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?
Imperialism: The practice of states to expand their influence beyond their sovereign borders.
Burkina Faso is imperialist for kicking France out of the surrounding region, excellent definition.
State-Capitalism: The mode of production where the means of production are owned by the institutions of the state.
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.
So, now you want a moralist argument? O.o
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.”
Vacous redefinition of the term that vacates it of all it’s explanatory power.
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.
A definition of capitalism that includes no mention of class or class power is meaningless.
Again with the motivated reasoning. Also, the class structure can be deduced from the definition without explicitly stating it.
Not moralist to ask for proof of the imperialist power doing imperialism.
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.
You genuinely become more of a parody of the western “anarchist” with every post.
Insulting me doesn’t make your arguments any more coherent.
Imperialism: The practice of states to enact their power 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…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.
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.”
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.