"""Anti-campists ™""" destroyed, even by Cockshott standards:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FHm9rsLIPjA<06:53 "It is clear that there is currently no such thing as sub-imperialism or non-Western imperialism today.This is based on statistics gathered from economic data worldwide.
1. Russia is not imperialist;
2. China is not imperialist;
3. Not all wars are automatically imperialist in nature;
4. Your "cope and seethe" is your way of defending the imperial core.
That is all.
>>2137982Someone in the comments asked:
>How can one tell which invasion is imperialism and which is not. I'm wondering about Russia in particular.Cockshott response:
>This is a good point. Russia too runs a trade surplus which indicates net transfer of real value out of the nation. >>2138107>ignores DotP>ignores massive nationalization of industry>ignores how companies are mandated to have communist party members>ignores chinese communist labour unionsare you retarded, or something?
Like, are you some of those folks who post without understanding ANYTHING regarding the subject matter?
>>2137982>video was made by an angloiddon't care didn't ask
third world is going to imperialize your crakkka a$$
>>2138139>ignores DotP,dictatorship of the party
>ignores massive nationalization of industry>ignores how companies are mandated to have communist party members>ignores how companies are mandated to have communist party membersState capitalism
>ignores chinese communist labour unionscontrolled by the state
>>2138140your a sinophile pretending to be a communist
>>2138139>state influence and labour unionsCapitalism doesn't exist outside of the state and the existence of somewhat strong labour unions isn't really that groundbreaking, unless you are an angloid.
China is the worlds most successful social democracy, which is nice for the people who live there, but there are no plans to transition to any form of socialism in the future.
>>2138140I don't care if I qualify as a communist.
>>2138160>State capitalismState Capitalism is literally: GOOD. Have you ever heard about NEP?
fucking westoid labour aristocrats, i swear
>>2138234The state is a part of capitalism and its involvement has been common throughout history. The idea that the state inherently negates capitalism is a purely American narrative.
>LeninI have his Imperialism book infront of me right now. Tell me which part refutes what I said.
>>2138248It is a simple question, why can't you answer it?
>>2138190>dengoidWestoid: detected.
Nukes: launched.
>>2138264>Is China not ruled by a communist party?yes it is
and thank G A W D for that
I 6 6 6 % support the Chinese Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
I also 7 7 7 % support killing Westoids.
>>2138274>>2138277Picrel
>>2138286The talking point statimg that restoration of capital in china and the NEP are equivalent has been 'bunked a thousand tomes already, I'm just posting what was already written on it
>>2138211I dunno I'm fed up with the whole discourse surrounding it.
Because who cares? What's the point of these debates? Let's say Russia and America are both imperialist? Okay, so what?
Imperialism (Lenin) and fascism are inevitable. Capital is exported, markets are expanded, until a point of saturation is hit. Capitalists in upstart states who find themselves boxed in by established powers turn to Fascism in order further their interests.
Every bourgeois state aspires to imperialism. And every bourgeois state will turn towards fascism when they fail.
The only thing that truly matters is that there's a strong enough communist movement that can do picrel when the time comes.
>>2138241No.
>>2138302You are a literal
R E A C T I O N A R Y, moffin, and as such you should be purged.
>>2138269>Moffin>>2138276>Moffin>>2138279>Moffin>>2138302>Moffin>>2138316>MoffinPlease attach your empirical data proving that Russia/China is imperialist. Otherwise
please consider resigning from managing leftypol.In any SANE world your moderation/site-maintenance status would have been cancelled by now. You are nothing but a cultist repeating cultist talking points, when actual DATA contradict you.
Can you answer this simple question, Moffin:
>Why should we tolerate your existence? >>2138321> Please attach your empirical data proving that Russia/China is imperialistI just did for china.
For russia, here's a really useful article
https://web.archive.org/web/20220617161136/https://us.politsturm.com/is-russia-imperialist/> In any SANE world your moderation/site-maintenance status would have been cancelled by now. You are nothing but a cultist repeating cultist talking points, when actual DATA contradict you.Picrel
>>2138299 (me)
I guess MLs aren't able to answer this basic question.
>>2138330>GLOWitSTURm articleuygha, do you realise how sheltered and idiotic you have to be to post a fucking 10-people-based "collective" article?
I'm asking you right now and right here. Do you understand how retarded it is to post a fucking article from a webstite that is maintained by 3 people?
Are you cognizant?
>>2138299>>2138337The communist party of China already identifies the current stage of their socio-economic system as being the lower stage of communism.
The Chinese government does not pretend that their socio-economic system is anything but.
>>2138308Missing the point award.
I'm saying it's irrelevant. People who argue "smol bean Ukraine ought to be protected from big bourgeois Russia" are obviously moronic liberals. The geopol equivalent of small business owners whining about crony capitalism.
People who argue Russia could never turn imperialist or fascist because it's a unique snowflake civilization state with a socialist racial SOVL (not a strawman, there's been posts like that) are equally moronic.
If you want an actually hotter-than-the-sun take: Russia is not imperialist in the leninist sense, but instead is structurally proto-fascist. The only thing stopping it from tipping over the edge is that strikes and collective bargaining are still allowed.
The Russian communist party however has no real influence. They're tolerated only insofar as they don't raise a stink, and during the last Duma elections when they attempted to win seats through strategic voting, many found themselves cracked down upon in the same manner as Navalny libs.
Like maybe there's a small chance that the war will prompt a push towards collectivization, where all the vestigial oligarchs are instead replaced by people like Belousov. I'm not optimistic, but it's a possibility.
What's happening in Russia on the level of superstructure is actually far more interesting than the vapid "anti-imperialist" discourse here these past few years. But good luck arguing this in good faith without people running into thought stopping cliches and either accusing you of being a "campist" or being a full-blown NATOid western chauvinist for sharing a nuanced view.
P.s. no this post isn't about "Russia bad" or "Ukraine is a nazi regime"
>>2138342yes, helo
single source on them not being glowie?
>>2138353 (Moffin)
The fact that this moron still enjoys the privilege to post here, let alone be a part of the site-development team proves that we are being moderated by liberals.
>>2138370 (Pedophile)
You tell me, you seem to be the resident children connoisseur, maybe your expertise in children will shed some light on the matter.
>>2138374instead of pretending china has no plan you could just read their plans
maybe ask deepseek
>>2138389You asked what the plan is. The book describes the plan. I'm not entertaining further derailment.
Now it is your turn to provide economic data proving China is imperialist.
>>2138385 (Pedophile)
I'm trying to force a meme where whenever people reply to you, they append "(Pedophile)" to the quoted post number, that would be funny I think.
Hey everyone, put "(Pedophile)" after the post number when replying to this retard, it'll be hilarious
>>2138362Moffin has been proven again and again to be a fucking latent-nato supporter. Don't need anything else to "prove" or post, bro.
