You’re using Lenin’s definition of imperialism. Lenin’s definition focuses on economic domination, not military or territorial control, so for the PRC’s invasion, which was “liberation,” it’s better to use the modern definition of imperialism, which most people reading this will be doing anyway.
Tibet was also a serfdom, not a slave society, there is a distinct difference. Serfdom binds a person to land. Slavery treats them entirely as movable property. One is labour, one is chains. Calling it liberation is also extremely negligent and steeped in bias, the US military uses this excuse all the time, that they are liberators instead of imperialist forces.
But ultimately this all avoids the question of whether or not the Tibetan population wanted integration with China, that’s the crucial part that makes it imperialist, the inability for the Tibetans to decide for themselves.
Which, again, you’re making a false conflation. We’ve established that Europe is imperialist, yes. We’ve established that the US is imperialist, yes. But then you’re including the PRC in an attempt to make it appear anti-imperialist – Which it mostly wasn’t. It’s a very camp argument. Imperialism is imperialism, it doesn’t matter who’s doing it and for what reason.
Redsails is also not a good source, it’s openly from an ML perspective, so it’s not neutral, which you absolutely have to be when discussing history. It’s also under no pretence to be academic or accurate either, Redsails is ideologically driven rather than factually driven - so it won’t ever be critical of the ML perspective. You can use redsails to talk theory, absolutely, but not as a historical or factual source, it’s dishonest.
China is also not entirely socialist, either, it’s state-capitalist with socialist rhetoric. They still have private property.
If removing literal serfdom is not liberation then what the hell is “liberation”?
When all the exploiter monks gather their serfs together and ask them politely “do y’all want to be integrated with the PRC?”, and then they do a vote and if 90% of the population votes yes, then they set up enclaves to test PRC rule but like, it’s a free market of states where you can choose to get services from either the PRC or the feudal monks and basically over time the people will provide more money to the superior product and drive the feudal monks out of the government business?
Redsails is also not a good source, it’s openly from an ML perspective, so it’s not neutral, which you absolutely have to be when discussing history. It’s also under no pretence to be academic or accurate either, Redsails is ideologically driven rather than factually driven - so it won’t ever be critical of the ML perspective. You can use redsails to talk theory, absolutely, but not as a historical or factual source, it’s dishonest.
There is no such thing as a neutral historian. Every human has things they know and things they don’t even on topics they are experts in, every human has opinions on the things they know (or think they know) that will unavoidably taint what they say, even unconsciously, and therefore, everything written or said by a human is necessarily biased. And that’s saying nothing of financial interests, politics and other things that bias things even further.
This is not avoidable, the most you can do is be aware of biases and work with/around them.
If an historian or a journalist tell you that their work is “neutral” or “unbiased”, they are either lying to you or don’t know how biases work, and in either case you should be very skeptical of them because they are clearly not doing their job correctly.
You’re using Lenin’s definition of imperialism. Lenin’s definition focuses on economic domination, not military or territorial control, so for the PRC’s invasion, which was “liberation,” it’s better to use the modern definition of imperialism, which most people reading this will be doing anyway.
Your definition, which you call “modern,” is neither modern nor useful. As you already said, by your chosen definition, all countries have “imperialized” others, but that doesn’t explain the mechanisms of how some countries plunder vast resources from others, or how to stop this.
If we use the “influence” definition, then I don’t think “influence” is a bad thing in all cases, while this form of international extraction is what we communists specifically take issue with and are arguing against. If you’re trying to talk about a point I made using Lenin’s analysis of imperialism, it doesn’t make sense to try to change the definition to argue.
Tibet was also a serfdom, not a slave society, there is a distinct difference. Serfdom binds a person to land. Slavery treats them entirely as movable property. One is labour, one is chains. Calling it liberation is also extremely negligent and steeped in bias, the US military uses this excuse all the time, that they are liberators instead of imperialist forces.
Tibet had serfs and slaves. Go back and read the excerpts I linked from Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth. Calling it liberation is accurate, as Tibet has been uplifted and life metrics are skyrocketing, slavery and serfdom abolished, and culture preserved. Tibet is not having its resources extracted or labor super-exploited by the PRC. The US Empire destroys the countries it “liberates,” this is qualitatively different.
But ultimately this all avoids the question of whether or not the Tibetan population wanted integration with China, that’s the crucial part that makes it imperialist, the inability for the Tibetans to decide for themselves.
It isn’t actually what makes it imperialist or not, but Tibetans are quite happy to be freed from slavery and serfdom.
