Good-o or bad-o? i'm not the original poster that got banned from Zig Forums, i'm not Ismail either, just thought they both offered interesting takes to start the thread.

Attached: anti-imperialism.PNG (704x844 116.09 KB, 213.87K)

Other urls found in this thread:

Good if we do it, bad if they do it, pacifism will never change the world and the USSR and– Other thinkers under stood that perfectly.

Both the Second International "imperialism is actually good" line and the vulgar Leninist/BO "support any dictator/national bourgeoisie to spite the Americans" line should be rejected.

The entire planet is thoroughly industrialized and capitalist; there is no need for "developing the productive forces" by encouraging capitalism/developmental state "socialism".

Actual anti-imperialism begins and ends at home, by mobilizing popular dissent and resistance to foreign wars, and by opposing international legislation or policies that restrict the rights of foreign workers or their ability to independently organize. Voicing "support" for competing foreign powers, even if they claim a socialist/social-democratic line, is completely immaterial and irrelevant unless you are part of a large, organized working class that is capable of wielding political power. Facebook screeds and internet imageboard bans are pointless expressions of infantile weakness.

Imperialism is obviously bad because it results in proles getting killed, at our current point it doesn't affect development because capitalism is global and inescapable. Anyone supporting this is akin to an iditoic edgelord who says supervillain tier shit like "freedom is (neo)liberal". The issue with anti-imperialism as it actually exists is that it's completely empty posturing, their strategy to protect Venesuela from burgerland is to tweet #handsoffvenesuela or ban mentions of Maduro on forums. Most anti-imperialists are removed from any class movement and substitute geopolitical stances for such, despite such opinions being irrelevant to geopolitics. Both are ultimately based on poor understandings of our world derived from dogmatic adherence to theory they misunderstand. They are both worse and of no use to any real worker's movement, luckily they seem more interested in electing socdems or social media capital than organizing as a class.

Imperialism is good. The strong shall triumph and the weak be destroyed. Only weaklings have a problem with the cruelty of reality. Leftist goons IRL often identify with the inferior, sadly

Not really. As Ismail correctly points out, imperialist policies have been often hindering growth of the indigenous capitalist class as well as of productive forces within a colonized country, resulting in general economic backwardness, with India being probably the most infamous example of such mismanagement. On the other hand, the independent countries are more interested in acceleration of their own economic development in order to be able to compete on the world market and such development results in small-scale manufacturer/peasant production being replaced by socialised capitalist production based on wage labour. This economic development as well as accompanying changes in class structure is the positive content of self-determination and anti-imperialism.
However, those concepts are not to be supported in countries which have phased out the precapitalist economy and small-scale commodity production. In those the capitalists have accomplished their task, so the alliance with them must finally come to an end, ideologies and concepts defending them must be discarded and abolition of wages system is finally on the agenda. And if someone keeps peddling the slogan of anti-imperalism in a fully capitalist mation? Then he's nothing less than a retard or a traitor who has already forgotten that in a struggle between antagonistic capitalist blocks the only solution is not bending to either group and instead working to turn the imperialist war into a civil war.

For a more detailed analysis try reading those two

The USSR didn't engage in imperialism at all, the Warsaw Pact didn't increase soviet control over satellite countries, though they did attempt to "change" their elected leaders.

The USSR didn't extend it's influence to other naitons?

The pact gave the soviets a legal basis for military intervention in the case of capitalist restoration. The USSR was neither expansionist nor imperialist. Having a bunch of allied countries did not make it an "empire."

Attached: 1523397447327.png (358x408, 228.04K)


The restoration of capitalism in Hungary or Czechoslovakia was both a threat to neighboring socialist countries as well as a military threat to the Soviet Union via the possible expansion of NATO and invasion by West Germany.

Military intervention in other countries because regime change in them threatens national interest of your country is pretty much a textbook example of imperialism

Yeah but according to Lenin's autistic special snowflake definition of imperialism it's not so there.

Hardly. Neither of those insurrections were "capitalist" any more than the the student movement massacred in Tiennaman Square, rather, all of them were left of the authorities.

Muddling the definition of imperialism to include all military interventions regardless of their economic motivations is stupid.

A Hungarian and a Soviet border guard happen upon a great treasure while patrolling. Since it is exactly on the border, they have trouble deciding who it belongs to. "Comrade, let's share it brotherly!" suggest the Soviet guard, to which the Hungarian hastily replies: "No way! Let's do fifty-fifty!"

Attached: 1419885508724.jpg (800x1163, 244.2K)

haha funny joke from the old country

In the case of Hungary, that's nonsense. There were of course students and workers who felt they were struggling to strengthen socialism, but the actual armed revolt was in the hands of counter-revolutionaries who tore down socialist imagery, killed communists and carried out pogroms.

In the case of Czechoslovakia, "socialism with a human face" was going the same way as Gorbachev's "humane and democratic socialism": the degeneration of Marxism-Leninism into social-democracy. Dubček himself by the end of the 80s praised Sweden as an example of socialism, and presided over the Czechoslovak state after the restoration of capitalism. His chief economic advisor, Ota Šik, became an anti-communist and supporter of capitalism even before then.

