So what’s your solution? Just accept all the Nazis for fear of it really being a mistake? That’s how you get a nazi bar.

Who is people like me? Non whites? Who have I called a nazi? You replied to a post about nazi punks (a hyper well documented phenomenon) and how punks have to make it clear they are not welcome much like bars to avoid becoming nazi bars. What is your point? Nazis should be welcome? Because your spiel about mislabeling isn’t relevant.

The statement you replied to was specifically about Nazi punks a well documented issue? Are you fucking illiterate?

“Nazi opinions are just as valid as everyone else’s”

No. All Nazis should be shot.

Lmao typical crackkker straight to badjacketing when you get caught out in your lies. 🤣 👉

I checked the modlog and you were very much banned for concern trolling about “Israelis being victims” while Gaza was getting flattened. You had another gem just before that where you fantasize about re-educating “brown folk”.

Both sidesing genocide is still bad even if you are “debunking” hard-line pro genociders. If your position is anything short of Israel shouldn’t exist it’s liberal Zionism. You should have nothing but support for the liberation movements of oppressed nations even if they don’t fit your pr standard.

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

“Nuanced” Both sidesing in the face of a genocide? Condemning the oppressors and oppressed in equal measure? Do you not see the issue with that?

It’s sort of a core part of their shield, if great man theory wasn’t true they’d have to reckon with the global structures of terror they support instead of just blaming putler and the orange man while screaming vote blue no matter who.

The Wikipedia article you linked cites allegations and then that multiple official investigations found insufficient evidence to classify these offices as illegal policing operations or intimidation stations.

“They could be intimidating people in ways we can’t prove” isn’t an argument, it’s an unfalsifiable claim, and a hallmark of bad-faith debate.

The South China Sea is a separate territorial dispute. Conflating it with a supposed global campaign targeting individuals is either a deep misunderstanding or deliberate obfuscation.

I’ve addressed the sources, the evidence, and the logic. You’ve doubled down on vagueness and false equivalence. I’m done. If you ever find verifiable proof of coordinated illegal intimidation (not allegations from American funded NGOs, not speculation) feel free to present it. Until then, I’m personally done with this.

No that’s a border dispute. Pretty much every country has them. And it’s completely unrelated to the point at hand about a global intimidation ring targeting individuals. Nice try with the false equivalence tho 2 or 3 more debate bro tactics and you might catch me out on some asinine technicality so you can declare yourself winner despite being factually wrong.

You know that you can just accept negative facts about China although you are on an ml instance??

If you look through my profile you’ll see I do this often. But this bullshit about global intimidation is not a fact, it’s a fantasy.

You can intimidate people without doing it the obvious illegal way. And then, you cherry pick some countries…

I picked those countries because specifically they have laws making intimidation a crime and they found no evidence.

The initial allegations came from a Western-funded NGO report and were then amplified across U.S.-aligned media and political channels(Radio Free Asia). Official investigations did not substantiate claims of criminal law-enforcement activity. For example, authorities in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada stated they found no evidence of illegal policing operations, though concerns were raised about registration and transparency.

So not really a good reason to believe some nefarious global intimidation ring. You should probably read things before you link them.

You’re still not engaging the substance.

Feudalism is a defined mode of production. It refers to specific property relations and hierarchical organization of society. The church was historically important in Europe, but it is not what defines feudalism. The defining feature is the structure of land ownership and obligations. The same applies here.

Imperialism, is not a synonym for “large country acting assertively” or “foreign policy I dislike.” It refers to a specific configuration of global political economy: monopoly capital, dominance of finance capital, export of capital for superprofits, division of markets, and coercive enforcement of unequal exchange. If you strip those structural elements away and use the term to mean “big state behavior,” the concept becomes analytically useless. It stops explaining anything.

You object to the definition but refuse to provide a coherent alternative. If you think the term should mean something else, define it clearly and demonstrate how China fits that definition and how it has meaningful value as an analysis tool. “Different imperial strategy” is not an argument.

On social transformation, dismissing China’s development as “not special” is evasion. The PRC began from conditions that included mass illiteracy, extreme rural poverty, war devastation, landlordism, widespread arranged marriage practices, and remnants of practices like foot binding within living memory. It was one of the poorest large countries on earth. Within a few generations it eradicated extreme poverty, built nationwide high-speed rail, electrified rural areas, massively expanded higher education, massively expanded women’s and LGBT+ rights and raised life expectancy by decades. That scale and speed of transformation is historically unheard of especially when coupled with not pillaging the third world to finance it. Flattening that into “every country follows global trends” avoids engaging the material record.

On your anecdote about rich, well-connected Chinese kids: that proves nothing about the structure of the system. Every large society has contradictions. The existence of wealthy individuals does not determine mode of production. What matters is whether private capital structurally dominates the state and the commanding heights of the economy.

