[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Name
Options
Subject
Comment
Flag
File
Embed
Password(For file deletion.)


File: 1734266033381.png (74.83 KB, 686x915, 1590628322266.png)

 

PREVIOUS /ANTI-CAMPIST/ THREADS ARCHIVED:

>thread 1

https://archive.ph/3vk59
>thread 2
https://archive.ph/0nl34
>thread 3
https://archive.ph/IlnNV
>thread 4
https://archive.ph/TGcbL
>thread 5
https://archive.ph/W9gXy
>thread 6
https://archive.ph/DqmLm
>thread 7
https://archive.ph/M9nbv
>thread 8
https://archive.ph/tNGNO
>thread 9
https://archive.ph/bQK0q
>thread 10
https://archive.ph/BcHq3
>thread 11
https://archive.ph/5nt0c
>thread 12
https://archive.ph/pu57G

Last thread: >>>/leftypol/1944320

But what is multipolarity? The emergence of China, the reassertion of Russia, the rise of regional powers like India, Brazil, and South Africa, among others, suggest a new global development, but is it towards a world where multiple powers exist in a state of relative equilibrium, hence challenging the unipolar hegemony led by the United States post-Cold War, or Capitalism 2: Electric Boogaloo - Neo-Dengism Edition?

To what extent is cheering on this developing state of affairs just capitalist nationalism? If the whole thrust of socialism is now simply competition between capitalist states, what becomes of the classical socialist goals of workers' control of the means of production, and abolishing class society?

Given that Russia/Iran (two of the 'multipolar' pillars) have thrown Syria under a bus, this thread is more important than ever. Syria was a secular socialist state that has been destroyed by jihadist terrorists. And no, it's not "campism" to support Syria. Syria was actually deserving of solidarity.

Required reading:
https://magma-magazin.su/2023/04/t-mohr/multipolarism-is-neo-kautskyism-on-real-denazification-and-its-enemies/

Related national/regional current threads:
• /africa/ - Africa general - >>>/leftypol/1831758
• /ukr/ - Russia-Ukraine war general - >>>/leftypol/2075250
• /sg/ - Syrian Civil War General - >>>/leftypol/2079199
• /prc/ - People's Republic of China general - >>>/leftypol/2056718
• /SEA/ - Southeast Asia General - >>>/leftypol/1947611
• /rus/ - Russia General - >>>/leftypol/2024350
• DPRK/ - Democratic People's Republic of Korea General - >>>/leftypol/1947383

Websites:
https://inter.kke.gr/en/articles/No-to-the-imperialist-war/
https://assembly.org.ua
https://rfu.media
https://us.politsturm.com
https://t.me/Agitblog
https://www.eurcomact.org/
https://www.idcommunism.com/
87 posts and 17 image replies omitted.

>>2127874

>you dont call a race between an amateur and an olympian competition


I think you are still confused. I recommend rereading my original post, reply as well as Alan Freeman's response on the question of imperialism (particularly the point he makes about how the marxist neoclassical definitions diverge).

The point is that as concentration increased, the competition changes from one sector to others, from one location to others, to supply chain inputs, and access to financing. At the level of states it contributes to military confrontation.

Just because little players no longer figure much or at all and entry is difficult, this does change the fact that the game between the giants remains a competition (and in fact is in some ways more fierce).

>>2128029

*this does NOT change the fact that the game between the giants remains a competition (and in fact is in some ways more fierce). They are not all assembled in some kind of unified privately-owned gosplan in general cooperation with one another.

>>2128029
imperialism is not market competition, free or otherwise, if you want to call competition its competition for markets, which is a different thing entirely. its not that "free" just so happens to occur before competition in the quotes, and that lenin is referring to competition generally, but that it is describing a particular reproducible material relationship that takes a qualitative shift. this insistence that they are both "competition" is obscuring rather than clarifying

>>2128100

Two things:

1. The original claim I made is that monopoly is a form of competition under capitalism rather than its negation (as in the typical neoclassical formulation).

I didn't say that imperialism is market competition. That is your own reading & confusion.

2. Imperialism itself is a kind of competition, though obviously not reducible to economic competition alone.

In my view, denying competition in each case is the underlying logic is what is makes things obscure rather than clarifying.

Its how you get liberal/libertarian style economic proposed to remedy current economic problems (Something along the lines of "The problem is monopolies restricting the true & just market outcomes, ergo what is needed is stronger anti-trust style laws to break them up.")

