Lenin in Five Minutes: Imperialism

[@enthusiastenthusiast]

While reading Lenin's "Imperialism," I was struck by how applicable his analysis of monopoly capitalism was to the contemporary economic landscape. What most casual observers see as the oppressive monopolies of Walmart, Amazon, Apple, and Google are simply a matter of course for Lenin. He saw that capital absorbs more capital: its many tributaries run downhill into a giant pool. There have been a few stop-gap measures in capitalist economies to soften that process, but today we find our capitalist economies overshadowed by these looming giants once again.

[@themarxistproject]

(Attempt #3 at posting a response to this comment) I completely agree. I think many components of Lenin's observations hold true today, including the competitive export of finance capital as a function of monopoly capitalism. Most importantly, I think Lenin's conjecture that imperialism is a stage of capitalism proved to be irrefutably true in the century since he wrote on the matter.

[@redicd6857]

America is not leaning towards extreme capitalism it’s going towards socialism

[@FWAKWAKKA]

​@@redicd6857 no not really. its leaning towards the full embrace of fascism, or in my opinion, just stepping out of the shadows. its struggle for "socialism" as you see it, is a struggle for social democracy and nothing more. the first world citizenry angry they do not benefit from imperialism and are fighting for their share of the super profits generated by their tax dollars being spent on imperialist adventurism around the world.

[@levongevorgyan6789]

Were you also struck by the utter hypocrisy of the man who invaded many nations and annexed them into his empire writing a book pretending he wasn't an imperialist dog?

[@levongevorgyan6789]

He invaded Armenia, twice, Georgia, Azerbaijan, MRNC and more

[@kerycktotebag8164]

comment for the algorithm

[@googleuser9624]

Yes

[@ik5083]

Also

[@bernaperfect1642]

Yup.

[@adamplace9449]

Bump

[@kerycktotebag8164]

B uu MM pPppPP /gets sucked into the void/

[@beveltgr9705]

Very cool. Love that you brought what Lenin wrote 100 years ago and brought it to the modern geopolitical sphere.

[@tankyjones888]

He didn’t, his analysis is dogmatic and misses the big picture which is what imperialism developed into post WW2. China isn’t imperialist.

[@f1amezof]

It is because Lenin's work has lost not one bit of its relevance.

[@the_local_bigamist]

Lenin's analysis still holds up today because the global economic conditions are the same. Different countries have advanced and emerged as powers (with China being the most obvious and, incidentally, the most threatening to American hegemony), technology has advanced by rapid proportions that are unprecedented, but the fact that international relations are relative to capital has not changed and is still the reason for the military aspect of imperialism and the wars that it demands in order to ensure the global hegemony of imperialist power(s). I am also currently reading various texts written by Lenin on the First World War and his analysis then is still applicable today, because the wars - although between different powers - are all for the most part based on the competition between various national-bourgeoisie and any alliance they may be a part of, with Nato being the most obvious in this case, with a few national liberation struggles dotted here and there, with differing class characteristics. An example would be Palestine, which has quite a complicated class character that I am too tired to try and describe, but it doesn't seem like what we might call a class-conscious, proletarian struggle for a socialist republic, although there are elements of that. Still, however, it is a struggle for national liberation against a colonial arrangement, backed by imperialist power. Lenin's ideas live on and they contain so much value when understanding the world around us, just as the ideas of Marx and Engels do. It truly is liberating to see the world for what it really is, albeit incredibly frustrating to see how far behind we are, as the proletariat, and how the forces of reaction are seemingly in full control of discourse, such as the bombardment of US/Nato propaganda relating to the war in Ukraine, to the point that getting an accurate picture of what is going on on the ground is very difficult (note: this is not a pro-Putin comment). Suddenly, people who didn't pay any attention to global affairs are setting Ukraine flags as their profile pictures whilst having a less-than-basic understanding of the war and conflict that led up to it, which goes back at least to 2014 and even before. Reading Lenin's comments on World War 1 provides a brilliant analytical framework for understanding this current war (which everybody suddenly cares about because it involves white people in Europe, rather than people with darker skin tones in far away lands).

[@aaronreveles8297]

Just finished the book. Honestly this is the best 5 min explanation of 100 pages I’ve ever seen.

[@tankyjones888]

It’s not. It doesn’t go over cartels, the essence of industrial capitalism transmuting form into finance capital, nor does it give real examples of inter imperialist war such as that between unified Germany, England, France and Russia. It’s a dogmatic leftoid attempt to label china, a communist country, as imperialist.

[@hindigente]

Lenin could've written all of this today and it would be just as relevant.

