Why oppose imperialism?

[know2b]

Assuming we can't build communism until we abolish capitalism, and assuming we can't abolish capitalism until it has completed all its stages, and assuming imperialism constitutes the highest stage of capitalism, why should we oppose imperialism? Wouldn't that make us anti-communists?

[bailey_187]

Imperialism is competition between capitalist states for resources, markets etc

This often entails wars. So unless you think killing or being killed for a capitalist's profits is a good thing, Imperialism should not be supported.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Assuming we can't build communism until we abolish capitalism, and assuming we can't abolish capitalism until it has completed all its stages, and assuming imperialism constitutes the highest stage of capitalism, why should we oppose imperialism? Wouldn't that make us anti-communists?

Capitalism has already completed all its stages of development - it did so about 150 years ago.

[know2b]

Imperialism is competition between capitalist states for resources, markets etc

This often entails wars. So unless you think killing or being killed for a capitalist's profits is a good thing, Imperialism should not be supported.

OK, you've offered an answer to the question. Now I wish I'd worded it differently. I should have asked where my logic fails, if it does.

I don't support wars for profit. We might oppose imperialism for the reasons you've laid out, but that doesn't address the logic I've laid out.

Capitalism has already completed all its stages of development - it did so about 150 years ago.

Then shouldn't it have collapsed by now?

[Lolshevik]

Because it hasn't yet exhausted all its possible means of recouping, through more thorough exploitation of markets, redivision and redivision of neocolonies and markets through inter-imperialist conflict, etc. He said the system has exhausted its progressive nature, its opportunities for forward growth, not that it doesn't run anymore.

[fa2991]

OK, you've offered an answer to the question. Now I wish I'd worded it differently. I should have asked where my logic fails, if it does.

I don't support wars for profit. We might oppose imperialism for the reasons you've laid out, but that doesn't address the logic I've laid out.

Imperialism has already played its role in globalizing capital, which could hopefully make capitalism's crises global and lead to the fall of capitalism. Any further expansion of imperialism at this point would just be detrimental to the cause and wouldn't help develop feudal societies, a goal which has already been sufficiently carried out by both capitalist and Leninist governments.

Further growth of imperialism just means death and the defeat of progressive politics - would it really be a good thing for America to take over Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela again?

Then shouldn't it have collapsed by now?

For one thing, the bastion of imperial capitalism, America, doesn't have a very good organized left, and most industrial countries' governments and resources are still in the full service of capital.

[know2b]

Because it hasn't yet exhausted all its possible means of recouping, through more thorough exploitation of markets, redivision and redivision of neocolonies and markets through inter-imperialist conflict, etc. He said the system has exhausted its progressive nature, its opportunities for forward growth, not that it doesn't run anymore.

If it hasn't yet exhausted all its possible means of exploiting of markets, that sounds like it hasn't exhausted its opportunities for forward growth.

Imperialism has already played its role in globalizing capital, which could hopefully make capitalism's crises global and lead to the fall of capitalism. Any further expansion of imperialism at this point would just be detrimental to the cause and wouldn't help develop feudal societies, a goal which has already been sufficiently carried out by both capitalist and Leninist governments.

That seems like a reasonable answer on the first read, but I'll have to think about it some more.

Further growth of imperialism just means death and the defeat of progressive politics - would it really be a good thing for America to take over Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela again?

You've asked me a subjective moral question. It doesn't matter if I see it as good or bad. If the logic holds then I would have to decide to obey it or not. I share your views so I'd probably break with the logic but that has nothing to do with its soundness.

For one thing, the bastion of imperial capitalism, America, doesn't have a very good organized left, and most industrial countries' governments and resources are still in the full service of capital.

But I thought capitalism dooms itself, regardless, once it reaches its full potential.

[fa2991]

You've asked me a subjective moral question. It doesn't matter if I see it as good or bad. If the logic holds then I would have to decide to obey it or not. I share your views so I'd probably break with the logic but that has nothing to do with its soundness.

And here I thought I was asking you a rhetorical question.

