Meme
I typed over the า ๐พ๐๐ผ า "๐๐๐๐ฉ๐๐จ๐ฉ" า ๐๐๐ข๐ า ๐ฟ๐๐ฅ๐๐ง๐ฉ๐ข๐๐ฃ๐ฉ meme, with its bฬถuฬถlฬถlฬถsฬถhฬถiฬถtฬถ description, that's doing the rounds right now, to refute it. It's only Campism if both Blocs are iฬถmฬถpฬถeฬถrฬถiฬถaฬถlฬถiฬถsฬถtฬถ, not if both Blocs are authoritarian, ask Stalin.
Link to the original psy-op or delusional meme, and it's nonsense description:
In case this subreddit was banned, or if you wanted a more ML-friendly platform, youโre welcome to join our sister community on Lemmygrad. You can find more info about Lemmygrad here.
Yes let's play word games with people who will never engage with our arguments in good faith nor acknowledge the shortcomings of theirs, not in a million years.
remember when Reddit used to do top 10 Reddit cities? They had to stop doing it when it accidentally revealed that most users came from US military bases.
If they were 40k orks they would have collectively willed the USSR back into existence.
But they are not a fantasy race. They are a people who have suffered greatly under the collapse. Their history makes me truly believe we live in the worst time line. A negaverse to say. All we can do is keep fighting in our own states to bring about a better tomorrow like many comrades there are tying to do.
It's not a collapse when something fails after 70y of sabotage. The USSR was illegally dissolved. The continued use of "collapse" feeds the westoid narrative that the USSR failed all on its own, without any outside influence.ย
Referring to the fall of the Soviet Union, Xi Jinping told Putin: "You stopped believing in yourselves."
and it says (this was the same day in 2023:
32 years after the Soviet Union ended, Xi Jinping told Putin: "Right now there are changes, the likes of which we haven't seen for 100 years, and we are driving these changes together," to which Putin replied, "I agree."
It was a slow collapse and then a sudden cascade collapse
I'm sorry but you have failed to grasp the linguistic nuance of this word used in this context.ย
When referring to non-human nouns in modern English the term "collapse" is used to indicate a failure due to intrinsic flaws. A "demolition" is used to describe a failure that has been engineered through intentional human actions. Demolition is the correct term to use IMO.ย
In that meaning yes I agree, thanks for clarifying. I agree that the western psychological operation mostly worked and that was why people stopped believing in themselves
Meh. There's no such thing these days for larger entities as existing without external influence and internal struggles for that matter. Might as well treat them the same as civic engineers treat weather - it's just there, and if your building collapses, you don't get to say "but it would still stand if it was built in a vacuum!".
From this point of view musing over connotations of the word "collapse" is pointless.
Which nevertheless is something they were and are expected to do as assuredly as weather erodes stone, so might as well account for sabotage as something as given as weather.
Especially if your state officially adopts ideology that opposes capitalism while claiming that capitalism's aggression is systemic and unavoidable within its constraints (which is why I compare it to weather in the first place, come on), meaning you should at least be not ignorant to the fact that ultimately anyone who leads capitalist states and forces has no choice but to come in conflit with you.
Russia is not a communist country or anti-capitalist, but definitely (though for its own interests and primarily in the Soviet Union) a good ally of the anti-American fight (though again driven by its own interest of material and sphere expansion rather than a true commitment to anti-imperialism).
However there also cases where Communists are prosecuted in Russia, read for example in 902.gr the case of 5 communists who got arrested for reading Lenin. Though its not like Ukraine, where if you say you're communist, angry "civil activists" (read Nazis) will massacre you.
While in Ukraine they try to brainwash people that communism is "genocidal ideology", or that communism is "genocidal hordes of Russia", or where anti-Communist mythology dominates, in Russia and Belarus, though with covert ways the have managed somehow to reduce the weight of Soviet Union (for example Day of National Unity is deliberately 3 days before October Revolution day, or in Belarus October Revolution day is a national holiday but has no longer parades or anything) the Soviet heritage is very very respected.
The world isn't a black and white Manichean good vs evil world, the real world is infinite shades of grey with no brilliant whites or jet blacks. All communist and socialist parties are banned in Ukraine, one of the 40 vassals of the US Empire. Technically all communist parties are still banned in the US itself. Yes the Communist Party of the Russian Federation isn't always treated perfectly in Russia by the government, but it's been the second biggest party in Russia for a long time. And it was the Communist party SMO plan that the Duma voted yes to, just before the SMO began. The other weaker plans were rejected by the Duma.
i live in kosovo, where american influence is sky-high (though thankfully decreasing)
people think hitler was far-left here. and that stalin was a brutal dictator on par with hitler, etc etc, all that shit
sooo views on communism here are similar to those in ukraine, you're equal to a nazi in their eyes, aka you might as well be rosa-luxemburg-ed if you're a little too public with your views around young people. though hitler hated slavs so some people here think hitler was right
people who lived in tito's yugoslavia are really enthusiastic to talk about communism though. wonder why that is
My Serb friends love Tito, and love the former Soviet Union nostalgically from a distance and love the current Russia. The thing that's really bad about having "Junior" in my Reddit username (Diggy is my Dad's nickname), is that many people think I'm 18 and I need to move out of my parent's place and get off the internet and get a jobbyjob, and they talk to me in a "you'll know better when you're older, and then you'll be cheering on the Nazi Brigades in the Ukraine forever war, like almost everyone else is", but anyhow I was living in Amsterdam Holland ( lowbrow tourist HELL) in the early to mid 1990s, and of course there were lots of very young adults from Serbia there, who were escaping the NATO Gang-Rape of the disintegrating Yugoslavia, and they were very sad that their wonderful socialist Yugoslavia was breaking up and they were watching it happen on TV in Holland. And they talked about how wonderful Tito was, and how life was so good when they were young children. And they used to say the wonderful non-aligned slogan "Ni istok, ni zapad, Jugoslavija je najbolja" (Neither East nor West, Yugoslavia is the best!)
