Georgia Poll

[Devrim]

I was just wondering what position people were taking on the Georgia crisis. It would be interesting to see the results.

Devrim

[GPDP]

I support South Ossetia, as well as the people of Georgia, but not its government. And I most definitely do not support an imperialist power like Russia.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ But supporting the South Ossetian drive to JOIN Russia is supporting Russia. In any event, why isn't the US listed as an option?

[Abluegreen7]

I suppourted Russia due to the fact that Georgia is a client state of America. Think of the greater evil here Russia or America. Also the fact is that Georgia started the Conflict.

[Sam_b]

I suppourted Russia due to the fact that Georgia is a client state of America. Think of the greater evil here Russia or America.

That is stupid.


Voted 'neither'.

[Devrim]

In any event, why isn't the US listed as an option?

Because they weren't fighting in the war.

Devrim

[GPDP]

^^^ But supporting the South Ossetian drive to JOIN Russia is supporting Russia.

You kind of have a point, but I suppose what I mean is that I don't support Russia's imperialist drive. If the people of South Ossetia legitimately want to join Russia, then I have no problem with that, in keeping consistent with my belief in a people's right to self-determination.

[Psy]

I conditionally support Russia and only on the short term. These break away republics of Georgia are nothing but pawns in a growing imperialist struggle. Russia and the USA are both loudly beating the drums of imperialism and if they continue on this path there is a risk of another world war.

[Abluegreen7]

Psy your totally right. What we are seeing is US terrorism again. The same terrorism they practiced for a long time.

[Sam_b]

Russia and the USA are both loudly beating the drums of imperialism and if they continue on this path there is a risk of another world war.

So why support either?

[Abluegreen7]

Good question.

[Sam_b]

I was hoping you would answer, seeing as you ar esupporting one imperialist over another because apparently one of them isn't so bad.

[Psy]

So why support either?
As I said I support Russia on the short term. In the short term Russia is protecting S. Ossetia and Abkhazia. In the long run this crisis is being used by both sides to expand the imperialist aims.

[bolshevik butcher]

Neither. This was a conflict that was and will continue to be waged by two different camps of Impierlialism and neither defends the interests of the working class. The danger of an increased rate of ethnic clensing remains and for this to flare up again. Neither side will present the solution to this conflict. As in the former yugoslavia it is only with working class unity and on the basis of socialism that this can be overcome. Supporting one side or another up to a certian point solves nothing and only opens the way up for further conflict and division.

[manic expression]

I admit that I have much to learn about the situation, but in any case, I strongly support self-determination for South Ossetia and an immediate end to the imperialist maneuverings of Russia, Georgia and the US.

[Chapter 24]

In the conflict I support South Ossetia and its right for self-determination. I am also concerned for the welfare of civilians affected by the war.


Russia and the USA are both loudly beating the drums of imperialism and if they continue on this path there is a risk of another world war.

But could this not be another proxy war such as Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan?

[F9]

Neither.I support the innocent people who for one more time suffered and die due to imperialists wars and stupid reasons!

Fuserg9:star:

[Psy]

But could this not be another proxy war such as Korea, Vietnam, and Afghanistan?

It could but right now both sides are reacting to the reaction of the other side (it is basically a reactionary feedback loop). For example the USA reacted by pushing forward the missile defence system in Poland and Russia reacted to that by saying if Poland accepts the system that Poland will be targeted by Russian nuclear missiles.

The ruling seems to be in the same mindset as they were in the lead up to World War One, were each imperial power blindly reacts to the other, in the name of their of their imperialism over the other imperialism.

If the ruling classes of both Russia and USA don't stop simply reacting to each other then a proxy war could easily escalation into a full world war, like Cuba almost caused with fractions within ruling class of Russia and the USA ready to exchange ICBMs over Cuba.

[Spirit of Spartacus]

I'm supporting Russia conditionally here.

The Georgian military and government deserve what they got for being war-mongering lackeys of US imperialism.

Having said that, we need to be careful with supporting Russia. We ought to condemn Russian military actions against civilian areas in Georgia.

[Red_or_Dead]

^^^ But supporting the South Ossetian drive to JOIN Russia is supporting Russia. In any event, why isn't the US listed as an option?

I think that the USA isnt listed because it is not directly involved.

And supporting S. Ossetia and supporting Russia are two different things. They both have different interests. S. Ossetia wants independance and hell knows what Russia wants. Probably to weaken or bring down the Georgian puppet regime.

In any case, Georgia started this conflict by invading S. Ossetia, so Im not voting for them. Russia used the Georgian invasion as an excuse to invade Georgia, so Im not voting for them as well.

Neither.

[Comrade B]

The Georgian government is a typical capitalist system, bad, and nothing more. Russia on the other hand is a powerful imperialist capitalist country.
I support NEITHER
but I oppose Russia more. Russia is fighting a war for the purpose of seizing a warm water port.
Georgia is fighting for an independent capitalist state. They deserve their own independent government, even if it is a shitty one.

I can't help but feel that the fact that the West is siding with Georgia is partially responsible for the large support for Russia.

Georgia.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

As I said I support Russia on the short term. In the short term Russia is protecting S. Ossetia and Abkhazia. In the long run this crisis is being used by both sides to expand the imperialist aims.

Protecting these regions by bombing Georgian civilians. Leftists shouldn't be taking sides in imperialist wars.

[Psy]

In any case, Georgia started this conflict by invading S. Ossetia, so Im not voting for them. Russia used the Georgian invasion as an excuse to invade Georgia, so Im not voting for them as well.

Neither.
Yes but technically Russia is back to where it started, mostly the invasion of Georgia by Russia seems to have been a knee jerk reaction of the Russian military bureaucracy.

[Red_or_Dead]

Yes but technically Russia is back to where it started, mostly the invasion of Georgia by Russia seems to have been a knee jerk reaction of the Russian military bureaucracy.

True, but the damage has been done.





Russia is fighting a war for the purpose of seizing a warm water port.

How will they get that in Georgia?

[Psy]

Protecting these regions by bombing Georgian civilians. Leftists shouldn't be taking sides in imperialist wars.
There is no confirmation of deliberate targeting of civilians by the Russian air force. Since Russia was totally unprepared Russia mostly only had unguided weapons in the region, also all Russian bombs fell on or close to military targets. I don't see Russia's counter-attack itself as imperialist and was more a reactionary war for Russia.

[Comrade B]

How will they get that in Georgia?
The Black Sea doesn't freeze over in the winter

[Red_or_Dead]

The Black Sea doesn't freeze over in the winter


Russians already have a portion of the Black sea coast.

[Psy]

The Black Sea doesn't freeze over in the winter
But the peace treaty doesn't give Russia Georgia.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

There is no confirmation of deliberate targeting of civilians by the Russian air force. Since Russia was totally unprepared Russia mostly only had unguided weapons in the region, also all Russian bombs fell on or close to military targets. I don't see Russia's counter-attack itself as imperialist and was more a reactionary war for Russia.

your point? Civilians are still dying, workers are dying in pointless capitalist war.

Russia wants to reassert its dominance over the Caucus, this is a great way to do it. How do you not see this as an imperialist war?

[Psy]

your point? Civilians are still dying, workers are dying in pointless capitalist war.

