Denmark's Mette Frederiksen said "everything would stop" in the event of a US attack on another NATO country. European leaders have backed Frederiksen while saying the US "is an essential partner."
Considering they are aligned with the west, who plunder the world’s wealth through export of capital and unequal exchange, that’s not really surprising. Opposition to NATO is pretty basic among anti-imperialists and the global south in general.
God damn it, I hate my education system. I thought NATO was the peacekeeper of the world — a valuable residue of WWII. One sided propaganda-based education developed to fuel a belief in American exceptionalism and nationalistic egoism. This education-level propaganda is pretty effective because you don’t actually know what details to question, and so you grow up with some pretty bold assumptions about how the world works (and don’t even realize it). They had me believing Christopher Columbus was some kind of messiah-explorer too.
How does this happen? My anti-conspiracy brain wants to believe there’s no such thing as an evil man behind the curtain, twisting his mustache and orchestrating these details like ”meh, we need to make sure all the kids believe in this propaganda such that we have an imperialistic society.” So, short of that, how does this happen so effectively?
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.
Nato is an imperialist alliance that was created to fight imperalist USSR. Many of the funding countries was still colonizing other countries when it was created. Nato also destroyed Lybia which is the clearest example of it not being just a defensive alliance. Nato also collaborate with Israel who hold the longest current occupation, again has nothing to do with Europe protection.
The US could leave Nato today, attack a Nato country and Nato will do nothing about it
One major correction, the USSR was anti-imperialist, which is why the imperialists collaborated to oppose them. Their colonies were in danger of liberation due to the soviets aiding anti-imperialist movements.
That’s not what socialists mean by imperialism, by that vibes-based definition defeating Nazi Germany was “imperialism.” Imperialism is instead a form of international exploitation characterized by dominance of monopoly finance capital, export of capital, and super-exploiting the global south for super profits. Spreading socialism is anti-imperialist.
It’s not what anyone means by imperialism. If “extending your influence through diplomacy” is imperialism, then there isn’t a non imperialistic country out there
By your definition, Tunisia is imperializing the EU due to their diplomatic relations and free trade agreements, where Tunisia tries to gain favorable trade deals. According to your definition, Tunisia is imposing its desire for better trade relations on the EU and thus imperializing it.
Now, this is of course absurd, but that’s why when we say it isn’t imperialist while following your definition that this is just vibes. There’s nothing scientific about your definition, nothing that can be used to analyze why some countries develop while underdeveloping others, nor how we stop this.
That’s why, in broadening and generalizing it, you’ve destroyed its analytical capacity. It’s like saying we should rename all of the different types of plants to “tree.” Not only does it remove the specificity of taxonomy, but also gets it wrong in many cases!
That’s a actually the problem. It’s a definition so broad to be useless. Neither provides any distinction between countries who fit or not the Marxist definition, but also encompasses almost the whole world. Give me a single country that isn’t imperialist according to that definition?
It does not go beyond how socialists define imperialism, it reduces imperialism to vibes. Imperialism is a material phenomenon with definite characteristics, not whenever a country influences another. When you reduce imperialism to vibes, it certainly makes it more broadly applicable, but you lose sight of how and why it functions, how to stop it, where it comes from, etc. It’s like arguing that lions and cheetahs are both cats, and that therefore cheetahs are lions.
Imperialism, in simplified characteristics, functions as follows:
-The presence of monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.
-The merging of bank capital with industrial capital into finance capital controlled by a financial oligarchy.
-The export of capital as distinguished from the simple export of commodities.
-The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations (cartels) and multinational corporations.
-The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism.
-The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers.
The USSR had interventionist foreign policy, but it was not dominating other countries nor economically plundering them. In classifying it as imperialist, you run cover for the fact that the USSR was undermining economic plunder of the global south while the west was protecting and expanding that plunder.
Comparing Afghanistan to 500 years of European colonialism is an interesting strategy.
Especially since it send to ignore the fact Russia became involved in Afghanistan due in part to Western nations sponsoring a series of coups to take control of their former colony in the first place.
I never said that 500 years of European colonialism is better than what happened in Afghanistan. European colonialism in India alone by the British alone was 100 millions death. Of course European colonialism is the worst thing that ever happened to the world.
I’m sure Ukraine, the Baltic trio and Poland agree with you.
Edit: shit, so many opinions of me based on a less than 15 word comment. I’m sure y’all are fun at parties.
Considering they are aligned with the west, who plunder the world’s wealth through export of capital and unequal exchange, that’s not really surprising. Opposition to NATO is pretty basic among anti-imperialists and the global south in general.
