Thoughts?

Don’t agree with his assessment at all pretty much, but still interested what yous think about that stance, because really I’ve not seen much theory based discussion on the topic since the early days of the conflict.

  • @GloriousDoubleK@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    422 years ago

    I just hope Russia wins. And I hope China fixes the Taiwan issue where the west comes out looking like fucking fools.

    His opinions meant dick all to me once he came out trying to accuse China of imperialism.

  • I don’t think Putin particularly cares about it, but he’s not all-powerful. I don’t know about the government in general, but they’re certainly helping in the anti-imperialist struggle in many ways (helping Syria, trading with socialist or otherwise anti-imperialist countries, etc.), no matter what their intentions are.

    I haven’t watched the video yet, but AFAIK, the creator believes that China is imperialist, so I’m not too sure what to think about him.

    • @TheConquestOfBed
      link
      7
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      He thinks the Uigher stuff is a load of bullshit and so is a lot of Holodomor stuff but is still cautious about the sort of info he accepts. If there were like a centrism between all the different revolutionary ideologies I’d say he’d be the platonic ideal.

    • @KommandoGZD@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      Not sure what to think about him either. I’ve watched a couple of his videos at the beginning of the war, a livestream or two with the Deprogram guys and see comrades recommend him quite often, so I thought he was pretty decent. But this video combined with the China takes really brought out the Maoist leanings of his and…yeah, controversial at least.

      But imo MLs online really haven’t bothered wrestling with this conflict on a theoretical basis too much. I’ve seen almost no deeper analysis and even the big Youtubers like Hakim have hardly touched on it. Day to day analysis of the events and consequences is almost non-existent too, so I reckon some controversial takes about it ain’t too bad to discuss about honestly.

      • @SaddamHussein24@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        I think Hakim, Second Thought and other ML youtubers havent covered the Ukraine War a lot because they are scared of losing followers. Many ostensibly ML antiimperialists have bought into the “Putin evil, invasion of Ukraine bad, Zelensky good” narrative. Many also do the “this is an interimperialist war” which is literally false. So yeah i think they are scared of taking a clear position because of this. ST for example did 1 video on it and it was atrocious, full of concessions to liberalism like “Putin dictator, Putin crazy” type stuff. I refuse to believe he really thinks that, so my guess is he doesnt wanna be called “Putin bot”.

        • Amicese
          link
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          deleted by creator

  • @gun
    link
    212 years ago

    Paul Morrin is a MLM who thinks China is imperialist so I don’t really trust his perspective on things.

    • @lxvi@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      72 years ago

      I remember the first I heard about MLM and thinking that of course I was a Maoist just like I am an avid follower of the thoughts and legacies of Fidel and Che, or of Ho Chi Mihn. It was my great disappointment that the differences of thinking were far from nominal.

      • Muad'Dibber
        link
        fedilink
        52 years ago

        Yep, MLMs hate vietnam and Cuba, they consider them “in the camp of soviet social imperialism”.

  • Lenin enjoyer🏳️‍⚧️
    link
    fedilink
    16
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    im scared to comment

    But I guess well (thanks for your comments comrades):

    Something I don’t seem people talking about is Russian Imperialism. And I mean like for real. (I’m not sure if this is touched on the video, I probably will agree with Paul’s conclusion, but I haven’t watched it yet.) Russia has finance capital in other countries. (Pretty important for imperialism lol.) In places like Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Pridnestrovia (weird right?) and also until recently Ukraine. I feel very firmly Ukraine is thoroughly fascist, and perhaps being in a critical position of Russia, removed their finance capital. Still though the invasion (special operation, whatever you call it) is and Imperialist action in my view. I also do not like Putin playing off the ethnic conflicts in the area, as well as fascism. I support full succession of the Donbass region (maybe not as the different republics (Lugansk and Donetsk) still though.) As well as Crimea, if not a Tatar republic or independent oblast in the RFSSR, (as we know all the states in the conflict are illegal and should be part of the USSR.) as part of Russia. (Brezhnev Gave it to Ukraine for some god damned reason.) The fascism is serious and using for a Imperial war is fucked. Still either way Ukraine should be de-nazified. Feel free to debate though, I’m open to new ideas.

