That’s not what imperialism means, though. China isn’t trying to gain colonial territories to plunder, neither is Russia. Imperialism is an economic compulsion brought about by reaching higher developed stages of capitalism. China is socialist and thus doesn’t have that drive, and Russia is capitalist but severely boxed in by NATO and lacks the financial capital or free territory to plunder from.
Imperialism is the maintaining and extending of power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing both hard power (military and economic power) and soft power (diplomatic power and cultural imperialism). Imperialism focuses on establishing or maintaining hegemony and a more formal empire.[2][3][4]
Am I reading this wrong, or is there some western-materialist reading?
China isn’t trying to gain colonial territories to plunder, neither is Russia.
Than why is China attacking fishing boats on the sea it claims, and Russia took over mining region and abondoned the northern part of Ukraine it already had occupied?
China is socialist and thus doesn’t have that drive,
Yeah, nothing says socialism like producing iPhones in factories with suicide prevention nets. You ever been to China? Would recommend, its a totalitarian capitalist state in every regard. No workers control, no communism, just workers stomped upon with a boot painted red.
Russia is capitalist but severely boxed in by NATO
Whaaaat? 11% of its border, and that’s since Finland joined bacause of Russian imperialism, and doubled the border. You ever wonder why every European nation, once occupied by Russia feels the need to join an “anti-Russian” alliance?
lacks the financial capital or free territory to plunder from.
Lybian, Syrian, Sudanese, Kongoise expirience may differ.
That wikipedia overview of imperialism would apply to all international negotiations. Imperialism as Marxists understand it comes from John Hobson, which was popular understanding at the time it was published. Russia isn’t trying to “dominate” Ukraine, or the four oblasts, it’s trying to gain a buffer zone between it and a hostile power that could use the four oblasts as a land bridge to invade.
Territorial disputes in the south China sea are not “plundering” nor is it imperialism. Secondly, just because Russia is at war with Ukraine for the purposes of establishing a buffer zone doesn’t mean it isn’t going to take advantage of gains in resources. The war is not because of the resources, but it isn’t going to just let them sit there.
As for China, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the working class is in control of the state. It is definitionally a socialist country, and has overwhelming popular support. Socialism isn’t when no factory or no iPhone, plus both Foxconn and China itself have lower suicide rates than countries like the US. Suicide prevention isn’t a bad thing.
I’m well aware of Operation GLADIO and the far-right elements sponsored by the western powers in formerly socialist countries. Nationalist movements within former socialist countries combined with the devastation of shock therapy left much of them in utter disaster and under the thumb of the west. The oblasts in Eastern Ukraine serve as a vital land bridge into Russia, and NATO expansionism has continued even when NATO promised to stop.
Listing off countries known for having ties with Russia isn’t the same as Russia having imperialist colonies, nor could these ever hope to compare to the sheer scale of plunder both at a qualitative and quantitative level committed by western countries.
That wikipedia overview of imperialism would apply to all international negotiations.
Yeah all negotiations are establishing hegemony and using hard power, that’s how say Iceland or Tobago and such negotiate with other states.
Imperialism as Marxists understand it comes from John Hobson, which was popular understanding at the time it was published
Sooo what Russia is doing is not imperialism, because you’re choosing a murky 125 year old antisemitic definition of imperialism? Right. That clears the issue completely.
Russia isn’t trying to “dominate” Ukraine, or the four oblasts, it’s trying to gain a buffer zone between it and a hostile power that could use the four oblasts as a land bridge to invade.
So when Russia… undominates(?) the 4 oblasts there will not be a land bridge between NATO and Russia any more? How does that work exactly in your mind?
Cuz either I dont understand how land works, or this is some absurd bullshit. Also, you did notice there is a land border with Russia in… Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland? So what particular change would occupying 1/5 of Ukraine achieve? And if Russia is so concerned with a NATO invasion why are the northern bases on the border with Norway and Finland empty?
Finally which part of NATO history suggests that land access is a key component for it’s “interventions”? And if Russia threatens a nuclear war for supping arms to Ukraine is it that it couldn’t actually lunch such an attack when attacked over land (as it’s nuclear doctrine allows)?
Territorial disputes in the south China sea are not “plundering” nor is it imperialism.
Ah ok, that’s a very strong argument, your absolutely right, don’t know how I could not understand that straight away.
The war is not because of the resources, but it isn’t going to just let them sit there.
