What is social imperialism?

[Lenina Rosenweg]

What is social imperialism? I have heard this term used by Maoisats and other anti-revisionists referring to ther foreign policy of the Soviet Unmion. What is it exactly?

My understanding of imperialism, at least under capitalism, is that its generally a product of excess capital, especially finance capital, seeking returns outside the home country. Its a product of capitalist dynamics.So would a theory of social imperialism have to regard the USSR at state capitalist (a position I disagree with but anyway....)

Is (or was) social imperialism expressed more in military terms (Soviet invasion of Afghanistan) or economically (exploitation of the COMECON countries)?

Also, could social imperialism be said to exist today (China, perhaps ironically?)

[Dagoth Ur]

First off it is a totally bogus concept used to justify anti-moscow polarization of the ICM. This bullshit concept is what led Maoists to supporting the taliban for instance.

[Hrafn]

First off it is a totally bogus concept used to justify anti-moscow polarization of the ICM. This bullshit concept is what led Maoists to supporting the taliban for instance.

For the Mujahideen, you mean. The Taliban rose in the 1990's, after Soviet departure.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

Social imperialism is when a supposedly "socialist" country invades another non-socialist country under the pretenses of 'liberating' the populace, when in truth its for nothing more than resources or a simple land grab.

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

(Sorry, duplicate post)

[Brandon's Impotent Rage]

(Sorry, another duplicate post. Fucking DSL...)

[ComradeOm]

What is social imperialism? I have heard this term used by Maoisats and other anti-revisionists referring to ther foreign policy of the Soviet Unmion. What is it exactly?It's a charge originally used during the Second International debates of WWI to denote those who were 'socialist in words, imperialist in deeds'. That is, those 'socialists' who nonetheless supported their respective nations in either the Great War or other imperialist ventures.

The term has been appropriated in the same spirit by Maoists as part of the critique of the Soviet Union. They contended that this was just another imperialist power, albeit one cloaked in socialist rhetoric. Basically, it's the typical 'anti-revisionism' charge: Khrushchev has established a personal dictatorship, the bourgeoisie are now in charge, the Soviets are colluding with the capitalists (irony alert), etc, etc.

[Hit The North]

The term has been appropriated in the same spirit by Maoists as part of the critique of the Soviet Union. They contended that this was just another imperialist power, albeit one cloaked in socialist rhetoric. Basically, it's the typical 'anti-revisionism' charge: Khrushchev has established a personal dictatorship, the bourgeoisie are now in charge, the Soviets are colluding with the capitalists (irony alert), etc, etc.

A bit like the occupation of Tibet, then?

[Dagoth Ur]

The occupation of Tibet cannot be called anything short of liberation. Unless you know absolutely nothing about what Lama rule was like.

@hrafn: Same lot.

[Tim Cornelis]

The occupation of Tibet cannot be called anything short of liberation. Unless you know absolutely nothing about what Lama rule was like.

@hrafn: Same lot.

That's entirely irrelevant as to whether or not it was an act of imperialism -- which it definitely was. Taliban rule was ruthless, so therefore the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA was liberation and not imperialism on account of the Taliban being evil or something?

[Atsumari]

The occupation of Tibet cannot be called anything short of liberation. Unless you know absolutely nothing about what Lama rule was like.

@hrafn: Same lot.
Nazi rule in Poland and Hungary was incredibly brutal, but that does not excuse what the Soviets did in those countries after "liberation."

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

First off it is a totally bogus concept used to justify anti-moscow polarization of the ICM. This bullshit concept is what led Maoists to supporting the taliban for instance.

I think it's totally radical dude, kowabunga.


A bit like the occupation of Tibet, then?

Yeah but fuck Tibet.

[Dagoth Ur]

That's entirely irrelevant as to whether or not it was an act of imperialism -- which it definitely was. Taliban rule was ruthless, so therefore the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA was liberation and not imperialism on account of the Taliban being evil or something?
If China had installed the Lama to oust a workers government in Tibet, and then occupied Tibet, you might have made sense here.


