why do M-Ls oppose 'imperialism'

[Black Sheep]

Word to word, "the enemy is one, imperialism" etc, why do they say that instead of mentioning 'capitalism' which includes all the forms of capitalism not only the aggressive - international one.

M-Ls = marxists leninists btw

[GPDP]

I'm not a Leninist, but I'd wager it's because Imperialism is, to them, now synonymous with capitalism, as imperialism is merely capitalism in its most advanced state, and it has spread its hold worldwide now through globalization.

Hopefully someone can correct me.

[Black Sheep]

Yeah,but imperialism is just a method of manifestation of capitalism, not capitalism itself.

The hole thing reeks of opportunism.

[Cumannach]

Like the comrade above said, Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, and it's most total and brutal form- well apart from fascism. It's not opportunism- opportunism would be condemning imperialism just because it's useful as a tool to combat capitalism or because of some perceived personal benefit from denouncing imperialism, while really not caring at all about ending imperialism. But imperialism is just the latest form of capitalism, where the contradictions of it are carried to their extremes.

In the long run, you can't have imperialism without capitalism and you can't have capitalism without imperialism. They're one and the same in the end.

Therefore there's nothing opportunist about it.

[lombas]

Yeah,but imperialism is just a method of manifestation of capitalism, not capitalism itself.

The hole thing reeks of opportunism.

According to Lenin, who rebuked Kautsky's arguments in the matter, imperialism in the highest stage of capitalism is also inseperable from capitalism itself. Kautsky presented imperialism as "a choice", Lenin taught us it is inherent.

It's important we stress that fact and make clear why we say "imperialism". If someone asks how comes we talk about the political factor and not the economic one, we must explain that imperialism is not seperate from economic factors and that this is a stage where capitalism perverts also every "independent" political opportunity.

[Annie K.]

Because it allows them to avoid an exhaustive critic of the protagonists 'before the end'.

[Tower of Bebel]

Another aspect is the fact that M-L as both a theory and ideology is linked to many oppressed countries (f.e. China, Vietnam, etc.), or countries heavily dependent on the imperialist oppressor nations (f.e. Russia).

[ComradeOm]

Another aspect is the fact that M-L as both a theory and ideology is linked to many oppressed countries (f.e. China, Vietnam, etc.), or countries heavily dependent on the imperialist oppressor nations (f.e. Russia).Now that's a very good point. I've oft lamented that many comrades from the West maintain a stubbornly social-imperialist outlook but I never gave any real thought to the flip side of that coin - that colonial struggles themselves (particularly the conflict between territorial and capitalist logic in the Russian Empire) may have impacted the evolution of Marxist thought. Hmmm....

[Kassad]

Imperialism is, as Lenin put it, the highest stage of capitalism. The corporate oligarchy, which play a significant role in pulling the strings with imperialist Western governments, uses war, occupation and corporate domination as profit motives. They disregard human life, suffering and necessities in a never-ending venture for capital gain. Capitalism and imperialism go hand in hand, as the capitalist system fuels the militaristic campaigns of globalization and colonialism.

[Das war einmal]

Imperialism is an extreme form of ethnocentrism

[robbo203]

Imperialism may be seen as capitalism transcending the boundaries of the nation state. This is the tendency and the logic of capitalism everywhere. And since capitalism applies in every single country of the world without exception (in the pseudo-socialist countries it take the form of state capitalism) it follows that all countries are inherently or intrinsically imperialist. Its just that some are more successful at it than others for obvious reasons.

This is why socialist refuse to align themselves with any kind of national liberation struggle whatsoever. To do so is actually to lend support to the ruling class of the country in question and to perpetuate the lie that that there is some kind of commonality of interests - represented by the so called nation - between this class and the workers it exploits

[Bilan]

Imperialism is an extreme form of ethnocentrism

That's only a partial aspect of it...it's political and economic.

[Black Sheep]

Imperialism may be seen as capitalism transcending the boundaries of the nation state. This is the tendency and the logic of capitalism everywhere. And since capitalism applies in every single country of the world without exception (in the pseudo-socialist countries it take the form of state capitalism) it follows that all countries are inherently or intrinsically imperialist

That logical result seems inconsistent.

Cant a capitalist country's economy be capitalist and not imperialist?
Imperialism can be divided in economic and military aggresiveness, not all economies can manage that.

An economy functioning within the country's borders exclusively would be called capitalist, not imperialist.

