Imperialism is an inevitability of capitalism, but it’s not an inevitability in every capitalist country, that should go without saying. Therefore it simply does not follow that “X country is capitalist therefore it is imperialist and must be opposed at all times and in everything it does”. Imperialist aggression against the former USSR simply never stopped after it was destroyed and continued against Russia, and Russia is responding by acting against the imperialists.
“The guy who thinks Marx was wrong” idk who you’re talking about but I’m following the people who developed theories of imperialism after Marx like Lenin, Stalin and Mao, for example.
I’m sorry if I haven’t communicated well, and I’m getting a little tired of arguing tbh but I’d sum up how I feel about this a bit by saying that the best outcome now in the short term would be a negotiated peace, which is what I advocate for. but since that’s off the table for the western powers who will continue aggression no matter what in their insistence on maintaining global hegemony, the next best thing is obviously that they lose that hegemony which will create opportunities for the global south to develop free from their domination.
“The guy who thinks Marx was wrong” idk who you’re talking about
lol
Theories of imperialism after Marx like Lenin
Why did Lenin consider Russia to be imperialist? It didn't export capital and himself described it as "a country most backward economically, where modern capitalist imperialism is enmeshed, so to speak, in a particularly close network of pre-capitalist relations." Was Lenin not following his own definition?
I’d sum up how I feel about this a bit by saying that the best outcome now in the short term would be a negotiated peace
And that I'd agree with
create opportunities for the global south to develop free from their domination.
Liberating the global south from the oppression of foreign-aligned national bourgeoisie by replacing it with the oppression of regular national bourgeoisie, classic
I like how this whole discussion began when I said people shouldn't be disregarding class analysis in favor of thinking solely in terms of national struggle, and the response has been people that think of countries as homogenous entities telling me about which nation to vouch for :galaxy-brain:
Edit:
Imperialism is an inevitability of capitalism, but it’s not an inevitability in every capitalist country
It’s a good point and I’ve just replied to your other comment about it, but my understanding is that Lenin’s definition described a new type of imperialism. Tsarist Russia was an empire in the sense of the word that well predates Lenin, not in the sense of the word that he was the first to describe. Modern Russia really doesn’t count as either IMO.
Liberating the global south from the oppression of foreign-aligned national bourgeoisie by replacing it with the oppression of regular national bourgeoisie, classic
It’s sort of classic. I mean, you have to do both things and hopefully you could do away with both groups at once, but you can never throw off the bourgeoisie without throwing off the imperialists. Mao and others realized that for the colonized, the principal contradiction is imperialism.
Imperialism is an inevitability of capitalism, but it’s not an inevitability in every capitalist country, that should go without saying. Therefore it simply does not follow that “X country is capitalist therefore it is imperialist and must be opposed at all times and in everything it does”. Imperialist aggression against the former USSR simply never stopped after it was destroyed and continued against Russia, and Russia is responding by acting against the imperialists.
“The guy who thinks Marx was wrong” idk who you’re talking about but I’m following the people who developed theories of imperialism after Marx like Lenin, Stalin and Mao, for example.
I’m sorry if I haven’t communicated well, and I’m getting a little tired of arguing tbh but I’d sum up how I feel about this a bit by saying that the best outcome now in the short term would be a negotiated peace, which is what I advocate for. but since that’s off the table for the western powers who will continue aggression no matter what in their insistence on maintaining global hegemony, the next best thing is obviously that they lose that hegemony which will create opportunities for the global south to develop free from their domination.
lol
Why did Lenin consider Russia to be imperialist? It didn't export capital and himself described it as "a country most backward economically, where modern capitalist imperialism is enmeshed, so to speak, in a particularly close network of pre-capitalist relations." Was Lenin not following his own definition?
And that I'd agree with
Liberating the global south from the oppression of foreign-aligned national bourgeoisie by replacing it with the oppression of regular national bourgeoisie, classic
I like how this whole discussion began when I said people shouldn't be disregarding class analysis in favor of thinking solely in terms of national struggle, and the response has been people that think of countries as homogenous entities telling me about which nation to vouch for :galaxy-brain:
Edit:
Huh?
It’s a good point and I’ve just replied to your other comment about it, but my understanding is that Lenin’s definition described a new type of imperialism. Tsarist Russia was an empire in the sense of the word that well predates Lenin, not in the sense of the word that he was the first to describe. Modern Russia really doesn’t count as either IMO.
It’s sort of classic. I mean, you have to do both things and hopefully you could do away with both groups at once, but you can never throw off the bourgeoisie without throwing off the imperialists. Mao and others realized that for the colonized, the principal contradiction is imperialism.