On leninist theory of imperialism

So, how would you determine this era's imperialist powers? I'm pretty sure USA, Germany and China are there. They all export capital and control a part of global economy.

>>>/gulag/
anyways

definitely USA and I guess the EU
the EU isn't a single country but you know what I mean
China too, perhaps

I don't think taking the EU as a whole would be correct. There's a lot of internal contradictions inside the EU. You can't put Germany in the same basket as Spain or Greece.

true, true

This is more of a redefining of imperialism to mean US imperialism, so that any imperialist tendencies on the part of China or Russia can be easily dismissed, rather than an actual analysis. It's wrong and dumb.

This fits perfectly well with today's capialism, IMO.

Its simple. The United States, the EU, Israel, Saudi Arabia and other Islamist countries are imperialist.

Russia and China are progressive forces fighting against imperialism.

I hope you are joking.

I don't exactly think Russia and China are progressive forces, user.

Why do westerners think they're the arbiter of what's good or not? China and Russia are insanely progressive in comparison to the west, it's not even a debate. The west sustains itself on the rape of nations.

So do Russia and China, or are they extracting resources from Africa and Central Asia because they want to help the people there? China especially is going full neocolonialism in Africa, they’re on track to replace France as the dominant imperialist power there.

LOL YOU'RE ACTUALLY EQUATING COLONIAL RAPE AND THEFT WITH DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE.

Can the BO ban this fucking shill?

China is developing Africa and is building Dams all over the continent in exchange for resources which are equal to what China is putting into the land. It is in NO WAY comparable to the fucking EVIL that the west has committed, and arguably still is.

France still deprives many african nations with post-colonial debt and props up dictators there. China DOESN'T

Dumb cunt american, why are you people even on this board if you want to shill for western imperialism so much?

Also PLEASE tell me which countries Russia is enacting imperialism on. I know you're tempted to say ukraine/crimea, if you do I will suggest killing yourself slowly.

Watch as he equivocates on "development of infrastructure" and say the west had also done this. Disingenuous shill will try to absolve the west by saying others are "just as bad!".

Can I get uhhhh source

the water projects with the artificial river was created with chinese help
america and europe destroyed it
see the difference?

I'm not the same person you were arguing with, I just want something to read about the stuff you're saying.

I got banned for an hour sorry.

gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES/J01320X/1

cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(10)00506-3.pdf

It's hard to find non-biased sources (most are western articles doing the exact same fear mongering as other "leftists" ITT)

socialistworker.org/2018/05/29/china-versus-the-us-in-the-battle-over-africa

edition.cnn.com/2017/09/14/africa/nigeria-china-hydropower/index.html

The west is like an abusive, rapist step-father who projects his psychopathy onto his victims, then pretends he's the victim.

Attached: on mass - chinese imperialism.mp4 (400x300, 12.84M)

China is objectively bettering more lives in Africa than that of the west or the puppet governments there now. No one gives a shit about conjecture by some nobody.

Lenin didn't dispute that there would be imperialist alliances, his only issue with Kautsky there was that Kautsky thought it would be permanent and lead to peace, Lenin disputed both of those things.

Attached: 1532261046359.jpg (740x767, 116.79K)

Politically retarded.

this is the shit you end up believing when you got your political education through memes and never read a book
this is Zig Forums levels of retarded

I'm afraid it has already started. Germany has much more influence to many European countries via financial capital means, than what Hitler did by military method. Germany would turn Eastern European into gaint Foxconn, and slice on France and Italy by austerity slowly.

Kautsky's model need a hegemony power, otherwise it is not sustainable. The post 90s era of neoliberal hegemony was a very rare and strange period in human history.

I'm calling bullshit on that. China is a capitalist country, even its SOEs are for profit operations, which means they wouldn't be investing in anything without gaining profits.

China actually arms most African militaries, including those that are governed by dictators and collaborate with western imperialism. If arming right wing dictators doesn't count as "propping them up" then I don't know what does.

