What I hate with this is that is defines that the army itself is good or bad. But in reality it is what it is used for.
If its actually used for defence, then it’s very honorable. When it’s used as a tool to exploit resources to the rich, (aka generally being the aggressor), it’s not.
Can you explain why some of the nordic countries, i.e. Norway, Sweden, Denmark are part of the imperial core while Finland, Iceland, Greenland are not? I can put color on a white map too, doesn’t mean it portrays a real issue adequately. Also wtf, why is Portugal not part of the imperial core?
The map is a reference to the one you see whenever just about any international issue comes up and the same crew are all in agreement, I’m not actually positive what specific issue this map was taken from.
The website has a more serious explainer (with a couple versions of the map) but I’m with you, Iceland and Portugal and Finland are core countries probably. The real answer is that it’s fluid and historically contingent, not set in stone. It’s a question of how your economy develops and how it relates to ‘peripheral’ countries that are primarily extracted from, not a literal list pulled off an emoji.
I looked through that article and found it somewhat problematic. Especially the description of core countries as:
They have strong state institutions, a powerful military and powerful global political alliances.
For example, Iceland does not even have a military, but can still be part of capitalist neo-colonialism as part of the “imperial core”. Even so, one should also keep in mind that Iceland historically had been under Denmark’s dominion and it is wrong to say that it has been a primary benefactor of classic colonialism leading to the rise of western powers in modern history. On the other hand, Portugal has been a strong colonial power historically. Still, the development index of Iceland is way higher and I would argue there are lots of factors in play as to why, and one cannot say that there is a direct equivalence between development index and imperialism. Both Norway, Iceland and Finland gained independence in the 20th century, never had proper colonies and are part of the economic elite. Norway is still in large an economy based around export of natural resources, which is atypical for being an imperial core member. I often feel that many facts like these are overlooked in discussions of imperial cores in favor of simplistic ideas such as equivocating HDI and imperialism. Can we not have better discussions around the mechanics of modern imperialism than throwing around a map and calling out people for not being intimate with the idea of an imperial core, an idea whose simplicity makes itself highly flawed?
I agree that I gave a simplistic answer, you can read literal books about it. But Iceland, as an example, does actually have a history of being closely tied to the military of the US and the UK voluntarily, I think Greenland is actually a better candidate for peripheral than Iceland. And realistically it’s going to be more of a spectrum than a binary, you’re usually going to fall somewhere in the middle rather than being on the extreme end like the US and Israel.
And even then you might have internal dynamics that complicate it. Parts of the US (Appalachia, “Indian Country”) are clearly peripheral within the US economy and subject to exploitation that other areas are not. So agreed, it’s complicated.
Dialectics as a method warns us against assumptions that “the state of things” is static, these things are always changing. But I think there’s value in the basic observation that world economic systems work in tension, where opposed interests are not equally met in a mutually beneficial exchange a la neoliberal dogma. Even if you have to acknowledge that it is much more complicated than “it’s the same map every time” I think the concept is useful.
What would you say is a better way of talking about this sort of thing?
I think what bugs me (generally, not you so much specifically) is what I perceive to be so many ideas conflated into one. One can talk about a lot of different issues under the “imperial core” label, but I think one should be careful about considering who one talks about as imperial core according in context of the issue in question, since the imperial core is not a homogeneous group in a lot of matters, much like any other collection of countries. In particular, I think it is important to allow for some more varied terms of imperial core, else risking falling into a false dichotomy. I see that it might look pretty similar from a global south perspective, but I believe it is helpful to be more nuanced in the approach about who are imperial core to better analyze and understand the mechanics of the imperialism in play.
Unironically yes. The development in the imperial core came at the expense of the rest of the world, that’s what the term is referring to, the part of the world economy that is accumulating through imperialism the wealth and resources of the whole planet.
Because you get to a communist society with thoughts and prayers…
This is you…
“Oh no dont infiltrate and dismantle our preferred system of production with the forces of reaction… or ill have to write a strongly worded letter as I wouldn’t want tobe authoritarian.”
But war means more than sacrificing your body or personal reputation. War is giving up your whole personal conscience to fight for what the group believes is the most direct action in response to an event
Hey, im not trying to be rude or anything I just wanna quickly say that honor is a fiction typically used by the rich and powerful to manipulate the young and well-meaning into becoming fucked up stormtroopers for capital.
