Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 01:13:50 No. 687593
Because most leftists are referring to marxist theories of imperialism under present capitalism and specific to it
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 03:06:14 No. 687743
Regardless of jargon, certainly you can see the difference between these two, or at least between their historical contexts?
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 03:08:34 No. 687745
>>687565 >Why do people say that imperialism only exists under capitalism? Only theorylets say this.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 03:15:39 No. 687748
CAESAR DID NOTHING WRONG
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 04:22:09 No. 687821
>>687565 Because wypepo bad
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 12:11:44 No. 688183
>>687565 Roman 'imperialism' was actually just civilisation and the Roman empire was a progressive force until it became a monarchy and especially after it became Chr*stian. BRUTUS IS MY HERO.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 12:13:46 No. 688186
For my dogmatic dumbass bros, Lenin himself stated that Rome was both imperialist and colonialist but that their form of it was different from the (then) modern form
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 12:19:51 No. 688192
>>687565 what was the economic system of roman empire
they were kings right? so fedualism?
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 12:20:27 No. 688194
>>688192 also wait if the greeks invented democracy then they were not monarchists, then what the fuck was their economic system?
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 12:20:47 No. 688196
>>687748 what is this joke
i don't know roman history
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 12:21:27 No. 688198
>>688196 Caesar basically did genocide against the Gauls (modern day France) which is how he built up the political capital to take over Rome
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 12:21:35 No. 688199
>when no one actually does that
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 12:23:08 No. 688200
>>688198 how did genocide lead to capital
oh you mean political capital
goddamn romans were some sick mfers if genocide gave political clout there
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 12:30:37 No. 688204
>>688186 so you admit its different?
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 12:32:09 No. 688205
>>688192 The Romans led a slave empire
The basis for their economy was slavery
Their economy holding the thing together was based on market exchange, the core holding this all together was the market of slaves, the slaves produced luxuries and cash crops to also be sold on the market, Rome needed to expand constantly to keep a fresh supply of labor
The reason it fell apart was also because most people did not actually own slaves and were either largely self-sufficient peasant farmers or entirely dependent and deeply impoverished urban dwellers
>>688194 The economy of the Ancient Greeks was based on slavery and peasant agriculture
And remember, in Ancient Greece “democracy” was afforded only to male citizens, so foreigners could not participate, women could not participate, slaves could not participate
Freedom and democracy were privileges in those societies, the entire point was that it could be taken away and was inherently denied to many
There’s a reason America’s founders LARPed as Romans and Greeks
>>688200 Genocide gave political clout in the Modern era too
>>688204 Yes, obviously imperialism as practiced by the Romans differed from imperialism as practiced by modern capitalist states
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 12:42:24 No. 688209
Might as well ask since this is the Roman thread.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 12:44:52 No. 688210
>>688200 Well it's the fact that he conquered territory and got loot, not just the genocide, but that was a consequence of his conquering.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 12:46:01 No. 688211
>>688209 You have to remember that capitalism also relies on modern technology, there was no way to keep an empire the size of Rome together without feudalism/slavery/etc, when there was no modern communication methods.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 12:46:13 No. 688212
>>688209 no, there was an economic collapse because the roman economy depended on egyptian plantations making sure italy was barely kept from starving
the bourgeoise were never as powerful as other commoners like the petty farmers or even the proletarii
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 12:48:18 No. 688214
>>688209 > would society have skipped feudalism and gone straight to capitalism? Honestly I don’t think so
To bring about modern capitalism you had certain changes regarding agricultural production in places like England, overseas exploration that led to the creation of joint-stock companies to account for losses incurred in overseas endeavors, a more clarified motive to reduce necessary labor time to influence the creation of new productive machinery, and of course industrial machinery itself
I don’t know if Ancient Rome had the unique confluence of factors that modern Europe did when capitalism as we know it came into existence
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 12:49:22 No. 688215
>>688211 Yet the Spanish Empire, French Empire, British Empire, Dutch Empire, Portuguese Empire, etc. all controlled a much larger area prior to modern communications?
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 13:00:30 No. 688220
>>688215 Yeah okay I guess that was a dumb point. Maybe it was the administrative infrastructure that was lacking in the Roman case?
