this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
326 points (86.4% liked)

Leftism

2433 readers
1 users here now

Our goal is to be the one stop shop for leftism here at lemmy.world! We welcome anyone with beliefs ranging from SocDemocracy to Anarchism to post, discuss, and interact with our community. We are a democratic community, and as such, welcome metaposts that seek to amend the rules through consensus. Post articles, videos, questions, analysis and more. As long as it's leftist, it's welcome here!

Rules:

Posting Expectations:

Sister Communities:

!abolition@slrpnk.net !antiwork@lemmy.world !antitrumpalliance@lemmy.world !breadtube@lemmy.world !climate@slrpnk.net !fuckcars@lemmy.world !iwwunion@lemmy.ml !leftymemes@lemmy.dbzer0.com !leftymusic@lemmy.world !privacy@lemmy.world !socialistra@midwest.social !solarpunk@slrpnk.net Solarpunk memes !therightcantmeme@midwest.social !thepoliceproblem@lemmy.world !vuvuzelaiphone@lemmy.world !workingclasscalendar@lemmy.world !workreform@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
top 19 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 28 points 2 years ago (1 children)

"I'm against the US imperialism."

"So you are against imperialism?"

"No, it's just another kind of imperialism."

[–] TheLurker@lemmy.world 12 points 2 years ago (1 children)

No no, They are against imperialism. Your example isn't valid because that's not imperialism, that's just spreading the socialist revolution, which requires military "support" because it is the only way to remove the imperialist and decolonise a nation.

No no, stationing the socialist revolutionary guard in said country isn't imperialism because it's under the flag of socialism, don't you see the difference?

Brought to you by the cognitive dissonance of Marxist.

[–] lugal@sopuli.xyz 4 points 2 years ago

True, it's not their fault that they inherited an empire. Liberating Siberia would be nonsensical after the revolution which was a liberation. An independent Siberia (or several independent Siberian states) would be less free since all states are evil so why not keep the worst one.

[–] Son_of_dad@lemmy.world 19 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Also neo colonialism. I'm from El Salvador, the u.s and Russia used us like proxies, destroyed our country, turned our people against each other. And once the dust settled and the country was a wreck, the u.s sent in their corporations to rebuild it, so now they own it. They'll never admit it, but it's a neo colony now, which uses American currency and does everything America wants

[–] rockSlayer@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I hope that your country is able to decolonialize as soon as possible. The super exploitation in the global periphery needs to stop.

[–] TheLurker@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Does that include countries like China?

[–] Knoxvomica@lemmy.ca 5 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Why wouldn't it? All imperialism is negative.

[–] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)

Uh huh.

And if, as a random example, Britain and France took their thumbs out of their asses and declared war over the demilitarization of the Rhineland?

Or the illegitimate annexation of Austria.

Or just told Hitler they would declare war over the Sudentenland

Or the liberal nations actually defended democracy and intervened against the fascists in Spain.

Or or or

Imperialism is a nation deliberately exerting influence on others, and it can be justified.

Like most everything, it just depends on circumstances.

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 2 points 2 years ago

Or the liberal nations actually defended democracy and intervened against the fascists in Spain

They did intervene in Spain... to help the fascists. The US pressured Mexico to stop sending arms to Spanish anarchists, and Britain pressured France to stop sending arms to Spanish anarchists. Just liberals living up to their ideology, of course.

[–] TheLurker@lemmy.world -1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Don't bother to try and debate the nuance of the geopolitical landscape with a bunch of neo-marxists who have gorged themselves on the "west is bad" coolaid.

It's as pointless as arguing with neo-capitalists as to why regulation is both not the glove of communism, but also required for the healthy workings of a free market.

They are both extremists who only subscribe to a narrow binary view of the world, which fits their respective "ism".

[–] masquenox@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Oh, look... a free-market cultist is pretending that capitalism isn't one of the most extreme ideologies ever invented.

Yawn.

[–] TheLurker@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

Country A invades Country B to "liberate" Group A. Imperialism.

Country C invades Country D to "liberate" Group B. Revolution.

Brought to you by the mindset of your average Marxist.

[–] Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone 11 points 2 years ago

I'm not your average Marxist and that doesn't describe any conflict that comes to mind.

[–] febra@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Isn't a revolution something that isn't brought by an outer invading force, but by the people of a country?

[–] TheLurker@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Literally Communist countries talk about the exporting revolution.

Your argument is the exact semantic nonsense I was highlighting.

[–] febra@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago

I was just asking a question, I wasn't making an argument lol. Chill out your cojones mate.

[–] Arelin@lemmy.zip 1 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

A revolution would be Country D invading its own ruling class, no? You're just describing imperialism twice.