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 3 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.

[–] ZeroHora@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 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 3 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.

[–] IttihadChe@lemmy.ml 8 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 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 3 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