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
      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.