I’ve briefly read about the definition of imperialism according to Lenin but I’m still a bit fuzzy on the difference between them.

edit: thanks to everyone who replied, your answers were helpful and informative.

  • Muad'DibberA
    13•2 years ago

    It seems almost pointless to try to differentiate, because they have a massive overlap, but I see imperialism as a bit broader: the theft of land, labor / surplus value, and natural resources of a weaker country to feed the stronger one.

    Whereas colonialism entails the strategy of establishing colonies, to bring in its own people, impose its own values and cultural norms, in order to better facilitate that theft.

    Imperialism has more of an economic definition, referring broadly to theft, while colonialism has more of a military, political, or cultural one, although that also isn’t too satisfactory either because none of those terms exist independently.

    I like the formulation of “capitalist-imperialism”, “slave-state-imperialism”, “mercantile-imperialism”, “feudal-imperialism” to be more specific about the production system.

    • @y78fpXvK8ZxzOP
      2•2 years ago

      Thanks for the explanation, it was hard for me to link them together because I only started reading Lenin’s definition of imperialism and didn’t see how they were related.

      I like the formulation of “capitalist-imperialism”, “slave-state-imperialism”, “mercantile-imperialism”, “feudal-imperialism” to be more specific about the production system.

      that’s a good way to tell them apart. It was hard to understand how capitalist-imperialism was related to “imperialism as empire” as @redtea described it.