Imperialism... causes, effects, its true essence

[Pravda Soyuz]

Imperialism is one of the greatest threats to socialism!:ohmy:

Imperialism is an often derogative term used by the radical left to descibe its enemies. It is thrown around with many not really knowing much about it. I mean to shed some light on the subject and hopefully provide some insight into this term that is often used so lightly.
Dictionary.com defines imperialism as:
"the policy of extending the rule or authority of an empire or nation over foreign countries, or of acquiring and holding colonies and dependencies." If one goes by this definition, many nations fall under the laber "Imperialist". Couldn't the USSR itself be considered imperialist by this definition? It certainly sought to expand its reach to all corners of the Earth.
So the question remains, what is the true basis of imperialism? Is it really as evil as many people make it seem?
The basis of imperialism is nationalism, plain and simple. A nation with the belief that its ideology/race/culture is superior to another, coupled with a powerful military is the perfect recipe.
Imperialism is essentially a hybrid of nationalism and militarism. Prominent examples from modern (somewhat) times include Hitler's Germany, the Soviet Union, and China. One key similarity of these nations is that they have sprung from a revolution (violent or otherwise) to an imperialist superpower. All have sought to claim land for their own, and all have killed (and harmed the working class) in the process.
It must be recognized that the plague of imperialism can also infect the International! Nationalism occurs in socialist countries too. If a true socialist/communist society is to be reached, we must throw off the chains that can come from within our own ranks! We are often so fast to accuse that we do not see the beast in our own system. I urge you comrades, if we are to to achieve Utopia, we must not support those who foster imperialism and ignorance, for they hide among us, using different names and titles, but under their "socialist" guise, they are agents of the highest stage of capitalism.

[ZeroNowhere]

It seems that you're essentially elevating the modern imperialist world system to a transhistorical psychological phenomenon.

[Naginata]

Imperialism is a funny concept. In the case of the USSR Stalin didn't see taking over more land as imperialistic but rather a chance to spread communist ideology. Taking into account history delusions around spreading ideology through imperialist means aren't new. During the French Revolution France saw its duty to spread republicanism and the ideas of "liberty, fraternity, equality" (Jacobin motto) to the rest of Europe. So technically a nation can be socialist and imperialist at the same time:(

[Huey P. Newton1233]

As Che said "Imperialism is Bestiality."

[The Vegan Marxist]

The problem with your means of defining imperialism is that it abandons any and all class understanding. Imperialism is not "nationalism, plain and simple." Vladimir Lenin sought out to try and apply a class understanding to that of imperialism, in which he then correctly concluded:


“Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies, which introduce everywhere the striving for domination, not for freedom. Whatever the political system, the result of these tendencies is everywhere reaction and an extreme intensification of antagonisms in this field. Particularly intensified become the yoke of national oppression and the striving for annexations, i.e., the violation of national independence (for annexation is nothing but the violation of the right of nations to self-determination)."

Keep what is said first in mind: "Imperialism is the epoch of finance capital and of monopolies..."

Under the Soviet Union, where expansion over national borders did occur, it didn't end in the result of profit accumulation over foreign markets. Instead, the Soviet Union used both its and the other country's resources to help provide valuable necessities, such as healthcare, shelter, energy, employment, schools, better roads, etc.

So, while interventions over other countries did take place under the Soviet Union, by no means can we then define it as an imperialist intervention. After all, there's a distinctive difference between imperialist interventions and progressive interventions. I'd recommend you giving this marvelous analysis a read:

http://gowans.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/military-interventions-progressive-vs-imperialist6.pdf