Before I start: I have not read Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. I have the book, but I’m reading “Anarchism or Socialism?” By Stalin now to brush up on DialMat(every now an then I confuse Idealism and Metaphysics). I was wondering is this definition of Imperialism and the facts they use to back used in good faith and not just a “Yea they totally aren’t imperialist don’t worry” take on Russia? Sorry if that was worded weird, lmk thanks
In your opinion, does this article give a decent definition or Imperialism?; because I actually don’t have as good of an understanding of Imperialism as others, I will fully admit.
Let’s see. The article is basically concentrated on the Lenin’s list, and in this it is not bad (certainly better than most of what western left produces) with some points being good, and some points missed - for example points about corpos and banks apparently assume that China is country of the dictatorship of the bourgeosie, which is false. He also heavily concentrated on size rather than structure, which is pretty much faulty since there are small imperialist countries.
Conclusion in point 5 is correct - Russia is a capitalist state but far from being imperialist.
Nice! I actually had similar criticisms, I also think some of their definitions lead to a an understanding of an Imperialist China (which I definitely don’t believe in, their production was HINDERED by foreign imperialism if anything) so thanks for checking it out; One thing I will admit to is that this article is NOT the most recent but I think their foreign investment has likely decreased recently given the Russophobia as of late
I remember getting into this with an ultra a long time ago, worst mistake of my life.