There are various responses, but honestly, they don’t deserve a response. Most of them are just anti-communists who are looking for any excuse to dislike the USSR and China (the two main targets of this accusation, and the two largest Marxist-Leninist states to exist). If you explain that “social imperialism” isn’t the argument they want it to be, or explain the detailed history of communist diplomacy, they’re just going to scoff at you, then turn to what-about-isms.
In the case of the USSR, they claim the post-WWII territory growth of the USSR was “an empire wrongly invading other states”, when in reality it was a treaty that brought developing or wartorn Eastern-European countries into the Union, where they could rebuild without coercion from the west. Then they claim the wars with Finland were attempts of Soviet invasion, and again “an empire wrongly invading” Finland. But this, again, isn’t the case. The winter war happened because Finland was growing their relationship with the German state… you know, the Nazi government… Finland’s border was very close to Leningrad, where a large amount of the Soviet military industry was. So, put that into perspective, your neighbour could very likely join the enemy in the upcoming war, and they can reach the most important city for your ability to produce warfighting materials. the Continuation war was exactly the reason the Soviets got into the winter war to begin with, their exact fear happened. Finland and the Nazi government worked together on the Eastern front during WWII. Then, they’ll finish their claims by bringing up the Soviet-Afghan war. To simplify that conflict, the American backed terrorist organization, the Mujahideen (who would later claim the 9/11 terror attacks as their own as the Taliban) attempted to coerce the pro-Soviet Afghanistanian government towards becoming a western-backed nation. For the Soviets, having the Americans have a border directly with the Russian SR would have been a strategic nightmare, so they worked along with the legal Afghanistanian government to stomp out the ‘rebel’ factions. They weren’t trying to force Afghanistan to become an SR, nor trying to force Afghanistan to become communist, they were just keeping the Americans out.
For China, they claim the (rediculous) claims that China is ‘local-imperialist’, and trying to illegally grow its borders into Tibet, India, and the South China Sea. Which… they aren’t doing. If they wanted to wage a war and take Tibet illegally, they could. But they haven’t because their military actions in Tibet were in support of the popular uprising… they were assisting Tibetans so Tibet would get rid of its feudal system. India has a fascist government, the border conflicts have a lot to do with that. and the SCS is China’s coast, they can do whatever they want with it… it’s theirs. Same goes for China’s actions towards Hong Kong. They waited patiently for the UK to return the territory, and are slowly implementing the foundations of socialism into HKer culture. HK legally belongs to China, they’re only trying to reimplement it in the least hurtful way they can. and the people who oppose this are… well… the HKer bourgeoisie and pro-imperialists.
I should add because I forgot, Another one of the accusations of imperialism thrown at China relates to their debt-busting in Africa. No, sending African nations debt-free loans so they can get out of the debt of western banks isn’t “social imperialism”. No, helping African nations build roads and infrastructure so they can gain the foundations of development isn’t “social imperialism”. No, Helping African nations build hospitals and financing the building efforts isn’t “social imperialism”
the Anarchists really are just rarin’ to call the greatest humanitarian-aid project of the 21st century (so far) “social imperialism”, just because it’s China who’s leading it.
I’d be willing to bet, if the Americans were building roads and hospitals in Nigeria, the Anarchists would applaud it. But, China does it in Angola, and they’re slinging around terminology they don’t fully understand just so they don’t have to feel wrong about having a hardline hatred for AES.
As a radical anarchist, you can still be a basic chauvinist, but you’re radical about it. China bad, but also US bad except when it would lose me friends to say it. It’s the safe option.
There are various responses, but honestly, they don’t deserve a response. Most of them are just anti-communists who are looking for any excuse to dislike the USSR and China (the two main targets of this accusation, and the two largest Marxist-Leninist states to exist). If you explain that “social imperialism” isn’t the argument they want it to be, or explain the detailed history of communist diplomacy, they’re just going to scoff at you, then turn to what-about-isms.
In the case of the USSR, they claim the post-WWII territory growth of the USSR was “an empire wrongly invading other states”, when in reality it was a treaty that brought developing or wartorn Eastern-European countries into the Union, where they could rebuild without coercion from the west. Then they claim the wars with Finland were attempts of Soviet invasion, and again “an empire wrongly invading” Finland. But this, again, isn’t the case. The winter war happened because Finland was growing their relationship with the German state… you know, the Nazi government… Finland’s border was very close to Leningrad, where a large amount of the Soviet military industry was. So, put that into perspective, your neighbour could very likely join the enemy in the upcoming war, and they can reach the most important city for your ability to produce warfighting materials. the Continuation war was exactly the reason the Soviets got into the winter war to begin with, their exact fear happened. Finland and the Nazi government worked together on the Eastern front during WWII. Then, they’ll finish their claims by bringing up the Soviet-Afghan war. To simplify that conflict, the American backed terrorist organization, the Mujahideen (who would later claim the 9/11 terror attacks as their own as the Taliban) attempted to coerce the pro-Soviet Afghanistanian government towards becoming a western-backed nation. For the Soviets, having the Americans have a border directly with the Russian SR would have been a strategic nightmare, so they worked along with the legal Afghanistanian government to stomp out the ‘rebel’ factions. They weren’t trying to force Afghanistan to become an SR, nor trying to force Afghanistan to become communist, they were just keeping the Americans out.
For China, they claim the (rediculous) claims that China is ‘local-imperialist’, and trying to illegally grow its borders into Tibet, India, and the South China Sea. Which… they aren’t doing. If they wanted to wage a war and take Tibet illegally, they could. But they haven’t because their military actions in Tibet were in support of the popular uprising… they were assisting Tibetans so Tibet would get rid of its feudal system. India has a fascist government, the border conflicts have a lot to do with that. and the SCS is China’s coast, they can do whatever they want with it… it’s theirs. Same goes for China’s actions towards Hong Kong. They waited patiently for the UK to return the territory, and are slowly implementing the foundations of socialism into HKer culture. HK legally belongs to China, they’re only trying to reimplement it in the least hurtful way they can. and the people who oppose this are… well… the HKer bourgeoisie and pro-imperialists.
I should add because I forgot, Another one of the accusations of imperialism thrown at China relates to their debt-busting in Africa. No, sending African nations debt-free loans so they can get out of the debt of western banks isn’t “social imperialism”. No, helping African nations build roads and infrastructure so they can gain the foundations of development isn’t “social imperialism”. No, Helping African nations build hospitals and financing the building efforts isn’t “social imperialism”
the Anarchists really are just rarin’ to call the greatest humanitarian-aid project of the 21st century (so far) “social imperialism”, just because it’s China who’s leading it.
I’d be willing to bet, if the Americans were building roads and hospitals in Nigeria, the Anarchists would applaud it. But, China does it in Angola, and they’re slinging around terminology they don’t fully understand just so they don’t have to feel wrong about having a hardline hatred for AES.
As a radical anarchist, you can still be a basic chauvinist, but you’re radical about it. China bad, but also US bad except when it would lose me friends to say it. It’s the safe option.
deleted by creator