What is Imperialism? What's not Imperialism?

[John Nada]

There seems to be many different theories on modern imperialism. I'll start with Lenin's theory that imperialism is monopoly capitalism, capitalism at its highest stage:
(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. https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm

Sounds simply enough. At the time, Lenin broke down the world into:

1.Imperialist countries, which fit the above description, like France, US, Belgium, Germany, Japan, Britain, Russia, ect.
2.Semi-colonies, which have formal independence but are economically dominated by imperialist countries or on their way to becoming colonies, like Persia, China, the Ottoman empire, Portugal, Serbia, Brazil, Argentina, ect.
3. Colonies, nations controlled by imperialist empires. like India, Philippines, Korea, Ukraine, Turkestan, Indochina, East Indies, Southwest Africa, Egypt, Congo, ect.

Lenin theory was that imperialism, rather than being a policy of some states, was in fact an integral part of the capitalist base and now encompassed the entire world. The imperialist nations used the colonies to extract superprofits and hampered the development of the subjugated nations. He argued that since there was no where else to expand, the imperialists can only redivide who gets what amount of slaves. Capitalism had fulfilled it's comparative "progressive" mission relative to feudalism in those imperialist nations when there was an era of "free competition", but is now a source of reaction which had to be fought.

Now in modern times. Most of the colonies are, at least formally, independent. Some have actually even become comparatively prosperous, like ROK, the Gulf States, ect. Some even export capital and have dominate monopolies themselves.

In modern times Turkey, India, Iran and Indonesia oppress nations under their control. Rwanda and Saudi Arabia both have launched expansionist invasions of neighboring countries. Israel might technically be a semi-colony, yet it's comparatively advance, oppresses Palestinians and has invaded neighboring countries too. And even at the time Lenin wrote that, some of the semi-colonies were themselves oppressing nations under their control, like the Ottoman Empire, Serbia and Portugal. I believe Trotsky called these "colonies of colonies".

And you have ambiguity over whether some nations are imperialist. Like Russia, with the second largest nuclear arsenal, expansionism in Ukraine and Georgia, internal colonies like in the Caucasus, and possibly semi-colonial control of ex-Soviet Republics, yet not a big exporter of capital as opposed to commodities.

Or China, which heavily depends on exporting commodities to imperialist like the US. Yet it exports capital to nations in Africa, has a high degree of influence over the DPRK and Pakistan and internal colonies in Tibet, Xinjiang, and Outer Mongolia.

The one undisputed imperialist is the US. It's clearly is a superpower that exports capital to many nations, dominated by monopolies and the financial sector, invades other nations regularly, has colonies in the Caribbean and Pacific(as well as internal colonies like Native American reservations and in the ghettos, Aztlan/Black-Belt question aside), formed international associations and divides the world amongst others.

But if you go by debt alone, you'd end up with rightist absurdities like the US is at risk of becoming a semi-colony of the Bahamas, Ecuador, Japan and China.:lol: And I think there were ridiculous claims after WWII that countries like the UK, France and FRG were colonized to an extent by US imperialism, and part of the "Second-World".

What I wonder, is what is the state of imperialism today? Are there any other imperialisms besides the US's? Are there still colonies? Are there "neo-colonies" still under de facto rule of a dominate country? What are these countries in the middle that don't quite fit the definition of semi-colony or imperialist. Is there "independent" non-imperialist nations not dominated by imperialists? Is there unity between the imperialist powers a la Kautsky's "ultra-imperialism" or is there a risk of another imperialist war?

[Homo Songun]

s there unity between the imperialist powers a la Kautsky's "ultra-imperialism" or is there a risk of another imperialist war?

Of course individual imperialist economies are still vying for supremacy with each other today. Russia versus Germany in the Ukraine, and so on. But also blocs of economies compete, even if the constituent economies that compose the blocs continue to fight amongst themselves. SCO versus NATO comes to mind.

Side note, how is Israel not in the first (or second) rank of imperialist powers? Enlighten me.

[John Nada]

Of course individual imperialist economies are still vying for supremacy with each other today. Russia versus Germany in the Ukraine, and so on. But also blocs of economies compete, even if the constituent economies that compose the blocs continue to fight amongst themselves. SCO versus NATO comes to mind.I agree. At the very least Russia and China are 2nd-rank imperialist. I don't see how either could possibly be semi-colonies. Is China an Imperialist Country (http://www.red-path.net/analysis/is-china-an-imperialist-country) puts forth an argument that it(and Russia) are imperialist. Which I mostly agree with.

