I have complained about it before but I heard on of the guests from guerrilla history on the deprogram make this argument and it made me want to gouge my eyes out. This kind of trans historical argumentation is both stupid and unmarxist, just stop! Sorry I felt the need to vent.

These states were not imperialist and they weren't settler colonies. This framing doesn't make any fucking sense when transfered to a medieval context. Like the best you could say is that the Italian city states represented an early firm of merchant capital, but even then that is an incredibly complex phenomenon that has only a tenuous connection to modern capitalism. Calling these city states early capitalism is just a fancy way of saying "lol u hate capitalism yet you exchange good or service! Curious!"

Seriously just stop. I don't know why this set me off but it was like a week ago and I am still mad about it.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 33 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] privatized_sun@hexbear.net 8 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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

[–] panopticon@hexbear.net 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

I read her comment like this:

It will only be countered with education... at a massive scale.