I'm not even a Leninist nor do I find Lenin's pamphlet particularly enlightening, but how the fuck do the majority of self-described Leninists misunderstand imperialism as an action that a state takes, instead of it being an economic system, like this is still basic Leninism. It's legitimately baffling, how do these pseuds think the division of the world among capitalist powers being complete is a policy. How the fuck is that even a coherent sentence in the context of a policy, Lenin is so obviously talking about a stage of global capitalist development and not a fucking action.
>>2615251It's not Leninists who misunderstand Lenin, anon. It's mostly anarchists and leftcoms who intentionally misrepresent or just completely ignore him.
>>2615253Unironically, retards are out there repeating shit from Chomsky acting like it's communism. Like the Bolsheviks quite explicitly stated capital has created the conditions for communism in every country and that in Russia foreign capital has created a concentrated proletariat thus every war has potential now for proletarian revolution but you have leftoids saying we need to support the bourgeois of small states.
The whole point of the Bolsheviks adopting imperialism as a world development of capital was to demonstrate the complete interconnectedness and permeation of capital social relations, and the imminent communist revolution.
Yeah it's not Leninists that make this confusion OP
>>2615251It is very enticing to think that way, because it makes you feel like you have the agency to force the state to stop being imperialist.
The satire of OP is immaculate
Oh you've read it? Explain this then
>Further, imperialism is an immense accumulation of money capital in a few countries, amounting, as we have seen, to 100,000-150,000 million francs in securities. Hence the extraordinary growth of a class, or rather, of a stratum of rentiers, i.e., people who live by “clipping coupons,” who take no part in any enterprise whatever, whose profession is idleness.
>For that reason the term “rentier state” (Rentnerstaat), or usurer state, is coming into common use in the economic literature that deals with imperialism. The world has become divided into a handful of usurer states and a vast majority of debtor states.
>>2615251because even though it's a system, and a stage of global capitalist development, rather than policy, Lenin still speaks at length in other works about "oppressed nations" and "imperialist nations" and "labor aristocracy" giving the impression to some that the goal is to destroy the imperialist nations or at least lower their standard of living in order to raise the standard of living of the oppressed nations, because, for them it is a zero sum game and proletarian revolution, the development of productive forces, the improvement of distribution, the decrease of needless waste, can only play a secondary role to crushing imperialism.
Example 1:
<Obviously, out of such enormous superprofits (since they are obtained over and above the profits which capitalists squeeze out of the workers of their “own” country) it is possible to bribe the labour leaders and the upper stratum of the labour aristocracy. And that is just what the capitalists of the “advanced” countries are doing: they are bribing them in a thousand different ways, direct and indirect, overt and covert.
<This stratum of workers-turned-bourgeois, or the labour aristocracy, who are quite philistine in their mode of life, in the size of their earnings and in their entire outlook, is the principal prop of the Second International, and in our days, the principal social (not military) prop of the bourgeoisie. For they are the real agents of the bourgeoisie in the working-class movement, the labour lieutenants of the capitalist class, real vehicles of reformism and chauvinism. In the civil war between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie they inevitably, and in no small numbers, take the side of the bourgeoisie, the “Versaillese” against the “Communards.”
<Private property based on the labour of the small proprietor, free competition, democracy, all the catchwords with which the capitalists and their press deceive the workers and the peasants are things of the distant past. Capitalism has grown into a world system of colonial oppression and of the financial strangulation of the overwhelming majority of the population of the world by a handful of “advanced” countries. And this “booty” is shared between two or three powerful world plunderers armed to the teeth (America, Great Britain, Japan), who are drawing the whole world into their war over the division of their booty. Example 2:
<1. Imperialism, Socialism, and the Liberation of Oppressed Nations
<Imperialism is the highest stage of development of capitalism. Capital in the advanced countries has outgrown the boundaries of national states. It has established monopoly in place of competition, thus creating all the objective prerequisites for the achievement of socialism. Hence, in Western Europe and in the United States of America, the revolutionary struggle of the proletariat for the overthrow of the capitalist governments, for the expropriation of the bourgeoisie, is on the order of the day. Imperialism is forcing the masses into this struggle by sharpening class antagonisms to an immense degree, by worsening the conditions of the masses both economically—trusts and high cost of living, and politically—growth of militarism, frequent wars, increase of reaction, strengthening and extension of national oppression and colonial plunder. Victorious socialism must achieve complete democracy and, consequently, not only bring about the complete equality of nations, but also give effect to the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, i.e., the right to free political secession. Socialist Parties which fail to prove by all their activities now, as well as during the revolution and after its victory, that they will free the enslaved nations and establish relations with them on the basis of a free union and a free union is a lying phrase without right to secession—such parties would be committing treachery to socialism. >>2615253>>2615258true, all the maoists are now "kautskyists" (dont laugh!)
