Both can be true!

Generally they already are a part of the Russian Federation if they want to be.

That’s the indomitable human spirit at work, we develop the tools we need. We may not live in a just world, but we live in one where we can and will win.

That doesn’t really hold water when the Venezuelan government has been reacting extremely unified and in opposition to imperialism, even Venezuelan opposition.

I’m sorry you have experienced that, comrade. I can only say that the goal is such a society where this kind of bullshit will be a thing of the past.

2 major factors: In any given society, the mode of production is reinforced by the culture, laws, and ideology of said mode of production. Secondly, people license themselves to believe that whatever they think benefits them is good. Capitalism reinforces ideas like individualism, NATO is good, etc, and we go along with it until our material conditions force us into seeing a new reflection of reality, be it at the workplace, or seeing hard evidence online, being the victim of a bombing campaign, etc. It isn’t a man behind the curtain, but capital and the capitalist class.

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.

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.

Yep, Geobbels was even upset at first that the Nazis rediscovered Katyn and thought it would be bad PR for them, before inventing the soviet story.

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.

The global south tends to not like the north as much.

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?

That’s the point of getting organized!

I mean joining an org like PSL, training and studying as an activist and directly participate in organizing outreach, educating others, forming protests, and more.

Most Europeans, maybe, not most people.

Influencing the trade deals with the EU is infliencing them with diplomacy. It fits your definition, because your definition is vibes-based and not materialist. By saying that Tunisia has zero leverage against the EU, you’re drawing a hard line that isn’t implied in the original definition. I agree that Tunisia isn’t imperialist and that that’s absurd, but my point is that the vibes-based definition leads to absurd conclusions.

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?

Depends on who you ask.

The British Empire is neither gone nor forgotten.

I’m aware that the EU is imperializing Tunisia, but you’re wrong about why. Tunisia is using diplomacy to try to extend their influence and gain favorable trade deals. This is why your definition is vibes-based, and not based on materialist analysis. Taking the overview of imperialism into account:

-The presence of monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.

This is true of the EU, not of Tunisia.

-The merging of bank capital with industrial capital into finance capital controlled by a financial oligarchy.

This is true of the EU, not of Tunisia.

-The export of capital as distinguished from the simple export of commodities.

The EU is exporting its capital to Tunisia, and largely gaining in commodities and raw materials.

-The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations (cartels) and multinational corporations.

This is true of the EU, not of Tunisia.

-The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism.

The EU treats Tunisia like a neocolony.

-The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers.

This is also true, though in the modern iteration the US Empire is primary, while its vassals like the EU are secondary.

How can Tunisia escape this imperialism? Protectionism, nationalizing its key industries and kicking out foreign capital, and focusing on industrialization to move up the value chain. Tunisia largely exports textiles and machinery, while being dominated by EU capital, specifically France, Italy, Germany, and Spain.

This is why a scientific analysis of imperialism is necessary. When you reduce it to something as vague as “influence,” all countries that have diplomatic ties try to use that influence for their own benefit. However, that alone doesn’t explain imperialism, the core point of which being some countries dramatically benefiting from others at their expense.

Returning to the soviet union, in Afghanistan the goal wasn’t resources, but to establish socialism and liberate them. They were not after resources or domination. The soviet union certainly influenced them, but not in the same manner as the US Empire.

It’s merely vassalized, not dead and buried. The UK is still imperialist.