He is
literally the enemy. >>2138390See
>>2138320>>2138391Picrel pt.2
>>2138393< If you disagree with me ur nafo10 yo behaviour, which to be fair is more mature than the other anon from before
>>2138380>>2138379>>2138365>>2138360>>2138358The econo-empirical evidence proves that nor Russia nor China is imperialist. We are yet to receive ONE (1) economic empirical source that would prove otherwise.
You guys are literally shilling for the US empire, fyi, and you are doing it rather cringe-like.
>>2138420>"Moffin' is a literal CIA agent who has access to /leftypol/'tis true, to some extent
It's done precious little to "turn" the site though. If it's an op it's terribly unsuccessful.
>>2138408>current day research: nor China nor Russia is exporting capital to the degree as core imperialist countries doThat's false though.
Right now china is the second biggest foreign investor and second biggest creditor worldwide
https://www.statista.com/topics/8962/foreign-direct-investment-fdi-into-china/#topicOverviewhttps://www.dw.com/en/china-the-worlds-biggest-debt-collector-report-shows/a-67324372Russia does also significant foreign investiments, although tbey are more complicated to monitoe bdcause a lot of rich russian bourgeois make investiments through Cyprus
https://www.intellinews.com/which-country-is-the-biggest-fdi-investor-into-russia-it-s-cyprus-not-165554/ >>2138413Thank you man! Although I swore I made a thread in /anime/ specifically for moffposting (even if it didn't have too much success c.c)
>>2138420>>2138431Rent free lol
>>2138432>china is the second biggest foreign investor and second biggest creditorDoesn't mean a thing if you actually read Lenin's Highest Stage.
China is literally being imperialized right as we speak by US capital and their outsourcing doesn't even compare to the US'.
PROOF:
>>2137983 >>2138437What did
Lenin Deng mean by this?
>>2138458> they exported capital to central asia and also settled there…central asia was part of the USSR.
> only western nations can build communism properly, even marx said thatNot what anyone here said
Such a simple concept – Everything is a process, strictly speaking, there are no concrete things.
Communism, like any concept doesn't actually exist in reality.
All the purists / ultras etc. can be summed up, in the last instance, as failing to understand this.
>Being asked questions regarding this or that, he resorts to verbal contortions, to eel-wriggling: ‘I don’t think so. I don’t think in that way. I don’t think otherwise. I don’t think not. I don’t think not not.’ -Buddha
>Nowadays many people are calling for a transformation to a national, scientific and mass style. That is very good. But "transformation" means thorough change, from top to bottom and inside out. Yet some people who have not made even a slight change are calling for a transformation. I would therefore advise these comrades to begin by making just a little change before they go on to "transform", or else they will remain entangled in dogmatism and stereotyped Party writing. This can be described as having grandiose aims but puny abilities, great ambition but little talent, and it will accomplish nothing. So whoever talks glibly about "transformation to a mass style" while in fact he is stuck fast in his own small circle had better watch out, or some day one of the masses may bump into him along the road and say, "What about all this 'transformation', sir? Can I see a bit of it, please?" and he will be in a fix. If he is not just prating but sincerely wants to transform to a mass style, he must really go among the common people and learn from them, otherwise his "transformation" will remain up in the air. There are some who keep clamouring for transformation to a mass style but cannot speak three sentences in the language of the common people. It shows they are not really determined to learn from the masses. Their minds are still confined to their own small circles.https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-3/mswv3_07.htmWar is bad and love me, I'm a liberal: An exercise in futility
I think what I'm gonna do is, I'll stitch together some old posts. Apologies if you heard this one before. This discussion is very much exhausted. The premise is a distraction, as we can see there is no end to it. Maybe you cannot drag the western left into becoming something fundamentally different, else it would have to be put down anyway. You are being undialectical if you agree with the opening premise, which is very simple indeed.
Whether Putin actually "believes" multipolarity constitutes progress is of course immaterial. Whether the CPC actually "believes" in communism is immaterial. Playing a several decades spanning prank on 1.4 billion and 8 billion people respectively just seems an absurd notion to me. Strictly speaking I am agnostic. But therein is all the difference. How do you take the third option?
At this point, I'll break a lance for western liberals. I will lay out why they are preferable to the third camp of both-siders and whatnot.
I tried to play this game (of trotskyism, or whatever) with my left-liberal friends. I said concerning ukraine-russia, I am against countries (as well as war of course) in general. They weren't too impressed. One of them even said they are against the existence of countries as well but it's a cheap and meaningless answer (don't I know it). So I don't know who this whole song and dance is for. This is all to say it's funny to be on the other side of this. I don't think people (even westerners) are as stupid as trots (etc.) believe them to be. I prefer standard liberals to this eel-wriggling western "left". More honest.
There is no third position between empire and imperialized. Even liberals understand this simple reality. We may see it in humanity's future, the promised land, Shangri-La, but that's purely speculative, not actionable or realistic even. So understandably, most people are not very impressed by talk of a perfect communist state (of rapturous bliss). Have you noticed that you are not moving anything even an inch by engaging in this level of discussion? There is no talking to the puritan western faux-communist, that's really all there is to it. Their position, such as it is, is something purely born out of their rather desperate need for self-aggrandizement. It's very much akin to generic conspiracy theory (which goes something like: there's the elite and the sheeple and me, the chosen one). It's all twisted religiosity. Point is, they are a waste of time.
Everything is a process, strictly speaking, there are no concrete things. Communism, like any concept doesn't actually exist in reality. All the purists / ultras etc. can be summed up, in the last instance, as failing to understand this. To someone like that, the pure trot, who thinks "there is only capitalism and communism", which easily translates to: nothing anyone does matters (Zeno's paradoxes, nothing can ever happen), other people aren't even real. Like they don't have a real life. The proletariat is some funny abstraction that must bring about communism because they (the "Zeno's paradox ultras" for lack of a better term) will it. I think the theory of brainwashing is insufficient. There is always some level of collaboration if you fail to see the most basic conditions of reality. Being incurious is not something that is just a fact of life.
See also:
https://redsails.org/masses-elites-and-rebels/https://blackagendareport.com/western-marxism-loves-purity-and-martyrdom-not-real-revolution>>2138460>Do you ever consider looking at things relative to other things or are you actually incapable?oh boy lol
Good luck
First time engaging a western leftoid?
