Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Vaush posts go in the_dunk_tank
Dunk posts in general go in the_dunk_tank, not here
Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from the_dunk_tank
This happens because people confuse "imperial" (of empire) with "imperialist" (now referred to as late stage capitalism).
It really is that simple. It's a confusion because people think imperialism just means "when big countries do a thing I don't like to other countries".
It will only be countered with education on the difference between imperialism and imperial/empire at a massive scale.
the difference between imperialism and imperial/empire at a massive scale.
lol Leninists talk about finance imperialism, not "at a massive scale" whatever that means
I read her comment like this:
It will only be countered with education... at a massive scale.
You can only call it imperialism if it's made in the Imperi region.
otherwise its just sparkling bloody conquest or something
If you are trying to argue continuity of specific phenomenon between timeperiods, then yeah it needs to be specific if you want to draw concrete informational value from the analysis. If you want to say all intergroup violence for some kind of gain throughout history is the same then yeah sure the crusades and modern imperialism are the same.
With peculiar, idiosyncratic definitions of words, we end up with empires without imperialism, and fascism without fascists. Maybe someone will soon propose communism that's independent of communists, or maybe they already have.
If one nation conquers another nation with the intention of fully integrating it into the former's economic, cultural, and political systems, rather than just being an ally or a tributary, is that too broad or too narrow of a definition of the process of an empire?
I wouldn't call the crusader kingdoms part of an empire but it's a lot more than simply "intergroup violence".
Venice in Crete, the Teutonic Knights in the Baltics, the Reconquista, and the first Portuguese and Spanish explorers all viewed themselves within the context of the original Crusades. They all developed a sense of ethnic supremacy over the people living in the places previously. The conquered territories were resettled by Catholics, and the vast majority of resources extracted went back to the mother country. You can argue against it, but he can also have a point. It’s not something Dr Adnan Hussein had time to go into on a podcast where they talk about medical examinations of ball sacs.
Taking modern interpretations, standards, morals, etc. relating to the contemporary historical period then retroactively applying it to everything prior to the contemporary historical period in order to judge it as though it just happened last week - also known as lacking an understanding of historical materialism therefore understanding the past through the lens of 'presentism'
On my Hexbear?
Noo~ say it isn't so.
The nature of production and "economy" (which almost doesn't feel appropriate as a term) in medieval Europe was very different from later in the early modern period where we find the first manifestations of capitalism and colonialism and imperialism in our contemporary, Marxist sense.
The incentives are just different for the people involved in the crusades than that of settlers. Sure, in a superficial sense, there are similarities: some people from place go to another place and make war for their own gain. But when we break it down, the specifics of the incentive structure are different because they relate to different society and economy underpinning them.
The crusaders weren't going to the Levant or Egypt to establish a periphery with exploitable natural resources and labor to feed their manufacturing back home. Even if some of them moved there, they weren't quite doing it to settle either. These were already developed, wealthy places. The crusades were basically peer-conflicts. The European polities and Kings did not have the technology or infrastructure to subjugate in such a totalizing manner the people there.
It's difficult. There's a lot of things I want to express and touch on that give shape to the particular nature of the crusades as opposed to other wars of conquest or colonization. There's the religious aspect, which isn't just meant as a sort of basis for the crusades absent any material incentive, but that the Catholic Church was an immensely important and present force in the political (and personal) lives of the people who carried them out. Maybe the most important thing is that there was not capitalism and that the direct, important players of the crusades were not capitalists. The concept of reinvesting your surplus into more numerous, more productive, more intensive capital in order to expand ever-faster was not the way that kings were negotiating power then. The holy land was wealthy. It would provide a tax base, it would provide opportunity, it would provide glory, status, and legitimacy among peers and challengers. That's probably more along the lines of what the incentives for the crusades were for the nobility.
At least, this is a loose organization of some of my thoughts on the matter. There's more to say, certainly.
For me the fact that a majority of the big players in the crusades were already powerful individuals who effectively lost everything in their prosecution, exemplifies what you put so well.
The crusaders weren't going to the Levant or Egypt to establish a periphery with exploitable natural resources and labor to feed their manufacturing back home.
Yes, but that’s exactly what happened on the Greek islands after the 4th crusade. (Oremen and olives) That’s what happened in the Teutonic order in the Baltic crusades (farmers and food for German cities) that’s what happened in Spain and North Africa during the reconquista (these colonies exist today) what Spanish and Portuguese explorers did. (They viewed themselves as crusaders) This was between 1200-1500. This is the context a Dr and medieval historian is talking about and didn’t have time to get into.
Wait are you saying imperialism didn't exist before capitalism because imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism? That is incredibly backwards
Trans historical 
Trans history is best history
I don't remember them making any of these points, but maybe I just wasn't paying attention
It was probably a throw away line but I stopped listening because I have a problem.
A lot of people are smug in these replies about presentism, but the thing is that an analysis of the crusades as a such a project is the newtonian physics of history. It gets you to the right conclusion in 99% of cases even if it isn't technically accurate.
This post is imperialism
wrong. your comment is actually imperialism, crusader scum
Death to America
It is a bad take and it is infuriating to behold because if we actually want to have earnest conversations about either subject we shouldn't be conflating them. Pointing out similarities is one thing. Implying sameness is another.
