277
Liberal Double Standards (crazypeople.online)
submitted 9 months ago by to c/memes@lemmy.ml
117 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 12 points 9 months ago (22 children)

It isn’t “fuck the [imperialist/authoritarian nation] government and its enforcers” for most people?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (21 children)

    Russia isn't imperialist. Imperialism isn't when invasion or when big country is bad

    Authoritarian is a useless pejorative as every nation that has been or currently is is "authoritarian".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    How do you define imperialism if invading other countries with the same explicit intent to annex them isn’t it?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago*

    One of the reasons for this war was that the Russian Federation did not want NATO weapons and forces on their permanent border. If they were to annex Ukraine, they would have NATO weapons and forces on their permanent border. I understand why this narrative that they want to has spread, because it's an easy to understand "bad guy" thing that makes it simple to frame this war as some kind of random medieval war of conquest, but when you think about it for five minutes, annexing Ukraine would go completely against their goal, which is to either dissuade the coup government from it's NATO ambitions (now irrelevant) or, if they wont agree to a peace treaty, establish a buffer zone in the form of a Ukranian rump state. In no scenario does a full annexation serve their interests, and the pragmatic thing from their perspective is to let the basket case that Ukraine has become be Europe's peoblem.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago

    If you pay attention to what Russia does internally and externally, Russia fulfills every one of those requirements except the last one (because they can’t, but they would be very happy too)

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Cowbee means economic imperialism - using the resources / wealth of another country for yourself. So invading another country would not, by itself, be imperialism.

    I think this definition is a bit reductionist, but it's a good starting point to ask 'is this war for profit or some other reason?'.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    but it’s a good starting point to ask ‘is this war for profit or some other reason?’.

    Always an important question to ask but if Cowbee does mean that, then they should use the modifier to signify that they are talking about economic imperialism and not about Imperialism Imperialism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)
    [removed by mod]
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I do think your wording is causing some confusion. Of course, the aim of most imperialists is economic exploitation, but there historically there have been other drivers of conquest such as religion and racism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago

    I think it's not too much to expect to know basic terminology in a leftist space. In Argentina I've met plenty of social democrats who understand imperialism in its leftist sense, because being in the periphery means you see the consequences of imperialism, and this is a country where like 99% of the media is owned by the comprador class or international capital making propaganda for austerity, meritocracy and other bullshit.

    If somebody doesn't understand why their definition of imperialism doesn't seem to be the one we use, maybe they can ask questions rather than interpret us in bad faith and so on.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -5 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    That's a laugh. Putin and his political machine have expressed a desire to return to the days of the Russian Empire and has engaged in acts of conquest to that effect.

    Russia is a mirror image of the US. While Anglo-Saxons were pushing west across North America, conquering indigenous peoples, Russians were pushing east out of Europe into Asia conquering indigenous peoples. They're both dysfunctional countries with dysfunctional world views.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    I never claimed that modern Russia is progressive, socialist, or something to be defended. I am a communist; Russia today is a capitalist oligarchy. Russia being imperialist and if I support them are separate questions.

    Imperialism is not “when a country invades” or “when a big country has bad politics.” Imperialism refers to a specific stage of capitalism characterized by monopoly capital, finance capital dominance, export of capital, and systemic exploitation of dependent nations. By that definition, Russia today does not function as an imperialist power in the same way the US or the rest of the imperial core does. This is a simple statement of facts, not an endorsement.

    Pointing to the Russian Empire’s historical expansion is irrelevant to whether the Russian Federation in the 21st century is imperialist. History alone does not determine a country’s position in the current global capitalist system. By that logic, nearly every existing state would be “imperialist” forever and the term would be rendered useless for meaningful analysis.

    Likewise, saying Russia “mirrors” the US ignores material reality. The US sits at the core of global finance, enforces dollar hegemony, maintains hundreds of overseas bases, and systematically dominates entire regions. Russia does not occupy that structural position (even if they may wish to). You can criticize Russian nationalism or militarism without flattening all distinctions or redefining imperialism into a catch all for when big countries do bad things or when invasions.

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

    Imperialism refers to a specific stage of capitalism

    Then you've redefined the term Imperialism.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

    The term imperialism was coined by Lenin Hobson, and it's definition has remained constant for over a century. It's actually liberals who have tried to flatten and bastardize it's definition to hide the inevitable systemic nature of their crimes against humanity. The fact that you were introduced to the wrong definition first doesn't make it the right one.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    The word imperialism is derived from the Latin word imperium,[8] which means 'to command', 'to be sovereign', or 'to rule'.[9] It was coined in the 19th century to describe Napoleon III's attempts to gain political support by invasion.[10][11] The term was applied to the British Empire during the 1870s; by the 1880s it had acquired a positive connotation in the West.[12] By the end of the 19th century, the term was used to describe the behavior of empires at all times and places.[13] Hannah Arendt and Joseph Schumpeter defined imperialism as expansion for the sake of expansion.[14]

    Hobson, and in 1917, Lenin, attempted to redefine imperialism as the "highest stage of capitalism", as firms exported capital to dominate economically rather than territorially.[15]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
    • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago*

    expressed a desire to return to the days of the Russian Empire

    Show me. Pull up a shred of evidence for this obvious propaganda. Show me Vladmir Putin expressing the desire to reform the pre-1917 Russian Empire.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent