Imperialism, what is it?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

There have been many instances where people have thrown around the term "imperialist" on this board, while obviously misunderstanding it. When communists use the term "imperialist," we're talking about a specific stage of capitalism that arose in the advanced capitalist countries in the 20th century.

Here is what V.I. Lenin, who is known for identifying the imperialist epoch, had to say on the subject:


(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 monopoly 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.
The development of capitalism has arrived at a stage when, although commodity production still "reigns" and continues to be regarded as the basis of economic life, it has in reality been undermined and the bulk of the profits go to the "geniuses" of financial manipulation. At the basis of these manipulations and swindles lies socialized production; but the immense progress of mankind, which achieved this socialization, goes to benefit... the speculators.
[Imperialism] is something quite different from the old free competition between manufacturers, scattered and out of touch with one another, and producing for an unknown market. Concentration [of production] has reached the point at which it is possible to make an approximate estimate of all sources of raw materials (for example, the iron ore deposits)... [throughout] the whole world. Not only are such estimates made, but these sources are captured by gigantic monopolist associations [now called multi-national conglomerates]. An approximate estimate of the capacity of markets is also made, and the associations "divide" them up amongst themselves by agreement. Skilled labor is monopolized, the best engineers are engaged; the means of transport are captured – railways in America, shipping companies in Europe and America. Capitalism in its imperialist stage leads directly to the most comprehensive socialization of production; it, so to speak, drags the capitalists, against their will and consciousness, into some sort of a new social order, a transitional one from complete free competition to complete socialization.

Production becomes social, but appropriation remains private. The social means of production remain the private property of a few. The general framework of formally recognized free competition remains, and the yoke of a few monopolists on the rest of the population becomes a hundred times heavier, more burdensome and intolerable.

I'm going to sticky this, with the hopes that it will help comrades understand what imperialism is.

[Led Zeppelin]

Lenin based some of his work on imperialism on the writing of Bukharin and Hilferding. The latters work is pretty rare to find, but here's a link to Bukharin's work: Imperialism and World Economy (http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1917/imperial/index.htm)

[la-troy]

:D thanxs it cleared up a few things

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Imperialism was defined by Lenin as the monopoly stage of capitalism in the simples form

[Leo]

Rosa Luxemburg on Imperialism:


Originally posted by Reform or Revolution+--> (Reform or Revolution)In a general way, cartels ... appear ... as a determined phase of capitalist development, which in the last analysis aggravates the anarchy of the capitalist world and expresses and ripens its internal contradictions. Cartels aggravate the antagonism existing between the mode of production and exchange by sharpening the struggle between the producer and consumer ... They aggravate, furthermore, the antagonism existing between the mode of production and the mode of appropriation by opposing, in the most brutal fashion, to the working class the superior force of organised capital, and thus increasing the antagonism between Capital and Labour.

Finally, capitalist combinations aggravate the contradiction existing between the international character of the capitalist world economy and the national character of the State – insofar as they are always accompanied by a general tariff war, which sharpens the differences among the capitalist States. We must add to this the decidedly revolutionary influence exercised by cartels on the concentration of production, technical progress, etc.

In other words, when evaluated from the angle of their final effect on capitalist economy, cartels and trusts fail as “means of adaptation”. They fail to attenuate the contradictions of capitalism. On the contrary, they appear to be an instrument of greater anarchy. They encourage the further development of the internal contradictions of capitalism. They accelerate the coming of a general decline of capitalism.[/b]


Originally posted by Anti-Critique+--> (Anti-Critique)Accumulation is impossible in an exclusively capitalist environment. Therefore, we find that capital has been driven since its very inception to expand into non-capitalist strata and nations, the ruin of artisans and peasantry, the proletarianization of the intermediate strata, colonial policy (the policy of ‘opening up’ markets) and the export of capital. The existence and the development of capitalism since its beginning has only been possible through a constant expansion of production into new countries.[/b]


Anti-[email protected]
…the urge of capitalism to expand suddenly forms a vital element, the most outstanding feature of modern development; indeed expansion has accompanied the entire history of capitalism and in its present, final, imperialist phase, it has adopted such an unbridled character that it puts the whole civilisation of mankind in question.


Accumulation of Capital
The events that bore the present war did not begin in July 1914 but reach back for decades. Thread by thread they have been woven together on the loom of an inexorable natural development until the firm net of imperialist world politics has encircled five continents. It is a huge historical complex of events, whose roots reach deep down into the Plutonic deeps of economic creation, whose outermost branches spread out and point away into a dimly dawning new world, events before whose all-embracing immensity, the conception of guilt and retribution, of defence and offence, sink into pale nothingness.

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. From this point of view only is it possible to understand correctly the question of “national defence!’ in the present war... Today the nation is but a cloak that covers imperialist desires, a battle cry for imperialist rivalries, the last ideological measure with which the masses can be persuaded to play the role of cannon fodder in imperialist wars

[apathy maybe]

I gather this wasn't meant to be a thread for discussion, but I'm going to jump in anyway.

I'm not really going to attack the definitions so much, because you are of course free to use any definition you want. But rather the implicit idea that all leftists agree with your definition(s).

Because frankly, to claim that even all communists agree with Lenin's idea of what imperialism is, is absurd.

Of course, I'm not really going to offer another definition (better or not), merely critiquing the idea that all communists mean the same thing when they use the same word (which is obviously incorrect).

[Spirit of Spartacus]

Because frankly, to claim that even all communists agree with Lenin's idea of what imperialism is, is absurd.

Of course, I'm not really going to offer another definition (better or not), merely critiquing the idea that all communists mean the same thing when they use the same word (which is obviously incorrect).

So basically, you disagree with Lenin, but you aren't quite sure why. :rolleyes:

[OneBrickOneVoice]

Originally posted by apathy [email protected] 04, 2007 08:35 am
I gather this wasn't meant to be a thread for discussion, but I'm going to jump in anyway.

I'm not really going to attack the definitions so much, because you are of course free to use any definition you want. But rather the implicit idea that all leftists agree with your definition(s).

Because frankly, to claim that even all communists agree with Lenin's idea of what imperialism is, is absurd.

Of course, I'm not really going to offer another definition (better or not), merely critiquing the idea that all communists mean the same thing when they use the same word (which is obviously incorrect).
Lenin gave the most thorough revolutionary leftist analysis of it. If there is a good anarchist or anarcho-communist analysis of it, then post it! if not, then why be a sectarian?

[Leo]

Luxemburg's analysis is quite significant and it is also posted here.

[Colonello Buendia]

imperialism is the usort of thing America gets accused of since Che Guevara and the Cuban rebellion. the americans had a financial iron hold on south america and this caused great poverty and anger.this control of the nations of south america was bolstered by supporting puppet leaders and providing military assistance when needed. it could infact be said that those imperialistic ideals are what lead the USA to attack Iraq and to send help to nations or groups that were fighting fellow communists.

[Conghaileach]

James Connolly, Imperialism and Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/connolly/1899/11/impsoc.htm) (1899):

Scientific revolutionary Socialism teaches us that Socialism can only be realised when Capitalism has reached its zenith of development; that consequently the advance of nations industrially undeveloped into the capitalistic stage of industry is a thing highly to be desired, since such advance will breed a revolutionary proletariat in such countries and force forward here the political freedom necessary for the speedy success of the Socialist movement; and finally, that as colonial expansion and the conquest of new markets are necessary for the prolongation of the life of capitalism, the prevention of colonial expansion and the loss of markets to countries capitalistically developed, such as England, precipitates economic crises there, and so gives an impulse to revolutionary thought and helps to shorten the period required to develop backward countries and thus prepare the economic conditions needed for our triumph.

That is our position. Arguing from such premises we hold that as England is the most capitalistically developed country in Europe, every fresh conquest of territory by her armies, every sphere of influence acquired in the interests of her commercialists, is a span added to the life of capitalist society; and that every market lost, every sphere of influence captured by the non-capitalist enemies of England, shortens the life of Capitalism by aiding the development of reactionary countries, and hurling back upon itself the socially conservative industrial population of England.

Che Guevara, At the Afro-Asian Conference in Algeria (http://www.marxists.org/archive/guevara/1965/02/24.htm) (1965):

The fight against colonialism has reached its final stages, but in the present era colonial status is only a consequence of imperialist domination. As long as imperialism exists it will, by definition, exert its domination over other countries. Today that domination is called neocolonialism.

Neocolonialism developed first in South America, throughout a whole continent, and today it begins to be felt with increasing intensity in Africa and Asia. Its forms of penetration and development have different characteristics. One is the brutal form we have seen in the Congo. Brute force, without any respect or concealment whatsoever, is its extreme weapon. There is another more subtle form: penetration into countries that win political independence, linking up with the nascent local bourgeoisies, development of a parasitic bourgeois class closely allied to the interests of the former colonizers. This development is based on a certain temporary rise in the people's standard of living, because in a very backward country the simple step from feudal to capitalist relations marks a big advance, regardless of the dire consequences for the workers in the long run.