Mate, I gotta establish a buffer zone in your kitchen, just in case you might consider invading mine. I will take as much from it as I can and attempt to blow up any transport your resources in or out, but that’s unrelated, it’s just so you dont take mine (you might be a nazi after all).
public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy,
Thats why majority of the market is in private corporations? Looking at… Chinese state media it would seem 92.1% of “entities” employing over 80% of urban workforce and responsible for 60% GDP are private. By public sector employment Hungary, Australia, Saudi Arabia and Seychelles (and 16 other) are more “communist” than China.
the working class is in control of the state.
The party leadership is in control of the state. It dictates the line the rest of the party has to fallow, eliminates internal opposition and dictates the propaganda spewed to the masses as well as controls the forces of repression. You could just as well claim the workers are in charge of western democracies, because “definitionally” they could vote. You act as if when someone writes something that’s how it works I could direct you to neo- institutional or any other critical sociology, but I think you do understand that it’s not the case when that is said of any state you’re not a psycho-fan of?
Re- the graph - could you please educate yourself on what might be the repercussions of speaking up against the party?
I’m well aware of Operation GLADIO and the far-right elements sponsored by the western powers in formerly socialist countries.
GLADIO was an operation in Western countries, not former socialist. And you severy undermine the rich history of both local nationalism’s and far right movements (I’d expect you to at least know of UPA’s genocidal activity from your propaganda intake), and the fact that the soviets regimes tendency to murder people for anti-nazi activity or using tanks against worker strikes might turn them against such a “workers” regime.
Nationalist movements within former socialist countries combined with the devastation of shock therapy left much of them in utter disaster and under the thumb of the west.
You ever been to eastern Europe? Honestly, mate, I live here. I’ve traveled most of all countries in the post-soviet block, including Soviet Union before the fall and Russia some 10 years ago as well as China. Your level of detachment from reality is only possible when learning about the world through propaganda. Maybe at least travel a little bit, it can be done cheaply. You might even learn enough not to try to explain people their own history, when you clearly don’t know better.
The countries one would associate with higher level of devastation are the ones closest to Russia (politically). As much as I might hate neoliberal policies and exploitation the difference when you cross EU borders anywhere in the east or south is painfully clear. And if the alternative is to serve as Russia’s buffer what is the difference? How is that better?
sheer scale of plunder both at a qualitative and quantitative level committed by western countries.
Holodomor pretty solidly stands up to the potato famine I’d say, same most of what Soviets did to natives in central Asia, or to it’s ecology (you know, draining a sea is a rather impressive scale of destruction even by capitalist standards).
-The idea that influencing other nations is “imperialism” is the western, liberal consensus. It’s vibes-based, rather than materialist. Marxists use a definition created by liberals like John Hobson and expanded upon by Lenin, Michael Hudson, Cheng Enfu, and more. Imperialism as a stage of capitalism was found over 130 years ago, but has been studied and refined ever since. Not one bit is “antisemitic.”
-Russia is sticking to the four oblasts, because Ukraine has been continuously armed and the far-right empowered since 2014. The land bridge into Russia from Ukraine is the easiest way into Russia, there are other land bridges but this is the most historically significant with the most bellicose neighbor that was shelling ethnic Russians in Donbass for a decade.
-NATO is the millitary wing of western imperialism. It’s the way the west strongarms the global south and geopolitical enemies into capitulation, and has sponsored terrorist attacks via Operation GLADIO as well as conducted invasions in Libya, Yugoslavia, and more. NATO countries are the world’s largest exporters of plunder and genocide.
-Your wierd kitchen analogy doesn’t work. I don’t know what it is with liberals and using analogy in place of actual materialist analysis.
-I said the large firms and key industries being dominated by public ownership is what’s important, not ratio of GDP, nor public sector employment. I’m not sure how you could misunderstand that unless you literally do not care at all and have already made up your mind. The ratio doesn’t matter, who holds the most important aspects of society matters, and this is why the state sector is increasing:
-The CPC is a working class party. It isn’t under the control of capitalists, and it’s incredibly obvious that this is the case as production is oriented on vast infrastructure projects and poverty alleviation programs over private profits. People don’t speak out against the party often because the CPC works for the people, and this is represented in good metrics over time.