Lenin's proposal however is their nationalization & further centralization by subordinating them to single central authority. This becomes goelro initially & eventually gosplan.

>>2128120

*as an underlying logic

>>2128120
>The original claim I made is that monopoly is a form of competition under capitalism rather than its negation (as in the typical neoclassical formulation).

>I didn't say that imperialism is market competition. That is your own reading & confusion.


And the original claim I made is that imperialism is synonymous with monopoly, which is distinguished by a lack of market competition. I dont know if you are trying to prove that Russia is imperialist or what but the issue I took was specifically with
>In marxist terminology a monopoly is a form of competition
which directly contradicts Lenin.
>If one firm has monopolized a given product in a given location, it merely is in a stronger position to compete in
makes it sounds very much like you are advocating "local monopolies" as constituting imperialism because they "compete" internationally, when modern imperialist relations are expressed as a lack of market competition internationally, and secondly that "monopoly", in the marxist sense, can be constituting by being the sole producer of a given product, rather than the convergence of industrial and bank capital into finance capital. When marxists talk about monopoly, for example in the oil market, and in relation to Russia, they are talking about the cartels and trusts and interlinking deals between the Bank of London JPMorganChase BP Exxon Shell Saudi Aramco and how they set international prices that in turn determine the maximum range a country like Russia can sell their only profitable resource at, that they are not subject to capitalist market competition and can demand rent above and beyond the actual value they produce, and how the petrodollar effectively acts like a tributary tax on world trade. This is a fast changing subject, but the Saudis being unreliable or switching sides does not mean that Russia has suddenly skipped stages of development because the US lost market share.

>>2128139

Its possible that I disagree with your interpretation of Lenin; I encourage you to read Alan Freeman's response that I linked above. A given text can have multiple interpretations (and indeed there are multiple conflicting ones on Marx, for example see the tssi vs. the sraffian readings)

Having said this, I want reempgasize original claim wasn't really to do with imperialism, but with what monopoly means.

>monopoly, which is distinguished by a lack of market competition


I do not think that monopoly, in at least my interpretation of Marx, means the absence of market competition in general; It merely means that some aspect of production & distribution has monopolized by a given firm; For example, take Aramco: Though it exercises a monopoly on oil extraction, distribution, etc. in Saudi Arabia itself, it still must compete with other firms in inputs markets for labour, machinery, electronics, pipes, etc. as well as competing in the international oil market (for raw crude oil ant way). The cartel is not totalizing even in raw oil, though it does have some effect; Still much of the rent us down to the cartel l, but rather to the naturally limited supply of oil relative to demand worldwide, further constrained by concentration in ownership (though it is not absolute).

Again I want to emphasize again that if the general problem is formulated as monopoly as a negation of competition, then liberal-libertarian solutions of anti-trust style breakups present themselves.

If instead the problem is that concentration makes competition more fierce in some ways, them the solution is total monopolization of the whole economy (As was indeed Lenin's view in the early Soviet Union, even if it could not be accomplished all at once dur to wartime devastation & shortage of proper personel).

>>2128174

*much of the rent is not down to the cartel itself

>>2128174

You know what, let me just copy Alan Freeman's response here, so that its directly accessible:

"I do think Lenin's text is a cornerstone. I would highly recommend the work of Sam King who has done an excellent exegesis of Lenin (in many ways I think he has done for Lenin what TSSI has done for Marx) showing how he has been very misrepresented and misunderstood, not least by Marxists.

In fact we put it on our site because of its importance

The fundamental issue is the question of monopoly. Lenin and Marx use this in a very different sense from neoclassical economics and here is where the confusion enters. For neoclassical economics, monopoly is presented as some kind of opposite of competition. But for Marx and Lenin it's just a form of competition. The imperialist countries used every device they could (and still do) to secure a competitive advantage over unequal exchange- conquest of territories, exclusive economic access to mineral and agriculural resources, suppression of industrial development elsewhere especially in the territories they controlled, control and fixing of markets, etc.

I think this very well describes what's going on today. The point to grasp, I think, is that imperialism is fundamentally an economic form -the politics are an expression of that. I think Lenin basically got that right.

I'll comment separately on the internet of things because that's a whole separate and big question. So I hope you will excuse me for coming back to that, and remind me if I don't do so."

