cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/863209
Archived version: https://archive.ph/5Ok1c
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230731013125/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-66337328
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.zip/post/863209
Archived version: https://archive.ph/5Ok1c
Archived version: https://web.archive.org/web/20230731013125/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-66337328
I’m just gonna sit back and enjoy the tankies from lemmygrad denying or trying to justify this one as well. 🍿
Imagine believing the BBC about China. Are you not embarrassed?
Imagine defending Russian and Chinese imperialism because “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”.
Neither China not Russia are imperialist. China is a socialist state so by definition cannot be and Russia is an immature industrial capitalist state.
Can you elaborate on that? I agree that China is not imperialist, but I don’t see how socialism by definition precludes that possibility.
Imperialism is the final stage of capitalism. Finance capitalism takes over from industrial capitalism and seeks out markets abroad, having exhausted the internal ones. It teams up with other finance capitalism to become a global force, the export of capital becomes the most prominent feature of the economy rather than the export of raw materials or finished goods. The states they come from tend to become fascist in nature, or as some people put it, “fascism is imperialism turned inward”.
Even if China was a capitalist country as some people claim, it still wouldn’t be at that stage yet. Russia might wish to one day be there, but it too has a long way to go.
You didn’t answer what I asked.
You said that capitalism by definition leads to imperialism. I asked how socialism by definition precludes imperialism.
I would suggest reading “Imperialism, the highest stage of Capitalism”
Imperialism has a highly specific definition.
Thank you, I’ll look at that. It might be my misunderstanding of a technical term, but I don’t see the logical sequence that makes it apparent that socialist countries can’t engage in imperialism/colonialism.
Because you need to get to imperialism via capitalism. There is definitively no other way.
I don’t see how that follows.
Socialism’s goal is to provide for its people; in theory, why can’t it engage in colonialism to bring in resources to benefit its people?
Its obvious how capitalism leads to imperialism, but it’s definitely not obvious how that would be the only way to arrive there.
Any elaboration you can provide would be great because you’re acting as if it should be obvious why what you’re saying is true but it absolutely is not.