Hardly imperialistic. Sweden’s stance toward Finland and Norway has always been union rather than protectorate. Sweden did hurt its native population in the North and is still not doing a great job on that front, but imperialism is not the word you’re looking for here.
Yes indeed, they’re part of NATO now, thanks for highlighting that positive development. Any step that can be taken against the russian dictatorship is a good one.
NATO is “defensive” like the IDF is. It’s defensive of imperialist countries that export capital to super-exploit the global south, preventing any backlash from reaching the imperial core. The difference between NATO and the Alliance of Sahel States, for example, is that the countries banding together in NATO all benefit from imperialism, while the Sahel States are banding together to kick out imperialists. Both are millitary alliances, but one is highly reactionary while the other is progressive.
Sure, I guess if you want an invasion of the West to work it’s a bad thing.
The IDF isn’t a fair comparison. They do a whole lot of stuff, unlike NATO which mainly prepares, and much of it does not meet the standard of defence to anyone’s satisfaction but Israel and maybe the US.
Well, that’s a natural place to end, but I’m curious. What would global socialism look like, according to you? If some regional national group wants do do something very not socialist, like I dunno, forced marriages, are they stopped, or allowed to? And what about groups that are almost but not quite a nation, like you tend to find anywhere with a long history?
Imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism defined by the export of finance capital, super-exploitation of subjugated nations, and unequal exchange enforced by state power. NATO was not founded to protect democracy but to secure the geopolitical conditions for Western capital to extract surplus value. The narrative of defending freedom is merely a facade to obscure this class function.
The alliance institutionalized a transatlantic arms market guaranteeing demand for Western arms manufacturers, facilitating finance capital export while enforcing Euro-American hegemony. It standardizes military procurement to ensure profits flow back to core industries, maintaining the superiority required to enforce unequal exchange rates and resource extraction abroad. This is the material function of the organization beyond the rhetoric.
History disproves the democratic pretense immediately. Portugal was a founding member while under a fascist dictatorship, using NATO logistics to wage colonial wars in Africa. France and Belgium, also founders, were violently enforcing colonial rule in Algeria and the Congo at the alliance’s formation. NATO coordinated with these regimes to protect imperial property relations, proving it exists to enforce the global hierarchy that makes super-exploitation possible.
Yes, the famous capitalist society of Ancient Rome.
No, mate. Imperialism is the maintaining and extending of power over foreign nations. NATO does nothing like that.
NATO was not founded to protect democracy but to secure the geopolitical conditions for Western capital to extract surplus value
Ah, OK, so you have no clue what NATO is, got it.
The alliance institutionalized a transatlantic arms market guaranteeing demand for Western arms manufacturers
Where else would the West be buying weapons during the Cold War? Russia? :D
History disproves the democratic pretense immediately
Yeah, because NATO had nothing to do with democracy. Like, what pretence? Where the fuck did you even get that from? Maybe, I don’t know, read the Wiki entry on NATO?
Ancient Rome was an empire. Modern imperialism is a specific stage of capitalist development: export of finance capital, monopoly concentration, unequal exchange enforced by state power. Mixing them up isn’t a gotcha, it just shows complete illiteracy in the realm of political theory.
You dodged the Portugal point entirely. Fascist dictatorship, founding NATO member, using alliance supply chains to wage colonial war in Africa. France and Belgium same deal. If NATO was about “democracy,” how does that fit? Or do we just ignore the actual history?
And on your “buy weapons from Russia?” joke: the USSR applied to join NATO in 1954. They were rejected. The whole point was to have a permanent external threat to justify massive arms spending, lock in Western defense contracts, and discipline allied capitals.
Also wikipedia isn’t a neutral source on US-led institutions. It’s edited by volunteers, heavily influenced by Western narratives, and routinely policed for “fringe” critiques of state power. Citing it as the final word on NATO is like citing a Pentagon press release and calling it independent journalism.