>>2128174
I did read the Freeman thing and I see he works with other people I agree with. I dont think I'm interpreting Lenin the view I'm putting forward is the standard ML view of imperialism, which Marx didn't fully elaborate on because it hadn't consolidated in his time, but he did fully describe the mechanisms that logically lead to Lenin's conclusions, that are in turn supported by history.
>then liberal-libertarian solutions of anti-trust style breakups present themselves
We also have history for this. Anti-trust just leads to re-consolidation and regulatory capture. Its the same as social democratic reforms, they work temporarily when concessions are required to prevent revolution and then are rolled back when the threat fades.

I think you are making an completely different point, and the issue here is with Marx and Lenin using the same word to describe different things, not even separately but within their own work. Like how Lenin talks about the imperialism of Rome and of Britain and means two things. Like, what Lenin calls monopoly is almost always an oligopoly.

I dont even think I disagree, I just didnt like the way Freeman used "competition" here and if I were talking about imperialism I would use qualifiers and have the Leninist definition take unqualified precedent, so it would be "extra-market competition" or something. Like the whole point of liberalism is free markets so imperialist war is decidedly illiberal, and the focus is on the logical engine of capitalism driving it into its opposite. To me competition implies an artificial and regulated comparison between two equals, like sports, where there are rules to ensure fairness so you can evaluate who is the best. This is supposed to be what a market is from the liberal view, just a game between peers. I just get the feeling that using saying imperialist war is a continuation of the same kind of competition as a market, rather then a dialectical revolution into a qualitatively different condition, is sort of like naturalizing competition as a sort of ahistorical social darwinist survival of the fittest till death. Which isn't exactly wrong I would just call it domination or colonialism or something else. I just dont subscribe to the idea competition is some kind of law of nature rather than a human invention and think we should be careful what kind of things our rhetoric might covertly endorse.

to return all the way back to my post on reactionary/progressive, competition is progressive because under "fair" market competition capitalists compete to make better products and this drives technological innovation. monopoly imperialism doesn't have this feature because it lacks this kind of competition

>The original claim I made is that monopoly is a form of competition under capitalism rather than its negation

i think i can agree that it sublates it rather than negates it, and i guess this does stick with the marxist convention of using the same word to describe two different things


>>2128242

I am happy that you took the time to read everything. With this latest post I have a much clearer picture of why you replied the way you did.



>I think you are making an completely different point


I think this is probably the case. I tend to use words fairly carefully (though I am not perfect of course).

From this reply I have strong suspicion that you were formerly a liberal of some variant; Although liberal thinking influences everyone, I have never been a liberal, and so I think explains why my intuition & readings can be so different despite both of us attempting make use of marxist analysis.

Please do read what I am about to write not as an attack, but rather an exposition/clarification.

Consider:

>Anti-trust just leads to re-consolidation and regulatory capture. Its the same as social democratic reforms, they work temporarily when concessions are required to prevent revolution and then are rolled back when the threat fades.


You see I am critiquing anti-trust as a solution as such, not that it inevitably is undone. This is particularly obvious in network-like industries where significant scale & scope economies (including logistics importantly) exist are lost when you break them up (eg. railways, telecoms, electricity, etc.) In other words it can recreate inefficiency even if (partially/temporarily) solving the problem of high prices, exclusion, etc.

Another example:

>competition is progressive because under "fair" market competition capitalists compete to make better products and this drives technological innovation


Capitalist competition is actually fairly bad at encouraging innovation, at least in the research/invention/prototyping stage, which is why at least patent & subsidies are needed. This is because of either leaking information or research duplication & no rewards for negative findings. Even neoclassical econ. understands this at least timidly.

This is what really seals it for me though:

>To me competition implies an artificial and regulated comparison between two equals, like sports, where there are rules to ensure fairness so you can evaluate who is the best. This is supposed to be what a market is from the liberal view, just a game between peers.


This is precisely the latent/implicit liberal ideology that I lack. To me everything from sports, to business, to war are different kinds of competition, but I no way assume that there is necessarily some kind of strong set of rules that narrow them to something like "who made the best product" or "who trained the most", etc.

Winning (or more accurately, losing the least badly or most sustainably) is a function of relative position, hence it can involve all kinds of methods, including denying one's rivals your cooperation in a n-agent collective action problem in order to better position oneself in the game being played.



