Is it the most overrated socialist state...

I've never got this leftcom criticism. Even if you implement labour vouchers, that's still a form of wages.

You don't sell your labor power, no wage.

yeah yugoslavia was a prosperous welfare state where you didn't have to sell your labor to survive

Yes but everyone who worked did so by selling labor.

They probably deserved it.

I'd say it counts if at least one sperglord will invariably defend it as such.
Vietnam pretty much BTFO them on every level though, I agree.

...

...

espressostalinist.com/marxism-leninism-versus-revisionism/titoism/

"Communist" Yugoslavia wasnt even communist, it was a fascist state where the catholic croats ruled and oppressed everyone else, for example Serbia was fragmented into smaller states which later were turned by Tito and his scum into new fake nations, their motto was literally "Weak Serbia strong Yugoslavia"

For the last time, socialist states can't be imperialist

...

not even social imperialist?

But please tell me again how Yugoslavia was a communist country and everyone was equal ;)

yes sure, anything you say !

Read Lenin

Nebudi guzobolan frende.

it makes sense that a croat would defend their best butcher

No. It's not socialist.

Social "Imperialism" is no different from Cultural "Marxism" or Market "Socialism". It rejects the very basis of the core concept.

A revisionist state could be social imperialist. This is not the case with the USSR under Stalin.

And you are telling somebody to read Lenin. I dare you define imperialism as Lenin did it.

...

Woah man you so smart

...

Yes, I found that shit on wikipedia, it takes five fucking seconds to find evidence of Tito's shit relationship with the Catholic church.

Ofc please continue with your Serbonat memery about the ebul croats obressing ur rites.

Now I know you're not a serb, Tito and Juga are fondly remembered by our eastern brothers.

you know what they say about your kind, croat is not a nationality croat is a diagnosis

...

So what would you call China going to war with Vietnam in 1979 to ""teach Vietnam a lesson"?

let's take for example a "socialist state" like Czechoslovakia 1968.

No. It is the economic basis that defines internal processes - and either mandates imperialist expansion, or doesn't. Consequently, until late 1980s USSR was incapable of proper imperialism. It could be all sorts of retarded in international politics, but not imperialist.

The accusation is usually levied against Khrushchev-Brezhnev gang.

Imperialism in Marxist discourse means very specific thing. Read Lenin's Imperialism yourself, will you?

First and foremost China was never Socialist - which is why it is openly Imperialist today (especially, in Africa) - and will inevitably get into some major war in a decade or two.

Secondly, China was going Dengist at the time, and invasion was in no small part motivated by politics - not necessity of economic expansion.

The USSR looted a fuckton of stuff from Eastern Europe after the war to help pay for their own reconstruction. That’s economic exploitation and therefore imperialism by Lenin’s (bad) definition.

Quote it.

in wich "Marxist" definition Lenin,Kursky,Luxemburg ayy Mao ETC?

The highest stage of capitalism wherein the saturation of domestic markets, the consolidation of capital into finance capital, and drive for new resources and labor causes capitalists and capitalist states to seek to economically exploit other countries using force.

I’m paraphrasing obviously.

How is China imperialist?

en.internationalism.org/wr/299/china-africa

I see a certain problem here.

Either way - what is bad here?

not even under Mao?

There is a difference between having Socialists in charge and having Socialist economy. Only the latter makes state truly Socialist.

For example, until 1930s (transition to Planned economy) USSR was State Capitalist. In case you are wondering: this was recognized by Bolsheviks themselves.

especially under him

USSR was State Capitalist before and after 1930, central planed economy is not synonym of socialism, is used also by capitalist corporations and states.

but China did have a planned economy, their state capitalist period was the "new democracy" of the early 1950s similar to the Soviet NEP, no?

The definition is flawed because it focuses mainly on whether or not economic exploitation is occurring, but it doesn’t consider that an imperialist country may subjugate another country for other reasons. Specifically I’m thinking about strategic reasons. Take Vietnam for example, there wasn’t much in the way of economic benefit for the US in fighting in Vietnam (except maybe for arms manufacturers), but making sure that Vietnam didn’t turn red was key to American global strategic interests. The same goes for a country like say, South Korea, or in the case of the USSR Poland, Hungary, etc.

Under Lenin’s definition you could have a country totally lacking in genuine independence and in in the pocket of an imperial power, but if that power’s interest in the country is strategic and not economic, then it doesn’t count as imperialism under Lenin’s definition.

