This succeeds in making Putin look good, with genuine truths no less. And you know what? He has his serious issues, but he is undeniably good where it matters- anti-imperialism, bringing Russia out of the excesses of the oligarchs and now into a new era of revitalization (liberal still, yes, but still a world of difference from the horrors of shock therapy and the opinions of anyone pretending otherwise are automatically invalid), being a major leader in the push for multipolarity, etc...
Sure, he says mean conservative things about the LGBT community and trans folk in general, and panders to the Orthodox base. As someone who is trans- frankly, while my take on that is not "so what?" at the same time the fact is that his very real, tangible actions have left a undeniably positive mark across the world, far beyond whatever negatives he brings.
I would say that Putin is- though a fair bit of it is due to circumstances he didn't ask for- one of the greatest heroes living, and one of those with the most positive impact worldwide in recent decades so far- all this, despite the fact he's still a conservative chud and a liberal.
calling Putin a 'hero' is going way, way over the mark. Putin has two aspects worthy of critical support: He's slightly more moral than the US, and he opposes US hegemony over the world.
Russia's government is much like the US was in WWII, shitty but contemporarily useful against worse enemies. He's a useful bourgois pissant - definitively not a hero.
Russia’s government is much like the US was in WWII
Is it even comparable to that, though? WW2-era USA was still borne off of stolen land, genocide, and slavery; it practiced neo-slavery upon its black Americans (still does, but far less so) right up till the war, where it stopped for PR purposes. It was an expansive empire no different from any of the European ones, just that it had spread across North America and the Pacific instead, and otherwise flexed its muscles through similar indirect means (banana republics across Latin America, regime changes, etc). This same USA, was the one which had been killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos that same decade and decades prior, which had stolen the independence of Hawai'i and countless other states, which had been waging "wars" (read: genocidal pogroms) of its native populations up until the mid-1920s, which was growing fat off of the exploitation of trade in Asia and Latin America and had engaged in atrocities like its interventions in the Boxer Rebellion, and which had played a part in the global effort to try to destroy the Russian bolsheviks during the Russian civil war.
And to top it all off, the US during WW2 was, even then, actively working to preserve Nazism and other fascist ideologies (the various ideologies that American actions had been the primary inspiration for- such as Lebensraum, Aryan supremacy and racial purity, etc) so they could use it just as they have since- throughout the cold war and right till this very day as seen in Ukraine, across post-Warsaw pact Europe, in Japan, South Korea, and rogue Taiwan, in Israel, etc...
I'd say Russia's government is nothing alike to the US in WWII. It's like comparing Hitler with a boy scout.
Not my first time hearing it, but it brings a smile to my face every time. There's a reason indeed, and even if there is mild misogyny (there is) I'd certainly die on the hill of defending it in this context.
Communists shouldn't be talking about Putin as if he's a "good guy" or "hero" in the first place. These are lib-rot, idealist descriptors of a head of a periphery state. I know we're just memeing here, but if we're gonna have a serious discussion about contemporary Russia or any other country (even the Marxist ones) we should be weary of romanticizing them. This ain't the MCU. States have interests, which their leaders and the ruling parties that back them pursue, and Russia is anti-imperialist due to circumstance, not out of benevolence. Reminder that in the beginning, post-Soviet Russia under Putin tried to join the Western imperialist club.
Considering the liberalness of modern day Russia, I do wonder what it would be like if they were a bigger power and if imperialism was actually possible foe them, would they do it?
I mean it sounds nice to say the right things when you don't really have a choice in the opposite. Sure, tell everybody that you're anti-imperialistic, but that's only because you're fighting the imperialist as much as anybody else is. But as soon as Russia gets power, would they not potentially use it the way that every other liberal democracy would?
It's still theoretical, so I'm not going to blame anybody for actions they haven't taken. But as we've all seen, Putin isn't a good guy. He's just a bad guy who's aligned with good guys because it makes sense for them in the meantime.
If nothing else- I'd say that Putin's actions have shown he is charting a different course for Russia than that of western capital (as an understatement). Russia's material realities and geopolitical constraints also mean that- similar to China (which the west has spent no small amount of effort trying to smear as doing... the same things the west does on a regular basis) Russia is not going to be supplanting the west as a global, imperialist hegemon.
Russia doesn't need to follow the course of Anglo-European history for the past 500 years, it isn't doing so, it can't, and it is building itself up upon a entirely different model based on its own domestic industries and production, and as part of Eurasian integration than colonial plunder. That enough is more than good enough for me tbh.