In the case of Tienanmen there were students reacting to growing inequalities and whatnot, but as in Hungary the overall thrust of the protests was counter-revolutionary. The "Goddess of Democracy" statue was not built by Maoists.

Jesus… you got banned for writing THAT??

No wonder people who defy authority are turning to the right just to see the world burn.

Holy fuck…

This is utterly misleading. There is a massive division of labour between countries and most humans are still living in some form of subsistence economy, this also ignores the huge peasant class in the Global South.

In fact, you Western standard to walk into a grocery store is not what's normal for most humans on this planet.

Just going to pop in to say that anti imperialism even in its most vulgar forms=/=pacifism.

Attached: doubt.jpeg (509x289, 10.95K)

The majority of the human population is connected in some way to systems of wage labor and commodity exchange. The presence of many millions of subsistence farmers does not refute the reality that they also commonly sell produce for market exchange, or have family members working elsewhere for wages.

The lack of a "first world" standard of living in the majority of the world is irrelevant to the question of socialism, and therefore privileging a national bourgeoisie or state capitalist system within these areas is unnecessary.

Peasants also sell their surplus produce at market, but I seriously doubt that most of the farmers anywhere are actual peasants and not just workers.

Attached: FuckYeahCollectivization.webm (480x360, 6.82M)

So nothing changed?

Attached: 1411980587928.jpg (279x304, 26.56K)

One third of the planet are peasants, not proletarians.
That being said, the majority of the population of the planet gets their food produced locally by subsistence models that barely produce any surplus to accumulate capital with. If you go to countries like India or Morocco, Second World countries, you'll buy your groceries at a farmers market. Yes supermarkets exist but nobody actually buys there except the few upper-middle class or tourists. Do you think capitalism is buying leaves and rice at a farmers market?!

Try reading what you post first. Also, look up what they mean by "small farmers." I have noticed that it often means kulak.

i felt very stupid when i learned kulaks were not an ethnicity in the USSR that refused to collectivize but just the name for farmers

A mode of production is more than just social relations. A farmhand doesn't constitute capitalism, just because he works for a daily wage. There were wage labourers in feudalism.

Try to approach this issue with some holistic Marxism. Capitalism hasn't entered in its developed state in the Global South. There is no centralisation of capital outside of the comprador bourgeoisie, who has no interest in transforming the social relations into a developed capitalist form. Many Marxist ignore the real material reality of production and what its implications are. But this bullshit that Žižek and his followers preach, that we are somehow already entered super-late-stage capitalism it's just wrong looking at the material reality of the division of labour on a global scale. If you Marxist analysis doesn't have a coherent theory of imperialism, it's useless because we aren't living in the 19th century anymore.

Also, the existence of literal Kulaks doesn't speak at all for a healthy level of development lmao

The problem with this mode of production is that not enough surplus is generated to accumulate capital. It's the CMC' cycle, not the MCM' cycle. Capitalism didn't come about through some hard-working peasants becoming rich, but by intermarriage between the nobility and the merchant class, concentrating large amounts of political and economic power into a newly formed bourgeois class.

I am talking about the distinction between different classes. Although the UN calls certain people peasants, those people usually do not meet the marxist definition of a peasant. "Small farms" is a category that often includes things like orchards that are technically owned by a family but are worked by migrant labor. Of course migrant laborers are just working class. Actual peasants tend to get squeezed out by larger operations. I will not pretend to know how farming is done everywhere, but I have learned to be skeptical of any claims that there is a large peasantry. Bourgeois governments love to call both orchard owners and migrant workers "peasants."

Resource extraction nodes are not "underdeveloped." They are a part of a fully mature global system. There is no seperating the so-called First World from the supposed Third World. Economic spheres are blurred and often interdependent.

Oh, the irony.

Kulaks feature prominantly in American agricultural production. The West Coast in particular has quite a lot of them selling things like "organic" produce.

Don't try to tell that to apple growers.

pic related

Attached: efbd6bc8b9d42c5c9e15a83caf85deba1ae26973.jpg (676x1228, 624.64K)

Muh imperialism is irrelevant to leftism and used as an excuse by chink insectoids and putinists to bully america.

t. donald trump from an alternate timeline where he isn't friends with putin

You can hate all three countries without being a racist retard you know.

I wonder who could be behind this post?

Attached: 350ecb163d3f1c03fc30cc8b0ed1bee394db034edfa79a1ce48841088cb3f61b.jpg (1000x997, 554.08K)

You don't need an excuse to bully AmeriKKKans.

t. russian/chinese bots

t. not a member of beautiful, powerful and supreme sino-soviet race

Attached: 0d1e19b930082872a532ec43cc1d8be9d4489fb420bf6c708037620b7ce300e1.png (900x466, 386.76K)

kek whatever you say Hillary Clinton