The critique of imperialism used in this comment is doubly flawed. First it ignores that the phenomenon is capitalist (which just leads into useless arguments about what Lenin's economic analysis is and into arguments about imperialism vs sparkling expansionism) and it also ignores that the extraction must happen according to the dictates of finance capital being examined for imperialism (which is such a bad framework that it might imply that Rome was capitalist because they conquered Mediterranean territory). You could have ended the comment with just that dismissal and then said that no matter what capital does it is ontologically and definitionally divorced from imperialism, at worst all it can do is sparkling statecraft. Your comment does go on to talk about how China is a lot worse to neighboring regions than the definition allows but oddly omits any mention of history or sovereignty disputes around the pre-revolutionary era, or what America clearly wishes to do with Taiwan. The comment is absolutely white washing capitalism and making it seem like an uwu small bean who would never exploit anyone.

In not acknowledging the economic basis of imperialism it also gets in the way of a frank and earnest comparison with western hegemony and how Marxism still is accurate (not conflating domestic border disputes with global wealth extraction for example). This makes theory look bad, as if the truth of the situation needs to be covered up, and by comparison that the west is less bad.

This is a bad comment.

You seem to be very misinformed about China, if you don't know what Tibet was like before (it was comparable to chattel slavery), or how you seem to believe China just wants to annihilate Taiwan, as if they couldn't just wait for them to agree to a peaceful reunification. Ironically China did do bad things in the past, such as siding with the Pol Pot when they had a falling out with the USSR, but you'd rather repeat propaganda.

Thank you for helpful commentary on it.

🙏