Now just what the hell is an imperialism anyway

whatever the BO feels like it should be at the exact moment she is banning people.

In the traditional sense or the Leninist sense?

Anything America does, and also anything individual Americans do. This is somehow not idpol.

Imperialism is when America fights for gepolitical power. Anti-imperialism is when Russia fights for geopolitical power

Top quality replies lads

Grow up nazibol or go back to Holla Forums.

marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/m.htm#imperialism

An advanced stage of capitalism, attained by some nations in the 20th-century.

The epoch of imperialism opens when the expansion of colonialism has covered the globe and no new colonies can be acquired by the great powers except by taking them from each other, and the concentration of capital has grown to a point where finance capital becomes dominant over industrial capital. Lenin enumerated the following five features characteristic of the epoch of imperialism:

(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 monopoly capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
[Lenin, Imperialism the Highest Stage of Capitalism, LCW Volume 22, p. 266-7.]

"The development of capitalism has arrived at a stage when, although commodity production still "reigns" and continues to be regarded as the basis of economic life, it has in reality been undermined and the bulk of the profits go to the "geniuses" of financial manipulation. At the basis of these manipulations and swindles lies socialized production; but the immense progress of mankind, which achieved this socialization, goes to benefit… the speculators." (p. 206-207)

The surplus capital of these corporations, which arose from the exploitation of Labour, is exported to less developed countries where capital is more scarce, the price of land lower, wages lower, and raw materials cheaper; all resulting in a widening of profit margins. Capitalists need to export capital because in the most developed countries capitalism has become "overripe", the working class consciousness too advanced for heavy exploitation (i.e. huge profit margins), and while finance capital has a breeding ground for growth, productive capital (computer and clothing factories, etc) can be much more profitable elsewhere.

Thus, the history of capitalism generally begins with free competition; i.e. petty-bourgeois production), which naturally progresses to a concentration of production (bourgeois production), which continually strive towards monopolies (socialized production). Monopolies, being so contrary to the foundations of capitalism, are the greatest contradiction of capitalism, a contradiction rampant in the imperialist stage – for every business not only strives toward, but needs to dominate markets completely, to become a monopoly, while government must do everything it can to prevent this in order to survive, realising this social form of production ultimately destroys the capitalist system.

"[Imperialism] is something quite different from the old free competition between manufacturers, scattered and out of touch with one another, and producing for an unknown market. Concentration [of production] has reached the point at which it is possible to make an approximate estimate of all sources of raw materials (for example, the iron ore deposits)… [throughout] the whole world. Not only are such estimates made, but these sources are captured by gigantic monopolist associations [now called multi-national conglomerates]. An approximate estimate of the capacity of markets is also made, and the associations "divide" them up amongst themselves by agreement. Skilled labor is monopolized, the best engineers are engaged; the means of transport are captured – railways in America, shipping companies in Europe and America. Capitalism in its imperialist stage leads directly to the most comprehensive socialization of production; it, so to speak, drags the capitalists, against their will and consciousness, into some sort of a new social order, a transitional one from complete free competition to complete socialization.

"Production becomes social, but appropriation remains private. The social means of production remain the private property of a few. The general framework of formally recognized free competition remains, and the yoke of a few monopolists on the rest of the population becomes a hundred times heavier, more burdensome and intolerable." (p. 205)

Assad

This is an imperialist.

FTFY.

...

...

He is not wrong. Anti imperialism is as much of a spook as imperialism is.

It's almost like "muh imperialism" is a stupid argument :^)

The idea that capitalism in the first world peaked by the start of 20C and could only be reactionary from then on is probably Lenin's worst argument ever (and probably why we have retarded Third Worldism today)
There is no proof capital is exported only at the 'peak' of monopoly capitalism. Most of the big empires of Europe exported capital right from the outset (British railways) during its 'progressive' stage, it isn't a sign of a degenerate capitalism. The turn of the 20th century was the start of emerging global trade, new competition and new technology a.k.a the second industrial revolution. Lenin got it completely the wrong way round - commodity export and industrial capitalism at the end of the 19C was far more important than capital export and finance capitalism.

Not surprising Marxists then went on to make the same mistake in the 1930s during the Depression. They continue to underestimate capitalism as standards of living continued to rise, death rate went down (excluding the war obvs) and real wages rose while profits went up. Lenin was also wrong about monopoly capitalism being not able to help agriculture as Europe tried all it could to compete with Russian, American and Latin American food imports and today we overproduce food. Capitalism has become more monopolistic but none of the retrogressive effects have happened. It has only increased international competition which led to the smashing of the biggest monopoly, the British Empire, by the Americans.

Honestly, never read 'Imperialism' it's rubbish.

It's very simple. And remember: anti-imperialism is more important than class struggle.

...

Colonialism itself entailed the export of capital lmao

a racist

Yes, Britain was exporting capital via investment and loans for most of the 1800s at a constant rate.
Britain's busiest colonial time was between 1860 and 1880 - so it's a grave mistake on Lenin's part to say it accelerated after 1880s and into the twentieth century.

He shouldn't have based a book on Hobson's theory.

If you are a normal person, an entity impressing its will upon another on a global level

If you are a tankie: I ain’t gotta explain shit whitey it’s when ameriKKKa does bad shit to POC nah mean imperialism is the am*rican way of life

that's full retard. then reconstruction was imperialism. east germany is imperialism. everything is imperialism.

Words should have specific meanings.