especially by a country and especially unprovoked.
Economically or militarily.
D-day wouldn’t be included because the goal wasn’t expansion. Though I would be very surprised if the usa and Europe hadn’t perpetrated many acts that should be included during the full course of the war.
And of course you can get into the argument of cultural imperialism as well
For sure, but there are a few problems with that definition. The first is that it doesn’t apply to the Russian intervention in Ukraine that started this conversation, which is neither unprovoked nor being done to expand Russian territory.
The second is that it only includes atate actions meant to take territory in an official capacity, while many imperialist actions have been carried out under the auspices of private companies like Haliburton, Dole, the United Fruit Company, and the Dutch East India Company.
The third is that we already have the term Expansionist, which is perfectly fine and general enough for both capitalist and non-capitalist actions, while Imperialism describes a specific dynamic that arises from specifically capitalist causes.
The second is that it only includes atate actions meant to take territory in an official capacity, while many imperialist actions have been carried out under the auspices of private companies like Haliburton, Dole, the United Fruit Company, and the Dutch East India Company.
For the record, my stated definition does not limit it. When “especially” is used in definitions, it’s not stated as a limiter but rather to show it primarily applies to as such.
which is neither unprovoked nor being done to expand Russian territory
This is a fundamental disagreement. Especially in regards to saying it’s not to expand their territory as a goal.
One interesting thing I find with lemmy. Is equating ownership existing with capitalism. Presumably because that’s how it’s portrayed in communist literature.
aggression with an expansionist agenda.
especially by a country and especially unprovoked.
Economically or militarily.
D-day wouldn’t be included because the goal wasn’t expansion. Though I would be very surprised if the usa and Europe hadn’t perpetrated many acts that should be included during the full course of the war.
And of course you can get into the argument of cultural imperialism as well
For sure, but there are a few problems with that definition. The first is that it doesn’t apply to the Russian intervention in Ukraine that started this conversation, which is neither unprovoked nor being done to expand Russian territory.
The second is that it only includes atate actions meant to take territory in an official capacity, while many imperialist actions have been carried out under the auspices of private companies like Haliburton, Dole, the United Fruit Company, and the Dutch East India Company.
The third is that we already have the term Expansionist, which is perfectly fine and general enough for both capitalist and non-capitalist actions, while Imperialism describes a specific dynamic that arises from specifically capitalist causes.
For the record, my stated definition does not limit it. When “especially” is used in definitions, it’s not stated as a limiter but rather to show it primarily applies to as such.
This is a fundamental disagreement. Especially in regards to saying it’s not to expand their territory as a goal.
One interesting thing I find with lemmy. Is equating ownership existing with capitalism. Presumably because that’s how it’s portrayed in communist literature.
Wasn’t it? They intended to take German territory to expand France, Belgium, the Netherlands, etc.