And to get out of the closet, i think that raising imperialism as the arch-enemy, leaves the door open to imply that ' a mild capitalism would be better/ok '

[BobKKKindle$]

Imperialism can be divided in economic and military aggresiveness, not all economies can manage that.Imperialism is not a particular government policy, or something rooted in the political arrangements of an individual country or set of countries, but rather a world system, which impacts all countries in various ways regardless of whether they want to be part of the world economy or not. It is a stage in the development of capitalism because it comes into existence as a result of capitalism's laws of motion which eventually give rise to a situation in which the most powerful capitalist countries are forced to look beyond their own borders and exploit other countries in order to avoid a crisis of profitability and the collapse of the capitalist system. Imperialism can manifest itself in different ways; initially imperialism took the form of direct territorial domination (otherwise known as colonialism) whereby imperialist states would annex other countries, including those which had not yet been incorporated into the world capitalist system because they were still based on feudal relations of production, and maintain control of these countries through military force, in order to exploit their natural resources and labour force. The bourgeoisie may still resort to military conquest if a given state is unwilling to submit to other forms of pressure and contains vital strategic interests, but during the post-war period the manifestation of imperialism shifted away from colonialism and towards indirect forms of control such as the imposition of certain policies by means of powerful international institutions such as the IMF and WTO and the use of covert operations to overthrow leaders who were willing to defy the demands of the imperialist core and adopt policies designed to encourage endogenous industrial development. Despite these different manifestations, the fundamental nature of the system remains the same, and anti-imperialist struggles retain their progressive character.

Left-Communists adopt a completely simplistic view of imperialism and assume that all anti-imperialist struggles only serve the interests of the bourgeoisie even when they involve large numbers of workers and peasants and are directed against a brutal occupying power, as in the case of the NLF in Vietnam, and, more recently Hamas in Gaza. In other words, their entire analysis is based on the assumption that the workers of the developing world can't think for themselves, and will automatically follow the nationalist slogans of the bourgeoisie, not because fighting imperialism serves their own class interests, but because the bourgeoisie is somehow capable of casting a spell over the working population which causes them to lose all capacity for independent thought and political judgment. Needless to say, Left-Communists have never gained substantial support in nations facing imperialist oppression, and are generally seen as a useless current by the rest of the left.


i think that raising imperialism as the arch-enemy, leaves the door open to imply that ' a mild capitalism would be better/okYou're completely wrong - by identifying imperialism as a world system and a stage in the development of capitalism, we can avoid falling under the illusion that the external manifestations of imperialism - such as war - can be solved by electing a different section of the bourgeoisie to office, as many fake leftists seem to assume.

[Black Sheep]

by identifying imperialism as a world system and a stage in the development of capitalism, we can avoid falling under the illusion that the external manifestations of imperialism - such as war - can be solved by electing a different section of the bourgeoisie to office, as many fake leftists seem to assume.
And similarly,we can fall under the illusion that imperialism and its aggressivenes is the problem, where a "mild and peaceful capitalism" would be okay.

But you are not answering:Why anti-imperialism and not anti-capitalism,since 'capitalism' covers the whole spectrum of that economic system's development.

[BobKKKindle$]

But you are not answering:Why anti-imperialism and not anti-capitalism,since 'capitalism' covers the whole spectrum of that economic system's development.This is exactly the point - Marxists don't oppose capitalism for the whole of the capitalist epoch because, at least in its initial stags, in the immediate period after the overthrow of feudalism, capitalism was an incredibly progressive system. It resulted in the rapid growth of the productive forces, breakthroughs in all fields of science and technology, and incorporated the entire world into a single economic unit - all of these developments and others which have been made possible by capitalism serve as the necessary preconditions for the attainment of a socialist society, in the absence of which socialism would not be possible, as socialism can only come into being once scarcity has been abolished. We call for the overthrow of capitalism now because capitalism is no longer progressive during the imperialist epoch and actually threatens to destroy the whole of humanity through wars and ecological detestation, but calling for the overthrow of capitalism during the industrial revolution would have been incredibly reactionary, and indicative of an anti-materialist outlook.

[PRC-UTE]

And similarly,we can fall under the illusion that imperialism and its aggressivenes is the problem, where a "mild and peaceful capitalism" would be okay.

But you are not answering:Why anti-imperialism and not anti-capitalism,since 'capitalism' covers the whole spectrum of that economic system's development.

To be anti-imperialist you'd really have to be anti-capitalist as well, so that's a given. Unless you can show us an example where Marxists abandoned anti-capitalism in favour of anti-imperialism, I'm not really sure why you brought this up.

