[ 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/

That workerist thread written by a zigga is ass.

>And no, it's not "campism" to support Syria. Syria was actually deserving of solidarity.
I am afraid the target audience for this thread will disagree lmao

>>2080620

It depends what obe means by "support". One can "support" a government not being toppled by something that would make things worse for the communist movement (domestically and/or internationally) without supporting that government in geberal (ie. the totaloty or majority of its policies & ideology)

>>2080620
Why? Anyone with a brain knows Syria falling is a disaster.

>>2080609
Which one

>>2080603

Question for you leninhat: Are you still of the belief that the conflict is a contest between vlasovites and banderites?

I certainly liked that framing and when it was first put out nearly 3 years ago.

>>2082414
I've come back around to it yeah.

>>2082587

Good to hear.

I think we are in for a long one with this war. Every year it lasts I predict an extra year.

The key will be our comrades on the ground in Ukraine & Russia; Since the pension reform there been a slow & steady upsurge in interest in marxism amongst youth; The labour movement is still weak but is growing slowly. The effects of the war are indeed contributing to radicalization, though it is slow.

>>2082781
In Russia it's more a gain in strength for tradcomms. The SMO raises the flag of the Soviet Union on the territories they take; it's part of official propaganda and as Russia embraces war economy, the state-owned sector advances.

>>2081076
There's definitely going to be a lot of overlap between self-identified "anti-campists" and people who were indifferent or even supportive of Assad's overthrow.
>>2082587
I mean it was always the case, I think that sensible communists who sympathize with Russia wouldn't really deny the "Vlasovite" label to Putin. That doesn't change the calculus about which outcome is better for socialism though.

>>2082968

The best outcome is for the varied enemies of socialism to mutually annihilate each other, and for communists to then seize the day.

>>2083394
>The best outcome is for the varied enemies of socialism to mutually annihilate each other
That's what multipolarity is though, or more accurately from the perspective of communists it means a situation of catastrophic balance in which inter-capitalist competition cripples their ability to stave off revolutionary upheaval. Either because they are too weakened by the conflict itself or because they are willing to tolerate or even aid revolutionary forces which attack their enemies. It was a combination of these factors that led to revolution in Russia. The war crippled the Russian state and the Germans encouraged and helped the Bolsheviks.

>>2083407

I don't believe that is what multipolarity is, but it certainly is what multipolarity enables as a potentiality.

That said, multipolarity is happening, whether one likes it or not.

>>2083416
>I don't believe that is what multipolarity is
I suppose its more accurate to say that this is what pro-BRICS communists hope it will lead to.

>>2082968

Aside: Assad jr. was a weak leader, one who engaged in a lot of liberalization and laissez faire when it came internal affairs. So his eventual toppling did not surprise me (the suddenness did though; But likely due to not paying attention).

>>2083417

Some of them maybe. I think most pro-brics leftists have a much more naive belief that the countries will themselves adopt socialist oriented policies by choice or forced circumstances.

If the tsar refused to massively nationalize weapons production in WWI despite some generals begging him to do so, I gave plenty if skepticism towards today's degenerate political representatives of the bourgeoisie.

>>2083427

* I have plenty of

>>2083427
>I think most pro-brics leftists have a much more naive belief that the countries will themselves adopt socialist oriented policies by choice or forced circumstances
It varies. In any school of thought there are more and less reasonable variations, and this applies to the anti-campists as well. I just like to steelman these sorts of arguments though and only engage with the most sensible version of a position. If you do that you have a better chance of constructive dialogue, and if you refute a more sensible version of an idea then you automatically refute the less sensible versions.

>>2083453
Ehhh, the same internal contradictions of capitalism that are hobbling the United States will hobble BRICS countries if they don't move to socialism, and we're seeing promising signs in China and Russia.

so this whole time "multipolarism" was just a fictional cope narrative that acted as balm on the souls of commuinists who would otherwise become blackpilled doomers

now that it's dead, the only thing left is the autopsy:
was it an organic delusion, or was the narrative crafted and planted by vested interests?

>>2086535
extremely limited and already fictional cope

https://www.youtube.com/live/x7toVTsP4b8?si=3jlpGuOnd3U16MPo
>Discussing geopolitics with insightful content creators: Editor-in-chief of Geopolitical Economy Report Ben Norton, economist from Africa, Fadhel Kaboub, Korean-American geopolitical analyst KJ Noh and writer & artist Mimi Zhu.

>>2086535
It's still very obvious that the planted narrative spreads online via the financial backing of Russian and Chinese interests primarily, with the most in-your-face instances having been through RT and CGTN.
But these are just the obvious instances, there also are non-public narrative-forming operations conducted in specifically far-left social media spaces where they engage in astroturfing (financially intensive efforts like botting, media spectacle production, website hosting and physical space meetup financing).
Clear fronts/proxy organizations of the aforementioned interests are: Infrared, CPI (Center for Political Innovation), PCUSA, ACP, CPGB-ML, WAP (World Anti-Imperialist Platform) and all parties associated to that international.