If the argument is just “NATO good because wiki says so,” then yeah, we’re not having the same conversation. But if you want to engage in actual analysis and conversation like an adult, as opposed to shouting talking points ad nauseum like a petulant child I’m all for that.
Modern imperialism is a specific stage of capitalist development: export of finance capital, monopoly concentration
OK, if you mean “imperialism via specifically means of economic pressure”, sure, call it “modern imperialism” or something.
But “imperialism” is what I already said it is. Britain was pushing imperialist agendas before capitalism was a thing. Same with China, Japan, Spain, russia, Germany, France, etc., etc.
You dodged the Portugal point entirely. Fascist dictatorship, founding NATO member, using alliance supply chains to wage colonial war in Africa. France and Belgium same deal. If NATO was about “democracy,” how does that fit? Or do we just ignore the actual history?
I didn’t dodge it. I answered it specifically - you have no clue what NATO is. NATO has nothing to do with what political system is running in a member country. It’s a military alliance. Has nothing to do with democracy.
And on your “buy weapons from Russia?” joke: the USSR applied to join NATO in 1954. They were rejected. The whole point was to have a permanent external threat to justify massive arms spending, lock in Western defense contracts, and discipline allied capitals.
“The murderer asked to be let in the house. He was rejected”.
Stop gobbling up russian propaganda. The threat was USSR. They were the ones who sent tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring. They were the ones who subjugated the conquered countries, and attempted russifying them.
NATO is a defensive pact against that aggression. Members consist only and specifically of countries that asked to join, nobody was forced.
Also wikipedia isn’t a neutral source on US-led institutions. It’s edited by volunteers, heavily influenced by Western narratives, and routinely policed for “fringe” critiques of state power. Citing it as the final word on NATO is like citing a Pentagon press release and calling it independent journalism.
Then how about you just open your eyes to what’s going on in the world. Show me ONE instance of NATO sending tanks to suppress an independence movement in a country.
If the argument is just “NATO good because wiki says so,”
No, the argument is “NATO good because they don’t subjugate or attempt genocide”
But if you want to engage in actual analysis and conversation like an adult, as opposed to shouting talking points ad nauseum like a petulant child I’m all for that.
Oh, look, you’re already nearing the point of flinging personal attacks? One even say: “like a petulant child”? I guess discussion is difficult when you’re arguing against reality.
Hardly imperialistic. Sweden’s stance toward Finland and Norway has always been union rather than protectorate. Sweden did hurt its native population in the North and is still not doing a great job on that front, but imperialism is not the word you’re looking for here.
NATO?
Yes indeed, they’re part of NATO now, thanks for highlighting that positive development. Any step that can be taken against the russian dictatorship is a good one.
NATO is still an imperialist tool.
Yes, the aggressive action of too effectively not letting other people invade you. /s
How dare NATO countries not allow to be invaded?! Don’t they know might is right?
Wait…
NATO is “defensive” like the IDF is. It’s defensive of imperialist countries that export capital to super-exploit the global south, preventing any backlash from reaching the imperial core. The difference between NATO and the Alliance of Sahel States, for example, is that the countries banding together in NATO all benefit from imperialism, while the Sahel States are banding together to kick out imperialists. Both are millitary alliances, but one is highly reactionary while the other is progressive.
Sure, I guess if you want an invasion of the West to work it’s a bad thing.
The IDF isn’t a fair comparison. They do a whole lot of stuff, unlike NATO which mainly prepares, and much of it does not meet the standard of defence to anyone’s satisfaction but Israel and maybe the US.
What I want is for the end of imperialism and the adoption of global socialism. NATO stands on the side preserving imperialism.
Well, that’s a natural place to end, but I’m curious. What would global socialism look like, according to you? If some regional national group wants do do something very not socialist, like I dunno, forced marriages, are they stopped, or allowed to? And what about groups that are almost but not quite a nation, like you tend to find anywhere with a long history?
