Good-o or bad-o? i'm not the original poster that got banned from Zig Forums, i'm not Ismail either, just thought they both offered interesting takes to start the thread.
Imperialism
Camden Torres
Other urls found in this thread:
libriincogniti.wordpress.com
libriincogniti.wordpress.com
opendemocracy.net
twitter.com
Liam Kelly
Good if we do it, bad if they do it, pacifism will never change the world and the USSR and– Other thinkers under stood that perfectly.
Angel Gomez
Both the Second International "imperialism is actually good" line and the vulgar Leninist/BO "support any dictator/national bourgeoisie to spite the Americans" line should be rejected.
The entire planet is thoroughly industrialized and capitalist; there is no need for "developing the productive forces" by encouraging capitalism/developmental state "socialism".
Actual anti-imperialism begins and ends at home, by mobilizing popular dissent and resistance to foreign wars, and by opposing international legislation or policies that restrict the rights of foreign workers or their ability to independently organize. Voicing "support" for competing foreign powers, even if they claim a socialist/social-democratic line, is completely immaterial and irrelevant unless you are part of a large, organized working class that is capable of wielding political power. Facebook screeds and internet imageboard bans are pointless expressions of infantile weakness.
Blake Barnes
Imperialism is obviously bad because it results in proles getting killed, at our current point it doesn't affect development because capitalism is global and inescapable. Anyone supporting this is akin to an iditoic edgelord who says supervillain tier shit like "freedom is (neo)liberal". The issue with anti-imperialism as it actually exists is that it's completely empty posturing, their strategy to protect Venesuela from burgerland is to tweet #handsoffvenesuela or ban mentions of Maduro on forums. Most anti-imperialists are removed from any class movement and substitute geopolitical stances for such, despite such opinions being irrelevant to geopolitics. Both are ultimately based on poor understandings of our world derived from dogmatic adherence to theory they misunderstand. They are both worse and of no use to any real worker's movement, luckily they seem more interested in electing socdems or social media capital than organizing as a class.
Anthony Moore
Imperialism is good. The strong shall triumph and the weak be destroyed. Only weaklings have a problem with the cruelty of reality. Leftist goons IRL often identify with the inferior, sadly
Wyatt Flores
Not really. As Ismail correctly points out, imperialist policies have been often hindering growth of the indigenous capitalist class as well as of productive forces within a colonized country, resulting in general economic backwardness, with India being probably the most infamous example of such mismanagement. On the other hand, the independent countries are more interested in acceleration of their own economic development in order to be able to compete on the world market and such development results in small-scale manufacturer/peasant production being replaced by socialised capitalist production based on wage labour. This economic development as well as accompanying changes in class structure is the positive content of self-determination and anti-imperialism.
However, those concepts are not to be supported in countries which have phased out the precapitalist economy and small-scale commodity production. In those the capitalists have accomplished their task, so the alliance with them must finally come to an end, ideologies and concepts defending them must be discarded and abolition of wages system is finally on the agenda. And if someone keeps peddling the slogan of anti-imperalism in a fully capitalist mation? Then he's nothing less than a retard or a traitor who has already forgotten that in a struggle between antagonistic capitalist blocks the only solution is not bending to either group and instead working to turn the imperialist war into a civil war.
For a more detailed analysis try reading those two
libriincogniti.wordpress.com
libriincogniti.wordpress.com
William Perry
The USSR didn't engage in imperialism at all, the Warsaw Pact didn't increase soviet control over satellite countries, though they did attempt to "change" their elected leaders.
Ryder Jones
(Checked.)
The USSR didn't extend it's influence to other naitons?
Nathaniel Brooks
The pact gave the soviets a legal basis for military intervention in the case of capitalist restoration. The USSR was neither expansionist nor imperialist. Having a bunch of allied countries did not make it an "empire."
Gavin Clark