You're right. Subjugation of one state by another state does not equal imperialism. Imperialism is a specific phenomenon unique to global capitalism. I know a lot of Leninists will disagree with this, but in fact, one could argue that imperialism is not merely a stage of capitalism, but integral to it's existence as a global system. Thus imperialism can be defined as “precisely the amalgamation of the requirements and laws for the reproduction of capital; the social, national and international alliances that underlie them; and the political strategies employed by these alliances”. I'll just let Samir Amin explain further:
The modern global system of actually existing capitalism has always been polarizing by nature, through the very operation of what I call the ‘globalized law of value’, as distinct from the law of value tout court. In my analysis, therefore, polarization and imperialism are synonymous. I am not among those who reserve the term ‘imperialist’ for types of political behaviour designed to subjugate one nation to another – behaviour that can be found through the successive ages of the human story, associated with various modes of production and social organization. My analytic interest is anyway geared only to the imperialism of modern times, the product of the immanent logic of capitalist expansion.
In this sense, imperialism is not a stage of capitalism but the permanent feature of its global expansion, which since its earliest beginnings has always produced a polarization of wealth and power in favour of the core countries. The ‘monopolies’ enjoyed by the cores in their asymmetrical relations with the peripheries of the system define each of the successive phases in the history of the globalized imperialist system [...]
Imperialism, from its sixteenth-century origins to the Second World War, was a plural phenomenon; permanent, often violent, conflict between different imperialisms played an important role in shaping the world. In this respect, the Second World War ended with a major transformation, since a collective imperialism of the ‘triad’ (USA, Europe, Japan) then replaced the multiplicity of imperialisms.
transfered to a medieval context
Baby Gronk (ages 10-12) has nothing to do with Baby Gronk (ages 14-18)
incredibly complex phenomenon
liberals when they have to whitewash the extremely simple and obvious economic relations under Zionism lol
Never change my guy!
i mean the crusades were:
fought along ethnic lines (Arab Muslim vs. European Christian)
one of the involved parties was not native to the region, without any kind of real historical claim to the land (they adopted a book written based off of alleged events there as their religion, but never lived there)
normal standards of warfare (such as they were) were abandoned in the conflict. Crusaders consumed human meat, executed captives, etc. without any of the (inconsistent) standards they might apply to fellow europeans.
the primary goal was to extract wealth and land. European noble families were running out of land to distribute between their children, and the Arabs had a lot of valuables to loot as well.
it seems as much imperialism as the Mongols or the Romans at least. if its not imperialism, what is it? sparkling ethnic conflict?
it seems as much imperialism as the Mongols or the Romans at least.
have you read Lenin
probably not enough, only what is to be done. what should i read thats relevant
Imperialism: The Highest Stage Of Capitalism. Lenin 'briefly' defines imperialism as:
Definition
(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
(2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy;
(3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
(4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and
(5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed. Essentially once the markets within a nation have developed to the point of monopolies, they must expand to foreign markets. Imperialism can be described as exploitation by foreign capital
sure, but lenin is writing probably more specifically than most people's usage of the word. if i look up the definition of imperialism, i get:
imperialism, state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas. Because it always involves the use of power, whether military or economic or some subtler form, imperialism has often been considered morally reprehensible, and the term is frequently employed in international propaganda to denounce and discredit an opponent’s foreign policy.
from https://www.britannica.com/topic/imperialism
the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas
from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/imperialism
Imperialism is the practice, theory or attitude of maintaining or extending power over foreign nations, particularly through expansionism, employing both hard power (military and economic power) and soft power (diplomatic power and cultural imperialism). Imperialism focuses on establishing or maintaining hegemony and a more or less formal empire.[2][3][4] While related to the concepts of colonialism, imperialism is a distinct concept that can apply to other forms of expansion and many forms of government.[5]
from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism
so i guess my question is, why exactly do you think lenin's specific definition is superior or should be used in this context?
I was just providing lenin's definition of imperialism in the context of the conversation because It seemed that folks were talking past one another. I believe that if you are approaching imperialism from a Leninist (or analogous) perspective it's important to have the specific definition to at least be able to cut off any confusion based on specific terminology from the get go. I also didn't listen to the podcast in context of the post for what it's worth, and I'm not really coming down too hard on any side here. I was just hoping to provide some context lol
That being said, since there is the more colloquial use of the term that most people understand as 'empire-building' which includes conquest, settling, etc., I just tend to lay out specifically If I'm talking about imperialism as understood within a capitalist framework versus imperial projects. Lenin's writings on finance/capitalist imperialism is certainly supposed to be evocative of empire building so in casual context I don't think that it matters all too much to use the term more loosely unless you are getting into the weeds regarding social imperialism or whatever else. I think it's unfortunate that lenin didn't name it neoimperialism or some other more clever portmanteau/neologism.
Literally all those points aren't true or varied in truth over the 300+ year history of the conflict in the Levant.
also said that. Or something related to it, like Europe dropped the crusades immediately after fibding America or somethibg like that.
Probably the early invasion and control of america was not settler colonialism as we define it today?
Probably the early invasion and control of america was not settler colonialism as we define it today?
That's basically correct: it was a domineering and extractive colonialism that revolved around forced indigenous labor to produce raw resources (or whatever you want to call gold and silver) for export, rather than the systematic ethnic cleansing of a region* to provide settlers with land. The earliest colonies were basically just there to exert hegemony and facilitate resource extraction, and it's the subsequent British colonies along the east coast that began to follow the settler colony model.
* Note that they were still genocidal projects, it's just that was more about forced labor and establishing hegemony than the sort of land-clearing and replacement with settlers that settler colonialism calls for.
I remembered we had a thread about this:
https://hexbear.net/comment/2831697
anyways, might shed light for anyone more interested
Thank you for directly linking instead of getting mad that no one else remembered this off the top of their head! I really appreciate it.
And I don’t seem to understand
Seriously. The end goal of this kind of bullshit is a Reddit "communist" cracking open Russia and the Long Transition from Capitalism to Socialism and yelling at me about how Samir Amin is a "tsarist".