However for sake of a discussion, there's other theories. I've see arguments that Russia and China aren't imperialist. There seems to be a view of SCO as a lesser evil or even a progressive anti-imperialist force against US imperialism in some countries. A "multipolar" world as a step up and even beneficial to the 3rd-world, rather than a sharpening of the contradiction between imperialist nations.

But if Russia and China are either "non-imperialist" or semi-colonies(ha!), I think such view would be problematic for solidarity between Russian and Chinese socialist on one hand, and socialist in other nations. Like an inversion of 2nd International. If they're imperialist, then defending either of them is reactionary altogether. But those that view either as not imperialist might end up supporting interventionism and expansionism by them, like the CPGB-ML supporting Russian intervention in Syria. Or view recent strikes by Chinese workers or some legit democratic movements(not the neoliberal shills) as against an anti-imperialist state.

It's a deviation from anti-imperialism because AFAIK the Bolsheviks didn't view the Central Powers as "progressive" even though they were fucking up "their own" imperialist Russia(which apparently even though at the time was semi-feudal, considered a "militarist-feudal imperialist" that had to be fought all the same). The Central Powers and the Anti-Comintern(obviously) were not better simply for not being as successful imperialist as the UK, France, US, ect. I think such incorrect views should be countered, but it'd be interesting to see the logic(or lack thereof) behind it.:confused:
Side note, how is Israel not in the first (or second) rank of imperialist powers? Enlighten me.My first thought would be that Israel is at least a second rank imperialist. Slame-dunk case. But looking into it further, there's a lot who argue that Zionism is in fact more of an extension of US imperialism, rather than imperialist alone. By organizations and people who are definately not sympathetic to Zionism at all. Often violently so. Not that its an "oppressed nation" but that it's a forward operating base of the US. Like how Portugal(which Lenin called a British protectorate) was to Angola, Guinea and Mozambique. See: https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/cabral/1961/gcvpc.htm

And there's the question of Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and India. Some communist in those countries(well, there might not be many communist in Saudi Arabia) have debated the character of "their" nation. Like is it semi-colonial, a second-rank imperialism, "sub-imperialism", semi-colonial but expansionist or even neo-colony?

There's also the Hardt and Negri's "Empire" theory that nation-state imperialism has been superseded by an Transnational "Empire". Haven't yet read much of that book yet, but seems like a neo-Kautskyist view. Personally, I think this is bullshit and recent events have totally disproved it. Yet I do occasionally see, mostly in Latin America, references to an "Empire". Although it's usually the Yankee empire. Nevertheless, I wonder if there's influence either way.

This may all seem like trivial theory, particularly to those that argue,"You can't fight imperialism! You'll just make new imperialist or neo-colonies! Only a global workers' revolution(in the 1st-world, deus ex machina) blah blah blah!" but really can influence practice and result in widely diverging viewpoints talking passed each other.

Yet I think that rather than a "post-colonial" world, with all talk of the national question, colonialism and anti-imperialism(by necessity must be anti-capitalism) being a thing of the past, it's quite the opposite. It's never been more relevant and pressing. The new lines on the map, that export of capital often uses either lesser imperialists or even semi-colonies as an intermediary, just obscure anything beyond overt US interventionism. Why the worst part of imperialism isn't even the overt wars, but it's effect of the economy and politics of the oppressed nations. Imperialist-capitalism's silent terror which induces poverty and supports tyrants, both of which kills far more, in a more insidious way.

[Homo Songun]

My first thought would be that Israel is at least a second rank imperialist. Slame-dunk case. But looking into it further, there's a lot who argue that Zionism is in fact more of an extension of US imperialism, rather than imperialist alone. By organizations and people who are definately not sympathetic to Zionism at all. Often violently so. Not that its an "oppressed nation" but that it's a forward operating base of the US. Like how Portugal(which Lenin called a British protectorate) was to Angola, Guinea and Mozambique. See: https://www.marxists.org/subject/africa/cabral/1961/gcvpc.htm

Its true that Israel and the United States have a close relationship. Before the U.S., Zionism had a close relationship with the UK. And before that, the Turks AFAIK. Thus, any theory of Israel as a semi-colony of the United States would have to account for its "transfer" from Britain to the United States, and prior ones before that, as applicable.

A more parsimonious explanation IMO would be that Zionism/Israel's changing relations with other states are simply a reflection of its independent interests within a world in flux.

I've read a theory that Israel is a very late expression of an earlier phase of imperialist-driven European territorial expansion a la South Africa, United States, etc. That theory makes more sense to me too.