>>2138465the bolsheviks crushed their natlib movements, purged their intelligentsia, and enforced socialism from the top
in fact, majority of central asian cities were populated by slavic people, while the native ethnicities were relegated to the countryside, and banned from entering the cities
maybe china should do the same to africa, and they won't be considered imperialist any more
although, russia is doing exactly the same, but somehow USSR is not imperialist but russia is
>>2138459>>2138456I'm a Hungarian, which is to say, I'm from EU-periphery. I don't need you crackas to explain to me how I'm supposedly not exploited ba core capitalist countries. I actually know. I worked so far as a blue collar and white collar uygha in my country. I worked at 2 factories. I understand how our misery is caused by core-imperial countries literally colonizing us after our so called "regime change"
And no, you uyghas in the core don't understand SHIT about giga-exploitation.
Even if you are a prole in core-imperial countries you benefit from imperialism.
>Sauce?The source is me raping your mom and having had the opportunity to work on 3 continents so far.
>>2138460> If China is exploiting other countries with their foreign investment why are they net negative?I was only able to find some articles about investiments from the outside into china turning negative, like this one:
https://www.statista.com/chart/31257/foreign-direct-investment-inflows-to-china-by-quarter/> You are saying that any export at all is imperialism, and that global capitalism having developed such that all countries needing to participate in trade must export some capital to be evidence that these countries have developed to the stage of imperialismNot all countries. I am saying that China has developed to the point that to sustain the profit rate they're exporting capital and have become imperialist as a result. Sure, not to the degree of nastiness and extension of the west; but one does not need to be on top of all competing nations to be such.
>>2138502a girl who is into leftist politics, imageboards, anime, and is also a pedophile
you know
tbh if I were in such a position I'd be too hypervigilant and paranoid to not distance myself from the anime and lolicon thing, it would just play into the reactionary stereotypes and hysteria
>>2138520Choynah and Russia confirmed I S L A M I S T
200%
kys >>2138538we should start saying "moffing" to mean seething, malding, crashing out, being retarded, etc.
alternatively we could use "moffing" as "masturbating to drawings of children"
>>2138535They're stuck with "enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality. I myself don't know if there's a cure.
Of course this kiddo mentality results in picrel and false-flagging as a strategy to "win debates".
>>2138533What are you even talking about, you insufferable fag?
>>2138534very telling
>>2138538I will NOT be aggrandized in such a way!
>>2138542>we should start saying "moffing" to mean seething, malding, crashing out, being retarded, etc.I support this thesis.
>>2138552>is it a coincidence that every thread with any positive premise about the global south gets immediately astroturfed by "principled" """true communists""" who are very """concerned""" about how the third world proletariat is not doing communism correctly?It is a mere coincidence, yes. You poors better keep working.
This is the contemporary Marxist analysis based on empirical economic data:
https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2024/04/23/further-thoughts-on-the-economics-of-imperialism/https://thenextrecession.wordpress.com/2019/11/14/hm2-the-economics-of-modern-imperialism/Anything less than eco-graphs and data arguing against this position shall be from now on automatically considered a "shitpost" even if made by me.
>>2138613first worlders aren't exploited
there's literally nowhere for their surplus labor to go except to themselves
(I am coping here, btw: )
>>2138613 (me)
>>2138619there's not enough yachts, mansions and space trips to account for the entirety of the first world's productive output
first world workers in amazon warehouses sort commodities so that other first worlders can deliver them to other first worlders. their labor value does not leave the first world
meanwhile, who's manufacturing said commodities? third worlders
>>2138305Leftypol is mainly filled with petit booj suburbanites, they need to worship and hope for the victory of the current smaller aspiring imperialists like the vile clowns they are because most of these people, deep down, know they would be shot at best and tortured to death at worst in event of an actual proletarian revolution
Most of this board are outright class enemies of the proletariat, they need some imperialist victory to occur to protect their own lives, while the proletarians in their own nation would gladly stand these scum up at a wall and riddle them with bullets, Russian or Chinese troops might spare their lives if they act as compradors and collaborators, so that is all they aspire to be
>>2138635in the wet fantasies of the westoid ultra, it is the west that will have a genuine communist revolution, and the third world that will invade them to stop it
despite all historical precedent and material analysis
truly delusional
>>2138631> their labor value does not leave the first world< Hasn't actually read the critiqueIronically enough, the first part of this book
>>2137983 of all things provides a critique to your error, and how it replies on ore marxist concepts.
>>2138645In the fantasies of self-loathing Westerners who still, farcically, call themselves communists, the proletariat, those vile subhumans, will never, can never, be revolutionary
The true revolutionary class is and forever will be the bourgeoisie, operating under the Nation
PRAISE THE FATHERLANDKill all third worldists ;) >>2138651This is wrong.
The communist revolution will come from the so called "first world," meaning and including my homeland, Italy.
>>2138655I agree with you
My post was shitting on ziggers (subhumans) and dengoids (morons)
>>2138613Weird that you'd bring out Cockshott to debunk unequal exchange when even under his model of imperialism Russia and China don't qualify.
>>2138615>there's literally nowhere for their surplus labor to go except to themselves.It goes to their ruling class. Are you retarded?
>>2138707and what do the ruling classes do with it?
put it in a big silo and swim in it?
>>2138724Unironically yes
You think “leftist” /pol/ is able to distinguish the feudal ruling class from the bourgeoisie?
You think “””leftist””” (anti-Western) /pol/ can even comprehend Marxist class theory?
Do you not see the daily conflation of communists, proletarians, and whatever state they live under? Do you not see the daily invocation that both proles and bourgs in America are le compatriots in le nation which operates as an organism in itself? The average poster here is far closer to Hitler than Marx.
>>2138722>THIS IS RIGHT THERE IN CAPITAL VOLUME 4, CARL MARKS SAYS DIRECTLY:<After that affair one might almost believe that the English proletarian movement in its old traditional Chartist form must perish utterly before it can evolve in a new and viable form. And yet it is not possible to foresee what the new form will look like. It seems to me, by the way, that there is in fact a connection between Jones’ new move, seen in conjunction with previous more or less successful attempts at such an alliance, and the fact that the English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that the ultimate aim of this most bourgeois of all nations would appear to be the possession, alongside the bourgeoisie, of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat. In the case of a nation which exploits the entire world this is, of course, justified to some extent. Only a couple of thoroughly bad years might help here, but after the discoveries of gold these are no longer so easy to engineer. >>2138722 (me)
>>2138735 (me)
(me) coping, btw
>>2138740True! Nazi Germany did not export remotely as much Capital as America, thus it could not have been imperialist (Cockshott empirically proved this).
>but they started the second world war!Only ultras believe all wars are automatically imperialist.
>>2138655> including my homeland, ItalyRight now that would require a miracle. Currently FdI is working hard to repress any kind of protest. They also legalized false-flag terror attacks recently.