-The soviets were anti-fascist. Fascist uprisings like in Hungary where Nazis were set free from prison and were lynching Jewish people and communists were put down by the Red Army. It takes a real torturing of history to try to play fascists as “true fighters for democracy.”
-You can clearly see the devastation brought by capitalism and the absolute looting and plunder of Eastern Europe by the western powers. Imperialism has been devastating for the post-socialist countries. I’ve spoken to quite a few people living in post-socialist countries, and I’ve looked at hard data. I can’t afford to travel everywhere, but I have traveled. I can tell you that your smug condescension towards me is just that, all posturing and no substance.
-There was no forced famine in the 1930s, that was a natural famine made worse by kulaks burning their grain and killing their crops to resist collectivization. There was no plunder here, only collectivization of farming which ended famine. This is further torturing of history on your part to serve a twisted narrative, such as calling the Marxist interpretation of imperialism “anti-semitic.”
All in all, you’ve been confidently wrong several times here. Anecdotes you may have, but you’re also rife with absurdities and contradictions in knowledge. Travel doesn’t teach history, nor does it teach correct politics.
What is that definition, exactly? Also if I give you a definition used by any other particular ideological tendency you will accept it, or is your Marxism-western-armcharism the only acceptable one?
Russia is sticking to the four oblasts, because Ukraine has been continuously armed and the far-right empowered since 2014
Would you maybe have any idea what happened in 2014, and how that holds against your “4 oblasts” mantra? Which of the 4 is Crimea?
The land bridge into Russia from Ukraine is the easiest way into Russia,
Yeah, and not literal NATO states with borders closer to moscow because that’s not what you were told?
shelling ethnic Russians in Donbass for a decade.
Thats some superbly precise shelling, bypassing all the Ukrainians living in Donbass… Ok, no can you pull any sattelite pictures of the region after all this years and compare it to the regions of frontline? You might notice there’s no evidence of the supposed 10 years of constant shelling.
And as for the rest: ill reply tomorrow, but it clear you can only put up your make belive world against reality.
-I’ve already explained, imperialism is best described as a system of international plunder. If we want to be technical about it, it’s linked to export of capital and domination by finance capital, ie what the US and western Europe do in the global south. By the definition you gave, it was imperialism to stop Nazi Germany, and it was imperialism for the Statesian north to invade the south.
-Crimea isn’t in the scope of the current war, because it was already annexed for similar reasons. I don’t know why you’re bringing it up, unless you’re trying to conjure reasoning for why Russia is going to go beyond the 4 oblasts.
-I understand that literal NATO states border Russia. I also understand that the Ukrainian far-right has been empowered over the last decade and has been at war with the Donbass region for a decade. Ukraine in particular has been increasingly bellicose, and was threatening to join NATO as well. A weak, defanged country already in NATO is less dangerous than one that is actively at war and threatening to join NATO.
I don’t really care for you to reply, when you are this willing to torture history and present moments like this and yet dare to say I’m the one playing make-believe, it’s farcical.
That’s not what imperialism means, though. China isn’t trying to gain colonial territories to plunder, neither is Russia. Imperialism is an economic compulsion brought about by reaching higher developed stages of capitalism. China is socialist and thus doesn’t have that drive, and Russia is capitalist but severely boxed in by NATO and lacks the financial capital or free territory to plunder from.
No?
Am I reading this wrong, or is there some western-materialist reading?
Than why is China attacking fishing boats on the sea it claims, and Russia took over mining region and abondoned the northern part of Ukraine it already had occupied?
Yeah, nothing says socialism like producing iPhones in factories with suicide prevention nets. You ever been to China? Would recommend, its a totalitarian capitalist state in every regard. No workers control, no communism, just workers stomped upon with a boot painted red.
Whaaaat? 11% of its border, and that’s since Finland joined bacause of Russian imperialism, and doubled the border. You ever wonder why every European nation, once occupied by Russia feels the need to join an “anti-Russian” alliance?
Lybian, Syrian, Sudanese, Kongoise expirience may differ.
That wikipedia overview of imperialism would apply to all international negotiations. Imperialism as Marxists understand it comes from John Hobson, which was popular understanding at the time it was published. Russia isn’t trying to “dominate” Ukraine, or the four oblasts, it’s trying to gain a buffer zone between it and a hostile power that could use the four oblasts as a land bridge to invade.