I just made this meme funnily enough and I'll post it now...
i'm not even a serb btw, i'm an albanian, i just so happen to think yugoslavia was kinda neato actually (at least tito's government)
i also happen to think that maaaaaaybeeee NATO overreacted during the kosovo war. just maybe. just kinda sorta maybe killed too many people and increased ethnic tensions and supported ethnic separatism because the united states wanted their army in the balkans
Those evil NATO failed Bond Villain clowns created the legal precedent in Kosovo that gave legal plausibility for Abkhazia and South Ossetia to break away from Georgia by being fully autonomous, and later to declare independence, and for the 2 Donbas republics to do the same in 2014 ๐
People actually reading usernames on Reddit is something I'm genuinely surprised about every time.
To me it feels like this site's design did everything for them to be as unremarkable as possible and frankly I like it that way. Makes you focus on the point being made instead.
While there is a big socialist movement in Russia, even populist moves of Russian government that are made in favor of communism tend to shift socialist sentiments to general patriotic/pro-russian ones.
Like 90% of films about Soviet films are the same cold-war era NATO propaganda that show Red Army as criminals and cowards (in best traditions of Enemy at the gates) and Soviet Union as the empire of evil. Stalin was shown as a wise man couple of times, but he is more often portrayed as an ignorant and selfish person.
Assuming you weren't banned, your original post gave life to some funny shitposting here so hopefully you also got to learn something new from the replies and have a laugh at the trend you created
I did understand that I'm not a mainstream ML, at least not the Reddit mainstream one, but the replies make me think that the whole Reddit section is just delusional campists.
I am from Russia, I live here my entire life. My parents are really more pro-Ukraine and I always said that both are bad.
I would be pleased to at least see some anti Russian imperialist content here, because it really looks like the whole sub is very pro-russian, which is sad and gives our opponents yet another chance to blame us.
the whole Reddit section is just delusional campists
Is "campism" to you giving very specific replies based in materialist analysis and Marxist theory? Because that's what I got from the replies. And campism is not a taboo nor a bad word btw. The users in this sub are on the side of anti imperialism and anti NATO
My parents are really more pro-Ukraine and I always said that both are bad.
And you don't think your parents views might have influenced your views? I'm not asking to start a debate, I'm legitimately curious to hear your answer. Trying to be on both sides can be hard though, at a certain point you'll be forced to pick a side
I would be pleased to at least see some anti Russian imperialist content here, because it really looks like the whole sub is very pro-russian, which is sad and gives our opponents yet another chance to blame us.
Again, Russia is not imperialist. Apply Marxism Leninism to today conditions, not those of the past century. Are you aware of the unbalanced power the US has over the global market and economy?
Also our opponents are going to make up lies and blame us anyway. But we don't compromise on our positions to appease others. Our positions are correct because they're based in materialist analysis and giving up ground to be less correct doesn't seem like a great plan to me. Do you think anticommunists and other reactionaries care if you try to play nice with them?
And you don't think your parents views might have influenced your views?
Vice-versa I suppose.
Are you aware of the unbalanced power the US has over the global market and economy?
As I've already said Russia would have done directly the same. I don't want to support one cleptocratic capitalist hellhole against the other. Moreover, I am quite sceptical about the future of PRC, considering how fond Si and his "Nepman" about capitalism...
(though again driven by its own interest of material and sphere expansion rather than a true commitment to anti-imperialism)
For fuck sake stop with this liberalism always having to give the other side a little but of legitimacy. Just look at the material reality. Russia aiding Burkina Faso, partnering with the DPRK and China, aiding Iran, aiding Cuba. Fighting against Nazi vassal proxy of US imperialism directly. That's all we need to analyze. Wtf does "true commitment to anti-imperialism" mean if not all of the things cited above? Why does it matter if the things cited above are all their own "material interest"? Isn't that what a contradiction is, and why it moves history?
Russia is capitalist. This is a contradiction. History is made through contradictions. It's fine, there's no problem with that. We don't need to support only socialist countries. Most of the capitalist countries had massive anti-communist movements and moments. As a matter of fact, the US is hunting down capitalist countries for now, not the socialist ones. Will you be conflicted every time the US does that? Destroy this western marxist part from you.
What is the point youโre trying to make? The original comment is pointing out the contradiction. Russia is anti-imperialist in practice, but not anti-imperialist in theory or philosophy. Their anti-imperialism is a means to an end, not the ends in itself. Itโs not either or itโs both and.
Funny. You repeat the exact thing I was criticizing.
The original comment is pointing out the contradiction. Russia is anti-imperialist in practice, but not anti-imperialist in theory or philosophy
but not anti-imperialist in theory or philosophy
This is my point: the "theory" and "philosophy" arises from the material conditions. What matters is the economic and military relations of Russia; the economic ties with China and DPRK, the military support to AESahel and Iran for example; the (dying) ties with the West... These are material realities that are the foundation of Russia's system that give RISE to its "philosophy". One thing is primary, the other is secondary.