    • @ComradeChopin@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      72 years ago

      Imperialism is not merely “when finance capital abroad”, it’s only when it’s used for squeezing countries for imperial gain that it becomes an issue, Russia simply lacks the actual power to do it on a global scale like the US.

      • Can there be a “finance capital abroad” without squeezing involved? It wouldn’t be named capital if it weren’t appropriating surplus value and converting it into itself, where surplus value here ofc would have to come from labor exploitation

        • @ComradeChopin@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          2
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          China is a good example of benevolent capital export, since it is building roads, ports, railways etc, as a part of BRI because China is building up those countries to sell them stuff. Not to extract their mineral wealth, or whatever. Now, the difference between China and Russia is that China is socialist and Russia is obviously not so you can definitely argue that Russia’s capital export is more malicious but there is really no major example of Russia deliberately crippling other countries through global institutions that it controls in way the US does with the IMF.

          I think lxvi here gives a pretty good explanation of the situation. https://lemmygrad.ml/post/252831/comment/211954

          • Sorry if I didn’t make myself clear. What I’m asking about is theory and not the current situation. Marx defines exploitation of workers as appropriation of surplus-value produced by them, and that it’s structurally embedded into the nature of capital as self-valorizing value. If there’s no appropriation of surplus value, the “capital” can’t grow, and thus it’s not valid to call it capital at all, in the Marxist sense. Hence, if capital is by definition a cycle that involves exploitation, capital export must involve exploitation export.

            This is a different matter than more colloquially used piss-in-bottles exploitation of workers (that’s means to extract more surplus value from workers, but aren’t structurally embedded), or certain Western hegemon country learning their foreign policy from a spoiled elephant in a glassware store; nor am I trying to make any sort of moral judgment about good and evil capitals.

            • @ComradeChopin@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              22 years ago

              Hence, if capital is by definition a cycle that involves exploitation, capital export must involve exploitation export.

              Indeed! Lenin writes about this in “Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism”. Upon maximization of profit within national borders, monopolies expand abroad and the proletariat of those countries have their surplus value stolen by foreign bourgeoisie rather than the local capitalists. I don’t think it’s accurate to call this process “exploitation export”, however. It’s merely switching the exploiters from local to foreign. It’s more like neo-colonialism because once resources and surplus value go abroad, it’s pretty much impossible to get it back, whereas the surplus value stolen by national bourgeoisie could be reclaimed through revolution.

              Or at least that’s my understanding of it.

    • @Beat_da_Rich@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      5
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      I think the major split between communists around the world when talking about imperialism shows that we need an updated materialist definition of imperialism as it reflects the world today.

      If we’re just going off of the export of finance capital that Lenin described then Russia meets that definition, economically. China meets that definition (although others on lemmy have gone into great detail about how even that is not the most accurate to say).

      But is Lenin’s definition still enough or does it, by itself, obscure the actual power dynamics at play on the world stage today?

    • @lxvi@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      02 years ago

      I think there are two great mechanisms of imperialism that go hand in hand; The military and judiciary. A lesser might be considered the natural gravity of a great state in setting the terms of interaction within its spheres.

      Military imperialism is the most severe form of imperialism. Were talking about the US military, the NATO alliance, and various smaller military alliances the Western Axis uses to forcibly subject nations with. When talking about imperialism, especially when comparing the imperialistic qualities of nations, this form of imperialism is in a league of it’s own. Imperialism through the razing of cities is an imperialism unique to itself.

      Imperialism through judiciary means would be the subjegation of people to laws outside their ability to control. For instance, the individual States within the United States are subjected to laws especially among privatization and financialization which institutionalize the capitalist order. The States are all willing liberals so a better example is the EU. “Adults in the Room” is a book that covers the 2010 Greek financial crisis and goes over the way this judiciary subjegation works. The finance and privatization laws of the EU guarantee every member state will be a liberal capitalist state. The EU has the power through judiciary means to destroy a member state which objects to their own subjegation. We might view these two federal judiciaries as the domestic regulation of empire.