Central Asia and Syria. Russian companies extract natural resources from countries like Turkmenistan and Kazakhstan, and Russia currently has plans to build pipelines across Syria, much like the US has done in Afghanistan.

Also its rich for you to accuse me of supporting imperialism, when I oppose it in all its forms and regardless of its origins, while you seem to unironically think that capitalist countries like Russia and China just dump boatloads of money into Africa and Central Asia out of the goodness of their hearts. Read Lenin, all capitalist countries must necessarily become imperialist.

Attached: 374.JPG (750x999, 100.97K)

I'M DONE!

You are an official shill, I'll be ignoring every post by your shitty flag.

TOTALLY EQUAL MY BREHS!

Just stop equating China with the west you subversive rat, France's intervention in Africa has led to countless atrocities and was directly responsible for the rwandan genocide.

Your entire conception of imperialism is WRONG, you think imperialism is when two countries are involved with each other economically. The audacity to compare what russia does with its previous territories to the BARBARISM that the west employs is sick. You are sick.

Exactly, hence why Lenin's argument about "super imperialism" was correct, and why it is also the correct Leninist position to recognize that we have been in a period of a great imperialist alliance (which, predictably, is slowly starting to fall apart).

Inb4 this cunt takes my "previous territories" comment and compares it the commonwealth or some shit.

Yes, like when the US HELPED the Argentinian and Chilean governments drop socialists and communists off helicopters and got something out of it in return. Nothing bad about that, since they were "HELPING".

You're acting like some bourgeois states supporting reactionary governments is somehow morally superior to other bourgeois states supporting reactionary rebels. Shilling for a kleptocratic and capitalist Russia is fucking retarded if you call yourself a socialist. Why do you feel the need to pick a side among competing capitalist scumbags?

It's completely possible and rational to criticize the conduct of the U.S., Russia and China at the same time. You're a proper brainlet for getting deluded into apologizing for the Russian oligarchy because you hate the American oligarchy

Attached: 5eef9d613aff02b0606436f9da2fb41161642b5f5f24f77d3f25793e3267dcc6.jpg (750x839, 48.35K)

china maybe
russia no

Attached: 307eff7115b41ee4f38cbbbff6c34ea1.626x624x1.png (626x624, 18.41K)

So if the US props up a corrupt regime in Afghanistan for the purposes of building a pipeline it’s imperialism. But when Russia does exactly the same thing it’s not imperialism. Really makes you think.

Also nice job dodging the point about Russia’s blatant robbing of natural resources from Central Asia.

Imperialism is when one country extracts wealth from the people of another country, backed by some form of coercion (economic or military, direct or via local proxies etc). China is extracting natural resources out of Africa, and the local governments use force to protect their ability to do so, therefore China is imperialist. Russia does the exact same thing in Central Asia (another region where China is heavily involved).

I am not apologizing for russia or absolving them. I'm stating that what they're doing is in no way comparable to what the west is fucking doing.

I don't think you understand the situation in the world, in the US and and its allies gets their way, then socialism/communism will be set back another 200 years at the least. And by "get what they want", I mean if they defeat countries like Syria and other "imperialist" powers, there will be NO ONE to contest the US and then the blackest era of capitalism will commence.

THE US FUCKING INVADED AFGHANISTAN YOU DUMB CUNT LMAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

A WAR OF AGGRESSION ON SPURIOUS GROUNDS. AN ILLEGAL WAR.

What is this bullshit logic? It's insane how you're trying to draw parallels where there aren't any.

Which countries is Russia "stealing" resources from?

Russia.

WHICH COUNTRY IS RUSSIA COMMITTING IMPERIALISM ON YOU DUMB LEFTCOM.

South Korea is a US colony…South Korea and Japan literally pissed away their own culture, customs and history and replaced it with americanism.

The U.S. is already fading in relative power compared to China and Russia, and in 20 years, probably India. The U.S. is yesterday's news, and is slowly becoming increasingly insignificant. It'll never be an existential threat to socialism again.

