Imperialism - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Discourse exclusively on the basis of historical materialist methodology.
Forum rules: No one line posts please. This forum is for discussion based on Marxism, Marxism-Leninism and similar revisions. Critique of topics not based on historical materialism belongs in the general Communism forum.
By Zyx
#1852298
I did not manage to read Lenin's work, but from hearsay I gained the impression that Lenin was opposed to imperialism. Is this impression correct?

If so, then what is imperialism and why can't the Soviet Union or the idea of Communism being practiced around the whole planet be considered imperialistic?
User avatar
By FallenRaptor
#1852324
Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism wrote:If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would include what is most important, for, on the one hand, finance capital is the bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the monopolist associations of industrialists; and, on the other hand, the division of the world is the transition from a colonial policy which has extended without hindrance to territories unseized by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of monopolist possession of the territory of the world, which has been completely divided up.

But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since we have to deduce from them some especially important features of the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:

(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.

http://marxists.org/archive/lenin/works ... c/ch07.htm
By Zyx
#1852332
FallenRaptor, does this mean that the Soviet Union was not an imperialist state? I had written that and it seemed foolish to most laypeople. What's the case for the Soviet Union not being an imperialist state beside from it not being 'capitalistic.'
User avatar
By FallenRaptor
#1852359
Lenin often referred to Tsarist Russia as an imperialist country even though it did not match his definition of imperialism. Also, the Soviet Union had all five characteristics Lenin outlined. The state held a monopoly over the economy, Gosbank was the only bank and had a lot of economic influence, it exported raw materials for technology, it led COMECON & the Warsaw Pact, and for the last characteristic there's the Cold War.
By Zyx
#1852363
Hmm, ok, so then for my last question: isn't Communism intrinsically imperialist in that it expects world domination? If not, why not?
By Zyx
#1852402
I imagined that the 'global' scope was a part of it.

I suppose that a global order doesn't necessitate 'capitalism' but I wonder if that is all that can be said on the subject. Isn't capitalism necessary for communism, and wouldn't global capitalism have to precede global communism? I do not know, these are simple questions, naturally, because mostly I do not know what to ask but would like to know more.
By Ademir
#1852475
Zyx wrote:I imagined that the 'global' scope was a part of it.

I suppose that a global order doesn't necessitate 'capitalism' but I wonder if that is all that can be said on the subject. Isn't capitalism necessary for communism, and wouldn't global capitalism have to precede global communism? I do not know, these are simple questions, naturally, because mostly I do not know what to ask but would like to know more.


Global capitalism (as we have now) does need to precede global communism, yes. But this doesn't make communism an imperialistic system. Imperialism necessarily implies domination and a quest to expand power, whichever definition you use or for whatever reason. A global system doesn't necessarily mean that some parts of the globe are dominating others.

You shouldn't confuse the USSR for communism. It is of course entirely possible for a "communist state" such as the USSR to engage in imperial practices, although I haven't made my own mind up about whether they did or not. Certainly any Marxist who views the USSR as state capitalist would be inclined towards thinking they were.

FallenRaptor, I thought that Lenin viewed Tsarist Russia as imperial in the sense that it was an exploited country, not an exploiter (if you get what I mean)?
User avatar
By FallenRaptor
#1852498
Tsarist Russia was so notorious for being an expansionist aggressor that it was known as a prison of nations. It's true that it's relations with foreign capital were similar to that of other third world countries, but Russia was never subordinated by another imperialist county to my knowledge. I think Potemkin's characterization of Russia in another thread is very accurate:

Ever since the late 18th century, Russia has been the bear prowling on the borders of Europe. No European conqueror can feel secure unless and until he has vanquished that bear. This is why Charles XII invaded Russia, why Napoleon invaded Russia, and why Hitler invaded Russia. You can conquer as many Western European nations as you like and it will mean not a damn thing so long as Russia remains unconquered.

viewtopic.php?p=1835434#p1835434
By Ademir
#1852943
But if Lenin was talking about imperialism in the strict sense of monopolistic capitalism, how does Russia fit in as an imperial power, considering it was a weak link with little chance of developing capitalism?
User avatar
By FallenRaptor
#1853028
Besides being a prison of nations, it seems he meant it in the sense that Tsarist Russia also acted as an agent for western imperialism. This is probably the primary reason for Lenin to refer to it as imperialist.

