You are probably thinking about the foundations of leninism by stalin, specifically the chapter on the national question.
Relevant section being:
The same must be said of the revolutionary character of national movements in general. The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible revolutionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such "desperate" democrats and "Socialists," "revolutionaries" and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.
Lenin was right in saying that the national movement of the oppressed countries should be appraised not from the point of view of formal democracy, but from the point of view of the actual results, as shown by the general balance sheet of the struggle against imperialism, that is to say, "not in isolation, but on a world scale"
Revolutionary defeatism means opposing your own nation, not “both sidesing”. In effect, that means lesser of two evils thinking is inherent to revolutionary defeatism. I get if you are allergic to moralistic phrasing of the concept, but it does ultimately come down to destroying ones own empire above all else because it's what you have understanding of and any ability to influence. Which, when speaking of global events, de facto forces any Americans or westoids to first and foremost prioritize targeting "the greater evil" of the Anglo-American empire.
Biden is an imperialist. Why would opposing one's own empire lead to supporting one's own imperialists? Do you hear yourself? America is the "greater evil". Any pro-America bourgious politician of any stripe is an enemy and the "greater evil". The "lesser evil" is foreign influence and stuff like Russian money to spread anti-western propaganda (such as Richard Medhurst or Ben Norton do most likely)
lesser of the two evilism has NOTHING to do with Lenin keep his name out of your mouth before actually opening a book for once
Sorry im taking my lead here from every ML ive ever encountered's opinion on geopolitics. If its ignorant i apologize.
Eta: honestly based on your post history i dont see you as someone i have to take particularly seriously lol
You are probably thinking about the foundations of leninism by stalin, specifically the chapter on the national question.
Relevant section being:
The same must be said of the revolutionary character of national movements in general. The unquestionably revolutionary character of the vast majority of national movements is as relative and peculiar as is the possible revolutionary character of certain particular national movements. The revolutionary character of a national movement under the conditions of imperialist oppression does not necessarily presuppose the existence of proletarian elements in the movement, the existence of a revolutionary or a republican programme of the movement, the existence of a democratic basis of the movement. The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such "desperate" democrats and "Socialists," "revolutionaries" and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.
Lenin was right in saying that the national movement of the oppressed countries should be appraised not from the point of view of formal democracy, but from the point of view of the actual results, as shown by the general balance sheet of the struggle against imperialism, that is to say, "not in isolation, but on a world scale"
Revolutionary defeatism means opposing your own nation, not “both sidesing”. In effect, that means lesser of two evils thinking is inherent to revolutionary defeatism. I get if you are allergic to moralistic phrasing of the concept, but it does ultimately come down to destroying ones own empire above all else because it's what you have understanding of and any ability to influence. Which, when speaking of global events, de facto forces any Americans or westoids to first and foremost prioritize targeting "the greater evil" of the Anglo-American empire.
Removed by mod
Biden is an imperialist. Why would opposing one's own empire lead to supporting one's own imperialists? Do you hear yourself? America is the "greater evil". Any pro-America bourgious politician of any stripe is an enemy and the "greater evil". The "lesser evil" is foreign influence and stuff like Russian money to spread anti-western propaganda (such as Richard Medhurst or Ben Norton do most likely)