Or this, a shock, perhaps, to those who believe Russia cannot be considered imperialist in any Leninist sense: “[Among] the six powers [that had divided the world], we see, firstly, young capitalist powers (America, Germany, Japan) which progressed very rapidly; secondly, countries with an old capitalist development (France and Great Britain), which, of late, have made slower progress than the previously mentioned countries, and, thirdly, a country (Russia) which is economically most backward, in which modern capitalist imperialism is enmeshed, so to speak, in a particularly close network of pre-capitalist relations.” (V.I. Lenin, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism, International Publishers, 1939, p. 81) The essence of imperialism, wrote Lenin, is the “division of nations into oppressor and oppressed.” (V.I. Lenin, Declaration of Rights of The Working and Exploited People, 4 January, 1929 in Pravda No. 2 and Izvestia No. 2.)
What do you make of the point this article raises and the criticism that Lenin’s five points don’t apply to a individual countries but are rather characterizations a globe-girding economic system? Is the article a wrong reading of Lenin?
I think this article is standard western purity politics as applied to the latest conflict. Their argument is basically that we should support communists exclusively and oppose all capitalists under all circumstances. Such absolutism means that they can’t accept the decline of the US empire because the countries that are rising in prominence don’t fit their ideal conception of leftism. They basically want to jump from where we are now directly to a nonpolar, highest-stage communist world somehow.
Like, no duh it’d be better if Russia and China were both communist to the max. But how do you propose to make that happen, Mr. Stephen Gowens, without first ridding themselves of US influence?
Yes, it did seem too idealist, lacking any sense of practicality or realpolitik. I was more curious about your thoughts about his reading of Lenin regarding imperialism.
I think it’s weirdly contradictory. I agree that imperialism is best understood internationally, in which case it is obvious that the imperial core is led by the US alongside France, Britain, and Germany, to a lesser extent.
But the author then goes on to argue that Russia fighting against these imperial powers is itself imperialist? Because Russia is capitalist so therefore it will develop into an imperial power in the indeterminate future which justifies us treating it as if it already is one. 🤔
Overall, my biggest issue is how the author equates imperialism with oppression and then doesn’t define what he thinks oppression is. That semantic deception is essentially him putting words in Lenin’s mouth. Cuz I really doubt that Lenin would think that Russia fighting against NATO encroachment would constitute empire building.
What is also really bewildering is the paragraph where he references ‘Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism’ to point out that Lenin also referred to Russia as imperial. So he is basically trying to compare modern Russia to fucking Tsarist Russia as if that is some sort of proof that modern Russia is imperial, gaslighting you into agreeing with his analysis by citing Lenin removed from all context. This is pure Russian smear from another western left anticommunist.
Remove all the window dressing from this article and the logic makes absolutely no sense. Imperialism is when one state oppresses another? What if you are oppressing the state that wants to oppress you? You can’t go to war against a country that is killing civilians for being the same predominant ethnicity as your own country, and for wanting to join you? You can’t go to war against a country that is a vassal for the most destructive empire to ever exist and wants to place its hypersonic missiles on your doorstep to annihilate your country once and for all? People like this will only be satisfied if Russians lie down, give up, and get genocided like the good little subhumans that it is clear they think they are.