      The IMF is another similar form of judiciary body which subjegates a much broader expanse of the greater Western empire. Maybe some people would prefer to think of this mechanism of empire as more financial than judiciary, but in my opinion the mode of financialization is judiciary. The greater concern is not the Dollars or Euros but the legal institutions which surround them. When the IMF issues a loan in dollars the country accepting the loan is not only agreeing to repay the loan in dollars but is accepting subjegation to the courts of the IMF and subjegation to laws superceding the laws of the nation, laws of financialization and privatization.

      It’s my opinion that when we talk about whether a country is imperialist it’s important to know what we’re talking about by imperialism and to be able to show evidence of that. It’s very easy to find evidence of American imperialism either through military or judicial means. It’s impossible to find similar examples of a Chinese or Russian IMF or foreign military presence because no such evidence exists. To make a comparison we’d have to water down the severity of Western Imperialism to simple trade and financial agreements between nations.

      For instance Ukraine wanted to accept the Russian trade agreement before the coup precisely because the Russian agreement was not imperialist in contrast to the EU agreement which more closely resembled an unconditional surrender of Ukraine to the EU than a trade agreement. (Going off what was said about it in “Ukraine on Fire”). Where the two agreements the same because nominally they were trade agreements? Where they both equally imperialist despite the material differences?

  • @darkcalling@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    16
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    They are by manner of action and results anti-imperialist.

    I am so tired of this. This is a country that supports the sanctioned and strangled global south, that does business, arms them, helps them in votes at the UN, etc. What do you call that? I call it anti-imperialist solidarity. It’s not done for the best reasons as Russia is not communist, it is done pragmatically but it is done. What do the Cubans, the Venezuelans, the Chinese think of Russia and its support of them and friendship and resistance against the American global NATO imperialist order? Yet here you have once again westerners playing purity police.

    There are not two dueling, equal, equally bad and threatening, equally anti-socialist imperialist blocs in the modern world. There is only one: the NATO led order. There is simply no room for another short of NATO fragmenting to pieces. Anyone acting against NATO which is the primary obstacle to socialism as well as global south liberation from neo-colonialism and imperialist plunder is as a matter of fact acting against the imperialist order, against imperialism.

    Russia may want to be imperialist but it cannot be. They are until the fall of NATO bedfellows with us, with China, with the people of the global south struggling against the fascist extreme-reaction imperialist order of the US/NATO. At that point things will change but I think when that happens Russia will not be in any place to immediately replace them and many nations will have their first breath of fresh air in a long, long time and it will be many years before Russia would be in a place to similarly control them.

    Remember the present imperialist order was not built in a decade, it was built on the order of centuries, it rests on the foundations of European colonialism and empire-building. The methods of control, loans through the world bank, superstructure dominance via media dominance and control of the global entertainment landscape, military training of officers in other militaries in the US to threaten and carry out coups, blackmail rings, osint intelligence sharing and spying organizations via the eyes agreements, etc are not something Russia could just spin up within 5 years to replace the NATO order if it fell. So there is IMO no risk of Russia simply replacing the NATO order. The world has moved on, once the chains break China’s extended hands will do the rest.

    We must also consider that should Russia fall and become a western puppet then China is strongly likely to be in trouble and at great risk. Because with Russia with the NATO Imperialist western order they could successfully encircle, cut off, sanction, isolate, cripple and destroy China. With Russia with China, India is likely to maintain some amount of neutrality and between those powers and other friends China can survive, break out, extend, and offer alternatives to the global south. (Anyone who has studied the grand chessboard, the triangle of control, the US purpose in the middle east and the US alarm at the belt and road can see that cutting that off was their trump-card against China) Should Russia become a western pawn, carved up, humiliated, weakened, overthrown there will be enough pressure to force India’s hand as neutrality has always been a matter of practicality first, pride second. If there is much more to lose from a united west and puppet Russia bearing down on them they’ll buckle and join with the anti-China alliance rather than risk being the next encircled and destroyed.