Neocolonialism has bared its claws in the Congo. That is not a sign of strength but of weakness. It had to resort to force, its extreme weapon, as an economic argument, which has generated very intense opposing reactions. But at the same time a much more subtle form of neocolonialism is being practiced in other countries of Africa and Asia. It is rapidly bringing about what some have called the South Americanization of these continents; that is, the development of a parasitic bourgeoisie that adds nothing to the national wealth of their countries but rather deposits its huge ill-gotten profits in capitalist banks abroad, and makes deals with foreign countries to reap more profits with absolute disregard for the welfare of the people. There are also other dangers, such as competition between fraternal countries, which are politically friendly and sometimes neighbors, as both try to develop the same investments simultaneously to produce for markets that often cannot absorb the increased volume. This competition has the disadvantage of wasting energies that could be used to achieve much greater economic coordination; furthermore, it gives the imperialist monopolies room to maneuver.

éirígí, Imperialism - Ireland and Britain (http://www.eirigi.org/campaigns/imperialism_paper.html) (2006):

éirígí recognises that imperialism in its twenty-first century form rarely necessitates the physical occupation of a given territory, although this option is always retained. Modern imperialist policies tend to be more subtle than previous forms although the end result is the same: the rich world harvests the wealth of the poor world. In the age of modern communications and a globalised economy it is often more profitable to exploit a country through political, cultural and economic means rather than military.

Imperialists have learned that it is often easier to gain access to the resources and markets of a given country by identifying allies within that country who are willing and able to facilitate such exploitation. In this regard the rich world routinely impinges upon the sovereignty of the poor world, interfering in the internal political life of such countries to ensure that the chosen ally gains, or retains, state power. Where such allies oversee dictatorial, inhumane or cruel regimes the rich world has long-since perfected the art of double-think, refusing to question the internal affairs of such countries.

Where such allies cannot be found other means are deployed. One has to look no further than organisations such as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund to see how effectively countries can be coerced into adopting economic and social polices that serve the interests of the rich world far more than the interests of their own people.

[peaccenicked]

We have to keep up to date. http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/20050330_...versus_euro.php (http://www.agitprop.org.au/nowar/20050330_db_dollar_versus_euro.php)This article here more or less spills the beans.
Lenin is significant, he said the fundamental feature of imperialism was the superexploitation of the small colonial nations by the big imperialist powers.

Castro has said recently in Granma

"The worst may be yet to come: a new war aimed at securing gas and oil supplies that can take humanity to the brink of total annihilation.

Invoking intelligence sources, Russian newspapers have reported that a war on Iran has been in the works for over three years now, since the day the government of the United States resolved to occupy Iraq completely, unleashing a seemingly endless and despicable civil war.

All the while, the government of the United States devotes hundreds of billions to the development of highly sophisticated technologies, as those which employ micro-electronic systems or new nuclear weapons which can strike their targets an hour following the order to attack.

The United States brazenly turns a deaf ear to world public opinion, which is against all kinds of nuclear weapons.

Razing all of Iran's factories to the ground is a relatively easy task, from the technical point of view, for a powerful country like the United States. The difficult task may come later, if a new war were to be unleashed against another Muslim faith which deserves our utmost respect, as do all other religions of the Near, Middle or Far East, predating or postdating Christianity.

The arrest of English soldiers at Iran's territorial waters recalls the nearly identical act of provocation of the so-called "Brothers to the Rescue" who, ignoring President Clinton's orders advanced over our country's territorial waters. Cuba's absolutely legitimate and defensive action gave the United States a pretext to promulgate the well-known Helms-Burton Act, which encroaches upon the sovereignty of other nations besides Cuba. The powerful media have consigned that episode to oblivion. No few people attribute the price of oil, at nearly 70 dollars a gallon as of Monday, to fears of a possible invasion of Iran.

Where shall poor Third World countries find the basic resources needed to survive?

I am not exaggerating or using overblown language. I am confining myself to the facts.

As can be seen, the polyhedron has many dark faces."

[Never Give In]

I believe that Imperialism is a forceful extension of a nation by territorial gain or by the establishment of political or economic dominance over another nation.

I call the method Authoritarian Conquest.

edit: I could get more detailed, but that's really all there is to it for me.

