This is nothing new. Liberals have always done this throughout history. They put all the blame on individuals to cover up the root cause of these constantly reoccuring wars and genocides.
Netanyahu isn’t the problem.
Israel is. The West is. Imperialism is. Capitalism is.
By: @commie______central
Russia doesn’t have the finance capital required to be imperialist, and as such in a conflict between the clear imperialist hegemony and a reactionary nationalist state like Russia, Russia plays a progressive role. Churchill was a monstrous imperialist that committed genocide in India, but the Soviet Union was correct in identifying the UK as an ally against Nazi Germany, the larger threat at the time. Russia isn’t even an actual imperialist, and therefore its sovereignty should be respected, rather than continuously encircled with missiles pointing directly at Moscow.
What a horseshit reply completely unsupported by verifiable reality.
Russia is progressive by kidnapping Ukrainian kids? By bombing cancer hospitals? BY FUNDING DON TRUMP Jr’s WEDDING?
Everything I said is based on fact. Russia has an absolutely paltry sum of finance capital on the world stage. From an economic perspective, Russia is unable to advance from a developing industrial capitalist economy to an imperialist economy, even if it wishes to, as the world is already presently dominated by the moribund western empire headed by the US. In a conflict between the clear imperial hegemon and a reactionary, nationalist regional power, the regional power plays a progressive role internationally.
Regarding Churchill, the genocide committed by the UK is fairly well-documented. The UK, unlike modern Russia, has a network of neocolonies and and a much, much larger portion of international finance capital. It is through this mechanism, along with unequal exchange, IP monopoly, and NATO encroachment, that the UK plays a very present role in upholding imperialism.
Regarding accusations of Russia kidnapping Ukrainian kids, this has generally been proven false. Russia does not abandon children on the battlefield as a rule, though the west frames this as “kidnapping.” Regarding the targeting of civilian infrastructure, Ukraine is just as guilty of this as Russia is, if not more, especially when we factor in the previous period of the Ukrainian Civil War before Russia joined.
I think this is really just a semantic argument because you seem to be writing specifically with Lenin’s rather narrow definition of imperialism in mind.
If we go by the common understanding of imperialism which has been in use for at least a century before Lenin even picked up a pen:
You can absolutely classify the aggression the Russian Federation inflicts on former Soviet states as imperialism.
Would Finland have joined NATO if Russia didn’t invade Ukraine?
Does their voluntary entry into a defensive alliance constitute an “encirclement”? Do they not have a right to conduct their own diplomacy as they see fit?
Furthermore, when both Russia and NATO agree that MAD is a legitimate defensive measure, can either argue in good faith that “stationing” missiles is aggression? Russia points missiles at NATO nations, NATO points them back, both blocs openly agree that this is what has prevented nuclear war from breaking out (so far).
Finally, while I don’t completely agree with the conflation of the US and NATO, I think we can agree that the US as an imperialist power has absolutely taken every measure it can to sabotage communist states. However should Russia not respect the sovereignty of smaller nations surrounding it? Based on the actions of Russia towards former Soviet states who remained “neutral”, joining NATO seems to be the only way for them to prevent a Russian invasion.
This is such a broad definition that it becomes meaningless.
How so?
You’re probably familiar with the US Civil War, yes?
The Confederacy declared independence and established itself as a new nation, the Union took exception to that and fought them.
Was that imperialism?
I see where you’re going with this. It’s interesting to think about.
I think the crux of this argument isn’t the definition of imperialism, but of nation. Which if given the same scrutiny, could also be considered to be too vague a definition to be useful.
Asking a confederate, they probably would have said yes. Asking anyone else? Well, not a single other nation on earth recognized the confederacy, so probably no.
But I think the objective ambiguity you’re pointing at doesn’t make a word useless. A policeman shoots and kills someone. One side says murder, the other doesn’t. That’s the same fundamental ambiguity, but it’s resolved when we apply objectivity to it. Murder as a word isn’t useless, the same as imperialism.
My issue isn’t with the word imperialism, but with imperialism as an existing material process. I don’t hold to Lenin’s analysis because I prefer Lenin, I hold to it because Lenin described an actual existing system that I actively oppose. I do not oppose anything anyone may want to label as imperialism simply because they call it as such. As for NATO being imperialist, that point isn’t based on voluntary joining or not, but the fact that it is a military coalition of imperialist countries.
Respectfully, how can you not see that your response is simply:
“If I ignore everything you wrote, and if you simply agree with what I want you to believe, I’m actually correct”.
Rereading your original post, it also seems to imply that if Russia was richer (remember that it is not a socialist nation, the Russian economy does run on finance capital), you would be happy to classify its actions as imperialism.
Based on this, out of principle should we not oppose these actions which are fundamentally unjust regardless of who is committing them?
I don’t see that because I didn’t say any of that. Moreover, I never denied that if Russia had larger finance capital that it would likely develop in an imperialist direction. The important part is that that is currently a fantasy, and not actual reality. I do oppose actions that are fundamentally unjust, that’s why I suppose the US empire and NATO encirclement of countries that provokes needless wars and bloodshed for western imperialist profit.
If I’m honest, it seems to me that you believe an evil in the context of a “bigger” evil is actually good.
I can’t accept that. Russia’s imperialism is evil, just like US imperialism is evil. I won’t defend or accept either.
I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on this.
I don’t believe analyzing the world through an idealist framing of “good” vs. “evil” is particularly effective. Russia’s entry into the Ukrainian Civil War was prompted by NATO repeatedly violating Russia’s sovereignty, as well as Kiev committing ethnic repressions against the separatists in the Donbass region, which circles back to the Euromaidan coup backed by the west, which circles back to imperialism as a material system during the era of monopoly finance capital. The US-led imperialist order is what caused the invasion in the first place, and ending this is what’s most important for the entire working class.
I think we’re both going to have to agree that we believe different propaganda.
You’re going to dismiss anything I post as “Western” fiction, and I’m going to dismiss anything you post as Russian misinformation.
“I assume everyone else is just as dishonest as me”
it’s not western fiction, the united states government itself has effectively already admitted lying about many things and ukraine will be the next one.
united states congress voted to ban weapons shipments to ukraine in 2018 because they were afraid that the nazi elements in ukraine would provoke a conflict w russia – this is a fact in writing available to the public for viewing – and you should be asking yourself why/how you believe the propaganda anyways.
This is always how it ends with the imperialist argument, trying to frame it as not imperialist and then back pedaling to implying that imperialism is good because actually the other guys are imperialist by MY definition of what imperialism is, not by Lenin’s “narrow” (lol) definition.
“We just believe different propaganda” doesn’t make any sense, you willingly admit you believe imperialist propaganda and that you’ll just dismiss anything that’s not western as “Russian disinformation”. What would even be the point in trying to reach out? you just hit a wall when it comes to history and modern current events, then you just straight up admit “well I won’t believe what you tell me so I’ll just keep on telling others the same thing that’s been debunked a million times”
Pathetic. Truly.
Can you explain what I have described as “western fiction,” and what I have said that is “Russian disinformation?” Surely you can point to one instance of either of these if that’s your conclusion.