Be very of these false narratives which seek to bend the framework of reality towards a position in accord with the US Empire.
This is not “a conflict between two bourgeois countries”. This is an abstract, undialectical analysis.
It is adapting the framework of Western Imperialists.
This is a complex conflict decades in the making, at it’s core, it is a war between Russia and the Blood Empire.
The Ukrainian people are being used as a weapon by their bloodthirsty American masters.
I hope people here see how deceptive and devious this “both sides bad capitalists” narrative is.
It is poisonous to us communist communities, and it shows that western propaganda is very much able to spread on GenZedong.
Do not allow them to infiltrate our minds.
Godspeed comrades. o7
They are half right, Russia is capitalist and definitely is a small imperialist (or it at least aspires to imperialism). Consider pre WW1 Germany as a point of comparison. Germany didn’t have the vast empires of France, Britain etc but they did still colonize a few islands and did try to expand its holdings. It just couldn’t because the bigger powers got to everything first. This is a very similar circumstance to Russia which was very late on becoming strong enough to build an empire.
Some take this parallel too far and assert that then the correct line must be revolutionary defeatism as advocated by Lenin. This would be a correct line if it wasn’t for the fact that this conflict contains the 3rd party of the DPR and LPR. These sides have allied with Russia and they are who we should support so we by extension support the Russian side. Make no mistake, Russia is not doing this out of the goodness of its heart. It has goals to increase its own power however because Russia is so comparably small and the west is so hypermilitarized and wealthy they need to build alliances with proletarian and national liberation groups to get enough power to counter the west. This is much less a WW1 situation where revolutionary defeatism is useful and much more a national liberation or late feudal situation where a strata of the bourgeois and the proletariat have their interests aligned.
If Russia is aspiring to be imperialist then why are its finance capitalists so few? Where are its institutions that are reaching to extract rent from the world?
I dont mind using imperialism in a more generic way but even then I dont see what is being gained from Russia’s invasion beyond a reaction or asserting its sovereignty against radicalized and armed US puppets. Is Russia going to unchain its bankers or spread its corporations into Ukraine? Or is it just military action at all that constitutes this? Is every large country or regional power small imperialist? Is Mexico, or Indonesia, or Brazil, or Nigeria small imperialist?
I doubt any of those countries, US put aside, can be classified either as imperialists, neoimperialists or small imperialists. But what do I know, bOtH cOUntriEs aRe cApiTaliSTs.
Actually watching how US is fucking over the whole European union has got me questioning if France should be labeled imperialist too. I think today it has a whole another meaning.
Lol. Imperialists can fight each other you know?
If we view Russia as trying to establish its sphere of influence in Ukraine as installing a pro-Russian leader, I could see Russia sweeping in to capture the natural resources. Wheat and oil would be the two biggest resources.
In other aspects, we might not view Russia as an imperialist power. But you can definitely argue that they fulfill some of Lenin’s description.
I agree that in some points it is imperialist. But then so is much of the world. This is why I prefer “semi-periphary.” Id say the Dominican Republic is semi-periphary in many ways, but to call it imperialist (or small imperialist, or regional imperialist) seems incorrect because it only fits with some of the points.
I get that. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for the clarification.
Their finance capitalists are few because most of the world is under western dominance meaning that there is less places to export capital for them as late comers. This keeps them at a lower stage of capitalist development. However, every capitalist country will do all it can to become fully imperialist and Russia is no different. Its national bourgeois aspire to be major imperialists, they just haven’t achieved it yet as the west is currently standing in their way as a giant imperialist. Like again, WW1 Germany. If the Kaiser had the ability to take all of Britain and France’s colonies for itself it would. Just because it did not have such vast holdings does not mean it does not want them.
As I said similarly above:
It is an abstract, undialectical analysis, which makes it completely false.
This immaterial, false abstraction is serving the American Empire.
How you could look at this physical bloodthirsty psychological weapon and say it is “they are half right” is beyond me if you are a dialectial materialist, you would recognize this abstraction as a psychological weapon of the Empire.
That is disgusting. This lie is part of the devil. Do not give the American Devil the pass.
