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

  • A_Serbian_Milf [they/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    He did excoriate and scold his local Kautskyites and social chauvinists though, which is what we are doing here.

      • A_Serbian_Milf [they/them]
        ·
        2 years ago

        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

        • UncleJoe [comrade/them]
          ·
          2 years ago

          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.

          • A_Serbian_Milf [they/them]
            ·
            2 years ago

            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.

            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

            • UncleJoe [comrade/them]
              ·
              2 years ago

              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.

              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:

              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

              This line is also sussy, what difference would it make which side of the war you're on? Is Russian Kautskyism excused?

              • A_Serbian_Milf [they/them]
                ·
                2 years ago

                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.

                • Hmm [none/use name]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  Is Russia today engaged in capitalist imperialism? The answer is contradictory. In the first place, the answer is a plain no. Callinicos wants to call only the ‘top six’ countries imperialist; it is then wholly artificial for him to include Russia among them. More fundamentally, the Russian economy is primarily agricultural and extractive, with significant secondary line in arms exports; and there is not - yet - a fully-autonomous banking sector. On the contrary, Russian ‘foreign direct investments’ consist of individual oligarchs pulling cash out of the Russian domestic economy and putting it into prestige objects like Chelsea FC or real estate. It is not investment of capital: that is, money put to work as investments, which return a profit through the application of capital and labour in combination. If the US wins this proxy war, Russia will more or less rapidly become a semi-colony.

                  On the other side, Russia might become capitalist-imperialist - if it devises financial mechanisms independent of Swift, etc, and wins this war. Japan in 1894 was not an imperialist power, but victory over China in the war of 1894-95 made it into one, with the annexation of Taiwan. The Russo-Japanese war of 1904 could have reduced Japan to the status of a semi-colony of Russia; Japanese victory produced, instead, annexation of Korea and clear Japanese entry into the ranks of the great powers. Going further back, but similarly, Germany in 1870 was not an imperialist power. Prussian victory over France in that year provided the conditions for both German unification and an imperialist expansion.

                  1870

                  1870 is a better guide to our political tasks than either 1914 or 1940. As Mason asserts and Callinicos accepts, the workers’ movement cannot possibly use this war to challenge for power, as the 1912 Second International Congress at Basel urged and as Lenin and Zinoviev urged in 1914. We do not have a powerful mass movement, built up over decades, which could pose an international alternative.

                  Equally, however, this is not 1940. The Russian regime is authoritarian, but not fascist. There have not been mass arrests of oppositionists, as in spring 1933 in Germany, but merely harassment and repression of protests. There continue to be multi-party elections - violently skewed in favour of United Russia, true, but Republicans and Tories aspire to skew elections in the US and Britain in their favour too. Our own states increasingly demand police permission for demonstrations, and so on. Russia plays footsy with far-right nationalists - but so does the ‘west’ - and not only in Ukraine. To advocate a people’s front with ‘liberal’ imperialism - as Callinicos rightly says Mason does - for fear of Russian ‘fascism’, is to repeat the betrayals of the Eustonites and other ‘left’ backers of the invasion of Iraq.

                  In 1870 Germany was not yet an imperialist power. The war appeared to be a war launched by French emperor Louis Bonaparte (Napoleon III). French victory would have prevented German unification and secured the subordination of the Germanies as semi-colonies. The left had small and divided forces. But Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel - leaders of an organisation less than 10,000 strong who by chance held parliamentary seats - raised their voices against the Prussian regime and its war plans. Their principled commitment - ‘Not a penny, not a man for this system’ - allowed German social democracy to build a voice of unambiguous opposition to the regime under which they lived, which was able to grow on a mass scale because it offered a voice of unequivocal opposition.

                  Today, again, the left has small and divided forces. But we can raise our voices against our own state’s wars: and by doing so take a stand which in the long term can rally forces for unequivocal opposition to the warmongering imperialist regime under which we live.

                  "Neither 1914 nor 1940" by Mike Macnair

                • UncleJoe [comrade/them]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  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?

                  • A_Serbian_Milf [they/them]
                    ·
                    2 years ago

                    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.

                • UncleJoe [comrade/them]
                  ·
                  2 years ago

                  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

          • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]
            ·
            2 years ago

            There's two very big difference between WWI and the decades since then:

            1. 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.

            2. 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.