EDIT: I'm very proud of this community. All the posts are making me think and solidly criticizing from an anti-imperialist perspective. Thanks, hexbear
EDIT: I'm very proud of this community. All the posts are making me think and solidly criticizing from an anti-imperialist perspective. Thanks, hexbear
The both-sides purity chauvinism would make Lenin mad too. He advocated revolutionary defeatism, which is attacking your own government and not being neutral/both sides
It's literally attacking the US govt though, lol
Both sidesism that includes your side is fence sitting and is not “opposing first and foremost your own nation”
I didn't include "My side". None of these bourgeois nations or international institutions represent the working class.
I think Russia's invasion was strategically necessary from a bourgeois nationalist perspective of protecting themselves from NATO expansion, and I absolutely think NATO/US/EU carry the largest responsibility in provoking the war. We should stand against all forms of bourgeois nationalism, while recognizing Russia and Ukraine as victims of US imperialism, and a byproduct of US-backed privatization in the 90s. I hope this isn't right deviationism but feel free to correct and critique this stance.
So you aren’t a Leninist? Lenin is talking about foreign capitalist nations and how attacking them while your own imperialist nation is at war is a form of imperialist intrigue. You are just doing ultraleftism right now and not principled Leninism.
The difference between organizing around the two:
Principled: Oppose NATO and work to stop weapon shipments and push for peaceful negotiation as soon as possible
Unprincipled: oppose everyone equally and sit on your ass going “let them fight”
The US/NATO/EU are responsible for the war, and they're also responsible for the Russian federation existing in its current form. I don't think I'm doing "imperialist intrigue" since Russian Federation wouldn't exist in the first place if it weren't for US/NATO/EU. If I criticize Russian Federation in any way, it is only insofar as they are a direct result of US imperialism. Hope that makes sense. Same goes for Ukraine and any other post-soviet country. They're all victims of US imperialism. To the extent that the meme is an incomplete or lazy metaphor, I apologize. I was hoping it could pipeline libs away from a pro-NATO stance but if it fails at that, maybe it needs to be rethought.
I don't oppose everyone equally or think the fighting should continue. I'd agree that a peaceful negotiation is necessary as soon as possible. But I don't see NATO relenting, or Russia letting its guard down, or the Ukraine govt. accepting any peace terms put forward by Russia.
So because NATO previously looted Russia that makes it more ok for NATO to attack them now? I don’t follow your convoluted logic to get out of revolutionary defeatism
I'm not pro NATO or think it's OK for NATO to do anything it has done. Where did I say it was ok for NATO to do anything? NATO shouldn't exist. And neither should the Russian federation. Bring back the USSR. Russian federation only exists because NATO destroyed the USSR through US-backed privatization and looting.
As I have said like 10 times already, fence sitting as a westerner is supporting NATO and failing your duty
how am I fence sitting when I said NATO/US/EU caused this war and also destroyed the USSR? Like if Ukraine and Russia were both still socialist and part of the USSR, and if NATO didn't exist, none of this would possible.
ASM won't be happy until you lick boots, just ignore
I won’t be happy until people here just are virulently anti-west in all scenarios and work to bring down their own empire instead of sitting back and enjoying the carnage. You live inside a Nazi regime, your inaction is complicity, and your attack of the enemies of your regime is a betrayal of socialism and internationalism
I agree with your political conclusions that being anti-west is necessary in all scenarios but not your characterization that comrades enjoy the carnage.
Socialism is the enemy of the United States, which is the imperial center of gravity. The Russian federation and Ukraine are both products of the destruction of the USSR by the United States. To the extent that the Russian federation is an "enemy" of the united states, it is only because it stands in the way of Unipolar US hegemony, but not in the way of Capitalism itself. I sincerely hope the bourgeois Russian government is ousted and Communists take power in Russia again. And I hope the same for the US. You're right, inaction is complicity. I'll try to demonstrate more against my country's actions, even if it gets me and my family tortured and killed.
There are multiple people in this thread who have literally said “let them fight”. That comes off as calloused glee to me, and a complete failure of critical support and revolutionary defeatism
It would be more coherent to address your objections to those people specifically than assume everyone who is commenting believes that.
@Commander_Data
https://hexbear.net/post/221339/comment/2817414
“Let them fight”
Look, I'm not going to engage with you. It's not fair to attack other people because I won't give you the reaction you want.
