|
This is heading into digression territory, but how is giving ethnic minority groups autonomous republics imperialism? Seems more in keeping with the Marxist position on the national question, in line with self-determination. If I'm missing something, let me know. As for Tibet, that's listed in the OP, but I'm curious what should have been done, in your view. The manorial tradition was maintained, despite the land reform in the rest of the country. Then the agreement was violated, and China reasserted its sovereignty. Should they have done nothing? If, say, the Carolinas decided to break from the rest of the country, would the United States not fight to maintain order?
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 06:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:58 |
|
|
For the lighter side of China's African shenanigans, watch Empire of Dust.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 06:42
|
|
|
The question I want answered is if you want "anti-capitalist" forces like Russia and China to oppose the United States, and they succeeded in some hypothetical world sometime in the future where that would work out, how would we go about stopping Russia and China from turning right around and becoming the new imperial power?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 06:46
|
|
|
JFairfax posted:that's not what anyone is saying, Funny. No one said that America has never been the bad guy either.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 06:47
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:This is heading into digression territory, but how is giving ethnic minority groups autonomous republics imperialism? Seems more in keeping with the Marxist position on the national question, in line with self-determination. If I'm missing something, let me know. china is a degenerated workers' state fueled by han chauvinism. the Tibetans and Uighurs should rise up and conquer china in the name of true marxism and socialist liberation
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Lol @ "a state that inherited the borders of the Qing Empire isn't an empire"
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 06:57
|
|
|
As a Venezuelan there is nothing I would desire more in this world than to have the US run my country instead of some incompetent chucklefucks who think the country that buys the most of our oil is our enemy. I seriously don't understand how America having influence all over the world is a bad thing but China doing the same is a good thing? Like, China basically owns Venezuela now, how is that any better than America owning Venezuela? How is that anti-imperialism?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:The question I want answered is if you want "anti-capitalist" forces like Russia and China to oppose the United States, and they succeeded in some hypothetical world sometime in the future where that would work out, how would we go about stopping Russia and China from turning right around and becoming the new imperial power? This is a good question, though I wouldn't consider Russia in its present state anti-capitalist, just anti-imperialist. The fact of the matter is none of these countries, not even China or Russia — arguably the most advanced of the bunch — would be able to oppose the United States on its own. The American economy is too well-developed, and so is its overall strength. An anti-imperialist project will require an alliance of many, many countries, specifically organized to provide counter-hegemonic force. Most likely, some of the national liberation movements I talked about in the OP will need to be victorious, and the economies of a lot of these places will need more time to gain relative power. But because the end of imperialism means the creation of such a coalition, no one country would be able to assert itself the way the United States has. Theoretically. Maybe that's the utopian in me talking. How the imperial nations would respond to such a formation, I don't know, but I have to believe the result wouldn't be a planet drenched in nuclear fire.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
Homework explainer, what I'm seeing here are a few really bad assumptions. First, that 'anti-imperialist' action with your listed nations as allies is both desirable and necessary. Second, that the US essentially embodies the center of late stage capitalism. Third, that such anti imperialist action at all advances the goal of worker controlled government. All 3 assumptions are wrong. None of your countries gives two shots about worker controlled anything, or of a free and just society anywhere in the world. They care about their own narrow interest of maintaining power, at all costs. They are not your allies, and never well be. They will use you for their purposes, and provide nothing for you in return. What's more, working with or supporting them in any way, critical or not, delegitimizes you in the eyes of ordinary people - you know, the working class, the people you're supposed to be helping and the people who need to trust you. So not only do you get nothing from supporting these chumps, you're actively undermining your own goals. Second, the US is just one country, with one culture. Finance capital has expanded across the entire world, to the point where rich folks in China and the US have more shared interests with each other than with the commoners of their countries. Limiting your perspective to not just the US, but the US government, means you're ignoring the more meaningful centers of power developing outside those two environments. Third, the entire idea of anti imperialism is reactive, not proactive. In gaming, there is a concept called 'Tempo'. The basic premise is that if you are the player who is dictating the flow of the game, you are the player who is probably going to win, because you're able to force your opponent to engage on your terms, not theirs. If you commit to anti imperialism, you're intentionally giving up initiative for be rather dubious assumption that you'll be in a better position, just because. Why would that be the case? Why would power simply fall into your lap because some rear end in a top hat beats some other rear end in a top hat? They'll keep it to themselves. You're not thinking goal oriented, you're not thinking strategically, you're just acting based on what feels easiest, whatever is most indulgent to your fantasy. In conclusion, come back to YCS. rudatron fucked around with this message at 07:14 on Jun 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 07:12