>>2138706See
>>2138320>>2138742Actually true
>>2138755hoarding it? how? if you deabstract value from a number to actual labor done, that stops making sense. the only possibility is that they're secretly destroying everything that first world workers produce, or building extravagant megastructures that nobody can see or use
and the "use it to generate more wealth" part just translates to reinvesting back into the west, or investing into resource extraction projects from the third world
>>2138786ok, can you account for the trillions' worth of value produced by the first world economies, that ordinary people don't get to access, use or benefit from?
what are these things, actually, in material terms? there'd have to be a secret hidden continent where only the first world bourgeoisie live, their population numbered in millions. hm… I think I might have an idea of where this "phantom continent full of bourgeoisie" is located.
and this doesn't reject class struggle, it just means that if the first world has a successful revolution and starts centrally planning their economy, they'll mostly be planning how to allocate third world surplus labor. which is functionally what wall street financiers already do as their jobs
>>2138805>ok, can you account for the trillions' worth of value produced by the first world economies, that ordinary people don't get to access, use or benefit from?It gets invested mostly abroad or in non-productive capital like FIRE sectors which are inherently parasitic and dont benefit proles even indirectly. Or else it just gets sat on in offshore accounts. When it does get invested in productive capital at home this just results in workers getting paid as little as possible to generate as much wealth as possible. Come on man this is Marxism 101.
>and this doesn't reject class struggleYes it does. You're essentially arguing that the the property of the bourgeoisie of a nation is collectively beneficial for the entire nation regardless of their class distinction.
>>2138824nah, sounds sus
imagine a situation where you and two other guys are hired to beat up and steal pans from a guy who makes pans. say he has 20 pans
one guy's job is to beat up the pan guy, another one's is to deliver the pans, and yours is to count the pans
the other two guys get 2 pans each, you get three since you're the email job labor aristocrat, boss gets the rest
1 pan is left for the pan guy so that he can make himself a fried egg and feed himself so he doesn't starve and continues making pans
everyone involved got the smaller fraction of the "surplus" they "produced", but nobody except the pan guy produced any value, they just assisted in the extraction of it, so they get a net benefit
that's what the first world is today, a logistical apparatus for extracting value from the third world
>>2138864>nah, sounds susOnly because you don't actually understand Marx's analysis of capitalism, and your retarded analogy confirms this.
>but nobody except the pan guy produced any valueYou don't understand the concept of surplus value. It has nothing to do with producing physical commodities. Marx argue that a teacher at a private school is a productive labourer and exploited proletarian, because he generates revenue for his boss but is paid less than what he generates. Office workers still produce surplus value and sell their labour power for a fraction of what it produces. Not to mention that you're using a theft analogy even though outright theft is not how modern imperialism operates. You don't even understand the difference between surplus extraction and primitive accumulation.
>>2138864I will explain to you what the labor aristocracy is and the solution of actions to be followed according to Lenin, remembering that the labor aristocracy is always a minority of workers that exists to weaken the labor movement and it shares the same interests with the rest of the working class with the difference of its conciliation with the national bourgeoisie, the only difference being that they are acting as class traitors for the bribe that the bourgeoisie offered them to deceive the other workers.
Let's start with this quote from Lenin:
<In a letter to Marx, dated October 7, 1858, Engels wrote: “…The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable.” In a letter to Sorge, dated September 21, 1872, Engels informs him that Hales kicked up a big row in the Federal Council of the International and secured a vote of censure on Marx for saying that “the English labour leaders had sold themselves”. Marx wrote to Sorge on August 4, 1874: “As to the urban workers here [in England], it is a pity that the whole pack of leaders did not get into Parliament. This would be the surest way of getting rid of the whole lot.” In a letter to Marx, dated August 11, 1881, Engels speaks about “those very worst English trade unions which allow themselves to be led by men sold to, or at least paid by, the bourgeoisie.” In a letter to Kautsky, dated September 12, 1882, Engels wrote: “You ask me what the English workers think about colonial policy. Well, exactly the same as they think about politics in general. There is no workers’ party here, there are only Conservatives and Liberal-Radicals, and the workers gaily share the feast of England’s monopoly of the world market and the colonies.”
<On December 7, 1889, Engels wrote to Sorge: “The most repulsive thing here [in England] is the bourgeois ‘respectability’, which has grown deep into the bones of the workers…. Even Tom Mann, whom I regard as the best of the lot, is fond of mentioning that he will be lunching with the Lord Mayor. If one compares this with the French, one realises, what a revolution is good for, after all.”[10] In a letter, dated April 19, 1890: “But under the surface the movement [of the working class in England] is going on, is embracing ever wider sections and mostly just among the hitherto stagnant lowest [Engels’s italics] strata. The day is no longer far off when this mass will suddenly find itself, when it will dawn upon it that it itself is this colossal mass in motion.” On March 4, 1891: “The failure of the collapsed Dockers’ Union; the ‘old’ conservative trade unions, rich and therefore cowardly, remain lone on the field….” September 14, 1891: at the Newcastle Trade Union Congress the old unionists, opponents of the eight-hour day, were defeated “and the bourgeois papers recognise the defeat of the bourgeois labour party” (Engels’s italics throughout)….
<That these ideas, which were repeated by Engels over the course of decades, were so expressed by him publicly, in the press, is proved by his preface to the second edition of The Condition of the Working Class in England, 1892. Here he speaks of an “aristocracy among the working class”, of a “privileged minority of the workers”, in contradistinction to the “great mass of working people”. “A small, privileged, protected minority” of the working class alone was “permanently benefited” by the privileged position of England in 1848–68, whereas “the great bulk of them experienced at best but a temporary improvement”…. “With the break-down of that [England’s industrial] monopoly, the English working class will lose that privileged position…” The members of the “new” unions, the unions of the unskilled workers, “had this immense advantage, that their minds were virgin soil, entirely free from the inherited ‘respectable’ bourgeois prejudices which hampered the brains of the better situated ‘old unionists’” …. “The so-called workers’ representatives” in England are people “who are forgiven their being members of the working class because they themselves would like to drown their quality of being workers in the ocean of their liberalism…”
<[…]
<The bourgeoisie of an imperialist “Great” Power can economically bribe the upper strata of “its” workers by spending on this a hundred million or so francs a year, for its superprofits most likely amount to about a thousand million. And how this little sop is divided among the labour ministers, “labour representatives” (remember Engels’s splendid analysis of the term), labour members of War Industries Committees, labour officials, workers belonging to the narrow craft unions, office employees, etc., etc., is a secondary question.