The user above asked for specific examples of chauvinism, I was pointing right at you. You can go away if you want
You could easily have done that without the @.
They are wrong to say that.
You've never read my other posts, huh. I'm a self-hating landback type. Hating :cracker: is kinda one of my primary traits. I just don't lick Putin's asshole every time I open my mouth, which is your minimum requirement for a good post
You claim to hate the US yet you spread US propaganda about its enemies, curious
:very-intelligent:
You have yet to figure out the concepts of revolutionary defeatism, imperialism and critical support
There is literally nothing critical about your support
You don’t read my posts do you? I have plenty of posts pointing out issues with Russian government structure, tactics, strategy.
There is literally nothing “support” about your critical support.
when you say tactics and strategy, do you mean to say that your criticism of Russia is that they aren't prosecuting the war effectively?
Yes, but also other areas.
For example, just yesterday I said that I don’t approve of Russia’s strategy of abandoning territory to save the lives of their troops if that means leaving behind sympathetic civilians that would be tortured and killed by the Ukrainians as traitors and collaborators.
I’ve also joined in with @granit in criticizing their neoliberal central bank policies, for example.
I shouldn’t even need to do these things to prove anything to you though. You should be following revolutionary defeatism.
what do you view as action in this case? is there a specific metric you have in mind for what meets your expectations?
I will not voice uncritical support for any country that actively attacks LGBTQIA+ people.
Organizing with whoever will join you to call for peace and and end to material support to Ukraine for weapons. Denouncing NATO. Calling for the dissolution of NATO. Not repeating anti-Russia propaganda.
Its clear you won’t voice critical support either, just sit on the fence. I assume you will be consistent in your take and denounce Palestine equally as Israel?
I think this is a fantastic meme to get people into the pipeline. Propagandizing requires tact. The less you say, the more likely people are to engage with it. While it would be cool if there were some meme out there that condensed all of ML theory into a funny wojak face, this is a pretty good way of explaining a current issue without immediately turning your audience against you.
As far as online activitism goes, I think our primary responsibility is to plant the seeds of class consciousness. This thread is proof that your meme can successfully facilitate the right kind of discussions.
yeah, "into the pipeline" I think nails it. i feel like this meme would be better aimed at the libs and socdems falling for the "NATO is protecting ukraine from Russian imperialism" BS than it is an adequate end goal for everyone's foreign policy takes.
:very-intelligent:
Bourgeoisie states bad is a controversial take on hexbear dot net
Calling bourgeois states that are the enemy of your own imperialist bourgeois nation “bad” during war is indeed chauvinism and failing your internationalist duty
I'm sure the russian war effort was severely impacted by this meme on an obscure bear enthusiast forum
It does represent the prevailing stance in even the "radical" western left and that's the best case scenario since the prevailing stance is more pro NATO than even that. So it's naturalfor users to try and push back and argue against it
If chauvinists reveal themselves in a time of crisis then all the better, but you don't fight against it by just stanning the opposite side to the other dudes lmao
Lenin didn't spend all day defending the German and Austro-Hungarian war effort
He did excoriate and scold his local Kautskyites and social chauvinists though, which is what we are doing here.
Kautskyites, famous for not supporting a side in a war
Famous for being social chauvinists who refused to do revolutionary defeatism, like anyone in here who doesn’t land firmly on one side of this conflict. Revolutionary defeatism is not fence sitting, it entails siding firmly against your own side and with the enemy of your side
Then I think you might be confused what revolutionary defeatism means. You're right it is aligning yourself against your own government, but it most certainly is not unflinchingly supporting the other guy. It's not "fence-sitting" to recognize the proletariat has absolutely nothing to gain from the war in any outcome, unless you think Lenin was a Kautskyite chauvinist, revolutionary defeatism means seizing the opportunity of bougies being weak and disunited to seize proletarian power by trying to turn the war into civil war. This is why NATO collectively shitting themselves and killing themselves with sanctions would be a good consequence of the war -- provides an ample opportunity for communists to agitate against their own governments, provided you actually seize it. Likewise, Russian communists should oppose the war and fight against their own government, not unflinchingly support NATO, no? (if KRPF and Zyuganov weren't cucked to Putin, that is). This doesn't require you to sit on any "side", quite the opposite, since revolutionary defeatism inherently acknowledges that communists should take no side, but take advantage of it to sabotage and rally against their own state in whatever way they can.
