“Modern imperialism is a specific stage of capitalist development… OK, if you mean ‘imperialism via specifically means of economic pressure’, sure, call it ‘modern imperialism’ or something. But ‘imperialism’ is what I already said it is. Britain was pushing imperialist agendas before capitalism was a thing.”

Again imperialism isn’t just “strong countries pushing weaker ones around.” That’s a surface description, not an analysis. The modern form is structural: monopoly control of capital, export of finance rather than just goods, and a global system where wealth flows upward from subjugated economies to core powers through enforced unequal exchange. Pre-capitalist empires extracted tribute; this system extracts surplus value through debt, trade terms, and military backing. Conflating the two isn’t a rebuttal, it’s just avoiding the actual analysis of the mechanism.

“I didn’t dodge it. I answered it specifically - you have no clue what NATO is. NATO has nothing to do with what political system is running in a member country. It’s a military alliance. Has nothing to do with democracy.”

Then why does the treaty’s preamble commit members to “safeguarding the freedom and common heritage of democratic peoples”? Why were “democratic reforms” mandatory for post-Cold War expansion? You can’t dismiss the values rhetoric when it’s useful, then hide behind “just a military alliance” when the Portugal contradiction hits. Fascist Portugal proved the priority: strategic alignment and capital protection over any real commitment to self-determination.

“The USSR applied to join NATO in 1954. They were rejected. ‘The murderer asked to be let in the house. He was rejected’. Stop gobbling up russian propaganda. The threat was USSR.”

The USSR applied to test whether NATO was about collective defense or containing any state outside Western capital’s orbit. The rejection confirmed the latter. Yes, the Soviet state committed atrocities, but NATO’s function wasn’t moral arbitration. It was to lock Western Europe into a US-led military-economic bloc. The “Soviet threat” was instrumentalized to justify permanent arms spending, discipline allied capitals, and secure markets for Western defense monopolies. That’s in US diplomatic records, not just “propaganda.”

“Show me ONE instance of NATO sending tanks to suppress an independence movement in a country.”

That’s a deliberately narrow frame. NATO doesn’t always need boots on the ground: bombing Yugoslavia in 1999 to break a sovereign state, arming proxies to overthrow Libya in 2011, backing the fascist coup in Greece in 1967. But the deeper point isn’t about direct occupation, it’s about how military hegemony enforces the economic conditions for extraction: debt traps, structural adjustment, resource access. NATO secures the airspace; finance capital does the rest.

“No, the argument is ‘NATO good because they don’t subjugate or attempt genocide’”

That’s a embarrassingly low bar. By that logic, any alliance that doesn’t commit genocide is “good.” Meanwhile, NATO’s actions have enabled mass death through sanctions, bombing campaigns, and destabilization. “Not genocide” isn’t a defense, it’s a deflection from the material function: enforcing a global hierarchy where wealth flows from the periphery to the core.

“I guess discussion is difficult when you’re arguing against reality.”

You called my analysis “propaganda,” told me to “read Wikipedia,” and dismissed structural critique as “talking points.” Don’t pose as the adult when your rebuttal is moral scorekeeping and establishment sources. If you want to debate how the system actually works (finance flows, military backing, unequal exchange) I’m here. But you clearly have a narrative and talking points you like.

we will not take part in the alliance because there is a potential that maybe, who knows, some of the knowledge we shared might be used incorrectly

NATO action and support has only ever been used for bad

Grow up. The world is not black and white, it’s not simple, and people are not all-knowing.

The world may not be black or white but that does not mean all good and bad is equivalent. The US is particularly egregious support for them since 1949 should be shameful and disencouraged where possible. The world would be net better if the US empire crumbled.

No but if you provide them the alcohol knowing they plan to drive you are. You are a debate pervert. Tying yourself in knots to justify unjustifiable evil because you benefit from it.

It’s like saying whoever was the provider of satellite images has “participated in the US bombing” of X

If you provide military intel on targets to a military who then strike them using said intel you are absolutely an accomplice.

“the store owner participated in the killing of XYZ” because he sold someone the knife…

More akin to the store owner killed XYZ by pointing them out to the crazed gunman looking for them.

Ancient Rome was an empire. Modern imperialism is a specific stage of capitalist development: export of finance capital, monopoly concentration, unequal exchange enforced by state power. Mixing them up isn’t a gotcha, it just shows complete illiteracy in the realm of political theory.

You dodged the Portugal point entirely. Fascist dictatorship, founding NATO member, using alliance supply chains to wage colonial war in Africa. France and Belgium same deal. If NATO was about “democracy,” how does that fit? Or do we just ignore the actual history?

And on your “buy weapons from Russia?” joke: the USSR applied to join NATO in 1954. They were rejected. The whole point was to have a permanent external threat to justify massive arms spending, lock in Western defense contracts, and discipline allied capitals.

Also wikipedia isn’t a neutral source on US-led institutions. It’s edited by volunteers, heavily influenced by Western narratives, and routinely policed for “fringe” critiques of state power. Citing it as the final word on NATO is like citing a Pentagon press release and calling it independent journalism.

