:both-sides:
https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/7dLnjj3Hyq.png
You are not a real leftist unless you have a Manichean worldview and treat politics like team sports
or maybe the common denominator is US imperialism. Class war is not a team sport, but there are sides.
Class War
The problem is people forget seem to forget the class part and focus entirely on national conflict, and even in undoubtedly inter-imperialist conflicts like the Nato vs Russia proxy war over Ukraine socialists of all stripes fall into the death trap of trying to pick between whichever bourgeoisie they prefer.
I used to be confused how the best and most popular Marxists of their day like Plekhanov and Kautsky could ever support WW1 but now that doesn't seem so crazy.
The conflict in Ukraine is inter-imperialist only if you stretch the definition of imperialist to be completely divorced from the historical context of unipolar US hegemony. Russia hardly exports capital, yet the vanguard of the worlds haute bourgeoisie is represented by NATO
Any capitalist war is an imperialist war and the proles have nothing to gain from it
unipolar US hegemony
Ergo, the people who want their own slice of the imperialist pie would have to go through them. I certainly hope you don't think Russia's opposition to NATO is from the goodness of their own heart lol, if anything the only reason they are now opposed to the US is because they'd been denied a seat at the big boys table despite every US foreign policy expert saying this would be a horrible fucking idea
I think you are mischaracterizing and underestimating NATO's role in the origins of this conflict that began in 2014 with a US-backed right-wing coup in Ukraine. I agree working people have nothing to gain from this conflict, and suffer continually as it goes on. I also don't think Russia is good or anything, but I don't think any working people or liberation movements throughout the world would benefit from the US/NATO/Ukraine "winning" or driving Russia to escalate towards nuclear conflict. If anything, a strategic defeat of the US could further US imperialisms decline and help working people of the world, because the principle opposition to working-class movements throughout the world is the US, not Russia.
I have said nothing about who is or isn't responsible, if anything I literally just said this whole thing is the fault of US foreign policy blunders, and I completely agree with the first part of your comment. I have no idea who you think you are arguing with or why, none of what you said has to do with my point lol.
If anything, a strategic defeat of the US could further US imperialisms decline and help working people of the world, because the principle opposition to working-class movements throughout the world is the US, not Russia.
Russia is not the one running around the globe putting down workers uprising because they are not in a position to do so on account of US capital already having conquered the globe. If they were in a similar position, what exactly do you think they would do? Once again, Russia's opposition to the US is just them acting in their national self-interest. Frankly, CSTO is already plenty competent at putting down workers uprising as we've seen in Kazakhstan.
You see what I mean about framing it in national terms and completely ignoring class? Russia, NATO and the US are not coherent, homogenous entities. US and NATO might be at the helm of the world bourgeoisie at the moment, but Russia is also very well acting in the interest of its own bourgeoisie. Neither of their proles have absolutely anything to gain from any outcome of this war, and neither does Ukraine's when frankly the only difference would be which sphere of influence the kleptocrats running the country would be in. The war also, if anything, rejuvenated faith in NATO by giving them a boogeyman, so any point about it "declining" US imperialism is already moot.
The thing to do when the bourgeoisie are fighting amongst themselves is, and always has been, to attempt to turn it into civil war. People in NATO countries should of course rally against their own, but Russian proles rallying en masse against their own government would also be a good outcome. Seeing every conflict as Team A vs Team B and trying to see which outcome would be marginally better is stupid, the truth is the only conflict that exists is class conflict.
You do not actually have to pick a side in a burgois conflict, in which precisely zero (0), non-burgeois states are involved. Like what does it matter to the working class of either country who wins? It's either the russian or the western burgoisie that oppresses them after. The important thing is to minimize loss of life, it's our people, workers, dieing on the ground or getting scarred for life. Not the western burgeoisie. I refuse to go to bat for a war that is only fought for imperial reasons. I will not cheer on the killing and suffering of working class people.
It literally makes no difference that Russia opposing NATO isn’t out of the “goodness of their heart” whatever that means anyway, opposing imperialism is good regardless. Russia being defeated by NATO would be an absolutely disastrous setback for the workers of the world tbh.
Russia [...] opposing imperialism
Surreal
Russia being defeated by NATO would be an absolutely disastrous setback for the workers of the world tbh.