Like, how can you even make this analogy with a straight face? It would be suitable if both those countries were under threat from soviet invasion or that the soviets were funding rebel groups to kill their people. But you can't make that case. You can't even make a tenuous connection to these two situations.

REALLY grasping at straws.

The US funded contras that carved up farmers and committed the most gruesome attrocities. Has Russia ever done the same post revolution? Not even in the fiercest fighting within Chechnya did Russia ever stoop to the evil of the US.

I do not see ANY signs of this decay, the only decay I fucking see is the quality of lives for the POOR. The rich are still bettering themselves by the day. The U.S can revise itself with shitty socdems and maintain its hegemony for another century if not more, the greatest feat of capitalism is its ability to adapt.

Rosneft, operates in Venezuela, Cuba, Canada, the USA, Brazil, Norway, Germany, Italy, Mongolia, Kyrgyzstan, China, Vietnam, Myanmar, Turkmenistan, Georgia, Armenia, Belarus, Ukraine, Egypt, Mozambique, Iraq and Indonesia.
Lukoil operates in 35 countries.
Gazprom Neft operates in Serbia, Angola, Venezuela and Iraq.
These are the three biggest energy producers in Russia.

Tell me with a straight face that Russia is committing imperialism on the USA.

Attached: bd2.jpg (460x595, 41.73K)

Or even Brazil, Norway or Germany for that matter.

It seems most people think imperialism is when two countries engage in some form of trade.

It seems most people think imperialism means when countries go to war.

Are you being facetious towards me? I never implied anywhere that imperialism consists of only "just going to war". Forgive me if I don't get who you're mocking but this board is rife with obtuse morons.

I think you mix a sign of decay and essence of decay.

In 19 century, when an imperalism country starts to decay (like Osman Empire or Austria-Hungary), everything is very clear to see from the outside, while if you're living in Vienna, you probably feel fine.

Now it's the reverse, from outside US perspective, you probably will think this country is more and more rouge every day. But from inside perspective, you clearly see everything is literally falling apart.

Are you being facetious towards me? I never implied anywhere that imperialism consists of only "two countries trading". Forgive me if I don't get who you're mocking but this board is rife with obtuse morons.

Ok, so if you were mocking me can you defend the claim that Russia enacts imperialism on the US.

it seems to me you're a pseudo leftist from New York or California.
Don't worry pal..once ww3 starts i will have fun killing you and everybody from your retarded cultureless nation

The whole fucking point is that imperialism is not when countries do stuff to other countries. Imperialism is a higher stage of capitalism. Russian oil companies demonstrably "enact imperialism" on US oil fields and US labour. And US oil companies do the same to Russian oil fields and labour.
Really, we shouldn't look at the modern empires as nations - Rosneft may be owned by the Russian state with 50.000001% of the shares, but British Patrolium is the 2nd largest shareholder with 19,75%, and another British company, QHG Oil Ventures, holds 19.50%
nod an argumend

Isn't imperialism when one nation homogenizes another nations markets, with its labor, into exporting only a select few goods to the direct detriment of the victim nation? How can russian oil companies commit imperialism on US labor when US labor is paid more than russian labor? Are you making the argument that Capital is universal and it doesn't matter what happens to certain nation states because capital will just move elsewhere?

You don't think the US state and its military is what enables actual imperialism to take place? You know, the forcing of certain nations to adopt markets you want?

I posted Lenin's definition of imperialism here
I would say Imperialism is, for example, when the Russian state sells 19,5% of its shares in Rosneft to some private company.
Monopoly is the goal of imperialism, so when a nation goes to war with another nation for its resources, it is not the attacking nation that benefits, it is a select few companies that incorporate the MoP into their empire.
We must stop looking at the world through the eyes of nations. A world map does not show you capitalism.

