• Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    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.

    • mrdown@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      5
      ·
      2 days ago

      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

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 days ago

        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.