<[…]
<The last third of the nineteenth century saw the transition to the new, imperialist era. Finance capital not of one, but of several, though very few, Great Powers enjoys a monopoly. (In Japan and Russia the monopoly of military power, vast territories, or special facilities for robbing minority nationalities, China, etc., partly supplements, partly takes the place of, the monopoly of modern, up-to-date finance capital.) This difference explains why England’s monopoly position could remain unchallenged for decades. The monopoly of modern finance capital is being frantically challenged; the era of imperialist wars has begun. It was possible in those days to bribe and corrupt the working class of one country for decades. This is now improbable, if not impossible. But on the other hand, every imperialist “Great” Power can and does bribe smaller strata (than in England in 1848–68) of the “labour aristocracy”. Formerly a “bourgeois labour party”, to use Engels’s remarkably profound expression, could arise only in one country, because it alone enjoyed a monopoly, but, on the other hand, it could exist for a long time. Now a “bourgeois labour party” is inevitable and typical in all imperialist countries; but in view of the desperate struggle they are waging for the division of spoils it is improbable that such a party can prevail for long in a number of countries. For the trusts, the financial oligarchy, high prices, etc., while enabling the bribery of a handful in the top layers, are increasingly oppressing, crushing, ruining and torturing the mass of the proletariat and the semi-proletariat.
<[…]
<On the economic basis referred to above, the political institutions of modern capitalism—press, parliament associations, congresses etc.—have created political privileges and sops for the respectful, meek, reformist and patriotic office employees and workers, corresponding to the economic privileges and sops. Lucrative and soft jobs in the government or on the war industries committees, in parliament and on diverse committees, on the editorial staffs of “respectable”, legally published newspapers or on the management councils of no less respectable and “bourgeois law-abiding” trade unions—this is the bait by which the imperialist bourgeoisie attracts and rewards the representatives and supporters of the “bourgeois labour parties”.
<One of the most common sophistries of Kautskyism is its reference to the “masses”. We do not want, they say, to break away from the masses and mass organisations! But just think how Engels put the question. In the nineteenth century the “mass organisations” of the English trade unions were on the side of the bourgeois labour party. Marx and Engels did not reconcile themselves to it on this ground; they exposed it. They did not forget, firstly, that the trade union organisations directly embraced a minority of the proletariat. In England then, as in Germany now, not more than one-fifth of the proletariat was organised. No one can seriously think it possible to organise the majority of the proletariat under capitalism. Secondly—and this is the main point—it is not so much a question of the size of an organisation, as of the real, objective significance of its policy: does its policy represent the masses, does it serve them, i.e., does it aim at their liberation from capitalism, or does it represent the interests of the minority, the minority’s reconciliation with capitalism? The latter was true of England in the nineteenth century, and it is true of Germany, etc., now.
<Engels draws a distinction between the “bourgeois labour party” of the old trade unions—the privileged minority—and the “lowest mass”, the real majority, and appeals to the latter, who are not infected by “bourgeois respectability”. This is the essence of Marxist tactics!
<Neither we nor anyone else can calculate precisely what portion of the proletariat is following and will follow the social-chauvinists and opportunists. This will be revealed only by the struggle, it will be definitely decided only by the socialist revolution. But we know for certain that the “defenders of the fatherland” in the imperialist war represent only a minority. And it is therefore our duty, if we wish to remain socialists to go down lower and deeper, to the real masses; this is the whole meaning and the whole purport of the struggle against opportunism. By exposing the fact that the opportunists and social-chauvinists are in reality betraying and selling the interests of the masses, that they are defending the temporary privileges of a minority of the workers, that they are the vehicles of bourgeois ideas and influences, that they are really allies and agents of the bourgeoisie, we teach the masses to appreciate their true political interests, to fight for socialism and for the revolution through all the long and painful vicissitudes of imperialist wars and imperialist armistices.
<The only Marxist line in the world labour movement is to explain to the masses the inevitability and necessity of breaking with opportunism, to educate them for revolution by waging a relentless struggle against opportunism, to utilise the experience of the war to expose, not conceal, the utter vileness of national-liberal labour politics.
<V.I. Lenin, “Imperialism and the Split in Socialism”Source:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm >>2138211The "productive forces" were already developed over a century ago.
>>2138809>>2138873>>2138886>>2138890>>2138956>>2138960>>2139003>le good productive capital and le bad finance capitalFor a new role of the bank capitalist and his “parasitic” existence, as well as that of the “coupon clippers,” it is useless to reproduce remarks on the separation of money capital and industrial capital; in this context, moreover, Marx speaks of the necessity of the separation, therefore also of its economic function: through the credit superstructure, which as share capital allows the size of a capital to come into its own as a means of competition, capital obtains the freedom to make itself independent of its investment in a specific sphere, whereby its ties to specific persons and its entanglement in a specific trade are also stripped away. Marx was quite indifferent to the fact that bankers and shareholders live off their money capital; rather it seemed interesting to him that they do this at the expense of the working class, and in this they by no means differ from their industrial colleagues.
Applying the moral standard of good, because useful, “productive” capitalists and using that to criticize the latest state of exploitation only makes sense to a theorist who wants to prove the progress of capitalism by the “decline” of its ruling class. The reason i.e. professionals are part of the middle class instead of the proletariat does not hinge on whether they are productive or not either.
>>2139100if you had actually read lenin, you'd know his analysis are indeed rooted in looking at various economic statistics, because as a science, marxism start by looking at real data, and explain state policy (and thus imperialism) by looking at the material interest and behavior of the finance capital of various nations in accordance to this data.
No wonder your contempt for "marxist intellectuals" when you dont even grasp the bare basics of marxism
>>2139678Also,
>Marxist intellectualMarx and Engels loathed intellectuals.
>>2139683Ask Kazakstan or
fucking Ukraine you retard what they think about russian imperialism/colonialism.
>>2139515>This book is arranged and developed around the theme of “2050 China,” it analyzes the factors and advantages of the Chinese road to socialist modernization, explores and summarizes the development goal and the basic logic of the socialist modernization of China, and further shows the general basis of the primary stage of socialism. According to the report delivered at the 19th Party Congress, and according to the “two-stage” strategic plan, this book looks ahead in detail to the overarching objective and sub-objectives of essentially achieving socialist modernization by 2035, discusses the building of a great modern socialist country in all respects from the perspective of the Party’s six-sphere integrated plan of economic, political, cultural, social, ecological civilization, and national defense construction, and provides policy proposals. >>2139217>Vague statements that obviously ignore Glowanonymous’s actual point<“If you actually read Lenin” from a faggot that never didYup
It’s MLoid (red liberal) time!
