I never claimed that modern Russia is progressive, socialist, or something to be defended. I am a communist; Russia today is a capitalist oligarchy. Russia being imperialist and if I support them are separate questions.
Imperialism is not “when a country invades” or “when a big country has bad politics.” Imperialism refers to a specific stage of capitalism characterized by monopoly capital, finance capital dominance, export of capital, and systemic exploitation of dependent nations. By that definition, Russia today does not function as an imperialist power in the same way the US or the rest of the imperial core does. This is a simple statement of facts, not an endorsement.
Pointing to the Russian Empire’s historical expansion is irrelevant to whether the Russian Federation in the 21st century is imperialist. History alone does not determine a country’s position in the current global capitalist system. By that logic, nearly every existing state would be “imperialist” forever and the term would be rendered useless for meaningful analysis.
Likewise, saying Russia “mirrors” the US ignores material reality. The US sits at the core of global finance, enforces dollar hegemony, maintains hundreds of overseas bases, and systematically dominates entire regions. Russia does not occupy that structural position (even if they may wish to). You can criticize Russian nationalism or militarism without flattening all distinctions or redefining imperialism into a catch all for when big countries do bad things or when invasions.
The term imperialism was coined by Lenin Hobson, and it’s definition has remained constant for over a century. It’s actually liberals who have tried to flatten and bastardize it’s definition to hide the inevitable systemic nature of their crimes against humanity. The fact that you were introduced to the wrong definition first doesn’t make it the right one.
The word imperialism is derived from the Latin word imperium,[8] which means ‘to command’, ‘to be sovereign’, or ‘to rule’.[9] It was coined in the 19th century to describe Napoleon III’s attempts to gain political support by invasion.[10][11] The term was applied to the British Empire during the 1870s; by the 1880s it had acquired a positive connotation in the West.[12] By the end of the 19th century, the term was used to describe the behavior of empires at all times and places.[13] Hannah Arendt and Joseph Schumpeter defined imperialism as expansion for the sake of expansion.[14]
Hobson, and in 1917, Lenin, attempted to redefine imperialism as the “highest stage of capitalism”, as firms exported capital to dominate economically rather than territorially.[15]
I never claimed that modern Russia is progressive, socialist, or something to be defended. I am a communist; Russia today is a capitalist oligarchy. Russia being imperialist and if I support them are separate questions.
Imperialism is not “when a country invades” or “when a big country has bad politics.” Imperialism refers to a specific stage of capitalism characterized by monopoly capital, finance capital dominance, export of capital, and systemic exploitation of dependent nations. By that definition, Russia today does not function as an imperialist power in the same way the US or the rest of the imperial core does. This is a simple statement of facts, not an endorsement.
Pointing to the Russian Empire’s historical expansion is irrelevant to whether the Russian Federation in the 21st century is imperialist. History alone does not determine a country’s position in the current global capitalist system. By that logic, nearly every existing state would be “imperialist” forever and the term would be rendered useless for meaningful analysis.
Likewise, saying Russia “mirrors” the US ignores material reality. The US sits at the core of global finance, enforces dollar hegemony, maintains hundreds of overseas bases, and systematically dominates entire regions. Russia does not occupy that structural position (even if they may wish to). You can criticize Russian nationalism or militarism without flattening all distinctions or redefining imperialism into a catch all for when big countries do bad things or when invasions.
Then you’ve redefined the term Imperialism.
The term imperialism was coined by
LeninHobson, and it’s definition has remained constant for over a century. It’s actually liberals who have tried to flatten and bastardize it’s definition to hide the inevitable systemic nature of their crimes against humanity. The fact that you were introduced to the wrong definition first doesn’t make it the right one.The word imperialism is derived from the Latin word imperium,[8] which means ‘to command’, ‘to be sovereign’, or ‘to rule’.[9] It was coined in the 19th century to describe Napoleon III’s attempts to gain political support by invasion.[10][11] The term was applied to the British Empire during the 1870s; by the 1880s it had acquired a positive connotation in the West.[12] By the end of the 19th century, the term was used to describe the behavior of empires at all times and places.[13] Hannah Arendt and Joseph Schumpeter defined imperialism as expansion for the sake of expansion.[14]
Hobson, and in 1917, Lenin, attempted to redefine imperialism as the “highest stage of capitalism”, as firms exported capital to dominate economically rather than territorially.[15]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
Imperalism wasn’t coined by Lenin, he built off of Hobson and used Marxist analysis. Just a minor correction.
👈👈
Imperialism
No. You just don’t know what the word means.
Might need to reread that