Just as the FBI actively works to suppress left-wing movements with glow movements intended to disrupt and divide radical leftists?

File: 1735449334386.jpg (20.73 KB, 400x400, 1730054639933.jpg)

Easily the best article I've read these past few months.
https://monthlyreview.org/2024/11/01/the-new-denial-of-imperialism-on-the-left/
Amazing. Really well written and has a broad panorama of the current debate on the western left regarding the implicit support of imperialism either by inaction or doing apologia for western foreign policy, and supporting the periphery, China, Russia, etc by agitating at home.

I think it really settled the matter. Will definitely keep it on hand to cite from time to time.

I've been considering compiling written resources as well as video sources regarding the topic of western leftists and particularly western socialists that have historically sided with the imperial core. The tendency is so common that you can clearly see in this anglophone board with many well read Marxists still manage to come up with the same dead end analysis of the social democratic chauvinists of the second international against socialists and against the periphery.

Even hardcore leninists not taking Lenin by his word and arguing for mere passivity or "international class war" or whatever, which is hilarious given how these first world Marxists are entirely out of touch with the class struggle in the periphery (and in their own home countries which is quite telling!).

The entire "anti-campist" position is blown so hard the fuck out, I don't think it's intellectually honest to keep calling oneself that after reading this article. Which is actually part of the problem, since a sizeable portion of the posters here who identify with the "anti-campist" label are generally not that well read and will likely not read the article. I challenge you to prove me wrong.

Absolutely golden star article, highly recommended. Some footnotes are kino too, like 104 where you can really tell who the "anti-campist" representatives are and what they represent.

https://monthlyreview.org/2024/11/01/the-new-denial-of-imperialism-on-the-left/



>>2100053

Good. Hopefully it keeps all foreign troops and mercenaries out.

@OP
>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?
These are some huge leaps. What the hell. I work within a Trotskyist org beggars can't be choosers and even I'm astounded by these statements. You can get hired by Ben Shapiro for this kind of hypotheticalism.

imma read that 'required reading' unless it becomes ridiculous, but this sounds like abstracted ultra's ideology. internationalism isn't just ignoring the present state of things and classifying all enemies as equal.

File: 1736325614024-0.png (768.89 KB, 808x868, 65465.png)

File: 1736325614024-1.jpg (145.69 KB, 940x788, GeXT672WMAAkxO0.jpg)


File: 1736338598893.jpg (25.24 KB, 465x279, 3000 (3).jpg)

>Syria was a secular socialist state
So true!!!! Long live the people's neoliberal dictator

Hot take alert! I hope The West wins the Ukraine war, or at least makes it a massive pyrrhic victory for Russia.

This isn't because I like Ukraine, but because I know the fall of the American Empire is inevitable. When this happens, I want Russia to be in as bad a spot as possible, to banish any and all possibility of it pursuing its own imperial ambitions later down the line.

>>2095689
>>2097398
I decided to read both back to back to make the decision for good.

<The New Denial of Imperialism on the Left

>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.
LMAO
But it is otherwise a nice article that simply points out the tendency for many self-proclaimed communists to regress to what they are in reality - liberals. It is quite uncontroversial if you read Imperialism since it focuses on Lenin's theory and current reality, not these "supplements". In fact, Engels also recognized that nations can become "parasitic" off of exploitation of other nations - which is by no means beneficial to the vast bulk of their working class.

<Multipolarism is Neo‐​Kautskyism: on Real Denazification and its Enemies

In my opinion, this article is far more interesting. It is wrong, but it has some bangers.

>Neither camp (xD) has yet to elaborate an adequate theoretical account of the modern world system or, consequently, a political program which meets the demands of the current moment — for reasons I explain in more depth in my essay, »Imperialism Today is Conspiracy Praxis.« In the simplest terms, this is because both operate upon the basic, flawed assumption that the chief organizational principle of capital is, to this day, antagonistic national blocs.

This is a very important point and I do agree: neither anti-imperialists nor anti-campists have a good strategy. The western communists that went along with the western liberal line are failing to function as communists, hence the unfortunate success of the far right. So are KPRF: the last elections were the worst in the party's existence, they slipped down to 0-5% range.

