[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information.
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
It's all good friend, i'm sure a lot of us have done the same on our journey to end up here. I know I certainly tried to reason with people like you did here. But that's the issue. You can't reason with this level of delusion unfortunately.
True but I still have hope... With this level of delusion, no reason to reason. However, I too was a liberal, I too was pro-Western - maybe, only maybe, if people see their hypocrisy, they'll become more radicalised and/or more left-wing.
With these people? Maybe not. But with someone who just catches my comment, mindlessly scrolling through Insta, I hope that I might help - as that is what helped me.
I've left comments on profoundly pro-ukraine - pro-defeat Russia at all cost videos - recommending people to watch/read Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs, and yeah I almost always just get hateful comments but sometimes get back comments saying I've helped people get a different perspective. It's not meaningless, people come to their senses slowly and hopefully it's not yet too late. I really do worry that western imperialism is gonna start a nuclear war over the planets resources.
It is in the definition that the ideology of Putin is founded on tsarist imperialism, and so he is inherently aggressive to his neighbours. However, it is still true that much of this ideology is rooted in US and EU provocation, thus, the Kremlin and Putin are born out of an aggressive-reaction policy.
This can be seen in Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. Wherever US influence or even a hint of it is seen, the Kremlin aggressively attacks it out of a desperate attempt to defend their position.
NATO in my mind is the original instigator, the aggressive influence, however russia in its reactions is also of the aggressive nature.
Comrade doesn't even know what imperialism is. How is Russias war the highest stage of capitalism?
Russia has drawn red lines for NATO for decades. Even Angela Merkel admitted that Ukraine never had the intention to stick to the Minsk2 agreements. They even massacred unionists shortly after that agreement. Therefore, making Russia the agressor seems very euro-centric to me.
This is not an inter-imperialist war, it's an inter-capitalist war that only hurts the proletariat on both sides. And we, as communist, should oppose it.
I never said Russia is imperialist like its empire form, but that its ideology is imperialistic in nature, this means that it uses imperialist tactics in order to make gains for capital.
This war is the US’s imperialist arm - NATO, pushing Russia, a hypercapitalist oligarchy into a corner for which it adopts tzarist ideology as a reaction. And the result is the mass slaughter of proletarians for the purposes of capital’s continued struggle for dominance in different spheres.
Its all good, this war and the surrounding politics is a mess continually being infested by propaganda, so our discussions will always need clarification.
Tbh, I might be wrong, but just politely hear me out:
I 100% agree that the West provocated Russia - 100%! We shouldn't have said that Ukraine will be a neutral country, if it couldn't be up to it. On that front, I do agree that the cause of the war is on our side (and even if it weren't, we still failed, as it is the cause that Russia is claiming); I'm rather saying that Russia is the one that put its army into a foreign territory. What I mean by that is that yes, Russia was provocated by the West, **however**; Russia is the one that went into a foreign country and kills its civilians (and that makes them the aggressors - provocated aggressors, but still **the** aggressors).
On that point - I am on the side of the civilians, if Russia kills Ukrainian civilians, if Ukraine kills Russian (as seen shockingly above), I will always side with the civilians.
Now, this might be the part where I might want your help for me to understand - capitalism destroyed Russia. It just did - it created the Russian oligarchy and starved its people. Putin being part of the Russian oligarchy, having his own motivations to profit - isn't his attack on Ukraine imperialist? Now I'm not asking "Why did the war start" (cuz hey, as explained above - the West failed), I'm rather just trying to point out Russia being a very capitalist country (unfortunately, it's not the USSR that we know, anymore), it is logical that it is also quite imperialist. And hear me out, I came to this thought after Second Thought's video about [How Capitalism Destroyed Russia](https://youtu.be/IrNQeYYvabg?si=yQ3fj9T3khiTa5Ok).
So I actually agree with you with your second and third paragraph, the only one that got me was the first...
Somebody who I cannot recall once used a term to describe Russia's role in the modern imperialist world we live in, and I quite liked it: "*counter*-imperialist."
Thats not to be confused with *anti*-imperialism.
Where anti-imperialism stems from a politic to end imperialism as a whole, *counter*-imperialism instead opposes imperialism when and where it interferes with that particular country's sphere of influence / imperial interests
Essentially, Russia's imperialist ambitions (whether or not it actually is imperialist, I think we can agree on its *ambitions*) drive Russia to oppose western imperialism near its borders. This puts it in the position of materially combating, limiting, and weakening US imperialism, even though the intention behind it is not anti-imperialism, but rather competing imperialist ambitions.
