Personally, I don’t support either Ukraine or Russia, I see Ukraine as harboring nazis and they should answer for their crimes in the Donbas. However, when Russia invaded Ukraine I saw it as an imperialist invasion for Putin to conquer Ukraine. After He annexed the Donetsk, Kherson, Luhansk, and Zaporizhzhia oblasts, this became a very blatant imperialist invasion. Secondly, I found this post, which talks about the Russian capture of Bakhmut. I was suprised about the number of people who supported Russia. Am I wrong here for not supporting Russia? I would love to hear you opinions on this matter.
Imperialism, as we Marxists understand it, is not simply territorial expansion – which latter, furthermore, does not really describe Russia’s actions in Crimea and the Donbass. What happened is that regions which are historically Russian broke from Ukraine after the 2014 coup, and Russia moved in both to secure its interests and to protect ethnic Russians (plus other minorities) from genocide. Normally one should oppose one state meddling in another’s sovereignty, and as socialists who are opposed to the ultraleft line of “abolish all nations immediately,” we do. But materially, any revolution – and the Maidan was a revolution – abolishes the basic set of premises and understandings (what liberals call the “social contract”) on which a particular nation is built, and these must be reestablished by force. This is why nearly every revolution in history, the Russian revolution included, was followed by territorial adjustments. Hence, if the Ukrainian junta is unable to establish control over the Donbass and Crimea, these regions are materially speaking not part of the current Ukrainian state.
(The analogous situation, in other words, is not the US invading Iraq. It would be if the central government in Washington were toppled by some sort of coup, and in the chaos which followed, majority-Hispanic regions of Texas and Southern California decided to join Mexico. Mexico sending troops into these regions of the now-weakened United States in order to secure its own interests would not be a violation of US sovereignty – for US sovereignty in these regions would only exist to the extent it could be defended by force).
Now for imperialism. Imperialism, again as we Marxists understand it, is related to empire as capital is related to capitalism. Capital in itself is neutral; it exists in socialist states as well as capitalist ones. Capitalism, however is an economic system which works to benefit a private capital-owning class; which means production organized not for human need but for profit, i.e., the profit of certain private individuals. Similarly, empires have existed throughout history, and there is a sense in which even the Soviet Union or the People’s Republic of China could be neutrally described as “an empire.” But imperialism, as Marxists define it, is an economic system based on the possession (legally or de facto) of economic dependencies, which are deliberately kept poor and underdeveloped. This is the relation between the US and Haiti, the US and Iraq, and yes, the US and Ukraine. It is not the relation subsisting between Russia and regions like Crimea or the Donbass or Chechnya.
It is important to understand that imperialism is not about intent, but material reality; it is not, in other words, as the liberals define it, which is basically “military stuff with bad vibes.” Imperialism, as an economic system, is a feature of highly developed capitalist economies, which modern Russia is not. An imperialist nation must, almost of necessity, export not commodities but capital; it must have a highly developed financial sector to facilitate this; very often, it has itself become deindustrialized, i.e., it has located most of its industrial production elsewhere. Russia, which primarily exports raw materials, is clearly not a nation of this kind.
Lastly, on the topic of Russia : well-meaning people will often wonder why we support Russia in this conflict, since the Russian Federation is clearly not the USSR. We acknowledge what happened in Russia in 1991, and admit it was a disaster for the Russian people and for the global socialist movement. However, the “Russia is capitalist” line is simplistic, in that it implies one can go from socialism back to full-fledged capitalism. This is not how things actually work: no nation can revert to a lower stage of production. If it loses the higher stage, it collapses into chaos, but it does not attain to a lower stage. Thus, the extent to which Russia is stable and prosperous is precisely the extent to which the Soviet economy, and its infrastructure and means of social organization, still exist; the extent to which it is stagnant and unstable is the degree to which it has been “re-capitalized” and its economy come under the domination of the West. For Russians and for all post-Soviet people, the choice really is “socialism or barbarism.”
very good summary 👍
the “Russia is capitalist” line is simplistic, in that it implies one can go from socialism back to full-fledged capitalism
Are you using “full-fledged capitalism” in the sense of a deindustrialized, financialized version of capitalism like in the imperial core? I don’t think it’s untrue to say that Russia is capitalist, even if it’s lacking in nuance
Are you using “full-fledged capitalism” in the sense of a deindustrialized, financialized version of capitalism like in the imperial core?
Yes, and furthermore: Russia will be unable to achieve a kind of capitalism capable of creating, on its own, positive growth. The capitalist economy there will always be parasitic on the old Soviet economic structure. Russia is capitalist, but in an atypical way. Its capitalism is the socialist economy in decay.
