Views on Vladimir Putin [Archive]

View Full Version : Views on Vladimir Putin

Ibn.AL.Muqafaa

14th December 2016, 20:15

I am with him , when he kicked the Rothschild out of Russian banks, but his actions in Aleppo are immoral and he is not being any better than the Americans.

RosaAntonio

14th December 2016, 23:09

Putin is a corrupt murderer.

General Winter

15th December 2016, 01:07

The irony of history is that revolutions are often prepared by people who do no want any revolutions. As for Putin's role in everything terrible that comes to West - actually,it is paranoia,but like any paranoia it has some basis in reality.They see Putin's hand in Trump's success,in mass demonstrations of the lower class in France, in the crisis of refugees and so on. The irony of history here is in the fact that extreme reactionary and conservative Putin objectively becomes a main international revolutionary and a trusher of the existing order.Putin's Russia appeals to the old reactionary Christian values but people does not listen words,they see that talks the one who is not allowed to talk after Crimea.The Festival of Disobedience is starting,everything is in motion and the elite can no longer control the situation.

Surprisingly, but reactionary Putin pushes the world to revolution - such is dialectic.

Exterminatus

15th December 2016, 07:53

RosaAntonio

15th December 2016, 21:14

Exactly this type of thinking proved to be the bane of German communists during the thirties. 'Natural' result of capitalist crisis is not Communism, it is most vile barbarism.
The Left still suffers from Third Period thinking.

Antiochus

16th December 2016, 03:32

On a more serious note than this dreadful thread, why the fuck is the OP clown allowed on this site? He peddles in misogyny and obscure anti-semitism. He'll probably make some future thread about the Protocols of Zion in the future. Admins do your job, or put someone in charge who will.

willowtooth

16th December 2016, 05:07

so i traced this "putin kicked the Rothschild out of Russian banks" nonsense, it comes from yournewswire which is funded by thepeoplesvoice which is owned by David Icke. Mikhail Khodorkovsky the former richest man in russia was arrested by putin's administration back in 2003 (and eventually pardoned by putin). After he got out of prison he founded "Open russia" with Kissinger and jacob rothschild. Icke began publishing that putin had "stood up to the rothschilds" by arresting him...a full 10 years after he was actually arrested. simply because he founded this group with one of the actual rothschilds. Rare that these conspiracies actually go back to real Rothschilds usually they just use it as a synonym for "jew". I wonder if Icke just searches the news everyday for who is doing business with rothschilds, then labels them a "rothschild" or is there some pre-requisites? like one of his relatives has to be a jew, he has to have a certain net worth, a certain politics.

Why are there never any anglo saxon banking conspiracy theories?

RosaAntonio

16th December 2016, 22:06

ComradeAllende

17th December 2016, 01:10

Why are there never any anglo saxon banking conspiracy theories?

http://content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1968308,00.html

General Winter

17th December 2016, 01:50

Exactly this type of thinking proved to be the bane of German communists during the thirties. 'Natural' result of capitalist crisis is not Communism, it is most vile barbarism.

I don't know how his conflict with domestic comprador capital and the West can lead to barbarism.

RosaAntonio

17th December 2016, 20:21

Putin is a Trump-loving reactionary.

criticalrealist

17th December 2016, 22:10

I am with him , when he kicked the Rothschild out of Russian banks, but his actions in Aleppo are immoral and he is not being any better than the Americans.

IMO, Putin is the ultimate contradiction of Stalinism or authoritarianism. It confirms why Rosa Luxemburg saw Marxism-Leninism headed in an undemocratic direction.

Cheers,

Mark

SOGO

18th December 2016, 05:27

He's the rightist head of an imperialist capitalist state. I could go into more detail but I really think that about sums it up right there.

GLF

18th December 2016, 06:53

General Winter

18th December 2016, 12:24

While we're at it, what are revlefts views on Adolf Hitler? He kicked the Jews out of German banks, and though his actions in Poland are certainly immoral, he is not being any better than the British Empire.

Likening Putin with Hitler is paranoia too. Putin is not Hitler not least because leftists are not persecuted in Russia.

What is the point of Putin and putinism?

Like in any country that is beyond the center of imperialism bourgeoisie in Russia is divided into national and comprador.Putin is a representative of the interests of the national bourgeoisie which entered a conflict with the compradors,and as a result with their Western imperialist patrons. So we see how the contradiction that turns into a global crisis strengthens. The contradition we are talking about is the contradiction between the imperialist center and the periphery. Russia that stands in the center of this contradition again has a chance to become the "weakest link in the chain of imperialism." The logic of events makes Russia one of the leaders of the periphery in it's fight against the imperialist center. It simply has no other choice.And now Russia supplies weapon to Venezuela objectively helping the Latin American revolution, supports Syria. Of course, the peripheral bourgeoisie does not fight against the system, but only for its more "fair" organization. But this struggle creates a general crisis of imperialism and gives a chance to real anti-imperialist revolutionary forces.

Thus Putin unwittingly prepares soil for the world revolution.

GLF

19th December 2016, 13:38

Likening Putin with Hitler is paranoia too. Putin is not Hitler not least because leftists are not persecuted in Russia.

What is the point of Putin and putinism?

Like in any country that is beyond the center of imperialism bourgeoisie in Russia is divided into national and comprador.Putin is a representative of the interests of the national bourgeoisie which entered a conflict with the compradors,and as a result with their Western imperialist patrons. So we see how the contradiction that turns into a global crisis strengthens. The contradition we are talking about is the contradiction between the imperialist center and the periphery. Russia that stands in the center of this contradition again has a chance to become the "weakest link in the chain of imperialism." The logic of events makes Russia one of the leaders of the periphery in it's fight against the imperialist center. It simply has no other choice.And now Russia supplies weapon to Venezuela objectively helping the Latin American revolution, supports Syria. Of course, the peripheral bourgeoisie does not fight against the system, but only for its more "fair" organization. But this struggle creates a general crisis of imperialism and gives a chance to real anti-imperialist revolutionary forces.

Thus Putin unwittingly prepares soil for the world revolution.

There's more to being a leftist than marching with a red flag and singing fondly of the motherland. Most of Russia's so-called left is reactionary and rooted in a warped imagination of the past. The Soviets are viewed in retrospect as strong and uncompromising and many reactionaries fetishize such things. So of course these "leftists" are allowed to organize.

The TRUE leftists are those that fight power, fight the establishment, fight the man, and relentlessly undermine any and every social institution by which they're sustained. And these leftists, these true leftists, have been continually crushed by this Russian Fascist. So forgive me if I pass on the Putin apologism - and dressing it up in a vain attempt to make it fit within Marxian methodology does nothing to make it any more palatable.

RosaAntonio

19th December 2016, 21:51

Vlad the Impaler Putin is a corrupt murderer, pure and simple.

General Winter

20th December 2016, 07:42

There's more to being a leftist than marching with a red flag and singing fondly of the motherland.

I still did not say anything about the love of the motherland,national anomosity mists your eyes.

BTW unlike you I see the difference between the motherland and the government.

Most of Russia's so-called left is reactionary

Possible. But it's clear that far more of Western so cold leftists are reactionary too, because the West obviously is not the weak link of imperialism after all.

true leftists, have been continually crushed by this Russian Fascist

A list of leftist organizations crushed by Russian regime,please. This is the only way to prove that the regime is fascist.

and dressing it up in a vain attempt to make it fit within Marxian methodology

As I have said the conflict of national and comprador bourgeoisie determines Russian politics today.And there is nothing new in it. Communists in Latin America wrote many remarkable works on the nature of the bourgeoisie . One of the leaders of the Communist Party of Uruguay Rodney Arismendi broke down bourgeoisie in Latin America even into three groups: a national, a big compromising and a big corrupt. He believed that with the first one a union is allowed, and a tactical agreement with the second one.

So learn at least abc of Marxism before teaching others .

Die Neue Zeit

21st December 2016, 14:49

Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro has taken sides in the Great Power play:

Venezuelan president calls Putin is a symbol of struggle for multipolar world (http://tass.com/world/915420)

HAVANA, November 29. /TASS/. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has called Russian President Vladimir Putin an emblem of struggle for the mutlipolar world.

He praised the Russian president during a brief meeting with the speaker of Russia's State Duma, Vyacheslav Volodin, on the sidelines of solemn ceremonies in Havana on the occasion of the death of Fidel Castro.

"Putin's victories are our victories," Maduro said. "We're all looking towards Putin. For us, he is an emblem of fighting for independence and multipolar world."

He asked Volodin to convey wishes of sound health to Putin.

Representing Russia alongside Volodin at the solemn events on the occasion of Fidel’s death are Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov, First Deputy Speaker of the Duma Ivan Melnikov, chairman of the Duma foreign policy committee Leonid Slutsky, first deputy chairman of the same committee Dmitry Novikov, and a member of the committee, Sergei Zheleznyak.

Earlier on Tuesday, the Russian delegation laid flowers at the Jose Marti memorial compound in Havana that has become the main place to paying tribute to Fidel.

The itinerary of Volodin’s visit also includes a meeting with the President of Cuba’s National Assembly, Esteban Lazo Fernandez and an address to the audiences at a solemn meeting.

The delegation will then return to Moscow where President Vladimir Putin is expected to read out an annual state-of-the-nation address to members of both houses of Russian parliament.

RosaAntonio

21st December 2016, 22:41

Maduro ought to be concerned with the horror show that is today's Venezuela rather than sucking up to Vlad the Impaler Putin.

Lacrimi de Chiciură

22nd December 2016, 18:37

Imperialism is inherently a multipolar system. The Russophilic left ignore/deny this and buy into this narrative that neoliberal capitalism is a unipolar world system headquartered in Washington and Wall Street, which is actually the definition of the theory of "super-imperialism" or "ultra-imperialism" outlined by Kautsky and lambasted by Lenin a hundred years ago as "ultra-nonsense", when he wrote in Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism that: “an essential feature of imperialism is the rivalry between several great powers in the striving for hegemony”.

So Maduro's argument that the "struggle for [a] multipolar world" is anti-imperialist is a farce; despite the "greatness" of U.S. power relative to the other great powers, imperialism never stopped being multipolar. If it had become unipolar, it wouldn't be imperialism anymore, but Kautsky's "super-imperialism". Nation states remain the basis for capitalism. The idea of a global Empire of transnational corporations belongs to the realm of cyberpunk science fiction.

If we accept the idea that late stage capitalism has reached a higher stage than imperialism (i.e. a unipolar ultra-imperialist world system), then that would also imply that the U.S. bourgeoisie could be divided into national/patriotic and corrupt/comprador factions. This is effectively the sentiment which Trump harnesses by appealing to trade protectionism and offering the outsourcing bourgeoisie as a sacrificial scapegoat, compradors allied with the "globalist" bourgeoisie as opposed to the patriotic alliance of the U.S. bourgeoisie with 'murican jobs.

Ironically, the detente between Trump's America and Putin's Russia which many hopeful 'anti-imperialists' have come to expect (jeopardized by Trump's selection of baby killer "Mad Dog" Mattis) actually brings us closer to something resembling ultra-imperialism (i.e. "the joint exploitation of the world by internationally united finance capital in place of the mutual rivalries of national finance capitals"):

19587

Exterminatus

22nd December 2016, 18:38

What is especially disgusting about these western leftists from capitalist centres and their critical™ support for various "anti-imperialists" of the world (Russia, Hamas, Iran et al.) is the sheer trivialization of the struggles waged by the left from those very countries. They completely disregard social antagonism vested in every single "anti-imperialist" nation - a thoroughly anti-communist and anti-marxist position.

General Winter

23rd December 2016, 01:32

Sinister Cultural Marxist

23rd December 2016, 07:56

There is not a shred of dialectics and of the Leninist conception of imperialism in your views,guys. Lenin wrote about "monopolistic capitalist associations which share the world", about a single world system,where countries are divided into rich and poor, into those who rob and those who are robbed.Imperialism is the world system where everyone has his place,but not a set of separate from each other imperialisms of different sizes as some superleftists think. They believe that there are Russian, Iranian, Iraqi, Serbian "imperialisms" wich are different from US imperialism only in size .This vulgar view is quite reactionary.Really,if it is so,why we should not support American imperialism destroying Russian,Iranian,Serbian,etc. - the less of "imperialisms" is better for proletariat! This "logic" is fundamentally wrong and turns it's bearers into traitors and mercenaries.

