Seems to be KPRF, the revisionist parliamentary party that supports the war
the invasion was a terrible idea that has greatly harmed Russia and Russian interests
speaking a bit soon, aren't we? Also we'll never get to see what the alternative was.
VASTLY worsened Russia's strategic position vis a vis the west.
USSR asked to join NATO in 1954. They were told "no." Then NATO let west germany in and appointed a bunch of "former" nazis to key positions. Russia tried to join NATO in 2002. Were told "no." Russia supported America in its reactionary "war on terror." and that still didn't tighten Russia's relationship with "the west." turns out the only thing that can make Russia have a better relationship with the west is balkanizing themselves, breaking up into dozens of tiny republics, and privatizing everything, because the west's vision for Yugoslavia is the same vision it has for Russia. Turns out there is nothing Russia can do to have a better relationship with the west. Because the west isn't mutually interested in a better relationship. The west is interested in balkanizing and privatizing former soviet nations. To punish them for having the audacity for being socialist once upon a time. To make sure it never happens again. To turn them into neocolonies. Ukraine has tried to have a better relationship with the west. What did it get them? It got them to sacrifice themselves by the thousands in a western proxy war in exchange for not even a NATO membership. Ukraine is getting balkanized and privatized on NATO's behalf.
Oh, and the sanctions? They aren't working. Russia is still selling gas to Europe, just through third parties. The entire situation is a reactionary shitshow, and the chief responsibility lies with the imperial core for deliberately instigating the conflict for years and years and years. Russia's options were to allow itself to get slowly encircled, or to ruin its "reputation" with a bunch of reactionary capitalist nations. It chose the latter.
Russia is reactionary and capitalist too? No shit! How did that happen? The west was gleeful when the Russian federation came into existence.
there was no good moves for russia, even fewer for ukraine. i don't think of it in terms of good moves. I think of it in terms of russia and ukraine as they currently exist both being byproducts of imperialism.
Also I don't think we can really know if it chose the better of two bad moves because we cannot see what the alternative would have been, we can only speculate. I thought that was clear in the last post.
Do you seriously think that Putin invaded Ukraine not knowing they would get sanctioned by the entire Western world and losing hundreds of billions of their oligarchs’ money?
I've heard people say that United Russia is made up of two main components - the Oligarchs and the Siloviki (the security and intelligence complex). Occasionally they struggle for power internally but since Putin is strongly of the silovik background, the oligarchs have been subordinated to the siloviki for a long time.
I don't understand the complexities of Russian politics enough to have a firm view, but it's possible that the Oligarchs losing a bunch of money (and therefore power) actually benefitted the Siloviki faction inside United Russia. That goes hand in hand with the idea that by sanctioning the Oligarchs, the West actually threw away their best chance at overthrowing Putin internally via some sort of Oligarch-backed coup.
Edit: preemptive apologies to Russian speakers for probably butchering the grammatical forms.
The fact is that both Merkel and Hollande (guarantors of Minsk II) have publicly admitted that Minsk was merely to buy time for Ukraine to militarize itself, and was not a serious attempt to pursue peace between both countries.
Nitpick but I see this claim a lot but I don't buy it. Mostly because I don't believe Germany would plan so heavily around Russian gas if it knew the war was inevitable. I'm inclined to think they're impling it to look like they knew what they were doing and cover their own asses for negotiating a failed agreement, while appealing to an audience that is (for the most part) uncritically supportive of Ukraine. I also think its a pretty big stretch to characterize their words as "publically admitting it was not a serious agreement." What Merkel said was,
Then, in order to prevent even worse things, everyone signed this agreement. Was it possible to stop the war then? This question is no longer relevant. I believe that the Minsk agreements gave Ukraine more time to develop between 2014 and 2021.
What she's saying is that regardless of whether or not it was possible to achieve peace through the negotiations, they were still beneficial to Ukraine in buying time. That's not the same thing as saying they were done in bad faith.
I think the Russian charactization of this quote is trying to paint a picture of Western governments as highly co-ordinated, when the reality is more complex. Germany isn't holding Ukraine's leash, the US had to blow uo Nord Stream because the Germans weren't willing to co-operate, etc. There's bumbling, competing interests at play.
I've had this conversation before but I find it extremely implausible that the West planned all of this out in advance and the lynchpin of the entire plot was being able to destroy Russia with sanctions alone. Again, Germany wasn't even willing to fully participate, and they had to resort to some pretty desperate measures after the pipeline was destroyed. Nothing was done to ensure India's cooperation, and they were saber-rattling with China, neither of which makes sense if they were planning on all this.
I also haven't heard any real explanation for what caused this miscalculation, other than pure stupidity and buying into their own propaganda. I think this is the same flawed analysis behind the initial point that I disputed. When a politician says something you can't just take it at face value, even when it fits into your narrative and makes them look bad, you still have to consider why they're saying it, what they're trying to accomplish, and who they're trying to appeal to. When they started doing sanctions, obviously they would say they thought they would work, but this indicates nothing about their actual beliefs. They were just trying to drum up support for the sanctions, there's no reason why they'd say, "Well, who knows if these will work or not" if they're trying to get people to support them. Very rarely do politicians say something just because they think it's true.