[@gnas1897]

Bro you need more subs

[@MrSyn7fold]

Lenin's take on socialist countries trading with capitalist countries is exactly what we’re seeing in China: "The entry of the socialist country into trade relations with capitalist countries is a most important factor ensuring our existence in such a complex and absolutely exceptional situation. I have had occasion to observe a certain Spargo, an American social-chauvinist close to our Right Socialist-Revolutionaries and Mensheviks, one of the leaders of the Second International and member of the American Socialist Party, a kind of American Alexinsky, and author of a number of anti-Bolshevik books, who has reproached us-and has quoted the fact as evidence of the complete collapse of communism-for speaking of transactions with capitalist powers. He has written that he cannot imagine better proof of the complete collapse of communism and the break down of its programme. I think that anybody who has given thought to the matter will say the reverse. No better proof of the Russian Soviet Republic’s material and moral victory over the capitalists of the whole world can be found than the fact that the powers that took up arms against us because of our terror and our entire system have been compelled, against their will, to enter into trade relations with us in the knowledge that by so doing they are strengthening us. This might have been advanced as proof of the collapse of communism only if we had promised, with the forces of Russia alone, to transform the whole world, or had dreamed of doing so. However, we have never harboured such crazy ideas and have always said that our revolution will be victorious when it is supported by the workers of all lands. In fact, they went half-way in their support, for they weakened the hand raised against us, yet in doing so they were helping us."

[@atashikokoni]

It's a shame comrade Lenin died so young

[@bpkoiralaproductions6004]

Fascinating, I need to learn more on this topic

[@levongevorgyan6789]

Something to keep in mind, Lenin was an imperialist himself. He invaded and subjugated many countries including my own. His views on imperialism are very narrow and carefully tailored to avoid admitting that his illegal expansionism into the territories of indigenous republics was classic imperialism.

[@despa7726]

@@levongevorgyan6789 Hey, uhm. Lenin did not invade any countries. The populations of the nations within the USSR all democratically consented to the revolution and socialism. "The export of the revolution is nonsense," as Stalin once said in an interview. Lenin thought this too. The nations all had representives within the Supreme Soviet, ensuring that all nations get a fair shake regarding internal matters. The USSR did not practice Imperialism as Lenin defined it in any way. The USSR did not invade any countries. The "invasion if Afghanistan" was an intervention mandated by the Afghan government to put down the US-backed Mujahideen. Afghanistan was socialist at the time. The "invasion" of Finland was less of an invasion and more of a retaking of Russian lands. Same with Poland, except the population in the "Polish" lands was and is Belarusian and Ukrainian. The "invasion" of Poland also saved millions from being killed by the Nazis, as Germany didn't have access to the land (for a while.) That was the point of the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact, by the way. To halt Nazi aggression until the first five-year plan had been completed and the military could be expanded and upgraded equipment-wise. This worked. Another thing to add is that the Polish government was not only fascist, but practically ceased to exist a few days into the German advance. The "satellite states" in Eastern Europe were not influenced by the USSR in elections. They were but allied. When WW2 ended, the left-wing parties in Poland, Hungary, Romania and Czechoslovakia all created a respective coalition to kick out the right-wing parties which collaborated with the Nazis, winning the elections in each country. Albania had a real revolution, instead, breaking Italian colonial rule. The protests in Budapest were more anti-semitic riots, really. And that's all I can think of right now. Lenin stayed true to his values while still being practical about halting the West. A true hero of the Proletariat.

[@levongevorgyan6789]

@@despa7726 Um hey. Armenia was invaded by the Red Army. As were all our northern neighbors. There was no vote. When we were finally allowed to vote, like 95% of our registered voters voted to get out of the Soviet Empire.

[@despa7726]

@@levongevorgyan6789 I'd like some sources on this.

[@thomaso.1572]

@@despa7726 5 months later, *crickets*

[@dialecticalveganegoist1721]

Great explanation, keep it up comrade! ♥️✊

[@dialecticalveganegoist1721]

@@jadedoptimist6364 I can only find part 2, can you link it?

[@sansonefabio8177]

Great video - finance capital is hard to get your head around especially in the lead up to the Great War. A revisions of Lenin’s work always helps!

[@stuartschneiderman8517]

Lenin's main thesis about the export of capital and the jockeying of states as representatives of the interests of their capital is even more relevant today than it was in 1917. Thanks for uploading this very succinct but informative video.

[@hindigente]

Beautifully presented and very informative work. I'm glad I found this channel.

[@julianbullmagic]

It's very important people learn about this stuff

[@kermitthefrog7425]

Why

[@MajorasWrath1]

@@kermitthefrog7425 so they stop defending it

[@kermitthefrog7425]

@@MajorasWrath1 oh I thought it was the other way around

[@MajorasWrath1]

@@kermitthefrog7425 it is, I skipped steps. What i meant was stop defending capitalism. By learning Marx and lenin's analysis of it.

[@ilyalead4blade897]

@@kermitthefrog7425 because imperialism inevitably leads to war. monopolies expand beyond nations and industries, but when there's no room to expand it's time for war

[@michelsand5399]

Excellent video, very easy to understand. You do us a great service comrade.