What a bunch of horseshit. Don't try to ruin Lenin's decent name or dialectical thought by trying to attribute to it, somehow, a pro-Putin veneer. Lenin knew full well that there were many imperialist states which did not always agree with one another, who were in competition with one another, and who were of varying sizes. Imperialism as such is a global system of capitalism, but empires are as much in competition with each other as corporations. At the top, the British Empire, then France, Germany and the US, then the middling countries like Italy and the Netherlands, then poorer but large empires like Russia, Japan and Austria, then at the bottom the empires like Spain and Turkey which were being gobbled up by the larger empires. The existence of competition among the empires was proven by a minor historical event you might not be familiar with - some refer to it as "The Great War".

To deny that Russia is an imperialist power in 2016 is no less ludicrous than denying that 1905 Russia was imperialist, or that 1905 Japan was imperialist. You are the reactionary, standing with a homophobic and nationalist Russian government whose primary priority is the economic interests of its national bourgeoisie, which supports rightwing nationalists in the US and Europe, and which seeks the expansion and fortification of Russia's sphere of influence throughout the former USSR as well as the Middle East.

Saying Russian nationalism as a response to American imperialism is somehow progressive because of "dialectics" is a butchery of that term and its meaning. And you accuse others of being vulgar in their Marxism! Russian nationalist capitalism is not the negation of American liberal capitalism, and because of that, communism is not the negation of that negation.

So it is correct to talk not about assorted "imperialisms" of different countries,but about the place of that or another country in the global imperialist system. Just this place in a single system principally differentiates the United States and Europe from Russia, India, China or Brazil. Just this view makes clear the reason of the split of the Russian bourgeoisie, which can not be seen, if one sees Russia out of the united imperialist system.

Your ridiculous framing of imperialism would make Pearl Harbor and Singapore an anti-imperialist assault, not a struggle between a Japanese imperialism which had reached its limit and an already established Anglo-American imperialism.

- - - Updated - - -

What is most significant about General Winter's post is that it is wholly devoid of class analysis or struggle. Struggle becomes about the national interests of Russia. What happened to the working class? And he wants to imply that others do not grasp "dialectics" ... it would make me want to laugh out loud if it was not so troubling that some leftists think this way.

At least when Maduro, Castro, or any other national leader praises Putin, there is a clear national interest on the part of a small, vulnerable country which needs a major power as an ally. I can understand countries like this offering praise to Putin, even if I disagree with its content. What is sad is to see self-proclaimed Leftists really buying into it, then trying to give it some kind of ideological dressing. Really, it is leftism as pure ideology. We are losing all philosophical substance and critical edge, and replacing it with ideological mystification. "Putin is good because ... DIALECTICS!" At least Maduro's praise for a multipolar world makes sense from the narrow interests of an impoverished and ostensibly anti-imperialist nation - it is easier for the small fish to survive in the sea when the big fish are busy devouring each other.

General Winter

24th December 2016, 12:55

One can but marvel at the logic of revleft's theoretics:

Your ridiculous framing of imperialism would make Pearl Harbor and Singapore an anti-imperialist assault, not a struggle between a Japanese imperialism which had reached its limit and an already established Anglo-American imperialism.

The dude seriously wants to say that if the US-Japanese conflict was imperialistic, all conflicts between bourgeois countries are imperialistic too.

Where are proofs that Russia is imperialist today ? It is one and only: Russia was imperialistic in 1905.

Such is the level of arguments.

I said here for a hundred times that the conflict of national and comprador bourgeoisie determines Russian politics. It seems that it is what nobody is disputing. But isn't the presence of compradors a symptom of capitalist periphery? Comprador capital simply does not exist in imperialit coutries.

Judging by dimesions of the financial capital, by the economic structure, by the place in the international division of labor,by the overall economic strength Russia cannot be classed among imperialist powers in any the case. In the present international situation Russia can be only a victim of real imperialist predators.

The proletariat takes the position of radical anti-imperialist forces, bringing to peoples socialism as the only alternative to imperialism. The proletariat judges other class forces by the fact how far they are ready to go against imperialism.

What is most significant about General Winter's post is that it is wholly devoid of class analysis or struggle. Struggle becomes about the national interests of Russia

Let you know that marxism does not deny the national interests, national contradictions and the national question in general. It only says that in the form of national contradictions the basic contradictions of our time between the productive forces and the productive relations, between the social character of production and private appropriation, between capital and labor express themselves. After all, the modern "Russian question" , ie will Russia exist as an independent state, is the question of control over mineral resources, over markets and labor force.

Lacrimi de Chiciură

24th December 2016, 21:55

Where are proofs that Russia is imperialist today ? It is one and only: Russia was imperialistic in 1905.

Such is the level of arguments.

I said here for a hundred times that the conflict of national and comprador bourgeoisie determines Russian politics. It seems that it is what nobody is disputing. But isn't the presence of compradors a symptom of capitalist periphery? Comprador capital simply does not exist in imperialit coutries.

Any given multinational corporation tends to be dominated by the national bourgeoisie of one country and employ indigenous managers (compradors) in the peripheral countries where it operates, but this monopoly capitalism does not eliminate competition, and it's a gross oversimplification to think of global capitalism as having a united "monopole" core; that would be Kautsky's predicted ultra-imperialism. Different competitors within the imperialist world system form their own spheres, and thus the core-periphery distinction is relative to the sphere in question.

Because of the nature of globalization, the deterritorialized boundaries of empires begin to overlap with one another. We might also speak of a "nesting" of imperialism, with weaker imperialist states being more deeply penetrated by corporations based in the more powerful imperialist states, but still exercising their hegemony over their own imperial spheres.

If the USA does not have a comprador bourgeoisie, how do you explain the Chinese multinational corporations buying large U.S. companies (http://fortune.com/2016/03/18/the-biggest-american-companies-now-owned-by-the-chinese/)? Take for example General Electric Appliances, which was purchased by Qingdao Haier Group this year. It is headquartered in Kentucky with an American CEO, but it is Chinese-owned.

And if China is not an imperialist state, what do you make of the relationship between the Chinese bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie of more peripheral countries like Nigeria or Bolivia, who are joining with Chinese oil companies to invade the lands of indigenous peoples and steal their resources? Due to U.S.-centrism of media, all eyes are on Standing Rock, North Dakota, but look at what is happening in the Niger Delta or in the Amazon:

China Exim Bank to spend $1bn on Nigeria’s economic zones (http://punchng.com/china-exim-bank-spend-1bn-nigerias-economic-zones/) (November 17, 2016 (http://punchng.com/china-exim-bank-spend-1bn-nigerias-economic-zones/))
Chinese Companies Splash US$80 Billion on Nigeria Oil, Gas (http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/Chinese-Companies-Splash-US80-Billion-on-Nigeria-Oil-Gas.html) (June 30, 2016)

The latest blow to the industry that contributes the most to GDP was the flurry of militant attacks on oil and gas infrastructure in the Niger Delta by an organization calling itself the Niger Delta Avengers, which vowed to bring the country’s oil production to zero through bombings of production and transportation facilities, in defense of the interests of communities living in the Niger Delta.

Fears for isolated Bolivian tribe met by Chinese oil firm in Amazon (27 October 2016 (http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Evo-Morales-Says-US-Meddles-in-Bolivia-Against-Russia-and-China-20160315-0014.html))
Rising tensions in Bolivia over oil and gas exploitation on indigenous lands (https://warriorpublications.wordpress.com/2015/09/01/rising-tensions-in-bolivia-over-oil-and-gas-exploitation-on-indigenous-lands/#more-7005) (1 September 2015)
Evo Morales Says US Meddles in Bolivia Against Russia and China (http://www.telesurtv.net/english/news/Evo-Morales-Says-US-Meddles-in-Bolivia-Against-Russia-and-China-20160315-0014.html) (15 March 2016)

The United States is against Chinese and Russian investment in Bolivia and has instructed opposition forces to try and stop them, says Bolivian President Evo Morales.
(Yes, the US bourgeoisie is against it because they want the profits, but that doesn't mean Chinese and Russian capitalists are not motivated by profit and self interest.)

Russia, China Ready to Invest in Bolivia Amid Economic Stability – Morales ( (https://sputniknews.com/latam/201606021040674993-russia-china-bolivia-investments/)2 June 2016)

The president pointed out that Russia and China never imposed conditions for their investments, as opposed to the United States that offered loans in exchange for privatization of Bolivian companies and natural resources.
(Morales wants to say opting for investment from Great Powers other than the US (namely China and Russia) is anti-imperialist because it represents a "lesser evil" than U.S. investment, or brings "mutual benefit" as opposed to exploitative U.S. investments, but it's not as if these multinational corporations are there to offer unconditional love and nurturing. The market imposes conditions for investment. Capitalist investment is inherently profit-motivated, and therefore involves exploitation.)

___

As for Russia (since I've strayed a bit off topic by getting into the topic of China), it also constitutes a core of capitalist imperialism. Because it is, in most respects, in a weaker position than US empire on the global scale, its periphery is closer in proximity to its core. Like Sinister Cultural Marxist mentioned, many of the former Soviet republics exhibit a neocolonial type relationship with Russian imperialism.

Judging by dimesions of the financial capital, by the economic structure, by the place in the international division of labor,by the overall economic strength Russia cannot be classed among imperialist powers in any the case. In the present international situation Russia can be only a victim of real imperialist predators.

This last point echoes a piece at the blog "A Critique of Crisis Theory" (Is Russia Imperialist? (https://critiqueofcrisistheory.wordpress.com/is-russia-imperialist/)). Basically the argument is that because, in comparison with the United States, Russia is a poor country, therefore it can't be imperialist. In comparison with the US, Russia has a small military budget (1,676 billion USD vs. 66.4 billion USD). In the piece from that blog, the author cites the Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook for 2012 to try to show that Russia can't be imperialist because it is "very poor in finance capital", showing that Credit Suisse groups "most of the East European countries, including Poland and Russia" together in this category. But this is ridiculous, because if you look at the relationship between Russia and a country like Moldova, which was colonized by the Russian Empire, how can you say it is anything other than one of core and periphery when you look at stats such as the fact that the Moldovan banking sector is controlled at roughly 70% by Russian finance capital (https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2014-11-06/russian-sanctions-against-moldova-minor-effects-major-potential), or that possibly more than a quarter of the population goes to Russia seeking employment in precarious working conditions? They clearly do not belong in the same category.

What I would like to understand more from the North American and Western European "anti-imperialists" who say we need to "support" the Russian government as an anti-imperialist force, or at least some of its policies as being "anti-imperialist" in limited contexts (such as its military operations in Syria or Ukraine), is: what is the praxis for this? Should socialists and communists in the US stop organizing anti-war protests and instead demonstrate in solidarity with Russian war efforts? How does that negate US militarism more effectively? I am really curious.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

25th December 2016, 17:40

The dude seriously wants to say that if the US-Japanese conflict was imperialistic, all conflicts between bourgeois countries are imperialistic too.

Where are proofs that Russia is imperialist today ? It is one and only: Russia was imperialistic in 1905.

Such is the level of arguments.

It is easy to dismiss arguments when you strawman them. I never said all conflicts between bourgeois countries were conflicts between Imperialists, not did I give Russia's imperialist past as the sole reason it is imperialist. You misused Lenin's notion of imperialism as a global system to argue that all Imperialism in the world today is centered around the US and Europe, or in other words, the NATO alliance, denying the imperialist nature of the Chinese, Russian and Indian states in the process. What you overlooked was that imperialism has always been multipolar.

