cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/863209
Archived version: https://archive.ph/5Ok1c
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230731013125/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-66337328
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/863209
Archived version: https://archive.ph/5Ok1c
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230731013125/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-66337328
I’m just gonna sit back and enjoy the tankies from lemmygrad denying or trying to justify this one as well. 🍿
Imagine believing the BBC about China. Are you not embarrassed?
Imagine defending Russian and Chinese imperialism because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
Imagine not knowing what imperialism is.
Neither China not Russia are imperialist. China is a socialist state so by definition cannot be and Russia is an immature industrial capitalist state.
Can you elaborate on that? I agree that China is not imperialist, but I don’t see how socialism by definition precludes that possibility.
Imperialism is the final stage of capitalism. Finance capitalism takes over from industrial capitalism and seeks out markets abroad, having exhausted the internal ones. It teams up with other finance capitalism to become a global force, the export of capital becomes the most prominent feature of the economy rather than the export of raw materials or finished goods. The states they come from tend to become fascist in nature, or as some people put it, “fascism is imperialism turned inward”.
Even if China was a capitalist country as some people claim, it still wouldn’t be at that stage yet. Russia might wish to one day be there, but it too has a long way to go.
You didn’t answer what I asked.
You said that capitalism by definition leads to imperialism. I asked how socialism by definition precludes imperialism.
I would suggest reading “Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism”
Imperialism has a highly specific definition.
Thank you, I’ll look at that. It might be my misunderstanding of a technical term, but I don’t see the logical sequence that makes it apparent that socialist countries can’t engage in imperialism/colonialism.
They’re saying if Communists do it, it’s not Imperialism even if it looks exactly the same.
They are willfully committing an equivocation fallacy, using their definition of “Imperialism” as being necessarily related to Capitalism. The textbook definition of Imperialism does NOT necessarily relate to capitalism, so you are indeed in the right.
A non-capitalist country most certainly can do that definition. And Russian and China have both done that quite unambiguously.
So you’re in the right. But you’ll never win an argument against them because lies are truth.
Because you need to get to imperialism via capitalism. There is definitively no other way.
I don’t see how that follows.
Socialism’s goal is to provide for its people; in theory, why can’t it engage in colonialism to bring in resources to benefit its people?
Its obvious how capitalism leads to imperialism, but it’s definitely not obvious how that would be the only way to arrive there.
Any elaboration you can provide would be great because you’re acting as if it should be obvious why what you’re saying is true but it absolutely is not.
You have more than zero point, but this is an excessively modernist way of viewing development that Marx explicitly refutes in his later writings after facing spurious accusations of supporting such views.
These are Leninists who believe that socialism cannot do imperialism because socialism is ideological manifest destiny. Nevermind that this was more or less one of the original debates between Trotsky and Lenin on how do do “global communism.”
They like to redefine words to carry whatever ideological weight they want, because it’s much easier than introspection. Like how they will carry the “Nazi means anti-Russian” banner to unironically defend mass deportation children from Ukraine. "Obviously it can’t be the UN definition of genocide, because you can’t genocide Nazis.
I wish I was making this up…
Ask Taiwan if if they think China is imperialistic. I’m sure you’ll get an answer.
Ask a breakaway settler-colonial state if they are the real victims? I’m sure that’ll provide the correct answer
Imperialism does not mean “of empire”. It is an economic system, the highest stage of capitalism.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/imperialism
Yes. Yes it does.
Also, you’re trying to challenge the definition of the word, but you’re not arguing with about China and Taiwan.
Do you know what the KMT did to the indigenous people who occupied Taiwan before the KMT retreated there?
I think the US will tell them to say “Yes”.
Taiwan is literally a province of China. The imperialism in Taiwan is done by US who poured countless millions in propping up a puppet party there.
Imagine thinking Chinese workers own the means of production, or not even knowing where the term “tankie” comes from.
The term tankie comes from the 1956 hungarian revolution/counter-revoluton (depending on who you ask) which split the British communist party, those that supported the Soviet Union suppressing it with the military were called tankies.
The video of the man in front of the tank column related to the June 4th incident did not result in the man standing in front of the tank dying, and those tanks were leaving the area where the violence occurred and is not where the word tankie comes from like I believe you are suggesting.
No, I was suggesting that tankie came to describe USSR supporters (which modern apologists project onto Russia, as if the wall never fell). I am aware of the origin of the term.
My comment was a reply on people supporting whatever Russia and China do. It takes a jab at both.
No, it started that way? Do you mean started to be more all encompassing? I literally explained the origin of the term one comment ago. Also, I dont see how this
" Imagine thinking Chinese workers own the means of production, or not even knowing where the term “tankie” comes from. "
-can mean what you say you meant.
Anyone who has researched the USSR enough to cut through capitalist propaganda knows Russia is now a neolib-ish bourgeois democracy.
So, didn’t the term come to describe people who support the USSR imperialist practices by rolling into countries with tanks?
Have you ever seen anything written by the average lemmy tankie? They will defend Russia because it’s not the US.
If the US invades a middle eastern country because of “terrorists”, the true motive is oil (which I don’t disagree with). But if Russia invades Ukraine because they could potentially become a competitor petrol state in Europe more aligned with the EU, then it’s actually “nazis”.
Imagine believing the CCP, I feel embarrassed for you
*Tankies from lemmygrad and lemmy.ml.
Is there a way to jump instances and bring all your content/moderation with you? I really didn’t sign up for tankie voat, but I have growing communities in this instance.
Unfortunately not right now, maybe in the future. You can make the community on the new instance, stop all posting on the old one and pin a link to the new one so users are forced over, but that might not work and you could lose a largish portion of your userbase.
You can moderate communities from across instances
I think that’s exactly what happened to c/unixporn migrating from .ml to .world
That’s true.
However, I feel like the ones from lemmygrad are slightly more unhinged.
The downvotes say a whole lot. At least one of them is known for botting downvotes.
I gotta say it is quite entertaining.
😴😴😴😴
removed by mod