Marx himself saw that anti-imperialism was at times useful to the workers movement. In fact he came to see the national liberation of Ireland as essential for the English working class to break with their ruling class.

Connolly also wrote about this subject- both how imperialist expansion can be useful in speeding up productive forces and also how resistance to it can provoke a crisis in capitalism.

[Das war einmal]

That's only a partial aspect of it...it's political and economic.


Of course, I was mentioning the ideology behind imperialism. The aspect of ethnocentrism was a moral excuse for plundering other countries

[Annie K.]

To be anti-imperialist you'd really have to be anti-capitalist as well, so that's a given.What about theocratic national liberation movements ?


the bourgeoisie is somehow capable of casting a spell over the working population which causes them to lose all capacity for independent thought and political judgment.If the workers who joined hamas are politically independent from the islamist movement, why didn't they build their own organizations and only after that build a national liberation front with the islamists ?

And also, I suppose it has been answered before, but I'm too lazy to search. Empires existed before the development of industrial capitalism... why should they not be considered as imperialist ?

[Cumannach]

And similarly,we can fall under the illusion that imperialism and its aggressivenes is the problem, where a "mild and peaceful capitalism" would be okay.

But you are not answering:Why anti-imperialism and not anti-capitalism,since 'capitalism' covers the whole spectrum of that economic system's development.

Comrade it's true there's a possibility that 'imperialism' might be scapegoated as the only problem at hand, leaving capitalism unmentioned, but in my experience Leninism never takes up this sort of posturing - analysis of imperialism as merely a development of capitalism, an inevitable development of capitalism, is just as characteristic of Leninists as condemning imperialism.

[Cumannach]

What about theocratic national liberation movements ?

If the workers who joined hamas are politically independent from the islamist movement, why didn't they build their own organizations and only after that build a national liberation front with the islamists ?


Maybe the workers don't yet believe they have the neccesary skills or resources to build any kind of effective party in the short term, and so will join up with a parallel movement until they have created the conditions for forming a viable alternative of their own.



And also, I suppose it has been answered before, but I'm too lazy to search. Empires existed before the development of industrial capitalism... why should they not be considered as imperialist ?

They can be considered as imperialist, but just not as bourgeois imperialists, which is what exist today and who it is generally understood 'imperialists' refers to.

[Annie K.]

Maybe the workers don't yet believe they have the neccesary skills or resources to build any kind of effective party in the short term, and so will join up with a parallel movement until they have created the conditions for forming a viable alternative of their own.It's a possibility, but from my distant point of view, nothing lets me think that joining the hamas creates new opportunities for class-conscious workers. It would be even the opposite, since the hamas use its growing influence to repress syndicalism and secular groups.
And if the process you evoke is effectively taking place, do we have an idea of what progress has been made until now ?


They can be considered as imperialist, but just not as bourgeois imperialists, which is what exist today and who it is generally understood 'imperialists' refers to.What is the difference ?

[Cumannach]

It's a possibility, but from my distant point of view, nothing lets me think that joining the hamas creates new opportunities for class-conscious workers. It would be even the opposite, since the hamas use its growing influence to repress syndicalism and secular groups.
And if the process you evoke is effectively taking place, do we have an idea of what progress has been made until now ?


I personally don't know, and things don't look very good nor have they for years from what I have seen, but hopelessness won't achieve anything. It's just wrong to make a generalized, blanket statement that any involvement with a non-proletarian, non-socialist party, even for a temporary period, must be contrary to the immediate and ultimate interests of the working class in every conceivable situation. 'National Liberation' . Liberate the nation- the people- from those in control of it, from those oppressing it. If they happen to be foreign capitalists - imperialists- well we have no choice but to fight them- how exactly can we smash the state power of our own capitalists if they don't even have state power?! The Imperialist occupiers are the state power. If the quickest, most likely route to that victory is in alliance with a rival resistance force, looking to set up their own state, well it's a matter of strategy and tactics whether we should use them as allies- not a matter of vague, general principles.