I said here for a hundred times that the conflict of national and comprador bourgeoisie determines Russian politics. It seems that it is what nobody is disputing. But isn't the presence of compradors a symptom of capitalist periphery? Comprador capital simply does not exist in imperialit coutries.

The presence of compradors is not a symptom of being on the capitalist periphery. What makes one in the periphery is the political and economic hegemony of such compradors.

However, the obvious question is, if Russia were NOT imperialist, how could it be that pro-Russian comprador capitalism exists elsewhere?

Judging by dimesions of the financial capital, by the economic structure, by the place in the international division of labor,by the overall economic strength Russia cannot be classed among imperialist powers in any the case. In the present international situation Russia can be only a victim of real imperialist predators.

The proletariat takes the position of radical anti-imperialist forces, bringing to peoples socialism as the only alternative to imperialism. The proletariat judges other class forces by the fact how far they are ready to go against imperialism.

Well, that argument is clearly disproven by a point you so flippantly dismissed earlier - if Russia cannot be imperialist today because of its economic structure, its role in the global labor supply, its overall economic strength or the conditions of its financial capital, then Russia in 1905 CERTAINLY could not have been an imperialist power since it was mostly a peasant economy with little real industry. Russia today is a modern, sophisticated, capitalist economy, albeit one with a lot more poverty and decay than the others.

Let you know that marxism does not deny the national interests, national contradictions and the national question in general. It only says that in the form of national contradictions the basic contradictions of our time between the productive forces and the productive relations, between the social character of production and private appropriation, between capital and labor express themselves. After all, the modern "Russian question" , ie will Russia exist as an independent state, is the question of control over mineral resources, over markets and labor force.

There are contradictions between nations, but they are not the main contradiction underpinning revolution, nor have they ever been. Capitalism as a system is not overthrown by the disagreements between capitalist states.

Antiochus

26th December 2016, 05:43

Maduro is a clown naturally, and a social-democrat at best. Chavez, at least, had a more 'nuanced' view of this "multi-polar" garbage. The truth is that the relative power of say China to the US is far closer to the relative power Germany had to Britain in 1914. Would anyone here be so stupid as to argue that Germany prior to WW1 was "not imperialist" and actually represented some bizarre anti-imperialist "pole" because of its opposition to the center of finance capitalism? What a fucking joke.

RosaAntonio

26th December 2016, 10:26

Vlad the Impaler Putin is an evil clown, a reactionary, and a corrupt murderer. He is no friend of the Left.

General Winter

3rd January 2017, 12:40

There is nothing new for the cause of communism in the policy of supporting of one faction of the bourgeoisie against another wich is more reactionary and dangerous.The final victory of communism is impossible without such temporary alliances .But leftist sectarians use to paint everything with the same brush and thus they miraculously appears among the supporters of imperialist agressions agaist Iraq and Libya,then among the enemies of Chavez and Asad.No wonder, because in their opinion "differentiating the bourgeoisie is nonsense." Such position looks super radical and revolutionary, but in reality it leads to cooperation with the most reactionary imperialist bourgeoisie.

Trying to escape, Russia involuntarily again plays the role of a weak link in the chain of imperialism. Just look at the map of the world and see that imperialism can not reconcile to a fact of the existence of the state with such a vast territory. Even Iraq and Libya were divided into several parts, so it's easy to imagine what would happen with Russia in the case of defeat .

The revolutionary forces around the world are objectively interested in Russian ability to take a fight wich would shatter the world imperialist system and thus would help it fall, opening the door for socialism. This means that Russian leftists in today'must be defenders.
When imperialism comes out in a united front in the form of NATO against humanity crushing one disobedient country after another, the defense and the armed struggle against it is a most radical revolutionary slogan.

Fellow_Human

4th January 2017, 05:36

The existence of competition among the empires was proven by a minor historical event you might not be familiar with - some refer to it as "The Great War".

Interestingly, though not contrary to what you said, Luxembourg argued that the cause of the Great War was not simple competition between Western states, but the suffocation of capitalism by the exhaustion of Western consumer markets through overproduction, prompting the violent eruption of capitalism outward into non-capitalist areas, as a natural consequence of the accumulation of capital.

There is nothing new for the cause of communism in the policy of supporting of one faction of the bourgeoisie against another wich is more reactionary and dangerous.The final victory of communism is impossible without such temporary alliances .

Yes, the global bourgeoisie is not an unbroken monolith, as instead it has within itself many competing and conflicting subgroups, within and between nation-states, and perhaps it's useful to set those elements against one another, but supporting the Kremlin because the Kremlin is anti-American is like deers supporting crocodiles because crocodiles can kill lions.

I still did not say anything about the love of the motherland,national anomosity mists your eyes.

BTW unlike you I see the difference between the motherland and the government.

And what is that difference between a government and a motherland? If a motherland is a territory, then what is the extent of that territory defined by, if not by the authority of a government?

Is it defined by the distribution of a language? As delineated some century or three ago by the bourgeois need for uniform trading zones.

Is it defined by religion? In an age where people who are "born into" Churches often don't even care to know what denomination they belong to.

Is it defined by monetary currency and trade barriers? Which are controlled by the government.

Is it defined by some features of geography? Rivers? Mountain ridges?

Is it defined by the "habitat range" of a descent group, genetic population or "race"? How closely or distantly related do "compatriots" have to be to constitute a race?

Let you know that marxism does not deny the national interests, national contradictions and the national question in general.

What part of "The worker has no country" not deny national interest? What is "the national interest"? As Chomsky rhetorically asked, does the CEO of General Electric have the same interest as the janitor who mops his floors?

