• RiverRock@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    1 month ago

    “A more standard definition” than the one that’s been in use for over a hundred years and accurately describes the dynamic in question? The definition liberals use is both new and entirely vibes-based. It is useless for anything but bringing geopolitical conversations to a screeching halt with murky equivocations. The Marxist definition exists to clarify, while the liberal definition exists to obscure. It’s the “socialism is when the government does stuff” of international relations.

    • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 month ago

      The Marxist definition is strictly different, not a clarification. The Marxist one posits only capitalism can be imperialist, something I would say is strictly incorrect

      • RiverRock@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 month ago

        Imperialism is quite literally the highest stage of capitalism. The way liberals use it is just as a synonym for “aggressive”. What definition do you propose that doesn’t make like, the D-Day landings imperialist? Downvote isn’t mine, btw

        • Fredthefishlord@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 month ago

          aggression with an expansionist agenda.

          especially by a country and especially unprovoked.

          Economically or militarily.

          D-day wouldn’t be included because the goal wasn’t expansion. Though I would be very surprised if the usa and Europe hadn’t perpetrated many acts that should be included during the full course of the war.

          And of course you can get into the argument of cultural imperialism as well