It’s more because Russia’s interests and economy are Global South-oriented already and against imperial core countries. This has become even more true since the current war started.
Though not as much as USSR-times when they used to fund Vietnam, Bangladesh, Korea, Palestine, Cuba, etc without the profit motive that is necessary under capitalism.
What do you mean imperialist core countries? Russia physically expanding their influence by invading seems pretty imperialist.
And who do you mean by global south? Are you including Australia, New Zealand, India, etc? Or is it just shorthand for the countries who aren’t as close to the US?
Are you saying that some countries want to play the superpowers off each other for maximum gain? If so, I agree with you. And more power to them to some extent, encourage both sides make you a good offer for their friendship.
I mean “Imperialism” in the materialist/marxist sense. Aka economic subjugation, unequal exchange or the import of raw materials from underdeveloped countries and “former” colonies and the export of capital via global monopolies and imperialist institutions like the IMF or World Bank. While not letting those countries be able to create their own advanced industries and use their countries’ resources for themselves by sanctioning, embargo’ing (Cuba, DPRK, etc), coup’ing (Chile, etc), and invading (Libya, etc) those that try (US imperialism).
US has been the de facto leader of the Imperial core since WW2; it was mainly the UK before.
Global South countries are those victims of imperialism, mostly former colonies and modern neocolonies. Naturally, Australia is not part of that since it’s now owned and run by those colonizers. It’s an economic/political term, not a geographical one.
Russia though the Soviet Union also had a trade network and sphere of influence, would that have a similar situation? China is currently building a sphere of influence to leverage as well. Are those categorically different from imperialism as you define it?
I agree the US has had/still has unfair/unequal trade relationships. (I am against them) But I don’t think it’s uniquely or primarily the US and it’s friends problem. I think it’s what governments looking out for solely their own interest.
USSR did not practice imperialism in the Marxist/Leninist sense - ie. they did not export capital by keeping countries from industrializing, nor did they have a financial oligarchy like imperial core countries.
China does not enforce harsh austerity policies that the US does via neocolonial institutions like the IMF or World Bank, and loans for the infrastructure they build in partner countries which are necessary for industrialization are often straight up forgiven for long-term cooperation.
Even modern capitalist Russia does not have the global monopolies and complete control over the global financial system that the US does by its dollar hegemony.
the US has had/still has unfair/unequal trade relationships
This is… putting it very lightly. The US government literally coups, invades and destroys countries to keep them from industrializing and developing on their own.
It has waged countless wars across the Middle East and Asia (Iraq, Vietnam, etc), coup’ing Africa’s and Latin America’s governments (Chile, Congo, etc), keeping them unstable and unable to unite and stand on their own so they have no choice but to rely on those exploitative institutions, and brutally sanctioning and embargo’ing those that do manage to escape their grasp (Cuba, DPRK, Iran etc)
This isn’t an issue of the US government being more “evil” or just worse than others, it’s a systemic problem of capitalism and Europe and later Japan’s brutal colonization of the rest of the world for the last few hundred years which, contrary to what these governments want people to think, has not stopped but merely changed its form to neocolonialism.
they did not export capital by keeping countries from industrializing, nor did they have a financial oligarchy like imperial core countries.
Disagree. They definitely did repress the Soviet block counties for their own good. And they definitely had an oligarchy, though it wasn’t as straightforwardly financial.
But it sounds like you’re using definitions that try to exclude countries that are nominally communist from terms like imperialist, so I can’t really do much to argue with your definitions. I’d just say that your definitions aren’t what I use or what are commonly used.
What do you mean “repressed”? Soviet states industrialized because of the USSR and its heavy focus on rapid industrialization.
The current extraction of raw materials from post-Soviet states is because of the forced privatization and de-industrialization under capitalism. Which included Russia until very recently; they’ve started nationalizing some of these industries again, though now under capitalist rule and primarily for their benefit.
I don’t see how Russia would be a safer bet though. They’re not reliable at all right now.