    Imperialism is not when finance abroad or when do capitalist things. Nor is it when do war thing in response to nearly a decade of good faith failed diplomacy against an aggressor imperialist power that has used nuclear weapons in anger before and has openly stated they intend to topple your country and make it a puppet.

    Anyone conflating Russian actions and the state of things with NATO/US is uninformed or hasn’t looked at the situation practically and pragmatically instead of through the lens of quote cherry picking and western propaganda. There are massive differences.

    • @KommandoGZD@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      62 years ago

      Strong comment, comrade. Absolutely agree.

      They are by manner of action and results anti-imperialist.

      This is the strongest point and exactly my thoughts. People like Marxist Paul and Anti-Russian MLs approach to this topic, to me, is one of dogmatism and idealism. “Russia isn’t communist, it’s capitalist and therefore it can’t be anti-imperialist, because that’s not what they’re calling themselves.” True, but as materialists that shouldn’t be the end of our analysis. That, to me, would also hold up even if Russia somehow “ticked all of Lenins imperialism boxes”. They don’t, especially in regards to finance export, but say they were - then the current development would render that definition of imperialism insufficient. If our understanding of imperialism leads to us equating current day Russia and the US empire, if it equates the Ukraine war and the rape of the global south, it’s a dog shit understanding and obviously needs to be adapted. Theory has to hold up to our analysis and perception of reality, not the other way around (yes, there’s a dialetical relationship, etc etc). A theory that demands us to hold a Anti-Russian stance is not a theory we should follow, because a loss of Russia would be horrendous for anti-imperialist, anti-capitalist forces around the world and especially in the global south. By virtue of action and result, not by virtue of Russia nominally being anti-capitalist. A communist refusing to accept this, is simply horribly wrong in their analysis.

      More on the point of dogmatism: People calling this an inter-imperialist war completely refuse to see the massive difference in material reality between the time Lenin wrote about this compared to today. The situation before and during WW1 was extremely different to the one today. That doesn’t mean his writing is useless, but we can’t just adapt it 1:1 to the current situation. You already mention the differences in blocs and equal competing imperialist, anti-socialist powers. There is one bloc upholding imperialism and really capitalism in general today. That is the US lead NATO/Western bloc. This is the main contradiction on the planet and the one main enemy we as anti-capitalists have to fight. If this bloc collapses, imperialism in its current form will fall. To say Russia somehow could or would want to replace this system of global domination in their stead is unmaterialist nonsense. Russia couldn’t if it wanted to. It doesn’t have the resources and most importantly the current status quo arose from very specific material conditions post WW1 & 2 and the resulting collapse of traditional imperialist/colonialist powers, the resulting opportunities of export of finance capital, industrialization, the preceding colonialism of the NATO powers, the armament of the US and simultaneous dearmament of former imperialist powers, etc. These prerequisite aren’t there for Russia, so even if NATO were to fall Russia simply couldn’t just build an enitre military alliance and globe-spanning military with corresponding systems of exploitation. The material conditions aren’t there.

      I mentioned this before in another comment and this is why I made the threat, imo the lack of engagement with this topic and discussions on the applicability of theory on this situation is a critical oversight in ML spaces and part of the reason for many MLs confused Anti-Russian positions. Current developments are extremely important and a massive change in the status quo. They’re also so complex and rapidly moving we need a solid theoretical line of analysis to maintain what little cohesion we ahve. We also, should we realize theory is insufficient, need to adapt or analytical framework.

      Also, is it just me or is this thread only showing a fraction of the 70+ comments made?

      • @darkcalling@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        32 years ago

        I as well notice the strange discrepancy between the amount of comments shown in the thread and the amount shown on the main page. Don’t know what to make of that though one can look to why that happens on reddit (on which this website’s framework is based) and perhaps get a clue. I won’t tip the hand here in case these are liberals being contained from sobbing fits about “Russia bad, propaganda told me so”.

        Too many unfortunately become dogmatic to the point of turning theory into holy writ. Canonizing Lenin, Marx, etc not as great thinking men with a scientific framework they used to analyze history and conditions, but as prophets setting out edicts to hold for all time. Most great scientific thinkers got things wrong as well as right, missed this or that, didn’t have the information to understand something properly, were born too soon, etc.

        Lenin and others call upon us to think critically. Science is a lens, a framework, a process, a mindset, not a book of solutions with an index that you can refer to in order to find the exact steps to solve any problem and Marxism-Leninism is a science. We must continue to think critically about theory, to understand it, to build on it.

        It is a shame we have no great western Marxist thinkers of the stature of Lenin to do so and this is a real problem I think for the western communists in the modern age, to not have these great thinkers to set out and settle matters broadly to bring the coalition together. The Chinese are unfortunately not exactly eager to publish tracts from leading party figures on matters such as this that address fundamentals outside of their process inside China so little help will come from there in terms of evaluating imperialism in the modern age. But even there we can see the reaction of the Chinese party to this event, which is understanding for Russia’s unwanted choice, not condemnation, not mute tactical silence on something they find distasteful but anger at the west for this and rightfully so as they are responsible for this war and the suffering it inflicts.

  • @RedFields@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    52 years ago

    Well both the usa and russia are capitalist nations and as they develop captalist nations will become imperialist as a necessity. At the moment the usa is the head of the imperialist front while russia is not and for the forseable future will not be. The battle over ukraine is an imperialist war between Nato (Headed by the USA) and Russia. in either case ukraine will strengthen one imperialist power over the other. There is a difference between the two in mentality. Russia is playing the game of power politics and as such is attempting to have buffer space between itself and nato. The USA in contrast is all in on ideology so the continued spreading of neoliberalism is their main focus. To say the least we shouldn’t support either power, but we should take advantage of the situation to our own benefit. Though I do believe that Russia has unknowingly had a positive impact on the globe by aligning with developing countries.

    • @Beat_da_Rich@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      162 years ago

      It’s important to keep in mind that Russia under Putin very much wanted to be part of the imperialist bloc and was denied. While they are allies to AES states and are a country of the periphery, they are in this geopolitical position not because of ideology, but because of circumstance.

      • @SaddamHussein24@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        152 years ago

        I agree. My personal opinion on why Russia is antiimperialist is because of NATO aggression against Russia. I think Putin would have been more than happy to be a NATO imperialist ally. The problem was that Putin destroyed the crazy uncontrolled neoliberalism of Yeltsin, and actually served the russian bourgeoisie, not the american one. The west didnt like this, so they decided to do regime change and attack Russia. Putin was extremely patient with them, which is why he allowed several of his allies to be destroyed by the US (Iraq and Libya). He tried to appease the west. But the west never had enough. I think the breaking point was the imperialist aggression against Syria and Euromaidan in 2014. I think that after that Putin understood that there was no way he could be friends with NATO as he wanted to. So he was forced to look for allies to cope with western aggression. And he found them. China, Iran, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, etc. The antiimperialist bloc was born.

        • @aworldtowin
          link
          132 years ago

          I think it has the western elite in a pickle, because the communist party there is the biggest opposition party and very popular. China with it’s system would be much harder to coup, and of course if the US wants to take down China they need to take down Russia first- but their chance to bring Putin and his party into the US imperialist bloc is gone, and the biggest opposition to said party is communists. Seems like the only options left are to break the Russia China alliance or to defeat them militarily before they get too strong.

          • Yeah, I’ve heard that the KPRF is very popular in many parts of the country (and some allegations that there was some manipulation to ensure that they didn’t win in specific regions, although I don’t remember where I read that so take that with approximately one and a half cups of salt). At this point, I think Amerika has shot itself in its foot so many times that it has disintegrated, and the China-Russia alliance seems stronger than ever

    • @SaddamHussein24@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      14
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Ukraine is an antiimperialist war. Russia isnt imperialist, it doesnt export capital (the core of imperialism). Russia is a key member of the current antiimperialist bloc. Without Russia, China has no chance at beating the US. We must all support Russia and Putin as long as they pursue this antiimperialist policy. Simple.

