I mean actual anti-imperialist war is extremely good, but this is inter-imperialist war
Putin Cringe
Azov Cringe
Wagner Group Cringe
US/NATO cringest for engineering this situation
Putin's invasion = traditional nationalist imperialism + taking NATO's bait. Claims of "denazifying" ukraine maybe bad faith, idk. I don't live in Putin's head.
US/NATO = Capitalist imperialism as described by Lenin
Libs say "NATO-haters love putin"
NATO-haters curled up in corner with shotgun screaming "I HATE NATO I HATE NATO"
Relevant info: NATO made in 1949 BEFORE the warsaw pact, to "combat soviet aggression" right after WW2 ended. Staffed by former nazis. Germany got way more reparations than USSR did. Read Washington Bullets by Vijay Prashad.
that's so based, you're based
also you're older than like 95% of people here
Parenti stopped being friends with Bernie over the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia
that's wild; i was figuring it was older zoomers and younger millennials for the most part
Lenin literally invaded Ukraine, which at the time was recognized as a "sovereign nation", where the only real base of Bolshevik support was in the Donbas.. You're posting this in bad faith. Revolutionary defeatism would apply to the US in a war against Russia but not in Ukraine vs Russia.
I don't care who the rightful owner of Ukraine is I just don't want escalation into a nuclear war
⚠️ TRADE OFFER ⚠️
I receive: higher fossil fuel profits.
You receive: a mild nuclear exchange.
That won't happen. The western Bourgeoisie doesn't care that much about Ukraine.
I'm more worried about brinkmanship and talking themselves into delivering ultimatums all while trying to seem the most hardline in the room by proposing insane solutions and hoping the others will cause sense to prevail.
stumbling our way to nuclear holocaust
I wasn't here three weeks ago. I only came here because of this conflict. Those of us with family and friends in Russia knew it was a possibility.
Soldiers in DPR forces were saying that Russia would take Kiev, while even Russian communists said at most they'd take the full claimed territory of the Donbas republics. I tended to believe the latter over the former but always understood that not everything DPR folks were saying was bullshit propaganda.
Either way, it has nothing to do with the willingness of the western Bourgeoisie to completely annihilate society and relegate themselves to a life underground in luxury bunkers. There was never a chance that invading Ukraine would result in global annihilation. War between NATO and Russia would though, because it's an existential threat to Russia.
to be fair so did British diplomats and other people who personally know Putin in this capacity
There is so much more going on there that I am too tired to touch, but suffice to say, there was not a sovereign nation of Ukraine at the time, it was several self-proclaimed states and "recognized" is a strong word outside of the great powers that had been given control of a given nation's ports.
You don't have to explain anything to me. I'm ethnic Russian (child of an immigrant) and am close with my family there. I grew up learning about Russian, and specifically Soviet history. I understand that it wasn't the same as the current Ukrainian government being accepted as a unitary sovereign nation, but it was considered not part of the new Bolshevik regime by any serious power. It's very complicated but Lenin did indeed invade to establish the Ukrainian SSR when the only Bolshevik supporters were in the Donbas or a handful of rebels in major cities like Kiev. My main point is that the concept of revolutionary defeatism against Russia is bogus. The CPRF isn't going to use this to their advantage and seize power in Russia lol.
by any serious power
All the "serious powers" were anti-revolutionary capitalist monarchies that were invading Russia and/or backing the Whites at the time.
The CPRF for sure will get nothing from this, but that doesn't change that I disagree on the Bolshevik involvement in Ukraine. It was more than a handful in Kiev, the Bolsheviks in Kiev had fallen back however AFTER the Bolshevik uprising in November of 1917 which led to the creation of the Central Rada and thus the creation of the Ukrainian People's Republic. There was no nation for anyone to recognize until after Bolshevism had significantly become a thing in Kiev, and not by force through Lenin.
They fell back to Kharkiv (east but bordering the north of Donbas for anyone reading our convo who is unaware) because it was a stronger position, and because the central rada had turned on them. The UPR was recognized, or at least witnessed by France, Romania, and Italy on November 27th with the 3rd universal declaration, which importantly did not consider Ukraine a separate nation, but rather an autonomous region of the Russian state. The 4th came in January of 1918 and overwhelmingly voted to become independent. The British don't recognize the 4th Universal and a fully independent Ukraine until January 22nd of 1918, after the December 1917 military confrontation between the Red Army and the UPR in Bakhmach, and the Bolsheviks leaving the All-Ukrainian congress of Soviets which then recognized the UPR both on the same day december 17th. On december 18th 1917 the Russian Bolsheviks declare war on the UPR. As well as earlier in november Bolsheviks in Vinnytsia west of Kiev seize the city and attempted to move to capture Kiev but got stopped and deported in december. They take Kharkiv on december 26th.
