Imperialism Today: Unequal Exchange and Globalized Production

[@VictorZenloth]

Growing up in the third world with an inferiority complex looking up to a supposedly shiny western capitalist system in the wake of the fall of Soviet Communism, Marxist Theory has helped me look deeper into the roots of today's reality and also find revolutionary answers as well as hope that comrades can organize for something better. Subjectively, your work to me is invaluable. Solidarity and Revolutionary Greetings from Nepal!!!!!!!! ✊✊✊✊✊

[@danielm17]

Wtf💀

[@VictorZenloth]

It's what me and my community believes in because it fits our observations. Your intolerance is none of my concern. We are all humans too, maybe learn to talk to us, instead of attacking us with big ass words. Learn to talk to people different than you.

[@buddermonger2000]

Well that's one way to deal with that feeling. Though all it does is set you on a really poor road which leaves basically everyone worse off. It's not exactly shiny, but it's probably the most effective system for overall wellbeing as well as ability to carry human populations. The biggest problem is inherent inequality. However even the floor rises under the system (especially since it's really the only reason industrialization started at all given how Russia had to import western industrialists to industrialize and how none of the centrally planned systems allowed it and in fact in China actively crushed it in the 11th century).

[@degamispoudegamis]

@@buddermonger2000 "you have to let your nation be exploited so i can live"

[@buddermonger2000]

@@degamispoudegamis Imagine thinking you're being exploited because someone else is richer than you and then calling the only system which ever gave you the means to wealth unimaginable to your ancestors, capable of carrying over 2000 times more people than before, and for the first time in history twice as many people obese as there are starving with less than 12.5% of the world starving (and even then being largely for political reasons), terrible and something that should be torn down. And once again... all because your country was simply late to the game and only started recently.

[@BalkanOdyssey_]

These kinds of videos are a breath of fresh air - it's always nice to see quality contemporary analysis. Amazing stuff.

[@REDFISTmedia]

your videos are based af, too =)

[@REDFISTmedia]

but please never sign up for a sponsor it's so annoying

[@MisterTactless]

great video. A book that covers this topic extensively is John Smith: Imperialism in the 21st century The only point I would stress is that low wages in the periphery are due to high unemployment, authoritarian repression of labour organizations, etc. Wages in the core are kept high due to borders like US-Mexico and Europa-African borders keeping people (labour) from moving freely and equalizing wages.

[@themarxistproject]

Yes, I used Smith's book as one of my references for this video. It's really valuable!

[@mYnAME-ww9iv]

I would say not only that. The workers from 1st world are generally more productive than workers from 3rd world. For example, 1 American steel worker produces much more steel than Indian one, because of the much greater concentration of capital. Of course this doesn't deny everything you listed.

[@Cyborg_Lenin]

@@themarxistproject hi, are there any plans to do a video on the history of the revolution in China or the reforms that followed? Just wondering.

[@arikotler4234]

@@mYnAME-ww9iv this is already included in the theory of unequal exchange -- the comparison is made between prices already accounting for the differences in productivity. but you are correct that productivity is partially responsible for the higher wages as such

[@mYnAME-ww9iv]

@@arikotler4234 Thanks for the response.

[@windowmark21]

I had to read Lenin's chapter on imperialism and found this channel. You guys do a great job at summarizing difficult topics. I look forward to learning more.

[@lochnessmunster1189]

They summarize difficult topics by offering a simple, yet often wrong, way of looking at things. For example: "unequal exchange". How can we ever tell that an "equal exchange" has taken place?

[@Marxism_Today]

Excellent analysis.

[@phoneticalballsack]

Paul Moron

[@karlmarx7511]

Hell yeah it is

[@phoneticalballsack]

@@karlmarx7511 Good empirical analysis, I guess.

[@karlmarx7511]

@@phoneticalballsack what do you mean? Or rather what's it your trying to convey?

[@lochnessmunster1189]

@@karlmarx7511 How could we ever determine that an "equal exchange" had taken place?

[@latviesustrelnieks1997]

I love the serious, scientific approach of your videos. Keep up the great work, comrade!

[@lochnessmunster1189]

How would we ever be able to tell, that an "equal exchange" had taken place?

[@destroctiveblade843]

I find no better channel that can explain marxist economics and marxist theory this well, keep up the good work

[@destroctiveblade843]

@@priapulida what are you talking about ?

[@destroctiveblade843]

@@priapulida I gave you a chance to make an argument and you didn't make it, I am really disappointed

[@phoneticalballsack]

@@priapulida The flat earth equivalent to economics is Austrian economics

[@phoneticalballsack]

Check out Haz from Infrared, he makes great videos on Marxism

[@bigusj]

infrared/haz is patsoc trash--bad news. Stick with Marxism Today, Socialism4All, Prolekult, etc.

[@melz410]

Omg finally some good modern Marxist analysis. I find it so rare nowadays to find socialist that find something new to say. I know a lot of aspects from marxism is timeless, but so much is changing and it's important to stay fresh

[@mao_zhu_xi]

Nothing is timeless, everything is relative.

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

Timeless? You all really are in a cult or religion. You have all the hallmarks. Your sacred text, apparent infallibility of your central premise, purity spirals, it goes on and on

[@melz410]

@@ElectronFieldPulse interesting, what do you think the central premise is?

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

@@melz410 - The central premise is a utopia like vision much like Christian’s have a utopian afterlife. Socialism simply does not work, any rudimentary education in economics and science would dispel with the notion that it does. Yet, a very devoted group of followers believe in its message so much, they are willing to ignore reality to keep pushing their outdated ideology which caused untold suffering. Tell me how that doesn’t sound exactly like a religion? It has the same dynamics because it isn’t evidence based, so it relies on emotions and appeals to more base desires to keep its adherents

[@wolverineclaws108]

I'm quite impressed by how well you summarized Emmanuel's theory of unequal exchange. Most Marxists usually replace it with Amin's distorted version, which you thankfully avoided

[@DemandBetterEntertainment]

This channel makes some of the best content on this damn platform

[@user-cw5nv6eq1v]

good job keeping everything concise, i’m sure every section of this video on its own could be the topic of five full videos

[@MasterOfBaiter]

A good example for the way things are valued is to compare shipping rates VS imports of two countries. For example it's many times more expensive to rent a shipping container from the US to China than the other way around. Meanwhile the import figures even while showing a difference does not show the same drastic difference. We also see a lot of western companies like for example pharmaceutical companies move manufacturing out and then exporting the commodities back home to sell to the domestic workers with more buying power. You can also just straight up compare to similar products of two countries and realize they are prized in proportion to wage costs (surprise)

[@depotemkin]

Спасибо что продвигаешь правду в массы, товарищ ❤️

[@vadimk3484]

Good video, as it usually it with The Marxist Project, kudos! Although (not to sound like that guy who says "acktually..."), but I personally think that it should have been emphasized more that Lenin's work (or any other classic marxist literature) is not obsolete but has rather become incomplete due to natural course of history, and thus sometimes needs to be complemented, not reviewed or altered. Otherwise, revisionists of different kinds will surely pop up, yelling that "Marx and Lenin are old garbage, we need to invent new theory from scratch", effectively steering marxism away from its intended course.

