The general Marxist take is that when Yanukovych was offered an IMF loan that required austerity policies and privatization of safety nets, and a Russian loan that did not come with the same restrictions, he went with the Russian loan and was couped for it, including a western-supported Banderite false-flag shooting. Following the western-supported coup, the areas in the Donbass region seceded, as they supported Yanukovych, are culturally and ethnically Russian, and were unhappy with the Banderites taking over the government under the cover of “democracy.” Said Banderites were also legally suppressing the Russian language in the Donbass region.
What ensued was a decade of fighting, 2 failed Minsk agreements that Kiev broke and admitted to never wanting to follow, and massive risk of NATO on Russia’s doorstep. The Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics requested Russian assistance, and Russia complied, sparking the next stage of the war.
Russia purely wants the Donbass region and NATO neutrality. They want the Donbass region not out of the kindness of their hearts, nor for plunder or further expansion, but because it’s a land bridge straight to Russia, the same route the Nazis took in World War II. NATO was building up because the West uses their millitary to threaten countries into opening up their economies to foreign plunder (like what’s happening right now in Venezuela), a tradition employed since NATO was founded, destroyed Yugoslavia and Libya, etc.
This is the common Marxist take, shared largely by PSL’s statement and FRSO’s statement. Essentially, the war is tragic, should end as quickly as possible, and was provoked by the west.
Nato is not a risk to russia, and never has been. Nato is a defensive alliance. The only way they’re a risk is if russia plans to attack them first. Anyone suggesting that nato provoked it is on something
NATO is the millitary alliance of the world’s imperialist powers. This group of countries uses this alliance to prevent the global south from going against it and liberating themselved from foreign plunder via overwhelming financial domination. The way imperialism tends to work in the modern day is countries like the US, France, Germany, UK, etc expropriate vast wealth from countries in the global south, similar to how capitalists steal value created by the working class.
NATO is as “defensive” as the Iron Dome in Israel. These countries export genocide and terrorism on the third world, expropriate huge sums of wealth, and then “defend” against anyone that pushes back against that.
George Washington Univ., 2017: NATO Expansion: What Gorbachev HeardDeclassified documents show security assurances against NATO expansion to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterrand, Thatcher, Hurd, Major, and Woerner
The Marxist definition of imperialism is more specific than just “big country invade small country”.
In, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism Lenin lays out five aspects of what makes Imperialism:
the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy;
the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and
the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
The question of “Is Russia Imperialist” isn’t a moral one, it’s a technical one. So if Russia were do to something that we all agree is morally reprehensible, that’s a separate concern from whether Russia is imperialist.
The technicality revolves around whether Russia has developed an oligarchy of Financial Capital, such that its invasion of Ukraine or other flexes of its influence, perpetuates the export of Russian finance capital around the world.
As it stands now, I don’t think that’s currently the case, but with Marxism being a dialectal philosophy, I do wonder if this war will accelerate that merging of Bank and industrial capital that Lenin discusses. It’s a Bourgeois states, and there’s financial capital in there somewhere that absolutely has an interest in forming a Russian imperialism.
So when people say “Russia isn’t Imperialist”, this is what’s being referred to. You can take it or leave it, but it’s worth getting into the weeds a bit, so we aren’t all talking passed each other
Marxist does not get to exclusively define what imperialism is. A more standard definition is far more reasonable to use. However, your comment is very informative to me, I’m glad you took the time to write this out
Marxist does not get to exclusively define what imperialism is
Marxism isn’t the only analytical lens out there, no. But the people you’re arguing with are working with that definition, which is why I took the time to clarify. Thank you for appreciating my effort post though lol
“A more standard definition” than the one that’s been in use for over a hundred years and accurately describes the dynamic in question? The definition liberals use is both new and entirely vibes-based. It is useless for anything but bringing geopolitical conversations to a screeching halt with murky equivocations. The Marxist definition exists to clarify, while the liberal definition exists to obscure. It’s the “socialism is when the government does stuff” of international relations.
