I've seen some say lately that the territory gained by the USSR after invading Poland in 1939 was territory that was stolen by Poland in 1921, however, the USSR only started existing in 1922, and the Treaty of Riga, which established Poland's eastern boundary, was signed by Russia and Ukraine. Or am I getting the history wrong?
I saw the other day that it was in fact "Nice Guy" and not "Mr. Nice Guy"... no where online can I find it ever being called Mr. Nice Guy... is this a new Mandela effect?
What do you think about Lenin's description/definition of imperialism?
I'm not arguing Lenin's analysis was wrong for its time. Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism is one of the best available accounts of how European capitalism actually functioned in the 1900-1916 period: the fusion of bank and industrial capital into finance capital, the shift from commodity export to capital export as the dominant relation, the division of the world among monopolies and great powers. As a description of that historical moment, it holds up well.
What I'd push back on is treating it as a complete and timeless definition of imperialism as a category, one where a state either meets Lenin's five features or doesn't count as imperialist. I'd distinguish two different claims people run together:
I agree with the first, not the second.
The case that makes this obvious to me is Nazi Germany. Its economy was not organized around capital export the way Lenin describes for Britain or France. It was largely autarkic, oriented around rearmament and Grossraumwirtschaft, and its expansion relied on direct territorial conquest, plunder, and forced extraction from occupied land rather than the export of finance capital abroad. Applied strictly on the finance capital point, Lenin's criteria don't clearly make Nazi Germany imperialist. That's an obviously wrong conclusion given what the regime did to Poland, the USSR, and the rest of occupied Europe, and I think the criteria are what's failing here, not our assessment of Nazi Germany.
My view is that the older, more general definition of one nation imposing political and economic domination on another, involving extraction and subjugation, holds up better across cases than Lenin's version. Crucially, this domination doesn't have to be military. It can be, as with Russia's war on Ukraine or the long history of US military intervention against Iran, but it doesn't have to be. It can just as easily be financial or economic, as with the US sanctions regimes against Cuba and the DPRK, which are attempts to dominate and extract concessions from those states without military combst. What makes something imperialist, on this definition, is the relation of domination and subjugation itself, not the specific tool used to enforce it.
I don't think Lenin's work replaces that definition, I think it complements it by showing how the classical definition was actually executed by the specific imperial powers of the early 20th century, through finance capital, monopoly, and the carving up of the world. It's an account of a mechanism, not a substitute for the concept itself.
TL;DR: Lenin's theory is a great account of how imperialism operated in his own period, but his five features aren't the definition of imperialism as such. The classical, more general definition (one nation dominating another, by military or financial means, involving extraction and subjugation) holds up better across cases, and Lenin's work is best read as showing how that definition played out in the early 20th century rather than replacing it.
To be clear, I'm not talking about opposing US/Israeli imperialism or defending Iran's right to national sovereignty. I'm talking about people who go further and defend the Islamic Republic itself such making excuses for its repression (or saying it doesn't even exist) and theocracy, describing it as left-wing or "non-Marxist socialist," etc, when many prominent socialist and communist organizations in Iran don't hold these views. I am aware this is a very small minority of western leftists doing this, though.
I'd explicitly distinguish three positions:
My question is about those who go from 1 to 3.
Many socialist parties in Iran that have condemned the government and are being suppressed by it:
- The Tudeh Party of Iran: this statement is about the death of Ali Khamenei, condemning his policies of "political Islam", describing him as the the person primarily responsible for decades of repression, economic hardship, and Iran's political direction. It calls him a dictator, does not want the Islamic Republic to simply continue with new leadership. And calling his death an opportunity for Iranians to drive real change in the country. They also celebrated the Women, Life, Freedom movement. Notably, this party has been banned in Iran since 1983.
- The Worker-communist Party of Iran: one of its slogans is "Down with the Islamic Republic," it also supports Women, Life, Freedom, calls Iran a bourgeois state, calls the leaders of Iran bloodthirsty, supported the January 2026 protests. This party is also banned in Iran.
- Communist Party of Iran.
- Labour Party of Iran.
- The Communist Party of Iran (Marxist–Leninist–Maoist).
TL;DR: Why do some Western leftists seem more sympathetic to the Iranian state^(1) than Iranian leftists themselves are?
^(1)By “the Iranian state,” I mean the state in the Marxist sense: the political apparatus through which class rule is exercised, not Iran as a country or the Iranian people. I'm referring specifically to the Islamic Republic and its existing political apparatus, which I view as a form of the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, with power heavily concentrated in a clerical/theocratic ruling stratum.