The narrative that fits actual events better without requiring abject stupidity and actions contrary to the actors' own interests, is that Germany did not expect a full scale war and did not plan for losing Nord Stream 2. The outbreak of war came as a surprise to a lot of people, including the majority of this site, and Merkel did not have a crystal ball. The ceasefire was broken due to domestic pressure from the far-right, plus international pressure from the US, which did not assume sanctions would work, but rather saw extended bloodshed as a possibility and did not care, due to the profits it would mean for the military-industrial complex and not caring at all about the lives of Ukrainians. There are internal fractures within NATO and within NATO states, due to competing class interests, it's not one big conspiracy working together.
Why do you think it would need to be a conspiracy?
Because you're assuming coordination between different groups, even when it doesn't make sense and goes against their interests. This is like the third time I've brought this up - Germany relied heavily on Russian gas, then didn't shut it off, which led the US to blow up the pipeline. How do any of those events make sense in your narrative? Is all of that part of an elaborate ruse to trick people into thinking that my narrative is correct and yours is wrong? It's nonsense.
The Europeans simply didn’t see Russia as a potent threat and felt entitled to not giving Russia the respect it deserves.
And this is where I think your narrative is coming from. It's all about Russia surpassing everyone's expectations and proving how strong and powerful it is, and it's like, every event has to be somehow contorted to fit that narrative, when there's much more coherent ways to fit them together.
Tbh, it just seems like this is what you want to believe, in which case I can't stop you. You're not looking at countries' actions and you're also not looking at class interests, it's just "everybody hated Russia and thought they were weak when they were actually big and strong." It's a very biased and oversimplified narrative that I find hard to take seriously, I'm just as skeptical of that as I would be about one that's brazenly pro-Ukraine tbh.
Europe did not turn off Russian gas because they expected Russia to fold within a few months. They were confident that their sanctions were going to work.
So you're saying that not only was everyone in the West convinced, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that mere sanctions would cripple Russia, but also that those sanctions wouldn't even have to include gas?? That's even more absurd than I thought. I'm absolutely baffled at why you think Western leaders have such a ridiculously inflated view of the power of sanctions, when there's such a more reasonable explanation, that they were simply exaggerating the power of sanctions for the people watching at home.
Here’s what George Soros said in May 2022:
I don't care what he said. This whole time I've been explaining to you why you can't just take quotes at face value, and here you're just posting another quote and taking it at face value, and this time not even from a policy maker. People can confess to murder and still turn out to be innocent. You have to examine why they're saying it. In this case he's saying sanctions will work, as I have explained several times, because he supports them and wants to sell people on them, it tells us nothing about his actual beliefs. People in positions of power generally make public statements because of a rational calculus of what effect that statement will have, whether they think it's true or not is irrelevant. This is why you have to look at actions and interests and not just statements.
This is a very common assumption even in mainstream media
You're assuming that what's said in the media is the same reasoning and calculus that's happening behind closed doors. As I said, statements to the public are made based on political calculus, not actual beliefs. The reality is that the West's grip has been slipping even with smaller countries due to Chinese investment, which is why I find it completely implausible that Western policymakers simply didn't consider that Russia could just trade with China and India.
Assume for a moment that I'm correct, and that nobody actually expected sanctions to work. What consequences have any of them faced for saying that they would? None whatsoever. But saying they'd work helped build support for them. So there's a benefit to saying it an no drawback to saying it, so of course they're going to say it. What's so hard to understand about that?
Where did I ever say that?
It's literally your whole narrative!
but that does not mean their economy is stronger than Europe’s.
I never claimed you said anything like that.
It simply means that the global supply chain is far more complex than the European policymakers drafting the sanctions had anticipated
Right, because you think that they're unbelievably stupid and naive (yet at the same time managing to orchestrate a complicated long-term plot). Did they just not know that China exists? It's absurd to think that they wouldn't consider this possibility.
Here's the points that I think you're being fundamentally unreasonable about:
-
Taking politicians' words at face value as a reflection of genuine belief, instead of critically examining the calculus of why they would say something
-
Claiming that the idea that sanctions alone (not even including gas) would cripple Russia is anything but an absurd and blatantly unrealistic fantasy sold to the masses, to the point that policy-makers not only believed it but even relied on it as a lynchpin to their plans.
-
Believing an oversimplified narrative designed to make Russia look good over a more realistic narrative based on facts and class analysis, which still makes Russia look pretty good.
To the third point, I mean, come on. I can't count the number of cartoons I've seen where the bad guy underestimates the protagonist only for the protagonist to prove their worth. This is exactly the kind of simple narrative about empowerment and resiliance that I'd expect any country to put out during war-time. But Russia is a geopolitical entity and not a shonen character. Both it and it's rivals are composed of various competing interests acting more or less rationally. It's tiring to argue with this nonsense, Merkel does not control Ukraine and is not always in agreement with the US, and she also doesn't reveal her schemes to the hero in a villainous monologue to the hero just for shits and giggles.
I guess we're at an impasse, your narrative seems completely unreasonable to me, while it seems mine seems completely unreasonable to you. I think that our methods of examining the situation and drawing conclusion are completely different and irreconcilable, yours relies far too heavily on quotes, which I find unreliable.