|
|
|
rudatron posted:
loving El Oh EL
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 07:17
|
|
|
when china invaded vietnam in 1978, that wasn't imperialism. that was just altruistic support of their good friends, the khmer rouge regime
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:This is a good question, though I wouldn't consider Russia in its present state anti-capitalist, just anti-imperialist. Nah I'm just tired and said anti-capitalist instead of imperialist while editing, my bad. But that's the thing, no? The three secondary powers in the world, the European Union, the Russian Federation, and China, are all capitalist, oligarchical, and either clearly imperialistic (Russia) or would likely become so if given the opportunity. And adding to that, you have a lot of smaller, less capitalistic but also less powerful nations like Vietnam or Cuba that might be "better" for your cause but which also have a lot bigger problems than the global fall of American imperialism - things like keeping the lights on, the roads paved, and everyone fed three times a day. Obviously the fact is that these problems are problems is in large part because of Western Imperialism, but between helping their people, securing their often authoritarian power bases, and game theory, some grand alliance of anti-Western powers is unlikely at best, and at worst would rapidly devolve into another Cold War, hardening a younger American generation that was just starting to be free of the specter of evil communism. Like for real I get that Bernie Sanders wasn't a real socialist and wasn't even all that crazy on the left-right spectrum but we had an old man who campaigned openly as a socialist in America and was wildly popular with young people. He also lost, but it speaks volumes about the political future of the United States after the Cold War old folks die off and leave the younger generations the keys to the country. Sure, they won't end up as left-wing then as they are now, but it will be better, and trying to force another Cold War just gives the fascists ammunition. I mean I'm not opposed to the notion of reducing American imperial power but I don't think China or Russia are good vehicles for change from without, and even if they hypothetically defeated the American hegemony they would almost certainly attempt to step in and fill the gap. For imperialism to fall in a way that benefits socialist attempts to help the working class, there has to be a political base there to nurture that before the hegemonic power falls. In America the basis for peaceful socialist change was obliterated by the Cold War, and now we have a real chance to undo that damage. Cold War round two would just play into the hands of the fascists and neoliberal idiots. quote:How the imperial nations would respond to such a formation, I don't know, but I have to believe the result wouldn't be a planet drenched in nuclear fire. I just wanted to requote this and point out that the worst case realistic scenario isn't nuclear war, it's a world where American imperialism is replaced with Russian and/or Chinese imperialism. If we reset to square one we've done worse than waste our time. The only way to end imperialism is to make sure it dies with the last hegemony, not try and bring it up after the torch has already been passed to a new one. Lightning Knight fucked around with this message at 07:32 on Jun 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 07:26
|
|
|
But hegemonies make everything stable. I read about it on wikipedia.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 07:36
|
|
|
Grognan posted:loving El Oh EL rudatron fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Jun 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 07:38
|
|
|
Point of interest: how imperialist is Trump? On the one hand, he wants to reduce our number of overseas bases, but on the other, the ones that remain would require tribute from the countries they're "protecting." On one hand, he wants to lessen our exploitation of foreign labor, but on the other, he wants to wield our economic power to make other countries submit to his will.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
Jewel Repetition posted:Point of interest: how imperialist is Trump? there is no concrete answer to this, which is why trump is bad. secondarily, even, to The Wall. Even trump does not know his limits.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 08:21
|
|
|
rudatron posted:*sigh* While all groups of people are necessarily diverse, and while entire countries of course have sub groupings based on race, ideology and religion, it is also the case that countries tend to have similarities in beliefs based on shared experiences such as mass media. Donald Trump's candidacy seems shocking and emergent from nowhere because mass media does not actually reflect the beliefs and shared experiences of a massive swath of the United States. Probably because imperial dividends do not benefit most of the hegemonic country. Which would be a fascinating topic for discussion once we get past the initial two-hundred pages of "um, actually, the IRI does bad stuff too so Operation Ajax is probably not worth mentioning as an inflammatory factor in the region today" from presumably serious individuals who are not intoxicated.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 08:28
|
|
|