Let's take a detour to that article as well, maybe we'll see something much funnier there.
<Imperialism Today is Conspiracy Praxis
>"All standards of measurement, all excuses more or less still justified under capitalist production, disappear here. What the speculating wholesale merchant risks is social property, not his own. Equally sordid becomes the phrase relating the origin of capital to savings, for what he demands is that others should save for him. The other phrase concerning abstention is squarely refuted by his luxury, which is now itself a means of credit. Conceptions which have some meaning on a less developed stage of capitalist production, become quite meaningless here. Success and failure both lead here to a centralisation of capital, and thus to expropriation on the most enormous scale."
>Marx is gesturing here towards nothing less than what the triumphant ruling class has paraded ever more ostentatiously in the past three decades: »too big to fail,« the socialization of all risk, the privatization of all profit. The concentration of financial wealth, political power, and information turns »speculation« into a misnomer for a »speculative« class which is the most active of all forces in shaping the economy, through the manipulation made possible by its sheer scale. The sublimation of capitalism, the transformation of the haut‐​bourgeois into a caste with direct political control of all social production and reproduction. As must be reiterated again and again, any development of this sort must look like nothing other than a vast web of conspiracies. This is exactly as Lenin described: »Political reaction all along the line is a characteristic feature of imperialism. Corruption, bribery on a huge scale, and all kinds of fraud.« (Imperialism and the Split in Socialism)
TECHNOFEUDALISM LMAO. This is laughable if you follow any kind of business news: imperialism is alive and well, at least in the sense of bourgeois functioning as capitalists and not a caste. You cannot explain the rush for AI through any means other than capitalism being capitalism. Now let's get back to the article we were looking at: just because they are wrong here doesn't mean they can't bring up other valid points.

<Multipolarism is Neo‐​Kautskyism: on Real Denazification and its Enemies

>When we look more closely at the political content, rather than the superficial form, of the dispute between Kautsky and Lenin, however, we see that the dangers which Lenin saw in Kautsky’s position are today most acutely posed by Multipolarism — and, indeed, that both arise out of a remarkably parallel class basis. Kautskyite social‐​democratic revisionism arose, historically, out of the conflicted interests of the petty‐​bourgeoisie and upper strata of the working classes, or labor aristocracy, in imperialist nations. Both classes, in being subordinate to the capitalist ruling class, are attracted to the revolutionary potential of the working classes, and to the prospects of communism which they offer. They are also, however, frightened of this class — frightened of losing their meager privileges and sliding into it themselves, frightened of being punished by the ruling class for associating with it, frightened, in their relative comfort, by the disruption and volatility of revolution itself, even when in the long run they would benefit from it. Frightened that, finally, the working class won’t win.
>As a consequence, these classes have a tendency to revise, or pervert, Marxism, which is simply the most scientific and lucid articulation of the perspective and program of the working classes (viz. revolutionary communism). This tendency is, naturally, cultivated with great energy and effort by the ruling class itself. The particular strength of this tendency in the imperial core countries grew out of the ruling class’s ability to use imperial superprofits to this end. Kautskyites, yesterday and today, thus naturally seek to beautify, rationalize, or minimally, delay the overthrow of imperialism. To do this, they reject the materialist analysis presented by Lenin, which showed that imperialism is an inevitable and ineradicable outgrowth of financialization and monopolization. As Lenin wrote:
>The essence of the matter is that Kautsky detaches the politics of imperialism from its economics, speaks of annexations as being a policy ›preferred‹ by finance capital, and opposes to it another bourgeois policy which, he alleges, is possible on this very same basis of finance capital. It follows, then, that monopolies in the economy are compatible with non‐​monopolistic, non‐​violent, non‐​annexationist methods in politics. It follows, then, that the territorial division of the world, which was completed during this very epoch of finance capital, and which constitutes the basis of the present peculiar forms of rivalry between the biggest capitalist states, is compatible with a non‐​imperialist policy. The result is a slurring‐​over and a blunting of the most profound contradictions of the latest stage of capitalism, instead of an exposure of their depth; the result is bourgeois reformism instead of Marxism.[4]
>Thus the working classes are drawn away from direct revolutionary confrontation with the imperialist order, and beguiled into thinking that imperialism is one possible policy of the bourgeoisie, amongst others, which can thus be remedied via reformist means within capitalism. Even worse, as Lenin notes, this allowed for the absurd notion that imperialism was, or at least could be, progressive. Thus the working class are lulled into playing the pawns of the petty‐​bourgeoisie in the latter’s parliamentary struggle for more privileges, and away from their own, revolutionary and internationalist program:
>[…] the only objective, i.e., real, social significance of Kautsky’s ›theory‹ is this: it is a most reactionary method of consoling the masses with hopes of permanent peace being possible under capitalism, by distracting their attention from the sharp antagonisms and acute problems of the present times, and directing it towards illusory prospects of an imaginary ›ultraimperialism‹ of the future. Deception of the masses — that is all there is in Kautsky’s ›Marxist‹ theory.[5]
>One hopes the parallels with the Multipolarist position are beginning to be clear now, but we will try to explicitly unpack them. Multipolarism arises out of and chiefly attracts two classes which while distinct in important ways, are objectively converging.[6]
>One is the upwardly mobile, comprador[7] middle‐​classes of the south, to whom a portion of the privileges once dispensed to the imperial petty‐​bourgeoisie and labor‐​aristocracy are being redistributed in what might be considered a sort of rational restructuring. The ideology rationalizes their role and offers them a tool to pacify their own workers with nationalist fantasies of restored dignity, and the vague prospect of eventual socialism at some undisclosed point in the future. The other class it attracts are precisely those downwardly mobile middle classes of the (soon to be former) imperial core whose privileges are being redistributed.[8]
I would go further and say that multipolarism is mostly state propaganda at this point. It doesn't flow from intellectuals like it did before, but from outright state outlets - mostly Russian ones, what China proposes is in reality different from what Russia proposes even if the most important detail is the same.