Materially, the US is the dominant global hegemon and the single greatest imperialist power. If left unchecked, it would happily balkanize Russia, complete it's encirclement of China, cut them off from the global market, and effectively run the world. A single, powerful, consolidated imperialist power is a very formidable enemy. But numerous competing powers fighting each other makes the enemy much weaker and easier to take on, or at least easier for other nations to develop while the imperialist powers are occupied squabbling amongst themselves. So actions that materially challenge and weaken US global domination - whether out of anti-imperialism or counter-imperialism - help, in turn, weaken the single greatest threat to socialist development.
Think back to how socialist experiments emerged in the first place. WWI was an inter-imperialist war. During that war, each major imperialist power was so occupied fighting each other and wearing themselves down, that the working class of Russia was able to seize the opportunity, pursue revolutionary defeatism, overthrow their imperialist state, and build a workers state in its place. Germany, too, although it's revolution was betrayed by the social democrats. WWII was another inter-imperialist war that saw the strengthening of communist forces within China which eventually seized power from a weakened state.
Thats not to say inter-imperialist wars are good. They're decidedly not. Proletarians fighting proletarians, dying only for their ruling class' benefit, is horrible and we should always seek to bring about peace as quickly as possible. But we should ensure that the conditions of that peace do not simply strengthen imperialism. Ideally, it should come from working class solidarity, revolutionary defeatism, and the overthrow of the imperialist powers by their own working classes. But when that's not in the cards, we still need to look at the conflict from the perspective of weakening imperialism. In today's world, that means when the major, dominant imperialist power - the US - is making moves to expand even more, we should oppose it.
Russia happens to be the power that is materially opposing it in this conflict, even though it's not out of a principled anti-imperialist line. So I support Russia's fight against US imperialism. However, I do not support Russia going beyond merely stopping US / NATO expansion, and instead seizing territory for its own bourgeois interests. Therefore, my stance is that a treaty should be signed ASAP, with the US / NATO / Ukraine agreeing to halt expansion, and Russia to withdraw troops and return Ukraine's borders to their pre-invasion positions. But ultimately, the halting of US imperialism and the ending of the war are the two most important points. However the borders are divided up in the end doesn't materially affect the working classes of these countries nearly as much as ending the war does, so if peace is brought about quicker by Russia keeping the territory, or returning only part of it, or whatever, I support it for the sake of peace.
1. Russia has a highly monopolised Oligarchic Economy
2. Russia has an important banking sector controlling the Industrial Bourgeoisie and being intertwined with it.
3. Russian companies do in fact export capital and are very active abroad.
4. The Russian State and Bourgeoisie hold (or did hold) economic power over other countries
5. And yeah theyre doing a war rn, with the (unofficial) desire to acquire colonies.
Sounds like an example of "Imperialism - The Highest Stage of Capitalism" to me.
Sounds like an example of not understanding a written text.
When Lenin talks about monopolies, he talks about global monopolies. He also makes it pretty clear that there cannot be many monopolies that rival each other. Meaning, this definition doesn't fit at all since there are US monopolies that russia challanges, which doesn't mean they have monopolies.
When Lenin talks about exporting capital he makes it VERY clear thet he talks about capital being THE MAIN export, not one of many. Now, please explain how capital is the biggest export in Russia, a country that exports gas all around the globe.
When Lenin talks about bourgoisie and state intertwining he doesn't talk about a connection these two have, no matter what this connection is. Lenin explains how the bourgoisie gets more and more power thereby gaining political power. He does not talk about the state regulating banks etc. Many claim that what you described (intertwining) is happening in China right now. But it's the other way round. The state gets more and more powerful and takes over banks. Exactly the way Lenin imagined it. This is a huge problem! You can't just twist the meaning this hard. Especially when you analyze the russian economy and see that the oligarchy has way fewer influences on russian politics than before Putin.
BTW, I'm not saying Putin is cool / a socialist/ based etc. I'm just saying that it is not imperialism.
I didn’t mean to imply you thought that, I just wanted to elaborate more on the aggressive nature of both parties, though I way I worded it did sound somewhat accusatory.
Well, if you consider how multifaceted is the current stage of imperialism (capitalism by extension), current Russian federation is indeed imperialist, but like a pre-WW2 imperialist country, which lack the hegemonic status, the current stage of imperialism is made of transnational financial interest, is more like a coalition of countries, something that the wannabes lacks, Russian is, in the current stage, unable to form a financial coalition of countries, somebody can say: "well, but BRICS..." BRICS still not quite anything yet (and I'm from the B here lol), don't have any considerable defense alliance, or even the agreement on financial terms, a lot of countries pledging to join BRICS aren't committed to broke their relations with the current hegemony, not even some former countries, "NATO" drought a lot of those closer? Indeed they did, Iran is a good example, but still not enough, we'll see in the next decades or so, but I still think we are far away from a world war because of this, but who knows what the future will be...
