Capitalist Temptations | Wanna get rid of those stupid ads? Us too! Help us to be non-dependent from corporate money again and sign up for a monthly donation now!

Thread: Russia is an Imperialist Country

Results 41 to 60 of 62

  1. #41
    Join Date Nov 2003
    Posts 1,187
    Organisation
    underground resistance
    Rep Power 24

    Default

    Before responding to General Winter's post, I would just note first of all that the goalposts of this argument have been changed: instead of refuting the proofs of Russian imperialism which I presented above, GW wants to show that, since Ukraine is alleged to be a "fascist country", Russian partitioning of Ukraine is "antifascist", and therefore justified. Even if this were the case, it would not negate Russia's imperialism. There is, for example, no logic in supposing that the U.S. lost its imperialist character by virtue of waging war in the Pacific against the fascist Empire of Japan.

    Not in Russia and not in Donbass but in Ukraine a policy of decommunization was carried out and communist activities were banned.
    If you hadn't noticed, Russia is no longer a "Communist country", which necessarily means that it underwent decommunization; Saint Petersburg is no longer Leningrad.

    The prohibition of communist activity is a sign of an open dictatorship of the bourgeoisie.
    Russia also aggressively represses communist movements, for example:

    Leftist opposition activist Konstantin Lebedev was convicted and sentenced to 2.5 years in a medium-security prison for preparing mass disorder that took place during the May 6 rally on Moscow’s Bolotnaya Square last year.

    Opposition activist sentenced to 2.5 years for organizing mass disorder at anti-Putin rally
    Russian police have searched the homes of two opposition activists as part of an investigation into the criminal case against protesters allegedly involved in unrest during the anti-Kremlin rally on Moscow’s Bolotnaya Square on May 6 last year.

    Early Thursday, after law enforcers searched the home of Vasily Kuzmin – the head of the Moscow branch of the Left Front movement – he was detained and taken to the Investigative Committee. During the search, law enforcers seized a “large amount of electronic data storage devices, Left Front leaflets and symbols, as well as alleged smoke flares,” the Committee’s press service reported.

    Bolotnaya case continues: Russian police search homes of more opposition activists
    Sergei Udaltsov, leader of the socialist Left Front and a major voice in the wave of street protests that shook Russia in 2011-13, was convicted of planning the unrest at the protest, along with Leonid Razvozzhayev, an activist and aide to opposition [Communist] MP Ilya Ponomaryov, the only deputy to vote against Russia's annexation of Crimea.

    Russian opposition leader jailed in Bolotnaya Square protest case
    For the second time in less than a year, a prominent Kremlin critic has been assassinated in broad daylight in the Ukrainian capital. Denis Voronenkov, a Communist party member of the Russian parliament from 2011 to 2016, was shot dead on Thursday morning in front of a hotel in central Kyiv.

    Kremlin critic Voronenkov killed in Kyiv
    Is this not open bourgeois dictatorship? Only if your eyes are closed.

    Another part of the problem here is that many of those claiming to be "Communists" in Eastern Europe are really just people who use a "Communist" or "Soviet" veneer to cover a program of religious social conservatism, xenophobic nationalism (particularly Russian nationalism, in the former Soviet Union) and a third positionistic way of thinking (attempting to synthesize left-wing and right-wing politics).

    For example, Gubarev, the first "People's Governor" of Donetsk, still one of the leading Novorossiya activists, and credited with designing the Novorossiya flag, expresses this third positionism in calling himself a "white-red":

    In order to better understand the main provisions of Pavel Gubarev’s program, it is necessary to know his political worldview, as it transcends the usual division between right and left. The leader of the “Novorossiya” political movement declares himself to be “white-red,” i.e., Orthodox and conservative in the sphere of morality, but radically left on questions of political and socio-economic systems. This synthesis was propagandized by Gubarev through the flag of Novorossiya which contains the blue cross of the patron Saint Andrew of Russia against a red background, which is the symbol of socialist and communist movements.

    Review of Gubarev's Tell-All: The Torch of Novorossiya - Part 2
    The red-white swastika flag of the (neo-Nazi) Russian National Unity, Gubarev's alleged "former" party (they are fighting on his side in the war), seems to be where he got this "white-red" color scheme idea. The Novorossiya flag is also virtually the same as the flag used by the "Aryan Nations" hate-group in the US. It has been remarked elsewhere that Gubarev's flag shares a similar design to the Confederate battle flag of the American Civil War, and I would not be shocked at all if the Donbass paramilitaries got their inspiration from that flag by googling "rebel flag" or something like that and finding the Confederate flag. Contrary to what some apologists might say, the Confederate battle flag is not alien to Eastern Europe, where it is used by groups like football ultras and motorcycle gangs, great places to recruit mercenaries willing to fight in a war whose pretext is bourgeois nationalism from.

    A member of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation issued a warning about widespread fascist entryism in the party in 2010:

    In a Russian-language document now circulating on the internet, Yevgeny Volobuyev, a member of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) in St. Petersburg, “sounds the tocsin to warn of the danger of the CPRF finally turning into a fascist party”.

    Volobuyev explains that Russian fascists have been arguing for a long time on their websites about “what to do with the CPRF”. Some said that they should just put communists “up against the wall”, but others argued that they should first join the CPRF and take over its structures. In recent years, with openly fascist organizations like Russian National Unity fragmenting and losing legal status, “fascists and people inclined toward fascism streamed into the CPRF”. There they found many party leaders “demoralised by the collapse of the Soviet Union” and sympathetic to their cause. With the help of these leaders, they “were able to create an unofficial fascist faction inside the CPRF” (officially the party does not allow factions). They also managed to gain control of the party’s internet sites.

    The infiltrators would have been less successful had the ground not been so well prepared for them. Ever since the CPRF was founded in 1993, it has been dominated by the Russian nationalist (“patriotic”) tendency led by Gennady Zyuganov. Until now, however, the party also had a place for people who still call themselves “internationalists” and “Marxist-Leninists”. (For an analysis of tendencies within the CPRF, see Chapter 3 of Stephen D. Shenfield, Russian Fascism, NY: M.E. Sharpe 2001.)

    Mass expulsions
    That is now changing. The fascist faction, acting through its allies in the party leadership, is carrying out individual and mass expulsions with a view to purging the CPRF of all opponents of Russian nationalism: “The party organizations of entire regions are being destroyed.” Some local branches, such as the one to which Volobuyev belongs, have been targeted simply because of their multiethnic composition. “The situation has descended to the point of measuring skulls.” Only people of pure Russian descent are wanted.


    The “internationalists” are accused of refusing to participate in the “national liberation struggle” against Jews and other ethnic minorities branded as enemies of the Russian nation. Many party members are also accused of “neo-Trotskyism” – on the face of it an absurd accusation, as Volobuyev remarks, because with hardly any exceptions they have never read Trotsky and have no idea what Trotskyism is, let alone neo-Trotskyism. But the Russian nationalists know that Trotsky was the most prominent opponent of Stalin, whom they count as one of their own. And they know that Trotsky was a Jew.

    Material World: Fascists Take Over Russian Communist Party
    And other Communist Parties in the region reveal a similar pattern of pandering to right-wing populism and nationalism.

    For example, in Romania, the Socialist Party (so called because it was not legally permitted to take the name "Communist Party"), outlines in its program that:

    • THE ROMANIAN SOCIALIST PARTY considers that The [Orthodox] Church has represented over the course of the history of the country a factor of cultural identity, of conservation of traditions and national spirituality, of promotion of ideas of peace, equality, and rights, of the interests of the state and the Romanian people.

    Program of the Romanian Socialist Party
    And this in a country where the Orthodox Church was one of the largest slave-owning entities during a time span of half a millennium during which people of Roma ethnicity were enslaved on a racial basis, and the Church resisted decriminalization of "homosexuality" into the 21st century (September 2001).

    They also have a press release from 2015 lamenting (with zero criticism) the death of the far-right "Great Romania Party" leader Corneliu Vadim Tudor, who declared after a Romanian citizen of Roma ethnicity was accused of murder in Italy, triggering antiziganist pogroms in 2007, "As for the scandal of the murder of an Italian admiral's wife by a Gypsy from Sibiu County, I declare loudly and clearly: the Italians are perfectly right, this is absolute barbarism and it gives us a bad image across the world. Please, however, do not use the word "Romanian", because the bastard is not a Romanian, but a Gypsy!" and whose newspaper called for the extermination of "Gypsies, Kikes, and Hungarians".