Russia wants to reassert its dominance over the Caucus, this is a great way to do it. How do you not see this as an imperialist war?
It is clear that Russia was caught completely off guard, and the military leadership did what any good army does and that is defend the people they are sworn to protect. If Russia was still led by Lenin I'm sure most of us would be praising the Russian army for what they did, the fact that Russia is a imperialist power doesn't change the fact that the Russian army defended S. Ossieta from the fascist regime of Mikheil Saakashvili and is now distributing humanitarian aid.

Yes I called Mikheil Saakashvili regime fascist, the attacks on the citizens of S. Ossetia was the event that turned Mikheil Saakashvili into a fascist regime as the other defining traits were already there.

[Charles Xavier]

Look, Russia's not out there to liberate South Ossentia, likewise Mikheil is not there to bring order to Georgia.

This is political maneuvering of the Imperialist powers. US has a base in every ex-soviet republic, they are encircling Russia for one purpose only. The Dominance of their ruling class over other nation's ruling classes. What we are seeing is open rivalry between them. The struggle for a multipolar world in my opinion is beneficial.

Russia was seeing its sphere of influence being pushed and nato was probing for a russian response, Russia did the only think it could do, respond as hard as possible, showing that they won't be pushed over.

[MAVA]

neither

[Bilan]

I support the workers of both sides. This conflict is purely related to nationalism and capitalism (Primarily oil and resources) and is a staunchly anti-working class war.

[Glenn Beck]

I don't think this is a matter of "support" like we are watching a sports match or something. Georgia is in the camp of NATO imperialism, Russia represents Russian imperialism, and NATO started this conflict. It would be absolutely foolish to expect Russia to not react aggressively to NATO's encirclement, which is in itself an aggressive act regardless of whether blood was shed. I don't "support" Russia controlling the Caucasus and exploiting its people. But neither do I support NATO's attempts to push Russia out of Central Asia so that they may control the Caucasus and exploit its people and get that much closer to ruling the whole world.

I think an important question we should be asking ourselves is, not which imperialist we "support", but whether we would rather have absolute dominance by one imperial power or a balance of power between 2 or more imperialists.

[hekmatista]

Protecting these regions by bombing Georgian civilians. Leftists shouldn't be taking sides in imperialist wars.
Agree. Left does not have a dog in this fight. Exposing NATO/USA lies is important, however, since main imperial camp is using this tragedy to maintain huge military spending (since jihadi menace has failed to perform adequately as permanent bogeyman).

[More Fire for the People]

As a knee-jerk reaction I threw my support behind Georgia but neither of them deserves support.

[GPDP]

It is good we are having this discussion. As we speak, the propaganda machine that is the media is making this all out to be an unabashed act of agression by Russia, and I've seen them suggest that perhaps the USSR is making a comeback (and by that, they mean a rival "authoritarian" superpower).

Hell, just take a look at this article from MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26253358

And make no mistake, people are buying this.

We need to expose this war for what it is: inter-imperialist rivalry.

[Psy]

Agree. Left does not have a dog in this fight. Exposing NATO/USA lies is important, however, since main imperial camp is using this tragedy to maintain huge military spending (since jihadi menace has failed to perform adequately as permanent bogeyman).
How about the fledging fascism of Mikheil Saakashvili that Russia has crushed? Saakashvili's attack on the civilians of S. Ossetia marked when the Georgian state turned fascist and willing to use genocide to get rid of opposition.

Also shouldn't the opposition that was crushed by riot police last year by Saakashvili now be free to take the streets? I doubt the Georgian workers are organized enough but if they were the Russian invasion would have been a huge opportunity for the workers in Georgia to take the streets knowing Russia has left the Georgian army completely broken.

[Benos145]

Both Russian and Georgian/NATO chauvanism must be smashed, no war but the class war!

[Philosophical Materialist]

I voted neither.

Due to living in Britain I have been presented with an unashamedly biased pro-Georgian anti-Russia viewpoint which has turned my stomach. I think the US and its Georgian client state bears most responsibility for starting this war, but I can't say I'm willing on any sort of Russian expansion in the area.

[GPDP]

Ugh.

At least two people on this other forum I frequent have stated they'd willingly join the US army to fight Russia over this.

Can you believe this?

[Benos145]

Ugh.

At least two people on this other forum I frequent have stated they'd willingly join the US army to fight Russia over this.

Can you believe this?
Yes I can, and no doubt under the guise of 'national security' and 'protecting America' many social-chauvanists would justify it to themselves and others.

American nationalism and imperialism are really starting to merge these days, 'defending the fatherland', 'protecting private property' and 'protecting American strategic interests abroad (imperial possessions)' are quickly becoming the same thing. A veracious imperialism and violent rhetoric against foreign nations usually passes as 'patriotism' in America these days.

The interesting thing is though, that the increase in military technology has made it possible for imperialism to be justified under different justifications. For example Australia sends 'federal police' to Papue New Guinea to 'protect the elected government', same thing in East Timor, where Australian business is massive and oil contracts in the Sea even more lucrative. So when the political 'crisis' happened, Australia was first on the imperialist bandwagon to get troops on the ground, protect private property of investers and prop up the 'investability' of yet another neo-colonial backwater.

The global nature of capitalism requires an equally 'global' approach to foreign affairs, meaning the complete domination of the trusts, the omnipotence of the big banks, a grand-scale colonial policy, and so on. These in order to secure increasingly lucrative monopolies on resources across the globe.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

Neither. At first, I hadn't had enough information available at my disposal to make such a decision.

Later, when I did, I decided that all sides in the conflict were full of crap.

[Random Precision]

I support the right of South Ossetians and Abkhazians in Georgia to self-determination, which in this case seems to be becoming part of Russia. And as Georgia was clearly the aggressor in this case, I conditionally support the position of Russia in the conflict, without supporting Medvedev/Putin's maneuvering for greater control over the Caucasus and Central Asia in general.

Were this to become a larger imperialist conflict, the correct policy would be to hope for the defeat of both sides.

[Mala Tha Testa]

niether, and as someone said before, no war but class war.

[Winter]

I think I accidently voted for Georgia. I tried to go back, but it said I already voted. If that's the case, void my vote. haha.

[GPDP]

Hmmm, the number of people who voted for Georgia and Russia has not changed. I think you ended up voting Neither.

[Devrim]

I think an important question we should be asking ourselves is, not which imperialist we "support", but whether we would rather have absolute dominance by one imperial power or a balance of power between 2 or more imperialists.

I take it that means you are supporting Russia then.

Devrim

[Comrade B]

Georgia provides REAL ports, large things. Control of the commerce. Not every sea side city is booming with industry.
What else do you think Russia wants Georgia for?

[Devrim]

Russia has a real port on the Black Sea. It is called Novorossiysk.

Devrim

[Comrade B]

You can never have enough major ports. What other reason does Russia have for wanting control of the region?

[manic expression]

You can never have enough major ports. What other reason does Russia have for wanting control of the region?

Well, for starters, it's part of a wider conflict between Russia and NATO/the US, something that includes the rows over the missile shield and the Arctic Circle. Russia is also about to sell Iran a bunch of weapons (anti-aircraft equipment) that Israel doesn't want Iran to have. The growing friction between the two camps probably contributed a great deal to this crisis. Secondly, I'm pretty sure Georgia is very strategically important (Iran, borders of China, Afghanistan, etc.), and IIRC, there's an oil pipeline going through there that the US built. That should give you an idea of what's at stake.