In modern context, sure. In a wider anthropological historic context, no. My understanding of honor as a social concept, though I do not have proper academic sources to back this, is that it works in lieu of a central force of government enforcing laws and common rule. I.e. non centralized governance such as that of say the Norse people of old, had very strong etiquette of honor, the lack of which implied social status that would be worse to the one living than them dying. That meant weird things like a story of a man who robbed a house, realized they were doing something dishonorable (read illegal), went back and challenged the man who owned the house, killed them in combat and then stole their stuff. Just like laws it imposes rules on people, in this weird case murder in combat is better than theft, but still a rule. I would argue this notion of honor has existed across different societies for a long time, due to general absence of centralized governance, and has in modern times, relatively speaking on an anthropological timeline, been adopted and exploited by centralized powers to further control the populace, in the very real way you talk about.
I feel your answer lacks any sort of nuance. People join the military for financial reasons as well.
Broke as fuck and need somewhere to stay, get food and possibly get an education or career? Military.
Almost doesn’t matter your background, you can probably get in and stay as much as you like.
The US system makes the military a good back up option for the poor.
I don’t like how the US uses our military, but i also understand that those in there aren’t necessarily happy with their options either.
If there existed a alternative system like the military (work, pay, food, housing, education, career), people would probably join that over risking dying or having to kill people.
That is the issue with hating the troops proles doing the fighting. Sometimes they might commit war crimes, but usually there is someone of a higher social strata coercing them into the role, which although doesn’t relieve them of responsibility, is important context.
I wouldn’t call North Korea firing missiles over other sovereign countries very peaceful. As well as China doing troop exercises that obviously prepare for the invasion of Taiwan. I’m sure there are more examples.
The DPRK had literally never been to war outside its territory; it’s not a dove but at least it hasn’t invaded multiple sovereign countries like its southern cousin.
China does troop exercises like every single other country in the world.
I mean as long as you consider South Korea part of their territory, sure. There was though the Korean War, where North Korea invaded South Korea. Of course it’s not on the same level as South Korea, but I would imagine that’s more because they literally can’t, they have no resources for it, not because they’re amazingly peaceful people.
The north didn’t invade the south though, no Koreans agreed that the US supported parallel was a permanent division of the country, both North and South fully intended to create a united Korea. Tens of thousands of Koreans were already dead from purges and suppression of uprisings in the south when the operation started. It was literally an ongoing civil war that had momentarily frozen.
I’m not sure on what information you base this claim, but as far as I know the 38th parallel was agreed upon because both the udssr and the US wanted total occupation of Korea for themselves, but they both wanted to potentially avoid an armed conflict so tried a compromise.
Then the north korean part, supported by China and unofficially by the soviet union, invaded the south to establish total control.
No North Korea claims descend from the People’s Republic of Korea and like in Germany, the US and UDSSR agreed upon an eventual neutral zone.
The North invaded the South after the US sponsored regime began killing socialist uprisings, essentially protecting its citizens.
Are you talking about that time they launched a missile over the least populated possible part of Japan as part of a test? What are they supposed to do, just not advance their tech? They’re surrounded, they’ve got to launch them over somebody and they did it the safest way they could.
You can’t invade your own territory. By Chinese and Taiwanese law, internationally recognized by the UN (and even the US, as asserted by Blinken the last time he was in China to pretend to be sorry), Taiwan is Chinese territory.
In general I think you are right, but I was also under the impression that the NATO intervention in Bosnia helped prevent ethnic cleansing, which if true is a honorable thing.
If you wait til you are attacked, you may not be trained or ready enough to actually defend your country from the attack. You can still join in times of peace with intentions of defense for the future, helping with disaster relief, and providing international aid.
One can’t join the military in order to prevent attacks and be ready for potential attacks? That doesn’t make any sense. You think armies can just spring into existence the moment an attack occurs?
The people who wrote the US Constitution thought exactly that. There was no provision for standing armies in that document and there is a record of discussion as to why. (See Art1.S8.Cl12)
The idea of preventing attacks is like prosecuting thought crime with deadly force, it just makes you the bad guy and is used to justify aggressive behavior in return.
