Anti-imperialism does not mean "anti-empire". Imperialism is a system and the belief among libs that we're talking about empires when we say anti-imperialism is caused by their complete and total lack of understanding of any leftist theory.
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, when the financial class form international groups together and they merge together with the state to steer the entire resources of those states towards the pursuit of more capital for themselves, as a class.
The imperialists in the world are the west, with the US at its head. Anti-imperialism means that.
There is no other imperialism in the world. Could Russia emerge as the new leader of imperialism if the existing imperialist leader collapses (the US), yes it could, and it would be the most likely one to become it. But is it imperialist right now? No. It is a capitalist state with a national bourgeoisie pursuing their interests, not yet imperialist without a massive realignment of the international bourgeoisie.
Dear Blahaj user hungryphrog, please read theory if you want to understand us when we say we're "anti-imperialist", particularly Lenin's "Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism". You have misunderstood what that phrase means when we use it.
Lenin provides a careful, 5-point definition of imperialism:
"(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this "finance capital", of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed."
I suspect they will never read this due to de-federation, but I had to say it anyway.
It's more convenient to the worm-eaten neoliberal brain to compartmentalize imperialism down into "imperialism is when foreign military bases" so that any opposition country to them can (to them) be tarred with the same brush we tar the western neoliberals with, but for the crimes (again, to the neoliberal) of either merely establishing infrastructure to defend against constant, coup-intended Amerikan belligerence, or giving the people that Amerikans are busy draining the blood from the means to force the Amerikan ghoul off their necks.
Ah, but Lenin was le redfash tankie who established the totalitarian Soviet Empire. Why should I, a principled lolbertarian leftist, believe what he says?
Yeah I don't care what Lenin was. The only people saying "anti-imperialism" in the modern context are the socialists so the only definition that matters is the socialist definition.
Libs will then this isn't what imperialism means to most people and therefore shouldn't be thought of because considering things in useful terms means you can't smugly cite a dictionary definition. To the imperialism will always just mean the vague extension of power and influence by a country.
It doesn't matter if they redefine imperialism to mean "empire" in their heads. When they attack people who say "we're anti-imperialist" like this poster has then they are discussing our definition of imperialism, not their own. We do not mean anti-empire. We mean anti-imperialism in the socialist understanding of the word.
Anti-imperialism does not mean "anti-empire". Imperialism is a system and the belief among libs that we're talking about empires when we say anti-imperialism is caused by their complete and total lack of understanding of any leftist theory.
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, when the financial class form international groups together and they merge together with the state to steer the entire resources of those states towards the pursuit of more capital for themselves, as a class.
The imperialists in the world are the west, with the US at its head. Anti-imperialism means that.
There is no other imperialism in the world. Could Russia emerge as the new leader of imperialism if the existing imperialist leader collapses (the US), yes it could, and it would be the most likely one to become it. But is it imperialist right now? No. It is a capitalist state with a national bourgeoisie pursuing their interests, not yet imperialist without a massive realignment of the international bourgeoisie.
Dear Blahaj user hungryphrog, please read theory if you want to understand us when we say we're "anti-imperialist", particularly Lenin's "Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism". You have misunderstood what that phrase means when we use it.
Lenin provides a careful, 5-point definition of imperialism:
I suspect they will never read this due to de-federation, but I had to say it anyway.
It's more convenient to the worm-eaten neoliberal brain to compartmentalize imperialism down into "imperialism is when foreign military bases" so that any opposition country to them can (to them) be tarred with the same brush we tar the western neoliberals with, but for the crimes (again, to the neoliberal) of either merely establishing infrastructure to defend against constant, coup-intended Amerikan belligerence, or giving the people that Amerikans are busy draining the blood from the means to force the Amerikan ghoul off their necks.
Ah, but Lenin was le redfash tankie who established the totalitarian Soviet Empire. Why should I, a principled lolbertarian leftist, believe what he says?
Yeah I don't care what Lenin was. The only people saying "anti-imperialism" in the modern context are the socialists so the only definition that matters is the socialist definition.
Libs will then this isn't what imperialism means to most people and therefore shouldn't be thought of because considering things in useful terms means you can't smugly cite a dictionary definition. To the imperialism will always just mean the vague extension of power and influence by a country.
It doesn't matter if they redefine imperialism to mean "empire" in their heads. When they attack people who say "we're anti-imperialist" like this poster has then they are discussing our definition of imperialism, not their own. We do not mean anti-empire. We mean anti-imperialism in the socialist understanding of the word.
You can't use that to argue against libs
Your ability to craft that explanation into just a few sentences at the top of this comment is so cool and valuable. Thank you
This is why I like the idea of the counterpropaganda community. I know this is slop, but still, just saying, I like responses like this. Good stuff.