Note that I don’t want to defend the text, but I want to present some fair grounds:
Firstly, Social-imperialism is not anti-materialist. Lenin himself stated examples of social-imperialism and he defined social-imperialism as “Socialist in name, imperialist in deeds”. So in reality, the only distinction between social-imperialism and imperialism is the label, and not the action itself.
Secondly, the audience (supposedly) for this text is those who are marxists. You should already have a familiar idea with what revisionism is (a deviation from and distortion of marxist theory). Therefore it isn’t really fair to address that you need to state definitions from the get-go.
I agree with most of your criticism however, and I believe this work should be rightfully critiqued.
Note that I don’t want to defend the text, but I want to present some fair grounds:
Firstly, Social-imperialism is not anti-materialist. Lenin himself stated examples of social-imperialism and he defined social-imperialism as “Socialist in name, imperialist in deeds”. So in reality, the only distinction between social-imperialism and imperialism is the label, and not the action itself.
Secondly, the audience (supposedly) for this text is those who are marxists. You should already have a familiar idea with what revisionism is (a deviation from and distortion of marxist theory). Therefore it isn’t really fair to address that you need to state definitions from the get-go.
I agree with most of your criticism however, and I believe this work should be rightfully critiqued.
Those are fair points!
I had not picked up on Lenin talking about social imperialism. I’ll keep an eye out.