[@Andrearuch97]

GREAT VIDEOS YOU SHOULD COLLAB WITH OTHER MLs

[@themarxistproject]

I'd love to do collabs!

[@UmQasaann]

Long live Comrade Vladimir Lenin on overthrowing the criminal Tsar and abolished the most inhumane system that is capitalism, hats off to the Bolsheviks on defeating the people's revolution from the capitalist hoards of the West crushing 14 invading armies! Lenin was a great statesman, a great writer, a great activist and a great man! 🇨🇺🇦🇴🚩🌍⭐☭✊🏽

[@gaberobison680]

It’s almost as if economics can be analyzed scientifically and therefore century old analysis can still be flawless

[@prod.aizenn4947]

amazing recap, since these type of books are hard to read, this recaps everything i was confused about

[@lotora]

havent watched the video but i know its fire already keep it up with the great work comrade

[@Airoehead]

thank you so much for these videos, they've been a crucial step in my development as a learner who struggles with reading. is it possible to get into contact with the creators privately? if they have the free time I would like their input on a script for a socialist video essay I plan to make myself!

[@themarxistproject]

We would love to give you thoughts on your essay! Email us at themarxistproject[@]gmail.com

[@AJ-gc5mp]

Mao said “Many who have read Marxist books have become renegades from the revolution, whereas illiterate workers often grasp Marxism very well.” Press on my friend!

[@GUILLOTINE_GANG]

Love the dark backgrounds, perfect for night shift✊

[@sione_etc]

just found your channel, i've been looking for something just like this! great videos!

[@isaacsaganasimmov4444]

I am Reading Lenin's biography in this days... I came to know more about this legend...

[@paudikellegher5259]

What’s the song you used for this, I gotta know 😊

[@breadtheory]

Another good video. Well done! Please do more videos on Lenin's theories.

[@themarxistproject]

I plan on it! Though the next few videos might return to the Fundamentals of Marx. No doubt I'll be coming back to Lenin and theories based off of his works in the future. Looks like KZbin disagrees though because it marked your comment as spam lol

[@AtlantaBill]

I'd like to see a video on Lenin's "The Tasks of the Proletariat in the Present Revolution" (April 1917, containing his April Theses) as to how the theses he advances there are grounded in his Theory of Imperialism. I'd like to see a discussion on how his call for "All Power to the Soviets!" at that time was answered later by the USSR Constitution of 1936.

[@Malon2malon]

Great video, comrade. Imperialism is still at least as strong now as it was when lenin wrote, probably much stronger.

[@cameron6870]

This is the lenin I was looking for.

[@ufkun20]

So Lenin basically predicted American economic and political hegemony under the Bretton Woods system

[@destroctiveblade843]

in our history classes in middle school when we studied about colonialism the analysis of the reasons of it's emergence that we studied are very similar to the ones that lenin wrote about when he analised imperialism, I am guessing tha lenin's work had far reaching effects beyond the marxist litterature

[@santiagotorresolmos9360]

Aside from the superb content, I really wanna point out how much of a vibe the music is. Is it original music or did you get it from somewhere? And either way, could we have a source/link?

[@themarxistproject]

Thank you! The track is called Russian Dance (I think) and can be found for free in the KZbin audio library.

[@sexymary]

@@themarxistproject wow.. thanks, bro

[@kristbane]

Thank you, good work!

[@h00ded_cr0w9]

I've read Lenin's original work "Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism" and there were some major assessments that I couldn't really grasp. Not that I couldn't understand the ideas itself; the book was written in a clear, explicit language and author used a very natural and easy to grasp examples. Still, some important assertions are so different from what current marxist community propagate that it's hard to ignore. For instance, the concept of monopoly. Lots of leftists are pointing out that monopolies are bad and we need to diversify. That there shouldn't exist huge monopolistic organizations except for the governing coordination center. Yet Lenin in his work points out that the tendency to monopolize the market is a very natural phenomena - basically, it preludes the "next generation of human organization". Does this mean that in the end we will have one super organization, which will coordinate small communities? Or should we expect the transformation of society to such level, where several monopolies will govern the economic life of every individual? As an example, suppose that suddenly every major transnational corporation became workers' property and every economic aspect of life would be managed by such corporations. Another interesting point of Lenin's work is the concept of "financial oligarchy". If I understand it correctly, the financial oligarchy is founded when the traditional monopoly of goods and services fuses with the banking monopoly. At such high level of capitalization, money are earned by simply taking a rent from every market's member, who finds itself in a field of influence of such institution. This suggests that the main goal of every capitalist organization in a "free market" is to become a financial superstructure, a financial rentier - an organization, that earns the money simply by existing. And it seems to me that this mechanism is one of the reasons why capitalism has to transform to something else. Am I wrong in my assumptions?