>We should note here another remarkable consonance in ruling class praxis, mirrored by a pecularial dissonance in the understanding of so many so‐​called Marxists. Precisely those who often identify with the program of Multipolarism geopolitically tend to be among the quickest to reject all forms of so‐​called »identity politics« domestically. They recognize easily how, in response to the radical struggles for racial, gender, and sexual liberation carried out in the core, the ruling class had to respond by with sophisticated programs of cooptions and concessions, mobilizing tokens wherever possible. Yet they fail to see how precisely the same dynamic is played out on the world stage: that empire could not simply wipe out in its entirety the tremendous energy of the rising south, and that it, therefore, strove to offer a token elevation based on a sort of racialized fascist pseudo‐​collectivism. Instead of gender parity in wages, a few more female CEOs; instead of global communism, more Chinese companies in the Fortune 500.

While I disagree with saying that China is capitalist, it is, in fact, how many pro-multipolarism people see the issue. It is, in fact, how the main proponent of multipolarism - the Russian state - sees it. Russia is an SJW state.

>The idea of a »color revolution«[21] in China or Russia is very popular in the alternative media yet the concrete reality of what this could look like is rarely sketched out. This is perhaps because to do so reveals the stark fact that it is virtually impossible to imagine — in the really existing current circumstances — an arrangement where the labor power and resources of Russia and China could be more optimally exploited in a politically tenable fashion than they are now. One must recall that those conditions of political tenability are bounded by the real historical experience of socialism! In both states substantial popular legitimacy is a political necessity; in both, much of it rests precisely upon the ruling class’ ability to present themselves as oppositional forces to the west.

Except western political leaders clearly don't think so. And I agree with them: the Russian state could have just as easily done integration with the west in the same ultra-rapacious manner as Romania or Ukraine, and they wanted to, really. There were no protests when Lavrov spoke about, for instance, creating a visa-free zone with the EU. There was no real hatred towards the west in Russia before 2022. The people were crushed and irrelevant for the time being either way, the working class was utterly unable to fight for their interests. Still is, unfortunately. They are not "good cops" because they don't care to perform.

But these two take the cake
>The original Nazi program of depopulation and plunder in Russia and the Ukraine has already recommenced, with only slight modifications. Yet it is also occurring inside‐​outside a spectacular or farcical restaging of the same. It is essential to parse and appreciate the stacked functions here, the multiple layers of the spectacle. 9/​11 was carried out under the cover of multiple real‐​fake‐​real military exercises or »war games« carried out in U.S. airspace. Most participants were fulfilling real goals for the real operation while believing themselves to playing the fake or simulated role in the exercises. Important aspects of the Covid program appear to have been hammered out in numerous elite »Pandemic Exercises,« like Johns Hopkins’ Event 201
>This is because with the extreme concentration of the current ruling class, virtually the entire global population is, evidently, a problem to them. It is evident that amongst the top priorities for the ruling class is to dramatically shrink and demote the former labor‐​aristocracy and middle classes. Newton foresaw the foundations of their disempowerment already too:

I.e. the Ukraine war is fake in the same way covid-19 are fake, the elites are gonna shrink the global population, wake up sheeple.

>>2107364
In other words, >>2097398 is actually existing Marx-Lenin-Mao-Alex Jones thought.

>>2107364
>I would go further and say that multipolarism is mostly state propaganda at this point.
Doesn't this section assume that "the south" is already imperialist? If they have developed to the highest stage of capitalism then comparisons with Kautskyism make sense, but if they haven't entered the monopoly stage, then the inevitability of violent annexationist policy doesn't apply.

>>2083453
>I just like to steelman these sorts of arguments though and only engage with the most sensible version of a position.
chad behavior and unfortunately the opposite of most people on the internet who will just put the stupidest strawman in your mouth and argue with that all day.

Our slogans:
>The working class has no country
>No war but class war

What some people allege we're saying
<Neither Washington nor Bejing (but really Washington)
<I love imperial core labor aristocrats and hate imperial periphery proles

How to stop this misunderstanding:
????

>>2107465
by understanding that slogans have a historical context and are not dogmatic rules that we are obligated to follow and that there are wars other then class war that are historically progressive depending on the material conditions, that no war but class war only really applies to interimperialist conflicts and not to national liberation wars against colonialism

also by reading the next line of the manifesto
>The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality.