What Russian communists should do is outside the scope of this discussion because nobody here is a Russian communist. I’ll let them figure this one out
Lenin worked with the German imperialists to overthrow the Tsar. Fanon joined the French imperialists to shoot Nazis. Marx worked with the Ottoman imperialists to weaken European powers. Revolutionary defeatism ABSOLUTELY means working with the opposing capitalists
That would still fall under taking advantage of the conflict when an opportunity arises, not supporting the other side, no? Lenin took the train ride, not dedicated the rest of his career to singing the praises of Kaiser Wilhelm II's anti-imperialism lol
The Fanon example is also out of place. If you claim people should unflinchingly support the opposite side in a capitalist war, shouldn't Fanon be on the German side?
Edit:
This line is also sussy, what difference would it make which side of the war you're on? Is Russian Kautskyism excused?
I don’t believe Russia is imperialist or that this is an inter-imperialist war, so I don’t think that Russian socialists should use the tactic of revolutionary defeatism here - just like Libyan socialists under Gaddafi should not have exercised revolutionary defeatism while imperialists were invading and destroying the nation.
Revolutionary Defeatism is the duty of socialists in an imperialist nation. Not the duty of socialists in a non-imperialist capitalist nation under attack from imperialists.
"Neither 1914 nor 1940" by Mike Macnair
Good post, thank you very much
very interesting essay, thank you for sharing.
Even if we're gonna ignore Russia's resource extraction and super-profits in Central Asia, the reason Russia is not part of the big boy imperialists is because they've been denied a seat at the big boy table at every turn. It's not as if they didn't try to join NATO or cozy up to the US, the fact that they're currently aligned against them is less out of Russia's goodwill and more the consequence of decades of US foreign policy blunders and hostility toward Russia. The only way Russia can be imperialist in a world already conquered by the US is to go through them and try to secure a foothold, which is what this war is about. Once again your example is weird, Libya was attacked not the one attacking like in this case. Are you saying Ukrainians should not exercise revolutionary defeatism?
Russia did not start this or “attack”. NATO threw a fascist coup in 2014, started a civil war and just before the current crisis they prepared invasion of Donbas and did massive artillery strikes in breach of ceasefire. Russia is the victim of imperialism here, of imperialist sanctions and encroachment and encirclement
Ukrainian army is fascist arm of imperialism so Ukrainians should absolutely exercise revolutionary defeatism.
If they cared at all about 2014, they wouldn't have taken 8 years to do anything about it. The reason Russia was not accepted into the big boys club is because they're a little too big to leave the US unilateral control over the imperialist bloc, which is why they've tried to contain them as much as possible, that much is true, but it really doesn't make a difference when it comes to their intentions. Why do you think Russia would care about being excluded and ostracized from global imperialist system if they didn't want you to participate in it? What exactly do you think Russia's long term goals are here, and what do you think they'd be doing had the US not been around? Imperialism is not just something the bad countries do, it's an economic inevitability. Russia's problem is that their imperialism is limited to their former backyard of Central Asia at the moment, and to fix that they gotta do like capitalist countries do, and expand. I have no fucking clue how people keep falling for capitalist countries' cynical justification for their actions both on the NATOid and Russian side
The fact that you can pick and choose which countries should do revolutionary defeatism and even imply there is such a thing as a good capitalist war just tells me there's nothing of worth left discussing here lol
I suppose you don’t support Palestine then, they are capitalist and conservative. Israel-Palestine conflict is just an inter-capitalist war
I’m not going to bother responding to this load of moralizing ultra drivel
Small oppressed nation fighting against settlers and colonizers vs former empire upset that they've been denied their share of imperialist spoils so they decide to secure a place in the sun on their own :thinking-about-it:
You know someone's not mad when the snarl words come out lmao, eat my ass Kautskyite
Ukraine is a "small oppressed" nation? Just a smol bean fascist NATO base. "fighting against settlers and colonizers" is that really what you think Azov was doing in Donbas? Your lack of material analysis is a disgrace to your name
I was referring to Palestine :brainworms:
Got it, thought you were framing the Ukrainian conflict this way.