If the argument is just “NATO good because wiki says so,” then yeah, we’re not having the same conversation. But if you want to engage in actual analysis and conversation like an adult, as opposed to shouting talking points ad nauseum like a petulant child I’m all for that.

Nope, just makes it even more hilarious because you’re still here in the west when it sounds like you can naturally move back to the warm welcome of the CCP.

I’m in China dipshit what part of Chinese made house did you not understand.

I’m not the one who spouts bullshit propaganda all day long.

Actually lmao one of the funniest things I’ve heard in a while.

Yep, kinda sounds like your utopia abuses it’s people…

It was so abusive when the government eradicated poverty, invested hugely in a world class public transport system, electrified and modernised rural villages.

You don’t know shit and should shut the fuck up. Chauvinist ass crackkker. Can’t wait to piss on your empires grave when you return to being a serf to your pedo overlords. 🤣 👉

western tech

Made in China

You criticise society yet you participate in it curious

Was your brain surgically removed as a child?

Ruzzia

Why did you pick Russia over China, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK? Russia isn’t socialist and there is critical support for them at best.

Also preempting this I am Chinese, I live in a Chinese built house, typing on a Chinese phone, does that make my criticism of the genocidal imperialist Euro-Amerikan empire more valid?

Great slogan unfortunately not how it works in the modern reality of imperialism and neocolonialism, the class struggle can only truly begin after the premier contradiction of national liberation has been resolved.

We’ve arranged ourselves to be in compliance with the content of one, doddering racist’s fever dream of America.

This war is possibly the most American thing he has ever done. He’s simply following the long tradition of American imperialism in the Middle East: from the CIA-backed coup that overthrew Iran’s democratically elected Mossadeq in 1953 to protect oil interests, to arming the Mujahideen against the Soviets, funding the very networks that would fracture into the Taliban and al-Qaeda; from Bush Sr.'s 1991 Gulf War that entrenched permanent bases in the region, to Bush Jr.'s 2003 invasion of Iraq built on fabricated WMD claims; to Obama’s 2011 NATO intervention in Libya that toppled Gaddafi under a “responsibility to protect” mandate, then abandoned the country to militia warlords and slave markets. Each chapter follows the same script: regime change, chaos, retreat, and the next generation of blowback.

Imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism defined by the export of finance capital, super-exploitation of subjugated nations, and unequal exchange enforced by state power. NATO was not founded to protect democracy but to secure the geopolitical conditions for Western capital to extract surplus value. The narrative of defending freedom is merely a facade to obscure this class function.

The alliance institutionalized a transatlantic arms market guaranteeing demand for Western arms manufacturers, facilitating finance capital export while enforcing Euro-American hegemony. It standardizes military procurement to ensure profits flow back to core industries, maintaining the superiority required to enforce unequal exchange rates and resource extraction abroad. This is the material function of the organization beyond the rhetoric.

History disproves the democratic pretense immediately. Portugal was a founding member while under a fascist dictatorship, using NATO logistics to wage colonial wars in Africa. France and Belgium, also founders, were violently enforcing colonial rule in Algeria and the Congo at the alliance’s formation. NATO coordinated with these regimes to protect imperial property relations, proving it exists to enforce the global hierarchy that makes super-exploitation possible.

https://theindicter.com/iraq-war-swedish-participation-in-us-bombing-of-baghdad-civilian-shelters/

I didn’t realise it was personally Trump that destroyed Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and put all those military bases surrounding Iran.

One of the very few true things he’s said.

Why should I not insult you when you can’t even comprehend anything I say?

🤣 👉

Replacing old inefficient plants with new effecient ones reducing net emissions is good yes. I feel bad for your teachers having a student who’s brain has clearly been medically removed.

Wow. You really are a complete fucking idiot. I was hoping you were just trolling, but this reply confirms you genuinely cannot process basic analytical reasoning. My previous reply literally explained why context matters, and you responded by pretending that acknowledging complexity is “cherry-picking” or nonsense. That’s not an argument. You complete illiterate.

Let me try again to make this painfully simple, since nuance clearly breaks your brain: No statistic is useful in isolation. GDP alone means nothing without context on inequality, debt, or informal labor. Emissions per capita mean nothing without context on consumption vs. production. Life expectancy means nothing without context on healthcare access or data quality. This isn’t “moving the goalposts” it’s logic 101. If you think adding necessary context to a metric is “changing the rules,” you clearly don’t understand how data works.

You demanded “useful data,” I gave you concrete figures on production share, emissions intensity decline, and trade flows and your response was to whine about “talking points.” You don’t want data. You want a single, decontextualized number that lets you feel superior while ignoring how the global economy actually functions.

So here’s the closing statement you clearly needed: China reducing emissions while producing the world’s goods is meaningful progress. Pretending countries that outsourced their carbon footprint are “winning” is not. If that distinction is too complex for you, if adding industrial context feels like “cheating,” then this conversation was never possible. You’re not arguing in good faith, you’re performing ignorance. And I’m done entertaining it. You ignorant arrogant petulant child.

I wouldn’t say that compared to the likes of cowbee I couldn’t hold myself back from insulting this illiterate (even if it’s fully deserved).

20 a day become one of the good ones