The Marxist definition is strictly different, not a clarification. The Marxist one posits only capitalism can be imperialist, something I would say is strictly incorrect
The problem with the liberal definition is that it’s meant to erase capitalism from its natural, systemic compulsion towards imperialism, making it more of a policy choice. The Marxist understanding of imperialism is deeper and more accurate. You can think of the liberal definition as overly simplistic, broad, vague, and with no analysis of why countries become empires, while the Marxist understanding is deeper, more complex, more observable, and explains why some countries become empires (and thus gain massive amounts of wealth from their neocolonies), and their neocolonies remain underdeveloped.
Imperialism is quite literally the highest stage of capitalism. The way liberals use it is just as a synonym for “aggressive”. What definition do you propose that doesn’t make like, the D-Day landings imperialist? Downvote isn’t mine, btw
especially by a country and especially unprovoked.
Economically or militarily.
D-day wouldn’t be included because the goal wasn’t expansion. Though I would be very surprised if the usa and Europe hadn’t perpetrated many acts that should be included during the full course of the war.
And of course you can get into the argument of cultural imperialism as well
You’re talking about simple conquest. By that definition any offensive side in a war is imperialist, which is nonsensical as that means nearly every war in human history involved at least one “imperialist” power.
Imperialism is system of establishing and maintaining hegemony over large areas for the benefit of an elite (capital in modern times, patricians in ancient times, etc) within a metropole (probably too simple of a definition but it works). The Romans were an empire not just because they had an emperor and not because they conquered lands, but because they controlled lands from Spain to Syria and wealth flowed from those lands into Rome.
It was an inter-imperialist war except on the eastern front, where it was a war to destroy communism. The capitalist Allies and the USSR were an alliance of convenience, which is why the West made the USSR its enemy the moment the war ended.
Why do you think they’re invading Ukraine. Sparkles and rainbows?
The general Marxist take is that when Yanukovych was offered an IMF loan that required austerity policies and privatization of safety nets, and a Russian loan that did not come with the same restrictions, he went with the Russian loan and was couped for it, including a western-supported Banderite false-flag shooting. Following the western-supported coup, the areas in the Donbass region seceded, as they supported Yanukovych, are culturally and ethnically Russian, and were unhappy with the Banderites taking over the government under the cover of “democracy.” Said Banderites were also legally suppressing the Russian language in the Donbass region.
What ensued was a decade of fighting, 2 failed Minsk agreements that Kiev broke and admitted to never wanting to follow, and massive risk of NATO on Russia’s doorstep. The Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics requested Russian assistance, and Russia complied, sparking the next stage of the war.
Russia purely wants the Donbass region and NATO neutrality. They want the Donbass region not out of the kindness of their hearts, nor for plunder or further expansion, but because it’s a land bridge straight to Russia, the same route the Nazis took in World War II. NATO was building up because the West uses their millitary to threaten countries into opening up their economies to foreign plunder (like what’s happening right now in Venezuela), a tradition employed since NATO was founded, destroyed Yugoslavia and Libya, etc.
This is the common Marxist take, shared largely by PSL’s statement and FRSO’s statement. Essentially, the war is tragic, should end as quickly as possible, and was provoked by the west.
Nato is not a risk to russia, and never has been. Nato is a defensive alliance. The only way they’re a risk is if russia plans to attack them first. Anyone suggesting that nato provoked it is on something
Anything’s possible when you make shit up kiddo
NATO is the millitary alliance of the world’s imperialist powers. This group of countries uses this alliance to prevent the global south from going against it and liberating themselved from foreign plunder via overwhelming financial domination. The way imperialism tends to work in the modern day is countries like the US, France, Germany, UK, etc expropriate vast wealth from countries in the global south, similar to how capitalists steal value created by the working class.
NATO is as “defensive” as the Iron Dome in Israel. These countries export genocide and terrorism on the third world, expropriate huge sums of wealth, and then “defend” against anyone that pushes back against that.
Yeah man ask Libya and Yugoslavia how defended they feel
Nato is a defensive alliance just like cops are there to help you
NATO expansion:
NATO in general:
Invading / starting a war is not the same thing as imperialism.