I'm open to considering data pointing otherwise, though.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

Its true that Israel and the United States have a close relationship. Before the U.S., Zionism had a close relationship with the UK. And before that, the Turks AFAIK. Thus, any theory of Israel as a semi-colony of the United States would have to account for its "transfer" from Britain to the United States, and prior ones before that, as applicable.

A more parsimonious explanation IMO would be that Zionism/Israel's changing relations with other states are simply a reflection of its independent interests within a world in flux.

I've read a theory that Israel is a very late expression of an earlier phase of imperialist-driven European territorial expansion a la South Africa, United States, etc. That theory makes more sense to me too.

I'm open to considering data pointing otherwise, though.

I think, in terms of understanding Israel, it's important not just to talk imperialism, but about the peculiarity of settler-colonialism. Unlike, say, the European imperialist powers, Israel (along with the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa . . .) is defined by a "mass base" of (labour aristocratic and petit bourgeois) settlers who are materially dependent on colonial dispossession, and often act as an armed extension of the state against indigenous peoples and racialized proletarians.

[Guardia Rossa]

And there's the question of Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Brazil and India. Some communist in those countries(well, there might not be many communist in Saudi Arabia) have debated the character of "their" nation. Like is it semi-colonial, a second-rank imperialism, "sub-imperialism", semi-colonial but expansionist or even neo-colony?

Brazil was [semi-]colonial until 1930, but mostly independent from then on.

Brazil has been investing capital in most south-american nations, and pushes an Imperialist project of "integration" into the UNASUL. Brazil is "peacefully" (Non-militarily) seeking to expand it's market and colonizing the nearest nations, while increasing it's own military capacity and exercising it by sending them in various UN missions, and against the organized crime.

However, we are still somewhat dependent on US, both by capital and sea power, which is still underdeveloped.

Post-Scriptum: Funny thing is, Maoists consider Brazil semi-colonial (They need to), Hoxhaists consider Brazil an Imperialist menace, revisionists fully embrace imperialism and the UNASUL...

[Guardia Rossa]

This Hoxhaist text provides an insight on the differences between "old" and "new" Imperialist nations.
( http://ciml.250x.com/news/brazilian_imperialism.pdf )


Indeed, we can affirm that all imperialism have fundamentally similar exploitative purposes, notwithstanding the secondary differences arising from the circumstances in which each imperialism developed (for example, a neo-imperialist power will use different methods and tactics from those utilized by more “traditional” imperialism, but, once more, imperialism’s oppressive and rapacious objectives are common to both). It is very important to bear this in mind because the emergent imperialism are doing their utmost to depict themselves as being supposedly “different” from the “traditional tyrannical” imperialism, as being allegedly “progressive” and “democratic”. One of the most significant examples confirming this statement can be found on Chinese imperialism, which continues to mislead hundreds of millions of exploited workers around the world through using its fake and highly deceitful “communist” mask inherited from Maoist social-fascism. It is true that the means used by Brazilian imperialism to hide its predatory nature are not so complex as the ones fabricated by the Chinese imperialist bourgeoisie (the Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie never reached the point of putting in place a carefully organized “socialist” facade, including a false “planned” economy, a false “communist” party and a false “revolutionary” ideology with the purpose of disguising its own imperialist policies and ambitions, as Chinese imperialist bourgeoisie did and still does), but despite this, Brazilian imperialist bourgeoisie still tries to use many treacherous propaganda strategies in order to deviate the attention of the proletarians from the fact that Brazilian imperialism is not only fully operating, but that it also is becoming more and more reactionary, oppressive and exploitative."

If you ignore all Hoxhaist blablabla... you get my point.

[John Nada]

Its true that Israel and the United States have a close relationship. Before the U.S., Zionism had a close relationship with the UK. And before that, the Turks AFAIK. Thus, any theory of Israel as a semi-colony of the United States would have to account for its "transfer" from Britain to the United States, and prior ones before that, as applicable.It's not that Israel is a semi-colony, but I think The Garbage Disposal Unit described it better as being settler-colonialism. Palestine would be the colony. Clumsy wording on my part. It just kind of stood out reading Palestinian groups like the PFLP referring to US imperialism and Zionist settler-colonialism as two interrelated parts, but not an Israeli imperialism in itself.
A more parsimonious explanation IMO would be that Zionism/Israel's changing relations with other states are simply a reflection of its independent interests within a world in flux.

I've read a theory that Israel is a very late expression of an earlier phase of imperialist-driven European territorial expansion a la South Africa, United States, etc. That theory makes more sense to me too.

