sure but one thing is calling out putin for his ultraconservative policies and possible ties to neonazi groups; other thing is to attack russian with what basically amounts to cold war anti-russia propaganda
Absolutely. Going further, Putin is undeniably better for the Russian people and for the world than e.g. Navalny would’ve been: a literal neo-Nazi who called immigrants “cockroaches who should be exterminated” in a televised interview, and who’s top aide met with MI6 offering to create a color revolution for 10-20 mln USD.
For as long as the West is attempting to install a Yeltsin 2.0 in Russia, Russian people will keep electing Putin or some “continuation Putin” if they know what’s good for them.
Having said that, I don’t consider modern Russia “anti-imperialist” as some other posters here, and I have no love for Putin. It’s a bit like Assad, the least bad option under the imperialist assault of the USA and it’s vassals.
true but imo it assumes commitment against imperialism in a fundamental level which i do not believe putin has at all. he would gladly be yet another collabolator for western imperialism if he could*, but the “russian enemy” archetype is just too useful for the usa to give up
but imo it assumes commitment against imperialism in a fundamental level
In most famous example, Lenin and Stalin considered a literal monarch, emir of Afghanistan and his fight for independence against the British, an antiimperialist and offered him friendship and support of USSR. If even that case was considered antiimperialist by the two guys who literally formulated the theory about imperialism and antiimperialism then Putin’s Russia, currently the foremost force actively resisting the empire on multiple fronts is so much more.
makes sense. do you have any text i can read on that?
edit: in any case, i still think that it’s useful to make a distinction between entities that seem to be anti-imperialist as a fundamental goal (eg china imo) and clearly opportunistic “antiimperalists” (russia)
Of course, obligatory Foundations of Leninism by Stalin, 6th chapter in particular is possibly the most concise and to the point explanation of imerialist and antiimperialist tenedencies (Stalin even calls it “objectively revoutionary” and “objectively reactionary”).
Lenin writings iirc in 1919 include some letters to the emir, and also of interest might be much earlier Lenin articles about Russo-Japanese war in 1905 in which he clearly formulate theory of revolutionary defeatism and also straight up critically support imperialist Japan since at the point even clearly imperialist Japan is more progressive than half-feudal Russia and Russia’s defeat can lead to changes in it (as we know it did, loss in that war was one of the main catalyst of 1905 revolution).
Plus of course Lenin’s “Imperialism…”
in any case, i still think that it’s useful to make a distinction between entities that seem to be anti-imperialist as a fundamental goal (eg china imo) and clearly opportunistic “antiimperalists” (russia)
Absolutely, nobody even suggest we extend it to the past and possible future reactionary actions. In fact, Putin was heavily criticized by Russian, Ukrainian and Donbass communists for his procrastination and unwillingness to help DPR and LPR and constant reaching to the west. If west wasn’t so determined to recolonize Russia today’s world would look very different.
This is very uninformed. They were specifically talking about national liberation movements of oppressed peoples. Russia is not colonised and not fighting for independence.
Emphasis mine:
The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such “desperate” democrats and “Socialists,” “revolutionaries” and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British “Labour” Government is waging to preserve Egypt’s dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are “for” socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.
Russia was not colonised? Independent? Did you missed 90’s? Did US empire do not currently want to colonise it again? Did you missed literally everything happening after 90’s too? And you call me “uninformed”?
This is not a fair comparison. Russia has not yet reached the imperialist stage of capitalism. Russia’s presence in West Asia and Africa is currently a counter to the imperialist West. Therefore, it currently has an anti-imperialist character. There is no doubt that Russia as a capitalist nation will eventually reach the stage of imperialism, or become imperialized.
Amerikkka and TERF Island are both imperialist nations. They will continue to be imperialist even if they were to pull out of Ukraine.
Genuine good faith question here. Did Russian oil companies play a role in the invasion of Ukraine? And if they did, was it in a monopolies expanding outside of the bounds of the Russian economy kind of way or was it of a different character?
