▲ 1319 ▼ Imperial soldiers be like (lemmy.ml) submitted 8 months ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml 108 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago (5 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 5 child comments replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (4 children) Imperialism as a concept predates Marxism and isn’t reducible to Lenin’s model. We can debate which framework is more useful, but pretending there’s only one definition isn’t serious. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (3 children) Lenin’s framework is one influential analysis of capitalist imperialism. That doesn’t make it exhaustive. Modern geopolitics also includes state security competition, regional spheres of influence, and non-capitalist power projection. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (2 children) Calling imperialism the principal contradiction is a theoretical commitment, not an empirical conclusion. Other schools like realism or institutionalism would identify state security competition or balance-of-power dynamics as primary. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (1 child) In realism, the opposing tendencies are expansion of one state’s power and balancing by others to preserve sovereignty. In institutionalism, it’s integration versus fragmentation. Neither requires framing global politics as capital versus labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago We’re working from fundamentally different priors. I don’t think global politics reduces to a single economic contradiction. I’ll leave it there. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (4 children) Imperialism as a concept predates Marxism and isn’t reducible to Lenin’s model. We can debate which framework is more useful, but pretending there’s only one definition isn’t serious. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (3 children) Lenin’s framework is one influential analysis of capitalist imperialism. That doesn’t make it exhaustive. Modern geopolitics also includes state security competition, regional spheres of influence, and non-capitalist power projection. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (2 children) Calling imperialism the principal contradiction is a theoretical commitment, not an empirical conclusion. Other schools like realism or institutionalism would identify state security competition or balance-of-power dynamics as primary. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (1 child) In realism, the opposing tendencies are expansion of one state’s power and balancing by others to preserve sovereignty. In institutionalism, it’s integration versus fragmentation. Neither requires framing global politics as capital versus labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago We’re working from fundamentally different priors. I don’t think global politics reduces to a single economic contradiction. I’ll leave it there. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago (4 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 4 child comments replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (3 children) Lenin’s framework is one influential analysis of capitalist imperialism. That doesn’t make it exhaustive. Modern geopolitics also includes state security competition, regional spheres of influence, and non-capitalist power projection. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (2 children) Calling imperialism the principal contradiction is a theoretical commitment, not an empirical conclusion. Other schools like realism or institutionalism would identify state security competition or balance-of-power dynamics as primary. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (1 child) In realism, the opposing tendencies are expansion of one state’s power and balancing by others to preserve sovereignty. In institutionalism, it’s integration versus fragmentation. Neither requires framing global politics as capital versus labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago We’re working from fundamentally different priors. I don’t think global politics reduces to a single economic contradiction. I’ll leave it there. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (3 children) Lenin’s framework is one influential analysis of capitalist imperialism. That doesn’t make it exhaustive. Modern geopolitics also includes state security competition, regional spheres of influence, and non-capitalist power projection. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (2 children) Calling imperialism the principal contradiction is a theoretical commitment, not an empirical conclusion. Other schools like realism or institutionalism would identify state security competition or balance-of-power dynamics as primary. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (1 child) In realism, the opposing tendencies are expansion of one state’s power and balancing by others to preserve sovereignty. In institutionalism, it’s integration versus fragmentation. Neither requires framing global politics as capital versus labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago We’re working from fundamentally different priors. I don’t think global politics reduces to a single economic contradiction. I’ll leave it there. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 8 months ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (2 children) Calling imperialism the principal contradiction is a theoretical commitment, not an empirical conclusion. Other schools like realism or institutionalism would identify state security competition or balance-of-power dynamics as primary. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (1 child) In realism, the opposing tendencies are expansion of one state’s power and balancing by others to preserve sovereignty. In institutionalism, it’s integration versus fragmentation. Neither requires framing global politics as capital versus labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago We’re working from fundamentally different priors. I don’t think global politics reduces to a single economic contradiction. I’ll leave it there. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (2 children) Calling imperialism the principal contradiction is a theoretical commitment, not an empirical conclusion. Other schools like realism or institutionalism would identify state security competition or balance-of-power dynamics as primary. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (1 child) In realism, the opposing tendencies are expansion of one state’s power and balancing by others to preserve sovereignty. In institutionalism, it’s integration versus fragmentation. Neither requires framing global politics as capital versus labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago We’re working from fundamentally different priors. I don’t think global politics reduces to a single economic contradiction. I’ll leave it there. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 8 months ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (1 child) In realism, the opposing tendencies are expansion of one state’s power and balancing by others to preserve sovereignty. In institutionalism, it’s integration versus fragmentation. Neither requires framing global politics as capital versus labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago We’re working from fundamentally different priors. I don’t think global politics reduces to a single economic contradiction. I’ll leave it there. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago (1 child) In realism, the opposing tendencies are expansion of one state’s power and balancing by others to preserve sovereignty. In institutionalism, it’s integration versus fragmentation. Neither requires framing global politics as capital versus labor. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago We’re working from fundamentally different priors. I don’t think global politics reduces to a single economic contradiction. I’ll leave it there. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 8 months ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago We’re working from fundamentally different priors. I don’t think global politics reduces to a single economic contradiction. I’ll leave it there. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Azrael@reddthat.com -1 points 8 months ago We’re working from fundamentally different priors. I don’t think global politics reduces to a single economic contradiction. I’ll leave it there. permalink fedilink source parent
