this post was submitted on 22 Aug 2026
577 points (97.1% liked)
Memes
56793 readers
483 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
No, we do not define imperialism as "the thing the US does." Imperialism was first analyzed as a stage in capitalist development when countries like the UK and Germany were greater imperialist powers, in the years leading up to World War I. It wasn't until after World War II that the US became the imperial hegemon, leveraging the devastation of Europe as a chance to claim the spotlight and fill the power vacuum.
Imperialism as a stage in capitalism is best characterized by consolidation of monopoly bank and industrial capital into finance capital, and the shift from an economy based on export of commodities to export of capital. Just because the US does this does not mean this is how imperialism was first analyzed, nor does trying to vulgarize the definition of imperialism to be any aggressive action by one country to another erase the fact that this system does materially exist. It exists even if you shut your eyes to it.
Russia has a paltry sum of finance capital. It cannot replace the US Empire, it has no colonies nor neocolonies. It is a dictatorship of nationalist bourgeoisie, run on commodity production, not on export of capital as its basis. It is not imperialist.
As for your edit, I already said Russia invaded Ukraine. It wasn't out of nowhere, it was a response to increasing millitarization and ties with NATO, as well as the attempted ethnic cleansing of the Donbass region of ethnic Russians.
I literally quoted you: "imperialism is a global system headed by the US Empire."
WTF are you talking about? Imperialism has existed longer than capitalism! Sure, the British Empire was imperialist, as was the German Empire. But so was France under Napoleon. So was Spain back in the 15th Century. So was motherfucking Rome, two millennia before capitalism was even invented.
And pointedly, so was Russia, going all the way back to the Tsars. See, for example, Russia's 19th century imperialism (along with Britain; I'm perfectly willing to admit that) in the form of "the great game" fighting over central Asia.
The idea that only western capitalists are capable of being imperialist is just fucking ludicrous nonsense.
By the way, I realize that it was a quick edit and you may have missed it, but you didn't respond to my challenge to actually write the words "Russia invaded Ukraine" instead of passively denying the opposite.
The fact that imperialism is a global system headed by the US Empire does not mean that this is how we define it. Imperialism as a stage in capitalist development arose around the end of the 19th century, when there was no imperial hegemon. There were different imperialist powers struggling for supremacy, which was the main cause of World War I.
You're correct, Tsarist Russia was an imperialist country, but there was a communist revolution, and the ensuing government abolished ownership of Russian colonies, ending Russian imperialism. The fall of the USSR did not come with new colonies, those were already freed. There was not a legal recognition of the old Tsarist colonies under the new Russian Federation, so I don't see how that's relevant.
Regarding older forms of imperialism, such as in Rome, those systems are dead. No country is imperialist in the old, Roman sense any longer. Just like how early tribal societies were a form of "early communism," but that this is not the same as future industrialized communism, earlier forms of imperialism are not the same as imperialism as a stage in capitalist development. They share similarities, such as the exploitation of territories for the sake of the imperial ruling class, but the mechanisms at play are very different.
There is no idea that "only western capitalists are capable of being imperialist." Japan is imperialist, for example. It just so happens that at this stage in imperialist development, the imperialist powers are overwhelmingly western. You're confusing how imperialism is presently manifested with how it's defined.
And I did respond to your edit, take a look.
Okay, but if "as a stage in capitalist development" is what you mean, that's way more fucking specific than just "imperialism" in general and so you folks here can't just say "imperialism" and expect people to treat you as anything other than clowns who don't know what words mean.
So you're really going to pretend that the Warsaw Pact wasn't imperialism? Even though you claim NATO is? Sure, buddy.
Not for lack of trying. If you don't think invading Georgia and Ukraine count as attempts at colonization, especially under the definitions you keep applying to the US, you're just delusional.
And Russia is one of them! There is essentially fuck-all difference between Russia under Putin and the US under Trump, in terms of political or economic ideology.
