I have complained about it before but I heard on of the guests from guerrilla history on the deprogram make this argument and it made me want to gouge my eyes out. This kind of trans historical argumentation is both stupid and unmarxist, just stop! Sorry I felt the need to vent.

These states were not imperialist and they weren’t settler colonies. This framing doesn’t make any fucking sense when transfered to a medieval context. Like the best you could say is that the Italian city states represented an early firm of merchant capital, but even then that is an incredibly complex phenomenon that has only a tenuous connection to modern capitalism. Calling these city states early capitalism is just a fancy way of saying “lol u hate capitalism yet you exchange good or service! Curious!”

Seriously just stop. I don’t know why this set me off but it was like a week ago and I am still mad about it.

  • RollaD20 [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
    9·
    11 months ago

    Imperialism: The Highest Stage Of Capitalism. Lenin ‘briefly’ defines imperialism as:

    Definition

    (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. Essentially once the markets within a nation have developed to the point of monopolies, they must expand to foreign markets. Imperialism can be described as exploitation by foreign capital

    • TraumaDumpling@hexbear.netEnglish
      8·
      11 months ago

      sure, but lenin is writing probably more specifically than most people’s usage of the word. if i look up the definition of imperialism, i get:

      imperialism, state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. Because it always involves the use of power, whether military or economic or some subtler form, imperialism has often been considered morally reprehensible, and the term is frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent’s foreign policy.

      from https://www.britannica.com/topic/imperialism

      the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas

      from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imperialism

      Imperialism is the practice, theory or attitude of maintaining or extending power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing both hard power (military and economic power) and soft power (diplomatic power and cultural imperialism). Imperialism focuses on establishing or maintaining hegemony and a more or less formal empire.[2][3][4] While related to the concepts of colonialism, imperialism is a distinct concept that can apply to other forms of expansion and many forms of government.[5]

      from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism

      so i guess my question is, why exactly do you think lenin’s specific definition is superior or should be used in this context?

      • RollaD20 [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
        8·
        11 months ago

        I was just providing lenin’s definition of imperialism in the context of the conversation because It seemed that folks were talking past one another. I believe that if you are approaching imperialism from a Leninist (or analogous) perspective it’s important to have the specific definition to at least be able to cut off any confusion based on specific terminology from the get go. I also didn’t listen to the podcast in context of the post for what it’s worth, and I’m not really coming down too hard on any side here. I was just hoping to provide some context lol

        That being said, since there is the more colloquial use of the term that most people understand as ‘empire-building’ which includes conquest, settling, etc., I just tend to lay out specifically If I’m talking about imperialism as understood within a capitalist framework versus imperial projects. Lenin’s writings on finance/capitalist imperialism is certainly supposed to be evocative of empire building so in casual context I don’t think that it matters all too much to use the term more loosely unless you are getting into the weeds regarding social imperialism or whatever else. I think it’s unfortunate that lenin didn’t name it neoimperialism or some other more clever portmanteau/neologism.

      • RollaD20 [comrade/them, any]@hexbear.netEnglish
        6·
        11 months ago

        So lenin called the eponymous process outlined in his Imperialism thusly certainly to be evocative of previous imperial projects but he was outlining a contemporary system that only can really exist under capitalist economy. Some empires could be argued that they engaged in a form of “proto-imperialism” within this definition because there are certainly through lines. All that being said, this is a semantic argument that I try to avoid by making clear what type of “imperialism” I’m evoking.