• CyberMonkey404@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 month ago

    It’s not just sport. A good chunk of accusations thrown at Russia and China boil down to “they have the nerve to do what we have been doing for years! It’s outrageous!”

      • ttttux [none/use any]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 month ago

        yeah, and ice cream is hot

        but seriously:

        China and Russia both try to expand their countries by obsorbing smaller nations, which is imperialist in my book

          • ttttux [none/use any]@hexbear.net
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 month ago

            wtf, of course this is true and what does lenin have to do with current political conflicts of nations that didn’t even exist at his time

            • -6-6-6-@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              They’re asking you to read what actual imperialism is. Lenin discusses this and it still applies to this day. End-stage of capitalism is imperialism and even if you don’t want to get “theoretical” or talk about “old dusty books” how is what China and Russia do considered “imperialism” when in both countries; there is over 100 military bases from one country surrounding them?

              “Oh, well that wouldn’t happen if they weren’t so aggressive!” ~ typical response when asked.

              Why are they being aggressive? Why is it only so densely clustered around nations with regime differences? A regime-change happens in Ukraine when separatists revolt, gets replaced with a hostile one to spread a military pact that borders the country and somehow Russia is the aggressive one?

              What nations is China “subtlety” influencing? Are you pulling out the Tibet argument? The nation of religious slave-owners? Or, perhaps, Taiwan? The remnants of the literal Fascist collaborators exiled to an Island? Or India, whom is making accords and amends with China right now on their border issue?

              Or do you actually believe U.S State Department propaganda bullshit on mystical Confucian hackers/spies doing espionage on our failing, aging infrastructure and sabotaging our easily bribed and corrupt corporations who own nearly everything in the country?

              • ttttux [none/use any]@hexbear.net
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 month ago

                would the US be not imperialist if canada and mexico would be against it? doesn’t China have a military presence in africa? is that just different somehow?

                • ExotiqueMatter@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  1 month ago

                  Why are you not answering any of the questions you have been asked and brought up Canada and Mexico instead (Which, by the way, if we had done you would 100% be screeching WhaTaBOuTisM at us)?

                • -6-6-6-@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  1 month ago

                  You ignored the military base part (the fact that one nation over the entire world has that) and the general implication of that. Canada is another Western settler nation with a similar historical background that would have zero reason to have competing interests with the U.S even in the 1900s (unless over minor things, if you really want to get pedantic). Mexico and the rest of Latin America is a GREAT example, actually.

                  Look at the history of military intervention and how the capitalists of the West completely stripped and destroyed these nations and keep them subservient under IMF debt/leverage. A nation like Venezuela; whom is against it; is mercilessly lambasted, sanctioned and attacked at every opportunity. That’s why they AREN’T against it (Mexico and America or any other Latin American nation). This is what that one user meant by a “materialist view”. That view Venezuela has is also known as “siege mentality” if you want to look it up in a more formal sense.

                  You’re vaguely gesturing towards Belt and Road initiatives with a doomer mindset that obviously it must be imperialism. Meanwhile, Belt and Road actually provides tangible support and direct aid to Africa unlike the IMF handing a massive bag of cash to local despots and warlords beholden to private and/or Western interests that further indebt the nation.

                  Do you really want me to sit here and describe the amount of times that happened vs actual railroads/infrastructure built by China? Do you understand how much they’re undercutting IMF loans and how little leverage/debt they undergo compared to the IMF, the main financier arm of the global West who pushes these nations into poverty either economically or if not, a regime change??

            • MeowZedong@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 month ago

              The definition of Imperialism you are working from is not the same as those replying to you. You are working from the non-Marxist definition of imperialism while others are working from the Marxist definition. From Prolewiki:

              Lenin is often credited for having synthesized a Marxist analysis of imperialism with the publishing of his pamphlet Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism in 1916, most notably on the foundation of the earlier work of John A. Hobson entitled Imperialism: A Study. Beginning with the first paragraph of his pamphlet, Vladimir Lenin wrote that rapid growth of industry and concentration of production in growing enterprises represent the key characteristic of capitalism.[1]

              Multiple theorists have updated, deepened, developed or critically engaged with the classical analysis of Imperialism. Other theorists developed different conceptualisations, including most notably Kwame Nkrumah, remaining situated within the framework of scientific socialism. Most recently, the concept of neoimperialism has emerged in the work of Cheng Enfu.

              The development of imperialism in the global economy also reinforces a dialectical relationship between core-periphery countries, mainly dependency and subordination of underdeveloped countries to imperialist economies. In conjunction with these developments, new theoretical models were proposed to understand developments, such as dependency theory and world-systems theory.

              Lenin’s Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism for more information.