I watch Rick and Morty so I know what I'm doing.

Ok kid

@Mr.AnalTwister4000 Capitalistic encirlement would still exist

this place is an adult baby daycare centre

the french empire for example

come again?

wouldn't just let a revolution like that slip by

they would take advantage with it

and ally with other bourgeisie forces to taking down the new 'british union'

unified in destroying dangeorus extremism like communism.

so no imperialism would still exist

also you're pretending as if Russia wasn't an imperialistic empire before the soviet union 😂 it was like the UK

the only way imperialism wouldn't appear in communist literature is if the global revolution had occured without any other previous communist revolutions so that capitalist encirclement did not occur.

I'm arguing that as there didnt exist any successful revoloutions in an "imperialist" country at size of UK which is why the use of the word is so prominent among communists. also there was that part with the treaty of brest litovsk

who is this elite of bourgeois

I see your point considering russia was a feudalistic imperialist country in comparison to imperialism as the highest order of capitalism like UK or France

but still there would be other 'capitalist imperialist' states

and communists would just look at that and develop a theory of imperialism

thats not what I'm saying. I'm saying the use of the word is so prominent because the communists hated what they did not have

and im saying that the theory of imperialism doesn't magically disappear if the revolution occured in the Uk or France there is still capitalist encirclement there is still monopoly capitalism it would still be prominent, imperialism would still be a problem for the new British Union which has to now 'de-imperialize' their country. and destroy the old reactionary order.

had the UK become a socialist country in their times of the empire they certainly wouldn't "de-imperialize" (be it they still held control of their former territories). just like the soviet union didnt "de-imperialize" their own country but continued to expand

that's under the guise that the USSR was imperialist, it's not, it headed the anti-imperialist movement lol.
The UK would de-imperialize because those are the material conditions that result from a communist uprising.

"anti-imperialist" only to those who wish to see it that way. sure they had reformed their ideals and a new flag but it was simply the recreation of the russian empire and at the end of the war, larger than it had been.

imperialism is a very specific form of expansion driven by specific material conditions. Not all expansion is 'imperialistic' because not all expansion is driven by the creation of a bourgeoisie order or the creation of the capitalist mode of production.

the USSR liquidated the bourgeoisie and was not creating a 'capitalist mode of production' so is not imperialist.

w8 a minute

"is a spoon a spoon or is a spoon a table?" is what I said earlier and I feared so. thats how you define imperialism? than this whole argument has been utterly pointless.

so you're saying the USSR was anti-materialist?

@🌼Kalina🌹🌸🌹Zay🌹🌸🌹Scott🌼

I'm saying the USSR had being going through the trans formative system of socialism so was not creating a capitalist mode of production. the feudalism -> socialism transformation was rectified by the N.E.P. and even under the N.E.P. the kulaks and bourgeoisie did not control the dictatorship of the proletariat therefore the USSR was not imperialist then. Stalin had liquidated the bourgeoisie so even under Stalin the USSR was not imperialist. There is nothing anti-materialist about that.

Well then.

What do you think the USSR was?

How is the debate going lads?

the primary stage of socialism with a DoTP

im getting attacked on marxist theory by fash 😂

Who is winning, though?

no one really

That is surprising.

@Mr.AnalTwister4000 gave up because my definition of imperialism wasn't his definition of imperialism

xd

but anyways