He fostered the power of the state, collaborated in systems to deplatform and imprison his own people without crime, and engaged in war in korea (acknowledged that china’s help was requested, but war outside of own borders is imperial conflict). That makes you an imperialist in nature.
(acknowledged that china’s help was requested, but war outside of own borders is imperial conflict)
So when Allied troops were marching in Berlin after Hitler blew his brains out, this is Allies imperialism against Germany? This doesn’t even make sense from a liberal understanding of history lmao
This isn’t imperialism. Note that I didn’t argue about the authoritarian angle. Claiming that Mao is an imperialist is an insane stretch, even by the new standards I’ve been seeing liberals use it for.
Also, really the Korean war fits the bill? You should spend more time reading about what happened in the “forgotten war”, what was happening in South Korea and what the US did to the North Koreans as part of that conflict. Blowback did a good season on it, but I think the thing I find particularly odd about you referencing it as Chinese imperialism is neglecting to acknowledge the entire US involvement in that conflict.
In all honesty you would be better off citing the invasion of Tibet (but even then a coursory reading and understanding of the theocratic fuedalistic state that existed there before this should really dispell a lot of nonsense).
Imperialism is the subordination of external markets for the extractive benefit of an overlord class in the core
It requires total control over a nation’s foreign, legal, financial and military policy to undertake a conscious and planned underdevelopment and deindustrialization policy
Its also requires centralization of local capital in imperial hands, export of said capital to the core, tiers of citizenship, unequal legal rights, enclosure movements, enforced segregation and racialization of populations
None of that describes Mao’s China, but it does describe the majority of euro/anglo states during the twentieth century
He fostered the power of the state, collaborated in systems to deplatform and imprison his own people without crime, and engaged in war in korea (acknowledged that china’s help was requested, but war outside of own borders is imperial conflict). That makes you an imperialist in nature.
So when Allied troops were marching in Berlin after Hitler blew his brains out, this is Allies imperialism against Germany? This doesn’t even make sense from a liberal understanding of history lmao
I don’t think that person has a liberal understanding of history, there’s at least some firmly lodged fascist brainworms at play as well.
I mean looks at West Germany
looks at the swallowing of East Germany 
what happened in the west post war wasnt not imperialism
This isn’t imperialism. Note that I didn’t argue about the authoritarian angle. Claiming that Mao is an imperialist is an insane stretch, even by the new standards I’ve been seeing liberals use it for.
Also, really the Korean war fits the bill? You should spend more time reading about what happened in the “forgotten war”, what was happening in South Korea and what the US did to the North Koreans as part of that conflict. Blowback did a good season on it, but I think the thing I find particularly odd about you referencing it as Chinese imperialism is neglecting to acknowledge the entire US involvement in that conflict.
In all honesty you would be better off citing the invasion of Tibet (but even then a coursory reading and understanding of the theocratic fuedalistic state that existed there before this should really dispell a lot of nonsense).
tbh I thought he’d go with the occupation of Tibet, Xinjiang, etc. Absolutely wild take about the Korean War and wars generally.
The power of the state fucking rules when it throws clowns like you into the pit
Real clown hours who up
lmao real baby-brained shit
You literally dont know what imperialism is
Imperialism is the subordination of external markets for the extractive benefit of an overlord class in the core
It requires total control over a nation’s foreign, legal, financial and military policy to undertake a conscious and planned underdevelopment and deindustrialization policy
Its also requires centralization of local capital in imperial hands, export of said capital to the core, tiers of citizenship, unequal legal rights, enclosure movements, enforced segregation and racialization of populations
None of that describes Mao’s China, but it does describe the majority of euro/anglo states during the twentieth century
What no theory does to an mf. Read Lenin, do some reflection
Do you think it would have been better for China to leave Korea to be destroyed by America?
More importantly: would it have been better for Korea? (The answer is still no)
Ok so you are now defending America’s attempted genocide of the Korean peninsula. Great