Now for some important clarifications:

>I just get the feeling that using saying imperialist war is a continuation of the same kind of competition as a market


I did not intend in any way to suggest that because capitalism & imperialism are both kinds of competitions that they are the same thing (although they may lead to another mechanically &/or dialectically)

At present have a working definition of capitalism that I am pretty satisfied with:

"An economic system whose underlying logic is competition between entities for relative individual profit and/or market share of the whole economy"

You can see its very much strictly defined by economic criteria, whereas I don't think imperialism is exclusively about markets or the economy.

Still, at this stage of my understanding I must admit that I don't have a good systemic definition for imperialism, though I admit I lean in the KKE's direction (though I see merits in Freeman's analysis on many points concerning unequal exchange & the like). Ζήτω το κόμμα μας τ'εργατικό! 😁

>the idea competition is some kind of law of nature rather than a human invention


I don't think this at all and am sorry if I gave that impression before. At most I might say natural laws don't prohibit competition from occurring, but they certainly do not make it inevitable necessarily.

Capitalism is decidedly for me very much an a-human entity, which while composed of our social relations, is very much alien to us. I sympathize with & highly recommend Ian Wright's dark marxism blog on this topic.

>>2129295
>This is precisely the latent/implicit liberal ideology that I lack
yeah im just taking the view that marx's critique starts from a perfect idealist version of capitalism, and then subsequently shows that even in that perfect ideal that doesn't really exist it still undermines itself by its own logic. he sort of steelmans liberalism so that people cant do gotchas or say "not real capitalism". the fact that the profit motive almost immediately drives people to break the rules is just a further point in his favor, with lenins analysis of imperialism showing an even deeper systemic rule breaking emerges.

in the larger picture its supposed to be a critique of the idea that liberalism, in granting private property rights to all citizens equally, is supposed to generate freedom for all of humanity, and why we dont see that in actuality. which is why wars for freedom and democracy that are actually about stealing resources are the double lie behind imperialism, despite radlibs in this very thread still promoting the idealist notion that human rights come from liberty in this sense, rather than emerging from independent material development of productive forces that this very liberal model prevents, and coming to this conclusion through motivated reasoning from the starting point that regression is defined as having bad ideas, completely divorced from economics, making imperialism out to be the lesser evil compared to socially backwards nations having sovereignty, when its the dependency cultivated by imperialism and resulting lack of development that is the cause of their social backwardness.

>In other words it can recreate inefficiency

very true, its even regressive compared to nationalization

Getting real fucking tired of "socialists" simping for 3rd world liberalism, fascism, islamism, etc.

>>2140384
Can you give examples
Like what is your stance on the Palestinian struggle?

>>2140393
I dont give a shit about them or russia or iran. I only care about communism.

>>2140507
Then you’re a dumbass
Having empathy for other human beings and wanting a world where people aren’t being blown up and shot or starving to death is the whole idea for communism, if you don’t start your core belief there what is even the point of organizing a violent revolution? For the aesthetics?

>>2140527
Yeah I'm just doubting your core beliefs if your universe revolves around Palestinians.

>>2140527
>Having empathy for other human beings and wanting a world where people aren’t being blown up and shot or starving to death is the whole idea for communism
but isnt this moralism though

>>2140650
i dont see the problem. advocating for morals is fine, its just not a good foundation for scientific critique. you can prove that war happens because of the inherent contradictions of capitalism, but you cant prove that you should stop it, and you cant prove that people should do communism instead, but you can say that it is good.

>>2140650
Get of discord and talk to regular people.

>>2140888
Start by advocating for communism instead of the latest nationalist wars.

>>2140967
>discord
<regular people.

>>2141417
national liberation is a prerequisite for communism, advocating for one is advocating the other

The national question in the present-day world is essentially a question of the exploitation and oppression, or attempted exploitation and oppression, of the nations the world over by American imperialism as well as the struggles of all nations in the world against the oppression and exploitation by American imperialism in order to achieve national liberation or to defend national independence.

Even during the Second World War, the American imperialists had made their plans for plundering and oppressing all the nations of the world. After the war, they put the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan into operation, thus step by step bringing many countries and nations of the world under their own control and rule, preparing a network of military bases throughout the world, setting their foot in all countries and intervening in the domestic affairs of other countries. All these activities stemmed from their ambitious and aggressive plans. And their aggressive plans, just like those of Hitler, ᴉuᴉlossnW and the Japanese warlords, are being carried out under the slogan of “defence against the Soviet Union, defence against Communism.”

