200
My Venezuelan friends say Maduro is a dictator (crazypeople.online)
submitted 11 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
157 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] -16 points 11 months ago (14 children)

Invading for territory gain is absolutely synonymous with imperialistic tendencies

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    The Marxist definition of imperialism is more specific than just "big country invade small country".

    In, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism Lenin lays out five aspects of what makes Imperialism:

    1. the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;

    2. the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy;

    3. the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;

    4. the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and

    5. the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.

    The question of "Is Russia Imperialist" isn't a moral one, it's a technical one. So if Russia were do to something that we all agree is morally reprehensible, that's a separate concern from whether Russia is imperialist.

    The technicality revolves around whether Russia has developed an oligarchy of Financial Capital, such that its invasion of Ukraine or other flexes of its influence, perpetuates the export of Russian finance capital around the world.

    As it stands now, I don't think that's currently the case, but with Marxism being a dialectal philosophy, I do wonder if this war will accelerate that merging of Bank and industrial capital that Lenin discusses. It's a Bourgeois states, and there's financial capital in there somewhere that absolutely has an interest in forming a Russian imperialism.

    So when people say "Russia isn't Imperialist", this is what's being referred to. You can take it or leave it, but it's worth getting into the weeds a bit, so we aren't all talking passed each other

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Marxist does not get to exclusively define what imperialism is. A more standard definition is far more reasonable to use. However, your comment is very informative to me, I'm glad you took the time to write this out

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 16 points 11 months ago

    Marxist does not get to exclusively define what imperialism is

    Marxism isn't the only analytical lens out there, no. But the people you're arguing with are working with that definition, which is why I took the time to clarify. Thank you for appreciating my effort post though lol

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

    "A more standard definition" than the one that's been in use for over a hundred years and accurately describes the dynamic in question? The definition liberals use is both new and entirely vibes-based. It is useless for anything but bringing geopolitical conversations to a screeching halt with murky equivocations. The Marxist definition exists to clarify, while the liberal definition exists to obscure. It's the "socialism is when the government does stuff" of international relations.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] -9 points 11 months ago* (5 children)

    The Marxist definition is strictly different, not a clarification. The Marxist one posits only capitalism can be imperialist, something I would say is strictly incorrect

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (4 children)

    Imperialism is quite literally the highest stage of capitalism. The way liberals use it is just as a synonym for "aggressive". What definition do you propose that doesn't make like, the D-Day landings imperialist? Downvote isn't mine, btw

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -7 points 11 months ago* (3 children)

    aggression with an expansionist agenda.

    especially by a country and especially unprovoked.

    Economically or militarily.

    D-day wouldn't be included because the goal wasn't expansion. Though I would be very surprised if the usa and Europe hadn't perpetrated many acts that should be included during the full course of the war.

    And of course you can get into the argument of cultural imperialism as well

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    For sure, but there are a few problems with that definition. The first is that it doesn't apply to the Russian intervention in Ukraine that started this conversation, which is neither unprovoked nor being done to expand Russian territory.

    The second is that it only includes atate actions meant to take territory in an official capacity, while many imperialist actions have been carried out under the auspices of private companies like Haliburton, Dole, the United Fruit Company, and the Dutch East India Company.

    The third is that we already have the term Expansionist, which is perfectly fine and general enough for both capitalist and non-capitalist actions, while Imperialism describes a specific dynamic that arises from specifically capitalist causes.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    The second is that it only includes atate actions meant to take territory in an official capacity, while many imperialist actions have been carried out under the auspices of private companies like Haliburton, Dole, the United Fruit Company, and the Dutch East India Company.

    For the record, my stated definition does not limit it. When "especially" is used in definitions, it's not stated as a limiter but rather to show it primarily applies to as such.

    which is neither unprovoked nor being done to expand Russian territory

    This is a fundamental disagreement. Especially in regards to saying it's not to expand their territory as a goal.

    One interesting thing I find with lemmy. Is equating ownership existing with capitalism. Presumably because that's how it's portrayed in communist literature.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago

    Then it's not part of the definition? That's like saying the definition of "apple" is "a fruit from a tree, especially a fruit with simple uniform flesh and a thin skin" and then when I say this orange is not an apple you say "I said especially so it doesn't really count"

    So your definition is now simply military invasion.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent