- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
The desire for economic, political and financial monopoly and the transnational expansion of capital is imperialism as the highest stage of “capitalism”.
It depends on how you understand it.
All those words. Imperialism – according to Hobson, Lenin, or something else? Highest – the last, most effective, most expressive of the essence? Capitalism-as a “formation” or as a “market economy”? Stage – phase or stage?
For example, the main criteria of imperialism are monopolies, the leading role of banks, and the coverage of the entire economy.ecumenes are zones of influence (whether they are colonies or something else).
And let's also say that we want to collect the “correct formula”. Then the stage as a stage will not immediately suit us, the development of the world is non-linear – and the higher the level of progress, the easier it is to roll back. Let it be a phase.
And therefore – not necessarily the last one.
Capitalism, figs with it, let it be market. We'll see.
Does the market allow the formation of monopolies? Undoubtedly. Do monopolies have an advantage? The stump is clear. They fight them politically, with the help of laws.
Does the development of the market (for example) somehow hinder the development of banks? Is there a more effective way to manage your money (tipo in Russian)? Locally-maybe. At the planetary level , it is still invisible.
To what extent can the monopoly's area of influence expand? Are there “market mechanisms” that prevent the formation of multinational corporations and their capture of the planetary economy? Which is more efficient and cost-effective – own business or”franchise”?
It remains only to understand how much monopolies benefit (or vice versa) co-exist with other monopolies. At first glance, not very much. It doesn't matter that you make steel and I make vinyl records. We are already competing in terms of capital concentration. Even if we have one bank , we will fight for our (imaginary) influence on it. As a monopolist, it is beneficial for me that no other monopolies exist. You too. Sometimes we will negotiate.
And” at extreme points ” (calm or crisis), the influence of non-economic factors will sharply increase.
Therefore, at first glance, although imperialism (as we understand it above) is the “highest phase of capitalism”, it is precisely under capitalism as a market economy that it is completely unattainable. Empires will collapse, monopolies will break up, and banks will go bankrupt.
Theoretically, someone can beat everyone – but for this it is not enough to become the strongest capitalist on the planet, you will have to master all aspects of life, at least all the important production, technology, management methods, science, medicine, education. Either (I speak in the context of the “final victory of imperialism”) we can set a common goal. It doesn't matter: the common good, maximum concentration of capital, or something else. But this is already…
On the one hand, “no”, on the other hand, if you really pull hard, then – “yes”.
The foreign word “capitalism” speaks only of how businessmen are hungry for profit at the expense of other people's labor. But the Russian word, which is identical to “capitalism”, speaks for itself-miroedstvo. Capitalism and world-eating are one and the same thing, it's just that the same features are indicated in a foreign language, while in Russian the features are much more widely covered.
World-eating is the absorption of more and more consumers by businessmen, hence the penetration into other countries and their capture, and this is already imperialism (single power).
Capitalism and imperialism are different concepts and systems. There are only eight formations.
No. This statement is something like an advertising label that has nothing to do with reality. No country in the modern world calls its economic or political system capitalism or imperialism. And, indeed, all this is very different from Lenin's descriptions.
True, because out of imperialism comes communism. There is nothing between them, except for the transition period. Capitalism has nowhere to develop further than imperialism.
Like any statement on a socio-economic topic, it is both true and false.
The beginning of the 20th century was indeed marked by the emergence of many new phenomena in the capitalist economy. Therefore, it was possible to speak of a new stage in the development of capitalism. But being inside the process, it is extremely difficult to identify the most significant changes. The emphasis on capturing markets, on “imperialism” was made because it was obvious.
In my opinion, all these changes were based on a massive shift from private ownership of the means of production to collective ownership. Equity has made projects of previously unthinkable proportions possible. Without it, there could be no railway networks, regular transoceanic communication, mass production. A new round of division of labor, now on a global scale.
And share capital has also created a new social phenomenon-the middle class. And it's not about the level of consumption, but about the attitude to the means of production. An employee who owns shares has interests on both sides of the political fence. It is the basis of state stability.
No, this is a completely false statement.
Lenin wrote Imperialism as the Highest Stage of Capitalism in the spring of 1916 in the quiet, comfortable and prosperous Zurich. Around Europe, a world war was raging, bringing huge human losses, and in Russia the situation was sliding into a catastrophe of collapse due to the policy of the autocracy. Lenin did not expect a revolution, at least not during his lifetime. Languishing from boredom and idleness, Lenin theorized.
