Korea, Brazil, and India are in no position to be imperialist. They are countries exploited by the imperialist bloc. Russia is even smaller than these countries and is even more exploited. It literally does not fit the definition of imperialism.

[–] NotSpez@lemm.ee 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I feel like that’s a wrong definition, here is one more broadly used:

imperialism | IM'pIerIalIz(a)m | noun [mass noun] a policy of extending a country's power and influence through colonization, use of military force, or other means

So the use of military (Wagner) force also constitutes it. Also, the size of that country has nothing to do with it.

[–] freagle@lemmygrad.ml -2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The dictionary definiton you gave is useless for political analysis, hence we use more accurate and precise definitions when in the domain.

An example of why your definition is useless is that it cannot be used to distinguish between imperialism and anti-imperialism. If imperilaism extends a country's power, then it inherently extends it into some other country's sphere of influence. When that country fights back, they are inherently extending their influence. Calling both imperialism results in zero understanding that couldn't have been achieved without using the word and instead using the words force, expansion, violence, or many other words.

Imperialism is something specific and fighting against imperialism is not imperialism.