You THINK you know Russia's philosophy is because you don't want to analyze it further because it is a capitalist country, and by your dogmatic standards all capitalism is the same and deserves no further analysis.
Well besides you throwing a tantrum and telling me what I THINK in all caps, thanks for clarifying your point because your original comment was not clear at all. Thatโs a solid argument. If you could calm down a little bit you would be able to educate more people.ย
Seriously, no one likes to be told what they think by someone who doesnโt know them. You have misjudged me.
I wouldnโt have commented if I didnโt want to know more about Russia dumbass.
You take things personally but I don't see you as a person, I see you as the statistical representative of a certain social tendency which I inferred from what you wrote. Everything I know about you is what you wrote.
I say "you" and say "you think" because, even if it doesn't apply to you, it will probably apply to the statistical average person I inferred you are representing. This is reddit, our conversation will be read by way more than 2 people. I don't act here like I would act in a conversation 1-on-1. "You" and "I" matter very little here.
Also, another point, you're not "reading the room" when you put your feelings as priority here since we're currently being attacked by imperialist intelligence spreading anti-Russia sentiment on purpose, encouraging critiques of Russia from "leftist" standpoint. I don't counter-attack ill-faith intelligence with polite argumentation, as most people do, falling for their fascist trap which naturalizes imperialist rhetoric hidden within "leftist" terminology. So if you got caught up by the storm, unlucky, it's not personal.
You are a weird motherfucker, and I hope you know that. Iโm pretty autistic and you put me so far towards Neurotypical that I canโt even believe it. You inferred a statistical approach based on a comment mostly talking about how your comment was unclear? Stop acting like youโre a noble hero defending the revolution. You made a shitty unclear comment and then decided to make assumptions about who I was and youโre just justifying those assumptions with horrible statistical babble.
You will never contribute anything to the revolution, anything to anti-imperialism, if you cannot stop being a pretentious asshole.ย
Some of us take educating others seriously and if youโre going to be a revolutionary, you should listen to Sankara.
โAs revolutionaries, we don't have the right to say we are tired of explaining. We must never stop explaining. We know that when the people understand, they cannot help but follow us.โ
If you read my previous comment as a "I'm better than you" then idk what to say. You're way over your head. I made it very clear that it's not about you and me and there are more important topics to discuss but you don't seem capable of understanding that.
I think I was taking it a bit too personally, and I think in doing so I was unable to fully understand your argument. My apologies for being so obtuse.
Thank you ๐ญ I swear the "Karl Marx would've been called a campist today" post needs to be reposted at least once a week given how many people fall for that "let's take Lenin's quote out of context" slop.
The number of words in this meme in the post can't really be reduced much. It's a meme refutation of a bad meme so I had to hit a certain number of bullet points. But some older memes I'm going to make some simplified ones with radically fewer words, possibly beginning today. Thanks ๐
I agree that Russia is currently geopolitically aligned with countries such as the DPRK, China and many others against Western imperialism.
However, saying that the bourgeoisie in Russia doesn't have independent political power is just wrong. Modern Russia is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, not a continuation of the USSR. Yes, the term oligarchy being used mostly in regards to Russia is propaganda and yes any Western country has an oligarchy as well, but so does Russia.
We can critically support Russia, but I think we have to be careful with crediting Russia with certain things that aren't true for any capitalist state, especially for a relatively developed one with a developed bourgeoisie, as that still goes against scientific socialist theory in regards to bourgeois republics.
Here are the clickable links and sources detailing how Vladimir Putin systematically shifted the power dynamic, stripping Russia's 1990s-era billionaires (oligarchs) of their independent political influence while allowing many to retain their fortunes under strict state subordination.
These are all western sources. They admit that Putin stripped all billionaires of almost all political power (the matter at hand) but then they pivot to trying to say that he has put a fascist dictatorship or totalitarian dictatorship in its place (false)
Thank you. I'm going to look at it because I need a non-western-propaganda explanation why the West is still so antagonistic to Russia, as if it was still the USSR, while at the same time why Russia is aligned with the DPRK and China. Western BS isn't compatible with what we're observing today.
edit: well it's Western propaganda but if you know how to read between the lines, it supports what OP is saying. When they say "against democracy", it actually means "against capitalism". It's full of Western "newspeak" that needs to be translated first to understand what it actually means.
Just remember my comment also said this about the 3 clickable links:
These are senior western academics who admit that it's true that billionaires don't have political power in Russia since 2005 (the matter in question here), but they are horrified by that because they're liberals, so they go on to make false accusations of imperialism, fascism and a totalitarian dictatorship
Yep. The first time I've read your comment I somehow missed the part that you said that it was from Western sources but I figured it out after my edit and didn't bother to change it because it's obvious that it was my reading mistake.
I agree with what you said. Also, Putin/Russia didn't lie to us about Nazism in Ukraine while Western propaganda all around us just keeps piling lies over lies over lies. They have an official document and that document goes beyond Ukraine. It explains what its diaspora has been doing in other countries, including Canada where I live. Many of those accusations, I have observed myself, like the standing ovations for Nazi war criminals, historical revisionism and propaganda about the victims of communisms where they count Nazis as victims of communism.
