Is there a distinction between the monopoly stage of capitalism and the status of a country as either imperialist of subject?
Is imperialism an economic stage alone, or is it the status of a country when compared with others?
Which countries in today's world would you characterize as imperialist and why?
I'm sure we all agree that the USA is an imperialist country. Would you consider South Korea to also be imperialist or a subject of US imperialism?
Other urls found in this thread:
gtr.ukri.org
cell.com
socialistworker.org
edition.cnn.com
youtu.be
youtube.com
rabble.ca
critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com
monthlyreview.org
ft.com
gazprom-international.com
foreignaffairs.com
globalriskinsights.com
twitter.com
Monopoly capitalism is a prerequisite of imperialism. Imperialism starts with the export of capital. I'd say South Korea is subject to imperialism, though these things are hard to tell without hard stats.
In my personal reading, I would count US Empire (Post Soviet - Trump) as Karl Kautsky's "ultra imperialism" model. Geopolitical blocks were relatively happily exploiting the working class around the world together.
Now, we are entering Lenin's stage, which means different geopolitical block see imperialism as a potential outlet for their own social and economical contradictions. Different power centers have different strategies, China is already an empire, but try not to act like one. Russia acts like an empire, but actual power is far from a real imperialism power.
My personal reading is, imagine the world is a sinking ship, every one just want to push others down the water, imagining it could slow down the process of inevitable sinking down. That's our current stage of imperialism. Sadly, there will be no real international cooperation between different nations, because of the damaging nature of capitalist states. So we have a deadlock, without multiple revolutions, there will be crash between different imperialist nations, just a matter of time. However, Lenin's historical practices telling us, that without a major conflict wrecking these nationalistic fucker countries, there will be no space for revolutions. I am very pessimistic.
Lenin's theory of imperialism made sense back in WWI when there was still a multipolar world.
Nowadays the only countries on Earth that deserves the label "imperialist" are the US and its allies.
I'd say that is a non Leninist use of the term imperialism. Imperialism is a state of development of a nation as I understand it, however what troubles me is, how can we determine how the criteria used can be applied to post WWII world until today.
The main problem I have is, how do you apply Lenin's criteria in post WWII - today period.
I'm not familiar with Kautsky's model, however I don't have a positive image of him.
I would say, Lenin's model fits pre-WW1 era. I do think we are entering that era again.
Kautsky is a sucker, but his analysis works for the neo-lib golden age (post soviet) era, when you have a hegemony.
Cold war era is ideological struggle, I do not think it could be fitted in a model of power structures, it's bigger.
Lenin was a jew. Fact. Lenin raped babies. Also a fact.(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
Go fuck yourself eat shit from your own hands
Why don't you go visit Hitler?