In order to put their plans for the enslavement of the whole world into operation, the American imperialists have no alternative but to do all they can to mobilize the people of their own country in support of their plans and to suppress all forces among the people of their own country who oppose their plans. Thus, they have to carry out propaganda among the American people about the “theory” of the so-called “American Century” and the “theory” of the “superiority of the white race”, declaring that the United States should “lead the world” and that all the nations of the world should be brought under its rule. Therefore, the American imperialists are persecuting the Communist Party of the United States, the progressive American trade unions and the progressive movement of the American people. They are establishing a fascist-like rule in the United States, for otherwise they would not be able to put their plans into effect.

In order to put their plans for world domination into operation, the American imperialists have no alternative but to do all they can to oppose all the world forces that are fighting against the realisation of such plans. Thus, they are opposing the U.S.S.R., the New Democracies of Eastern Europe, the Communist Party of China and the Chinese people’s liberation movement, the national liberation movements in Greece, Viet-Nam, Indonesia, Malaya, Burma and the Philippines; they are opposing the Communist parties and the people’s democratic forces of all countries. This is because all these countries and forces have formed an anti-imperialist camp, headed by the Soviet Union, in determined opposition to the plans of the American imperialists for the enslavement of the world. Therefore, when the Tito clique made known its anti-Soviet position, deserted the Communist Information Bureau and destroyed the vital forces of real progress within its own country, the American imperialists displayed uncontrolled glee. They are making preparations to start a third world war some time in the future, in an attempt to subdue all the forces of the world in opposition to them.

In order to put their plans for the enslavement of the world into operation, the American imperialists have no alternative but to search for lackeys and agents in the various countries who will carry out and support their plans. They seek out national renegades and traitors and give them their backing in suppressing the resistance movements of these countries and in opposing the Soviet Union. American imperialists help the reactionaries or all countries and support the revival of fascism in Germany, Japan, Italy, and other countries. The reactionary parties and groups of the bourgeoisie and the remnants of fascism in these countries have become the lackeys and agents of American imperialism and are suppressing, with American aid, the resistance movements of their own countries and of the colonial countries and are opposing the Soviet Union and the democratic forces of the peoples of all countries.

However, precisely because of the plans of the American imperialists for the enslavement of the world, and because of the betrayal of their nations by the reactionaries of the various European countries, the national question has become a vital issue for even a greater part of the population than after World War I. The anti-imperialist camp of the national liberation movement has become even broader, while the number of imperialist countries has dwindled and these have become more isolated. The foundations of imperialism are growing ever more unstable and its strength has been getting weaker and weaker; the oppressed people are rising on an ever-broadening scale to fight against the imperialists, bringing ever nearer the end of their domination.

The class enemies of the proletariat of the capitalist suzerain countries in Europe are at the same time national traitors and, consequently the national enemy of these countries. To win socialism, the proletariat of the various European countries must oppose both enslavement by American imperialism and the national traitors of their own countries. The class question and the national question are thus clearly linked together. This is to the advantage of the proletariat of the various European countries. On the one hand, by uniting with still broader masses of people within their countries. they can link up the defence of their national independence with the cause of achieving socialism; and on the other hand, by uniting with broader masses of the colonial and semi-colonial peoples, they can link up the national liberation movements of the colonies and semi-colonies with their own cause of achieving socialism.

The plans of the American imperialists for the enslavement of the world, and the betrayal of their own nations by the reactionaries of the various European countries reflect the development of the general crisis of world capitalism as well as the extreme accentuation of the various contradictions of capitalism. They reflect the fact that the American and other imperialists who plan an insane and desperate struggle are sitting on a volcano of new severe crisis. The American imperialists’ plans for enslavement, at the same time, further accelerate the development of the general crisis of capitalism while accentuating the basic contradictions of world capitalism — the contradictions between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat, between the various imperialist countries fighting for colonies and markets, and between the imperialists and the oppressed peoples. As a result, the vast majority of the peoples of the world have no alternative but to develop their unity on a world scale in the struggle for their liberation and in this way, hasten the downfall of imperialism.

At present, the American imperialists are intensifying thier activities for the enslavement of the peoples of the world, and the imperialists of Great Britain, France, the Netherlands and other countries, with American aid, are intensifying their oppression of the colonial peoples. There is an upsurge of the people’s democratic movement against American and other imperialism in the various countries; and an upsurge of the national liberation movements on the part of the colonial peoples. As a result, the national question in the world today has become unprecedentedly acute.