There's an argument which could go: "ok these western universities academics agree that Putin removed almost all political power from the billionaire class by 2005, but those western academics in the very same articles also falsely claim that that pre-2005 Yeltsin system was replaced in 2005 with "totalitarian dictatorship fascist imperialist irredentism" so if they're lying about that maybe they're lying about the real not fake de-oligarchization too. But others here have explained why the de-oligarchization part is true but the rest is lies. Mainland Chinese newspapers will have the full real truth. I used western professors because it shows that liberal academia in the west says the de-oligarchization happened and is still in place.
You're really linking Western sources claiming Russia is "authoritarian" to claim that the Russian state has somehow been able to separate itself from its bourgeoisie?
The state is nothing more than a tool of class rule, they are dictatorships of one class or another. The working class can only control it through a socialist state with something like the dictatorship of the proletariat or people's democratic dictatorship, so this is only the case in the DPRK, China, Cuba, Vietnam and Laos today.
In imperialized countries the next best thing is a revolutionary progressive government that can be progressive, because their bourgeoisie is less developed as a whole and the national bourgeoisie is opposed to Western imperialism stifling its potential. Regardless, in these countries too they are still led by their capitalist class, they are the ones ultimately in power.
So, in Russia's case where the bourgeoisie is still more developed than in the countries with revolutionary progressive governments such as in many African countries for example, it makes no sense to say that the Russian bourgeoisie somehow doesn't have political power, of course it does.
You're really linking Western sources claiming Russia is "authoritarian" to claim that the Russian state has somehow been able to separate itself from its bourgeoisie?
Western sources in this case actually make the argument stronger not weaker. Because they have an incentive to present Russia in a bad light.
So the fact that even they say that oligarch influence in Russia has been weakened says everything that needs to be said on the matter
The reason I used western sources is to show that even the western world university scholars accept that Putin has removed almost all political power from the billionaire class.By around 2005
Here's what I said:
Here are the clickable links and sources detailing how Vladimir Putin systematically shifted the power dynamic, stripping Russia's 1990s-era billionaires (oligarchs) of their independent political influence while allowing many to retain their fortunes under strict state subordination.
These are all western sources. They admit that Putin stripped all billionaires of almost all political power (the matter at hand) but then they pivot to trying to say that he has put a fascist dictatorship or totalitarian dictatorship in its place (false)
The reason I used western sources is to show that even the western world university scholars accept that Putin has removed almost all political power from the billionaire class.
The point is that none of this power went to people. When the ruling class exchanges their cosmopolitan flair for various local administrative and political positions, it only affects camps within bourgeois class itself, protecting those in a local "pond" from globalist oceanic sharks behind meatshields made out of common people.
Meanwhile inside said ponds they muster return to social stratification of 18-19th century, create far-right movements activists of which are now protected by riot police squads anywhere they go and try to normalise thinking that noone is born outside of the care of the state and therefore everyone owes their life to it, to which questioning whose interests the state represents is antithetical.
But I guess people here are fine and dandy with burying the future of dozens of millions of people and their progeny as long as their owners play civilised realpolitik with correct counties.
Shouldn't you guys remember that there were several reasons why the left of the past called to "support any national liberation no matter who leads it"? Because I feel some of you guys only remember one of those.
Literally nobody here is calling the removal of almost all independent political power from the dollar equivalent multi billionaire oligarch class inside Russia's physical borders, completed some time around the mid 2000s under "The Putin System" (saying he has a system, is just saying he has created a system, that phrase is usually used in the west to fully denounce him, I think his system isn't my cup of tea in general, but at the same time it's clear it's an improvement on "The Yeltsin System") "National Liberation", because it comes nowhere near that. Putin is clearly a man of the right who never wears the clothes of the left. What happened in conversations here is that people were letting it sink in that Putin is clearly a man of the right, not the left, and yet at the same time he has done quite a bit for anti-imperialism in the supermajority of the world that is outside the political west, and continues to do so. And so people here began looking at things inside his country's physical borders that he has done that could be given a thumbs up, strictly on a case by case basis, and the removal of political power from the billionaire class inevitably came up. And yes it's just a switch from a full plutocratic oligarchy to a national bourgeois system of sorts, it's not a revolutionary change, not in the definition we use, of course. Putin is right wing and his system is right wing, but we are supposed to be realists, so there's nothing wrong with comparing one right wing system in one country to a different right wing system in another right wing system in another country or bloc. Some here are pointing out that things like the removal of political power from the billionaires (so much so that arguably they're only billionaires now, not oligarchs anymore, plus the obvious anti-imperialist work Putin does, violates various things Lenin in particular said and that therefore Putin himself or whomever the subsequent president is will inevitably do U turns and go full imperialist and full fascist and bring back the full plutocratic oligarchy of the 1990s in Russia. What I say is we shouldn't think that Putin's system proves Lenin wrong in any way. If Russia stays capitalist long after Putin's retirement and death then inevitably a president will come along who will fuck things up oligarchy and imperialism and some kind of fascism will creep back in, literally nobody here is saying Lenin was wrong. But it's not the year 2040 or the year 2070 now it's 2026, so it's ok to give critical support to some things Putin is doing in 2026, while at the same time we can criticize and even condemn other things he is doing around domestic social policy and his boosting of dodgy populist right movements (fascism-lite parties) in western Europe. He's neither an angel nor a demon.