[@samuelrosander1048]

The short answer (to the first issue only) is that, per Lenin, "democracy from below" is what socialists should work towards, not monopolies that govern from above. The only monopoly that should exist is that of the public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, through democracy from below. Without that bottom-up approach, the "withering away of the state" becomes impossible, and the positions of Lenin (and Marx) become mere lip service to mask authoritarianism. An example to look at is the Zapatistas of Mexico (the hardcore socialists I've talked to have said "that's not socialism," but their only contention was that it wasn't global, and therefore not a threat to capitalism. If it were global, they would accept it as socialism), since pretty much their whole system is democratic to the extreme. You could also look at TMP's video "The Future of Socialism" (youtube sometimes deletes comments with links, or I'd link it) to get some ideas on councils and digital support (not covered in the long answer). For the longer answer, read on... "Lots of leftists are pointing out that monopolies are bad and we need to diversify. That there shouldn't exist huge monopolistic organizations except for the governing coordination center." What they're talking about is reducing the harm. Accelerationists would insist that we do nothing to fight/stop the ills of capitalism so that the revolution will come sooner, but humanists will counter with the fact that harm is being increased to the public through monopolies, and that alone is bad enough to fight/stop them. Lenin was not an accelerationist. His position was to inform the proletariat about the realities and consequences of capitalism (and imperialism) by providing them with both the framework of ideas (Marxism) and the statistics/facts to back it up. Through that position, Lenin both calls the working class to stand up for itself to overthrow the system, and explains why merely pushing reforms is not enough to change the nature of the system. You can get that much from "Imperialism." Leftists talking about the need to break up monopolies, again, is all about reducing harm, which they often then tie into the same/similar arguments as Lenin about the nature of capitalism/imperialism to create monopolies, and why the people should choose socialism instead. "That there shouldn't exist huge monopolistic organizations except for the governing coordination center" is a problem that exists within the left, which twists Lenin's (and Marx's) arguments about "nationalization" to mean creating a new USSR or China, with a strong central state authority. That isn't what Lenin/Marx advocated at all, and in fact they reject that notion, as all leftists should. A state can certainly provide more equitable distributions of goods and services than capitalism, but it also creates a class above the proletariat that the proletariat must then fight against. The difference between a strong state and a strong imperialist system is that the imperialist system is not centralized in its power, nor can individual capitalists, even the uber-elite, call on the police or military to squash dissidents, whereas the strong state can and will/does even as they control the narrative that people are exposed to. Rather than centralizing power in the state, Lenin/Marx argued that the power should be dispersed to the masses by creating democratic communities, both in the workplace and in the broader society...as well as between the workplace and society. In fact, Lenin made it quite clear that the state must be nothing less than the armed masses of the proletariat in a truly revolutionary democracy, for which he regularly pointed to the Paris Commune of 1871, as described by Marx, as the model. Nationalization of industry to Lenin, then, means that the proletariat, through democracy incorporating the workers within each venture and the general citizenry where those ventures exist (and, to some extent, who is serviced by them), control the industries, as opposed to a central state authority or even a monopolized industrial council. This obviously runs counter to what happened in the USSR, but to understand why things went the way they did, you would have to look at all of the conditions of the time (heavy foreign interventionism and widespread illiteracy not being the least of the problems). To more explicitly answer the question/scenario: "Does this mean that in the end we will have one super organization, which will coordinate small communities? Or should we expect the transformation of society to such level, where several monopolies will govern the economic life of every individual? As an example, suppose that suddenly every major transnational corporation became workers' property and every economic aspect of life would be managed by such corporations." According to Lenin/Marx, no, we wouldn't have such a super organization that coordinates small communities, or a conglomerate of monopolies that govern economic life. Instead, it would be the other way, with the small communities (social, military, and workplace), through bottom-up democracy, cooperating with each other to decide on all issues (by first discussing the issues, and then offering solutions), which would then go up the chain as more community representatives are included in the discussion, until decisions are made, again, democratically. Lenin had two famous slogans that he repeated often: "All Power to the Soviets" and "democracy from below." He also talked often about the people doing the work of governance themselves. Again, his ideas take from the model of the Paris Commune, not a monopoly-based, top-down state.

[@georgesoap1733]

Can you make a video to explain how the us controls the international economy after ww2 using the dollar ?

[@kaushiknair3850]

This is amazing! Great vid, very informative and digestible!

[@hoxhacat8195]

"[...]regardless of whether or not you think the USSR was truly socialist..." It was, until revisionists liberalized it. To say it wasn't is to ignore all of the accomplishments of the first workers' state, the heart of the revolution which accomplished so much and to belittle any attempts at socialism and any time the proletariat gains power.

[@daviddelgado6090]

That's close to 2 million workers dead in the forced labor gulags.

[@bloodborne410]

this video is very informative

[@iamroberty]

Great video! Thanks for the information.

[@uis246]

What music plays on background?

[@tanujSE]

I am confused,Lenin isn't writing anything about ways to end class relation in soviet state

[@commwave5820]

Can you do a video on pannekoek a lesser known Marxist.