I am a minority Chinese citizen originally from a rural village. I have firsthand experience of the countryside you are theorizing about from a distance. I also hold a master’s degree in Marxist theory. Wealthy diaspora anecdotes do not outweigh structural analysis or lived reality. Before asserting conclusions about an entire political economy, it would be worth engaging with its institutional structure rather than relying on social impressions.

Land in China is publicly owned. The banks are state-owned. Core sectors (energy, telecoms, rail, defense, heavy industry )are state enterprises. Planning institutions shape capital allocation. When private firms grow politically destabilizing, the state has shown it will discipline them. That is materially different from systems where finance capital disciplines the state.

You’re correct that macro and micro interact. That is precisely the point. If the internal system subordinates capital to state planning and national development goals, external behavior will reflect that structure. China’s international conduct: trade integration, infrastructure financing, debt renegotiation, absence of regime-change wars, follows from its internal political economy. It prioritizes development partnerships over military enforcement.

None of this means the system is perfect. It means it does not structurally match the definition of imperialism as a stage of monopoly capitalism enforced through global military dominance.

If you want to argue that it does, demonstrate the mechanisms. Identify the finance capital dominance, the coercive capital-export regime, the military enforcement of unequal exchange. Without that, you are asserting a label without meeting its criteria.

Precision is not dogma. It is the difference between analysis and rhetoric. And you are firmly in the rhetoric category for now.

You are mixing together several different issues that need to be separated.

First, empires and imperialism are not the same thing. The Roman Empire and the Mongol Empire were empires. They expanded territorially through conquest. That tells us something about pre-capitalist state formation. It does not tell us much about how 19th–20th century industrial powers behaved once finance capital, monopoly capital, and global markets became dominant.

Using “imperialism” in the useful sense is not a dodge. It is an analytical category developed to explain a specific historical phenomenon: why advanced capitalist states began exporting capital, carving up colonies, enforcing unequal trade structures, and using military power to secure superprofits abroad. If a concept is meant to explain a modern phase of capitalism, applying it to Rome is a category error. We already have words for territorial conquest, war, annexation, and domination. Not every bad or aggressive action needs to be labeled “imperialism” to be condemnable. Just as not every atrocity is genocide, even though both can be severe crimes.

Second, on whether China’s development is rooted in socialist foundations: this is not a matter of faith but of historical sequence and institutional structure. The PRC began with massive land reform under Mao, eliminating landlordism and breaking the pre-1949 semi-feudal structure. That radically altered property relations in the countryside. It built universal basic healthcare, literacy campaigns, and heavy industry from an extremely impoverished base. When reform and opening began, it did so from a position where land remained collectively owned and the commanding heights of the economy were state controlled (the apparatus through which the people exert their power).

Today, state-owned enterprises dominate strategic sectors: energy, banking, telecommunications, transport, defense, and heavy industry. The largest and most systemically important firms remain under party-state control. Finance is not privately sovereign in the way it is in Western economies; it is subordinated to planning priorities. Poverty alleviation on the scale China achieved (lifting hundreds of millions out of extreme poverty within decades), large-scale infrastructure coordination, and sustained anti-corruption campaigns targeting high-ranking officials are not typical outcomes in liberal capitalist states where capital structurally dominates the state. You can criticize implementation or inequality levels, but the development trajectory is not reducible to “normal capitalism with a flag.”

On social questions, sweeping claims about uniform repression do not reflect reality. China is not socially homogeneous. Urban centers like Shanghai have gender-affirming clinics operating openly. Chengdu has a visible and active queer scene. Ethnic minority regions have received significant state investment in infrastructure, education, and poverty relief; minorities were exempted from the one-child policy for decades. That does not mean no problems exist. It means the picture is more complex than “reactionary uniformity.”

China also began from a far poorer, more backward and much more recent starting point in the modern age than most contemporary developed countries. The speed and scale of industrialization, poverty reduction and social progress in roughly four decades have few to no historical parallels. None of this implies perfection. A socialist transition in a large, unevenly developed country integrated into the global market will contain contradictions: inequality, bureaucratic distortion, market pressures, ideological struggle. Expecting a frictionless transition misunderstands the theory itself. Socialism is not a moral condition achieved overnight; it is a protracted restructuring of property relations, production, and global positioning under difficult constraints.

Finally, rejecting dogma cuts both ways. Treating “all rising powers inevitably replicate imperialism” as a fixed truth is also a form of ideological closure. The question should remain empirical: what are the property relations? Who controls finance? Is capital subordinated to political planning or vice versa? Is global expansion enforced militarily for superprofits, or is integration primarily commercial?

