I'm guessing the "imperialism" you mean is the extraction of resources and opening of markets, whereas Empire just means consolidated power over a diverse set of peoples or even systems?
Imperialism was very clearly defined by Lenin in "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism". It is a form of state that is essentially "state capitalist" where the state has become both a capitalist and is subservient to the big capitalists (in his examples, GE, Ford, Deutsch Bank, etc. Nothing's changed, it's all still the same).
The reality of this form of imperialism is extractive colonialism (massive investment in colonial territories with no benefit to the local people's and for the sole purpose of extraction, e.g. fuckloads of trains that go straight from mines to the coast). The imperialist nation often enters into agreements with other imperial nations (France, Britain, America, Germany, Russia, Spain, and Denmark were all competing imperial powers with Russia being one of the weakest at the time).
Revisionists and opportunists see these imperial agreements and pacts as a good thing and a positive for socialism, but Lenin saw that they were actually a harbinger of war. Which was a theory proved correct by the outbreak of WW1/the first imperial war.
After WW1 and WW2, the imperial nations of the world have transitioned to a new stage of imperialism, aka neo-colonoalism which instead of relying on the state capitalist (or, state as capitalist) to enforce through occupation and war, is done through an unfettered global financial system that is given power over the imperial nations and republics.
This is somewhat of an illusion though, as the violent imperialism of the pre-war era is still in place exactly as it was, but is now given a new face through the concept of public debt and extraction from the global south is framed as a "paying back of a debt" that never existed in the first place.
You should also read Imperialism, it's not too long and honestly pretty easy to grasp. Mainly because it's just really obvious in hindsight. All the things he described as inevitabilities of the imperialist projects of the 20th century have come to pass and he's essentially describing the world we live in today and how it came about.
Totally, I actually have it on my bookshelf. Bought that and what is to be done after I read state and revolution. More and more books just got in front of it over time lol but you’re right I do need to read it. Are you reading anything right now?
I'm about halfway through Jakarta Method. It's rough, I've had to take week long breaks here and there.
Read the canon when I was isolating last year and time of pamphlets. Also most of Parenti's stuff, but that's like a treat. I can finish a Parenti book in a day, he's just such an engaging writer.
Ah nice I just bought the Jakarta Method! Was thinking of jumping into that after Capitalist Realism and October. I’ve only read Blackshirts and Reds from Parenti though, could you reco anything specific?
Inventing Reality of course, To Kill a Nation is a good look at Yugoslavia and NATO's true face. He also has a short book called The Terrorism Trap released like 3 months after 9/11 basically predicting all the shit that went wrong later and pointing out all the shit that was going on behind the scenes that was basically immediately silenced after the attacks.
All of his work is good though. I like using Parenti as a pallete cleanser between more dense books.
Also, read Julian Borchardt's Capital Abridged of you can find a copy (released in the US as Capital and other writings and compiled with some other of Marx's smaller works and Lenin pamphlets by Max Eastman)
Yep, the best part of Lenin's work is that he was restricted from using any non-official sources (eg. Tsarist propaganda and banking magazines were okay, but socialist political theory wasn't) so he had to formulate and prove all his theories using like Banking weekly and shit. He acknowledges this in the version of Imperialism released after the October revolution and even jokes about how certain names and countries make no sense because he had to get his work past the censors (I believe in Imperialism, he switched Russia and Japan?).
The fact that he was still able to write one of the most convincing and poignant pieces of political theory in the 20th century under those conditions is wild.
No imperialism is what the le epic Sith did. China is the empire because Xi Jinping is a communist and communism is red so that means he’s fallen to the dark side.
I'm guessing the "imperialism" you mean is the extraction of resources and opening of markets, whereas Empire just means consolidated power over a diverse set of peoples or even systems?
Imperialism was very clearly defined by Lenin in "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism". It is a form of state that is essentially "state capitalist" where the state has become both a capitalist and is subservient to the big capitalists (in his examples, GE, Ford, Deutsch Bank, etc. Nothing's changed, it's all still the same).
The reality of this form of imperialism is extractive colonialism (massive investment in colonial territories with no benefit to the local people's and for the sole purpose of extraction, e.g. fuckloads of trains that go straight from mines to the coast). The imperialist nation often enters into agreements with other imperial nations (France, Britain, America, Germany, Russia, Spain, and Denmark were all competing imperial powers with Russia being one of the weakest at the time).
Revisionists and opportunists see these imperial agreements and pacts as a good thing and a positive for socialism, but Lenin saw that they were actually a harbinger of war. Which was a theory proved correct by the outbreak of WW1/the first imperial war.
After WW1 and WW2, the imperial nations of the world have transitioned to a new stage of imperialism, aka neo-colonoalism which instead of relying on the state capitalist (or, state as capitalist) to enforce through occupation and war, is done through an unfettered global financial system that is given power over the imperial nations and republics.
This is somewhat of an illusion though, as the violent imperialism of the pre-war era is still in place exactly as it was, but is now given a new face through the concept of public debt and extraction from the global south is framed as a "paying back of a debt" that never existed in the first place.
Great write up thank you
You should also read Imperialism, it's not too long and honestly pretty easy to grasp. Mainly because it's just really obvious in hindsight. All the things he described as inevitabilities of the imperialist projects of the 20th century have come to pass and he's essentially describing the world we live in today and how it came about.
Totally, I actually have it on my bookshelf. Bought that and what is to be done after I read state and revolution. More and more books just got in front of it over time lol but you’re right I do need to read it. Are you reading anything right now?
I'm about halfway through Jakarta Method. It's rough, I've had to take week long breaks here and there.
Read the canon when I was isolating last year and time of pamphlets. Also most of Parenti's stuff, but that's like a treat. I can finish a Parenti book in a day, he's just such an engaging writer.
Ah nice I just bought the Jakarta Method! Was thinking of jumping into that after Capitalist Realism and October. I’ve only read Blackshirts and Reds from Parenti though, could you reco anything specific?
Inventing Reality of course, To Kill a Nation is a good look at Yugoslavia and NATO's true face. He also has a short book called The Terrorism Trap released like 3 months after 9/11 basically predicting all the shit that went wrong later and pointing out all the shit that was going on behind the scenes that was basically immediately silenced after the attacks.
All of his work is good though. I like using Parenti as a pallete cleanser between more dense books.
Also, read Julian Borchardt's Capital Abridged of you can find a copy (released in the US as Capital and other writings and compiled with some other of Marx's smaller works and Lenin pamphlets by Max Eastman)
:sankara-salute: sounds like I’ve got some work to do, thanks comrade
I don’t know how anyone can disagree with this, per se. It is objectively true.
That is why leftism erasure (denigration, etc) is so essential. If they engage us, they lose.
Yep, the best part of Lenin's work is that he was restricted from using any non-official sources (eg. Tsarist propaganda and banking magazines were okay, but socialist political theory wasn't) so he had to formulate and prove all his theories using like Banking weekly and shit. He acknowledges this in the version of Imperialism released after the October revolution and even jokes about how certain names and countries make no sense because he had to get his work past the censors (I believe in Imperialism, he switched Russia and Japan?).
The fact that he was still able to write one of the most convincing and poignant pieces of political theory in the 20th century under those conditions is wild.
No imperialism is what the le epic Sith did. China is the empire because Xi Jinping is a communist and communism is red so that means he’s fallen to the dark side.
“china is an empire because it is big” has got to be one of my favorite big-brained shitlib ideas.