>Neoimperialism is the specific contemporary phase of historical development that features the economic globalization and financialization of monopoly capitalism. The characteristics of neoimperialism can be summed up on the basis of the following five key features. First is the new monopoly of production and circulation. The internationalization of production and circulation, together with the intensified concentration of capital, gives rise to giant multinational monopoly corporations whose wealth is nearly as great as that of whole countries. Second is the new monopoly of finance capital, which plays a decisive role in global economic life and generates a malformed development, namely, economic financialization. Third is the monopoly of the U.S. dollar and intellectual property, generating the unequal international division of labor and the polarization of the global economy and wealth distribution. Fourth is the new monopoly of the international oligarchic alliance. An international monopoly alliance of oligarchic capitalism, featuring one hegemonic ruler and several other great powers, has come into being and provides the economic foundation for the money politics, vulgar culture, and military threats that exploit and oppress on the basis of the monopoly. Fifth is the economic essence and general trend. The globalized contradictions of capitalism and various crises of the system often undergo an intensification that creates the new monopolistic and predatory, hegemonic and fraudulent, parasitic and decaying, transitional and moribund form of contemporary capitalism as late imperialism.https://monthlyreview.org/2021/05/01/five-characteristics-of-neoimperialism/ I had some time to go through the supposed plans for Chinas treansition to socialism, as expected there is no actual plan. The fabled socialism by 2050 is just current Chinese society but more harmonious, modern, beautiful, democratic, ecological, culturally advanced, technological and buzzword ridden. If you genuinely are impressed by this, you should just become a socdem. Radlibs who advocate for UBI, because they heard about it from a youtube video, are more revolutionary than this. I pitty you.
>>2140232of course the abolishment of capital will look exactly the same as properly managed capitalism that will then unwind and wither away
you just gotta let the contradictions resolve themselves
this is what the USSR should have done: literally nothing, and just exist with a communist party at the helm, and we'd be in world communism by now. instead they started messing with shit
>>2140184If you ask a Kazakh or Ukrainian, they will tell you that they were oh-so-colonized by the Ruzzians because the Soviets took their kulak grandfather's cow, before proceeding to go to work at an American company or an USAID non-profit, eat a grossly overpriced meal at a McDonalds, and """vote""" for a president directly appointed by the US and EU (because the alternative is a "pro-russian" candidate who doesn't want to antagonize Russia for no reason, and that's bad)
If they're Ukrainian they also have the option to go to war that could be settled 3 years ago if Boris Johnson didn't go to Kiev and order Zelensky to continue
>>2140342kazakhstan has never had any semblance of a choice between nazarbayev or tokayev, none of that "rigged elections" nonsense, they just announce 99% support every few years, and there's not a single person there who believes that the elections are even remotely real
and they'd probably feel more positive about collectivisation if a total retard like Goloshekin (Yezhov's best friend) weren't in charge of it
ironically I think most kazakhs alive today have a "grand-grandpa had to hide his cows" story, because those who didn't have cows either starved or fled to china
>>2140382historically progressive just like manifest destiny
stupid ultra
>>2138094>they will NEVER be imperialistyou're right. they will be
ultraimperialist which would be based>>2138125cockshott is forgetting that exchange is value-preserving. or perhaps by "real" value he means actual machines and stuff rather than "not-real" value, money. but then he should say constant (or perhaps fixed) capital
>>2138276behead leftcoms
>>2140382They aren't conquering them for resources. Ukraine has nothing that Russia doesn't have in far greater abundance. They're doing it for strategic reasons.
>Then what is it?Expansionism, militarism, irridentism, idk. But it's not colonialism since that draws a false equivalence between totally different economic relationships. If Russia were to establish relations with Ukraine or the annexed regions such that they were systematically impoverished and their development suppressed to fuel development in Russia, then it would be colonialism.
>>2140451>Ukraine has nothing that Russia doesn't have in far greater abundanceWhy do you think did America invade Iraq? Lack of oil?
It is obviously beneficial for Russia to capture a larger part of the worlds fossil fuel and grain production.
>>2140197I literally refuted his point you dumb moron, but someone who call lenin work "bourgeois moralism" really couldnt be expected to have serious points anyway
a bit like you, who dont even seem to understand what the point even was
the absolute irony of calling people libs while absolutely refusing to engage in marxist theory. Lenin explicitly call out finance capital as the force behind imperialism, and demonstrate the control and sharing of the world by national finance capitalists through use of economic data, and thats what marxists call imperialism. Do a similar economic analysis today, and it is obvious the vast majority of the finance capital of today is not anymore divided as national blocs between western nations that could cause them to fight each other, but has coalesced into a US led common western bloc, commonly referred to as the empire, western empire or US empire. Which incidentally has the overwhelming military power in the world (more than 70% of the military spending worldwide) as well as the financial one, and is not shy on using both to destroy its enemies, whether progressive socialist movement or states that simply wont let themselves get looted or refuse some geopolitical demands. This empire also enforce a development division of the world to ensure maximum profit, keeping vast amount of people in poverty. The dismantling of this empire is the necessary precondition to any large scale progressive development, and especially development of socialism.
I feel incredible contempt for the so called "anti campists" because they seem to just dont understand theory, even worse, they apparently cant even engage with it, they will literally cry because you use real economic data to support an analysis, and claim stupid shit like "you dont read" when you recall them fucking lenin base his analysis on economic data, because thats how you get useful theory and not by wanking on the supposed purity of an ideological position.
>>2140469>he think US invaded iraq for the oilit was a nice side benefit, just like for russia the wealth of the seized territories is also a nice side benefit.
US invaded iraq to defend petro dollars, destroy a regional power that wouldnt fully submit to the empire, remove an enemy of israel, gain a better control of this strategic region.
In short, imperial business of controlling the world and expanding its power.
In comparison, russia fighting with a country on its border being explicitely being made into a bridgehead of aggression and instability against them by the hegemonic empire is actually literally defending itself.
>"Sub-imperialism" is not a thing
Explain Kenya, Turkey, Pakistan, India and other thirdie sub-imperialists then. It is definitly real and in most cases it is forced upon weaker, under-developed nations by powerful western imperialist nations.
>Russia is not imperialist
Don't know much about them, honestly. Ukraine is a western puppet regime, so I don't like them either, although I don't salivate over the idea of Ukrainians getting killed like many Z-tards. Russia did help the Sahel alliance which is good. They also learned the hard way that they shouldn't be funding mercenary groups.
>China is not imperialist
Hard disagree. They were de-facto American allies for a while and have supported several fascist states. Even under Mao, they refused to recognize the newly independent Bangladesh until Bangabandhu was ousted by a military junta. Don't get me wrong, I admire Mao, but even he probably felt surrounded and had no option but to play ball with America at the time.
Anyway, campism is retarded and trying to group every single geopolitical actor into neat categories is futile. Geopolitics is pretty incoherent and alliances are always subject to change, unless you literally are the imperial core.
>>2140653>they've shown a clear reluctance to use military action altogether>launching a limited operationAnon they tried to take Kiev in the first weeks of the war.
>no resource warSure it just happens to be in Russias economic interest. All your arguments are identical to the arguments nafoids make to defend American interventions.
>>2141801You can start with the manifesto. Here is a small part since we know you have trouble with long texts.
>We have seen above, that the first step in the revolution by the working class is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class to win the battle of democracy.
