The data is coming from the world's largest democracy perception study, published by the Alliance of Democracies Foundation (a Danish-based non-profit organisation).
this post was submitted on 20 Jun 2025
136 points (94.7% liked)
Socialism
5990 readers
1 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I think you're using "Imperialism" to describe something fubdamentally and entirely different from what Socialists consider Imperialism to be. Would you mind explaining what you think Imperialism is?
They did: "imperialism is when big country", not very surprising definition given their instance:
Yea, I'm hoping they realize they are tripping over themselves just to be a contrarion, but I think that's a lost cause now.
I consider imperialism putting your hands in someone else's land, basically speaking.
What's YOUR definition?
Gotcha, so your definition is focused entirely on force. I don't think this definition fits, though, not in prior forms of Imperialism like the Roman Empire or British Empire, and not for modern Imperialism dominated by the US Empire, as it makes no mention of extraction or analysis of why Imperialism exists. For example, the Union defeating the Confederacy, or the Soviets taking Berlin, are both "Imperialism" in your definition.
What Socialists refer to as Imperialism is a form of international extraction. I already linked this Prolewiki article for you, but here's the basics:
The PRC, India, Brazil, etc do not fit this, but Western countries absolutely do, especially the US Empire.
Ahahahah no no, the Soviet invading Berlin isn't imperialism for me. Oppressing neighbors is though, like Tibet to make a classic example.
By your definition, it was, though. The PLA liberating Tibet from a slave-driven feudalism isn't Imperialism either, especially considering the PRC doesn't underdevelop Tibet and use it as a hub of extraction.
The world doesn't depend on MY definitions, luckily.
Also that is still imperialism, no matter how hard you try to come up with a definition that can fit your narrative. Sorry.
By what metric? What are you talking about? You're using a definition of Imperialism that not even liberals use, so when we say "China isn't Imperialist" and you claim it is by using metrics you invent, we are talking past each other, not to each other.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_imperialism
Look, there are people who disagree with you apparently.
Already covered in the article I linked, but you evidently didn't read. China is not Imperialist. Flat Earthers also disagree with me, same with fascists, liberals, etc, the presense of disagreement doesn't validate the disagreement.
Yeah I don't care about propaganda, sorry.
You don't seem to care about consistency or established analysis either, you just jump to whatever is contrarion. You didn't actually engage with the Marxist critique of Imperialism, you just handwave it away. What are you trying to do?
I mean, I'm the only one here who tried to analyze the survey posted, while you all are just like "See? Numbers! Good numbers"
You gave suggestions for improvement then said as it stands it isn't relevant at all, which I would say goes far too far. It's useful, and accurate. I don't know why you're trying to play semantical games and try to snarkily avoid discussing Socialist theory on a Socialist comm.
Semantical? Saying this survey has literally no validity isn't semantics 🤣
You played semantical games with Imperialism and Socialism. Your claims about the data having "literally no validity" weren't semantics, they were just wrong, the data itself is good even if we can get more data elsewhere.
The data is good even if data is missing. Really you can't see anything wrong eight that? Man...
These would expand the data and make it more useful. There's no missing data, though, the data as it exists stands on its own, it's a comparison of different countries and approval, which is backed up in other studies on CPC approval rates among others.
It's also a comparison of how much people in those countries feel free of criticizing their government then.
To be sure it isn't we should include more countries, first of all, with different kinds of governments. That would be a good start at some kind of more objective discussion based on tangible things.
It isn't, though. You have a hypothesis, so you need to test that hypothesis, not assume your hypothesis existing invalidates the test results. This is statistics 101.
No, I simply have critical thinking that makes me unable to trust some random numbers.
"Critical thinking" doesn't mean test results aren't test results, nor does it mean refusing to engage with Socialist critique on the basis of it being "propaganda." You can certainly think of new tests that might shed new dimensions on the test results, but the test results are the test results, they exist and are valid for existing.
No, that's not how it works. If you test something thatbis not even scientifically measurable over two different samples you aren't testing shit. You are just throwing numbers around that don't correlate to each other.
It provided multiple studies and recorded responses to various questions, and the data is consistent across studies. In what manner is this not "even scientifically measurable?" Is a response not a response?
Genuinely, you've only served as a contrarion.
For the same reason psychology isn't considered strictly scientific.
Elaborate. A measure of responses is a measure of responses, and these can be quantitatively compared.
There is no "coefficient" of freedom of expression to be coupled with that, so that you can start to try a comparison.
As a random example, that coefficient could be derived by the percentage of population that has been arrested for protesting in the last year.
The numbers are measures of physical reality. You can expand the degrees tested, but that doesn't mean the numbers were pulled out of thin air or were made up. There's no such thing as a "coefficient of freedom," you can certainly fudge numbers however you want to by adding or subtracting variables, but the raw data is very much valid data.
Again, this entire time you seem to be playing the contrarion for the sake of being a contrarion, you complain about Socialists and refuse to engage with Socialist theory. What are you trying to gain?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Economist_Democracy_Index
As you can see here, measuring democracy in this other way paints a pretty different scenario.
Why? Because the perception of democracy isn't physical reality.
Yes, I already told you that you can add or subtract variables, but the underlying metrics are valid nonetheless as the metrics themselves. "Do you approve of your government? Yes, or no?" Is a question that you can ask in many different countries, and collect data on. The numbers are not "invalid" because you disagree with the implications.
As for the Economist, it's measuring freedom for capital to flow, not democracy. The Economist is a bourgeois liberal rag so old and consistent that Lenin described it accurately a century ago as a "journal that speaks for British millionaires." Some things don't change.
Again, what are you hoping to gain, here?
Exactly, you can't trust such a survey, no matter the source.
You can absolutely trust a survey. If I go and ask someone if they want fewer trees, more trees, or the same number, whatever they answer is factually what they answer.
So you can trust the economist's too. Also "wanting more trees" is something you can measure, it is not a feeling. Asking them if there are enough trees in their city and comparing them with another, unrelated sample taken from a different place instead is throwing numbers around and doesn't tell you which city has enough trees.
"Wanting" is by definition a feeling. You can measure responses, the act of answering one way or another is a material process. I can trust that the numbers used by "The Economist" are probably accurate, just like I can look in and they use parameters like "freedom for Capital movement" as an indicator of democracy, ie they define democracy as Capitalism.