pastradamus

8th January 2017, 20:24

http://www.revleft.com/vb/image/jpeg;base64,/9j/4AAQSkZJRgABAQAAAQABAAD/2wCEAAkGBxMTEhUTExIWFhUXGBcXFxgYFxUVGBgXFxgdGBgVGB gYHSggGB0mGxgXITEhJSkrLi4uFx8zODMtNygtMCsBCgoKDg0O GxAQGyslHyUtLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tKy0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS 0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0tLS0rLf/AABEIALcBEwMBIgACEQEDEQH/xAAcAAABBQEBAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAFAAIDBAYHAQj/xABDEAACAQIEAgcEBwcEAQQDAAABAgMAEQQFEiExQQYTIlFhcY EykbHRBxQjUpKhwSQzQlNicvAVQ4LhsjRjorMWdYP/xAAZAQADAQEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgMEAQX/xAAoEQACAgICAgEEAgMBAAAAAAAAAQIRAyESMQRBEyIyUWEUcU KB8AX/2gAMAwEAAhEDEQA/AJOjWDxImwWhYW sJPIl3dQghsGD2Q73YDajLdJMSywn6vCOuxbYNbyyXEiFlZz9n 7GpWtz4VUyrEnD5YMfrAbBjGRDa5vPiIylvJbC3iKI5tgjDNgI r6tWKmxNxwHX46J09yyMvnUVix10Vllne2TnOrAjEqYZEeUXKS iN qYqTHIygNdRrA4kd9qtyZzFp7fWRm2oCSKWPUB9zUvaP9I7XhW UzZ/soyTsvSKRmJOwjRpWck8lCAk ANWelcUiQ4i6lXbNhPBr7IKpDHaa5/wBkOO0RyB50j8WB1ZpBwZxHpIk6yMgah1kUseoXAOnUo1G5HZG 42qXBZurMEZZEYglRJFJFqA46dai9trjiLi4rN5vAUlw2ImSSI tmC9dCXZ4FdWDPj4SQD1RA3LbDWDsRvfxEcxnVHiSKM43Eug 1MsgETasQC5t1ZLAbC1yLcaSfjRSbTGWVtqxZr0ikVY3MN4Zpn gjZeueRiupdehY7AF1so1XYG44VVTP4QgJEotIYjeCcfaD/AG76N38ONMlQLFl4NrJms 1h 2Mvp7VvWpc w7JGNalb52GFxa6kixHgaZ NjkrD5pRYDzF9Du5SVE1EapIpY1DgaipLqN9IJ8aOR5kiBpJVk jBS4MkUqBtK6iF1LudO niQLgGo lrgQZiW4LmuGJ7gojw5J8rA1F9IzydXjSEjSGTE4Yqx6zrMQRD GTJESdGlUUhtI4I1cfiQD RIiGLh61o3WUSsezG0EwduBsqlLsQGBIHAG5sKpT5a Jxa4aNerdlJ 2WSOyhS2q2m5BsQCNtj3Vpc jknzbSuIeJ4meOMqsbWibCpLIiB1I6x2PtEGwTamZKgGOyYCMx 2y UaGOpkAVOyxIFyPIV2HjQTsH5E6o5xgFeQqqg3KM5skklgoG2m NSbb8SLV4kMjwdeIpDFa5kEblB3nVaxAOxbgOZrQfRmpGNsQf/SYg77bHqyDvyI51L0aw8k WRayYhHhMT1OKhclBGGHWYXFqy6VLNpI0m5C8rG7LFFo680kwB lmVzzrKYY9Yhj6yTex072VRbtMQrWXwqZ8kxCwwT9WXjmhacGN JH6tFK/vLLts19u40R6FqWhzJEB1vl7hVX2mIDbADcntfnWn6Kns5Z/ qxPxgrsccWjk8slLRzpIXIhYKzCfWIwI5iWKmwCHTpkvx7BNq6 TnOP61svgjUicAoUmWSEA6FYsWZd1tG/aXULi3GgeXyyrhOjzQdX1oafR1pKx3NwQzAEi6kqLD2itQ5rla jE5ahgxLpMJj9TZlMsAUMTGjOVAVn7YLb2ibc3tTfFER5ZPsuY pizdeWRo50m6t49YBaFurkQq4BFmBsdwRXOBxromHx6GKGJYDF FDFOwDusjs2IYSH2VAAFz77crnnSnf1qEkk3RfHbWy7C3bPlR6 KT9lA/qPxrPR/vD5UWwkn2VvGpy7Kx6NfluIXqLMOY996L5rh7mNwdw3LuI4fD3 UHyrDK HdTt49x5GjeZLIBCLA8LsPKpSW0J S19H2HHX4lrbjSPff5UOziPTM47ncfnRPoE9sRiF7wp9xPzqh0 jb7eT 4/CtOuBB/cQ5Jh0MfajAOs2O1aPEYZQm1ZorImFEujs6r3B5E2uR5/CrmX4t5hZQayQWy0mVsfhle4IuKD5Nl2Fs1ls6vcXH5XrbYXL1 XeQ /hQqeBD1jx8mF9tj5f5yqs 0LH2TTTfsbr3SA/CgUYve5tV2fEdhl7yDQ29VTJ0Vs0gd1AjlZJBci3A28a8yjJMS 0CyNO2ldytz7qJn2B2e/f0q/wBGsMxwzqxJsL/Hh7qxZm02jRDox Jw0Oo6sRY33FztSq/jcKutrx3342ryk5oeg70a6LYdokllgiZ2bXraNC9uAGoi/CjcvRfBiN0TC4dQ4AYLFGA1jcagBvY71Yy/dEA2AUD8qkmnCnmeZ8Kvzf5EatmSiwWFw0yBcNArDYuscYNmGk rcDhY28jVzEZRFC rDxYeBWWz6Y0QEdx0jcb8KBZ3IrM7Kdr3FCsIXmJaR2YDaxO1C cmuzrirWgrFnMGHZhBhoRqGl2iiRNQ7iQBqFLL84jhuYMFHCW9 ooiR3A4X0gXqp1XuFVMZOfZXify8a7d6G4JE0 ZwmRnbCxanuHbq0JcHiGNu0DzvRPA5fgJAWTDwKSpVgI4xsRw4 VnAtmsOCg3PjQ5JOYNj4bU3FvpsR0u0FFiw8eywRB0J0sEUEDf mBfn8ablyYZSbrErMCpGlASDxB23B7qoJexPP/s/KnYFwSQYvZAPa2135Lf2j5 Fcal S0Eq6NL/AKbAE6sQxdWTq06E0k95W1r1PhMkw2mxw0FiQf3UdtuHLxNUMC D1TG5NmYLzOkcB4na1VsnnBYSLqQk2sbgEjvU8/LfnwqalL8lXji10a3MujWGxWG0NFHriH2eyjSoA7I5WIGw4Vy/McsWNyrIuoWN9I3HI11aRuwTfuN/ NyDWG6aAao35sjE OlrCqwmzO4r2UBhEeNQ6K3cGAO/rVY5VET 5Tf8ApX5VqMwyNsPFCWYEvGHsOVxw8ajzd4CUMAYAIuq/3 dHN hqiyiejDIokbDoFkUm4CHUp37QH61oJMmw1sKgw8WhrF16tAGO 27C3aPiaH5fi5JmWIyEqAbAnYC3CjczWbC HzFdjKXsnOKKOaxJHPMgUBAmlVAsAAosABwFc2HGumZ437RMfD 9BXNOdNH2DJ42PWHyoxhW yPnQhf3h8hRbCH7I YrsjsejX4DDl8O63te1HsZM0QjsbpcKb8dxxrP4G/wBXfSbkAG3lRzFYtOrjLG4YrYc71Cb2kIvZ70Qn0YuXfl tUcZigzv2WbtNwBN/dQOeYnESCM73sxvZVPdfmavYfFSKbarnvubU8svHR2OFy2X8NC FwjlmkC6rmMlxbfjpNT5fmaRqOrPHvFPw2LlI9rfzJr0vG0lpI wGI9obBj37cD3 frSQmkgnjY2fMmc7uPdVfLllKTLHICnEg22B42NZjOjO7aI4mj 7RF25FTYj31byTBtErAkkta7AkW8Ld1NL6kmIlVhD6gxBVWuTb nRDD5XoXtG5qjGoSRWBNEcViCNyffTN0LVlfGgqoKmwHKivRHF pLh2ZQysAb39kgd1ZDM kkcZ0lS9 S0T6CZm7QSoQqixtv2h41nyr/IrFaoOF8Id3DBtr 1x9DalQH/T2O/WN dKs1FKNzg yqLz0AnwFq9lCspuQBy5etBc8xbRxNID2pdMcY7hxv8AGh2Pgt B2mLOBvc/5atLkkcjBsFdI8J1RO4IYHcULwgOgC1h8ahkfs2JPxq0tgoLNY d3OqpUqO3scwJFhsKpyIFOxuaU2PvsgqLCIe07cRsK7Vdg3b0e E2D99t/WhBG1FZz2GPfQsrVYEpljCORf 4W8rVaxUgVNSrcnYW5d5ocJbAevxqxiJHBXSRby1eVhcVKS2bM X2hnI8cdChoW4b8Ntrg2vuLi1x4UawmHWwdL2PEfHaguUzSb7q bDcMhQm3IMCRRzKJg1zYqDuQeTcx8PfU5FpaQQxCjqtNjcm3vP AfCsf0zivGjm/Z7CjaxBJYki17 N XDnWxi9oG44jY8jtb9KwXS7FDUIFN1i2J2N3udtttht5lqbHdm aVJOywuPZ0UOxNlCi/IAbCqWJYrsRvUOHlsFPdY1LmmL62Qva1 XltTVTF9EmT4i0oPnWrZtRw/n8SKx2FYKwPhWmikP7P5j4iuoSaG9KlInlAPL9K5ordq3jXSOk 0l55b936Vzm3bNUiJL0WkP2noKJ4Vvs286FxN9p6UXww ybzokNHo12T4rRBI1rkLw9KKZ/jI/q6MyWkC3QW/itt8fyoZkRAhckXFhRHpct8Ix420W24XIHuqM3VCxVyMjhJNGk ce895O96MwyVlsfmIie2kn8haiWCztWQvp2XjU5QfZug10a7Bc PGr/STLtKRuDupBuPcfjWXyfpPC7AMrhQR2rXA87cq12Yz6ojYaltc HmQefjXVGuyOS29ADOM0FkDuOHPiSNr 61Cv9SivcSjflUOfYLWiEtYpqsLXuCVvvytcbeJrPvgCdgw/KqwVrszSjT2G8dnOh0kR1JRg1uO6m4qhmucYjH4hmsEjbTcKdr AWoLicAxHL0puHd1sOFPxQnTN7BhMMkbBoyDt2gL8OdQ4HMsNF cROzDvsefEGstHj5OFzwtxon0SaKJrSnsse0eNr1DJjpNlYsOp n0YFtbbeBpVdbDwk3jIZP4T4e6lWblEeitl2ZvKIYn36ttj4Ws BVx8RrmkRiBcc/CoMuwmhQx40zNcIrHrA3mOd6rNJyLQejPYn2rDkTvVhILlAd JNNxBUHs7irOXNqffurRejPWyLARAE dS4 O3rU6oAT51Hjlvakb2OlqgRmTWVV9aoHhU2OfU58Nqo4vMY4we 0GI/hBub/pWiKdEJPYzEv7v8/Wn4PHlTuL0KybNx15622iUaD3LvdT5X4 d Vaj/wDGpPajVnXwBJ/KjJGimHIFcnzdODL5bH9KKwTgk6bC/LxoJg8KVYI211Nu8EeB/wA3ohgsNIzaUU6m4W7u/wAPOsjWza5KrZU6TZodHVg2ZiCbcgpuDfvLAe41knO1HuluX9T ijGeOiIniRcxrqtflq1f9UGlg2O9aYx4qjFKXJ2gjCBpHlVV2p 0b7elNYUpX0extWqibfDen6VmFcWo8h3w2/ bUInND lTgTyE8P q587do dazpfiPtX/zlWNVqpFEpPouRe36UbwbXiegMbdv0o1l5 zeiY8DcdG4g0bq3ArY 6jeNyqSWFIlYMrWBPeKA5DHqw7gc1/StesDpFF1Z2Ure/C3OpuK9iOVNnJp8OC7PYFxxB4ja23GivQvKA6zKSO0LjuJXkfQ kVH0xjEeKmC2ADDhws4D7fiqLozmksbFVKqpBCsyFluBwNiDuL 0rTNsaatdhPKMEMMxTSGRiTwFiTtcjvArWJiU6tY1Fxz8BQTA2 cm5G5JFv4bn2fKlmU/UwSyA2KoxXv1EWW3/IipW2zs0kgL0vfSAiyWLM0gDG5VDaw8iw5bdmswJZAdmU0KzDE zTOZJWZnNrk9w4AAbAeAFQYeNy1i1u tsMfFUYcmTk7CzYyQHdRUbZgx/gr3LcEHn09ZdBvf9KvZllaC7LIbX2HEU1IlyB5zD g09Mcvcar4aMGTQxvUUqSdcYY1LsTZVAuTzAAopHVIOR5mLDdh SoSkUvArYi4IIsQQbEEUqnUR7Z1nEyACgeNa5vV7GzUOYatqyQ/JqeipDHsWPCheZdIfqp7Kh3YXAN7AcLm2/LYeBozjZAq24AC59K5jmuL62Vn5HYeCjYCtmKPLsy5Z8ejQv00 lYbJGD/yPra9UZukeJb/dI/tCj4CgkdSqav8AHFdIh8kn2yaXEO3tMT5m9Q0g1NkUE01CWNZa 6b9F elwcO7nrEF0ufaQcRfvX4eRrmmmpcJiGidZENnQhlPiO8d3Iju oaTVHYumdP6Z9OFZ ojhR qbtSSBxZxsRFYqVHItffcWI3J36POkiSEwuiRux7LC9pDudDai TcAG29j3A7EB0ry LG4NcwisrCMFtuOk6SjHvVtr0P6AYJJMQqSdpCCdJt7S9pSCLF SCL3rO6s2wXKDLf0iYk/wCpNq9kwR6f Jb51mZcau4O3ceI/wCq0n0loy4iDUdR0MuogAkEkgNbiRY77X89zh5WO997cKpxUlZ m5uLoORtcXBuKTVnIp2U3F1onDj/vj1HOpyxv0XjnT7CCmj0cn7jwrNLIDwI4X9KOQvfqf851OqKN2 tFXpV f/OVZXhWp6VNaRj5fCssTxqkeiMiWJu1RnAy2R/KgsTdqimH9lq5MfGb3ouxbDvp46dvQVo8yzi FVmJF9I0 O21ZTormKQQM7uqixtqYLfbgL8apdKvpBhbDCLDoTNzcr2I7c1 vu7d21hx34UnByaoSUkrIumcOrVICCoYI1t9JAHG39wFBcqgGr 94oHqd QNiKA5NnbwOxI6yN/wB4h31X4tv/ABfHnyttsq6MLiLSYZx1bbjUbAeHeLd29Nkg4lsGZBLBYVUZZA 3EbgEm/cSDRPN8FI0a6Yw4vdlJAsvAHxFzv46e k2SHBRiSV49yAPtEUX/AP6ab tbjsIIMFNiiokkEOqyHUNCnrCqEcb2vfmQKjDFKTHzeRGtHO82 