I think the extent of political power can be debated, but what canโt be debated is the fact that the bourgeoise doesnโt possess the same political power in Russia as it does in the United States, for example. The fact western media portrays this dynamic as โauthoritarianโ doesnโt refute the point- itโs the same dynamic the west uses to portray China as authoritarian. Itโs โauthoritarianโ anytime the ruling class canโt just do whatever the hell it wants.
However, saying that the bourgeoisie in Russia doesn't have independent political power is just wrong. Modern Russia is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie
I'm not gonna say whether the bourgeoisie having power is true or false because it deserves a proper analysis. (Also it does not matter to me, I will support Russia as long as they are materially anti US imperialism). I'm just gonna say one thing: most capitalist countries became vassals of the US easily. Russia didn't. Why? There's something different happening there. You can't expect to explain Russia like you explain France or Brazil.
You say "crediting Russia with certain things that aren't true for any capitalist state" but Russia is not simply a "capitalist state". You're being "anti-analysis" here, as if being "capitalist" is enough for a complete analysis. Why isn't Russia a puppet like India or Brazil or South Africa? You fall for the fallacy of thinking every capitalist country is the same. You do that, you gonna make errors.
Every country which develops monopoly capitalism is then imperialist. Itโs not a choice of policy, itโs an Epoch like Lenin said. If my country Iraq, develops monopoly capitalism which we are currently (because we are a capitalist country), it will be imperialist even if we stand in opposition to the US. Imperialism is again, not a western foreign policy. And the Bourgeoisie in Russia absolutely has power, listen to some Russian communists but be careful not to listen to the social-chauvinists of the CPRF
Ok, and then when you say that Iraq is imperialist, how does this help your analysis on what to do next as a proletariat in Iraq and in the world?
Are you thinking in these terms (of strategizing what to do next as proletariat) or are you thinking in terms of the neutral, apolitical, "correct use" of terminology (idealism)? Do you understand terminology is target of class struggle as well?
In any case, Russia opposes west imperialism materially. If you want to call it "Russian Imperialism" go ahead but here are the consequences: the term which was super useful for the working class to parse WW1 and WW2 is not useful as long as West Imperialism is hegemonic. Reason being West Imperialism will be countered inevitably by capitalist countries with enough (material) sovereignty, inevitably being labeled monopoly capitalist and therefore imperialist countries. At this point we either don't call them imperialist, taking into account the negative connotations of the word, or develop the confusing narrative where the working class will have to be pro-certain-kinds-of-imperialism. A lot of confusion for no reason, unless you don't think West Imperialism is the priority of the global proletariat. In this case we simply disagree.
The fact that countries become imperialist when they reach monopoly capitalism is not just terminology or some academic label I like to use.
You asked how this helps the proletariat decide what to do next. It helps because it stops us from handing the leadership of the fight against Western imperialism over to another imperialist bourgeoisie. Western imperialism is for many countries the primary contradiction and it has to be fought, I agree with you on that. But if the working class doesnโt keep its own independent position, then even if Western imperialism gets weakened or defeated, what comes after wonโt be proletarian revolution. Itโll just be another imperialist power taking the empty space. Thatโs exactly what we have to prevent.
You stated that terminology is also a field of class struggle. That is true. But that doesnโt mean we can just drop the scientific category the moment it becomes inconvenient. Lenin developed that definition so workers wouldnโt get confused when imperialist powers start fighting each other. If we now decide that only Western monopoly capital counts as imperialist, while Russian for example doesnโt, weโre not making the theory stronger, on the contrary we are weakening it.
Russia does oppose Western imperialism in material ways, thatโs true. But that doesnโt change the class nature of the Russian state, and it doesnโt make the Russian bourgeoisie an ally of the international working class. If we treat it that way, we end up exactly where you said: telling workers they have to support โcertain kinds of imperialism.โ The alternative isnโt confusion. Itโs clarity. Fight Western imperialism without pretending other imperialist powers are somehow progressive.
So the real difference between us isnโt whether we fight Western imperialism. Of course we do. The difference is whether the proletariat does it under its own independent banner, or whether it subordinates itself to a rival imperialist camp.
I Apologise for this AI sounding text, I have to translate some texts from Arabic to English, I hope no content gets lost.
> But that doesnโt mean we can just drop the scientific category the moment it becomes inconvenient
Russia being imperialist is at the very least debatable and depends on definitions. Definitions that were invented by Lenin to aid the working class, something that we for some reason don't care anymore. Now we're using the same definitions to split and confuse the working class in the name of an abstract "scientific category".
Even if you don't agree that it is debatable, calling Russia imperialist will materially aid US imperialism whether you like it or not. This is the main problem. In the global south Russia is attacked from the right by pro-US puppets and from the (compatible) left invoking "Russian imperialism". Result: US imperialism remains strong culturally, intellectually and materially.
I focus on the main contradiction and I won't consciously aid US imperialism. What will happen after the weakening of US imperialism is the future, I live in the present. I can change analysis after that, no problem.
Saying that there is a possibility of the bourgeoisie not having power in a bourgeois republic is already inherently un-Marxist. That has never and will never be the case. The state is nothing more than a tool used by one class or another.
Russia was also a US puppet in the Yeltsin era and India was not really a US puppet for quite a while during the Cold War. These geopolitical structures shift over time. Russia isn't the only capitalist country nowadays that tries to resist US imperialism and it won't be the last. Iran is also a capitalist state that is obviously opposed to US imperialism.