The reason you do not have the same energy as me is because you do not recognize that this idea is a physical weapon of the American Empire that they are attempting to slash the social fabric of communist thought.
Thank you for your thoughts though comrade o7
Just to add, you also said:
This declaration is just as childish as making the declaration that Russia is doing this out of the goodness of their heart.
This is alarming, comrade. You are engaging in idealistic analysis. This is not dialectal materialism and not in accord with communist theory.
I agree that this “both sides bad” line supports the empire. But its rooted not in malice, but in a poor understanding of the actual situation on the ground. Many don’t even know what the DPR and LPR are and instead see this conflict in an entirely bourgeois vs bourgeois fashion. Once you reconize this 3rd element at play the analysis quickly changes from “both sides bad” to “Russia is playing a relatively progressive role on the world stage and in this conflict”. I feel you have quite a rose tinted view of Russia. You make it seem as if Russia is some altruistic proletarian society when in reality it is thoroughly capitalist to the core.
You also keep pushing this Russia VS west narrative ignoring the real struggle which is of the DPR and LPR against western imperialism and fascism. They have been fighting far longer and only now got Russian support because of Ukraine making moves to join NATO.
I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but I firmly reject this idea that I am “viewing Russia with rose colored glasses”.
I am not “viewing” Russia through anything at all. I am not making any sort of moral, of ideological support of Russia.
It seems you believe I am engaging in morality judgement, where as a dialectial materialist, I reject.
I am looking and observing the physical phenomenon on the surface of the earth, and forming my analysis around the development of this phenomenon and nothing more.
And when I engage in this dialectal analysis, yes, it is true that what Russia is doing is a progressive force. That is not a moral judgement.
That is an objective reality. The multipolar world is being accelerated, objectively.
I make no moral judgements, but I do recognize the devil when it appears.
To call something a “devil” is itself engaging in moral arguments against “the bad” over “the good”. Unless you believe the US is made up of literal devils, as in those fictional creatures of “evil”. If you do believe that then you are delusional.
You are making it seem as though the Russian bourgeois goal is to give liberation to these people. That is untrue, their goal is to expand their power and defend themselves. They are driven by the same greed as the rest of the bourgeois, they are just too weak to enforce it purely with the stick so they must use the carrot. They would happily do everything the US does if they had the chance, but they don’t have that chance, so they can’t. They are not against capitalism in the slightest, they are just against the western bourgeois who are only representative of capitalism under western control.
If Russia was truely against capitalism as you claim it would be practicing socialism right now, the bourgeois would liquidate themselves. They want capitalism, they just want to be the ones on top.
Finally you claim that my analysis is undialectical when I’m the only one applying class analysis while you sling your empty slogans and tell me to “reflect” on my “idealistic contradictions” without supplying any kind of analysis of your own unless you consider America being a “devil” a proper substitute for class analysis. If that’s the case then you’d make a 3rd rate theologian and an even worse Marxist.
America is the physical devil, not because if moral judgement but because the economic core will lead objectively to the destruction of the planet. It is not a moral judgement. You are misinterpreting the essence of what I am delivering.
No I am not.
Absolutely hilarious. This is the same, western white perspective which white anarchists use to chastise China as a capitalist Dictatorship.
Again, you are engaging in even more dense idealism.
You claim if they wanted socialism they would liquidate themselves?
Comrade, they are bound by a material reality in which they are under the thumb of the American Empire. You are asking for the Russian state to commit suicide. If they were to abolish and overthrow their entire system they would be obliterated by the American Empire.
It is truly unbelievable that a self proclaimed Marxist could state that Russia must prove ideological accord by sabatoging and engaging in a destabilizing restructuring while they are UNDER FUCKING ATTACK BY THE GODDAMN FOURTH REICH, NATO.
HOLY FUCKING SHIT, COMRADE.
So you posit that the country of America has coalesced into the form of a devil? You have any idea how ridiculous that sounds. I know you meant to use such a term as “devil” as a metaphor just as I use words like “core”. There is no physical core just as their is no physical devil, it is a metaphor to more precisely describe something that is difficult to put directly to words.