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 13:03:26 No. 688223
>>688220 Honestly Roman decline is probably worth researching, the fall of an empire is like a mass extinction event, see, the threats and crises are always there, but it takes the perfect mixture of particular vulnerability and crisis to produce a collapse
AFAIK the late Roman Empire was experiencing civil wars, plagues, famines, and global climate change (slight cooling in their case) when everything finally fell apart
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 13:16:04 No. 688234
>>688183 >warring your neighbours to turn them into slaves to work in Spanish silver mines to the death is progressive Huh, the more you know
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 13:19:24 No. 688235
>>688183 the Roman Empire was regressive and ultra-feudalist compared to Carthage which it had destroyed
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 13:25:05 No. 688237
>>688234 It is compared to tribalism. Just as capitalism is a progressive force compared to feudalism.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 13:33:33 No. 688242
>>688237 >It is compared to tribalism Actually I don’t think the now exterminated peoples would find it particularly “progressive” to be wiped from history so European empires could become fabulously wealthy and the citizens of those empires could call their deaths “progress”, but I digress
The Spanish conquered other civilizations anyway, not the dirty tribals you see as fit for slavery and extermination, and the peoples they conquered were pretty much on the same level regarding scientific understanding of the world and technologies, just not the same military equipment or immune responses
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 13:34:03 No. 688244
>>688237 "tribalism" is a meme word
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 13:52:45 No. 688252
>>688242 Progressive in the Marxist context isn't really the same as 'good', it means 'moving history forward (towards capitalism and ultimately socialism), a slave empire brutally oppressing tribal societies is progressive because it moves history forward.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 13:59:19 No. 688257
>>688186 Fam, this is the general consensus amongst actual marxists and not booklets.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 14:03:03 No. 688260
>>688183 No, not necessarily even in the marxist sense. You do realize that historical materialism doesn’t say that you have to go from one stage to another like a Civ 5 game, right? The Slave MoP itself was a peculiarity of the mediterranean, not generalizable to the rest of the world.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 14:07:30 No. 688265
>>688252 Why call it progressive then? It’s just a thing that happened. If nuclear war occurred and all societies currently existing were destroyed and we reverted back towards slave empires and barbarian tribes, that would also be moving history forward. Hypothetically every action ever taken moves history forward since time only moves in one direction.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 14:08:27 No. 688267
>>688260 Actually very few people that would call themselves Marxists understand this
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 14:19:15 No. 688275
>>688265 No that would be moving history backwards since it would take us further away from full communism
Are you a burger by any chance?
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 14:20:53 No. 688277
The "progressive" language comes from Hegel, right? The World Spirit is History and blah blah it comes more revealed as time goes on.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 14:22:14 No. 688278
>>688275 Oh wait, I forgot you’re using history in a way that assumes it genuinely is entirely pre-determined and is only history if it ends in a way that’s convenient to you
Should’ve realized that by “history” you didn’t actually mean history, silly me
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 14:22:18 No. 688279
>>688267 Somehow I don’t believe you. At any rate the development and transitions from one MoP to another is often unique even at the regional level, although the laws they follow according to historical materialism are universal. The development of surplus, especially livestock agriculture, eventually creates a class society , wherein the surplus producing class and the surplus exploiting class are in perpetual conflict with one another, conflict which resolves with either the overthrow of the ruling class or the mutual destruction of both classes. Feudalism is the product of the latter with the collapse of the Roman Empire. Notably, Marx has stated that even in the communist manifesto the proletariat because of the simplification of the class society under capitalism to workers and owners and the interconnection forced by the capitalist MoP between them are uniquely powerful compared to the oppressed productive classes of old (see: the various thwarted Slave Revolts in Rome).
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 14:22:46 No. 688280
>>688279 > Somehow I don’t believe you Then you haven’t spoken to enough Marxists
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 14:24:49 No. 688283
>>688280 I peruse plenty of Marxist content, thank you very much. Try learning a second language, it’ll help you access more marxist literature and maybe pull your head out off your ass.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 14:35:13 No. 688290
>>688281 Lmao
There can be material laws underpinning history without going the full intellectually dishonest route of claiming a definitive end point for history that’s also specifically the form of society you want to live in?
Like do you have any idea how nonsensical you look claiming that future history is only future history if society in the future is communist? What if society actually doesn’t progress along those lines? What if humanity just went extinct? Do we just not call the future history of our species “history” at that point? Is Earth’s history not actually history before humans appear, or was it always history because surely humans would have inevitably evolved no matter what and will definitely inevitably make communism no matter what?
>>688283 I’m about to blow your fucking mind so hard that chunks of your brain will be in the stratosphere
Ready?
Most Marxists actually aren’t Marxist scholars and academics writing theoretical papers to post online. Most are either people like on this board, or people involved in political actions, depending on what country you live in
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 14:45:33 No. 688303
>>688290 Look I didn't come up with the phrase, but it is (somewhat) useful to look at what develops history forward towards communism. For example, Roman imperialism was progressive because it contributed to developing an advanced proto-capitalist society, but the fall of Rome was regressive as it dashed all that potential progress and returned humanity to an earlier point of societal complexity, then the Islamic golden age was progressive because it pushed forward science and technology, and social tolerance/etc, but the Mongol conquest was regressive because it once again destroyed the progress that had been made, but then again it also pushed science towards Europe and developed trade routes/connections which linked Europe to Asia, so you could say it was progressive in a way, and so on.