[@themarxistproject]

I did attempt to make that exact point in my closing statement, but maybe I should have sprinkled it in earlier 😅

[@hindigente]

Great video and wonderful animations, as always. These videos should be posted to r/socialism.

[@buff114]

These videos are always excellent in explaining the difficult subject in a simple way.

[@Ricky-Spanish]

So I have a question that might be entirely out of left field, but here goes: In a hypothetical socialist society, is it possible once the bourgeoisie-proletariat class contradiction is superseded, that a new class contradiction could emerge? So for example, in this hypothetical scenario, if some kind of cybernetic form of planned economy was established that only required say 10% of the population to work, could there be a new emergent class contradiction of worker vs non-worker? Because theoretically, workers (at least the engineers specifically) would have more power and influence over the system, even if a cybernetic system would technically necessitate participation from every member of society that engages with it in some form or another (unless they're 'living off the grid' or something). The workers in this case wouldn't own the productive forces per se, but they might wield a higher degree of influence. Even setting the cybernetics scenario aside, you might have workers that aren't necessarily involved in engineering the system but just doing socially necessarily work in general, but if there was relatively far less work to be done, to the point where it wouldn't make sense to just divvy it up amongst all those willing to work, would there be a potential issue there? Like, this might just be misunderstanding the idea of the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', but in an arrangement like that, could it play out so that not only is the state used as a tool for class war against the old bourgeoisie but also what is now referred to as the 'lumpen' proletariat or just unemployable people? This concern is partially inspired by Thorstein Veblen's idea of a 'soviet of technicians', but I'm aware it could amount to little more than conjecture, lol. I'm just sort of thinking out loud here and this seemed like as good a place on YT as there is to pose the question, thanks in advance!

[@onestraw-zx1ph]

Fairly good analysis of the economic nature of Imperialism, as a feature inherent in capitalism in contrast to traditional Leninist explanations. BUT, the presentation contains misunderstandings, such as the comparison of constant / variable capital in core and peripheral countries ( aka organic composition of capital) and also a lack of explanation of the rates of surplus value. There's s too much to explain here, so I will just recommend reading volume 3 of Capital and a really good explanation by Professor Andrea Ricci's book " Unequal Exchange in International Trade." Thanks.

[@benthorne1996]

Its worth noting that UE doesn't really help the workers in the imperial core either, contrary to some labour aristocracy interpretations. The higher cost of living (that underpins higher wages) pretty much has all value transferred from the Global South end up in the pockets of the bourgeoisie in the end. Even the relative wealth garnered by middle class or skilled workers in those countries come about from marginal incursions from imperialism, and posits only precarity for their strata throughout the course of global accumulation.

[@Mateo-rv5dt]

It definitely does not help workers in the imperial core *directly* but this does not mean that these workers do not see any benefits whatsoever. Yes, most of the value goes to the capitalists of said nations, but the workers of the global north still see way more benefits than those of the global south, lest the former rise up in opposition to their ruling classes.

[@benthorne1996]

@@Mateo-rv5dt Of course. But those benefits are still marginal, as in variations upon stagnant general wage rates compared to enormous global profits - and as accumulation has continued we have seen the middle classes and affluent working classes of global north countries decline. I would argue this is a contributor to the nationalist movements that are emerging now in the imperial core. Its worth noting also that the working classes of global north countries often consist primarily of global south populations (so as to offset the costs of social reproduction.) or indeed over-exploited racialised nations within the core. Assuredly the benefits they see from imperialism are lackluster.

[@jonathankammer9078]

I agree with how important the theories presented in this video (and other, like from “Hakim”), AND I also think that Colin Drumm has interesting and important critiques of Marx’s monetary theory, critiques that I don’t think refute this analysis of imperialism.

[@adaml.jensen377]

I love your videos!!

[@kariemh2001]

Samir Amin & Emmanuel have a fundamental difference in their approach to wages/ productivity, as in what the main force behind underdevelopment is

[@T_Dot94]

nice music at the end

[@RevanImmortal]

Dang as a developing leftist this channel is peak

[@evanw5572]

Good video!

[@tymanung6382]

Question--- how does emerging multi polar coalition vs. Western Unipolar coalition empire relate to this theory?

[@chrisgaming9567]

Inter-Imperialist conflict, nothing new

[@vStoned]

Not a socialist, but i find value in understanding. Thank you for your insight

[@michaelbailey9549]

favorite channel fr

[@NotKnafo]

but marx said that exchange must be equal

[@kylewalker6737]

What about fully automated factory's? Apart from exploitation from resource extraction, how can labor add value to a product that's production is automated?

[@vadimk3484]

There's no surplus value in a fully automated chain of production, since one cannot exploit a machine. In practical terms though, since there are no fully automated production chains on Earth yet, the surplus value of man-made robots is projected onto the product that these machines make afterwards. For example, the machines that make up a fully automatic car factory were still made with human labor to some degree, hence they have surplus value. The cars that this factory makes do not have surplus value of their own (since it's fully automated and no humans were underpaid to make those cars), however every produced car has a small part of the factory machinery surplus value carried over into its value. This is why the norm of profit keeps declining with automation and growth of productive power - it's simply becoming harder to extract unpaid labor from a system where humans make less and less work, delegating it to machines. Theoretically, if someday production becomes fully automated, from resource extraction to production of goods, plus production and maintenance of means of production (i.e. if robots make everything, including more robots), then surplus value vanishes and capitalism fundamentally breaks down. But that's far from current reality.

[@kylewalker6737]

@@vadimk3484 I think I understand your position, however profits are not declining they are increasing, where is this coming from if not surplus labor?

[@vadimk3484]

@@kylewalker6737 Corporate profits are indeed increasing, and that's extracted unpaid surplus value, that much is true. However, profits are rising because capital is concentrating, so a fewer number of capitalists controls more and more capital, hence their increase in profit. The norm of profit is declining with automation and development of productive power, it's a fact. For example, 300 years ago a wheel had to be made by a human manually using hand tools, and its norm of profit was, say, 100% - invested 5 dollars, sold the wheel for 10, pocketed 100% of the investment. Then came mechanization - a worker with a hydraulic press and a lathe could produce 10 wheels in the same time for the same wage, except some of the increased value of the tools (lathe, press) was projected onto the end product, so the norm of profit effectively declined to, say, 50% - invested 2, sold for 3. Nowadays, modern automated tech can produce those same wheels without any human input in crazy quantities, with the value of each produced unit reduced to peanuts, especially compared to manual labor. In the end, the profit that every produced item yields is becoming smaller all the time. Have you noticed how much planned obsolescence we've been observing lately? It's crazy - electronic gadgets become programmatically obsolete in a matter of months, modern cars are made of foil and cardboard, barely get past the warranty period and go to the scrapyard, since they're engineered to not be repairable. It's all because of miniscule norm of profit - every individual unit (i.e. a car) has such a tiny amount of surplus value that can be extracted from it, that the capital is forced to stamp them by the millions and to invent crazy schemes to make people buy more and more, otherwise the whole system would break down. P.S. Sorry, I just noticed that this channel actually has a video on the matter, and I also got the term wrong - it's "rate of profit", not "norm of profit". The video is called "Falling profit rates"

[@kylewalker6737]

@@vadimk3484 thanks, I appreciate you taking the time to explain this :)

[@vadimk3484]

@@kylewalker6737 no prob, besides, I did it (at least partly) at the expense of my obnoxious capitalist employer

[@megathai]

HELL YEAAAAHHHHH!!!