[Psy]

Georgia provides REAL ports, large things. Control of the commerce. Not every sea side city is booming with industry.
What else do you think Russia wants Georgia for?
Russia counter-attack was purely reactionary. The fascist Saakashvili attacked S. Osseita to remove his obstacle into NATO and to crush a major source of opposition, the Russian army was thrown into war with Georgia and the Russian military took the initiative to win the war and brutally crush the fascist force of Saakashvili. Russia just gave the Georgian fascists such good ass kicking that Saakashvili was seen on TV eating his tie.

It is only later that the Russian ruling class decided to exploit the situation by using it to rally support for Russian imperialism, thus why Russia was so late at the propaganda game in this conflict.

[Lamanov]

I can't believe 30% voted in support of a bourgeois state.

[Devrim]

I can't believe 30% voted in support of a bourgeois state.

I can and I think it would have been higher if I had worded it differently i.e. South Osseitan self determination instead of Russia.

Devrim

[Psy]

I can't believe 30% voted in support of a bourgeois state.

I supported a bourgeois state kicking the ass of a fascist state.

[Luís Henrique]

If it wasn't for my decisive support, how would Russia have managed to so quickly defeat Georgia?:rolleyes:

*******************************************

I supported neither, but this unhappily isn't the same as supporting workers in Russia, Georgia, Ossetia and Abkhazia against their respective bourgeoisies - which is what had to be done.

Luís Henrique

[Lamanov]

I supported neither, but this unhappily isn't the same as supporting workers in Russia, Georgia, Ossetia and Abkhazia against their respective bourgeoisies - which is what had to be done.

Of course, that's what has to be done.

KRAS (http://www.kras.fatal.ru/): No to New Caucasus War! (http://www.ibrp.org/en/forum/2008-08-12/russia-georgia)


I supported a bourgeois state kicking the ass of a fascist state.

Like that's of any importance in this case.

[Psy]

Like that's of any importance in this case.
I think most people would rather have a bourgeois state then a fascist state. It would have been nice to have a equivalent to the POUM and CNT in this conflict but there wasn't and it shows that we (Marxists) have no real presence in this region.

Since the left couldn't do it, I have to give thanks to the Russian military for giving the Georgian fascists are real good ass whooping and hopefully the Georgian fascists won't ever recover from this.

[revolution inaction]

I can and I think it would have been higher if I had worded it differently i.e. South Osseitan self determination instead of Russia.

Devrim

i agree :( lots of revolutionaries haven't got a clue :(



I supported a bourgeois state kicking the ass of a fascist state.


You really are an idiot, the enemy of my enemy has to be the worst logic ever

[Psy]

You really are an idiot, the enemy of my enemy has to be the worst logic ever

It is the logic that fascism is a greater threat then bourgeois imperialism. It is the logic that dead workers are much worse then exploited workers. It is the logic that it is better having Russian troops distributing humanitarian aid to S. Ossetia, Abkhazia and refuges in Russia (which they are doing) then Russian troops going home.

[piet11111]

considering the neither option a cheap way out of a difficult choice i pick Russia.

Georgia started the hostility's and denies South ossetia and Abkhazia its right to make a choice if they want to join with Russia or stay with Georgia.

i also tend to see a strong Russia as a counterbalance to American imperialism
and this rivalry is something that might benefit the struggle against imperialism just look at how Cuba managed to make the USSR vs USA cold war work in their benefit.

well that is how i think about it.

[revolution inaction]

It is the logic that fascism is a greater threat then bourgeois imperialism. It is the logic that dead workers are much worse then exploited workers. It is the logic that it is better having Russian troops distributing humanitarian aid to S. Ossetia, Abkhazia and refuges in Russia (which they are doing) then Russian troops going home.

Is the Georgion government actually fascist? I know they are imperialist.
I think the Russian army has killed quite a few workers.

[Guerrilla22]

Neither. This whole thing is completely pointless. The Georgian president orders a military action he knows very well will draw a response from the Russians, his troops get routed, then he holds press conferences insisting that western powers come save his sorry ass. He even had the audacity to compare the situation with Nazi Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia. The Russians acted heavy handed, bombing civillian infrastructure, in a form of collective punishment similar to Israel's actions in the summer of 06. I wonder what exactly is the point and what exactly is gained from this?

[Psy]

Is the Georgion government actually fascist? I know they are imperialist.
I think the Russian army has killed quite a few workers.
He has crushed all public opposition with his riot police and closed down TV stations that didn't carry the party line (of accepting the Washington consensus). The attack on S. Ossetia was the event that made Saakashvili fascist as not only did he attack peace keepers but attacked S. Ossetians to punish them for resiting complete Georgian rule, starting with a barrage of rocket artillery in the middle of the night targeted at residential areas.

Of course outside of this conflict Russia has a terrible track record for workers rights, I'm just given Russia credit for at least in the this case actually doing some good even if it is being overshadowed by Russian military posturing in the region.

[Psy]

Neither. This whole thing is completely pointless. The Georgian president orders a military action he knows very well will draw a response from the Russians, his troops get routed, then he holds press conferences insisting that western powers come save his sorry ass. He even had the audacity to compare the situation with Nazi Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia. The Russians acted heavy handed, bombing civillian infrastructure, in a form of collective punishment similar to Israel's actions in the summer of 06. I wonder what exactly is the point and what exactly is gained from this?
Russia claims it only bombed infrastructure to cut off supply lines of Georgian forces and they are not doing in now that they have a peace treaty. Abkhazia militas has bombed bridges leading to Abkhazia after the peace treaty to cut themselves off from Georgia saying it is simply a defencive measure.

[Tower of Bebel]

I support neither.

This is an imperialist war over important resources and influence in the area. Capitalism has taken some damage since the beginning of the newest crisis and the capitalist states are competing to save their skin. Russia wants to dominate the region while Georgia wants to end Russian domination and become an important imperialist power in the region. Both cannot be supported. While the Georgians were indeed the first to attack I don't believe the Russian deserve any support. They are not saviors but thiefs. The situation can be compared to Austria and Serbia in 1914.

It serves as another example of the "new" road taken by capital to organise itself. Instead of organised blocks which concist of allied nation states capital nowadays defends itself by severe competition amongst different countries. Instead of collective responsibility it is one against the other with no exeption. The struggles involving several countries near the Russian border are an example of this. The attacks and conflicts serve not only to defeat the bourgeoisie of an opposing state but also to defeat the working class. Wars and prestige are used to take back many concessions made by capital when it allowed social-democrats to manage the state after the revolutionary periode of the late 10's and early 20's.


We must concider the right for self determination but in this case untity between both Ossetias within a Russian federation wouldn't benefit the working class. Nor does todays situation.

[Glenn Beck]

I take it that means you are supporting Russia then.

Devrim

Not really, I meant that as a sincere question. When the US/NATO unquestionably dominated the world it was easy to say "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". Now that we live in a world of rival empires we may come to feel that all sides are pretty much just as bad (the situation around WW1). Or maybe we are better off this way? I'm not so sure myself

[revolution inaction]

He has crushed all public opposition with his riot police and closed down TV stations that didn't carry the party line (of accepting the Washington consensus).

Fascists do things like this when they get the chance but it doesn't mean he is a fascist by its self, do you have more information?



The attack on S. Ossetia was the event that made Saakashvili fascist as not only did he attack peace keepers but attacked S. Ossetians to punish them for resiting complete Georgian rule, starting with a barrage of rocket artillery in the middle of the night targeted at residential areas.