    The pro-Russian Party of Socialists of the Republic of Moldova's program also refers to the Church as "a shield against the spread of homosexuality (...) and other sexual perversions, against the spiritual and moral degradation of the youth", demands "a special status for the Orthodox Church", promising that, "the Christian Orthodox Church shall assume the role of spiritual leader of society. The socialists will plead for the consolidation of Orthodox Christian values in our country and for the increase of the Church's authority".

    There is a word for this, and it isn't Marxism, it's called THEOCRACY.

    In 2014, the Communist Party of Ukraine, published in its newspaper this extremely racist attack called "White on the Outside, Black on the Inside" on Maidan, trying to discredit it by smearing some of the protesters' pro-Western aspirations by making what seems to be a comparison between the Maidan protest camp and American Indian reservations and the Black Lives Matter movement:

    Huge piles of garbage, all kinds of infections and diseases previously unknown to medicine, is a feature of life on these reservations. Their inhabitants do not work anywhere and only receive money because they wander aimlessly in the streets. They motivate their refusal to work by the fact that they are no longer slaves. Over there, in America, there are graffiti of Martin Luther King. Here at home, the portraits of Tymoshenko and Bandera. Here and there, they are dressed in what kindly souls have given them. Here, as on the other side of the ocean, this mess has the charming name of ‘democracy’. But in this case we no longer have democracy. At least in New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco the police sometimes make raids on such places and simply kill a few rabid Negroes. (…) Even the dark-skinned vendors in Kiev secondhand shops seem a bit more civilized than our ‘light-skinned brothers’ from the western regions of the country, who have gathered on the Maidan.

    UKRAINE: THE OLIGARCHIC REBELLION IN THE DONBAS
    What though that the fascist Right Sector has only 1.7% in the parliament when the regime carries out the fascist policy itself? Today's Ukrainian fascism is in the mould of Romanian fascism : Antonescu regime even persecuted the fascist Iron Guard but this fact didn't make his regime non-fascist.

    National persecutions and heroization of Nazi criminals and of Hitler's henchman Stepan Bandera - this all is also take place not in Russia but in Ukraine.

    Equalization of the fascist regime of Ukraine, Donbas anti-fascist rebels and Russian bourgeoise regime that supports these rebels is a whitewash,a justification of Ukranian fascism.
    It is just so farcical to talk about an "anti-fascist rebellion" launched by a "former" neo-Nazi guy who "used to" wear a white-red swastika armband and still identifies as a "white-red". And what about all the other fascist groups fighting in the name of Russian separatism, waving their neo-Nazi symbols? What of the revival of the Black Hundreds?
  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Lacrimi de Chiciură For This Useful Post:


  3. #42
    Join Date Sep 2016
    Posts 126
    Rep Power 2

    Default

    2 May 2014, Odessa,fascists burn alive dozens of leftist and trade union activists in Trade Union House:



    No fascism in Ukraine,indeed...

    And in what way fascism exists in Donbass? According to Lacrimi de Chiciură ,in the fact that somebody somewhere are "waving their neo-Nazi symbols".

    Comparable things,,aren't they?

    We see that fighters against "Russian imperialism" logically run down to the masking and to the defense of fascism.

    It is revealing that Lacrimi de Chiciură says "pro-Russian separatists in Donbass" as if it is something bad. This shows that he prefers anti-Russian separatists in Kiev.Ie,he prefers a split of Russian lands to their unification.Who benefits from "divide and conquer" policy towards Russia? The answer is obvious.
    Any anti-communist is a dog. - Jean-Paul Sartre.
  4. The Following User Says Thank You to General Winter For This Useful Post:


  5. #43
    Join Date Nov 2003
    Posts 1,187
    Organisation
    underground resistance
    Rep Power 24

    Default

    No fascism in Ukraine,indeed...
    I have never claimed that there is no violent Ukrainian fascist movement, quite the opposite. Questioning the exaggerated degree to which this movement is said to control political affairs and the claim that Ukraine itself is under fascist rule is not the same as saying that there is "no fascism in Ukraine."

    As far as the "massacre" of "leftists" at the Trade Union House in Odessa; just think, if we find far-right Russian nationalists and fascists in Crimea and Donbass, what do you think we will find in Odessa? It is understandable to maybe think, "Oh, they were in a trade union house, they must be leftists". And the right-wing exploits that. But dig a little deeper and you see that, in Odessa too, the pro-Russian separatist movement was made up of far-right nationalists, neo-Nazis, and fascists.

    Militants of the Odesskaya Druzhina (OD, "Odessian Squad"), one of the main forces in the anti-Maidan (pro-Russian) movement culminating in the Trade Union House fire, marched with the Tsarist "imperial standard" flag, regularly used by the Russian far-right.

    A documentary film made by journalists from Odessa using Russian source material shows that:

    Odesa Druzhyna appeared for the first time in late February 2014, with its leader Maidanek [Odinov] and other main figures coming from the neo-Nazi ‘Slavonic Unity’ organization.

    Odesa Smoking Gun Leads Directly to Moscow
    and that Russian neo-Nazi Anton Raevsky of the "Black Hundreds", a man covered in tattoos of concentration camp and Nazi Party mottos and an image of Adolf Hitler, also "played an active role" in OD.

    Raevsky was implicated in the staging of a false-flag "antifascist" demonstration in Odessa about 5 weeks before the fire, in which neo-Nazis raised Israeli flags with "Jewish Rebel Army" written on them in Russian--when an actual Jewish person approached them and spoke in Hebrew, they responded with an antisemitic slur.

    Even the pseudo-antiïmperialist, Russia apologist "World Socialist Website" (WSWS) inadvertently admits that the Trade Union House was being occupied, not by leftists, but by far-right Russian nationalists when it caught fire, arguing that it is good praxis to lend "critical" support to a propaganda exhibition organized by fascist "massacre survivors" by promoting the exhibition without "lending any political support or credence (!) to the organisers":

    However, free discussion about the massacre should not be confused with lending any political support or credence to the organisers of the photographic exhibition, Sergey Marchel and Oleg Muzyka. Both are members of the Rodina (Motherland) party of Russia, a far-right nationalist formation.

    On May 9, 2011, Rodina marched together with the Russian Unit through Lviv in Ukraine chanting, “Chochly are filth, we will win!” (“Chochly” is a Russian epithet for Ukrainians) and has called for a monument to be built to the Empress Catherine the Great. YouTube videos show Muzyka speaking at a rally of Rodina and railing against “homosexual Europe.”

    Spanish students eject Ukrainian fascist thugs
    (The far-right Russian nationalist Rodina organization was also one of the founders of the "Committee for the Liberation of Odessa")

    More on Oleg Muzyka:

    Muzyka is well-known (...) both as one of the active anti-Maidan participants in the disturbances on May 2, 2014 and as one of the chief propagandists of the ‘Odesa massacre’ lies. He was taken from the roof of the Trade Union building after the fire and arrested. While clearly any charges against him would need to be proven, it is worth noting that anti-Maidan activists positioned on the roof were shooting and hurling Molotov cocktails at pro-Ukrainian activists, including those who were desperately trying to rescue people caught by the fire. He was released after anti-Maidan activists stormed the police station where he was held on May 4. He fled to Germany and has been there since, except when he goes travelling around Europe with an extremely well-funded ‘exhibition’ pushing the ‘massacre’ lies.

    (...)

    [...] Muzyka is also known to have close contacts to the Reichsbürger movement, which as well as believing that Germany is occupied and controlled by the USA, is also notoriously xenophobic and anti-Muslim. Muzyka is believed to have particularly close ties with Rüdiger Klasen, a former member of the far-right NPD party who served several years in prison for setting fire to a hostel for asylum-seekers.

    "US guilty of genocide": Kremlin supports anti-Maidan festival with links to the German far right

    In the final analysis though, the war in Ukraine is much more accurately understood as a conflict between Ukrainian and Russian varieties of nationalism than one of fascism versus antifascism; this explains why fascists fight one another and right-wing nationalist politics predominate bilaterally. However, not acknowledging the decisive factor of Russia's imperialism (and Ukraine's neocolonial position at the periphery of it) is a symptom of "great-nation" chauvinism.

    The narrative of a war against Ukrainian fascism by antifascist Russian patriots is a creation of the Russian ruling class and right-wing nationalists to manipulate sentiments by exploiting historical memory of the "Great Patriotic War" in favor of their imperialist campaign. This is ideological sabotage, damaging to the communist movement around the world because, by the degree to which "Communism" or "Soviet" identity is linked to Russian nationalism in the minds of the public, it is drawn further away from the genuine communist principle of equitable internationalism, which Lenin talked about:

    [...] internationalism on the part of oppressors or "great" nations, as they are called (though they are great only in their violence, only great as bullies), must consist not only in the observance of the formal equality of nations but even in an inequality of the oppressor nation, the great nation, that must make up for the inequality which obtains in actual practice. Anybody who does not understand this has not grasped the real proletarian attitude to the national question, he is still essentially petty bourgeois in his point of view and is, therefore, sure to descend to the bourgeois point of view.