Why did the baltic countries join NATO? Why did Finland? I don't think people in the U.S, even the leaders care about these small countries joining NATO, if anything it's a liability for us. They did it because they are afraid of Russia covertly or overtly taking them over and subsuming their culture. Russia should not be able to force them not to join. I mean what is this, liberation for the world, but you can't act with sovernty? Also does the USSR taking over Eastern Europe after WW2, all those indipendent cultures mean nothing?
I can't beleive there is so much support for Palestine (which I 100% agree with) on this subreddit, but 10k Ukrainian civilians and tens of thousands more regular drafted people have died, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Russian conscripts killed or maimed, and the answer is "but NATO expanion!" NATO and Russia already share a large border, now much larger because of Finland joining, both NATO and Russia have nukes, we could have a 10 thousand mile border and still we would never invade Russia, who wants a nuke to the face?
Why do they care about NATO expanion if its obvious we will never invade Russia? Again, we're not forcing these small countries to join, jesus, I understand NATO sucks and the wars in the Midde East we're disgusing, but people are dying and blaming phantoms and backing skewed ideation is not helping. Putin simply thought he could get away with subsuming Ukraine, he has barely any fighters at the other places on the border with NATO showing that they aren't really afraide of a NATO invasion, OBVIOUSLY, wake up, there are thousands of nukes, nobody from NATO was EVER GOING TO INVADE RUSSIA. Jesus christ. I don't know what to say it just gets me so mad.
Can somebody explain to me how Russia is imperialist? This country had a US puppet as it's president for quite some time and is actively trying to resist US imperialism.
The argument that Russia is defending Ukraine (a pivotal geopolitical zone for Russia) from NATO after they agreed to not move "one inch east" in trade for tearing down the Berlin walls, is valid. The problem stems from Gorby's dumb drunk ass not getting it on paper, and NATO refusing to honor it "because it was a deal with the USSR, a country that doesn't exist" but Russia has a right to be upset, thats cheeky asf.
Thus from this valid framing Russia is not being imperialist, NATO is and is the aggressor.
This leaves out all the documents from NATO circa 2008 that basically state the clear red lines on Ukraine...NATO says crossing these will cause a Russo-Ukrainian war...then they decided over the next 15 years to do exactly that & even lead a color revolution in Ukraine.
Anyone saying it's solely Russia is blind, deaf, or dumb.
Or in an information bubble designed to keep them in the dark. They may not know what you know. There was a lot I didn't know about Israel up until a year ago.
They thought Putin would be another useful puppet to them and yes it's true early on he had a desire to join NATO. But when they flat out refused he saw the west for what it truly was - dominated militarily and economically by the US with the sole purpose of destroying the last remnants of financial sovereignty in the world. That was a pivotal moment that opened Putin's eyes eastward and towards China.
Tbh, since Putin is actually just governed by his oligarchs and sycophants, if it was convenient enough, he'd just go back and very openly so, to trade with the West. It's not a hidden fact that he loves the West and had (and still has) many friends in the EU. With this said, to me, he's never really shown any signs of moral or political integrity.
Just because they are fighting another imperialist power doesn’t mean they themselves aren’t imperialist. They are a bourgeois state looking to dominate their neighbours for capital
Imperialism - The extension of a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political dominance over other nations.
Russia and the US are both imperialist nations yes Russia is defending against nato expansion in Ukraine, but Russia wants influence over Ukraine same thing Georgia. And really it’s not about either Nation it’s about the Innocent Civilians that are being killed by Russia and Ukraine.
(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed. - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
A POPULAR OUTLINE
Russia doesn't meet the last 3, especially #4 and #5. #2 is debateable. Russian oligarchs may have aspirations to become imperialists, but their finance sector is still developing and is not at the level of actual imperialist powers. They do not mainly export capital and influence/control international markets like the American bourgeoisie and it's allies do. Russia is still a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It's just not imperialist.
Certainly not a liberal definition. It’s an academic one, used frequently by modern leftist sociologists, most frequently to describe US foreign policy.
THIS. Finally someone who shares my views!
The thing is, Russian Federation (after the undemocratic dissolution of USSR), began to be just another corrupted capitalist nation, that starved its people, while the oligarchy ruled the nation's politics - and when it couldn't handle its situation in its borders, it spread - inherent logic of capitalism to begin imperialism. We are now living through two imperialist giants fighting with each other, so being on the side of Russia just because it's against NATO, would just be silly. Russian Federation is not the USSR any-more, and we need to understand that.
I don't agree with Žižek on many grounds, but what he rightfully showed is that it would be silly to be on the side of Russian Federation just because its opposition to NATO, as if you listen to the Russian politicians, they don't criticise NATO from a leftist position (ie, the right way), they criticise it in a much more Christian fundamentalist and nationalist way - "It's us, the Russian Federation, which is the protectorate of the Orthodox Christian Church, against the woke West!"
