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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 13 hours ago* (last edited 13 hours ago) (1 children)

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?

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca -1 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 2 points 12 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Archangel1313@lemmy.ca 1 points 11 hours ago

It's not "so vague". It's literally the definition of imperialism.

Imperialism: a state policy or practice of extending a country's power and dominion over other nations or territories. It is primarily achieved through direct territorial conquest, military force, or by gaining heavy political and economic control over the region.

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.