    The Question of Nationalities or "Autonomisation"
    Communist ideology itself needs to be decolonized of this "great-nation" chauvinism. When "anti-imperialism" is twisted into Russian nationalism in most people's understanding, it sets up the impossibility of drawing the working class people whose instinct is to oppose Russian imperialism into a genuine anti-imperialist position. Pseudo-"Communist" parties, like that of Ukraine, anathematize communism by becoming de facto right-wing nationalist parties, which adds fuel to the mad dash of Ukraine into the arms of the Western bloc of imperialist powers.

    We can also see that the "Red" Donbass/Novorossiya narrative is unprincipled opportunism, because in the same time that this "Red" narrative is used to sucker gullible "leftists" into supporting "patriotic, antifascist" imperialism, the same nationalists also foster "White" (tsarist) and "Brown" (fascist) narratives, depicting their movement as one in defense of the Orthodox Christian faith under siege by a morally and sexually depraved "Gayropa."

    And in what way fascism exists in Donbass? According to Lacrimi de Chiciură ,in the fact that somebody somewhere are "waving their neo-Nazi symbols".

    Comparable things,,aren't they?
    Do you think that waving neo-Nazi flags is no big deal? Or that the people representing this variety of great-nation chauvinism do not put such ideas into practice?

    Russian fascist activities in Donbass:

    Milchakov (call signs ‘Serb’, ‘Fritz’) won a reputation of a neo-Nazi and sadist. In Donbas, he cut off ears of killed Ukrainian soldiers, scratched swastikas on their dead faces and made selfies against the backdrop of burned corpses of Ukrainians. Milchakov posted the pictures of his ‘deeds’ on social networks.

    In absentia: Ukraine to try case of Russian neo-Nazi who trained Belarus teens in ‘Orthodox’ camps

    WARNING - graphic content: photo evidence of the Russian neo-Nazi atrocities described above, as well as cutting off people's faces, animal cruelty, execution of prisoners
    In 2013, an "Anti-Gay" parade organised by Cossacks and Orthodox activists was held in Lugansk. Equally, a branch of the "Occupy Paedophilia" movement founded by the Neo-Nazi Maxim ("Tesak") Martsinkevich was established in Donbas. "Tesak" himself toured Lugansk to film yet another movie about the ignominious behaviour of supposed "paedophiles". His targets were students of Arab origin. Martsinkevich's adolescent followers were even shown on local television news programmes, which publicized and commended their "activism".

    In 2014, the rhetoric of separatist rebels was littered with references to Gayropa, while homosexuals were branded as the "fifth column" of the West.

    (...)

    The authorities of the separatist republics are aiming to consolidate discrimination against LGBT people at a statutory level. The "Constitution of the Donetsk People's Republic [DPR]" includes the clause: "No form of perverted union between people of the same sex is recognized or permitted in the Donetsk People's Republic, and [any such union] is subject to penalty by law."Further,the document notes that the "dominant faith" of the "DPR" is Orthodox Christianity.

    LGBT in Donbas: Back to the USSR
    ***

    We see that fighters against "Russian imperialism" logically run down to the masking and to the defense of fascism.

    It is revealing that Lacrimi de Chiciură says "pro-Russian separatists in Donbass" as if it is something bad. This shows that he prefers anti-Russian separatists in Kiev.Ie,he prefers a split of Russian lands to their unification.Who benefits from "divide and conquer" policy towards Russia? The answer is obvious.

    You, in systematically deflecting any pointing out of far-right, fascist politics in the pro-Russian separatist/Novorossiya movement, are the one who is masking fascism. What we really see is that those who take a denialist approach to Russian imperialism actively impede the development of genuine anti-imperialist understanding. That should be apparent to anyone reading this.

    GW's rhetoric concerning my "preference" for imperialist powers not sacrificing the lives of countless human beings for the sake of redivision of the world's territory is now openly ultra-nationalist and imperialist. In this context where Russian nationalists are basically laying claim not only to half of Ukraine ("Novorossiya"), but also a vaguely defined "Eurasian" landmass of tsarist inspiration, painting opposition to Russian partitioning of Ukraine as a preference for "a split of Russian lands to their unification" can only be taken as a blanket justification for the wildest revanchist fantasies, a ready-made excuse for the Russian annexation of the entirety of the former Russian Empire.
    Last edited by Lacrimi de Chiciură; 9th September 2017 at 16:21.
  6. The Following User Says Thank You to Lacrimi de Chiciură For This Useful Post:


  7. #44
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,734
    Rep Power 62

    Default


    Having read this post of yours, can you point me in the direction-of, and/or make a distinction between the character of current Russian-state-based nationalism, and that of the fascist-type *ultranationalism* that you're saying exists there?

    In other words, you seem to be saying that Russian-state nationalism is almost entirely *co-opted* by fascist-type ultranationalism -- I'm wondering if you can elaborate on the 'balance' between these two trends / camps.
  8. #45
    Join Date Sep 2016
    Posts 126
    Rep Power 2

    Default

    As far as the "massacre" of "leftists" at the Trade Union House in Odessa; just think, if we find far-right Russian nationalists and fascists in Crimea and Donbass, what do you think we will find in Odessa? It is understandable to maybe think, "Oh, they were in a trade union house, they must be leftists". And the right-wing exploits that. But dig a little deeper and you see that, in Odessa too, the pro-Russian separatist movement was made up of far-right nationalists, neo-Nazis, and fascists.[
    You see only what you want to see,so a candid and honest assessment in your posts is out of question. Want a link to the interview of the leader of communist "Borotba" party who was with his comrades in the Trade Union House? http://krasnoe.tv/node/22344 (in Russian). Btw,he clearly talks about fascism in Ukraine.

    BTW, the fact that you put the word "massacre" in inverted commas is quite illustrative:you do not see nothing out of the common in fascist terror.

    Want links to interviews of communist volunteers of Donbass? They tell about widespread pro-Soviet sentiments in Donbass :"every third insurgent has a red star at his cap". Here is a link to video of the Volunteer Communist squad : http://krasnoe.tv/node/24037. And here is a link to a news: the secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Lugansk PR O.N. Popov volunteered to the front http://krasnoe.tv/node/28248 .

    Trying to equalize both sides of the conflict? Show me communists among those who fired alive people in Odessa, show me communist volunteers among Ukranian punitive expeditioners in Donbass - show me them as a proof of your position or you are a lier and fascist camp-follower.

    As for Russian nationalists among insurgents - yes,there is a lot of them,too. But I must say that any Orthodox cossack or fucked up monarchist who fights against banderovists in the real life objectively stands much left than an internet "fighter" who is only able to post in a threads.

    GW's rhetoric concerning my "preference" for imperialist powers not sacrificing the lives of countless human beings for the sake of redivision of the world's territory is now openly ultra-nationalist and imperialist. In this context where Russian nationalists are basically laying claim not only to half of Ukraine ("Novorossiya"), but also a vaguely defined "Eurasian" landmass of tsarist inspiration, painting opposition to Russian partitioning of Ukraine as a preference for "a split of Russian lands to their unification" can only be taken as a blanket justification for the wildest revanchist fantasies, a ready-made excuse for the Russian annexation of the entirety of the former Russian Empire.
    Some more of "the wildest revanchist fantasies" :


    "It was promissed that both the Russian and Ukrainian nationalities... should receive equal protection...

    The Ukranian Government executed its promises in a most evasive way. Southern and Eastern half of Ukraine is exclusively Russian; in the northern half, all the towns are Russian, while the country people speak a corrupted Russian dialect, and the written language, from time immemorial, has almost everywhere been Russian. By the consent of the population, a process of Russification has been going on there for centuries; so much so that, with the exception of the most northerly border districts, even that portion of the peasantry who speak a
    little Russian dialect (which is, however, so far distant from the written Ukranian as to be easily intelligible to the Russian inhabitants of the South - East), understand the written Russian better than the written Ukranian language.... the written Ukranian language was forced upon a population the great majority of whom did not even understand it, and only desired to be governed, tried, educated, christened, and married in the Russian language. However, the Government now opened a regular crusade for the weeding out of all traces of Russian from the district, forbidding even private tuition in families in any other than the Ukranian language....


    The question was whether the residents of Donbass were to be forced to follow the fate of small, impotent, half-civilised Ukranie, and to be the slaves of West for ever, or whether they should be allowed to re-unite themselves to a nation of 140 millions, which was then just engaged in the struggle for its freedom, unity, and consequent recovery of its strength.

