Because its not relevant. It HAPPENS to be the case now, but it's in no way a defining feature. Sure, I'm absolutely fine with that detail being described so, because it's true. But you minimized the analysis to that. "Framing" is ambiguous and I'm ignoring that, I guess you could call it framing, but your framing is irrelevant to my analysis

[–] captcha@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because its not relevant. It HAPPENS to be the case now,

It IS relevant because its the fundamental reason why we can say we'll get positive outcomes from this case. It was even baked into your explanation "ending global imperialism".

but the framing of "big vs small" is very ignorant

"Framing" is ambiguous and I'm ignoring that,

bruh

[–] commiewithoutorgans@hexbear.net 1 points 1 year ago

Fair enough on the framing, just meant that I ignored it for the first half, otherwise the reply was not engaging with you up to that point, but I wrote sloppily.

But you did not originally say "bigger and smaller IMPERIALIST" you said capitalist empire. It's a totally different discussion which is where we started speaking past on another. I still don't think that's correct, because I don't think a new analysis like Lenin made of imperialism would find Russia as materially equivalent in form or content of imperialism at all (maybe requiring a new word for the type of imperialism done by the US/NATO like super-imperialism or so. That's why I still hold the point that it's not just "bigger v smaller" that matters, but the Qualitative difference that then arose from the quantity of Imperialism performed/exported capital and coerced labour. They should be understood as 2 phenomenon at this point, not a big and small