[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / booru ]

/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internets about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
Password (For file deletion.)

New Announcement: IRC<=>Matrix bridge #leftypol on Rizon
Please give feedback on proposals, new every Monday : /meta/
/edu/ want your help building a library! >>>/edu/7066
New /roulette/ topic: /draw/ - Original Art

File: 1634095497584.png (134.67 KB, 400x300, ClipboardImage.png)

 No.544841[Last 50 Posts]

Lenin was a dumbass. Imperialism isn't the highest stage of capitalism. Monopoly capital was just a specific historical phase of capital, one that doesn't exist anymore. It's really cringe when people talk about "imperialism" like it's still 1904.
Did this fucking retard even read Hegel? Doesn't he know that capitalism is itself a dialectic, which can never have a true end or "highest stage"?


>Monopoly capital doesn't exist anymore
look at this dude


He was entirely conscious of the fact that he was talking about the current situation the world's proletariat was facing at the time.
This is why he felt the need to distinguish financial imperialism and classical imperialism.
Lenin isnt stupid, the teens who read him are


How can you call Lenin a dumbass even though he was limited to the age of capitalist monopoly and imperialism? It is more accurate to call it the latest stage of capitalism.


File: 1634095767057.png (388.26 KB, 800x771, companies.png)

>Monopoly capital was just a specific historical phase of capital, one that doesn't exist anymore


This is what reading too much Hegel does to a mf, this is why Mao said that reading too many books is harmful.


Mao read Hegel too wtf are you on


What has changed? Arguably the hold of monopolies and the financial oligarchy is even stronger today.
>Did this fucking retard even read Hegel?
He literally had notes on Hegel's work.


>mono means poly
read a book


Lenin read Hegel you Philistine faggot.


>stages of an ideology
oh fucking come on.
someone tell me what late stage feudalism is, or the lowest stage of communism


is this bait


explain the lowest stage of communism.


My penis is the lowest stage of communism, let me share my penis inside your asshole comrade


is this bait


>did this lawyer even read books smh


He read Hegel and realized he was full of shit.


it’s pretty self evident if you just think about it, but marx explains it in gothakritik as the socialist society that has just emerged from a capitalist one and carries all its structural baggage for the time being. pretty much every aes state fits into this category.


but this implies a socialist society must follow a capitalist society. i think this is a naive assumption made by limited scope. it feels direction-brained to assume some linear tiering progression of these ideologies and talk about it as if it's a general truth. imperialism wasn't exclusive to capitalism.


File: 1634099275863.jpg (96.14 KB, 500x376, lachen.jpg)

>Monopoly capital was just a specific historical phase of capital, one that doesn't exist anymore
>imperialism doesn't exist anymore


weve ascended to a new stage.its called 'pulling out of afghanistan'


"highest" is a mistranslation its actually imperialism, the ""latest"" stage capitalism.


>this implies a socialist society must follow a capitalist society
It has to in the sense that the material conditions necessary for socialism to develop can only be achieved with sufficient technological and social development that, thus far, only capitalist civilizations with advanced industry have been able to achieve. More primitive modes of production can't just hopscotch into socialism because they don't have an economic base capable of realizing it.

>imperialism wasn't exclusive to capitalism

As >>544846 pointed out, Lenin specifically draws a distinction between classical and financial imperialism, the latter being a novel development of monopoly capital. He never said imperialism started with capitalism.


Kautsky's "super-imperialism", which Lenin briefly dismisses as irrelevant to the current situation, is what has evolved as of 1991 onwards.

Also, read the actual book.


It's insane to claim that.
Please do tell me how Venezuela and Laos are imperialist.




File: 1634103290224.jpg (77.01 KB, 690x720, 1580665381532.jpg)

>monopoly capitalism doesn't exist anymore


>More primitive modes of production can't just hopscotch into socialism because they don't have an economic base capable of realizing it.
NTA Mongolia?


ok Cockshott


I don't know a whole lot about Mongolia's circumstances, but wasn't their development sort of dependent on the USSR's and China's? If so, I would say that Mongolia being catapulted into socialism was only achievable because its neighbors underwent rapid economic development and pulled Mongolia into their orbit. The USSR and China still had to go through the stages of development necessary to transition into socialism.


just try and read the book my man


I think in the past translations of books weren't always accurate so it would have been easier to misinterpret things.


Read John Smith


> Monopoly capital was just a specific historical phase of capital, one that doesn't exist anymore. It's really cringe when people talk about "imperialism" like it's still 1904.
>Did this fucking retard even read Hegel? Doesn't he know that capitalism is itself a dialectic, which can never have a true end or "highest stage"?
Peter Coffin start reading Samir Amin challenge


Once again proving Hegel is just for pseuds to jerk off to.