[@animeis4eva]

Someone is a smarty pants and it isn't me! (It's you)

[@ABPHistory]

your vids are tough keep posting bro

[@pedrohenriquedadaltdequeir4859]

Superb lesson

[@wadiefaridhaddad7429]

We can see first or North and south

[@enriquelescure9202]

At the same time, GDP tends to skew actual wealth disparities. For example, what is the difference in price between a flat screen TV in the US and the same product in China? I am not saying that Chinese people have a lower average income, but I am saying that the Big Mac Index probably is a better foundation for evaluating income than pure monetary value.

[@brunoqueiroz2759]

living on the periphery is tuff

[@joaovictorpessoaqueiroz4783]

Excellent video.

[@djglockmane]

The people's Revolutionary Algo comment

[@sacrom5398]

This is such an informative and important video

[@MK-jc6us]

Congrats for this video, a very important one. Specially useful for the current debate as the left in general waves the flag of "Russian Imperialism". Imperialism today is a global structure, Russia sits at its periphery together with economies like Mexico or Indonesia. Of course, the debate here is somehow more complex as it will bring military and historical questions. Nevertheless, the global left (both reformist and radical) are adhering to the same speech, which is quite in line with the centrist and right positions (speech that tends to become a mere legalist position). Hopefully the left will evolve, and stop being afraid of being equated to the extreme-right.

[@TheBigWall3284]

Focusing on Russia is a great way for western libs to defend the status quo that greatly benefits them (the US as hegemon).

[@elephantman2112]

Excellent video. Is there a text version of this video?

[@themarxistproject]

Yes, I will upload the script to the Medium page soon. Currently digging my way out of a pile of work/academic stuff 😅

[@elephantman2112]

@@themarxistproject Awesome, cheers!

[@nateisawesome766]

The reason why financialization and rapid deindustrialization occurred in the imperialist core is because interest rates in the US empire soared to above the average rate of profit in the late 1970s. As the federal reserve attempted to hold down interest rates by accelerating the growth of the monetary base, money capitalists increased their demand for the money commodity (Gold) and a run on the US dollar took place in 1979-1980. Volcker allowed interest rates to rise to meet the supply and demand for gold, halting the run on the dollar. This stabilized the currency and led to the deepest recession in the empire's history. Interest rates stabilized at extraordinarily high levels, above the average rate of profit. Since the rate of profit = rate of interest + profit of enterprise, an interest rate equal to or higher than the RoP means 0 or negative PoE. Under these conditions, financialization occurs and many industrial capitalists convert themselves to money capitalists since there would be little incentive to produce surplus value. Additionally, fixed capital in the form of factories were destroyed and industries move overseas, accelerating the laws of uneven development. During this process, interest rates slowly fall below the RoP. They continue to fall until they hit a point where they cannot fall any further; where debt levels that rose tremendously during the financialization period cannot be serviced any longer by further lowering interest rates. This is called a liquidity trap. Liquidity traps usually end in debt deflation. The debt deflation would mark the end of the financialization period.

[@BeyondFunction1]

De-industrialization was already on the agenda well before the one-two punch of Volker/Reagan.

[@nateisawesome766]

@@BeyondFunction1 rapid deindustrialization was never part of the agenda. rather it was the consequence of the Volcker Shock. It only hurts the empire, not helps. It threatens the long term stability of the empire. no ruling class ever likes this

[@BeyondFunction1]

De-industrialization, period, "only hurts the empire". Fast or slow. So one must ask whether the empire had some purpose in mind. For example, the long-term (if not permanent) readjustment of power relations within the core, which already had been underway in the same slow-motion fashion as de-industrialization. More importantly, these things are not mutually exclusive. De-industrialization may "only hurt the empire", but capital isn't bothered by such considerations. Capital doesn't care whether the empire collapses. The elites don't necessarily care, either. They may have been/felt compelled to simultaneously pursue both accelerated financialization and accelerated de-industrialization. They may have done so believing they could maintain the integrity of the empire (e.g. deindustrialize; thoroughly subdue the masses through a series of wealth-extraction schemes + austerity + political/ideological capture; reindustrialize on the basis of completely redefined "social contract" terms), or they may have done so knowing all that really mattered at the end of the day wrt their own interests (survival, even) was to effectively manage the impending collapse.

[@nateisawesome766]

@@BeyondFunction1 You are fundamentally wrong in assuming that the American capitalist class does not care whether their empire falls or not. For it is through the empire that they can exert dominance over the capitalist classes of Germany, Japan, the UK, etcetera. If you are implying that the period of financialization and deindustrialization that succeeded the Volcker Shock of 1979-1982 was premeditated by the american capitalist class and not simply a brutal mistake on their part, why didn't Volcker simply allow the run on the dollar to last longer so that interest rates would rise higher than they did historically? After all, they don't care about the empire, right? Simply put, Financialization and Deindustrialization wasn't deliberate on the part of the capitalist class. Rather, it was a natural consequence that arose from exceptionally high interest rates that resulted from Central Banks attempting to override the contradictions of capitalism by attempting to dethrone gold. In the final analysis, the shift away from the gold-exchange standard towards the paper dollar standard only intensifies the crises of capitalism in the long run because gold is the money commodity under the capitalist mode of production. It is within the class interests of the American bourgeoisie to maintain the hegemony of the US empire. Denying this is to deny the contradictions of bourgeois nation states. This is why Financialization and Deindustrialization wasn't the American capitalists' end goal. Rather, it *accelerated* their own demise.

[@BeyondFunction1]

You are misrepresenting my argument. But ok

[@andreyrussian2480]

Social institutions are making work investments lower to the scale than capital investments for some reason. A unequal legalized trade system in parliaments, I would say.

[@sonflowersamurai10]

This is really good

[@someesingh2827]

Just sayin', don't be too dismissive of the dependency theory. The factories may have transported but they are still foreign capital only. Even big businesses in these countries remain dependent to the foreign capital. That is because majority of these countries have not developed an organic capital of their own. Their bourgeoisie take loans from foreigners, buy machines from them. Foreigners still control them. Don't think of it from perspective of territory or government. Look at it from perspective of capital as a social relationship. Global finance capital is certainly exported abroad but they have never developed a powerful financial aristocracy that rivals them. They develop dependent bourgeoisie who are merely masked appendages to their own industry. Not to mention, more often than not, the so called "industrialization" in third world is merely an expansion of foreign corporations who directly own those units (without a comprador).

[@ThePeanutButterCup13]

So, does this lead to a third worldist worldview/praxis, as in third world nationalist revolutions are necessary for socialism to even be on the table globally?

[@someesingh2827]

@@ThePeanutButterCup13 I am not educated enough to completely take such stance. In fact I am from India, that issue largely concerns 1st world politics. Cuz it is clear that revolution is definitely needed in 3rd world as well. But I believe a third world revolution would need to ally itself with national bourgeoisie.

