Cowbee means economic imperialism - using the resources / wealth of another country for yourself. So invading another country would not, by itself, be imperialism.
I think this definition is a bit reductionist, but it’s a good starting point to ask ‘is this war for profit or some other reason?’.
but it’s a good starting point to ask ‘is this war for profit or some other reason?’.
Always an important question to ask but if Cowbee does mean that, then they should use the modifier to signify that they are talking about economic imperialism and not about Imperialism Imperialism.
I am talking about what most leftists understand to be imperialism, which is why I called it as such, and explained it so there’s no room for doubt. The vauge concept of influence along international lines popular among apologists for imperialism as I describe it isn’t inherently a bad thing, while imperialism as I describe it is, and is the biggest obstacle to socialism globally.
If you want to rename imperialism to something else, and call imperialism “economic imperialism” then we can do that, I’d rather talk about the actual process itself than argue about nomenclature.
I do think your wording is causing some confusion. Of course, the aim of most imperialists is economic exploitation, but there historically there have been other drivers of conquest such as religion and racism.
I think it’s not too much to expect to know basic terminology in a leftist space. In Argentina I’ve met plenty of social democrats who understand imperialism in its leftist sense, because being in the periphery means you see the consequences of imperialism, and this is a country where like 99% of the media is owned by the comprador class or international capital making propaganda for austerity, meritocracy and other bullshit.
If somebody doesn’t understand why their definition of imperialism doesn’t seem to be the one we use, maybe they can ask questions rather than interpret us in bad faith and so on.
I’m sure they originate in economic pressures. But it’s like letting a genie out of a lamp - you can easily whip up religious / racist hatred, but once out, it takes a life of its own and can turn even on its own creators.
Cowbee means economic imperialism - using the resources / wealth of another country for yourself. So invading another country would not, by itself, be imperialism.
I think this definition is a bit reductionist, but it’s a good starting point to ask ‘is this war for profit or some other reason?’.
Always an important question to ask but if Cowbee does mean that, then they should use the modifier to signify that they are talking about economic imperialism and not about Imperialism Imperialism.
All imperialism is economically motivated.
I am talking about what most leftists understand to be imperialism, which is why I called it as such, and explained it so there’s no room for doubt. The vauge concept of influence along international lines popular among apologists for imperialism as I describe it isn’t inherently a bad thing, while imperialism as I describe it is, and is the biggest obstacle to socialism globally.
If you want to rename imperialism to something else, and call imperialism “economic imperialism” then we can do that, I’d rather talk about the actual process itself than argue about nomenclature.
I do think your wording is causing some confusion. Of course, the aim of most imperialists is economic exploitation, but there historically there have been other drivers of conquest such as religion and racism.
I think it’s not too much to expect to know basic terminology in a leftist space. In Argentina I’ve met plenty of social democrats who understand imperialism in its leftist sense, because being in the periphery means you see the consequences of imperialism, and this is a country where like 99% of the media is owned by the comprador class or international capital making propaganda for austerity, meritocracy and other bullshit.
If somebody doesn’t understand why their definition of imperialism doesn’t seem to be the one we use, maybe they can ask questions rather than interpret us in bad faith and so on.
Religion and racism were more justifications for the same base economic motivations, to be clear.
I’m sure they originate in economic pressures. But it’s like letting a genie out of a lamp - you can easily whip up religious / racist hatred, but once out, it takes a life of its own and can turn even on its own creators.
Sure, but we must still understand their utility exists to justify the base, ie the economic structures.