Your arguments are that of an anarcho-bidenist and you refuse revolutionary defeatism, not sure how that makes me the kautskyite. I attack my own country, that's not what kautsky did
Your arguments are that of a duginist multipolarista. See? I, too, can say a bunch of garbage instead of actually engaging with your post
The anarcho-bidenists are the ones doing lesser evil-ism and praising NATO's mutual military aid and whatever the fuck, you're doing the same thing but for the opposite side lol. Or rather, you're making the same mistake as them by even think there are two sides when it's just bougies fighting eachother with proles stuck in the middle getting slaughtered. I ask again, should Russians also do revolutionary defeatism and fight back against their own government? If your answer is no, then you've given up on revolutionary defeatism by admitting there is such a thing as a good side in a capitalist war. At that point, stop hiding behind revolutionary defeatism and just call yourself pro-Russia outright
You conveniently skipped over Marx and Engels raising funds for the Ottomans
Marx also supported reformists and succdems in England, doesn't mean I'm gonna do it :lenin-laugh:
You conveniently skipped like half of my comments so I don't think there's anything more to discuss
There's two very big difference between WWI and the decades since then:
The existence of socialism. Socialism didn't exist in WWI, neither in principled nor revisionist forms. Democratic socialism and social democracy didn't exist either, the closest being the Kingdom of Sweden, which acted more like a failed imperialist has-been empire than a progressive force. Successful national liberation struggles that captured state power and were able to expel imperialists from their lands didn't really exist during WWI either, the closest being Liberia and Ethiopia. The Republic of China was controlled by the comprador beiyang government, Iran was also semi-colonized, and the rest of the world can be neatly divided between imperialist powers and imperialized colonies. This is not at all today where you have various progressive countries like Bolivia as well as countries like China which constitutes a form of socialism or at least a progressive force if you don't believe they're actually socialist.
The existence of fascism. Fascism also didn't exist in WWI. And there's a qualitative difference standard liberal barbarism as articulated by Rosa Luxemburg and the absolute debased barbarism as demonstrated by rabid fascists. A proven tactic towards opposing fascism is the united front, where socialists tactically unite with various progressive liberal forces to stomp out fascism. Because at the end of the day, fascists should be dealt with by shoving them into woodchippers feet first. They should be thrown down wells and have grenades thrown at their broken mangled bodies to make sure they stay dead. British soldiers charging no-man-lands to kill German soldiers is a tragedy because it's workers killing workers while British soldiers charging the machine gun nests at Normandy to kill German soldiers is an act of heroism towards ridding the world of fascist dogs.
It's the simultaneous existence of both socialism and fascism that greatly complicates the application of revolutionary defeatism. Like seriously, how would revolutionary defeatism pan out during WWII? Do nothing until Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, in affect copying the absolute opportunistic vulture that is the US? Obviously, when your revolutionary theory makes you act in almost the exact same way as the US, it's time to go back to the drawing board and think things over.
As for Russia vs Ukraine, how you evaluate the conflict goes back to my two points. Russia may not be socialist, but Ukraine isn't exactly free of fascism either. At a certain point, it doesn't matter how far from socialism Russia has fallen from if it can demonstrated that Ukraine has been completely consumed by fascism.
He did, however, spend all day scolding the “socialists” around him to stop being chauvinists when they spent all day talking about enemy imperialists instead of focusing on their own bourgeoise, their own nation.
If nothing that’s said here matters than just post as a nazi
deleted by creator
I'm just being annoying because I've got better stuff to do than argue this.
So...bye!
This shallow surface-level refusal to engage with context and just have a pithy remark is exactly why you are coming to the wrong conclusions
Removed by mod
Libs moralizing
deleted by creator
Lol, I hope the SCO wins. I just think Russian Federation stans cling too hard to black-and-white reasoning and think they're annoying. Who'dve thought geopolitics is multifaceted.
deleted by creator
Please point to where I called Putin the aggressor
deleted by creator
Ironically it’s you that is using a shallow surface level stance and the “Russia Stans” who have the most nuanced understanding of the Ukrainian conflict
I think at the end of the day it is moralism. They have a deep, deep seated hatred of Russia and Russia is always evil and bad to them. That colors their judgment and makes them take the incorrect stance, when they may otherwise have seen the truth clearly (Compare support for Libya or Palestine, which few here would oppose, to support for Russia. All of them are capitalist nations being colonized and attacked by imperialists, but only 2 of the 3 get any type of critical support… for some reason)
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
can you elaborate on this?