>The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.

>>2107500
Good clear brief answer. thanks for your thoughts.

>>2107500
That makes sense although I think the core of the disagreement is over whether particular wars are interimperialist wars or national liberation wars, and then anons cherry pick quotes from historical Marxist figures to back up their side, but which just muddies the whole thing up even more.

>>2107551
>I think the core of the disagreement is over whether particular wars are interimperialist wars or national liberation wars
i agree but i think the kind of people who generally frame the debate with something like "The working class has no country" tend to think that ALL nationalism is necessarily reactionary, probably because they live in an imperialist country where nationalism is reactionary, then they universalize their experience to people under other conditions. then after imperialism is explained to be a stage of development within a given country, they work backwards from their conclusion that nationalism is bad to counter by saying that every country is imperialist, even when historical examples explicitly and repeatedly differentiate between imperialist and non-imperilist nations and between progressive and reactionary nationalism, by misunderstanding the wording of imperialism as a "stage" of capitalism to mean that because it is a global system all countries have reached the same stage, even when they have different positions within the imperialist world system where some are dominant or dependent that corresponds directly to their level of productive development and concentration of monopolies.

>>2107562
Lenin was revolutionary defeatist during WW1 even though he lived in the least developed European country. Imagine if he had taken the pro WW1 position of, say, Kerensky's provisional government, on the dubious grounds that Russia's role in WW1 was counter-hegemonic, or even, more absurdly, anti-colonialist, merely due to the developmental gap between Russia and western Europe.

>>2107562
also there is a fundamental difference between marxist-leninist anti colonialist forces and reactionary """anti-colonialist""" forces, namely that the latter merely aspire to be colonialist in the same way that reactionary proletarians aspire to be bourgeois.

>>2107465
Actually do anything about capitalist hegemony except mouthing empty phrases about the workers suddenly doing world revolution.

Maybe start with trying to understand why even (real) socdem class-collaborationist governments get economically or militarily crushed by the US.

>>2107569
because russia was imperialist, because it was developed enough that its monopolies were comparable to western europe at that time, because of the share of the division of the world etc
the level of development is relative to the rest of the world. just because a country has reached the level of development of 1800s england does not mean that it has the economic power to actually act as a monopoly force on the world stage today

>>2107569
>Lenin was revolutionary defeatist during WW1 even though he lived in the least developed European country.

yes, but he was obviously not an absoute anti-nationalist, since he was strongly in favor of the national self determination of nations within the russian empire. his entire dispute with luxemburg over nationalism is about a conditional defense of nationalism under certain circumstances

>>2107570
>Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism.
>Consequently, once the author admits the need to support an uprising of an oppressed nation (“actively resisting” suppression means supporting the uprising), he also admits that a national uprising is progressive, that the establishment of a separate and new state, of new frontiers, etc., resulting from a successful uprising, is progressive.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/5.htm

of course, but what does reactionary mean? does it mean bad social policies, or bad economic policies? is it reactionary to oppress minorities while building productive forces? is it progressive to legislate minority rights while selling public sectors to the highest bidder?

>>2107562
>ALL nationalism is necessarily reactionary
The class-conscious workers fight hard against every kind of nationalism. Marxists advocate the unity of the workers of the different nations in the struggle against the nationalism of every national bourgeoisie

>>2107578
At the time reactionary meant those who wanted a return to the feudal order. Don’t fall into the dogmatist trap of applying modern meanings to old words.

>>2107582
>Don’t fall into the dogmatist trap of applying modern meanings to old words.
and what is the material basis for that return to the old feudal order? what is the locus of power for the bourgeoisie? it is private ownership of productive forces, so reaction was the suppression of building productive forces.

what is the material relation between colonial compradors and the means of production? what would a reactionary movement in a colonial country look like? what would they seek to be returning to?
and on the other hand, what is the relation between progressive forces in a colonized country and the means of production? what are their aims and goals, are they class exclusive, or are cross class interests aligned under certain conditions?

where do monopoly imperialists derive profits, and where do non-monopoly capitalists derive profits? one is from rent off existing means of production, and one is from investing in the creation of new means of production. is it in the interests of monopoly imperialists to have competition, to have to adjust prices according to market conditions, and is that also the interest of the non-monopoly capitalist? do proletarians benefit from the suppression of development of productive forces? do the benefit from the increase of productive forces?

is communism a state of affairs to be established by legislative decree, or is it the real movement to build the material base in productive forces such that it frees mankind from unnecessary labor? do correct ideas fall out of the sky or do they come from social practice?