>>2615375>oh youve read the whole thing? explain this quotemine that i clearly dont understand myselfpeak leftoid. if you werent a fucking moron youd understand that text is just describing competition lmao, literally just saying "some states are more successful than others", exactly that the only distinction among countries is whether they are a minor or major world power lol
by the same logic lets support the small capitalist enterprises then because theyre being unfairly oppressed by the big bourgeoisie
>>2615384lol bro the bolsheviks had no issue calling poor shitholes imperialist too just by virtue of being bourgeois nations, even poor feudal states too
But the fight against imperialism is a sham and a humbug?
>>2615452>lol bro the bolsheviks had no issue calling poor shitholes imperialist too just by virtue of being bourgeois nations, even poor feudal states tooi was answering OP's question not putting forward my own position. was that not clear?
>>2615452>literally just saying "some states are more successful than others"sure, retard. read the book, this time slowly and with commentary.
>>2615452>, literally just saying "some states are more successful than others", exactly that the only distinction among countries is whether they are a minor or major world power lolNot quite. He's pointing out that the most imperialist state pivot from the profits of stock to the rent of land and the interest of money as their primary sources of revenue. They become global loan sharks. This is how the USA uses the IMF to force structural adjustment programs onto global south nations (and if the loans are refused, well then it's time for a CIA couop)
>>2615251You are right that he isn't talking about an action(policy)
>Lenin is so obviously talking about a stage of global capitalist developmentyou are completely wrong about this. he is talking about a stage of national capitalist development and it is abundantly clear and explicit.
>>2615452>literally just saying "some states are more successful than others"in other words; some states are imperialist and others are not
>>2616249>>2616252>more quotemining bc holistic understanding of a text is for nerds iglol lenin clearly situates imperialism as a global phenomenon
<big capitalists dont just stay in one country but expand internationally, especially through exports of capital and controlling foreign markets<intl monopolies and cartels are global, with big companies and banks working across borders to dominate markets<powerful nations are carving up the globe into colonies and spheres of influence, not just competing within one country<presenting capitalist economies as interconnected, with nations depending on each other through trade finance and investment, showing its a global systemso yeah, lenins talking about a global stage of capitalism
now explain how tf this isnt a stage of capitalism but "only" national capitalist development (which is irrevocably part of global capital anyway???????)
>>2615384The labor aristocracy is a small minority where some class traitors opportunistically try to co-opt workers so that they do not organize and have solidarity among themselves, leading to an ideology of class conciliation with the national bourgeoisie that deceives workers to weaken the movement collectively.
The labor aristocracy is a type of representative of the working class that weakens the workers' movement with the opportunism of class conciliation to deceive and divide them, I think it is very likely that the criticism for unions with the co-opted leadership to betray the working class applies in this definition as a type of class traitor. Remembering that the bribe that the capitalist offers is optional as a concession tactic along with repression to facilitate the exploitation of capital.
Let's see what Lenin have to say about the labor aristocracy:
<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”https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm No matter how much you force it Russia will not be an imperialist power.
>>2615251The point is to maintain as vague and protean an understanding of 'imperialism' as possible in order to dilute the message of proletarian internationalism, in favor of campist nationalism.
Everything the USA/IMF/Israel does is imperialist, but Germany or China or India exporting finance capital to their weaker neighbors in order to extract surplus labor isn't imperialist because *10,000 word cope essay*.
