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).
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.