18
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] remotelove@lemmy.ca 11 points 1 year ago

....and they are welcoming insecurity and exploitation by Russia. Prigozhin wasn't there because he gave a shit about those people. He was there to exploit them.

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml -5 points 1 year ago

Whataboutism and projection. You can't just say "but what about Russia" when people are fighting against North Atlantic imperialism. This article is about North Atlantic imperialism. Mentioning Russian so-called imperialism is whataboutism.

Also, Russia isn't doing imperialism because it in no way meets the definition of imperialim. It's economy is smaller than Brazil's and smaller than South Korea's. 60% of its exports are raw materials or intermediate materials. India exports 3 times more capital than Russia does. Clearly South Korea and India aren't imperialist. Russia isn't either.

[-] tex@czech-lemmy.eu 4 points 1 year ago

What is connection between size of economy and imperialism?

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml -3 points 1 year ago

Imperialism is:

  • Monopoly capitalism
  • Export of finance capital as primary
  • dividing up the world amongst other finance capitalists

Korea, Brazil, and India are in no position to be imperialist. They are countries exploited by the imperialist bloc. Russia is even smaller than these countries and is even more exploited. It literally does not fit the definition of imperialism.

[-] NotSpez@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I feel like that’s a wrong definition, here is one more broadly used:

imperialism | IM'pIerIalIz(a)m | noun [mass noun] a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means

So the use of military (Wagner) force also constitutes it. Also, the size of that country has nothing to do with it.

[-] freagle@lemmygrad.ml -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The dictionary definiton you gave is useless for political analysis, hence we use more accurate and precise definitions when in the domain.

An example of why your definition is useless is that it cannot be used to distinguish between imperialism and anti-imperialism. If imperilaism extends a country's power, then it inherently extends it into some other country's sphere of influence. When that country fights back, they are inherently extending their influence. Calling both imperialism results in zero understanding that couldn't have been achieved without using the word and instead using the words force, expansion, violence, or many other words.

Imperialism is something specific and fighting against imperialism is not imperialism.

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
this post was submitted on 03 Sep 2023
18 points (71.4% liked)

World News

32083 readers
1011 users here now

News from around the world!

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS