this post was submitted on 21 May 2026
86 points (83.6% liked)
Memes
55835 readers
1098 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
Liberals and western "leftists" use the idea as a thought terminating cliche, hiding behind it to avoid recognizing when two diametrically opposed things are in fact not equally bad.
When the "lesser" evil is an openly genocidal liberal politician, they bang on and on about how it's tactical and a step in a direction and trolley problem and blah blah blah.
But when the lesser evil is a state they've been taught to villify? Oh buddy, don't you know two things can be bad at once? I hate all sides equally! (but only repeat the narratives of one).
The point is that the two things are in fact not diametrically opposed. Russia is a capitalist, imperial power. As is the USA. As is Iran and China.
The notion that two things can be bad at once is actually an antidote to the thought terminating cliche of "the enemy of my enemy is my ally". It encourages to actually analyse the two things that are supposedly diametrically opposed at their own merits.
It used to be common for leftists not to condone any war effort by capitalist/imperialist states, because there is nothing to gain. But now, campist "leftists" (I can use scare-quotes to childishly delegitimize self-proclaimed "leftists", too) are laser-focused in their anti-americanism that they don't see what's happening around them anymore.
I agree. Therefore I condone neither politicians nor states. Because "both things" are "bad", as it were.
Could you list the victims of Chinese imperialism? Please also define imperialism and capitalism.
Imperialism: The practice of states to expand their influence beyond their sovereign borders.
State-Capitalism: The mode of production where the means of production are owned by the institutions of the state.
So, now you want a moralist argument? O.o
So any state that uses diplomacy, trade, cultural exchange, or anything else to extend their influence is imperialist, meaning all states are imperialist, making the term meaningless. Western liberals love doing this, taking things that the West is specifically guilty of and redefining the word to be so broad that it applies to everyone, letting them keep the smug superiority of bleating "I think both sides are bad!" Without ever having to grapple with the ways their side specifically is bad
Vacous redefinition of the term that vacates it of all it's explanatory power.
A definition of capitalism that includes no mention of class or class power is meaningless.
Not moralist to ask for proof of the imperialist power doing imperialism. Nice attempt at a dodge though.
You genuinely become more of a parody of the western "anarchist" with every post.
Definitions aren't used to explain things on their own. They need to be combined with reasoning to explain anything.
What's your definition? Do you have a better one? Ideally one, without any (moral) judgement baked in.
Again with the motivated reasoning. Also, the class structure can be deduced from the definition without explicitly stating it.
Now you conflate imperialism with something that needs victims. My definition doesn't require any definition of victims. You can disagree, but you'd need to supply a definition that is better suited to describe the world.
Insulting me doesn't make your arguments any more coherent.
I didn’t say definitions explain things on their own, though obviously definitions matter for explanation. Analytical labels however are supposed to have explanatory power. That is the entire point of terms like capitalism, socialism, feudalism, fascism, or imperialism. To redefine them in a way as to vacate them of that power is idiotic.
If your definition of imperialism is broad enough to include any external state activity (aid, trade, diplomacy, war, military support, medical missions, infrastructure projects, and so on) then it explains nothing. It just becomes “when a country does something internationally.” That as I already pointed out vacates the term of any meaningful analytical use.
The better definition is the Hobson/Lenin definition: imperialism is a stage of capitalism, specifically monopoly capitalism. It emerges when capital is highly concentrated, finance capital dominates, the export of capital becomes central, and great powers divide the world into spheres of influence in pursuit of markets, resources, cheap labour, and superprofits, subjugating weaker countries militarily, financially, and diplomatically to secure those interests.
That does not bake in moral judgement. It is not “imperialism is when bad countries do bad things.” It is a specific account of advanced capitalism and what it necessitates.
No, not “motivated reasoning.” but basic analysis.
The distinction between capitalism and socialism is class power. The distinction between capitalism and feudalism is also class power. Capitalism means bourgeois rule and wage labour. Feudalism means aristocratic/landlord rule and feudal obligation. Socialism means working-class rule and production subordinated to social need rather than private accumulation.
So a definition of capitalism, socialism, feudalism, or “state capitalism” that does not mention class rule is meaningless beyond slogan.
Your definition was:
The class content absolutely cannot be deduced from that. It is so wide it could apply to a workers’ state, a capitalist state, or even a feudal state with major state-owned productive assets. These are completely different social formations with complete different classes ruling.
The problem is not that imperialism needs “victims” as a definitional checkbox. The problem is that imperialism, historically and structurally, entails domination, extraction, subordination, and violence. That is not moralism. That is what imperialism materially is under capitalism.
Your redefinition strips that out and reduces imperialism to generic international activity. Frankly, redefining imperialism in a way that erases the brutality it actually entails should be treated with the same contempt as holocaust denial. Collapsing Cuba sending doctors abroad into the same category as European colonial slaughter in Africa, US-backed coups, sanctions, debt domination, neocolonial extraction, and military occupation.
Not an insult, an observation.
Burkina Faso is imperialist for kicking France out of the surrounding region, excellent definition.
Referring to publicly owned, planned economies as "state capitalism" is monstrously misleading. Capitalism is a system of private ownership, marketized distribution, with capital accumulation as the primary goal of capitalists. Using "capitalism" to refer to an administered, planned economy is just a subjectivist argument. State capitalism is a better descriptor for the Republic of Korea and Singapore, capitalist economies with heavy bourgeois state control.
This isn't a moralist argument, the argument is to get you to actually explain with concrete examples how China is imperialist. Given that you provided a definition of imperialism that makes Cuba imperialist for exporting doctors and aid missions in order to gain favor with surrounding countries, I don't think it's necessary to provide any examples of "Chinese imperialism."
So...WW2. The invasion of Normandy by the allied powers. Imperialism?
They sure as shit weren't there to free the concentration camps.
Okay, so were the D-Day landings imperialism, yes or no?
They were done for imperialist reasons, yes.
What's your point? I didn't make a moralist statement about imperialism.
What were the imperialist reasons?
Not a historian, but from the top of my head: driving back Germany from having too much power in Europe, assisting the British allies and/or preventing the soviets from conquering too much of Germany and turning it "socialist".
Do you think the US entered a war, because Hitler was a bad guy? O.o
So what I'm getting from this definition is that any military action across a national border for any reason other than, i guess, pure moral altruistim, is imperialism. Is that the conclusion you mean to build to?
States don't do altruism in a world of states that compete against each other.
Just straight up admitting you've defined imperialism so broadly as to be meaningless
Yeah I agree. So does that make all military conflict that crosses a national border imperialism or does it not?
I don't "want to built to" any conclusion. I gave one definition. And your conclusion, according to that definition is correct.
It's "anarchists" like you why people call it anarkiddies. Read theory then you won't sound as stupid as you do in this thread