Which, again, you’re making a false conflation. We’ve established that Europe is imperialist, yes. We’ve established that the US is imperialist, yes. But then you’re including the PRC in an attempt to make it appear anti-imperialist – Which it mostly wasn’t. It’s a very camp argument. Imperialism is imperialism, it doesn’t matter who’s doing it and for what reason.
You’re changing the definition of imperialism to make your point. If your point is that imperialism is “influence,” and Lenin’s definition is “extractionism,” then my point is that every country is “influence imperialist” and not all “influence imperialism” is a bad thing, but all “extractionist imperialism” is bad. It isn’t camp, I oppose this brutal system of international extractionism, and you’re dodging it by taking issue with me calling that imperialism and not agreeing that influence can be good.
Redsails is also not a good source, it’s openly from an ML perspective, so it’s not neutral, which you absolutely have to be when discussing history. It’s also under no pretence to be academic or accurate either, Redsails is ideologically driven rather than factually driven - so it won’t ever be critical of the ML perspective. You can use redsails to talk theory, absolutely, but not as a historical or factual source, it’s dishonest.
Dr. Michael Parenti has well-sourced arguments and historical data. There’s no such thing as a neutral historian. Red Sails is merely hosting Dr. Michael Parenti’s work, which is both ideologically and factually driven. Dr. Michael Parenti is a Statesian historian, not really a theorist.
China is also not entirely socialist, either, it’s state-capitalist with socialist rhetoric. They still have private property.
Socialism is not the absence of private property, just like capitalism is not the absence of public property. Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is principle, ie governs the large firms and key industries. The US Empire is capitalist not because everything is private, but because private ownership dominates the large firms and key industries. No mode of production is “pure.” From a Marxist perspective, it simply doesn’t make sense to socialize the sole proprietorships and small industries, as the basis of socialist production is large scale industry, and to socialize the small firms as they grow. This is repeated by Marx and Engels.
Where are you getting your ideas of socialism from?
The Republic of Cuba sending out numerous troops to defend the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was a loss for the Republic of Cuba but a gain for the BRV, so it was not imperialist. (Quite the opposite, if anything.)
Admittedly, this is a somewhat crude and informal understanding of imperialism, but it should be easy enough to grasp for those who unwisely oversimplify imperialism to just countries doing stuff in other countries.
Yep, even that way of describing it, though less academic and in-depth than Lenin’s, still gets far closer to the heart of the matter than those who, as you say, reduce it to “doing stuff.”
The west assisting the USSR in defeating the Nazis is good influence, and “imperialist” according to your definition. Same with the Statesian north abolishing slavery in the Statesian south (similar to the PLA abolishing slavery and serfdom in Tibet). Western influence isn’t overwhelmingly negative because it’s western or influence, but because the west is “extractionary imperialist” and this influence nearly always is in service of that, such as kidnapping Maduro in order to steal Venezuela’s oil.
You’re using Lenin’s definition of imperialism. Lenin’s definition focuses on economic domination, not military or territorial control, so for the PRC’s invasion, which was “liberation,” it’s better to use the modern definition of imperialism, which most people reading this will be doing anyway.
Tibet was also a serfdom, not a slave society, there is a distinct difference. Serfdom binds a person to land. Slavery treats them entirely as movable property. One is labour, one is chains. Calling it liberation is also extremely negligent and steeped in bias, the US military uses this excuse all the time, that they are liberators instead of imperialist forces.
But ultimately this all avoids the question of whether or not the Tibetan population wanted integration with China, that’s the crucial part that makes it imperialist, the inability for the Tibetans to decide for themselves.
Which, again, you’re making a false conflation. We’ve established that Europe is imperialist, yes. We’ve established that the US is imperialist, yes. But then you’re including the PRC in an attempt to make it appear anti-imperialist – Which it mostly wasn’t. It’s a very camp argument. Imperialism is imperialism, it doesn’t matter who’s doing it and for what reason.
Redsails is also not a good source, it’s openly from an ML perspective, so it’s not neutral, which you absolutely have to be when discussing history. It’s also under no pretence to be academic or accurate either, Redsails is ideologically driven rather than factually driven - so it won’t ever be critical of the ML perspective. You can use redsails to talk theory, absolutely, but not as a historical or factual source, it’s dishonest.
China is also not entirely socialist, either, it’s state-capitalist with socialist rhetoric. They still have private property.
If removing literal serfdom is not liberation then what the hell is “liberation”?
