Unlike anarchists, MLs don’t really have a practical plan to get from the here and now to their socialist utopia. All they can do is wait for the collapse of the current society and hope that the subsequent radicalization will lead to them being the vanguard. However aside from the fact that vanguardism (and as an extension, ML) has been an abject failure, they can’t cause that collapse, so they do accelerationism instead.
The only rational approach to change this world is anarchist prefiguration which is the opposite of “burn it all down”.
Any idea where their current definition of imperialism is being grafted from?
I know they use a lot of language from world systems theory, designating America as the imperial core. However world system theory specifies that it’s only a way to analyze global trade, and that global trade is strictly defined by capitalism.
Any time I ask anyone on ml or hex, I just get downvoted and told that If I read lenin I would understand… But fucking lenin defined imperialism as a competition between Great powers, not a war between peripheral states against the “imperialist core”.
Is this all coming from some fucking streamer I don’t know about or something?
Lenin didn’t define Imperialism as “competition between great powers,” just that that was a side effect of the division of most of the world among the Great Powers. The actual definition of Imperialism by Lenin’s analysis is better simplified as export of Capital to the Global South to hyper-exploit for super-profits, like what Coke for example does in Columbia. The reason multinational corporations produce in the Global South is because they can weild their power to keep wages low and profits higher by selling back in the Imperial Core.
Lenin didn’t define Imperialism as “competition between great powers,” just that that was a side effect of the division of most of the world among the Great Powers.
I feel like that’s a semantic dispute, as a division of the world between capitalist great powers would be done competitively.
The actual definition of Imperialism by Lenin’s analysis is better simplified as export of Capital to the Global South to hyper-exploit for super-profits
I think you are injecting a little modern bias into the interpretation. Lenin didn’t really ever mention the “global South”, during his time the great powers were more focused on Asia and parts of Africa.
selling back in the Imperial Core.
Again, the term imperial core is a modern term utilized in global systems theory. Imagining that there is a single imperial hegemony is kinda antithetical to the idea of lenins writing about a division of the world between great powers.
My point is that the “war” was a side effect of the extraction process. Moreover, using modern terms like Global South and Imperial Core is shorthand to convey the meaning more effectively, otherwise I’d link Imperialism and be done with it, like how I used the Coke example. Additionally, “Global South” is shorthand for “exploited countries,” it usually coincides with geography but doesn’t necessarily.
Finally, it isn’t antithetical to Lenin to understand that certain Imperialist powers can be dominant in a given period of time. The world being divided and having one power with dominance is an example of two opposing ideas that can and do exist at the same time, and will be a source of conflict. Marxists call this a Primary Contradiction, that spawns Secondary Contradictions.
My point is that the “war” was a side effect of the extraction process. Moreover, using modern terms like Global South and Imperial Core is shorthand to convey the meaning more effectively
But people are utilizing the “short hand” of imperial core to validate conflicts like in Ukraine as anti-imperialism. Which seems to be a byproduct of an extraordinary process.
Finally, it isn’t antithetical to Lenin to understand that certain Imperialist powers can be dominant in a given period of time.
Even if there is a dominant power, capitalism demands there still be a competition for extraction to maintain growth among the great powers.
I just don’t really see how people are validating the support of the competing great powers, even if it is critical support. It just seems like tailism to me.
Right, I’m not defending imperialism though. It just seems that leftist shouldn’t be supporting the most reactionary views of the masses.
Supporting regimes like Russia is dismissing the social struggle of potential revolutionary voices at home and abroad.
"The tendency of tailism can be observed in the dismissive and confrontational attitudes some on the left take to matters of social importance—women’s struggles, LGBT+ issues, racism, etc.—that are adjacent to class struggle. We have surely all heard it said countless times that certain issues are “a distraction from class struggle,” or “not of any concern to the working class.” It surely does not need pointing out that the working class comprises people of all gender backgrounds, sexual orientations, races, and ethnicities, and these struggles are of direct and immediate concern to them and their lives. In fact these struggles are inextricably linked to class struggle and should always be regarded as such.
As communists, we assert that the primary contradiction that shapes and defines the world is that of class struggle: between the bourgeoisie and the working class. However, it does not follow from this that our work or our analysis must disregard all other contradictions and struggles as irrelevant. Quite the contrary: we must seek to unite struggles against all forms of exploitation in the revolutionary fight for communism. This is the very nature of class struggle.
In addition, Lenin critiques the narrow focus of economism, which he describes thus: “The Economists [limit] the tasks of the working class to an economic struggle for higher wages and better working conditions, etc., asserting that the political struggle [is] the business of the liberal bourgeoisie.”[2] He asserts that the fight for revolutionary gains must be waged on a political as well as an economic front. The task of communists is to unite the working class in a revolutionary movement, not to limit our focus to mere economic demands, which are in any case quantitative and not transformative."
There isn’t really a space that anything on the subject of “critical support” can be discussed without breaking rules one way or the other. My only purpose was to elaborate on a few things, I’m uninterested in “debating.”
Well the crazy thing is, I’m starting to think they don’t read anything but reductionist interpretations made by their fellow shit posters.