The world today has been divided into two mutually antagonistic camps: On the one hand, the world imperialist camp, composed of the American imperialists and their accomplices — the reactionaries of all countries of the world; on the other hand, the world anti-imperialist camp composed of the Soviet Union and the New Democracies of Eastern Europe and the national liberation movements in China, South-east Asia, and Greece plus the people’s democratic forces of all the countries of the world. American imperialism has become the bastion of all the reactionary forces of the world; while the Soviet Union has become the bastion of all the progressive forces.

These two camps include all the peoples of the world — of all countries, classes, sections of the population, parties and groups. When these two camps are in sharp conflict, people line up with one side of the other. That is, if one is not in the imperialist camp, if one is not assisting American imperialism and its accomplices to enslave the world ore one’s own people, then one must be in the anti-imperialist camp, assisting all oppressed peoples of the world fighting to achieve liberation, or fighting for the liberation of one’s own nation against American imperialism and its accomplices — the reactionaries in all countries. This means one is assisting the Soviet Union, the New Democracies of Eastern Europe, the people’s democratic forces in the United States and other countries, the proletariat and the communist Parties of all countries. To remain neutral or sitting on the fence is impossible. In the critical situation of the present-day world, so-called neutrality, as was pointed out long ago by Comrade Mao Tse-tung in his New Democracy, is nothing but deception, intentional or otherwise.

It can thus be seen that in the present world situation, in order to win its liberation, every oppressed nation has no alternative but to oppose American imperialism and its accomplices within its country, to oppose the reactionaries of all countries, to unite with the Soviet Union and the New Democracies of Eastern Europe, to unite with the national liberation movements and the people’s democratic forces of other countries, to unite with the proletariat and the Communist Parties of all countries — that is to say, it must line up with the anti-imperialist camp and wage a stubborn struggle against American imperialism and its accomplices in other countries. No nation can win real liberation any other way.

It can thus be seen that if the Communist Parties, the proletariat, the people’s democratic forces in the United States, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands, and other countries, especially those in the United States, can rise up and overthrow the rule of their monopoly capitalists, abolish the imperialist domestic and foreign policies of their countries and carry out proletarian socialist domestic and national policies, then they will have completely liberated not only the peoples of their countries, but also the all the oppressed nations of the world as well. It follows that the complete victory of the proletariat and the peoples of these countries, as well as every blow they deliver to the rule of the monopoly capitalists of their countries, constitutes the best and most direct help to the oppressed nations of the world. Therefore, the national liberation movements of the oppressed nations of the world must endeavour to obtain help from the proletariat and the people in the imperialist countries, and to form with them a united front in opposition to the rule of imperialism. This is because both are facing a common enemy, the victory of one helps the other to win victory.

It can thus be seen that the victories of the national independence movements of the oppressed nations of the world over the imperialists of the United States, Great Britain, France, the Netherlands and other countries, will deprive these countries of their colonies, undermine the foundation on which they dominate the world, greatly weaken the rule of imperialists in their home countries, and will therefore lead to liberation of the proletariat and the peoples of these counties from the rule of imperialism. Thus the victories gained by the national independence and liberation movements of the oppressed nations in in the colonies and semi-colonies, and every blow delivered to imperialism, constitute the best and most direct help to the proletariat and the peoples in imperialist countries. The proletariat, the Communist Parties and the people’s democratic forces in all counties, especially those in imperialist countries, must still give more support to the national independence and liberation movements in colonial and semi-colonial countries., and take further steps in building up a united front with them in opposition to the rule of imperialism. This is both are facing a common enemy, and the victory of one helps the other to win victory[…]

That is to say: in directing the national liberation movements and proletarian socialist movements of the world today, the Communists and the peoples of all countries must base themselves on proletarian internationalism, must discard bourgeois nationalism, and must closely link together the national democratic revolution of the oppressed nations and the socialist revolution of the proletariat, before these two kinds of revolution can both win victory, before we can liberate every nation of the world, and before we can solve all national questions of the world today. Otherwise, not only will we be unable to win any socialist victory, we will also not be able to win real victory in any national liberation movement.