What is the difference between feudal or slave empires and bourgeois empires? One is a grab for slaves or land, (and land worked by taxable serfs), the other is a grab for control of markets, ownership and control of raw materials for capitalist production, supression of competitors... etc

[PRC-UTE]

What about theocratic national liberation movements ?

we aruge that they're not anti imperialist as these movements represent the local bourgeoisie wanting to make a better deal wtih the imperialists. For more info, see the Draft Theses on National and Colonial Questions For The Second Congress Of The Communist International (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/jun/05.htm)

[BobKKKindle$]

we aruge that they're not anti imperialist as these movements represent the local bourgeoisie wanting to make a better deal wtih the imperialists

Actually, Lenin argued against Islamist movements on the grounds that they strengthen the rule of landowners, whereas elsewhere, such as the case of Ireland, national liberation movements are also directed against feudal land relations and therefore aim to accelerate the growth of the productive forces. All national liberation movements represent, to varying degrees, the class interests of an aspirant or existing bourgeoisie, and, given that imperialism remains even when an oppressed nation has established its own independent state and removed the military forces of an imperialist power in the form of neo-colonialism, the total abolition of imperialism can only occur as the result of proletarian revolution on a global scale. It would be incredibly chauvinistic to refuse military support to Islamist movements, as these movements have established themselves as the leading sections of resistance movements in the Middle East, partly due to the historic failure of the radical left to offer an alternative channel of resistance, such that a refusal of support would be synoymous with rejecting the right of Middle Eastern workers to resist, whilst acknowledging the right of other oppressed nations.

[Black Sheep]

This is exactly the point - Marxists don't oppose capitalism for the whole of the capitalist epoch because, at least in its initial stags, in the immediate period after the overthrow of feudalism, capitalism was an incredibly progressive system. It resulted in the rapid growth of the productive forces, breakthroughs in all fields of science and technology, and incorporated the entire world into a single economic unit - all of these developments and others which have been made possible by capitalism serve as the necessary preconditions for the attainment of a socialist society, in the absence of which socialism would not be possible, as socialism can only come into being once scarcity has been abolished. We call for the overthrow of capitalism now because capitalism is no longer progressive during the imperialist epoch and actually threatens to destroy the whole of humanity through wars and ecological detestation, but calling for the overthrow of capitalism during the industrial revolution would have been incredibly reactionary, and indicative of an anti-materialist outlook.This seems redundant to mention as we live in the 21st century, and most countries are adequately conomically concentrated to empower the proletariat.

wtf?
We say anti imperialism but no anticapitalism because capitalism led to the empowerment of the proletariat.
And you speak of spreading illusions to the proletariat?!

[PRC-UTE]

Actually, Lenin argued against Islamist movements on the grounds that they strengthen the rule of landowners, whereas elsewhere, such as the case of Ireland, national liberation movements are also directed against feudal land relations and therefore aim to accelerate the growth of the productive forces.

re Lenin on Ireland, which I've read everything I could find, that doesn't seem to be his argument. Landlordism was already overthrown during the Land War in the late 19th century. Lenin makes reference to this in some of his own writings and described the Irish Citizen Army as the first Red Army in the world.



All national liberation movements represent, to varying degrees, the class interests of an aspirant or existing bourgeoisie, and, given that imperialism remains even when an oppressed nation has established its own independent state and removed the military forces of an imperialist power in the form of neo-colonialism, the total abolition of imperialism can only occur as the result of proletarian revolution on a global scale.

This has been contradicted by historical experience. the bourgeoisie of many imperialist-oppressed nations have now adapted themselves to imperialism and aren't seriously challenging it. there have been other national liberation forces such as Cuba (where the bourgeoisie were unable to complete the national liberation struggle- there was a foretelling of this even in Jose Marti's struggle) or Yugoslavia.

I'd have to argue the opposite of what you're saying: under modern capitalism, the proletariat has to lead the national liberation struggle.



It would be incredibly chauvinistic to refuse military support to Islamist movements, as these movements have established themselves as the leading sections of resistance movements in the Middle East, partly due to the historic failure of the radical left to offer an alternative channel of resistance, such that a refusal of support would be synoymous with rejecting the right of Middle Eastern workers to resist, whilst acknowledging the right of other oppressed nations.

It's not chauvinist to point out that the bourgeoisie can't complete the national liberation struggle.

[Charles Xavier]

I would definitely recommend reading Imperialism by Lenin, its a short pamphlet.

