this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2025
163 points (81.2% liked)
Memes
53340 readers
841 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 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Under Maduro, Venezuelan communes and participatory democracy is flourishing. In addition, massive social programs have been implemented, focusing on housing, food security, and poverty eradication. I'm not sure on what basis you distrust him so much, Venezuela is building socialism under Maduro from the bottom-up, and Maduro is doing his part from the top.
Venezuela is a developing country, that is developing despite the US Empire's best efforts. It is regularly improving, which is why the working classes support Maduro.
Russia isn't imperialist, it has no colonies nor neocolonies, and a tiny amount of global financial capital. China isn't imperialist either, it's a socialist country wituout any financial domination of the state or economy. There's no mechanisms pushing for imperialism within China, and this manifests in regular south-south trade leading to development of global south countries when trading with China, unlike the unequal exchange of trade with the west where the west charges monopoly prices for tech and places compradors in power to prevent industrial development.
Multiple things are true, correct. This isn't the grand own you think it is, though. You're passively parroting imperialist narratives.
I think this really needs to be stressed. Venezuela is a country building Socialism. Maduro and the PSUV is in power because of a genuinely incredible mass movement of communes, neighborhood committees, and other organs of grassroots democracy. This is qualitatively different from say, any of the Gulf oil monarchies
I highly recommend the books Building The Commune: Radical Democracy in Venezuela, and Commune or Nothing: Venezuela's Communal Movement and Its Socialist Project, for a look at these aspects of Venezuelan politics, because it's often papered over in discussions about the country.
Absolutely. Venezuela is genuinely what self-described demsocs want, the Empire just doesn't care and will kill you regardless of how procedural and by international law your socialism is.
Yeah, tell that to Crimea, the Donbas, or even Siberia or the puppet states like Belarus, Georgia and Moldova. Russian neo-colonialism is all over Africa.
China is a kinder imperialist, but they are using largely the same playbook that the west used in Africa, including debt-trap diplomacy, undermining local sovereignty and regulation, and undermining labor movements.
They also have a mix of socialism and capitalism, sometimes getting the best of both, and sometimes the worst. They definitely dominate the state economy through control of banking and the use of capital controls to direct funding to national priorities. The current real estate crisis and "ghost cities" are a pretty obvious example.
Are you kidding me? The people in Crimea and the Donbas wanted to join Russia, to protect them from Ukraine, which had been killing them since 2014.
The Atlantic, 2021: The Chinese ‘Debt Trap’ Is a Myth
What is China doing to undermine local sovereignty or labor movements in Africa?
What “current” real estate crisis? The Chinese state intentionally popped the real estate bubble over a year ago, making the capitalists eat their losses.
Compare that to Obama, who bailed out the private banks at the expense of people with home mortgages, banks that knowingly wrote those bad mortgages. Michael Hudson, 2023: Why the Bank Crisis isn’t Over
Reuters, 2015: The myth of China’s ghost cities
Wherever you’re getting your information from, it’s dogshit.
Man i remember when I was a "damn, the US and it's enemies are both evil" guy. I thought i was done thinking about the world
Most of us have been at that stage, especially if we grew up in the west. I certainly was, no doubt about that. I try to do my best to correct that former behavior now that I know better. Masses, Elites, and Rebels: The Theory of "Brainwashing" remains critical reading.
And we thought we were so enlightened. This is the last layer of the imperial core propaganda onion: that the “other side” is no better, which leads to apathy and disengagement.
Why do you think they're invading Ukraine. Sparkles and rainbows?
The general Marxist take is that when Yanukovych was offered an IMF loan that required austerity policies and privatization of safety nets, and a Russian loan that did not come with the same restrictions, he went with the Russian loan and was couped for it, including a western-supported Banderite false-flag shooting. Following the western-supported coup, the areas in the Donbass region seceded, as they supported Yanukovych, are culturally and ethnically Russian, and were unhappy with the Banderites taking over the government under the cover of "democracy." Said Banderites were also legally suppressing the Russian language in the Donbass region.
What ensued was a decade of fighting, 2 failed Minsk agreements that Kiev broke and admitted to never wanting to follow, and massive risk of NATO on Russia's doorstep. The Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics requested Russian assistance, and Russia complied, sparking the next stage of the war.
Russia purely wants the Donbass region and NATO neutrality. They want the Donbass region not out of the kindness of their hearts, nor for plunder or further expansion, but because it's a land bridge straight to Russia, the same route the Nazis took in World War II. NATO was building up because the West uses their millitary to threaten countries into opening up their economies to foreign plunder (like what's happening right now in Venezuela), a tradition employed since NATO was founded, destroyed Yugoslavia and Libya, etc.
This is the common Marxist take, shared largely by PSL's statement and FRSO's statement. Essentially, the war is tragic, should end as quickly as possible, and was provoked by the west.
Nato is not a risk to russia, and never has been. Nato is a defensive alliance. The only way they're a risk is if russia plans to attack them first. Anyone suggesting that nato provoked it is on something
Yeah man ask Libya and Yugoslavia how defended they feel
Nato is a defensive alliance just like cops are there to help you
NATO is the millitary alliance of the world's imperialist powers. This group of countries uses this alliance to prevent the global south from going against it and liberating themselved from foreign plunder via overwhelming financial domination. The way imperialism tends to work in the modern day is countries like the US, France, Germany, UK, etc expropriate vast wealth from countries in the global south, similar to how capitalists steal value created by the working class.
NATO is as "defensive" as the Iron Dome in Israel. These countries export genocide and terrorism on the third world, expropriate huge sums of wealth, and then "defend" against anyone that pushes back against that.
NATO expansion:
NATO in general:
Invading / starting a war is not the same thing as imperialism.
Invading for territory gain is absolutely synonymous with imperialistic tendencies
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:
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
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
"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.
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
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
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
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
A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.
Ok but the person above just denied that a square was a rectangle
Look at those goalposts fly
No goalposts have moved dude
It literally is? They are expanding power over a foreign nation via military means. That's basically the definition of imperialism.
You’re talking about simple conquest. By that definition any offensive side in a war is imperialist, which is nonsensical as that means nearly every war in human history involved at least one “imperialist” power.
Imperialism is system of establishing and maintaining hegemony over large areas for the benefit of an elite (capital in modern times, patricians in ancient times, etc) within a metropole (probably too simple of a definition but it works). The Romans were an empire not just because they had an emperor and not because they conquered lands, but because they controlled lands from Spain to Syria and wealth flowed from those lands into Rome.
The Soviet Union expanded their power over Germany via military means. WW2 was simply an inter-imperialist war.
It was an inter-imperialist war except on the eastern front, where it was a war to destroy communism. The capitalist Allies and the USSR were an alliance of convenience, which is why the West made the USSR its enemy the moment the war ended.
Edie is being sarcastic, btw.
The imperialist D-Day landings