When the negative case relative to the OP runs out of attack-dose sarcasm, and steadily realizes that bad things are not good because bad things happen elsewhere, and that this is a thing the OP acknowledges, and that the USA really is that damaging worldwide upon sober analysis, I look forward to said case as laid out by uncalloused fingers tapping at well-worn keyboards evolving into something along the lines of "well clearly the problem here is the United States isn't imperialist enough! It Would Be Better If We Did More" as if those weren't the famous last words of every Emperor.rudatron posted:In gaming, there is a concept called 'Tempo'. in gaming there's another concept called "turn your monitor on" You are not seeing the ways in which America creates the threats that only America can protect you from in ways you don't realize you're paying for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 08:38
|
|
|
PleasingFungus posted:when china invaded vietnam in 1978, that wasn't imperialism. that was just altruistic support of their good friends, the khmer rouge regime The Sino-Soviet Split was the biggest political blunder of the 20th century. Lots of mistakes followed, for sure. I agree with some of this, but not all. Certainly a power base within the metropole needs to be developed if any progressive change will be made, and consequently lead to a reduction or negation of imperial power. But wouldn't such a development be stymied if the organizing forces DON'T take a stand against this naked exercising of will? And if we are to "put our money where our mouth is," shouldn't we identify allies to this end? Framing it in terms that don't suggest antagonisms might be the better approach, certainly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
we live in an age where the World Bank is called upon to condition aid to Uganda on not persecuting gender minorities; this is what "it would be better if we did more" looks like.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 08:42
|
|
|
Volcott posted:For the lighter side of China's African shenanigans, watch Empire of Dust. I have to second this. It has a cult popularity among the alt-right due to the one scene where Lao Yang expresses modern neocolonialist sentiments to Eddy, but it's legitimately a great window into what the people on the ground think of China's African ventures.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
America is not unique in this regard, the same systemic factors that lead to it's military adventures, unaccountable power and prejudice, not only exist in other countries, but are more pervasive and entrenched. Replacing US hegemony with Chinese hegemony is a step down. Opposing the US because of past sins ignores that organizations are organisms that operate by their own rules, their behavior is a consequence of their structure. Analyze that structure, replace it with a better one, don't empower already broken structures.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 08:45
|
|
|
Neotankies of this thread: do you think that the appropriate course of action in 1939 was to support Nazi Germany as an alternative to Anglo-American imperialism?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 08:55
|
|
|
in terms of international relations, a standout feature of contemporary Chinese diplomatic policy is a refusal to acknowledge the existence of disputes (rather than acknowledging and thereby contesting them). Combined with an emphasis on 'harmonious relations', this makes dispute resolution tricky. this is an interesting essay from a Chinese perspective quote:To observe China, one should never lose sight of the historical dimension. Though China is growing into a strong country, the painful memory of history is not long gone. The Chinese people have not forgotten that the country stumbled into the 20th century with its capital under the occupation of the imperialists’ armies, and for over a century before and after, China suffered the humiliation of foreign invasion and aggression. That is why the Chinese people and government are very sensitive about anything that is related to territorial integrity and would never allow such recurrence even if it’s just an inch of land. This is something the outside world needs to keep in mind when looking at China and trying to understand China’s behavior. Admittedly, there is no major external threat that can endanger China’s survival or development in today’s world. China adheres to the path of peaceful development and it dedicates to promoting world peace, development and cooperation. Its belief and commitment are firm and unchanged.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 09:02
|
|
|
rudatron posted:America is not unique in this regard, the same systemic factors that lead to it's military adventures, unaccountable power and prejudice, not only exist in other countries, but are more pervasive and entrenched. Replacing US hegemony with Chinese hegemony is a step down. Opposing the US because of past sins ignores that organizations are organisms that operate by their own rules, their behavior is a consequence of their structure. Analyze that structure, replace it with a better one, don't empower already broken structures. This is a good idea, if only there were a name for this doctrine which opposed imperialism. An... "anti-imperialism" if you will. That you could talk about. Because if you think the American yoke falls lightly relative to others, you must be new to it. Nude Bog Lurker posted:Neotankies of this thread: do you think that the appropriate course of action in 1939 was to support Nazi Germany as an alternative to Anglo-American imperialism? The question makes no sense, post WWII the USA supported far-right governments worldwide as a counter-Soviet measure and, barring the examples made at the Nuremburg trials, made a point of integrating former Nazis into government in West Germany in particular. Which is how you properly administrate a colonial territory by the way--as opposed to, say, Iraq--if we're gonna use the word "properly" in relation to a counter-Soviet measure taken while shoving the remains of the European diaspora into a newly created state bordered by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon for further post-WWII funtimes. This is why analysis in the OP begins after WWII for the sake of brevity, and is why people bitching about the length are so funny, because American imperialism becomes a qualitatively different thing after the thing what happens where every other global economy is in ashes and we have troops garrisoned all over the world. Willie Tomg fucked around with this message at 09:12 on Jun 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 09:04