I don't want to be pedantic, I get and frankly agree with your point, but I do want to clarify for others some of the timeline, as well as refresh myself. Cause it is not only not really that similar, its also the case that the UPR was not recognized as separate from the Russian state until after the Red Army invaded, which came months after serious Bolshevik influence in Kiev, completely homegrown. It was not just Donbas, Kharkiv, and some pockets in other cities, those groups in other cities had significant influence and roles up to the point of war. One that is pretty debatable as to whether the soviets even declared war on a recognized independent Ukraine given the timeline of independence, recognition, and recognition of independence being different but close
didn't mean to offend, just the history is worth pushing back on a simplification that gives the wrong idea. The red army was in Ukraine prior to independence, and armed revolts west of the Dnieper occur before anyone recognizes a Ukrainian government "considered not part of the new Bolshevik regime"
But yeah revolutionary defeatism makes no fucking sense here and now. We are not talking about countries with serious communist parties and union movements, being thrown into a pointless and drawn out meatgrinder totally unforeseen in its innovations of how brutal war can be. WW1 is a unique situation, one that we cannot fully appreciate but only acknowledge. It was conductive to the kind of revolts and desertions it saw in a way no other war could be
And nice to see people come here as a place to discuss the war, hopefully we are more accepting and welcoming than :reddit-logo: and the like right now
Thanks for the post. It's obvious that I was definitely oversimplifying things, especially since I've never studied this academically or through books but was taught a more simplified version of this by family moreso to understand my roots.
But yeah we obviously agree on the main point though. Communists in Russia and the Donbas should not be engaging in revolutionary defeatism, though I'd argue that Ukrainian communists probably should. Despite the unfair treatment of the communist parties in the Donbas republics (which I think is the direct result of Putin wanting to prevent them from actually becoming Communist), they do deserve critical support and Ukrainian communists should support their existence and fight the Kiev regime.
Unrelated, but whenever I swipe text "regime" my phone suggests "redbone" lmao good
Just don't use gendered slurs and stay chill. Consider this a warning since you have an older account. Convos about the Ukraine conflict are fine if you can discuss it calmly.
Genitals aren’t genders but I get you
We definitely agree on that. There are a handful of anatomical insults that tend to be exclusively used against women and/or femme presenting people in a way that is misogynist. That's what I'm referring to. Thanks.
Imperial war bad, civil war possibly good, class war in the form of civil resulting in revolution is best
Just start posting Lenin quotes in the break room with memes about modern events next to them lol
you're right, but linking to a wikipedia article and saying "some of you need to read this" will never not be funny
Here's some more points, that the short Wiki article doesn't fully address
The class-conscious proletariat can give its consent to a revolutionary war, which would really justify revolutionary defencism, only on condition: (a) that the power pass to the proletariat and the poorest sections of the peasants aligned with the proletariat; (b) that all annexations be renounced in deed and not in word; that a complete break be effected in actual fact with all capitalist interests.
In view of the undoubted honesty of those broad sections of the mass believers in revolutionary defencism who accept the war only as a necessity, and not as a means of conquest, in view of the fact that they are being deceived by the bourgeoisie, it is necessary with particular thoroughness, persistence and patience to explain their error to them, to explain the inseparable connection existing between capital and the imperialist war, and to prove that without overthrowing capital it is impossible to end the war by a truly democratic peace, a peace not imposed by violence.
Though Revolutionary Defeatism necessitates the "revolutionary class" desiring and facilitating facilitating "the defeat of its government". Revolutionary defeatism isn't a moral or ethical stance that means "both sides are bad, therefore we should desire the defeat of both", it's a practical strategy for revolutionaries to pursue:
revolutionary tactics that are quite unfeasible unless they “contribute to the defeat” of their own government, but which alone lead to a European revolution, to the permanent peace of socialism, to the liberation of humanity from the horrors, misery, savagery and brutality now prevailing.
Revolutionaries in Russia should desire their country's defeat in Ukraine, while those in the "West" should work towards the defeat of NATO. No one should condemn domestic opposition to the war effort in any country without a revolutionary government.
No they'd never support Russia. They'd be crusading to get every country in the world to join NATO now.
To be clear, I'm talking about the user on Hexbear, not the actual person/historical figure from Albania.
I'm talking about the infamous user on here, not the actual Enver Hoxa lol
