this post was submitted on 25 Dec 2025
908 points (96.1% liked)
Political Memes
11264 readers
1876 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Nobody should be lectured on propaganda by North American and European social democrats who infest Lemmy and spread propaganda to a much higher degree across most instances and communities.
It is clear that russian propaganda is the best propaganda. pats you on the head
Calling out hypocrisy is not the same as supporting the alternative. Two things can be wrong at the same time.
To put it in simple terms: Russian Imperial propaganda is bad but American Imperial neoliberal propaganda isn't any better just because they are at odds.
The whole "stones thrown from glass houses" thing.
Correct, you understood my point perfectly.
As an anti-imperialist, I get that kind of rebuttal A LOT. People cannot stand it when you bring light that all empires of the modern day got to their heights by being the most politically and socially manipulative parasites this world has ever seen.
Name today's empires please
US, UK, France, Spain, Norway, Sweden, Russia, China, etc... any and all nations which exert extensive global influence through economic, military, or political power.
Are you just ignorant of how the global north has, for the last centuries, been exploiting the global south? Are you ignorant of neocolonial economic dynamics that Nordic countries exploit to fuel their capitalist social democracy? Are you just ignorant of the fact many African nations still have to pay colonial taxes to France? Just because they stopped officially attributing the label of "empire" to themselves doesn't mean they stopped being Imperialist nations. They still all heavily benefit from their colonial past, the only thing that changed was the labels and structures to be less direct so they can claim the benefit of the doubt.
US, UK, France, and Spain all currently hold territory they stole from others. They also invented and continue neocolonialism both individually and collectively. I would add the Netherlands to this list of contemporary empires. Portugal still has 2 islands, so they should count as well.
Norway I don't believe does. Happy to learn more about this if I am wrong though.
I don't believe Sweden still has an imperial holdings either. Again, happy to learn more.
While the Nordic countries benefit from their relationship to the North Atlantic empire, I am not aware of their direct exploitation of other nations. Again, happy to learn more.
Russia currently has about 20 foreign military bases, so they could be argued to be an empire from some perspectives. I'm open to that. I don't think it's at all accurate to say that Russia got those holdings through the same behavior as the above empires.
What do you consider China's imperial holdings? They have one foreign military base that was created through mutual negotiations with the government of Djibouti. They do not engage in the economic entrapment of neocolonialism. They haven't dropped a single bomb in over 35 years.
Tibet
Tibet is certainly a good opportunity to make the argument for China being imperialist. Here's my take:
Tibet was independent until the early 1700s when its military failed to repel an invasion. At this point, Tibet was no longer independent but occupied.
But more importantly from China's perspective, it was now a dangerously permeable border with and enemy. China's decision under the Qing Dynasty was to liberate Tibet but to treat it as a protectorate as a matter of Chinese national security. During this time, Tibet was an autonomous region under the nation security aegis of China, though this afforded Chinese officials varying levels of influence over the internal affairs of the nation.
When the Qing Dynasty fell, the Tibetan military skirmished with Chinese forces, expelled them from Tibet, signed an agreement with China to remove them, and declared independence. And then promptly enslaved 95% of their people in a brutal theocratic feudal society. They were never recognized by the international community as a nation-state, but they did align themselves with the imperialist British.
Meanwhile back in China a movement to liberate peasants became the PLA and the CPC. Through the process of civil war, the PLA and CPC succeeded in securing the country against imperialists and imperialist collaborators.
This movement came under immediate threat from imperialists and the question of secure borders arose again. This time, Tibet was directly aligned with Britain, having signed treaties with them, while the British are actively occupying parts of China and repressing Chinese people and made no ambiguity about their desire to see China back under imperialist rule.
So the PLA invaded Tibet, freed the enslaved population, expelled the theocratic nobility, and restablished Tibet as an autonomous region, with its own Tibetan government, protection for its customs, religion, language, and relationships with the land.
Unlike other imperials colonies, including the entire Western hemisphere and even the island of Taiwan, the Tibetans govern themselves within a system similar to that under the Qing, where the country of China provides military protection and the Tibetan people are afforded significant autonomy as a Republic. In contrast with Taiwan and the entire Western hemisphere, the indigenous people of those lands have been subject to genocide, replacement. Their languages are dying their religions were outlawed their cultural practices or repressed and to this day none have recovered.
So is Tibet an imperial holding of China's? I think that could be argued but it would appear to be a different type of imperialism than the other or prominent and widespread form that we generally know of as imperialism. Should we use the same word to describe two very different phenomena? That too can be debated.
The King dynasty, also known as the Qing Empire, a literal theocratic empire whose emperor had a mandate from heaven.