[RNK]

Mao Zedong, Speech at the Moscow Meeting of Communist and Worker's Parties


Over a long period we have developed this concept for the struggle against the enemy: strategically we should despise all our enemies, but tactically we should take them all seriously. This also means that we must despise the enemy with respect to the whole, but that we must take him seriously with respect to each and every concrete question. If we do not despise the enemy with respect to the whole, we shall be committing the error of opportunism. Marx and Engels were only two individuals, and yet in those early days they already declared that capitalism would be overthrown throughout the world. But in dealing with concrete problems and particular enemies we shall be committing the error of adventurism unless we take them seriously. In war, battles can only be fought one by one and the enemy forces can only be destroyed one by one. Factories can only be built one by one. The peasants can only plough the land plot by plot. The same is even true of eating a meal. Strategically, we take the eating of a meal lightly - we know we can finish it. But actually we eat it mouthful by mouthful. It is impossible to swallow an entire banquet in one gulp. This is known as a piecemeal solution. In military parlance, it is called wiping out the enemy forces one by one.

Mao Zedong, Speech at the Supreme State Headquarters


U.S. imperialism invaded China's territory of Taiwan and has occupied it for the past nine years. A short while ago it sent its armed forces to invade and occupy Lebanon. The United States has set up hundreds of military bases in many countries all over the world. China's territory of Taiwan, Lebanon and all military bases of the United States on foreign soil are so many nooses round the neck of U.S. imperialism. The nooses have been fashioned by the Americans themselves and by nobody else, and it is they themselves who have put these nooses round their own necks, handing the ends of the ropes to the Chinese people, the peoples of the Arab countries and all the peoples of the world who love peace and oppose aggression. The longer the U.S. aggressors remain in those places, the tighter the nooses round their necks will become.

Leon Trotsky, Pacifism as the Servant of Imperialism


Pacifism is of the same historical lineage as democracy. The bourgeoisie made a great historical attempt to order all human relations in accordance with reason, to supplant blind and dumb tradition by the institutions of critical thought. The guilds with their restriction of production, political institutions with their privileges, monarchistic absolutism – all these were traditional relics of the middle ages. Bourgeois democracy demanded legal equality for free competition, and for parliamentarism as the means of governing public affairs. It sought also to regulate national relations in the same manner. But here it came up against war, that is against a method of solving all problems which is a complete denial of “reason”. So it began to advise the people in poetry, in philosophy, in ethics, and in business methods, that it is far more useful for them to introduce perpetual peace. These are the logical arguments for pacifism.

[R_P_A_S]

where can i find this stuff in spanish? specially the stuff compañeroDeLibertad posted?

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Aqui: El Imperialismo, Fase Superior del Capitalismo (http://www.marx2mao.com/M2M(SP)/Lenin(SP)/IMP16s.html)

[Leo]

A very good article on imperialism:

http://en.internationalism.org/wr/299/what-is-imperialism

http://es.internationalism.org/ccionline/2006_imperialismo

[Rainie]

Dr. Michael Parenti has a great book on this called: "Against Empire"
I highly recommend it!!!! It is a very accessible and wonderful book.

[Die Neue Zeit]

While this PDF is advocating a "Leninist" approach, I felt the need to highlight it in this thread because of its identification of other "schools" of thought regarding imperialism:

http://www.net4dem.org/mayglobal/Events/Co...lRothenberg.pdf (http://www.net4dem.org/mayglobal/Events/Conference%202004/papers/MelRothenberg.pdf)


This presentation has the modest goal of encouraging this ongoing examination of Imperialism within a Marxist framework by briefly revisiting Lenin’s analysis. Our aim is to isolate what is outdated, while at the same time explicitly acknowledging its great strength and power which were crucial to its decades long influence within the anti-imperialist movement. This is not done out of a desire to pay homage to Lenin, but rather to defend a methodological and theoretical approach which I believe is essential for a politically and strategically fruitful analysis. I will conclude by commenting on some recent Marxist analysis in light of these methodological criteria.

Because this particular subject is of great concern to all of us, I've also read Leo's left-communist links.


Originally posted by ICC+ quoting International Review--> (ICC @ quoting International Review)Lenin’s emphasis on colonial possessions as a distinguishing and even indispensable feature of imperialism has not stood the test of time.[/b]

If I remember correctly, Lenin only emphasized colonialism a few months later, in Imperialism and the Split in Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/oct/x01.htm) (written in October 1916):


[email protected] Imperialism and the Split in Socialism
Fifthly, the exploitation of oppressed nations—which is inseparably connected with annexations—and especially the exploitation of colonies by a handful of “Great” Powers, increasingly transforms the “civilised” world into a parasite on the body of hundreds of millions in the uncivilised nations.