So you think the Russian bourgeois who killed the USSR and bought the state for pennies on the dollar want to give up all of their wealth and power? Why haven’t they all joined the communist party yet, if they can’t fully liquidate themselves then modeling themselves off China is certainly a step in the right direction. Mandatory unionization, strong workers protections, focusing on poverty reduction and economic development. All of these are things the Russian national bourgeois choose not to do because they are bourgeois. China is actually ran by the proletariat. That is the difference.
And yes, you do make it seem Russia is some do no wrong impossible superhero when in reality its national bourgeois are just as self interested as any other country. They are just too weak to act like the west does.
If the Russian national bourgeois truly want socialism as you claim then why? What forces at play make them different from every other bourgeois (even the Chinese ones who, though under proletarian hegemony, still do push for increasing their own power out of self interest)? Are they just virtuous people (if yes what made them so?)? What causes them to totally reject their class interests?
You are misunderstanding.
When I call it the devil, I am not saying America is a fictional character with red skin and horns.
I’m saying America IS the Devil. That the American roads, corporate building, the bridges, the cable lines, electric lines, all of the physical structures of America are the Devil, and that is what the material Devil is.
I am not using the abstract construct of the Devil when I call America the Devil.
The American you see when you look at satellite images is the Devil. That is what the Devil looks like, it is America.
And you cannot deny the objective fact that this American Empire left undefeated is going to lead to the destruction of humanity and all life on earth.
I am NOT engaging in the abstract use of the word, instead I am using the word’s essence to encapsulate what America physically is.
First off, no I’m not making them out to be a superhero, it’s just that I recognize they are opposed to the American Empire and aligned with china, thus making them a progressive force.
You are acting like their opposition to America is insignificant, and rather focusing on the abstract idea of socialism, and judging Russia under this abstract pretense.
I am simply recognizing significant, objective realities, which are opposed got be American Empire and necessary for its destruction.
Maybe we can pull back the hostility and reach an understanding.
I’m not saying they want socialism. I’m saying they want a multipolar world, which objectively benefits socialism.
This is the key.
It’d be better if you never started the hostility in the first place but I’m fine with ending it if you like.
Honestly you are just sounding less material than before. So you are saying that a devil is America? As in the dude writing the Bible was just like “ah yes this configuration of roads, bridges, class dynamics and prison population rules over hell”? I’d get if you just admitted it was a metaphor. Materialists are in fact allowed to use metaphors, just not metaphysics which you are almost proposing at this point by imbuing the US with what amounts a an independent conscious. Sounds almost like what those unironic believers of living capital think when they say that capital literally has a mind of its own when in reality its just abstract value generated by workers. Its animism almost.
I already said Russia is a progressive force, you are the one who claimed that it stands against capitalism. The Russian national bourgeois definitely are striving towards multipolarity and that is objectively good. This is very different from them being against capitalism however. You are the one who claimed that the only reason Russia isn’t practicing socialism is because they are trying to mimic China. You are clearly backpeddling from that point after you made a whole show about how I’m acting like a white western idealist.
You also say it is “Capitalist to the core” but it is literally in opposition to the white hegemonic core of capitalism.
Again, comrade, you are engaging in abstraction and undialectical analysis.
Your word choice is ironically reflective of your idealistic thought. “Capitalist to the core”.
The actual core is the American Empire and the core is an enemy of Russia.
You need to reflect on this as it it is indicative of your idealistic contradictions.
People really need to realize there are two types of capitalist countries: a tiny minority of imperial core ones, and a shit ton of poorer exploited ones feeding them.
Revolutionary defeatism, if it applies at all, should only include the former.
Beautifuly said o7
There is no revolutionary situation in both Ukraine or Russia, and no functional systems of worker organizations, so “revolutionary defeatism” brings nothing, workers classes in both Russia and Ukraine are too weak and unorganized to topple their respective governments, so in the end it doesn’t matter. But for other socialist countries Russia is very useful asset in helping to topple west hegemony. And, in the long run, Russian and Ukrainian workers could return their countries from the claws of the bourgeoise with help from these socialist countries and with at least partially survived socialist culture there.
