Why isn't there an anti Imperialist shitposting flag?

why isn't there an anti Imperialist shitposting flag?

does being anti imperialist means also being against the USSR?

Attached: antiimp.png (2397x2400, 248.67K)

Other urls found in this thread:


Flag related

that's 3worldism

Imperialism is ok when we do it.

Hoyl fuck you people are so pedantic. Yes the USSR comitted a few actions that could be considered imperialist but in the long run they acted far more anti-imperialistic than imperialist and they were easily the least imperialist superpower of the 20th century. I don't know if China was at some point ever considered a superpower between 1900-1999 but if they were I guess you could say they were slightly less imperialist than the USSR

It should just be a "BO" symbol.


Today I watched a porn video featuring a guy in the army, and all the ads we’re gay porn. Really jogs the noggin.


Well, you can't be half assed anti imp

You can if they blow half your ass off.


Reminder that islam is imperialist

Attached: islamic monoculturalism.jpg (1024x681, 158.54K)

That's not how that works user

Oh, that's right

Attached: lelnin2.jpg (307x409, 43.09K)

If only the US didn't support religious fundamentalists from taking over.
Who knew that their interventions don't bring anything good.

Yeah just a teeny bit.

Yeah in the same way that Hitler is slightly more dead than Elvis. Taiwan and Tibet say hello.

Attached: ussr countries.jpg (728x425, 42.75K)

You know that Islamic conquests predate the USA, right?
The US fucks shit up but that doesn't mean brown people can't do bad shit on their own just as much as white people.

a lot of the countries in your map only became political units due to the USSR in the first place, and Eastern Europe was a buffer zone against aggression from the West. The countries of the 'eastern bloc' did have considerable independece in economic policy for example, though the limits of that independence were clear to see in '56 and '68.
and Taiwan was colonised by KMT, not the People's Republic. If you're calling the demand to incorporate it to China proper 'imperialism' then you are a moron. All sides of the conflict view it as an integral part of China. The old comparison to the American Civil War works here again: if one of the European empires would have intervened on the side of the CSA do you think the North would have simply accepted the fact? Of course not, they'd be seeking reunification by any means.
Tibet is a better example, but had been a part of China for a long time already. I also have very little sympathy for the deposed Tibetan feodal rulers.
there is literally nothing wrong with proletarian 'imperialism' that liberates the working classes of another country, if USSR or PRC did that is another question

Isn't that the rationale behind pretty much all conquests?
Whose China?

no? though admittedly it doesn't really exclude the possibility of 'imperialism' either depending on definition.
more or less anyone's who has a stake on the conflict. Even the people supporting Taiwanese independence believe it to be a part of China, just politically separate enough for independence. hell, the RoC government just abolished the office of the (outer) Mongolian affairs, a region they haven't held for a hundred years.

I don't see how that should lead us to the view that China is an ethereal entity of which the given rulers can rightfully lay claim to all land that once fell under the Chinese emperors. Besides that, Taiwan was only fairly recently colonized by China, which only took an interest in Taiwan after the Portugese did.

all nations are fundamentally ethereal entities, claims are defended with power, not 'right'. let's move on from the idealism and discuss the actual political conflict between the PRC and RoC, where both sides of the conflict are in agreement about this matter.

Doesn't matter, USSR still absorbed them politically by force against the will of the people occupying the territory. They could have remained part of nu-Russia, but they didn't want too, even heavily Russian speaking areas like eastern Estonia.

Right, well you're the one who seems to be using the word "China" as a country and as a culture very fuzzily. It's pretty obvious Taiwan sees themselves as culturally "Chinese", but that doesn't mean they want to be part of PRC. PRC is being imperialistic by insisting that Taiwan is their domain and are "one" China,and throw a hissy fit when foreigners refer to Taiwan as a separate country (which it most certainly is). I don't really understand what you're arguing, it seems like your trying to be contrarian to shroud the fact that PRC is imperialist.

PRC is not communist, so I don't understand why left(y)pol posters keep trying to fucking defend them. Xe Ping can jump off a foxconn factory

Doesn't matter, USSR still absorbed them politically by force against the will of the people occupying the territory. They could have remained part of nu-Russia, but they didn't want too, even heavily Russian speaking areas like eastern Estonia.
Belarus would be the exception. I don't know how the Russia thing is relevant here.
it's not my own invention friendo, and its not only PRC who gets upset. Both the RoC and PRC sides view China as a package deal, RoC claims all of PRC territory and some extra like Mongolia and other things still. I'm saying that its strange to call what is essentially a civil war setting imperialist. Was North Vietnam imperialist when they reunified the country in 1975?

That's not what Marxists understand as imperialism. Imperialism isn't "when soldiers do stuff". You do realize that most of the Soviet republics were pro-USSR and had significantly more rights than under the Tsar?
Never forget the theocratic slavemasters and the KMT! And as we are at it, let's also mourn for the fascist Polish officers that died at the hands of the Soviet imperialists.

Attached: 203f81ba77f6fa0a98686072b3547e646116f28ec5d0479eea126775c824a74d.jpg (433x468 63.33 KB, 58.2K)

You are talking about KMT Han Chinese who moved to Taiwan and discriminated the indigenous population there. Taiwan is already "part of China" so to speak, they claim to be China at the UN. What they want is to rule over mainland China as well, not to be "independent".
These are all things that happened when China was socialist.