>>2616339>quoteminingits not quotemining when there are an abundance of examples. this is just half the examples searching "handful" we can get the same results with "monopoly" or "advanced"
what is your orange text even from? shit you made up? maybe you have a problem with people quoting the text because it obviously disagrees with you
>>2616339>now explain how tf this isnt a stage of capitalism but "only" national capitalist development (which is irrevocably part of global capital anyway???????)i didn't say "only". nations are a natural development that comes out of capitalism, capitalism develops unevenly at different rates in different places according to these geographic territories, capital being part of a "global" system does not make every country that is part of it imperialist.
the only reason to hyper focus on capitalism as a global system is to excuse imperialist states and condemn victims of imperialism as participants in their exploitation
what is the utility for you of calling it a global system outside of blurring the distinction between imperialist states and its victims? there is none. why does lenin describe imperialism as monopoly, and monopoly as a national phenomena within a given territory? how can imperialism be global if some nations lack monopolies?
your position is incoherent and directly contradicts what lenin actually said
>>2616392>Everything the USA/IMF/Israel does is imperialist,yes
>but Germanyis also imperialist
>China or India exporting finance capitalthe mere existence of capital export is not a condition for imperialism, its the primacy and preponderance of capital export as the driver of imperialist economy, a "whole nation that lives by clipping coupons" as already quoted twice in this thread
china and india are both developing periphery nations whose economy is not primarily based in capital export, but in the export of goods, which is not the highest stage of capitalist development, is not based in monopoly finance capital, is not imperialism
>>2616389Yeah I would expect an imperialist country to not loose most of its military and get bogged down in a backwater country like Ukraine
>>2616428so USA wasnt imperialist over a century ago?
>china, the second wealthiest country today, is a "developing periphery nation"holy shit LMAO
>>2616481>so USA wasnt imperialist over a century ago?of course it was what would give you that impression
>the second wealthiest country todaythese things are relative. compared to its population size its productive forces are still behind
>>2616385>The labor aristocracy is a small minority where some class traitors opportunistically try to co-opt workers so that they do not organize and have solidarity among themselves, leading to an ideology of class conciliation with the national bourgeoisie that deceives workers to weaken the movement collectively.the other anon doesn't seem to be arguing to the contrary, but thanks for the info
>>2616424>its not quotemining when there are an abundance of examplesdude every accusation i've seen made of quotemining on here lately has been low effort cope to avoid giving a counter argument
Lenin's analysis in Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism is rooted in a revisionist worldview that focuses too much on moral judgments instead of a more nuanced and critical understanding of capitalist dynamics. Like talking about the "parasitic" nature of finance capital is fucking textbook bourgeois moralism which leads him into a false dichotomy between industrial and finance capital when they are both interconnected in practice. It's no wonder then than even to this very day this moralistic worldview has only led to misguided political strategies, such as anti-monopoly or peace movements that fail to confront the underlying class struggle.
>>2616249>>2616252>>2616339Lenin is clearly talking about both issues. His central argument is that imperialism represents a global stage of capitalist development where monopolies dominate the economy, both within and between nations. National capitalist development plays merely a role in this transformation, like Lenin doesn't treat imperialism as just an outcome of it, but rather as the inevitable result of the interconnection of national monopolies within a global system.
>>2616424>what is your orange text even from? shit you made up?All those points are part of Lenin's analysis of imperialism.
>>2616490>compared to its population size its productive forces are still behindChina today has a massive middle class and its practically the factory of the world, you're fucking delusional.
>>2616255Being unsuccessful at capitalist competition doesn't make you stop being bourgeois/imperialist, furthermore the idea that there can be an "anti-imperialist" nation is complete nonsense, that would just be a hermit bourgeois state. You're basically arguing shit like agricultural capital against industrial, petty bourgeois against big bourgeois, premonopoly capital against monopoly capital, etc.
Repeating myself:
>>2615257>The whole point of the Bolsheviks adopting imperialism as a world development of capital was to demonstrate the complete interconnectedness and permeation of capital social relations, and the imminent communist revolution.>>2616428>>2616490Actually read Lenin and then compare what he said about imperialism and how China is organized economically.
>>2616499>interconnectedAbsolutely meaningless statement.
>>2616126>lenin literally copypasted his whole imperialism arc from hilferdings finance capitallenin criticizes hilferding several times in
Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism though…
<Rudolf Hilferding, Finance Capital (Russian edition, Moscow, 1912).In spite of the mistake the author makes on the theory of money, and in spite of a certain inclination on his part to reconcile Marxism with opportunism, this work gives a very valuable theoretical analysis of “the latest phase of capitalist development”, as the subtitle runs. Indeed, what has been said of imperialism during the last few years,especially in an enormous number of magazine and newspaper articles, and also in there solutions, for example, of the Chemnitz and Basle congresses which took place in the autumn of 1912, has scarcely gone beyond the ideas expounded, or more exactly,summed up by the two writers mentioned above…
< Hilferding, ex-“Marxist”, and now a comrade-in- arms of Kautsky and one of the chief exponents of bourgeois, reformist policy in the Independent Social-Democratic Party of Germany, has taken a step backward on this question compared with the frankly pacifist and reformist Englishman, Hobson.
