liberals hate socialists more than they hate fascists, and despite their protestations they will side with the fascists when push comes to shove. this is yet another example of it. no, russia isn't socialist, but the cold war propaganda runs so fucking deep that that fact doesn't actually matter, "russia" is still equated with "communism" 30+ years after the fall of the soviet union.
we don't support russia, we support ending the war with minimal further death. that happens atm to mean "not sending over a bunch of weapons while cheering to send another country's people into a defensively-fortified meatgrinder"
that's ideologically-committed liberals, mind you. plenty of people are just ambiently "liberals" because conservatives are so blatantly odious, so this isn't like a curse or something and normal people can snap out of it before reaching the "defending literal nazis" stage
The ambient libs mostly don't care as much about politics or have checked out partially, they may be outraged over some blatant nazism but they aren't organized or mobilized to do anything about it and will quickly fall back into their malaise.
When the Nazi/fascist minoritarians take power, they usually have the blatant support of around 30% of the population. The other 70% aren't all anti-fascist partisans or Schindler's hiding and saving jews. Most of them are ambient libs who continue being ambient libs/ambient fash and just acclimatize to the the current political zeitgeist.
Speak for yourself, I do and I hope they have complete and total victory over NATO proxies. You have a revolutionary defeatist duty to critically support Russia in this fight against your empire. Fence-sitting is not revolutionary defeatism, revolutionary defeatism means critically supporting the opponents of your own side.
This is an instance of high-flown phraseology with which Trotsky always justifies opportunism. A “revolutionary struggle against the war” is merely an empty and meaning less exclamation, something at which the heroes of the Second International excel, unless it means revolutionary action against one’s own government even in wartime. One has only to do some thinking in order to understand this. Wartime revolutionary action against one’s own government indubitably means, not only desiring its defeat, but really facilitating such a defeat. ("Discerning reader”: note that this does not mean “blowing up bridges”, organising unsuccessful strikes in the war industries, and ·in general helping the government defeat the revolutionaries.)
You agree that NATO/US is perpetuating a proxy war against Russia correct? You live in a NATO country/US? Then it's your duty "really facilitating such a defeat [of one's own government]". That means organizing successful strikes in the war industries and stopping ammo/weapon shipments and raising a stink against money going to Ukraine. It means pointing out the Ukrainian Nazis and desiring their DEFEAT as our own proxies.
I suppose it doesn't truly matter whether you "critically support" Russia or not, as an American or westerner - in that your prayers won't materially empower either side or have any outcome (as long as your still organize against support/weapons for Ukraine with the rest of the revolutionaries). However, when we are having discussions amongst ourselves what good is it to all lie and pretend like we don't want Russia to win? We do, it's in our best interests. I think a lot of westerners just aren't ready to make the final leap to a full revolutionary position - just like many in the 2nd international couldn't and the SPD voted for war bonds to support their own imperialist government, breaking solidarity with the proletariat of other nations. Russia winning is the best outcome though for revolutionaries in the US and across the globe, destroying the hegemonic empire is a necessary pre-requisite step to any revolutionary activity anywhere. AmeriKKKa must be destroyed and Russia is the one doing the most damage to it currently.
Lenin worked with Germany and took resources from them. Marx raised money for the Ottomans. Yes, it in fact does mean opposing your own empire by supporting its opponents (and getting supported by its opponents, in Lenin's case) and sabotaging your own empire.
Fence-sitting is passive and neutral. Revolutionary Defeatism is active and works against ones own empire (de facto supporting its opponents) by being a 5th column. Essentially it's being a reverse-comprador. Instead of being a traitor to your own nation in order to empower a foreign imperialist/colonizer coming into your country, you are supposed to be a traitor to your own imperialist nation in order to empower a foreign colony/target to remove your own empire and its proxies.
This is why one of the most essential tasks of any revolutionary party is to analyze and assess whether their own nation is imperialist or not. Not all capitalist nations are imperialist (Gaddafi being attacked by NATO/US deserves critical support, a Libyan revolutionary should not have sabotaged their own nation during war while an America/NATO resident should have).
