Memes

You’re using Lenin’s definition of imperialism. Lenin’s definition focuses on economic domination, not military or territorial control, so for the PRC’s invasion, which was “liberation,” it’s better to use the modern definition of imperialism, which most people reading this will be doing anyway.

Your definition, which you call "modern," is neither modern nor useful. As you already said, by your chosen definition, all countries have "imperialized" others, but that doesn't explain the mechanisms of how some countries plunder vast resources from others, or how to stop this.

If we use the "influence" definition, then I don't think "influence" is a bad thing in all cases, while this form of international extraction is what we communists specifically take issue with and are arguing against. If you're trying to talk about a point I made using Lenin's analysis of imperialism, it doesn't make sense to try to change the definition to argue.

Tibet was also a serfdom, not a slave society, there is a distinct difference. Serfdom binds a person to land. Slavery treats them entirely as movable property. One is labour, one is chains. Calling it liberation is also extremely negligent and steeped in bias, the US military uses this excuse all the time, that they are liberators instead of imperialist forces.

Tibet had serfs and slaves. Go back and read the excerpts I linked from Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth. Calling it liberation is accurate, as Tibet has been uplifted and life metrics are skyrocketing, slavery and serfdom abolished, and culture preserved. Tibet is not having its resources extracted or labor super-exploited by the PRC. The US Empire destroys the countries it "liberates," this is qualitatively different.

But ultimately this all avoids the question of whether or not the Tibetan population wanted integration with China, that’s the crucial part that makes it imperialist, the inability for the Tibetans to decide for themselves.

It isn't actually what makes it imperialist or not, but Tibetans are quite happy to be freed from slavery and serfdom.

Which, again, you’re making a false conflation. We’ve established that Europe is imperialist, yes. We’ve established that the US is imperialist, yes. But then you’re including the PRC in an attempt to make it appear anti-imperialist – Which it mostly wasn’t. It’s a very camp argument. Imperialism is imperialism, it doesn’t matter who’s doing it and for what reason.

You're changing the definition of imperialism to make your point. If your point is that imperialism is "influence," and Lenin's definition is "extractionism," then my point is that every country is "influence imperialist" and not all "influence imperialism" is a bad thing, but all "extractionist imperialism" is bad. It isn't camp, I oppose this brutal system of international extractionism, and you're dodging it by taking issue with me calling that imperialism and not agreeing that influence can be good.

Redsails is also not a good source, it’s openly from an ML perspective, so it’s not neutral, which you absolutely have to be when discussing history. It’s also under no pretence to be academic or accurate either, Redsails is ideologically driven rather than factually driven - so it won’t ever be critical of the ML perspective. You can use redsails to talk theory, absolutely, but not as a historical or factual source, it’s dishonest.

Dr. Michael Parenti has well-sourced arguments and historical data. There's no such thing as a neutral historian. Red Sails is merely hosting Dr. Michael Parenti's work, which is both ideologically and factually driven. Dr. Michael Parenti is a Statesian historian, not really a theorist.

China is also not entirely socialist, either, it’s state-capitalist with socialist rhetoric. They still have private property.

Socialism is not the absence of private property, just like capitalism is not the absence of public property. Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is principle, ie governs the large firms and key industries. The US Empire is capitalist not because everything is private, but because private ownership dominates the large firms and key industries. No mode of production is "pure." From a Marxist perspective, it simply doesn't make sense to socialize the sole proprietorships and small industries, as the basis of socialist production is large scale industry, and to socialize the small firms as they grow. This is repeated by Marx and Engels.

Where are you getting your ideas of socialism from?