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 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).