We are not talking about your Libertarian "Communism" here.

No. The entirety of (industrial) production must be managed under common plan.

No. Also NEP was State Capitalism. Which kinda suggests that it is not Socialism (which requires planned economy).

Not exploitation as such. But it is a correct direction.

Then it is not subjugating another country for imperialist reasons.

The whole concept of imperialism hinges on unavoidable necessity to go to war. It doesn't define each and every possibility.

Arms manufacturers are already shifting reason into economic field. And projection of force the US was indirectly necessitated by economic reasons. 100% Imperialism.

Do you consider World Revolution to be Imperialism?

But that’s why the definition is flawed. You could have the brutal subjugation of a population, the the loss of independence, political rights, self-determination, etc. In other words it would still be an Empire, it would still subjugate others. By using Lenin’s definition of imperialism you could have an entity that still systematically goes around the world taking people’s independence away, but somehow it’s not an empire. It excludes a whole class of countries who are the victims of imperialistic expansion.

Yes but the US didn’t go into Vietnam to satisfy arms manufacturers. Their benefit was incidental.

How so? Their reason for going to Vietnam was to protect the government in Saigon to maintain anti-communist forces in SEA and contain China. What does that have to do with economic benefits for capitalists? It only has economic benefit in the sense of being part of a broader struggle for preserving capitalism, but by that reasoning socialist countries can also be imperialists if they intervene strategically to preserve socialism and economic benefits for the proletarian state.

Depends on what you mean. Aiding domestic uprisings that have genuine popular support in order to help them create a socialist state? That’s not imperialism because you are aiding in their self-liberation, you don’t deprive them of self-determination. Imposing socialism on a population that doesn’t want it from outside? Yes, that is imperialism because you are depriving people of their rights to self determination.

youtube.com/watch?v=PtfwY4GLwIg&feature=youtu.be

Would anyone on leftypol like to counter argument against my video???

No. It's not flawed. It's exactly the opposite.

Marxism is about being scientific, not magically solving all problems in one go. There are many reasons people may go to war. If you need to remove those reasons, you need to understand and identify them correctly. Not delude oneself into simplistic thinking that there is one magic entity (traditionally - Satan; today its usually Jews and Patriarchy) that makes all bad things happen.

Imperialism is just one of those reasons - even if it is the reason why Capitalist states go to war.

Arms manufacturers create militaristic lobby. Militaristic lobby makes general politics of US trigger-happy. I.e. while arms manufacturers did not make US wage war on Vietnam, they made it inevitable for US to wage war on someone.

And why do they need to contain China?

Are you serious? You do realize that there were a lot of people who owned property in Vietnam, and would've lost (and did lose) it after Communist victory? I.e. influential people were deeply incentivized to get someone to protect them from Communists.

I have no further questions.

Where did these come from anyway? Like what the hell is the history?

...

Ja evo 10 minuta citam sta je napisao i ne vjerujem haha. A ustase kazu Tito bio velikosrbin i unistavao sve hrvatsko lol

Samo da hoce ustati iz groba da vidi kakva se bagra nakotila, rekao bi vratite me u grob i nabacite 10 kubika zemlje.

btw: ne budi*

Sorry for not speaking english idc

I live in Bosnia and I'm only familiar with Bosnia/Serbia/Croatia so lemme try to explain.

At the risk of sounding like a r/atheist, they came from religion, which is literally tied to ethnic identity here. We bosnians were called just "muslims" and it was used as both a religious and ethnic classifier. But we are all the same people now in diff countries, we talk the same language (it's basically just regional variations and dialects), have the same history, lived in one big country but NOOOOO we had to fuck it up because muh nationalism.

And then you have to dig centuries deep, almost back to 1 A.D. and the tribes that inhabited these regions, then the romans, then the development of our own "church" that mixed a lot of shit, then the church getting pissed off and forcing catholicism, then the orthodox, then the turks and so on.

I live here and It's such a clusterfuck to even study in school about, let alone explain a foreign person in a different language what it's about.

To add to this: imagine all the religious sects in america decided to split and form their own countries, mormons, evangelicas etc, then after 500 years they consider themselves totally different ethnic populations, basing their identity in "genetics" and how they are superior, even tho they all came from the same deluded white trash