If I’m in support of their invasion, annexation, expansion and creation of buffer state it doesn’t change anything about the actual actions. And it’s the actions and not the language that makes one an empire.
Secondly, no, I’m not adding.
parts of those summaries that explain the economic factor
I’d be happy to see you point out those parts in the actual articles. As a matter of fact, the imperialism article even has this addition about colonialism
Annexing territory is not imperialism itself. It can be a part of imperialism, if you relate it to how it’s in service of economic extraction and the setting up of imperialized subjects. If you support the people in Donetsk and Luhansk as having sovereignty, then Kiev’s Banderites are invading their territory and thus Russia is clearing out the invading force. That’s why I asked if you recognize the right of self-determination for the people of Donetsk and Luhansk, because it seems you support Kiev’s right to ethnically cleanse them.
Secondly, colonialism is different but related. Colonialism is the direct subjugation of one country under another, with formalized occupying forces and states, like what happened in Algeria. Imperialism on the other hand is the more general process of exporting capital and plundering the global south. The methods of expansionism and colonialism are means by which to maintain imperialism.
Reading 2 short paragraphs on Wikipedia and thinking you know enough to understand what imperialism is and the mechanisms it operates by is the peak of liberal hubris.
Krhm. I said, I’d be happy to see you point out those parts in the actual articles. You didn’t do that. But interestingly, the article on imperialism does include this
It doesn’t say Russia is imperialist, it says it has been accused of neo-colonialism and described as neo-imperialist. Both of those are true, it has indeed been incorrectly accused and described as such, as we have proven here.
Further, Wikipedia is extremely western, liberal, imperialist biased. The editors are overwhelmingly western and liberal, and as such present such a view. Prolewiki is a Marxist wiki, that openly has its own biases, and has this to say of Russian “imperialism:”
It only has 4 of the top 100 corporations in the world and 6 of the top 500. 82% of Russian exports are raw materials, including 58% oil, 11% metal, and 6% food. In 2017, Russia imported $106.2 billion worth’ of machine goods and only exported $12.8 billion. Russia does not have any of the top 100 corporations in terms of capital export, and most Russian capital export is capital flight to tax havens. Russia only controls 0.7% of the world’s wealth and has much less wealth per adult than the United States ($8,843 vs $336,528). Russia has intervened militarily in other countries such as Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria, but not to seize natural resources like imperialist countries do.
It also has this to say of imperialism in general:
Imperialism is the most recent evolution of the capitalist mode of production that began in the late 1800s to early 1900s, in which monopolies and cartels become the dominant economic force of society.[1] It involves the merger of banking capital with industrial capital to create the greater finance capital and a fundamental distinguishing character of export of capital instead of export of commodities.
It is a global system of economic, political, and military domination, with the imperialist powers using a variety of means, including economic sanctions, military interventions, and cultural influence to maintain their dominance over other nations.
So your biased view doesn’t work. When we take your definitions at face value, and apply them to the facts on the ground, we can see that those accusing Russia of neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism are wrong, and we can also see that leftists don’t think Russia is imperialist either.
Again: Do you support the rights of Donetsk and Luhansk to escape ethnic cleansing, and establish their own territory?
You claimed the definitions I posted had those additional requirements and that the articles agreed with you. Now you are having a big issue with the definitions and the articles. I was fine with you using your preferred definition so I’m not sure why you even had that particular fight.
I used the definitions given by the article, and expanded on what you had cut off. When you displayed a separate article trying to give analysis, not just a definition, I explained how using the definition you gave, the analysis is incorrect. The reason I bothered with letting you cherry pick a definition is because you are correct about one thing, that changing the name of something doesn’t change the actions. That’s why I’ve focused on proving your own definition inapplicable, and asked you over and over again:
Do you support the rights of Donetsk and Luhansk to escape ethnic cleansing, and establish their own territory?
I take it you don’t at this point, it seems you’re in favor of Kiev’s stance that they have the right to ethnically cleanse the Donbass region of ethnic Russians.
They aren’t cut off in the literal sense, I misspoke, they are just not expanded upon, like the concept of maintaining an Empire. At this point though, it’s clear that you think ethnic cleansing is legitimate.
If I’m in support of their invasion, annexation, expansion and creation of buffer state it doesn’t change anything about the actual actions. And it’s the actions and not the language that makes one an empire.
I’d be happy to see you point out those parts in the actual articles. As a matter of fact, the imperialism article even has this addition about colonialism
Annexing territory is not imperialism itself. It can be a part of imperialism, if you relate it to how it’s in service of economic extraction and the setting up of imperialized subjects. If you support the people in Donetsk and Luhansk as having sovereignty, then Kiev’s Banderites are invading their territory and thus Russia is clearing out the invading force. That’s why I asked if you recognize the right of self-determination for the people of Donetsk and Luhansk, because it seems you support Kiev’s right to ethnically cleanse them.
Secondly, colonialism is different but related. Colonialism is the direct subjugation of one country under another, with formalized occupying forces and states, like what happened in Algeria. Imperialism on the other hand is the more general process of exporting capital and plundering the global south. The methods of expansionism and colonialism are means by which to maintain imperialism.
Reading 2 short paragraphs on Wikipedia and thinking you know enough to understand what imperialism is and the mechanisms it operates by is the peak of liberal hubris.
Krhm. I said, I’d be happy to see you point out those parts in the actual articles. You didn’t do that. But interestingly, the article on imperialism does include this
It doesn’t say Russia is imperialist, it says it has been accused of neo-colonialism and described as neo-imperialist. Both of those are true, it has indeed been incorrectly accused and described as such, as we have proven here.
Further, Wikipedia is extremely western, liberal, imperialist biased. The editors are overwhelmingly western and liberal, and as such present such a view. Prolewiki is a Marxist wiki, that openly has its own biases, and has this to say of Russian “imperialism:”
It also has this to say of imperialism in general:
So your biased view doesn’t work. When we take your definitions at face value, and apply them to the facts on the ground, we can see that those accusing Russia of neo-imperialism and neo-colonialism are wrong, and we can also see that leftists don’t think Russia is imperialist either.
Again: Do you support the rights of Donetsk and Luhansk to escape ethnic cleansing, and establish their own territory?
You claimed the definitions I posted had those additional requirements and that the articles agreed with you. Now you are having a big issue with the definitions and the articles. I was fine with you using your preferred definition so I’m not sure why you even had that particular fight.
I used the definitions given by the article, and expanded on what you had cut off. When you displayed a separate article trying to give analysis, not just a definition, I explained how using the definition you gave, the analysis is incorrect. The reason I bothered with letting you cherry pick a definition is because you are correct about one thing, that changing the name of something doesn’t change the actions. That’s why I’ve focused on proving your own definition inapplicable, and asked you over and over again:
Do you support the rights of Donetsk and Luhansk to escape ethnic cleansing, and establish their own territory?
I take it you don’t at this point, it seems you’re in favor of Kiev’s stance that they have the right to ethnically cleanse the Donbass region of ethnic Russians.
You could post the “cut off” parts here so we can see that they are indeed in the articles as requirements and not additions as I’ve said.
They aren’t cut off in the literal sense, I misspoke, they are just not expanded upon, like the concept of maintaining an Empire. At this point though, it’s clear that you think ethnic cleansing is legitimate.
So they are not in the articles but you just feel like those are included, even though they don’t actually include it in words.