Why is it that Islam, not Communism, remains the last bastion against imperialism?
And it can also be argued that communism was never anti imperialist to begin with because the Soviet union helped establish Israel, invaded Afghanistan and so on.
Is Islam the only true anti imperial creed?
Islam is not a bastion against imperialism. It is an alternate form of imperialism. China is the last bastion against imperialism.
>>2902239define Imperialism
West Papua, East Timor, Artsakh I rest my case
>>2902245Imperialism is a spook used arbitrarily by third world reactionaries, islamist extremists, and ziggers to justify being reactionary
>>2902245According to Lenin, it is:
“Imperialism is capitalism at the stage of development in which the domination of monopolies and finance capital has taken shape, the export of capital has become prominent, the division of the world by international trusts has begun, and the division of the entire Earth among the major capitalist countries has been completed.”
V. I. Lenin, Against Imperialist War
>>2902248Typical person who believes that the Syrian rebels are the good guys, and Hezbollah are radical Islamists.
Retarded post the ottoman empire imperialized other muslims
>>2902239>Is Islam the only true anti imperial creed?Its more like a weaker imperialist force. There is nothing left of socialist movements in the middle east.
>>2902239Putting the fact it's false aside, Islam is imperialist. It just failed to be as successful as western capitalism.
Most Islamic states operate under a form of theocratic fascism, absolute monarchy, or feudalism.
You can go back to the shit hole that is the ACP's cult compound now.
>>2902257Lenin was writing over a hundred years ago. His writings on imperialism are outdated. Are we dogmatists clinging to century old writings?
>>2902258Hezbollah are radical Islamists though. Just because they are Shia doesn't mean they are not reactionary Islamists.
For me the biggest problem with the non-Marxist anti-imperialists like Hezbollah and even Assad is that they are incompetent. We've seen the "axis of resistance" fumble from one misstep to another.
Call me a leftcom. I don't put my faith in arbitrary reactionaries because they are on one side of a map or another. I have been disappointed too many times.
>>2902279
>>Lenin was writing over a hundred years ago. His writings on imperialism are outdated. Are we dogmatists clinging to century old writings?Can you tell me which aspects of the imperialist system have changed? Because, if you analyze the situation, you see that it operates under the same principles as a century ago, and that logic of outdated texts and dogmatism is stupid. Is Marxism also 150 years old? Is it also a dogmatic idea?
>>Hezbollah are radical Islamists though. Just because they are Shia doesn't mean they are not reactionary IslamistsThey are so extremist that they have Christians among their own ranks.
>>2902244Replace "Islam" with "China" and your post would be correct and materialist pilled
>>2902277>Most Islamic states operate under a form of theocratic fascism, absolute monarchy, or feudalism.There isn't a single "islamic" state that isn't a liberal democracy
kys theorylet tourist
>>2902286> Can you tell me which aspects of the imperialist system have changed?Everything. When Lenin was writing before or during WW1 the British empire was the dominant power in the world and the Earth was divided between the colonial powers. Since then and after WW2 the world has drastically changed. For one thing: can you find anyone in the world that supports "imperialism" now? Is there any country anywhere that calls itself "imperialist"? This was not the case when Lenin was writing.
As imperialism has become a swear word like fascist (which it wasn't in Lenin's time) it is used by all kinds of reactionaries to support their positions.
> Because, if you analyze the situation, you see that it operates under the same principles as a century ago, and that logic of outdated texts and dogmatism is stupid.I can appreciate Lenin's anti-imperialist pamphlets as ways of riling up the workers of the early 20th century against imperialism and as propaganda but I am not convinced they are meaningful today or they were even valid then except as propaganda. I am not convinced of the thesis that capitalism leads to imperialism, and if we argue against this position people will just redefine imperialism to be a product of capitalism making it a tautology and not a realistic analysis. So I am not sure it was true even at the time even if it was good propaganda.
>Is Marxism also 150 years old? Is it also a dogmatic idea?Marxists agree for example that the 10 planks of the communist manifesto are out of date and shouldn't be applied today but they were good propaganda and that the time.
>They are so extremist that they have Christians among their own ranks.That is allowed by Islam. They are people of the book. This is a stupid discussion anyways. What is your point? That we should support Hezbollah after they have proven have powerless they are to stop Israeli imperialism?
>>2902296Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran are all liberal democracies yeah?
You have never opened a book in your life.