You seem to think that German politicians have some “secret calculations”, but there aren’t
Of course there are and it's ridiculous to claim otherwise. Every politician (hell, every individual) considers the effects of their words and what they say or don't say is influenced by that. This is a basic fundamental truth, literally nothing you say could convince me it's wrong lol. Maybe you misunderstood what I meant? That's the only reason I could imagine you disagreeing with it.
Germany’s position on sanctioning Russian gas was heavily reliant on the following two papers that were published in early March 2022
I don't read German, unfortunately. Think tanks have the same incentives to say things people want to hear as anybody else, so it doesn't mean much to me regardless. None of this stuff is what I look at to draw conclusions from which is why I think our approaches are just fundamentally incompatible. All the evidence you've presented can be explained by my narrative just as well as yours.
It’s just plain old political and bureaucratic processes based on faulty assumptions of a complex scenario.
I think I'd be more receptive towards your argument if you were claiming like, they thought the threat of sanctions would be painful enough to deter Russia from crossing the West due to the influence of Russian capitalists. But it would take extraordinary evidence to convince me that everyone essentially just forgot that China exists. It's very obvious to me (and was at the time) that sanctions alone would not cause Russia to collapse and I am unwilling to accept that policy makers with access to much more information and intelligence than me could be so much dumber than me, when more plausible explanations exist.
Sanctions didn't even bring down Afghanistan, nobody seriously believed they'd bring down Russia, it's absurd on its face.
-
Both sides pro-imperialist nonsense akin to "Both sides never seriously intended to follow the Iran deal" to defend ripping it up
Russia was following Minsk 2 much, much closer than Ukraine was, who had tens of thousands of cease fire violations. Its not a “both sides didn’t follow it” situation. It’s a “one side was acting in bad faith to buy time to militarize and always fully intended to attack eventually vs. the other side just didn’t want to have to deal with the whole situation and wanted it to chill out”
I saw you posting the data on ceasefire violations running up to the invasion, can you post this here?
- Show
Show
Show
Show
Show
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aHWHqj8g7Bk
https://www.youtube.com/@PatrickLancasterNewsToday/videos (sort oldest )
i just saw it yesterday at sleepy time , they are here
https://www.osce.org/special-monitoring-mission-to-ukraine/512872
No they didnt. The obama regime was already thretening european companies that planned to invest in iran after the deal was suposedly in effect and before trump won.
This always seems like a poorly based position to me. All Russia wants would've been guaranteed by successful implementation of the agreement. What part of the Minsk agreements did Russia not adhere to?
There is no evidence that Russia ever seriously meant to give up its influence over the D/LPRs.
Minsk what? Ok no evidenc-Minsk 2 what?
Ya'll could have a Minsk 3 and then 4 years of ukraine bombing people they supposedly want to reintegrate into their country and still find it hard to fault the ukranian state
Do you have a source for Putin saying he wanted to return donbass to Ukraine? I can't find it on Google.
KPRF has potential and extremely radical areas, but the main heads of it are old soviet bureaucrats
I wonder what kind of parallels can be drawn with Ukraine now and China during WW2 (when the communists allied with the nationalists in order to fend off the Japanese). Perhaps strategically it makes sense for Russian communists to "support" Russia in order to stave off NATO. This would give more breathing room for leftist agitation inside of Russia (and eastern Ukraine for that matter, perhaps western Ukraine too I hope).
Definitely more breathing room
Much easier for the communists to defeat the Russian state than all of NATO
NATO kill count: Tens of Millions
Russia kill count: Tens of Thousands
Some libs in here really require perspective
The shock therapy was done by the west to Russia. Are you saying that Russia should receive millions? That’s like blaming the massacre of Indonesian communists on the communists
uh... i mean the massacre of indonesian communists wasnt done by the american military, it was done by the indonesians as a proxy of the west. the russian government started as a proxy of the west for shock therapy. they participated.
the russian government started as a proxy of the west for shock therapy. they participated.
Comprador traitors indeed, but not the current Russian state or people. This is extreme levels of victim blaming of the Russian people and using their own deaths and suffering against them
???
it was the government doing it. not the russian people. im literally czech the same shit happened to us you dolt
These exact parallels have been discussed here quite a bit. The class breakdown of China in WW2 was that the communists (representing the landless peasants and proletariat) built a temporary alliance with the national bourgeois (the local owners) in order to fight outside colonizers, invaders and the international bourgeois (global imperialist capital hegemony).
Russia, Iran, Syria, Belarus, Brazil and others are currently representing the national bourgeois in this alliance with the proletariat states of China, Cuba, DPRK, Venezuela, Vietnam, etc. They are temporarily allied to defeat the greater enemy, the international bourgeois of imperialist capital (NATO, America, UK, EU, Israel, Anglo-nations).
I get the impression the DPRK's support boils down to the fact that, if the US is bogged down supporting Ukraine, that's less resources going to harass the North.
Their support of Russia has zero impact on the status of the war as imperialist or not.
They have stated their position very clearly, you don't need to go off "impressions". They understand how anti-imperialism works. DPRK has never once in its history supported an imperialist war and have been on the correct side on basically every single conflict. They have a 100% track record in my view.