This bit makes no sense, killing civilians is not the definition of fascist, things like this are done by liberal democracies to.



Of course outside of this conflict Russia has a terrible track record for workers rights, I'm just given Russia credit for at least in the this case actually doing some good even if it is being overshadowed by Russian military posturing in the region.

Any good that Russia may have done is purely coincidental, Russia was acting in the interests of the Russian state and Russian capitalists.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

I supported a bourgeois state kicking the ass of a fascist state.


You are being absurd. Georgia is a western democracy. If anything Russia is faaaaar closer to fascism than Georgia. Authoritarian government, hyper militaristic, xenophobic, chauvanistic, high integration of cartel enterprises and government.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Neither. Both Russia and Georgia are guilty of being dicks in this scenario.

[Psy]

Fascists do things like this when they get the chance but it doesn't mean he is a fascist by its self, do you have more information?


This bit makes no sense, killing civilians is not the definition of fascist, things like this are done by liberal democracies to.

It is clear sign that Saakashvili is a Pinochet wantabee (but too gutless to be a real fascist dictator like Pinochet) and his attack on S. Ossetia was the first time Saakashvili tried using the military to crush dissent like Pinochet did in Chile, if Saakashvili got his way then what would have stoped Saakashvili from doing the same in Georgia proper? Saakashvili used his riot police to maintain his order, odds are he was thinking that he needed after the last November the riot police was not enough and he would have to resort the power of the army to maintain his rule.



Any good that Russia may have done is purely coincidental, Russia was acting in the interests of the Russian state and Russian capitalists.

You do no troops are not capitalists? Sure Russian troops are lied to (like other armies) but the average Russian troops there really want to help the people especially now that it has moved toward more of a humanitarian mission.

[Psy]

You are being absurd. Georgia is a western democracy. If anything Russia is faaaaar closer to fascism than Georgia. Authoritarian government, hyper militaristic, xenophobic, chauvanistic, high integration of cartel enterprises and government.
If by western democracy you mean a military junta with a democratic facade then yes Georgia is a western democracy. As bad as the Russian goverment is it is not as Authoritarian, hyper militaristic, or chauvinistic as the Georgian goverment.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

If by western democracy you mean a military junta with a democratic facade then yes Georgia is a western democracy. As bad as the Russian goverment is it is not as Authoritarian, hyper militaristic, or chauvinistic as the Georgian goverment.

The same man and the same party have been in power for years. Non Russians are discriminated against and often hounded out of the country. Russian nationalism is a hallmark of the regime, militarism is ubiquitous, and the press is regularly censored. What evidence do you have that Georgia does any of this? This is ridiculous, Georgia is a weak, US client with a basic western democratic regime. You have no evidence to the contrary.

[Psy]

The same man and the same party have been in power for years. Non Russians are discriminated against and often hounded out of the country. Russian nationalism is a hallmark of the regime, militarism is ubiquitous, and the press is regularly censored. What evidence do you have that Georgia does any of this?

Do you keep up with world events? Did you miss the large peaceful marches last November against Saakashvili that were brutally put down? Opposition TV stations that were just down? The fact Saakashvili major opponents kept ending up dead under mysterious circumstances?



This is ridiculous, Georgia is a weak, US client with a basic western democratic regime. You have no evidence to the contrary.
Georgia received huge military foreign aid from the USA and Israel.

[manic expression]

Psy, just a question here. Milosevic was basically a fascist scumbag who ordered ethnic cleansing as well; do you support NATO's bombing of Serbia?

For the record, I can see your point, but I disagree simply because I don't deem Georgia fascist, I think it's an imperialist pawn for the US (and NATO).

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Do you keep up with world events? Did you miss the large peaceful marches last November against Saakashvili that were brutally put down? Opposition TV stations that were just down? The fact Saakashvili major opponents kept ending up dead under mysterious circumstances?

Your point? This happens in most third world western democracies, that's why I said "basic". He did then call for new elections, which he won. Honestly, Russia does the same if not worse in all of those cases. There's no fascism here.



Georgia received huge military foreign aid from the USA and Israel.

Define huge. Its a client state, it will receive significant subsidies, but no more than any other.

[Psy]

Psy, just a question here. Milosevic was basically a fascist scumbag who ordered ethnic cleansing as well; do you support NATO's bombing of Serbia?

No but Russia didn't bomb the shit out of Georiga, it took out infrastructure and military targets with a few misses that did hit civilian targets. Also Russia's military intervention mostly only stopped Georgia's attack on S. Ossetia and Abkhazia.



For the record, I can see your point, but I disagree simply because I don't deem Georgia fascist, I think it's an imperialist pawn for the US (and NATO).
The huge amount of weapon stock piles that Russia found suggests that Saakashvili was planning on all out war on all the opposition in Georgia (since it has already been established Saakashvili plan was to blow up the Roki Tunnel to deal with Russia)

[Dust Bunnies]

If S. Ossentia and any other regions want to go to Russia they have my blessings, but only if it is what the people want and not the capitalists.

[Cheung Mo]

The Russian left has capitulated to both the bourgeoisie and the Cult of Stalin...That's why you have a communist party run by millionaires and mobsters (hardcore rightist interests in Italy and Japan, interestingly) using a combination of Russian chauvinism and the Cult of Stalin (and its corresponding corruption of Leninism) to interfere with genuine revolutionary activity. Their role is no different from the role played by parties like Accion Democratica or New Labour.

[Comrade B]

Those saying neither because both are evil, consider this

We do not deny that Saddam Hussein and Bush were both pricks, but do we say that we have no sides for the war in Iraq? We say that Bush was the evil one, because he invaded the country.

[Psy]

If S. Ossentia and any other regions want to go to Russia they have my blessings, but only if it is what the people want and not the capitalists.

They want autonomy like the Bolsheviks gave them, same with Abkhazia. The problem is Georgia wants a highely centralized goverment that controls every aspect of every part of Georgia. The reason why S. Ossentia and Abkhazia is clinging to Russia now is because Russia is the only power that can protect them from Georgia.

[RebelDog]

I voted neither. I do not support bourgeois struggles for supremacy. I am more worried about the recent US-Poland missile defence treaty and what that could throw up. A new arms race just got a huge kick in the wrong direction.

[Tower of Bebel]

Those saying neither because both are evil, consider this

We do not deny that Saddam Hussein and Bush were both pricks, but do we say that we have no sides for the war in Iraq? We say that Bush was the evil one, because he invaded the country.

We shouldn't have supported. We can support the Iraqi workers in their struggle for independance and socialism, but that doesn't mean we should also have given support to Saddam. He was a murderous dictator who used oil and repression to keep the working class pinned. Yes, he tried to resist American imperialism, but who benefited from this regime? The working class or the exploiters?
We should support the working class and support the best outcome for it. National self determination and imperialism should not mean unconditional support for dictators who represent either landlords, local bourgeoisie or foreign bourgeoisie.

[Slovo]

I chose 'Russia' rather than 'Neither' simply because I supported the wishes of the people of South Ossetia, rather than Russia specifically. Now I think about it 'Neither' probably would've been a better option to choose but it seemed somewhat a declaration of apathy when I first read it :P As others have said, the South Ossentian people should decide their own future rather than the Georgian government. However, arguing over state territory from a leftist perspective seems a tricky thing to do ... This is not a matter of the 'self determination' of the Ossentian people from a Russian perspective, this is, similar to the Georgian government, a matter of nationalism and control.

