-44
this post was submitted on 03 Jun 2026
-44 points (30.4% liked)
Memes
55924 readers
956 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Many of them have fascist movements either in power or coming to power, and all rely on imperialism and neocolonialism.
"Many of them"
"Either in power or coming to power"
"Rely on"
The claims have changed so much it seems that you also disagree with the meme at this point.
If you felt the need to add all those qualifiers (not wrong, btw), then it's clear that you wouldn't describe the EU as an "imperialist nazi state" either.
And that's before we ask other things, eg why Ukraine and not Russia?
Because it's dumb propaganda
I would not communicate OP's broader point the same way, but I wouldn't go so far as to say I disagree with it. The EU is a coaliton of right-wing imperialist states, this is true. Russia isn't imperialist, while Ukraine is a tool of imperialism much like Israel.
Not really all right wing but perhaps compared to your politics. Or mine tbh
I'm confused about this. I checked to see if I had the right definition, just in case, and this is wikipedia's:
How does this not perfectly describe what Russia is doing in Ukraine?
Do you have an alternative definition you're working with?
All EU member states are capitalist and depend on imperialism and neocolonialism. In that sense, they are all right wing, left wing countries would be like China and Cuba.
As for imperialism, the first part of the definition is vague enough that it applies to countries like Burkina Faso kicking France out of Africa, while the second would make the Statesian North annexing the confederacy "imperialism." Wikipedia affirmatively takes the definition of imperialism that makes it as vague as possible, reducing it to a policy preference rather than a materialist system with definite causes and necessary conclusions.
Imperialism in the modern era, as course of fact, is a stage in capitalist development. When markets are fully saturated domestically, capital expands outward. Once industrial and bank capital grow, they merge and dominate the entire economy, resulting in the dominance of finance capital in the economy and an export of capital, rather than commodities. This is how the west plunders the world in the modern era, and what Russia cannot do.
I see where you're coming from now. I think if you define imperialism in that way, it makes sense that you would consider all of those countries imperialist.
But this whole description seems weird to me. Are there any powerful capitalist countries that could avoid this?
And I still don't think Russia could possibly escape this definition. They have BRICS and are a major oil trader. They physically are trying to occupy another country right now. They use Russian language and state media to influence Eastern European countries in particular.
Capitalist countries cannot avoid becoming imperialist as they grow, but the pond is finite, with a gang of imperialist countries at the top. This forces the rest of the world into contention with imperialism. As for Russia, trade and BRICS are not imperialism. Russia has an absolutely paltry sum of finance capital, and runs largely on production and export of commodities.
So Russia with more finance capital and less commodities trade would be imperialist, but the way it is, they aren't?
I think I get what you're saying now. But it seems so arbitrary. Why should I give a shit who's imperialist by this specific definition? It would basically make 0% difference to how much Russia is a problem for the world
The problem is that the entire world is already divided up between the imperialist powers. Rising capitalist powers cannot simply take their imperialist share, because there's nowhere to gobble up. This causes conflict between imperialist powers, like the schism rising between the US as the world's imperial hegemon and core imperialist countries like the UK, France, and Germany. The important bit is that Russia is playing a progressive role against imperialism.
The definition of imperialism is not arbitrary, it describes a system that results in immense plunder and underdevelopment of the global south. The west has its riches off the backs of the global south, to this day. Russia does not. If Russia was to join NATO, join the EU, transition to a more imperialist economy, etc then it would go from playing a progressive role against imperialism to playing an actively imperialist role.
Imperialism is not arbitrary. It's the largest global obstacle to human progress, and the advance of socialism.
Hmm OK. I don't think you really addressed my question but it's fine. Everyone's imperialist. Except Russia of course, famously progressive Russia.
Anyway, thanks for explaining what you meant
I think I answered pretty well, the US and EU are the core imperialist countries, the global south is largely imperialized. Most countries aren't imperialist.
Would Russia be imperialist if everything was the same except they had more finance capital and less commodities trade?
That's certainly a big if, but one of the important bits is that they are largely kept out of the ability to imperialize the world as it's already divided amongst the western powers. As Russia develops, it will likely see that same saturation and development of finance capital domestically, but unlike the west, it won't have the ability to expand, and will more likely lead to crisis. If the west severely weakens before then, there's a good chance it would indeed become imperialist, as imperialism isn't a policy choice but the natural evolution of capitalist development. However, this is on a world scale, not merely at the level of an individual country.
Ok thanks.