6Mt1YkSIJxvdgw2 Brn2aLqNhsRxtXX0z OfCy9XcgoWBPAWHA PKuNuwud dXxX7MuavQW6O4fRHIb7nYUczElIl2FtrihuXWAQE7E3NFM8kU x9lgdxVH2SXRlMK5 sqSB2mvty8K1uRKEzOJ19oNtcbbqVP5E1kYW 3Q/1CtbBdMbA/8AUB RpM32hj7BvTPEuMbPf79/eAf1pVc6WorYyYnmw5j7opVJPXRoDsrXJprnSL1KVtvVWQ6jbl UEaJMBdIsf1cLEi5e6Aeam5PkP0rn9qOdLMf1k7KDdIzoXuuPa PvFvQUEBr0sUeKPOyyuQhUoplqTcqoTJK9vTRXtcA9Br21IV6t cOmp6O56UweKwjH95oaPz1qJF8LqAf J76sZJi2hdZF9pCGA77cR6i49aycZsQe6tJhW2uOe9QyL2ej4T TTTNN9J0qyx4TER y9iL7GxB2PcQTY RrB4lTe9FsRjDJAuH46Zy0Y52kvqX8e/8AyrWYn6OZ0iaSZo4lAuSzX92kG57hzrsZUjPkglKjmRFTsLLv UuLiGqw4D8/H4U3Fiy2qqZBor4CYiUeVj5GtlD/tf5zrDQHtitvhZNoTzsL pZF7K4X2it0obtHz/Ss0p41pulDdo1l4zxpYjy7HpOqNdgT4DjT3zM27GwPv8qFzPck 99eRmrKCIvI kWZJidyb1ExNeg141MTsRrV/R10l qziOU/YykAk8I34K/gOR9DyrJg14y0VegTo3/0q5jN9c0yw3hjAWIksLlgGdgyEWJO3PZR3Gtx9Euaq8L4ftdVI paIOVJRrfaw3Fri51qbC92uAa5TmfSMz4CKCS7SxSadZ3LQ6Tp BP3lYBfIjxNaz6L8wXDrCuItoxEx6jiCpTstKG/hDPpQDmVPdSytLQ6psB9II3weIlgU2VjqABIHcQDYefdvWe6xb m6 vP3V0f6bMu0vBiA1wSY7dwtfVfx2FczkXeuR2gl2FYpUYqA3C2 x2P/AH6VsJo4Y49clgoG5P8Am9c8Ee1MlLEBSTbewubXUXBA949a7w sXkFc0zSDWGhBIBB4Fdx4HeqmP6QSyG47NuGnYj140FBpwNMoo 5yZ7INRJO5PEm5J8zXlOtSpjlnYp/ZoTmuJ6nDySDiBZf7mOlT7zf0ow26Vm m8wGEK82ZLeh1fpXmYlckj08motnOjTrUjv4GkLivTPLEhpSUr b15KaDo9TTr1Epp4NAIlWpALioVNSI1KdPY2vtzH Xo3lU11IvwoFPsb 75Vcy3Ei9/Q F6SatF/HycJpmj6MzhMdGxRXCi lgGFyQBsRxsONHvpK6RySYopqbQqINN9gTck279wL FZLJ3/aHI5W/KpOlcurFynxA/8AgP1vWeKvJX6N eEfhWRd2wezXN69mIKEW4fpUQH etKeXst7vWtSR5bByvZrj0rZ5LIXSO/EE39dxWKNa3oq57N bXHlalyLQ2J/US9KhZiP84VluF613S8ds1jpm2NTx7K5NFQ16K8r0VoMpKvDyr yvU4HyNMU0HRwNONMNPjagBhuL NFczzPrZdenQioiRqDskaCyqDtfmb8yxNDpE58vhUuAhEjrGWC 3YDUeAubE PlXGCOgdIs1 u5Mkz/voZERv6twNXjfY eocqyWDyuTEOEiRnci lQSbDibDlSzbMgplhj/AHNljAve5jOz fEX57Gr3RbNXw JglQm4ZQRe2pWNip8DSO0iqXKSRRxmXyQuY5UKOuxVtiNr/Aj31SkWxT 74gitP01x3XTLMVUF9V9ItfSQBq8eIueVqzOJOw/uWjHLkrDNjeOTiwXOmlivcT7uX5V4TtVvNk7Qb7w/MbfKqZ4VUgODUqhvSoA7dGNj5VznpxjS0wi5Rjf 5t//HT7zXSIBY2PKuWdNBbHTjxT/wCtaw Mrmzf5DqIF0CvSpHDhSBp6mtxgG6/CmOasrYioJU2v42oA8WnioxT1oAkBpymmCnCuHUST7ioVNtx6 Ip7Hap8twglOnrERjYAPrAN 5lU 41x6GirYZ6JDUzE8Tb1ud/0pudNfETH/3GHuNq1vRvJ1jijRkiLqQWlRnYt2iTcWDABbC3C4vfc0K6QZHK 00jQxAx6jbQ1 ftOHa6knUeQ7qyQnH5Xs9LJf8aMa6bbM4xqtin2PiassKG4l96 1o81kQai/RiYjEJubc99qEpUiMwIZSL8t9661aOJ0bbpYe17qxmKNarO8SJ EVlINwt/O24PdvWRxZ3qGNF8r0R0lFJRTgK0GcevA1ChqUm1VozQBPSvTQ aRNAWWY2qNxpPhTY2qdyCKU6V8Q2/nY/Oj2Tt9tF/cvx FBcDgZJZViiXU7myrcDe1 JIAFgTcmwotkaHr41IN7kEcCCL3FuVrflS5PtZXBvIv7Cufp2I D/VMD6FCPyNZzMWsAPH4A/OtT0hAMEbDcddLY/3Kh/SsjmTdpfU/CkwfYi//oKs7JMXvEp5qfjVCr HNwVPMW9aHnarmIirylelQcO54aTWA3MbGuV9OD 3T aD3RrXSYj1ch7jxrDfSLgLTidd0lAue50FiPDshT76xeNqf9o2 59xMqDXqmowacpraYh6GpoTsTVc05GoAffe9OKimE17XDp7pFW oMumddaRSMmrQGCMV1fdvwvuNvGocLh2kdI0F2dlRfNjYV1nNF SEpho/Yw6LGPE2DO/mWO/lU8uTgrLYcXySo56nRTFMLqi3 7rGr5fnUa9Ecbf/05Hm8Y9xLV0XASjVYkbVezEsELRHU43Cfe8ATtesy8if4RsfiQ/YP6EZNiSgGIYqb236p7Abe1rFzzrGZlip55OpclirEBLaRcG17 emxufA1r8Bjcax09V1e52fUDf3G/pRzAYtxIEmVCwB9hmdt9txp7PrYVNSUZOVbHlico1y0czxfR7F Ri7QPb7wUsAON2K30 tAzl7HcsvvvX0VBINPaGm5uBfcb7G44HyrmH0gZKilsTCoAEph nUAACUoJElAGwDod 5lNuNasWTl2Ys2JR6OdaLXB5cqc8IADcQfj3GpsQOBqGTbblVz ON1aSCp48R3 Yr3Gjte6mpuQPGljG7R9KPZ3/EYGpaj/AJvTAK9roo9idr8 7j3VGEI5VYia1ND7nxFcAjBr29PBr29FgNVqnijLkKoLMeAAJJ 8gKironRCBEgRgoDMNTHmb8Py5VPLNQVlsOL5JUZnLejmOEqvH h2JUniUsbixBBbdSLg BopgMhxiT9dLCRu8jMpQgGxY7Brjja1at2HG3GvcRhkdVLKr JAuPU1lfkOWmjfDxVB8kwTmmWhsGSqyMVdWVVWxBdAAzIwLae0 Lgb/pgM1wkiNd43QcBqRlF99rkcflXX8Bl8bo0din3TpMgFx7Vr72P cRXMcxyFzPKjTIWjcqwGo27iB3Eb u 9V8aVpol5quXJvYHEthex86inYE6hz4jx5/P1qxJhSjlHJGkj1B5jw4Up47HTz4i/MeB5 R/6rUeeUCtKnFqVAHa8xh7Zqzguj7TIQ0YMZ4hwCD42PxrYDKIte sgeA5VbnnUC1wK8f5HVI9XjbOMdJvo/iRvsmMZPL209L7j31lsV0PxSjUqCRe9Dc/hNmPoDXXekThmBG4HOhUE2kW5Vpx RPjslPBBnHJoHQ2dGUjkwKn3Gowa1/wBJB 2iseMZ/wDKsdW2EuUbMU48ZUSg16DUV6dqphDW/R5EoxPXPwiHZ/vYaR7lv VF8yzLVNKf/ck/8iB VYPD46RBZDYU85nIWLE7nc8hfvqOTG5GnFljA3 DxY/iIO3LiKsI5Y6oZk8Ua49QQDt51gcNnrqblQ3malw bqG1AmM G4qDwSRsj5MH7OnYfO5IFAmgbq 8XkTzutyvmbUQyrFwOLwMq8ToubHvO199/WsNlfSuVRvOgU25G/mBTMx6esRZYQWBPbvpBFrXsNzfja45UvwyfSHlmglbZ0fE41Ae 04YjfbbTz3F71m kM1sqxDvscXiomiU8RFHpCt6hGbyIrnmJ6UYltiUtx0hBpPpz9 agx3SCfEFRK5axuO6/C/wCZ99XxYnDsxZc0ZKkQSNURJJr0XOwBJ8K2eSfR286YGT6wq/W5ZY9JQkoYlkYkkN2r9WRy9qtBlMjgsMSC54AkDxNvlVbFDe9b 2fI5pgY8Ph2kETGM9WBpDC/ZGoi7EDVYXO96za5BiZdHVwSMJHaKOwA1SICWQXIsQAb3twNIr buiklFKkwCDSvRfCdFcbJG0seFkaNS4LAA7p7dhe7aedr07Lui eNnjSWHCySJIWCMNNmKX1Ab8tLe6nJAkmvL1psk6ET4v6usEiG ScYgsj3TqRAwU9YRc76hbaq/RXorJjMd9RLiGQdYGLLr0tGDdbAi/CigAQalqrT9I hT4dMPJDMuKjxLvHEY0dWMiPoKaDv7QIHlQnM jeLw7RpNh5EaQ6YxYHW19OgaSbtcgW40UAOZq32W41UVFvayqL bdwHOs43RLFpNDDNBJGZm0JZVkJI9oKAwBYc1LAir2WdE8ZLiG iRZDGmIGHeR1A6ti2m7JrO4BBIBPnU8mPmi DKsbs1CTXtYr53uD4bedST4xUtr7IO2ob 4c/Ks/Jk2NXFYjDQRHE/V3COw7K3Ps 0dieQvepchlx0zSRjCsRG6JNqG0TM2izht73vsN9vWs38eRuXl Y67NTlcoPajnUE8mW3Df2lO3uNXMdl74mFyywmVReNgSzFrj7O 9gdLgabHYMyG2wNAMdl0EONfCNGolWWGMyJ1yxgShD1hQMQLdZ uL/w0ewMvUGPXHEg tSQlVEjO31WUL1i3JLapTGoX sb00cUk7QmTNCUafs53irOtrXuNjz7Q2IPLjWfLa47nilvQf58 K2cuRYrrkhbDtHJPM6wh9lYayd2W9tKnccRp4VlOk2WyYSaXDS gCRX7QU3WxGoEGwuDccuVakjzmCCa8ple01HD64ly9Dx1e81Xb KojxW/qaHHEHx/OmLjmW9r8xXkOB6PL9l2fJoSLaazubdHiisyG47udWZMW/e351Wkxbna7WoUWd5fs5D09lvOg5rGL rH5VmCKO9KC8uKlYI5XUVXsseynZB4c7X9aE/VJP5b/gb5V6kFSSMGR3Jsgr0VOMK/8ALf8AA3yr36s/8t/wN8qcQiFOtUgwz/y3/A3yp31d/wCW/wCBvlXAIjGKYyVa rP/AC3/AAt8qY2Gf W/4G VAFmAdkeQ FRYgVPDA lew/4W5bd1eTQP9x/wt8q4dYOcUQy3Lw6lyTcG1v1JqucM/wDLf8DfKimVwOqkFW3/AKTXJ3WhsdctjsKgBsBauy9A836vC5XHeO0uIxSvqsWUKszgqb 9kkqBfuPjXHREwOyN E/KrkMJuv2XndL389qlCTRecVJUjonQuIdYspfWq5nKOqMiokJMb/tB4M7NcAC mz8DXnQ cMcTJrQDB5ljcQQzWJjkglQae/t2/OufZtBf/AGuVvY5d3CgM DbUPsz A/KqrJfok8dezrnQjGt/p2WtE HVoGxvXzTAuMMGZ37aiVPbBXc34g0/6PZlGGyW7AWxWNJuQLfZ4i1weH/dcijwraxeNvwn5UYhwVw14 X3OP5UPJXoFjv2FvoxmRM/VmYKDJihckAXKvYXNN iFeqzwLJ2Cv1gNqIFjpO1YnFYR726t/wt8qg pv8Ay3/A3yp0ybR295UwZyWLEyRo6YvFO41o2lZZJCjMVJAHbXf5VFmWN aHFYHr3w8MX pTOkSqdYRnf9oeRpGGli4PADtbbCuLDBv8Ay3/A3yr36m/8t/wN8qDh118JLDmWFM2KAjkzSeWLDWXsoXZhiNYPBtQFj3 FFsEwcY1VZSVzyKQjUo7AljJbc8LA 6uMZXlLSvpKlV3JJFvIC43O4rQYD6PJnjDvIkeo6Yl0l2diGIB sRoB0nv8ALcX7H6pcV2EvpjyfR0iHFB3zaKHqpJzj8PIiOSRpD xfa6VdSypYtsbbb NHCzGZM2UTQyynGYFi0dokcJLGGZQznYaW31HgTzrm2edGRhtA MokLK57KEBOrbS53PaW9 1t7PAUOiwig20lja 68PL0INEk46ZyL5bRt/pKzJRmWPHXEKxS2kA3P1aMbNy3H5Vo kvSIDOcs1vGsXVwyyMLAB5WcuWI2F3CE/2i9c2To5MYjKID1Y3vsDbv031EbHlyNE h XCaUYb2BIeOngLHUbG19h30j nZVPnr8G06QYlop8EJWw8Uf qvKkShus0da18S8jSsNLagbWA7QtsK519JyEZpjLj2pSw53Vhc EW5EUd kP6P4sDDC8RkZ2YrIPbXwK2QEcOB7/fgfqcn8p/wN8q7GSkrQkotFe1e1P9Vk/lv FvlSrpw 1qVKlXQFSpUqAFSpUqAFSpUqAFSpUqAFSpUqAFSpUqAFSpUqAF SpUqAFSpUqAFVSeKW91cAWNgQO4WPC/G/PurylQBGYZ7fvBe3cLXvx9n7tvW9e9VNf8AeAD07 XZ7v148lSoAUcU1xdxbnwue0T93usPf5160c19nAFz3Hblbs0q VAGa6Z9DfrcQdWUYuOxSTgGsbhWtw8DxFh41nMn6L418PhmJVX jlV 25ZhHqcSWIvc2WLSL7am4W39pVxPjLkuzrdw4voevRjGJEiIid YsEqqdY09e7dYGvxKKWIFxy5XBFifonjQ5MdtGp9jISdHXQ6SN XBjFHNuCCDKRcbUqVPLffvYqjXRYn6PY0NNoCnXNFJ1hftmMLE rpfYh9EbryFjcEE1Xm6K44ngpVi4dTMT9n18OkC4tcwRy7gDeV r8aVKkVW3W7FUa0WBlGPDq76m0iQsFxLxhnaQFLBWXsBAdjsbg Fdt7EOX4wRMGhLSBiwJeN7qLWUGRyRv37caVKu8Y3yrf/euhoNxtp/69B7KocV1KdYxV7bglGI7rkCxNrUqVKg6f/9k=