    We are naturally the last to reproach Putin for this. On the contrary, what we reproach him with is that he was not revolutionary enough,... that he began a whole revolution in a position where he was able to carry through only half a revolution, that, once having set out on the course of annexations, he was content with Crimea."

    I confess, I already wrote this,but it seems I have to repeat it again and again.The point is that the author of this revanchist text is Friedrich Engels.http://marx.libcom.org/works/1861/02/12.htm
    https://marxists.anu.edu.au/archive/...1850/07/21.htm
    http://www.dhspriory.org/kenny/PhilT...force/ch03.htm

    I just have made a few substitutions: German and Danish I have replaced by Russian and Ukrainian, Bismarck by Putin etc.Everyone can check the original sources,the context of quotes is not distorted. Being German, Engels clearly sympathizes his countrymen.


    In March 1848 Marx and Engels wrote a document entitled "Demands of the Communist Party in Germany." https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...1848/03/24.htm And the very first paragraph of the document says: "The whole of Germany shall be declared a united, indivisible republic." The the requirement of "united, indivisible Germany" is ahead,not some narrowly labor problem. Why? A retreat from the class position? Not at all. "The united, indivisible" Germany was the most radical revolutionary slogan of the time wich expressed the most important interest of the working class and democratic sections of the bourgeoisie.

    "...according to their old policy of cutting up central Europe into a set of small states quarrelling with each other, and thus leaving England to apply to them the principle "Divide and conquer".

    The policy of the revolutionary party in all countries has, on the contrary, always been to strongly unite the great nationalities hitherto cut up in small states, and to ensure independence and power, not to those small wrecks of nationalities but to the large and healthy nationalities now oppressed by the ruling European system.""


    So the policy of the revolutionary party is unification, let's remember it and mark it well.

    It follows then that the return of Crimea to Russia, a pro-Russian movement in Donbass should be supported.

    The defeat of anti-Russian nationalism wich inevitably leads to fascism and to the split of peoples is one of the tasks of communists in post-Soviet republicks.At the time when imperialism relies on the fragmentation of our people the Communists advocate for the reunification of the nations.Reunion is the most common interest of the workers and of all the democratic elements. Reunion is the most revolutionary, radical and class slogan of our time.
    Last edited by General Winter; 10th September 2017 at 15:59.
    Any anti-communist is a dog. - Jean-Paul Sartre.
  9. The Following User Says Thank You to General Winter For This Useful Post:


  10. #46
    Join Date Jul 2017
    Posts 7
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    ‪Haven't come across this group before - who are they?‬
    Last edited by SovietBritain; 11th September 2017 at 16:50.
  11. #47
    Join Date Oct 2011
    Location UK
    Posts 978
    Rep Power 29

    Default

    In March 1848 Marx and Engels wrote a document entitled "Demands of the Communist Party in Germany." https://www.marxists.org/archive/mar...1848/03/24.htm And the very first paragraph of the document says: "The whole of Germany shall be declared a united, indivisible republic." The the requirement of "united, indivisible Germany" is ahead,not some narrowly labor problem. Why? A retreat from the class position? Not at all. "The united, indivisible" Germany was the most radical revolutionary slogan of the time wich expressed the most important interest of the working class and democratic sections of the bourgeoisie.

    "...according to their old policy of cutting up central Europe into a set of small states quarrelling with each other, and thus leaving England to apply to them the principle "Divide and conquer".

    The policy of the revolutionary party in all countries has, on the contrary, always been to strongly unite the great nationalities hitherto cut up in small states, and to ensure independence and power, not to those small wrecks of nationalities but to the large and healthy nationalities now oppressed by the ruling European system.""


    So the policy of the revolutionary party is unification, let's remember it and mark it well.

    It follows then that the return of Crimea to Russia, a pro-Russian movement in Donbass should be supported.

    The defeat of anti-Russian nationalism wich inevitably leads to fascism and to the split of peoples is one of the tasks of communists in post-Soviet republicks.At the time when imperialism relies on the fragmentation of our people the Communists advocate for the reunification of the nations.Reunion is the most common interest of the workers and of all the democratic elements. Reunion is the most revolutionary, radical and class slogan of our time.
    It is absolutely disingenuous to pathetically suggest that Marx and Engels advocating that the petty Duchies, Baronies and Counties of a Germany emerging from feudalism should unite into one state with the proletariat and peasantry organised in control is in anyway comparable to the imperialist ventures of Russian capitalism in Eastern Europe. Utterly ridiculous. If, as you suggest, the policy of the revolutionary party is unification, without any qualifications for said unification or any serious attempt to analyse the conditions on the ground, then you should have no problem with the Ukrainians voting to join the European Union! No, this is quote-mining of the most insidious variety. It's a quote taken completely out of context without any attempt to consider contemporary conditions in order to justify support for a nationalist project of the Russian bourgeoisie. I literally can't believe anyone calling themselves a communist in the 21st century would peddle such political snake oil.
    Modern democracy is nothing but the freedom to preach whatever is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie - Lenin

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GiantMonkeyMan For This Useful Post:


  13. #48
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,734
    Rep Power 62

    Default


    It is absolutely disingenuous to pathetically suggest that Marx and Engels advocating that the petty Duchies, Baronies and Counties of a Germany emerging from feudalism should unite into one state with the proletariat and peasantry organised in control is in anyway comparable to the imperialist ventures of Russian capitalism in Eastern Europe. Utterly ridiculous. If, as you suggest, the policy of the revolutionary party is unification, without any qualifications for said unification or any serious attempt to analyse the conditions on the ground, then you should have no problem with the Ukrainians voting to join the European Union! No, this is quote-mining of the most insidious variety. It's a quote taken completely out of context without any attempt to consider contemporary conditions in order to justify support for a nationalist project of the Russian bourgeoisie. I literally can't believe anyone calling themselves a communist in the 21st century would peddle such political snake oil.

    This *isn't* about any kind of revolutionary-minded politics or trajectory -- it's about the qualitatively-lower dynamics of *geopolitics*. If a commonly-minded significant percentage of the workers of Europe and Asia *were* revolutionaries and were on the cusp of taking over all of social production from the bourgeoisie, *then* we could say that it's a revolutionary project of the proletariat, but that's not the case here.

    This is more about anti-fascist national self-determination, which *does* require our attention, understanding, and even activity, so as to forestall the imperialist incursions from the West, as through Ukraine. Has everyone fucking forgotten *this* particular fact:



    The United States supports Ukraine’s bid to join NATO despite Russia’s objections.[1]
  14. #49
    Join Date Oct 2011
    Location UK
    Posts 978
    Rep Power 29

    Default

    This *isn't* about any kind of revolutionary-minded politics or trajectory --
    That much is clear.
    it's about the qualitatively-lower dynamics of *geopolitics*. If a commonly-minded significant percentage of the workers of Europe and Asia *were* revolutionaries and were on the cusp of taking over all of social production from the bourgeoisie, *then* we could say that it's a revolutionary project of the proletariat, but that's not the case here.

    This is more about anti-fascist national self-determination, which *does* require our attention, understanding, and even activity, so as to forestall the imperialist incursions from the West, as through Ukraine. Has everyone fucking forgotten *this* particular fact:
    I absolutely haven't ignored the fact that Western imperialism is trying to expand their influence into Ukraine. It's pretty obvious. But anti-imperialism isn't about supporting one imperialist force over another just because it's not the predominant faction of capital. Pretending that Russian imperialism in Ukraine is 'anti-fascist' self-determination is absolutely ludicrous, whether the Western Ukrainians have fascists amongst them or not. Do we look at the second world war and unconditionally, uncritically support the US for their imperialist intervention in Europe and the Pacific as they were the bulwark fighting against fascism? Absolutely not - we look to the contradictions of American capitalism that first helped prop up Nazism and then develop the largest military industrial complex in the world. As Marxists, as revolutionaries, the only position we should take against imperialism is that of 'turn imperialist war into civil war' or have you forgotten your Lenin?
    Modern democracy is nothing but the freedom to preach whatever is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie - Lenin

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GiantMonkeyMan For This Useful Post:


  16. #50
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,734
    Rep Power 62

    Default


    That much is clear.

    I absolutely haven't ignored the fact that Western imperialism is trying to expand their influence into Ukraine. It's pretty obvious. But anti-imperialism isn't about supporting one imperialist force over another just because it's not the predominant faction of capital.

    Russia isn't imperialist, though -- at least, not meaningfully. Here's from post #31:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...military_bases

    - vs. -

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_bases_abroad


    And:



    Russia: a target, not a superpower

    https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads...t-a-superpower

    Old preconceptions and terms must be challenged in order to have an accurate view of the present international situation. Russia today, as a capitalist country, is not even a fifth-rate economic power.