deleted by creator
Palestine, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Libya are all evil and bad! They are just as evil as NATO. Let them fight
deleted by creator
revolutionary defeatism only works when one of the sides isn't a capitalist bourgeoisie state. I am revolutionarily defeatist in that I want the capitalist nations in this conflict to lose
That’s absolutely false. The term was coined for WW1, where all sides were imperialists. You are failing your international duty, please read Lenin
NATOpedia, I know, but this really isn't that objectionable of a definition.
America's defeat in this conflict will not lead to a civil war. The primary motivation here is to take the opportunity of destabilization to build socialism - not only will there be no destabilization as a result of a US loss in Ukraine, but even if the US should become destabilized, it's not hard to see that our scales are tipped far in favor of fascism and against socialism. And since the stakes are about the same for the US and Russia, I want for the bourgeoisie of both sides to suffer.
I have read more Lenin than a Wikipedia article, I promise. Revolutionary defeatism is a good and valid theory but Lenin lived before the age of proxy wars and like all theory, it needs to be evaluated in a different light after time passes. Lenin's writings aren't a permanently immutable bible.
edit: to more directly address your terms, in the language of Lenin and his own theory of revolutionary defeatism, as an American I want my side to lose, and as a proletarian I stand in solidarity and share the interests of Russians who want their side to lose. I hold both of these in equal standing.
For the Socialist of another country cannot expose the government and bourgeoisie of a country at war with “his own” nation, and not only because he does not know that country’s language, history, specific features, etc., but also because such exposure is part of imperialist intrigue, and not an internationalist duty.
He is not an internationalist who vows and swears by internationalism. Only he is an internationalist who in a really internationalist way combats his own bourgeoisie, his own social-chauvinists, his own Kautskyites.
(b) In every country the Socialist must above all emphasise in all his propaganda the need to distrust not only every political phrase of his own government, but also every political phrase of his own social-chauvinists, who in reality serve that government.
-Lenin
Are the Russian Leninists wrong for wanting the defeat of their own country in this conflict? If so, why? If not, why am I wrong to stand with them if they are right?
Are you a Russian Leninist? No, you are a western one so worry about your own duty that you are failing before pointing fingers across the sea
It's not like I'm out helping America in the war effort, I'm just expressing my opinions and having a discussion on an online bear form. In real life, I don't do any anti-Russian action, I don't do any pro-Russian action, and I don't do any pro-American action.
Do you do any anti-American action? Your duty as an internationalist socialist is to oppose and damage your own empire, and not attack others. Simple as.
Also, I caught your accusation earlier that I didn't know that revolutionary defeatism applies to world war 1 - I don't really know what you're basing that on, but as someone interested in the concept, you might appreciate knowing that the concept is actually older than the specific verbage, and originates from the Russo-Japanese war.
You said that Revolutionary Defeatism only applies when one side isn’t imperialist/capitalist. That’s false. It was invented for a war where all sides were imperialist.
Can’t believe 20 people agreed with this revisionist nonsense
deleted by creator
should I not desire the defeat of the government of other revolutionary classes? If they should desire the defeat of their government, should I not stand alongside my fellow revolutionaries around the world? I get that we have our own problems domestically and I would never even briefly consider putting even the tiniest bit of organizational effort into helping the United States defeat one of its enemies, so where's the problem?
If you disagree with Leninist revolutionary defeatism and think those living in the imperial core should not practice it, make your case for why that is.
Don’t twist and distort concepts beyond recognition. At least do the reading and understand what you are talking about. No investigation, no right to speak.
deleted by creator
I've generally been primarily critical of the US since before the beginning of this war, but I see your point. Leninist revolutionary defeatism is always necessary.
It’s not enough to be critical of the US. You have to oppose it first and foremost, which means not equivocating
You're right. it should be opposed first and foremost. The entire situation at present is a result of US imperialism going back decades. The fact that all sides produce self-serving bourgeois nationalist propaganda doesn't change that the imperial center of gravity is the USA, or that NATO is an imperialist tool, or that Ukraine and Russia are both victims of US imperialism.