I'm open to considering data pointing otherwise, though.In this article, Abu-Manneh argues that Israel played a pivotal role in imposing US imperialism on the Arab countries. It's not Israel exploited by imperialism(except its exploitation of Palestine), but it's existence is intertwined and aligned with US imperialism.
What this brief analysis of “imperialism-colonialism” teaches us is clear. The United States has been determining major economic and political outcomes in the Middle East since at least 1967, with Israel continuing to play a crucial role in their realization. In Israel-Palestine, this has meant that force and colonial peace have alternated as main instruments of policy, with the main objective being a constant: Jewish supremacy in Palestine—as much land as possible, as few Palestinians as possible. The United States has exploited this Zionist imperative for its own interests in the region, and has fostered a militarized and fundamentalist Israel in the process. This reality can be gauged in Israel’s most recent parliamentary elections. Gideon Levy has put it well: “An absolute majority of the MKs [Members of Knesset] in the 17th Knesset will hold a position based on a lie; that Israel does not have a partner for peace. An absolute majority of MKs in the next Knesset do not believe in peace, nor do they even want it—just like their voters—and worse than that, don’t regard Palestinians as equal human beings. Racism has never had so many supporters. It is the real hit of this election campaign.”65 http://monthlyreview.org/2007/03/01/israel-in-the-u-s-empire/
I think, in terms of understanding Israel, it's important not just to talk imperialism, but about the peculiarity of settler-colonialism. Unlike, say, the European imperialist powers, Israel (along with the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa . . .) is defined by a "mass base" of (labour aristocratic and petit bourgeois) settlers who are materially dependent on colonial dispossession, and often act as an armed extension of the state against indigenous peoples and racialized proletarians.An interesting point. The US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, South Africa, ect. are also settler-colonies. Although for some reason, while it's perfectly okay to speak of lumpenization of the colonized, bougeoisification of the colonizer seems to be a taboo.:confused:

Wouldn't this mean the US is a multinational empire, with (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Belt_%28U.S._region%29) hundreds of different nations (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Native_American_Tribal_Entities) subjugated (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aztl%C3%A1n) by US colonialism? I think that would be an interesting way of approaching civil rights in the US, as an anti-imperialist and by extension anti-capitalist struggle, rather than some democratic reformist struggle in the superstructure that "just distracts from class".
We were [semi-]colonial until 1930, but mostly independent from then on.

Brazil has been investing capital in most south-american nations, and pushes an Imperialist project of "integration" into the UNASUL. Brazil is "peacefully" (Non-militarily) seeking to expand it's market and colonizing the nearest nations, while increasing it's own military capacity and exercising it by sending them in various UN missions, and against the organized crime.

However, we are still somewhat dependent on US, both by capital and sea power, which is still underdeveloped.This is another thing. Brazil is a regional power and it too is a settler-colony. It exports capital and has expansionist characteristics, yet it's heavily dependent on FDI and loans from imperialist like the US to fuel this. It's not fully economically independent, but economically dominates many countries in Latin America and even Africa. Almost in between. It's been described either as semi-colonial-expansionist, sub-imperialist or semi-peripheral. If Brazil moved from a semi-colony to imperialism, how can that happen?
This Hoxhaist text provides an insight on the differences between "old" and "new" Imperialist nations.
( http://ciml.250x.com/news/brazilian_imperialism.pdf )While it's possible that Brazil may be turning into an imperialist power, or even possibly is already one, I think their analysis is wrong. The Ottoman Empire and Republic of China had state monopolies and bureaucratic capitalists too, but they weren't imperialist-capitalist(well, China's probably imperialist now, and I'm unsure about Turkey which probably has similar ambiguity as Brazil). Those bureaucracies and state monopolies functioned for imperialist-capitalist superexploitation.

They were ran by a comprador-bourgeoisie to extract resources for imperialist. BNDES would be more a means for the Brazilian comprador-bourgeoisie to pay imperialist-capitalists(such as in the US, but now being challenged by Russia and China) dividends and interest on loans and investments.

[Guardia Rossa]

The point of the text was about different methods for imperialism, mainly between the traditional and newest powers.

I know, the Hoxhaists exaggerate, but I still agree with them. It was different before, our imperialism was restricted to alternating between exerting military influence in the Amazonas/La Plata and internal struggles. Brazil ever played a pivotal role in South America, but never to this extent, never had we managed to export capital heavily.

We are still dependent, but it appears that the government is taking the steps necessary to end this (In the last 12 years our overall debt went from 60% to 30% of the GDP, although the latest crisis made it rise a bit) and with the traditional imperialists power growing weaker, and their debts rising...

I fear that this will compress or even practically eliminate the revolutionaries in Brazil.

Of course, Brazil is nothing compared to China and Russia, and even less compared to USA.