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.
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.