Territorial disputes in the south China sea are not “plundering” nor is it imperialism. Secondly, just because Russia is at war with Ukraine for the purposes of establishing a buffer zone doesn’t mean it isn’t going to take advantage of gains in resources. The war is not because of the resources, but it isn’t going to just let them sit there.
As for China, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the working class is in control of the state. It is definitionally a socialist country, and has overwhelming popular support. Socialism isn’t when no factory or no iPhone, plus both Foxconn and China itself have lower suicide rates than countries like the US. Suicide prevention isn’t a bad thing.
I’m well aware of Operation GLADIO and the far-right elements sponsored by the western powers in formerly socialist countries. Nationalist movements within former socialist countries combined with the devastation of shock therapy left much of them in utter disaster and under the thumb of the west. The oblasts in Eastern Ukraine serve as a vital land bridge into Russia, and NATO expansionism has continued even when NATO promised to stop.
Listing off countries known for having ties with Russia isn’t the same as Russia having imperialist colonies, nor could these ever hope to compare to the sheer scale of plunder both at a qualitative and quantitative level committed by western countries.
Yeah all negotiations are establishing hegemony and using hard power, that’s how say Iceland or Tobago and such negotiate with other states.
Sooo what Russia is doing is not imperialism, because you’re choosing a murky 125 year old antisemitic definition of imperialism? Right. That clears the issue completely.
So when Russia… undominates(?) the 4 oblasts there will not be a land bridge between NATO and Russia any more? How does that work exactly in your mind?
Cuz either I dont understand how land works, or this is some absurd bullshit. Also, you did notice there is a land border with Russia in… Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland? So what particular change would occupying 1/5 of Ukraine achieve? And if Russia is so concerned with a NATO invasion why are the northern bases on the border with Norway and Finland empty?
Finally which part of NATO history suggests that land access is a key component for it’s “interventions”? And if Russia threatens a nuclear war for supping arms to Ukraine is it that it couldn’t actually lunch such an attack when attacked over land (as it’s nuclear doctrine allows)?
Ah ok, that’s a very strong argument, your absolutely right, don’t know how I could not understand that straight away.
Mate, I gotta establish a buffer zone in your kitchen, just in case you might consider invading mine. I will take as much from it as I can and attempt to blow up any transport your resources in or out, but that’s unrelated, it’s just so you dont take mine (you might be a nazi after all).
Thats why majority of the market is in private corporations? Looking at… Chinese state media it would seem 92.1% of “entities” employing over 80% of urban workforce and responsible for 60% GDP are private. By public sector employment Hungary, Australia, Saudi Arabia and Seychelles (and 16 other) are more “communist” than China.
The party leadership is in control of the state. It dictates the line the rest of the party has to fallow, eliminates internal opposition and dictates the propaganda spewed to the masses as well as controls the forces of repression. You could just as well claim the workers are in charge of western democracies, because “definitionally” they could vote. You act as if when someone writes something that’s how it works I could direct you to neo- institutional or any other critical sociology, but I think you do understand that it’s not the case when that is said of any state you’re not a psycho-fan of?
Re- the graph - could you please educate yourself on what might be the repercussions of speaking up against the party?
GLADIO was an operation in Western countries, not former socialist. And you severy undermine the rich history of both local nationalism’s and far right movements (I’d expect you to at least know of UPA’s genocidal activity from your propaganda intake), and the fact that the soviets regimes tendency to murder people for anti-nazi activity or using tanks against worker strikes might turn them against such a “workers” regime.
You ever been to eastern Europe? Honestly, mate, I live here. I’ve traveled most of all countries in the post-soviet block, including Soviet Union before the fall and Russia some 10 years ago as well as China. Your level of detachment from reality is only possible when learning about the world through propaganda. Maybe at least travel a little bit, it can be done cheaply. You might even learn enough not to try to explain people their own history, when you clearly don’t know better.
The countries one would associate with higher level of devastation are the ones closest to Russia (politically). As much as I might hate neoliberal policies and exploitation the difference when you cross EU borders anywhere in the east or south is painfully clear. And if the alternative is to serve as Russia’s buffer what is the difference? How is that better?
Holodomor pretty solidly stands up to the potato famine I’d say, same most of what Soviets did to natives in central Asia, or to it’s ecology (you know, draining a sea is a rather impressive scale of destruction even by capitalist standards).