Lenin worked with Germany and took resources from them. Marx raised money for the Ottomans. Yes, it in fact does mean opposing your own empire by supporting its opponents (and getting supported by its opponents, in Lenin's case) and sabotaging your own empire.
The question is who you support though, and revolutionary socialists, including Lenin, didn't give money to the Tsar, Metternich, or George V. They sought out different avenues. Supporting revolutionary groups, articles, only in limited cases sabotages, some criminal acts which disturbed the military supply chains and agitation within the military.
This is a far cry from thinking it is enough to be public about critical support of governments online. The latter would be the equivalent of :vote: for anti-imperialists. The former a principled response that actually figures out what the critical means.
Did you read my other comment? I address this pretty clearly
I suppose it doesn't truly matter whether you "critically support" Russia or not, as an American or westerner - in that your prayers won't materially empower either side or have any outcome (as long as your still organize against support/weapons for Ukraine with the rest of the revolutionaries). However, when we are having discussions amongst ourselves what good is it to all lie and pretend like we don't want Russia to win? We do, it's in our best interests. I think a lot of westerners just aren't ready to make the final leap to a full revolutionary position…
Essentially my issue with western leftists that go around fence sitting and couching their views to liberals as neutral are being dishonest. They are either confused about who they should be supporting or they are lying about it to appeal to Liberals and not to rock the Liberal boat of western consensus. They are spreading social chauvinism instead of correct Leninist analysis of the war.
And by the way, Marx and Engels did raise money for the Ottoman Empire. However that was just one example, nowhere did I propose hexbear money drives for Russia.
Couldn’t find anything about the funds, although I know I have seen articles and evidence of it in the past. However, I did find excerpts from Marx that he published in the New York Tribune where he is pretty blatantly arguing against the building Russian tsarist imperialist hegemony, and showing that if the Russians continued their strategy in the Crimean War and took all of Turkey that it would become a massive hegemonic empire (which would be a setback for revolution). Thus he argues for defense of the Ottoman Empire against the Russian imperialists.
So in effect he’s reaching the same conclusion here that I was arguing, that it’s fine for revolutionaries to play empires off of each other to prevent the creation of a single hegemonic empire. In modern day, America has become what Marx feared tsarist Russia would become, the empire that is disastrous to global revolution and set it back a century. So he would argue that it’s fine to support Russia (even if it was an empire like the Turks of yore, which it no longer is) if it means preventing or weakening the global hegemon (America/the collective west) to open up avenues for revolution.
liberals hate socialists more than they hate fascists, and despite their protestations they will side with the fascists when push comes to shove. this is yet another example of it. no, russia isn't socialist, but the cold war propaganda runs so fucking deep that that fact doesn't actually matter, "russia" is still equated with "communism" 30+ years after the fall of the soviet union.
we don't support russia, we support ending the war with minimal further death. that happens atm to mean "not sending over a bunch of weapons while cheering to send another country's people into a defensively-fortified meatgrinder"
that's ideologically-committed liberals, mind you. plenty of people are just ambiently "liberals" because conservatives are so blatantly odious, so this isn't like a curse or something and normal people can snap out of it before reaching the "defending literal nazis" stage
The ambient libs mostly don't care as much about politics or have checked out partially, they may be outraged over some blatant nazism but they aren't organized or mobilized to do anything about it and will quickly fall back into their malaise.
When the Nazi/fascist minoritarians take power, they usually have the blatant support of around 30% of the population. The other 70% aren't all anti-fascist partisans or Schindler's hiding and saving jews. Most of them are ambient libs who continue being ambient libs/ambient fash and just acclimatize to the the current political zeitgeist.
Speak for yourself, I do and I hope they have complete and total victory over NATO proxies. You have a revolutionary defeatist duty to critically support Russia in this fight against your empire. Fence-sitting is not revolutionary defeatism, revolutionary defeatism means critically supporting the opponents of your own side.
Lenin didn't meant that the SPD has to gather money to send to the Tsarist army though.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/jul/26.htm
You agree that NATO/US is perpetuating a proxy war against Russia correct? You live in a NATO country/US? Then it's your duty "really facilitating such a defeat [of one's own government]". That means organizing successful strikes in the war industries and stopping ammo/weapon shipments and raising a stink against money going to Ukraine. It means pointing out the Ukrainian Nazis and desiring their DEFEAT as our own proxies.