Hell, I don't think I'd even go so far as to say Putin is a "bad guy." No one is pure pearly white, sure (purity culture/ultra-ism and all that is tired anyways) but domestically, overwhelmingly his impact is positive despite his boomer attitudes and liberalism on many things. Internationally I'd call his impact near wholly perfect as well, so even better yet. Describing him as a "bad guy aligned with the good guys" makes him sound like a (WW2 era) Churchill, de Gaulle, Eisenhower, or CKS, or perhaps even Abe Lincoln... except that none of their varying imperialist crimes and attitudes, or their plethora of glaring issues in CKS' case, can be pinned on Putin. Is he a chud and a lib? Sure, definitely. But as far as I'm concerned he doesn't even belong in the aforementioned crowd.
I understand your general sentiment, but I think calling Putin not a "bad guy" is overselling it. He's still a brutal dictator and a bourgeois scumbag, he just happens to be on the Global South's side for now. My support for him begins and ends at anti-imperialism. I'm not saying he's the devil incarnate, and he has done alot of good for Russia, but I can't not call him a useful necessary evil.
Is he, though? I certainly don't think so- as much as people like to characterize him as such, if anything, he rules with far more "democratic" a mandate (still liberal though- so not truly democratic where it matters, but that's a given for most of the world) than any of his peers in the west do.
What makes him "brutal?" His military actions (interventions in Ukraine, anti-ISIS actions in support of the Assad govt. in Syria, past actions cracking down on terrorism in Chechnya), which have all been not only justified, but incomparable to the modus operandi of the western "free world?"
What makes him specifically labeled a "dictator?" That he panders to popular conservative Orthodox views in the country, and thus to anti-LGBT sentiment and censorship? If so, half of EU member states may as well be called dictatorships- and the "wholesome LGBT-loving western countries" are neither without their pandering to reactionaries, nor their crackdowns on other minority religious and ethnic groups, dissenting voices and ideologies, etc... as someone who is trans myself I can realize that I'd rather live in the west than Russia (for now, frankly I can definitely see the not-so-unlikely possibility of these things changing for various reasons) but let's not kid ourselves, for the majority- whose rule is unpopular? Which countries have more accountability nowadays, and which ones are working for the betterment of (most of) their citizens? Which country actually has considerable self-autonomy for its constituent ethnic minorities, and is enacting generally popular legislation, economic reforms, etc?
If we're to call Putin a "brutal dictator," then why shouldn't we use the same title- for Biden, Trudeau, Sunak, Macron, Scholz, and so on? Hell, why don't we use the same title for the schmucks in Sweden and the other Nordic countries who are trying to strongarm their citizens into joining NATO despite popular sentiment being against it? Why don't we judge the actions of the "free world" just as harshly?
(edit) of course, however, I agree that he's a bourgeois scumbag.
I'm speaking more towards about how Putin views/uses the Communist Party as controlled opposition, but he also is aware that they are his likely successors if/when something were to happen to him.
Also how Putin simultaneously pays lip service to aspects of the USSR, and then turns around and praises White Army officers.
This might be a neoliberal-ish criticism, but the amount of wealth and power and control he and his oligarchs hold over all of Russia. That isn't to say that western capitalist countries don't have it worse in this aspect, of course they do. I know that Putin pretends to like aspects of socialism and that he isn't a marxist-leninist, but he is still a manipulative scumbag that seems to dangle the living standards and continual improvement over the common population while he is too tolerant of the oligarchs. Yes, Putin does have a fine leash on them, but he is still part of their class.
I agree that Russia seems to generally take care of it's people far better than the U.S. does, and even the United Nations admits that the semi-independent ethnic republics of Russia do have lots of autonomy and relative freedom.
I also agree that Trudeau, Biden, Macron are all dictators. I'm talking about how Putin has opposition killed.
Now, I'm not against Putin and the FSB assassinating targets out of a neoliberal misguided sense of morality, it's almost impossible to have a functioning security state without some equivalent of secret police. My criticism is that even though most of Putin's targets are neoliberal idealogues endangering the Russian state, I wouldn't be surprised if he uses it to suppress legitimate opposition.
Now, I’m not against Putin and the FSB assassinating targets out of a neoliberal misguided sense of morality, it’s almost impossible to have a functioning security state without some equivalent of secret police. My criticism is that even though most of Putin’s targets are neoliberal idealogues endangering the Russian state, I wouldn’t be surprised if he uses it to suppress legitimate opposition.
I wouldn't be surprised either, sure. But these are just assumptions- neither of us are crying for Nazi Navalny (who remains alive and well also, not that he necessarily should be- no doubt neither of us think of him as legitimate opposition), and Russia if anything- as we both agree- is more democratic (albeit still liberal and thus insufficiently, inherently so) and with both a widely popular government that is relatively competent at meeting its citizens' needs and demands, actually features meaningful semi-autonomy for its minorities, and even a large (controlled) communist opposition.
None of these things can even be said, for the western dictators (those of the Anglosphere and EU). It's for these many substantial differences, and more, that I hesitate and even object to some extent to calling Putin a "dictator," particularly when it's a word with such... baggage.
They're both terrible.
