this post was submitted on 30 Dec 2024
106 points (88.4% liked)

Memes

4074 readers
102 users here now

Good memes, bad memes, unite towards a united front.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
CriticalResist8@lemmygrad.ml
CranberryJuice@lemmygrad.ml
muad_dibber@lemmygrad.ml
106
“I am a leftist who hates Russia and China” (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 2 weeks ago by VictimOfAmerikkka@lemmygrad.ml to c/memes@lemmygrad.ml
99 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bunitor@lemmy.eco.br 9 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 10 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (2 children)

but imo it assumes commitment against imperialism in a fundamental level

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.

[–] bunitor@lemmy.eco.br 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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)

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 4 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago)

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..."

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)

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.

[–] Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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:

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.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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"?

[–] Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

It absolutely does apply here, you even boldened it yourself in previous post:

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

Unless you think country cannot be colonised when it's large and nominally independent, but again India and China prove that false.

[–] Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 3 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml -1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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

Koreans and Vietnamese in shambles now. Vietnamese even twice.

If Russia starts an all out war with Georgia I won’t support that either.

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.

[–] Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I don't even know what you're talking about anymore, are you equating Vietnam liberating Cambodia from Pol Pot with Russia invading Ukraine?

[–] PolandIsAStateOfMind@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 2 weeks ago

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.