EADaily, August 22nd, 2025. The Russian Federation reserves the right to use tactical nuclear weapons in response to strikes by Western long-range missiles deep into its territory.
Anyone can accuse a country of imperialism. Ultimately, people argue over the definitions of imperialism, and those hostile to a country will cling to the accusations, regardless of merit. Russia does not meet the Marxist intetpretation of imperialism or neocolonialism, but that doesn’t stop the west from trying to pin that on them.
If you’re changing the goalposts here from imperialism to the ‘marxist interpretation of imperialism’ would you disagree that a key characteristics of marxist imperialism is monopolistic capitalism, or that imperialism arises from the concentration of economic power in the hands of powerful monopolies and cartels within capitalist nation, which Russia’s oligarchs is a prime example of?
I’m not changing the goalposts, the Marxist conception of imperialism originates mostly with Lenin’s advancements on Hobson. Those who wish to minimize and generalize imperialism erase its ties to monopoly capitalism, and make it about any kind of millitant action, which is a step backwards from even Hobson.
Either way, Russia does not have monopolies on a global scale. They are nationalist and deeply capitalist, but have an inwardly driven economy, not an outwardly driven one. If Russia had the ability to truly become a world monopolistic power, then it would be imperialist, but it lacks the financial capital to do so as well as the open countries to imperialize that aren’t already under the thumb of the west.
The US Empire, on the other hand, is a prime example of having monopolies on a global scale, and using its millitary to keep this going.
The Marxist interpretation of imperialism says imperialism arises from the concentration of economic power in the hands of powerful monopolies and cartels within the capitalist nation which is pretty clear that it isn’t talking about monopolies on a global scale.
Being nationalist and deeply capitalist in an inwardly driven economy seems to fall squarely into the definition making Russia an imperialist state by the marxist definition.
No, the monopoly stage of capitalism is a prerequisite for imperialism, not imperialism itself. Imperialism is economically compelled by reaching the monopoly stage, it arises from the conditions you set out but is not itself those conditions. A country cannot imperialize itself. I recommend reading at least the Prolewiki article on imperialism, but reading Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism is well worth it.
Even if Russia barely fails to meet your strict standards of marxist imperialism calling Russia an imperialist state isn’t incorrect though because the common definition of imperialism is a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force which can hardly be argued that Russia isn’t actively doing both of those things.
Russia doesn’t “barely” fail, it fails outright. It fails for similar reasons nationalist countries like Iran fail, or countries like Columbia. The definition you’re using is useless, as it applies to literally every country. It doesn’t examine why or how it arises, or how to stop it.
Russian imperialism.
Anyone can accuse a country of imperialism. Ultimately, people argue over the definitions of imperialism, and those hostile to a country will cling to the accusations, regardless of merit. Russia does not meet the Marxist intetpretation of imperialism or neocolonialism, but that doesn’t stop the west from trying to pin that on them.
If you’re changing the goalposts here from imperialism to the ‘marxist interpretation of imperialism’ would you disagree that a key characteristics of marxist imperialism is monopolistic capitalism, or that imperialism arises from the concentration of economic power in the hands of powerful monopolies and cartels within capitalist nation, which Russia’s oligarchs is a prime example of?
I’m not changing the goalposts, the Marxist conception of imperialism originates mostly with Lenin’s advancements on Hobson. Those who wish to minimize and generalize imperialism erase its ties to monopoly capitalism, and make it about any kind of millitant action, which is a step backwards from even Hobson.
Either way, Russia does not have monopolies on a global scale. They are nationalist and deeply capitalist, but have an inwardly driven economy, not an outwardly driven one. If Russia had the ability to truly become a world monopolistic power, then it would be imperialist, but it lacks the financial capital to do so as well as the open countries to imperialize that aren’t already under the thumb of the west.
The US Empire, on the other hand, is a prime example of having monopolies on a global scale, and using its millitary to keep this going.
The Marxist interpretation of imperialism says imperialism arises from the concentration of economic power in the hands of powerful monopolies and cartels within the capitalist nation which is pretty clear that it isn’t talking about monopolies on a global scale.
Being nationalist and deeply capitalist in an inwardly driven economy seems to fall squarely into the definition making Russia an imperialist state by the marxist definition.
No, the monopoly stage of capitalism is a prerequisite for imperialism, not imperialism itself. Imperialism is economically compelled by reaching the monopoly stage, it arises from the conditions you set out but is not itself those conditions. A country cannot imperialize itself. I recommend reading at least the Prolewiki article on imperialism, but reading Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism is well worth it.
Even if Russia barely fails to meet your strict standards of marxist imperialism calling Russia an imperialist state isn’t incorrect though because the common definition of imperialism is a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force which can hardly be argued that Russia isn’t actively doing both of those things.
Russia doesn’t “barely” fail, it fails outright. It fails for similar reasons nationalist countries like Iran fail, or countries like Columbia. The definition you’re using is useless, as it applies to literally every country. It doesn’t examine why or how it arises, or how to stop it.
The definition I’m using is the commonly accepted one and language matters because how else are you supposed to communicate concepts?