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.

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 10 points 4 days ago (3 children)

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.

[+] grue@lemmy.world -8 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (2 children)

Imperialism as a stage in capitalist development

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.

but there was a communist revolution, and the ensuing government abolished ownership of Russian colonies, ending Russian imperialism.

So you're really going to pretend that the Warsaw Pact wasn't imperialism? Even though you claim NATO is? Sure, buddy.

The fall of the USSR did not come with new colonies, those were already freed.

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.

the imperialist powers are overwhelmingly western

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.

And I did respond to your edit, take a look.

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.

[–] Tomorrow_Farewell@lemmy.ml 8 points 4 days ago

So you’re really going to pretend that the Warsaw Pact wasn’t imperialism? Even though you claim NATO is?

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?

Not for lack of trying. If you don’t think invading Georgia and Ukraine count as attempts at colonization

Apart from you not understanding what colonisation is, there are also the following issues:

Georgia was the one to attack the peacekeepers in South Ossetia, as well as South Ossetians. Not sure what you think Russia should have done differently.
Ukraine had a NATO coup d'etat, and immediately attempted to become a glorified NATO military base (while also selling off its wealth to NATO capitalists in unpopular moves). That is an unambiguous act of aggression, and I am again not sure what you think Russia should have done differently.

There is essentially fuck-all difference between Russia under Putin and the US under Trump

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?

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.

Let's say you were correct. Why wouldn't one trade NATO for a much more manageable foe?

load more comments (1 replies)