Actually there are numerous parallels. For one thing, when the US intervened in Afghanistan the country was in the middle of a civil war between the Taliban and the Northern Alliance. The US entered the war on the side of the Northern Alliance, and then worked with them to fight the Taliban, much like Russia works with Assad’s government to fight the FSA. In addition, the consent of the local puppet doesn’t mean fuck all in a discussion of imperialism. The US occupied Vietnam with the consent of the Saigon regime, but that was still obviously an imperialist war. Russia is fighting in Syria because they want access to their oil and they want to build pipelines, they very clearly have imperialist ambitions there.

It is absolutely comparable, it’s just not being done on the same scale. Do you also consider Imperial Germany to not be imperialist because it’s Empire was smaller than Britain’s? The only reason why Russian and Chinese imperialism isn’t currently as destructive as Western imperialism is because they lack the strength to do so, not because they are any less greedy or bloodthirsty. Porkies gonna pork.

Lmao and what you think modern Russia or China are going to be any more sympathetic? It doesn’t matter which porky is at the helm of global imperialism, they are all equally reactionary and should all be opposed.

What's western imperialism? There's nations in the so called "west" that never hold colonies.

Yes but they still engage in imperialism through corporations. As a leaf I can tell you that we have companies hauling blood diamonds out of Africa and water companies sucking aquifers dry in Latin America.

You're a fucking pedantic leftcom trying to make connections where there are none.

youtu.be/gGeevtdp1WQ?t=4101

youtube.com/watch?v=0SazaItiSts

I don't want to see any more of your posts, they're mental diarrhea. You disingenuously abuse context and shove in agendas because two entities did vaguely similar things.

We have to also consider that Russia/China DON'T have the historical precedent that underpins the west. The west has a recent legacy on colonialism, conquest, aggressive wars and genocide. Again, NOT COMPARABLE.

Watch the videos and fuck off.

Attached: 0.gif (264x264, 1.37M)

And you sound like you're on Gazprom's payroll, full of non-arguments, ignorance, and double standards.

Your videos don't prove fuck all. All Yannis does is argue that Russia and China are less interventionist than the US, which is not the same thing as saying they are less imperialist. First off, being less interventionist doesn't mean you aren't interventionist. On the contrary Russia in particular has been involved in numerous military interventions in the past few years. China is less guilty of this, but there are still a few, like their backing of the Mujahideen in the Soviet-Afghan War, their invasion of Vietnam in 1979, or more recently their possible involvement in the coup that ousted Mugabe in Zimbabwe. In addition something tells me that the military base they just opened up in Djibouti isn't there to spread sunshine and smiles. It's also important to remember that imperialism doesn't necessitate direct intervention from the imperial power. On the contrary, the interconnected nature of global capitalism means that multiple imperialist countries, even those that are geopolitical rivals, can exploit the same victim and thus share the same imperial interests. For example if Exon Mobil and Gazprom both extract oil from the same country, and a leftist government tries to nationalize the oil wells, but is stopped by a US coup, then that coup serves the interests of both Russian and American imperialism by protecting both their profits. A country can rape half the world of its wealth without ever spending a dime on its military, they just benefit from the might of other powers. In other words, a country can be viciously imperialist and technically non-interventionist simultaneously. Here's an example,

rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/yves-engler/2015/11/canadian-mining-companies-continue-to-devastate-africa-human-righ

Canada is pretty "non-interventionist", but it is still very obviously imperialist.

However even if we do insist on describing imperialism as if it were the imperialism of the 19th century, Russia can still be categorized as imperialist due to the simple fact that it is a net extractor of wealth from numerous countries, most prominently in central Asia. This brings me to your second video, which makes some claims that are demonstrably false. First, Gazprom is a for profit company, it's publicly traded and the Russian government has a razor thin controlling share, so I don't know why he is comparing it to a non-profit SOE. On top of that there are numerous other Russian energy companies with investments all around the world. Second, Russia backs its investments in the region with force, since it has bases spread all around the area.