[Thirsty Crow]

Assuming we can't build communism until we abolish capitalism, and assuming we can't abolish capitalism until it has completed all its stages, and assuming imperialism constitutes the highest stage of capitalism, why should we oppose imperialism? Wouldn't that make us anti-communists?

What I view as a problem in your proposition is that it is supported by a terribly mechanicistic view of historical development.
What do you mean by capitalism which has to complete all of its stages? What does, exactly and concretely, "complete" mean here?

[Jolly Red Giant]

Then shouldn't it have collapsed by now?

Capitalism is not going to 'collapse' - it has to be overthrown through a revolutionary process. Just because it has gone past its sell-by-date doesn't mean the owners are going to throw it out. They are making far too much money out of it.

[F9]

I don't support wars for profit. We might oppose imperialism for the reasons you've laid out, but that doesn't address the logic I've laid out.

What logic?That we should support capitalism and any of its reactionary results etc, to allow it go to its "higher level" cause only at that time it can be overthrown?There is no logic on that, its plain stupid.
Not opposing imperialism is anti-communism not the other way...
And you all should understand at some point, that Marx could be wrong at some points, though misrepresenting of his words, are so often, that non true words of him, got to as standards.

[28350]

This raises another question.
Is it morally wrong to oppose imperialism?



Yes, yes it is.

[praxis1966]

Capitalism is not going to 'collapse' - it has to be overthrown through a revolutionary process. Just because it has gone past its sell-by-date doesn't mean the owners are going to throw it out. They are making far too much money out of it.

You're basically giving voice to the gripe I've had about orthodox Marxism/ists for years. His predictions about the inevitable demise of capitalism strike me as not only evolutionary (not revolutionary) but inherently wrong. At the time of his death, the prevailing capitalist philosophy was intensely laissez faire. He didn't anticipate the advent of Keynesian economics and its use of policy levers to prop up or "save" capitalism during the Great Depression. Not that it was his fault, he wasn't a soothsayer. On the other hand, it is the fault of orthodox Marxists who insist upon thrusting new material developments into a Procrustean bed when a revision is clearly called for.

Anyway, the only conclusion I can draw is the one you just did. Just because capitalism won't collapse on its own isn't any reason not to demolish it as it's clearly a disgustingly inhumane way to organize a society.

[Jolly Red Giant]

Anyway, the only conclusion I can draw is the one you just did. Just because capitalism won't collapse on its own isn't any reason not to demolish it as it's clearly a disgustingly inhumane way to organize a society.

Yes it is - and Marx did understand the mechanics of the capitalist system and had exactly the same outlook as above.

[praxis1966]

Yes it is - and Marx did understand the mechanics of the capitalist system and had exactly the same outlook as above.

I think you're kind of missing the point. He couldn't possibly have foreseen the development of Keynesian economics, its extension known as neoclassical synthesis and the specific ways in which they would operate on a practical level as they didn't occur until the 1930s onward. Maybe it's just a personal distaste for orthodoxy of all kinds, but I seriously don't understand the impulse to try and make hamfisted interpretations of Marx's work in order to convince oneself or others of his work's relevance. Of course he's relevant, but not the be all and end all, IMO.

[Jolly Red Giant]

I think you're kind of missing the point. He couldn't possibly have foreseen the development of Keynesian economics, its extension known as neoclassical synthesis and the specific ways in which they would operate on a practical level as they didn't occur until the 1930s onward. Maybe it's just a personal distaste for orthodoxy of all kinds, but I seriously don't understand the impulse to try and make hamfisted interpretations of Marx's work in order to convince oneself or others of his work's relevance. Of course he's relevant, but not the be all and end all, IMO.

Marx carried out a detailed study of the capitalist economic system and wrote extensively about it in four volumes and numerous pamphlets and articles. He accurately predicted the development of capitalism right up to globalisation.

I don't know what you are on about when you say 'orthodoxy' - Marx never predicted the 'demise' of capitalism he argued that capitalism was riddled with contradictions that would limit its development and would sow the seeds of its own destruction through the creation of a working class - but he was also acutely aware that capitalism would have to be overthrown in a revolutionary process.