|
|
|
As someone who has been called a tankie on numerous occasions, and maybe I'm supposed to identify as one, this is a very strange thread. Tomg, I'm responding to what the OP laid out, which is that alliances with the listed countries is somehow desirable. If you accept my logic, then that is not desirable. If you want to call both 'anti-imperialism', then be my guest, but you're avoiding the issue of this thread. I am aware of every example you posted, and more you could have posted. None of that undermines or engages with my point. Either do that, or accept you have nothing to say.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 09:09
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:The question makes no sense, post WWII the USA supported far-right governments worldwide as a counter-Soviet measure and, barring the examples made at the Nuremburg trials, made a point of integrating former Nazis into government in West Germany in particular. Which is how you properly administrate a colonial territory by the way--as opposed to, say, Iraq--if we're gonna use the word "properly" in relation to a counter-Soviet measure taken while shoving the remains of the European diaspora into a newly created state bordered by Egypt, Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon for further post-WWII funtimes. Answer the question. We already know you're a ridiculous neotankie caricature - but are you also a Nazi sympathiser?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 09:10
|
|
|
ronya posted:in terms of international relations, a standout feature of contemporary Chinese diplomatic policy is a refusal to acknowledge the existence of disputes (rather than acknowledging and thereby contesting them). Combined with an emphasis on 'harmonious relations', this makes dispute resolution tricky.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:This is a good idea, if only there were a name for this doctrine which opposed imperialism. An... "anti-imperialism" if you will. That you could talk about. Answer the goddamned question, was Nazi Germany an anti-imperial force in 1939? Did they deserve according support? Not did America support Facist regimes post-WWII.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 09:15
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:Answer the question. We already know you're a ridiculous neotankie caricature - but are you also a Nazi sympathiser? The Nazis developed at a rapid enough rate to be considered an imperial power, especially once the war actually started. Unequivocally, no fascist power is ever worth upholding. If you were going to turn this into a "gotcha" moment as pertains to Molotov-Ribbentrop, I have some bad news: The Soviets pursued an alliance with Britain and France and were soundly rejected, before having to sign the non-aggression pact with the Nazis to buy some time.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 09:19
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:The Nazis themselves were not imperialist... You moron. Edit: Nice save, but I don't think anybody should be surprised to see you posting Nazi apologetics as well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Nude Bog Lurker posted:You moron. Yeah, I edited. It's late. e: What apologetics? Even at 3 a.m., I unequivocally opposed any notion of supporting the Nazis, or any fascist power. It doesn't seem like you're interested in discussing this seriously, and would prefer to misconstrue positions you disagree with rather than engage them honestly. R. Guyovich fucked around with this message at 09:26 on Jun 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 09:21
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:Unequivocally, no fascist power is ever worth upholding. Do you consider totalitarianism a form of fascism? I just want to do some Socratic investigation of your premises.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 09:23
|
|
|
fez_machine posted:Do you consider totalitarianism a form of fascism? No, only really bad countries are fascist. Not nice, cuddly countries like North Korea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 09:24
|
|
|
rudatron posted:As someone who has been called a tankie on numerous occasions, and maybe I'm supposed to identify as one, this is a very strange thread. If you think that the US is one country with one culture then you have no idea who we are or how good or bad we are relative to these other regimes (toward which I am and shall remain critical of their particulars and I don't particularly give a gently caress if that upsets anyone) and you need to be very worried because the overall trend of the patchwork demographics of which we are composed is towards Trump. Not the man--who will lose this particular election, I think--but the attitudes and narcissism of the alt-right which have gone so long unchallenged that delusion opposes psychosis now, so if you are who you claim to be then you should get real enthusiastic about your own brand of anti-imperialism that might be a little better than Venezuela. As good as Boliva, even! If there's a redeeming quality to global capitalism it is the idea that Putin can break his economy take Sevastopol or throw some weight behind Assad if avoiding war means we can strengthen ties with nominal adversaries in Iran and Iraq. That China can take or not take "territory" in the South China Sea if the TPP is a thing elsewhere. If there's a redeeming quality to global capitalism it's that it sublimates conflict into transaction. Except that it clearly doesn't, which is moot because this view is not represented at all in the current election. Nude Bog Lurker posted:Answer the question. We already know you're a ridiculous neotankie caricature - but are you also a Nazi sympathiser? I'm as much a Nazi symp as you are a wifebeater. Stop beating your wife.
