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.
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.
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.
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 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.
There’s a reason none of the AES states take your position on this
Because it's in their national interest not to lol
Russia is capitalist too so it’s just as bad
:gigachad:
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.
There is no outcome of the war that threatens the US or NATO or Russia for that matter, unless you somehow think Ukraine is gonna march all the way to Moscow lmao. The biggest damage done to NATO countries during the course of this war has been at the hands of NATO themselves
You haven’t made any decent case for Russia doing imperialism (which they don’t really, not as Marxists understand the concept),
I love using the most myopic definition of imperialism possible lmao. Tsarist Russia had not exported one iota of capital and was leagues behind other imperialist countries, yet Lenin recognized it as an imperialist power, why do you think that is? What would you call Russia exerting control over its former sphere of influence trying to ensure markets for its energy exports? And that's ignoring Russia's presence in Central Asia
And I like how you immediately ceased your "Akcshually Russia is technically not imperialist 🤓" claptrap after seeing that last paragraph lol, concession accepted
Russia isn’t imperialist, technically or otherwise. I haven’t conceded that at all, but you’ve literally agreed that socialist countries benefit by supporting Russia lol.
I'm sure that them not criticizing the one semi-great power not opposed to their existence is because of the extremely socialist character of the war and not because they'd want to avoid biting the hand that feeds them lol
Russia isn’t imperialist, technically or otherwise.
Then I don't care what un-Marxist definition of imperialism you use if you don't agree with Lenin
The fact that Russia is a “hand that feeds them” is evidence of Russia’s anti-imperial actions in a world where the imperialists are trying to destroy these countries.
if you don’t agree with Lenin
I do agree with him, Lenin’s description of imperialism does not fit Russia. You want to call his definition “myopic” and then turn around and say I’m being un-Marxist.
You raise a good point here. Tsarist Russia was definitely an empire in the traditional sense, but when Lenin wrote Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism he described the new method of imperialism that was forming out of capitalism, the method of exporting financial capital to colonies in order to generate super profits and buy off the domestic working class. That’s the form of imperialism that exists today and which Russia does not conform to, but modern Russia also doesn’t fit the older model of imperialism which Tsarist Russia did. That older kind of imperialism, distinct from the form Lenin describes, doesn’t even really exist anymore as global capitalism has developed to the point that it can’t be supported… I think something important to note here is that Tsarist Russia wielded it’s power in service of reaction, crushing revolutions across Europe to maintain the older status quo economic and political model in the face of historical progress.
Today, the “new” form of imperialism that Lenin laid out IS the status quo, so the US, it’s allies and institutions are both 1) perfectly exemplary of imperialism as described by Lenin in ItHSoC AND 2) the hammer of reaction which seeks to crush historical progress toward a new economic order anywhere it pops up, like Tsarist Russia once was in Europe.
Modern Russia, conversely, is neither of those things, which is why describing modern Russia as imperialist doesn’t fit in either sense.
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
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.
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.
Finance capitalism also developed out of industrial capitalism. Socialism "develops" out of the self-emancipation and self-abolition of the proletarian class. I'm sorry for reading Marx instead of the guy who thinks Marx was wrong lol, I forgor imperialism was a bad thing only evil people do instead of an economic inevitability of capitalism
Imperialism is an inevitability of capitalism, but it’s not an inevitability in every capitalist country, that should go without saying. Therefore it simply does not follow that “X country is capitalist therefore it is imperialist and must be opposed at all times and in everything it does”. Imperialist aggression against the former USSR simply never stopped after it was destroyed and continued against Russia, and Russia is responding by acting against the imperialists.
“The guy who thinks Marx was wrong” idk who you’re talking about but I’m following the people who developed theories of imperialism after Marx like Lenin, Stalin and Mao, for example.
I’m sorry if I haven’t communicated well, and I’m getting a little tired of arguing tbh but I’d sum up how I feel about this a bit by saying that the best outcome now in the short term would be a negotiated peace, which is what I advocate for. but since that’s off the table for the western powers who will continue aggression no matter what in their insistence on maintaining global hegemony, the next best thing is obviously that they lose that hegemony which will create opportunities for the global south to develop free from their domination.
“The guy who thinks Marx was wrong” idk who you’re talking about
lol
Theories of imperialism after Marx like Lenin
Why did Lenin consider Russia to be imperialist? It didn't export capital and himself described it as "a country most backward economically, where modern capitalist imperialism is enmeshed, so to speak, in a particularly close network of pre-capitalist relations." Was Lenin not following his own definition?
I’d sum up how I feel about this a bit by saying that the best outcome now in the short term would be a negotiated peace
And that I'd agree with
create opportunities for the global south to develop free from their domination.
Liberating the global south from the oppression of foreign-aligned national bourgeoisie by replacing it with the oppression of regular national bourgeoisie, classic
I like how this whole discussion began when I said people shouldn't be disregarding class analysis in favor of thinking solely in terms of national struggle, and the response has been people that think of countries as homogenous entities telling me about which nation to vouch for :galaxy-brain:
Edit:
Imperialism is an inevitability of capitalism, but it’s not an inevitability in every capitalist country
It’s a good point and I’ve just replied to your other comment about it, but my understanding is that Lenin’s definition described a new type of imperialism. Tsarist Russia was an empire in the sense of the word that well predates Lenin, not in the sense of the word that he was the first to describe. Modern Russia really doesn’t count as either IMO.
Liberating the global south from the oppression of foreign-aligned national bourgeoisie by replacing it with the oppression of regular national bourgeoisie, classic
It’s sort of classic. I mean, you have to do both things and hopefully you could do away with both groups at once, but you can never throw off the bourgeoisie without throwing off the imperialists. Mao and others realized that for the colonized, the principal contradiction is imperialism.
or maybe the common denominator is US imperialism. Class war is not a team sport, but there are sides.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Surreal
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 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.