That is to say: The national question of the present-day world must be viewed in connection with history as a whole and the world as a whole; it should not be viewed in isolation and from a narrow viewpoint, or from any unrealistic and abstract viewpoint. Just as Lenin and Stalin have said: the national question must not be appraised in isolation, but must be appraised on a world-wide scale[…]

There is not the slightest doubt that to regard the national question as separate from the class question, or to regard the national struggle as separate from the class struggle, is absolutely wrong and harmful and constitutes a form of deception adopted by landlord and bourgeois reactionaries. Inasmuch as reactionary bourgeois nationalism and modern imperialist aggression brought about by the development of the capitalist system of exploitation, which has as its final outcome the fanatical attempts of American imperialism to achieve world domination, the counter revolutionary policies of American imperialism for the enslavement of the world have, with unprecedented clarity, joined together the socialist revolutionary movements of the proletariat in the capitalist suzerain countries and the national liberation movements of the oppressed nations. These policies also point out with unprecedented clarity that to uproot imperialist aggression, the rule of monopoly capitalists in capitalist suzerain countries must be over thrown.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/liu-shaoqi/1952/internationalism_nationalism/ch04.htm

>>2080609
What's a workerist?

Internationalism is dead after the invention of the atom bomb.

>>2140507
>least oblivious western marxist

Not even worth engaging.

>>2142191
The opposite actually. If every nation and people had an atom bomb it would put everyone on even ground, paving the path for internationalist politics

File: 1738798245118.png (83.08 KB, 198x256, CareltonCoon.png)

Can one be a leftist and at the same time belieive that black people (Sub-Saharan Africans as well as Aboriginal Austrailians and their neighbours like Papua peoples) are, indeed, inferior?

To be understood correctly: I am NOT justifying any exploitation or abuse black people had historically endured at hands of non-black ("Eurasian") people. I am also NOT advocating for segregation in any capacity… in fact, I wish blacks mixed more with Eurasians so the former could eventually be "uplifted" by picking up superior Eurasian DNA.

If you are asking for a materialist explanation: ancestors of Eurasians had parted ways with ancestors of Sub-Saharan Africans about ~100K years ago - enough time tfor the two to diverge into two different subspecies of Homo Sapiens. Unlike Eurasians, Sub-Saharans never had to adapt to surviving harsh winters (which would require collectively preparing shelters and food reserves in advance) which led to black Africans having underdeveloped parts of the brain needed for impulse contriol and long-term planning… Which means they would perform poorly academically and be more prone to violent behavior even in communist society.

What about Aborigenese? Three words: Isolation -> Inbreeding -> Retardation(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

>>2142858
>Unsubstantiated "just so" story piecemealed together to support already drawn out conclusions
>"materialist"
Read a book you idiot, this is about as substantive as the Romans thinking "Northern cold breeds men who are strong but slow minded and slavish, Southern heat breeds men who are lean but timid and cowardly, but we are prefectly bred to have all the positives and none of the weakness by developing in the middle". It's myopic "climate determinism" with no actual anthropological support, and only exists to rationalize the world as you want to see it now. You vaguely believe "Eurasians" to be superior, and Africans inferior, so you rig up a history to reify that as opposed to actually investigating the history of either or being willing to question the underlying preconceptions you hold. For fucks sake, where does this idea of African people not having to find ways to store food or construct shelter even come from? Famine was always constant worry is Sub Saharan Africa, even post the agricultural revolution (which also occured in Sub Saharan Africa), because of the period in which a drought season and following torrential rains occured could be unpredictable. Or what, did you think they just suddenly forgot the reality of what they lived in for thousands of years, and just never prepared for the coming seasons they had always experienced? Are you that stupid?

The rest is just racist babble. Read of any of the black communists who operated in the USSR, or hell, the black engineers that they even desperately worked to keep due to their contributions to the USSR's development. Dare to bother to question even a small part what you believe of black people, as opposed to locking yourself inside all day and refusing to even interact with other humans as humans out of racial brainrot.

This thread needs a little bump. Maybe some theoretical discussion could had here on the root of theoretical disagreement between the (non-charicatured) versions of the 'campist'' and 'anti-campist' lines.

To start I think perhaps a better descriptor for both might be the hegemon-imperialism views vs. the inter-imperial rivalry views.

My own view that there a crisis of the semantico-conceptual framework of imperialism wherein both sides are attempting to describe somewhat different phenomena using the Leninist framework; But this framework is in some ways foo broad and in other ways too narrow each emerging view wants it to perform.