[Dust Bunnies]

Maybe Russian land grabbing could be a good thing (as long as there is no major wars over it). If Russia can restore some of the former Soviet land claims, they could once again be a deterrent to any U.S. Imperialism effort.

[Psy]

I chose 'Russia' rather than 'Neither' simply because I supported the wishes of the people of South Ossetia, rather than Russia specifically. Now I think about it 'Neither' probably would've been a better option to choose but it seemed somewhat a declaration of apathy when I first read it :P As others have said, the South Ossentian people should decide their own future rather than the Georgian government. However, arguing over state territory from a leftist perspective seems a tricky thing to do ... This is not a matter of the 'self determination' of the Ossentian people from a Russian perspective, this is, similar to the Georgian government, a matter of nationalism and control.

S. Ossetia simply what autonomy like the Bolshivks gave them decades ago and what the Mensheviks gave Abkhazia decades ago. Georgia since it separated had a drive for a united Georgia under one central goverment. This pretty rules out what S. Ossetia nd Abkhazia wants, so they go for kissing up to Russia.

[KC]

We do not deny that Saddam Hussein and Bush were both pricks, but do we say that we have no sides for the war in Iraq? We say that Bush was the evil one, because he invaded the country.

Uh, no. They were both reactionary pricks. We oppose the intervention of the US in Iraq on the grounds that it is of an imperialist nature, while at the same time opposing Saddam and his administration for being fucking insane.


I chose 'Russia' rather than 'Neither' simply because I supported the wishes of the people of South Ossetia, rather than Russia specifically.

1. Why?
2. Who are "the people"?

[OI OI OI]

It is really sad that so many revolutionaries pick a side in a proxy war between two imperialist superpowers who are striving to enlarge their spheres of influence.
The Russians don't give a damn about the self determination of the Ossetians and the Georgian don't give a damn about them either.

Russia after establishing herself as a strong capitalist nation is striving to "take under her wings" neighboring countries and to show to the Americans who is the boss .

It is increasingly controlling with neighboring nations like Ukraine etc.
We should not take a side on this conflict of slave owners.
Down with Russian and American imperialism.

Here (http://www.marxist.com/war-in-south-ossetia.htm) is a good article by In Defence of Marxism(www.marxist.com)

[Ismail]

Neither Georgia or Russia should be supported. Sure, Georgia very well might of started this by treating the South Ossetian region like ass, but this doesn't suddenly mean that Russia can take this opportunity to invade. Last time I checked, it was up for a nation who felt alienated to wage national liberation by itself. Because that shows how truly strong said movement is. It's clear however that Russia is taking advantage of the situation. Finally, you can justify USA intervention in a lot of areas (e.g. Sudan, Yugoslav Wars) due to "HUMANITARIAN RIGHTS!" or whatever. Russia isn't the world police, neither is the USA, neither is any nation, or even the UN. If the South Ossetians want to be a part of Russia, then they must rise up against the Georgians. If the movement is strong enough, then it will win. This will not happen independently however because Russia, being an imperialist state, will attempt to use them to exert Russian influence in the region.


Maybe Russian land grabbing could be a good thing (as long as there is no major wars over it). If Russia can restore some of the former Soviet land claims, they could once again be a deterrent to any U.S. Imperialism effort.Zimbabwe is a deterrent to USA imperialism, Venezuela is a deterrent, Cuba is a deterrent, DPRK is a deterrent, Nicaragua is a deterrent, Bolivia is a deterrent, etc. Russia, a major nation that has imperialist ambitions of its own and can implement them, is not a deterrent. Using that logic, the Soviet Union was acting as a deterrent no matter how state-capitalist it became in the 60's and 70's, ergo the USSR should be supported (even when it invaded nations like Afghanistan) because only the USA is capable of imperialism for some reason.

[Red Anarchist of Love]

they are both nations who will not give there whole loalyth to humanity therefore they are corrupt

[Chapaev]

The people of Osetiia have the right to defend themselves against Gruzian aggression and chauvinist supremacy. In the process, they may appeal to other states for assistance. Ossetians are surely entitled to choose their own political and social system. Even from the point of view of the Tiflis regime, to permit Abkhazia and Ossetia to be free would strengthen peace in the region.

The Russian government was correct when it successfully repelled Gruzian aggression. Russia's victory in this conflict also spells a defeat for imperialist penetration of the region. A strong Russia is preferrable for all progressive mankind because it can disrupt imperialist and neo-colonialist designs. However, this should not be interpreted as rendering support to the bourgeois regime in Moscow. For example, the Kremlin's recent threats against Byelorussia are to be strongly condemned.

[Joe Hill's Ghost]

Veilor- Are you some sort of russian nationalist or something?

[Chapaev]

Veilor- Are you some sort of russian nationalist or something?
Taking a stance on the conflict that happens to be similar to that of Moscow should not be construed as a manifestation of Russian chauvinism.

[Ismail]

The people of Osetiia have the right to defend themselves against Gruzian aggression and chauvinist supremacy. In the process, they may appeal to other states for assistance.Yes, but this state happens to be Russia, which is clearly using this as an excuse for imperialist ambitions.


The Russian government was correct when it successfully repelled Gruzian aggression. Russia's victory in this conflict also spells a defeat for imperialist penetration of the region.No, it was itself an imperialist act. Tell me, what made the Russian capitalists develop a heart of gold suddenly?


A strong Russia is preferrable for all progressive mankind because it can disrupt imperialist and neo-colonialist designs.A strong, capitalist Russia will lead the world into war as will other strong states that inevitably develop. You seem to have never read Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism.


However, this should not be interpreted as rendering support to the bourgeois regime in Moscow. For example, the Kremlin's recent threats against Byelorussia are to be strongly condemned.Wow, at the end you admit that capitalism is still the main and only tolerated system in Russia. Too bad you never seem to pick up that imperialism is imperialism, and there have been many justifications for it, and many based on helping the same ethnic group in a neighboring state. Keep in mind that Russian financed the South Ossetians in the 90's. They want this to work to their advantage.

You seem to be the type who shout "GLORIOUS SOVIET POWER", which isn't good. Particularly when said Soviet power has been dead for over 10 years and wasn't much of one for over 40. Also, Soviet Union wasn't just Russia.

[Red_or_Dead]

The people of Osetiia have the right to defend themselves against Gruzian aggression and chauvinist supremacy. In the process, they may appeal to other states for assistance. Ossetians are surely entitled to choose their own political and social system. Even from the point of view of the Tiflis regime, to permit Abkhazia and Ossetia to be free would strengthen peace in the region.

The Russian government was correct when it successfully repelled Gruzian aggression. Russia's victory in this conflict also spells a defeat for imperialist penetration of the region. A strong Russia is preferrable for all progressive mankind because it can disrupt imperialist and neo-colonialist designs. However, this should not be interpreted as rendering support to the bourgeois regime in Moscow. For example, the Kremlin's recent threats against Byelorussia are to be strongly condemned.

Russias victory spells a victory for Russian imperialism in the region.

A strong Russia is not preferable at all. A strong Russia means that instead of having one superpower that can get away with anything, we will have two superpowers that can get away with anything. I think its pretty naive to think that if Russia strenghtens its position that it will not exploit it for imperialist purposes.

I think that we should aim not for two superpowers that would be at each others throats all the time (with that pleasant feeling of a likely nuclear war always in the air), but for the defeat of all imperialist powers.