>The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
>Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm >>2141975Not the topic of the thread
Maybe check if your cope is even applicable before engaging it
>>2141929 (me)
I think, while this topic has been discussed to death several times over, this is what's at the heart of the matter.
>>2137982Sub imperialism (originally) meant to explain countries like Turkey in it's role in NATO. I don't know if it's been discussed already.
More precisely, it was made to describe Brazil during the dictatorship.
AI says:
>The concept of "sub-imperialism" was developed by the Brazilian Marxist theorist Ruy Mauro Marini in the 1960s and 1970s.>Marini argued that certain countries in the periphery, such as Brazil, could act as "sub-imperial" powers, exercising dominance over neighboring countries or regions while still being subject to the dominance of core capitalist countries.>Marini's concept of sub-imperialism highlighted the complexities of global power relations and challenged traditional notions of imperialism as a simple binary relationship between core and periphery.Wikipedia says:
>Otro concepto formulado por Ruy Mauro Marini, que adquirió relevancia por la emergencia de Brasil como una potencia regional, es el de subimperialismo. Marini lo planteó para dar cuenta de la orientación que la dictadura militar brasileña dio al desarrollo del aparato industrial-militar como base para alcanzar una relativa hegemonía en el sur de América Latina y en ciertas regiones de África >>2163190Yes, that’s how every bit of nonsense MLs spew actually reads, probably because they become MLs by reading other internet retards and only go back and start reading Marx afterwards to backwardly justify their own retardation, a lobotomy is a good solution to this
>>2164082Don’t show me your backwards attempt to read Marx back into an ideology you came up with before you ever read him, die, over and over again, be set on fire, fed to dogs, riddled with bullets
Every last falsifier of Marx must be butchered in the most inhuman fashions, this charade must end, if you have ever falsified Marx you need your guts nailed to a tree
>>2164082For an explanation for why MLs are genuinely lower than the worms in the dirt though, it’s this little performance you engage in. Where you try and quote passages of Marx you “read” after you already became ML (a subhuman cultist) meaning you are trying to read Marx into a worldview created after his time, into a worldview you, a pathetic internet cultist, accepted before you ever read Marx, because like most Americans (read: untermenschen) you agree with the CIA and the Politburo that collapsed regimes define the future horizon of communism. You are barely a person. If you read those passages with eyes unclouded, you would read every single sentence beyond what you highlighted, to see that Marx is very clearly not arguing that socialism will be capitalism, but rather that the culture of bourgeois society, the need to account for society’s products, and the division of labor and likely separation between groups like men and women, young and old, etc. would not, and could not, be immediately abolished; only through the progression of a new way of being could a new culture and entirely alien way of life emerge. This isn’t an argument for “socialist” wage labor, “socialist” capital accumulation, and, fuck, “socialist” private firms like Dengists (the lowest stage of liberalism) would see it. And the fact that you can read liberalism into Marx’s words, is honestly why you don’t deserve eyes to see.
>>2164244You can always tell MLs are just exhuming Marx’s corpse to wear his skin in some macabre display with the way they will literally show you which statements by Marx they are actively cherrypicking in their attempt to do apologetics for capitalism.
Force them all into a pit and shut the entrance.
>>2164290>I am anti Washingtonno one cares
>neutral towards Beijingno one cares
>I don't consider them socialistno one cares
and the proof of this is that while they want to encourage people in russia or china to sabotage their countries, they will never, ever, ever, ever, ever even protest a gun shipment to ukraine, israel, saudi arabia, thailand, etc. etc.
it really makes you think who could be behind "anti-campism" posting, when these professional saboteurs can live in the imperialist country and the worlds biggest weapon manufacturer without ever producing even a single incident
>>2164302i don't give a shit about people dick riding a nation state, that's just as retarded as doing the opposite.
what i give a shit about is the intellectual dishonesty way too many people here display day in day out. people who obviously never read marx, never read any history, never read anything at all.
i'll take an intellectually honest person who didn't read marx at all over all these dipshits who pretend they did but who obviously lack the mental faculty to understand anything they've read. people who take this as a team sport, falling back to tribalism and secterianism by default because they are not capable of critical thought, thus they will always have to retreat to uncritically quoting shit they don't even understand.
such people, we call them debate addicts occasionally, ultimately are wreckers and of no use to any movement at all. people who are not interested in actually getting shit done in any way. people who actually think socialism will materialise if only enough people believe hard enough in their moronic interpretation of something they don't even understand anyways.
on another note, i detest people who talk down what others achieve through their actions while they themselves never do jack shit. unless you show by action how to do things better, you ought to shut your fucking mouth, full stop. unless you offer critical analysis, devoid of judgment, all your talk amounts to nothing but exposing you as the chauvinist fucker you are.
in short: many a poster here lacks decency and dignity and could be shitposting on /pol/, it wouldn't make a difference.
>>2164364did it work?
yes -> keep doing it
no -> be more proactive
>>2165101No he really isn’t, and I don’t know how you could have gotten that interpretation other than *needing it to be there so you can justify to yourself why you fundamentally believe that self-sacrifice to reproduce capitalism in all but name is something proletarians would or should aim towards
>>2164285*Marxism-Leninism has been the doctrine of everything you named, but Marxism-Leninism is essentially just a strategy for backwards countries to achieve a sustainable capital basis that can compete with established industrial economies
Marxism was actually the most highly developed intellectual framework for the proletarian movement to abolish the relations of capital and the alienation of man from his own capacities and products. We shouldn’t mix up Marxism with Marxism-Leninism, or else we will endlessly find ourselves conflating an ideology aimed at transcending class struggle through the abolition of the class reproducing structures with an ideology for national development/national revolution
>>2165230>Muh ChinaLmao what a faggot
Less than a rat, is this how you feel strong?
Who said anything about muh Chinese socialist capitalism yet, stupid bitch?
>>2165288>Who said anything about muh Chinesethe start of this "capitalism is socialism" conversation was a reply to a summary of deng xaioping theory
>>2151526 >>2162772maybe read the thread you are posting in??
>>2165275>picwhy are americans like this
why is the movement there a magnet for soup brained people
>>2137982I assure you, sub-imperialism is a thing. I am the #1 campist, I am the CEO of campism, and let me tell you right now a better term does not exist for the activities of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, India, etcetera. If you want to prove one of those countries has been elevated to core imperialist levels, particularly Israel, be my guest.
The contention that all states are imperialist, or all semi-peripheral countries are sub-imperialist, is just a low effort attempt to look like one has done homework one has not
>>2165339>*construct* socialism, but you're basically saying that a dotp *is* socialismConstructing socialism is socialism :)
Marx only witnessed extremely brief and failed attempts to establish a DotP. His prescriptions are merely speculative and can be readily discarded with concrete experience and contextualization.
>>2168116Didn't know there was apartheid in donbass since… 1991 I guess?
where can I read about it?
