It does make sense. I can’t say I agree that my analysis is all vibes. I live in an imperialist nation and I see the far reaching effects of that daily. I am sure it would be worse if I lived in a country we were dominating. I thank you for the detailed reply but I fail to see how that exonerates any of our current leaders today. I do appreciate it though as you are always insightful, come to the discussion fully equipped, and stand the best chance at opening people’s eyes to real leftist ideas.
One thing I want to stress, is that this does not exonerate imperialism. It’s easy to label a country imperialist if it has significant influence, but identifying if that influence is positive or negative is important, and doing so is best looked at from the underlying materialist perspective, ie analyzing the mode of production. That’s why Marxists identify imperialism the way we do, and further, why Marxists can say we are definitively anti-imperialist. We have a strong understanding and clear identification of what we oppose, why, and how.
Returning to the PRC, they are focused on multilateralism. As a socialist country, they lack the dictatorial control of a financial oligarchy, and they focus on export of commodities. The more customers for their commodities, and the easier access to raw materials, the better. It’s in their interest to not be predatory for the global south.
Returning to the Russian Federation, it’s a capitalist country, absolutely, but unlike the US, it straight up doesn’t have the financial capital to imperialize. They are too poor as a country, they mostly export oil. They have strong-ish industrial production, but are kept out of the circle of imperialists through western millitary lines. Russia has the materialist desire to imperialize, but lacks the ability to do so.
The US, on the other hand, has both the means to do so, and the financial interest in doing so. The US isn’t very industrialized, it in fact relies on imperialism to keep its economy running. Whereas with the PRC they lacked the reasons to imperialize, and with Russia they lacked the means, the US is lacking in neither.
That’s generally the Marxist understanding of imperialism. The RF isn’t selfless, neither is the PRC, but because their underlying material basis is distinct and qualitatively different from that of the US (and other imperialist countries), they are more materially interested in engaging with the global economy in different means.
It does make sense. I can’t say I agree that my analysis is all vibes. I live in an imperialist nation and I see the far reaching effects of that daily. I am sure it would be worse if I lived in a country we were dominating. I thank you for the detailed reply but I fail to see how that exonerates any of our current leaders today. I do appreciate it though as you are always insightful, come to the discussion fully equipped, and stand the best chance at opening people’s eyes to real leftist ideas.
Thanks, I appreciate it!
One thing I want to stress, is that this does not exonerate imperialism. It’s easy to label a country imperialist if it has significant influence, but identifying if that influence is positive or negative is important, and doing so is best looked at from the underlying materialist perspective, ie analyzing the mode of production. That’s why Marxists identify imperialism the way we do, and further, why Marxists can say we are definitively anti-imperialist. We have a strong understanding and clear identification of what we oppose, why, and how.
Returning to the PRC, they are focused on multilateralism. As a socialist country, they lack the dictatorial control of a financial oligarchy, and they focus on export of commodities. The more customers for their commodities, and the easier access to raw materials, the better. It’s in their interest to not be predatory for the global south.
Returning to the Russian Federation, it’s a capitalist country, absolutely, but unlike the US, it straight up doesn’t have the financial capital to imperialize. They are too poor as a country, they mostly export oil. They have strong-ish industrial production, but are kept out of the circle of imperialists through western millitary lines. Russia has the materialist desire to imperialize, but lacks the ability to do so.
The US, on the other hand, has both the means to do so, and the financial interest in doing so. The US isn’t very industrialized, it in fact relies on imperialism to keep its economy running. Whereas with the PRC they lacked the reasons to imperialize, and with Russia they lacked the means, the US is lacking in neither.
That’s generally the Marxist understanding of imperialism. The RF isn’t selfless, neither is the PRC, but because their underlying material basis is distinct and qualitatively different from that of the US (and other imperialist countries), they are more materially interested in engaging with the global economy in different means.