuo slur is particularly telling, its basically roasting western leftists for actually believing the thing that they pretend to believe.
People will roast so-called "patriotic socialists" but for entirely wrong reasons. The fact is they are anything but patriotic since they shill for foreign powers are pro reducing the military strength of their own nation.
Can any of these so-called anti imperialists give one cogent, selfish self interested, non self hating reason for a westerner to support their project? Other than just hating their bourgeois parents?
If Marxian economics is misguided (in their opinion), markets are better than planning and workers control of the MOP is a fools errand and the only thing left is developmentalism-nationalism, why the fuck should any citizen of the west support this? Why shouldn't I just go full atlanticist neocon or buger-liberal against the assholes funding fifth columnists in my country who are doing their best to undermine not only any remote semblance of even bourgeois democracy, but actively supporting political forces who want to degrade the living standards and turn my country into the handmaids tale?
Give a sane, well adjusted average westerner (not some discord teenage edgelord) even ONE material self interest reason to become a useful idiot simp for oriental bourgeois capitalists and nationalists, especially when those same forces are funding reactionary bullshit in my country?
I don't like v–sh but he's sort of right in that Clement Attlee labour 1940s uk, scandanavian 1970s socdem, FDR, and even wolffian workers coops, despite not being socialist, are still closer to socialism and would provide the western worker a better standard of living and more democratic input and control of their own lives than whatever bullshit you fuckers are peddling.
I have no time for people who think the Abbasid Caliphate, imperial China, the Moghul empire, the Safavid empire, Ottoman Empire and Tsarist Russia are socialist. They're not socialist and not even bourgeois democratic. Only a moron would trade even dire poverty in a modern western nation for being a bugman under some form of eastern despotism just so some self hating failson can do a warhammer 40k larp while he memes on discord in a nasal voice about white juche and n*ggers because he saw the big red feminist meme once in 2014 and now made his whole identity being anti liberal like some low I-Q version of christopher lasch.
In conclusion, fuck RUSSIA, fuck CHINA, fuck VIETNAM, and fuck all these fake 'socialist' countries, I will show them one ounce of solidarity when they stop funding benny johnston to go on the daily weirdo or whatever the fuck so they can force my girlfriend to not get an abortion and outlaw anything but building more mcmansions and SUVs and strip malls as the planet burns to the fucking ground.
And for those smartasses who will say 'hehe fuck your country anon' then I say learn how material self interest works. Fuck my country? well then fuck your country (assuming you're not once of the aforementioned self hating westerners). Have fun, asshole.
534 posts and 69 image replies omitted.>>2006493>Do you guys even think about the shit you say?Yes. All posts are carefully calibrated to ecieve (you)s.
<almost at bait limitIt's super affective.
Mfs be saying all of this
>>2006110 and then don't like when leftists like Israel
>>2005156>So they should just stop developing?They are not "developing" under capitalism. Local capitalists will enact neoliberal policies the exact moment they can. You can't see the flow of time and how capitalism changes form.
>People without homes and electricity and running water, no jobs, no factories, no schools, no hospitalsThis bum thinks there aren't major cities in sub-saharan Africa. The "bourgeoisie" will always be "comprador" dumbass.
>>2005350Beneath this debate actually is a disagreement on how exploitation is calculated: Do we go by labour time equivalent of wages vs. labour time expended by the worker or do we go by labour time equivalent of wages vs. socially necessary labour time of the commodities the worker produces.
I suspect its a semantic/conceptual difference in the interpretation of Marx. Of which the disagreements are at the highest level amongst respectable Marxist economists (See vid related with Alan Freeman, who takes the former view outlined above compared to Cockshott taking the latter)
>>2006543>>2006527>>2006610Lets actually take north america as an example: the north american continent has all the resources needed to survive on its own. Its a net oil exporter, and even has massive lithium deposits in nevada. During the 20th century and the 2000s this wasn't the case. But since the 2010s and the fracking revolution it is. The only resource that the US doesn't have is advanced semiconductors which is why they will go to war over taiwan. But if that ever changes then the US/CAN will literally be able to 100% capitlaist autarky, even population/labor isn't a problem with literal hundreds of millions worldwide desperate to migrate to the US.