If you are extracting a country's resources and wealth for net profits, if you back this extraction with military force, then you are an imperialist. The fact that you are less imperialist, or less brutal than your rivals doesn't make you not an imperialist, it just makes you a less successful one.

>Trade between China and Africa reproduces a classical skewed pattern: raw materials on the one side (Africa), in exchange for (value-added) manufac- tured products on the other side (China). The global trade and exchange pat- terns have, despite new actors, not displayed any meaningful qualitative structural changes. Chinese trade and investment in African countries is not significantly different from other patterns. They will not transform the struc- ture of production nor make for a new international division of labour: 'In- deed, such trade can only perpetuate the dependence of developing coun- tries on exports of primary commodities' (Nayyar 2008: 17). In 2006 oil and gas accounted for 62 % of Africa's exports to China. Non-petroleum minerals and metals ranked second (13 %) on the export list. In contrast, Africa im- ports mainly manufactured products from China (45 %), as well as machinery and transport equipment (31 %) and weaponry: China is among the top sup- pliers of arms to African customers.2 The trends suggest that China is in the meantime 'a trade-driven industrial power integrated into the world system', which 'increasingly replicates in key ways longstanding developed-state policies' (Sautman/Hairong 2007: 77 and 78). While African governments often welcome the new partners in business, there are growing local resentments towards China's 'constructive en- gagement' (Corkin/ Burke 2008). It manifests itself in a wide-ranging pano- rama of, at times gigantic, infrastructural projects from public buildings to roads, railways, harbours, and dams (cf. Brewer 2008). Chinese companies and their workforce (which is often imported too and kept apart in separate compounds) are perceived as unwanted competition and a threat. Chinese bidders compete successfully with local building industries and are accused of ignoring the labour laws and safety measures at the workplace. The same is said of Chinese mining companies, for example, in Zambia's copperbelt. The Chinese presence also affects negatively the local survival strategies of people without salaried employment battling to make a living. This includes a hitherto unknown competition for hawkers and street vendors, who suffer from the effects of cheap imported goods sold in Chinese shops or even on the pavements at prices they cannot offer. Local retail shops are similarly worried, as is the local textile industry in several countries.

Based effort post.

Great post.

Just want to point out, Sino-Vietam war still falls into the ideological frame of Sino-Soviet debate, aiming at damaging Soviet-leaning Vietnam and stopping from crushing Pol Pot. Afghanistan war was the first post ideological war, with no vision, just imperial powers' playground.

Absolutely true, but its still a foreign military intervention, which proves both my point that China is interventionist to some degree, and my point that interventionism and imperialism are different things.

But, Russia has a smaller economy than Canada, Italy, Brazil and not that much larger than Mexico.
I doubt most people here would consider Brazil imperialist but I have heard the case for it made so why does Russia get different treatment?

Russia is no longer the super-power that was the second largest economy on earth.

It doesn’t. If imperialism is defined as the exploitation of foreign resources backed by military force, then most capitalist countries are imperialist, which is exactly what Lenin claims must necessarily happen. The fact is that there is no longer any such thing as “American” or “Russian” imperialism, rather imperialism of any kind benefits an international capitalist class. This goes beyond just the nationality of a corporation. There are Americans invested in Gazprom, Israelis invested in Norinco, Indians invested in DeBeers, Nigerians invested in BP. Imperialism only has a nationality insofar as the military force of that nationality is used to protect imperial interests, however this is done in service to an international bourgeoisie, and is entirely dependent on which nation is in the best situation to do so. Take my example of a country with both American and Russian oil interests invested there. Kazakhstan is such a country, so is Iraq. If intervention was needed in Kazakhstan, it would likely be Russian troops carrying it out. If it were in Iraq it would likely be American troops. However in both cases, both American and Russian porkies benefit, so I fail to see how either case is an example of any particular nation’s imperialism, unless you are only looking at the flags on the soldiers uniforms.

Now obviously geopolitics and the interests of nation states have a role to play, but you’ll find that most corporations are indifferent to what flag flies over a country, they only care about whether or not they can do business there.