The second largest political party in Russia is communist. It is not in the imperial core, and it always remains a possibility that the communists will take power there again. Also noteworthy that russian communists largely support this war in defense of the people of the Donbass and against NATO expansionism.
The 2nd largest political party in Japan is communist too, you gonna tell me its not imperial core?
You really think communists in Russia are gonna take power through elections? I didn’t realizes this was GenZeDemocraticSocialists, my mistake.
I’m not against the war, I even said Russia is acting as a progressive force in this moment. All I’m saying is that the Russian national bourgeois do not care about concepts like self determination, they care about expanding their power. This is why it took so long for Russia to finally intervene. It saw a threat to itself and acted, Russia didn’t care about Nazi Ukraine while the people of the DPR and LPR were getting bombed for 8 years straight, if the situation continued as it was Russia wouldn’t have gotten involved. Only when an actual threat to Russia emerged did it intervene.
No it isn’t, its not even in the top 5 political parties in Japan. Also the JCP is basically a socdem party… its about as “communist” as the eurocommunist or the french socialist party. They even consider China imperialist. Compare that with the KPRF which carries the legacy and ideals of the fully functioning RSDLP, IE the party of Lenin and the Bolsheviks.
Japan is 100% in the imperial core: its an OECD nation, and along with Germany it was one of the main nations the US built up to be anti-communist bulwarks after WW2. Compare that with Russia, which is not in the imperial core and does not receive the benefits of unequal exchange.
Not all nationalisms are equal. The nationalism of a Russia, Iran, or Venezuala has a genuinely progressive character. And Russia has not been completely standing on the sidelines w/ regard to the Donbass, or Crimea. They’ve helped them in the past, with weapons and via a proxy war (just like Ukraine was doing, except they were arming right-wing paramilitaries) and are helping the republics now. Maybe not up to your standards, but that’s a decision for them to make when they decide to do overt military action, if at all.
I’m boggled at how your comment got even a single upvote, anyone can easily fact check your claims.
I agree that the JCP is basically succdem, but they are the largest none ruling communist party in the world. Revisionist yes, but still technically a communist party.
The party of Lenin and the Bolsheviks? We all know the USSR went extremely revisionist. The same party that let Gorby into power? The party of Breznhev and Kruschev? They are closer to the modern day than Lenin is. I’m not saying the party can’t change mind you, maybe they fixed their revisionism, in fact I find it likely they did. However empty phrases on how its the party of Lenin is ridiculous and not a real argument.
I agree Japan is imperial core. You’re right that Russia is not imperial core, but there can be more than 1 imperialist power at a time. That is what caused WW1. This is why I specify Russia as a small imperialist.
You are also correct that not all nationalism is equal. I never said anything about Russian nationalism as I don’t know enough about it in particular to have an opinion.
You are right that its their choice how they use (or not) their military. However to just ignore their actions instead of analyzing what it means is important. Each action made has a purpose, including the choice to be inactive. They chose to be inactive. They only took action when it became a threat to them, this is reasonable, you cannot expect anything more, however it also shows that their reasons are out of self interest. Out of securing resources for themselves.
CPRF is a bourgeoisie party. A decent number of low-ranking/local area members are active when it comes to social issues, but they’re being repressed by police and boomers at top like Zuyganov are happy to purge members who don’t subscribe to only voting in parliament where United Russia has 3/4 of places anyway.
What made RSDLP a revolutionary force was that they’ve represented the working class and peasantry which has already started self organizing and building dual power. Bolsheviks (but also other parties like mensheviks and SRs) have acted as a vanguard of a revolutionary mass movement, but not made it happen on their own. There can’t be new RSDLP until class consciousness gets high enough to fuel the revolutionary wave, meaning that CPRF can’t be a revolutionary party of a working class just because there are no material conditions for it to exist. But also it’s not acting to spread class consciousness or organize the working masses like Bolsheviks did, nor really organizing theory study groups to build up revolutionary vanguard. I would classify it as left-populist or maybe even USSR-populist (using vague Soviet nostalgia and themes without any class character), and they’re only allowed to exist because they’re no threat to the bourgeoisie class.
