u/snapp3r - originally from r/GenZhou
According to Lenin, the five basic features are:
- 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
- the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy;
- the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
- the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and
- the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.
Does Russia fulfill this criteria?
u/snapp3r - originally from r/GenZhouThat closely mirrors my thinking. There’s essentially no hegemonic space left for another imperialist power as the world has already been divided up between territorial powers. Russia was late to the game, in other words.
So whilst Russia could become imperialist as it retains the potential to, if the “space” arose, it currently isn’t.
u/CommieGhost - originally from r/GenZhouOr, to look from the other side of the table, Russia wishes only to reorganize the current hegemonic system, instead of fundamentally abolishing it.
That’s why I don’t think it is exactly correct to call Russia anti-imperialist outright, even though it might not be part of the Imperial Core: you can’t really be anti-imperialist if you actively aspire to become the Imperial Core, although you can certainly create opportunities for actual anti-imperialists to act.
The enemy of my enemy isn’t my friend, it is a useful idiot.
u/Elektribe - originally from r/GenZhouWanting to be rich makes a poor person a liberal not a capitalist themselves. Likewise wanting to be rich doesn’t make you rich. It just makes you wanting to be rich… A poor person who becomes a rich capitalist, however unlikely is a rich capitalist - not a poor person.
The point is, they are anti-imperialist in praxis and action against imperialists - until they aren’t… They are anti-imperialist liberals, not imperialist liberals, nor anti-imperialist communists.
If we say “in control” for your enemy of enemy as imperialism… An enemy who is not in control fighting an enemy who is in control, no matter how much they desire to be in control, are not in control - until they are or may never be depending on circumstances - but what is known, not in control now. Still useful idiot, but being a useful idiot is not in control - even if they beat up the guy in control still doesn’t automatically put them in control.
Likewise goes for friends. Just because bolsheviks won the war did magically grant them full domination of the land of Russia against capitalist forces even though beat up some people with “some control”. It is not sufficient to beat someone and claim your in control to be in control, you must have the conditions of control - which isn’t just saying it. Even Stalin wrote against Trotskiyites regarding Kulaks - telling Trotskyites them don’t fuck around unless you want to find out - at least until they have sufficiently supplanted their power and then finish with dekulakization, don’t fuck around.
“In control” here is a bit inapt and inexact, since hegemonic domination is not imperialism itself - but rather the conditions of imperialist financial hegemony of the listed conditions in OP. That is, globally dominating communist hegemony would not be imperialist merely because it shuts downs capitalists and maintains democratic cultural hegemony as is necessary for actual democratic systems, ie socialism/communism. Just in case leaning anarchos think this is somehow relevant to their dumb shit ideas of “controlz R bad neva justfried” garbage. Control is a tool and is “good or bad” based on perspective of whether it’s in the hands of who we agree with. For communists, that’s the democratic working masses and finally classless masses. Thus not applying to condition four in Lenin’s list for capitalist associations. For the fascist capitalists, that’s the no one but the fascist capitalists. For anarchists, that’s no one but the fascist capitalists.
u/ZZ3peat - originally from r/GenZhouChine and Russia dont want to be ‘the imperialistic sole hegemony’, they want a multipolar world which isn’t run just by the US
u/CommieGhost - originally from r/GenZhouI don’t think China is entirely relevant for this, for a number of reasons (most obvious one being that it can’t meaningfully be imperialist under a proper Marxist conception, for obvious reasons).
I agree with you that either wants (or is meaningfully capable of becoming, in the short-medium term) that, but I also don’t think either that Russia needs to aspire to be the sole hegemon, either. Recall the older imperialist system, during which Lennin himself wrote Imperialism, the Highest Stage, did not have a sole hegemon, but a number of capitalist great powers with relative parity under competition, which were either way still upholding the same shared world system that benefits them.
A multipolar world with the US, EU (maybe) and Russia as the imperial great powers would be similar in the sense that they are in competition, but would still uphold the same world system, once the shock of Russia’s reorganisation stabilises.
u/ZZ3peat - originally from r/GenZhouChina will be a great power before Russia does, and it will help transport communism outside it’s borders then without being crushed by the US imperialism then.
u/poteland - originally from r/GenZhouDo you really think Russia wants to become the worlds hegemonic capitalist power? I don’t think anyone there has any illusions about that, they’re not either the first nor second world power and ridiculously far from either, it’s not happening.
I think their objective is more modest: to stop living in a unipolar world, which means forming a counter hegemonic bloc, and attempt to speed up the decline of the American empire so the playing field is a bit less hostile.
Id say it’s a better world than the previous status quo with a dominant US.
u/blizzsyn - originally from r/GenZhouEvery capitalist nation wants this, that’s why they reorganize to imperialist action. It’s the nature of the beast. Even if they don’t want it in the early stages, it will become a desire in the later stages, because of the way capitalist society organizes itself. That’s the warning of Lenin’s Imperialism.
Every capitalist society is a proto-imperialist nation.
u/poteland - originally from r/GenZhouSure, I’ve read it, but that refers to how capitalism evolves by the forces within it, not that Russia or every capitalist nation has actual, real, secret plans to be the global hegemonic power.
That’s why I differ with the view that Russia is “actively” trying to replace the current imperialist bloc, I think they are pragmatic and realist enough that they “actively” want to subvert its power, not replace it (even if that’s what capitalism makes them do eventually).
u/blizzsyn - originally from r/GenZhouIt’s less they have a secret plan to do this, and more their material conditions drive them to do this.
Lenin also covers this. Imperialist powers coming into conflict with one another.
I don’t believe that Russia thinks about anything other than their own power bloc, tbh. Their actions aren’t 4D chess of subversion, so much as, “What can we get away with?”
For example, the Ukrainian invasion has been extremely clumsy on multiple fronts, especially if your goal was to subvert US hegemony and decentralize power from the US on the world stage. It’s had a very opposite polarizing effect in most communities nearby the action, and in a lot of the world. They’ve effectively justified NATO’s existence with one action.
Yes, they want to subvert the US hegemony, and sometimes throw egg on the US’s face, and that makes them an enemy to US-led imperialism. But you shouldn’t have any doubts that Russia is not an ally to those of us that are anti-imperialist, and wouldn’t do the exact same things as the US if given the opportunity.
Russia would 100% like to be the world hegemony. There is no doubt, imo.
u/poteland - originally from r/GenZhouI wholeheartedly agree! That is mostly what I am arguing (perhaps clumsily), I do not disagree with neither this nor with capitalism’s inevitable eventual march towards imperialism, just pointing out that it’s not an active attempt.
I’d argue that for now Rusia’s actions have been (geopolitically) a huge win, since it upsets the status quo: NATO has been harassing it for decades now and only now, for the first time, they are on the back foot and having to decide how they react. Sure, the world’s western powers have aligned themselves heavily with NATO which… of course they were going to. It was only a matter of time, if they could afford to they’d do it to China as well. But fundamentally: things are changing, change in the status quo is bad for the hegemonic bloc and good for the rest of us IMO.
This is where I’d (partly) disagree, Rusia has been materially an ally of all the non-aligned nations to some degree. Not because of class character (and here’s where I agree with you, you’re absolutely right). Just as capitalism is a global system so is imperialism, and the decline or defeat of the main imperialist power is good for the world, given the choice I would very much substitute one hegemon for another, weaker one which is easier to bring down.
In any case, I don’t claim to have the absolute truth of things here and I want to make that clear, it’s just how I evaluate the issue, but I am also aware of how complex it is and how different readings like yours could very well be the “correct” one.