God damn it, I hate my education system. I thought NATO was the peacekeeper of the world — a valuable residue of WWII. One sided propaganda-based education developed to fuel a belief in American exceptionalism and nationalistic egoism. This education-level propaganda is pretty effective because you don’t actually know what details to question, and so you grow up with some pretty bold assumptions about how the world works (and don’t even realize it). They had me believing Christopher Columbus was some kind of messiah-explorer too.
How does this happen? My anti-conspiracy brain wants to believe there’s no such thing as an evil man behind the curtain, twisting his mustache and orchestrating these details like ”meh, we need to make sure all the kids believe in this propaganda such that we have an imperialistic society.” So, short of that, how does this happen so effectively?
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.
It happens because it makes rich people richer
Yeah but the opinions of pro-Apartheid colonialist sympathizers are nothing but noise contaminated with hitler particles.
“only white europeans matter”
Each one of these countries was in coalition of the willing, no? and zionist bootlicker extraordinaire as we can observe.
Ah yes, Eastern Europe, the leading voices of the Global South.
Nato is an imperialist alliance that was created to fight imperalist USSR. Many of the funding countries was still colonizing other countries when it was created. Nato also destroyed Lybia which is the clearest example of it not being just a defensive alliance. Nato also collaborate with Israel who hold the longest current occupation, again has nothing to do with Europe protection.
The US could leave Nato today, attack a Nato country and Nato will do nothing about it
One major correction, the USSR was anti-imperialist, which is why the imperialists collaborated to oppose them. Their colonies were in danger of liberation due to the soviets aiding anti-imperialist movements.
If the USSR was anti-imperialist it wouldn’t have been involved in Afghanistan
edit: Imperialism : a policy of extending a country’s power and influence through diplomacy or military force.
It was imperialism since the goal was to spread socialism to other countries and I have no issues with socialism.
I think it should be self evident why that definition is bullshit
I am sure if i give the same definition or your definition to Nato countries they would say the same
That’s not what socialists mean by imperialism, by that vibes-based definition defeating Nazi Germany was “imperialism.” Imperialism is instead a form of international exploitation characterized by dominance of monopoly finance capital, export of capital, and super-exploiting the global south for super profits. Spreading socialism is anti-imperialist.
It’s not what anyone means by imperialism. If “extending your influence through diplomacy” is imperialism, then there isn’t a non imperialistic country out there
I stand with the definition I shared which include the socialists definition but goes beyond it
The definition you shared would make all countries imperialist
Can you tell me for example Tunisia how it seek to impose it’s ideology, relaligion,economic system etc on anybody
By your definition, Tunisia is imperializing the EU due to their diplomatic relations and free trade agreements, where Tunisia tries to gain favorable trade deals. According to your definition, Tunisia is imposing its desire for better trade relations on the EU and thus imperializing it.
Now, this is of course absurd, but that’s why when we say it isn’t imperialist while following your definition that this is just vibes. There’s nothing scientific about your definition, nothing that can be used to analyze why some countries develop while underdeveloping others, nor how we stop this.
That’s why, in broadening and generalizing it, you’ve destroyed its analytical capacity. It’s like saying we should rename all of the different types of plants to “tree.” Not only does it remove the specificity of taxonomy, but also gets it wrong in many cases!
It engages in diplomacy to extend its influence. So, as per your definition, it’s imperialist
That’s a actually the problem. It’s a definition so broad to be useless. Neither provides any distinction between countries who fit or not the Marxist definition, but also encompasses almost the whole world. Give me a single country that isn’t imperialist according to that definition?
It does not go beyond how socialists define imperialism, it reduces imperialism to vibes. Imperialism is a material phenomenon with definite characteristics, not whenever a country influences another. When you reduce imperialism to vibes, it certainly makes it more broadly applicable, but you lose sight of how and why it functions, how to stop it, where it comes from, etc. It’s like arguing that lions and cheetahs are both cats, and that therefore cheetahs are lions.
Imperialism, in simplified characteristics, functions as follows:
-The presence of monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.
-The merging of bank capital with industrial capital into finance capital controlled by a financial oligarchy.
-The export of capital as distinguished from the simple export of commodities.
-The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations (cartels) and multinational corporations.
-The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism.
-The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers.
The USSR had interventionist foreign policy, but it was not dominating other countries nor economically plundering them. In classifying it as imperialist, you run cover for the fact that the USSR was undermining economic plunder of the global south while the west was protecting and expanding that plunder.
Comparing Afghanistan to 500 years of European colonialism is an interesting strategy.
Especially since it send to ignore the fact Russia became involved in Afghanistan due in part to Western nations sponsoring a series of coups to take control of their former colony in the first place.
I never said that 500 years of European colonialism is better than what happened in Afghanistan. European colonialism in India alone by the British alone was 100 millions death. Of course European colonialism is the worst thing that ever happened to the world.
deleted by creator