Invading for territory gain is absolutely synonymous with imperialistic tendencies
The Marxist definition of imperialism is more specific than just “big country invade small country”.
In, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism Lenin lays out five aspects of what makes Imperialism:
The question of “Is Russia Imperialist” isn’t a moral one, it’s a technical one. So if Russia were do to something that we all agree is morally reprehensible, that’s a separate concern from whether Russia is imperialist.
The technicality revolves around whether Russia has developed an oligarchy of Financial Capital, such that its invasion of Ukraine or other flexes of its influence, perpetuates the export of Russian finance capital around the world.
As it stands now, I don’t think that’s currently the case, but with Marxism being a dialectal philosophy, I do wonder if this war will accelerate that merging of Bank and industrial capital that Lenin discusses. It’s a Bourgeois states, and there’s financial capital in there somewhere that absolutely has an interest in forming a Russian imperialism.
So when people say “Russia isn’t Imperialist”, this is what’s being referred to. You can take it or leave it, but it’s worth getting into the weeds a bit, so we aren’t all talking passed each other
Marxist does not get to exclusively define what imperialism is. A more standard definition is far more reasonable to use. However, your comment is very informative to me, I’m glad you took the time to write this out
Marxism isn’t the only analytical lens out there, no. But the people you’re arguing with are working with that definition, which is why I took the time to clarify. Thank you for appreciating my effort post though lol
“A more standard definition” than the one that’s been in use for over a hundred years and accurately describes the dynamic in question? The definition liberals use is both new and entirely vibes-based. It is useless for anything but bringing geopolitical conversations to a screeching halt with murky equivocations. The Marxist definition exists to clarify, while the liberal definition exists to obscure. It’s the “socialism is when the government does stuff” of international relations.
The Marxist definition is strictly different, not a clarification. The Marxist one posits only capitalism can be imperialist, something I would say is strictly incorrect
The problem with the liberal definition is that it’s meant to erase capitalism from its natural, systemic compulsion towards imperialism, making it more of a policy choice. The Marxist understanding of imperialism is deeper and more accurate. You can think of the liberal definition as overly simplistic, broad, vague, and with no analysis of why countries become empires, while the Marxist understanding is deeper, more complex, more observable, and explains why some countries become empires (and thus gain massive amounts of wealth from their neocolonies), and their neocolonies remain underdeveloped.
Imperialism is quite literally the highest stage of capitalism. The way liberals use it is just as a synonym for “aggressive”. What definition do you propose that doesn’t make like, the D-Day landings imperialist? Downvote isn’t mine, btw
aggression with an expansionist agenda.
especially by a country and especially unprovoked.
Economically or militarily.
D-day wouldn’t be included because the goal wasn’t expansion. Though I would be very surprised if the usa and Europe hadn’t perpetrated many acts that should be included during the full course of the war.
And of course you can get into the argument of cultural imperialism as well
A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square.
Ok but the person above just denied that a square was a rectangle
Look at those goalposts fly
No goalposts have moved dude
It literally is? They are expanding power over a foreign nation via military means. That’s basically the definition of imperialism.
You’re talking about simple conquest. By that definition any offensive side in a war is imperialist, which is nonsensical as that means nearly every war in human history involved at least one “imperialist” power.
Imperialism is system of establishing and maintaining hegemony over large areas for the benefit of an elite (capital in modern times, patricians in ancient times, etc) within a metropole (probably too simple of a definition but it works). The Romans were an empire not just because they had an emperor and not because they conquered lands, but because they controlled lands from Spain to Syria and wealth flowed from those lands into Rome.
The Soviet Union expanded their power over Germany via military means. WW2 was simply an inter-imperialist war.
You jest but this is genuinely what libs believe
It was an inter-imperialist war except on the eastern front, where it was a war to destroy communism. The capitalist Allies and the USSR were an alliance of convenience, which is why the West made the USSR its enemy the moment the war ended.
Edie is being sarcastic, btw.
The imperialist D-Day landings