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.
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.