[@deathofaclown]

noticed that you weren't doing any silly jokes and quips. really appreciate that. take my like!

[@alessandrosilvafilho8527]

In my current understanding, Marx value kind of means amout of work. So when the core "throws" it's industries to the perifery while keeping the headquarters, the perifery works more but the center still gets all the price that exceeds. Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm still learning.

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

The value theory of labor, which has been thoroughly debunked. Then again, we are on a channel which is about an economic system which has been thoroughly debunked, so par for the course

[@ingeteloo3065]

thank u !!!

[@MrThetous]

Curious, what does the diagram offered at the beginning of the video signify?

[@wiiuwiiu2020]

Great work

[@qjtvaddict]

Thank you I was wondering why leftists were so uncompromising with an old era

[@abethedestroyer]

Could you please explain to me how to mathematically compute the surplus value I understand the total revenue, the value rate of profit I just don't understand how to get the surplus value is there an equation for this?

[@themarxistproject]

Surplus value follows from what we assume the rate of exploitation to be. If we assume this rate is, say, 1/2, then $100 spent on wages yields $50 in surplus value. In these examples I'm just giving different rates to illustrate a point. You can also get it, by definition, as: Surplus value = total revenue - (constant capital + wages). It's whatever additional value was created above the investment costs. Hope that helps!

[@JacksonVaughn-l2b]

Are you sure the math is right? If v is lower in the periphery, then shouldn't s be higher in the periphery while R remains constant across the two.

[@Michael_Brenes]

"An accurate evaluation of the current historical constolation" On the basis of what did you decide this evaluation is accurate? As with most marxist theory this seems to be a theoretical model meant as a justification for political action and personal motivation rather than one that actually makes useful predictions about reality.

[@theobaldbergamelli9638]

All political theory does that. Also this descriptive

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

Yep, Marxism is what you get when jealousy becomes the main impetus for a political movement. This guy gets so many things wrong it is amazing he is able to convince himself he believes any of it. One especially hilarious thing about Marxism is how they value labor as intrinsically with the most. On what basis? Well, emotions of course. To this guy, breaking rocks apart is more valuable than an automated script to allocate raw materials efficiently within a company. Marxists will never understand that labor isn’t inherently valuable. Trying to say labor is intrinsically valuable based on nothing other than “well, it should be” is how you get these comically incorrect videos. Pretty much everything in this video was wrong, but some people don’t have enough education to see this clearly

[@JulienReszka]

Market challengers and market shares, customer attritions and overproductions, that's what happens when you don't have innovations and customer services which are key of revenues growth.

[@slipknotboy555]

Great video! (I think this somehow may have been the first one of yours I watched, but maybe not.) I already agreed with the conclusions you draw, but having it laid out like that was nice. Also, at the beginning, I was like "This isn't gonna be one of those guys that's like "Marx/Lenin's works are outdated!!1!" is it?" But that doesn't seem to be the case; you were just talking about additions. Because, of course, Lenin's writings on Imperialism still fundamentally hold true. And I like the little figures (like the Marx and Lenin ones), heh

[@josedavidgarcesceballos7]

Anwar Shaikh and David Harvey might be excluded from this video, though. Thanks a lot for your videos!

[@joshbigz8440]

The way I have always seen it is that the West (mostly America) has a Carthaginian style trade Empire. I am not trying to say they are identical but they do rhyme.

[@CaptainPieBeard]

In a sense, yes. It's called Breton Woods.

[@SCHMALLZZZ]

Latin America and nearly every single freshly independent country that has emerged from the Spanish, Portuguese and French Empires were more like the classical Empire of Rome.

[@Star17864]

Great video, one criticism. The terms “Imperial Core” and “Periphery” are not Marxist terms, and they confuse the nature of the many different imperialists who, even nominally aligned ones, are always in conflict with one another over control of foreign markets. Replacing “Imperial Core” with “Exploiter nations” and “Periphery” with “Exploited nations” would have made this video make a lot more sense

[@themarxistproject]

I went through multiple drafts where I had North/South, developed/underdeveloped, core/periphery, etc. Each have some significant drawbacks in my opinion. And of course, there are evident limitations to categorizing dichotomously. But I appreciate your comment and will reconsider the terminology again in future videos.

[@wadiefaridhaddad7429]

The south is bleeding brain power as well

[@gaberobison680]

Lenin’s theory is more academically sound but Ultra-Imperialism is more pragmatically useful. Russia is not socialist, but they have far worse optics than the US to most people so in a pseudo accelerationist sense it makes sense to support anybody that opposes NATO and the western bloc. Plus Russia at least still has some fragments of living memory if the USSR at its height which could be useful for reversing the bourgeoise counter revolution and thus defeating the western narratives of capitalism “defeating” communism. But frankly the most important part of this video is to understand imperialism exists, and is bad because it creates bourgeois proletariats and also hides the true excesses of capitalism overseas from the citizens of the core who have almost no reason to radicalize (thankfully I was different)

[@LiquidDemocracyNH]

So then, at the end of the day, it sounds like the problem is rooted in the immobility of labor compared to the mobility of capital. Because, like, if I was arguing with a believer in Free markets, and I wanted to argue that in an environment of perfect free market competition we would still have massive exploitation, they would probably say that the market finds an equilibrium because both employers and employees are free to seek alternatives elsewhere. It seems like, at the root of things, the reason exploitation occurs is because this isn't true. Workers are less free than employers to seek alternatives elsewhere

[@abc.kontrolpekerja]

We need external subtitle bru

[@maxheadrom3088]

In this episode: Karl Marx meets Mealy and Moore.

[@SCHMALLZZZ]

Imperialism is mercantilism implemented via colonialism.

[@TheJayman213]

So, does unequal exchange occur domestically as well? Between different industries, genders, states of unionization or even individuals of differing "competence"? Seems to me like this explanation was begging the question. Yeah, people with higher wages are exchanging less of their labor time for more labor time of people with lower wages. I just don't see the justification for dubbing this "unequal exchange", specifically in the case of international wage gaps yet.

[@the_local_bigamist]

I'm just starting this but iI have struggled a bit with Lenin's study of imperialism in that it seems to be mostly based on imperialist-export economies, whereas, today, imperialist powers seem to be more extractive in their exploitation, i.e. utilising war in order to extract natural resources from weaker nations. This is possibly a development of imperialism in itself and I am interested in where the video takes us in that regard. Also, imperialist states have been able to monopolise their own imperialist power, i.e. the USA being the dominant imperialist hegemon due to its corporations monopolising all of the important industries and having branches across the globe, and states like the UK being satellites within what we might call "western imperialism", with the USA constituting a large part of the global economic imperialist base. Yet we cannot disregard the role of the City of London (the Square Mile) as one of the main global banking hubs (and money laundering operations).

[@Elbownian]

But just how MANY angels???

[@redwater4778]

In the USA overseas corporate tax rates are lower that domestic rates. This has inspired US corporations to operate overseas. This a kind of soft imperialism.