Reminder the "People's" "Republic" of China literally fits all these criteria in regards to their foreign policy in regards to Africa and Asia

I’d also like to add that I don’t want to create the image that there are no competing imperalisms, rather that these imperialist interests have shed their national character. Imperialism today is primarily carried out by corporations, as it always has, however these corporations have to a large degree shed their national character, they aren’t joined at the hip to their government like the British or Dutch East India Companies were. They are not tied to a particular nation state, nor does the nationality of the company mean anything when it’s investors are globally dispersed. So when we speak of competing American or Russian imperialism, we are speaking of Exon or Gazprom imperialism, where each company has enlisted rival states to attack its rival company.

Attached: good post.png (301x267, 87.53K)

ahahhahahahaha you fucking retard. that guy is a complete joke.

"syria and libya are actually existing socialism"
"billionaire capitalists are actually existing socialism"

based

Where does Lenin state that
Multinationals do have a home country that holds their interest and sometimes wages war to uphold those interests.
Even members of NATO can't all be considered imperialist, as they get a minuscule part of the pie, and have no national interest in the wars they participate in.
There is a dialectical relationship between imperialists and subjects.

We've cracked the code guys! The US cannot be blamed for the war of aggression waged on Iraq because it was subject to international capital! US has been absolved!

Let's pat our amerifat selves on the back.

...

I went to sleep so the retard could post a novel. I want to get to the gist of his argument hence the "strawman", which is that nations aren't responsible for imperial practices but rather companies (who mostly have home nations).

You're a retard who thinks word count = better argument.

He didn't write that much. Do you find reading hard?

It may take some time as the sheer amount of obfuscation and equivocation needs to be exposed, which takes considerable more research. The point at play here is that some think the world is still multi-polar like it was in the cold war, and that the global US hegemon only acts the way it does because of "competing imperialists" in china/russia. I want to prove that the world is uni-polar and that the relations china/russia have with its "imperialized" nations is NOT comparable to how the US/west conducts their engagements.

In fact I would like for the black cats flag guy to clarify on these central asian countries that Russia is committing imperialism on. Thus if we arrive to a conclusion that imperialism is indeed when two countries are engaged economically but one gets a slightly larger slice of the pie from their dealings, then we can assume that most, if not all, countries are "imperialist".

Which is absurd, reeks of ultra-leftism; suggesting that imperialism may need a revised definition for the 21st century as Lenin couldn't predict the dominance the US would wield over the global market.

That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that states act as enforcers to capital, as they always have, the difference between now and the past is that capital is international, and decoupled from its state of origin to a larger extent. So of course the US is responsible for the crimes it has committed, and of course it is still the dominant imperialist enforcer. However the corporations have no national allegiance, they don’t give a shit who pulls the trigger, and they only enlist the help of the US most often because the US is the most capable military force on the planet.

He doesn’t state it specifically, but it’s what his definition amounts to, since the development of finance capital and monopoly is the process that gives rise to empires, but is not imperialism in and of itself. I would appreciate a refresher if I’m missing something, I haven’t read Lenin’s Imperialism in a while.

They do have a home country, but I’m questioning what that really means when their ownership is international. In addition not all of these home countries are capable of waging wars to back up their interests, and so they go to countries are are capable, and lobby their governments. If you want a perfect example look at the deep economic ties between Saudi Arabia and the US, Saudi companies regularly lobby the US to engage in military action in their interests. Is this Saudi imperialism, American imperialism, neither or both?

What do you mean by not being comparable? If you mean that it’s not as widespread or brutal then I would probably agree, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t imperialism. The French were less brutal to their colonial subjects than the Belgians, but they were still imperialist. Would you argue that French and Belgian imperialism were “not comparable” because the French weren’t literally working their entire colonial population to death like the Belgians were?