    The Russian economy is smaller than the economy of Brazil, south Korea or Canada. According to World Bank and International Monetary Fund measurements, Russia now ranks 12th globally in its gross domestic product. This measurement is the market value of goods and services.

    Today’s Russian Federation is a vastly different state — socially, politically, economically and militarily — from the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics of even 27 years ago.

    It is important to understand what Russia is today in order to understand the real intent of the constant Russia baiting in the media.

    In stockpiled nuclear weapons from the Cold War, the U.S. and the Russian Federation may have somewhat even nuclear firepower — more than enough to incinerate the world in one launch.

    But U.S. military expenditures are estimated at 36 percent to almost 50 percent of total global military expenditures. Russia’s expenditures are 4 to 5 percent of the global total.

    The Pentagon maintains more than 800 military bases around the world and 300,000 troops stationed outside the U.S. Russia has a naval base in Syria and a few communication centers in former Soviet Republics.

    The U.S. Navy has 19 aircraft carriers, each of which includes jet aircraft, helicopters, destroyers and nuclear subs. Russia has one 27-year-old carrier propelled with oil-fired boilers rather than a nuclear reactor.

    Russia’s resources a target

    Russia is a target of U.S. imperialism because of its vast resources. Eighty percent of Russian exports abroad are now in raw materials, primarily gas and oil. The petroleum industry in Russia is one of the largest in the world. It is the largest exporter of natural gas. Coal, iron, aluminum, precious metals, lumber and cereals are other major exports.

    This makes Russia’s economy especially vulnerable to global commodity swings and drastic downturns.

    There is an insatiable drive to control Russia’s great wealth by the largest banks and corporations. All currents of the U.S. and Western imperialist ruling class are desperate to have unlimited access to this great stream of profits, which they had finally laid their hands on just a few years ago. Remember: Imperialism’s very survival depends on expansion and profit.

    ---



    Pretending that Russian imperialism in Ukraine is 'anti-fascist' self-determination is absolutely ludicrous, whether the Western Ukrainians have fascists amongst them or not.

    How so? Russian welcomed-in the areas of Crimea and Donbass, resulting from their own internal referendums on the very issue of joining Russia or not.

    And Ukraine *was* fascist-ized as part of Euromaidan:



    Yatsenyuk's first government post was as Minister of Economy from 2005 to 2006; subsequently he was Foreign Minister of Ukraine in 2007 and Chairman of the Verkhovna Rada (parliament) from 2007 to 2008. Yatsenyuk was one of the leaders of Ukraine's second biggest party All-Ukrainian Union "Fatherland",[1] and former leader of its parliamentary faction.[2][3][4][5] He became the Prime Minister of Ukraine following the 2014 revolution that removed Viktor Yanukovych from power.[6][7] In September 2014 Yatsenyuk started the new party People's Front.[8]


    Russian takeover and administration (2014-present)[edit]

    2014 Russian annexation[edit]

    Main article: Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation

    See also: 2014 Ukrainian revolution and Crimean status referendum, 2014

    After the 2014 Ukrainian "revolution", seizure of power by armed opposition and flight of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych from Kiev on 21 February 2014, Russian President, Vladimir Putin stated to colleagues that "we must start working on returning Crimea to Russia."[44] Within days, unmarked Russian forces[citation needed] with local militias took over the Autonomous Republic of Crimea and Sevastopol, as well as occupying several localities in Kherson Oblast on the Arabat Spit, which is geographically a part of Crimea. Following a controversial referendum, the official results of which showed majority support for joining Russia, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed a treaty of accession with the self-declared Republic of Crimea, annexing it into the Russian Federation as two federal subjects: the Republic of Crimea and the federal city of Sevastopol. The United Nations General Assembly adopted a non-binding resolution calling upon states not to recognise changes to the integrity of Ukraine.[45][46] Russia withdrew its forces from southern Kherson in December 2014.[47]

    And:



    War in Donbass (2014–present)[edit]

    Main articles: War in Donbass and 2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine


    Ukrainian troops in Donbass, March 2015

    From the beginning of March 2014, demonstrations by pro-Russian and anti-government groups took place in the Donbass, as part of the aftermath of the February 2014 Ukrainian revolution and the Euromaidan movement. These demonstrations, which followed the annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation, and which were part of a wider group of concurrent pro-Russian protests across southern and eastern Ukraine, escalated in April 2014 into a war between the separatist forces of the self-declared Donetsk and Lugansk People's Republics (DPR and LPR respectively), and the Ukrainian government.[35][36]

    Amidst the ongoing war, the separatist republics held referendums on the status of Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts on 11 May 2014. These referendums, viewed as illegal by Ukraine and undemocratic by the international community[citation needed], returned a result in favour of autonomy from Ukraine. Fighting continued through 2014, and into 2015, despite several attempts at implementing a ceasefire. Ukraine said Russia provided both material and military support to the separatists, though it denied this.[37][38] The separatists were largely led by Russian citizens until August 2014.[37][38]

    Also:


    Marxism and the war in Donbass

    29/08/2015 by socialistfight

    By Victor Shapinov

    Translated by Greg Butterfield

    Borotba is often criticized for supporting the Donbass people’s republics, for the fact that our comrades fight in the militia and assist the peaceful nation-building in Lugansk (LC) and Donetsk (DNR). This criticism is heard not only from those former leftists who succumbed to nationalist fervor and supported first Maidan, then Kiev’s war of conquest in the Donbass. Others criticize us and from the standpoint of “Marxist pacifism,” calling themselves “the new Zimmerwald.”

    https://socialistfight.com/2015/08/2...ar-in-donbass/


    ---



    Do we look at the second world war and unconditionally, uncritically support the US for their imperialist intervention in Europe and the Pacific as they were the bulwark fighting against fascism? Absolutely not - we look to the contradictions of American capitalism that first helped prop up Nazism and then develop the largest military industrial complex in the world. As Marxists, as revolutionaries, the only position we should take against imperialism is that of 'turn imperialist war into civil war' or have you forgotten your Lenin?

    Yes, I agree with your analysis of WWII in a nutshell, but it's not applicable as a parallel to the 2014 situation. The U.S. *still* actively supports the fascist right-wing in Ukraine, as far as I know, so I don't think there will be any geopolitical 'correction' there anytime soon.

    Sure, the *world* is overripe for a gigantic civil war on the basis of class, and would be *preferable* to the ridiculous bourgeois geopolitical scene as it is. Nonetheless, if the reality happens to develop quickly, as it did in 2014, we as revolutionaries cannot afford to be at a loss for immediate political steps in the absence of a worldwide worker self-empowerment. We get *dragged* into geopolitics for lack of our own, superseding political / class-struggle initiatives.
  17. #51
    Join Date Oct 2011
    Location UK
    Posts 978
    Rep Power 29

    Default

    I think you don't have a very developed understanding of what imperialism actually means. I really recommend you read the whole thing but I will just quote a few paragraphs from one of the pinnacle pieces on the subject by Lenin:
    "Alongside the colonial possessions of the Great Powers, we have placed the small colonies of the small states, which are, so to speak, the next objects of a possible and probable “redivision” of colonies. These small states mostly retain their colonies only because the big powers are torn by conflicting interests, friction, etc., which prevent them from coming to an agreement on the division of the spoils. As to the “semi-colonial” states, they provide an example of the transitional forms which are to be found in all spheres of nature and society. Finance capital is such a great, such a decisive, you might say, force in all economic and in all international relations, that it is capable of subjecting, and actually does subject, to itself even states enjoying the fullest political independence; we shall shortly see examples of this. Of course, finance capital finds most “convenient”, and derives the greatest profit from, a form of subjection which involves the loss of the political independence of the subjected countries and peoples. In this respect, the semi-colonial countries provide a typical example of the “middle stage”. It is natural that the struggle for these semidependent countries should have become particularly bitter in the epoch of finance capital, when the rest of the world has already been divided up." - https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...p-hsc/ch06.htm

    I think we see here that Lenin doesn't ascribe some special quality to smaller capitalist states, imperialism isn't necessarily just a matter of 'military bases' or how powerful a country is by comparison to others. It is a matter of financial capital, the expansion of markets, to the benefit of one nation's bourgeoisie over another. So let's consider first that Lenin discusses 'Great Powers'. If we were to view the world in contemporary times and consider which nations would occupy such a category it would be hard to ignore that the G8 nations are both financially the most powerful and influential and also the strongest militarily. So it would be absolutely impossible for a marxist of any worth to ignore, unless they were wilfully ignorant, that the G8 nations are all imperialist powers - they all compete on a global scale for the benefit of their national capital. Often there are complex international alliances and financial and economic networks in place but the point remains: any nation in the G8, including Russia despite it having been suspended from said body, would be analogous to Lenin's use of the 'Great Powers' and would thus be a nation engaging in imperialism.