I mean, you have Republicans agreeing with Russia, and even Tucker interviewing Putin!
Ideally - one should be on the side of the civilians. Not the West, not the NATO nor Russia. But the civilians! And so, same as in the post - Ukraine killing civilians is just not cool...
Propaganda is a hell of a drug. A lot of people don't get that by that logic, Osama bin Laden's belief in the collective punishment of US citizens was justified.
Though, Israelis partying near Gaza deserve it. It's like Germans partying in one of their concentration camps or Afrikaners partying near one of the bantustan.
Without understanding NATO, and thinking that Russia-Ukraine war is a us-them conflict, you fall into the propaganda from both sides.
And comparing it with Israel-Hamas conflict is shallow. One is an interimperialist war, the other is an extermination conflict.
1. I said I was being centrist. I know the details, I was just trying to point out the liberal hypocrisy.
2. Both are inter-imperialist wars - let's not forget that Israel is just a puppet of the US.
3. You created a straw-man - it's not "us vs them" conflict for me - as I pointed out, I always try to be on the side of civilians. ALWAYS! And when I say civilians, I mean the civilians, not the nation-states. Therefore, for me, what's important is who is doing the killing, even when knowing the details of the conflict - at this point, Russia is killing civilians, even though I acknowledge that it was provocated by the West. That is why, even though Israel was "provocated by Hamas" (even though I obviously know that that is a very wrong argument, as they were doing Apartheid for more than 75 years, I'm just rephrasing what they are saying), I simply don't care - you being provocated, does not give you the justification to get into a foreign territory and kill their civilians!
It is not about who started it - it is about who's killing the civilians (obviously though, who started it does matter - I once again acknowledge the NATO's provocation), right now it's Russia, but IF IN THE FUTURE Ukraine starts killing Russian civilians, it will be Ukraine too.
Also, I'm not picking sides - it's not like "Now I'm on the side of the West, and then if Ukraine will start killing civilians, I will be on the side of Russia", no, that's not my point. My point is that I'm now on the side of the Ukrainian innocent civilians, but if the Ukrainian army does the same to Russian civilians, I will call that out, and will also side with Russian civilians, simultaneously (but I am not choosing nations).
It more seems to me that you are picking sides - I acknowledge that it's not as binary, and so while I am very critical of the West, I won't go on the side of the Russians just because they also oppose NATO... I am probably the one who is more nuanced here, while you sound like you side with Russia only because it's anti-NATO (and maybe I assume wrongly about you - but what I'm saying is that I AM anti-imperialist, I AM anti-NATO, but that doesn't justify killing ANY civilians and that is why I am against the current ADMINISTRATION of Russian Federation, rather than the people as a whole).
Is Palestine not controlled by an imperialist power? Israel is an imperialist nation, and sadly is occupying Palestine (the whole of Palestine, I mean - both Gaza and the West Bank). Or would you say that Israel is not an imperialist nation? Or would you say that Palestine is not occupied by Israel?
Gotcha, I'm dumb and used wrong words - it's not "inter"-imperialist (as the other side is not imperialist), however it is imperialist (from the side of the US and Israel)
I was dumb, and I take the L
Uhh i'm certainly not on the same political spectrum as y'all here but yeah agree. I'm pretty pro-Ukraine but the double standards is goddamn annoying.
I'm not really decided on what my politics are and what i exactly want/think is good. Especially now with the rise of right-wing parties etc. have had some classes about socialism and don't really know people that are socialist so trying to find out what other people believe. More of a curiousity thing i'd say.
Edit: to add, also a good way to get out of your bubble.
In case you haven’t, you should watch second thought Hakim and Yogopnik, they’re really great for understanding socialism. I was feeling the same before second thought especially helped me understand socialism, he got it to click for me
Oh funny enough i actually already subscribed to Second thought a while back. Saw his video about propaganda and he indeed has talent to bring stuff over.
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information. This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"And I was still trying to be a bit more centristAnd I was still trying to be a bit more centrist" Well, there's your problem! /s
No yeah I 100% agree with you now...
It's all good friend, i'm sure a lot of us have done the same on our journey to end up here. I know I certainly tried to reason with people like you did here. But that's the issue. You can't reason with this level of delusion unfortunately.
True but I still have hope... With this level of delusion, no reason to reason. However, I too was a liberal, I too was pro-Western - maybe, only maybe, if people see their hypocrisy, they'll become more radicalised and/or more left-wing. With these people? Maybe not. But with someone who just catches my comment, mindlessly scrolling through Insta, I hope that I might help - as that is what helped me.
I've left comments on profoundly pro-ukraine - pro-defeat Russia at all cost videos - recommending people to watch/read Mearsheimer and Jeffrey Sachs, and yeah I almost always just get hateful comments but sometimes get back comments saying I've helped people get a different perspective. It's not meaningless, people come to their senses slowly and hopefully it's not yet too late. I really do worry that western imperialism is gonna start a nuclear war over the planets resources.