Nazi rule in Poland and Hungary was incredibly brutal, but that does not excuse what the Soviets did in those countries after "liberation."
Regardless of how you feel about the soviet regimes kicking the nazis out WAS liberation. I don't care for Chinese policy either but their occupation of Tibet was liberation.

[Atsumari]

When statements like that are used to excuse such atrocities and go so far to call it liberation, we should not be surprised that many people view communism as tyrannical and evil.

[Tim Cornelis]

If China had installed the Lama to oust a workers government in Tibet, and then occupied Tibet, you might have made sense here.

What now? So it's only imperialism if you overthrow a workers' government? So... the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA wasn't imperialist because:
1) Liberation, they overthrew the horrible Taliban regime
2) They did not overthrow a workers' government.

[Dagoth Ur]

When statements like that are used to excuse such atrocities and go so far to call it liberation, we should not be surprised that many people view communism as tyrannical and evil.
These are the same people who think capitalism isn't tyrannical. :rolleyes: I'm sorry if being a materialist counters your liberal sensibilities.


What now? So it's only imperialism if you overthrow a workers' government? So... the invasion of Afghanistan by the USA wasn't imperialist because:
1) Liberation, they overthrew the horrible Taliban regime
2) They did not overthrow a workers' government.
You clearly missed my point. That is you cannot liberate people from a problem you created. The US essentially installed the Taliban, so gutting (and failing spectacularly at this to boot) them is just more interference in Afghani affairs, more ways to steal from them.

[Atsumari]

These are the same people who think capitalism isn't tyrannical. :rolleyes: I'm sorry if being a materialist counters your liberal sensibilities.

Calling me a liberal for opposing war crimes committed against civilian populations is ridiculous. Grow up.

[Tim Cornelis]

These are the same people who think capitalism isn't tyrannical. :rolleyes: I'm sorry if being a materialist counters your liberal sensibilities.


You clearly missed my point. That is you cannot liberate people from a problem you created. The US essentially installed the Taliban, so gutting (and failing spectacularly at this to boot) them is just more interference in Afghani affairs, more ways to steal from them.

This is basically an admittance that because you "liberate" someone that it cancels out the imperialism of the act. So the NATO 'liberated' Libya from an oppressive regime lead by a nutter, therefore its involvement cannot be characterised as imperialism, or something.


I'm sorry if being a materialist counters your liberal sensibilities. .

I think this is highly ironic given the arguments you used for why something's not imperialism, which is essentially a liberal talking point justifying 'humanitarian imperialism'. Do you even materialist bro?

[ckaihatsu]

I'll say that there's a lack of needed, appropriate terminology to address this historical situation -- perhaps something like 'partial liberation' would work, or 'liberation from feudalism'.





[T]ibet had been almost untouched by the path of history for centuries, and still languished under absolute feudalism. Tibet was utterly undeveloped with no industry, the main economic activity being subsistence agriculture. The lamas and nobility owned all the land, livestock and wealth. Combined with religious superstition and a regime based on barbaric torture, the Tibet peasants were kept utterly subjugated, and lived in absolute and utter misery and poverty. The conditions in Tibet were more akin to barbarism than anything else. Through the complex system of taboos and charms, the corrupt lamaist hierarchy chased away evil spirits, sold absolution, indulgences and prayer wheels, and kept Tibet in the Dark Ages.

Even if there had been a Tibetan bourgeoisie of any notable size, it, like its Chinese and Russian counterparts, had come on to the scene of history too late. There was no bourgeois revolution or palace revolt in Tibet that could usher in change and modern production and technique, etc. The tasks of history fell to another organization to carry out. When the Chinese Red Army arrived offering education, land reform, electricity and modern industry, not to mention a more modern and better equipped army - what chance did the theocracy of Tibet stand?




http://www.marxist.com/china-tibet-world-economy.htm