Your definition seems a little cherry picky. Ignoring the obvious role of hard power and over-focusing on capital seems like a mistake. But I don't know enough anyway. Wiki's definition makes more sense to me
Hard power is used to maintain imperialism. The reason the export of capital is important is that this is what allows imperialist countries to siphon all of the wealth from the global south, vs. just selling them things. Wiki's definition is vague enough to apply to Burkina Faso kicking France out, ie it turns anti-imperialism into imperialism.
Kicking someone out is not "extending power over foreign nations." That is "resisting foreign nations trying to extend power over you."
You're being ridiculous and clearly not taking the definition as intended. Your definition is the problem here
It's absolutely extending your power over a foreign nation. Resistance to domination is the enforcement of your own will over that of others. Wiki's definition is intentionally vague to the point of being worthless, while the historical analysis of imperialism as originated with theorists like Hobson and extended by Lenin, Nkrumah, and Cheng Enfu describes an actual system, its material causes and mechanisms, and describes why it exists and how to end it. The wiki definition is like defining capitalism as "trade" and saying Marx was being ridiculous by analyzing it further.
Here's a good summary of imperialism. Treating imperialism like a vibe, and not like a material process, means we are incapable of learning how to stop it.
"Extending" is the key word here. You aren't extending any power if it's your own nation, it would be the other party who did that.
Anyway, thanks for the link, I'll check it out!
Extension is a relative term. Burkina Faso is extending its own influence to that of France by kicking them out. Every action has a reaction, in regaining their sovereignty they have reduced France's. This is a good thing, but if we are being technical, it counts as imperialism according to Wikipedia. This is obviously an absurd statement, but that's the point, Wikipedia's definition isn't actually a technical one, and instead is trying to describe a gut feeling more than a material process with concrete characteristics and motions.
And no problem!
I feel like you should have just said ‘screw it’ and vulgarly defined imperialism as a parasitic relationship.
To keep it as mindnumbingly simple as possible, imperialism looks (more or less) like this:
Not this:
I tend to think being consistent helps a lot.
So...what do you call BRICS, then? Just because the Imperialism is currently less influential than its competition, doesn't stop it from being Imperialism.
Trade is not imperialism. BRICS is not imperialist.
Simply stating something as if it were a fact, doesn't make it true. BRICS perfectly fits the description you gave. It's literally an alternative market, centered around the countries typically excluded by the "Western market". By its own definition, it was formed to compete with Western markets for global economic influence, and to expand the market capabilities of its member states.
That fits every criteria of your limited definition of imperialism.
Russia also fits the standard definition of an imperialist state due to their hostile military occupations of neighboring countries, as well as their aggressive influence campaigns targeting foreign governments around the world. They literally check every single box.
BRICS is an international trade organization, not a means by which a tiny cluster of countries that are dominated by finance capital gain money by exporting capital and expropriate wealth from the global south. This is why BRICS is made up of largely developing economies. It absolutely does not fit my definition in the slightest.
Secondly, war is not imperialism. War can be done to cement it or aid it, but it is not itself imperialism. Otherwise Burkina Faso kicking France out would be "imperialism" against France.
Lol! "It does not fit your definition in the slightest" because you are ignoring all the things that define it as an economic system. You said it yourself...it is an "international trade organization". What exactly do you think the purpose of that, is? Why does it exist?
C'mon, man. I know you aren't that dim.
And war is absolutely imperialism, when the objectives are to expand wealth through land and resource acquisition. Especially when force is used to acquire those lands and resources. Russia tried to get it through regime change first, and when the people of Ukraine rejected those efforts...they invaded.
That is literally the defining characteristic of classic imperialism. Expansion through dominance.
Trade is not imperialism, I quite literally explained how the export of capital as opposed to commodities as a means to enrich the imperialist countries at the expense of others is imperialism. BRICS is about cooperative trade agreements.
As for expansion, no, it isn't inherently imperialism, nor is war. The Statesian North absorbing the confederacy would be imperialism by your vague definition.
That's exactly what Americans say when someone calls the US an empire. It's a pretty lame deflection considering it ignores the application of economic dominance they use to get what they want from other countries.
You seem to think that imperialism is somehow limited to just Capitalist countries. Your definition also conveniently ignores the fact that you can obviously export both capital and commodities. What makes it "imperialism" isn't "what" is being exported...it's simply the fact that the smaller country's resources are being consumed by the larger, in order to sustain its own existence and expand its sphere of influence.
Imperialism is all about dominance. Economic dominance. Political dominance. Military dominance.