Makes sense. I can’t predict the future but I’m inclined to agree that there’s basically no chance of Russia (voluntarily) deindustrializing like the West
“The capitalist economy there will always be parasitic on the old Soviet economic structure.”
This is a very interesting idea you have put forward. Could you share with me why you believe this to be the case? Is this brought forth by any works in particular or is this a concept you have calculated yourself?
I didn’t originate that idea, no. It came originally from a certain Marxist youtuber who these days mostly posts rightist nonsense, but who does ocassionally and almost by accident come through with some pretty good analysis. (I think we all know who I’m talking about).
Basically, the idea is you cannot revert to a lower stage of production in it stable form, because every mode of production reshapes the social and physical infrastructure of a country in order to suit its own needs. In the process, it annihilates the conditions which made the older and lower mode of production possible. You can only destroy the new mode of production in its positive essence by completely destroying the society within which it exists. Imagine a capitalist society which tried to revert to feudalism; the government could create create fiefs, name certain people aristocrats and others serfs, etc., but the whole thing would still be operating on an industrial or post-industrial base incompatible with feudalism. I think that on some level, the US ruling class understands this, which is why they tried to destroy Russia utterly during the 1990s – not just reorient its government and economic policies, but to commit genocide of the Russian people.
Thus the reversion to capitalism has been, in accordance with the general laws of historical progress, not the establishment of anything positive, but the destruction of that which positively exists. In most post-Soviet states, Ukraine for instance, this process has been carried almost to its logical conclusion, which is the complete destruction of a people: institutions under the thumb of NATO and the IMF, infrastructure deliberately destroyed, people either killed or forced to emmigrate. Hence we get the stereotype that “all Slavic men are gangsters and menial laborers, all Slavic women prostitutes;” for this is the role western capital has reserved them within the rich imperial core countries. In Russia, this trend has been mainly halted by Putin’s bonapartist government; this has been done through reestablishing state control over large sections of the economy, and forcing the oligarchs to work in chorus with the state. But the Russian economy remains a Soviet economy which has been colonized by the west. All the Putin compromise has been able to achieve is stability, stasis, since by freeing up a large portion of the economy from western domination, his government has created a counterweight to that part of the economic structure which is dragging Russia down. Putin, in other words, is like a doctor who halts or dramatically slows the spread of a disease, but does not cure it. In order to actually cure the disease, society and the Russian economy must again be allowed to function as what they really are – namely socialist; this can only be done by ending, once and for all, the colonization of Russia’s economy by the west.
Interesting perspective comrade, thank you for elaborating.
I often have to wonder about the people here that say “I don’t support either side” when one side was actively committing acts of terror and genocide against the regions the other side was stepping in to protect. All other motives aside, I support the side that is actually trying to stop in innocent people from being slaughtered.
Fantastic answer.
Also, territorial disputes are not imperialism, and the Ukrainian neo-nazi government has been massacering civilians in the Donbass with impunity since the maidan coup in 2014.
You need to be able to define imperialism, or explain why Russia taking out the neo-nazi trash that europe refuses to do, is anything but a good thing.
Nato expansion:
https://forward.com/news/462916/nazi-collaborator-monuments-in-ukraine/
I understand the territorial disputes of Donbass and Luhansk, but what about the Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, there aren’t any territorial disputes on those regions.
There are significant Russian populations there, all of whom are in danger of ethnic cleansing by the nazi-led Ukrainian government.
Again, you need to define imperialism, and why you are ‘both-sidesing’ this conflict. Clearly one side is weakening western hegemony, and the other side is trying to expand it. See the image above.
I understand that protecting the russian population in those states, however I don’t believe that invading Ukraine and causing hundreds of thousands of deaths was the right way to protect these people. Not accounting for the untold numbers of people who have fled the regions affected by the fighting.
What is the right way, in your opinion, to protect your people from neo-nazi aggression? Colorful language and witty retorts?
And why is defending yourself from nato’s eastward expansion called “invading”? Did you not see the image above?
And no, the Russian military is not killing “hundreds of thousands” of civilians, gonna need a source on that. If anything, their pace has been extremely slow, to prevent civilian deaths. Lord knows they could steamroll over all of Ukraine if they wanted to, but that doesn’t meet any of their objectives.
I don’t know, I’m just saying that if there was another path that could be taken where so many didn’t have to die, it should’ve. Also I never said that the Russian army was killing hundreds of thousands of civilians, I said that the combined death toll of the army’s of both sides amounted to that much.
Are you aware that all communist parties are banned in Ukraine, but not in Russia? And that the Ukrainian government is threatening to outlaw the Russian language?
