u/snapp3r - originally from r/GenZhou
According to Lenin, the five basic features are:

  1. 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
  2. the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy;
  3. the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
  4. the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and
  5. the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.

Does Russia fulfill this criteria?

  • archive_botOPB
    0·
    3 years ago

    u/Elektribe - originally from r/GenZhou
    Wanting 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.