[@kallashnykov]

I don't think this is incompatible with what Kautsky or Lenin wrote. This is completely compatible with Kautsky, Samir Amin and it's a development on Lenin's ideas. It isn't implausible to understand the world as having an imperial core in the west that asserts itself globally, and it isn't implausible to understand imperial powers as being united as Kautsky said, in order to combat emancipation. If you look at the history of the last 100 years, and especially after WW2, it's clear this is the trend and this is where we are now.

[@GeopoliticalEconomyReport]

18:08 Cuba would like to have a word with you 🤨 This is just a restatement of the completely discredited, post-Marxist thesis of Hardt and Negri's "Empire," which bourgeois mouthpiece the New York Times praised for invisibilizing the US-led imperialist system by making both everything and nothing imperialist. What is frustrating is this video cites Samir Amin, one of the great anti-imperialist theorists, but ignores his own conclusions about countries like China and Russia, which Amin said were peripheral or semi-peripheral (depending on the historical moment).

[@themarxistproject]

I think you might be misinterpreting my statement there. I am not saying no states are imperialist or anti-imperialist (in fact, I specifically note that imperialism today is championed by the US), I am just pointing out that splitting hairs about Country X = imperialist, Country Y = anti-imperialist can be very counterproductive. Primarily, I am alluding to the folks who are trying to figure out whether countries like Russia or China fit neatly into either category. Often times, the result of this unnecessary exercise is that people say indefensible nonsense like Russia is against US hegemony and is therefore an anti-imperialist force, when in fact it participates in, and greatly benefits from, extraction of surplus value via global value chains.

[@TheGareth87]

@@themarxistproject what surplus value are you talking about? It is completely a resource exporter, meaning its products are being sold on the world market for cheap. Russia is inherently anti imperalist whether you like it or not. Not even China protects Syria, or Venezuela or Africa the way Russia does. There is a reason us Vietnamese remains buddies with Russia despite the fall of USSR.

[@Stinoco]

In my opinion, there always need to be an imperial power, no matter the system. It’s dumb to think a world where every country is the same. Once a country becomes a power, it must become imperialist or other power will subjugate it. The USSR was an imperial power, sending funding and supporting wars to countries that acted as their satellite states

[@oidaz8402]

Slipping "indubitably" in there like a damn intellectual

[@ElectronFieldPulse]

Too bad nothing in his video is correct. Although, this video is representative of socialists in general. They get everything wrong, they don’t understand basic economics, but they have convinced themselves they are smarter than the average person and that they have the solution to the world’s problems. Basically losers affected by grandiose thinking.

[@MadJackChurchill1312]

EY YO WHY MARX NAKED?!

[@torbenfischer2182]

This was a great video, espescialy on the economic side. But I have to critisize you relativly glassing over the political aspects of imperialism. The nationstate is still an important part of the class society. Capitalism isnt just about pure economics, its also about class rule. And class rule, locally and globally is dependent on some sort of state. There are impirialist states wicht are strong enough for their own geostrategy(US, Russia, China, Germany, GB, France, Japan, India), the weaker imperialist states witch are dependent on the bigger ones (f.e. Israel, Australia, Belgium, etc.), more regional powers with are developing into the higher category (Turkey, SA) and exploited countrys (Ruanda, Ecuador, etc.). This pyramid of political relations, witch is dynamic an changing, builds on the economic aspects as a base but also influences it. Only by regarding the whole picture (politics, economics, etc.) it is possible to understand an societal phenomena.

[@themarxistproject]

I very much agree. As I note in the video, much of the conditions that allow for unequal exchange rely on political forces -- suppression of wages, financial liberalization, deregulation. These all require political agents and institutions that are dominated/constructed by the capitalist class. In this video I deliberately focused on economic factors because covering everything would have been unwieldy. But I fully agree with what you say here and I do think imperialism must be understood as a complex combination of forces.

[@sigigle]

Two critiques/objections I have: 15:23 "neoclassical economic theory obscures the exploitation occurring in this arrangement, by describing the value of a commodity as the sum of the prices of it's inputs." No it doesn't? It says the value of a commodity is determined by supply and demand: "Neoclassical economics is an approach to economics in which the production, consumption and valuation (pricing) of goods and services are observed as driven by the supply and demand model." 16:16 "The Marxist curve for value added is a frown. Most of the value added occurs in production, because value itself is the sum of direct and indirect socially necessary labour time that is embodied in a commodity." Value isn't determined by labour time though, it's determined by supply and demand. If one persons labour created an innovative system of assets that are able to deliver a commodity more efficiently or better than anyone else's, the value of what their labour created can potentially be worth far more than the more abundant labourers they hire. Eg: How many people are there that are able to create a system able to provide as much value to society as an Amazon or a Tesla, compared to how many people are there able to drive a forklift or sweep the floors at the companies? To my mind, profit comes from buying commodities and using systems to turn them into other commodities that can be sold for more than the sum total of what they cost to produce. And not from taking "Surplus Value" from the value of what the employees are adding to the equation, which is determined by supply and demand.

[@unknowninfinium4353]

Cant wait for debunking videos like how all the other channels get one.

[@ArazAminnaseri]

Comrade could you please lower the pace of reading the script. You go too fast and I have to watch more than once to grasp. Thanks

[@wadiefaridhaddad7429]

OK

[@samuelrosander1048]

Supplementary: "The surplus value, or that part of the total value of the commodity in which the surplus labour or unpaid labour of the working man is realized, I call profit." -Marx in Value, Price and Profit. Labor value is the value needed to reproduce labor (their wage, with which they must be able to survive and reproduce to provide the capitalist with more laborers; lower wages means a higher turnover between generations as they are worn down and cast off faster). The value of the commodity is the total value of socially necessary labor added to the commodity (not the same as its price or the sum total of wages paid to make it). The wage paid to the laborer to produce a commodity is therefore only part of the value of the commodity. One of the common anti-Marxist arguments that you'll hear peddled by people like Dinesh D'Souza is that Marxists demand that workers should get the full value of their labor. This is patently wrong, but they don't understand why even as they present the arguments that they think Marxists aren't making as proof that Marxists are insane (or at least dangerously naïve). The value required to reproduce a commodity goes above the wages of the laborer, which is *one of* the reasons why workers don't earn the full value of their labor; in order to reproduce the commodity, there needs to be money value to acquire the preceding commodities (or natural resources), land, power, maintenance etc necessary for the production of that commodity. If all of the value of the laborer is given to the laborer, then once they produce a single commodity, they will no longer have the means to work, because none of the bills will be paid and none of the resources (including machines) necessary to continue working will be purchased or maintained. For anti-Marxists, this is their mic drop moment, and one Dinesh et al constantly push in their pro-capitalism/anti-socialism propaganda. The entirety of surplus value is what Marx calls "profit," but he notes that not all of it is pocketed by the employing capitalist (rent, loans, maintenance, etc), so for the Marxist, at least in terms of working within the capitalist system, this is the moment when we say "yes, and that's why we don't demand the full value of our labor, only a greater portion of the profits that the capitalist pockets after all of other expenses are accounted for." As socialists and communists, our goal is for the workers to own the means of production, distribution and exchange, and therefore be the ones to decide how to manage resources of production, as well as how the profits and wages are distributed (so long as money is the medium of trade). As socialist and communists, what we want within capitalism is nothing less than the progressively higher valuation of the worker in the worker/employer relationship, which translates to our demand for higher wages, better working conditions, and the use of state funds for the benefit of the workers (education, healthcare, etc) instead of the benefit of the capitalist class (deregulation, corporate bailouts, etc). Not just for our nation's workers, but for all workers everywhere.