The idea that somehow the US would collapse is ludicrous. This is the dumbassery of people writing fan fictions on leftypol of a us civil war or state by state breakup which is literally never going to happen, even when the US was a colonial country proper it never AFAIK extracted significant profits from its colonies (ex: puerto rico, the phillipines) or relied on said profits to prop itself up. The only western imperial power i can think of doing this is clement atlees labour government in the UK using colonial revenues to pay for the social welfare state. And even that is gone since the british empire is gone.
>Seriously, on what basis could you possibly argue that imperialism no longer exists?The period during which europe and its offshoots colonized the globe lasted from the 1400s and a good deal of that was pre capitalist modes of extraction (see: the french and spanish empires to a large extent). Truly capitalistic imperialism only lasted from around 1750 to 1970. Obviously its hard to give an end date because the end of colonialism was a gradual process which some argue started around the time of the first world war. Lenin was writing at the literal high point/peak of European imperialism.
After that period national liberation movements sprung up (many helped by the USSR in later times) and countries such as India, Kenya for example gained their independence.
>>2006786but they have said that? its just a paraphrase of what people have been saying in this whole thread?
Tons of people ITT's whole argument is that multipolarism is necessary to 'disrupt capitalism' and therefore open the space to socialism revolution?
WTF is up with people claiming that "oh nobody says that" when tons of people do? another example:
>>2004850 >>2006789>necessary didn't say that either
>therefore open the space to socialism revolutiondoesn't make it necessary or a requirement for revolution
in fact what people actually say is that multipolarity will create a crisis and that makes the need for organizing even more urgent because capitalism in crisis either becomes communist or devolves into fascism. no one is saying you have to wait they are saying that this is the last stop on the train and if you dont get on board you will be left behind.
>>2006698I will take some quotes from Lenin demonstrating that you are lying by distorting the concept of imperialism by Lenin:
<(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, VII. Imperialism as a Special Stage of capitalism, 1916.Now I will add a quote explaining examples from the time Lenin wrote of how to act:
<6. Three Types of Countries in Relation to Self-Determination of Nations<In this respect, countries must be divided into three main types:
<First, the advanced capitalist countries of Western Europe and the United States of America. In these countries the bourgeois, progressive, national movements came to an end long ago. Every one of these “great” nations oppresses other nations in the colonies and within its own country. The tasks of the proletariat of these ruling nations are the same as those of the proletariat in England in the nineteenth century in relation to Ireland.
<Secondly, Eastern Europe: Austria, the Balkans and particularly Russia. Here it was the twentieth century that particularly developed the bourgeois-democratic national movements and intensified the national struggle. The tasks of the proletariat in these countries—in regard to the consummation of their bourgeois-democratic reformation, as well as in regard to assisting the socialist revolution in other countries—cannot be achieved unless it champions the right of nations to self-determination. In this connection the most difficult but most important task is to merge the class struggle of the workers in the oppressing nations with the class struggle of the workers in the oppressed nations.
<Thirdly, the semi-colonial countries, like China, Persia, Turkey, and all the colonies, which have a combined population amounting to a billion. In these countries the bourgeois-democratic movements have either hardly begun, or are far from having been completed. Socialists must not only demand the unconditional and immediate liberation of the colonies without compensation—and this demand in its political expression signifies nothing more nor less than the recognition of the right to self-determination—but must render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in the bourgeois-democratic movements for national liberation in these countries and assist their rebellion—and if need be, their revolutionary war—against the imperialist powers that oppress them.
