Left Communist View of Imperialism

[the last donut of the night]

What is the Left Communist theory on imperialism, in contrast to the ML one?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Both, as far as I know, are against imperialism.

[which doctor]

Both, as far as I know, are against imperialism.
Yet, don't they define imperialism definetely?

I'm not in expert in the matter, but I know they differ on the position of national liberation. For instance, left communism does not support national liberation movements unless they're organized around class lines and are internationalist in scope, in which case it wouldn't really be national liberation.

I'm not really sure on the ML position, because it's such a broad tradition, but I do know some identifying as Marxist-Leninist who support national liberation movements on the basis of it being a form of anti-imperialism.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Left communists, and anarcho-communists like myself, don't believe imperialism to be a higher stage of capitalism. As suggested by Lenin.

We believe that imperialism is inseperable from capitalism; that imperialism is not an isolated phenomena, its simply how capitalism works. Just as a domestic market requires the State to enforce contracts and a generally stable environment, the world market requires co-operation between nations.

In this sense imperialism isn't characterised by the main centres of metropolitan finance capital. But is something that all nation states, by their nature are part and parcel of.

Much of the existing left would make a distinction between aggression and expansionism between states and outright imperialism for example. They would not call them imperialist because the state in question doesn't produce their own finance capital.

We left-communists and anarchist-communists call a spade a spade in this regards.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Left communists, and anarcho-communists like myself, don't believe imperialism to be a higher stage of capitalism. As suggested by Lenin.

We believe that imperialism is inseperable from capitalism; that imperialism is not an isolated phenomena, its simply how capitalism works. Just as a domestic market requires the State to enforce contracts and a generally stable environment, the world market requires co-operation between nations.

You have blatantly misunderstood Lenin's conception of imperialism: he (as well as subsequent Marxists who excepted his theory) understood that imperialism definitely was apart of how capitalism works, and that capitalism had developed into the stage of imperialism. The theory doesn't separate capitalism and imperialism into two separate phenomenon, it's quite the opposite actually...



In this sense imperialism isn't characterised by the main centres of metropolitan finance capital. But is something that all nation states, by their nature are part and parcel of.All 'nation states'? That's a pretty broad definition. If they do not produce financial capital, only to be exported to less developed countries for the purpose of exploitation of labor, then it's hard to call them imperialist.



Much of the existing left would make a distinction between aggression and expansionism between states and outright imperialism for example. They would not call them imperialist because the state in question doesn't produce their own finance capital. I would say your right in what you said about making a distinction between aggression and imperialism, though I would disagree that the sole factor for said distinction is because a given state doesn't produce finance capital. I'm assuming that these states you mention (states part of the 'developing' world) couldn't be considered 'imperialist' because not only are their economies reliant on real capital (either dominated by foreign imperialist investment, thus they are subjugated by imperialism; or otherwise focus on developing their own material based economy) and as a result aren't dominated by finance capital; but they do not export their financial assets to weaker, less developed countries for the purpose of exploitation either. If they do (cite specific examples), it would be necessary to add some kind of context in order to bring some light into discussion rather than simply using vague concepts.

[Niccolò Rossi]

What is the Left Communist theory on imperialism, in contrast to the ML one?

There isn't one.

There is a common misunderstanding that the communist left has an analysis of imperialism different to that of Lenin-Bukharin (as with Which Doctor above).

The ICC rejects the Lenin-Bukharin analysis of imperialism in favour for that made by Rosa Luxemburg. Other groups of the communist left, both today and historically, do not. Take for example the ICT (formerly IBRP) and the Bordigists.

What seperates (so-called) 'Marxist-Leninists' from the Communist Left is the positions drawn from the analysis of imperialism accepted.


For instance, left communism does not support national liberation movements unless they're organized around class lines and are internationalist in scope, in which case it wouldn't really be national liberation.

I think this depends. I don't think its possible for a national liberation movement can be 'organized around class lines and are internationalist in scope', nor do I think there are any historical examples of such movements. Saying this, the Bordigists and the descendants of Battaglia (i.e. the ICT) are less clear on the issue than the ICC. If I am correct the former always phrases the position more-or-less as "Rejection of all policies which subjects the proletariat to the national bourgeoisie" (Platform of the IBRP) something which leaves the door open to what you suggest.


Left communists, and anarcho-communists like myself, don't believe imperialism to be a higher stage of capitalism. As suggested by Lenin.

On the contrary, I would say it is precisely the defence of an understanding of imperialism as being a distinct stage of the world capitalist system that puts it apart from the various Trotskyists and Stalinists who claim the mantle of Lenin. Luxeburg was profoundly correct when she said in the Junius Pamphlet: "Imperialism is not the creation of any one or of any group of states. It is the product of a particular stage of ripeness in the world development of capital, an innately international condition, an indivisible whole, that is recognisable only in all its relations, and from which no nation can hold aloof at will."

I would also agree with the comment made by MyKittyHasABoner, that the Lenin-Bukharin analysis of imperialism does not see it as something seperate from capitalism as a whole.

Although saying this, the rest of what you have to say, homorevolutionary, is pretty agreeable from the perspective of the ICC. Similarly, I don't think there is anything too contentious said by MyKittyHasABoner. I think the bigger issue is not what analysis of imperialism we take, but what political positions it justifies. That's not to say it is not important, but the former is without real meaning unless it is connected with the reality of the class struggle.