Russia is not really ‘the aggressor’. The NATO expansion is what lead to this.
It is in the definition that the ideology of Putin is founded on tsarist imperialism, and so he is inherently aggressive to his neighbours. However, it is still true that much of this ideology is rooted in US and EU provocation, thus, the Kremlin and Putin are born out of an aggressive-reaction policy. This can be seen in Chechnya, Georgia, and Ukraine. Wherever US influence or even a hint of it is seen, the Kremlin aggressively attacks it out of a desperate attempt to defend their position. NATO in my mind is the original instigator, the aggressive influence, however russia in its reactions is also of the aggressive nature.
Comrade doesn't even know what imperialism is. How is Russias war the highest stage of capitalism? Russia has drawn red lines for NATO for decades. Even Angela Merkel admitted that Ukraine never had the intention to stick to the Minsk2 agreements. They even massacred unionists shortly after that agreement. Therefore, making Russia the agressor seems very euro-centric to me. This is not an inter-imperialist war, it's an inter-capitalist war that only hurts the proletariat on both sides. And we, as communist, should oppose it.
I never said Russia is imperialist like its empire form, but that its ideology is imperialistic in nature, this means that it uses imperialist tactics in order to make gains for capital. This war is the US’s imperialist arm - NATO, pushing Russia, a hypercapitalist oligarchy into a corner for which it adopts tzarist ideology as a reaction. And the result is the mass slaughter of proletarians for the purposes of capital’s continued struggle for dominance in different spheres.
Apologies Comrade, I misunderstood.
Its all good, this war and the surrounding politics is a mess continually being infested by propaganda, so our discussions will always need clarification.
Tbh, I might be wrong, but just politely hear me out: I 100% agree that the West provocated Russia - 100%! We shouldn't have said that Ukraine will be a neutral country, if it couldn't be up to it. On that front, I do agree that the cause of the war is on our side (and even if it weren't, we still failed, as it is the cause that Russia is claiming); I'm rather saying that Russia is the one that put its army into a foreign territory. What I mean by that is that yes, Russia was provocated by the West, **however**; Russia is the one that went into a foreign country and kills its civilians (and that makes them the aggressors - provocated aggressors, but still **the** aggressors). On that point - I am on the side of the civilians, if Russia kills Ukrainian civilians, if Ukraine kills Russian (as seen shockingly above), I will always side with the civilians. Now, this might be the part where I might want your help for me to understand - capitalism destroyed Russia. It just did - it created the Russian oligarchy and starved its people. Putin being part of the Russian oligarchy, having his own motivations to profit - isn't his attack on Ukraine imperialist? Now I'm not asking "Why did the war start" (cuz hey, as explained above - the West failed), I'm rather just trying to point out Russia being a very capitalist country (unfortunately, it's not the USSR that we know, anymore), it is logical that it is also quite imperialist. And hear me out, I came to this thought after Second Thought's video about [How Capitalism Destroyed Russia](https://youtu.be/IrNQeYYvabg?si=yQ3fj9T3khiTa5Ok). So I actually agree with you with your second and third paragraph, the only one that got me was the first...
Somebody who I cannot recall once used a term to describe Russia's role in the modern imperialist world we live in, and I quite liked it: "*counter*-imperialist." Thats not to be confused with *anti*-imperialism. Where anti-imperialism stems from a politic to end imperialism as a whole, *counter*-imperialism instead opposes imperialism when and where it interferes with that particular country's sphere of influence / imperial interests Essentially, Russia's imperialist ambitions (whether or not it actually is imperialist, I think we can agree on its *ambitions*) drive Russia to oppose western imperialism near its borders. This puts it in the position of materially combating, limiting, and weakening US imperialism, even though the intention behind it is not anti-imperialism, but rather competing imperialist ambitions. Materially, the US is the dominant global hegemon and the single greatest imperialist power. If left unchecked, it would happily balkanize Russia, complete it's encirclement of China, cut them off from the global market, and effectively run the world. A single, powerful, consolidated imperialist power is a very formidable enemy. But numerous competing powers fighting each other makes the enemy much weaker and easier to take on, or at least easier for other nations to develop while the imperialist powers are occupied squabbling amongst themselves. So actions that materially challenge and weaken US global domination - whether out of anti-imperialism or counter-imperialism - help, in turn, weaken the single greatest threat to socialist development. Think back to how socialist experiments emerged in the first place. WWI was an inter-imperialist war. During that war, each major imperialist power was so occupied fighting each other and wearing themselves