>>2168128Human rights is liboid nonsense, but what human rights were being denied to so called "donbassians"?
You're cheapening the palestinian struggle by comparing it to russian irredentism
>>2168136These things are not independent of each other but linked.
Again, exemplary of liberal ahistoricity etc.
>butThat was not the point
At all
It's so far from the point
You do not understand how deep you are in liberal western ideology is the thing.
>>2168143It's like you are actively trying to sound like a stereotypical western lib
but think again about
>>2168116 >>2168145How is life going to improve for the russian working class after the war?
What have they won?
>>2168246I don't give a shit whever Russia wins or loses.
>>2168248I'm trying to make one but it feels like literally nobody gives a shit. Like nobody I've met actually is working towards a revolution or even thinks its possible except for a few Welsh nationalists. Nobody I 'recruit' wants to do anythign but talk online about their problems and won't come do anything IRL and now they all left because I expected them to do things. The most anyone's cared are fucking RCP scum trotskyites who defaced my signal group.
It probably doesn't help that I'm the most dysgenic transhumanist possible, but I'm at the point where I don't care anymore. My face is on the internet, I've been put in cringe comps by Zionists already, but I've got a job to do and I'm going to fucking do it. In the end I can complain all I want, but it's not up to others to make it work for me. It's up to me to make it work for myself. Crying doesn't help anyone but a bit of anger is the motivation we need sometimes.
I want to seriously ask, do you want to organize? Are you up for it? Having someone help do shit rather than me just talking at pedestrians would be fucking amazing. But you have to be willing to actually do things that are scary because all the people I've managed to appeal to aren't. You've got to talk to people, you've got to do your fucking reading and homework. We need energy and passion into doing the really hard part of party building.
Also the pigs are already after me. I know for a fact private investigators are after me.
I'm asking you and anyone else reading to join. If you're international you can still join the online reading group, I've got people willing to do that already.
My e-mail is:
[email protected]Telegram: t.me/+BUp15WSFG2Q0NjNk
>>2168673>I mean Cockshott is where you end up if you’re the sort of fucktard that thinks Marx didn’t have a philosophical outlookyep
>unironically think the way out of capitalism is fucking development lmaooh but that part is correct lol
>>2168229>Cockshot is pussylicking the CPBtru
>with the bourgeois fulfilling the social roles of comprador and imperialistthis isn't you disagreeing with "subimperialism", its saying that comprador is imperialist, which is wrong, because imperialism isn't a policy but a stage of development
>>2168808No, the way out of capitalism isn’t to “further develop capitalism”, mechanical “materialism” belongs in the fucking trash
The way out of capitalism is a revolutionary rupture by the proletariat acting as a class conscious historical force; that is the
only way.
Stupid cunts like Cockshott place the state as the subject of history and the proletariat as a mere object, he’s just another variety of liberal
>>2169214Yeah, it doesn't quite meet the intentionality standard
Forcefully taking peoples' food, mismanaging it, being incompetent, being neglectful on one's futies, and lying about numbers, fully knowing it would result in a famine is pretty bad, but *technically* it wasn't done with the intent of genociding the population, so *technically* it's not genocide
Still sounds kinda bad
Talking about the kazakh famine tho, dunno anything about ukraine
>>2172787Honestly, how many times does this have to be explained to you people? It's not fucking rocket science.
>More divided international bourgeoisie>Industrialization of the global south>Collapse of the labour aristocracy in the WestAll of these conditions are more conducive to revolution than those which prevailed during the unipolar moment. All of them are advanced by the rise of non-Western powers.
>>2181058This map is actually based!
…Um, but on what precise metrics it is based upon?
…And USA should be just as uncivilised as UK.
The Ideology of Late Imperialism: The Return of the Geopolitics of the Second International
<by Zhun Xu
In 1990, when renowned Indian Marxian economist Prabhat Patnaik asked “Whatever Happened to Imperialism?,” once vibrant and influential schools of theories on imperialism were at a postwar historic low.1 When he left the West to return to India in 1974, imperialism was at the center of all Marxist discussions. But when he came back to the West merely fifteen years later, imperialism already seemed out of fashion. After all, the end of the Soviet Union and liberals’ declaration of the end of history were near.
Marxists’ inquiries into the question of imperialism began in the early twentieth century. During the time of V. I. Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg, Marxists focused on two related questions regarding imperialism: (1) intercapitalist competition and war, and (2) the hierarchy within world capitalism and the relationship between the imperialist countries and the colonies/semicolonies. Since then, the Russian and Chinese Revolutions, the postwar anticolonial wave, and the Cold War have profoundly changed the context of imperialism. Following the last interimperialist war in the core in the 1940s, and with most colonies having gained independence, the political-economic relationship between the imperialist and nonimperialist countries became the key to theorizing imperialism.
Since the 1950s, Marxist scholars have greatly deepened our understanding of imperialism by exploring underdevelopment and the center-periphery, or dependency relationship, in world capitalism.2 Paul Baran’s The Political Economy of Growth is one of the earliest and best analyses of how feudal, imperialist, and comprador interests, as well as other unproductive uses of economic surplus, have kept back the third world. Later writers such as Samir Amin, Andre Gunder Frank, and Immanuel Wallerstein each developed a distinct but related approach to the rise of capitalism. Instead of focusing on just Western Europe and the United States, they also explored how the global division of labor and the more general world system, or imperialist system, transferred surplus from the periphery to the center, thus creating both development and underdevelopment simultaneously.
Given this high tide of Marxist writings on imperialism in the 1960s and ’70s, the disappearance of imperialism from leftist discussion is quite remarkable. According to Google Books data (see Chart 1), the frequency of the term imperialism in a large sample of English-language books declined by more than 50 percent between 1974 and 1990. Even before the demise of the Soviet Union or neoliberal transitions in much of the world, analyses of imperialism were already disappearing in the United States and elsewhere.
>Chart 1: Frequency of imperialism in Google Books, 1870–2019 (English)
Patnaik suggested that this waning might be because of the very strengthening and consolidation of imperialism after the Vietnam War.3 This was evident from the tyranny of the global division of labor as well as the destructive functions of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. Besides these, there was also a more direct development among Western liberal and leftist intellectuals, which aimed politically to diminish anti-imperialist writings. Since the 1970s, well-known leftist writers such as Bill Warren, Robert Brenner, Michael Hardt, Antonio Negri, and David Harvey have contributed to this kind of intellectual counterrevolution.
Aside from a change in research interests among scholars, the retreat from the question of imperialism has above all facilitated the rise of conservative ideology framed as leftist discourse. There has been a return of what we can call Second International politics, which essentially break from the Marxist traditions exemplified by Lenin and Mao Zedong, and severely limit revolutionary potential in the imperialist core.
Unique IPs: 129