I wouldn't say that Lenins whole work is completely useless for the present time. But I think some things he developed seem not to work as intended and concepts like democratic centralism should be rejected. His analysis on imperialism is still up to date, this is out of question.
Have you actually read Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism? What we have today (underdeveloped economies that are dependent upon advanced economies) is entirely different from imperialism as Lenin understood it. Cockshott critiques this historically displaced anti-imperialism wonderfully in this article: reality.gn.apc.org/polemic/imper.htm
So, is anyone willing to refute Cockshott here? Because he's arguing against what at least half of Holla Forums's posters understand as imperialism.
Zizek is the most stable update for the Lenin OS.
This. Got BSoD on others way too often.
The Bordiga distro won't boot for some reason any one has this problem ? it's keep saying that organic for some reason, even i ask in the forum they just tell me to read the Bordiga wiki. Any one has better distro to recommand ?
I think Cockshott is right on the money but anyone who wishes to take him up can start by answering his five questions.
For those who think imperialism still exists some questions:
If you keep getting the bourgeois screen of death, try cleaning your pc with gulag.exe
nigga it was a perfect description for its time, but it's obvious that it has morphed since then
I'd say old, proper imperialism still survives in only one place: Israel. They deliberately and slowly chip away at Palestinian territory with settlements, while using Palestinians for cheap labor and other 2nd class citizen functions.
StalOS is the stolen, proprietary offshoot, for state use only
That is a good article, thanks Based Cockshott, but I think some stuff has changed since 1995.
Marxism as a whole is out of date. Marx's critiques of capitalism aren't all that relevant to modern capitalism; the stock market, services, gig/uber economy, social democracy, welfare etc. weren't around when Marx wrote Capital.
Why establish direct political rule when your company can just pay off a few people, hire mercenaries to guard your operations, and engage in extractive industry that way at a fraction of the cost and without public outcry? Would Cockshott not consider the East India Company to have been imperialistic? What reason would there be for one to occur? First world headquartered industrial concerns are able to operate there with impunity, and have been able to have their demands met very successfully just working through the government there. There is no reason commercial rivalries couldn't still lead to war. Rooting for the underdog, as shitty as they might be, in order to create the sort of multipolarity which is the most fertile soil for revolution. To an extent the various national bourgeoisie can be worked with before we ultimately part ways.
Existed then Existed then You mean piecework and domestic industry? He addressed that. Doesn't change the fundamentals of the productive process.
looks like you can't cheat anymore
The new moderation is pure autism tbqh.
Because Leninism also includes retarded shit like the vanguard party and "democratic" centralism.
The questions make more sense with the rest of the article, famalam. From how I read it, it basically talks about how the idea of the imperialist nation-state is obsolete. Imperialism today isn't for the benefit of the nation state or the people of that state but rather of international capital. It isn't so much imperialism as it is global capitalism being global capitalism. That said he really should have talked about the petrodollar
Sure, but he ignores all of the interventions for capital's benefit by the great powers.
Read Marx. He actually critisizes 3/4 of the things you mentioned.