My concern is that in a global crisis like the complete collapse of the US, China and others would take the opportunity to expand in a similar fashion.

I personally think this is largely a hypothetical at this point. As you say, the BRI isn’t really the same as the historical colonialism/imperialism we’re discussing and I haven’t really seen anything from China that indicates that they have a desire to interfere in the internal affairs of other countries. If anything, they’re often (rightfully, sometimes) accused of not interfering enough internationally against US influence.

I would argue that there is not a substantive material difference between imperialism since the 1900s and Rome. Each replacement empire brings new spins on the same formulas. The US empire isn’t much different at this point than feudal empires of the past, just with monopolies instead of aristocracy.

I would argue there are substantial important differences. Imperialism is different in both form and function than colonialism and neither are the same as the Roman empire. A notable thing about (Western) Rome as an example, though, is that its collapse did not immediately lead to a different empire taking over all its territories. I guess it can be argued that the “barbarian kingdoms” tried, but they failed. The Western Roman Empire faded away and was never unified again.

I think you’re right and we just have a disagreement on the inevitability of empire and the speed at which it would happen. Thank you for discussing, though! /genuine

This user is banned from Hexbear for claiming it’s run by “transzionists.” They uphold Bad Empanada

Thanks, that’s enough of a reason for me to not want to reply to them any further.

but exploitation in Africa is not primarily being done by the US currently so I wouldn’t expect to see massive shakeups there.

Debatable, the US is involved a lot in Africa. So are the Europeans, of course, as well as “Israel” and the gulf monarchies, but all of these are propped up to varying degrees by the American world order (except perhaps the French, but their empire is fading as we speak).

I’m not sure if you meant to imply that China was the primary exploiter of Africa (and I don’t want to assume you were saying that), but if so I disagree with the assertion that any degree of Chinese exploitation which might exist compares with what I’ve described in my previous paragraph (these countries routinely openly topple governments and start/support wars and genocides in Africa for their own benefit - in Sudan being the most well-known current example but not even close to the only one).

I would say that I am extrapolating from basically all of human history rather than doomerism, but I suppose that is a matter of perspective.

I think “all of human history” is a bit of a thought-terminating cliche in this case. Many things throughout history have been aesthetically similar (and in some ways functionally similar), but the material basis and therefore specific mechanisms were different. Imperialism in the financial capital sense (as in Lenin’s description) is a very recent thing, historically speaking (perhaps the past few centuries, approximately).

Ban them for blatant ableism, too. The trolling was already ableist (deliberately communicating in a way intended to cause confusion, disproportionately affecting ND users but of course also incredibly shitty to NT users), but the comment you’re replying to made it blatant.

No. You don’t seem very bright, so I’m not surprised you don’t understand I’m treating you with the seriousness you deserve.

Not content with deliberately communicating in a confusing and hostile manner and refusing to clarify or stop when asked, you’ve now progressed to overt ableism in using “not very bright” as an insult and implying someone not understanding your deliberately incomprehensible method of communication is “not very bright”.

I believe I don’t know why you even bothered to participate in this discussion if this was what you were going to do.

Are you sure you know what a discussion is?

What do you think I’m trying to say?

I have no idea because you chose to be vague instead of making specific claims about which country and leader China supported. Please stop making every sentence a rhetorical question, just say what you mean directly. Regardless, as I said, it’s not relevant. See the quoted paragraph below from my previous reply.

is your stance that someone who says “this specific claim about China is not supported by credible evidence” has to then answer for every single thing any leader in any country ever supported in any way by China has said?

PTB IMO.

Banned for “genocide denial” for pointing out that even NATOpedia admits that the evidence for the genocide an enemy of NATO is accused of is not credible. What do you have to do to avoid being banned? Be more of an Amerikkkan imperialist than the average Wikipedia editor?

https://lemmy.ml/post/41654379/23321470

Here’s a link to my reply to you from 30 minutes ago which addresses every point you bring up here. I’ll copy the relevant parts below.

I notice you prefered to avoid answering my question about foreign leaders who regularly quote fascist intellectuals, intellectuals who openly admired Hitler and Mussolini.

Why do you think it is that you’d rather not answer a question about leaders who regularly quote fascist intellectuals and the countries that support them?