What I hate with this is that is defines that the army itself is good or bad. But in reality it is what it is used for. If its actually used for defence, then it’s very honorable. When it’s used as a tool to exploit resources to the rich, (aka generally being the aggressor), it’s not.
joining the army in the Imperial core will always be bad and make the troop/vet complicit in the countless deaths and destruction
Wtf is the “imperial core”
Thanks this helped
Countries that are doing the marxist definition of imperialism basically.
You best start believing in Imperial cores… you’re in one!
It’s always the same map.
Can you explain why some of the nordic countries, i.e. Norway, Sweden, Denmark are part of the imperial core while Finland, Iceland, Greenland are not? I can put color on a white map too, doesn’t mean it portrays a real issue adequately. Also wtf, why is Portugal not part of the imperial core?
The map is a reference to the one you see whenever just about any international issue comes up and the same crew are all in agreement, I’m not actually positive what specific issue this map was taken from.
The website has a more serious explainer (with a couple versions of the map) but I’m with you, Iceland and Portugal and Finland are core countries probably. The real answer is that it’s fluid and historically contingent, not set in stone. It’s a question of how your economy develops and how it relates to ‘peripheral’ countries that are primarily extracted from, not a literal list pulled off an emoji.
I looked through that article and found it somewhat problematic. Especially the description of core countries as:
For example, Iceland does not even have a military, but can still be part of capitalist neo-colonialism as part of the “imperial core”. Even so, one should also keep in mind that Iceland historically had been under Denmark’s dominion and it is wrong to say that it has been a primary benefactor of classic colonialism leading to the rise of western powers in modern history. On the other hand, Portugal has been a strong colonial power historically. Still, the development index of Iceland is way higher and I would argue there are lots of factors in play as to why, and one cannot say that there is a direct equivalence between development index and imperialism. Both Norway, Iceland and Finland gained independence in the 20th century, never had proper colonies and are part of the economic elite. Norway is still in large an economy based around export of natural resources, which is atypical for being an imperial core member. I often feel that many facts like these are overlooked in discussions of imperial cores in favor of simplistic ideas such as equivocating HDI and imperialism. Can we not have better discussions around the mechanics of modern imperialism than throwing around a map and calling out people for not being intimate with the idea of an imperial core, an idea whose simplicity makes itself highly flawed?
I agree that I gave a simplistic answer, you can read literal books about it. But Iceland, as an example, does actually have a history of being closely tied to the military of the US and the UK voluntarily, I think Greenland is actually a better candidate for peripheral than Iceland. And realistically it’s going to be more of a spectrum than a binary, you’re usually going to fall somewhere in the middle rather than being on the extreme end like the US and Israel.
And even then you might have internal dynamics that complicate it. Parts of the US (Appalachia, “Indian Country”) are clearly peripheral within the US economy and subject to exploitation that other areas are not. So agreed, it’s complicated.
Dialectics as a method warns us against assumptions that “the state of things” is static, these things are always changing. But I think there’s value in the basic observation that world economic systems work in tension, where opposed interests are not equally met in a mutually beneficial exchange a la neoliberal dogma. Even if you have to acknowledge that it is much more complicated than “it’s the same map every time” I think the concept is useful.
What would you say is a better way of talking about this sort of thing?
I think what bugs me (generally, not you so much specifically) is what I perceive to be so many ideas conflated into one. One can talk about a lot of different issues under the “imperial core” label, but I think one should be careful about considering who one talks about as imperial core according in context of the issue in question, since the imperial core is not a homogeneous group in a lot of matters, much like any other collection of countries. In particular, I think it is important to allow for some more varied terms of imperial core, else risking falling into a false dichotomy. I see that it might look pretty similar from a global south perspective, but I believe it is helpful to be more nuanced in the approach about who are imperial core to better analyze and understand the mechanics of the imperialism in play.
High HDI gang
Unironically yes. The development in the imperial core came at the expense of the rest of the world, that’s what the term is referring to, the part of the world economy that is accumulating through imperialism the wealth and resources of the whole planet.
Nothing ironic about my post to begin with
Good thing Star Wars isn’t real.
The original movies were inspired by WWII.
Starship Troopers isn’t real, but that doesn’t mean the right wing militarism it satirises isn’t very much real.
The Handmaid’s Tale isn’t real, but that doesn’t mean the Christian fundamentalism it references isn’t very much real.
1984 isn’t real, but that doesn’t mean that the totalitarianism it references isn’t very much real.
