(Created) |
420dengist (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tag: Visual edit |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
'''Social-imperialism''' is an [[idealist]] term commonly used by [[Ultra-leftist|ultra-leftists]], such as [[Maoism|Maoists]] and [[Anti-revisionism|"anti-revisionists"]], to explain their belief that [[Actually existing socialism|socialist states]] like the Soviet Union and post-Mao China had become [[Imperialism|imperialist]]. | |||
'''Social-imperialism''' | |||
== History == | |||
The term originated in a one-off quote by [[Vladimir Lenin]], where he describes the [[liberal]] [[Social democracy|social democractic]] [[SPD]] as "socialist in name, imperialist in deeds"<ref> | |||
{{Citation | {{Citation | ||
| author = V.I. Lenin | | author = V.I. Lenin | ||
| Line 11: | Line 13: | ||
| quote = “Social-Democratic” Party of Germany are justly called “social-imperialists,” that is, socialists in words and imperialists in deeds; | | quote = “Social-Democratic” Party of Germany are justly called “social-imperialists,” that is, socialists in words and imperialists in deeds; | ||
}} | }} | ||
</ref> | </ref>; afterward, the term was not used again until it was reintroduced by [[Mao]] after the [[Sino-Soviet split]], used to describe the post-Stalin USSR as a "Hitlerite imperialist state". It saw further use by [[Enver Hoxha]], for example in his treatise "Imperialism and the Revolution"; notably, neither Mao nor Hoxha ever explained what the material basis of a "social-imperialist" state would be, and what the social formation of such a state looked like. | ||
== Criticism == | |||
Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism, would require there to be sufficiently developed capitalist monopolies. It is left unexplained by proponents of the theory of "social-imperialism" how exactly it is possible for a socialist state to become capitalist without an outright [[Counterrevolution|counter-revolution]]; in this sense, the theory of "social-imperialism" is a [[reformist]] and [[revisionist]] idea that suggests it is not necessary for the [[Class society|class character]] of a state to change for it to shift between capitalism and socialism. | |||
== References == | == References == | ||
Revision as of 16:49, 27 January 2023
Social-imperialism is an idealist term commonly used by ultra-leftists, such as Maoists and "anti-revisionists", to explain their belief that socialist states like the Soviet Union and post-Mao China had become imperialist.
History
The term originated in a one-off quote by Vladimir Lenin, where he describes the liberal social democractic SPD as "socialist in name, imperialist in deeds"[1]; afterward, the term was not used again until it was reintroduced by Mao after the Sino-Soviet split, used to describe the post-Stalin USSR as a "Hitlerite imperialist state". It saw further use by Enver Hoxha, for example in his treatise "Imperialism and the Revolution"; notably, neither Mao nor Hoxha ever explained what the material basis of a "social-imperialist" state would be, and what the social formation of such a state looked like.
Criticism
Imperialism, as the highest stage of capitalism, would require there to be sufficiently developed capitalist monopolies. It is left unexplained by proponents of the theory of "social-imperialism" how exactly it is possible for a socialist state to become capitalist without an outright counter-revolution; in this sense, the theory of "social-imperialism" is a reformist and revisionist idea that suggests it is not necessary for the class character of a state to change for it to shift between capitalism and socialism.
References
- ↑
““Social-Democratic” Party of Germany are justly called “social-imperialists,” that is, socialists in words and imperialists in deeds;”
V.I. Lenin (1916). Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism: 'CRITIQUE OF IMPERIALISM'. [PDF]