You either don’t know what NATO is, or you don’t know what “imperialism” means.
Imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism defined by the export of finance capital, super-exploitation of subjugated nations, and unequal exchange enforced by state power. NATO was not founded to protect democracy but to secure the geopolitical conditions for Western capital to extract surplus value. The narrative of defending freedom is merely a facade to obscure this class function.
The alliance institutionalized a transatlantic arms market guaranteeing demand for Western arms manufacturers, facilitating finance capital export while enforcing Euro-American hegemony. It standardizes military procurement to ensure profits flow back to core industries, maintaining the superiority required to enforce unequal exchange rates and resource extraction abroad. This is the material function of the organization beyond the rhetoric.
History disproves the democratic pretense immediately. Portugal was a founding member while under a fascist dictatorship, using NATO logistics to wage colonial wars in Africa. France and Belgium, also founders, were violently enforcing colonial rule in Algeria and the Congo at the alliance’s formation. NATO coordinated with these regimes to protect imperial property relations, proving it exists to enforce the global hierarchy that makes super-exploitation possible.
Yes, the famous capitalist society of Ancient Rome.
No, mate. Imperialism is the maintaining and extending of power over foreign nations. NATO does nothing like that.
Ah, OK, so you have no clue what NATO is, got it.
Where else would the West be buying weapons during the Cold War? Russia? :D
Yeah, because NATO had nothing to do with democracy. Like, what pretence? Where the fuck did you even get that from? Maybe, I don’t know, read the Wiki entry on NATO?
Ancient Rome was an empire. Modern imperialism is a specific stage of capitalist development: export of finance capital, monopoly concentration, unequal exchange enforced by state power. Mixing them up isn’t a gotcha, it just shows complete illiteracy in the realm of political theory.
You dodged the Portugal point entirely. Fascist dictatorship, founding NATO member, using alliance supply chains to wage colonial war in Africa. France and Belgium same deal. If NATO was about “democracy,” how does that fit? Or do we just ignore the actual history?
And on your “buy weapons from Russia?” joke: the USSR applied to join NATO in 1954. They were rejected. The whole point was to have a permanent external threat to justify massive arms spending, lock in Western defense contracts, and discipline allied capitals.
Also wikipedia isn’t a neutral source on US-led institutions. It’s edited by volunteers, heavily influenced by Western narratives, and routinely policed for “fringe” critiques of state power. Citing it as the final word on NATO is like citing a Pentagon press release and calling it independent journalism.
If the argument is just “NATO good because wiki says so,” then yeah, we’re not having the same conversation. But if you want to engage in actual analysis and conversation like an adult, as opposed to shouting talking points ad nauseum like a petulant child I’m all for that.
OK, if you mean “imperialism via specifically means of economic pressure”, sure, call it “modern imperialism” or something.
But “imperialism” is what I already said it is. Britain was pushing imperialist agendas before capitalism was a thing. Same with China, Japan, Spain, russia, Germany, France, etc., etc.
I didn’t dodge it. I answered it specifically - you have no clue what NATO is. NATO has nothing to do with what political system is running in a member country. It’s a military alliance. Has nothing to do with democracy.
“The murderer asked to be let in the house. He was rejected”.
Stop gobbling up russian propaganda. The threat was USSR. They were the ones who sent tanks to suppress the Hungarian Revolution of 1956 and the 1968 Prague Spring. They were the ones who subjugated the conquered countries, and attempted russifying them.
NATO is a defensive pact against that aggression. Members consist only and specifically of countries that asked to join, nobody was forced.
Then how about you just open your eyes to what’s going on in the world. Show me ONE instance of NATO sending tanks to suppress an independence movement in a country.
No, the argument is “NATO good because they don’t subjugate or attempt genocide”
Oh, look, you’re already nearing the point of flinging personal attacks? One even say: “like a petulant child”? I guess discussion is difficult when you’re arguing against reality.
Vatnik?