-The idea that influencing other nations is “imperialism” is the western, liberal consensus. It’s vibes-based, rather than materialist. Marxists use a definition created by liberals like John Hobson and expanded upon by Lenin, Michael Hudson, Cheng Enfu, and more. Imperialism as a stage of capitalism was found over 130 years ago, but has been studied and refined ever since. Not one bit is “antisemitic.”
-Russia is sticking to the four oblasts, because Ukraine has been continuously armed and the far-right empowered since 2014. The land bridge into Russia from Ukraine is the easiest way into Russia, there are other land bridges but this is the most historically significant with the most bellicose neighbor that was shelling ethnic Russians in Donbass for a decade.
-NATO is the millitary wing of western imperialism. It’s the way the west strongarms the global south and geopolitical enemies into capitulation, and has sponsored terrorist attacks via Operation GLADIO as well as conducted invasions in Libya, Yugoslavia, and more. NATO countries are the world’s largest exporters of plunder and genocide.
-Your wierd kitchen analogy doesn’t work. I don’t know what it is with liberals and using analogy in place of actual materialist analysis.
-I said the large firms and key industries being dominated by public ownership is what’s important, not ratio of GDP, nor public sector employment. I’m not sure how you could misunderstand that unless you literally do not care at all and have already made up your mind. The ratio doesn’t matter, who holds the most important aspects of society matters, and this is why the state sector is increasing:
-The CPC is a working class party. It isn’t under the control of capitalists, and it’s incredibly obvious that this is the case as production is oriented on vast infrastructure projects and poverty alleviation programs over private profits. People don’t speak out against the party often because the CPC works for the people, and this is represented in good metrics over time.
-The soviets were anti-fascist. Fascist uprisings like in Hungary where Nazis were set free from prison and were lynching Jewish people and communists were put down by the Red Army. It takes a real torturing of history to try to play fascists as “true fighters for democracy.”
-You can clearly see the devastation brought by capitalism and the absolute looting and plunder of Eastern Europe by the western powers. Imperialism has been devastating for the post-socialist countries. I’ve spoken to quite a few people living in post-socialist countries, and I’ve looked at hard data. I can’t afford to travel everywhere, but I have traveled. I can tell you that your smug condescension towards me is just that, all posturing and no substance.
-There was no forced famine in the 1930s, that was a natural famine made worse by kulaks burning their grain and killing their crops to resist collectivization. There was no plunder here, only collectivization of farming which ended famine. This is further torturing of history on your part to serve a twisted narrative, such as calling the Marxist interpretation of imperialism “anti-semitic.”
All in all, you’ve been confidently wrong several times here. Anecdotes you may have, but you’re also rife with absurdities and contradictions in knowledge. Travel doesn’t teach history, nor does it teach correct politics.
What is that definition, exactly? Also if I give you a definition used by any other particular ideological tendency you will accept it, or is your Marxism-western-armcharism the only acceptable one?
Would you maybe have any idea what happened in 2014, and how that holds against your “4 oblasts” mantra? Which of the 4 is Crimea?
Yeah, and not literal NATO states with borders closer to moscow because that’s not what you were told?
Thats some superbly precise shelling, bypassing all the Ukrainians living in Donbass… Ok, no can you pull any sattelite pictures of the region after all this years and compare it to the regions of frontline? You might notice there’s no evidence of the supposed 10 years of constant shelling.
And as for the rest: ill reply tomorrow, but it clear you can only put up your make belive world against reality.
-I’ve already explained, imperialism is best described as a system of international plunder. If we want to be technical about it, it’s linked to export of capital and domination by finance capital, ie what the US and western Europe do in the global south. By the definition you gave, it was imperialism to stop Nazi Germany, and it was imperialism for the Statesian north to invade the south.
-Crimea isn’t in the scope of the current war, because it was already annexed for similar reasons. I don’t know why you’re bringing it up, unless you’re trying to conjure reasoning for why Russia is going to go beyond the 4 oblasts.
-I understand that literal NATO states border Russia. I also understand that the Ukrainian far-right has been empowered over the last decade and has been at war with the Donbass region for a decade. Ukraine in particular has been increasingly bellicose, and was threatening to join NATO as well. A weak, defanged country already in NATO is less dangerous than one that is actively at war and threatening to join NATO.
-As for Kiev’s war on the Donbass:
Need any more?
I don’t really care for you to reply, when you are this willing to torture history and present moments like this and yet dare to say I’m the one playing make-believe, it’s farcical.