You haven’t read lenin, or Hegel, or you wouldn’t say dumbfuck shit like this


Learn some basic reading comprehension
> this is why Mao said that reading too many books is harmful.


Technically the title is mistranslated >>544960
But even if it was fixed leftoids would still dogmatically insist on an un-updated Leninist framework for understanding imperialism since it allows them to cope by claiming that supporting the Ayatollah or Vladimir Putin is somehow fighting back against international capitalism.


>Monopoly capitalism
Still exists you jibbering retard
>Highest stage
Just meant latest phase, not eternal phase


File: 1634132276476.jpg (120.56 KB, 1080x1347, Yep its Ideology.jpg)

>Monopoly capital was just a specific historical phase of capital, one that doesn't exist anymore.
<Agent Kochinski level shit right here.


File: 1634132520870.gif (85.31 KB, 220x162, squidward-spongebob.gif)

>monopoly capitalism doesn't exist anymore


If it still exists it wasn't a "stage" of capitalism. But it doesn't exist anywhere, the trusts and conglomerates of Lenin's day don't exist anymore.


>Capitalism is itself a dialectic
What a useless thing to say. Doesn't even make sense. Capitalism is an economic system that can be dialectally analyzed.

>which can never have a true end

Simply false. Feudalism ended truly. Who is to say capitalism won't?

>Imperialism, 1904

You probably never read that book, did you?

>Monopoly capital does not exist anymore

Kill yourself


What exists today?


>If something still exists it isn’t a stage
>Monopolies don’t exist anymore


File: 1634135099888.png (127.99 KB, 790x790, gr8 b8 m8.png)

saged + reported as bait


Neoliberalism, something different from monopoly capital, more similar to the classic competitive capitalism.
> Feudalism ended truly.
No it didn't. It was just subsumed into capitalism but feudal relations still exist within capitalism. Because it's a dialectic and can't just be wished away. Cope.



>Monopoly capital doesn't exist anymore
This thread is bait, but lets keep it up, it's hilarious, this is the kinda shit that needs a screencap


yeah it is kind of creative, lol


>Neoliberalism, something different from monopoly capital, more similar to the classic competitive capitalism.
You have no idea what this means.


>If I say commie words they’ll think I’m one of them!


File: 1634138347125.jpg (38.5 KB, 757x503, vaush.jpg)

amazing bait OP


File: 1634139443933.jpg (1.1 MB, 3548x2044, libertarians.jpg)

libertarian hands wrote this post


Well to be far it does seem as if the levels of mergers have slowed down to a sustained level of oligopolies! I'm assuming that the natural pace of capital will continue to extend these mergers?


To whom are you replying to?


To any one that wants to answer my question.


Ok then. The pace of LARGE mergers has slowed down but small companies are constantly being pushed out and absorbed by international monopolist corporations and as you said the natural pace of capital will continue to extend these mergers in the long run.


File: 1634159491354.png (7.61 KB, 205x246, ClipboardImage.png)

you see uhhh.. monopoly capital is a stage of capital.. that uhh.. lasts for … 120 years


Bro what are you talking about covid killed the mom and pop and there has been merger after merger. Look at the U.K. the energy sector is merging so hard even the Tories are talking about nationalising it


So the trend as it is currently is, is to eliminate the petite bourgeoisie before they turn on each other in a race to monopolization? The goal of capital is obviously constant growth. As the reaches of globalization slow down. This means capital has 2 options once these limits of growth occur. 1 against the petite bourgeois or 2 against their oligopolistic Buddy's.or 3 the destruction of capital through imperialist either inter imperialist or not war. I'll get to this later I suspect that their closer ties to their buds through Financialization… Will point their cannibalism to the petite first.
This leads to a interesting point of discussion. If we know both the facts on the limit of growth and who's the first target what's their next plans? The stagnation of this late stage will ramp up to a petite genocide and war. it this basically the cade I'm new to Marxist theory


<Lenin was a dumbass
>entire critique depends on a mistranslation of a book title
>still does not understand Marxist theory of imperialism
go away


Killed means gone entirely unfortunately I see plenty of petite bourgeoisie around of course I am rural and the petite hold a harder grip here.


Phone posting in a hurry, a abomination every time! that grammar! that spelling! oy vey!


I know right like slave society and feudalism were so fast my patience's is so thin am I right?


>t. doesnt understand dialectics


It's not mistranslated you dumbass.


Yeah basically, I really can't add anything else you've explained it pretty decently.


It was mistranslated. "Highest stage of capitalism" implies imperialism is the final stage. A better translation would be the latest stage of capitalism. can't remember the source on this, I think Lars Lih

Lenin was still wrong about imperialism however. He was wrong back in 1916 and we certainly shouldn't uphold his analysis of the "latest stage of capitalism" as dogma more than a century later.

The biggest theoretical error is the notion that "finance capital" and its ties to imperialism are a recent development. Finance capital has been the primary driver of imperialism for many centuries, all the way back when Genoese and Venetian bankers funded the first slave colonies in the late middle ages. The notion of a "pre-imperialist capitalism" with free trade instead of protective cartels, in reality was just the British Empire engulfing most of the world within its cartel of "non-tariff barriers". The practical implication from this theoretical error was the notion that only the western "monopoly bourgeoisie" benefited from imperialism. The logical outcome of this was to eventually abandon independent working class political action in the name of coalitions with an alleged "democratic bourgeoisie".

I'm basically parroting Mike Macnair's analysis here. I recommend you read the original article here: https://weeklyworker.co.uk/worker/980/rethinking-imperialism/


Someone find me an online copy of the quote in Russian and I'll translate it properly to end th debate.
- t.Rus anon


Империализм как высшая стадия капитализма


"Imperialism, as the Highest Stage of Capitalism" is the literal translation, but the word for "Highest" also is used to mean Supreme, as in Supreme Court ("Высший Суд")

So it also may be read as "[the] Supreme Stag of Capitalism"



This line is fairly tautological if you're familiar with World Systems Theory.

Within a larger world system, periphery and semi-periphery countries provide sources of cheap labor as well as cheap resources compared to the already extracted resources and aristocratized labor in the core.

Since there's an arbitrarge opportunity, capitalism seeks to extract labor and resources from the periphery, by force if necessary.

Of course, the forcible extraction of labor and resources may not be cost effective; consider that the War on Terrorism cost the United States over a trillion USD. The political changes (i.e, an Iraq that's incapable of directly resisting imperialism) might be worth it, but it's not a cost-effective adventure.


>Of course, the forcible extraction of labor and resources may not be cost effective

It is cost-effective. You are just not seeing the profits of private companies participating in the whole ordeal. It may be degrading the overall system and decreasing the profit overall, but certain people benefit immensely for it.


lmao someone made up the “latest” mistranslation bullshit at the start of the thread and several other people ran with it to look smart. incredible


Libertarianism will never work.



There's a difference between being cost-effective for a system on a purely financial level, being cost-effective for a system on a comprehensive level (destroying threats to the system), and being cost-effective for elements of the system (individual firms profiting off wars).

The American invasions of Iraq do not tick 1, perhaps tick 2, and certainly tick 3.

Ticking 3 but not ticking either 1 or 2 is corruption since elements within the system have achieved their interests at the expense of the interest of the system.


The editions published during Lenin's lifetime actually were titled The Latest Stage of Capitalism:

<Lenin originally considered entitling this work The Basic Characteristics of Contemporary Capitalism. In his actual handwritten manuscript of 1916 he gave it the title Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. But in publishing his pamphlet in 1917 he settled on Imperialism, the Latest Stage of Capitalism (following the precedent of Rudolf Hilferding who had entitled his great work Finance Capital, the Latest Phase of Capitalist Development).

<An early English-language mistranslation, appearing in a number of different editions in Britain and the United States, converted this into the “last stage” of capitalism (sometimes also translated as the “final stage”).

Later editions published in the 1920s altered the title to the "Highest Stage of Capitalism" as seen in the original manuscript, which I think is unwarranted since Lenin changed the title to "Latest Stage" himself. Either way however, nothing in the book suggests that imperialism is the FINAL stage and that global capitalism would not continue to evolve if it were to last another century.



Imperialism hasn’t been surpassed anyway so OP’s entire argument is fucktarded
At most it just shed its old skin and took on a new form


Do you know how long mercantilism lasted?


What’s funny is that if you read class struggles of France and read the introductory stuff from Engels in 1895, he comes clean about their revolutionary optimism and fervor in the 1840s and how much they matured till then. This is not to say they lost all their revolutionary teeth but rather it was much more tempered and understanding of the long time of political and economic development which is slow moving but moves nonetheless.


Imperialism is a boring and unconvincing explanation for capitalist exploitation, it's long outlived its merit and leftists lean in on it for explanations about as much as they do some nebulous call for dialectics.


Imperialism actually predates capitalism (and feudalism), it can be thought of as the "lowest stage of capitalism", but definitely not the highest/latest/most recent. Capitalism was born out of the imperialist plundering (primitive accumulation) of the Americas.