[@lochnessmunster1189]

"our goal is for the workers to own the means of production"- how would that actually work? And do you think that employers aren't workers too?

[@samuelrosander1048]

@@lochnessmunster1189 Worker cooperatives are a pretty obvious example of how it can actually work. I'm not sure why that's even a question. Do I think employers aren't workers? I'm not sure why you would ask that except to as the springboard into "you're wrong because X" arguments. It's that silly of a question that almost exclusively comes from people trying to change the meanings of pretty well understood terms so that they can say "see? Capitalism isn't the problem" or other nonsense. If that's what you're trying to do here, no matter how correct you may think you are, I'm not interested. If you're genuinely curious because you just don't know or understand things and honestly want to learn, then please make it clear exactly what it is you want to understand/know. For example, explain what you don't understand about employers, naming different situations that confuse you. But again, if you're just here to troll, I'm not interested.

[@lochnessmunster1189]

@@samuelrosander1048 The reason why I'm asking if you think that employers aren't workers, is because it's an example (especially in small businesses) of workers owning the means of production. I'm not trolling. I appreciate you comment but you're missing out a lot of things. If a worker cooperative was to take on another worker, would they automatically "own" part of that business from the first minute they start work?

[@samuelrosander1048]

@@lochnessmunster1189 No, I'm really not missing out on a lot of things. I anticipated your use of small businesses because the way you were asking made it highly probable that you were going to point to them and say "but see? There's an exception" and go on to try and form an argument about X or Y. It's simply far too common a response. Which you're doing here. It's a false equivalency. You can rightfully make the argument that a small business owner is also a worker because their primary source of income is from their own labor, and not what the labor they buy from others earns them, but the difference is that they are merely "a worker" owns sets the conditions for all other workers by dictate. That is the opposite of "our goal is for the workers to own the means of production." Using that example is akin to saying "feudalism is structurally different from capitalism because instead of a feudal lord you have a business owner." Structurally they're the same, but the names of what position people hold within each system changes (yes, I realize that there are more differences, but I specified "structurally"). In the case of the small business owner it's comparable to an impoverished fuedal lord that also works their land because they can't afford not to. That is not "workers own the means of production," but instead "an owner/worker that has full control over the means of production who also employs workers that must abide by their dictatorial rule" (yes, dictatorial, because while their fellow workers may be able to influence the owner or quit, it is up to the owner and the owner alone to make decisions...and that owner is a single individual, not all of the workers that are employed by them) so again, it's a false equivalency. If a worker cooperative has 1 or 500 members it doesn't matter. They all collectively own the means of production, no one worker having any more right than any other, no greater influence than any other, in deciding how to dispense with the means of production. If they then bring on 500,000 more workers it won't change anything about the structure being one of common ownership among all of the workers. There will inevitably be divisions of labor within that cooperative, and layers of democracy likely based on those divisions, but in the end no individual or group will have any more or less say in anything relating to that cooperative. Even the managers do nothing more than uphold the decisions made by democracy. How the dynamics of ownership based on time work is a question that you can't really get an answer to simply because that's asking for a mandate for "how to socialism" that must be determined by the people at the time and place. Because it's democracy, not commandments that must be strictly followed with some allowance for minor democracy. It might be decided by the cooperative, or even the community in which the cooperative operates (ideally in cooperation with each other), that all workers must undergo a transition period to acclimate themselves to the cooperative's community (it's not just a lifeless business but a group of humans working together both in labor and in arriving at decisions, which means socialization and social dynamics are a consideration), brief or extended, or they might decide to accept all members as owners immediately. The former is most often the case because worker cooperatives are not as common as top-down businesses, but again, it's based on the decisions of the workers within the cooperative, not some state mandate. And this is just talking about worker cooperatives as they exist in capitalism. If you want to learn more about them you can find plenty of resources that will give you different approaches, statistics, etc. I'm almost hearing you ask about guarantees of worker behavior being beneficial and other stuff in response to this, because I've heard it all before. Again, I'm not missing out on much, I just don't want to deal with people trying to poke holes in "the workers themselves (hopefully in cooperation with their local communities) will democratically make decisions" by pointing to possibilities of what might or might not happen, or trying to find exceptions that re-define terms to basically say "but that can happen under capitalism." It gets old really fast and is basically the same as arguing with someone who desperately wants the Bible to be true and will try to find any sliver of evidence they can to "prove" it (and the inevitable "God works in mysterious ways" response). Worker cooperatives have been around for a long time. They function quite well even in capitalism and again, there are plenty of sources you can use to find out more about them, as well as why they're becoming more common around the world (but only very slowly in the United States). Worker cooperatives in a market system are not the goal of socialism, but can be a stepping-stone on the path in that direction. They are worker ownership/control, but the primary motivation is still profit rather than meeting needs, and that leaves a lot of room to just create a different variation of capitalism (called "market socialism") where new hierarchical dynamics can and probably will repeat the same misdeeds as the current hierarchical dynamics, namely the bigger cooperatives taking the place of corporations in dominating government for the benefit of the cooperative (or more likely the leaders of the cooperative if it adopts a format similar to a republic or a corporation). "Ownership of the means of production" is continued with "distribution and exchange." The means of production is merely the starting point. The means of distribution and exchange, not just within a single cooperative but the whole economy, completes the "means of production, distribution and exchange" phrase that socialists (particularly Marxists) use, which is to say that by accomplishing all three you should have a democratic economy. Not just a bunch of cooperatives that make and sell things, but a democratically controlled economy where production is decided by the working people through community and cooperative collaboration/democracy to meet their needs. There's more to it, but that'll give you a starting point for how to think about it. If you end up getting stuck on the "but democracy leads to mob rule" tropes, understand that people who push them either don't understand that they've been brainwashed to uncritically accept top-down rule as good and natural, or they are willing participants in the brainwashing scheme; democracy is not "one person one vote" or all that other nonsense, nor does it have to abide by a specific republican structure that you might expect of the U.S. Senate or various committees. It is only as bad as you want it to be, meaning that if you want a functional democracy you will figure out how to make it function well...which isn't hard to do if you put your mind to it.

[@lochnessmunster1189]

@@samuelrosander1048 But the Bible IS completely true!! I'm just kidding. I appreciate your answer, but this doesn't answer my question: how does "ownership" of a business transfer to a new employee? Do they now part-own it from their first minute of employment?

[@clayton9233]

Dependency theory and unequal exchange are useful theories for understanding modern imperialism, but following them too closely can occasionally lead to some ridiculous claims.

[@danielm17]

This is a Marxist channel all of its claims r ridiculous lol

[@melelconquistador]

what would be an example?

