OR is an empire always based on enslaving, conquering colonizing raping and forcing your religion/language on another people? And what distinguishes pre capitalist empires like the romans from modern 'modern' empires like the ottomans and british and japanese? And is for example the USA today actually an empire in the classic sense when its de jure imperial holdings are limited to puerto rico etc?
/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect
"The anons of the past have only shitposted on the Internet about the world, in various ways. The point, however, is to change it."
File (): 1727109127706.png (148.73 KB, 420x348, anglo.png)
Is there such a thing as a good empire? OR is an empire always based on enslaving, conquering colonizing raping and forcing your religion/language on another people? And what distinguishes pre capitalist empires like the romans from modern 'modern' empires like the ottomans and british and japanese? And is for example the USA today actually an empire in the classic sense when its de jure imperial holdings are limited to puerto rico etc?
File (): 1727109568111-0.jpeg (10.24 KB, 297x170, IMG_0797.jpeg)
File (): 1727109568111-1.jpeg (6.32 KB, 275x183, IMG_0796.jpeg)
>>1956647 (OP)
All empires are barbaric in nature anon. Political unions based on the gradual economic and informational integration between societies is much healthier and stabler than any empire built on the deaths of millions.
All empires are barbaric in nature anon. Political unions based on the gradual economic and informational integration between societies is much healthier and stabler than any empire built on the deaths of millions.
>is an empire always based on enslaving, conquering colonizing raping and forcing your religion/language on another people
>is the USA today actually an empire
In essence, yes
>what distinguishes pre capitalist empires like the romans from modern 'modern' empires like the ottomans and british and japanese
A couple hundred years to millenia and, yes, productive forces.
>is the USA today actually an empire
In essence, yes
>what distinguishes pre capitalist empires like the romans from modern 'modern' empires like the ottomans and british and japanese
A couple hundred years to millenia and, yes, productive forces.
>>1956656
This uygha hasn't read imperialism lmao
>>1956647 (OP)
A state by the Marxist definition will always be "bad" in some liberal sense. It exists to crush the exploited classes and to maintain ruling class power.
Liberals call the USSR an "empire", so that would be a good empire, but we all know not to use liberal dictionary.
This uygha hasn't read imperialism lmao
>>1956647 (OP)
A state by the Marxist definition will always be "bad" in some liberal sense. It exists to crush the exploited classes and to maintain ruling class power.
Liberals call the USSR an "empire", so that would be a good empire, but we all know not to use liberal dictionary.
>Is there such a thing as a good empire? OR is an empire always based on enslaving, conquering colonizing raping and forcing your religion/language on another people?
I mean it's pretty difficult to establish any sort of geopolitical hegemony without force or violence, though the scale and intensity of this can vary, as can the nature of the post-conquest order. Some empires may impose their religion or culture (or both) on the conquered people, others may not. Some may be heavily centralized while others are not. Especially in pre-capitalist empires there's a lot of room for variation.
>And what distinguishes pre capitalist empires like the romans from modern 'modern' empires like the ottomans and british and japanese?
Capitalism. Essentially the imperative of capital accumulation creates a fundamental distinction between pre-capitalist and capitalist empires in that the latter are compelled to aggressively loot a conquered country, stunt its development, and disrupt local ways of life in order to provide labour, raw materials, and captive markets to the metropole. The Mughals ruled India for many centuries, but they didn't ship its wealth back to their homelands in Central Asia. When Alexander arrived in Babylon, he didn't impoverish the country and turn it into a backwater in order to enrich Macedon. Typically such pre-capitalist empires are really just a change of the ruling dynasty rather than bringers of an entirely new social order. Some new conqueror would arrive and simply displace the previous ruling class and install themselves in their place, otherwise leaving the existing social order in place. The average Mesopotamian peasant or city dweller could have lived under the Achaemenids, Alexander, the Seleucids, the Parthians, the Romans, the Sassanids, Arabs, and the Ottomans all without noticing too much of a difference between them as far as their position in the relations of production or way of life. But when the British show up, things are bound to change dramatically as their interest is now not in simply collecting the same taxes and running the country as the previous rulers have done, but squeezing as much out of the country and giving back as little as possible in return in order to fuel the insatiable need for profits.
>And is for example the USA today actually an empire in the classic sense when its de jure imperial holdings are limited to puerto rico etc?
Well of course Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc could all be called remnants of formal colonialism, but the vast, vast majority of the American Empire operates through neo-colonial mechanisms. This is simply a more efficient mechanism to extract profits.
