Are Russia and China imperialist? If so, to what extent are they imperialist? What regions are the primary targets of their imperial ambitions? Posting the thread here because according to Zig Forums Russia and China are gud bois who dindu nuffin and will bring communism any minute now just wait.
Related to this, Russia has apparently been making a large effort to find allies in Africa, as well as access to mineral resources there. In addition they are going to be opening a military base in Eritrea.
china is super imperialist in africa. dont you read the news
Since dengism will lead to the implosion of the USD I support it.
Are you even a socialist, or just a Chink nationalist?
the thesis that ending American global dominance will help end capitalism needs to be criticized. first, do we have a historical precent for a large global empire collapsing? yes, literally every fucking major empire between WWI and WW2. The British, the French, the German, Russian, Austro-Hungarian, etc.
Now, did this weaken capitalism? No, it only worked to dissolve whatever remained of the old feudal order. Capitalism gained strength. Previous imperial territories continued to be exploited (even more ruthlessly) by their own bourgeoisie as well as international capital. These territories, previously "owned" by some empire - were now open to exploitation by global capital and no longer remained under monopoly control of this or that imperial state.
When the British Empire, the premier capitalist power, broke apart at the end of WW2, did this weaken global capitalism? No. The United States simply took its place as #1 capitalist power and the newly "independent" countries were integrated into global capitalism.
So the question remains: what would happen if the international influence of the US were to break down? Probably the same thing that happened whenever some previous hegemon broke apart - its place would be taken by another.
Yes. Anything they can get their greasy hands on; Russia has recently stolen parts of Georgia and Crimea, and have threatened former soviet territories that try to join the EU. China is trying to claim the south sea by building dirt-mount islands in it, as well as having a strangle hold on Tibet and land that was historically Mongolia. Yeah I've had that same experience, Zig Forums isn't anti-imperialism they're just anti-United States. It blows my mind, China claims to be communist but even a cursory glance at the country's laws and production conditions say otherwise, and Russia doesn't even try to pretend anymore. I'm also convinced that the NK threads are 100% trolls. I honestly think a lot of Zig Forums are LARPers whose ideologies came from throwing darts at random, except for tankies who seem to be ex-Zig Forums converts as they can't seem to shake their strong daddy and labor camp fetishes.
USA, CHINA & RUSSIA have always been empires since their conception. Never stoped. Not even with Mao or Stalin. Tankies might deny it tho but Tankies are the stormfags of the "left" not our left tho, the one that is actually gaining support rn.
USA has a long history of imperialism & even competing against Spain in this back in the day. China started being imperialist mainly against close nations to it & later on against Africa due to it's minerals & precious metals. America does the same, several European nations do the same. Africa is the absolute poorest continental region of the world rn & the one with most revolutionary potential due to that too. Colonization never stopped there.
Russia is imperialist towards other easter European countries where the dirt poor alcoholic Slav stereotype runs rampant. This alcoholic slav being as ignorant as he is sometimes gets drafted into neo-nazi ideologies. Ukranie bieng the only place in all of Europe where that shit is a possible future, it loses anywhere else.
I support the implosion of the USD since it will lead to a surge in the revolutionary movement of workers in the United States.
All those countries you mentioned didn't actively fight socialists movements and if they did (like in the case of Germany) it was only partially because of their socialism but mostly just territorial expansion. The US on the other hand has always fought and multiple times destroyed socialist movements from growing ever since the end of WW2.
If the US were to cease existing as a hegemonic enitity, it wouldn't necessarily weaken global capitalism but it would give socialism a much easier time to expand.
Because the Superpower the US was competing with was socialist. Now that the US is competing with non-socialist powers. It no longer has the hardline anti-socialist stance.
Yes they did. The British and French were especially enthusiastic in crushing socialist independence movements in their colonies, and repressed socialists within their own borders as well.
That’s naive as fuck. Obviously the realities of global politics have changed, and the US may support a leftist faction to further its ends. However they’ve also done that in the past, and we shouldn’t think for a minute that they could ever be our allies.
I think you greatly overestimate the intelligence of the average American worker. It will be seen as eViL CoMuNuIsT ChInA fucking with the US and we'll doubledown on the right-wing war mongering rhetoric.
The Russian Empire actively tried to imprison, exile, and execute socialists. The German Empire passed the famous Anti-Socialist law to keep the social democrats / Marxists from becoming more popular. The French Empire… not sure. The British Empire… well, they were the stereotype of modern capitalism.
tbh its quite funny to see Marxist-Leninists like Ismail & others defend countries like China and their economic expansion into places like Africa. The excuse is exactly the same that people made about European imperialism… muh infrastructure
cHiNeSe CaPiTaLiSm Is JuSt SoCiAlIsM wItH cHinEsE cHaRaCtErIsTiCs
But it would make socialist policies more appealing
hell naw man. the Chinese get taught some marx in school but they all forget it during their mundane capitalist alienated consumerist lives like everyone else. like thats the most "socialist" aspect of that shitty empire, that it teaches very little marxism in school but nobody cares because nobody cares about school.
ask any chinese immigrant in america, they will be like what the fuck is a marx? revolution what?
also there is no such thing as socialist policies, socialism is the abolishing of all policies. but i get what you mean since you're using that word in the american sense or in the dumb non-OG sense of it. "le guberment does stuff" blablabla…
That is probably the most revisionist ignorant misconception you find arround leftoids that is even worse than the average tanktard on Zig Forums believes in. Both believe that "imperialism = bad shit", and while tanktards have an obsession with stuff that NATO and the US does, ultraleftoids focus on what le ebul Pootin does - in the end, both remain ingorant towards the mechanizations of imperialist capital.
