Some real bangers in this one

This is why imperialism traditionally has been used by many Marxists and non-Marxists in a similar way, which is to refer to a fundamentally political phenomenon, not an economic one.

Ah yes those two entirely separate realms, politics and economics

Marxists are sometimes confused about this. Imperialism isn’t a situation when capitalists of one country exploit workers of another one. We already have a theory to explain that, and that’s our theory of capitalism.

It means that the ruling class of one nation-state limits or constrains the sovereignty and the autonomy of another nation-state.

So the theory of capitalism and the theory of imperialism are two entirely separate things? Imperialism is not a natural outgrowth of capitalism? Why would the ruling class of one country seek to constrain the working class of another if not to exploit them? (Later he goes on to explain that colonialism happens because of capitalism and he also calls colonialism a form of imperialism)

After decades of argument and research from the 1960s onward, it’s pretty well-established that the evidence for a new stage of capitalism that arose by the 1920s and 1930s — superseding the competitive stage — is very flimsy. Capitalism back then was a competitive capitalism, as it has always been.

"Capitalism is still competitive" what universe does this moron live in?

Karl Kautsky turned out to be more correct than Lenin on this issue, in that he predicted that what you would get is cooperation between capitalist countries, not competition

Lenin states that the imperialist countries divide up the world and fight at the boundaries. He predicts a "United States of Europe" in Imperialism, He never said they don't cooperate - they just choose their battlefields together.

The Leninist theory of imperialism is still used as a justification for Third World nationalism, which is not progressive in character.

Lmao Cuban, Vietnamese, and Palestinian nationalism isn't progressive?

What’s ironic here was that Lenin was entirely correct in his criticism of the German Social Democratic Party and of the Second International, their decision to vote for the war, and of the workers’ parties across Europe that lent their support to it. So his political conclusion was right.

So Lenin's theory was bad but he reached the correct conclusion - Kautsky had the right theory and the wrong conclusion. I am very smart.

The mere fact that you have gigantic firms doesn’t mean that they’re also monopolies. They are now competing with each other as gigantic firms.

How did they become gigantic firms Jim? How many gigantic firms do we have?

there was no continuous stream of revenues originating from imperialism that fed the wages of workers in, say, England or Germany.

Because imperialism cheapens foreign goods against domestic wages! It's why an apple picked next door costs a dollar but a banana picked a thousand miles away costs 25 cents!

highly skilled workers in high-end firms that were integrated in the global economy — were actually the more radical workers. Skilled workers in the machine and textile industry in England were the ones that led the class struggle.

Maybe in the 1890s, you know before the imperialist stage of capitalism. By the mid 20th century they weren't leading shit.

First of all, international flows of capital don’t constitute imperialism — that’s just capitalism.

No it is not. The ownership of foreign industrial capital by imperialist finance capital was a new phenomenon by the end of the 19th century - distinct from the national capitalism of Marx's era.

Secondly, wages are a matter of class struggle, not a national affair.

gibberish

proponents of this view implicitly assume that workers and capitalists within a particular country are partners, not antagonists.

How many American unions have made deals with capital to become undemocratic, opposed to growth, and downright conservative? How many American unions have fervently supported every war effort in the last 100 years? How many unions have become xenophobic and nationalist because they agreed with capital that foreigners were undermining them?

There is still no successor theory to Lenin’s

There are successors though they aren't particularly significant. World Systems is probably the most mainstream. The anti-colonial movement also advanced new understandings of imperialism.

there is an added urgency to trying to understand the Atlantic alliance and NATO as the institution which oversees it

Maybe American capital invests in European countries and then sends its military to protect those investments? Idk just spitballing here.

Funny enough, his definition of anti-imperialism is fine at the end, but he avoids why the labor aristocracy is conservative, why it is nationalist, and the question of whether it will ever revolt is never brought up.

Edit: https://jacobin.com/2020/01/afl-cio-cold-war-imperialism-solidarity