pastradamus

8th January 2017, 20:32

Likening Putin with Hitler is paranoia too. Putin is not Hitler not least because leftists are not persecuted in Russia.

He tolerates nobody that disagrees with him. Including leftists.

19591

General Winter

9th January 2017, 12:50

Well, there is marxism wich is a method first of all and one should think by himself every time.And there is a vulgar marxism where one commits by rote covenants and suras and where is no place for marxist analysis, they see marxism as a number of universal schemes and they simply pull on reality one or another of pre-existing schemes.

What does the situation of 1905 when Russia stood against an approximately equal in strength enemy has in common with today? What could have Russia faced in the case of the defeat? The loss of part of the territory or sphere of influence, not the loss of independence and not the enslavement, of course.

"No war except the class war","The workers have no country" - they harp on.But let's take Iraq as an example,where the key role in the national war played not communists unfortunately but the national bourgeoisie. So, didn't the Iraqis have the right to the national war, was an alliance of Communists with patriotic bourgeoisie illegal from the Marxist point of view?

How is Russia fundamentally different from Iraq? Only by size.

The basic premise here is that Russia is the same imperialist as the US or the EU and they are equally responsible.There is nothing new in this position wich is downright knavish. I must repeat again:judging udging by dimesions of the financial capital, by the economic structure, by the place in the international division of labor,by the overall economic strength Russia cannot be classed among imperialist powers in any the case. Russia cannot be compared with international TNC wich have such instruments of enslavement as IMF, WTO, NATO, EU, Paris and London clubs, where sit the creditors and the owners of the world. Russia here can't even get near. It's a victim of TNC robbery itself.

" Russia today is a modern, sophisticated, capitalist economy, albeit one with a lot more poverty and decay than the others." - wow,really? Post-Soviet Russia has gone through a catastrophic de-industrialization, which continues even today:from 2005 to 2015 in Russia were closed 35 thousands of large and medium-sized enterprises. The domination of imperialist monopolies in the colonial and dependent countries leads to disproportions of economy. In Russia under the pressure of imperialism a strong imbalance in favor of fuel-energy complex was developed. Oil, gas and metals prevail in the structure of production- about 60%. The share of extractive industries in the export is 60% and 30% of budget revenues. - isn't it clear that this structure of production is the structure of the depended country?

Revleft's " theorists" do not want to notice this obvious things. They deliberately equate Russia with Western imperialism and thus,btw, downplaying crimes wich real imperialism commits.

What one should conclude of this? At the time when imperialism takes the path of recreating the colonial system, the communists should be allies, and even the leaders of the patriotic movement of the peoples against imperialism. Especially because only the communists are able to make this movement really progressive,to include in it understanding of the fact that there is no capitalist alternative to imperialist slavery. Examples of Yugoslavia,Libya and Iraq show that there is no chance to the national bourgeoisie . Russia is facing the question head-on : the most barbarian colonial slavery or the modernization of the country on the communist basis

Sinister Cultural Marxist

12th January 2017, 08:06

" Russia today is a modern, sophisticated, capitalist economy, albeit one with a lot more poverty and decay than the others." - wow,really? Post-Soviet Russia has gone through a catastrophic de-industrialization, which continues even today:from 2005 to 2015 in Russia were closed 35 thousands of large and medium-sized enterprises. The domination of imperialist monopolies in the colonial and dependent countries leads to disproportions of economy. In Russia under the pressure of imperialism a strong imbalance in favor of fuel-energy complex was developed. Oil, gas and metals prevail in the structure of production- about 60%. The share of extractive industries in the export is 60% and 30% of budget revenues. - isn't it clear that this structure of production is the structure of the depended country?

Post-Soviet deindustrialization is in no way incompatible with Russia being an imperialist power. Neither is exporting resources. Once again, Russia today is far more industrialized relative to other European countries and the USA than it was in 1914 despite its industrialization, thanks to the modernization programs of the USSR. From 1991 to the early 2000s, one might have been able to make the argument that Russia was not truly imperialist due to the severe weakness of their economy, but not anymore.

What one should conclude of this? At the time when imperialism takes the path of recreating the colonial system, the communists should be allies, and even the leaders of the patriotic movement of the peoples against imperialism. Especially because only the communists are able to make this movement really progressive,to include in it understanding of the fact that there is no capitalist alternative to imperialist slavery. Examples of Yugoslavia,Libya and Iraq show that there is no chance to the national bourgeoisie . Russia is facing the question head-on : the most barbarian colonial slavery or the modernization of the country on the communist basis

Russia's ruling oligarchs clearly do not recognize the dilemma that you seem to indicate here. They are no longer Communists if they ever were, and will do anything in their power to stop socialist movements from returning to Russia in any kind of meaningful manner. We all face the same dilemma between capitalism in its various forms and socialism - that does not mean the ruling classes of our nation states are in any way "socialist"

Well, there is marxism wich is a method first of all and one should think by himself every time.And there is a vulgar marxism where one commits by rote covenants and suras and where is no place for marxist analysis, they see marxism as a number of universal schemes and they simply pull on reality one or another of pre-existing schemes.

The "vulgar Marxist" is the one who tries to make Marxism compatible with the defense of nationalist oligarchies. Anyone who defends a homophobic, nationalist regime which supports reactionaries in other countries like Orban, Trump and Le Pen because "dialectics" does not understand Marxism.

The basic premise here is that Russia is the same imperialist as the US or the EU and they are equally responsible.There is nothing new in this position wich is downright knavish. I must repeat again:judging udging by dimesions of the financial capital, by the economic structure, by the place in the international division of labor,by the overall economic strength Russia cannot be classed among imperialist powers in any the case. Russia cannot be compared with international TNC wich have such instruments of enslavement as IMF, WTO, NATO, EU, Paris and London clubs, where sit the creditors and the owners of the world. Russia here can't even get near. It's a victim of TNC robbery itself.

Russia is a member of the WTO ... and for the 50 millionth time, the Russian division of labor in 1914 was even farther from a modern capitalist economy than it is today. It was a peasant agrarian economy, unlike the industrialized British and German economies.

How is Russia fundamentally different from Iraq? Only by size.

Size, GDP per capita, the relative wealth of their oligarchs, the nature of their international relations with neighbors, the power of their military, their arms exports, their domestic arms production, their investment in foreign nations ...

Trying to escape, Russia involuntarily again plays the role of a weak link in the chain of imperialism. Just look at the map of the world and see that imperialism can not reconcile to a fact of the existence of the state with such a vast territory. Even Iraq and Libya were divided into several parts, so it's easy to imagine what would happen with Russia in the case of defeat .

Russia in 2016 is even smaller than Russia in 1914. Again, you are highlighting an irrelevant characteristic to make a specious argument.

Babeufist

16th January 2017, 13:09

1/ Russia is of course an imperialist country (strictly: sub-imperialist).
2/ Russia and China fight in the name of their national interests against the US/Western hegemony, for the multi-polar world.
3/ First World leftists oppose the multipolarism because ALL the Western societies are beneficiaries of the Western super-imperialist hegemony.

What part of "The worker has no country" not deny national interest? What is "the national interest"?

Do you remember only this five words of the Communist Manifesto? Read all:

The proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is, so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word (the Communist Manifesto).

Babeufist

17th January 2017, 21:26

African worker works harder than Chinese worker, Chinese worker works harder than Polish worker, Polish worker works harder than US worker. But US worker is richer than Polish worker, Polish worker is richer than Chinese worker and Chinese worker is richer than the African one. Why? The reason is the UNFAIR INTERNATIONAL DIVISION OF LABOUR.

Fabrizio Picco

17th January 2017, 23:37

I don't know what will happen if the russian economy falls. I expect it to be so because in this way , We the communists will have more chances to take the power in that country

General Winter

18th January 2017, 04:28

I don't know what will happen if the russian economy falls. I expect it to be so because in this way , We the communists will have more chances to take the power in that country

If Russia will be defeated then in the a short time will be finished off it's aircraft, automobile,defense industry and agriculture, and Russia will turn completely into a petro-state.And the fragmentation of the country under the Libyan-case scenario.Nothing good will come of it except of strengthening of imperialism and of the destruction of its weakest link.

African worker works harder than Chinese worker, Chinese worker works harder than Polish worker, Polish worker works harder than US worker. But US worker is richer than Polish worker, Polish worker is richer than Chinese worker and Chinese worker is richer than the African one. Why? The reason is the UNFAIR INTERNATIONAL DIVISION OF LABOUR.

Even 150 years ago Engels remarked : “The English proletariat is actually becoming more and more bourgeois, so that this most bourgeois of all nations is apparently aiming ultimately at the possession of a bourgeois aristocracy and a bourgeois proletariat alongside the bourgeoisie. For a nation which exploits the whole world this is of course to a certain extent justifiable....the workers gaily share the feast of England’s monopoly of the world market and the colonies.”

100 years ago Lenin in his work quoted British economist Hobson:" ...the ruling state has used its provinces, colonies, and dependencies in order to enrich its ruling class and to bribe its lower classes into acquiescence.”

Long time ago Western working class has become bourgeois sharing the feast of exploatation of dependent countries of the Third World,in fact there is no more proletariat in the West.So what can we expect from it's Leftists? Degenerative woorking class forms degenerative leftists,hense left anticommunism,hense their hatred to any successful revolution,hence their support of imperialist actions all over the world.Look, this very same Sinister Cultural Marxist 5 years ago during the NATO intervention in Lybia vilified Gaddafi in solidarity with the interventionists.Today in the same words he writes about Russia,it seems he want the Lybian scenario for it.Why not? Speaking in the words of Rhodes,imperialism is a bread and butter question. Guys are not to blame,they simply want to have more bread and butter.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

18th January 2017, 05:35

I
Long time ago Western working class has become bourgeois sharing the feast of exploatation of dependent countries of the Third World,in fact there is no more proletariat in the West.So what can we expect from it's Leftists? Degenerative woorking class forms degenerative leftists,hense left anticommunism,hense their hatred to any successful revolution,hence their support of imperialist actions all over the world.Look, this very same Sinister Cultural Marxist 5 years ago during the NATO intervention in Lybia vilified Gaddafi in solidarity with the interventionists.Today in the same words he writes about Russia,it seems he want the Lybian scenario for it.Why not? Speaking in the words of Rhodes,imperialism is a bread and butter question. Guys are not to blame,they simply want to have more bread and butter.

Liar. Gaddafi was a dreadful autocrat and deserved to be condemned, and Libya was not a "successful" revolution but the rise of an autocratic bourgeois clique around a narcissistic despot. There was no rise of working class power but a military coup, which eventually led to Gaddafi trying to get chummy with, ironically, global imperialists like Tony Blair. Yet condemning him does not then entail endorsing or being "in solidarity" with Western Imperialism and the destruction of Libyan society by NATO. Clearly, you lack the capacity to grasp such nuance.