When all the exploiter monks gather their serfs together and ask them politely “do y’all want to be integrated with the PRC?”, and then they do a vote and if 90% of the population votes yes, then they set up enclaves to test PRC rule but like, it’s a free market of states where you can choose to get services from either the PRC or the feudal monks and basically over time the people will provide more money to the superior product and drive the feudal monks out of the government business?
There is no such thing as a neutral historian. Every human has things they know and things they don’t even on topics they are experts in, every human has opinions on the things they know (or think they know) that will unavoidably taint what they say, even unconsciously, and therefore, everything written or said by a human is necessarily biased. And that’s saying nothing of financial interests, politics and other things that bias things even further.
This is not avoidable, the most you can do is be aware of biases and work with/around them.
If an historian or a journalist tell you that their work is “neutral” or “unbiased”, they are either lying to you or don’t know how biases work, and in either case you should be very skeptical of them because they are clearly not doing their job correctly.
Your definition, which you call “modern,” is neither modern nor useful. As you already said, by your chosen definition, all countries have “imperialized” others, but that doesn’t explain the mechanisms of how some countries plunder vast resources from others, or how to stop this.
If we use the “influence” definition, then I don’t think “influence” is a bad thing in all cases, while this form of international extraction is what we communists specifically take issue with and are arguing against. If you’re trying to talk about a point I made using Lenin’s analysis of imperialism, it doesn’t make sense to try to change the definition to argue.
Tibet had serfs and slaves. Go back and read the excerpts I linked from Friendly Feudalism: The Tibet Myth. Calling it liberation is accurate, as Tibet has been uplifted and life metrics are skyrocketing, slavery and serfdom abolished, and culture preserved. Tibet is not having its resources extracted or labor super-exploited by the PRC. The US Empire destroys the countries it “liberates,” this is qualitatively different.
It isn’t actually what makes it imperialist or not, but Tibetans are quite happy to be freed from slavery and serfdom.
You’re changing the definition of imperialism to make your point. If your point is that imperialism is “influence,” and Lenin’s definition is “extractionism,” then my point is that every country is “influence imperialist” and not all “influence imperialism” is a bad thing, but all “extractionist imperialism” is bad. It isn’t camp, I oppose this brutal system of international extractionism, and you’re dodging it by taking issue with me calling that imperialism and not agreeing that influence can be good.
Dr. Michael Parenti has well-sourced arguments and historical data. There’s no such thing as a neutral historian. Red Sails is merely hosting Dr. Michael Parenti’s work, which is both ideologically and factually driven. Dr. Michael Parenti is a Statesian historian, not really a theorist.
Socialism is not the absence of private property, just like capitalism is not the absence of public property. Socialism is a mode of production and distribution where public ownership is principle, ie governs the large firms and key industries. The US Empire is capitalist not because everything is private, but because private ownership dominates the large firms and key industries. No mode of production is “pure.” From a Marxist perspective, it simply doesn’t make sense to socialize the sole proprietorships and small industries, as the basis of socialist production is large scale industry, and to socialize the small firms as they grow. This is repeated by Marx and Engels.
Where are you getting your ideas of socialism from?
The way that I see it, imperialism is just a parasitic relationship that one capitalist country has with another country or region.
The Fascists’ relations with Somalia were imperialist because they were an overall gain for the Fascists but an overall loss for the Somalis.
The Republic of Cuba sending out numerous troops to defend the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela was a loss for the Republic of Cuba but a gain for the BRV, so it was not imperialist. (Quite the opposite, if anything.)
Admittedly, this is a somewhat crude and informal understanding of imperialism, but it should be easy enough to grasp for those who unwisely oversimplify imperialism to just countries doing stuff in other countries.
Yep, even that way of describing it, though less academic and in-depth than Lenin’s, still gets far closer to the heart of the matter than those who, as you say, reduce it to “doing stuff.”
How to not be imperialist: have ADHD and don’t get stuff done.
ADHD is imperializing my time 🫠
Let’s test that.
What influence has the US done that is good? What influence has the West done that is good?
The west assisting the USSR in defeating the Nazis is good influence, and “imperialist” according to your definition. Same with the Statesian north abolishing slavery in the Statesian south (similar to the PLA abolishing slavery and serfdom in Tibet). Western influence isn’t overwhelmingly negative because it’s western or influence, but because the west is “extractionary imperialist” and this influence nearly always is in service of that, such as kidnapping Maduro in order to steal Venezuela’s oil.