> According to a common (and manipulable) misconception, imperialism is relatively recent, consists of the colonization of the entire world, and is the last stage of capitalism. This diagnosis points to a specific cure: nationalism is offered as the antidote to imperialism: wars of national liberation are said to break up the capitalist empire.

> This diagnosis serves a purpose, but it does not describe any event or situation. We come closer to the truth when we stand this conception on its head and say that imperialism was the first stage of capitalism, that the world was subsequently colonized by nation-states, and that nationalism is the dominant, the current, and (hopefully) the last stage of capitalism. The facts of the case were not discovered yesterday; they are as familiar as the misconception that denies them.
> It has been convenient, for various good reasons, to forget that, until recent centuries, the dominant powers of Eurasia were not nation-states but empires. A Celestial Empire ruled by the Ming dynasty, an Islamic Empire ruled by the Ottoman dynasty, and a Catholic Empire ruled by the Hapsburg dynasty vied with each other for possession of the known world. Of the three, the Catholics were not the first imperialists but the last. The Celestial Empire of the Mings ruled over most of eastern Asia and had dispatched vast commercial fleets overseas a century before sea-borne Catholics invaded Mexico.


What a retarded view. Of course by an anarchist.

>Muh nationalist capitalism in the main problem

Wow good thing multinational corporations took care of that huh? Now we have globalized capitalism


Also peak whitoidism
>Guys national liberation isn't important (t. inhabitant of colonizing country)

Also peak sophistry
>Guys I looked it up and there were empires in history so it means imperialism is actually really old and only exists in history books


> tfw imperialism is a set term when a country takes over territory and shiet. And not a rapidly evolving concept that now seeks to dominate social- economic forces and now fundamentally different from colonial policy vs financial capital.


tell me you have no clue what you are talking about without saying it:


File: 1634194305664.jpg (321.85 KB, 1053x1070, 1372186110076.jpg)

> multinational corporations took care of that huh
Tell that to Yugoslavia, lol.

Try actually reading instead of just coping.

> it's not imperialism but I will keep calling it imperialism because…. uuuuuhh L-Lenin??


>Wtf multiple different forms of imperialism exist
>Wtf the global empires that preceded capitalism are more accurately late feudal imperialism
>Wtf modern imperialism is capitalist imperialism based of the movement of production to controlled overseas territories and the exporting of usury rather than raw resource extraction and tribute collection


Feudalism was exclusive to Europe.


>Tfw specifically talking about Western European empires


Oh yeah, global means Western European, how could have anyone forgotten that?


That anglo article has no source. Every single Russian source of the text has it as ВЫСШАЯ СТАДИЯ or HIGHEST STAGE. Where are the Russian sources on any of these supposed title changes?



This book cover of the first 1917 edition clearly has a title other than ВЫСШАЯ СТАДИЯ. I can't read Russian but the claim seems plausible to me.


The global empires that preceded modern capitalism emerged from feudal Europe; Spain, Portugal, Britain, France, the Netherlands, etc.

How much of a dull animal are you?


I wonder why anarchists never use the materialist conception of history to understand things, I wonder, hmmm. It’s almost like Marx dispelled a lot of the retarded mystification and anachronisms whig historians like to do.


I believe that says something like the 'newest' or ' very newest' stage of capitalism.


Screencap this thread someone


>ITT: Literally judging a book by its cover



Didn't mao also say he didn't even read Kapital


That's a myth I think


Marxism-Leninism is a spook of the past and you should never stop advancing socialist theory. Many eat from the trashcan and are stuck in this revisionist / dogmatist struggle.


File: 1634503373701.png (2.04 MB, 1403x825, ClipboardImage.png)


File: 1634522267988.jpg (182.99 KB, 1540x2250, No bait.jpg)



>You had me at your first sentence. Lenin was a grugbrained retard


>change for changes sake guyz


literally didnt say anything about venezuela or laos but ok schizo


Basically. Our entire economy was more or less dependent on COMECON subsidies as trade with SU; which meant that when 1991 came around our economy fucking died (not helped by the fact that neoliberal rats took power and killed what remained in 1996).


You are supposed to build atop the working stuff, not to denounce it like some revisionist hack.


It is not working.


It is, liar.

Unique IPs: 57 |

[Return][Go to top] [Catalog] | [Home][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[ home / rules / faq ] [ overboard / sfw / alt ] [ leftypol / siberia / hobby / tech / edu / games / anime / music ] [ meta / roulette ] [ cytube / git ] [ GET / ref / booru ]