this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
106 points (88.4% liked)
Memes
4074 readers
107 users here now
Good memes, bad memes, unite towards a united front.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Absolutely. Going further, Putin is undeniably better for the Russian people and for the world than e.g. Navalny would've been: a literal neo-Nazi who called immigrants "cockroaches who should be exterminated" in a televised interview, and who's top aide met with MI6 offering to create a color revolution for 10-20 mln USD.
For as long as the West is attempting to install a Yeltsin 2.0 in Russia, Russian people will keep electing Putin or some "continuation Putin" if they know what's good for them.
Having said that, I don't consider modern Russia "anti-imperialist" as some other posters here, and I have no love for Putin. It's a bit like Assad, the least bad option under the imperialist assault of the USA and it's vassals.
calling him "anti-imperialist" is a bit of a stretch, but he's definitely acting as a force against western hegemony, if only for his own benefit
Antiimperialism don't have to be permanent and it don't need to come from marxism.
true but imo it assumes commitment against imperialism in a fundamental level which i do not believe putin has at all. he would gladly be yet another collabolator for western imperialism if he could*, but the "russian enemy" archetype is just too useful for the usa to give up
*i think he even tried to join nato afaik
In most famous example, Lenin and Stalin considered a literal monarch, emir of Afghanistan and his fight for independence against the British, an antiimperialist and offered him friendship and support of USSR. If even that case was considered antiimperialist by the two guys who literally formulated the theory about imperialism and antiimperialism then Putin's Russia, currently the foremost force actively resisting the empire on multiple fronts is so much more.
makes sense. do you have any text i can read on that?
edit: in any case, i still think that it's useful to make a distinction between entities that seem to be anti-imperialist as a fundamental goal (eg china imo) and clearly opportunistic "antiimperalists" (russia)
Of course, obligatory Foundations of Leninism by Stalin, 6th chapter in particular is possibly the most concise and to the point explanation of imerialist and antiimperialist tenedencies (Stalin even calls it "objectively revoutionary" and "objectively reactionary").
Lenin writings iirc in 1919 include some letters to the emir, and also of interest might be much earlier Lenin articles about Russo-Japanese war in 1905 in which he clearly formulate theory of revolutionary defeatism and also straight up critically support imperialist Japan since at the point even clearly imperialist Japan is more progressive than half-feudal Russia and Russia's defeat can lead to changes in it (as we know it did, loss in that war was one of the main catalyst of 1905 revolution).
Plus of course Lenin's "Imperialism..."
Absolutely, nobody even suggest we extend it to the past and possible future reactionary actions. In fact, Putin was heavily criticized by Russian, Ukrainian and Donbass communists for his procrastination and unwillingness to help DPR and LPR and constant reaching to the west. If west wasn't so determined to recolonize Russia today's world would look very different.
This is very uninformed. They were specifically talking about national liberation movements of oppressed peoples. Russia is not colonised and not fighting for independence.
Emphasis mine:
Russia was not colonised? Independent? Did you missed 90's? Did US empire do not currently want to colonise it again? Did you missed literally everything happening after 90's too? And you call me "uninformed"?
I lived through what happened during the 90s and I'll always remember it, which is why I didn't believe for a second Europe has anything in store for Ukraine (or Russia) but massacre, rape, plunder, and slavery. Bandera (and Vlasov) made this mistake, then Kravchuk (and Yeltsin) made the same mistake. Putin did too some time ago, and more recently pro-Western Ukrainian governments. We can all see the outcome for Ukrainians.
You are uninformed about the content of the self determination theory you're attempting to quote. It simply doesn't apply here, apples and oranges.
It absolutely does apply here, you even boldened it yourself in previous post:
Unless you think country cannot be colonised when it's large and nominally independent, but again India and China prove that false.
The Foundations of Leninism was published in 1924 when India was under the British rule and China was in the Century of Humiliation, both would only end in the aftermath of WW2.
You are very optimistic if you think colonisation of India ended when Brits folded their flags there in 1947. Even China had to overcome legacy of colonialism and further attempts to recolonise it for decades (in fact they still do need to actively defend themselves) after 1949.