Lenin saw how the world around him was changing, and not exactly in Marx's way: the market brought an increase in wealth, expanded geographically and by industry, increased the scale of production, trade and services, many companies were enlarged, and investments grew. “Capitalism” expanded, but showed no signs of dying.
Lenin sought an explanation for all these processes and found it, in particular, in the then newfangled theory of “imperialism” by J. Hobson, which the latter expounded in his 1902 work of the same name. Hobson made an attempt to analyze the phenomenon that emerged at the end of the XIX century. In European and American politics, there is a great-power trend to seize territories (the division of Africa, the Anglo-Boer War, the American-Spanish War, the Russo-Japanese War). By this time, it was widely recognized that the colonies were unprofitable and there was no economic sense in them. Nevertheless, Hobson considered that the problem is not in politics, but in economics, and concluded that it is, they say, large, first of all, financial capital that is looking for new areas of application, and the state, acting allegedly under the dictation of large capital, expands its rights and helps this capital.
Hobson's theory was wrong: nowhere could capital find a better use for itself than in the developed countries – with the exception of individual cases of individual digging, it simply had nothing to do either in Cuba or in South Africa, and even more so for Russian capital in Korea, which led to the war with Japan. Moreover, statistics already in those years clearly showed that the main investments were made in Europe and the United States. Economic development followed a completely different path – free trade, freeing the economy from state interference. In 1938, Hobson admitted his mistake.
Lenin went much further than Hobson and tried, of course, to prove that “capitalism”, supposedly directing its national governments in pursuit of mythical profits, these wars and territorial acquisitions in general, had passed into its final stage – imperialism – where it began to rot and collapse. Lenin saw the source of evil in the natural and useful process of concentration of capital. At the same time, he overestimated such a temporary phenomenon as monopolies.
Lenin superimposed the normal and natural development of the market on the political conjuncture of those years and made broadcast warnings about the death of the market.
Without understanding anything about economics, Lenin imagined the market (“capitalism”) as a potted plant that had already bloomed and was about to finally wither away, although unlike Marx, he had the opportunity to see the dynamic ability of the market to adjust itself, overcome problems, and find new growth points during a crisis. �
Lenin also did not understand the absolute independence and dominance of the political sphere in national affairs, including in the economy. Instead of a clear and adequate understanding of reality, Lenin was guided by conspiracy theories that he himself developed – in this case, about how the market functions and develops, which he portrayed as a bunch of monopolists. Reading Lenin's work is like looking forward to such “theorists” as, for example, Khazin, who manage to refute facts and then combine them into bizarre tangles that have no connection with real life.
All subsequent history proved the failure of the theories of both Marx and Lenin.�
Over the past 100 years, the market has grown hundreds of times, raised the standard of living of billions of people, significantly reduced the geography of poverty, overcame colonialism and involved dozens of new countries in world growth, encourages unprecedented scientific and technological development, and gives every person the opportunity to make independent choices and take care of their own well-being every day.
Over the past 100 years, communism has already disappeared.
Marx and Lenin were wrong about everything.
History has shown that the statement is false. “Imperialism” in the form of the desire of developed countries for direct military and/or administrative control of other territories has clearly ended. Such impulses have remained the lot of underdeveloped states like Saddam Hussein's Iraq, Putin's Russia, or, say, theocratic Iran with its adventurous policy of direct participation in the Syrian civil war, interference in the affairs of Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen.
But “capitalism” (the leftist name-calling of a free market economy) is still alive and well, remaining the most effective form of economic organization. And how the partial redistribution of goods created by “capitalism” is arranged is a secondary question. You can do it like in the USA, you can do it like in South Korea, or you can do it like in Scandinavia. It is important that redistribution does not stifle “capitalism” itself, as we have seen happen in Venezuela, for example. Because there simply won't be any benefits left to redistribute.
In the Russian Federation, not only the imperial ideology has been preserved (Krymnash, military and financial support for separatists in neighboring countries, getting up from their knees, attempts to measure missiles with the United States), but the market is also half-suffocated by state monopolies, bosses of all stripes, “proveryalschiki” and “siloviki”, from whose apartments money has to be taken out by truck. Hence, today's economic problems and tomorrow's prospects are even more bleak.