[@themarxistproject]

Sure, I'll add it to the list!

[@Kolokommouna]

What's that song in the background?

[@themarxistproject]

It's called "Russian Dance." I got it from KZbin's audio library to avoid getting copyright claimed and have the video monetized lol

[@ChungusLover-re7wh]

good one bro

[@sahilnare5005]

Great video!

[@TIENxSHINHAN]

One day someone will make videos like this but in simple English and slower speech.

[@AlexGoldhill]

The decline of the American Empire and the return to multipolar competition between competing imperial powers is all but guaranteed at this point, especially with the coming capital flight that the US is about to experience. I have some friends who run a left-wing economics podcast where they discuss this: soundcloud.com/chopshopeconomics/episode-39-last-flight-out-of-wall-street

[@guyoflife]

Why does the economy being overripe necessitate imperialism? Why can't it just accumulate or be spread among the population? Will it collapse the economy ? Is it truly structurally inevitable or just a lust for power?

[@Srijit1946]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/Y4SQdKqMf92rq8k

[@guyoflife]

@@Srijit1946 is that supposed to be an answer? I might not want to watch a 2 and a half hour video for a the answer to a simple question.

[@Srijit1946]

@guyoflife "Because that's not how capitalism", "Both", etc aren't satisfactory answers, are they? The video I linked is an excellent documentary and it's divided into 7 parts so you don't have to watch it in one go. The first part is on what Imperialism is, and it's only 20 minutes long, so if you want to understand it in a little more depth, you should check it out. If you're wondering why we can't just reform our way out of it, I suggest you check out 1Dime's short documentary titled "Why Billionaires Support Democrats" and Hakim's video on social democracy.

[@soupmagee]

I understand that when capital is consolidated, there is a need to export capital to continue growth. What do you mean by "the exportation of goods is exceeded by the exportation of capital"?

[@SpaghettiShaq]

Great video. Subbed

[@Emily-nw7fc]

Do y'all think this same theory could be applied to the capital wealth, political power, and dare I say cultural dominance of the modern American Evangelical Church? I see a lot of similarities in the accumulation of money and power, as well as the sheer world -changing dynamic of these powerhouses

[@aquakroot]

idk if you'll see this comment, but you might be interested in reading Gramsci's writings on hegemony. it deals with exactly this sentiment

[@C2k23_]

Great and informative video!

[@ColorMatching]

Can you please lower the music's volume?

[@MT-2020]

background music is distracting.

[@Hardcore_Ant]

Excellent explanation, well done

[@ulfljung4630]

It is very relevant and it has become reality! As a marxist/leninist I find it disturbing but also the insight that capitalism soon will die off by itself!

[@pluto3083]

You've earned yourself a subscriber VIVA LA REVOLUCIÓN we must continue fighting for emancipation comrade

[@РамиШатёр]

Feeding the algorithm

[@aryaskumar792]

Please include sub title

[@hassankhan-jg1dx]

Not a single dislike!

[@nithinsikinam]

good going

[@DershPardonNow]

What about the social democrat bashing

[@themarxistproject]

It's so ubiquitous in Lenin's works that it's sort of a given for anything he's published. I'm considering making a compilation video of his sickest burns at some point in the future.

[@DershPardonNow]

@@themarxistproject make it a diss track

[@michelsand5399]

@@DershPardonNow I support this idea wholeheartedly.

[@alexandrecerqueira3023]

Nice video. Very important to american workers, so they can know in what side they are, because the bourgeoisie know already. And i think the permanent revolution must start on USA, or on the fall of their bourgeoisie. 1:59 My touths about this graph: PRC is on top after 2000 on the graph, but USA still are the imperialism country. USA have the world money (dolar), and the head of the most important comerce and military "unions" (OCDE, OTAN). I think the graph may be a bit in favor to PCR. And this map 2:58 seem like a fair fitgh, but the reality is the USA smashing to maintain control of other countries, PRC included. PCR dont control even taiwan, and its the other side from their beaches. Ukraine war shows what is imperialims: Russia is the country sansioned, and PCR is a reluctant supporter. All mainsrteam media is on a open propaganda to favor OTAN, and Europe dont know what to do, because they are between the devil (USA) and the deep sea (the winter is coming). Lenim Imperialism is about control, both economic and military, and capitalism dont support 2 imperialism. There are only one imperialism, and it is the USA, the only country that dropped two atomic bombs on civilians' heads to show the world their savagery. I know i am not an american (i dont even know english very well), but think about it: when we are on the outside, we can see things more clearly. othewise, we tend to take sides.