Economic dominance is the most subtle and least invasive form of control. This is where the imperialist nation simply purchases influence in the smaller country by buying up companies, land and resources. The end result being, all the wealth generated by the smaller economy is being syphoned off and absorbed by the larger economy. This is the typical method used by Capitalist countries, and the only definition you seem to think applies to Imperialism. It isn't. As I said, this is just the least invasive form of dominance.
The 2nd form of dominance is political. If the smaller nation resists the larger nation's efforts to take over their economy peacefully, they will take steps to replace that nation's leadership with loyalists who won't resist...ie regime change. This doesn't even necessarily have to be violent. The imperialist nation simply needs to pour resources into getting the right people places in key positions, and slowly take over the smaller nation's government one office at a time, until there is no one left to resist their efforts to take control of their resources.
The 3rd and final form of dominance is violence. If the efforts to take control of the smaller nation's government are somehow resisted, the final and most invasive actions will be employed. They will take control of those resources by force. Invasion. Annexation. Subjugation.
Russia employs all three of these forms of dominance, just like the US does. There is no difference in their tactics...only in their rhetoric when they try to justify their actions. They accuse each other of all the same crimes, that they themselves are guilty of committing. Anyone trying to defend this, by claiming that only "the other side" is doing it, is being intentionally disingenuous.
Russia is not economically dominating other countries, though, and neither is BRICS. Secondly, focusing on export of capital as the dominant measure of an imperialist economy does not mean a country can only export either capital or commodities. Further, earlier forms of imperialism existed, such as the Roman Empire, what I described is merely imperialism as it exists today.
When you are talking about "forms of control," what you're really describing is imperialism proper, the economic extraction, and then ways imperialism is maintained through soft and hard power. Russia is not economically plundering other countries. It is at war, but it is not an imperialist country.
This isn't me being disingenuous, it's me being principled in how I analyze the world.
Ok. Then explain how the Roman Empire was an empire, before Capitalism even existed. Capitalism is a relatively recent addition to human history. Whereas imperialism is by far one of the oldest.
Limiting your definition of what it is, exclusively to Capitalism, ignores 99% of our collective existence. It's not like all the other forms of imperialism ceased to exist once Capitalism came along...it just came up with a new form of dominance to use.
And for the record, Russia maintains economic dominance over plenty of countries in its sphere of influence. Belarus. Georgia. Moldova. Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan. Armenia. Etc. All are heavily influenced by Russian economic policies.
But, as I said... that's just one form of dominance that imperialist nations use to expand and maintain their control over other countries. Russia just uses the other two I mentioned, far more often. Putin obviously prefers the more old-school imperialism to the new-school variety employed by the US.
But, it's still imperialism all the same.
The Roman Empire had a different, earlier mode of production, and as such the imperialism of its era was different. I am speaking about imperialism as it is relevant today, no country has a similar mode of production to the Roman Empire.
As for Russia "economically dominating," you're really just saying Russia has economic power within countries it is near. This is not the same as systemically stealing all or most of their surplus the way western countries do to the global south.
OMG. So...."it's not the same when Russia does it"? Lol! Buddy, your argument is ridiculously transparent.
I get it. You have a favorite. Your favorite is always right, and can do no wrong. But on some level, you have to understand that you're full of shit...right? You're just coming up with exceptions to all your own rules, so that Russia never qualifies for criticism.
It's almost insulting that you think I'm stupid enough to accept that argument. It's also pretty embarrassing that you aren't embarrassed to use it.
Russia is neither similar to the ancient Roman Empire nor to contemporary western imperialism. You haven't actually explained why, other than the fact that they are at war, and I already explained that war itself is not imperialism. Russia is not super exploiting countries for super profits, and in fact it is assisting countries like Burkina Faso in expelling imperialist countries like France. It isn't that Russia can't do wrong, it's that it is not imperialist, and isn't doing imperialism.
Russia certainly isn't "my favorite," it's far from a socialist country. It does not need to be socialist to be worthy of critical support, however, in its role in contesting imperialism. It isn't at all embarrassing to have a consistent and principled stance on this. I'm not making the case because I think you're "stupid," I believe you're fully capable of grasping that Russia by no means is exploiting the global south in the same way or degree as actual imperialist countries like the US, France, UK, Germany, etc.
So now you're just going to claim that "it's not the same kind of imperialism"? That may be true from a semantic point of view. But it's still imperialism. Imperialism is like fascism. Every Empire does their own customized version. They just all share certain underlying characteristics that define it as imperialism.
The main defining characteristic of imperialism, is dominance. Control. The Empire in question needs control over it's vassal states. What form that control takes, or what combination of various tactics they use, is like a spectrum. But the basic common denominator is always domination.
