https://lemmy.blahaj.zone/comment/2135509

this is practically a child’s view of the world. good guy vs bad guy. Russia = bad, NATO = good. plus, someone should tell her she has it completely backwards: ending russia is kinda natos entire thing

  • duderium [he/him]
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I agree on all your points except for the existence of Russian imperialism. By Lenin’s definition—correct me if I’m wrong—imperialism is when finance capital is consolidated enough in a given country for that country to begin exporting capital abroad. This might have been the case before the war since so many Russian oligarchs had their billions stashed in western banks, but the contradictions of imperialism itself—its need to grow and consume itself from the inside—now mean that this is no longer the case. Those Russian billions are either frozen or withdrawn as far as I know. Russia’s alignment with China and the BRICS, its long history of fighting for the global south (consider the images we’ve seen for years now of African protestors waving Russian flags), suggest to me that Russia is not actually imperialist and that it is indeed fighting for its life and existence (as it says). Putin is an opportunist appointed by Yeltsin (himself appointed by Clinton!), but opportunism can sometimes point in the right direction because there is no other way for it to survive. (The current president of South Africa is a criminal who likewise deserves our critical support due to his alignment with the BRICS, although none of us are going to be complaining if the EFF takes over next year.) All of us likewise know that a NATO victory in this war will just begin another nightmarish chapter of imperialism in eastern Europe, while a NATO defeat will present opportunities for workers around the world to throw off the American yoke.

    • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]
      hexagon
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      they certainly are fighting for their existence. but part of the existence they are fighting for is their status as an imperial power. their ability to partake in imperialism has definitely been diminished by the recent sanctions, but they still hold on to imperialist practices. check their foreign investments. they have certainly been forcibly divested from the western sphere of influence, but they have responded by increasing investments in wealthy eastern countries and the eastern global south

        • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]
          hexagon
          ·
          1 year ago

          great comment and very solid points! i concede that calling Russia imperialist is arguable, but as western hegemony has been faltering in the past couple decades, Russian capitalists have picked up a lot of slack (see their relationship with Syria and Turkey; its hard to argue that their support goes beyond expanding the foreign interests of Russian capitalists). and surely you see the problem with comparing foreign investment of Russia vs China. Russian investments are privately held and aim to produce profit. investments from China are a mix of public and private, and they are demonstrably focused on mutual prosperity

      • duderium [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        The values there seem to be from before the war? They were investing mostly in the Cayman Islands (lol), and my guess is that that money has either been withdrawn or stolen at this point, although I honestly don’t know.

        • ZoomeristLeninist [comrade/them, she/her]
          hexagon
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          there are enough values updated during the war to draw some conclusions. yeah, the money moves around so much its impossible to know the extent of how this affects Russian capitalists. this recent hit to Russian capital is great tho, increases the chance of revolution to take hold there

    • confusedbytheBasics@lemm.ee
      ·
      1 year ago

      For context, were you alive and politically aware in 1991?

      Can you please explain how you think Bill Clinton appointed Yeltsin? Or are you playing with words and just referring to cooperation between the Clinton administration and Yeltsin's?

      • duderium [he/him]
        ·
        1 year ago

        The USA was attempting to destroy the USSR from day one, and even invaded Russia (unprovoked) within months of the October Revolution. Yeltsin would have lost the ‘96 election to the communists without Clinton’s direct intervention. When you combine this with the USA’s relentless obsession with funding Nazis worldwide to destroy communism both within and without the USSR, it becomes quite clear that the situation with Russia and Ukraine today is a direct consequence of American meddling overseas.

          • duderium [he/him]
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yes, very mysteriously even the best history teachers in the country seem to have trouble finding the time to mention this. I took APUSH five days a week an hour a day (or so?) for a year and it was never brought up. Curious! It’s almost as though the USA looks like the bad guy throughout the 20th century and into the 21st when this fact is mentioned. It also completely recontextualizes the Cold War. Very concerning!

          • charlie
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I didn’t know any of that. Naturally I go reading to learn more and find this laughable article.

            lol

            Anyone happen to have a non-lib source to read about this?

            The U.S. soldiers in northern Russia, the U.S. Army’s 339th regiment, were chosen for the deployment because they were mostly from Michigan, so military commanders figured they could handle the war zone’s extreme cold

            While the Polar Bears played a reluctant role in the Russian Civil War, the U.S. commander in Siberia, General William Graves, did his best to keep his troops out of it.

            Everything I know about Graves has me screaming at that honk-enraged

          • duderium [he/him]
            ·
            1 year ago

            The Nazis were funded with American capital. There are many, many other examples of this from around the world. The Batista regime in Cuba, the Contras, the US-backed fascists who built South Korea or Taiwan, the list just goes on and on. I will cite sources at your request, but I would ask you to do a simple google search—i.e., "was Park Chung Hee a fascist?"—and a little reading before doing so.

            • charlie
              ·
              1 year ago

              You could baby bird that shit right into their mouths and they probably still wouldn’t get it.

      • Vncredleader
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/UAHISTJRNL/article/view/23567/0

        Show