Forgive me if this sounds like I’m being dismissive - I’m not trying to be, just trying to be practical. Anyway, doesn’t this seems like splitting hairs? Any violence initiated with the intent of economic expansion seems unethical and unjust to me. At least, far less just than revolutionary or anti-colonial violence. Labels are just labels, and whether or not something adheres to Lenin’s definition seems to be far less important than the fact that people are dying and suffering because of the greed of the wealthy.
It looks like carefully slicing of the original definition to make a new one were, as long as the political ideology doing the deed is Marxist-Leninist or similar, then taking other people’s shit and land and forcefully making them subject to your control is not “imperialist”.
In other words, the same level of bullshit hypocrisy as when America attacks a Middle Eastern nation claiming to be “freeing” them or Israel mass murders Gazans whilst harping all about how it’s Palestinians who are morally bad because of how they treat homosexuals (who, notice, are being murdered by Israel just as much as the rest of Gazans).
Conquerors and murders twisting and redefining words to claim they’re the good guys.
The original definition came out of 1830s France. Definitions change when understanding evolves. Surely you wouldn’t ding Encyclopedia Brittanica for bastardizing (or “careful slicing”) the definition of imperialism as set forth by the original anti bonapartists?
Forgive me if this sounds like I’m being dismissive - I’m not trying to be, just trying to be practical. Anyway, doesn’t this seems like splitting hairs? Any violence initiated with the intent of economic expansion seems unethical and unjust to me. At least, far less just than revolutionary or anti-colonial violence. Labels are just labels, and whether or not something adheres to Lenin’s definition seems to be far less important than the fact that people are dying and suffering because of the greed of the wealthy.
It looks like carefully slicing of the original definition to make a new one were, as long as the political ideology doing the deed is Marxist-Leninist or similar, then taking other people’s shit and land and forcefully making them subject to your control is not “imperialist”.
In other words, the same level of bullshit hypocrisy as when America attacks a Middle Eastern nation claiming to be “freeing” them or Israel mass murders Gazans whilst harping all about how it’s Palestinians who are morally bad because of how they treat homosexuals (who, notice, are being murdered by Israel just as much as the rest of Gazans).
Conquerors and murders twisting and redefining words to claim they’re the good guys.
The original definition came out of 1830s France. Definitions change when understanding evolves. Surely you wouldn’t ding Encyclopedia Brittanica for bastardizing (or “careful slicing”) the definition of imperialism as set forth by the original anti bonapartists?