I think it’s important to understand that Marxist-Leninists should be supporting the people of both countries, rather than picking one of two capitalist states to back. I understand that Russia has its excuses for doing this, and the Ukraine government has its excuses for what it has done, but it’s important to remember that they are both capitalist countries in the age of imperialism; what they are really after is power. Please feel free to correct me if you believe I got anything wrong.
While I agree that Russia is justified in defending itself from NATO, I’ve seen far too many MLs praising the state of Russia. Additionally I don’t think any ML should really be that concerned about whether Russia as a State survives or not
Would you be saying this about Iraq? The US destroyed it, just like its trying to do to Russia.
Just because a country is capitalist, is not enough to say “it shouldn’t survive.” That focuses on surface-level labels as being enough to demonize a country. The communist party of the russian federation, which is the 2nd largest political party in russia, agrees with this intervention in Ukraine.
As a matter of fact, I would say that a state being capitalist is enough to say it shouldn’t survive. Of course the answer to this is not said country being replaced with another capitalist state, which is why I said I belive they are justified in defending themselves from NATO. I simply urge caution against getting used to placing your trust in capitalist states. Russia is NOT our end all be all, and the government probably doesn’t really care that much about denazification. They are simply looking out for their own interests. As a conclusion and clarification, I think the invasion is a net positive, but we should be cautious about Russia and its intentions and interests.
👀 . Iraq “shouldn’t have survived” I guess? What about the dozens of other capitalist countries the US has intervened against? Most capitalist countries, especially those in the global south, are poor, and don’t receive the benefits that imperial-core capitalist countries do.
The people of Russia still bear the scars of defending the world from nazism. Putin even had many family members die in the defense of Leningrad. In russia, unlike other capitalist countries, nazism is illegal, and communism is 100% legal (the 2nd largest party in russia in communist).
Again, this is a childish labeling of complicated countries. Capitalism = bad, so they should all be destroyed! I’m done thinking now!
I feel as if I’m being slightly misinterpreted here. When I say a capitalist state should cease to exist I do not mean it should be bombed into oblivion by other capitalist states. I mean they should be overthrown. Obviously I don’t think the west was justified in what it did to Iraq, but supporting the capitalist government of Iraq to undermine the west, rather than the people of Iraq is not the correct response. And yes, capitalism is bad, therefore the capitalist governments should be dissolved, but that is not to say the nations themselves should be bombed.
It should go without saying that all capitalist governments should eventually be dissolved, but that doesn’t mean it is best to fight all of them at the same time no matter the circumstances. Sometimes it might be better to have hired thug with you who is a bit shady and untrustworthy but knows how to fight, then a best friend that is scrawny and essentially useless. If Russia were to have an attempted communist insurrection now, their army, economy and pool of talented personnel would suffer massively and would essentially give NATO a free pass to move in and conquer Russia. The West did exactly this to Syria where they armed Anti-Assad leftist along with ISIS with the intent of weakening and fracturing Syria as whole.
Exactly, russia having an communist insurgence right now would be no different them the anarchist insurgence in the spanish civil war, it would be just useless infighting that would give fascists an free card to do what they want.
It absolutely is, or rather was at the time. You support even a capitalist government at odds with imperialism, because any blow against the global imperialist system is a blow against capitalism. It is part of the historical process that culminates in socialism. As Marx himself says “the communists, in short, support every uprising against the existing nature of things.”
We do not uphold socialism as a moral system. We uphold historical progress, and we recognize any state struggling against imperialism as progressive. This is the difference between us and liberals. A state like the modern Russian Federation, that fights for the interests of its national bourgeoisie, is undermining global capitalism, and thus ultimately undermining its own existence as a capitalist power. It is creating the conditions for socialism to emerge on the global stage, whether the government and people know it or not.
Fucking yeah. I think more leftists should bear this in mind. We’re not here making distinction between good and evil. For more than 5000 years the mankind have only created various form of “evil” political structure. Was it because people were not smart or morally enlightened to see that those regimes were “bad”? If you travel 5000 years back into the past will you be able to guide mankind into building an immaculately good socialism in a matter of years, or even decades? Of course no, because the material condition was not ripe for socialism.
So it’s really pointless to guide your politics with mere moral sentiment, which will either lead you into ultra-leftism or liberalism. You need an analysis of the material, historical condition. So people who say “Russia bad”, should really offer something more than a bland moral categorisation. They should offer a materially possible alternative, a better historical path towards world socialism.