<V. I. Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 1916.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm#fwV22P151F01Now I will add other quotes to silence opportunists who have no solidarity with the colonial resistance to a state that denies economic sovereignty to a people while at the same time considering itself separate without giving equal rights, which is the case of Israel against Palestinians:
<In short: a war between imperialist Great Powers (i.e., powers that oppress a whole number of nations and enmesh them in dependence on finance capital, etc.), or in alliance with the Great Powers, is an imperialist war. Such is the war of 1914–16. And in this war “defence of the fatherland” is a deception, an attempt to justify the war.
<A war against imperialist, i.e., oppressing, powers by oppressed (for example, colonial) nations is a genuine national war. It is possible today too. “Defence of the fatherland” in a war waged by an oppressed nation against a foreign oppressor is not a deception. Socialists are not opposed to “defence of the fatherland” in such a war.
<V. I. Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, 1. The Marxist Attitude Towards War and “Defence of the Fatherland”https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/1.htm#v23pp64h-029Now in the same text in another chapter talking about imperialism against those who generalize every conflict as "inter-imperialist":
<Advanced European (and American) capitalism has entered a new era of imperialism. Does it follow from that that only imperialist wars are now possible? Any such contention would be absurd. It would reveal inability to distinguish a given concrete phenomenon from the sum total of variegated phenomena possible in a given era.
<V. I. Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, 2. “Our Understanding of the New Era”https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/2.htm#v23pp64h-036 >>2006663>local capitalists will enact neoliberal policies the exact moment they canand until then industrial development is progressive, temporary alliance while interests align doesn't mean forever
>there aren't major cities<the capital city has a bank connected to the new york stock exchange? you really think the existence of cities means the whole country has infrastructure?
how to "anticampists" twist their brain around supporting Rojava but not Palestinian communists fighting Israel?
>>2005139>death to every state in ME except Rojavacurious, why do you support rojava despite them being a US-Israeli proxy but you don't support the PFLP and DFLP because they're in the Axis of Resistance? Why do you trust YPG's judgement to have US troops being stationed in Rojava at their own request, but you don't support the judgement of the PFLP and DFLP to support Hamas?
>>2006698>Lets actually take north america as an example: the north american continent has all the resources needed to survive on its own. You forgot one crucial thing that they don't have nearly enough of to sustain the American economy. Profits. Capitalism isn't about producing goods for people to actually use, it's about producing profits. As much of them as possible as fast as possible, even when doing so is actually detrimental not only to the wellbeing of the population, but to the strategic interests of the government. Because virtually all capitalist production essentially takes place using capital advanced by investors expecting a significant return, it literally cannot function without constant expansion. This is what drives imperialism in the first place: markets at home become saturated, there is no further room for expansion, no more labour, not enough resources. It doesn't matter if the country is already producing all the goods it needs, because unless the returns on investment are constantly growing the economy will enter a crisis of overproduction. This is what I've been trying to tell you. Western economies have evolved on a foundation of nearly unchallenged global dominance, access to virtually any and all markets, access to huge amounts of cheap raw materials and labour. The loss of these things would critically damage their ability to generate the profits they need to attract capital and keep operating. It would be catastrophic for them if say, third world countries now had alternative customers for their exports, could demand a higher price for them, could nationalize them or raise local wages without being overthrown. Why tf do you think they were so desperate to crush not just communism, but developmentalist capitalism in the third world? Because if the Global South starts to develop, to become capable of standing on its own, resisting Western influence, producing their own goods, implementing policies designed to help their own people, trading on their own terms, and actually competing with the West, then these unfair advantages disappear, and profits along with them.