Maybe biden is more so, but this tries to make putin look good which is cringe
This succeeds in making Putin look good, with genuine truths no less. And you know what? He has his serious issues, but he is undeniably good where it matters- anti-imperialism, bringing Russia out of the excesses of the oligarchs and now into a new era of revitalization (liberal still, yes, but still a world of difference from the horrors of shock therapy and the opinions of anyone pretending otherwise are automatically invalid), being a major leader in the push for multipolarity, etc...
Sure, he says mean conservative things about the LGBT community and trans folk in general, and panders to the Orthodox base. As someone who is trans- frankly, while my take on that is not "so what?" at the same time the fact is that his very real, tangible actions have left a undeniably positive mark across the world, far beyond whatever negatives he brings.
I would say that Putin is- though a fair bit of it is due to circumstances he didn't ask for- one of the greatest heroes living, and one of those with the most positive impact worldwide in recent decades so far- all this, despite the fact he's still a conservative chud and a liberal.
Russia's government is much like the US was in WWII, shitty but contemporarily useful against worse enemies. He's a useful bourgois pissant - definitively not a hero.
Is it even comparable to that, though? WW2-era USA was still borne off of stolen land, genocide, and slavery; it practiced neo-slavery upon its black Americans (still does, but far less so) right up till the war, where it stopped for PR purposes. It was an expansive empire no different from any of the European ones, just that it had spread across North America and the Pacific instead, and otherwise flexed its muscles through similar indirect means (banana republics across Latin America, regime changes, etc). This same USA, was the one which had been killing hundreds of thousands of Filipinos that same decade and decades prior, which had stolen the independence of Hawai'i and countless other states, which had been waging "wars" (read: genocidal pogroms) of its native populations up until the mid-1920s, which was growing fat off of the exploitation of trade in Asia and Latin America and had engaged in atrocities like its interventions in the Boxer Rebellion, and which had played a part in the global effort to try to destroy the Russian bolsheviks during the Russian civil war.
And to top it all off, the US during WW2 was, even then, actively working to preserve Nazism and other fascist ideologies (the various ideologies that American actions had been the primary inspiration for- such as Lebensraum, Aryan supremacy and racial purity, etc) so they could use it just as they have since- throughout the cold war and right till this very day as seen in Ukraine, across post-Warsaw pact Europe, in Japan, South Korea, and rogue Taiwan, in Israel, etc...
I'd say Russia's government is nothing alike to the US in WWII. It's like comparing Hitler with a boy scout.
Comparing Hitler with a boy scout who stopped Hitler, no less
I’m not disagreeing with you, but there’s a reason things like this exist across the Global South:
Harden your heart, Putin (Palestinian song) (CW: misogyny)
Not my first time hearing it, but it brings a smile to my face every time. There's a reason indeed, and even if there is mild misogyny (there is) I'd certainly die on the hill of defending it in this context.
This song is so fire I wasn't ready for it 😭
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
Communists shouldn't be talking about Putin as if he's a "good guy" or "hero" in the first place. These are lib-rot, idealist descriptors of a head of a periphery state. I know we're just memeing here, but if we're gonna have a serious discussion about contemporary Russia or any other country (even the Marxist ones) we should be weary of romanticizing them. This ain't the MCU. States have interests, which their leaders and the ruling parties that back them pursue, and Russia is anti-imperialist due to circumstance, not out of benevolence. Reminder that in the beginning, post-Soviet Russia under Putin tried to join the Western imperialist club.
Considering the liberalness of modern day Russia, I do wonder what it would be like if they were a bigger power and if imperialism was actually possible foe them, would they do it?
I mean it sounds nice to say the right things when you don't really have a choice in the opposite. Sure, tell everybody that you're anti-imperialistic, but that's only because you're fighting the imperialist as much as anybody else is. But as soon as Russia gets power, would they not potentially use it the way that every other liberal democracy would?
It's still theoretical, so I'm not going to blame anybody for actions they haven't taken. But as we've all seen, Putin isn't a good guy. He's just a bad guy who's aligned with good guys because it makes sense for them in the meantime.
I dunno, just my recent thoughts on the matter.
If nothing else- I'd say that Putin's actions have shown he is charting a different course for Russia than that of western capital (as an understatement). Russia's material realities and geopolitical constraints also mean that- similar to China (which the west has spent no small amount of effort trying to smear as doing... the same things the west does on a regular basis) Russia is not going to be supplanting the west as a global, imperialist hegemon.
Russia doesn't need to follow the course of Anglo-European history for the past 500 years, it isn't doing so, it can't, and it is building itself up upon a entirely different model based on its own domestic industries and production, and as part of Eurasian integration than colonial plunder. That enough is more than good enough for me tbh.