Islam has been the ultimate south world ideology serving western imperialism, there was a real secular panarabian movement trying to make an economic block out of MENA at some point but the money flew from the west into religger pockets and here we are. ISIS and Al Qaeda or even Hezbollah and Hamad are byproducts of this ruinous policy of pushing Islam by the west and their subservient petromonatchies. Rven Gaddafi was too much
@2902307
>Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran are all liberal democracies yeah?
Yes.
Go back, open theory, illiterate predditor.
>>2902310You're an absolute clown.
the only country that is standing against western influence in the middle east, is iran and it's proxies, and only them alone.
>>2902337This is very important, for otherwise Iranian and other proles in the region would have to contend with capital and exploitation. Praise Allah this doesn't exist there.
>>2902304
>>Everything. When Lenin was writing before or during WW1 the British empire was the dominant power in the world and the Earth was divided between the colonial powers. Since then and after WW2 the world has drastically changed. For one thing: can you find anyone in the world that supports "imperialism" now? Is there any country anywhere that calls itself "imperialist"? This was not the case when Lenin was writing. As imperialism has become a swear word like fascist (which it wasn't in Lenin's time) it is used by all kinds of reactionaries to support their positions.
I see your first mistake here, which is that you conceive of imperialism as a political ideology, like fascism. But Lenin called imperialism a phase of capitalism characterized by a greater scale of wealth, which led to the division of the world into powers, the union of the monetary and industrial sectors, the partial demise of free trade, etc. When you say, "Is there any country anywhere that calls itself 'imperialist'?" you see the same error. There are no countries that describe themselves as imperialist, just as there are hardly any countries that describe themselves as dictatorships, but nevertheless, dictatorships and imperialism still exist. Because what are the French or Russians doing in Africa? Or the United States doing across half the world?
>>I can appreciate Lenin's anti-imperialist pamphlets as ways of riling up the workers of the early 20th century against imperialism and as propaganda but I am not convinced they are meaningful today or they were even valid then except as propaganda. I am not convinced of the thesis that capitalism leads to imperialism, and if we argue against this position people will just redefine imperialism to be a product of capitalism making it a tautology and not a realistic analysis. So I am not sure it was true even at the time even if it was good propaganda.I mean, this comment seems just ignorant to me. Do you seriously think that imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, is only meant to stir up the masses? That there's no real theory behind it?
>>That we should support Hezbollah after they have proven have powerless they are to stop Israeli imperialism?Yes, because since when does our support depend on how skilled a group is in the art of war? We have to support them because their victory (and Iran's too, since they're fighting together) is progressive, weakening the axis of Israel and the United States.
>>2902339also i should mention that, iran is not doing this for sake of destroying eeevvill imperialism or whatever.
iran wants to have it's own version of american hegemony in the middle east. so does israel.
>>2902342the list was not meant to be exhaustive, it's just whatever popped up in my head at the time
>>2902341>I see your first mistake here, which is that you conceive of imperialism as a political ideology, like fascism. But Lenin called imperialism a phase of capitalism characterized by a greater scale of wealth, which led to the division of the world into powers, the union of the monetary and industrial sectors, the partial demise of free trade, etc. Lets suppose you are correct. That imperialism is just capitalism. Then what do you need the word "imperialism" for? Its only used as a swear word. Why does Lenin get to redefine what imperialism means? Do you see what I mean?
He can redefine it for propaganda purposes to make capitalism look bad. But thats not a realistic analysis. Saying that imperialism is whenever capitalists and banks do foreign investment is not a helpful analysis.
>Do you seriously think that imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism, is only meant to stir up the masses? That there's no real theory behind it?Pretty much, yeah. Lenin talks about the concentration of monopolies, the rise of the banks, finance capital, and the export of capital and then jumps to imperialism but I am not convinced by his leaps from one to the other.
I am not sure how export of capital leads to imperialism, and if you are literally using Lenin both to define imperialism and to explain it that is self-defeating. That is not how you make a real theory. Thats how you make a meaningless tautology.
If you use Lenin's meaningless definition that imperialism is the export of capital you might even claim China is imperialist.
>>2902323>looks at Turkey in NATOI mean the AKP is a pro-business party so that will always come first.
>>2902351>I am not sure how export of capital leads to imperialismThe theory was that capitalist states are driven into it because there's not enough profitable investment opportunities at home, so they want to invest abroad and want to secure conditions for that investment (which is where you'd get political / military control). He was writing in the early 1900s though and it gets more complicated today when the U.S. is a major destination for investment.
Like the op to take out Maduro doesn't seem to result from a lack of profitable investments opportunities in the U.S., but the future profits of Venezuelan oil being recapitalized into Silicon Valley, yes.
