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.

[+] mrdown@lemmy.world -6 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

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

[–] Edie@lemmy.ml 8 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

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.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.