For sure, I just didn't want to type out a whole argument spelling out Lenin's definition of imperialism and analyzing Russia's economy and foreign policy
It's an anti-imperial war from Russia's perspective, they are fighting NATO encroachment and resisting imperialism as they did in Syria
Well every single western leftist poo pooed Syria and Russia for a decade, and now most realize that the anti-imperialists were correct and Syria/Russia were the side to be supported against the imperialists invaders and their proxies (ISIS, Turkey, US, etc). Just like Iraq should be supported against the US during the American invasion and Libya should have been supported while it was under attack. Nations being invaded by imperialists deserve critical support, regardless of if they are bourgeois capitalist states or not.
Not all capitalist nations are imperialist.
I’m going to trust DPRK’s assessment of the war over the westerners who have shown consistent patterns of chauvinist errors in regards to analysis of geopolitics. There’s a reason why Russia is allied with every single AES nation on Earth, do you really think every socialist nation is wrong and you have the perfect analysis from within the bowels of the empire?
Let me explain:
So when the Minority Region is at War with the Nation state it "de Jure" belongs to
Show
Then THAT is the Imperialism. Serbia did Imperialism TO Kosovo .. not Kosovo to Serbia ... And Nato the intervene to Protect the Minority against the raging hate of the Majority) Same story with Ukriane , dont get confused .. it is West Ukraine , that did the Imperialism TO the Russian Majority Eastern Ukraine
- forbidding their media ,
- forbidding Russian in Adminsitration Use ,
- Forbidding the Consume of Russian Media,
- othering them "Orcs" / Vatnik / Russian / Occupiers.
- Burning them In Odessa
- Bombarding them
- Proudly proclaim you want to Cleanse them when you "retake the territories"
Russia protects Its Minority from Racial Persecution by a Faschist Regime. No Imperialism.
This is a Anti imperialsit Global war , You lack the Expertise to understand that , it is no problem .. BRICS 11 , Africa , Saudia Arabia , India , Latin America , Turkey , Eagypt , Iran all Understand it perfectly... on the Street of Niamey , Quagadgou and Bamako , they all understand it. its only your Tiny Minority in the West that still have not figured out that 2014 comes chronologically before 2022. its a Fascinating Phenomenon.... Maybe its the Vitamen D deficit they have in the West ? maybe thats makes "the West" so collectivly unable to understand , basic physical concepts like "CHRONOLGY" .. and "CAUSE AND EFFECT"
The problem with the theory that Russia only invaded to pre-empt a Ukrainian invasion of the Donbass or to protect Russian-speaking minorities (and nothing else) is that the initial Russian push was, above all, towards Kyiv
i dont accept this reasoning to protect your minority you try to topple the regime .... ???
If this was true, then why would Russia have committed so many documented atrocities in Russian-speaking areas during the invasion?
name a specific one thats not "atrocity propaganda bullshit like "they aim Missile on Residential blocks and graveyards .. etc.. . Stop try to argue on the baseline of knowledge thats "American thats watch TV" , i now what they tell you on TV ..
Enemy Bad !.. Does bad things !.. We Godd .!. do good things !
Show
Show
Most of their youth wing literally split over supporting the war. when at best the only people worth supporting even critically was the LPR and DPR (and Putin couped their nascent proto-Socialist governments almost as soon as they formed.)
I mean it's right there ffs "Revolutionary Defeatism"
Revolutionary defeatism is when I root for NATO to finish what they started in their quest to destroy Russia so they can then move on to China
no one here doesn't agree that NATO should stop arming ukraine and withdraw, the rhetorical sheen of 'critical support' or 'defeatism' doesn't change the priorities of western leftists, but it gives everyone around here endless excuses to lecture each other about the way they talk about it being more "marxist" and "materialist". it doesn't matter what we call it, all that matters is pressuring natio governments to stop perpetuating the war
Hey at least they helped that Communist guy in Ukraine that lost his eye and had a red star etched into his back by the Nazis there
No real communist or socialist grouping would support an imperialist war.
- Show
Show
Show
Show
Show
its a war to protect the Russian minority of theDonbass againt the assault by the western Backed Nationalist.
If you deny the 2014-2022 war and then call it a Imperialistic war You follow 1:1 the Imperialistic "Atrocity- Propagnda- Narrative" .. which is a Untrue narrative... like every Narrative before was (Sarin-Gas , Tonkin Bay , USS Maine ..etc.. ) as it tries to turn around "Cause and Effect" and make the Victims the Perputrators and the Perputrators the Victim..
Dont support Nazis , even if its "allowed" by your Media .
No real communist or socialist grouping would support an imperialist war.
You think this Russian communist party is supporting America here? Much confusion.
Hey at least they helped that Communist guy in Ukraine that lost his eye and had a red star etched into his back by the Nazis there
its in the video linked above lmao
idr what timestamp. they smuggled him out of the country and got him asylum in belarus
I love how they've been peddling the "warm water port" thing since the cold war. Soviets were somehow always expanding in order to get that holy land of a "warm water port" and if they got it they would take over the world.
Now it turn out that the port was in ukraine the whole time! Dummy Soviets, you should have looked in your own country!
It's the "the jews/christians and muslims have been fighting since time immemorial in Israel" lazy explanation to all conflict in a region customized for Russia (which is a frozen hellscape filled with gulags desperately thirsting for some warm water in the liberal mind).