Hell, I don't think I'd even go so far as to say Putin is a "bad guy." No one is pure pearly white, sure (purity culture/ultra-ism and all that is tired anyways) but domestically, overwhelmingly his impact is positive despite his boomer attitudes and liberalism on many things. Internationally I'd call his impact near wholly perfect as well, so even better yet. Describing him as a "bad guy aligned with the good guys" makes him sound like a (WW2 era) Churchill, de Gaulle, Eisenhower, or CKS, or perhaps even Abe Lincoln... except that none of their varying imperialist crimes and attitudes, or their plethora of glaring issues in CKS' case, can be pinned on Putin. Is he a chud and a lib? Sure, definitely. But as far as I'm concerned he doesn't even belong in the aforementioned crowd.
Interesting thoughts comrade. I'll have to chew on that for a while. Thank you for your insight.
I understand your general sentiment, but I think calling Putin not a "bad guy" is overselling it. He's still a brutal dictator and a bourgeois scumbag, he just happens to be on the Global South's side for now. My support for him begins and ends at anti-imperialism. I'm not saying he's the devil incarnate, and he has done alot of good for Russia, but I can't not call him a useful necessary evil.
Is he, though? I certainly don't think so- as much as people like to characterize him as such, if anything, he rules with far more "democratic" a mandate (still liberal though- so not truly democratic where it matters, but that's a given for most of the world) than any of his peers in the west do.
What makes him "brutal?" His military actions (interventions in Ukraine, anti-ISIS actions in support of the Assad govt. in Syria, past actions cracking down on terrorism in Chechnya), which have all been not only justified, but incomparable to the modus operandi of the western "free world?"
What makes him specifically labeled a "dictator?" That he panders to popular conservative Orthodox views in the country, and thus to anti-LGBT sentiment and censorship? If so, half of EU member states may as well be called dictatorships- and the "wholesome LGBT-loving western countries" are neither without their pandering to reactionaries, nor their crackdowns on other minority religious and ethnic groups, dissenting voices and ideologies, etc... as someone who is trans myself I can realize that I'd rather live in the west than Russia (for now, frankly I can definitely see the not-so-unlikely possibility of these things changing for various reasons) but let's not kid ourselves, for the majority- whose rule is unpopular? Which countries have more accountability nowadays, and which ones are working for the betterment of (most of) their citizens? Which country actually has considerable self-autonomy for its constituent ethnic minorities, and is enacting generally popular legislation, economic reforms, etc?
If we're to call Putin a "brutal dictator," then why shouldn't we use the same title- for Biden, Trudeau, Sunak, Macron, Scholz, and so on? Hell, why don't we use the same title for the schmucks in Sweden and the other Nordic countries who are trying to strongarm their citizens into joining NATO despite popular sentiment being against it? Why don't we judge the actions of the "free world" just as harshly?
(edit) of course, however, I agree that he's a bourgeois scumbag.
I'm speaking more towards about how Putin views/uses the Communist Party as controlled opposition, but he also is aware that they are his likely successors if/when something were to happen to him.
Also how Putin simultaneously pays lip service to aspects of the USSR, and then turns around and praises White Army officers.
This might be a neoliberal-ish criticism, but the amount of wealth and power and control he and his oligarchs hold over all of Russia. That isn't to say that western capitalist countries don't have it worse in this aspect, of course they do. I know that Putin pretends to like aspects of socialism and that he isn't a marxist-leninist, but he is still a manipulative scumbag that seems to dangle the living standards and continual improvement over the common population while he is too tolerant of the oligarchs. Yes, Putin does have a fine leash on them, but he is still part of their class.
I agree that Russia seems to generally take care of it's people far better than the U.S. does, and even the United Nations admits that the semi-independent ethnic republics of Russia do have lots of autonomy and relative freedom.
I also agree that Trudeau, Biden, Macron are all dictators. I'm talking about how Putin has opposition killed.
Now, I'm not against Putin and the FSB assassinating targets out of a neoliberal misguided sense of morality, it's almost impossible to have a functioning security state without some equivalent of secret police. My criticism is that even though most of Putin's targets are neoliberal idealogues endangering the Russian state, I wouldn't be surprised if he uses it to suppress legitimate opposition.
I wouldn't be surprised either, sure. But these are just assumptions- neither of us are crying for Nazi Navalny (who remains alive and well also, not that he necessarily should be- no doubt neither of us think of him as legitimate opposition), and Russia if anything- as we both agree- is more democratic (albeit still liberal and thus insufficiently, inherently so) and with both a widely popular government that is relatively competent at meeting its citizens' needs and demands, actually features meaningful semi-autonomy for its minorities, and even a large (controlled) communist opposition.
None of these things can even be said, for the western dictators (those of the Anglosphere and EU). It's for these many substantial differences, and more, that I hesitate and even object to some extent to calling Putin a "dictator," particularly when it's a word with such... baggage.
Look if you don't
for Putin then you're basically voting for biden.