      • @pinkeston@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        132 years ago

        Yea as ironic as this seems, the world’s second most important and influential country against imperialism is Russia and not some other AES

        • @SaddamHussein24@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          17
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          Exactly. Despite Russia being capitalist, it has de facto taken the place of the Soviet Union (before the Sino Soviet Split) in the global communist and antiimperialist movement, with the difference that now China is the leading economic superpower in the bloc and Russia the military one, while beforehand the USSR led the bloc in both aspects and China was subservient to it. Russia and China complement each other perfectly. Chinas strong economy helps Russia resist sanctions, and Russias strong military helps China resist any eventual military aggression. There is no defeat of US imperialism without both powers together. Without Russia, China cannot defend itself from US aggression, both economical and military. I dont understand why so many people dont get this. Have you ever seen Xi Jinping rambling about “Russia is an imperialist hellhole and we should oppose it”? No. And yet some people think they are smarter than the general secretary of the CPC. They just cant shake off their “Putin bad” western propaganda conditioning.

    • I disagree that Russia being against NATO expansion is “power politics” rather than a response to an existential threat. I also don’t see how Russia is imperialist at the moment (not that the bourgeoisie in Russia is inherently better than Amerika’s or that they wouldn’t want to be imperialists if they feasibly could, just that the export of capital from Russia is dwarfed by their export of resources).

    • @RedFields@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      82 years ago

      For those who downvoted this can you offer a response I would be curious to know what you diagree with ? If I left something vague in my original comment please point it out.

        • @RedFields@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          32 years ago

          Not really as we aren’t Russian nationalists or chauvinists, we are Communists. This is an opportunity to bring clarity to the working class. To take full advantage of the situation we must call out the war for what it is a Capitalist war that the working class is forced to fight. In turn, we must organize and agitate to raise the class consciousness of the working class in preparation for revolution or in the short term to simply strike back.

      • Muad'Dibber
        link
        fedilink
        42 years ago

        There are two types of capitalist countries.

        • A tiny number of parasitic imperial core ones. Examples: The US, UK, France, Germany, Nordic countries, most OECD nations.
        • A huge number of poor nations being fed upon. Examples: Honduras, Ghana, Indonesia, Kenya, Thailand, Pakistan, etc.

        The countries in the second group do not become imperialist simply because they are capitalist countries; and even their nationalisms cannot be equated with those of the richer countries, whose wealth depends on the super exploitation and low wages of a much larger number of countries and people.

        Russia does not fit into the first category, it is not engaged in finance capital imperialism and surplus value extraction from other nations.

        • @RedFields@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          52 years ago

          I concede the point of Russia being imperialist, but does that really change the main thrust of my position. Does changing it from Imperialist war to Capitalist war change what I am talking about? If not then it’s a moot point. We still shouldn’t support either because we are communists we don’t support capitalist countries throwing the working class at one another for their ploys.

          • Muad'Dibber
            link
            fedilink
            22 years ago

            Again, you are assuming that every war a capitalist country makes must necessarily be nefarious, which is a false premise. Also, you are equating all nationalisms as equal.

            First of all, Russia has every right to cripple the Ukrainian military for killing people in the Donbass region with impunity for over a decade. Neo nazi Ukrainian militaries and paramilitaries have killed about 6k to 10k people. Were you not aware of this?

            Secondly, Russian nationalism more than any other country has a proletarian character, with most of the country nostalgic for its soviet past. They have no ambitions other than having a stable border country that isn’t going to keep killing russian-speaking civilians, as Ukraine has been doing.

            This “we don’t support any capitalist war!” is a baby-level take, only possible by completely ignoring the different interests, types, and histories of the countries involved. The “working class” of Ukraine still has a nazi / banderist government that keeps sending troops into the donbass.

            The US has couped dozens of capitalist countries who go against US interests. The retaliation of those countries is wholly justified.

              • Muad'Dibber
                link
                fedilink
                32 years ago

                So you would also have called for the revolutionary defeat of Iraq, Afganistan, Chile, Venezuela, Grenada, Ethiopia, Syria, Libya?

                All of these are / were predominantly capitalist countries, attacked by western powers.