    Let's develop what Lenin is saying a little further:
    "Since we are speaking of colonial policy in the epoch of capitalist imperialism, it must be observed that finance capital and its foreign policy, which is the struggle of the great powers for the economic and political division of the world, give rise to a number of transitional forms of state dependence. Not only are the two main groups of countries, those owning colonies, and the colonies themselves, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which, politically, are formally independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence, typical of this epoch. We have already referred to one form of dependence—the semi-colony. An example of another is provided by Argentina.

    “South America, and especially Argentina,” writes Schulze-Gaevernitz in his work on British imperialism, “is so dependent financially on London that it ought to be described as almost a British commercial colony.” [9] Basing himself on the reports of the Austro-Hungarian Consul at Buenos Aires for 1909, Schilder estimated the amount of British capital invested in Argentina at 8,750 million francs. It is not difficult to imagine what strong connections British finance capital (and its faithful “friend”, diplomacy) thereby acquires with the Argentine bourgeoisie, with the circles that control the whole of that country’s economic and political life.

    A somewhat different form of financial and diplomatic dependence, accompanied by political independence, is presented by Portugal. Portugal is an independent sovereign state, but actually, for more than two hundred years, since the war of the Spanish Succession (1701-14), it has been a British protectorate. Great Britain has protected Portugal and her colonies in order to fortify her own positions in the fight against her rivals, Spain and France. In return Great Britain has received commercial privileges, preferential conditions for importing goods and especially capital into Portugal and the Portuguese colonies, the right to use the ports and islands of Portugal, her telegraph cables, etc., etc. Relations of this kind have always existed between big and little states, but in the epoch of capitalist imperialism they become a general system, they form part of the sum total of “divide the world” relations and become links in the chain of operations of world finance capital." - https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...p-hsc/ch06.htm

    Here Lenin is discussing nations that are semi-dependent or protectorates. Often in this post-colonial world, marxists utilised the term 'neo-colonialism' or 'neo-imperialism' when referring to the defacto financial and military rule of subsaharan African nations and East Asian nations by their former colonial masters, despite their technical independence. So in effect what we should consider and learn from Lenin here is that many of the 'smaller' nations around the world, many of the less powerful financially and militarily, fall under the influence of one Great Power or another - they become battlegrounds for imperialist competition between national bourgeois entities "links in the chain of operations of world financial capital". Here then we must consider Russian attempts to expand their influence in Ossetia, Crimea, Donbass. Their financial dominance of Central Asian nations such as Kyrgyzstan etc. There is only one way to view this: that Russia is an imperialist nation, seeking to expand its influence, capture new markets and secure both resources and labour for the benefit of Russian capital.

    Lenin goes on to discuss the opportunism of Kautsky who would criticise the annexations and predatory imperialism of Britain whilst ignoring the imperialist nature of Germany. Lenin doesn't make a distinction between which 'side' in a conflict should be supported, he doesn't hide behind a façade of 'one nation's imperialism is better than another's', he simply says "the specific political features of imperialism are reaction everywhere and increased national oppression due to the oppression of the financial oligarchy and the elimination of free competition". He gives an example and says:
    "In the United States, the imperialist war waged against Spain in 1898 stirred up the opposition of the “anti-imperialists”, the last of the Mohicans of bourgeois democracy who declared this war to be “criminal”, regarded the annexation of foreign territories as a violation of the Constitution, declared that the treatment of Aguinaldo, leader of the Filipinos (the Americans promised him the independence of his country, but later landed troops and annexed it), was “jingo treachery”, and quoted the words of Lincoln: “When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs others, it is no longer self-government; it is despotism.” [2] But as long, as all this criticism shrank from recognising the inseverable bond between imperialism and the trusts, and, therefore, between imperialism and the foundations of capitalism, while it shrank from joining the forces engendered by large-scale capitalism and its development-it remained a “pious wish”." - https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...p-hsc/ch09.htm Emphasis mine.

    In other words, as long as criticism of imperialism remains something purely in the realm of bourgeois politics, such as Kautsky's German exceptionalism, (and that is what you are doing by reducing your argument to 'but US imperialism is greater than Russian') then it remains criticism of a liberal perspective - it is an unmarxist criticism. One cannot claim to be anti-imperialist and not be against the imperialism of Russian capital. Of course one should criticise the imperialism of the US and the EU but to deny that this imperialism could only exist as an extension of the competition between the capitalists and financial bodies of different nations, including Russia, is worse than an ostrich putting its head in the sand. Lenin suggests that "The most dangerous of all in this respect are those who do not wish to understand that the fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism."

    By denying Russia's imperialist characteristics in the war in Ukraine and in its predations elsewhere, in supporting Russian imperialism in its competition against Western imperialism, you are opportunistically denying the very nature of capitalism.
    Modern democracy is nothing but the freedom to preach whatever is to the advantage of the bourgeoisie - Lenin

  18. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to GiantMonkeyMan For This Useful Post:


  19. #52
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,734
    Rep Power 62

    Default


    I think you don't have a very developed understanding of what imperialism actually means. I really recommend you read the whole thing but I will just quote a few paragraphs from one of the pinnacle pieces on the subject by Lenin:
    "Alongside the colonial possessions of the Great Powers, we have placed the small colonies of the small states, which are, so to speak, the next objects of a possible and probable “redivision” of colonies. These small states mostly retain their colonies only because the big powers are torn by conflicting interests, friction, etc., which prevent them from coming to an agreement on the division of the spoils. As to the “semi-colonial” states, they provide an example of the transitional forms which are to be found in all spheres of nature and society. Finance capital is such a great, such a decisive, you might say, force in all economic and in all international relations, that it is capable of subjecting, and actually does subject, to itself even states enjoying the fullest political independence; we shall shortly see examples of this. Of course, finance capital finds most “convenient”, and derives the greatest profit from, a form of subjection which involves the loss of the political independence of the subjected countries and peoples. In this respect, the semi-colonial countries provide a typical example of the “middle stage”. It is natural that the struggle for these semidependent countries should have become particularly bitter in the epoch of finance capital, when the rest of the world has already been divided up." - https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...p-hsc/ch06.htm

    I think we see here that Lenin doesn't ascribe some special quality to smaller capitalist states, imperialism isn't necessarily just a matter of 'military bases' or how powerful a country is by comparison to others. It is a matter of financial capital, the expansion of markets, to the benefit of one nation's bourgeoisie over another. So let's consider first that Lenin discusses 'Great Powers'. If we were to view the world in contemporary times and consider which nations would occupy such a category it would be hard to ignore that the G8 nations are both financially the most powerful and influential and also the strongest militarily. So it would be absolutely impossible for a marxist of any worth to ignore, unless they were wilfully ignorant, that the G8 nations are all imperialist powers - they all compete on a global scale for the benefit of their national capital. Often there are complex international alliances and financial and economic networks in place but the point remains: any nation in the G8, including Russia despite it having been suspended from said body, would be analogous to Lenin's use of the 'Great Powers' and would thus be a nation engaging in imperialism.

    Let's develop what Lenin is saying a little further:
    "Since we are speaking of colonial policy in the epoch of capitalist imperialism, it must be observed that finance capital and its foreign policy, which is the struggle of the great powers for the economic and political division of the world, give rise to a number of transitional forms of state dependence. Not only are the two main groups of countries, those owning colonies, and the colonies themselves, but also the diverse forms of dependent countries which, politically, are formally independent, but in fact, are enmeshed in the net of financial and diplomatic dependence, typical of this epoch. We have already referred to one form of dependence—the semi-colony. An example of another is provided by Argentina.

    “South America, and especially Argentina,” writes Schulze-Gaevernitz in his work on British imperialism, “is so dependent financially on London that it ought to be described as almost a British commercial colony.” [9] Basing himself on the reports of the Austro-Hungarian Consul at Buenos Aires for 1909, Schilder estimated the amount of British capital invested in Argentina at 8,750 million francs. It is not difficult to imagine what strong connections British finance capital (and its faithful “friend”, diplomacy) thereby acquires with the Argentine bourgeoisie, with the circles that control the whole of that country’s economic and political life.

