What is the difference between imperialism and social-imperialism?
I would love to hear a proper answer to this. Doesn’t the implication of social-imperialism contradict the base–superstructure model of dialectical materialism?
Ironically, the closest definition you can get for “social imperialism” when pressing Maoists is just cultural imperialism. Which of course the United States and the West are the core proponents of. Which also makes little sense, because if China was “lying” why keep up the veneer of socialism??? It would be insanely more profitable for the bourgeoisie to just become a liberal bourgeoisie representative “democracy” and fully integrate into the West’s economy.
I honestly can’t think of a single instance of China directly influencing a target country with a “social” or cultural imperialist model. Even the DPRK, who has been intimately tied to China socially, economically, and politically for the past 70 years is almost largely unaffected by China in every aspect. On the flip side, what is Canada other then a simple America 2.0 after decades of direct US influence?
Social imperialism is meaningless and anti-materialist. That Mexican food is popular in many other countries does not mean that Mexico is practicing imperialism (the theft of surplus value, land, labor, and resources, from a weaker country by a stronger one).
The term “social-imperialism” was invented by Trotskyists to justify their habit of attacking and denigrating the USSR and adopting a “both sides bad” stance to the global class war (aka the “cold war”). The USSR was constantly slandered as “social-imperialist” by the imperialism-compatible western left. It is a meaningless label that was only made up to somehow try to square the circle of a socialist country that was the greatest enemy of the capitalist imperialist camp and that contributed more than any other power in history to decolonization and liberation movements in the global south allegedly being at the same time itself imperialist. It made no sense then and it makes no sense now for the PRC.
How can a country be imperialist when it is socialist? The very notion goes against Lenin’s recognition of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism. The simple answer is that it cannot. This is why it is vital for those seeking to muddy the waters and confuse the global proletariat, if they wish to be able to credibly label China as imperialist, to first deny China’s socialist nature. Hence all the accusations you hear of “state-capitalism”, China being “socialist in name only”, etc. This is much more effective than the whole “social-imperialism” angle that the average person is not gonna understand unless they are already a dyed in the wool ultra-leftist fully immersed in Trotskyist/Maoist dogma and terminology.
I think others have answered this better than I could on social imperialism!
I’ll add – briefly (for me) and at risk of starting an argument that probably deserves its own thread ;) – something about the base-superstructure model.
(1) there is a ‘relative autonomy’ of the superstructure with respect to the base; (2) there is a ‘reciprocal action’ of the superstructure on the base.
Still, he agreed, ‘the base … in the last instance determines the whole edifice’.
Broadly, I think you’re right, if social-imperialism implies that putting a few hidden messages in the odd novel and movie will be enough bring about world revolution. There’s a problem: if the CPI(M) is right, China is not seeking world revolution, but only its own bourgeois hegemony, so its ‘social-imperialism’ would not be intended to shift the political economy but only the balance of global power. This would still fit with the base-superstructure model.
But if this use of ‘social-imperialism’ is a reference to soft power or ‘cultural imperialism’ in the sense of ‘cultural bolshevism’, it could suggest that China hopes to turn the world red by hiding messages in its entertainment media. In that case, I think you would be right about the contradiction. More troubling, perhaps, that would also suggest a reliance on Nazi talking points (not so surprising if @cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml is right about ‘social imperialism’ and Trotskyists).
I would love to hear a proper answer to this. Doesn’t the implication of social-imperialism contradict the base–superstructure model of dialectical materialism?
Ironically, the closest definition you can get for “social imperialism” when pressing Maoists is just cultural imperialism. Which of course the United States and the West are the core proponents of. Which also makes little sense, because if China was “lying” why keep up the veneer of socialism??? It would be insanely more profitable for the bourgeoisie to just become a liberal bourgeoisie representative “democracy” and fully integrate into the West’s economy.
I honestly can’t think of a single instance of China directly influencing a target country with a “social” or cultural imperialist model. Even the DPRK, who has been intimately tied to China socially, economically, and politically for the past 70 years is almost largely unaffected by China in every aspect. On the flip side, what is Canada other then a simple America 2.0 after decades of direct US influence?
Good point, Canada is basically just the 51st state.
Social imperialism is meaningless and anti-materialist. That Mexican food is popular in many other countries does not mean that Mexico is practicing imperialism (the theft of surplus value, land, labor, and resources, from a weaker country by a stronger one).
The term “social-imperialism” was invented by Trotskyists to justify their habit of attacking and denigrating the USSR and adopting a “both sides bad” stance to the global class war (aka the “cold war”). The USSR was constantly slandered as “social-imperialist” by the imperialism-compatible western left. It is a meaningless label that was only made up to somehow try to square the circle of a socialist country that was the greatest enemy of the capitalist imperialist camp and that contributed more than any other power in history to decolonization and liberation movements in the global south allegedly being at the same time itself imperialist. It made no sense then and it makes no sense now for the PRC.
How can a country be imperialist when it is socialist? The very notion goes against Lenin’s recognition of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism. The simple answer is that it cannot. This is why it is vital for those seeking to muddy the waters and confuse the global proletariat, if they wish to be able to credibly label China as imperialist, to first deny China’s socialist nature. Hence all the accusations you hear of “state-capitalism”, China being “socialist in name only”, etc. This is much more effective than the whole “social-imperialism” angle that the average person is not gonna understand unless they are already a dyed in the wool ultra-leftist fully immersed in Trotskyist/Maoist dogma and terminology.
I think others have answered this better than I could on social imperialism!
I’ll add – briefly (for me) and at risk of starting an argument that probably deserves its own thread ;) – something about the base-superstructure model.
Law (part of the superstructure), for example, can have a material force and can affect the base. Althusser argues in ‘Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses (Notes towards an Investigation)’:
Still, he agreed, ‘the base … in the last instance determines the whole edifice’.
Broadly, I think you’re right, if social-imperialism implies that putting a few hidden messages in the odd novel and movie will be enough bring about world revolution. There’s a problem: if the CPI(M) is right, China is not seeking world revolution, but only its own bourgeois hegemony, so its ‘social-imperialism’ would not be intended to shift the political economy but only the balance of global power. This would still fit with the base-superstructure model.
But if this use of ‘social-imperialism’ is a reference to soft power or ‘cultural imperialism’ in the sense of ‘cultural bolshevism’, it could suggest that China hopes to turn the world red by hiding messages in its entertainment media. In that case, I think you would be right about the contradiction. More troubling, perhaps, that would also suggest a reliance on Nazi talking points (not so surprising if @cfgaussian@lemmygrad.ml is right about ‘social imperialism’ and Trotskyists).