See the full interview on Patreon: https://www.patreon.com/posts/russias-party-on-87936354The Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF) is the second ...
Yes it would be. A very strong argument can be made that Russia fits to a T the 5 conditions to be imperialist as set by Lenin. To note also that imperialism is NOT a policy decision, it's an objective stage of capitalist development, any advanced or semi advanced state with its material base being capitalist will express variations of imperialist tendencies.
I would argue that while the thesis "the war in Ukraine is a provoked (by the west) interimperialist confrontation", holds a lot of merit, it does fail to account sufficiently for the extent this war was provoked, for the remaining fact the western imperialist alliances and particularly the US, remain hegemonic af, and for the more minute analysis of the Russian economy. That being said, if Russia isn't an imperialist state, it is at the very least an aspiring-imperialist one (and in certain regions very much already acts as one).
Regardless these two variations of analysis are FAR more accurate than those which aim to posit Russia as ANTI imperialist somehow, that one is just caricatural campist nonsense that isn't rooten in an honest materialist analysis, and which echo a lot the (erroneous) thesis of "super-imperialism" that Kautsky put forward.
In all the above this doesn't change the role of communists in the west tho: revolutionary defeatism, fight our own imperialists. It does raise question about those who go further and give concrete support towards Russia (an IMO very damaging position that harms anti-imperialist organizing here), and it does change the attitude for say, Russian and Ukrainian communists ought to have with regards to the war ( attitude being a choice between revolutionary defeatism or critical support).
To note also that imperialism is NOT a policy decision, it's an objective stage of capitalist development, any advanced or semi advanced state with its material base being capitalist will express variations of imperialist tendencies.
Can you point me to a reference on this definition, by chance? I'm wondering if it may be deceptively scoped as imperialism predates capitalism by a significant margin (capitalism being an 18th century invention).
I am referring to the Marxist-Leninist definition of the term, see these two texts: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ and https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/s-w/index.htm
To be clear its not some cooky ideologically driven fantasy, the marxist analysis of imperialism and subsequent impacts on geopolitical and international political analysis is a well recognized analytical and theoretical model in IR theory.
From that perspective "imperialism" does not predate capitalism. It does not refer to "empires" in the vague sense of "Roman Empire, French empire, etc". The mechanics are vastly different. Aggressive expansion of feudal states in europe and their colonial expansion around the world (funnily enough that second one directly fueling feudalism's demise, serving as the "primitive accumulation of capital" that allowed the emergent bourgeois class to gain gradual economic hegemony, and eventual state hegemony) is not the same as the form of imperialism that emerges out of the most "advanced" expression of capitalism). It's understood as the monopoly stage of capital wherein bank and industrial capital merge, forming large scale monopolies, seeking new markets, and leading the state to engage in imperial plunder of less economically advanced states, and direct confrontation with other imperialist entities.
Furthermore, capitalism is positively not an "invention" nor is it dated to the 18th century ! Capitalism emerged organically from class struggle in the feudal period, with capitalistic elements emerging from within feudal society as early as the 15th century. It established itself as a dominant mode of production well into the 17th century in various areas of the world, but yes only fully superseded the feudal state structure and took control of the state as a whole in the 18th century. If anything was invented, it was the "word" for it, referring to what is an objectively observable scientific fact of human development (again, from the POV of marxist analysis, and its thesis of historical-materialism).
Thank you, very much. I really appreciate the willingness to share references and explanations both from yourself and other Hexbears. It's been roughly 20 years (didn't seem that long ago! - I really need to see if I can find my hardcopies) since I directly studied Marx's writing so, it's very helpful.
Ensuring a good grasp of the nomenclature in the conversation is absolutely vital to productive conversation, supposing good faith. A good example of where this has been handled poorly by "mainstream leftists" (likely mainly liberals or those interested in "scoring points" on others) is racism - rather specifically, phrases like "black people can't be racist". The phrase is absolutely correct, if everyone understands that the definition of racism used is from a sociological standpoint where it is used to refer to systems of oppression targeting racial minorities, whereas those without that understanding take the definition of racism as a synonym for racial discrimination, which frequently leads to the mistaken conclusion that anyone not "white" is absolved of any guilt related to discriminatory behavior. Or, closer to on-topic, when a working class person says that they are a capitalist, meaning that they support capitalism as an economic structure, while those thinking more about the economic theory side will take it to mean "someone of the capitalist/bourgeoise class".
Furthermore, capitalism is positively not an "invention" nor is it dated to the 18th century ! Capitalism emerged organically from class struggle in the feudal period, with capitalistic elements emerging from within feudal society as early as the 15th century. It established itself as a dominant mode of production well into the 17th century in various areas of the world, but yes only fully superseded the feudal state structure and took control of the state as a whole in the 18th century. If anything was invented, it was the "word" for it, referring to what is an objectively observable scientific fact of human development (again, from the POV of marxist analysis, and its thesis of historical-materialism).
Absolutely. I wasn't really happy with the term "invented" when I wrote it but left it for simplicity. Most economic system classification has been in hindsight. Smith and other similar influential writers were mainly attempting to codify what they thought the system was from their observations and trying, in a similar vein to Marx, to reason through pitfalls and problems with long-term systemic sustainability.
The major failures of their analysis and writing, in my opinion, is their attempts to frame economics in a "vacuum" with objective realities, and humans as rational actors. Humans are not consistently rational or irrational actors, however, which breaks a lot of the theory. Externalizing sociological, historical, medical, and other factors also breaks things even more.
Thanks again and sorry for the ramble - ADHD is acting up a bit today.