China can be criticized where warranted. But critique should rest on material analysis, not analogy or inherited narratives. Edit: fixed formatting

“What are we a bunch of Asians/Russians”

This is literally the most USAmerican thing to happen.

Bombing civilians in the middle east has been the Epstein Coalitions favourite pass time for literal decades.

Apologies in advance for the length of this.

To start, there is no modern Chinese “empire” in the way there is a U.S.-led Western empire.

The United States maintains hundreds of overseas military bases, a globe-spanning alliance architecture (NATO, bilateral defense treaties in East Asia, Five Eyes intelligence integration), permanent carrier strike group deployments, and an expansive sanctions regime. Since 1945 it has engaged in invasions, coups, proxy wars, destabilization campaigns, and support for armed non-state actors in dozens of countries, including in China during the civil war and later through toleration or political maneuvering around groups such as ETIM, which carried out violent attacks in Xinjiang and neighboring states. That is what empire looks like in material terms: global force projection combined with economic and financial enforcement mechanisms.

China does not possess that structure. It has one acknowledged overseas support base in Djibouti, no global military bloc, no equivalent to NATO, no record of regime-change wars abroad in the PRC era, and no network of foreign occupations. Those are not minor differences.

Framing China as “not as bad as the world police” implies rough comparability. That comparison does not hold up under scrutiny. The “world police” has:

– Invaded or bombed Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, Serbia and others.(Been at war for all but roughly 15 years of its existence)

– Sponsored coups and destabilization efforts across Latin America, Africa, and Asia.(Pinochet, Banana republic, assassination of Sankara and Lumumba)

– Imposed sanctions regimes that function as collective punishment.

– Used IMF and World Bank leverage to enforce structural adjustment: privatization, subsidy removal, austerity, capital liberalization.

By contrast, China’s external engagement since reform and opening has centered on trade, infrastructure financing, and industrial development partnerships. Through the Belt and Road Initiative, it has financed ports, rail, energy grids, and industrial corridors across the Global South. Loans have frequently been renegotiated, extended, or partially forgiven. There is no systematic Chinese analogue to IMF-style conditionality requiring privatization or austerity as a precondition for assistance.

On the claim that China is “harsher in its sphere of influence”: China has not fought a major war in nearly fifty years. The 1979 conflict with Vietnam lasted roughly one month and is widely regarded ( including within China ) as costly and strategically flawed. Since then, border disputes (including with India) have involved standoffs and limited clashes, not prolonged invasions or occupations. Border tensions are common globally; they are not equivalent to imperial expansion.

It is also necessary to define imperialism clearly. In the classical sense that has any actual use, imperialism is not simply “a powerful country acting assertively.” It is a specific stage of capitalism characterized by the dominance of finance capital, export of capital for superprofits, division of the world among monopolies, and enforcement of unequal exchange backed by military power.

The Chinese system is a socialist market economy: a mixed structure where strategic sectors (finance, energy, infrastructure, land, and slightly over 70% of the largest companies) remain publicly owned and capital is subordinated to long-term national development planning. One can debate how early into the socialist transition army period it is, but it is fundamentally not organized around the same model of private finance capital dominating the state and projecting power abroad to secure superprofits. There is no evidence of systematic coercive debt seizures, gunboat enforcement of contracts, or military intervention to secure overseas capital flows.

Every state pursues national development, energy security, technological advancement, and geopolitical stability favorable to its interests. The relevant question is how those interests are pursued. The empirical record shows that China’s rise has primarily taken the form of trade integration and infrastructure investment, not regime-change wars or structural adjustment regimes imposed at gunpoint.

At present, there is one consolidated imperial bloc with global military reach, integrated finance capital, and sanction power across continents: the U.S.-led Euro-American alliance system. Other powers may have regional ambitions or security concerns, but they do not currently possess the structural capacity to organize and police the world economy in that way.(Russia is a big one as a relatively new capitalist power).

The assumption that any rising power must replicate the existing hegemon is an assumption. It is not evidence. If someone wants to argue that China is imperialist in the classical sense, the burden is to demonstrate the mechanisms, enforced unequal exchange, capital export backed by military coercion, territorial division through force.

You seem nominally leftist, you would probably benefit from deconstructing your foundation of “common sense” when it comes to political economy especially if you live in the imperial core. Ask why you believe things and trace it all back. I’m sure some will still make sense but a lot will be from immersion and osmosis of imperial narratives from constant propaganda bombardment.

Edit: As I was typing this the US empire launched a preemptive strike on Iran hitting a girls elementary school killing over 40 students alongside strikes on downtown Tehran. Death to America.

That’s a Wikipedia article that cites Radio Free Asia, The US Government and western funded think tanks. I would call that about as trustworthy as you would call DPRK state media. Also I didn’t ask you.