Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 03:27:40 No. 544844
>Monopoly capital doesn't exist anymore look at this dude
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 03:27:59 No. 544846
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
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 03:29:16 No. 544849
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.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 03:29:31 No. 544851
This is what reading too much Hegel does to a mf, this is why Mao said that reading too many books is harmful.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 03:30:59 No. 544853
Mao read Hegel too wtf are you on
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 03:32:48 No. 544855
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.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 03:34:22 No. 544856
>>544850 >mono means poly
read a book
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 03:34:59 No. 544858
Lenin read Hegel you Philistine faggot.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 03:36:27 No. 544862
>stages of an ideology oh fucking come on. someone tell me what late stage feudalism is, or the lowest stage of communism
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 03:49:06 No. 544870
explain the lowest stage of communism.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 03:49:58 No. 544871
My penis is the lowest stage of communism, let me share my penis inside your asshole comrade
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 04:00:01 No. 544880
>did this lawyer even read books smh
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 04:02:31 No. 544881
He read Hegel and realized he was full of shit.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 04:03:14 No. 544883
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.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 04:13:47 No. 544903
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.
Rigger Dan 2021-10-13 (Wed) 05:10:14 No. 544960
"highest" is a mistranslation its actually imperialism, the ""latest"" stage capitalism.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 05:24:11 No. 544970
>>544903 >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
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.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 05:28:22 No. 544974
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.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 05:30:27 No. 544976
It's insane to claim that.
Please do tell me how Venezuela and Laos are imperialist.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 05:34:51 No. 544982
>>544970 >More primitive modes of production can't just hopscotch into socialism because they don't have an economic base capable of realizing it. NTA
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 05:48:06 No. 544991
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.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 06:24:49 No. 545017
just try and read the book my man
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 07:13:22 No. 545047
I think in the past translations of books weren't always accurate so it would have been easier to misinterpret things.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 08:37:08 No. 545055
Read John Smith
Based African 2021-10-13 (Wed) 08:44:58 No. 545057
>>544841 >>544841 > 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
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 09:13:57 No. 545070
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
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 09:30:55 No. 545080
Learn some basic reading comprehension
> this is why Mao said that reading too many books is harmful.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 11:24:05 No. 545151
Technically the title is mistranslated
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.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 12:16:33 No. 545206
>Monopoly capitalism Still exists you jibbering retard >Highest stage Just meant latest phase, not eternal phase
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 14:06:23 No. 545391
>>545206 >>545349 >>545356
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.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 14:11:12 No. 545396
>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
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 14:16:22 No. 545408
What exists today?
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 14:31:06 No. 545425
Neoliberalism, something different from monopoly capital, more similar to the classic competitive capitalism.
>>545396 > 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.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 14:48:42 No. 545457
yeah it is kind of creative, lol
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 14:56:56 No. 545466
>>545425 >Neoliberalism, something different from monopoly capital, more similar to the classic competitive capitalism.
You have no idea what this means.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 15:57:21 No. 545570
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?
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 20:39:53 No. 545915
To whom are you replying to?
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 20:44:01 No. 545920
To any one that wants to answer my question.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 20:49:30 No. 545926
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.
Sage !61KGLATVW. 2021-10-13 (Wed) 21:13:07 No. 545945
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
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 21:19:37 No. 545947
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
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 21:21:59 No. 545948
>>544841 <Lenin was a dumbass >entire critique depends on a mistranslation of a book title >still does not understand Marxist theory of imperialism
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 21:22:38 No. 545950
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.
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 21:30:12 No. 545953
Phone posting in a hurry, a abomination every time! that grammar! that spelling! oy vey!
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 21:31:58 No. 545954
I know right like slave society and feudalism were so fast my patience's is so thin am I right?
Anonymous 2021-10-13 (Wed) 23:32:29 No. 546092
It's not mistranslated you dumbass.
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 01:01:45 No. 546178
Yeah basically, I really can't add anything else you've explained it pretty decently.
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 01:44:05 No. 546195
It was mistranslated. "Highest stage of capitalism" implies imperialism is the
stage. A better translation would be the
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:
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 02:03:29 No. 546209
Someone find me an online copy of the quote in Russian and I'll translate it properly to end th debate.
- t.Rus anon
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 03:11:41 No. 546261
Империализм как высшая стадия капитализма
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 04:10:35 No. 546295
"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"
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 04:26:08 No. 546305
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.
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 04:49:54 No. 546338
>>546305 >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.
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 04:56:19 No. 546346
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
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 05:00:23 No. 546353
Libertarianism will never work.
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 05:04:02 No. 546357
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.
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 05:11:32 No. 546364
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.
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 05:16:51 No. 546372
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
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 05:31:32 No. 546384
Do you know how long mercantilism lasted?
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 05:36:40 No. 546391
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.
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 05:37:01 No. 546393
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.
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 06:20:50 No. 546416
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. https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/fredy-perlman-the-continuing-appeal-of-nationalism
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 06:30:14 No. 546417
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
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 06:34:29 No. 546419
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
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 06:37:11 No. 546422
tell me you have no clue what you are talking about without saying it:
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 06:51:46 No. 546430 >>546417 > multinational corporations took care of that huh
Tell that to Yugoslavia, lol.
Try actually reading instead of just coping.
>>546420 > it's not imperialism but I will keep calling it imperialism because…. uuuuuhh L-Lenin??
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 07:16:06 No. 546443
Feudalism was exclusive to Europe.
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 08:06:46 No. 546477
Oh yeah, global means Western European, how could have anyone forgotten that?
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 09:23:47 No. 546510
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?
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 14:29:48 No. 546779
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?
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 15:10:49 No. 546818
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.
Anonymous 2021-10-14 (Thu) 22:17:46 No. 547346
I believe that says something like the 'newest' or ' very newest' stage of capitalism.
Anonymous 2021-10-17 (Sun) 14:59:30 No. 551184
Screencap this thread someone
Anonymous 2021-10-17 (Sun) 15:02:40 No. 551187
>ITT: Literally judging a book by its cover Anon…
Anonymous 2021-10-17 (Sun) 15:25:28 No. 551206
Didn't mao also say he didn't even read Kapital
Anonymous 2021-10-17 (Sun) 19:27:06 No. 551655
That's a myth I think
Anonymous 2021-10-17 (Sun) 20:00:01 No. 551701
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.
Anonymous 2021-10-18 (Mon) 02:05:34 No. 552620
>>551857 >You had me at your first sentence. Lenin was a grugbrained retard amazing
Anonymous 2021-10-18 (Mon) 04:27:25 No. 552946
literally didnt say anything about venezuela or laos but ok schizo
Anonymous 2021-10-18 (Mon) 05:30:44 No. 553029
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).
Anonymous 2021-10-18 (Mon) 05:39:24 No. 553040
You are supposed to build atop the working stuff, not to denounce it like some revisionist hack.
Anonymous 2021-10-21 (Thu) 06:38:20 No. 557672
It is not working.
Unique IPs: 57 |