                • @RedFields@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  12 years ago

                  So like I said in another comment we must support the causes that weaken imperialism not those that strengthen it. Revolutionary defeatism is employed when the imperialists go to war. I previously yielded the point on Russia being Imperialist, but Preston Maness’ comment and having watched the portion of the video dealing with this question forced me to change my opinion as it seems that Russia is Imperialist by the definition that you use. I do not support the USA’s invasion or attempted coups to make the countries colonies or semi-colonies. I can accept that the byproduct of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine weakens Nato, but in turn it Strengthens Russia. I do not dismiss that the USA is the leading member of the imperialist block, but that does not make Russia anti-imperialist, it’s a rising imperialist power that cooperates with developing countries for its benefit. Remember the game that is being played is one of power politics. We are not players in this game, but we can wreck their game. That is our job whether you accept it or deny it. We are communists and as such we stand with the working class of all countries against Capitalism in all its forms. Picking a side in this imperialist conflict is nothing but campism and attempting to equate this imperialist struggle with the struggle of colonized countries for their self-determination from the largest imperialist power is not the same thing. Comrade, it’s really time for some self-criticism; analyze and go over Lenin, Stalin, and others who have dealt with this topic before. I do not claim to know everything, but I don’t think continuing this comment thread will be of help to anyone. If you wish to continue this even after all I’ve said, make a substantial criticism of my position. If you are correct I will change my opinion if not I will not reply. Have a good one comrade.

      • @FuckBigTech347@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        12 years ago

        I think someone is just downvoting all the comments. If you look through this post you’ll see a bunch of comments that for some reason have a single downvote. Even your comment that I’m replying to has 1 downvote, lol.

        • @RedFields@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          42 years ago

          The nationalization of industries isn’t really a sign of trending away from capitalism, it’s simply a way for the state to take control of their resources away from external corporations( sometimes it occurs because of inefficiency within the economic sphere). This can be seen in Mexico in that it’s capitalist but has had nationalized oil for what is going to be close to a century now. I am not too sure about the politics of Russia at the moment, but we must remember that every state is simply the representative of the class that holds power. What I mean by this is that it’s either a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie or a dictatorship of the proletariat. This is an overgeneralization, but most states fit into one of these two categories.

      • Preston Maness ☭
        link
        fedilink
        -42 years ago

        You won’t get one. Unfortunately, a great many comrades have chosen to ignore Lenin’s lessons on imperialism in favor of a philistine “America bad, Russia good” analysis.

          • Preston Maness ☭
            link
            fedilink
            42 years ago

            I wouldn’t. I’ve had my comments on this matter silently removed from threads–as in, not even showing up in the modlog-- before (and have had them removed completely, a problem I will remedy below shortly), on this particular post from a month ago:

            https://lemmygrad.ml/post/190301

            Notice how links to specific comments I’ve made don’t work; they revert back to the top-level post:

            But I’ll happily explain, again, why I think this is an imperialist war on both fronts:


            From Lenin:

            If it were necessary to give the briefest possible definition of imperialism we should have to say that imperialism is the monopoly stage of capitalism. Such a definition would include what is most important, for, on the one hand, finance capital is the bank capital of a few very big monopolist banks, merged with the capital of the monopolist associations of industrialists; and, on the other hand, the division of the world is the transition from a colonial policy which has extended without hindrance to territories unseized by any capitalist power, to a colonial policy of monopolist possession of the territory of the world, which has been completely divided up.

            But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since we have to deduce from them some especially important features of the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:

            (1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;

            (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy;

            (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;

            (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves and

            (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed.

            Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.

            Both NATO and Russia meet these five features handily.