    A somewhat different form of financial and diplomatic dependence, accompanied by political independence, is presented by Portugal. Portugal is an independent sovereign state, but actually, for more than two hundred years, since the war of the Spanish Succession (1701-14), it has been a British protectorate. Great Britain has protected Portugal and her colonies in order to fortify her own positions in the fight against her rivals, Spain and France. In return Great Britain has received commercial privileges, preferential conditions for importing goods and especially capital into Portugal and the Portuguese colonies, the right to use the ports and islands of Portugal, her telegraph cables, etc., etc. Relations of this kind have always existed between big and little states, but in the epoch of capitalist imperialism they become a general system, they form part of the sum total of “divide the world” relations and become links in the chain of operations of world finance capital." - https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...p-hsc/ch06.htm

    Here Lenin is discussing nations that are semi-dependent or protectorates. Often in this post-colonial world, marxists utilised the term 'neo-colonialism' or 'neo-imperialism' when referring to the defacto financial and military rule of subsaharan African nations and East Asian nations by their former colonial masters, despite their technical independence. So in effect what we should consider and learn from Lenin here is that many of the 'smaller' nations around the world, many of the less powerful financially and militarily, fall under the influence of one Great Power or another - they become battlegrounds for imperialist competition between national bourgeois entities "links in the chain of operations of world financial capital". Here then we must consider Russian attempts to expand their influence in Ossetia, Crimea, Donbass. Their financial dominance of Central Asian nations such as Kyrgyzstan etc. There is only one way to view this: that Russia is an imperialist nation, seeking to expand its influence, capture new markets and secure both resources and labour for the benefit of Russian capital.

    Lenin goes on to discuss the opportunism of Kautsky who would criticise the annexations and predatory imperialism of Britain whilst ignoring the imperialist nature of Germany. Lenin doesn't make a distinction between which 'side' in a conflict should be supported, he doesn't hide behind a façade of 'one nation's imperialism is better than another's', he simply says "the specific political features of imperialism are reaction everywhere and increased national oppression due to the oppression of the financial oligarchy and the elimination of free competition". He gives an example and says:
    "In the United States, the imperialist war waged against Spain in 1898 stirred up the opposition of the “anti-imperialists”, the last of the Mohicans of bourgeois democracy who declared this war to be “criminal”, regarded the annexation of foreign territories as a violation of the Constitution, declared that the treatment of Aguinaldo, leader of the Filipinos (the Americans promised him the independence of his country, but later landed troops and annexed it), was “jingo treachery”, and quoted the words of Lincoln: “When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; but when he governs himself and also governs others, it is no longer self-government; it is despotism.” [2] But as long, as all this criticism shrank from recognising the inseverable bond between imperialism and the trusts, and, therefore, between imperialism and the foundations of capitalism, while it shrank from joining the forces engendered by large-scale capitalism and its development-it remained a “pious wish”." - https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...p-hsc/ch09.htm Emphasis mine.

    In other words, as long as criticism of imperialism remains something purely in the realm of bourgeois politics, such as Kautsky's German exceptionalism, (and that is what you are doing by reducing your argument to 'but US imperialism is greater than Russian')

    Thanks for the excerpts, but I have to point out that while we oppose *all* forms of bourgeois capitalism and resulting imperialism, the *present* situation is one of an international ganging-up on Russia, relegating it to a virtual *semi-colony* status, which then means that it's being specifically *oppressed* internationally, and requires its own self-determination in the world context.



    then it remains criticism of a liberal perspective - it is an unmarxist criticism. One cannot claim to be anti-imperialist and not be against the imperialism of Russian capital.

    I'm not saying anything in support of Russian capital, but there is a *geopolitical* dimension to the real-world situation, as I've just described.

    To use an analogy, would we call for *no* U.S. involvement, even if it was able to neutralize a greater competitive threat than NATO-type Western imperialism -- such as against ISIS today, or against the Nazis in WWII -- ?



    Do we look at the second world war and unconditionally, uncritically support the US for their imperialist intervention in Europe and the Pacific as they were the bulwark fighting against fascism?

    (This statement of yours implies *conditional*, *critical* support for U.S. intervention against the Axis powers.)



    Of course one should criticise the imperialism of the US and the EU but to deny that this imperialism could only exist as an extension of the competition between the capitalists and financial bodies of different nations, including Russia, is worse than an ostrich putting its head in the sand. Lenin suggests that "The most dangerous of all in this respect are those who do not wish to understand that the fight against imperialism is a sham and humbug unless it is inseparably bound up with the fight against opportunism."

    By denying Russia's imperialist characteristics in the war in Ukraine and in its predations elsewhere, in supporting Russian imperialism in its competition against Western imperialism, you are opportunistically denying the very nature of capitalism.

    No, I'm sorry, but you're misjudging the empirical situation -- Russia is *not* at the heights that you imagine, and it is now *under siege* politically from those you call its buddies, the Western powers.

    The following are excerpts from two separate Marxist articles on the issue:



    Marxism and the war in Donbass 9

    29/08/2015 by socialistfight

    https://socialistfight.com/2015/08/2...ar-in-donbass/

    In the Ukrainian crisis, the Russian capitalist elite have not conducted any deliberate imperialist strategy, they have only responded to the challenges of a rapidly developing situation. This reaction has been halfhearted, contradictory, inconsistent — demonstrating to the careful observer the absence of strategy.

    Another example: The Easter Rising of the Irish Republicans against the British Empire in 1916. All those who call themselves leftists honor this heroic episode of the anti-imperialist struggle of the Irish people.

    Meanwhile, one of the major factions of the uprising — the Irish Republican Brotherhood — in 1914, at the beginning of the war, decided to revolt and take any German assistance offered. A representative of the Brotherhood traveled to Germany and obtained approval for such assistance. It wasn’t provided only because the German ship carrying weapons was intercepted at sea by a British submarine.

    Lenin unconditionally supported the Irish rebellion, despite the fact that it was much less “proletarian” than the revolt in the Donbass. And in those days there were leftists who called the Irish Rebellion a “putsch,” a “purely urban, petty-bourgeois movement, which, notwithstanding the sensation it caused, had not much social backing.” Lenin answered them, “Whoever calls such a rebellion a ‘putsch’ is either a hardened reactionary, or a doctrinaire hopelessly incapable of envisaging a social revolution as a living phenomenon.” (1)

    Policies in Donbass

    Since the statehood of the territories liberated by the rebels of the Donetsk and Lugansk regions is just being established, it is probably too early to draw final conclusions about the policies of the DNR and LC. However, we can highlight some trends.

    1. Anti-fascism. The rebels of all political persuasions definitely characterize the regime established in Kiev after Maidan as fascist. Often without a clear scientific understanding of fascism, they nonetheless reject the following features of the Kiev regime: extreme nationalism, chauvinistic language policy, anti-communism and anti-Sovietism, repression of political opponents, exoneration of Nazi war criminals and collaborators.

    2. Anti-oligarchism. The role of the Ukrainian oligarchy, as the main sponsor and beneficiary of Maidan and the right-nationalist coup, became an essential element of the consciousness of the resistance movement in the South-East. Also, during the winter and spring of 2014, the complete dependence and subordination of the Ukrainian oligarchy to imperialism, headed by the United States, became apparent. A good example is the behavior of the “master of Donbass” and one of the main sponsors of the Party of Regions, Rinat Akhmetov. This “friendly” Donetsk oligarch, after a conversation with U.S. State Department representative Victoria Nuland, openly supported the Maidan, making a special statement on behalf of the SCM Corporation. Then his countrymen could see Rinat Akhmetov at the inauguration of “Maidan President” Petro Poroshenko.

    In this regard, it can be argued: for the rebels of Donbass and the masses involved in the resistance movement in the South-East, anti-oligarchic slogans are not mere “populism.” These masses, from their own political experience, understand the role of the apex of the ruling class — the Ukrainian political oligarchy.

    This distinguishes the mass progressive movement in the South-East from the mass reactionary movement of Maidan.

    ---



    The crisis in Ukraine

    3 March 2014

    https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/201.../pers-m03.html

    The principal responsibility for the escalation of the crisis in Ukraine rests with the United States and Germany. Both countries, along with their European Union allies, systematically intervened to channel popular dissatisfaction with the corrupt regime of President Viktor Yanukovych behind ultra-right nationalist and fascist forces. Their aim all along was to topple the elected government and install a regime aligned with Western imperialism and willing to participate in its well-advanced plans for the geopolitical isolation and carve-up of Russia.

    There is no question but that Russia is confronted with an existential threat. The integration of Ukraine into the expanding anti-Moscow alliance would render Russia more vulnerable to imperialist aggression and destabilization. Future operations will unfold not only on the periphery of Russia, but within its borders. The United States and the European imperialist powers will have no difficulty finding new “human rights” causes to encourage, finance and arm.

    However, the dangers confronting Russia—which threaten its dismemberment and reduction to semi-colonial status—cannot be lessened, let alone overcome, by the Putin regime’s resort to military force. No support can be given to the actions of Putin. His response to the aggressive actions of US and German imperialism is bereft of any progressive content.