[Comrade_Scott]

i voted russia because georgia played into russias hands by doing what they did (invade) a place and kill eople who hold russian passports, therefore allowing russia to claim and rightly (sneaky bastards) that there citizens were in danger. great political stratigic move yes they are imperialist fucks but hey so are georgia and we cant deny that was good play by russia:lol:

[Psy]

Russias victory spells a victory for Russian imperialism in the region.

A strong Russia is not preferable at all. A strong Russia means that instead of having one superpower that can get away with anything, we will have two superpowers that can get away with anything. I think its pretty naive to think that if Russia strenghtens its position that it will not exploit it for imperialist purposes.

I think that we should aim not for two superpowers that would be at each others throats all the time (with that pleasant feeling of a likely nuclear war always in the air), but for the defeat of all imperialist powers.
But do we want a US that thinks it can do anything? Besides I don't think at this time this conflict prevents workers struggles in Georgia but rather that the workers in Georgia lack class consciousness. The same workers that rallied against Saakashvili a year ago rally behind him even though the Russia conflict has weakened the state. There are armed looters running around Georgia showing that the Georgian police forces are current of no threat to anyone but you don't Georgian workers taking advantage of this opportunity and launching a armed revolution against Saakashvili and seizing the means of production of Georgia while the two major imperialist powers bicker with each other.

[Chapaev]

Yes, but this state happens to be Russia, which is clearly using this as an excuse for imperialist ambitions.
To classify Russia as imperialistic is questionable. The country degenerated from a developed socialist country into a developing country. Without its natural resources and military, Russia would effectively be a third world country.

[Crux]

Neither. If anything I support the right to self-determination of Abkhazia and Ossetia, rather than imperialist intervention from either side. The war has also strengtheneed nationalism and xenophobia in russia.

[Tower of Bebel]

To classify Russia as imperialistic is questionable. The country degenerated from a developed socialist country into a developing country. Without its natural resources and military, Russia would effectively be a third world country.
Imperialism involves capital instead of its stage of development in general. The Russian federation is not a colonial nor a semi-colonial state. It is an rather independant capitalist state capable of resisting other imperialist states (look at what they did with BP and Great-Brittain in general!). It has financial interests in the region. The state still suffers from the defeat during the 80's and early 90's, but that doesn't mean it isn't imperialist. It is even emerging out of dispair and continuing its aggressive foreign policy towards the outside world.

[revolution inaction]

To classify Russia as imperialistic is questionable. The country degenerated from a developed socialist country into a developing country. Without its natural resources and military, Russia would effectively be a third world country.
Russia was never socialist, it developed from state capitalist to conventional capitalist.
As far as imperialism goes, all countries are as imperialist as they are able to be including third world countries. I have no doubt Russia had imperialist motives for going to war with Georgia.

[PRC-UTE]

Neither!

[Red_or_Dead]

But do we want a US that thinks it can do anything? Besides I don't think at this time this conflict prevents workers struggles in Georgia but rather that the workers in Georgia lack class consciousness. The same workers that rallied against Saakashvili a year ago rally behind him even though the Russia conflict has weakened the state. There are armed looters running around Georgia showing that the Georgian police forces are current of no threat to anyone but you don't Georgian workers taking advantage of this opportunity and launching a armed revolution against Saakashvili and seizing the means of production of Georgia while the two major imperialist powers bicker with each other.

Wheter we want it or not, USA already seems to think that it can do anything. Having another superpower who thinks that (in this case Russia), is not a good idea.

That, and I doubt that a revolution will come soon in a country that has been "socialist" not 20 years ago. Stigmantisation of the terms "communist" and "socialist" and everythin related to them will see to that, imo.


To classify Russia as imperialistic is questionable. The country degenerated from a developed socialist country into a developing country. Without its natural resources and military, Russia would effectively be a third world country.

I agree with Rakunin.

Russia is demonstrating a very aggresive stance against other former USSR countries, that are not to Moscows liking. The recent invasion of Georgia proper shows this without any doubt. Also, Russia is aggresive in its relations with Ukraine and to some extent even EU. I say that Russia is imperialst.

[Ismail]

To classify Russia as imperialistic is questionable. The country degenerated from a developed socialist country into a developing country.No. It went from semi-feudal in 1918, to a socialist country in the 30's, 40's and 50's, to a revisionist state-capitalist country in the 60's, 70's and 80's, to a "market socialist" one in the late 80's/90/91, to a capitalist one thereafter. Not to mention that it was an imperialist one after the 50's through the USSR.

"Developed Socialism" is a meaningless phrase used by Brezhnev in propaganda campaigns and I would not be surprised if you were Unicorn since you sound just like him.


Without its natural resources and military, Russia would effectively be a third world country.Good thing only military and diplomatic pressure matters when it comes to imperialism, which are two things Russia excels at. Zaire had imperialist ambitions, as does Morocco, as does Iran. How poor a country is != imperialist or not.

[Psy]

Wheter we want it or not, USA already seems to think that it can do anything. Having another superpower who thinks that (in this case Russia), is not a good idea.

If Russia thought it could do anything it would have annexed Georgia, basically what we are seeing is a imperialist power struggle where neither side has complete authority.



That, and I doubt that a revolution will come soon in a country that has been "socialist" not 20 years ago. Stigmantisation of the terms "communist" and "socialist" and everythin related to them will see to that, imo.

Russia is seeing a rebirth of worker struggles so Georgian workers have no excuse. The Georgian state is weak and probably will collapse in the face of a revolution right now.

[Red_or_Dead]

If Russia thought it could do anything it would have annexed Georgia, basically what we are seeing is a imperialist power struggle where neither side has complete authority.


Its early yet. Annexation of Georgia may still happen. If not that, then a puppet government from Moscow. The best scenario for Georgians at this point would be that they would just lose the two break-away regions.

Neither side has complete authority, but its pretty cleat that Russia has more.


Russia is seeing a rebirth of worker struggles so Georgian workers have no excuse. The Georgian state is weak and probably will collapse in the face of a revolution right now.

Unfortunately, its not the Russian workers, but the Russian military who is (or was, depending on how things develop) attacking Georgia.

[maverick]

Niether. The only entity I'd consider supporting is South Ossetia. The other two sides are simply carrying out two different imperialistic agendas. Niether Russia nor Georgia are the "good guys", and both of them are in my eyes responsible and guilty for the tragedies of the struggle. Simple as that.

Being in the US I'm constantly hit over the head with pro-Georgia bias and its sickening.

[Psy]

Its early yet. Annexation of Georgia may still happen. If not that, then a puppet government from Moscow. The best scenario for Georgians at this point would be that they would just lose the two break-away regions.

Neither side has complete authority, but its pretty cleat that Russia has more.

It is looking like Russia is trying to out maneuver the US politically, meaning it seems Russia occupation in Georgia is simply Russia covering its ass from CIA infiltration in its zones of control.



Unfortunately, its not the Russian workers, but the Russian military who is (or was, depending on how things develop) attacking Georgia.

That has weakened the Georgian state to the point it can easily be toppled. Yet the reactionary Georgian working class has reacted to Russian occupation by backing the Georgian state instead of kicking it while it is down like they should be doing.

[Comrade B]

But do we want a US that thinks it can do anything?
The US can do anything it wants. They have guided missiles, jets, nukes, black hawks, money, and a totally censored media.

When was the last time you ever heard an American political candidate say, "well, we would have done this, but the international community would dislike it." They simply don't care. Their nationalism leads them to think that no matter what everyone else thinks of them, their decision is right.