[@shaquillewilliams7888]

England, France, Spain, Portugal, etc had the whole world divided up before the national liberation movements of the 40-90s. They still control much of the economies of those countries-France forces 14 African countries to use their currency, England has its commonwealths, Australia in Timor, The US has been the global hegemon and manager of the savagery-e.g. AIC and FMI but I wouldn’t say Europe’s theft has stopped, they are still collaborating

[@alexandrecerqueira3023]

@@shaquillewilliams7888 I agree. The problem of the capitalism and imperialism, on the development of the socialist revolution, seems to me like the problem of the hidra, that if you start hit one head randomly, they grow 2 in place. We have to hit the right head. The main one. A socialist revolution is a powerfull event on it's own. I think if you hit In the right place, it's capable of change all things in a turn. If USA proletarians start the revolution on there, the immediate effect is all latin american doing the revolution on the same time, on a scale event. The USA revolution is the point of no return of the capitalism.

[@deezeed2817]

Most of what China does isn't exporting capital, Yes some private firms in China will export to cheaper countries but on the whole what China does is mostly building infrastructure and co-operation with countries on development. There isn't any large scale export of capital, China does not want to go down this route as it isn't in the interest working class to see their jobs sent to far away lands. In fact if you look at what's going on most of the export of capital is simply done as a result of trade wars and the products ultimately all end up in western markets.

[@tropicrush3084]

good video but the music is a little loud XD

[@tropicrush3084]

im subbing

[@rasikhzaheerthakur5570]

Excellent

[@theodorobretas3326]

excellent my friend

[@dedg0st]

thank you for this

[@paulokano5032]

Great perspective, thanks for the upload!

[@TheJayman213]

thanks.

[@shnorglebop1798]

Very helpful thank you :)

[@SN-xk2rl]

The biggest weakness in this analysis is the reliance on Hilferding - a proto-MMTer socdem. Why rely on Hilferding, or for that matter Lenin, when there are so many better takes on the stages of development of capitalism, or geographic expansion, or financialization since Lenin's time. If you could reanimate Lenin's body he would not use his own obviously outdated analysis of 100 years ago as any kind of guidepost for analysis today. He was too practical for that dogmatic nonsense.

[@smljnsn65]

You consider China to be fully capitalist?

[@jackri7676]

nah it has a mixed economy with a planned sector but they're pretty damn capitalist and by no means have a model that will build socialism and escape capital.

[@smljnsn65]

@@jackri7676 thank you!

[@亲爱的爸爸]

yes,china is capitalism.ccp want people think it is socialism.but true socialism china has died in 1978. I am Chinese.

[@jackri7676]

@@亲爱的爸爸 how strong are the unions and worker's rights?

[@亲爱的爸爸]

@@jackri7676 much worse than America, chinese workers have little rights. chinese people don't dare talk about true socialism theory in public. my acounts has been banned because I talk the difference between revisionism and socialism. it's very dangerous to make socialism true propaganda in China. I heard some Marxists has been killed by ccp in 2017-2020. ccp is a facism capitalism who want people think it is socialism.when Mao died, deng xiaopin killed many communists like Mao's wife jiangqing. in 1980s CCP put more than 1700,000 workers in jail who against revisionism.ccp killed 20000 leads of them. of course America government supported deng that time. America government hate true socialism than current China much more. that's why mike pense say China is imperialism and revisionism, then he change quikly to say china is Marxism socialism. actually America want people think China is socialism too

[@ItsJaseShawty]

Good video

[@ralfbelov7760]

But Venezuela!

[@rappakalja5295]

In this context, you really should be mentioning Soviet imperialism rather than Venezuela, my guy.

[@arthurmorgan1550]

@@rappakalja5295 There is no such thing as “Soviet imperialism.” You probably think the USSR helping the Afghan government combat extremist groups after they were asked to do so is somehow imperialist.

[@rappakalja5295]

@@arthurmorgan1550 So invading a country, exploiting them and puppeting their politics isn't imperialism to you?

[@arthurmorgan1550]

@@rappakalja5295 What event are you referring to?

[@rappakalja5295]

@@arthurmorgan1550 The Soviet invasion of both Finland and Poland, and the forced annexation of the Baltics

[@brichess8227]

ty mr algorithm

[@username19237]

Good vid

[@gofar5185]

... it was simplified and modified according to circumstances and situations of a country... there was in china that goes this way, marx lenin stalin mao as applied in the countrysides of the river yangtze... marx lenin kim as applied in pyongyang... marx lenin as applied by ho in vietnam.. i asked my yoga spiritual teacher what i do, when a wandering maoist teacher ask me with very sincere enthusiasm.if i could spend time for lenin political education while sitting where i am.. my spiritual teacher said, listen to them as you want them to listen to you... say: just as much as they are very sincerely determined in a fair and just governance through communism, you are a very sincerely determined student of spiritual yoga that goes beyond just and fair governance through communism... learning & teaching is one and the same in a two way process... you learn from them, you teach them, as, they learn from you and teach you...

[@captain-fb4rh]

--Algorithms algorithms--

[@benquinneyiii7941]

A backup plan

[@felixbm4014]

ik this is old but comment for algorithm

[@jaketutu]

Shieeet for the algorithm

[@PremierMatthew]

It seems as though our two series' are going to overlap a bit.