Josef Stalin, The Foundations of Leninism wrote:To begin with, tsarist Russia was the home of every kind of oppression-capitalist, colonial and militarist-in its most inhuman and barbarous form. Who does not know that in Russia the omnipotence of capital was combined with the despostism of tsarism, the aggressiveness of Russian nationalism with tsarism's role of executioner in regard to the non-Russian peoples, the exploitation of entire regions-Turkey, Persia, China-with the seizure of these regions by tsarism, with wars of conquest? Lenin was right in saying that tsarism was "military-feudal imperialism." Tsarism was the concentration of the worst features of imperialism, raised to a high pitch.

To proceed. Tsarist Russia was a major reserve of Western imperialism, not only in the sense that it gave free entry to foreign capital, which controlled such basic branches of Russia's national economy as the fuel and metallurgical industries, but also in the sense that it could supply the Western imperialists with milions of soldiers. Remember the Russia army, fourteen million strong, which shed its blood on the imperialist fronts to safeguard the staggering profits of the British and French capitalists.

Further, Tsarism was not only the watchdog of imperialism in the east of Europe, but, in addition, it was the agent of Western imperialism for squeezing out of the population hundreds of milions by way of interet on loans obtained in Paris and London, Berlin and Brussels.

Finally, tsarism was a most faithful ally of Western imperialism in the partition of Turkey, Persia, China, etc. Who does not know that the imperialist war was waged by tsarism in alliance with the imperialists of the Entente, and that Russia was an essential element in that war?
By Ademir
#1853038
So basically, it was imperial more in the traditional sense, and as a "helper" of Western monopolistic capitalism, rather than as a capitalist power itself? This makes more sense
By Zyx
#1853520
Alright, I am unclear here. Stalin denounces Imperialism, clearly. So, why would he rear an imperialist nation?

Furthermore, is it possible, this is my idea, that the Soviet Union's behavior was largely responsive to the U.S.' aggression such that its principles can not be mixed with ideology but its striving for survival. For instance, the USSR sponsored a mass starvation, but, if I remember my high school history, it was because those on the land were largely 'capitalist farmers' who believed that their land, though coincidentally inherited, were theirs and they had a right to sell it to the government. Further, their silly influences were likely a result of the American radio broadcasts, so truly this starvation was an act of fighting against the Americans--a proxy attack, if you will. Is this decent and how can this be refined, if not tossed?

Sorry, I need small bits of readings before becoming scholarly in this subject like the rest of you. I just can't open large text after large text.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#1853549
Lenin is two-faced about imperialism.

On the one hand, it's the highest form of capitalism (just before it burns out).

On the other hand, Lenin sees the elite as being essential (vanguard) which pretty well guarantees some form of imperialism.

This is why I find Lenin to be fraudulent and power-seeking.
User avatar
By filerba
#1854899
If imperialism is a form of capitalism, does that mean the imperialism of ancient Rome was an entirely distinct phenomenon that just happens to have the same name, due to misanalysis by historians or whatever?

Continuing in the ancient world, but otherwise in line with Lenin's theory: commercial-industrial Athens was imperialistic while totalitarian-militarist Sparta was not.
By Ademir
#1855018
filerba wrote:If imperialism is a form of capitalism, does that mean the imperialism of ancient Rome was an entirely distinct phenomenon that just happens to have the same name, due to misanalysis by historians or whatever?

Continuing in the ancient world, but otherwise in line with Lenin's theory: commercial-industrial Athens was imperialistic while totalitarian-militarist Sparta was not.


Not misanalysis, just the same word being used to describe similar but distinct concepts. Marxists do this alot, that's why others find us so annoying :D

It's kind of like that thread on exploitation a while back. While the normal meaning of exploitation and the Marxist use of the word are similar, and refer to broadly similar ideas, they are two distinct concepts. It's the same thing with imperialism, I don't think Lenin was trying to say that everything we have called imperialism thus far is the highest stage of capitalism, he was just describing what some imperial powers were doing in his time.
By Khalq
#1855223
Just because the highest stage of capitalism is imperialistic, doesn't necessarily mean imperialism is and has always been capitalist in nature, nor that other regimes throughout history haven't been imperialistic ones.

@Rugoz You are a fuckin' moralist, Russia could[…]

Israel-Palestinian War 2023

A new film has been released destroying the offici[…]

You are a supporter of the genocide against the P[…]

Before he was elected he had a charity that he wo[…]