Invasion of Ukraine was going contrary to their interests, as we could see in countless maneuvers around that. Not accidentally west decided to play all the sanctions, there was very real possiblity of Russia really keeling over under them like it was intended. If you look at this war as imperialist war from the Russian point of view, it does not have any sense to do it, it only have sense if you see that Russia is reacting to prevent its own recolonisation.
Gazprom is majority state owned so it’s a bit difficult to separate these things since it’s the Russian state that launched the SMO. That being said, the only accusations of resource theft that I’ve seen have come from the western mainstream media. The only evidence given being the invasion itself. IMO, Russia’s initial position of attempting to have negotiations that would give autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk while remaining a part of Ukraine shows that Russia’s motivations are not the theft of resources.
WW1 Russian Empire was even further from reaching the imperialist stage of capitalism, yet Lenin did not consider it anti-imperialist. That’s the context in which revolutionary defeatism theory was developed.
Lenin also called WWI the imperialist war. If anything, the Russian empire was on the side of imperialism. Modern Russia has aligned itself with the anti-imperialist block. This is an opportunistic alignment due to the western powers’ hostility toward Russia, but for now, Russia’s actions are a counter to empire.
I wouldn’t say that they “are anti-imperialist”. I might say that—from an empty, shallow, rhetorical standpoint—they are “doing an anti-imperialism”. Putin is doing a less shallow/empty anti-imperialism, because he’s gone beyond mere rhetoric, but I wouldn’t call him a principled anti-imperialist, but an opportunistic one.
he absolutely wanted to join the imperialist forces, and asked several times to join NATO only to be kicked in the balls each time and told that he was the bad guy
Of course not but one way or another they have found themselves in the anti-imperialist side.
Think of it this way, during the secession war, which side would you have supported? The capitalists of the north that one way or another found themselves on the side of abolishment of slavery or the pro-slavery south? Marx and Engels staunchly chose the former.
That’s fine and I support e.g. Russia’s alignment with the new Sahel governments, but not e.g. invasion in Ukraine which achieved some goals of the US and is not decolonial in nature.
I wouldn’t put China and Russia in the same basket though
sure but one thing is calling out putin for his ultraconservative policies and possible ties to neonazi groups; other thing is to attack russian with what basically amounts to cold war anti-russia propaganda
Absolutely. Going further, Putin is undeniably better for the Russian people and for the world than e.g. Navalny would’ve been: a literal neo-Nazi who called immigrants “cockroaches who should be exterminated” in a televised interview, and who’s top aide met with MI6 offering to create a color revolution for 10-20 mln USD.
For as long as the West is attempting to install a Yeltsin 2.0 in Russia, Russian people will keep electing Putin or some “continuation Putin” if they know what’s good for them.
Having said that, I don’t consider modern Russia “anti-imperialist” as some other posters here, and I have no love for Putin. It’s a bit like Assad, the least bad option under the imperialist assault of the USA and it’s vassals.
calling him “anti-imperialist” is a bit of a stretch, but he’s definitely acting as a force against western hegemony, if only for his own benefit
Antiimperialism don’t have to be permanent and it don’t need to come from marxism.
true but imo it assumes commitment against imperialism in a fundamental level which i do not believe putin has at all. he would gladly be yet another collabolator for western imperialism if he could*, but the “russian enemy” archetype is just too useful for the usa to give up
*i think he even tried to join nato afaik
In most famous example, Lenin and Stalin considered a literal monarch, emir of Afghanistan and his fight for independence against the British, an antiimperialist and offered him friendship and support of USSR. If even that case was considered antiimperialist by the two guys who literally formulated the theory about imperialism and antiimperialism then Putin’s Russia, currently the foremost force actively resisting the empire on multiple fronts is so much more.
makes sense. do you have any text i can read on that?
edit: in any case, i still think that it’s useful to make a distinction between entities that seem to be anti-imperialist as a fundamental goal (eg china imo) and clearly opportunistic “antiimperalists” (russia)
Of course, obligatory Foundations of Leninism by Stalin, 6th chapter in particular is possibly the most concise and to the point explanation of imerialist and antiimperialist tenedencies (Stalin even calls it “objectively revoutionary” and “objectively reactionary”).
