Why does Russian imperialism suddenly mean "when Russia invades a neighboring country"? We have yet to see what a Russia-aligned Ukraine looks like (well, it sucked before the 2014 coup I guess). Imperialism is resource extraction and domination, not necessarily any time a country invades another. I can see calling it imperialism, but when we talk about "American imperialism", we aren't just talking about the US invading Afghanistan or whatever. We're talking about the US controlling Afghanistan and profiting off exploitation of Afghans, and invading for that purpose.
Be careful legitimizing the idea that there's a "Russian imperialism" and "Chinese imperialism" and so on, because it's clearly been used in bad faith as a minimization of American imperialism. Of course it can lose its meaning in the other direction as well, but that's a lot less likely. It should always be tied to the idea of resource extraction or subjugation, not just militarism or war (although in most cases they are the same thing, because war is waged for a purpose).
Lastly, "such and such imperialism" implies that it's a constant phenomenon. But Russia has only gone to war in a couple small regions neighboring Russia, and hasn't really used military or coercive power any where else around the world. That doesn't strike me as a "Russian imperialism", unless you can show Russia's activities worsening people's conditions. On the contrary, they've been an important ally to Veneuzela, Cuba, and other countries.
Anecdotal, but i've seen the term "imperialism" explode in non-ml spaces over the past year or so. It is not at all beyond the reach of my imagination that perhaps an effort has been made to muddy the waters on the term, and dull it's edge.
Out of all the words and movements the CIA would benefit from co-opting, anti-imperialism has to be among the top.
You can call what Russia is doing aggressive, warmongering, hell, call it evil - but call it imperialist and you are insulting the millions who suffered under true Western imperialism for over a century.
I never said the US, I said Western, (UK, France, NL, etc.)
And only the West has met the definition of imperialism. Maybe you could say Imperial Russia did, I don't know enough about the Russian Empire to say, but the Soviet Union and post-soviet Russia have been the victims of imperialism. Invading your neighbours doesn't make you imperialist, even if it's bad.
only the West has met the definition of imperialism
Again, this is ignoring the definition of imperialism. Lenin's five basic characteristics of imperialism:
The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this ‘finance capital’, of a financial oligarchy;
the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and
the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.
Being the victim of imperialism doesn't mean it's impossible to become imperialist, especially after the forced liberalizations of the Russian economy. The post-USSR state of Russia was gutted by the west and much of the wealth and capital moved into the hands of the new Russian bourgeoisie.
Well by that definition you would be right, though points 4 and 5 are kind of flimsy. Russia is not established and entrenched in it's imperialism like the west is, it is not sharing its plunder around like they do, nor is it able to carve up the world as it sees fit as they did in the 20th century.
You have a good point though. I suppose they are "imperialist" as all developed capitalist nations are. But in the context of this war, and the hysteria and hypocrisy we are seeing in the media, I still feel like it muddies the water and lends to an anti-anti-imperialist narrative.
You can call what Russia is doing aggressive, warmongering, hell, call it evil - but call it imperialist and you are insulting the millions who suffered under true Western imperialism for over a century.
You also need to understand the history of Russia as an empire, and its ambitions and politics. And that Russia was a part of western imperialism and has similar ambitions now, even if driven by russian capital..
Russian imperialism has been around before the US was a country. The USSR was a drop in its history and a brief interruption at most. Russia absolutely has imperial ambitions and has material interests in both Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe, that it considers in its "sphere of influence". Subjugation and extraction is absolutely their goal. Russia has only gone to war in a couple of small regions because that is its current capacity. It has been working heavily on the propaganda front in Eastern Europe for decades, and is incredibly influential in governments and organized crime there. And any kind of war is by definition worsening peoples conditions.
You can have multiple empires viying for power and influence, and Russia absolutely is one of them.
The USSR was a drop in its history and a brief interruption at most.
80 years? I'd hardly call that a drop. Three generations jam packed with industrial, social, and geopolitical change in a region running the length of the world's largest continent. And this, right next door to another global superstate going through a similar metamorphosis.
You can complain that the Russians have backpeddled a bit from their 1950s/60s heyday. But we're long past the point of return for the nation. Suggesting this is a "brief interruption" is on par with claiming the USA represents a temporary spat interrupting the millenia-long reign of the continent's native peoples, rather than an inflection point in the continent's history.
Unfortunately, due to the way history works, we tend to forget or ignore the amount of changes in previous eras. And the weight of history does create its momentum. The USSR was a radical change from everything before, but unfortunately it failed and now we are seeing a lot of tendencies from the past reeemerge and somehow adapt to the new conditions.
The settler colonizers have been around here for several centuries now, so it is definitely not on par.
These are Lenin's five basic features of imperialism for you to read and reflect on whether the current capitalist, fascist, state of Russia militarily invading another country to topple its government is an imperialist action or not.
The concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this ‘finance capital’, of a financial oligarchy;
the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and
the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.
Why does Russian imperialism suddenly mean "when Russia invades a neighboring country"? We have yet to see what a Russia-aligned Ukraine looks like (well, it sucked before the 2014 coup I guess). Imperialism is resource extraction and domination, not necessarily any time a country invades another. I can see calling it imperialism, but when we talk about "American imperialism", we aren't just talking about the US invading Afghanistan or whatever. We're talking about the US controlling Afghanistan and profiting off exploitation of Afghans, and invading for that purpose.
Be careful legitimizing the idea that there's a "Russian imperialism" and "Chinese imperialism" and so on, because it's clearly been used in bad faith as a minimization of American imperialism. Of course it can lose its meaning in the other direction as well, but that's a lot less likely. It should always be tied to the idea of resource extraction or subjugation, not just militarism or war (although in most cases they are the same thing, because war is waged for a purpose).
Lastly, "such and such imperialism" implies that it's a constant phenomenon. But Russia has only gone to war in a couple small regions neighboring Russia, and hasn't really used military or coercive power any where else around the world. That doesn't strike me as a "Russian imperialism", unless you can show Russia's activities worsening people's conditions. On the contrary, they've been an important ally to Veneuzela, Cuba, and other countries.
Anecdotal, but i've seen the term "imperialism" explode in non-ml spaces over the past year or so. It is not at all beyond the reach of my imagination that perhaps an effort has been made to muddy the waters on the term, and dull it's edge.
Out of all the words and movements the CIA would benefit from co-opting, anti-imperialism has to be among the top.
You can call what Russia is doing aggressive, warmongering, hell, call it evil - but call it imperialist and you are insulting the millions who suffered under true Western imperialism for over a century.
Limiting our understanding of imperialism to "only what the US does abroad" is ignoring the definition of imperialism.
I never said the US, I said Western, (UK, France, NL, etc.)
And only the West has met the definition of imperialism. Maybe you could say Imperial Russia did, I don't know enough about the Russian Empire to say, but the Soviet Union and post-soviet Russia have been the victims of imperialism. Invading your neighbours doesn't make you imperialist, even if it's bad.
Again, this is ignoring the definition of imperialism. Lenin's five basic characteristics of imperialism:
Being the victim of imperialism doesn't mean it's impossible to become imperialist, especially after the forced liberalizations of the Russian economy. The post-USSR state of Russia was gutted by the west and much of the wealth and capital moved into the hands of the new Russian bourgeoisie.
It's kinda in the name...
Well by that definition you would be right, though points 4 and 5 are kind of flimsy. Russia is not established and entrenched in it's imperialism like the west is, it is not sharing its plunder around like they do, nor is it able to carve up the world as it sees fit as they did in the 20th century.
You have a good point though. I suppose they are "imperialist" as all developed capitalist nations are. But in the context of this war, and the hysteria and hypocrisy we are seeing in the media, I still feel like it muddies the water and lends to an anti-anti-imperialist narrative.
You also need to understand the history of Russia as an empire, and its ambitions and politics. And that Russia was a part of western imperialism and has similar ambitions now, even if driven by russian capital..
Russian imperialism has been around before the US was a country. The USSR was a drop in its history and a brief interruption at most. Russia absolutely has imperial ambitions and has material interests in both Ukraine and the rest of Eastern Europe, that it considers in its "sphere of influence". Subjugation and extraction is absolutely their goal. Russia has only gone to war in a couple of small regions because that is its current capacity. It has been working heavily on the propaganda front in Eastern Europe for decades, and is incredibly influential in governments and organized crime there. And any kind of war is by definition worsening peoples conditions.
You can have multiple empires viying for power and influence, and Russia absolutely is one of them.
80 years? I'd hardly call that a drop. Three generations jam packed with industrial, social, and geopolitical change in a region running the length of the world's largest continent. And this, right next door to another global superstate going through a similar metamorphosis.
You can complain that the Russians have backpeddled a bit from their 1950s/60s heyday. But we're long past the point of return for the nation. Suggesting this is a "brief interruption" is on par with claiming the USA represents a temporary spat interrupting the millenia-long reign of the continent's native peoples, rather than an inflection point in the continent's history.
Unfortunately, due to the way history works, we tend to forget or ignore the amount of changes in previous eras. And the weight of history does create its momentum. The USSR was a radical change from everything before, but unfortunately it failed and now we are seeing a lot of tendencies from the past reeemerge and somehow adapt to the new conditions.
The settler colonizers have been around here for several centuries now, so it is definitely not on par.
These are Lenin's five basic features of imperialism for you to read and reflect on whether the current capitalist, fascist, state of Russia militarily invading another country to topple its government is an imperialist action or not.