The collapse of the USSR was essentially an example of "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em" (in terms of economic system, not geopolitical alliances). There is no anti-imperialist counterbalancing going on here; the US and Russia are just two rival bullies fighting over the same turf.
I understand what you think you're going to accomplish by supporting Russia, but all you would actually accomplish is trading out one imperialist capitalist oppressor for another.
Still too many excuses. The simple fact is that Russia is not entitled to decide how Ukraine conducts its own internal affairs, and so nothing you wrote was relevant at all.
Regarding what imperialism even is, I think you should return to how I explained it as a system earlier:
In essence, imperialism as Marxists understand it is an actual system that materially exists, no matter what we call it. We can call it "Marxist imperialism" if you like, and we can use "imperialism" to refer to the vibes-based understanding that exists predominantly. No matter what we call it, Marxists specifically oppose "Marxist imperialism" while we don't actually believe everything that falls under colloquial understandings of imperialism is inherently bad, such as when the Statesian north invaded the Statesian south.
As for the Warsaw pact vs. NATO, this is an excellent example of why understanding "Marxist imperialism" as a system is so critical. Not all military alliances are tools of imperialism. The key difference between the Warsaw Pact countries and NATO is that the Warsaw Pact countries were all socialist, and not "Marxist imperialist," while the NATO countries all are "Marxist imperialist" and use NATO to further this system as described earlier.
Regarding Georgia and Ukraine, neither represents an expansion of Russian finance capital. Most of Russia's military action is a response to encirclement by imperialist countries and militaries. The west throws allegations of colonial intent despite provoking the invasions in the first place. The goal of the west is to isolate and Balkanize Russia so as to make it easier for western financial capital to proliferate, while Russia is primarily self-interested in maintaining its own sovereignty.
The major difference between Russia and the US is that Russia is a nationalist dominated capitalist economy based on commodity production, while the US is an imperialist dominated capitalist economy based on export of capital and unequal exchange. Both are dominated by capitalists, but the actual material functioning of these economies is very different precisely because of the difference in stages in development. This puts the two at odds.
As for the dissolution of the USSR, it was dissolved via counterrevolution, not because socialism is less effective. There are complexities there, but these go beyond the extent of this conversation. What's important is that socialism dissolved, but this did not bring a resurgance of "Marxist imperialism," because the world was already divided up amongst the existing "Marxist imperialist" powers.
Again, when you equate Russia and the US, and think Russia could ever replace the US as imperial hegemon, you make it clear that you do not understand "Marxist imperialism" as a system. I will restate this again: Russia has an absolutely paltry sum of finance capital. Without developed finance capital, Russia cannot replace the US Empire as imperial hegemon. "Marxist imperialism" requires the very tools and functions of "Marxist imperialism" to exist in the first place, and these do not show up instantly in other countries. Russia has less than a dozen of the top 500 countries in the world. It has no ability to replace the US Empire.
As for Russia not having the "right" to attack Ukraine, this is a moralist argument, not a materialist one. Russia is self-interested in its own defense, and the west knowingly poked the bear. The largest victims are those in the Donbass region that were ethnically cleansed by Ukraine, and the second largest are the members of the Ukrainian working classes that are being sent to their deaths so that the west can harvest Ukraine for minerals while the comprador regime in Kiev profits on the side.
NATO is carrying out a genocide and enforces relations of severe unequal exchange, unlike Warsaw Pact which literally acted against all that.
What is your issue with the Warsaw Pact?
Apart from you not understanding what colonisation is, there are also the following issues:
Apart from the fact that, for all its massive faults, contemporary Russia hasn't been the aggressor in military conflicts (no, reaction to NATO's aggression via Ukraine is not itself aggression), and has militarily helped various countries fighting against your colonial subjugation of them.
Also, why are you singling out the US and Trump, and not all of the other invaders of Iraq and Afghanistan?
Let's say you were correct. Why wouldn't one trade NATO for a much more manageable foe?