Lol! So you’re using a “redefined” definition of Imperialism, written by people who don’t want to be defined as imperialists?

Just tossing thousands of years worth of actual human history out the window and proclaiming all previous definitions of imperialism, obsolete? That’s the definition you’re going with, and that’s it? Period.

Obviously there’s no point in continuing this conversation. You have your preconditioned biases, and you have no intention of using any critical thought to question whether they are valid. Got it.

Lol! I’m not “redefining Imperialism”. That’s literally how Imperialism is defined. I don’t know where you’re getting your definition from, but it isn’t correct. In fact, it’s pretty intellectually dishonest. How things are defined is based entirely on their “common characteristics”. If something possesses all the common characteristics of a certain group…it belongs in that group. That’s just how it works.

You can’t just claim that something isn’t imperialism, just because you don’t like what that word implies. You are ignoring the fact that Russia has all the common characteristics of imperialism, in order to claim that “it isn’t imperialism. Period.” That’s not how it works.

I mean, if you want to get really specific, and dig down into the common characteristics of Putin’s leadership style, and how he’s running the country right now…I have some bad news for you. He’s a fascist.

He has all the common characteristics of a fascist dictator. He’s an oligarch with almost complete control over the Russian government and its economy. He has an oversized fascination with Russia’s mythical “Historic Greatness”. He emphasizes military strength as the cornerstone of Russia’s power. He scapegoats minorities, foreign influence and societal weaknesses, all as barriers to restoring Russia to its previous glory. Not to mention, he’s a chauvinist with delusions of grandeur.

He checks all the boxes. But, go ahead…tell me how none of that actually applies to him…all because you’ve decided that sharing all those common characteristics still doesn’t mean that definition applies. Period.

So now you’re just going to claim that “it’s not the same kind of imperialism”? That may be true from a semantic point of view. But it’s still imperialism. Imperialism is like fascism. Every Empire does their own customized version. They just all share certain underlying characteristics that define it as imperialism.

The main defining characteristic of imperialism, is dominance. Control. The Empire in question needs control over it’s vassal states. What form that control takes, or what combination of various tactics they use, is like a spectrum. But the basic common denominator is always domination.

Now, if you try and tell me that Russia isn’t trying to control it’s neighbors by any means necessary, then I will know 100%, that you not arguing in good faith.

That’s literally been Putin’s entire agenda since he first took power. Everything he’s done for the last 2+ decades has been to claw back control over all the satellite states that used to “belong” to Russia. Every country that declared its independence after the fall of the Soviet Union, has had a target on their backs this entire time. His entire worldview is built around the idea that “Back when Russia was Great…we controlled all this land. It ALL belongs to Russia.”

Except the historical reference he’s making, is also when Russia was an Empire in the classical sense of the term. He’s not a Socialist. He’s a dictator, who wants his Empire restored to its former glory.

OMG. So…“it’s not the same when Russia does it”? Lol! Buddy, your argument is ridiculously transparent.

I get it. You have a favorite. Your favorite is always right, and can do no wrong. But on some level, you have to understand that you’re full of shit…right? You’re just coming up with exceptions to all your own rules, so that Russia never qualifies for criticism.

It’s almost insulting that you think I’m stupid enough to accept that argument. It’s also pretty embarrassing that you aren’t embarrassed to use it.

Ok. Then explain how the Roman Empire was an empire, before Capitalism even existed. Capitalism is a relatively recent addition to human history. Whereas imperialism is by far one of the oldest.

Limiting your definition of what it is, exclusively to Capitalism, ignores 99% of our collective existence. It’s not like all the other forms of imperialism ceased to exist once Capitalism came along…it just came up with a new form of dominance to use.

And for the record, Russia maintains economic dominance over plenty of countries in its sphere of influence. Belarus. Georgia. Moldova. Kazakhstan. Kyrgyzstan. Armenia. Etc. All are heavily influenced by Russian economic policies.

But, as I said… that’s just one form of dominance that imperialist nations use to expand and maintain their control over other countries. Russia just uses the other two I mentioned, far more often. Putin obviously prefers the more old-school imperialism to the new-school variety employed by the US.

But, it’s still imperialism all the same.

