Liberals and western “leftists” use the idea as a thought terminating cliche, hiding behind it to avoid recognizing when two diametrically opposed things are in fact not equally bad.
When the “lesser” evil is an openly genocidal liberal politician, they bang on and on about how it’s tactical and a step in a direction and trolley problem and blah blah blah.
But when the lesser evil is a state they’ve been taught to villify? Oh buddy, don’t you know two things can be bad at once? I hate all sides equally! (but only repeat the narratives of one).
The point is that the two things are in fact not diametrically opposed. Russia is a capitalist, imperial power. As is the USA. As is Iran and China.
The notion that two things can be bad at once is actually an antidote to the thought terminating cliche of “the enemy of my enemy is my ally”. It encourages to actually analyse the two things that are supposedly diametrically opposed at their own merits.
It used to be common for leftists not to condone any war effort by capitalist/imperialist states, because there is nothing to gain. But now, campist “leftists” (I can use scare-quotes to childishly delegitimize self-proclaimed “leftists”, too) are laser-focused in their anti-americanism that they don’t see what’s happening around them anymore.
When the “lesser” evil is an openly genocidal liberal politician, they bang on and on about how it’s tactical and a step in a direction and trolley problem and blah blah blah.
I agree. Therefore I condone neither politicians nor states. Because “both things” are “bad”, as it were.
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.
Liberals and western “leftists” use the idea as a thought terminating cliche, hiding behind it to avoid recognizing when two diametrically opposed things are in fact not equally bad.
When the “lesser” evil is an openly genocidal liberal politician, they bang on and on about how it’s tactical and a step in a direction and trolley problem and blah blah blah.
But when the lesser evil is a state they’ve been taught to villify? Oh buddy, don’t you know two things can be bad at once? I hate all sides equally! (but only repeat the narratives of one).
The point is that the two things are in fact not diametrically opposed. Russia is a capitalist, imperial power. As is the USA. As is Iran and China.
The notion that two things can be bad at once is actually an antidote to the thought terminating cliche of “the enemy of my enemy is my ally”. It encourages to actually analyse the two things that are supposedly diametrically opposed at their own merits.
It used to be common for leftists not to condone any war effort by capitalist/imperialist states, because there is nothing to gain. But now, campist “leftists” (I can use scare-quotes to childishly delegitimize self-proclaimed “leftists”, too) are laser-focused in their anti-americanism that they don’t see what’s happening around them anymore.
I agree. Therefore I condone neither politicians nor states. Because “both things” are “bad”, as it were.
Could you list the victims of Chinese imperialism? Please also define imperialism and capitalism.
Imperialism: The practice of states to expand their influence 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
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.
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?