Note the broader implications (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htm#v22zz99h-265-GUESS) in his "popular outline" which he mistakenly ignored later:


Imperialism is a striving for annexations—this is what the political part of Kautsky’s definition amounts to. It is correct, but very incomplete, for politically, imperialism is, in general, a striving towards violence and reaction. For the moment, however, we are interested in the economic aspect of the question, which Kautsky himself introduced into his definition. The inaccuracies in Kautsky’s definition are glaring. The characteristic feature of imperialism is not industrial but finance capital. It is not an accident that in France it was precisely the extraordinarily rapid development of finance capital, and the weakening of industrial capital, that from the eighties onwards gave rise to the extreme intensification of annexationist (colonial) policy. The characteristic feature of imperialism is precisely that it strives to annex not only agrarian territories, but even most highly industrialised regions (German appetite for Belgium; French appetite for Lorraine), because (1) the fact that the world is already partitioned obliges those contemplating a redivision to reach out for every kind of territory, and (2) an essential feature of imperialism is the rivalry between several great powers in the striving for hegemony, i.e., for the conquest of territory, not so much directly for themselves as to weaken the adversary and undermine his hegemony. (Belgium is particularly important for Germany as a base for operations against Britain; Britain needs Baghdad as a base for operations against Germany, etc.)

And note here that the context of "annexation" in the "popular outline" acknowledges the possibility of a GREAT deal of political independence on the part of the "annexed" country.



In conclusion, I must also acknowledge the realpolitik dangers associated with most "anti-imperialist" strategies and tactics that the "autonomous Marxist" Loren Golder brought up (http://www.metamute.org/en/Fictitious-Capital-For-Beginners), even if he, like Rosa Luxemburg, overemphasizes the role of capital accumulation in the process while ignoring most non-"monetary" (relating to currency and credit) aspects of finance capital (especially those revolving around ownership and control).

[rén]

CompañeroDeLibertad (and others as well)

Thanks for posting those descriptions imperialism. And I appreciate the discussion that follows.

I don't consider myself an "anything" in particular, but I can see how I've been labeled a socialist and a communist from time to time.

My sense of it is these structural definitions fit into a context of an evolution of Capitalism, and that evolution continues. We now have what are known as polyarchic "democracies" in place throughout most of the global neoliberal system. Exactly defining and identifying imperialism within that global system gets to be a slippery problem, using structural definitions, and placing oneself in terms of those definitions. I've been struggling with that myself for some time.

One of the evolutionary aspects of the problem is the impact on the environment that the total of the Capitalist system and its labor/capitalist property owners together have made, and I find that now to be a problem difficult to address in some of the old forms of organizing as groups, as in labor organizing, a global issue now, and the organizing of the polyarchic elite who end up with the political power. In fighting each other, the intricate and delicate ecosystems of our biosphere may be dissembling, irreparably, to all our detriment.

Nice board. I look forward to exploring the discussions I see already here. You appear to speak the full English language here, not the pidgin versions I find so often elsewhere.

[TheLuddite]

“We must bear in mind that imperialism is a world system, the last stage of capitalism-and it must be defeated in a world confrontation. The strategic end of this struggle should be the destruction of imperialism. Our share, the responsibility of the exploited and underdeveloped of the world, is to eliminate the foundations of imperialism: our oppressed nations, from where they extract capital, raw materials, technicians, and cheap labor, and to which they export new capital-instruments of domination-arms and all kinds of articles, thus submerging us in an absolute dependence.”
~ Che Guevara

[TheLuddite]

“Our every action is a battle cry against imperialism, and a battle hymn for the people’s unity against the great enemy of mankind: the United States of America. Wherever death may surprise us, let it be welcome, provided that this, our battle cry, may have reached some receptive ear, that another hand may be extended to wield our weapons, and that other men be ready to intone our funeral dirge with the staccato singing of the machine guns and new battle cries of war and victory.”
~ Che Guevara

[TheLuddite]

2 good books ...

''Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism'', by Greg Grandin, Holt Paperbacks, 2007

''Naked Imperialism: The U.S. Pursuit of Global Dominance'', by John Bellamy Foster, Monthly Review Press, 2006

[BIG BROTHER]

2 good books ...

''Empire's Workshop: Latin America, the United States, and the Rise of the New Imperialism'', by Greg Grandin, Holt Paperbacks, 2007

''Naked Imperialism: The U.S. Pursuit of Global Dominance'', by John Bellamy Foster, Monthly Review Press, 2006

I'll be looking for them. Thanks for the recomendation, they seem interesting.