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:The Nazis developed at a rapid enough rate to be considered an imperial power, especially once the war actually started. Unequivocally, no fascist power is ever worth upholding. Homework Explainer posted:e: What apologetics? Even at 3 a.m., I unequivocally opposed any notion of supporting the Nazis, or any fascist power. It doesn't seem like you're interested in discussing this seriously, and would prefer to misconstrue positions you disagree with rather than engage them honestly. But this is the shift-key forum! We keep it serious, here! (also this is basically my answer too, but I maintain the question is absurd because America got pretty loving pro-Nazi after May 1945 as long as they put their swastikas in the attic and got back to work administering the state they used to)
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
at some point you have to decide whether the problem with the Nazis was that they committed ethnic cleansing on an industrial scale, that they were authoritarian, that they ignited another war in Europe (taking Versailles into account), or what precise combination of these many postcolonial socialist states were also very authoritarian, very irredentist, and very much gung-ho on the ethnically nationalist ethnic cleansing of minorities they perceived to be collaborators in their oppression. Not all of them went as far as Pol Pot, of course. but clearly some people's genocides are more acceptable than others
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 09:40
|
|
|
fez_machine posted:Do you consider totalitarianism a form of fascism? This is digression. But what the hell, let's take the bait anyway. "Totalitarianism" isn't a particularly meaningful category. There's a degree of totalitarianism inherent to every state; the question is which organ exercises it, and on behalf of which class. This determines the system, and is the root of differences between fascism and communism. Fascism is a militarized, terroristic domination of the capitalist class over the working class. The class relationships under capitalism continue unabated, but the inherent antagonisms and contradictions between the two are intensified through open warfare and violence. Communism reverses this relationship. The working class holds state power in the proverbial "dictatorship of the proletariat," and the previous ruling class is stripped of its influence. Centralized authority is vested in the state — which is where some people's confusion between the two arises — but the state acts on behalf of the working class, prioritizing very different things. This is why you'll see things like universal guaranteed housing, employment, education, etc. in communist countries but those privileges only doled out to select groups in fascist ones, if at all. To someone whose conception of politics begins and ends with "more government -------------------------------- less government" as their only continuum conflating the two is understandable, if inaccurate. e: Because I just had to deal with being called a Nazi sympathizer — something I've never heard in my life — let me reiterate: Making piles upon piles of dead Nazis may have been the greatest achievement of the Soviet Union, or been the greatest overall endeavor of the 20th century. I despise fascism. It makes me sick to my stomach. R. Guyovich fucked around with this message at 09:45 on Jun 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 09:41
|
|
|
Willie Tomg posted:If you think that the US is one country with one culture then you have no idea who we are or how good or bad we are relative to these other regimes (toward which I am and shall remain critical of their particulars and I don't particularly give a gently caress if that upsets anyone) and you need to be very worried because the overall trend of the patchwork demographics of which we are composed is towards Trump. That's a bold claim. What are you basing it on? How hard will he have to get trounced for the popularity of his ideology to come into question, instead of his personal electability?
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 09:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 20:58 |
|
|
Homework Explainer posted:This is why you'll see things like universal guaranteed housing, employment, education, etc. in communist countries but those privileges only doled out to select groups in fascist ones, if at all. so, kulaks
|
|
#
?
Jun 11, 2016 09:45
|
|