this post was submitted on 01 Mar 2026
1453 points (97.8% liked)
Memes
55012 readers
1671 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
but think of the stock market!
This is what I look like when listening to the new Gorillaz album.
What kind of fantasy world are you living in?
I prefer that even more
Ah, I see. So when the U.S. bombs another country, it's genocide. But if someone does it to the U.S. it's a good thing? Got it.
The US Empire is an empire, countries opposing the US Empire are presently not imperialist. You're comparing them by abstracting the concept of bombing outside of the necessary context it exists in, ie you're using metaphysics to analyze reality.
Depends on your definition. The U.S. fits the definition of "Informal Empire" pretty well, but it's definitely not an old school empire like Rome or Britain
Imperialism isn't something that exists as a static concept, but functions differently depending on the dominant mode of production. The US Empire absolutely fits the Marxist understanding of imperialism as a specific stage of late-monopoly capitalism.
Imperialism as a concept predates Marxism and isn’t reducible to Lenin’s model. We can debate which framework is more useful, but pretending there’s only one definition isn’t serious.
The processes of earlier forms of imperialism predate Marxism, such as Roman imperialism. The analysis of capitalist imperialism, on the other hand, is most well-understood by how Lenin analyzed it with Marxism. Lenin wasn't invalidating earlier forms of imperialism, but analyzing the specific character of capitalist imperialism, the form that by far matters the most today.
Lenin’s framework is one influential analysis of capitalist imperialism. That doesn’t make it exhaustive. Modern geopolitics also includes state security competition, regional spheres of influence, and non-capitalist power projection.
Marxists have also continued to expand analysis of imperialism beyond Lenin. One such example is Cheng Enfu's analysis of neoimperialism, where imperialist countries have ralied behind a single dominant Empire, the US, rather than compete with each other (though this is falling apart now). Geopolitics isn't limited to imperialism, but imperialism is the principle contradiction driving development in the world today, that being the socialization of global labor struggling against the privatization of the profits made by global labor in the hands of the few in imperialist countries.
Calling imperialism the principal contradiction is a theoretical commitment, not an empirical conclusion. Other schools like realism or institutionalism would identify state security competition or balance-of-power dynamics as primary.
And what are the opposing tendencies in these contradictions?
In realism, the opposing tendencies are expansion of one state’s power and balancing by others to preserve sovereignty. In institutionalism, it’s integration versus fragmentation. Neither requires framing global politics as capital versus labor.
And yet both of these are largely driven by imperialism, as secondary contradictions of the single most important factor in the global economy.
We’re working from fundamentally different priors. I don’t think global politics reduces to a single economic contradiction. I’ll leave it there.
I don't believe it does either, though, just that one issue is primary.
Wont someone please consider the genociders??
Yeah it's a good thing when fascist states get bombed. You'd be the kind to both sides WW2 if it was socially acceptable to go to bat for the nazis
And what about the innocent people who voted against the fascist government? They deserve to die too?
Are westerners only able to conceptualise the killing of civilians? Are they so far removed from having normal countries that they forget that wars are fought between armies?
Talk about cultural chauvinism.
The implication here is: “You people are detached, soft, and incapable of understanding real war.” That’s not an argument. That’s a moral superiority pose. It frames one group as hardened realists and the other as naïve spectators. Historically, that kind of framing is how conflicts get emotionally escalated. Dehumanization rarely begins with slurs. It begins with sweeping generalizations.
And the irony is thick. You're accusing me of only conceptualizing civilian deaths, while simultaneously minimizing the reality that modern warfare absolutely does kill civilians. The idea that wars are cleanly fought “between armies” belongs in the 19th century, not the 21st. Civilian harm is a central moral and legal issue in contemporary conflict. That’s not Western fragility. That’s international humanitarian law.
No the implication is that westerners love killing civilians so much that they forget that wars are fought between militaries. I'll be more clear about this next time.
You want an argument? It's trivial to give one. All western countries have been involved in warmongering in west asia since before I was born. There is full justification for any group in west asia to launch attacks on western military assets.
Even under international law (which western militaries refuse to follow), retaliating against military attacks is fully allowed. America and its zionist occupation of Palestine attacked Iran (military targets and civilians), and even inside its borders and capital city*. The Iranian state has every right to bomb any American military target, even if it were inside US border.
*this isn't the first time either. The Americans did this last year, and even in trump's 1rst term
Sure, there are civilians casualties from war. So should America be allowed to bomb and genocide whoever they want with no one fighting back?
Lmao western militaries do not give a single fuck about civilians or collateral damage or international law. You really want to present the butchers of gaza as some sort of hippies in 2026?
So just to be clear, are civilians legitimate targets as long as they live in the “wrong” country?
Reading comprehension curse strikes again
I have never once advocated for the deliberate targeting of civilians and have specified again and again that warfighting should be between militaries.
I didn’t say you supported deliberately targeting civilians.
My point was that attacking military targets inside heavily populated areas will inevitably kill civilians. That’s why civilian protection is a central principle in international humanitarian law. The rule has to apply universally.
"I genocided your brothers and bombed your schools and seiged you but please don't hit my military targets cause I put them in densely populated areas"
Your humanitarian principle requires everyone in the world to basically allow themselves to be attacked by America, it's European lapdogs and the zionist occupation.
From a legal and military standpoint your logic is simply absurd.
Self-defense and protecting civilians are not mutually exclusive. That’s literally why the laws of war exist.
I don't even know what point you're trying to make anymore. Let's cut this thread honestly it's long enough.