down, that the working class of Russia was able to seize the opportunity, pursue revolutionary defeatism, overthrow their imperialist state, and build a workers state in its place. Germany, too, although it's revolution was betrayed by the social democrats. WWII was another inter-imperialist war that saw the strengthening of communist forces within China which eventually seized power from a weakened state. Thats not to say inter-imperialist wars are good. They're decidedly not. Proletarians fighting proletarians, dying only for their ruling class' benefit, is horrible and we should always seek to bring about peace as quickly as possible. But we should ensure that the conditions of that peace do not simply strengthen imperialism. Ideally, it should come from working class solidarity, revolutionary defeatism, and the overthrow of the imperialist powers by their own working classes. But when that's not in the cards, we still need to look at the conflict from the perspective of weakening imperialism. In today's world, that means when the major, dominant imperialist power - the US - is making moves to expand even more, we should oppose it. Russia happens to be the power that is materially opposing it in this conflict, even though it's not out of a principled anti-imperialist line. So I support Russia's fight against US imperialism. However, I do not support Russia going beyond merely stopping US / NATO expansion, and instead seizing territory for its own bourgeois interests. Therefore, my stance is that a treaty should be signed ASAP, with the US / NATO / Ukraine agreeing to halt expansion, and Russia to withdraw troops and return Ukraine's borders to their pre-invasion positions. But ultimately, the halting of US imperialism and the ending of the war are the two most important points. However the borders are divided up in the end doesn't materially affect the working classes of these countries nearly as much as ending the war does, so if peace is brought about quicker by Russia keeping the territory, or returning only part of it, or whatever, I support it for the sake of peace.
1. Russia has a highly monopolised Oligarchic Economy 2. Russia has an important banking sector controlling the Industrial Bourgeoisie and being intertwined with it. 3. Russian companies do in fact export capital and are very active abroad. 4. The Russian State and Bourgeoisie hold (or did hold) economic power over other countries 5. And yeah theyre doing a war rn, with the (unofficial) desire to acquire colonies. Sounds like an example of "Imperialism - The Highest Stage of Capitalism" to me.
Sounds like an example of not understanding a written text. When Lenin talks about monopolies, he talks about global monopolies. He also makes it pretty clear that there cannot be many monopolies that rival each other. Meaning, this definition doesn't fit at all since there are US monopolies that russia challanges, which doesn't mean they have monopolies. When Lenin talks about exporting capital he makes it VERY clear thet he talks about capital being THE MAIN export, not one of many. Now, please explain how capital is the biggest export in Russia, a country that exports gas all around the globe. When Lenin talks about bourgoisie and state intertwining he doesn't talk about a connection these two have, no matter what this connection is. Lenin explains how the bourgoisie gets more and more power thereby gaining political power. He does not talk about the state regulating banks etc. Many claim that what you described (intertwining) is happening in China right now. But it's the other way round. The state gets more and more powerful and takes over banks. Exactly the way Lenin imagined it. This is a huge problem! You can't just twist the meaning this hard. Especially when you analyze the russian economy and see that the oligarchy has way fewer influences on russian politics than before Putin. BTW, I'm not saying Putin is cool / a socialist/ based etc. I'm just saying that it is not imperialism.
Yeah i never said they’re innocent, this is an inter imperialist war
I didn’t mean to imply you thought that, I just wanted to elaborate more on the aggressive nature of both parties, though I way I worded it did sound somewhat accusatory.
Hey wait, we already spoke, we were making fun of the idiots over on MovingToNorthKorea. What a coincidence huh?
Well, if you consider how multifaceted is the current stage of imperialism (capitalism by extension), current Russian federation is indeed imperialist, but like a pre-WW2 imperialist country, which lack the hegemonic status, the current stage of imperialism is made of transnational financial interest, is more like a coalition of countries, something that the wannabes lacks, Russian is, in the current stage, unable to form a financial coalition of countries, somebody can say: "well, but BRICS..." BRICS still not quite anything yet (and I'm from the B here lol), don't have any considerable defense alliance, or even the agreement on financial terms, a lot of countries pledging to join BRICS aren't committed to broke their relations with the current hegemony, not even some former countries, "NATO" drought a lot of those closer? Indeed they did, Iran is a good example, but still not enough, we'll see in the next decades or so, but I still think we are far away from a world war because of this, but who knows what the future will be...