            1. Russia has monopolies across its industries. Gazprom in particular plays a decisive role in economic life.
            2. Russia’s banks and industry, like all capitalist countries in the 21st century, are deeply intertwined. Russia has a financial oligarchy.
            3. Russia is involved, to the tune of hundreds of billions net positive, in international capital investment. Raw statistics from the Bank of Russia can be found here. And this is just the “official” activity, disregarding other forms of capital “outflows” (i.e., oligarchs funneling money out of the country) that you may or may not classify as “capital investment” elsewhere.
            4. Russia’s oil and gas companies have common interests with the oil and gas companies of NATO. Russia supplies a quarter of Europe’s oil and half of its natural gas. When large fossil fuel resources were discovered off the coast of Crimea, Ukraine did not have the capital to extract those resources itself. Ukraine turned to western oil companies to assist in the extraction. Russia eventually muscled its way to the table with its annexation of Crimea to ensure it would get its slice of the pie.
            5. The current conflict in Ukraine has Russia protecting one of its spheres of influence directly, with raw military power.

            Counter-arguments so far mostly boil down to variations on changing the names of things and thinking that changes the things themselves (something Engels warned us against):

            • “NATO is bigger than Russia” - True and irrelevant. That Russia is an upstart imperialist with less in its coffers and NATO is the reining champ does not change the imperialist character of Russia’s behaviour.
            • “Russia is not big enough to be imperialist” - False. Russia’s GDP floats around 10th in the world year-over-year. The notion that it is a victim of imperialism, that it is on the periphery rather than the core, is ludicrous. And Lenin did not specify a threshold precisely because a threshold would imply that the same behaviour can both be imperialism and not be imperialism; a contradiction.
            • “That’s not foreign finance capital; it’s capital flight” - Whether capital is exported directly via the Bank of Russia, or indirectly via tax havens, the class relations between Russia’s proletariat and its capitalists remain the same. The relationship between Russia’s oligarchs and those it subjugates across the world remains the same. The notion that capitalists, addicted to growth, are merely parking hundreds of billions of dollars in Cyprus or the Cayman islands or any other tax haven, and not investing it elsewhere, strains credulity.
            • “We must establish a multi-polar world” - True. Russia, being a capitalist and imperialist antagonist, cannot be allowed to become that second pole. That pole must be taken up by China, the only country that has even a snowball’s chance in hell of saving humanity from the crash course it’s currently on.
            • @cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              32 years ago

              China sells resources to the U.S. and Nato as well, is victimized by sanctions, and is willing to use force to defend itself and its allies from capitalist states.

              None of these mean China is capitalist or imperialist. No one is denying Russia is a capitalist country, but Russia is providing resources and labor to imperialized countries for relatively small amounts of debt. I see your point but its a stretch.

            • @RedFields@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              22 years ago

              Your right and you put it in a far better way than I could have managed. Thanks, comrade. I needed this have a good night mate.

        • Just curious, what does “Philistine” means in English? In context it seems it is some sort of “Black/White thinking mentality” or something.

          • Preston Maness ☭
            link
            fedilink
            32 years ago

            That’s basically what I’m going for, yes. I intend it as a derogatory term for those that refuse to engage honestly and deeply with the matters at hand. I suppose I could also just say something else like “neo-Kautskyites.”

            • I see. It’s just that I, as a non-Anglo nor English-speaking expert, and into history, the only way I knew about Philistine was the mixed semitic Canaanite/Semitic people mixed with Sea immigrants/colonials from possibly the Hegean Sea that later in history the Romans called Palestinia/Palestine.

        • @cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          -12 years ago

          That’s categorically not true. The vast majority of leftists here only support Russia critically. Russia is a capitalist hellhole, and Putin is a maniacal reich-wing douchebag and he surely has ulterior motives. But to call or insinuate that Russia is imperialist is dishonest nonsense.

          • Preston Maness ☭
            link
            fedilink
            22 years ago

            That you’ve been downvoted to hell here should dissuade you of the notion that most folks here “only support Russia critically.”

            • @cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              -12 years ago

              I’ve got less downvotes than you by a mountain’s worth. But those downvoting me were merely proving themselves wrong anyway. Your dick-measuring contest is stupid.

    • @cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      02 years ago

      Most socialists here understand that Russia is a capitalist hellhole and that Putin is a monster that probably has ulterior motives. But to insinuate that Russia is anywhere near imperialist or downplay their efforts in supporting anti-imperialist nations is dishonest.