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."
My definition is a dictionary definition not a vibe definition. Trade deals are not foreign interference and do not fit the definition. Now if Tunisia imposed it’s own version of socialism or capitalism on other countries, claim to have the right to interfere in other countries to protect an country that have the economic system they imposed. Use the trade deals to dictate what other countries has to think about other countries or conflicts Tunisia would be an imperial country
I understand that your definition is found in dictionaries, my point is that this definition itself is measured by vibes, not materialist analysis. The fact that you don’t personally consider Tunisian diplomacy to be imperialism doesn’t mean it doesn’t meet that vibes-based definition.
I agree, Tunisia isn’t imperializing the EU, but by the definition you gave, it can be construed that way. With the proper definition based on materialist analysis that I gave, there’s no way to misconstrue it as Tunisia being imperialist.
Let me ask this: why uphold the vibes-based definition over the materialist one? Why categorize all plants as trees, when this is reductive at best and wrong at worst?
There is no such a think as vibe definition. Only the application of a definition can be based on vibes. Everything can also be misconducted too .
I have yet heard an argument or real example that make sense to me and show the dictionary definition is just wrong.
I am sorry to ignored your question but it doesn’t make sense to me so I can’t answer it .
My question is why using the ultra specific definition when there is a more general definition? If it doesn’t makes sense to you , you can ignore it just fine . It’s like using the Marxist Leninist definition for all the different visions of socialism
There’s no material analysis in your definition, just vague mentions of influence. All countries influence those they have ties with for their own benefit. It’s a simplistic definition that obfuscates the nature of imperialism and how it behaves. Again, it’s like calling a tree a plant, and refusing to go into any further depth. Being general is not an inherent advantage, especially if the rules laid out earlier are observable patterns.
There is no vagueness in my definition. You keep talking about trade deals as if those deals was imposed using military force or economical and diplomatical pressures . There is no extension of one country power within another just because one side benefits more one side.
My defintion is a genocide non vague definition. Your definition is just one type of imperialist. Just like not all socialist mouvements are maxist leninists
My definition is not like saying plants are trees. My definition is like saying there is the concept of animal and the concept of animals include dogs and cats. You can’t say that animals is a vague concept
You’ve redefined the definition (multiple times while saying you stand by the original one, but let’s not talk about that). The original one did not include anything about economic pressures, nor diplomatic.
Any diplomacy that extends a country’s power and influence is imperialism by your original definition. There wasn’t any qualifiers such as pressure.
Trade deals have diplomatic and economic influence. There’s no such thing as 100% power - 0% power, even in imperialist relationships. It isn’t simply “either/or” in those terms. Your definition is vague to the point of obfuscating how and why imperialism functions, and you’re using it as evidence to say the soviets supporting a liberation movement was “imperialism,” as though the goal was to plunder Afghanistan. This rejection of in-depth analysis is self-defeating, and gives us no understanding of how Tunisia can escape imperialism, while the definition I gave did.
soviets supporting a liberation movement was “imperialism,” as though the goal was to plunder Afghanistan
That is the same rhetoric the imperialist west use. With your definition US intervention in the Korean war was not an imperials movements. If Afghan decided peacefully and with no foreign intervention do you really believe the USSR would have not intervened ? and by intervening I don’t necessary mean military
My definition is a dictionary definition not a vibe definition. Trade deals are not foreign interference and do not fit the definition. Now if Tunisia imposed it’s own version of socialism or capitalism on other countries, claim to have the right to interfere in other countries to protect an country that have the economic system they imposed. Use the trade deals to dictate what other countries has to think about other countries or conflicts Tunisia would be an imperial country
I understand that your definition is found in dictionaries, my point is that this definition itself is measured by vibes, not materialist analysis. The fact that you don’t personally consider Tunisian diplomacy to be imperialism doesn’t mean it doesn’t meet that vibes-based definition.
I agree, Tunisia isn’t imperializing the EU, but by the definition you gave, it can be construed that way. With the proper definition based on materialist analysis that I gave, there’s no way to misconstrue it as Tunisia being imperialist.
Let me ask this: why uphold the vibes-based definition over the materialist one? Why categorize all plants as trees, when this is reductive at best and wrong at worst?
There is no such a think as vibe definition. Only the application of a definition can be based on vibes. Everything can also be misconducted too .
I have yet heard an argument or real example that make sense to me and show the dictionary definition is just wrong.
I am sorry to ignored your question but it doesn’t make sense to me so I can’t answer it . My question is why using the ultra specific definition when there is a more general definition? If it doesn’t makes sense to you , you can ignore it just fine . It’s like using the Marxist Leninist definition for all the different visions of socialism
There’s no material analysis in your definition, just vague mentions of influence. All countries influence those they have ties with for their own benefit. It’s a simplistic definition that obfuscates the nature of imperialism and how it behaves. Again, it’s like calling a tree a plant, and refusing to go into any further depth. Being general is not an inherent advantage, especially if the rules laid out earlier are observable patterns.
There is no vagueness in my definition. You keep talking about trade deals as if those deals was imposed using military force or economical and diplomatical pressures . There is no extension of one country power within another just because one side benefits more one side.
My defintion is a genocide non vague definition. Your definition is just one type of imperialist. Just like not all socialist mouvements are maxist leninists
My definition is not like saying plants are trees. My definition is like saying there is the concept of animal and the concept of animals include dogs and cats. You can’t say that animals is a vague concept
You’ve redefined the definition (multiple times while saying you stand by the original one, but let’s not talk about that). The original one did not include anything about economic pressures, nor diplomatic.
Any diplomacy that extends a country’s power and influence is imperialism by your original definition. There wasn’t any qualifiers such as pressure.
Trade deals have diplomatic and economic influence. There’s no such thing as 100% power - 0% power, even in imperialist relationships. It isn’t simply “either/or” in those terms. Your definition is vague to the point of obfuscating how and why imperialism functions, and you’re using it as evidence to say the soviets supporting a liberation movement was “imperialism,” as though the goal was to plunder Afghanistan. This rejection of in-depth analysis is self-defeating, and gives us no understanding of how Tunisia can escape imperialism, while the definition I gave did.
That is the same rhetoric the imperialist west use. With your definition US intervention in the Korean war was not an imperials movements. If Afghan decided peacefully and with no foreign intervention do you really believe the USSR would have not intervened ? and by intervening I don’t necessary mean military
The US Empire is actively plundering the ROK, and uses it as a millitary base. Intervention is not imperialism, but a method that can be used for it.