I'd say some members of their elites/bourgeoisie definitely have ambitions to be imperialist, but economically they haven't actually reached a point where they can act as imperialist powers. Capitalism isn't developed enough. I also don't think what China does in Africa, or Russia's role in the Ukrainian, Georgian, etc. conflicts can qualify as "imperialism" in the way the USA's and NAVO's many interventions can.
Maybe the ultimate stage of communism can be described this way (although I'd doubt even that). Under socialism, there clearly are several specific policies, such as a centrally planned economy and a system of council democracy.
you fucking retard
They sing the Internationale still, so not full Animal Farm yet. Is there some master dialectical plan going on?
I think we're talking about continents that can build a civilization without foreign aid here, jabroni.
before ☘️moderators☘️ sweep in and say something, North Africa doesn't count. those are Arabs and Arabs actually can build civilizations. for some reason maybe all this foreign aid to Israel might be, and playing devil's advocate here, might be in the long run, a good thing. after all, Tel-Aviv is full of homosexuality and pederasty and the state is gonna lose its roots through modernism, making it perfect for the Arabs and Turanists to sweep in and make an Islamic Khanganate through the middle east.
couldn't have said it better my self user, very good reply overhaul
Sorry m8, the Kronstadt uprising had some legitimate concerns and demands, but taking up arms against the Soviet state at such a sensitive juncture was pure treason.
You know what I mean faggot
You are legitimizing the murder of workers, whose cause you described as legitimate, because of "treason". Treason was that of the bolcheviks. They promised socialism to the people, all they gave was a centralized, controlled economy and a political party monopoly, and then you talk to me about treason.
I don't think they should have been killed, imprisoned for a couple years maybe, but not killed.
This is true, but they were also dealing with extraordinary circumstances, and they made decisions which eventually led to the dominance of revisionism, the impossibility of reform, the death of democracy, and the fall of the revolution. However the long term effects of these decisions (mainly the ban on factions) couldn't have been fully known by Lenin and company at the time, and if I were in their shoes I may have done something similar. They were quite literally in a life or death situation, with the whole world against them. Authoritarian measures were a tactic they resorted to for survival, and unfortunately they unknowingly paved the way for later revisionism.
If you don't like Lenin show me an analysis of imperialism from someone else who does not base it on Lenin
Otherwise shut your mouth.
Not gonna repost that entire Cockshott piece, but I will reiterate his last point: what advantage does an 'anti-imperialist' strategy afford the modern Left, as opposed to a more straightforward anti-capitalist line? Because it seems that the real reason we keep having this same tired argument is that 'anti-imperialism' is a useful sectarian bludgeon for tankies and Marcyites to use against their Left opponents, and to curry favor with the fringe liberal establishment.
Anti-imperialism is anti-capitalism because imperialism is in itself nothing else but monopoly capital trying to tap into new markets. Modern imperialism inhibits the development of capitalism in underdeveloped countries which creates anti-colonial and anti-imperialist liberation movements which entail both the interests of the national capitalists and the working class against the imperial comprador bourgeouisie. In such national liberation struggles is often the main vehicle for a socialist revolution - this is partly because SocDem movements are not an option for these countries, and partly because communists are the most dedicated to anti-colonial struggle so they can come out on top. For communists in countries attacked by imperialism, joining the anti-imperialist fight against the comprador bourgeoisie is often the most promising platform. Most socialist revolutions in history ran on a national liberationist platform, like Korea, Vietnam, Cuba or even China in the beginning. Even the October Revolution followed the February Revolution where liberal forces had the same interest as the communists who both wanted to remove the feudal, reactionary aristocracy.
Good post, but I would dispute the part about the workers and local capitalists of oppressed nations having similar interests. Capital in the 21st century is fully international, there is no national bourgeoisie anymore, and it can be seen everywhere that the “anti-imperialist” bourgeois are chomping at the bit to be integrated into world markets. Assad was privatizing before the war began, Rouhani desperately wants sanctions removed so Iran can trade with the west, etc. Imperialism now is less a conflict between nations and more a conflict between specific corporate interests and their competitors. It only takes on national characteristics insofar as different corporate interests have varying levels of clout with different governments, and different governments are better or worse equipped to handle a particular situation. Take a company like Exxon. Based in the US sure, but owned by a multinational group of investors from around the world. It operates all over the globe in regions where various states have various levels of influence, and it has varying levels of influence with those states. When it’s interest in Iraq is threatened, it turns to the US government, because the US is best equipped to intervene in Iraq. When it’s interests in Africa are threatened, it may turn to France for the same reason. In Central Asia it may turn to Russia, etc. Conflict between imperialist forces occurs then when two corporate competitors enlist the aid of different states to support their interests in the same territory. For example Exxon enlists the US to give them access to Syrian oil, while Gasprom enlists Russia for the same purpose. In such a context speaking of the imperialism of a particular country is misleading, and speaking of an anti-imperialist bourgeoisie is just untrue when you actually look at what those bourgeois are doing in relation to global markets. In the 21st century the only truly revolutionary and anti imperialist force is the proletariat. That being said, bourgeois anti imperialists can still be useful to us if they are working to create multipolarity and keep large capitalist states at each other’s throats rather than allow any one to claim victory as the US did in the 90s.
The point is that none of this applies to socialists in developed 'imperialist' powers. Almost no one can provide meaningful material support to these movements in other countries. At best we can publicize them in the media; at worst we can shitpost about it on Facebook and ban each other for criticizing them.
Anti-interventionism makes sense for us, not anti-imperialism - fighting to end foreign military engagements, defund the military in general, and curtail domestic involvement in other countries which may be fighting anti-imperialist struggles. Of course, this would require a good deal of pragmatism and probably alliances with right-libertarians or conservatives to be effective, which is a no-go for most western socialists because those guys are icky and evil and signaling to each other is more important than actual results.