this post was submitted on 06 Dec 2025
254 points (80.8% liked)
Memes
53858 readers
586 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
"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
For sure, but there are a few problems with that definition. The first is that it doesn't apply to the Russian intervention in Ukraine that started this conversation, which is neither unprovoked nor being done to expand Russian territory.
The second is that it only includes atate actions meant to take territory in an official capacity, while many imperialist actions have been carried out under the auspices of private companies like Haliburton, Dole, the United Fruit Company, and the Dutch East India Company.
The third is that we already have the term Expansionist, which is perfectly fine and general enough for both capitalist and non-capitalist actions, while Imperialism describes a specific dynamic that arises from specifically capitalist causes.
For the record, my stated definition does not limit it. When "especially" is used in definitions, it's not stated as a limiter but rather to show it primarily applies to as such.
This is a fundamental disagreement. Especially in regards to saying it's not to expand their territory as a goal.
One interesting thing I find with lemmy. Is equating ownership existing with capitalism. Presumably because that's how it's portrayed in communist literature.
Then it's not part of the definition? That's like saying the definition of "apple" is "a fruit from a tree, especially a fruit with simple uniform flesh and a thin skin" and then when I say this orange is not an apple you say "I said especially so it doesn't really count"
So your definition is now simply military invasion.
Wasn't it? They intended to take German territory to expand France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc.
The problem with the liberal definition is that it's meant to erase capitalism from its natural, systemic compulsion towards imperialism, making it more of a policy choice. The Marxist understanding of imperialism is deeper and more accurate. You can think of the liberal definition as overly simplistic, broad, vague, and with no analysis of why countries become empires, while the Marxist understanding is deeper, more complex, more observable, and explains why some countries become empires (and thus gain massive amounts of wealth from their neocolonies), and their neocolonies remain underdeveloped.