>>2902348
I think I explained myself poorly. Lenin doesn't consider imperialism and capitalism to be the same thing; rather, he sees imperialism as a phase that develops according to the same internal logic of capitalism. And it wouldn't make sense to say that it's just to give more power to the capitalists because in his time it wasn't a commonly used word; he was simply giving a name to a stage of capitalism.
>>Pretty much, yeah. Lenin talks about the concentration of monopolies, the rise of the banks, finance capital, and the export of capital and then jumps to imperialism but I am not convinced by his leaps from one to the other.
I am sure how export of capital leads to imperialism, and if you are literally using Lenin to define imperialism and then using Lenin to define how capitalism leads to imperialism that is self-defeating. That is not how you make a real theory. Thats how you make a meaningless tautology.
If you use Lenin's meaningless definition that imperialism is the export of capital you might even claim China is imperialist.
It doesn't simply shift from one concept to another; that's the imperialist phase. This concentration of power leads to the division of the world. These aren't separate concepts; they're the same, and it doesn't contradict itself. It's true that there have been empires, but we're not using the word "imperialism" when there's an empire. We're using imperialism as a phase of capitalism, not as something else.
(Tell me if I'm explaining myself badly because maybe the problem is mine xd)
And if China is imperialist, it's not violent now, but neither were the Americans at the beginning.
> I think I explained myself poorly. Lenin doesn't consider imperialism and capitalism to be the same thing; rather, he sees imperialism as a phase that develops according to the same internal logic of capitalism.
If a stage of capitalism that developed a hundred years ago that means that in effect all capitalism is imperialist now because we are much more advanced than a hundred years ago. So there is no point in a distinction anymore unless you are a historian.
But why do we need to use the word "imperialism" when this word is known to be used to be used already for other purposes? Why can't we use the word capital exportationist? The only reason I can think of is for propaganda purposes.
I'd prefer not to use the word imperialist at all at this point.
>It's true that there have been empires, but we're not using the word "imperialism" when there's an empire. We're using imperialism as a phase of capitalism, not as something else.
But my basic point is that using that word this way is propaganda.
>Tell me if I'm explaining myself badly because maybe the problem is mine xd
Nah your explaining fine. I enjoy the respectful conversation at least you aren't immediately insulting me because I am not the most well read on 100 year old Marxist texts.
>And if China is imperialist, it's not violent now, but neither were the Americans at the beginning.
I thought America was violent at the beginning.
you need to brush up on your history. islamic empires conquered and ruled much of the western world for hundreds of years. in fact one could argue that islam was even more imperialistic than christianity because it started as a political movement with military conquest as the goal from the very beginning, with muhammad raising an army and waging a holy war against the pagan arab feudal kingdoms and taking over the arabian peninsula. jesus and moses and abraham didn't achieve anything like that in their lifetimes, they were just local cult leaders and the movements they started didn't grow into major cultural forces until centuries after their deaths. the islamic empires would be the dominant wealthy high-tech civilization of the western hemisphere up until the renaissance when the european christians finally managed to unite their feudal kingdoms and assimilate the pagans and recover enough of the knowledge they had lost to develop technologies which allowed them to cross oceans and establish colonies and trade networks and global capitalism. the islamic empires waned in power, culminating in the defeat of the ottoman empire in world war 1 but this was not the end for islam as a global cultural force - years later the kingdom of saudi arabia was formed and they discovered the vast oil reserves in their territory and became monstrously rich and used their wealth to fund the most expensive and elaborate propaganda campaign in history to spread their highly authoritarian fundamentalist ideology and radicalize the islamic world into what it is today, similar to what the romans did with christianity. so their empire never really ended, just as the christian roman empire never really ended, just as the empires that preceded it never really ended, because it's all really the same empire; the empire isn't a terrority or a society, it is a pattern of human thought and behavior, it is a way of looking at things, it is a universal and omnipresent psychological phenomenon that exists across the entire human species that compels us to control and manipulate and dominate one another and forget what we are and where we come from and believe that we are gods and that our words dictate reality and that the universe bends to our will.
>>2902279>For me the biggest problem with the non-Marxist anti-imperialists like Hezbollah and even Assad is that they are incompetentjust like all the leftcoms, Marxist-Leninists, anarchists, and the entire Left in the West and its environs since the middle of the last century. What is your point?
>>2902665China has proven itself to be competent.
>>2902383I just think in terms of the town-country contradiction. IMO Lenin's theory of imperialism mostly obfuscates that.
Unique IPs: 20