Neither China nor Russia are imperialist, though. “Tankie” is used against those supportive of socialist states, which also overwhelmingly includes people that don’t believe Russia or China are imperialist.
Imperialism is a stage of monopoly capitalism where domestic markets are saturated, and thus you must go outward. In this process, bank capital merges with industrial capital to form finance capital, and this dominates the economy, forcing export of capital rather than commodity. The world itself has already been entirely split up amongst the imperialist powers by World War I, as this was the primary cause behind it.
The Soviet Union was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and the dissolution of socialism in the USSR was devastating for all countries involved. As such, even if we were to assume Russia would be imperialist if it could, it inherited no colonies, only a broken economy, and the west had already split the world amongst themselves.
Russia is closer to something like Brazil than an imperialist country like the US, France, Germany, the UK, etc.
China, consistantly expanding it’s influence into sovereign states and claiming those states we’re never soverign. “They’re not imperialist, they’re just leftist!” He’s deserving of a “fell for it again” award, but the MAGA crowd has forced us into a supply shortage.
This isn’t happening, though, and expansion is not the same as imperialism as a unique stage of capitalism to begin with. Imperialism is not simply a policy, but something that becomes economically compelled once capitalism reaches a certain stage of development.
Brother, put down the kool-aid for a second. I know America fucking sucks, but the answer is not ANOTHER Imperialist nation with a fascist dictator for a leader, whose economy is built entirely on slave labour of marginalized racial groups.
Again, China isn’t imperialist, and you haven’t explained how they are. The US Empire may be the imperial hegemon, but it isn’t alone, countries like Canada, Germany, France, the UK, etc. are all a part of the imperialist system. All have reached the monopoly stage of capitalism, and dealt with saturated domestic markets by shifting from commodity export to capital export as the driving force of their economies.
Further, Xi Jinping is not a fascist, nor a dictator. Xi Jinping is elected and not uncontestable, and Fascism is when a capitalist system finds itself in crisis, and so employs the methods of colonialism that used to be external internally. In other words, the country starts treating the populace the same way it treats its colonies. This is what happened in Italy, Germany, and the US.
Finally, slave labor is illegal in China, the backbone of the economy is in huge State Owned Enterprises. Slavery itself isn’t even conducive to industrial environments to begin with, which is why it was abolished with the rise of large industry. The American Civil War was largely about industrial wage labor vs. agrarian slavery, not about morals. The north wanted more wage-laborers. In China, the majority of labor is employed in factories for real wages largely comparable to European levels when adjusted to Purchasing Power Parity.
I feel like Cowbee’s opinions only work if you strictly refuse to view reality. It’s very “the sky is purple because alien’s wear silly hats.” Lots of confident, fancy pandering while completely disregarding simply reality.
This is certainly a sweeping dismissal, but you never actually engaged with any of my points, and never fronted any of your own that stand up to simple scrutiny. I could just show you a mirror and it would be a worthy retort.
All in all, why not respond to me? This clearly isn’t a pro-communist space to begin with, so it’s more likely that I’d be shut down than you.
As a “tankie,” I disagree. Those who use the term certainly believe it to be along the lines you describe, I won’t contest that, but in actual use it’s a naked pejorative for all supporters of existing socialism. That support for existing socialism is the key part, not whether or not someone thinks the ideas sound cool, but instead what historical and contemporary movements we support. It isn’t even that those claiming to be socialists but oppose it in practice are more “idealistic,” the key question is on whether or not they support existing socialism.
Neither China nor Russia are imperialist, though. “Tankie” is used against those supportive of socialist states, which also overwhelmingly includes people that don’t believe Russia or China are imperialist.
HAAHAHAHAHAHA, imagine calling Russia non-imperialist. Even the fucking Russian church calls it a holy mission of Russia to spread the Russian realm.
Imperialism is a stage of monopoly capitalism where domestic markets are saturated, and thus you must go outward. In this process, bank capital merges with industrial capital to form finance capital, and this dominates the economy, forcing export of capital rather than commodity. The world itself has already been entirely split up amongst the imperialist powers by World War I, as this was the primary cause behind it.
The Soviet Union was anti-imperialist and anti-colonial, and the dissolution of socialism in the USSR was devastating for all countries involved. As such, even if we were to assume Russia would be imperialist if it could, it inherited no colonies, only a broken economy, and the west had already split the world amongst themselves.
Russia is closer to something like Brazil than an imperialist country like the US, France, Germany, the UK, etc.
@[email protected] for your comment in MeanwhileOnGrad
This isn’t happening, though, and expansion is not the same as imperialism as a unique stage of capitalism to begin with. Imperialism is not simply a policy, but something that becomes economically compelled once capitalism reaches a certain stage of development.
Again, China isn’t imperialist, and you haven’t explained how they are. The US Empire may be the imperial hegemon, but it isn’t alone, countries like Canada, Germany, France, the UK, etc. are all a part of the imperialist system. All have reached the monopoly stage of capitalism, and dealt with saturated domestic markets by shifting from commodity export to capital export as the driving force of their economies.
Further, Xi Jinping is not a fascist, nor a dictator. Xi Jinping is elected and not uncontestable, and Fascism is when a capitalist system finds itself in crisis, and so employs the methods of colonialism that used to be external internally. In other words, the country starts treating the populace the same way it treats its colonies. This is what happened in Italy, Germany, and the US.
Finally, slave labor is illegal in China, the backbone of the economy is in huge State Owned Enterprises. Slavery itself isn’t even conducive to industrial environments to begin with, which is why it was abolished with the rise of large industry. The American Civil War was largely about industrial wage labor vs. agrarian slavery, not about morals. The north wanted more wage-laborers. In China, the majority of labor is employed in factories for real wages largely comparable to European levels when adjusted to Purchasing Power Parity.
This is certainly a sweeping dismissal, but you never actually engaged with any of my points, and never fronted any of your own that stand up to simple scrutiny. I could just show you a mirror and it would be a worthy retort.
All in all, why not respond to me? This clearly isn’t a pro-communist space to begin with, so it’s more likely that I’d be shut down than you.
Mostly I saw it used against campist (US vs Them) people here. Much less often against idealistic socialists or communists.
This might better explain: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Dbkkh6GWn5Y
As a “tankie,” I disagree. Those who use the term certainly believe it to be along the lines you describe, I won’t contest that, but in actual use it’s a naked pejorative for all supporters of existing socialism. That support for existing socialism is the key part, not whether or not someone thinks the ideas sound cool, but instead what historical and contemporary movements we support. It isn’t even that those claiming to be socialists but oppose it in practice are more “idealistic,” the key question is on whether or not they support existing socialism.