China using families as 'hostages' to quash Uyghur dissent abroad
www.bbc.co.uk
Refugees and activists tell the BBC intimidation tactics are tearing apart Uyghur communities overseas.
  • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
    94·
    1 year ago

    You didn’t answer what I asked.

    You said that capitalism by definition leads to imperialism. I asked how socialism by definition precludes imperialism.

    • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
      109·
      1 year ago

      I would suggest reading “Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism”

      Imperialism has a highly specific definition.

      • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
        42·
        1 year ago

        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.

        • OurToothbrush@lemmy.mlM
          45·
          1 year ago

          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.

    • abraxas@lemmy.mlEnglish
      67·
      1 year ago

      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 policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force. -Imperialism

      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.

      • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
        73·
        1 year ago

        I don’t see how that follows.

        Because you need to get to imperialism via capitalism.

        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?

        There is definitely no other way.

        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.

          • 133arc585@lemmy.ml
            54·
            1 year ago

            I don’t think you’re doing a very good job of attempting to answer the very direct confusion I’m having. You’re doing a lot to make sure it’s obvious how capitalism can and does result in imperialism, which frankly I’m mostly in agreement with. My issue is that you’re asserting that socialism can’t lead to imperialism. You’ve still given no reason that this is to be the case except for this attempt:

            Socialism’s goal is to provide for its people by moving past a society based on exploitation. This is why it wouldn’t engage in colonialism.

            And I agree that, by definition, it’s a society based on the betterment of its people. Stress should be applied there to its people. I’m not justifying imperialism at all, but it’s a pretty obvious argument that by subjugating other nations/peoples and exploiting them, you can make the lives of your people better. Perhaps you’re trying to say that the type of leadership and ideology that creates and maintains socialism would also be ideologically against imperialism, but that seems more pragmatic than theoretic. You’re saying socialism can’t engage in imperialism by definition but the most I’d give is that it doesn’t engage in imperialism in practice.

      • GarbageShootAlt2@lemmy.ml
        31·
        1 year ago

        Because you need to get to imperialism via capitalism. There is definitively no other way.

        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.