I mean it's pretty difficult to establish any sort of geopolitical hegemony without force or violence, though the scale and intensity of this can vary, as can the nature of the post-conquest order. Some empires may impose their religion or culture (or both) on the conquered people, others may not. Some may be heavily centralized while others are not. Especially in pre-capitalist empires there's a lot of room for variation.
>And what distinguishes pre capitalist empires like the romans from modern 'modern' empires like the ottomans and british and japanese?
Capitalism. Essentially the imperative of capital accumulation creates a fundamental distinction between pre-capitalist and capitalist empires in that the latter are compelled to aggressively loot a conquered country, stunt its development, and disrupt local ways of life in order to provide labour, raw materials, and captive markets to the metropole. The Mughals ruled India for many centuries, but they didn't ship its wealth back to their homelands in Central Asia. When Alexander arrived in Babylon, he didn't impoverish the country and turn it into a backwater in order to enrich Macedon. Typically such pre-capitalist empires are really just a change of the ruling dynasty rather than bringers of an entirely new social order. Some new conqueror would arrive and simply displace the previous ruling class and install themselves in their place, otherwise leaving the existing social order in place. The average Mesopotamian peasant or city dweller could have lived under the Achaemenids, Alexander, the Seleucids, the Parthians, the Romans, the Sassanids, Arabs, and the Ottomans all without noticing too much of a difference between them as far as their position in the relations of production or way of life. But when the British show up, things are bound to change dramatically as their interest is now not in simply collecting the same taxes and running the country as the previous rulers have done, but squeezing as much out of the country and giving back as little as possible in return in order to fuel the insatiable need for profits.
>And is for example the USA today actually an empire in the classic sense when its de jure imperial holdings are limited to puerto rico etc?
Well of course Puerto Rico, Guam, American Samoa, etc could all be called remnants of formal colonialism, but the vast, vast majority of the American Empire operates through neo-colonial mechanisms. This is simply a more efficient mechanism to extract profits.
>such a thing as a good empire
Russia if you ask leftypol
Russia if you ask leftypol
>>1956729
Didn't want to make you cry too much little guy. Perhaps ask Putin to give you some cash for defending him online.
Didn't want to make you cry too much little guy. Perhaps ask Putin to give you some cash for defending him online.
>>1956647 (OP)
>Is there such a thing as a good empire?
the last good empire was probably the byzantines and even then they were universally hated by every other state in the region even by crusaders
>Is there such a thing as a good empire?
the last good empire was probably the byzantines and even then they were universally hated by every other state in the region even by crusaders
>>1956729
Yes. Unless you live in an ethnically homogenous tribal community with a maximum of 40 people, you must be living in an empire.
Yes. Unless you live in an ethnically homogenous tribal community with a maximum of 40 people, you must be living in an empire.
depending on what you mean by "empire". some libs call the PRC imperialist, which by some definitions it is. but communist imperialism is good. it is the only pathway to ultraimperialism
File (): 1727119338170.gif (25.99 KB, 320x326, 1712185423523.gif)
>another morality thread
KILL YOURSELVES
KILL YOURSELVES
>>1956829
if morality doesn't exist there's nothing wrong with having morality threads
if morality doesn't exist there's nothing wrong with having morality threads
Yes, asiatic land empires
[Embed][Proxy]>>1956647 (OP)
The only morally right states are ethnically pure national states where nobody is forcing their language and customs to you.
The only morally right states are ethnically pure national states where nobody is forcing their language and customs to you.
>>1957283
>muh culture
Reminder the culture of any country will be abolished under communism because they are products of specific historical development that will cease to exist in a higher form of society.
>muh culture
Reminder the culture of any country will be abolished under communism because they are products of specific historical development that will cease to exist in a higher form of society.
>>1957291
Nothing says these developments will disappear into the aether once a higher stage of social development is reached tho
Nothing says these developments will disappear into the aether once a higher stage of social development is reached tho
>>1957300
The culture of any country has stayed the same when changing from one mode of production to the other? Are you serious? And we're talking about communists which as NO COUNTRIES, so this point of view is even more insane.
The culture of any country has stayed the same when changing from one mode of production to the other? Are you serious? And we're talking about communists which as NO COUNTRIES, so this point of view is even more insane.
>>1957312
>the basic marxist position that cultures come and go especially as capitalism melts all that is solid into air is "Christ worship" (??)
Take your meds you retarded schizo.
This shithole truly is where brain cells come to die.
>the basic marxist position that cultures come and go especially as capitalism melts all that is solid into air is "Christ worship" (??)
Take your meds you retarded schizo.
This shithole truly is where brain cells come to die.
. . . . . . /leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect
No comments:
Post a Comment