<A steadily increasing proportion of capital in industry,” writes Hilferding, “ceases to belong to the industrialists who employ it. They obtain the use of it only through the medium of the banks which, in relation to them, represent the owners of the capital. On the other hand, the bank is forced to sink an increasing share of its funds in industry. Thus, to an ever greater degree the banker is being transformed into an industrial capitalist. This bank capital, i.e., capital in money form, which is thus actually transformed into industrial capital, I call ‘finance capital’.” “Finance capital is capital controlled by banks and employed by industrialists.” This definition is incomplete insofar as it is silent on one extremely important fact—on the increase of concentration of production and of capital to such an extent that concentration is leading, and has led, to monopoly. But throughout the whole of his work, and particularly in the two chapters preceding the one from which this definition is taken, Hilferding stresses the part played by capitalist monopolies.
<We now have to examine yet another significant aspect of imperialism to which most of the discussions on the subject usually attach insufficient importance. One of the shortcomings of the Marxist Hilferding is that on this point he has taken a step backward compared with the non-Marxist Hobson. I refer to parasitism, which is characteristic of imperialism.
<This argument of Kautsky’s, which is repeated in every key by his Russian armour-bearer (and Russian shielder of the social-chauvinists), Mr. Spectator, constitutes the basis of Kautskian critique of imperialism, and that is why we must deal with it in greater detail. We will begin with a quotation from Hilferding, whose conclusions Kautsky on many occasions, and notably in April 1915, has declared to have been“unanimously adopted by all socialist theoreticians”.“It is not the business of the proletariat,” writes Hilferding “to contrast the more progressive capitalist policy with that of the now bygone era of free trade and of hostility towards the state. The reply of the proletariat to the economic policy of finance capital, to imperialism, cannot be free trade, but socialism. The aim of proletarian policy cannot today be the ideal of restoring free competition—which has now become are actionary ideal—but the complete elimination of competition by the abolition ofcapitalism.” >>2616499>Lenin's analysis in Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism is rooted in a revisionist worldview that focuses too much on moral judgments instead of a more nuanced and critical understanding of capitalist dynamics. Like talking about the "parasitic" nature of finance capital is fucking textbook bourgeois moralism which leads him into a false dichotomy between industrial and finance capital when they are both interconnected in practice. It's no wonder then than even to this very day this moralistic worldview has only led to misguided political strategies, such as anti-monopoly or peace movements that fail to confront the underlying class struggle.Lenin never advocated anti-monopoly though. He did advocate peace in WW1, but only so he could turn the imperialist war into a civil war.
>>2616499>All those points are part of Lenin's analysis of imperialism.then provide a source i cant quotemine for "itnl"
>>2616499>a revisionist worldview you also cant say this unless you mean revision of anarchism because the same principle holds for marx and is the basis of the tendency of the rate of profit to fall
>>2616499>but rather as the inevitable result of the interconnection of national monopolies within a global system.but not universally international or transnational, but instead particular national monopolies, those of imperialist states, that he calls cartels. meaning that not every state is a participant, not every nation is imperialist, and especially not subjugated colonies
and he very specifically does not say that every war in the era of late stage capitalism is imperialist, in fact saying exactly the opposite multiple times, and supported national liberation wars, even bourgeois ones under certain conditions, just like every other communist including marx and engels
>>2616513>Being unsuccessful at capitalist competition doesn't make you stop being bourgeois/imperialistit precisely does. an unsuccessful capitalist can not be a monopolist, instead they are a failed capitalist(not even a capitalist)
>furthermore the idea that there can be an "anti-imperialist" nation is complete nonsensemore things no one is saying
>>2616513>bourgeois/imperialistand why are you putting these together. you can very much be bourgeois without being imperialist. capitalism does not automatically mean imperialism thats the entire point of it being a higher stage. do you also think that as soon as the dutch became capitalist and started taking spice from the indies suddenly all fuedal states turned capitalist too because "its a global system"? fucking stupid. capitalist development happens on a national basis
>>2616543Yet still fell for bourgeois moralfagging calling some sectors of capital/some bourgeois more "desirable" than others and overly depended on bourgeois economism and statistics to give his conclusions more credence despite failing to show actual links between the data and his claims.
