Denmark's Mette Frederiksen said "everything would stop" in the event of a US attack on another NATO country. European leaders have backed Frederiksen while saying the US "is an essential partner."
Nato is an imperialist alliance that was created to fight imperalist USSR. Many of the funding countries was still colonizing other countries when it was created. Nato also destroyed Lybia which is the clearest example of it not being just a defensive alliance. Nato also collaborate with Israel who hold the longest current occupation, again has nothing to do with Europe protection.
The US could leave Nato today, attack a Nato country and Nato will do nothing about it
One major correction, the USSR was anti-imperialist, which is why the imperialists collaborated to oppose them. Their colonies were in danger of liberation due to the soviets aiding anti-imperialist movements.
Comparing Afghanistan to 500 years of European colonialism is an interesting strategy.
Especially since it send to ignore the fact Russia became involved in Afghanistan due in part to Western nations sponsoring a series of coups to take control of their former colony in the first place.
I never said that 500 years of European colonialism is better than what happened in Afghanistan. European colonialism in India alone by the British alone was 100 millions death. Of course European colonialism is the worst thing that ever happened to the world.
That’s not what socialists mean by imperialism, by that vibes-based definition defeating Nazi Germany was “imperialism.” Imperialism is instead a form of international exploitation characterized by dominance of monopoly finance capital, export of capital, and super-exploiting the global south for super profits. Spreading socialism is anti-imperialist.
It’s not what anyone means by imperialism. If “extending your influence through diplomacy” is imperialism, then there isn’t a non imperialistic country out there
By your definition, Tunisia is imperializing the EU due to their diplomatic relations and free trade agreements, where Tunisia tries to gain favorable trade deals. According to your definition, Tunisia is imposing its desire for better trade relations on the EU and thus imperializing it.
Now, this is of course absurd, but that’s why when we say it isn’t imperialist while following your definition that this is just vibes. There’s nothing scientific about your definition, nothing that can be used to analyze why some countries develop while underdeveloping others, nor how we stop this.
That’s why, in broadening and generalizing it, you’ve destroyed its analytical capacity. It’s like saying we should rename all of the different types of plants to “tree.” Not only does it remove the specificity of taxonomy, but also gets it wrong in many cases!
Tunisia do not ask to change EU full economical system and ideology and has no power against the EU. Discussing trade deals without force is not a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force.
It does not go beyond how socialists define imperialism, it reduces imperialism to vibes. Imperialism is a material phenomenon with definite characteristics, not whenever a country influences another. When you reduce imperialism to vibes, it certainly makes it more broadly applicable, but you lose sight of how and why it functions, how to stop it, where it comes from, etc. It’s like arguing that lions and cheetahs are both cats, and that therefore cheetahs are lions.
Imperialism, in simplified characteristics, functions as follows:
-The presence of monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.
-The merging of bank capital with industrial capital into finance capital controlled by a financial oligarchy.
-The export of capital as distinguished from the simple export of commodities.
-The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations (cartels) and multinational corporations.
-The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism.
-The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers.
The USSR had interventionist foreign policy, but it was not dominating other countries nor economically plundering them. In classifying it as imperialist, you run cover for the fact that the USSR was undermining economic plunder of the global south while the west was protecting and expanding that plunder.
Nato is an imperialist alliance that was created to fight imperalist USSR. Many of the funding countries was still colonizing other countries when it was created. Nato also destroyed Lybia which is the clearest example of it not being just a defensive alliance. Nato also collaborate with Israel who hold the longest current occupation, again has nothing to do with Europe protection.
The US could leave Nato today, attack a Nato country and Nato will do nothing about it
One major correction, the USSR was anti-imperialist, which is why the imperialists collaborated to oppose them. Their colonies were in danger of liberation due to the soviets aiding anti-imperialist movements.
If the USSR was anti-imperialist it wouldn’t have been involved in Afghanistan
edit: Imperialism : a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force.
It was imperialism since the goal was to spread socialism to other countries and I have no issues with socialism.
I think it should be self evident why that definition is bullshit
I am sure if i give the same definition or your definition to Nato countries they would say the same
Comparing Afghanistan to 500 years of European colonialism is an interesting strategy.
Especially since it send to ignore the fact Russia became involved in Afghanistan due in part to Western nations sponsoring a series of coups to take control of their former colony in the first place.
I never said that 500 years of European colonialism is better than what happened in Afghanistan. European colonialism in India alone by the British alone was 100 millions death. Of course European colonialism is the worst thing that ever happened to the world.
That’s not what socialists mean by imperialism, by that vibes-based definition defeating Nazi Germany was “imperialism.” Imperialism is instead a form of international exploitation characterized by dominance of monopoly finance capital, export of capital, and super-exploiting the global south for super profits. Spreading socialism is anti-imperialist.
It’s not what anyone means by imperialism. If “extending your influence through diplomacy” is imperialism, then there isn’t a non imperialistic country out there
I stand with the definition I shared which include the socialists definition but goes beyond it
The definition you shared would make all countries imperialist
Can you tell me for example Tunisia how it seek to impose it’s ideology, relaligion,economic system etc on anybody
It engages in diplomacy to extend its influence. So, as per your definition, it’s imperialist
By your definition, Tunisia is imperializing the EU due to their diplomatic relations and free trade agreements, where Tunisia tries to gain favorable trade deals. According to your definition, Tunisia is imposing its desire for better trade relations on the EU and thus imperializing it.
Now, this is of course absurd, but that’s why when we say it isn’t imperialist while following your definition that this is just vibes. There’s nothing scientific about your definition, nothing that can be used to analyze why some countries develop while underdeveloping others, nor how we stop this.
That’s why, in broadening and generalizing it, you’ve destroyed its analytical capacity. It’s like saying we should rename all of the different types of plants to “tree.” Not only does it remove the specificity of taxonomy, but also gets it wrong in many cases!
Tunisia do not ask to change EU full economical system and ideology and has no power against the EU. Discussing trade deals without force is not a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force.
Eu is imperializing it, not the opposite
It does not go beyond how socialists define imperialism, it reduces imperialism to vibes. Imperialism is a material phenomenon with definite characteristics, not whenever a country influences another. When you reduce imperialism to vibes, it certainly makes it more broadly applicable, but you lose sight of how and why it functions, how to stop it, where it comes from, etc. It’s like arguing that lions and cheetahs are both cats, and that therefore cheetahs are lions.
Imperialism, in simplified characteristics, functions as follows:
-The presence of monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.
-The merging of bank capital with industrial capital into finance capital controlled by a financial oligarchy.
-The export of capital as distinguished from the simple export of commodities.
-The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations (cartels) and multinational corporations.
-The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism.
-The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers.
The USSR had interventionist foreign policy, but it was not dominating other countries nor economically plundering them. In classifying it as imperialist, you run cover for the fact that the USSR was undermining economic plunder of the global south while the west was protecting and expanding that plunder.
deleted by creator