The conflict has exactly zero impact on the workers of the world, you can view it as a symptom of the declining US world order but it most certainly is not a cause of it
There’s a reason none of the AES states take your position on this, because it’s nonsense. Russia has done a lot to oppose imperialism and has had mutually beneficial relationships to the targets of the empire like Iran, Syria, Venezuela, North Korea. They’re actively opposing the largest imperial force in the world and losing would be a massive negative outcome, the end goal for the imperialists is not just the massive exploitation of Ukraine by privatization and subjugation at hands of the IMF etc but also of Russia itself. If Russia falls they’ll be forced once again to live the shock doctrine of the 90s, and China will end up completely encircled. A strategic loss for the west on the other hand means the emergence of an alternative to the global economic system where US dollars rule the world, which will immensely benefit the entire global south. You’re completely showing your ass here, you have no analysis other than “Russia is capitalist too so it’s just as bad”, which is no analysis at all really. You haven’t made any decent case for Russia doing imperialism (which they don’t really, not as Marxists understand the concept), you just scoff at the facts of them actively opposing it because they aren’t doing it for the right reasons or whatever.
this conflict has exactly zero impact on the workers of the the world
This is possibly the most ignorant thing I’ve read about the conflict all week, the libs at least understand that this conflict is massively significant in maintain the “rules based international order”, they just think that’s a good thing lol.
inter imperialist
Russia is not an imperialist force, despite being a capitalist oligarchical country. So this is not an inter-imperialist conflict, it’s a conflict forced onto the region by the actual imperialists, lead by USA.
I used to be confused how the best and most popular Marxists of their day like Plekhanov and Kautsky could ever support WW1 but now that doesn’t seem so crazy.
This isn’t WW1, the conflict needs to be seen in its historical context to be able to recognize whether one faction or another is a historically progressive force, as opposed to a reactionary force. In the conflict between the Union and the Confederacy for example, the North was a historically progressive force against the reactionary south despite being a fully capitalist society, and had the enthusiastic support of Marx and Marxists.
Quite unlike WW1 the proxy war between NATO and Russia has a side which clearly represents the interests of unipolar imperialist hegemony (NATO/US) and the other side represents the potential for a multipolar world order which for reasons better articulated by people like Michael Hudson (for example) is far preferable for the global south and more conducive to building socialism.
Any capitalist war is an imperialist war, Russia trying to assert its control back onto its former backyard is imperialism, how is this controversial lmao. Do you consider the Tsarist Empire to be imperialist or do they pale in comparison to the British unipolar world order?
the conflict needs to be seen in its historical context to be able to recognize whether one faction or another is a historically progressive force, as opposed to a reactionary force.
Kautsky
In the conflict between the Union and the Confederacy for example,
What the actual fuck lmao. The North was a progressive force because they would have abolished slavery, the current conflict is between two indistinguishable models of capitalism. There is exactly no progressive outcome for this war.
le multipolarity
The biggest meme I fell for. A multipolar world order of cooperating countries would be the nightmare scenario for socialism, the point is to seize the opportunity to gain ground while the bourgeoisie is disunited, and that moment is right now. And that's beside the point that there is no outcome of the war that threatens the US world order, at most you can view the conflict even happening as a symptom of a slipping hegemon.
multipolar world order which [...] is far preferable for the global south
No shit that the local bourgeoisie would prefer more wiggle room than submitting to US imperialism all the time. There's a reason Russia is beating the multipolarity drum so eagerly, they've been excluded by the US from the unipolar world order so the only option is to directly carve breathing room for Russia.
and more conducive to building socialism
I want you to answer to me, in detail, where you are building socialism right now, and what you think "building" socialism entails
any capitalist war is an imperialist war
No, imperialism is a specific thing. There are other reasons for armed conflict even between two explicitly capitalist nations. One such reason would be legitimate security concerns like NATO rolling up to your borders and funding Nazis there.
Kautsky
Literally Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin lol
two indistinguishable models of capitalism
Two very different and easily distinguished models of capitalism. Financial capitalism as opposed to industrial capitalism, one of which can basically only exist by continued expansion of imperialism and the other which at least has potential to develop into socialism. Hudson has done excellent work writing entire books about the differences.
There’s a reason Russia is beating the multipolarity drum so eagerly, they’ve been excluded by the US from the unipolar world order so the only option is to directly carve breathing room for Russia.
Yeah, that’s the point. Russia is forced into the position, again, of opposing an evil empire for its own survival, not out of any high minded ideals but by simple historical fact. That doesn’t change that a loss for them and a win for the empire would be a huge blow to other countries outside of the imperial core, attempting to pursue alternative models of development outside of US dominated global capitalism.
any capitalist war is an imperialist war
No
Renegade
Literally Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin lol
We must support Germany in its anti-imperialist struggle against British world hegemon - Lenin
Yeah, that’s the point. Russia is forced into the position, again, of opposing an evil empire for its own survival, not out of any high minded ideals but by simple historical fact.
Yes
That doesn’t change that a loss for them and a win for the empire would be a huge blow to other countries outside of the imperial core, attempting to pursue alternative models of development outside of US dominated global capitalism.
There are no words for me to describe how uninterested I am in exploring alternative models of capitalism lmao
Financial capitalism as opposed to industrial capitalism, one of which can basically only exist by continued expansion of imperialism and the other which at least has potential to develop into socialism
What the actual fuck is this clown shit lmao, I hope to Christ you worded it wrong
I’m beginning to realize you don’t have the foggiest idea about basic Marxist theory, since you’ve now expressed incredulity at the idea that socialism develops out of industrial capitalism, in addition to a belief that imperialism is when countries do stuff. You do you, comrade.