[umabaran]

good post.. make sense..

[joe_the_red]

Well... I'm not going to criticise or promote other definitions, but I will share my definition, any are free to agree, disagree, and discuss with me, as I try to keep an open mind to things, if someone presents a reasonable argument in a way I hadn't thought of or shares information I do not have, it might convince me. But my definition of imperialism is that an individual or nation/administration is attempting to own land or resources (including businesses) in a foreign land, not of his/her/its own, or use without permission of the citizenry. This can be done through conventional means, such as with force of military, but also the contemporary, capitalist/fascist way of doing things: economically. Sending investors, buying out businesses... this cannot be allowed. In situations of this nature, the (communist) state should, and, in my opinion, is obligated to seize this, reclaiming the resources for the people. True communists and socialists never commit economic imperialism, or conventional imperialism, this is purely a capitalist/fascist trait. -Joe

[kotahitanga whenua]

truth comrade in my land we are still felling the effect of britains imperailisim in the 19 centery. but we are training 2 end it in a castro style war.

[comrade stalin guevara]

comrade kotahitanga hurry back from the bush.
is the egg hatched?

[Goose]

Right, I'm new and I don't want to cause arguments, but surely imperialism cannot be confined to an economic base? I agree that Lenin/Marx etc had a profound understanding of economic imperialism, but Gramscii's theorising on cultural imperialism are just as relevant in a world where people base their experience on the great time they had at McDonald's for little Chardonnay's birthday.

Equally, while Burke's critique of the universal 'we' is seemingly anathaema to many communists, it has been wholeheartedly embraced by anarchists, and even more wholeheartedly embraced by the likes of Halliburton etc who are currently raking it in on the back of that very basis.

I have little time time for anarchists, but can see when they're onto a good thing. However, presumably like most attempts at fomenting revolution, this board degenerates into petty 'splitter' squabbles!

[not_of_this_world]

My simple mind goes for a simple answer. Imperialism is what we have been experiencing the last four years of Herr Bush's world plan of domination. He uses the most powerful military assembly to dominate countries of great poverty with great untapped resources like Iraq, like Latin America and he sought to dominate and infiltrate and rob each nation of it resources and if it cannot rob the nation will use the army to kill and then they will steal what they want. We will be an imperialist nation throughout the Obama spectacle as the die is cast for Imperialist conquest because we no longer produce anything of value, we have become a service economy and must rely on globalism for our daily needs.

[REVOLUTIONARY32]

So we can class Britans pressence in Ireland as an Imperialist occupation?

[fanoflenin]

Imperialism means to me conquering someone else's land in order for your side to grow and take advantage of the other...big greedy bullies...

I feel that what Japan was doing pre-Pearl Harbor had to do with the way the US imprisoned the Queen, and decided to turn Hawaii into an extension of the USA. The Japanese said shine that, and they went into a crazy Imperialistic run like the Europe and the USA did. Truthers blame the NWO and the Illuminati, and I won't discount them, but I see the human brain as always trying to feel on top. Imperialism is the root of most of the ills of the world...the spread of Capatalism, religion, and force...I am an anti-Imperialist, and a non-Capatalist.

[fanoflenin]

So we can class Britans pressence in Ireland as an Imperialist occupation?
That may be seen as Imperialism or as Bush/Cheney would say, or a crummy defensive cordinator - PREVENT DEFENSE.

[an apple]

I thought that Imperialism had more to do with colonialist and expansionist attitudes.

[nightazday]

capitalism is when all or most of the wealth of others are place in the hands of the bourgeois

imperialism is not capitalism, but capitalism can be imperialism as is many ideals as long as regions of people are brought to submission to an oppressive structure

Lenin's definition of imperialism was used when modern communism was formed, but this definition was used since ancient times

[Yazman]

One thing I always disliked about Lenin's description of imperialism is that he effectively equates it with capitalism, thus making it appear that only capitalists are capable of imperialism. Which is of course not true.