I suppose it doesn't truly matter whether you "critically support" Russia or not, as an American or westerner - in that your prayers won't materially empower either side or have any outcome (as long as your still organize against support/weapons for Ukraine with the rest of the revolutionaries). However, when we are having discussions amongst ourselves what good is it to all lie and pretend like we don't want Russia to win? We do, it's in our best interests. I think a lot of westerners just aren't ready to make the final leap to a full revolutionary position - just like many in the 2nd international couldn't and the SPD voted for war bonds to support their own imperialist government, breaking solidarity with the proletariat of other nations. Russia winning is the best outcome though for revolutionaries in the US and across the globe, destroying the hegemonic empire is a necessary pre-requisite step to any revolutionary activity anywhere. AmeriKKKa must be destroyed and Russia is the one doing the most damage to it currently.
Lenin worked with Germany and took resources from them. Marx raised money for the Ottomans. Yes, it in fact does mean opposing your own empire by supporting its opponents (and getting supported by its opponents, in Lenin's case) and sabotaging your own empire.
Fence-sitting is passive and neutral. Revolutionary Defeatism is active and works against ones own empire (de facto supporting its opponents) by being a 5th column. Essentially it's being a reverse-comprador. Instead of being a traitor to your own nation in order to empower a foreign imperialist/colonizer coming into your country, you are supposed to be a traitor to your own imperialist nation in order to empower a foreign colony/target to remove your own empire and its proxies.
This is why one of the most essential tasks of any revolutionary party is to analyze and assess whether their own nation is imperialist or not. Not all capitalist nations are imperialist (Gaddafi being attacked by NATO/US deserves critical support, a Libyan revolutionary should not have sabotaged their own nation during war while an America/NATO resident should have).
The question is who you support though, and revolutionary socialists, including Lenin, didn't give money to the Tsar, Metternich, or George V. They sought out different avenues. Supporting revolutionary groups, articles, only in limited cases sabotages, some criminal acts which disturbed the military supply chains and agitation within the military.
This is a far cry from thinking it is enough to be public about critical support of governments online. The latter would be the equivalent of :vote: for anti-imperialists. The former a principled response that actually figures out what the critical means.
Did you read my other comment? I address this pretty clearly
Essentially my issue with western leftists that go around fence sitting and couching their views to liberals as neutral are being dishonest. They are either confused about who they should be supporting or they are lying about it to appeal to Liberals and not to rock the Liberal boat of western consensus. They are spreading social chauvinism instead of correct Leninist analysis of the war.
And by the way, Marx and Engels did raise money for the Ottoman Empire. However that was just one example, nowhere did I propose hexbear money drives for Russia.
Glad to learn, can you give me a citation for that? I didn't find anything after having searched for 15 minutes.
https://neodemocracy.blogspot.com/2017/05/marx-on-ottoman-turks.html?m=1
Couldn’t find anything about the funds, although I know I have seen articles and evidence of it in the past. However, I did find excerpts from Marx that he published in the New York Tribune where he is pretty blatantly arguing against the building Russian tsarist imperialist hegemony, and showing that if the Russians continued their strategy in the Crimean War and took all of Turkey that it would become a massive hegemonic empire (which would be a setback for revolution). Thus he argues for defense of the Ottoman Empire against the Russian imperialists.
So in effect he’s reaching the same conclusion here that I was arguing, that it’s fine for revolutionaries to play empires off of each other to prevent the creation of a single hegemonic empire. In modern day, America has become what Marx feared tsarist Russia would become, the empire that is disastrous to global revolution and set it back a century. So he would argue that it’s fine to support Russia (even if it was an empire like the Turks of yore, which it no longer is) if it means preventing or weakening the global hegemon (America/the collective west) to open up avenues for revolution.
Yeah you're right, I just tend to err on the side of over-simplifying in the first salvo.
I just kinda don’t want to go posting really hard about it. (This is all I could realistically do and I do not like posting really hard about things)