4 ms·

>"and what are the downsides" It works the same was in the US. Your taxes pay for the CIA, the CIA overthrows governments for United Fruit, and you buy product

>"and what are the downsides" It works the same was in the US. Your taxes pay for the CIA, the CIA overthrows governments for United Fruit, and you buy products from United Fruit. You're paying for bananas twice and they are receiving "security" (wink, wink) for free[1]. Later, CIA high-ups get high-paid sinecures at the United Fruit company, making them the only ones getting compensated for the deployment of the government's resources. Russian citizens are not going to get parcels of land from occupied Ukraine. The soldiers who survive the war aren't going to get mineral rights. Instead of asking, "what are the downsides," a more pertinent question is, "who's getting the upsides?" (It is never you or me.) In practice, at least since the British Empire, wars of imperial expansion have served as another method of transferring resources from the public to a few influential business owners - corruption in so many words, not any different from stealing the funds for a highway. In the middle ages and earlier, soldiers would be rewarded in the form of titles of nobility, or in the Roman Empire, with land and prisoners of war to use as slaves. If that was a practice anywhere in the world today, perhaps I'd comprehend the argument for war from the pursuit of economic interests. Then, at least, it would be a moral issue - otherwise, as it is today, it's another pretext for the few to steal from the many. That means you. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1954_Guatemalan_coup_d%27%C3%A...

thriftwy 3y ago
I don't think that Russians are obliged to act imperialistically, especially to their loss. It's just I don't view the creation of Russian Empire in a bad light - quite contrary, most other historical options would likely been worse, up and until 1917 at least. And as a Russian I believe that Russian Empire is a part of essential legacy of the humankind. Same with USSR despite its tragic and cruel history. So when I see "Russian imperialism" being thrown around as a casual insult I stop being constructive in response. This is not the right way to discuss histories, and especially you shouldn't try to frame any ethnic and religious group for their history in serious faith. I see a lot of political zealots doing that kind of slander, not really understanding what they are doing and why.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- whatshisface 3y ago
  The British empire cira 1721 was, at least according to the venerable Adam Smith, operating on the modern principle of drafting non-owners into funding and fighting for the security of colonial enterprises they had no stake in. In all likelihood the Russian Empire was the same (it did have North American colonies after all), but I can agree that being the same means treating the adjective Russian as anything but the location is wrong - it's reasonable to speak about Imperialist practices carried out in Russia, not "Imperialism with uniquely Russian characteristics."
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    That's true, we are more of Russian Empire survivors than heirs. Most of my ancestors are unsurprisingly peasants with serfdom (and then, kolkhoz) background. Still, if there are any possibilities to "cash out" the paltry benefits of history they went through, Russians will not hesitate to. After all, as you have rightfully noticed, common folk of both Russian and British empires have already paid for it in their sweat and blood. That's why there should be a better proposition than "badmouth your backwards Russian history and embrace our Pax Americana", especially as we were never cast for any decent roles in the latter. I can see it is good enough for Czechs but we'd pass. Of course I realize there's a sufficient number of Russians, especially abroad, who have radically different views. Not that it matters much, because as another such Russian's protagonist said, "in this world there's too few people whose desires have any meaning whatsoever"
    - whatshisface 3y ago
      Its a difficult subject, but it would be worth thinking about what happens to "we," when an aristocrat has made use of their serfs and no longer has need of pikemen.
      - thriftwy 3y ago

thriftwy 3y ago

I don't think that Russians are obliged to act imperialistically, especially to their loss. It's just I don't view the creation of Russian Empire in a bad light - quite contrary, most other historical options would likely been worse, up and until 1917 at least. And as a Russian I believe that Russian Empire is a part of essential legacy of the humankind. Same with USSR despite its tragic and cruel history. So when I see "Russian imperialism" being thrown around as a casual insult I stop being constructive in response. This is not the right way to discuss histories, and especially you shouldn't try to frame any ethnic and religious group for their history in serious faith. I see a lot of political zealots doing that kind of slander, not really understanding what they are doing and why.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
whatshisface 3y ago
The British empire cira 1721 was, at least according to the venerable Adam Smith, operating on the modern principle of drafting non-owners into funding and fighting for the security of colonial enterprises they had no stake in. In all likelihood the Russian Empire was the same (it did have North American colonies after all), but I can agree that being the same means treating the adjective Russian as anything but the location is wrong - it's reasonable to speak about Imperialist practices carried out in Russia, not "Imperialism with uniquely Russian characteristics."
- thriftwy 3y ago
  That's true, we are more of Russian Empire survivors than heirs. Most of my ancestors are unsurprisingly peasants with serfdom (and then, kolkhoz) background. Still, if there are any possibilities to "cash out" the paltry benefits of history they went through, Russians will not hesitate to. After all, as you have rightfully noticed, common folk of both Russian and British empires have already paid for it in their sweat and blood. That's why there should be a better proposition than "badmouth your backwards Russian history and embrace our Pax Americana", especially as we were never cast for any decent roles in the latter. I can see it is good enough for Czechs but we'd pass. Of course I realize there's a sufficient number of Russians, especially abroad, who have radically different views. Not that it matters much, because as another such Russian's protagonist said, "in this world there's too few people whose desires have any meaning whatsoever"
  - whatshisface 3y ago
    Its a difficult subject, but it would be worth thinking about what happens to "we," when an aristocrat has made use of their serfs and no longer has need of pikemen.
    - thriftwy 3y ago