That sucks, I’ve only heard good things about the CPRF. In this case it is basically equivalent to the JCP in terms of being communist in name but succdem/bourgeois in practice.
Yes? We both agree that revolutionary defeatism serves no purpose in this conflict. I don’t really get where you disagree with me.
I just wanted to add remark about revilutionary situation, that’s all. I fully agree with you and i did not want it to be seen as disagreeing. Sorry.
How the fuck can you agree with someone who is calling the pushback of the Fourth Reich “small Imperialism”. That doesn’t immediately raise a flag to you? Jesus, this community needs a mod post again clarifying what Imperialism is.
No problem, no need to apologize. I was just confused, if you agree with the conclusion that we should support the DPR and LPR in their struggle against Ukraine then that’s what matters.
The way I frame this concept is “regional imperialism”.
So, for example, I am of the opinion that Iran is engaged in regional imperialism. I’m completely sympathetic to why that is the state of affairs for them due to economic and geopolitical reasons (West Asia is a cutthroat continent for obvious reasons and, unfortunately, if Iran isn’t out there projecting power beyond its own borders then it’s only a matter of time before Wahhabi groups like ISIS suddenly “somehow” find themselves armed, trained, supplied, and on Iran’s doorstep snapping at its heels.)
If Iran had the ability to extend its reach I think it’s fair to say based on current evidence that it likely would.
But that’s beside the point.
My reason for framing a country as a regional imperialist power is to cast a clear distinction between them and countries in the NATO axis - global imperialists through and through. This allows for critical analysis of Iran and it helps to avoid the “both sides bad” which all too often ends up carrying water for the side which is very clearly, demonstrably much the greater of two evils.
As I said below:
Imperialism is not when you have a conflict or power struggle.
Imperialism is when you have 800 foreign military bases, control all economic counsels, sanction and starve out human populations, forcing other countries to stay in line with mass murdering sanctions under threat of additional sanctions against themselves.
Russia is not even close to being Imperialist in any regard. It is a state that exists in a world that is dominated by an Imperialist Empire.
The conflict in Ukraine is not a kind of any “small Imperialism”.
That is a ridiculous and abstract position. You are abstracting the meaning of Imperialism and applying it to a country that has been a historic victim of American Imperialism.
You speak of abstractions and ridiculous positions yet you essentialize imperialism to a quantity and to a victim-perpetrator binary. You argue as if imperialism is not something which develops gradually as a process but rather something that emerges fully-formed or which only exists once it surpasses a certain level of intensity.
Would you say that the EU is not imperialist given the fact that it doesn’t meet your definition above? 🤔🤔
“meeting my definition” means nothing because it is not “my definition” that is the center of meaning.
To answer your question, the EU is part of the American Empire, they are synonymous.
The fact that you even pose this question shows how ridiculous your perspective is.
The center of the meaning is having 800 foreign military bases? Just whose definition are you using here buddy?
It’s remarkable that you’d flatten out any materialist analysis of the EU in favor of the terminally-online debatebro take that the EU is simply a part of the American Empire.
Given that there are well over 200 US military bases in the EU and “the EU is a part of the American Empire” then does that mean that the US doesn’t actually reach that magical 800+ number of foreign military bases, thus meaning that the US isn’t imperialist by your measure?
The fact that you can’t actually respond to the content of my question any more than you can help yourself from soapboxing shows more about your perspective than a question, which is intended to highlight the absurdity in your own position and to see if you are capable of addressing the contradictions in your own muddled thinking, does.
Yours is a grim parody of dialectical materialism; I’d call it vulgar DiaMat but that would be too charitable since it’s neither dialectical nor materialist.
I was making clear the real material difference between the realities.
Unlike you, I am not making an abstraction using the definition and then applying it universally across realities inside and outside of the American Empire.
Because I’m not an anarchist, like you.
The “reality” is that:
Imperialism must be global before it’s imperialism
Imperialism is about about many military bases you have internationally
If you have been a subject of imperialism, you cannot be imperialist yourself
Imperialism is a synonym for being a global hegemon
The EU has absolutely zero internal political economy or contradictions that distinguish it from the US; it’s literally just an extension of the US
Anyone who doesn’t immediately agree with everything you say is an anarchist
You’re a real winner, aren’t you?