Edit: fixed typo's and added "(or saying that it doesn't even exist)"
Title. The US and Israel come to mind but, in my opinion, are on a dangerous trajectory to fascism but not there yet.
Good day all.
I've been wondering about Taiwan lately. And firstly I do want to say that Taiwan is part of China, but not part of the People's Republic of China, as far as I know.
For the rest of this post "China" will mean the "concept" of China, and "PRC" will mean obviously mainland China, Hong Kong, Macau, Heinan and other islands, and "ROC" and "Taiwan" mean the government/country on the island of Taiwan and a couple of surrounding islands.
According to this poll, only 7.6% of people in the ROC want to reunify with the PRC. Some would say that "oh but only 28% of people want independence" but independence from who exactly? The PRC? The PRC has no control over the island of Taiwan and never has since it's formation. "Independence" here means to relinquish their claims over the rest of China and their claim that they're the sole legal government of the Chinese realm and move towards getting more international recognition.
Speaking of international recognition, I do find the concept of needing international recognition to be a country to be problematic. How many countries do you need recognition from? How many countries do those countries need recognition from? Which countries recognised the countries recognising you? This creates an infinite regress.
A better way to determine what a country is, the Montevideo Convention. It says:
- A permanent population (the people of Taiwan)
- Defined territory (the island of Taiwan and surrounding islands, though they do claim territory they don't control, but many other countries do that)
- A government (the ROC has sovereignty over Taiwan and surrounding islands)
- Capacity to enter relations (the ROC has fomal diplomatic relations with 11 UN members and the Holy See, and informal relations with many, many more which shows it definitely has the capacity to do so)
The only reason why the ROC has such limited recognition is that both the ROC and PRC enforce their own versions of the One China Policy, this means that in order to enter formal relations with either, one must recognise that they are the sole government of all of China. Since it's much more advantageous to have relations with the PRC, most countries establish formal relations with them.
Now I do need to say that I do not like the fact that the US uses Taiwan as a vassal to conduct imperialism in Asia and especially against the PRC. I believe the US should leave Taiwan alone and let the Taiwanese people decide for themselves, as I believe in self-determination for all people.
Also I do not mean literally objective but I mean more where you strongly believe it to the point you will call it objective.
Genuine question.
Marx wrote in the 19th century. Lenin was writing against Tsarist autocracy in the 1910s-20s. Mao was writing against a feudal, war-torn China. None of them were writing for a 21st century Western liberal democracy. They were analyzing the society actually in front of them, and then adapting the theory they inherited rather than just repeating it. Lenin didn't leave Marx untouched. Mao didn't leave Lenin untouched.
So why do we act like the process stops with them?
Capitalism today isn't 19th century capitalism. The West isn't Tsarist Russia. Multinational corporations, financialization, digital platforms, mass higher education, the internet — none of that is the world Lenin or Mao were analyzing.
I'm not saying scrap Marx, Lenin, Mao, whoever. I'm saying if historical materialism means anything, theory should keep developing alongside material conditions, so why is socialist theory treated by some like the one exception to its own rule?
Shouldn't the movement be producing real new theory for the 21st century instead of just reciting texts written for societies that don't exist anymore in the form they were written about?
Title.
Title. No definition that I have found really makes sense to me.
Hi! I'm getting an iPhone 13 Pro 256GB in Sierra Blue on Friday, because my mother is upgrading it, so I will get it. Its battery health is at 78%, but I am planning to get it replaced with an original one in August. Is there anything in specific I should know? I'm going from a XS to this one. Thanks!
Good day to all!
I have already studied Macbeth (this year), Romeo and Juliet (last year), and A Midsummer Night's Dream (2 years ago) in high school. I do wish to revisit AMND because I was absent for most of the time we read it in class, and it was not assessed. And we also did The Merchant of Venice about 4 years ago, but we didn't do the actual content of the play, it was a novelisation (sort of) of it.
I've also studied a couple sonnets throughout high school, although I can't really remember which. As well as someone's soliloquy from a play we haven't studied, but again I can't remember which one.
I want to ask: which plays do you recommend I read/watch/listen to next? As well as sonnets and other poems to read. I've really enjoyed Macbeth, R&J, and TMoV.
Edit: Sonnet 18 is a sonnet I remember, and one I like!
Title!
Hi. I got sent a Shared Password Group. If I join this, will the owner be able to see my name as it is on my Apple ID or as they saved it in their contacts?
Hi. I often see people talk about symbols and shit and how they call connect with each other, but the thing is, why would the people running the world leave us clues and reveal themselves??? Wouldnt it much rather be distractions instead ?
For me it's Honey Honey and I think Meryl Streep's version of The Winner Takes It All is on par with the OG. I prefer the originals to the rest.