Honestly, I think it just accelerates the class war. Everyone knows they'll be on borrowed time, and the effects are already hurting us.
I more meant in terms of Russia's access to fresh water ports. They're really in the catbird seat as the planet incinerates itself.
oh damn I thought this was a different post lol. You are correct, climate change actually helps russia more than hinders, in the short term anyway.
Except for the random explosions from methane pockets under the permafrost. Saw an interview of some siberians and they were like "oh yeah we hear massive explosions all the time from climate change, hope I'm not walking somewhere when one happens". Said they hear one every week
I also recall one study suggesting that the 'new' soil in Russia will not be arable and would need imported fertilizers to make any use of it.
oh damn playing in the snow just got wayyyyy more dangerous
Sure you aren't mixing this up with Canada/Greenland? It was my understanding that the soil in the tundra regions of Canada was extremely poor and useless for agriculture, while Russia's was qualitatively different and easier to farm in
Though climate change will expand arable land in Russia in its northern latitudes, the northern topsoil tends to be thinner and more acidic than in Russia's most productive southern regions and would not make up for its losses. In fact, arable land shrank by more than half to just 120,000 acres in 2017.
https://www.csis.org/analysis/climate-change-will-reshape-russia
Interesting. I believe Canada is also similarly fucked or even worse, as their land will thaw into disease ridden stony swamps
October Revolution island will actually be a nice place to live soon
Hasn't his importance in Russia been exaggerated by western media? My understanding is he's a relatively fringe figure without much influence.
Absolutely, Western media has to shine spotlights and magnify nut cases like Dugin because the Russian government is pretty competent and generally correct in their statements when it comes to geopolitics
for anyone screenshotting, the 'when it comes to geopolitics' is doing the heavy lifting here
Don't have to like Putin to agree you need to listen when he speaks, as he delivers threats and warnings that he often is serious about and follows through with. His red lines were extremely explicit and clear, and were flagrantly crossed at many points - and he eventually pushed back as he warned he would. He is competent and makes rational moves, and he just iced the dude who tried to coup him 2 months to the day after he said he would.
The donbass region is an important industrial region, eastern ukraine is were most of the black soil is, sevastapol is one of the only 2 warm water ports of russia, and ukraine has high population with prewar amount of 50 million
Its a rich country, dugin is just a fascist that sees all non russians as inferiors aka an idiot
yea, if you think russia wants to take over those rich areas then its for sure imperialism, if you think they are doing it to protect the russian speaking people in the east then its not, it would probably fall in something like nationalism.
my point was mostly to show that ukraine is in fact important in a geopolitical strategic way.
Yes it would be. A very strong argument can be made that Russia fits to a T the 5 conditions to be imperialist as set by Lenin. To note also that imperialism is NOT a policy decision, it's an objective stage of capitalist development, any advanced or semi advanced state with its material base being capitalist will express variations of imperialist tendencies.
I would argue that while the thesis "the war in Ukraine is a provoked (by the west) interimperialist confrontation", holds a lot of merit, it does fail to account sufficiently for the extent this war was provoked, for the remaining fact the western imperialist alliances and particularly the US, remain hegemonic af, and for the more minute analysis of the Russian economy. That being said, if Russia isn't an imperialist state, it is at the very least an aspiring-imperialist one (and in certain regions very much already acts as one).
Regardless these two variations of analysis are FAR more accurate than those which aim to posit Russia as ANTI imperialist somehow, that one is just caricatural campist nonsense that isn't rooten in an honest materialist analysis, and which echo a lot the (erroneous) thesis of "super-imperialism" that Kautsky put forward.
In all the above this doesn't change the role of communists in the west tho: revolutionary defeatism, fight our own imperialists. It does raise question about those who go further and give concrete support towards Russia (an IMO very damaging position that harms anti-imperialist organizing here), and it does change the attitude for say, Russian and Ukrainian communists ought to have with regards to the war ( attitude being a choice between revolutionary defeatism or critical support).
To note also that imperialism is NOT a policy decision, it's an objective stage of capitalist development, any advanced or semi advanced state with its material base being capitalist will express variations of imperialist tendencies.
Can you point me to a reference on this definition, by chance? I'm wondering if it may be deceptively scoped as imperialism predates capitalism by a significant margin (capitalism being an 18th century invention).
I am referring to the Marxist-Leninist definition of the term, see these two texts: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ and https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/s-w/index.htm
To be clear its not some cooky ideologically driven fantasy, the marxist analysis of imperialism and subsequent impacts on geopolitical and international political analysis is a well recognized analytical and theoretical model in IR theory.
From that perspective "imperialism" does not predate capitalism. It does not refer to "empires" in the vague sense of "Roman Empire, French empire, etc". The mechanics are vastly different. Aggressive expansion of feudal states in europe and their colonial expansion around the world (funnily enough that second one directly fueling feudalism's demise, serving as the "primitive accumulation of capital" that allowed the emergent bourgeois class to gain gradual economic hegemony, and eventual state hegemony) is not the same as the form of imperialism that emerges out of the most "advanced" expression of capitalism). It's understood as the monopoly stage of capital wherein bank and industrial capital merge, forming large scale monopolies, seeking new markets, and leading the state to engage in imperial plunder of less economically advanced states, and direct confrontation with other imperialist entities.