Imperialism simply is not a method of capitalism, it is capitalism, capitalism doesn't prefer Imperialism, capitalism needs imperialism to survive and grow, if it doesn't it collapses. Its not a policy of some evil individuals but something that capitalism does, conquers foreign markets and gets them to subsidize their companies, getting cheaper labour and resources, and this is not without contradictions itself. If you're a leader of an imperialist country you cannot hesitate to take over other markets or your rivals will. If you hesitate the domestic bourgeoisie will make sure you suffer, its a constant rivalry. In a race for the bottom, Nike for example cannot make a good choice and stop using sweat shops because all of its rivals are, if it does it lowers its profit margins, if it does that it cannot expand its operations as fast as its rivals can its good choice will result in it falling behind their rivals, if they fall behind thei rivals than the shareholders abandon them and lose money, the shareholders which nike is one as well.

But in this race to the bottom, a contradiction arises within the capitalist system, while your good jobs disappear in the more advanced countries on a system wide scale because all these companies half to move to cheaper locations, there is less of a consumer market for your goods, with less of a consumer market exploitation must increase even further to make profits. This contradiction leads to having to find more markets and when there are no more markets it collaspes on itself.

Imperialism can be seen as first world countries taking over third world countries and making them into semi-colonies. And in this we support people who may not be struggling against capitalism which obviously it is the only option that will lead to full liberation, these peoples who are struggling against their country subsidizing the living standards of a much richer country, who are having their resources sold off for pennies to fight back.

Cuba in the 1950s subsidized the living standards in the united states 1 billion annually, yet they are a poor country. Why are poor countries struggling to support rich countries?

So while my explanation is hardly complete, this is a very very brief explanation why we support anti-imperialism, and I would recommend reading Imperialism by Lenin, its a short pamphlet.

[Black Sheep]

And in this we support people who may not be struggling against capitalism which obviously it is the only option that will lead to full liberation, these peoples who are struggling against their country subsidizing the living standards of a much richer country, who are having their resources sold off for pennies to fight back.

Yeah,but this is lowering the standards, right? Because by this you apply to the oppressed by the imperialist presence, who are pissed off about imperialism and its presence in his country & life (and who might not be that frustrated, if their country was a common capitalist developing one with its own domestic growning corporations).

I am not saying this is bad, but it is action and propaganda under a wider and loosened up basis,which is common today (capitalist aggressivenes), and not under the inherent exploitive nature of capitalism itself.

Lenin's-imperialism has been added to the 'to-read list' :thumbup1:

[Charles Xavier]

Yeah,but this is lowering the standards, right? Because by this you apply to the oppressed by the imperialist presence, who are pissed off about imperialism and its presence in his country & life (and who might not be that frustrated, if their country was a common capitalist developing one with its own domestic growning corporations).

I am not saying this is bad, but it is action and propaganda under a wider and loosened up basis,which is common today (capitalist aggressivenes), and not under the inherent exploitive nature of capitalism itself.

Lenin's-imperialism has been added to the 'to-read list' :thumbup1:


Communists support all progressive movements, regardless of the limitations of their scope, just like we support unions who are asking for better working conditions who aren't calling for socialism.

Our goal is to elevate social conditions of working people at all times and we recognize the bourgeioisie system will not elevate them beyond a certain point and will retreat on previous gains when they can ideally do so.

[Die Neue Zeit]

According to Lenin, who rebuked Kautsky's arguments in the matter, imperialism in the highest stage of capitalism is also inseperable from capitalism itself. Kautsky presented imperialism as "a choice", Lenin taught us it is inherent.

It's important we stress that fact and make clear why we say "imperialism". If someone asks how comes we talk about the political factor and not the economic one, we must explain that imperialism is not seperate from economic factors and that this is a stage where capitalism perverts also every "independent" political opportunity.

"Lenin taught us"? You certainly have developed theoretically, but I should add one more trivia: the bulk of Lenin's five-feature imperialism framework was already elaborated upon in earlier works by Kautsky himself (The Social Revolution), before he sank into vulgar "centrism" and senile renegacy.

[Black Sheep]

Communists support all progressive movements, regardless of the limitations of their scope, just like we support unions who are asking for better working conditions who aren't calling for socialism.
Define progressive.A feminist group would be supported?An anarchist group?A trotskyist group? They are all progressive.

[Charles Xavier]

Define progressive.A feminist group would be supported?An anarchist group?A trotskyist group? They are all progressive.


Depends on the campaign. We can find allies in all groups. Anarchists we can ally with against racists or fascists. Trotskyists(they dont really exist here) we can ally with them on a number of issues such as workers struggles and international solidarity, feminist groups we can work together on campaigns for womens rights. Marxist-Leninists are a form a party which seeks alliances from all sections of the working class. We always seek cooperations and unity. On general terms or with specific campaigns.