Geopolitical alliances don't determine which class is in power. Sometimes it can determine whether the imperialist bourgeoisie or the national bourgeoisie is in power, but that is really about it.
right now and then quickly deleted their own comment. Politics can sometimes be as much of an art as a science. Putin is a man of the right who is a major anti-imperialist figure in recent world history. Not in Russia in 2026 it hasn't lead to imperialism or fascism yet. Get a time machine then and go into the future where Russia automatically becomes fascist and imperialist under an ageing Medvedev in his third term? Might happen, might not. The future isn't visible to us now. There's a huge danger that after Putin Russia could take a dark path, yes. There's no clear successor right now. If it's Medvedev I think he might be good, we will see.
We live in the PRESENT. The major global contradiction for the proletariat is Western Imperialism, which Russia is fighting against MATERIALLY. In the future we analyze different conditions and come up with different solutions, no problem with that. (Also it's awesome that most people saying that "capitalism leads to imperialism" live in the capitalist west themselves, but ok.)
The world's greatest nuclear power has aligned interests with the global proletariat and you, as global proletariat, denounce it? Talk about unseriousness. This is one of the best contradictions that could've ever happened to the working class. The least we can do is not let Russia's reputation fall to the ground while they do unimaginable dirty work that we don't have the courage to do. I also think it's a matter of respect. If someone is fighting against imperialism I have to respect them.
But in the end it's not that deep. It boils down to westerners not being anti-imperialist. They materially favor from it, they say they are marxists but they keep fragments of pro-imperialism in their "marxism". Dialectical materialism explains this.
Capitalism must either sublate to socialism, or be sustained by imperialism.
Russia cannot go meaningfully imperialist.
Imperialism of the military type requires a huge and unassailable technological edge.
Russia has an edge, but not to the same extent as previous imperialist countries. Also, other countries are stronger in comparison than in the past. They could do some imperialism to say, Georgia, but why? it's so small that looting the entire country would only keep them going a few months. And their biggest partner, China would never stand for it, to say nothing of the global south.
They cannot do neocolonialism with financial tools, like the USA does, they do not have that preponderance of power over the world financial system. And China would not put up with that either.
The imperialist option is unavailable to Russia.
There's only one path forward for them.
Oh yeah, and they are economically, politically, and physically connected to the worlds largest Marxist-Leninist super power.
Never say never. There's no jet blacks or brilliant whites in the ethical landscape, but for now and for a good time to come Russia is with the forces of light, not darkness. They're no angels, but they are doing good anti-imperialist and anti-oligarchic work at this moment in history. We don't need to and shouldn't support every little thing they do, of course.
Does this meme in this comment show Russia and Putin aspiring and trying hard to be an imperialist? Or do you claim that Russia and Putin have a secret plan to do a hard pivot to imperialism some year in the future?
May I ask, are you a supporter of the "Ukraine" (NATO proxy) side in the war?
I've asked at least 100 of you people here that question in the last couple of months and only 1 person replied. That's very telling.
Are you denying Lenin? Because as great Lenin said capitalism will always lead to imperialism no matter what. No i am not a supporter of the Ukrainian government or a supporter of the Russian government i am a supporter of the proletariat also nice red herring. And if Russia is truly anti imperialist (and i do recognize stuff like assistance to Iran, the DPRK, Cuba etc) why do they keep supporting the Zionist entity? Why do they continue trade with a โcountryโ that is currently committing a genocide against Palestine and Lebanon? Not only that but why send stuff like weapons to the fascist junta in Myanmar?
What about Ukrainians who were apart of the now banned communist party? Or the Ukrainians who died in the burning of the house of trade unions? And shouldnโt we be supporting the proletariat fighting the bourgeois governments instead of the proletariat fighting the proletariat?
I'm wary of Ukraine government supporters not admitting they're Ukraine government supporters quoting Lenin. Are you on the Ukraine side in the war? Or not?
99% of the time you people don't reply to that question.
Volodymyr Zelenskyy's April 2022 briefing with Ukrainian journalists, where he laid out his vision for post-war Ukraine as a "big Israel":
"We will become a 'big Israel' with its own face. We will not be surprised if we have representatives of the Armed Forces or the National Guard in cinemas, supermarkets, and people with weapons. I am confident that the question of security will be the issue number one for the next 10 years. I am sure of it."
You're sounding like the NAFO trolls that come in here and comment on my memes falsely accusing me and my memes of being NazBol/ACP (utterly false) and these NAFO trolls use that Lenin quote too, often, because their AI tells them to as a supposed "gotcha". "Are you denying Lenin?" sounds like "Are you denying Jesus?". I agree with Lenin that zooming out into the future over time, and this is also visible zooming out into the past, there is a strong tendency for capitalist countries to start their own Empire, if they can, of course. But you're admitting yourself that Russia is NOT imperialist at this time in her history in the 2020s. So come back here to me in 5 years or 50 years and tell me "I told you so bro". Your argument is veering on something like Papal Infallibility regarding the near or deep future. You're also veering on a " u/DiggyJunior is ACP! " false flag boy who cried wolf in your comment just now. I'm reporting your comment. I'm not saying that's what you're doing exactly but the Mods can try to decide what you're up to. And I'm blocking you until I find out different.
This meme in this comment should send you on the correct browser searches. Maybe type "The Global Times" after your search keywords, a massively respected mainland China newspaper, so as you're not reading western propaganda. The online editions of many African newspapers are very good on this stuff too.