Btw, these excuses of being "just a protectorate", "for their own good", "to protect them" etc are very common excuses for imperialists to enforce their own will. Other common excuses are "historical reasons", "ethnic reasons" or "national security".
Conquest is conquest, subjugation is subjugation. If it's ok for me, but not for thee, then you are a hypocrite.
Tibet is a Chinese imperial holding because they took away their right for self determination.
The Mongols literally invaded and occupied Tibet. It wasn't merely a rhetorical excuse, it was a reality. When the Qing expelled the Mongols, they didn't subjugate the Tibetans, they subjugated the Mongols. The Tibetans were clearly incapable of defending against a return of the Mongols, so the Qing garrisoned the region to fight the Mongols, not the Tibetans.
How do we know that the Qing did not subjugate the Tibetans. Because the Tibetans did not lose their language, their religion, their cultural practices, their economic way of life, or their ability to self-govern. Don't project European subjugation where it does not exist. European subjugation meant child separation, genocide, mass displacement, destruction of ways of life, monoculture, outlawing language and religion on pain of torture and death, slavery, etc. That is subjugation. You will not find that in Tibet.
Until, that is, Tibet declares independence at the end of Qing Dynasty. That's when 95% of the Tibetan population becomes subjugated by a brutal system of slavery, disenfranchisement, and totalitarian servitude. That's subjugation. Modern China also has not subjugated Tibet, unless you mean by that the PLA subjugated the nobility of Tibet that enslaved and tortured their own people.
They have a better claim to leftism & socialism than the illiberal leftists & left-wing authoritarians who manifest inherently unequal, oppressive concentrations of authority & political power.
Capitalism! (Which socdems completely support)
That's a weird spelling for authoritarianism.
Social democrats support mixed economies with social safety nets.
Economic indexes show liberal democracies in Europe, Canada, East Asia, Australia including social democracies beat communist states (North Korea, China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba) in lower economic inequality in terms of wealth & income. North Korea comes close, and that state overspends on military instead of lifting people out of poverty, thus allowing famines & food shortages to stunt growth & shorten life expectances by 12 years compared to their South Korean neighbors.
Both in principle & practice, non-authoritarian or liberal leftism beats left-wing authoritarianism. Left-wing authoritarianism is a bankrupt contradiction lacking legitimate claims to the central tenet of leftism of promoting equality. Such philosophies & governments don't serve the people, they serve an exclusive, repressive regime of political party elites.
Capitalism is authoritarianism.
Not even close: political systems (governance of people & their actions) aren't economic system (goods & services), and authoritarianism is a political system.
Not even arguing about capitalism: left-wing authoritarianism is still everything I wrote regardless of capitalism. Those liberal democracies I mentioned still in principle limit authority of governments unlike those regimes whose shitty philosophies lack any such scruples: authoritarian philosophies authorize unlimited government power to repress universal rights & liberties. A non-exhaustive list of authorized abuses: the Soviets had their great purges; the Chinese communist party punishes generals for refusing to mass murder civilians, suppresses discussion of times they've sent tanks against civilians, persecutes the Uyghurs & Falun Gong, & represses the freedoms of its LGBT+ population to express themselves & form establishments on- & off-line to meet. These actions aren't backslides from their philosophy.
When liberal democratic governments commit human rights abuses, their philosophy at least recognizes them as illegitimate backslides from that philosophy, and on recovery the people may freely try to hold their governments accountable as they freely condemn such injustices.
However, let's appreciate the hypocrisy of your position. You're posting your criticism of capitalism on a online system created in the free world, and you're benefitting from the freedom to express yourself respected by your government, likely a liberal democracy with some form of mixed economy that includes capitalism. No government authority is shutting you down. We couldn't safely claim the same if you criticized your government's economic system from a state run by a left-wing authoritarian regime.
Even supposing capitalism is authoritarian in some way, it's not the government. Left-wing authoritarianism purports to fight oppression by becoming (causing and perpetuating) oppression. Left-wing authoritarians replace their economic elites with political elites only unlike before, these elites can now run wild with unrestricted government authority to terrorize the masses: they claim that's progress.
Economics and politics are inseparable.
The great lie of liberalism is that a population may be free even while deprived.
At best, your argument rests on a shifting of the goalposts to construct a pretend purity.
Found the lib
found the fake leftist: doesn't care about political inequality or unchecked oppression
European Social Democrats spreading propaganda? I've seen a lot of europeans talking about how life in central / northern europe differs from what happens in other parts of the world, but i wouldn't call that propaganda, just sharing experience. And it's only that you read more of us because the .ml instances and hexbear are the most defederated sites outside of instances with illegal content.