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
comrade stalin put this both sides are bad bs to rest over 100 years ago:
The Anarchists say that the dialectical method is “subtle word-weaving,” “the method of sophistry,” “logical somersaults” (see Nobati, No. 8. Sh. G.), “with the aid of which both truth and falsehood are proved with equal facility” (see Nobati, No. 4. Article by V. Cherkezishvili).
Thus, in the opinion of the Anarchists, the dialectical method proves both truth and falsehood.
At first sight it would seem that the accusation advanced by the Anarchists has some foundation. Listen, for example, to what Engels says about the follower of the metaphysical method :
“. . . His communication is: ‘Yea, yea; nay, nay, for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.’ For him a thing either exists, or it does not exist; it is equally impossible for a thing to be itself and at the same time something else. Positive and negative absolutely exclude one another . . .” (see Anti-Duhring. Introduction).
How is that? — the Anarchists cry heatedly. Is it possible for a thing to be good and bad at the same time?! That is “sophistry,” “juggling with words,” it shows that “you want to prove truth and falsehood with equal facility”! . . .
Let us, however, go into the substance of the matter.
Today we are demanding a democratic republic. Can we say that a democratic republic is good in all respects, or bad in all respects? No we cannot! Why?
Because a democratic republic is good only in one respect: when it destroys the feudal system; but it is bad in another respect: when it strengthens the bourgeois system. Hence we say: in so far as the democratic republic destroys the feudal system it is good — and we fight for it; but in so far as it strengthens the bourgeois system it is bad — and we fight against it. So the same democratic republic can be “good” and “bad” at the same time — it is “yes” and “no.”
The same thing may be said about the eight-hour day, which is good and bad at the same time: “good” in so far as it strengthens the proletariat, and “bad” in so far as it strengthens the wage system.
It was facts of this kind that Engels had in mind when he characterised the dialectical method in the words we quoted above.
The Anarchists, however, fail to understand this, and an absolutely clear idea seems to them to be nebulous “sophistry.”
The Anarchists are, of course, at liberty to note or ignore these facts, they may even ignore the sand on the sandy seashore — they have every right to do that. But why drag in the dialectical method, which, unlike anarchism, does not look at life with its eyes shut, which has its finger on the pulse of life and openly says: since life changes and is in motion, every phenomenon of life has two trends: a positive and a negative; the first we must defend, the second we must reject.
fucking embarrasing to be a so called marxist with these anarchisty bs takes. it’s simply undialectical, unmarxist.
There are absolutely anarchists here in this sub.
They are vastly, vastly outnumbered, but there is some support for abstract universalism, and the only conclusion I can come to is white anarchists.
Proposal to start calling MLMs and gonzaloites, red anarchists. Their tactics and analyses are indistinguishable from anarchist ones anyway.
trostkytes of the east