[@themarxistproject]

Indeed it does! Would be happy to coordinate or do a collab with you at any time, comrade!

[@PremierMatthew]

@@themarxistproject I'd actually quite like that sometime. We'll have to discuss on exactly what it'd be over.

[@themarxistproject]

Alright, keep me in the loop!

[@PremierMatthew]

The Marxist Project Deal

[@sunwukong6917]

China does not engages in imperialism

[@look123look1]

Awesome video, liked and subbed

[@fyviane]

Leninin.

[@spring.knowledge]

¥ is jpy sign :/ lol

[@themarxistproject]

I believe it is used both for the yen and the yuan, though I couldn't explain why that came to be.

[@LibertarianLeninistRants]

I do think that we still live in an imperialist age; capitalist countries still use war as a means of expanding capital, to conquer new markets and access to cheap resources. However there have been massive changes in the last 100 years in the way all of this functions. Kwame Nkrumah wrote a book about Neo-Colonialism. It is in so far interesting that the 20th century saw the end of the old form of colonialism and the replacement with neo-colonialism. So on Lenin's concept of Imperialism it is possible to build other concepts which describe new forms that capitalism takes today. I would like to read a modern marxist understanding of the Internet though. Not even Paul Cockshott wrote something about it, and he is the guy whom I consider to be one of the leading marxist academics today.

[@themarxistproject]

I agree! I think the base concepts are still valid today, but the international political economy has certainly changed in the hundred years since Lenin wrote about imperialism. I think one area of change is the decreasing power of nation-states and the increasing sovereignty and power of transnational corporations. Also, the current hegemonic structure has new tools at its disposal, like the World Bank and the IMF, which are used to coerce states into conforming and bending to the will of the dollar. The McDonough article I left in the description tracks the evolution of Lenin's theses and their influence on more modern perspectives (like Baran and Sweezy, Mandel, Uno, etc.) Yes! I think the Internet is a super strange and potentially very powerful institution (?) that Marxists -- or really anyone else -- have yet to decipher. I'm going to put Paul Cockshott on my video ideas list because I think his Towards a New Socialism is worth discussing. I'd like to do more videos on cybernetics and democratically planned economies.

[@MideoKuze]

wrt Cockshott, he'd probably state, and I'd agree, that the Internet doesn't occupy any sort of special economic position. The People's Republic of Walmart did some very preliminary, speculative, and plain-English work on the economic role of the propagation of information (referencing Cockshott, incidentally), so that might be a fertile avenue of work, but beyond that there isn't much. Most Marxists seem to see it as another frontier of technological development that fits pretty neatly into existing Marxist frameworks.

[@themarxistproject]

@What a Buffoon The internet is such an idiosyncratic phenomenon that I don't think it really fits neatly into any existing theoretical spheres. It can function as a platform for so many different social-economic-political activities. Thanks for your comment! I definitely need to do some more investigating.

[@LibertarianLeninistRants]

@@MideoKuze Thanks, I just finished the People's Republic of Walmart today. Cockshott's works are indeed a source of knowledge for all socialists today, but I'm not so sure if the Internet is just another attachment to the economy of the previous century. I think it is a game changer when it comes to strategy of revolution, more than only an aspect of the economy that needs to be taken into account.

[@MideoKuze]

@@LibertarianLeninistRants ​ @The Marxist Project What I mean by that is less that it is not different from previous economic engines (it certainly *is)* but more that this difference does not rise to the level of a difference in *kind.* It does enable many different sorts of communication, and extends capital into the social sphere in novel respects. But, then, if you apply (perhaps as an unorthodox pollution) a little Deleuze, you get a fairly reasonable prediction of this effect based on capitalism's tendency to encode increasingly many aspects of life. Again turning to Deleuze (crit me but), we can see the Internet's role as a deterritorializing force; decoupling the edifices of economic planning from states, even borders, rendering property increasingly molar and diffuse (I... really want to go into a big long digression about what that means, but in context, effectively it means more standardized, reproducible, and interchangeable). Again, though, this is a force already present within capitalism. It's not novelly exerted by the Internet, it's just intensified. Zuboff on The Rise of Surveillance Capitalism puts some work into discussing the particularities of the change wrought from the former idea, although her work is not particularly materialist, which is a glaring flaw. It could, potentially, be interpreted through the lens of finance capital. Financializing behaviour, thereby scraping increasing marginal profits from proportionally diminishing variable capital. (I kinda banged this out so it's a little dense and not strictly fully formed. I will be happy to elaborate if I've made an error or stated something confusing.)

[@vortexunofficial1397]

I dont understand anything. Where should I start from watching your video to understand these concepts. I don't want to read from internet as it's monopolized by capitalist supporting writer.

[@hazharhawez7545]

Please remove this annoying background music and speak slower. Great video. Thank you.