[@clayton9233]

@@melelconquistador I've seen a number of people try to work backward from the idea that capital export is a form of imperialism to saying things like "the reason why the US/UK/etc. are richer than the global south is FDI and repatriation of profits"

[@melelconquistador]

@@clayton9233 Well, I dont necessarily think it is the export but rather also the import. At the end of the day, the imperial core ends up with the commodities and the money largely in the hands of the few. There is definitely more to how this accomplished, like the basic specifics of how. As in the fostering of conditions that keeps labor cheap on the periphery while the people are also both quantitatively and qualitatively impoverished. Whether is be with the threat or usage of violence and possibly along with the methods of predatory financing.

[@lochnessmunster1189]

@@melelconquistador How much does a person need to have, to become part of the "imperial core"? "while the people are also both quantitatively and qualitatively impoverished"- do you actually believe that there hasn't been a massive improvement in the quality of people's lives in the past 200 years?

[@dogukan127]

Great work. I am an ex-Marxist and I would say I have largest swtiched to mainstream views, but there is a lot to be learned from various critical theory approaches rooted in Marxism. My main problem is that as a person obsessed with catgorizing-mentioning everything, a tree of various Marxist and M-inspired schools could have been mentioned. You have jumped many other traditions ranging from world-systems to neo-gramscian thinking though the material you covered can be used as a "core" for much of the theories.

[@gaberobison680]

Both theories are really the same and follow from the fact that capitalism is fundamentally exploitative

[@geoffdparsons]

cuba venezuela nicaragua seem pretty anti imperialist to me

[@geoffdparsons]

thx for the video tho fr

[@franticmower7300]

I find it ridiculous that you made a video about how marxist theory should be revised in 2022.

[@ezehernandez]

I strongly disagree, this views have been a dead weight for marxian science and depend on the notion that monopoly has replaced the war of competition... which is central to the analysis of Capital. Furthermore the ideas of monopolization are a degradation of thought, since they imply a conspiratorial view instead of an objective view of the economy, and if they were true they would imply a dynamic of stagnation that has not happened. Something else that has not happened is an eternal status quo of economic underdevelopment in every country outside Europe and Northamerica... this heritage of Lenin and third word intellectuals should be taken seriously but in the sense of applying to them the full power of critique. Greetings from Argentina.

[@themarxistproject]

Monopoly capitalism was very much the paradigm throughout a large portion of the 20th century. Monopoly/oligopoly analyses were very important even for non-Marxist economists. I would suggest reading Joan Robinson or Michal Kalecki for more on oligopolies. Additionally, I dont think interpreting monopolies as a conspiracy is accurate -- monopolies occur as a result of the accumulation of capital, which is a central process in many schools of thought, including the Marxist one. In fact, I would argue that the notion of competitive markets is the less plausible one and that the interventions of thinkers like Kalecki brought much needed theory about market power to Marxism.

[@ezehernandez]

@@themarxistproject right, monopolies do occur, the question is if they are a dominant feature. This would imply negating the value analysis of Marx, since it´s based on the idea that competition is the force that regulates prices, driving them towards their value. Marxists like Shaikh have shown that wars of prices still exist between the enormous capitals of our era. A famous example is the competition of Japanese and German industries vs American ones in the post war period. It is often assumed that a larger size of capital and a reduced number of actors in the market imply the negation of competition, but that´s not the case, individual capitals still need to compete. I believe Semmler has shown this. But the clearest way of seeing this debate is to think about how the economy should work if monopoly had replaced competition. The drive to invest (which in Marx is largely driven by competition) would largely disappear (since you don´t need to surpass your competitors and workers have no other employment options that could give them enough negotiating power to make it necessary to replace them by machines, plus any wage gains can be negated by an arbitrary change in the prices of final goods by monopolies) and therefore the productive forces would have been stagnated from the times of Lenin. Contrary to that idea, the world today seems much closer to the abstract explanation contained in Capital, which makes sense, since we are at a moment in which capital dominates completely as a mode of production.

[@Robespierre-lI]

I'm not a fan of using the word imperialism so loosely. Global inequities, sure. A global working class? Sure. I would even feel very comfortable discussing a new global class system. But, as a historian, i have to say that this tendency amongst certain people on the political left to use the word imperialism to discuss the current global capitalist market and its geopolitics is sloppy. Historically, the there are three types of empire, all closely related. - Empires of military conquest. - Empires or settler societies. (Colonial) - Empires of vassal states The rhetoric of "neo-imperialism" suggests that global trade and commerce itself can be a form of imperialism. That's a grave error. By that standard, any time a people and nation experienced economic expansion, we would have to label them imperial - even if they do so entirely peacefully. Similarly, was the US during the Cold War an imperialist nation? Truly? Sure, there were lots of covert and overt interventions - many worthy of harsh criticism in retrospect - but no colonies were built to pillage the natural resources or labor of other nations, the military adventures were proxy wars motivated by the perception that the Soviet Union's geopolitical power needed to be contained (not conquest), and "vassal state" would be very much an exaggeration of the US relationship with it's allies. Japan, for example, governs itself and has certainly benefitted tremendously from the defensive pact with the US; they aren't being controlled or explored. American Empire was a real thing. But it describes best the period of expansionism between manifest destiny and WWII. Then, America became a superpower - a different kind of thing. That's just one example. However, this is an important issue to think clearly about if you plan on understanding what China is doing now and will do in future years. So far, they are behaving like a superpower, whereas Russia has regressed to bring imperialistic

[@wadiefaridhaddad7429]

Imperialism : Lenin defines as the highest stage of capitalism.so this is all imperialism that we have now. Division of the world into blocs

[@WastedContender]

the book is a must-read! Lenin describes all the mechanisms that lead to imperialism. Its also interesting to read, what the world looked like more than hundred years ago. For example: Western oil production was dominated by Rockefeller, Eastern oil production by Rothschild and Nobel. That was in 1905. When the Bolshevics took over, they nationalized the complete energy sector, of course, making themselves the biggest enemies of imperialism.

[@5ivearrows]

You forgot Russia and China on your little map in the thumbnail.

[@Joaking91]

Lol. No

[@bizfromdotcom]

Imperialism of the former Soviet Union, now the Russian Federation and Communist China was/is really horrific taken to the account that it all happen very recently and it is still happening as we speak

[@johnsinclair4621]

🥱

[@mrduckman225]

I don't know what imperialism is 🤡

[@Joaking91]

Clown

[@monkeeseemonkeedoo3745]

Exactly. NATO expansion is voluntary and the countries of eastern Europe lined up to join. They remember russian and soviet aggression in their past. Same thing happened with Finland and Sweden, they petition to join as a result of russian aggression and attempts at expanding its influence, like an empire does. The thing to remember is that russia is extremely weakened.

[@mrduckman225]

@@monkeeseemonkeedoo3745 when did you vote to go to war in Iraq? Did you vote to increase the budget for the military industrial complex? I'm guessing you didn't for a number of reasons. Leaders vote for war because it's the poor who will die. So forgive me if I don't think the average Ukrainians top political issue was joining a defence just like ours isn't for invading Haiti.

[@ТаняПриймич-и6с]

And what about russian imperialism? Russia's war in Ukraine is about controlling that region it's people and resources. Russia sends soldiers mostly from oppressed regions. Also the capital of russia lives on resources took from other ethnical regions.