[rebelmouse]

- colonialism is for me period when mostly western countries occupied other countries to rob them and to take that profit in their budgets. from budget were financed royal families and military and the rest of ruler's system.
- imperialism is for me period in the time of globalization of capital, monopol of corporations, in which politicians are paid by corporations to make war for them. it means, when they rob other countries, it is not to make full budget, than to make full pockets of corporations (aristocratic families who control/possess corporations).
imperialism is newest occupation and robbing of Iraq, for example. several corporations got contract to exploit oil there, many western companies will get contract to rebuild Iraq next 20 years, and Iraq will have to borrow money (to make debts) from USA and so on, in order to have possibility to rebuild country. plus workers will be cheap there next 10 years.
so, there are more benefits for riches, from war.
imperialism bring insecurity in Europe and USA and even people who are not leftists should fight against imperialism.
so, shortly, for me, imperialism is war for money which finish in pockets of corporations and it is result of globalization of capital. so I don't think that imperialism is stage of capitalism although it is logical development of capitalism. and I don't think it is highest stage, there is still place for making more totalitarian capitalism.

[mannetje]

Thank you for this understandable explaining. but I have a question.

Is the way like the US is playing the 'big'boss over the world, also explainable as being an imperialist?
Before I read this, I alway believed that imperialism was also being very hungry for power. and that imperialists do everything to control everything. so they can get better from it.:confused:

[Jacobinist]

I disagree that Imperialism is the last stage of Kapitalism. On the contrary, Imperialism has always existed, during Roman times, during feudalism, before Marx. That being said, Free trade is among the last steps of the full development of Kapitalism.

[Jacobinist]

Oh, and by the way, were almost already there.

XPLODE!

[AK]

Oh, and by the way, were almost already there.

XPLODE!
That means revolution is imminent :lol:
All eyes on Greece and maybe France now.

[Jacobinist]

We must most definitely focus on our comrades, the french and greek proletarians. These people are well organized, political, informed, and as far as I can see, aren't hindered by the sectarianism we have here.

VIVE LE COMMUNE DE PARIS DANS 2010!!!!

[empiredestoryer]

imperielism is when your country has british or american or chineses or russian troops on every street corner

[automattick]

Perhaps one of the most important implications of Lenin's theory of imperialism since its inception in 1917: that the national wars of liberation often devolve quickly into fascist movements. I can't think of one country where this has not happened: so-called anti-imperialist movements in the Third World become dictatorships.

[automattick]

too bad you cannot think of China, Vietnam, Korea, most African nations and many Latin American nations. They may have degenerated to state capitalism, but that is a different debate and the reasons behind them are complex and cannot be reduced to simple formulae.

Reasons are too complex? That sounds decidedly anti-Marxist. What, has the whole process become mystified? I don't think it would be that hard to explain, unless you cannot.


The national liberation movements themselves do not became dictatorships, but they do when they are defeated by imperialism and comprador bourgeois forces. Examples are: DR of Congo after Lumumba was murdered by conservative nationalists funded by Belgian and US colonial forces. In China, the socialist revolution was completed before it was overthrown by revisionist nationalist clique led by Deng. In Cuba, Vietnam, Korea etc, the revisionists never allowed the socialist revolution to be completed. So, read some history and stop believing in simple dogmatic formulae which have no relevance to the real world.

Anti-imperialist is not sufficient enough to qualify as socialist. Furthermore, these so-called socialist, anti-imperialist revolutions relied so heavily on vanguard leadership, it seems as though they had been compromised from the start. Class consciousness is a serious matter, it can't simply be doled out given to the masses from a small group of people. Opportunistic measures always fail, perhaps you need to do a little more reading on Rosa Luxemburg.

Where are all of the great worker republics today? All of these countries have dictatorships and cults of personality. Nothing communist about them. All participated in the global economy from the start, and all adapted to them because of market forces.

[automattick]

Simply stating that anti-imperialism is sabotage is ridiculous--so what? The Nazis engaged in sabotage when they burned down the Reichstag. In Turkey, nationalist forces were busy backstabbing the Kurds out of any recognition. Once again, name me one worker republic today which has not degenerated into either 1) state capitalism or 2) nationalism.

You can blame capitalist routers or Stalinist agents, but the fact of the matter is is that Lenin's theory was just plain wrong and he vacillated on the "National Question" a few times, whether to support national, anti-imperial revolutions or not. Well, looks like he took the former, and that's why you have what you have today.

You've failed to address my questions, so you probably don't know what you are talking about.

[automattick]

Anti-imperialism is sabotage? What? There is plenty of historical evidence for the involvement of the imperialist forces including the CIA as well as revisionist elements who have collaborated with the enemy in bringing down the national liberation movements.

A tactic. It means nothing to assert it as a socialistic value.


Yes. All national liberation and socialist movements have failed so far. Does that mean the working class should give up? Name me one libertarian/anarchist/[insert tendency here] movement that has not disappeared into irrelevance.