>The period during which europe and its offshoots colonized the globe lasted from the 1400s and a good deal of that was pre capitalist modes of extraction (see: the french and spanish empires to a large extent). Truly capitalistic imperialism only lasted from around 1750 to 1970. Where are you getting this idea that imperialism refers exclusively to direct colonial rule? Have you actually read Lenin's book on imperialism? He speaks extensively about other forms such as foreign ownership of assets and capital, indirect rule through local proxies, etc. Do you unironically not consider it a form of imperialism for American corporations to own all of the most lucrative industries in Central America, to prop up local dictators in bed with these interests, and to brutally crush any attempt to change this and keep the region's wealth in the hands of its own people? Read "War is a Racket" ffs.
https://monthlyreview.org/2024/11/01/the-new-denial-of-imperialism-on-the-left/
>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 interimperialist war on the side of their respective nation-states—has the split on imperialism on the left taken on such serious dimensions.1 Although the more Eurocentric sections of Western Marxism have long sought to attenuate the theory of imperialism in various ways, V. I. Lenin’s classic work Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism (written in January–June 1916) has nonetheless retained its core position within all discussions of imperialism for over a century, due not only to its accuracy in accounting for the First and Second World Wars, but also to its usefulness in explaining the post-Second World War imperial order.2 Far from standing alone, however, Lenin’s overall analysis has been supplemented and updated at various times by dependency theory, the theory of unequal exchange, world-systems theory, and global value chain analysis, taking into account new historical developments. Through all of this, there has been a basic unity to Marxist imperialism theory, informing global revolutionary struggles.
>However, today this Marxist theory of imperialism is commonly being rejected in large part, if not in its entirety, by self-proclaimed socialists in the West with a Eurocentric bias. Hence, 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. The historical foundations of this split lie in declining U.S. hegemony and the relative weakening of the entire imperialist world order centered on the triad of the United States, Europe, and Japan, faced with the economic rise of former colonies and semicolonies in the Global South. The waning of U.S. hegemony has been coupled with the attempt of the United States/NATO since the demise of the Soviet Union in 1991 to create a unipolar world order dominated by Washington. In this extreme polarized context many on the left now deny the economic exploitation of the periphery by the core imperialist countries. Moreover, this has been accompanied more recently by sharp attacks on the anti-imperialist left.
>Thus, we are now commonly confronted with such contradictory propositions, emanating from the Western left, as: (1) one nation cannot exploit another; (2) there is no such thing as monopoly capitalism as the economic basis of imperialism; (3) imperialist rivalry and exploitation between nations has been displaced by global class struggles within a fully globalized transnational capitalism; (4) all great powers today are capitalist nations engaged in interimperialist struggle; (5) imperialist nations can be judged primarily on a democratic-authoritarian spectrum, so that not all imperialisms are created equal; (6) imperialism is simply a political policy of aggression of one state against another; (7) humanitarian imperialism designed to protect human rights is justified; (8) the dominant classes in the Global South are no longer anti-imperialist and are either transnationalist or subimperialist in orientation; (9) the “anti-imperialist left” is “Manichean” in its support of the morally “good” Global South against the morally “bad” Global North; (10) economic imperialism has now been “reversed” with the Global East/South now exploiting the Global West/North; (11) China and the United States head rival imperialist blocs; and (12) Lenin was mainly a theorist of interimperialism, not of the imperialism of center and periphery.3
>In order to understand the complex theoretical and historical issues involved here, it is important to go back to Lenin’s analysis of imperialism, conceiving it not simply in terms of Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, but in relation to his whole set of writings on imperialism from 1916–1920. It will then be possible to perceive how the theory of the imperialist world system developed over the last century on the basis of Lenin’s analysis and the early Communist International (Comintern), followed by further theoretical refinements after the Second World War in the work of the main theorists of dependency, unequal exchange, the capitalist world-system, and global value chains. This history will set the stage on which to critique the current denial of imperialism on much of the left. >>2008489>we are now commonly confronted with such contradictory propositions, emanating from the Western leftIf you treat the Western left as a monolith and collate all their positions, it really
does sound like schizophrenic ramblings of an escaped mental asylum patient.
But they're not, it's all just different flavours of copium to mask the abject terror of being under threat of being subjected to what the West was dishing out for the past two centuries.
My favourite is the accusation of "chauvinism". The brightest of projections.
Unique IPs: 28