The US Empire is an empire, countries opposing the US Empire are presently not imperialist. You’re comparing them by abstracting the concept of bombing outside of the necessary context it exists in, ie you’re using metaphysics to analyze reality.
Depends on your definition. The U.S. fits the definition of “Informal Empire” pretty well, but it’s definitely not an old school empire like Rome or Britain
Imperialism isn’t something that exists as a static concept, but functions differently depending on the dominant mode of production. The US Empire absolutely fits the Marxist understanding of imperialism as a specific stage of late-monopoly capitalism.
Imperialism as a concept predates Marxism and isn’t reducible to Lenin’s model. We can debate which framework is more useful, but pretending there’s only one definition isn’t serious.
The processes of earlier forms of imperialism predate Marxism, such as Roman imperialism. The analysis of capitalist imperialism, on the other hand, is most well-understood by how Lenin analyzed it with Marxism. Lenin wasn’t invalidating earlier forms of imperialism, but analyzing the specific character of capitalist imperialism, the form that by far matters the most today.
Lenin’s framework is one influential analysis of capitalist imperialism. That doesn’t make it exhaustive. Modern geopolitics also includes state security competition, regional spheres of influence, and non-capitalist power projection.
Marxists have also continued to expand analysis of imperialism beyond Lenin. One such example is Cheng Enfu’s analysis of neoimperialism, where imperialist countries have ralied behind a single dominant Empire, the US, rather than compete with each other (though this is falling apart now). Geopolitics isn’t limited to imperialism, but imperialism is the principle contradiction driving development in the world today, that being the socialization of global labor struggling against the privatization of the profits made by global labor in the hands of the few in imperialist countries.
Calling imperialism the principal contradiction is a theoretical commitment, not an empirical conclusion. Other schools like realism or institutionalism would identify state security competition or balance-of-power dynamics as primary.
Are westerners only able to conceptualise the killing of civilians? Are they so far removed from having normal countries that they forget that wars are fought between armies?
The implication here is: “You people are detached, soft, and incapable of understanding real war.” That’s not an argument. That’s a moral superiority pose. It frames one group as hardened realists and the other as naïve spectators. Historically, that kind of framing is how conflicts get emotionally escalated. Dehumanization rarely begins with slurs. It begins with sweeping generalizations.
And the irony is thick. You’re accusing me of only conceptualizing civilian deaths, while simultaneously minimizing the reality that modern warfare absolutely does kill civilians. The idea that wars are cleanly fought “between armies” belongs in the 19th century, not the 21st. Civilian harm is a central moral and legal issue in contemporary conflict. That’s not Western fragility. That’s international humanitarian law.
The implication here is: “You people are detached, soft, and incapable of understanding real war.”
No the implication is that westerners love killing civilians so much that they forget that wars are fought between militaries. I’ll be more clear about this next time.
That’s not an argument. That’s a moral superiority pose.
You want an argument? It’s trivial to give one. All western countries have been involved in warmongering in west asia since before I was born. There is full justification for any group in west asia to launch attacks on western military assets.
Even under international law (which western militaries refuse to follow), retaliating against military attacks is fully allowed. America and its zionist occupation of Palestine attacked Iran (military targets and civilians), and even inside its borders and capital city*. The Iranian state has every right to bomb any American military target, even if it were inside US border.
*this isn’t the first time either. The Americans did this last year, and even in trump’s 1rst term
minimizing the reality that modern warfare absolutely does kill civilians
Sure, there are civilians casualties from war. So should America be allowed to bomb and genocide whoever they want with no one fighting back?
Civilian harm is a central moral and legal issue in contemporary conflict. That’s not Western fragility. That’s international humanitarian law.
Lmao western militaries do not give a single fuck about civilians or collateral damage or international law. You really want to present the butchers of gaza as some sort of hippies in 2026?
Ah, I see. So when the U.S. bombs another country, it’s genocide. But if someone does it to the U.S. it’s a good thing? Got it.
The US Empire is an empire, countries opposing the US Empire are presently not imperialist. You’re comparing them by abstracting the concept of bombing outside of the necessary context it exists in, ie you’re using metaphysics to analyze reality.
Depends on your definition. The U.S. fits the definition of “Informal Empire” pretty well, but it’s definitely not an old school empire like Rome or Britain
Imperialism isn’t something that exists as a static concept, but functions differently depending on the dominant mode of production. The US Empire absolutely fits the Marxist understanding of imperialism as a specific stage of late-monopoly capitalism.
Imperialism as a concept predates Marxism and isn’t reducible to Lenin’s model. We can debate which framework is more useful, but pretending there’s only one definition isn’t serious.
The processes of earlier forms of imperialism predate Marxism, such as Roman imperialism. The analysis of capitalist imperialism, on the other hand, is most well-understood by how Lenin analyzed it with Marxism. Lenin wasn’t invalidating earlier forms of imperialism, but analyzing the specific character of capitalist imperialism, the form that by far matters the most today.
Lenin’s framework is one influential analysis of capitalist imperialism. That doesn’t make it exhaustive. Modern geopolitics also includes state security competition, regional spheres of influence, and non-capitalist power projection.
Marxists have also continued to expand analysis of imperialism beyond Lenin. One such example is Cheng Enfu’s analysis of neoimperialism, where imperialist countries have ralied behind a single dominant Empire, the US, rather than compete with each other (though this is falling apart now). Geopolitics isn’t limited to imperialism, but imperialism is the principle contradiction driving development in the world today, that being the socialization of global labor struggling against the privatization of the profits made by global labor in the hands of the few in imperialist countries.
Calling imperialism the principal contradiction is a theoretical commitment, not an empirical conclusion. Other schools like realism or institutionalism would identify state security competition or balance-of-power dynamics as primary.
Yeah it’s a good thing when fascist states get bombed. You’d be the kind to both sides WW2 if it was socially acceptable to go to bat for the nazis
And what about the innocent people who voted against the fascist government? They deserve to die too?
Are westerners only able to conceptualise the killing of civilians? Are they so far removed from having normal countries that they forget that wars are fought between armies?
Talk about cultural chauvinism.
The implication here is: “You people are detached, soft, and incapable of understanding real war.” That’s not an argument. That’s a moral superiority pose. It frames one group as hardened realists and the other as naïve spectators. Historically, that kind of framing is how conflicts get emotionally escalated. Dehumanization rarely begins with slurs. It begins with sweeping generalizations.
And the irony is thick. You’re accusing me of only conceptualizing civilian deaths, while simultaneously minimizing the reality that modern warfare absolutely does kill civilians. The idea that wars are cleanly fought “between armies” belongs in the 19th century, not the 21st. Civilian harm is a central moral and legal issue in contemporary conflict. That’s not Western fragility. That’s international humanitarian law.
No the implication is that westerners love killing civilians so much that they forget that wars are fought between militaries. I’ll be more clear about this next time.
You want an argument? It’s trivial to give one. All western countries have been involved in warmongering in west asia since before I was born. There is full justification for any group in west asia to launch attacks on western military assets.
Even under international law (which western militaries refuse to follow), retaliating against military attacks is fully allowed. America and its zionist occupation of Palestine attacked Iran (military targets and civilians), and even inside its borders and capital city*. The Iranian state has every right to bomb any American military target, even if it were inside US border.
*this isn’t the first time either. The Americans did this last year, and even in trump’s 1rst term
Sure, there are civilians casualties from war. So should America be allowed to bomb and genocide whoever they want with no one fighting back?
Lmao western militaries do not give a single fuck about civilians or collateral damage or international law. You really want to present the butchers of gaza as some sort of hippies in 2026?
Wont someone please consider the genociders??