>>2142858
Depends on the country, region and tribe. at least according to them

File: 1741058035977.mp4 (788.87 KB, 640x360, No.mp4)

>>2142858
>Can one be a leftist and at the same time belieive that [insert group] people … are, indeed, inferior?
No.

File: 1741058151953.jpg (12.83 KB, 330x336, 1740733219357.jpg)

>>2175747
>newyorkers are equal

Ziggers are just a modern version of anti-communist fascoids.

>>2175751
Ukraine lost

>>2175755
Not yet.

File: 1741058811358.jpg (629.26 KB, 1692x1076, Dissident_right.jpg)

>>2175757
I am so looking forward to see how the drafts are going to go when you are labeled as a threat for a mean meme or tweet. Literally all you have to do to not go to war. It's going to be such a hilarious shitshow.

>>2175760
>le drafted for a twitter meme
Not sure if /pol/ brained rightoid or not.

>>2175763
??
Read again.

>>2175724
The hegemon-imperialism view also sees things as inter-imperialist, with conflicting interests between the US, UK, France, Germany, Brussels, and Japan/Korea. There is just a bit of a lag from the Cold War where they were all united against communism, but the inertia of capital carries them into rivalry.

The third camp view mistakenly thinks that sovereignty, independence or the reclaiming thereof is redivision of the world, but they always separate what Lenin is describing from its most important features, which is how imperialism is driven by capital dynamics; the tendency for market competition to give rise to monopoly and consolidation and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall.

Under conditions of highly developed capitalism, investors lack avenues with a sufficient rate of return, and this necessitates market expansion. Division or redivision of the territories of the world under these conditions is imperialist. A country reclaiming its independence and kicking out foriegn assets is not driven by monopoly capital dynamics, so it is not imperialist. A country invading its neighbor for legitimate security concerns, under conditions of underdevelopment, and not driven by monopoly capital dynamics, is also not imperialism.

Capital export alone is not imperialist, but capital export as the dominant factor in a nations economy is characteristic of imperialism. A country whos economy is dominated by raw resource extraction is an example of a country that is not at the highest stage of capitalism, its a country that is not imperialist, and is still in what Lenin called the "goods export" stage. It can have a fusion of bank and industrial capital into financial capital, but if that financial capital primarily makes its money from controlling physical commodities and not from finance capital, not from "clipping coupons", from usery and rent from existing productive forces, if the economy is not primary consisting of finance, then its not imperialist.

Monopoly is of course the quintessential characteristic of imperialism. But Lenin was specifically talking about private monopoly, not state owned monopolies. State monopolies are not subject to the same profit incentives as private monopolies, and can even be run at a loss indefinitely. A country that has state owned monopolies is not necessarily imperialist. A country that has a monopoly on all of a given industry within its own country is also not necessarily imperialist. When we talk about imperialist monopoly, we are talking about international cartels that do not compete on the market, as lack of competition is the defining factor in a monopoly. Imperialism is private corporations that are vertically and horizontally integrated with subsidiaries having controlling power in all of their inputs outputs funding and management from top to bottom on a global scale. Imperialism is not state owned enterprises or having sovereign control of all of your own resources within your own countries borders.

File: 1741064292066.png (892.78 KB, 986x3222, ClipboardImage.png)


File: 1741096359329.png (740.3 KB, 1013x1409, ClipboardImage.png)

Stunning display of internationalism, people say Russia is wholesome for being a multi nation empire but look at that, all those different people collaborating together, almost makes me cry

>>2176089
capitalists organize internationally, so should the working class.

>>2176089
>people say Russia is wholesome for being a colonialist empire
Lmao

Thots and players that this Will force Putler to get along with the caucasus and open more diplomacy and opportunities to the Stan countries to make tarde easier with Iran.

>>2186969
*trade

Not sure if this is the right this is the right thread. does anyone know what the Sandinistas in Nicaragua actually believe in? any good material?

>>2141822
A reactionary who justifies his views cause a percentage of proles are also reactionary, which could the the majority or not. he will call itself a "communist" or whatever brand is popular at the time.


Unique IPs: 22

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / edu / labor / siberia / latam / hobby / tech / games / anime / music / draw / AKM ] [ meta ] [ wiki / tv / tiktok / twitter / patreon ] [ GET / ref / marx / booru ]