Furthermore, capitalism is positively not an "invention" nor is it dated to the 18th century ! Capitalism emerged organically from class struggle in the feudal period, with capitalistic elements emerging from within feudal society as early as the 15th century. It established itself as a dominant mode of production well into the 17th century in various areas of the world, but yes only fully superseded the feudal state structure and took control of the state as a whole in the 18th century. If anything was invented, it was the "word" for it, referring to what is an objectively observable scientific fact of human development (again, from the POV of marxist analysis, and its thesis of historical-materialism).
Thank you, very much. I really appreciate the willingness to share references and explanations both from yourself and other Hexbears. It's been roughly 20 years (didn't seem that long ago! - I really need to see if I can find my hardcopies) since I directly studied Marx's writing so, it's very helpful.
Ensuring a good grasp of the nomenclature in the conversation is absolutely vital to productive conversation, supposing good faith. A good example of where this has been handled poorly by "mainstream leftists" (likely mainly liberals or those interested in "scoring points" on others) is racism - rather specifically, phrases like "black people can't be racist". The phrase is absolutely correct, if everyone understands that the definition of racism used is from a sociological standpoint where it is used to refer to systems of oppression targeting racial minorities, whereas those without that understanding take the definition of racism as a synonym for racial discrimination, which frequently leads to the mistaken conclusion that anyone not "white" is absolved of any guilt related to discriminatory behavior. Or, closer to on-topic, when a working class person says that they are a capitalist, meaning that they support capitalism as an economic structure, while those thinking more about the economic theory side will take it to mean "someone of the capitalist/bourgeoise class".
Furthermore, capitalism is positively not an "invention" nor is it dated to the 18th century ! Capitalism emerged organically from class struggle in the feudal period, with capitalistic elements emerging from within feudal society as early as the 15th century. It established itself as a dominant mode of production well into the 17th century in various areas of the world, but yes only fully superseded the feudal state structure and took control of the state as a whole in the 18th century. If anything was invented, it was the "word" for it, referring to what is an objectively observable scientific fact of human development (again, from the POV of marxist analysis, and its thesis of historical-materialism).
Absolutely. I wasn't really happy with the term "invented" when I wrote it but left it for simplicity. Most economic system classification has been in hindsight. Smith and other similar influential writers were mainly attempting to codify what they thought the system was from their observations and trying, in a similar vein to Marx, to reason through pitfalls and problems with long-term systemic sustainability.
The major failures of their analysis and writing, in my opinion, is their attempts to frame economics in a "vacuum" with objective realities, and humans as rational actors. Humans are not consistently rational or irrational actors, however, which breaks a lot of the theory. Externalizing sociological, historical, medical, and other factors also breaks things even more.
Thanks again and sorry for the ramble - ADHD is acting up a bit today.
No worries at all, it's really my pleasure. As you said, establishing nonemclature within its theoretical and academic context really goes a long way, otherwise it's super easy to find oneself in a "dialogue amongst deafs`" (idk if it makes sense, it's a saying in my first language), and everyone speaks past each other while assuming the worst from one another.
Really happy to hear that other hexbear users were patient too, and I hope you get to brush up on your Marx notes (and include the Lenin texts I linked you, being serious they are very important, Marx only ever alluded to what Lenin ended up theorizing about !)
Tbh there is a huge belt of chernozem going into Russia and there's no way they're utilizing all of it effectively due to how much there is
Dugin isn't the leader of Russia. Stop trying to learn about Russia from western youtube videos and media conglomerates
Wasn't intending to insinuate otherwise. I've been led to believe, that quite possibly incorrectly, that his writing was considered useful by the current regime.
Dugin is basically irrelevant inside of Russia, he's just beloved by westerners for some reason. He's sort of like Tom Clancy or Jordan Peterson for Russia.
In one of his books he says that what Russia needs to do is annex northern China. Do you think that's something that's part of Russia's geopolitical plan or are these the ramblings of a crazy person?
Yeah a good way to look at it is that the My Pillow guy has more actual direct influence on geopolitical leaders than Dugin ever did
Dugin almost sounds like he's quoting Luxemburg here, though I bet he's not willing to follow her to her conclusions.
Dugin's book states:
You're paying more attention to that guy than anyone in russia with decision making power is.
Western "communists": (sitting on a gamerchair, scoffing contemptuously) "That's not REAL communism"
How are we exactly? Say the word. I only believes in class war.
what are you on about? one can be anti-russia and anti-nazi and I'd go as far as to say that that's a fairly common position
one can be anti-russia
Or just don't. Stop taking sides in the rich man's wars.
that's a fairly common position
Americans and being pro-war. Its more likely than you think.
One should support the Ukrainian right to self-determination
Just rhetorically? Is a Tinkerbell thing, where saying "I don't believe in Ukraine" kills a fairy and then I need to clap really hard to bring Ukraine back to life?
Or are we supposed to be doing something in particular, like SWATing any of my neighbors I catch using Cyrillic?
