RiverRock

That's great, but now that you're here go ahead and answer the question. When a colonized country throws off it's chains, whose fault is it when the colonizer retaliates?

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.

First comment: Responded within five minutes

Second comment: 1 hour later and nowhere to be seen

Imperialism is quite literally the highest stage of capitalism. The way liberals use it is just as a synonym for "aggressive". What definition do you propose that doesn't make like, the D-Day landings imperialist? Downvote isn't mine, btw

We're talking about imperial violence and the poverty it causes. Stop being a defensive child and answer the question. When a colony throws off it's chains, whose fault is it when the colonizer retaliates?

So name one

So what you're saying is, it's Venezuela's fault for being sanctioned and embargoed? Is it Cuba's fault? Was it Vietnam's fault for being attacked by the US? Is it a slave's fault for revolting when the slaver whips them back down?

Name one single socialist revolution that hasn't been immediately attacked by capital. You can't.

Lol you said nothing of the sort and now you're running away shouting random reddit bullshit for cover (what strawman? That doesnt even make sense) because you're acutely aware but too proud to admit that your dumb Marvel-brained bullshit has no basis in reality. Who's freedom? Who's justice? You haven't put five seconds of thought into this and you're talking to people who have considered it for years or decades. You're adorable.

Bay of Piss lmao (because that one guy pissed himself)

"A more standard definition" than the one that's been in use for over a hundred years and accurately describes the dynamic in question? The definition liberals use is both new and entirely vibes-based. It is useless for anything but bringing geopolitical conversations to a screeching halt with murky equivocations. The Marxist definition exists to clarify, while the liberal definition exists to obscure. It's the "socialism is when the government does stuff" of international relations.

Point me to one single socialist revolution that wasn't immediately attacked by capital. Just one. You can't.