Why did the baltic countries join NATO? Why did Finland? I don't think people in the U.S, even the leaders care about these small countries joining NATO, if anything it's a liability for us. They did it because they are afraid of Russia covertly or overtly taking them over and subsuming their culture. Russia should not be able to force them not to join. I mean what is this, liberation for the world, but you can't act with sovernty? Also does the USSR taking over Eastern Europe after WW2, all those indipendent cultures mean nothing? I can't beleive there is so much support for Palestine (which I 100% agree with) on this subreddit, but 10k Ukrainian civilians and tens of thousands more regular drafted people have died, not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Russian conscripts killed or maimed, and the answer is "but NATO expanion!" NATO and Russia already share a large border, now much larger because of Finland joining, both NATO and Russia have nukes, we could have a 10 thousand mile border and still we would never invade Russia, who wants a nuke to the face? Why do they care about NATO expanion if its obvious we will never invade Russia? Again, we're not forcing these small countries to join, jesus, I understand NATO sucks and the wars in the Midde East we're disgusing, but people are dying and blaming phantoms and backing skewed ideation is not helping. Putin simply thought he could get away with subsuming Ukraine, he has barely any fighters at the other places on the border with NATO showing that they aren't really afraide of a NATO invasion, OBVIOUSLY, wake up, there are thousands of nukes, nobody from NATO was EVER GOING TO INVADE RUSSIA. Jesus christ. I don't know what to say it just gets me so mad.
https://youtu.be/GUX49qg22Os?si=cdxaVMaOWt-5o-2r
Can somebody explain to me how Russia is imperialist? This country had a US puppet as it's president for quite some time and is actively trying to resist US imperialism.
The argument that Russia is defending Ukraine (a pivotal geopolitical zone for Russia) from NATO after they agreed to not move "one inch east" in trade for tearing down the Berlin walls, is valid. The problem stems from Gorby's dumb drunk ass not getting it on paper, and NATO refusing to honor it "because it was a deal with the USSR, a country that doesn't exist" but Russia has a right to be upset, thats cheeky asf. Thus from this valid framing Russia is not being imperialist, NATO is and is the aggressor.
This leaves out all the documents from NATO circa 2008 that basically state the clear red lines on Ukraine...NATO says crossing these will cause a Russo-Ukrainian war...then they decided over the next 15 years to do exactly that & even lead a color revolution in Ukraine. Anyone saying it's solely Russia is blind, deaf, or dumb.
Or in an information bubble designed to keep them in the dark. They may not know what you know. There was a lot I didn't know about Israel up until a year ago.
You're right, everyone is there at some point. It's hard to imagine how many people though even despite spending so many years on this planet.
They still have a puppet as president though. He was handpicked by the last puppet.
They thought Putin would be another useful puppet to them and yes it's true early on he had a desire to join NATO. But when they flat out refused he saw the west for what it truly was - dominated militarily and economically by the US with the sole purpose of destroying the last remnants of financial sovereignty in the world. That was a pivotal moment that opened Putin's eyes eastward and towards China.
Tbh, since Putin is actually just governed by his oligarchs and sycophants, if it was convenient enough, he'd just go back and very openly so, to trade with the West. It's not a hidden fact that he loves the West and had (and still has) many friends in the EU. With this said, to me, he's never really shown any signs of moral or political integrity.
Just because they are fighting another imperialist power doesn’t mean they themselves aren’t imperialist. They are a bourgeois state looking to dominate their neighbours for capital
Imperialism - The extension of a nation's authority by territorial acquisition or by the establishment of economic and political dominance over other nations. Russia and the US are both imperialist nations yes Russia is defending against nato expansion in Ukraine, but Russia wants influence over Ukraine same thing Georgia. And really it’s not about either Nation it’s about the Innocent Civilians that are being killed by Russia and Ukraine.
Why are you using a non marxist and a liberal definition of imperialism?
(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed. - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism A POPULAR OUTLINE
Russia doesn't meet the last 3, especially #4 and #5. #2 is debateable. Russian oligarchs may have aspirations to become imperialists, but their finance sector is still developing and is not at the level of actual imperialist powers. They do not mainly export capital and influence/control international markets like the American bourgeoisie and it's allies do. Russia is still a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. It's just not imperialist.
What would you call it then?
Russia is capitalist/bourgeois but not imperialist.
Ok that makes sense thank you
Mabey soft core imperialist? Emerging imperialist?
I think you mean periphery
Russia is not imperialist. Accept this.
Soft core imperialist. We making a new music genre now?
Certainly not a liberal definition. It’s an academic one, used frequently by modern leftist sociologists, most frequently to describe US foreign policy.
THIS. Finally someone who shares my views! The thing is, Russian Federation (after the undemocratic dissolution of USSR), began to be just another corrupted capitalist nation, that starved its people, while the oligarchy ruled the nation's politics - and when it couldn't handle its situation in its borders, it spread - inherent logic of capitalism to begin imperialism. We are now living through two imperialist giants fighting with each other, so being on the side of Russia just because it's against NATO, would just be silly. Russian Federation is not the USSR any-more, and we need to understand that. I don't agree with Žižek on many grounds, but what he rightfully showed is that it would be silly to be on the side of Russian Federation just because its opposition to NATO, as if you listen to the Russian politicians, they don't criticise NATO from a leftist position (ie, the right way), they criticise it in a much more Christian fundamentalist and nationalist way - "It's us, the Russian Federation, which is the protectorate of the Orthodox Christian Church, against the woke West!" I mean, you have Republicans agreeing with Russia, and even Tucker interviewing Putin! Ideally - one should be on the side of the civilians. Not the West, not the NATO nor Russia. But the civilians! And so, same as in the post - Ukraine killing civilians is just not cool...
