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 -5 points 2 weeks 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 10 points 2 weeks 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 -5 points 2 weeks 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 7 points 2 weeks ago

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

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

That’s because your point is irrelevant. You presented a numbers based claim that this happens most of the time. You then made an exception that alters the entire definition of your claim from “most” to “some” which invalidates your claim.

You are fundamentally misunderstanding the flaw in your argument because you haven’t looked at your initial claim.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 weeks ago

No, I submitted a claim based on what happens as capitalism develops, with the requirement that there be capital left to imperialize. You invented a nonsensical viewpoint and substituted it for my own as a gotcha, and rather than accepting that you misread.

You are fundamentally inventing a flaw in my argument because you didn't understand my initual claim, hence why others have bolded my original claim in response to you in order to get you to see where you went wrong.

[–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 weeks 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 -7 points 2 weeks 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 7 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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 -5 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] IttihadChe@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks 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.

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -5 points 2 weeks ago

All means 100%. The fact that an exception is made where it does not happens means it is not “all”.

Of course all of this presumes the rest is true and that has never been adequately demonstrated to be the case. Marxist assertions are called “theory” by leftists but they do not have that level of credibility or validity IRL. It is always worth remembering “theory” is really from from the case

[–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 8 points 2 weeks 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.

[–] QuoVadisHomines@sh.itjust.works -4 points 2 weeks ago

Go look at that first sentence you keep quoting. It says ALL without any exceptions.

The truth is the “theory” they profess is unproven and you accept it all as fact and I do not based on the lack of evidence to support the claim.