this post was submitted on 06 Jan 2026
188 points (99.5% liked)
World News
39194 readers
447 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's not what socialists mean by imperialism, by that vibes-based definition defeating Nazi Germany was "imperialism." Imperialism is instead a form of international exploitation characterized by dominance of monopoly finance capital, export of capital, and super-exploiting the global south for super profits. Spreading socialism is anti-imperialist.
It's not what anyone means by imperialism. If "extending your influence through diplomacy" is imperialism, then there isn't a non imperialistic country out there
I stand with the definition I shared which include the socialists definition but goes beyond it
The definition you shared would make all countries imperialist
Can you tell me for example Tunisia how it seek to impose it's ideology, relaligion,economic system etc on anybody
By your definition, Tunisia is imperializing the EU due to their diplomatic relations and free trade agreements, where Tunisia tries to gain favorable trade deals. According to your definition, Tunisia is imposing its desire for better trade relations on the EU and thus imperializing it.
Now, this is of course absurd, but that's why when we say it isn't imperialist while following your definition that this is just vibes. There's nothing scientific about your definition, nothing that can be used to analyze why some countries develop while underdeveloping others, nor how we stop this.
That's why, in broadening and generalizing it, you've destroyed its analytical capacity. It's like saying we should rename all of the different types of plants to "tree." Not only does it remove the specificity of taxonomy, but also gets it wrong in many cases!
Tunisia do not ask to change EU full economical system and ideology and has no power against the EU. Discussing trade deals without force is not a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force.
Eu is imperializing it, not the opposite
I'm aware that the EU is imperializing Tunisia, but you're wrong about why. Tunisia is using diplomacy to try to extend their influence and gain favorable trade deals. This is why your definition is vibes-based, and not based on materialist analysis. Taking the overview of imperialism into account:
-The presence of monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.
This is true of the EU, not of Tunisia.
-The merging of bank capital with industrial capital into finance capital controlled by a financial oligarchy.
This is true of the EU, not of Tunisia.
-The export of capital as distinguished from the simple export of commodities.
The EU is exporting its capital to Tunisia, and largely gaining in commodities and raw materials.
-The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations (cartels) and multinational corporations.
This is true of the EU, not of Tunisia.
-The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism.
The EU treats Tunisia like a neocolony.
-The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers.
This is also true, though in the modern iteration the US Empire is primary, while its vassals like the EU are secondary.
How can Tunisia escape this imperialism? Protectionism, nationalizing its key industries and kicking out foreign capital, and focusing on industrialization to move up the value chain. Tunisia largely exports textiles and machinery, while being dominated by EU capital, specifically France, Italy, Germany, and Spain.
This is why a scientific analysis of imperialism is necessary. When you reduce it to something as vague as "influence," all countries that have diplomatic ties try to use that influence for their own benefit. However, that alone doesn't explain imperialism, the core point of which being some countries dramatically benefiting from others at their expense.
Returning to the soviet union, in Afghanistan the goal wasn't resources, but to establish socialism and liberate them. They were not after resources or domination. The soviet union certainly influenced them, but not in the same manner as the US Empire.
Again fsvoursble trades has nothing with influencing other countries policies and ideology. It do not fit my definition of imperialism.
Tunisia has zero leverage against the EU. Tunisians just want to have a good life and don't want to impose anything on other countries. Our leaders also do not want to interfere in other countries. Gaza is the only foreign issue tunisian care about right now and we don't want to rule or influence a future Palestinian state either
Influencing the trade deals with the EU is infliencing them with diplomacy. It fits your definition, because your definition is vibes-based and not materialist. By saying that Tunisia has zero leverage against the EU, you're drawing a hard line that isn't implied in the original definition. I agree that Tunisia isn't imperialist and that that's absurd, but my point is that the vibes-based definition leads to absurd conclusions.
Let me ask this: why uphold the vibes-based definition over the materialist one? Why categorize all plants as trees, when this is reductive at best and wrong at worst?