[Yehuda Stern]

This is such horseshit. Georgia is allied with American imperialism, but the US was in no way involved directly in the war, mainly because it was unable to due to being bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I'm hardly surprised - most leftists chicken out when it comes time to actually support a third world state against imperialism, even the ones who recognize in principle that that is the duty of Marxists.

[Psy]

The US can do anything it wants. They have guided missiles, jets, nukes, black hawks, money, and a totally censored media.

When was the last time you ever heard an American political candidate say, "well, we would have done this, but the international community would dislike it." They simply don't care. Their nationalism leads them to think that no matter what everyone else thinks of them, their decision is right.

How about now, all the USA have given Georgia was hot air because they know Russia also has a strong military on top of being able to wipe the USA off the map with their nuclear capabilities. MAD only works when the other side is not backed into a corner, meaning if Russia feels it is going to die anyway, it will destroy the USA even if means Russia would be destroyed too.

[Comrade B]

How about now, all the USA have given Georgia was hot air because they know Russia also has a strong military on top of being able to wipe the USA off the map with their nuclear capabilities. MAD only works when the other side is not backed into a corner, meaning if Russia feels it is going to die anyway, it will destroy the USA even if means Russia would be destroyed too.
The US would never attack a white Christian capitalist country. If the leader were darker, or the economy was more restricted, if there was more of a physical barrier separating Russia and Western Europe, the US would be rolling a large amount of its army out of the middle east, and getting NATO and friends to go and blow the shit out of Russia.

The US will be doing plenty of sneaky shit anyway, sabotage, spying, funding terrorism, all the likes. They don't really give a shit.

Two superpowers will never solve anything. When the Soviet Union matched the United States, the US just did everything indirectly. It actually got them to focus more on militarism than before.
Our goal is to ultimately destroy these large capitalist nations. It will be hard enough bringing down the United States, how would having to face Russia as well make anything better?

[Guerrilla22]

Russia claims it only bombed infrastructure to cut off supply lines of Georgian forces and they are not doing in now that they have a peace treaty. Abkhazia militas has bombed bridges leading to Abkhazia after the peace treaty to cut themselves off from Georgia saying it is simply a defencive measure.

Well they ended up hitting civillian houses, whether they were targetting them on purpose or not and I'm pretty sure the oil pipelines they bombed had no bearing on supplying Georgian troops.

[Raúl Duke]

Neither.

The conflict seems to be an war in which Russia defends/advances it's imperialistic ambitions while the U.S./NATO, through Georgia (a la Proxy war), is also furthering/defending it's imperialistic ambitions.

[Luís Henrique]

Neither side has complete authority, but its pretty cleat that Russia has more.

In the Caucasus? No doubt. As opposed to Africa, Latin America, the Middle East, Southern Asia and Oceania, where the United States "has more" "authority"...

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

The US can do anything it wants.

Well, if there is a lesson to be learned from this particular war, it is that the United States cannot do anything they want. Otherwise the Russian Army would now be fleeing Georgia, with American tanks chasing them...


When was the last time you ever heard an American political candidate say, "well, we would have done this, but the international community would dislike it." They simply don't care. Their nationalism leads them to think that no matter what everyone else thinks of them, their decision is right.

They obviously care. That they are careful to not admit that to their constituencies, is another wholly different matter.

There is a narrative being sold at this moment that incumbent President Barack Obama would have sold Georgia to the Russians, if gallant opposition leader John MacCain hadn't personally commanded the American counter offensive to save Georgia. But it is a complete fantasy. Neither Obama favoured the Russians, not did MacCain anything else than empty rhetorical speeches. And the incumbent President is George Bush, who was as valiant against the Russians as the proverbial spider against the hawk.

Luís Henrique

[black magick hustla]

This is such horseshit. Georgia is allied with American imperialism, but the US was in no way involved directly in the war, mainly because it was unable to due to being bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan. But I'm hardly surprised - most leftists chicken out when it comes time to actually support a third world state against imperialism, even the ones who recognize in principle that that is the duty of Marxists.

both states are "third world". Not that it matters though. There are no progressive states anymore.

[Commiewithlove]

I conditionally support Russia and only on the short term. These break away republics of Georgia are nothing but pawns in a growing imperialist struggle. Russia and the USA are both loudly beating the drums of imperialism and if they continue on this path there is a risk of another world war.
Totally agree otherwise soon comes a WWIII!

[Yehuda Stern]

both states are "third world". Not that it matters though. There are no progressive states anymore.

We're not going to agree that it doesn't matter (though you are right that no capitalist state is progressive), but how is Russia a third world country? Specifically, how can you recognize that there's even such a thing as a third world country? I thought you were saying all countries are imperialist.

[black magick hustla]

We're not going to agree that it doesn't matter (though you are right that no capitalist state is progressive), but how is Russia a third world country? Specifically, how can you recognize that there's even such a thing as a third world country? I thought you were saying all countries are imperialist.

I am using common mainstream terms. Russia is considered third world by a lot of people, and it is a poor country. Poor countries are imperialist in the sense that the bourgeosie in the epoch of imperialism is incredibly agressive. The fact that Georgia attacked first, a small and not very powerful country, proves the fact that no matter how weak a nation is, its ruling class would look for every way to expand. Its not a question of "imperialist nations", but of an epoch of generalized imperialism.

[Yehuda Stern]

Oh dear.


I am using common mainstream terms.

Then don't. If you don't know, or don't understand, or don't acknowledge the meaning of imperialism, don't use the term, because it makes absolutely no sense.


Russia is considered third world by a lot of people, and it is a poor country.

What people? Some people consider China to be an imperialist state. The kids working at Nike factories for a handful of quarters tell me otherwise. How many people in Russia work under the same conditions and pay as in a factory in China? Do you actually read what you write?


Poor countries are imperialist in the sense that the bourgeosie in the epoch of imperialism is incredibly agressive.

Again, if you don't know what imperialism is, that's fine. But don't make bogus statements like that. All classes are aggressive when they're after something. Even your ICC friends would find the claim that a country is imperialist because it is aggressive to be embarrassing.


The fact that Georgia attacked first, a small and not very powerful country, proves the fact that no matter how weak a nation is, its ruling class would look for every way to expand.

Or maybe it just proves that Russia is not so weak.


Its not a question of "imperialist nations", but of an epoch of generalized imperialism.

Which is why it was just as hard for Russia to smash Georgia as it was for Georgia to attack Russia. Oh wait. It wasn't.

[black magick hustla]

Then don't. If you don't know, or don't understand, or don't acknowledge the meaning of imperialism, don't use the term, because it makes absolutely no sense. Its not me who used the term third world in this thread first. It is a pretty politically meaningless term. It used to meant people who weren't aligned with either to USSR or the US. However the Socialist bloc has fallen, so.




What people? Some people consider China to be an imperialist state. The kids working at Nike factories for a handful of quarters tell me otherwise. How many people in Russia work under the same conditions and pay as in a factory in China? Do you actually read what you write?

Thats because you have a different definition of imperialism than I do. Neverthless, some people live in abysmal poverty in Russia.


Again, if you don't know what imperialism is, that's fine. But don't make bogus statements like that. All classes are aggressive when they're after something. Even your ICC friends would find the claim that a country is imperialist because it is aggressive to be embarrassing.