No worries at all, it's really my pleasure. As you said, establishing nonemclature within its theoretical and academic context really goes a long way, otherwise it's super easy to find oneself in a "dialogue amongst deafs`" (idk if it makes sense, it's a saying in my first language), and everyone speaks past each other while assuming the worst from one another.
Really happy to hear that other hexbear users were patient too, and I hope you get to brush up on your Marx notes (and include the Lenin texts I linked you, being serious they are very important, Marx only ever alluded to what Lenin ended up theorizing about !)
Yes it would be. A very strong argument can be made that Russia fits to a T the 5 conditions to be imperialist as set by Lenin. To note also that imperialism is NOT a policy decision, it's an objective stage of capitalist development, any advanced or semi advanced state with its material base being capitalist will express variations of imperialist tendencies.
I would argue that while the thesis "the war in Ukraine is a provoked (by the west) interimperialist confrontation", holds a lot of merit, it does fail to account sufficiently for the extent this war was provoked, for the remaining fact the western imperialist alliances and particularly the US, remain hegemonic af, and for the more minute analysis of the Russian economy. That being said, if Russia isn't an imperialist state, it is at the very least an aspiring-imperialist one (and in certain regions very much already acts as one).
Regardless these two variations of analysis are FAR more accurate than those which aim to posit Russia as ANTI imperialist somehow, that one is just caricatural campist nonsense that isn't rooten in an honest materialist analysis, and which echo a lot the (erroneous) thesis of "super-imperialism" that Kautsky put forward.
In all the above this doesn't change the role of communists in the west tho: revolutionary defeatism, fight our own imperialists. It does raise question about those who go further and give concrete support towards Russia (an IMO very damaging position that harms anti-imperialist organizing here), and it does change the attitude for say, Russian and Ukrainian communists ought to have with regards to the war ( attitude being a choice between revolutionary defeatism or critical support).
Can you point me to a reference on this definition, by chance? I'm wondering if it may be deceptively scoped as imperialism predates capitalism by a significant margin (capitalism being an 18th century invention).
I am referring to the Marxist-Leninist definition of the term, see these two texts: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ and https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/s-w/index.htm
To be clear its not some cooky ideologically driven fantasy, the marxist analysis of imperialism and subsequent impacts on geopolitical and international political analysis is a well recognized analytical and theoretical model in IR theory.
From that perspective "imperialism" does not predate capitalism. It does not refer to "empires" in the vague sense of "Roman Empire, French empire, etc". The mechanics are vastly different. Aggressive expansion of feudal states in europe and their colonial expansion around the world (funnily enough that second one directly fueling feudalism's demise, serving as the "primitive accumulation of capital" that allowed the emergent bourgeois class to gain gradual economic hegemony, and eventual state hegemony) is not the same as the form of imperialism that emerges out of the most "advanced" expression of capitalism). It's understood as the monopoly stage of capital wherein bank and industrial capital merge, forming large scale monopolies, seeking new markets, and leading the state to engage in imperial plunder of less economically advanced states, and direct confrontation with other imperialist entities.
Furthermore, capitalism is positively not an "invention" nor is it dated to the 18th century ! Capitalism emerged organically from class struggle in the feudal period, with capitalistic elements emerging from within feudal society as early as the 15th century. It established itself as a dominant mode of production well into the 17th century in various areas of the world, but yes only fully superseded the feudal state structure and took control of the state as a whole in the 18th century. If anything was invented, it was the "word" for it, referring to what is an objectively observable scientific fact of human development (again, from the POV of marxist analysis, and its thesis of historical-materialism).
Thank you, very much. I really appreciate the willingness to share references and explanations both from yourself and other Hexbears. It's been roughly 20 years (didn't seem that long ago! - I really need to see if I can find my hardcopies) since I directly studied Marx's writing so, it's very helpful.
Ensuring a good grasp of the nomenclature in the conversation is absolutely vital to productive conversation, supposing good faith. A good example of where this has been handled poorly by "mainstream leftists" (likely mainly liberals or those interested in "scoring points" on others) is racism - rather specifically, phrases like "black people can't be racist". The phrase is absolutely correct, if everyone understands that the definition of racism used is from a sociological standpoint where it is used to refer to systems of oppression targeting racial minorities, whereas those without that understanding take the definition of racism as a synonym for racial discrimination, which frequently leads to the mistaken conclusion that anyone not "white" is absolved of any guilt related to discriminatory behavior. Or, closer to on-topic, when a working class person says that they are a capitalist, meaning that they support capitalism as an economic structure, while those thinking more about the economic theory side will take it to mean "someone of the capitalist/bourgeoise class".
Absolutely. I wasn't really happy with the term "invented" when I wrote it but left it for simplicity. Most economic system classification has been in hindsight. Smith and other similar influential writers were mainly attempting to codify what they thought the system was from their observations and trying, in a similar vein to Marx, to reason through pitfalls and problems with long-term systemic sustainability.
The major failures of their analysis and writing, in my opinion, is their attempts to frame economics in a "vacuum" with objective realities, and humans as rational actors. Humans are not consistently rational or irrational actors, however, which breaks a lot of the theory. Externalizing sociological, historical, medical, and other factors also breaks things even more.
Thanks again and sorry for the ramble - ADHD is acting up a bit today.
No worries at all, it's really my pleasure. As you said, establishing nonemclature within its theoretical and academic context really goes a long way, otherwise it's super easy to find oneself in a "dialogue amongst deafs`" (idk if it makes sense, it's a saying in my first language), and everyone speaks past each other while assuming the worst from one another.
Really happy to hear that other hexbear users were patient too, and I hope you get to brush up on your Marx notes (and include the Lenin texts I linked you, being serious they are very important, Marx only ever alluded to what Lenin ended up theorizing about !)