Lenin writings iirc in 1919 include some letters to the emir, and also of interest might be much earlier Lenin articles about Russo-Japanese war in 1905 in which he clearly formulate theory of revolutionary defeatism and also straight up critically support imperialist Japan since at the point even clearly imperialist Japan is more progressive than half-feudal Russia and Russia’s defeat can lead to changes in it (as we know it did, loss in that war was one of the main catalyst of 1905 revolution).
Plus of course Lenin’s “Imperialism…”
Absolutely, nobody even suggest we extend it to the past and possible future reactionary actions. In fact, Putin was heavily criticized by Russian, Ukrainian and Donbass communists for his procrastination and unwillingness to help DPR and LPR and constant reaching to the west. If west wasn’t so determined to recolonize Russia today’s world would look very different.
This is very uninformed. They were specifically talking about national liberation movements of oppressed peoples. Russia is not colonised and not fighting for independence.
Emphasis mine:
Russia was not colonised? Independent? Did you missed 90’s? Did US empire do not currently want to colonise it again? Did you missed literally everything happening after 90’s too? And you call me “uninformed”?
Trump and Farrage advocate against supporting Ukraine, are they anti-imperialist?
This is not a fair comparison. Russia has not yet reached the imperialist stage of capitalism. Russia’s presence in West Asia and Africa is currently a counter to the imperialist West. Therefore, it currently has an anti-imperialist character. There is no doubt that Russia as a capitalist nation will eventually reach the stage of imperialism, or become imperialized.
Amerikkka and TERF Island are both imperialist nations. They will continue to be imperialist even if they were to pull out of Ukraine.
Genuine good faith question here. Did Russian oil companies play a role in the invasion of Ukraine? And if they did, was it in a monopolies expanding outside of the bounds of the Russian economy kind of way or was it of a different character?
Invasion of Ukraine was going contrary to their interests, as we could see in countless maneuvers around that. Not accidentally west decided to play all the sanctions, there was very real possiblity of Russia really keeling over under them like it was intended. If you look at this war as imperialist war from the Russian point of view, it does not have any sense to do it, it only have sense if you see that Russia is reacting to prevent its own recolonisation.
Gazprom is majority state owned so it’s a bit difficult to separate these things since it’s the Russian state that launched the SMO. That being said, the only accusations of resource theft that I’ve seen have come from the western mainstream media. The only evidence given being the invasion itself. IMO, Russia’s initial position of attempting to have negotiations that would give autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk while remaining a part of Ukraine shows that Russia’s motivations are not the theft of resources.
WW1 Russian Empire was even further from reaching the imperialist stage of capitalism, yet Lenin did not consider it anti-imperialist. That’s the context in which revolutionary defeatism theory was developed.
Lenin also called WWI the imperialist war. If anything, the Russian empire was on the side of imperialism. Modern Russia has aligned itself with the anti-imperialist block. This is an opportunistic alignment due to the western powers’ hostility toward Russia, but for now, Russia’s actions are a counter to empire.
I wouldn’t say that they “are anti-imperialist”. I might say that—from an empty, shallow, rhetorical standpoint—they are “doing an anti-imperialism”. Putin is doing a less shallow/empty anti-imperialism, because he’s gone beyond mere rhetoric, but I wouldn’t call him a principled anti-imperialist, but an opportunistic one.
What Davel said.
Pytania są tendencyjne
Fully agreed!
he absolutely wanted to join the imperialist forces, and asked several times to join NATO only to be kicked in the balls each time and told that he was the bad guy
Of course not but one way or another they have found themselves in the anti-imperialist side.
Think of it this way, during the secession war, which side would you have supported? The capitalists of the north that one way or another found themselves on the side of abolishment of slavery or the pro-slavery south? Marx and Engels staunchly chose the former.
That’s fine and I support e.g. Russia’s alignment with the new Sahel governments, but not e.g. invasion in Ukraine which achieved some goals of the US and is not decolonial in nature.