Now, if you try and tell me that Russia isn't trying to control it's neighbors by any means necessary, then I will know 100%, that you not arguing in good faith.
That's literally been Putin's entire agenda since he first took power. Everything he's done for the last 2+ decades has been to claw back control over all the satellite states that used to "belong" to Russia. Every country that declared its independence after the fall of the Soviet Union, has had a target on their backs this entire time. His entire worldview is built around the idea that "Back when Russia was Great...we controlled all this land. It ALL belongs to Russia."
Except the historical reference he's making, is also when Russia was an Empire in the classical sense of the term. He's not a Socialist. He's a dictator, who wants his Empire restored to its former glory.
No, I'm saying Russia isn't imperialist, period. You're redefining imperialism from a concrete, analyzed, material system into a vibe, an emotion, a gut-feeling, because you want Russia to be evil. That's why you try to redefine it as something incredibly particular and formless, impossible to definitively nail down, but the problem there is that if we can't nail it down, then we can't analyze it.
At the end of the day, Russia is not getting wealthy off the backs of the global south. The west is, and Russia is working against that system. It may be for its own self-interest, sure, but fighting imperialism does not make a country imperialist. And yes, Putin isn't a socialist. He's a nationalist, over capitalist country that is not at the imperialist stage like the west is.
This is all good-faith on my part. The problem here is that you're defining good-faith by how much it coheres to your vibes-based worldview, which is obviously going to run counter to materialist analysis.
Lol! I'm not "redefining Imperialism". That's literally how Imperialism is defined. I don't know where you're getting your definition from, but it isn't correct. In fact, it's pretty intellectually dishonest. How things are defined is based entirely on their "common characteristics". If something possesses all the common characteristics of a certain group...it belongs in that group. That's just how it works.
You can't just claim that something isn't imperialism, just because you don't like what that word implies. You are ignoring the fact that Russia has all the common characteristics of imperialism, in order to claim that "it isn't imperialism. Period." That's not how it works.
I mean, if you want to get really specific, and dig down into the common characteristics of Putin's leadership style, and how he's running the country right now...I have some bad news for you. He's a fascist.
He has all the common characteristics of a fascist dictator. He's an oligarch with almost complete control over the Russian government and its economy. He has an oversized fascination with Russia's mythical "Historic Greatness". He emphasizes military strength as the cornerstone of Russia's power. He scapegoats minorities, foreign influence and societal weaknesses, all as barriers to restoring Russia to its previous glory. Not to mention, he's a chauvinist with delusions of grandeur.
He checks all the boxes. But, go ahead...tell me how none of that actually applies to him...all because you've decided that sharing all those common characteristics still doesn't mean that definition applies. Period.
You are redefining imperialism. I'm following imperialism as it was first analyzed by John A. Hobson as it was arising in its modern form, then correctly carried forward and codified by Lenin, then advanced to the modern day by people like Nkrumah and Cheng Enfu. Imperialism is characterized by the following:
-The presence of monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.
-The merging of bank capital with industrial capital into finance capital controlled by a financial oligarchy.
-The export of capital as distinguished from the simple export of commodities.
-The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations (cartels) and multinational corporations.
-The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism.
-The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers.
These are the mechanisms by which imperialism functions today, and they do not apply to Russia. Russia is largely a commodity exporter, with a paltry sum of finance capital, and no colonies nor neocolonies. Russia is not economically exploiting the global south, either. It is not colonial, nor neocolonial, nor imperialist.
Russia is governed by nationalists. Fascist is cutting it a bit, but I won't hotly contest that like I would the farcical claims that it is imperialist. Fascism is best understood as capitalism in decay, the logic of colonialism applied domestically. Russia doesn't quite fit that, though it is squarely nationalist and capitalist, and certainly not imperialist.
Lol! So you're using a "redefined" definition of Imperialism, written by people who don't want to be defined as imperialists?
Just tossing thousands of years worth of actual human history out the window and proclaiming all previous definitions of imperialism, obsolete? That's the definition you're going with, and that's it? Period.
Obviously there's no point in continuing this conversation. You have your preconditioned biases, and you have no intention of using any critical thought to question whether they are valid. Got it.
No, I'm using the original and developed understanding of imperialism as a stage in capitalism, advanced by people actively fighting against it. Lenin famously overthrew Tsarist Russia, established socialism, and got rid of Russia's imperial holdings, after writing Imperialism, the Current Highest Stage of Capitalism. Kwame Nkrumah was a Ghanaian that fought against neocolonialism, and wrote Neocolonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism, and Cheng Enfu is one of China's top economists and theorists of neoimperialism.