>>2107580
>The class-conscious workers fight hard against every kind of nationalism, both the crude, violent, Black-Hundred nationalism, and that most refined nationalism which preaches the equality of nations together with … the splitting up of the workers’ cause, the workers’ organisations and the working-class movement according to nationality. Unlike all the varieties of the nationalist bourgeoisie, the class conscious workers, carrying out the decisions of the recent (summer 1913) conference of the Marxists, stand, not only for the most complete, consistent and fully applied equality of nations and languages, but also for the amalgamation of the workers of the different nationalities in united proletarian organisations of every kind.

>Herein lies the fundamental distinction between the national programme of Marxism and that of any bourgeoisie, be it the most “advanced”.

https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/may/10.htm

>>2107596
This misses that the national bourgeois can be both monopolist and non-monopolist depending on which domain you are talking about. They can be monopolist nationally and non-monopolist internationally. “Multipolarisn” is driven by national bourgeois who are trying to get out from under the economic and military domination of the Atlanticist bloc. It’s also largely driven by industrial capitalists vs finance capitalists. The former can be monopolist nationally but are still driven to increase productive forces instead of rent seeking.

>>2106964
Thx, NATO

>>2107620
>monopolist nationally and non-monopolist internationally
no such thing. a monopoly is defined as not being subject to competition, its defining feature. you can own all the things in a sector in a given territory, such as russia and oil, and not be a monopoly because your prices on the international market are subject to actual monopolies, which is why sanctions work, because the one imposing the sanctions lacks competition. bourgeoisie within a nation can be monopolist, by being compradors and submitting to being a lower order input in the imperialist value chain and suppressing development, by incorporating themselves into an actual monopoly under conditions where the rate of profit allows for bribes and the bribe takers are able to live comfortably off the exchange rate. but thats why there is already a distinction between national and comprador bourgeoisie.

>>2107600
So we should fight against every kind of nationalism yeah I already quoted that

>>2107638
yeah thats not what he is saying its pretty obvious from the context, in which he says marxism has a national program directly after. youre also abstracting it away from its historical context, in which it was obviously published for a particular place and against a specific movement, while ignoring elsewhere where he directly supports nationalism. and you are ignoring that the particularly place that this was written for was russia, which is a uniquely multinational country that had unique issues with national movements, which is why in the right of nations to self determination lenin distinguished between supporting self determination in principle while evaluating particular national liberation struggles against the specific material conditions.

in the text you quoted he is very clearly referring to particular national liberation struggles that wanted to split from the communist movement. hes saying "the class conscious workers<in russia in 1914>" fight against every kind of "nationalism"<secession> against "the splitting up of workers" against <bourgeois>"equality for nations" and for a "national programme"<nationalism> of a socialist type

>/USApol/ thread

>>2107650
>The class-conscious workers fight hard against every kind of nationalism
<That's not what he's saying
Yeah all right retard, time to learn to read

>>2107654
how do you reconcile the contradiction with him saying every kind of nationalism and immediately after calling for a maxists national program and writing a whole book on nationalism

>>2107658
A whole book where he says proletarians should fight against all nationalism yeah, you should read it! Lenin never said any kind of nationalism was good, he explicitly said the opposite actually, he couldn't have been more explicit about it for fuck sake he even put every kind in italic!! Having a national programme doesn't have anything to do with being nationalist for marxists btw but why do I bother explaining that to you you clearly have bourgeois brain rot or something

>>2107670

>The class-conscious workers fight hard against every kind of nationalism

>>ALL nationalism is necessarily reactionary
you might also notice that these statements are not equivalent, and that national liberation and independent economic development is not the same thing as the narrow definition of nationalism that you are implying.

if you want to stick to that definition then national liberation is not nationalism at all so your quote has nothing to do with the conversation.

>>2107596
>and what is the material basis for that return to the old feudal order?
I think in Lenin's time it was landed power. There's a draft he submitted to the Comintern in 1920 that mentioned Pan-Islamism as something to be fought, and that the goal of Pan-Islami is to "strive to combine the liberation movement against European and American imperialism with an attempt to strengthen the positions of the khans, landowners, mullahs, etc." So communists would support the peasants in countries where pre-capitalist conditions dominate in struggles against them, the clergy, "and other influential reactionary and medieval elements in backward countries."

>>2107620
>“Multipolarisn” is driven by national bourgeois who are trying to get out from under the economic and military domination of the Atlanticist bloc. It’s also largely driven by industrial capitalists vs finance capitalists. The former can be monopolist nationally but are still driven to increase productive forces instead of rent seeking.
Nah. Many "national bourgeoisie" of third-world countries are rent-seeking criminals who attained their position through racketeering and organized crime. The Russian national bourgeoisie also *loves* rent seeking (mainly, natural resources) and *not* investing in the productive forces or innovating in more productive processes, which is why they're driven to expand opportunities for looting via imperialist war.

>>2107684
>expand opportunities for looting
such as…?

File: 1736390061224.png (115.07 KB, 686x915, Makhno1917.png)


>>2107688
>According to Prigozhin, the war was only necessary so that “a bunch of lowlifes could revel and promote themselves.” He claimed that a decree awarding Shoigu the rank of marshal and a second Hero of Russia star was prepared before the full-scale war even began.

>In addition, Prigozhin said, the war was important for oligarchs, whom he called “the clan that’s actually controlling Russia right now.” He said the oligarchs wanted to make Viktor Medvedchuk the president of Ukraine, and that the former Ukrainian lawmaker returned to Kyiv specifically for this purpose. Meanwhile, in Ukraine’s occupied territories, he said, the oligarchs have been dividing up assets. “Our sacred war against those who wrong the Russian people has turned into racketeering, into theft,” he added.

https://t.me/concordgroup_official/1279

>>2107703
Prigo was an oligarch from that clan so his comments can only be read as attempts to frame himself as the hero and justify his future coup attempt.

>>2107703
>the oligarchs have been dividing up assets
Which assets?

>>2107684
> Nah. Many "national bourgeoisie" of third-world countries are rent-seeking criminals who attained their position through racketeering and organized crime. The Russian national bourgeoisie also *loves* rent seeking (mainly, natural resources) and *not* investing in the productive forces or innovating in more productive processes,
You are just repeating what I said. Locally they have monopolies but internationally they have to compete. Capitalists don’t invest in productive forces because they innately want to enhance productive forces but out of pursuit of profit.

>>2107709
>Locally they have monopolies
this is incoherent. the point of analyzing monopoly is to understand imperialist relations. a gangster having a "local monopoly" of a few blocks where they collect protection money is not imperialist. if mcdonalds suddenly was the only food supplier in the united states that wouldn't constitute imperialism. imperialism is the merger of bank and industrial capital into finance capital. when we speak of monopoly in regards to imperialism we are talking about international cartels that control production on a world scale.

File: 1736397581445.jpg (15.05 KB, 640x480, cropped-tal-640x480.jpg)

>>2107704
I mean hell yeah he was doing that, but what does it tell you that this guy was running an important function in the Russian war effort?

>>2107704
All kinds of stuff. Steel, coal, pig iron, grain, salt mines, buildings, farm equipment, even art:
https://itsartlaw.org/2023/10/22/the-beginning-of-ukraines-journey-to-retrieve-its-looted-art-an-insight-into-the-present-and-potential-future-of-ukraines-cultural-restoration/

If it seems like I'm beating up on Russia excessively, the aid being provide to Ukraine from the West is tied to "structural adjustment" programs leading to the consolidation of Ukrainian land in the hands of foreign interests, mostly European and North American but also Saudi Arabia's sovereign wealth fund:
https://reliefweb.int/report/ukraine/war-and-theft-takeover-ukraines-agricultural-land

>>2107775
I didn’t say imperialist. My point was even a particular natty boug who had complete control over a particular industry (monopoly by normal usage) doesn’t have international monopoly and due to the threat of the Western hegemon they can support international competition they wouldn’t tolerate at home.

>>2107650
a national program only after you have gotten rid of your national bourgeoisie, and not one moment before

>>2107808
You are describing socialist nationalism, in opposition to bourgeois nationalism. As I said
>nationalism of a socialist type,
and Marx
>>2107500
>national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word.
the point that Lenin is also making when he says a Marxist national program that is distinct from that of any "advanced" or "refined" bourgeois national program.
>after you have gotten rid of your national bourgeoisie
The question of whether the national program is socialist is whether it is dictated by the proletariat, and is a separate question from the continued existence or lack of a national bourgeoisie.

File: 1736450705083.jpg (89.99 KB, 720x883, 736450536323.jpg)


>>2108212
Too much text. Do one but the woman has Rojava and KKE and the man has Russia and Iran

File: 1737904653598.png (94.06 KB, 1250x1018, s444com.png)

>DEATH TO SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE!
>DOWN WITH TONY CLIFF!
>DOWN WITH SOCIALIST ALTERNATIVE!
The local Socialist Alternative group (a Cliffite group, which split off from ISO) in Adelaide, South Australia, is ran by the sons and daughter of Mr Gilchrist, an Industrial Relations Judge. He answers to the Fair Work Commission, begun by Julia Gillard and paved by the neoliberal politics of Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, and the rest of the so-called "Labor Rats". His "job" (not a job, but a station of privilege and power) is to preside over the working proletariat, stripping away their aims and their social consciousness. Gilchrist upholds nationalist frameworks by squashing any possibility of independent working-class action.
These cretins and lackeys (spawn of a revisionist split from the Trotskyist movement) seek to funnel the efforts of student foment into nationalist organs of neoliberalism. This was paved by the Australian Labor Party, a violent social-fascist party. The ALP's legacy include the White Australia Policy, support for Blairite imperialism, anti-Chinese sentiment, and protection of the burgeoning capitalist project of neoliberal development (which saw the transfer of industry to China), and, thus, the jingoistic war drive for World War III.
Cliffites have chosen to side with, by use of their unprincipled tactics such as entryism and a "united front," the main capitalistic organs of Australia: ALP, the Greens, and the union-bureaucracy apparatus. The job of Socialist Alternative, and Victorian Socialists, is to repress workers and a grassroots movement. This has been, and continues to be, the tendency of various social layers of privileged sections of the ruling elite and academia.
FYI: "Honorable" Gilchrist also has a nice black Volvo; a premium car insurance at AAMI is due soon – paid at the expense of the working poor, who his gavel hangs over like a haunting spectre.