Avatar isn’t real, but that doesn’t mean that the colonialism is references isn’t very much real.
Now, you’re free to find Star Wars stupid or shallow. You’re free to find it childish, because it appeals to a young audience.
But suggesting Star Wars comparisons automatically have no merit simply because ‘it’s not real’ is, to be blunt, stupid.
Um, it’s not a Star Wars reference tho
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Core_countries
K tankie
deleted by creator
Nah facts let’s see it
So authoritative. Tankie
deleted by creator
Nah, most people i disagree with are just people I disagree with.
The people who want to try and tell me what to do like they have authority to do so are Tankies.
Y’know that term for authoritarians who want to force people to do things regardless of what the ordinary person wants to do.
So… You, you tankie McTankerson.
jew
communist
marxist
maga troll
shill
tankie
NPC \
deleted by creator
K, Tankie
Also I have no problems with jews or communists.
Only authoritarians like the rest of that list except shill.
Because you get to a communist society with thoughts and prayers…
This is you… “Oh no dont infiltrate and dismantle our preferred system of production with the forces of reaction… or ill have to write a strongly worded letter as I wouldn’t want tobe authoritarian.”
Even simpler than that. People trying to slot sex work/army/any job into “good/bad” columns aren’t worth your attention.
Except for health insurance CEOs, those definitely bad.
Cops and troops are bad. You might even say All of them AB
All Cops Are Bad
The only thing that can stop a bad health insurance CEO is a good health insurance CEO.
But war means more than sacrificing your body or personal reputation. War is giving up your whole personal conscience to fight for what the group believes is the most direct action in response to an event
Hey, im not trying to be rude or anything I just wanna quickly say that honor is a fiction typically used by the rich and powerful to manipulate the young and well-meaning into becoming fucked up stormtroopers for capital.
Well obviously.
In modern context, sure. In a wider anthropological historic context, no. My understanding of honor as a social concept, though I do not have proper academic sources to back this, is that it works in lieu of a central force of government enforcing laws and common rule. I.e. non centralized governance such as that of say the Norse people of old, had very strong etiquette of honor, the lack of which implied social status that would be worse to the one living than them dying. That meant weird things like a story of a man who robbed a house, realized they were doing something dishonorable (read illegal), went back and challenged the man who owned the house, killed them in combat and then stole their stuff. Just like laws it imposes rules on people, in this weird case murder in combat is better than theft, but still a rule. I would argue this notion of honor has existed across different societies for a long time, due to general absence of centralized governance, and has in modern times, relatively speaking on an anthropological timeline, been adopted and exploited by centralized powers to further control the populace, in the very real way you talk about.
Yeah peaceful militaries like Korea’s or China’s or Cuba’s are ok. Anyone joining the US military though if just in it for the war crimes.
I feel your answer lacks any sort of nuance. People join the military for financial reasons as well. Broke as fuck and need somewhere to stay, get food and possibly get an education or career? Military. Almost doesn’t matter your background, you can probably get in and stay as much as you like. The US system makes the military a good back up option for the poor. I don’t like how the US uses our military, but i also understand that those in there aren’t necessarily happy with their options either. If there existed a alternative system like the military (work, pay, food, housing, education, career), people would probably join that over risking dying or having to kill people.
That is the issue with hating the
troopsproles doing the fighting. Sometimes they might commit war crimes, but usually there is someone of a higher social strata coercing them into the role, which although doesn’t relieve them of responsibility, is important context.Not sure if joking or not
What’s the joke?
Calling them peaceful militaries obviously
OK I can see how you can twist reality to call China or the DPRK’s militaries nonpeaceful even though you’d be wrong, but Cuba’s? Really?
I bet. Especially if you don’t count saber rattling, threats and border skirmishes. If you don’t count those then I’m wrong and they’re very peaceful.
Cuba got quite a reputation during the Cold War. It’s pretty interesting https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_interventions_by_Cuba
find me three chinese border skirmishes where the most advanced weapon used wasn’t a stick or a rock.
Interesting conditions
Compared to, say, the US military, which I assume the OP is talking about?
No, just in general sense
China’s military just routinely ethnically cleanses its own people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadian_incident?wprov=sfti1
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_killings_under_communist_regimes?wprov=sfti1
Jfc.