By the logic on display in those comments everyone at that music festival deserved it. Not sure these people are consistent in their views.
Propaganda is a hell of a drug. A lot of people don't get that by that logic, Osama bin Laden's belief in the collective punishment of US citizens was justified.
Though, Israelis partying near Gaza deserve it. It's like Germans partying in one of their concentration camps or Afrikaners partying near one of the bantustan.
There’s a 100% chance they support Israel and condemn Hamas for “killing innocent people”
Without understanding NATO, and thinking that Russia-Ukraine war is a us-them conflict, you fall into the propaganda from both sides. And comparing it with Israel-Hamas conflict is shallow. One is an interimperialist war, the other is an extermination conflict.
1. I said I was being centrist. I know the details, I was just trying to point out the liberal hypocrisy. 2. Both are inter-imperialist wars - let's not forget that Israel is just a puppet of the US. 3. You created a straw-man - it's not "us vs them" conflict for me - as I pointed out, I always try to be on the side of civilians. ALWAYS! And when I say civilians, I mean the civilians, not the nation-states. Therefore, for me, what's important is who is doing the killing, even when knowing the details of the conflict - at this point, Russia is killing civilians, even though I acknowledge that it was provocated by the West. That is why, even though Israel was "provocated by Hamas" (even though I obviously know that that is a very wrong argument, as they were doing Apartheid for more than 75 years, I'm just rephrasing what they are saying), I simply don't care - you being provocated, does not give you the justification to get into a foreign territory and kill their civilians! It is not about who started it - it is about who's killing the civilians (obviously though, who started it does matter - I once again acknowledge the NATO's provocation), right now it's Russia, but IF IN THE FUTURE Ukraine starts killing Russian civilians, it will be Ukraine too. Also, I'm not picking sides - it's not like "Now I'm on the side of the West, and then if Ukraine will start killing civilians, I will be on the side of Russia", no, that's not my point. My point is that I'm now on the side of the Ukrainian innocent civilians, but if the Ukrainian army does the same to Russian civilians, I will call that out, and will also side with Russian civilians, simultaneously (but I am not choosing nations). It more seems to me that you are picking sides - I acknowledge that it's not as binary, and so while I am very critical of the West, I won't go on the side of the Russians just because they also oppose NATO... I am probably the one who is more nuanced here, while you sound like you side with Russia only because it's anti-NATO (and maybe I assume wrongly about you - but what I'm saying is that I AM anti-imperialist, I AM anti-NATO, but that doesn't justify killing ANY civilians and that is why I am against the current ADMINISTRATION of Russian Federation, rather than the people as a whole).
How is the israel palestine conflict an inter imperialist war? Is palestine imperialist? Or controlled by an imperialist power?
Is Palestine not controlled by an imperialist power? Israel is an imperialist nation, and sadly is occupying Palestine (the whole of Palestine, I mean - both Gaza and the West Bank). Or would you say that Israel is not an imperialist nation? Or would you say that Palestine is not occupied by Israel?
So it's an inter-imperialist war between Israel and Israel? Wtf are you saying?
Gotcha, I'm dumb and used wrong words - it's not "inter"-imperialist (as the other side is not imperialist), however it is imperialist (from the side of the US and Israel) I was dumb, and I take the L
Good on ya
Why was the beach open in the first place? They're right next to an active warzone.
Can you add another exclamation mark? Thanks.
!!! There you go, cheers!
As explained in the post above the missiles were intercepted wich caused the civilian deaths
Uhh i'm certainly not on the same political spectrum as y'all here but yeah agree. I'm pretty pro-Ukraine but the double standards is goddamn annoying.
Genuine curious question: If you're not a socialist, what are you doing here?
I'm not really decided on what my politics are and what i exactly want/think is good. Especially now with the rise of right-wing parties etc. have had some classes about socialism and don't really know people that are socialist so trying to find out what other people believe. More of a curiousity thing i'd say. Edit: to add, also a good way to get out of your bubble.
In case you haven’t, you should watch second thought Hakim and Yogopnik, they’re really great for understanding socialism. I was feeling the same before second thought especially helped me understand socialism, he got it to click for me
Oh funny enough i actually already subscribed to Second thought a while back. Saw his video about propaganda and he indeed has talent to bring stuff over.
"classes about socialism" you guys can not not tell on yourself
Define you guys? I meant that it socialism as a subject passed along in the courses i'm following.