My definition is a dictionary definition not a vibe definition. Trade deals are not foreign interference and do not fit the definition. Now if Tunisia imposed it's own version of socialism or capitalism on other countries, claim to have the right to interfere in other countries to protect an country that have the economic system they imposed. Use the trade deals to dictate what other countries has to think about other countries or conflicts Tunisia would be an imperial country
I understand that your definition is found in dictionaries, my point is that this definition itself is measured by vibes, not materialist analysis. The fact that you don't personally consider Tunisian diplomacy to be imperialism doesn't mean it doesn't meet that vibes-based definition.
I agree, Tunisia isn't imperializing the EU, but by the definition you gave, it can be construed that way. With the proper definition based on materialist analysis that I gave, there's no way to misconstrue it as Tunisia being imperialist.
Let me ask this: why uphold the vibes-based definition over the materialist one? Why categorize all plants as trees, when this is reductive at best and wrong at worst?
There is no such a think as vibe definition. Only the application of a definition can be based on vibes. Everything can also be misconducted too .
I have yet heard an argument or real example that make sense to me and show the dictionary definition is just wrong.
I am sorry to ignored your question but it doesn't make sense to me so I can't answer it . My question is why using the ultra specific definition when there is a more general definition? If it doesn't makes sense to you , you can ignore it just fine . It's like using the Marxist Leninist definition for all the different visions of socialism
There's no material analysis in your definition, just vague mentions of influence. All countries influence those they have ties with for their own benefit. It's a simplistic definition that obfuscates the nature of imperialism and how it behaves. Again, it's like calling a tree a plant, and refusing to go into any further depth. Being general is not an inherent advantage, especially if the rules laid out earlier are observable patterns.
There is no vagueness in my definition. You keep talking about trade deals as if those deals was imposed using military force or economical and diplomatical pressures . There is no extension of one country power within another just because one side benefits more one side.
My defintion is a genocide non vague definition. Your definition is just one type of imperialist. Just like not all socialist mouvements are maxist leninists
My definition is not like saying plants are trees. My definition is like saying there is the concept of animal and the concept of animals include dogs and cats. You can't say that animals is a vague concept
You've redefined the definition (multiple times while saying you stand by the original one, but let's not talk about that). The original one did not include anything about economic pressures, nor diplomatic.
Any diplomacy that extends a country's power and influence is imperialism by your original definition. There wasn't any qualifiers such as pressure.
Trade deals have diplomatic and economic influence. There's no such thing as 100% power - 0% power, even in imperialist relationships. It isn't simply "either/or" in those terms. Your definition is vague to the point of obfuscating how and why imperialism functions, and you're using it as evidence to say the soviets supporting a liberation movement was "imperialism," as though the goal was to plunder Afghanistan. This rejection of in-depth analysis is self-defeating, and gives us no understanding of how Tunisia can escape imperialism, while the definition I gave did.
That is the same rhetoric the imperialist west use. With your definition US intervention in the Korean war was not an imperials movements. If Afghan decided peacefully and with no foreign intervention do you really believe the USSR would have not intervened ? and by intervening I don't necessary mean military
The US Empire is actively plundering the ROK, and uses it as a millitary base. Intervention is not imperialism, but a method that can be used for it.
So you've already abandoned your own definition then
It engages in diplomacy to extend its influence. So, as per your definition, it's imperialist
That's a actually the problem. It's a definition so broad to be useless. Neither provides any distinction between countries who fit or not the Marxist definition, but also encompasses almost the whole world. Give me a single country that isn't imperialist according to that definition?
It does not go beyond how socialists define imperialism, it reduces imperialism to vibes. Imperialism is a material phenomenon with definite characteristics, not whenever a country influences another. When you reduce imperialism to vibes, it certainly makes it more broadly applicable, but you lose sight of how and why it functions, how to stop it, where it comes from, etc. It's like arguing that lions and cheetahs are both cats, and that therefore cheetahs are lions.
Imperialism, in simplified characteristics, functions as follows:
-The presence of monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.
-The merging of bank capital with industrial capital into finance capital controlled by a financial oligarchy.
-The export of capital as distinguished from the simple export of commodities.
-The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations (cartels) and multinational corporations.
-The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism.
-The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers.
The USSR had interventionist foreign policy, but it was not dominating other countries nor economically plundering them. In classifying it as imperialist, you run cover for the fact that the USSR was undermining economic plunder of the global south while the west was protecting and expanding that plunder.