[@torrentialrage]

I don't think it is reasonable for Marxists to try to hold a monopoly on the definition of Imperialism. Imperialism comes from Empire, ruled by an Emperor or an "Imperator". There is value is talking about Empire through the lens of capitalism and unequal exchange, but that should work in tandem with historical definitions and not in conflict with. I also think that any time an exploited country does something about unequal exchange, or who fights against military domination from an aspiring imperial power, that is anti-imperialist.

[@themarxistproject]

Honestly, I agree. Imperialism is just one of those concepts that's too complex to be reduced to a single, ahistorical, "correct" usage. I see no reason why non-Marxist views on imperialism couldn't be of substantial analytical merit, provided they are rigorous and relevant (criteria that I fully expect to be applied to any Marxist idea as well). To your second point: I think it would depend on the situation but, generally speaking, yes, any concerted effort to break from the exploitation of unequal exchange should be considered an anti-imperialist maneuver.

[@hamletksquid2702]

I'm willing to let Marxists use a Marxist definition of imperialism. If you're going to build a theoretical construct of reality, you need to define your own terms. There's Marxists, and then there's Marxists, of course.

[@MrShpoulsen]

Why should an hour of labour by one person necessarily be valued the same as an hour of labour by another? The labour theory of value is not needed when critiqueing capitalism. In fact we don't need any theory of "value". All we need is the knowlegde that the majority of work is done by people earning wages (including the petite bourgeoisie managers of businesses and capital), while the profits and society in its entireity is tyranically controlled by an unproductive minority that only values its own self-interests.

[@Jessupz]

It's called differential rates of exploitation and it's pretty obvious when you think about it. Not everyone is exploited exactly the same for their hourly work.

[@Jessupz]

I mean this shit could literally be statistically charted. Exactly how much your being exploited per hour.

[@Jessupz]

You really need to read more Marx

[@TacticoolMobius]

This is just not true. Developing countries have improved because of free trade. And they have developed their own R&D to achieve relative independence. South Korea was historically colonized and very poor in the 60s but are now a leading industrialized nation. So many former colonial nations have a lot of internal problems but this is just glossed over. Of course there is China who everyone seems to forget that they became the 2nd largest economy in the world by selling their exploited labor to the West. I do not think these marxists know how socio economic development works. How transfer of technology happens in these global deals. Nor do they understand how hard it is to develop a knowledge base for a technology within a closed group. i.e. a country. Do you think a thirdworld nation can just build a hydro electric dam by themselves? No. What happens is they make a deal with another country for the engineering of the dam including the power generating turbines. Once said thrid world country has the technology within their border they will get people from their own population to maintain it. Maybe make upgrades to it when necessary. The third world country in question did not just buy a dam but also started a program to aquire the knowledge base on how to build a dam. And the first engineers can train the next ones who can now have the opportunity to build and design their own dam. Lenin was wrong on so many crucial things I do not understand why marxists today are still willing to cite him. After some 80 years of leninist rule the proletat of the USSR did not own the means of production, there was no class conciousness, and a 0.01% of the burocrats had enough power to dissolve a whole empire without asking the opinion of any of its subjects.

[@themarxistproject]

No one is saying that autarky is preferred to trade. Obviously there are ways to gain from trade, even for underdeveloped countries. The point scholars like Amin and Smith are making is that the structure of the global capitalist economy necessarily relies on the exploitation of certain nations/regions/territories. There are success stories, but the role of "free" trade there is frequently overstated. S Korea, for example, managed to develop as it did through extremely strict protectionism, particularly of key infant industries. It took significant state intervention to escape the poverty pit -- as it did in virtually every other country that has transitioned out of the low-income group. State subsidies, tariffs, and other protections from international markets is ironically what allowed such countries to improve productivity in competitive sectors and thus raise their terms of trade. Several decades have now passed since neoliberal reforms opened economies in the developing world. With only a few exceptions, most countries have not been able to successfully develop. The question remains: why does the development gap persist? Free trade is more ubiquitous than ever, and yet only a few countries have significantly improved their standing. Also, the whole point of this video was to encourage people to move beyond Lenin (which is explicitly stated in the beginning and the end of the discussion). His writings on this matter were accurate *for their time*, but are now not tractable in analyzing the global economy.

[@TacticoolMobius]

@@themarxistproject What are you talking about? Most developing countries who opened themselves up to foreign investment has improved their conditions.

[@themarxistproject]

@@TacticoolMobius are you thinking of a specific study or report that shows "most developing countries" having clear gains from trade? Because I think the results have been ambiguous at best. And the countries that have been able to substantially grow their GDP have not distributed that growth in a meaningful way.

[@TacticoolMobius]

@@themarxistproject GDP is a fake stat. Human Development Index is a better indicator. Also it is important to look at the number of university graduates because that is the intellectual base the country builds to push the economy further. Brain drain is real but the developing countries are able to keep a good amount still. Plus some come back or even invest in their home country. Sure there is corruption but material conditions improve. Education is improving and people are starting to ask more.

[@themarxistproject]

@@TacticoolMobius I'm with you on that, GDP is completely inadequate. Still, I don't see strong evidence for convergence -- at least not through FDI or gains from trade. Even if globalized production has improved the average global consumer (whatever that even means), it has done so at the expense of the most exploited labor. There is also reason to believe that such global exchange has exacerbated wage inequality in the developed world with the relocation of low wage jobs. In fact I recall reading a paper recently that showed inequality increasing in both the US and Mexico after the adoption of a free trade agreement.

[@adame6425]

Say you're anti White without saying you're anti White

[@themarxistproject]

More than happy to say it: I'm "anti White"

[@adame6425]

@@themarxistproject lmao pathetic

[@StaticCollapse]

@@adame6425 define what it is to be "white" lol

[@adame6425]

@@StaticCollapse culturally, spiritually, and ethnically European

[@LowestofheDead]

This is exactly like SJWs who don't like something and call it racist

[@wadiefaridhaddad7429]

There is no resistance to imperialism at the moment

[@Derek.Mitchell]

Imperialism Today sounds like a newspaper for fascists

[@paxdriver]

Straw man alert: imperialism isn't a feeling that people disagree on, there's a definition. Just check the dictionary, it's not subjective: "a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force." Extention of power and influence, be it by economic coercion, armed forces, or banding together with other nations to score favourable outcomes from an outcast nation are all examples of imperialism. The alternative to this would be transparent dialogue, open communication of interests and equitable resolve by the measure of each participant, not excluding any of those involved from the process. "the left" are often deemed to make things up as they go along but accusations rarely hold up to the scrutiny of a dictionary. Just look it up before making claims of others' opinions then you won't be called out for constructing a straw man argument 😜

[@gorpler5900]

You are simply pointing out the Neo-Liberal definition, the problem with it is that it's completely redundant, as by that definition every nation would be considered imperialistic, or were at some point imperialistic.

[@theobaldbergamelli9638]

You are a perfect example of dunning Kruger. He's talking about different definition that are heavenly debated and you think oh let me just look in the dictionary lmao.

[@corvusprojects]

You haven't by any chance got this from Dr. Jay Tharappel, did you? Seems really similar.

[@themarxistproject]

I did not, but most of these ideas are well known in imperialism studies so I'm sure other people have made similar presentations.