It isn't a flawed notion. Capitalism necessarily leads to imperialism if there is room for it, and if there isn't, it leads to you either becoming nationalist, socialist, or imperialized. These are not conflicting ideas. You're very confused.

[+] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -7 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You claim that this is happening most of the time. I point out that the nom-imperialist nations, which make up the majority if the liberal nations, are not doing this so from a sheer numerical perspective your claim is flawed as most are not doing this.

Ypu can try to shift the goalposts but if the non-imperialistic liberal nations are the larger group then your claim cannot be true because factually speaking it us not happening in most liberal nations.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Just because this point still seems to not be getting through:

If I say you need enough heat, fuel, and oxygen to start a fire, and you say if you don’t have heat you don’t have fire, I’m still correct. I have never once said that the global south is imperialist, I said the opposite.

No goalposts shifted. This has been my point from the very beginning.

[+] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

That is the shifting of the goalposts because you initially claim that this imperialism is happening in most nations and now you are claiming it would happen if it could which means it is not actually happening thus your claim is inherently flawed

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 13 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I never once claimed that most nations are imperialist. This is straight up something you invented in your head.

[+] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

im not saying you have. Im arguing the trend you are claiming that happens most of the time is not happening.

Im making a numbers argument and you are trying to make a theory based argument.

[–] AntiOutsideAktion@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago

You're making an "Nuh Uh" argument. Don't flatter yourself.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 months ago (1 children)

You're fundamentally misunderstanding the point. If there's capital left to be imperialized and a country develops to the monopoly stage, it will imperialize the capital. Countries in the global south cannot develop to such a stage unless the pivot to a nationalist or socialist position, and in the former case the presense of imperialist countries means the capital to be imperialized is dried up except through war, which opens up new markets.

This is a law of capitalist development. If a country develops to the monopoly stage and there's capital to be imperialized, it will imperialize it. There has never been a case where this isn't true. The fact that countries in the global south are underdeveloped and over exploited only further proves this point.

[–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 11 points 2 months ago (1 children)

It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways.

Those on the imperialized end cannot themselves really become imperialist, and the total capital to be imperialized is limited

[+] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Highlighting notions based on a flawed premise do not make those claims more valid.

This is a numbers argument. Unless you are going to claim there are more liberal nations engaging in imperialism than are victims of it your claim that it happens most of the time cannot be true.

[–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

I'm not validating their claim, I'm debunking the shifting goalpost argument. They since the beginning of the argument points out that the trend happens in all developed capitalist nations minus the ones that suffers from imperialism.

[+] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -8 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Except it isn’t observable in all nations which is their claim. What you add is shifting the goalposts from that initial claim.

[–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 10 points 2 months ago (1 children)

No it's not. He sets the scope as "all capitalist nations that have not been imperialised", which is logical. How can an imperialised country be imperialist towards another?

You are trying to include them in your argument.

[–] IttihadChe@lemmy.ml 9 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 children)

The claim was

It’s a trend observable in all capitalist nations. If you develop enough, the rate of profit falls, and so you need to expand outward to profit. This is the basis of imperialism, the carving out of the global south for profit. Across the west, this is a fact, even if it manifests in different ways.

The trend is observable on the imperialized nations as well as the imperialist ones.

Imperialism is not a one way street, the effects of imperalialism are observable (lower capitalistic development, higher profit extraction, etc).

The fact that the countries with more developed capital are the ones doing imperialism and the countries with less developed capital are the ones imperialized (and oberving how this stays true historicllly) is proof of the trend.