Prior forms of pre-capitalist imperialism are not at all what we observe today. The Roman Empire no longer exists. Imperialism as a stage in capitalism is the only form of imperialism that exists at present, which is why we need to analyze it as such. I am thinking about imperialism critically, that's why I analyze it as a material system and study it, rather than reduce it to a vibe. Do you have any objections to the Marxist understanding of imperialism? Why do you believe the vibe-based understanding is better?
Ok. Again, I'm going to have to stop you right here, and call bullshit on your entire argument.
You cannot claim that this interpretation is both "the original" definition AND the "developed understanding of imperialism as a stage in capitalism, advanced by people actively fighting against it", at the same time. That's just bullshit.
The original definition predates Capitalism itself, and even further predates Socialism. It's one thing to claim that a developed understanding of imperialism now includes the way Capitalism influences imperialism...but you can't claim that imperialism no longer exists without Capitalism.
That is simply incorrect. And thousands of years of human history attest to that. You cannot just hand-wave off all the previous understanding of what defines imperialism, just because you've defined a new tactic for how imperialists dominate other nations. That is absolutely absurd.
The fact that you don't see how flawed that entire argument is, either means you don't understand what you're saying, or you don't care that it makes no sense.
The broad characteristics of imperialism as a stage in capitalism were observed by Hobson. Lenin then codified it and created the basis of the theory, that still holds up today. As conditions have evolved, Nkrumah, Cheng Enfu, and more have carried this same basic analysis to modern, contemporary conditions, such as the transition from European supremacy to Statesian supremacy.
The Roman Empire had a system of imperialism that, in function, is entirely different from modern imperialism. They could just as easily be understood as entirely different words, as they function entirely differently, same with early tribal communism and future, highly industrialized communism.
I'm not handwaiving history, I am definitively stating that the imperialist stage of capitalism only came to be in the turn of the 20th century. It may be similar in some ways to previous forms of imperialism, but these forms no longer exist and are relics of history.
My argument isn't flawed, you're more than capable of comprehending it. Again, do you have any objections to the Marxist understanding of imperialism? Why do you believe the vibe-based understanding is better?
Lol! None of that has anything to do with "redefining Imperialism" itself. That is talking specifically about Capitalism. The two concepts can and do exist independently from each other.
I even agree with the concept that Capitalism will always trend towards imperialistic ambitions. That's a fundamental aspect of how Capitalism functions. And I also agree that the way Capitalists will utilize Imperialism is different from more classical examples.
But when you start telling me that "it doesn't count as imperialism unless it adheres to only those specific characteristics"...then I call bullshit. You can absolutely still have Imperialism without requiring all those criteria that are specific to Capitalism.
And I absolutely stand by my assertion that Russia is engaged in their own form of imperialism. That definition hasn't changed. Not even according to the people you keep quoting. Their analysis only expands on that definition to include how Capitalism impacts its use.
Your definition of "imperialism" as it relates to Russia is so vague it would also apply to the Statesian north annexing the confederacy, or Burkina Faso kicking France out. All you really mean is that Russia is an active player on the global stage, but that isn't inherently a bad thing. Imperialism as a system is a well-understood stage in capitalist development, that itself is bad, and is the biggest obstacle to socialism and human progression. Not Russia, which is actively working against said imperialist system.
Again, Russia is not exploiting the global south, and is actively working in the interests of the global south in contesting imperialism as a global system.
It's not "so vague". It's literally the definition of imperialism.
How is that vague? And how does that not describe invading and occupying Ukraine, Georgia, and Chechnya? Or, engaging in political interference campaigns all across Europe and Central Asia?
You can pretend all you want, that these things "didn't happen", or "don't mean what they mean"...but that would be completely disingenuous. Russia is an Imperialist state, which aims to expand its influence and territory, by any means necessary. Whether that's economic influence, political interference, or direct military aggression.
Every single part of that definition applies.
It's a vague, liberal definition. Again, the imperialist stage of capitalism was well understood already by Hobson, a non-Marxist economist. The Wikipedia version is so vague it can apply to Burkina Faso kicking out France, or to the Statesian North annexing the confederacy. It's worthless and non-technical, resulting in a vibes-based understanding.
You have yet to prove why you believe the Wikipedia definition to be better than the commonly understood Marxist interpretation, which was the driving analysis for the last century.
Russia does not aim to expand influence and territory by any means necessary. This is baseless extension of their desire to annex the four oblasts far beyond their actual context. When you don't have a materialist understanding of imperialism like I do, and instead work off of vibes, you come to clearly incorrect analysis like you are here.