>>2616527That's a word, not a statement. Anyway this shit is found already on Marx even. Marx speaks of the necessity of the separation of finance and industry and its usefulness: 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.
>>2616576>Lenin isn't talking about moralismLmao, sure. 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.
Marx, unlike Lenin, 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.
>>2616559I'm NTA and "intl" obviously means "international". Do you actually know the language you type in?
>>2616562Maotards are so cooked, man. China is the second richest country, enormous finance sector, etc. but I guess they produce a lot so they're magically exempt.
>>2616596<You're basically arguing shit like agricultural capital against industrial, petty bourgeois against big bourgeois, premonopoly capital against monopoly capital, etc.Marx, Engels and Lenin "supported" those wars when feudal states still existed. Shut the fuck up.
>>2616609>Do you actually know the language you type in?do you know how ctrl+f works?
>>2616609>Applying the moral standard of good,in this sense marx is also a moralist then
>rather it seemed interesting to him that they do this at the expense of the working classyeah of course and he advocated doing nothing about it. certainly no is/ought there
lenin is simply pointing out that renteir states fall into crisis of overproduction more frequently requiring extraterritorial expansion to offset the falling rate of profit
>>2616608>you can very much be bourgeois without being imperialistFeudal shitholes a century ago were imperialist but bourgeois nation-states today who are all part of the global system and act as agents of the world market whether they like it or not somehow are not, incredible developments in leftoidpol theory.
>thats the entire point of it being a higher stageDid you even fucking read the pamphlet? It's only 60 pages.
>capitalist development happens on a national basis"Imperialist capitalism" in a single country. Lovely. Liberals simply cannot conceive of capitalism as a global system and need to individualize everything.
>>2616634try this one its only one page and he wrote it specifically for people like you who dont get it
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm My controversial communist opinions are all things like "the proletariat shouldn't support imperialist wars" or "the proletariat shouldn’t subordinate itself to the bourgeoisie". You know, stuff that shouldn't be controversial at all.
>>2616625>more dead proletarians please!Instead of underlining so much actually explain in your own words why communists have to waste time "supporting" wars between nation-states in a fully capitalist world.
>>2616619>implying anarchismTake your meds, retard.
It's funny that people have come to regard nationalism as some bulwark against imperialism, given that Lenin points to a number of "national" (i.e. advanced bourgeois) states that have themselves become imperialist, e.g. Japan, not to mention the Western European powers. Pretty much all countries fit the definition today.
>>2616650>It's funny that people have come to regard nationalism as some bulwark against imperialismthey dont
>Pretty much all countries fit the definition today.oh so not all of them? i thought it was a global system?
>>2616650>My controversial communist opinions are all things like "the proletariat shouldn't support imperialist wars"no one disagrees, they disagree that all wars are imperialist wars
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jul/junius-pamphlet.htm
>"the proletariat shouldn’t subordinate itself to the bourgeoisie"neither this, bourgeois alliances are always temporary insofar as proletarian interests are aligned.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/volume-1/mswv1_17.htm >>2616499>Lenin's analysis in Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism is rooted in a revisionist worldviewstick to this instead of pretending to uphold the true lenin
>muh nations
>muh coutries
>>2616389It is participating in the redivision of the world. It is participating in interimperialist war.
>>2616619Anti imperialism is a vehicle of reaction.
>muh national liberationAnd? Still an interimperialist war.
>>2616662>quoting mao, leader of the peasantry and national bourgeoisie, to defend participating in warslol ofc
on contradiction is his most retarded essay btw
"The fight against imperialism is a sham and a humbug"
Lenin.
>>2615750>noooooooo fighting against imperialism is not sham and not a humbug aaaaaahhh waaaahLenin did say it whether you like it or not
>>2616690wrong. mao is based and on contradiction is a pillar of marxist thought
>>2616698>muh opportunismIt is the default thing in this time. So the context of the quote is not really necessary. You can call all current wars an interimperialist conflict. It is that simple
>>2616679yeah anticolonialism is just reverse imperialism. national liberation is exactly what lenin talked about when he said decision of the world. its just like reverse racism and white genocide
>>2615251This guy reads snippets of marxist literature for the sole purpose of arguing on leftypol.
Unique IPs: 16