How do you feel about Ukraine accepting military and financial aid from the imperialist powers? Why do you think they’re giving that aid?
The russian language is already banned in Lviv oblast. It’s a shame so much is given to ukraine when it’s fate is already sealed. But weapons companies make money and that’s all they care about.
I doubt anyone here is a fan of the damage that has happened, despite the memes and ironic Putin stanning that happens from time to time. But also, this is very much a war for Russia’s security as a nation rather than a war of colonization. The only ones in danger of being colonized here is Russia, which NATO states are attempting to balkanize on behalf of Western finance capital. According to Western media, Russia invaded “first,” yet really Russia’s invasion is a response to decades of hostile Western assaults and breaking of agreements. Whether the ruling class of Russia has imperialist ambitions or not, they simply do not have the capacity to do so.
If this was the '38 and the Soviets struck first and invaded Germany before they could unleash unmitigated terror onto Europe, our world would likely be having a similar conversation.
Am I wrong here for not supporting Russia?
Nobody here is supporting anyone in this war. At most people on the internet are cheerleading for a war they’re so alienated from it’s become a team spectable to be consumed in their leasure time. Nobody here is sending weapons, money or doing anything tangible to support Russia in this war.
Most users on here, however, probably hold the opinion that a victory for Western imperialism in Ukraine would have worse ramifications for the world. And if anything is abundant, it’s Western people and media screeching about Russian imperialism. I don’t think there’s a need for principled communists to preach to that choir.
Russia’s economy doesn’t have the characteristics of an imperialist power, therefore the wars they wage cannot be explained by a vital need to export capital. If Russia cannot be systematically described as a country that needs new ventures to avoid collapse just like the US and Euro empires, therefore we need to find another explanation.
The liberal explanation for the war in Ukraine is simply that Putin is a psychopath who loves having power and killing people. I don’t think I need to elaborate on that one.
The Russian side explaination is that Ukraine was being used as a proxy power by the US and that letting it be armed and solidified politically would allow the US to pressure Russia into giving up sovereign state economic rights. That explains both why the communist party (even if they have faults) AND the Russian bourgeoisie united on that subject.
Given that the Russian bourgeoisie is ultimately commanding the operation, looting and other ways of making money should be expected after their victory. But that doesn’t mean that Russia had a vital need of doing this to avoid collapse.
Mostly agree, but we shouldn’t forget that expansions and war do not only happen in the highest stage of capitalism to avoid collapse. They happened before imperialism, so imperialism isn’t necessary to wage wars for material/financial reasons.
Napoleonic France wasn’t imperialist in terms of the developmental stage of capitalism, it was expansionist, militaristic and warfocused anyway.
Edit: Not saying Russia is like Napoleonic France obviously
Russia is not even imperialist in the liberal sense, the annexed territories were formerly Russian, are inhabited by Russians, were incorporated into Ukraine by administrative decisions and tried to detach themselves from Ukraine at least three times since 1918. That’s clearly liberation.
Imperialism is when a government does things, dontchaknow
Imperialistic in the sense of empire-building?
deleted by creator
Very possibly, but “we must never grow tired of explaining” and all that
You’re right!
I’m just interested in learning.
Lenin’s, The Right of Nations to Self-Determination might shed some light on this issue: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/self-det/.
Don’t worry too much about it. I was like this when the war first started, but I’ve been swayed by now. Drastic changes in opinion take some time.
of course you are wrong for not supporting Russia. the Ukrainians wanna play western games in their region and they accepted the proxy war on behalf of the other NATO members, now they pay for what the Americans pushed them to.
remember that Iraq done nothing wrong to Ukraine, so the Ukrainians helped the Americans during the invasion, now they feel what means when someone invade their country.
as you mentioned the Ukrainian nazi government killed 100s of thousands of people in Donbass no human rights groups cried for them. if this was happening in middle east you see everyone barking about it, this tells you how the western governments are into neo-nazis.
100s of thousands? I was under the impression that it was around 10k as of last February
I’m only saddened I arrived late to this post…
If you believe Russia launched an imperialist war, begin to follow geopolitics not only when your attention is peaked by current events and read Lenin’s Imperialism, the Highest Stage. Everything explained to you here by others was taught to them by many works but chiefly by Lenin’s Imperialism as it is the standard for studying imperialism.
Firstly, it’s Artyomovsk, not Bakhmut. Artyomovsk was named after a comrade in the Soviet Union, we say Artyomovsk.
Secondly, Ukraine is a nazi regime, it does not simply house and protect nazis.
Everything else I would have said has already been covered.
