Was it imperialism?
Was it imperialism?
Hudson Gonzalez
Other urls found in this thread:
Austin Sanchez
GEE COMRADE, HOW COME COMRADE QUARTERMASTER LETS YOU HAVE TWO RPGS?
Noah Wood
Unequal trade, so we need fair trade deals.
Jaxon Sanchez
Looks like a light anti-tank missile rather than an RPG.
Alexander Lee
that picture is from dagestan in 1996, those are troops form the russian federation
Jackson Powell
Are you sure? Why is there a red star on the helicopter? Was that standard for RF military vehicles in the 90s?
Kayden Adams
Extraction of surplus value, labor power and/or resources from one country to another which is enforced through polticial might.
Levi Thompson
It's standard RF insignia now.
William King
This is a shitty definition, it doesn't cover countries that are subjected to imperial forces for strategic purposes like South Korea.
Adam Thomas
Well okay, but was it?
Leo Jenkins
It's a short definition. Countries like South Korea are not under imperialism, but tools of imperialism. You can't really say that South Korea was a victim of imperialism since the US propped then up rather than extracted stuff out of them.
Imperialism doesn't mean "everytime soldiers go somewhere". You can occupy a country and built it up - still a shitty move but not necessarily imperialism. Imperialism necessitates an economic, quasi-colonial relationship which is focused on the extraction of resources.
Of course, the definition of imperialism relies on a proper definition of a nation as well. You could very well argue that the PoC in the USA were their own nation until segregation ended. Therefore, the US was imperialist against the black nation within their own borders since its inception.
This was in-length discussed at /marx/ recently:
Austin Mitchell
Did the Soviet presence in Afghanistan fit that definition? And for that matter, does the current US presence there fit it?
Josiah Sanders
In both cases: Probably yes.
Both went into Afghanistan with an imperialist agenda, even though neither got much out of it. Afghanistan was always a juicy strategical focus point, soviets probably wanted to have land access to India and a presence on the silk road to mess with China - Tsar played the same game with the British 150 years ago. I'd still rate the Soviet invasion qualitately a little less imperialist than the US one, since they supported a strong secular progressive communist party, I'd doubt the USSR would have extracted much from it if they had been successful.
USA is a different story, if those conspiracies about Cheney wanting to the have a pipeline there are correct, then the USA engaged in some hardcore late stage imperialism there. Whatever, I don't believe the official narrative about muh Bin Laden not for a second.
Grayson Ramirez
That being sad I don't know much about the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, I might he wrong. Considering that the USSR was despite its revisionism and crisis not nearly as depended on imperialist expansion as the US economy, they might not have been imperialist.
Blake Harris
the USA still occupies parts of afghanistan, including many poppy fields
Mason Russell
fuck no
Sebastian Brown
When the mandatory nazbol mushroom ration starts kicking in.
Chase Johnson
no imperialism here m8
Jason Taylor
Really makes you think
Owen King
what about the vietnam war, was that not imperialism?
nothe less the vietnam war was clearly imperialism
Elijah Peterson
yes
Jose Taylor
...
Xavier Brown
Russia still uses the red star today pn modern military equipment
Cooper Mitchell
You're unironically going to get banned for that by our resident tinpot dictator BO.