[@darinthekaren27]

❤

[@cjbonner8587]

bump

[@iamamaverick9176]

I have to ask: sure, Capitalism has some imperialistic tendencies to it, but what makes communism anti-imperialist? If it’s an ‘internationalist’ movement, isn’t that just code for ‘imperialism’? For example, if Lenin was “anti-imperialist”, why didn’t the USSR relinquish the former Russian Empires territories; letting it break apart and leaving them to their own devices?

[@kcpkmkcpkm434]

I may not be the best to answer since im relatively new to Marxist theory but no one else has replied so I’ll try. I wouldn’t say capitalism has imperialistic tendencies. Rather that imperialism is a natural development of capitalist production. It is a stage of capitalism, the highest stage. Socialism/communism being an internationalist movement does not make it imperialist. Imperialism is the exportation of finance capital as a way to keep expanding profits for monopolies in the imperialist countries. Socialists do not want to maintain the capitalist mode of production (production for exchange and wage labor). socialist countries helping communist parties around the world for revolution is not imperialist. Nor is it imperialist when socialist countries “invade” other countries. I say “invade” because a more accurate word is liberate. To free the workers in capitalist countries and help establish a worker’s government. Lenin and the USSR were anti-imperialist. The various republics voted to join the USSR. This was after their capitalist governments were toppled. Imperialism is based off of finance capital to help monopolies expand profits. Helping overthrow capitalist governments to form workers governments is not imperialist.

[@nicoruppert4207]

You seem unaware of the fact in socialist countries like the USSR there was literally a right to session. As in all the constituent republic had the right to declare independence (which they did btw). Hard to call that imperialist when in other countries session is always met with military action. If Indians seceded from the US they would get shot, when Ukraine seceded they just left.

[@iamamaverick9176]

@@nicoruppert4207 Didn’t Ukraine secede from the USSR roughly around the same time the USSR as a whole collapsed as a country? It may not have been met with backlash by the former Soviet government with force, but I doubt the supreme government was happy to lose one of its “republics”. And if any of them had the right to secession, why did it take the “republics” so long to secede before 1991?

[@iamamaverick9176]

@@kcpkmkcpkm434 Didn’t the at-the-time newly formed Soviet Union invade, or at least, intervene in other foreign countries affairs? And didn’t they continue to do so both before and during the Cold War? en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_the_Soviet_Union

[@nicoruppert4207]

@@iamamaverick9176 very nice way of dreaming up an argument. Shame it didn't play out like you imagined. The secession of Ukraine was with the secession of Russia the death nail for the USSR as they compromised the majority of the population. Doesn't change that fact about the right to secession. You could read Lenin's works to see what communists thought about nationality.

[@samjonesi2658]

Comment

[@prolemodel1614]

Could've done without the implication of "Chinese imperialism" smh

[@themarxistproject]

Well it's hard to deny that finance capital very much exists in the PRC and it is, for better or for worse (which is often case-by-case), exported to underdeveloped countries. Much of China's foreign policy fits Lenin's understanding of imperialism. That being said, an important and substantial of the PRC's political economy is socialist to some degree.

[@armandovaiandando6472]

@@themarxistproject Well, it is a little bit hard to have financial capital, when all the banks are owned by the state, don't you think?

[@Rockinintomordor]

Yea, I think it's important to note that *some* of Lenin's 5 points of imperialism but also importantly, not others. I don't think Lenin had a proper conception of what China could become at the time.

[@Srijit1946]

kzbin.info/www/bejne/g4jNn3-tg9SCfa8

[@ozzy5628]

I understand nothing.

[@jadedoptimist6364]

KZbin: Europa, the Last Battle part 1. It is the most informative documentary I ever saw.

[@boringname3657]

@@jadedoptimist6364 Quotes taken out of context, fake quotes, fabricated information, and some shitty, intense background music, and you idiots will believe anything.

[@jadedoptimist6364]

@@boringname3657 Apparently you didn't watch the documentary.

[@boringname3657]

@@jadedoptimist6364 I did watch it, but of course, you have to assume everything in order for your simplistic worldview to have any credibility. It's a not very remarkable piece of fiction. Midly entertaining (I enjoy stupid, easily refuted conspiracy theories) but not very creative - retreads typical Zionist, anti-Semitic conspiracy crap.

[@OVOFloyd]

Thanks, Lenin was boring AF compared to my reading of Marx. I guess the litany of economic figures and banal excerpts/quotes from bourgeois economists really marred my understanding of the text, so I skipped around a bit. Thanks for summarizing! Hopefully Lenin’s other works are more captivating to read.

[@pierre-olivierbrassard9999]

Relevant and visionary but still a super boring book to read actually.

[@afgor1088]

Dude, I think you just explained all of Marxism from das capital to capitalist realism in 12 words

[@monika.alt197]

I dont think so honestly

[@salmanzakaria1029]

No matter what Lenin was better than Stalin

[@sunwukong6917]

This video was terrible, it didn't explained basic concepts properly