Don't be pedantic, it is obviously more complex than that. However, one of the definining characteristics of imperialism as a world epoch is that all factions of the bourgeosie will try to expand. Doesnt means all of them can though.


Or maybe it just proves that Russia is not so weak.

If mexico attacked belize - mexico would win in a matter of days. You dont consider mexico imperialist though.


Which is why it was just as hard for Russia to smash Georgia as it was for Georgia to attack Russia. Oh wait. It wasn't.

This argument is silly. It would take a lot from the US to smash China militarily, yet you say CHina isn't an imperialist state.

[Yehuda Stern]

It used to meant people who weren't aligned with either to USSR or the US.

Another revealingly ignorant statement. Third world, in popular use, refers to the countries that are backwards economically in relation to the west.


Thats because you have a different definition of imperialism than I do. Neverthless, some people live in abysmal poverty in Russia.

Well the same can be said for Israel or the US, but no one would argue that that makes either Israel or the US a third world or 'weak' country.


However, one of the definining characteristics of imperialism as a world epoch is that all factions of the bourgeosie will try to expand. Doesnt means all of them can though.


Well, that's a difference of definitions. To us, the epoch of imperialism means that the world is dominated by a few powerful states while the majority of the world is exploited by those states. That's the Leninist definition, anyway.


If mexico attacked belize - mexico would win in a matter of days. You dont consider mexico imperialist though.

No, but I was demonstrating how faulty your logic is. To deduce from the fact that Russia could win over Russia that it is "weak, but aggressive," instead of simply recognizing that it is not weak, is kind of strange.

[black magick hustla]

Another revealingly ignorant statement. Third world, in popular use, refers to the countries that are backwards economically in relation to the west.

I think you are the ignorant.


The name Third World arose during the Cold War to refer to nations that did not belong to the First and Second Worlds. While there is debate over the appropriateness of the term, and no alternative is without detractors, the term is one embraced by many Third World nations themselves, particularly in the Non-Aligned Movement.

I said it originated from it. I was not arguing what was its current use. Russia is backwards economically in relations to the west. Many people consider Russia a third world country with a powerful army. Just because a country is powerful it doesn't means it is backwards. China is pretty poor in many ways, but still it could probably crush many european first world economies.


Well the same can be said for Israel or the US, but no one would argue that that makes either Israel or the US a third world or 'weak' country.

I never said Russia is weak, just backward economically. The GDP per capita of Russia is 14k which is somewhat high compared to other countries, it is not comparable to the first world. Furthermore, after the fall of the USSR some people got really rich while the rest really poor due to the rise of corrupt oligarchies.


Well, that's a difference of definitions. To us, the epoch of imperialism means that the world is dominated by a few powerful states while the majority of the world is exploited by those states. That's the Leninist definition, anyway.
Obviously we have different definitions.


No, but I was demonstrating how faulty your logic is. To deduce from the fact that Russia could win over Russia that it is "weak, but aggressive," instead of simply recognizing that it is not weak, is kind of strange

I didnt say it was weak. Just poor.

[redarmyfaction38]

i voted russia, not because i think the russians are the "good guys", but because i love to see the hypocrisy of the usa blatantly exposed.
add into that the obvious impotency of the eu in trying to influence events.
and you have complete exposure of the bullshit and posturing of capitalist politicians.imo.;)

[Chapaev]

As Lalkar (http://www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/sep2008/georgia.php) eloqugently puts it:



A big and powerful country such as Russia, the only country possessed of a nuclear arsenal capable of annihilating the US, beginning seriously to challenge US hegemony, is a source of great strength to the forces resisting imperialism everywhere and destroys forever the imperialist reactionary dreams of the end of history. Imperialism, far from being the final destination, is merely a transitional system in humanity’s advance to a higher social system – socialism and communism.

[redarmyfaction38]

As Lalkar (http://www.lalkar.org/issues/contents/sep2008/georgia.php) eloqugently puts it:
nice quote, but, how does having yet another imperialist power serve the interests of the working class?

[bcbm]

A big and powerful country such as Russia, the only country possessed of a nuclear arsenal capable of annihilating the US, beginning seriously to challenge US hegemony, is a source of great strength to the forces resisting imperialism everywhere and destroys forever the imperialist reactionary dreams of the end of history

I'm glad people are getting inspired by my potential annihilation. And, you know, I'm sure the "forces resisting imperialism" will be pretty stoked to be fighting Russian imperialists instead of American ones.

[Yehuda Stern]

nice quote, but, how does having yet another imperialist power serve the interests of the working class?

Only to those who think the working class is too 'counterrevolutionary' to oppose American imperialism.

[piet11111]

nice quote, but, how does having yet another imperialist power serve the interests of the working class?

just think of Cuba during the cold war without the USSR backing Cuba the americans would have invaded the country with a real armed force instead of some armed goons.

its obvious that 1 superpower would be able to use a lot more force and coercion against country's that oppose them then when 2 rival superpowers are vying for client states where the use of force and coercion would drive the victim nation into the arms of the other superpower.

[bcbm]

its obvious that 1 superpower would be able to use a lot more force and coercion against country's that oppose them then when 2 rival superpowers are vying for client states where the use of force and coercion would drive the victim nation into the arms of the other superpower.

Clearly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War).

[piet11111]

Clearly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vietnam_War).

the americans still had to limit their actions out of fear of direct chinese or soviet involvement.
during the conflict this fear subsided as it became clearer that they would not get involved outside of a handful of "volunteers" and weapon delivery's.

[Lenin's Law]

Neither.

South Ossetia has the right to join with Russia if that's what the majority want; however let's not be naive as to Russia's imperialist ambitions in the region and of course US imperialism's desire to set up a puppet government in Georgia as part of a larger strategy to contain Russia by absorbing the former Eastern Bloc as a part of NATO.

I don't think revolutionaries can support the reactionary, nationalistic policies of either country (after all it was Georgia that provoked this conflict with their invasion of South Ossetia, thinking that Russia would do nothing as long as they had US backing. Turns out how mistaken they were as this played right into Russia's hands who were looking to send a message to both the US and Georgia) and in fact should be communicating with the working class about their own interests separate and apart from those of the ruling class(es).

[Yehuda Stern]

No one should support any bourgeois state, and yet, when an imperialist country like Russia attacks a third world country like Georgia, Marxists must give military support to the oppressed country against imperialism. This, of course, does not extend to supporting the repression of the South Ossetians.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Georgia served as an auxiliary force for Western interests; Saakashvili rejected every single one of the bilateral cease-fires put forward on the UN floor right after they came under the auspices of U.S. and Israeli "consideration". Clinton's administration first stressed the importance of establishing political control over the oil and gas rich Central Asian territories-the move to put Mikhail in Tibilisi, and to create a hostile belt around Russia, is what ultimately lead to the disputes over South Ossetia.

It's misleading, then, to say that Georgia is somehow the "attacked" one when they deliberately provoked Russia and the South Ossetian people by 'invading' them. This is an inter-imperialist conflict, pure and simple.

[cmbnd10]

Russia.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia are historically Russian land (well before the USSR) and the people overwhelmingly want to be a part of Russia. Saakashvilli is a prat and had a big part in letting this get out of hand.

The only reason that those provinces are under Georgian control is because Stalin redrew the maps and they were never changed back.

[Mather]

I do not support Russia, the USA, NATO or Georgia in this conflict, which is a conflict between different capitalist nations and different ruling classes.

No war but the class war!