Your definition of “imperialism” as it relates to Russia is so vague it would also apply to the Statesian north annexing the confederacy, or Burkina Faso kicking France out. All you really mean is that Russia is an active player on the global stage, but that isn’t inherently a bad thing. Imperialism as a system is a well-understood stage in capitalist development, that itself is bad, and is the biggest obstacle to socialism and human progression. Not Russia, which is actively working against said imperialist system.

Again, Russia is not exploiting the global south, and is actively working in the interests of the global south in contesting imperialism as a global system.

The broad characteristics of imperialism as a stage in capitalism were observed by Hobson. Lenin then codified it and created the basis of the theory, that still holds up today. As conditions have evolved, Nkrumah, Cheng Enfu, and more have carried this same basic analysis to modern, contemporary conditions, such as the transition from European supremacy to Statesian supremacy.

The Roman Empire had a system of imperialism that, in function, is entirely different from modern imperialism. They could just as easily be understood as entirely different words, as they function entirely differently, same with early tribal communism and future, highly industrialized communism.

I’m not handwaiving history, I am definitively stating that the imperialist stage of capitalism only came to be in the turn of the 20th century. It may be similar in some ways to previous forms of imperialism, but these forms no longer exist and are relics of history.

My argument isn’t flawed, you’re more than capable of comprehending it. Again, do you have any objections to the Marxist understanding of imperialism? Why do you believe the vibe-based understanding is better?

No, I’m using the original and developed understanding of imperialism as a stage in capitalism, advanced by people actively fighting against it. Lenin famously overthrew Tsarist Russia, established socialism, and got rid of Russia’s imperial holdings, after writing Imperialism, the Current Highest Stage of Capitalism. Kwame Nkrumah was a Ghanaian that fought against neocolonialism, and wrote Neocolonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism, and Cheng Enfu is one of China’s top economists and theorists of neoimperialism.

Prior forms of pre-capitalist imperialism are not at all what we observe today. The Roman Empire no longer exists. Imperialism as a stage in capitalism is the only form of imperialism that exists at present, which is why we need to analyze it as such. I am thinking about imperialism critically, that’s why I analyze it as a material system and study it, rather than reduce it to a vibe. Do you have any objections to the Marxist understanding of imperialism? Why do you believe the vibe-based understanding is better?

You are redefining imperialism. I’m following imperialism as it was first analyzed by John A. Hobson as it was arising in its modern form, then correctly carried forward and codified by Lenin, then advanced to the modern day by people like Nkrumah and Cheng Enfu. Imperialism is characterized by the following:

-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.

These are the mechanisms by which imperialism functions today, and they do not apply to Russia. Russia is largely a commodity exporter, with a paltry sum of finance capital, and no colonies nor neocolonies. Russia is not economically exploiting the global south, either. It is not colonial, nor neocolonial, nor imperialist.

Russia is governed by nationalists. Fascist is cutting it a bit, but I won’t hotly contest that like I would the farcical claims that it is imperialist. Fascism is best understood as capitalism in decay, the logic of colonialism applied domestically. Russia doesn’t quite fit that, though it is squarely nationalist and capitalist, and certainly not imperialist.

Yep, or they think it’s ironic that a pro-China instance is blocked in China. The problem is the Mali domain, not an ideological difference.

No, I’m saying Russia isn’t imperialist, period. You’re redefining imperialism from a concrete, analyzed, material system into a vibe, an emotion, a gut-feeling, because you want Russia to be evil. That’s why you try to redefine it as something incredibly particular and formless, impossible to definitively nail down, but the problem there is that if we can’t nail it down, then we can’t analyze it.

At the end of the day, Russia is not getting wealthy off the backs of the global south. The west is, and Russia is working against that system. It may be for its own self-interest, sure, but fighting imperialism does not make a country imperialist. And yes, Putin isn’t a socialist. He’s a nationalist, over capitalist country that is not at the imperialist stage like the west is.

This is all good-faith on my part. The problem here is that you’re defining good-faith by how much it coheres to your vibes-based worldview, which is obviously going to run counter to materialist analysis.

Marxist-Leninists typically critically support the Russian Federation for it’s progressive role in opposing imperialism, presently spearheaded by the United States and secondarily from the broader west, such as the UK, France, Germany, and the various settler-colonies and imperialist coalition groups. Lemmy.ml has always had MLs.

Russia is neither similar to the ancient Roman Empire nor to contemporary western imperialism. You haven’t actually explained why, other than the fact that they are at war, and I already explained that war itself is not imperialism. Russia is not super exploiting countries for super profits, and in fact it is assisting countries like Burkina Faso in expelling imperialist countries like France. It isn’t that Russia can’t do wrong, it’s that it is not imperialist, and isn’t doing imperialism.