A lot of the language they use are terms made by liberal academics made to critique neoliberal policies in the Regan era. They just ignore the rest of the theory they don’t agree with, and then claim it all as Marxist Leninists, despite it being antithetical to actual ML writing.
Unlike anarchists, MLs don’t really have a practical plan to get from the here and now to their socialist utopia. All they can do is wait for the collapse of the current society and hope that the subsequent radicalization will lead to them being the vanguard. However aside from the fact that vanguardism (and as an extension, ML) has been an abject failure, they can’t cause that collapse, so they do accelerationism instead.
The only rational approach to change this world is anarchist prefiguration which is the opposite of “burn it all down”.
Any idea where their current definition of imperialism is being grafted from?
I know they use a lot of language from world systems theory, designating America as the imperial core. However world system theory specifies that it’s only a way to analyze global trade, and that global trade is strictly defined by capitalism.
Any time I ask anyone on ml or hex, I just get downvoted and told that If I read lenin I would understand… But fucking lenin defined imperialism as a competition between Great powers, not a war between peripheral states against the “imperialist core”.
Is this all coming from some fucking streamer I don’t know about or something?
Lenin didn’t define Imperialism as “competition between great powers,” just that that was a side effect of the division of most of the world among the Great Powers. The actual definition of Imperialism by Lenin’s analysis is better simplified as export of Capital to the Global South to hyper-exploit for super-profits, like what Coke for example does in Columbia. The reason multinational corporations produce in the Global South is because they can weild their power to keep wages low and profits higher by selling back in the Imperial Core.
I feel like that’s a semantic dispute, as a division of the world between capitalist great powers would be done competitively.
I think you are injecting a little modern bias into the interpretation. Lenin didn’t really ever mention the “global South”, during his time the great powers were more focused on Asia and parts of Africa.
Again, the term imperial core is a modern term utilized in global systems theory. Imagining that there is a single imperial hegemony is kinda antithetical to the idea of lenins writing about a division of the world between great powers.
My point is that the “war” was a side effect of the extraction process. Moreover, using modern terms like Global South and Imperial Core is shorthand to convey the meaning more effectively, otherwise I’d link Imperialism and be done with it, like how I used the Coke example. Additionally, “Global South” is shorthand for “exploited countries,” it usually coincides with geography but doesn’t necessarily.
Finally, it isn’t antithetical to Lenin to understand that certain Imperialist powers can be dominant in a given period of time. The world being divided and having one power with dominance is an example of two opposing ideas that can and do exist at the same time, and will be a source of conflict. Marxists call this a Primary Contradiction, that spawns Secondary Contradictions.
But people are utilizing the “short hand” of imperial core to validate conflicts like in Ukraine as anti-imperialism. Which seems to be a byproduct of an extraordinary process.
Even if there is a dominant power, capitalism demands there still be a competition for extraction to maintain growth among the great powers.
I just don’t really see how people are validating the support of the competing great powers, even if it is critical support. It just seems like tailism to me.
Hence why Imperialism defeats itself.
Right, I’m not defending imperialism though. It just seems that leftist shouldn’t be supporting the most reactionary views of the masses.
Supporting regimes like Russia is dismissing the social struggle of potential revolutionary voices at home and abroad.
"The tendency of tailism can be observed in the dismissive and confrontational attitudes some on the left take to matters of social importance—women’s struggles, LGBT+ issues, racism, etc.—that are adjacent to class struggle. We have surely all heard it said countless times that certain issues are “a distraction from class struggle,” or “not of any concern to the working class.” It surely does not need pointing out that the working class comprises people of all gender backgrounds, sexual orientations, races, and ethnicities, and these struggles are of direct and immediate concern to them and their lives. In fact these struggles are inextricably linked to class struggle and should always be regarded as such.
As communists, we assert that the primary contradiction that shapes and defines the world is that of class struggle: between the bourgeoisie and the working class. However, it does not follow from this that our work or our analysis must disregard all other contradictions and struggles as irrelevant. Quite the contrary: we must seek to unite struggles against all forms of exploitation in the revolutionary fight for communism. This is the very nature of class struggle.
In addition, Lenin critiques the narrow focus of economism, which he describes thus: “The Economists [limit] the tasks of the working class to an economic struggle for higher wages and better working conditions, etc., asserting that the political struggle [is] the business of the liberal bourgeoisie.”[2] He asserts that the fight for revolutionary gains must be waged on a political as well as an economic front. The task of communists is to unite the working class in a revolutionary movement, not to limit our focus to mere economic demands, which are in any case quantitative and not transformative."
There isn’t really a space that anything on the subject of “critical support” can be discussed without breaking rules one way or the other. My only purpose was to elaborate on a few things, I’m uninterested in “debating.”
Ah, yeah, they don’t read theory written after the 1970s. I wouldn’t try to reconcile it with anything written afterwards.
Well the crazy thing is, I’m starting to think they don’t read anything but reductionist interpretations made by their fellow shit posters.
A lot of the language they use are terms made by liberal academics made to critique neoliberal policies in the Regan era. They just ignore the rest of the theory they don’t agree with, and then claim it all as Marxist Leninists, despite it being antithetical to actual ML writing.