Y’all have such a hard on for Wikipedia
I wouldn’t call North Korea firing missiles over other sovereign countries very peaceful. As well as China doing troop exercises that obviously prepare for the invasion of Taiwan. I’m sure there are more examples.
The DPRK had literally never been to war outside its territory; it’s not a dove but at least it hasn’t invaded multiple sovereign countries like its southern cousin.
China does troop exercises like every single other country in the world.
I mean as long as you consider South Korea part of their territory, sure. There was though the Korean War, where North Korea invaded South Korea. Of course it’s not on the same level as South Korea, but I would imagine that’s more because they literally can’t, they have no resources for it, not because they’re amazingly peaceful people.
The north didn’t invade the south though, no Koreans agreed that the US supported parallel was a permanent division of the country, both North and South fully intended to create a united Korea. Tens of thousands of Koreans were already dead from purges and suppression of uprisings in the south when the operation started. It was literally an ongoing civil war that had momentarily frozen.
I’m not sure on what information you base this claim, but as far as I know the 38th parallel was agreed upon because both the udssr and the US wanted total occupation of Korea for themselves, but they both wanted to potentially avoid an armed conflict so tried a compromise.
Then the north korean part, supported by China and unofficially by the soviet union, invaded the south to establish total control.
No North Korea claims descend from the People’s Republic of Korea and like in Germany, the US and UDSSR agreed upon an eventual neutral zone. The North invaded the South after the US sponsored regime began killing socialist uprisings, essentially protecting its citizens.
deleted by creator
It literally is, it harms no one and acts as deterrent from the US having another imperialist adventure where they kill 20 percent of Koreans.
well, pollution, but libs aren’t ready for that conversation
Fair enough
Are you talking about that time they launched a missile over the least populated possible part of Japan as part of a test? What are they supposed to do, just not advance their tech? They’re surrounded, they’ve got to launch them over somebody and they did it the safest way they could.
So boot camp, as it is full of military exercises, would count as not peaceful?
No, obviously perfectly fine. They are literally doing exercises for a potential invasion to Taiwan though, which is a difference.
You can’t invade your own territory. By Chinese and Taiwanese law, internationally recognized by the UN (and even the US, as asserted by Blinken the last time he was in China to pretend to be sorry), Taiwan is Chinese territory.
deleted by creator
The people rescued from concentration camps would probably disagree.
deleted by creator
Point 2 on your source: American forces liberated concentration camps including Buchenwald, Dora-Mittelbau, Flossenbürg, Dachau, and Mauthausen.
They all helped. Your comment doesn’t invalidate mine.
deleted by creator
In that case I might respectfully suggest looking into an introductory course to logic if you’re at all interested. http://intrologic.stanford.edu/chapters/chapter_01.html
deleted by creator
You made an incredibly bad faith argument with this comment.
The arguments the person you are debating made was that the US Army was involved in liberating people in concentration camps.
Your argument was that British and Soviet forces were involved.
Both statements are true. Yours did not invalidate theirs.
They’d probably disagree with giving the Americans any credit for it.
Well they’d be wrong. The other person even posted a source for that.
Oh I know.
Lol can’t think of a single western country that’s had an “honorable” war post 1945. The US army is unequivocally bad
In general I think you are right, but I was also under the impression that the NATO intervention in Bosnia helped prevent ethnic cleansing, which if true is a honorable thing.
It was a general statement.
I mean, even for defence. Your settling, an argument, the rich and powerful people above you are having. You’re settling it with your life.
If you think your side is right and you’re ready to die fighting then who is anyone else to say that you, the tool, is wrong?
Even if you don’t fight, you’re still selling your body. The forces dictate what medication you have to take.
See, that’s an easy question to answer: Did you, or whoever, join the military while the US, or your country, was being attacked?
If you wait til you are attacked, you may not be trained or ready enough to actually defend your country from the attack. You can still join in times of peace with intentions of defense for the future, helping with disaster relief, and providing international aid.
Joining to support the aggressor makes you the aggressor.
One can’t join the military in order to prevent attacks and be ready for potential attacks? That doesn’t make any sense. You think armies can just spring into existence the moment an attack occurs?
The people who wrote the US Constitution thought exactly that. There was no provision for standing armies in that document and there is a record of discussion as to why. (See Art1.S8.Cl12)
The idea of preventing attacks is like prosecuting thought crime with deadly force, it just makes you the bad guy and is used to justify aggressive behavior in return.