Russia certainly isn’t “my favorite,” it’s far from a socialist country. It does not need to be socialist to be worthy of critical support, however, in its role in contesting imperialism. It isn’t at all embarrassing to have a consistent and principled stance on this. I’m not making the case because I think you’re “stupid,” I believe you’re fully capable of grasping that Russia by no means is exploiting the global south in the same way or degree as actual imperialist countries like the US, France, UK, Germany, etc.

My question is why bring it up in the first place?

Extension is a relative term. Burkina Faso is extending its own influence to that of France by kicking them out. Every action has a reaction, in regaining their sovereignty they have reduced France’s. This is a good thing, but if we are being technical, it counts as imperialism according to Wikipedia. This is obviously an absurd statement, but that’s the point, Wikipedia’s definition isn’t actually a technical one, and instead is trying to describe a gut feeling more than a material process with concrete characteristics and motions.

And no problem!

I didn’t lie about anything, I’m merely extrapolating. If you think Russia is entirely unjustified in assisting the DPR and LPR against the campaign of ethnic cleansing from Kiev, then this is a clear value judgment on your part. I don’t see what you mean by “bad reputation,” how exactly am I contributing to that?

What is your point?

I’m neither lying nor “brainwashed,” the difference in analysis is because I am a communist, and am analyzing the situation with the world outlook of dialectical materialism.

As for Russia violating international law, Donetsk and Luhansk seceded from Kiev because of ethnic repressions against minority ethnicities in the Donbass region. International organizations correctly identified the neofascist nature of the new Kiev regime, as well as the war crimes committed against the Donbass region. In such a situation, do you think the DPR and LPR do not have the right to request Russian assistance in accordance with international law?

You’re being widely downvoted because you’re downplaying Kiev’s neofascism and essentially saying the Donbass region should accept being ethnically cleansed by Kiev. This is ridiculous, and you know it is, so you downplay the ethnic cleansing in order to protect your own image.

Some of the bait can be nice, but in my opinion I think we lean too far into the bait and too far into “dunking.” This isn’t a condemnation based on civility politics, but a rational desire to focus on higher quality posts and comments for onlookers. Being as edgy as possible can spark constructive conversation in the comments, but constructive conversation can also happen with good agitprop that has a convincing argument within the meme itself.

It’s absolutely extending your power over a foreign nation. Resistance to domination is the enforcement of your own will over that of others. Wiki’s definition is intentionally vague to the point of being worthless, while the historical analysis of imperialism as originated with theorists like Hobson and extended by Lenin, Nkrumah, and Cheng Enfu describes an actual system, its material causes and mechanisms, and describes why it exists and how to end it. The wiki definition is like defining capitalism as “trade” and saying Marx was being ridiculous by analyzing it further.

Here’s a good summary of imperialism. Treating imperialism like a vibe, and not like a material process, means we are incapable of learning how to stop it.

Russia isn’t trying to vassalize Belarus, etc, and doesn’t want to “conquer Ukraine,” it just wants to annex the Donbass region that already seceded from Kiev after the Banderite coup. Russia tries to draw on soviet nostalgia to keep the capitalists in power and prevent the communists from taking power. Imperialism is a stage in capitalism, not a mere policy preference.

As for the universal condemnation of force, this means you don’t support the Statesian north abolishing chattel slavery in the south, or any revolution in history. Reality is far more complex than that, which is why the good side lost the Cold War.

Hard power is used to maintain imperialism. The reason the export of capital is important is that this is what allows imperialist countries to siphon all of the wealth from the global south, vs. just selling them things. Wiki’s definition is vague enough to apply to Burkina Faso kicking France out, ie it turns anti-imperialism into imperialism.

That’s certainly a big if, but one of the important bits is that they are largely kept out of the ability to imperialize the world as it’s already divided amongst the western powers. As Russia develops, it will likely see that same saturation and development of finance capital domestically, but unlike the west, it won’t have the ability to expand, and will more likely lead to crisis. If the west severely weakens before then, there’s a good chance it would indeed become imperialist, as imperialism isn’t a policy choice but the natural evolution of capitalist development. However, this is on a world scale, not merely at the level of an individual country.

I’d rather the staunch ally of Israel and the one oppressing minority ethnicities in the Donbass region not be doing that any longer. I also wish that it no longer plays a similar geopolitical role as Israel, as a forward outpost for western imperialism to force neighboring countries into bending the knee.

Banger quote, and a tough but necessary lesson for progressives that are not yet communists.