Because it's in their national interest not to lol
:gigachad:
There is no outcome of the war that threatens the US or NATO or Russia for that matter, unless you somehow think Ukraine is gonna march all the way to Moscow lmao. The biggest damage done to NATO countries during the course of this war has been at the hands of NATO themselves
I love using the most myopic definition of imperialism possible lmao. Tsarist Russia had not exported one iota of capital and was leagues behind other imperialist countries, yet Lenin recognized it as an imperialist power, why do you think that is? What would you call Russia exerting control over its former sphere of influence trying to ensure markets for its energy exports? And that's ignoring Russia's presence in Central Asia
Thank you for conceding the argument, Russia losing is against the interests of AES and global south countries. That’s the whole point.
national interest
And I like how you immediately ceased your "Akcshually Russia is technically not imperialist 🤓" claptrap after seeing that last paragraph lol, concession accepted
Russia isn’t imperialist, technically or otherwise. I haven’t conceded that at all, but you’ve literally agreed that socialist countries benefit by supporting Russia lol.
I'm sure that them not criticizing the one semi-great power not opposed to their existence is because of the extremely socialist character of the war and not because they'd want to avoid biting the hand that feeds them lol
Then I don't care what un-Marxist definition of imperialism you use if you don't agree with Lenin
The fact that Russia is a “hand that feeds them” is evidence of Russia’s anti-imperial actions in a world where the imperialists are trying to destroy these countries.
I do agree with him, Lenin’s description of imperialism does not fit Russia. You want to call his definition “myopic” and then turn around and say I’m being un-Marxist.
Did it fit Tsarist Russia?
You raise a good point here. Tsarist Russia was definitely an empire in the traditional sense, but when Lenin wrote Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism he described the new method of imperialism that was forming out of capitalism, the method of exporting financial capital to colonies in order to generate super profits and buy off the domestic working class. That’s the form of imperialism that exists today and which Russia does not conform to, but modern Russia also doesn’t fit the older model of imperialism which Tsarist Russia did. That older kind of imperialism, distinct from the form Lenin describes, doesn’t even really exist anymore as global capitalism has developed to the point that it can’t be supported… I think something important to note here is that Tsarist Russia wielded it’s power in service of reaction, crushing revolutions across Europe to maintain the older status quo economic and political model in the face of historical progress.
Today, the “new” form of imperialism that Lenin laid out IS the status quo, so the US, it’s allies and institutions are both 1) perfectly exemplary of imperialism as described by Lenin in ItHSoC AND 2) the hammer of reaction which seeks to crush historical progress toward a new economic order anywhere it pops up, like Tsarist Russia once was in Europe.
Modern Russia, conversely, is neither of those things, which is why describing modern Russia as imperialist doesn’t fit in either sense.
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.
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?
Kautsky
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.
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.
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.
I want you to answer to me, in detail, where you are building socialism right now, and what you think "building" socialism entails
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.
Literally Marx, Engels, Lenin, Stalin lol
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.
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.
Renegade
We must support Germany in its anti-imperialist struggle against British world hegemon - Lenin
Yes
There are no words for me to describe how uninterested I am in exploring alternative models of capitalism lmao
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.
Finance capitalism also developed out of industrial capitalism. Socialism "develops" out of the self-emancipation and self-abolition of the proletarian class. I'm sorry for reading Marx instead of the guy who thinks Marx was wrong lol, I forgor imperialism was a bad thing only evil people do instead of an economic inevitability of capitalism
Imperialism is an inevitability of capitalism, but it’s not an inevitability in every capitalist country, that should go without saying. Therefore it simply does not follow that “X country is capitalist therefore it is imperialist and must be opposed at all times and in everything it does”. Imperialist aggression against the former USSR simply never stopped after it was destroyed and continued against Russia, and Russia is responding by acting against the imperialists.
“The guy who thinks Marx was wrong” idk who you’re talking about but I’m following the people who developed theories of imperialism after Marx like Lenin, Stalin and Mao, for example.
I’m sorry if I haven’t communicated well, and I’m getting a little tired of arguing tbh but I’d sum up how I feel about this a bit by saying that the best outcome now in the short term would be a negotiated peace, which is what I advocate for. but since that’s off the table for the western powers who will continue aggression no matter what in their insistence on maintaining global hegemony, the next best thing is obviously that they lose that hegemony which will create opportunities for the global south to develop free from their domination.
lol
Why did Lenin consider Russia to be imperialist? It didn't export capital and himself described it as "a country most backward economically, where modern capitalist imperialism is enmeshed, so to speak, in a particularly close network of pre-capitalist relations." Was Lenin not following his own definition?
And that I'd agree with
Liberating the global south from the oppression of foreign-aligned national bourgeoisie by replacing it with the oppression of regular national bourgeoisie, classic
I like how this whole discussion began when I said people shouldn't be disregarding class analysis in favor of thinking solely in terms of national struggle, and the response has been people that think of countries as homogenous entities telling me about which nation to vouch for :galaxy-brain:
Edit:
Huh?
It’s a good point and I’ve just replied to your other comment about it, but my understanding is that Lenin’s definition described a new type of imperialism. Tsarist Russia was an empire in the sense of the word that well predates Lenin, not in the sense of the word that he was the first to describe. Modern Russia really doesn’t count as either IMO.
It’s sort of classic. I mean, you have to do both things and hopefully you could do away with both groups at once, but you can never throw off the bourgeoisie without throwing off the imperialists. Mao and others realized that for the colonized, the principal contradiction is imperialism.
deleted by creator