Stalin writes:
I don't see how this is "etheral" at all. He doesn't make references to blood and soil, ethnicity, race, etc. - this is just how human communities on a larger scale are organized. This kind of organization is older than capitalism as well.

Yeah, communism works so well and is so anti-imperialist when practiced…

Attached: jnysj.jpg (765x618, 93.37K)

not really… Taiwan was a backwater province and essentially a Qing colonial project from the 1700s that slowly pushed the native polynesian peoples off the land. It was economically peripheral and part of the Qing Empire when it got transferred to Japan. The Qing Empire, by the way, also annexed huge swathes to the West, including mongolia, tibet and xinjiang that never belonged to the historical chinese empires. The US south also had little claim to natural inhabitants because all US history is predicated on cleansing indian lands, but there were legal and constitutional issues already at stake that had no equivalent in qing china. Only the KMT ever held Taiwan. I'm not saying they shouldn't be integrated into China eventually BTW, however there is a case to be made that Taiwan is just as much entitled to its own sovereignty on the basis of its recent historical independence and the poorly laid out claims of the mainland, which is anyway based in han nationalism rather than some transcendent ideal.

(which is why mongolia declared independence and USSR safeguarded it, and why tibet tried to do the same and Xinjiang was effectively independent from Republican China and was occupied by the USSR in the 1930s)

The best comparison between USA & Taiwan would probably be Hawaii

Nice idealism.

I'm sure you are not at all an annoying person to hang around with

It's not pedantry. It's a very important distinction. To blame Islam as a whole for a series of military campaigns that occurred thousands of years ago is pure idealism and therefore is not a claim worth taking seriously. Also unironically caring about feudal societies' military conquests and defeats is fucking stupid and reeks of idpol.

When the only thing you have to offer is a dishonest defence of poisonous superstition, you'd do more good by just shutting up.

Not him, but you stopped giving arguments three post ago…
I think it's time that you shut up

Are you denying that Islam is an expansionist ideology? Islam literally divides the world into the "House of Peace" and the "House of War" which has not yet been conquered. For something to be considered part of the house of peace, a Muslim government is required, nothing else. I hope you are not one of these retards that think dialectical materialism is when the superstructure has zero influence on the base reciprocally. And yeah, this has nothing to do with the average Muslim's daily life, but can still be recognized. Also, Islam wasn't feudal as till the (political) downfall of the Abbasid Caliphate.

And yes, it's pedantry. The early Muslim conquest are usually referred to as "Islamic Conquest", it's just the common term.

Show me one that isn't expansionist.

What is the point of this comment?

Of course an ideology wants to be spread by definition. But there is still a difference because, as I explained, Islam identifies that through political power only. It doesn't matter if less than 50% of the citizens are Muslim, as long as there is a government identifying as Muslim it's part of the "House of Peace". This necessitates political conquest. Christianity also fought "holy wars" but it is far, far less politically expansionist than Islam. The Crusades were about making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem save, which was combined with feudal ambitions of the Crusader leaders, but if you think about, the division between religion and state is hardcoded into Christianity. Augustinus of Hippo already wrote about this in antiquity.

Don't you know that you're supposed to say "All religions just teach peace and love, and any bad deeds are done by asshole individuals"?

maybe during its later days but certainly not in its early period


No because it wasnt Imperialist?

How is that Imperialism?
The Constitutent SSR's had equal status in the Soviet constitution?
Also some of them were explicitly created by the Central USSR gov to PREVENT russian Imperial Tendencies

Read Lenin, seriously, this is a babby leftist understanding of imperialism. By this logic the USA isn't imperialist is Africa because they don't physically occupy it

I don't think its me you wanted to reply to, I failed to quote the first line of the post I was replying to.

Empires don't exist in the form they did at the start of WWI. Now we have economic empires. Where corporations use the governments of their home countries to protect their interests around the world. Before, when an empire would conquer another State or region, it would become part of that empire. But now corporations and governments celebrate independence and national identity, while at the same time replacing culture with something mass produced and global.

We need to abandon 'anti-imperialism', focus on 'anti-capitalism'.

Attached: ak47.jpeg (800x660, 450.45K)

When multinational corporations force development-suppressing free trade and austerity policies of the third world to keep them producing nothing but raw materials, 'the West' might benefit from that in some generic sense, but it's not some actual empire exploiting weaker societies - it's capital extracting profit in any and every way possible.
The term 'imperialism' therefore is just another way of trying to smuggle idpol and idealism into anti-capitalist analysis.

That's whole point of hegemony. A chinese company is not nearly as bad as an American one for this reason. Being an "american" enterprise gives a company all kinds of privileges that a Chinese company could only dream of. Like it or, the west (as a solid imperialist bloc headed by America) has to die for communism to succeed. Deal with it. Or don't. Really it doesn't matter in the end. It's still going to disintegrate regardless of your beliefs.

Attached: 2-destruction-of-the-temple-of-jerusalem-francesco-hayez.jpg (900x650, 189.17K)

This may be true for Prague and Afghanistan, but there’s nothing to indicate that the Hungarian uprising was counter-revolutionary.

Hi Negri. But no, there is no "global bourgeoisie" and "global proletariat", this is delusional. Read this article:

Is there any material meaning to this so called 'hegemony' or is it feeling-based all the way?