That doesn't confer supporting this or that Ukrainian army regiment ipso facto
So I need to support the abstract concept of self-determination, but I don't need to support he physical means by which that self-determination is achieved? Why? What could possibly be the purpose of this?
feeling sad
Okay. So the purpose of supporting the underdogs in a grisly war that only seems to benefit the MIC is to... feel sad? That's it? All of this is just an exercise in media-induced depression?
Again, why the fuck would I want to do this?
Well nothing we believe in makes any single difference in foreign policy so you're under no obligation to care about anything whatsoever.
I'm more concerned with the reflexive need to pick a team and then get incredibly angry at your neighbors if they're not on the same foreign-policy team. You're clearly invested in doing something, if you believe
One should support the Ukrainian right to self-determination and thus be anti-Russia in the sense of opposing this unjust war of aggression.
So what's the plan? What are you suggesting "support" looks like?
Because, right now, I'm seeing a lot of generic hysteria and hate aimed at anyone with a Russian ethnicity (among other ethnicities that people are "aligning" with Russia).
Personally I think you should care about things
Does caring about things mean taking a certain posture towards people? Does this posture affect the material conditions of those people?
Is your definition of "doing something" just "being low-key racist" towards anyone you track as insufficiently pro-
AmericanUkrainian.Because I went through that shit after 9/11. People running around to every Mosque and screaming at Muslims to prove that they care about things. I remember people cheering at waterboarding, because it proved that you cared about things. I remember how you had to be a zealous supporter of the next big war, to prove you cared about things. And if you didn't, it could cost you. Your social circle. Your career. Potentially your life, depending on how heated things got.
We going to "care about" Ukraine like that, too?
There's no need to "pick a team"
That's exactly what being "pro"/"anti" Russian is.
the denial of the right to self-determination
This isn't self-determination, it is states feuding over the border line. Might as well apply self-determination to CSA diehards chanting "States' Rights" as Azov dorks.
I mean more so just as an ethical position
The only ethical position is an anti-war position. Any assertion that you can ethically fling high explosives across a countryside is false. It can't be done in any context.
When one state (the aggressor)
Color Revolution, which resulted in a coup of the sitting government
which cascaded into a civil war against East Ukrainian seperatists
that only ended with a Russian invasion in defense of the Donetsk rebels.
Which was the "one state" that kicked this mess off? Because I can't find it. I see no less than three separate states actively involved for over a decade.
So if a state invades another with the intention of occupying a chunk of it, setting up a puppet government, and enacting de-Ukrainisation policies in the east, the people being invaded do not have a right to self-defence?
Change "de-Ukrainisation" with "de-Ba'athification" and that's the argument I have been pitched since 2003, yes. Totally legitimate and 100% justifiable, so long as you can claim an existential threat to your motherland.
You can say what you will about the Russians and their ham-fisted efforts at mitigating the conflict. But when NATO is proposing the extension of short-range missiles into your next door neighbor's territory, they at least had a better "can't let that smoking gun become a mushroom cloud" argument than anyone in DC did twenty years ago.
One should support the Ukrainian right to self-determination
(woke neoliberal voice) "Biden is RACIST! He is cruelly removing the agency of Mexicans to cross the border to sell their blood. Blood work is work you fucking Stalinist authoritarian!"
taking sides in the rich man's wars
It's not like I (or most people) want the war to continue and people to die, we just don't want Russia to be able to just invade countries and take land as they please. If an end can be brought to the war that ensures that Ukraine maintains their own territory then obviously that is the ideal scenario
I suppose you may be inclined to point out the hypocrisy of an anti-imperial stance from someone from a Western country but I wouldn't support my own country if they were invading a nation for personal gain as in this case
Why did Obama and his shriveled sentient fleshlight Biden overthrow Yakunovich a decade ago?
Ukraine would still have Crimea and the Donbass. There would be no civil war. Ethnic Russians would continue to live in Ukraine as normal without a gun to their back, as would the rest of Ukrainian people. There would be no Azov or Bandera worship. No ceasefire violations or Minsk treaties being broken. Most importantly, Russia wouldn't be at war with Ukraine and millions not needing to flee. No aspiration for Ukraine to join NATO. No SMO. But :amerikkka:.
:PIGPOOPBALLS::PIGPOOPBALLS::PIGPOOPBALLS::PIGPOOPBALLS::PIGPOOPBALLS::PIGPOOPBALLS:
Death to America
If an end can be brought to the war that ensures that Ukraine maintains their own territory then obviously that is the ideal scenario
Emphasis on "ideal"
People are idiots, "common position" doesn't mean anything.
one can be anti-russia and anti-nazi
that's a fairly common position
A radlib is called that because they are radical liberals
yeah but it's "radical" to go around telling people they are Hitler because they dislike an imperialist invasion in the same way that it's "radical" to wear underwear on your head
Ukraine's counteroffensive is a massive failure and any media reporting the contrary is fascist western propaganda 😭😭😭
Yes. The point is to put an invading force on the defense. Even if Ukraine does not regain a centimeter of land it has a duty and obligation to try.
I know you all hate Ukraine and think they should lay down and let Russia steamroll into Kiev and annex the whole country. But reality doesn't always reflect your geopolitical wet dreams.
Even if Ukraine does not regain a centimeter of land it has a duty and obligation to try.
ww1 death merchants be like
God I can't believe you hate Belgians and the French, why must you be so against them being shredded by artillery and choking on mustard gas? Don't you know that Dulce et decorum est pro patria mori?