>>2083407
Some days ago I've seen people smugly stating that "the US choose to fight against multipolarity instead of pacefully joining the new world" (or something along these lines with the same meaning).
Which, if you have the slightest understanding on how capitalism works at the international level, makes no goddamn sense

>>2082930
> The SMO raises the flag of the Soviet Union on the territories they take; it's part of official propaganda and as Russia embraces war economy, the state-owned sector advances.
< Implying the current russian establishment is heading for socialism

File: 1737916443967.jpg (36.63 KB, 500x628, cat wtf 3630580918.jpg)

>>2107633
> a monopoly is defined as not being subject to competition, its defining feature. you can own all the things in a sector in a given territory, such as russia and oil, and not be a monopoly because your prices on the international market are subject to actual monopolies, which is why sanctions work, because the one imposing the sanctions lacks competition.
Where have they worked!?!?

File: 1737916761445.jpg (57.96 KB, 703x536, 1669817945489.jpg)

The XiaoHongShu situation proves that the proletariat is ready for internationalism, even if "communists" are not.

the revolution is when comfotable rich kids of the two world superpowers post at each other about their comfortable bourgoise lifestyles

>>2107775

A further note: In marxist terminology a monopoly is a form of competition, not uts absence:

If one firm has monopolized a given product in a given location, it merely is in a stronger position to compete in: selling the same commodity in different locations, selling different commodities, purchasing commodities that are its inputs (including land, equipment, labour power, etc.), obtaining & giving financing (capital).

>>2108237
The KKE is against rojava, not only because they are anarkidies but because by now it is clear that US imperialism is using Kurds as a tool against the peoples of middle east. It gave great struggles so that the greek social democratic wouldn't give Ocalan to the turkish state but they are against kurdist sepperatism because it would mean the revision of the borders of six countries, which under capitalism can only be done through war.
Little side note that is not that much talked about, but the KKE critically supported the anti-fascist struggle of the people of Donbass. It clearly said that people had a right to defend themselves and that they would chose how it would be done, however the KKE itself had some negative expirience (wtr to not fonnecting correctly the national with the class struggle due to the general line of the communist movment in the 40s) with a wide anti-fascist front that included bourgeois forces and through self critiscism could save anything progressive from that line on a higher stage. However, in 2014 Rizospastis reposted an article from the youth of the then RWCP that alerted that there were business deals happening in Kiev with russian capitalists regarding production units in Donbass and also that both the ukranian and russian states targeted communist elements. By now they have been eradicated and greek chads have been confirmed once again.

File: 1737925609795-0.png (161.79 KB, 660x363, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1737925609795-1.png (71.13 KB, 474x141, ClipboardImage.png)

File: 1737925609795-2.png (59.49 KB, 841x95, ClipboardImage.png)


File: 1737925880907.png (90.2 KB, 500x281, ClipboardImage.png)

>>2127557
>The XiaoHongShu situation proves that the proletariat is ready for internationalism, even if "communists" are not.
Based and true. We have no more centuries to waste listening to armchair pedants. Communism will never be the ideal you have in your mind. Those of us who are about something want to make things happen. Something is better than nothing and that something can always be improved. It's dialectical.

>>2127832

Capitalism is defined by competition. If one firm owned and controlled all of the economy it wouldn't be be capitalist; In fact, the internal operations of integrated firms with few exceptions (sears under libertard) are distinctly non-capitalist.

I think perhaps your confusion comes from the fact that the word "competition" is present in the text. But it is systematically preceded by the word "free".

Analogy: To say beef is not chicken meat is correct. But to say beef is not meat is false.

Further reading: https://www.reddit.com/r/LateStageCapitalism/comments/d20jv5/alan_freeman_here_marxist_economist_here_to/?rdt=57157

>>2127853
>I think perhaps your confusion comes from the fact that the word "competition" is present in the text. But it is systematically preceded by the word "free".
no that is the point. you dont call a race between an amateur and an olympian competition
>Capitalism is defined by competition
yes, hence imperialism as a new stage

continuing to call it competition only serves to undermine the point being made, which is that the material relations of capital circulation necessarily lead to accumulation, concentration, that it has internal contradictions dictated by its own logic

>>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: 52

[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 ]