What would you think if someone tried to change the topic when you asked them a question related to polticians quoting fascist intellectuals?

Even if we accept whatever you’re trying to say here completely at face value, is your stance that someone who says “this specific claim about China is not supported by credible evidence” has to then answer for every single thing any leader in any country ever supported in any way by China has said?

Instead you brought up the double genocide, which wasn’t relevant to my question.

What would you think of someone who said there was no evidence of a genocide or ethnic cleansing in Gaza?

Yes, you’re correct that if there was an overwhelming amount of credible evidence from an almost uncountable number of sources (including the people committing genocide bragging about it) it would be different.

There’s no equivalence there. Treating these two things as equivalent minimizes (possibly even rises to the level of denying) the actual genocide.

Eh, I thought I was cross posting

FYI, on Lemmy you can (unlike some websites) edit your post to change the link or remove the link and include all the information in the post body.

What would you think of someone who said there was no evidence of a genocide or ethnic cleansing in Gaza?

Yes, you’re correct that if there was an overwhelming amount of credible evidence from an almost uncountable number of sources (including the people committing genocide bragging about it) it would be different.

There’s no equivalence there. Treating these two things as equivalent minimizes (possibly even rises to the level of denying) the actual genocide.

What would you think of someone who regularly defended a country that supports foreign leaders who regularly quote fascist Hitler and Mussolini supporting intellectuals?

Even if we accept whatever you’re trying to say here completely at face value, is your stance that someone who says “this specific claim about China is not supported by credible evidence” has to then answer for every single thing any leader in any country ever supported in any way by China has said?

Europe invented third world intervention, and after the US took that over from them most of Europe lost most of its ability to do it independantly. Most third world intervention today is done by the US, if the US collapses it won’t be replaced immediately by Europeans who can all of a sudden magically project power into Latin America.

Ask China’s neighbors and any country with fishable ocean how non-expansionist and non-interference they are.

Don’t compare what the US empire does to anything happening in the South China Sea, that’s a ridiculous thing to say. Even the very bad things China has done so far (for example, war with Vietnam) don’t come close to things the US does on a regular basis.

The US collapsing would create a huge imperialist power vacuum that would at least take time to fill, if that filling ever happened. I’ll quote my original comment you were replying to here.

However, I think the perspective of people from outside the US, especially in the Global South has to be considered. For them, AmeriKKKan “wars, bloody conflicts, authoritarian crackdowns” are already the reality and have been for a long time. America dying is purely beneficial to them, the slow death and thrashing from their perspective will just be the same thing America has always been, but less and less effective over time.

What you’re saying in response to this is, at best, pointless doomerism based on vague hypotheticals. I’m talking about the reality of the world today, which is that America is the only country with both a significant ability to carry out these interventions worldwide and a significant history of doing so.

The Europeans have much less capability to intervene in the Third World than America, though they do do so on a smaller scale. I’ll entertain arguments about Asian countries when any of them are actually doing anything that even approaches the things America does. It’s very clear to anyone looking that the largest and most influential imperial power in the world right now is America by far, with the Europeans a distant second.

China didn’t vote for the proposal, though. They abstained. I agree voting against would have been good, but it’s strange to claim they voted for it.

For those of you cheering on the death of the American Empire and the rise of communism from its ashes… You know you’re never going to live to see that day, right? Maybe your children will, more likely your grandchildren if it happens at all. But between now and then, there will be a new Dark Age and it will last for DECADES minimum.

This might or might not be true and overall I think your comment is a good point (the empire will keep doing damage as it dies).

However, I think the perspective of people from outside the US, especially in the Global South has to be considered. For them, AmeriKKKan “wars, bloody conflicts, authoritarian crackdowns” are already the reality and have been for a long time. America dying is purely beneficial to them, the slow death and thrashing from their perspective will just be the same thing America has always been, but less and less effective over time.

AmeriKKKan KKKracKKKers can’t even see a cool anti-America meme without having a western fragility crashout in the comments, lmao.

You would achieve communism in one Lemmy instance for the few dozen remaining users.

I really don’t understand why a lot of people left reddit only to try to re-create all the worst parts, lol.

LMAO, you weren’t kidding. I looked at their modlog and it’s mostly comments removed for breaking rules against you.