First of all, what made you even believe that it was 1) led by the working and 2) even had the working class's interests? I don't presume to speak for them, or lead them as that would be arrogant and bourgeois. Leninists and their spawn have it in their heads that socialism is a bureaucratic affair, that it should be devised, organized and led by them by their opportunistic vanguard ideals. That is why in the USSR and Maoist China when the Party failed, the revolution failed. A revolution is only as good as it's members make it. Worker councils have been active and arisen because they themselves felt the need to rebel and organize and guess what? They didn't need a bunch of middle class, bourgeois sympathizers to push them away. So when you talk of left communist or anarchism as failures, remember that you're spitting in the faces of all of the workers councils (i.e. Soviets before opportunistic democratic centralism) of the past and present. As communists it is our goal to make sure the councils don't break apart and give them the necessary defense when the bourgeoisie start to harp on about their illegality against bourgeois laws.


Why was it wrong?

Where to begin? Well, first off, Lenin's statistical data in "Imperialism etc." was plane wrong. His analysis was never coherent and he vacillated on issues such as the National Question several times. He understood imperialism wrong and was completely un-dialectical. As Loren Goldner writes:

" Some ninety years ago, V.I. Lenin wrote a book, Imperialism (1916), which purported to explain the origins of the First World War and the abject capitulation of the socialist parties in 1914 (with a few noble exceptions) to “social patriot” support for their own bourgeosie in that war. Lenin portrayed a world economy of “monopoly capital” and giant cartels fighting for control of the planet. But the political payoff of Lenin’s analysis (quite apart from his questionable economics) was multiple: he argued that the imperialist powers (i.e. Europe and the U.S., and later the newly-arrived Japan) were “exporting capital” (an idea borrowed from the British Fabian Hobson) that could not be profitably invested in the capitalist heartland, and that the “super-profits” from this capital export helped to buy off an “aristocracy of labor” in the Western working classes, explaining the accommodation in each country of this “aristocracy” to its respective national bourgeosie."

You can find more at his website, "Break Their Haughty Power"

[automattick]

I really don't have patience for Mattick or Goldner or any other pro-colonial garbage. "Workers struggles" are not the only kind of oppression present in capitalism. National oppression is very much the definition of imperialism.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please point out to me anywhere in the works of either Goldner or Mattick where such garbage can be found. Class, not nationality, is the subject of Marxism. If you want nationalism, start reading Herder and Hitler.

Nice quote, which Lenin? Before he supported the national question, or when was against it, or when he was for it again? So much vacillation, so many mistakes.

[The Idler]

Anyone have any empirical economic data on imperialism, past or present?

[Pravda Soyuz]

Imperialism is nationalism+military strength. Given the power, most countries would be imperialist.

[Ross Wolfe]

Today's imperialism is distinct from the imperialism that was theorized by Hilferding, Luxemburg, Lenin, Zinoviev, and Bukharin. It's certainly not colonial any more. It's more collaborative (on the parts of the imperialists) and less competitive. It would be better to term what is going on today as "neoimperialism."

[Thirsty Crow]

Today's imperialism is distinct from the imperialism that was theorized by Hilferding, Luxemburg, Lenin, Zinoviev, and Bukharin. It's certainly not colonial any more. It's more collaborative (on the parts of the imperialists) and less competitive. It would be better to term what is going on today as "neoimperialism."
I'm not so sure that it's useful to conceive of inter-imperialist antagonisms as "less competitive", as witnessed by the interplay of forces in Africa for instance (where China asserts itself as a major imperialist power, in opposition to established influences on the continent). Maybe it would be better to say that inter-imperialist conflicts do not tend to take on a strictly militarist form anymore, maybe due to international organizations acting like the organizing/negotiation committee of the global capitalist class.

Though, I don't think this should be overemphasized, something you seem to be doing with the "neo-imperialism" thing, which suggests that there is little possibility of a regression to a situation of militaristic ways of resolving the inter-imperialist conflict.

[CHE with an AK]

Imperialism
http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/2011/poor.jpg

[deadsmooth]

Personally, I think it best to use the term Imperialism (upper case I) literally because of its obvious connection to Empire and Imperial. It refers to government by inheritance as opposed to election, force majure, etc.

I realize this is not a typical use and try to make this clear, and distinguish between imperialism (lower case i) and Imperialism.

I see no reason (although many Imperialists did/do) to distinguish between Empires, Kingdoms, Principalities, Counties, Emerites, etc.