That’s not what I said, however if one country has multiple military bases stationed around a region, shown a willingness to use military force to intimidate those countries (as Russia did in Georgia) and systemically extracts those nation’s resources and brings the profits back home, that sounds like imperialism. I fail to see how what Russia does in Central Asia is any different from what the US does in Latin America.

critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/is-russia-imperialist/

monthlyreview.org/2015/07/01/the-new-imperialism-of-globalized-monopoly-finance-capital/

ft.com/content/e1a48320-8e53-11e8-b639-7680cedcc421

I'll address the rest of this specific post later.

You keep bringing up central asia, can you give me some SPECIFIC and DEFINITIVE proof that russia is doing anything that you claim there. Names, dates etc.

Attached: NATO-vs-Russia640.jpg (1930x868 85.3 KB, 255.65K)

The problem I have with the narrative of everyone is imperialist, is that you then have to assume that there is no national interest anymore, only multinational capital.
This in turn means that anti-imperialist struggle means nothing anymore, national self determination doesn't exist and there is no distinction between national and international bourgeoisie.

About the Saudis, I'm not that informed. From my limited knowledge I'd say they are Imperialist, due to their dominance in the region and their oil. It might be the case they aren't imperialist, but only a conduit of American interests.

Bullshit, the US was one of the top oil exporters in the world for the bulk of the 20th century. A country having an economy based in raw materials doesn’t make it less imperialist.

So? Show me the definition of imperialism that says that “imperialism is when you have the largest oil company”.

Not unless they station troops or enlist local proxies abroad to facilitate exploitation of foreign resources.

Again, this is a means by which countries develop imperialist tendencies, imo it’s incidental to the character of imperialism itself. If a country that had not yet reached the stage of finance capital colonized another country, brutally exploited its resources, and oppressed the population that would be imperialism. By that logic the British Empire was not imperialist until a century after it began its incursions into India.

The only two claims I’ve made is that Russia extracts natural resources from Central Asia, and that they have troops stationed there, both of which are true by their own admission.

Here’s Gazprom’s page on their Tajikistan operations, the country with the single largest external deployment of Russian troops.

gazprom-international.com/en/operations/country/tajikistan

foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2016-01-14/putins-ploys-central-asia

Your proof that russia is imperialist is that it stations troops in a friendly, post-soviet nation that's under threat from NATO. The "proof" which stems from some neo-lib rag that you have to pay to read.

I know there's an attempt to show a corollary to russian imperialism from their intervention in crimea/ukraine/Syria, but the very premise is wrong because their intervention in these countries WERE NOT imperialist actions. They were thwarting the advance of NATO on either their allies or russian ethnic groups.

Beyond all that, tell me that sole example is equivalent to the ACTUAL imperialism of the west. You can say "But if they were more powerful they'd be just as bad!", but we're not dealing with "ifs" here. We're not dealing in your hypothetical, we're dealing with reality.

After having created the markets to export their products to. See the marshal plans and European investment post WW2.

That finance capital part was just a title preceding the next paragraph.

Maybe Russia should allow all its neighbors to be absorbed into NATO, either becoming islamist wastelands or filled with literal fascists. Maybe then western "leftists" sitting comfortable can heap good words on them.

Yeah sure, and the US only stationed troops in the territory of their ally in South Vietnam becausr it was under threat from the North. They do the same in South Korea. I guess you don’t consider the Korean or Vietnam wars to be imperialist then?

Russia is a capitalist country, and a powerful one compared to the countries it’s “protecting”. If it’s not already engaged in imperialistic exploitation there, it’s only a matter of time. All capitalist countries develop imperialist tendencies.

That’s true, but it’s also true that they are pursuing economic interests. Zizek makes an excellent point in this when he says that western countries use human rights abuses as an excuse for intervention, but those human rights abuses are still very real. By that same token, the Western imperialist threat to Syria is very real, and Russia is opposing it, but they are also there to extract resources and make profits. The statements that Russia is defending Syria from western imperialism, but also has its own imperial designs in Syria are both true.