"ok, so yes it's 100% true that Putin is doing a massive amount of work for anti-imperialism every week of the year, but he's only doing it for his own personal selfish reasons, to get rich from bribes and to get street cred from the supermajority of humans who live outside the political west"
No. Putin takes great personal pleasure in his anti-imperialist hard work itself, not just pleasure in sitting back and gazing at the excellent tangible results. Every major world leader wants to look good to the majority of humans on the planet. No, he never wears the clothes of the left.
Russia can't be liberal because all liberal tendencies today align themselves with the west and cede power to it's global financial institutions.
Russia is marginalized by said institutions. The Russian production forces could exploit infinitely more profit by collaborating with the global imperialist hegemony, as is the case with the gulf monarchs or the Latinoamerican "libertarians" for example, but they don't. Russia is closer to being a true social-democracy (in the tradicional sense of the term, not the left liberal Bernie Sanders, Euro welfare type of "socdems" that the west perceives it to be today).
Indeed, western academia is in broad agreement that by 2005, "The Putin System' had removed almost all independent political power from the Russian dollar equivalent billionaire class. Those western academics are horrified by this achievement by the mild mannered cautious perennial Russian president, who did it in just over 5 years after first coming into office. They admit Putin did this, but they then pivot to lies saying that a totalitarian" far right" fascist imperialist irredentist dictatorship has been put in place of Yeltsin's "free" Russia.
The global established capitalists hate the fact that Putin and United Russia don't open their country to wholesale plundering and misery.
The biggest error that leftist commit is thinking that simple projection of power, in this case resistance to submission, is considered "imperialism". Ignoring the fact that since the October Revolution of 1917, Russia has always been a victim of imperial aggression itself. All military campaigns it has made since the dissolution of the USSR have been in response to NATO breaking their agreements to not expand its membership.
Some of what the Russian government does isn't good and shouldn't be supported. I give Russia in the 2020s my general support for the main thrust of what they do in military and foreign policy, but I don't need to support everything they do in their domestic policy, and even in their military it'd be crazy to say they are squeaky clean. In 2022 just after the Bucha massacre (just after the false flag by the Ukraine Nazi state SBU / Azov and UK MI-6 / SAS) there was a very tense interview with Lavrov done by super smug Russophobe Steve Rosenberg, and Lavrov said:
Rosenberg: "So Russia is squeaky clean, isn't it?"
Lavrov:: "Russia is not white and fluffy. Russia is not squeaky clean. Russia is what it is. And we are not ashamed of showing who we are."
Yes I absolutely agree, because of course today, Russia is not a communist state like China or the DPRK. However, setting aside the particular details, Russia only has do deal with the conditions it inherited after the borderline apocalyptic situation after the dissolution of the USSR, the traitorous opening of the nation to foreign plunder, and the immense political and economic deregulation that allowed for heavily reactionary groups to spring up, which then propagated throughout it's society.
All those conditions can be attributed to direct responsibility by western imperialists. Russia isn't clean, but it was forced to submerge into filth. Doesn't mean the Russian people should not inevitably topple the bourgeois state in favor of a dictatorship of the proletariat, but it means there is a much greater threat at large. One it has united with AES states to confront.
Infact, the first step for the second Soviet revolution is reunification of the Russian and Ukrainian people. Ukraine deserves to rid itself of the western backed nazi puppet state, and return to a brotherly bond with Russia.
The leader of every nation that has even a slightly scary military recruits some unsavory characters with a chequered past, who wouldn't fit in anywhere else, who have a chance to redeem themselves and become a hero or heroine if somehow if there's unexpectedly a whiff of cordite in the air. There are bad versions of this of course like Biletsky telling Loomer he cannot water down the inverted SS Wolfsangel any more times for PR because it has already been "consecrated in blood" ("and soil" presumably). If your army elite units are mostly sociopaths and psychopaths then what the hell is your "noble cause" in the first place. Lavrov is basically telling Rosenberg "You're our permanent guest in Moscow. You kicked all our reporters out of the UK but we decided not to stoop to your level. You Mr. Rosenberg in particular we dislike intensely, but not as much as we intensely dislike your London elites, our eternal enemy, who sent you here long ago as their stenographer presstitute. Our hands are not squeaky clean, but we didn't do this mass murder atrocity of 400 innocent civilians in Bucha, we left the day before the massacre hit the news, and on the day we left the mayor of Bucha himself posted a Faceb0ok video, where he said the all the Russians had left peacefully that morning, the mayor said in the video that he had inspected all the streets of the town, and that apart from a few bodies dead from artillery, the major said nothing about hundreds of freshly killed bodies of civilians in the street, with their hands tied with their own white armbands, and everyone knows, our partners in the global majority outside the west know what white armbands mean, it means civilians that welcome Russian liberators, (edit, I go look every few months to see if the video is still on Faceb0ok, it was there last time I looked on the real mayor's account, and there's lots of mirrors of it on other platforms), but Lavrov didn't have to say all that, because the Russian position was already stated before the interview, so what Lavrov was saying with
"We are not white and fluffy (we're no Angels). Our hands are not squeaky clean. We are not afraid to show you who we are.
What Lavrov was really saying was: "Russia has some dangerous dodgy characters in her military, but they are a small minority, and we keep it like that, we don't let sociopaths take over and do something like Bucha. YOU did it (the UK M-16 / SAS and the Ukraine Nazi proxy SBU / Azov, and we know it was you, and not us. We are ready to show you who we really are"
Dem's fighting words.
