cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/863209
Archived version: https://archive.ph/5Ok1c
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230731013125/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-66337328
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/863209
Archived version: https://archive.ph/5Ok1c
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230731013125/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-66337328
Removed by mod
Imagine defending Russian and Chinese imperialism because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
Removed by mod
Ask Taiwan if if they think China is imperialistic. I’m sure you’ll get an answer.
Ask a breakaway settler-colonial state if they are the real victims? I’m sure that’ll provide the correct answer
Imperialism does not mean “of empire”. It is an economic system, the highest stage of capitalism.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/imperialism
Yes. Yes it does.
Also, you’re trying to challenge the definition of the word, but you’re not arguing with about China and Taiwan.
Do you know what the KMT did to the indigenous people who occupied Taiwan before the KMT retreated there?
Removed by mod
Imagine thinking Chinese workers own the means of production, or not even knowing where the term “tankie” comes from.
The term tankie comes from the 1956 hungarian revolution/counter-revoluton (depending on who you ask) which split the British communist party, those that supported the Soviet Union suppressing it with the military were called tankies.
The video of the man in front of the tank column related to the June 4th incident did not result in the man standing in front of the tank dying, and those tanks were leaving the area where the violence occurred and is not where the word tankie comes from like I believe you are suggesting.
No, I was suggesting that tankie came to describe USSR supporters (which modern apologists project onto Russia, as if the wall never fell). I am aware of the origin of the term.
My comment was a reply on people supporting whatever Russia and China do. It takes a jab at both.
No, it started that way? Do you mean started to be more all encompassing? I literally explained the origin of the term one comment ago. Also, I dont see how this
" Imagine thinking Chinese workers own the means of production, or not even knowing where the term “tankie” comes from. "
-can mean what you say you meant.
Anyone who has researched the USSR enough to cut through capitalist propaganda knows Russia is now a neolib-ish bourgeois democracy.
So, didn’t the term come to describe people who support the USSR imperialist practices by rolling into countries with tanks?
Have you ever seen anything written by the average lemmy tankie? They will defend Russia because it’s not the US.
If the US invades a middle eastern country because of “terrorists”, the true motive is oil (which I don’t disagree with). But if Russia invades Ukraine because they could potentially become a competitor petrol state in Europe more aligned with the EU, then it’s actually “nazis”.
Taking this at face value, that is still extremely different from “defend Russia because they believe in the intrinsic merit of the Soviet project” as you suggested before. The liberal mobsters who took over Russia tried to join the NATO club but were rejected, and the current situation is in many respects a consequence of that.
No, they will defend Russia’s actions because they understand the lead up to the war. The coup, the ceasefire violations, the waves of ethnically russian ukrainian refugees. And because they understand that the west expending itself on unfavorable terms is good for multipolarity and for the people the west would have otherwise used those weapons on.
Can you elaborate on that? I agree that China is not imperialist, but I don’t see how socialism by definition precludes that possibility.
Removed by mod
You didn’t answer what I asked.
You said that capitalism by definition leads to imperialism. I asked how socialism by definition precludes imperialism.
I would suggest reading “Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism”
Imperialism has a highly specific definition.
Thank you, I’ll look at that. It might be my misunderstanding of a technical term, but I don’t see the logical sequence that makes it apparent that socialist countries can’t engage in imperialism/colonialism.
The very short answer is that imperialism requires very specific economic systems and incentives. Those systems are not going to occur in socialist States because socialist States develop different economic systems than capitalism because the profit motive is absent, which impacts short term and long term economic development plans in many significant ways. For an extreme example look at Juche’s emphasis on self reliant socialism within an internationalist socialist order. They cannot do imperialism because all of their economic planning is built around a stable self sufficient economy. An extractivist economy isn’t just something you can graft on, it has to be a central part of an economy to make economic sense.
For an example of socialism not being imperialist when it has the opportunity to, you can look at China forgiving loans. It doesn’t do so out if the charity of its heart, it does so because it is incentivized to because damaging other nations self determination through financial coercion actively harms its project. It wants strong neighbors with close economic ties, it doesn’t want to suck the marrow out of their bones because that is destructive to China in the long term, and socialism is able to plan in the long term unlike capitalism which has to be more short term oriented because of the way its incentives function.
Imperialism is actually a very costly affair (in many cases it costs the home country and only benefits specific lobbyists within that country) compared to mutual cooperation and always rebounds on empire, it only happens because of market failures that do not happen under socialism.
They’re saying if Communists do it, it’s not Imperialism even if it looks exactly the same.
They are willfully committing an equivocation fallacy, using their definition of “Imperialism” as being necessarily related to Capitalism. The textbook definition of Imperialism does NOT necessarily relate to capitalism, so you are indeed in the right.
A non-capitalist country most certainly can do that definition. And Russian and China have both done that quite unambiguously.
So you’re in the right. But you’ll never win an argument against them because lies are truth.
Removed by mod
I don’t see how that follows.
Socialism’s goal is to provide for its people; in theory, why can’t it engage in colonialism to bring in resources to benefit its people?
Its obvious how capitalism leads to imperialism, but it’s definitely not obvious how that would be the only way to arrive there.
Any elaboration you can provide would be great because you’re acting as if it should be obvious why what you’re saying is true but it absolutely is not.
Removed by mod
You have more than zero point, but this is an excessively modernist way of viewing development that Marx explicitly refutes in his later writings after facing spurious accusations of supporting such views.
Removed by mod
These are Leninists who believe that socialism cannot do imperialism because socialism is ideological manifest destiny. Nevermind that this was more or less one of the original debates between Trotsky and Lenin on how do do “global communism.”
They like to redefine words to carry whatever ideological weight they want, because it’s much easier than introspection. Like how they will carry the “Nazi means anti-Russian” banner to unironically defend mass deportation children from Ukraine. "Obviously it can’t be the UN definition of genocide, because you can’t genocide Nazis.
I wish I was making this up…
Imagine believing the CCP, I feel embarrassed for you