Also, where the fuck did I endorse NATO dismantlement of Russia you dishonest little shit? Quote me or shut the fuck up. The Ottoman Young Turks were dreadful genocidal autocrats who deserved to be roundly condemned for their brutality, for instance towards Armenians - making such an argument, as many contemporary Marxists did, does not mean that they endorsed the British and French annexation of former Ottoman colonies.

But then again, why should I expect honest politics from someone who seems to posses a truly vulgar and incoherent mix of apologism for oligarchy, nationalism and Maoist Third Worldism. At least honest Stalinists don't engage in such pathetic apologism for Vladimir Putin. But then, I guess if your worldview is so fundamentally myopic that you have lost all sight of class struggle, where everything has become about siding with one power over another, where struggle between bourgeois nation-states is the only form of struggle you are capable of comprehending, then you might elect to side with Russia. I can see why someone with such a shortsighted worldview might view any criticism of Putin as support of NATO, or any acknowledgement of Russian Imperialism is a support of American Imperialism, since it is the only thing the bronze-age Manichean brain can grasp. At the very least though, don't call yourself a Communist, and just have the intellectual honesty to admit that you're nothing more than a bourgeois nationalist.

General Winter

18th January 2017, 12:29

Gaddafi was a dreadful autocrat and deserved to be condemned, and Libya was not a "successful" revolution but the rise of an autocratic bourgeois clique around a narcissistic despot.

Gaddafi was faulted by the West for his increasingly nationalistic policies in the energy sector and for trying to “Libyanize” the economy,that's how he became a "dreadful autocrat ,a narcissistic despot",etc.,etc. Of course, the outcome of any successful imperialist intervention against a bourgeois nationalist regime is its replacement by a comprador one.There was a secular state, an "enlightened tyranny" wich tried to pursue an independent national policy - now there is a fragmented country under the control of the most barbarous sort of islamic compradors.That's what you have wished for Libya,should it's working class thank you for it?

You condemn the brutalized and brutalizers equally. You take a comfortable though craven moral stance, but your condemnation of targeted governments is irrelevant. Since the character of governments under siege has nothing whatever to do with the reasons for the intervention, and does not, in the case of capitalist imperialist interventions, justify it, there can be one reason alone for singling out the victim for equal condemnation in the context of his assault: a desire for respectability and a penchant for knuckling under to mainstream opinion, and btw that very same bread and butter question.

Also, where the fuck did I endorse NATO dismantlement of Russia you dishonest little shit? Quote me or shut the fuck up.

At first - I'm not going to talk in such tone,one more durty language towards me and you'll go to my ignore list.Got it,sir?

At second - it's easy to make conclusion knowing your previous Libyan position.I've wrote that the root of the conflict is ann anti-comprador policy and you didn't challenge it.I've wrote that in the case of defeat Russia will face the Libyan scenario and you didn't challenge it too.So what can you with your anti-Russian attacks endorse except the victory of compradors and the fate of Libya?

At least honest Stalinists don't engage in such pathetic apologism for Vladimir Putin

As a " honest Stalinist" I do not engage in pathetic apologism for Vladimir Putin, "extreme reactionary and conservative Putin" - it is not apologetics at all. At the same time I reject a primitive demonisation and try do give an objective view: Putin is actually extreme reactionary and conservative but some of his actions - the anti-comprador policy, the support of Syria,Venezuela,Cuba,anti-Nazi rebels in Ukraine - must be approved. And I suspect that not for the reactionary but just for this actions Revleft's fans of bread and butter attack him.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

18th January 2017, 23:32

Gaddafi was faulted by the West for his increasingly nationalistic policies in the energy sector and for trying to “Libyanize” the economy,that's how he became a "dreadful autocrat ,a narcissistic despot",etc.,etc. Of course, the outcome of any successful imperialist intervention against a bourgeois nationalist regime is its replacement by a comprador one.There was a secular state, an "enlightened tyranny" wich tried to pursue an independent national policy - now there is a fragmented country under the control of the most barbarous sort of islamic compradors.That's what you have wished for Libya,should it's working class thank you for it?

His policies were nationalistic back in the 70s. He was increasingly opening up to Western capital, hence the visits from imperialists like Tony Blair, and people like Saif Gaddafi was looking to implement increasingly neoliberal policies (which themselves may have damaged the social contract that kept Libya stable), but those running the major NATO powers in 2011 just did not trust him as a comprador because he was erratic and unpredictable.

Also, one can oppose Western imperialists and still be a narcissistic despot. Saddam Hussein was such a character.

You condemn the brutalized and brutalizers equally. You take a comfortable though craven moral stance, but your condemnation of targeted governments is irrelevant. Since the character of governments under siege has nothing whatever to do with the reasons for the intervention, and does not, in the case of capitalist imperialist interventions, justify it, there can be one reason alone for singling out the victim for equal condemnation in the context of his assault: a desire for respectability and a penchant for knuckling under to mainstream opinion, and btw that very same bread and butter question.

Criticizing Gaddafi does not mean supporting intervention in Libya. That's the "black and white" manichean view of reality which I am challenging. Libya was obiously too small and weak to be an Imperialist power but I disagree with you on Russia - hence why I argue the case of Russia is more analogous to WWI than a case like Libya or Iraq.

At first - I'm not going to talk in such tone,one more durty language towards me and you'll go to my ignore list.Got it,sir?

I won't talk to you in a rude tone if you don't speak dishonestly and misrepresent my views. You can argue, perhaps, I was too critical of Gaddafi, and some more reasonable forum members did make such an argument at the time, but to say I supported NATO destroying their national institutions from the sky and causing the collapse of Libyan society is just unreasonable. If you are willing to have a fair discussion, then sure. If you lie about what I said about the revolt in Libya or suggest I support NATO somehow dismantling Russia when I never said any such thing, I will get irritated at your dishonesty.

At second - it's easy to make conclusion knowing your previous Libyan position.I've wrote that the root of the conflict is ann anti-comprador policy and you didn't challenge it.I've wrote that in the case of defeat Russia will face the Libyan scenario and you didn't challenge it too.So what can you with your anti-Russian attacks endorse except the victory of compradors and the fate of Libya?

I didn't bother to challenge it because I have limited time and can't go around critiquing all of your claims.

As a " honest Stalinist" I do not engage in pathetic apologism for Vladimir Putin, "extreme reactionary and conservative Putin" - it is not apologetics at all. At the same time I reject a primitive demonisation and try do give an objective view: Putin is actually extreme reactionary and conservative but some of his actions - the anti-comprador policy, the support of Syria,Venezuela,Cuba,anti-Nazi rebels in Ukraine - must be approved. And I suspect that not for the reactionary but just for this actions Revleft's fans of bread and butter attack him.

Many people on the forum think supporting Assad is a bad policy for good reasons (though before you say anything, that does NOT mean supporting murderous Saudi-backed Salafists over Assad), but I think the main reason people reject him is because he defends important factions of the Russian oligarchy and empowers the Orthodox church. Also, again, because many of us see Russia as an Imperialist power. You might disagree with that thesis, but debate it on honest terms instead of ascribing views to others inaccurately. We can oppose what we take to be Russian Imperialism without endorsing Western Imperialism in Russia, much as with my example of opposing Ottoman brutality while also opposing British, French and Russian efforts to gobble up portions of the Ottoman Empire. You are too quick to assume that, say, criticizing Assad means one supports NATO dropping bombs, or criticizing Russian bombing of areas means one supports the rebel groups that such bombing is purportedly trying to prevent.

I've never seen anyone criticizing Putin for selling weapons to Cuba and Venezuela on this forum. Though I am critical of aspects of both governments, I see both of them as far less problematic than Putin's government, I support them against American meddling, and I see that their relations with Russia are largely pragmatic. So again, you are ascribing views to others either out of (1) your own prejudices or (2) some kind of intellectual dishonesty.

General Winter

19th January 2017, 05:12

I have limited time and can't go around critiquing all of your claims.

I have limited time too,and besides I've got bored repeating the same,otherwise I could show in more details that Russian imperialism is not formed, quite contrary,Western imperialism is trying to take control over the Russian economy.

I argue the case of Russia is more analogous to WWI than a case like Libya or Iraq.

It's as like as chalk and cheese. There were two roughly equal in strength imperialist blocks and Russia was in one of them.Since 1945 imperialists are united in a single block - today's world is monopolar - and the forces of Russia and of the imperialist block are simply incomparable,Russia today can be only a victim.Today's conflict sooner or later should open the eyes of masses in Russia to the fact that the bourgeoisie is not able to defend the country.

As for Gaddafi,Hussein and Assad: is the repression of reactionary forces that threaten the state a crime? If you’re an Islamist, comprador or if you’re an ideologue for the particular imperialist intervention,the answer is yes. But if you’re a real leftist or a secular nationalist , the answer is no.

Actually Russian bourgeoise serves it's own interests in Syria but objectively it stands against reactionary forces there.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

19th January 2017, 05:55

I have limited time too,and besides I've got bored repeating the same,otherwise I could show in more details that Russian imperialism is not formed, quite contrary,Western imperialism is trying to take control over the Russian economy.

I don't think anybody is arguing that the West isn't seeking more economic influence over Russia, but that doesn't show that Russia is not an Imperialist power in its own right. After all Russia is itself striving for more power and influence in the West, and currently is doing a better job of it despite the fact that it is weaker than the major Western powers combined.

It's as like as chalk and cheese. There were two roughly equal in strength imperialist blocks and Russia was in one of them.Since 1945 imperialists are united in a single block - today's world is monopolar - and the forces of Russia and of the imperialist block are simply incomparable,Russia today can be only a victim.Today's conflict sooner or later should open the eyes of masses in Russia to the fact that the bourgeoisie is not able to defend the country.

Imperialist blocs don't have to be equal in strength to both be Imperialist. Even during WWI the Allied powers were stronger than the Central powers on economic terms, and as a more extreme example, the US was vastly more powerful than the Spanish Empire during the Spanish-American war. Of course, Spain was still an Imperialist power despite its relative weakness. Powerful capitalist empires will always prey on weaker ones.

As for Gaddafi,Hussein and Assad: is the repression of reactionary forces that threaten the state a crime? If you’re an Islamist, comprador or if you’re an ideologue for the particular imperialist intervention,the answer is yes. But if you’re a real leftist or a secular nationalist , the answer is no.

First off, while clearly reactionary forces should be combated, it should not be done for the sake of defending bourgeois states. Secondly, it is not the repression of reactionary forces like ISIS, al-Nusra or Saudi-backed Salafists that people object to, but the wanton killing of civilians to do so, as well as the targeting of non-reactionary groups in addition to reactionaries.

Actually Russian bourgeoise serves it's own interests in Syria but objectively it stands against reactionary forces there.

Imperialists have often targeted reactionary movements in an area, merely to use that as a cover for expanding their geopolitical interests. Al Qaeda in Iraq, the predecessor of ISIS, ran Fallujah when the US moved in. The Taliban in Afghanistan are also a deeply reactionary movement. The point is not to support the Imperialists or to support the reactionaries in these cases, but to recognize that neither party deserves our support.

General Winter

22nd January 2017, 06:19

At first: the definition of imperialism - "Lybia is too small to be imperialist" - makes me smile,the presence or the absence of imperialism are characterized not by sizes of the country.

At second,back to topic:Putin's regime has a two-part charachter.It acts against domestic compradors - and at the same time it carries out a severe anti-social policy.It supports anti-Nazi rebells in Estern Ukraine - and at the same time it did everything to
prevent a spread of the rebellion to other regions,as any reactionary they fear people's rebellions.It supports Syria now - but at the same time he has betrayed Lybia 5 years ago.It supports Venezuala and Cuba - and at the same time the far right movements in Europe.

So what the conclusion should be? That very same: a two-part charachter needs a two-part characterization.But instead of it we see here a primitive total demonisation.

Western leftist constantly take part in demonization of anti-Westrn regimes ,and not without a selfish motive for the reasons given above.Their attitude towards Russia,Syria, Libya is similar.