Our liberal political culture taught us none of that and have trained us to be moralists about politics because liberalism is highly moralistic. It’s moralistic precisely because it was built upon the very misconception that human mind has been clouded until some European white dudes in 17C or 18C came up with the Enlightenment and that was the precise moment the human race had discovered the moral truth about human rights, freedom and so on. This is an ideological historiography that worked and works very well to justify the bourgeois revolutions and sanctify itself as the final form of human society. Marxists do not do that. We study the rationality behind history and try to help giving birth of a further, more rationalised form of society.
We don’t even want to sanctify socialism as “eternally good” and then plan to stay in socialism forever. We always recognise even a socialist state cannot be “100% good” whatever that means, because socialism itself is always in a dialectical movement transitioning into something else: communism, or backtracking into capitalism. Morality is a mode of thinking that either sanctify or vilify the present. It’s designed to be black and white. Whereas dialectics is a mode of thinking that trace the world in its motion. It knows things can’t be understood by simply putting them into different boxes, because they’re forever changing, and the reason why they’re changing is that there are contradictions inherent in it. And it’s precisely because things are inherently contradictory, they are both good and evil at the same time – binary categorisation simply can’t make sense of it.
deleted by creator
As a Christian ML/Juche student, I would actually argue that morality is real, and discoverable philosophically, but that its realization in the material world is always dependent on particular historical circumstances. Moral action is the domain of the subject; but humanity, even in socialist countries, is still largely the object of history. Thus, for now, the field of moral action is the field of subjectivity: the individual, and those close to them. It is thus not helpful, at this stage of historical-material development, to view politics through a moral lens.
If we are not going to support the state, with is the only organised form of the country to defend itself against imperialism, then who are we going to support? Like it or not, the russian people are dependent on the russian state to defend themselves against the west, there is a reason the Putin still is popular. We cant just say we support the people, because the people on a capitalist state are not the ones on power, the capitalists are, so the capitalists are responsible for the security of the country and the people living in it. If we are going to support the people, then it needs to be an people’s state, organised enough in a way that the people can defend themselves.
I think it is important to support capitalist iraq to gain its own independence and strength, and then support the people to have a revolution. Do not support the people to have a revolution while iraq is still at war with the west, that will only weaken it further.
From what throne do you sit on of which you claim which states you are okay with not “surviving”.
I agreed until the last sentence. We dont need to praise Russia for its internal management, its a pretty shitty country, but it definitely matters that it isnt destroyed. Russia is an asshole thats on our side.
Insane, tone deaf shit, educate yourself and correct this
Russia is a nuclear armed country, and has the most advanced missiles in the world (including hypersonic). If it gets destroyed, then other parts of the world will also get destroyed. Particularly the U.S.
You could not be more wrong. We have no love for the national bourgeois regime ruling in Russia at the moment but it is essential to understand that in the present geopolitical situation any destabilization of Russia that could lead to its weakening or to regime change would be a disaster.
And before you start thinking that maybe this would not be so bad considering communists have in the past made use of such situations to launch a revolution, let me assure you the communist forces in Russia are not nearly strong or organized enough yet to be able to take advantage of a destabilization of Russia’s present government, but the liberal NGOs are always ready and waiting. We would not see a second 1917 but a second 1991, another color revolution that will bring about such total subjugation to neoliberalism and imperialism, and such internal devastation and civil conflicts that it will make the 90s seem like “the good old days” in comparison.
Because if Russia falls to the imperialist onslaught China will 100% be next on the list. Russia is the single biggest obstacle standing in the way of western imperialism waging all out hybrid war on China. Russia protects China’s flank and stabilizes Central Asia, keeps the region safe from color revolutions and safeguards the vital BRI corridor from Asia to Europe. If the US were to succeed in fracturing Russia or enacting regime change, that would mean the end of the BRI in Eurasia, which would mean China’s only Achilles heel would be exposed: its vulnerability to blockade and being cut off from the resources and markets it needs to maintain its enormous population and economy. Slowly but surely China’s might would wither away.
So in fact you should very much be concerned whether Russia survives as a state or not. China sure is. They recognize Russia’s importance and their pivotal role as an economic partner and military ally. At the present moment national bourgeois regimes are not the primary contradiction in the world.
Western imperialist global hegemony is the primary contradiction that is standing in the way of socialist revolutions today.