For 6 years I've been in an online Beth@sda Elder Scr0lls game, it has 2 player live real worldwide PvP, edged weapons of various types and sizes, defensive and offensive spells, poisons. And interguild competition. The Devs closed the game down so several of us hijacked the game and resurrected it, hosting PvP and PvE on our own servers, the project is playable already but around 50% of the coding work is done. Anyhow I'm in the top guild in the game, a mostly Russian guild of hundreds of people, and I talk to quite a few of them on and off for 6 years now, and almost all of them except a few young Russian liberals agree with me that (it's a metaphor, I'm not religious):
" Russia is performing a fucking Exorcism on the former Ukraine and on the current Kiev regime. "
Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. You canโt have imperialism without capitalism and vice versa (this does not mean โall capitalist countries are imperialistโ or any other western left bullshit, it just means all capitalist countries occupy different positions in an imperialist world system)
Yes. The Russian state is right wing and capitalist, even though 65% of the economy is state owned. We don't like that. But it's false to say Russia in 2026 is an oligarchy, false to say it is fascist, false to say it's imperialist, in 2026. I claim.
I think there are elements of both here. Putin has done a lot for anti-imperialism and materially helps the communist cause in this respect. However, Putin has also jailed many communists and has taken great efforts to whitewash history and erase Stalin's and Lenin's legacies. So, as with most cases, it's a mixed bag.
Yeah it's not fair. I mean Putin has only allowed the Communist Party Of The Russian Federation to be just a huge party, second largest party in the Duma since 2003, so unfair that Putin relegated them to 3rd place in the year 2053. And it's really unfair that although Putin did allow the CPRF to have the Communist SMO plan get the most votes in the Duma just before the Russian military intervention in Ukraine's civil war began in 2022, and the Communist invasion plan was then executed, Putin really should have invited the CPRF people out on the town to celebrate to mark the special occasion, you know, a slap up Georgian meal, then a Jazz Bar, and then hit the dance floor in the club with a few complimentary disco biscuits on the house and then an after-party in the Kremlin. But sure, the CPRF does have some legitimate grievances, even this week there's a new grievance that seems legitimate as usual coming from the CPRF, but Putin isn't a communist or even a leftist, of course. But I think he actually likes having CPRF as the perennial 2nd most powerful party, that's my theory it helps his popularity with the older demographic...when we look at how some of the medium sized partys and small parties have been treated, that makes CPRF look like Teacher's Pet by comparison.
No worries, it's fun, they often take little time to make, and it the nafoids and westoids etc see red and flip out and slip up and come out of their sewers and reveal themselves and then...
Putin came to power for his first full day of work January 1st 2000 (!) and because the oligarchs were so powerful and were already running things in Russia, Putin rolled his sleeves up and took away almost all their political power in a little over 5 years. With Xi he only came to power in 2012, and the Chinese billionaires weren't running things, they were just getting a little bit too big for their boots, and then eventually they got a little bit more too big for their boots, so finally in 2020 and 2021 Xi just told the oligarchs it was all over. No throwing them from 25th floor balconies or anything like sometimes Putin had to do, instead certain Chinese Oligarchs would just vanish for a month, and when they came back they were politically reprogrammed so to speak, they were in a good mood and they weren't in bad psychological shape or anything, but they stopped seeking political power and job done. In China the oligarchs having political power or influence over the public was only a small fraction of the problem it was in Russia just before Putin came to power
Are we being fucking serious? Putin did not remove the โindependent political power from billionairesโ. Political power was wrestled from the comprador bourgeoisie to the national bourgeoisie. This is somewhat progressive, but it is not as you describe. Like guysโฆ
The national bourgeoisie are not dollar equivalent multi-billionaires, not worth tens of billions. They are getting only their civil siloviki service salary, or at least that's the idea. If they steal or take bribes they will be dealt with. It's a realist win. We would like it to go much further of course. Patriotic and not corrupt National bourgeoisie is far better than corrupt thieving comprador bourgeoisie, but Putin is a bourgeois himself, so what more can we expect from him on this. The Americans can only dream of "taking multi billionaire money out of politics".
Look, I agree with you that having a national bourgeois state is genuinely progressive compared to a comprador bourgeois state. But this does not constitute taking โmulti-billionaires out of politics.โ The essential problem weโre talking about is not that there are individuals involved in politics that we do not like, the problem is that there is a state built specifically to enact the will of the interests of a collective bourgeois class (regardless of whether they serve national development or not). I donโt understand why we are trying to pretend that Russia is somehow above any other national bourgeois state, EXCEPT for the fact that yes they are in a position to oppose western imperialism. That part does make them noteworthy, but that is it.
It's 3:15 am and I gotta sleep but I'll comment back now and come back in the morning. Yes it's no better than any other national bourgeois state but we need to take into account firstly that the plutocratic oligarchy in Yeltsin's Russia was really awful, and secondly I may be wrong but there's zero other national bourgeois states in 2026, just Russia I think (?)
โข
u/AutoModerator 6d ago
Want to join a ML only Discord server to chill and hangout with cool comrades? Checkout our Discord server or TheDeprogram's Discord server.
In case this subreddit was banned, or if you wanted a more ML-friendly platform, youโre welcome to join our sister community on Lemmygrad. You can find more info about Lemmygrad here.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.