You could have picked ANY hopeless last stand from 2000+ years of military history and you went for an obscure sideshow war in the German unification wars that less than 1% of humans are even aware of.
Impressive.
Ah glad someone else is aware of the second Schleswig war. The ACW was nothing compared to the moral battle going on there. Anyone who brings up the Confederacy is just like those tankies mentioning Azov and the shelling of Donbas.
yeah what would a Ukrainian victory even look like. What would Ukraine have to do to win
It would look like an invading army packing up and going home, and leaving Ukraine alone.
ok but how would Ukraine make them do that. Clearly the current Russian position is to not do that. What is the Ukrainian path to making that change
Look at the thread title again, and then ask yourself how realistic you think this scenario is?
You can't pretend to be altruistic when your idea of peace is letting Putin forcibly annex all former Soviet states. Come off it.
A counteroffensive is Ukraine's prerogative, right, and in many senses an obligation.
I think Ukraine should negotiate for the best peace settlement it can get, and take it
And what do you imagine that settlement would be, other than a complete surrender of every square kilometer of their land, their people, and their lives?
You're just making shit up instead of looking at Russia's stated, implied, and material goals.
a complete surrender of every square kilometer of their land
Russia doesn't want to annex all of Ukraine. There's nothing for them in the north. At the very most they would annex Novorossiya, but if Ukraine were to go to the negotiating table right now they likely would get away with only losing the four oblasts that Russia already annexed, plus Crimea ofc. Aside from that land, Russia wants guarantees that Ukraine will stay out of NATO and the EU.
their people, and their lives
There is absolutely no evidence that Russia wants to or is carrying out a genocide of Ukrainians. There has been no rhetoric from Russia that the Ukrainian ethnicity as a whole are some untermensch and/or threat to society that needs to be removed. In fact there's been the opposite, that Ukrainians are their brothers, "little Russians". The only genocidal/ethnic cleansing rhetoric I've seen has been from Ukraine's side, celebrating when a random Russian civilian is killed by a shark, calling all Russians "orcs", wanting to remove Russian civilians from Crimea (who have been living there long before it was transferred to Ukraine in 1954), anti-Russian language laws which Human Rights Watch reported concerns about just a month before the invasion.
Do you never go check anything for yourselves?
If I did that I wouldn't be sitting here looking like a misinformed jackass, now would I?
Is your worldview shaped by scary bedtime stories told by your nana The Us State Department?
State dept, US and western-sympathetic media
When has Russia ever claimed it wanted to annex all of Ukraine?
I think Putin wants a Lukashenko in Ukraine.
why would it want to get embroiled in countless territory conflicts and battle out hundreds of mini quagmires, when it could just annex the autonomous regions that do not have these issues?
I feel like I'm missing something here because the "autonomous regions" are where these battles and quagmires are occurring.
Answer their question or all your bloviations have been for nothing
He's going to hear a really angry socialist knocking on his door soon lol
I'm just curious -- why are you so concerned with the nation-state of Ukraine maintaining its border, at apparently any cost? You virtue signal all day long that you're just concerned for the poor Ukranians, and yet you seem to conflate land, people, and constructed imaginary borders like they're interchangeable. Does "surrender of every square kilometer of their land" mean the same as them "losing their lives?" Is there a giant killswitch that just obliterates every inhabitant of a country when the arbitrary name associated with that land changes?
The point is this: I've got cousins fighting on the frontlines who can't wait to get the fuck out of that warzone, and you seem to have more of a perfectly liberal, purely aesthetic disgust for the idea of land changing ownership than you do for the notion of hundreds of thousands of people dying in a fucking trench in a needless war.
Fuck Putin, fuck Zelensky, fuck Ukraine and fuck Russia, fuck the United States, and fuck the bourgeois scum who pump out all the vile propaganda you're regurgitating, that tell you a piece of land is worth more than your family's life.
You can't pretend to be altruistic when your idea of peace is letting Putin forcibly annex all former Soviet states.
You're a child
Peace follows once the war ends, regardless of whether you win or lose said war.
And you shouldn't fight battles you have no chance of winning, and which won't benefit you at all in the long run. Doing so anyways is lunacy.
Yes. The point is to put an invading force on the defense. Even if Ukraine does not regain a centimeter of land it has a duty and obligation to try.
This sounds like the kind of cope that Manstein, Model, and Guderian would have said to Hitler, hats in hand, after getting obliterated at the Battle of Kursk.
In fact I think the Ukrainian generals knew long ago that they were setting themselves up to get Kursk'd. Most of them had served in the Soviet military and there's no way they made it through Soviet officer school without learning the ins and outs of that battle.
The fact that they ended up going through with it anyway speaks to something unspeakably fucked up going on behind the scenes.
Yes. The point is to put an invading force on the defense
I think the russians are quite confortable being on the defense right now, seems like the defensive position has an inherent advantage in this war, ukraine had it at first.
You're an idiot
I don't think "fascist" is the right word to use as I think calling everything western fascist degrades the meaning of the term
ok gamerchair
makes it easier for actual fascists and neo-Nazis to become mainstream.
zero historical materialism, stopped reading there
beep beep beep
yes