The data is coming from the world’s largest democracy perception study, published by the Alliance of Democracies Foundation (a Danish-based non-profit organisation).
The data is coming from the world’s largest democracy perception study, published by the Alliance of Democracies Foundation (a Danish-based non-profit organisation).
Is Brazil imperialist? Is India imperialist? They are “that big”, no?
Brazil, yes. India, I’m not informed but my bet would be obviously yes, no way such a country hasn’t developed imperialist practices.
I think you’re using “Imperialism” to describe something fubdamentally and entirely different from what Socialists consider Imperialism to be. Would you mind explaining what you think Imperialism is?
They did: “imperialism is when big country”, not very surprising definition given their instance:
Yea, I’m hoping they realize they are tripping over themselves just to be a contrarion, but I think that’s a lost cause now.
I consider imperialism putting your hands in someone else’s land, basically speaking.
What’s YOUR definition?
Gotcha, so your definition is focused entirely on force. I don’t think this definition fits, though, not in prior forms of Imperialism like the Roman Empire or British Empire, and not for modern Imperialism dominated by the US Empire, as it makes no mention of extraction or analysis of why Imperialism exists. For example, the Union defeating the Confederacy, or the Soviets taking Berlin, are both “Imperialism” in your definition.
What Socialists refer to as Imperialism is a form of international extraction. I already linked this Prolewiki article for you, but here’s the basics:
The PRC, India, Brazil, etc do not fit this, but Western countries absolutely do, especially the US Empire.
Ahahahah no no, the Soviet invading Berlin isn’t imperialism for me. Oppressing neighbors is though, like Tibet to make a classic example.
By your definition, it was, though. The PLA liberating Tibet from a slave-driven feudalism isn’t Imperialism either, especially considering the PRC doesn’t underdevelop Tibet and use it as a hub of extraction.
The world doesn’t depend on MY definitions, luckily.
Also that is still imperialism, no matter how hard you try to come up with a definition that can fit your narrative. Sorry.
By what metric? What are you talking about? You’re using a definition of Imperialism that not even liberals use, so when we say “China isn’t Imperialist” and you claim it is by using metrics you invent, we are talking past each other, not to each other.
How the fuck Brazil is imperialist?
They are very confused.
Hey they taught me Brazil was a Portuguese colony, they can’t be bad guys too!!1!
You didn’t explain how Brazil is Imperialist, you just made fun of the person asking you to elaborate. You’re deeply unserious.
You didn’t answer.
I’m Brazilian btw
Rio de la Plata
You talking about the wars in the region? The wars waged by the Empire of Brazil? The Empire controlled by Portuguese monarchs that fled from Europe due to Napoleon.
The Brazil’s constitution changed eight times since the Empire, the government changed I don’t know many times, the country Brazil is not the same as the Empire of Brazil.
The majority of Brazilians hate the wars, only some right wing military praise the shit that happen during the time(the same military that controlled the country during the 80s)
They’re just a western chauvanist trying to absolve themselves of guilt by inventing reasons to bring others down to their level, regardless of bearing on reality.
The wars that waged even after the declaration of independence of Brazil, though.
Few years after there was the Paraguayan war.
I totally agree now Brazil is different, just saying they tried their imperialist moves, just like others.
Commanded by a prince, counts, viscounts, marquess and a Duke. Portuguese monarchy.