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
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.