Russia is protecting it's sovereignty when it e.g. puts Navalny behind bars. But it was simply protecting it's security interests when it invaded Ukraine. Ukraine did not colonise Russia, this is not a war of national liberation. This invasion is not anti-imperialist, and it wasn't necessary - Russia absolutely had enough power in Ukraine to meddle and pull strings, hell do some assassinations, sanctions, etc.
This war has accelerated the European descent into fascism, it made Europe dependent on the US energy, it triggered European countries to join NATO and to raise their defense budgets by billions. This is exactly what the US wanted, and Trump will likely push NATO countries to increase their defense budgets even further.
(Edit) If Russia starts an all out war with Georgia I won't support that either.
Koreans and Vietnamese in shambles now. Vietnamese even twice.
There already was war in Georgia, in kinda similar circumstances like in Ukraine - US meddling, proxification, Georgian army attempting to ethnically cleanse Ossetians. Georgians just had more brains and less nazism and backed off when things turned contrary to their US masters promises and Russian army moved on them.
I don't even know what you're talking about anymore, are you equating Vietnam liberating Cambodia from Pol Pot with Russia invading Ukraine?
Yes, though if anything, Russia have way more reasons than "just" the genocide of Russians and Russian speaking Ukrainians. I also want to note how USA have a long traditions of using proxies to destabilise countries and plunge them into wars, no matter who starts and for which reasons. Bonus points for first dividing them, but what else was done to USSR in 1991, remember that massive majority of Ukrainians voted against dissolution of USSR and independence of Ukraine.
I'm sorry but that passage from Foundations doesn't apply to every war you support. Vietnam was not waging a war of national liberation against Cambodian colonisers and it had nothing to do with Vietnamese self determination. I don't understand anymore why you say the things you're saying so I think I'll leave it here.
Trump and Farrage advocate against supporting Ukraine, are they anti-imperialist?
This is not a fair comparison. Russia has not yet reached the imperialist stage of capitalism. Russia's presence in West Asia and Africa is currently a counter to the imperialist West. Therefore, it currently has an anti-imperialist character. There is no doubt that Russia as a capitalist nation will eventually reach the stage of imperialism, or become imperialized.
Amerikkka and TERF Island are both imperialist nations. They will continue to be imperialist even if they were to pull out of Ukraine.
Genuine good faith question here. Did Russian oil companies play a role in the invasion of Ukraine? And if they did, was it in a monopolies expanding outside of the bounds of the Russian economy kind of way or was it of a different character?
Invasion of Ukraine was going contrary to their interests, as we could see in countless maneuvers around that. Not accidentally west decided to play all the sanctions, there was very real possiblity of Russia really keeling over under them like it was intended. If you look at this war as imperialist war from the Russian point of view, it does not have any sense to do it, it only have sense if you see that Russia is reacting to prevent its own recolonisation.
Gazprom is majority state owned so it's a bit difficult to separate these things since it's the Russian state that launched the SMO. That being said, the only accusations of resource theft that I've seen have come from the western mainstream media. The only evidence given being the invasion itself. IMO, Russia's initial position of attempting to have negotiations that would give autonomy to Donetsk and Luhansk while remaining a part of Ukraine shows that Russia's motivations are not the theft of resources.
WW1 Russian Empire was even further from reaching the imperialist stage of capitalism, yet Lenin did not consider it anti-imperialist. That's the context in which revolutionary defeatism theory was developed.
Lenin also called WWI the imperialist war. If anything, the Russian empire was on the side of imperialism. Modern Russia has aligned itself with the anti-imperialist block. This is an opportunistic alignment due to the western powers' hostility toward Russia, but for now, Russia's actions are a counter to empire.
Its a good answer, no idea why someone downvoted you. I think we agree in everything but semantics comrade. Happy new year!
Thank you comrade and happy new year to you too! Fwiw, I also don't consider Putin or the Russian ruling class to be anti-imperialists. You're probably correct that we're debating semantics.
I wouldn’t say that they “are anti-imperialist”. I might say that—from an empty, shallow, rhetorical standpoint—they are “doing an anti-imperialism”. Putin is doing a less shallow/empty anti-imperialism, because he’s gone beyond mere rhetoric, but I wouldn’t call him a principled anti-imperialist, but an opportunistic one.
What Davel said.
Pytania są tendencyjne
Fully agreed!
he absolutely wanted to join the imperialist forces, and asked several times to join NATO only to be kicked in the balls each time and told that he was the bad guy