Trade is not imperialism,

That’s exactly what Americans say when someone calls the US an empire. It’s a pretty lame deflection considering it ignores the application of economic dominance they use to get what they want from other countries.

I quite literally explained how the export of capital as opposed to commodities as a means to enrich the imperialist countries at the expense of others

You seem to think that imperialism is somehow limited to just Capitalist countries. Your definition also conveniently ignores the fact that you can obviously export both capital and commodities. What makes it “imperialism” isn’t “what” is being exported…it’s simply the fact that the smaller country’s resources are being consumed by the larger, in order to sustain its own existence and expand its sphere of influence.

Imperialism is all about dominance. Economic dominance. Political dominance. Military dominance.

Economic dominance is the most subtle and least invasive form of control. This is where the imperialist nation simply purchases influence in the smaller country by buying up companies, land and resources. The end result being, all the wealth generated by the smaller economy is being syphoned off and absorbed by the larger economy. This is the typical method used by Capitalist countries, and the only definition you seem to think applies to Imperialism. It isn’t. As I said, this is just the least invasive form of dominance.

The 2nd form of dominance is political. If the smaller nation resists the larger nation’s efforts to take over their economy peacefully, they will take steps to replace that nation’s leadership with loyalists who won’t resist…ie regime change. This doesn’t even necessarily have to be violent. The imperialist nation simply needs to pour resources into getting the right people places in key positions, and slowly take over the smaller nation’s government one office at a time, until there is no one left to resist their efforts to take control of their resources.

The 3rd and final form of dominance is violence. If the efforts to take control of the smaller nation’s government are somehow resisted, the final and most invasive actions will be employed. They will take control of those resources by force. Invasion. Annexation. Subjugation.

Russia employs all three of these forms of dominance, just like the US does. There is no difference in their tactics…only in their rhetoric when they try to justify their actions. They accuse each other of all the same crimes, that they themselves are guilty of committing. Anyone trying to defend this, by claiming that only “the other side” is doing it, is being intentionally disingenuous.

Lol! “It does not fit your definition in the slightest” because you are ignoring all the things that define it as an economic system. You said it yourself…it is an “international trade organization”. What exactly do you think the purpose of that, is? Why does it exist?

C’mon, man. I know you aren’t that dim.

And war is absolutely imperialism, when the objectives are to expand wealth through land and resource acquisition. Especially when force is used to acquire those lands and resources. Russia tried to get it through regime change first, and when the people of Ukraine rejected those efforts…they invaded.

That is literally the defining characteristic of classic imperialism. Expansion through dominance.

Simply stating something as if it were a fact, doesn’t make it true. BRICS perfectly fits the description you gave. It’s literally an alternative market, centered around the countries typically excluded by the “Western market”. By its own definition, it was formed to compete with Western markets for global economic influence, and to expand the market capabilities of its member states.

That fits every criteria of your limited definition of imperialism.

Russia also fits the standard definition of an imperialist state due to their hostile military occupations of neighboring countries, as well as their aggressive influence campaigns targeting foreign governments around the world. They literally check every single box.

Imperialism in the modern era, as course of fact, is a stage in capitalist development. When markets are fully saturated domestically, capital expands outward. Once industrial and bank capital grow, they merge and dominate the entire economy, resulting in the dominance of finance capital in the economy and an export of capital, rather than commodities. This is how the west plunders the world in the modern era, and what Russia cannot do.

So…what do you call BRICS, then? Just because the Imperialism is currently less influential than its competition, doesn’t stop it from being Imperialism.

This tracks.

Ummm. Can’t Trump just veto anything Congress passes, anyway? This is all performative, at best.

This is one of those examples of someone using words without understanding their actual meaning.

Lol! Weren’t they all screaming about Canada being a fascist dictatorship for being able to do this, not too long ago? I wonder if they’ll see the irony, or at least recognize the parallels here.

Best answer here.

It will always be “twitter”, as far as I’m concerned.

Word.

Seriously, how do you “dress up like Dexter Morgan”? Was he wearing a polo shirt and khakis?

You just wait until the zombie apocalypse, man. Then you’ll wish you had 12 guns.

What the fuck is this? The new QAnon?