People are down voting you, but you’re entirely right. Its not like we are saying that Russia must be fought against, we support it critically. This is the critical part of critical support.
I like small imperialist just because its a call back to the petit bourgeois - national bourgeois dynamic but regional imperialist is an entirely fair line to use as well as its mostly a matter of personal preference at this point as no one has really codified this language yet.
Imperialism is not when you have a conflict or power struggle.
Imperialism is when you have 800 foreign military bases, control all economic counsels, sanction and starve out human populations, forcing other countries to stay in line with mass murdering sanctions under threat of additional sanctions against themselves.
Russia is not even close to being Imperialist in any regard. It is a state that exists in a world that is dominated by an Imperialist Empire.
The conflict in Ukraine is not a kind of any “small Imperialism”.
That is a ridiculous and abstract position. You are abstracting the meaning of Imperialism and applying it to a country that has been a historic victim of American Imperialism.
Let’s say for a moment that I run an island nation. There is a country nearby that I can neocolonize because its the modern era, and my country is fully developed while theirs isn’t. This is still imperialism, just smaller scale.
You are correct when you say that Russia is not at the US’ level of imperialism. But it does throw around a lot of weight regionally. Its the difference between domestic/household slavery and a fully developed slave economy. Both still use slaves, the 2nd is just larger scale. Both Russia and the US participate in imperialist activities, but to very different scales.
The petit bourgeois still owns their own business, they just happen to work in it. The difference between the petit bourgeois and the national bourgeois is not one of relation to the means of production so much as it is a question of labor. National and imperialist bourgeois don’t need to actually input any labor while the petit bourgeois do. Still bourgeois, just at different levels.
The Russian participation conflict in Ukraine is objectively for imperialist reasons. The Russia national bourgeois isn’t there for fun, they want to secure their natural gas and oil pipelines and prevent NATO from expanding into them. Imperialists don’t do imperialism because they like seeing people suffer (exclusively) they do so because it is necessary for capital to become imperialist after it develops enough.
Regardless of this selfish intention however, Russia is being forced to compromise with proletarian movements to get anything because the western imperialists already own most everything.
NATO is the fourth reich. Can you understand why I find your proclamation to be utterly ridiculous?
You’re claiming the conflict is for “Imperialist reasons” and then in the next breath you state it’s to prevent NATO from expanding into them.
You are saying that Russia’s effort to prevent the expansion of the Fourth Reich is Imperialism.
I just… I’m blown away.
In case you didn’t know, Ukraine is not a part of Russia (shocking). They are manipulating the politics of another nation for their own ends and securing natural resources for themselves at the expense of another nation. This is imperialist. Even if there are reasonable reasons attached.
Ah, so I see the issue now.
You believe that imperialism = expanding your sphere of influence.
You are again ignoring that Ukraine lost it’s sovereignty long ago at the hands of the Fourth Reich. It was already a controlled state under the American Empire even not being part of NATO officially.
Your perspective is a product of the perceived ideological intention of the Russian state, which is heavily biased and not connected to material reality.
Imperialism is not conflict or expansion of influence, comrade. The fact that you stated Russia is fighting off the Fourth Reich and then called that Imperialism shows you are not engaging with the dialectics, but rather viewing the conflict through perceived ideological intention.
Is Russia planning to restore its sovereignty without any compensation? Only then is your argument valid, otherwise the Russian national bourgeois saw they had to strike now to prevent NATO from being close by. This is why they let Ukraine do whatever it wanted while it went full nazi post euromaiden. They didn’t suddenly just start caring about Ukrainian sovereignty 8 years after the fact, they just saw recent NATO moves and realized that they couldn’t put off the issue anymore.
Russia fighting off the sphere of influence of the Fourth Reich is not Imperialism, comrade.
Imagine calling yourself a communist and writing this. Russia having natural resources and selling them is not imperialism.
Correct, Russia invading a neighboring country to secure resources is however definitely a trademark of it.
This is literal fucking Nazi apologia.
?