"Reactionary forces should be combated, it should not be done for the sake of defending bourgeois states" - sounds revolutionary,but in fact it is false and demagogic. You should base your decisions on reality and facts and on not your desires - there is no a third force in Syria and Libya now,there is no other alternative: either there is a regime of the national bourgeoisie ,or the most savage islamic reaction,one or another.

There is no three-side barrickades: when at wartime you attacks one of the side you are clearly on the side of it's enemy. So you gentlemen, dispite your vocal ultra-left rhetoric are on the side of imperialism and reaction.

PS

A r-r-revolutionary dude here has said somethig on "the Russophile and nationalist stuf",that's aimed at me as far as I understand.According his logic as I support Syria I'm also an Arabophille,and also a LatinAmericaphille, etc..However,I don't see nothing negative in all nation's "phillies",these senses are opposite to national hatred.So my critics are again on the wrong side.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

22nd January 2017, 14:15

At first: the definition of imperialism - "Lybia is too small to be imperialist" - makes me smile,the presence or the absence of imperialism are characterized not by sizes of the country.

Imperialism requires a sufficient level of wealth relative to the global economy for the capital of a state to find it more efficient to secure its interests abroad. A nation needs to be able to aggregate enough wealth in its imperial center. A nation that is both relatively poor and small like Libya simply lacks the financial means to do so outside of a bloc of nations (that's not without trying, however, like Gaddafi's absurd attempt to prop up Idi Amin to expand his influence in Africa).

At second,back to topic:Putin's regime has a two-part charachter.It acts against domestic compradors - and at the same time it carries out a severe anti-social policy.It supports anti-Nazi rebells in Estern Ukraine - and at the same time it did everything to
prevent a spread of the rebellion to other regions,as any reactionary they fear people's rebellions.It supports Syria now - but at the same time he has betrayed Lybia 5 years ago.It supports Venezuala and Cuba - and at the same time the far right movements in Europe.

So what the conclusion should be? That very same: a two-part charachter needs a two-part characterization.But instead of it we see here a primitive total demonisation.

The US bombs ISIS while supporting the Salafist Saudi state. Does that give it a "two part character" as well? On the contrary, both are obviously a consequence of the same American Imperialist interests. Opposing ISIS does not mean we endorse American Imperialism in Syria and Iraq.

Western leftist constantly take part in demonization of anti-Westrn regimes ,and not without a selfish motive for the reasons given above.Their attitude towards Russia,Syria, Libya is similar.

It is this kind of intellectually dishonest bullshit that is aggravating ... no, the "motive" is not to aid American Imperialism by undermining Russia. One can support the defeat of both sides, which was Lenin's view during WWI. If you notice, in 1914 there was no other "clear side" in the war than the Central Powers and the Allies, which is the argument that the chauvinist socialists made. They were proven wrong of course after discontent over years of war led to unrest in Ireland, Russia, Germany and many other places. It is a far more principled position than the kind of social chauvinism behind supporting one side or the other. Real socialism won't re-emerge in Russia through Putin and his cronies, no matter how hard people wish it.

"Reactionary forces should be combated, it should not be done for the sake of defending bourgeois states" - sounds revolutionary,but in fact it is false and demagogic. You should base your decisions on reality and facts and on not your desires - there is no a third force in Syria and Libya now,there is no other alternative: either there is a regime of the national bourgeoisie ,or the most savage islamic reaction,one or another.

There is no three-side barrickades: when at wartime you attacks one of the side you are clearly on the side of it's enemy. So you gentlemen, dispite your vocal ultra-left rhetoric are on the side of imperialism and reaction.

A false dilemma - it's not like one must choose between Salafists and Baathists, since both stand against a large number of the Syrian people. We can stand with the concerns of the Syrian workers, peasants and religious minorities without supporting the Salafists who want to take power. Criticizing both sides for different reasons doesn't mean you actually really support one side. And criticizing them won't stop Assad from winning (any more than being an online apologist for the Baathists will aid their victory). However, it will put us on the side of the millions of refugees, internally displaced people, Kurds, other oppressed groups, workers, the poor and so on whose interests are not being pursued by either faction.

General Winter

22nd January 2017, 15:43

The US bombs ISIS while supporting the Salafist Saudi state. Does that give it a "two part character" as well?

You have misquote what was said above. The talk was not about the USA but about the ambivalence of the Russian regime and facts in support of this assertion were given.

One can support the defeat of both sides, which was Lenin's view during WWI.

Again an attempt to pull up a pre-existed sheme on a new reality.There is nothing in common of today's situation with 1914. Then there was a rivalry of two imperialist blocks , now there is a single imperialist center that supress disobedient countries one after another.I doubt that you do not understand the difference between situations.

Real socialism won't re-emerge in Russia through Putin and his cronies,

And again you distort the facts,I've never asserted nothing of that kind.

The talk is that "the more powerful enemy can be vanquished only by exerting the utmost effort, and by the most thorough, careful, attentive, skilful and obligatory use of any, even the smallest, rift between the enemies, any conflict of interests among the bourgeoisie of the various countries and among the various groups or types of bourgeoisie within the various countries, and also by taking advantage of any, even the smallest, opportunity of winning a mass ally, even though this ally is temporary, vacillating, unstable, unreliable and conditional. Those who do not understand this reveal a failure to understand even the smallest grain of Marxism, of modern scientific socialism in general." - Lenin.

A false dilemma - it's not like one must choose between Salafists and Baathists, since both stand against a large number of the Syrian people. We can stand with the concerns of the Syrian workers, peasants and religious minorities without supporting the Salafists who want to take power.

The real dilemma is a secular regime or a fragmentation of the country and the islamic reaction.You stands against the secular power together with your State Department.

The Intransigent Faction

22nd January 2017, 17:39

I don't have time for a more lengthy post right now (on my Mac/work computer 'cause my PC's hard drive is in need of repair), but:

Putin is Russian nationalism's last desperate grasp at glory, personified. He also happens to be an obstacle NATO would like removed, or at least left as impotent as possible. As Julian Assange said, "The easiest thing in the world [for American imperialists and their allies, at least] right now is to criticize Putin."

We can and must take a stance against both American imperialism and the personification of Russian nationalism. This should not be done in a blind, knee-jerk sort of way, but one based on actual in-depth examination of geopolitical context. Russia is as encircled as ever, and every NATO comprador regime in a former Soviet republic, or state neighbouring one, undermines Russian workers' ability to carry out revolutionary organization just as much as the reactionaries who don't suit NATO's interests, if not more so. Yet, even greater than the damage done by NATO expansion is NATO destabilization of countries geographically or otherwise politically close to Russia. Marauding warlords in failed states with dysfunctional infrastructure are among the worst-case scenarios for radical left organization.

As we know from countless historical examples, intervention by external reactionary forces only makes things worse for revolutionaries. One could certainly make the case that Russia's current method of intervention in Syria falls into this category, but then one could say the same for NATO's. The question, tactically speaking for the revolutionary left, is: In what circumstance is it easier to organize revolutionary socialist resistance? The burden of proof should be on those in favour of foreign intervention (obviously international workers' solidarity is one thing, but imperialist intervention doesn't really fall under that category).

Sinister Cultural Marxist

23rd January 2017, 03:53

You have misquote what was said above. The talk was not about the USA but about the ambivalence of the Russian regime and facts in support of this assertion were given.

I guess you don't understand analogies very well

Again an attempt to pull up a pre-existed sheme on a new reality.There is nothing in common of today's situation with 1914. Then there was a rivalry of two imperialist blocks , now there is a single imperialist center that supress disobedient countries one after another.I doubt that you do not understand the difference between situations.

You can only reach this position by denying Russian imperialism, which does not fit with the role Putin's Russia has been playing in the CIS states and the Middle East. Just because Russia is weaker, it doesn't make it not Imperialist. If anything, Putin has been incredibly good at playing a weaker hand to expand Russian influence and empower detestable regimes within NATO. Sure, it undermines NATO when someone like Orban is in power in Hungary, but why should we be happy that Russian interests are benefited at the expense of refugees?

The real dilemma is a secular regime or a fragmentation of the country and the islamic reaction.You stands against the secular power together with your State Department.

Again you are throwing in petty and dishonest fallacies, it is not "my" state department and I am not defending their position. Just because I criticize Russia, doesn't make me a supporter of NATO expansion in the former USSR or Western projects in the Middle East.

We can and must take a stance against both American imperialism and the personification of Russian nationalism. This should not be done in a blind, knee-jerk sort of way, but one based on actual in-depth examination of geopolitical context. Russia is as encircled as ever, and every NATO comprador regime in a former Soviet republic, or state neighbouring one, undermines Russian workers' ability to carry out revolutionary organization just as much as the reactionaries who don't suit NATO's interests, if not more so. Yet, even greater than the damage done by NATO expansion is NATO destabilization of countries geographically or otherwise politically close to Russia. Marauding warlords in failed states with dysfunctional infrastructure are among the worst-case scenarios for radical left organization.

I think this is true, and a much more reasonable position than the one Winter Soldier was putting out. We should absolutely oppose the meddling by NATO powers to suit their own interests. What worries me, at least, is when this spills over into defending, or acting as a cover for, corrupt regimes that violate the rights of workers or milk them for money, and who pass reactionary laws to cover for their lack of real emancipatory politics. We should also recognize that there is an important connection between not only Russian revanchism, but socially reactionary politics being put forward in countries like Russia and the lack of any kind of progressive political program. Socialism, despite the shortcomings of the Soviet model, remains fairly popular in Russia due to the dysfunctions of post-Soviet capitalism. Yet Putin is able to allay this political desire through nationalism, traditional religious hierarchy and other reactionary social forces.

General Winter

23rd January 2017, 05:30

I guess you don't understand analogies very well

Foolish analogies prove nothing.

Just because Russia is weaker, it doesn't make it not Imperialist.

Just because Russia is catastrophically weaker it can be only a victim of imperialists - this fact you are carefully trying to gloss over.

why should we be happy that Russian interests are benefited at the expense of refugees?

A demagogy : Refugees are the result of the war started not by Russia.And after this you pretend to be objective?

Just because I criticize Russia, doesn't make me a supporter of NATO expansion

Just because you take part in the information war this make you a supporter of NATO.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

23rd January 2017, 06:20

Just because Russia is catastrophically weaker it can be only a victim of imperialists - this fact you are carefully trying to gloss over.

Uhm, again one can easily point to the victimization of Spanish Imperialists by American imperialists in the Spanish-American war, or Ottoman imperialists at the hands of Britain, France, Italy, Russia and Austria at the end of the 19th century. Or should communists have sided with Madrid and Istanbul?

A demagogy : Refugees are the result of the war started not by Russia.And after this you pretend to be objective?

Red Herring - it doesn't matter where the refugees are coming from, we stand in solidarity with them. Jewish refugees were the result of ethnic oppression caused by the Germans - that doesn't mean the British and Americans should not have taken them. Moreover, Russia's non-culpability is entirely irrelevant to Hungary building border fences, something which is an affair for Hungarians, other EU citizens and the refugees, not the Russian state.

Just because you take part in the information war this make you a supporter of NATO.

Dumb ... the fact that you think posting on a commie internet forum is a part of the "information war" indicates you either have delusions of grandeur or you ascribe to the silly Manichean view of reality I was criticizing earlier - probably both.

General Winter

23rd January 2017, 10:49

Uhm, again one can easily point to the victimization of Spanish Imperialists by American imperialists in the Spanish-American war, or Ottoman imperialists at the hands of Britain, France, Italy, Russia and Austria at the end of the 19th century. Or should communists have sided with Madrid and Istanbul?

Yes,they should have sided with Madrid if the USA tried to destroy Spanish independence,and they did sided with Istanbule when their imperialist war since a cirtain point was transformed into national.

Babeufist

29th January 2017, 20:06

So-called neutrality means in fact support for stronger enemy. Stronger enemy is the worse one. Therefore I support Russia against the USA, Ukraine against Russia and Donbas against Ukraine.

AnarchoSXE

11th February 2017, 04:49

Putin is just another authoritarian, human rights abusing, shit bag and should be dealt with as such.