It’s not equivalent, I’ve said that many times. French colonialism wasn’t as brutal as Belgian colonialism, it wasn’t equivalent in the sense of being the same, but it was still colonialism.

So are you saying that the US was not imperialist prior to WW2? The Phillipines and Latin America may have something to say about that.

So let’s take an example of genuine imperialism that we all agree was imperialism, pre-Revolutionary Cuba. In Cuba, American companies owned vast proportions of Cuba’s wealth, they extracted resources like sugar and coffee from the country, and took the profits back home. This was facilitated by the coercive power of local cronies like Batista, who repressed local dissent on behalf of US interests, as well as American troops stationed on Cuban soil. How is this different from Russia owning large proportions of oil reserves in Kazakhstan or Tajikistan, propping up corrupt, authoritarian local regimes who protect those interests, stationing troops on their soil, and taking wealth out of the country?

I've got things to do so this will be my last post on this matter. I'm tired of your false equivalences. You're arguing for the sake of arguing.

Both Vietnam and Korea had suffered horrific genocide at the hands of the US. The US had partitioned both countries and had to travel HALF WAY ACROSS the world to do so.

Again, not comparable to sending a trifling crew to a neighboring, FRIENDLY state that you didn't have to brutalize to achieve those relations.

Really the fact that you're comparing what Russia is currently doing to that of Vietnam is fucking disgusting.

Again, Idealism and "what ifs", slippery slope arguments do not constitute evidence.

You're projecting the predatory nature of the west onto the world. Leading us into your next point.

Zizek is a "philosopher" and a sophist, I don't care for what he says on politics. He doesn't even use citations for most of his works.

Syria wouldn't even exist at the moment without Russian aid, if the LEGITIMATE syrian government is willing to AGREE without COERCION that russia should get something in return for its IMMENSE aid then I can't understand how that's Imperialism. Let alone comparable to anything the west has done.

You know, overthrowing LEGITIMATE, democratically elected governments to STEAL resources wholesale.

You've stated all the way up the thread that what russia/china is doing is equivalent to what the west is doing.

Now if you're retreating and equivocating on "comparable" to mean "two entities did similar things once" - then can we say that me and a serial killer both drinking water makes us both murderers? Because we did something similar?

No it was definitely imperialist in a sense, though not to the scale it is now. Again, they had to travel vast distances to usurp another imperialist power (spain/france) to install their own while murdering the native population. Nothing Russia has done post revolution.

You'd first have to make the case that those "corrupt, authoritarian regimes" within those central asian countries are similar to that of Cuba.

Done with your autism.

globalriskinsights.com/2017/03/under-the-radar-tajikistan-on-track-to-be-the-next-afghanistan/

One last note, most of ISIS is actually pooled from those central asian countries - who commit to a terror campaign in nearly all peripheral, post soviet states. Coincidence right? Unless you want me to bring up the connections between the taliban, CIA, ISIS etc.

That's another rabbit hole.

Attached: Kiev.jpg (1000x667, 861.68K)

Imperial Russia engaged in imperialism. The USSR engaged in imperialism. Why do you assume contemporary oligarchic Russia wouldn't do the same thing if they were in the US' position?

What? Do you think predatory practices are unique to the West? Why do you think the West engaged in imperialism and which factors do you think makes Russia hesitant to engage in the same imperialism?

- Cultural factors? History disproves that.
- Economic factors? If imperialism isn't profitable, why does the West do it?
- A more moral government? By a gang of corrupt oligarchs who're constantly engaged in completely amoral power-struggles? Yeah, I don't think so.
- Balance of power considerations? That just means that Russia is apprehensive due to their weaker position in the international system, and implies that they wouldn't be if they were as dominant as the U.S. or China. This is what I believe, by the way. Countries usually take what they can when they can, often regardless of ideology.

You can never convince me that a bunch of Russian oligarchs are somehow morally superior to a bunch of American oligarchs. They're all scum, and you must be on some levels of fucking confused not to understand that.