The point is progressive doesn't mean good. As pointed out, nuclear war would be regressive because it would return humanity to an earlier/lower form of existence and civilisation.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 14:53:03 No. 688310
>>688303 There’s also the fact that overtime a progressive force becomes a regressive one
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 15:39:16 No. 688352
>>688235 This. The "first head" preceding Marx in the lineup should be Hannibal Barca.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 17:03:28 No. 688426
>>688209 Bro Rome didn't even have mass usage of draft animals because of its slave dependency
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 17:25:00 No. 688457
NO
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 17:25:15 No. 688459
Ancient Rome was heaven on earth. Imagine creampie'ing a twink then heading to the Colosseum to watch reactionary christoids get devoured by lions.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 17:26:57 No. 688460
No one said imperialism exists only in capitalism, who said this? Why are you lying? I've never heard this claim.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 17:29:38 No. 688467
>>688457 >>688460 people say this shit all the time, where you guys been
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 18:22:08 No. 688541
>>688467 collecting pocket lint
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 18:59:54 No. 688577
>>687565 OP you aren't even wrong and I suspect most of the people claiming that no one says this are out of the loop. As
>>688186 first states and admits here
>>688205 , Lenin's concept of Imperialism is an analysis of Capitalist Imperialism. Lenin states
>Colonial policy and imperialism existed before the latest stage of capitalism, and even before capitalism. Rome, founded on slavery, pursued a colonial policy and practiced imperialism. But “general” disquisitions on imperialism, which ignore, or put into the background, the fundamental difference between socio-economic formations, inevitably turn into the most vapid banality or bragging, like the comparison: “Greater Rome and Greater Britain.” Even the capitalist colonial policy of previous stages of capitalism is essentially different from the colonial policy of finance capital. This theory of Imperialism can be understood in the theory of commodity production and its emergence in Feudal economies. Engels states on Commodity production
>Only when it began to produce more than was sufficient to supply its own wants and the payments in kind to the feudal lords, only then did it also produce commodities. This surplus, thrown into socialized exchange and offered for sale, became commodities. >But with the extension of the production of commodities, and especially with the introduction of the capitalist mode of production, the laws of commodity-production, hitherto latent, came into action more openly and with greater force. The old bonds were loosened, the old exclusive limits broken through, the producers were more and more turned into independent, isolated producers of commodities. Imperialism in the abstract and the laws that govern it is then similarly more or less active in different modes of production. The features that we define as imperialism and colonialism both have associated probabilities of arising in given modes of production. This is how there can be emerging commodity production in feudalism, capitalism, and some would argue socialism; just as there can be features of imperialism in slave societies and capitalism.
Anonymous 2022-01-12 (Wed) 19:22:34 No. 688592
>>688577 (me)
this is also the cause for the particularity of the term "proletariat" in the marxist sense even though the proletariat share many features with other distinct historical classes such as serfs
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 00:02:24 No. 688925
>>687565 >Why do people say that imperialism only exists under capitalism Because you aren't taking your meds, they'll stop saying then when you do
Buenaventura 2022-01-13 (Thu) 15:32:09 No. 689768
>>687565 Lenin makes both contradictory claims in the same book, I don’t care about it that much
It’s one of Lenin’s worst books
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 16:02:19 No. 689805
>>688183 >BRUTUS The Roman Senate was made up of fatcat aristocrats who stole land from the people and subverted any democratic elements the Roman republic had. Caesar was a progressive force, Brutus was a counterrevolutionary.
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 21:46:31 No. 690141
>Why do people say that imperialism only exists under capitalism?
Anonymous 2022-01-13 (Thu) 23:25:20 No. 690251
>>688806 No, imperialism and its goals is always the same - economic domination and exploitation. The problem is that before the advent of capitalism, and international finance in particular, imperialism always had to be coupled with expansionism.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 01:56:01 No. 690377
>>689805 I mean Brutus the founder of the republic.
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 09:41:02 No. 690738
>>687748 >Optimates aren't people ftfy
Anonymous 2022-01-14 (Fri) 19:42:52 No. 691291
inb4 OP simply makes a new thread with this topic again after getting BTFO
Anonymous 2022-01-15 (Sat) 22:04:44 No. 692999
>>689805 this is more or less parent and i wholeheartedly agree
S 2022-01-16 (Sun) 00:21:16 No. 693242
>>689805 Caesar was an opportunist. Ceaseroids are Menscheviks.
Unique IPs: 34