It’s more because Russia’s interests and economy are Global South-oriented already and against imperial core countries. This has become even more true since the current war started.
Though not as much as USSR-times when they used to fund Vietnam, Bangladesh, Korea, Palestine, Cuba, etc without the profit motive that is necessary under capitalism.
What do you mean imperialist core countries? Russia physically expanding their influence by invading seems pretty imperialist.
And who do you mean by global south? Are you including Australia, New Zealand, India, etc? Or is it just shorthand for the countries who aren’t as close to the US?
Are you saying that some countries want to play the superpowers off each other for maximum gain? If so, I agree with you. And more power to them to some extent, encourage both sides make you a good offer for their friendship.
I mean “Imperialism” in the materialist/marxist sense. Aka economic subjugation, unequal exchange or the import of raw materials from underdeveloped countries and “former” colonies and the export of capital via global monopolies and imperialist institutions like the IMF or World Bank. While not letting those countries be able to create their own advanced industries and use their countries’ resources for themselves by sanctioning, embargo’ing (Cuba, DPRK, etc), coup’ing (Chile, etc), and invading (Libya, etc) those that try (US imperialism).
US has been the de facto leader of the Imperial core since WW2; it was mainly the UK before.
How Capitalism robs the Developing World
Why Do Poor Countries Stay Poor?
Unequal Exchange: A Study of the Imperialism of Trade by Arghiri Emmanuel
Global South countries are those victims of imperialism, mostly former colonies and modern neocolonies. Naturally, Australia is not part of that since it’s now owned and run by those colonizers. It’s an economic/political term, not a geographical one.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Why Do Poor Countries Stay Poor
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I’m open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Russia though the Soviet Union also had a trade network and sphere of influence, would that have a similar situation? China is currently building a sphere of influence to leverage as well. Are those categorically different from imperialism as you define it?
I agree the US has had/still has unfair/unequal trade relationships. (I am against them) But I don’t think it’s uniquely or primarily the US and it’s friends problem. I think it’s what governments looking out for solely their own interest.
USSR did not practice imperialism in the Marxist/Leninist sense - ie. they did not export capital by keeping countries from industrializing, nor did they have a financial oligarchy like imperial core countries.
China does not enforce harsh austerity policies that the US does via neocolonial institutions like the IMF or World Bank, and loans for the infrastructure they build in partner countries which are necessary for industrialization are often straight up forgiven for long-term cooperation.
Even modern capitalist Russia does not have the global monopolies and complete control over the global financial system that the US does by its dollar hegemony.
This is… putting it very lightly. The US government literally coups, invades and destroys countries to keep them from industrializing and developing on their own.
It has waged countless wars across the Middle East and Asia (Iraq, Vietnam, etc), coup’ing Africa’s and Latin America’s governments (Chile, Congo, etc), keeping them unstable and unable to unite and stand on their own so they have no choice but to rely on those exploitative institutions, and brutally sanctioning and embargo’ing those that do manage to escape their grasp (Cuba, DPRK, Iran etc)
This isn’t an issue of the US government being more “evil” or just worse than others, it’s a systemic problem of capitalism and Europe and later Japan’s brutal colonization of the rest of the world for the last few hundred years which, contrary to what these governments want people to think, has not stopped but merely changed its form to neocolonialism.
Disagree. They definitely did repress the Soviet block counties for their own good. And they definitely had an oligarchy, though it wasn’t as straightforwardly financial.
But it sounds like you’re using definitions that try to exclude countries that are nominally communist from terms like imperialist, so I can’t really do much to argue with your definitions. I’d just say that your definitions aren’t what I use or what are commonly used.
What do you mean “repressed”? Soviet states industrialized because of the USSR and its heavy focus on rapid industrialization.
The current extraction of raw materials from post-Soviet states is because of the forced privatization and de-industrialization under capitalism. Which included Russia until very recently; they’ve started nationalizing some of these industries again, though now under capitalist rule and primarily for their benefit.
deleted by creator