    One of the issues that propelled the 1917 revolution was the struggle against imperialist domination of Russia. But this could be successfully fought only through the revolutionary mobilization of the working class based on a socialist and internationalist program. If nationalism could not protect Russia from imperialist predations in World War I, then all the more reactionary and impotent are attempts to invoke it today.

    The answer to the imperialist plans to carve up Russia and gain direct control over vast territories and resources cannot be found in the promotion of Russian nationalism, no more than the grievances of the long-suffering Ukrainian masses can be resolved by the promotion of Ukrainian nationalism. The crisis that has erupted in Ukraine poses with the greatest urgency the need for the working class to assert its own interests on the basis of its own independent program. It is the absence of a revolutionary leadership fighting to mobilize the working class on the basis of such a program that has enabled fascistic forces, financed and backed by US and German imperialism, to gain the upper hand.

    The answer to this crisis is the unification of the Ukrainian and Russian working class on the basis of a socialist and internationalist program. Ukraine has a powerful revolutionary history. In the 19th century, Ukrainian-born Marxists rejected the program of nationalism and instead championed the program of working class internationalism. The greatest of these was Leon Trotsky.
  20. The Following User Says Thank You to ckaihatsu For This Useful Post:


  21. #53
    Join Date Nov 2003
    Posts 1,187
    Organisation
    underground resistance
    Rep Power 24

    Default

    Having read this post of yours, can you point me in the direction-of, and/or make a distinction between the character of current Russian-state-based nationalism, and that of the fascist-type *ultranationalism* that you're saying exists there?

    In other words, you seem to be saying that Russian-state nationalism is almost entirely *co-opted* by fascist-type ultranationalism -- I'm wondering if you can elaborate on the 'balance' between these two trends / camps.
    It's somewhat analogous to the relationship between the Trump administration and American neo-Nazi/Klan groups. American neo-Nazis have become in the main supportive of American "state-based nationalism" since the election of Trump, while many Russian fascists have become supportive of Putin since he implemented annexationist policy in Ukraine. Recall that, for example, the neo-fascist, neo-Nazi(?)[it does use a Nazi emblem after all] organization ESM received more than 18.5 million rubles in presidential grants (post #33).

    You also see state institutions endorsing "ethno-nationalism", such as a racist comic book pamphlet that was published by the Moscow Mayor's Office with white Slavic fairy tale characters teaching Central Asian migrants "rules of behavior":

    "It is clear that resistance by Russian heroes to the invading hordes is being revived," said Evgeny Varshaver, director of the Center for Migrant Study and Ethnicity, during an interview with BBC’s Russian service.

    https://www.rbth.com/politics_and_so...society_686686
    Anyway, if you are now going to find the time to take part in this thread again, why don't you answer my questions from post #33, instead of repeating your same old points, that I already refuted??

    For example, you replied to GiantMonkeyMan at #50,

    Originally Posted by ckaihatsu
    Russia isn't imperialist, though -- at least, not meaningfully. Here's from post #31:


    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...military_bases

    - vs. -

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...y_bases_abroad
    even though I already addressed this and pointed out why there is no honest comparison between the two lists you are linking to:

    Originally Posted by Lacrimi de Chiciură
    That list is not the analogous to the one I posted, since it includes U.S. military bases within the U.S.

    Russian military bases in 10 foreign countries is a significantly large number, relative to most countries. Also you just made the claim that the UK and US are imperialist despite having a majority of trade with so-called "First World" nations because of their administrative domination of overseas territories and militarized presence in foreign countries, but the UK has military bases in the same number of countries foreign to it as Russia does (i.e. 10 + 5 in British overseas territories). France has bases in 6 foreign countries (+ 5 in French overseas departments). So as far as Imperialist Powers Other than the United States go in this area, Russia is essentially on par with the main non-U.S. Western powers (France and Britain), and quite ahead of the other 8 countries which have military bases abroad.
    (also from post #33)

    ************************************************** *********************
    __________________________________________________ ________________________


    You see only what you want to see,so a candid and honest assessment in your posts is out of question. Want a link to the interview of the leader of communist "Borotba" party who was with his comrades in the Trade Union House? http://krasnoe.tv/node/22344 (in Russian). Btw,he clearly talks about fascism in Ukraine.
    He talks about fascism because the "Red" narrative of Novorossiya manipulates/abuses antifascist discourse and rhetoric by equating the war for pro-Russian separatism and annexation with the "Great Patriotic War" of Western fascism versus Russian antifascist nationalism, so that all Russian nationalists are farcically ascribed an "antifascist" character by virtue of being anti-Western.

    The same Borotba guy you linked to, Alexei Albu, is a neo-Nazi collaborator. Look:

    The ["Liberation Committee of Odessa"] organization is created by the deputy of the City Council from the Rodina party Alexander Vasiliev, the deputy of the regional council, the leader of the Bor[ot]ba alliance organization Alexei Albu and the head of Odesa Druzhyna Dmitry Odinov, who is also the chairman of the ultra-right Slavic Unity.

    http://ipress.ua/ru/news/deputatibeg...ssi_65896.html

    (translated from Russian via google translate, with my emphasis)
    "Slavic Unity" is a neo-Nazi organization:

    The Slavic Union (Russian: Славянский Союз, Slavyanskiy soyuz) (SS) is a Russian national socialist movement, which aims at the creation of a Slavic national state.

    (...)

    The group's website, in Russian, links to extensive material on Holocaust denial[3] and to works by Adolf Hitler. Its organizational logo is a stylized swastika and the group's initials, "SS" in Russian, are the same as those used by the German Schutzstaffel and its secret intelligence service, the Gestapo (Geheime Staatspolizei, Secret Policeforce), during World War II.[2]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavic_Union
    In this picture you can see Alexei Albu sitting on a panel next to his neo-Nazi comrade "Odinov", the SS leader. (Source: http://reftlight.euromaidanpress.com...orking-surkov/ )

    BTW, the fact that you put the word "massacre" in inverted commas is quite illustrative:you do not see nothing out of the common in fascist terror.
    Reports indicate that the neo-Nazi and pseudo-left occupants of the Trade Union House were also throwing molotov cocktails and shooting at people from the roof, and that it could not be determined which side started the fire which led to the deaths.

    Want links to interviews of communist volunteers of Donbass? They tell about widespread pro-Soviet sentiments in Donbass :"every third insurgent has a red star at his cap". Here is a link to video of the Volunteer Communist squad : http://krasnoe.tv/node/24037. And here is a link to a news: the secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Lugansk PR O.N. Popov volunteered to the front http://krasnoe.tv/node/28248 .
    Yes, every third cap with a "Red" star, another third with a "White" cross, and the other third with a "Brown" swastika. Because all those narratives are compatible when the "Novorossiya" movement's point of unity is not Marxism or class struggle, but Russian nationalism. That's why you can find Stalinists, tsarists, and Black Hundreds all on the same side.

    Trying to equalize both sides of the conflict? Show me communists among those who fired alive people in Odessa, show me communist volunteers among Ukranian punitive expeditioners in Donbass - show me them as a proof of your position or you are a lier and fascist camp-follower.
    Borotba has claimed to work in solidarity with the Left Front group in Russia, but Left Front came out against the war for partition of Ukraine. So Borotba breaks with the left and sides with Nazis who want imperial expansion, Orthodox theocracy and to punish gays. Borotba breaks not only with the Russian left (i.e. Left Front), but also with the Ukrainian left (see, for example: "STATEMENT OF LEFT AND ANARCHIST ORGANIZATIONS ABOUT “BOROTBA” ORGANIZATION")

    As for Russian nationalists among insurgents - yes,there is a lot of them,too. But I must say that any Orthodox cossack or fucked up monarchist who fights against banderovists in the real life objectively stands much left than an internet "fighter" who is only able to post in a threads
    Forgive me for sharing the trash contained in the following link, but I think General Winter might have made this meme.
  22. The Following User Says Thank You to Lacrimi de Chiciură For This Useful Post:


  23. #54
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,734
    Rep Power 62

    Default


    It's somewhat analogous to the relationship between the Trump administration and American neo-Nazi/Klan groups. American neo-Nazis have become in the main supportive of American "state-based nationalism" since the election of Trump, while many Russian fascists have become supportive of Putin since he implemented annexationist policy in Ukraine. Recall that, for example, the neo-fascist, neo-Nazi(?)[it does use a Nazi emblem after all] organization ESM received more than 18.5 million rubles in presidential grants (post #33).

    Okay, yeah, that makes sense, thanks.



    You also see state institutions endorsing "ethno-nationalism", such as a racist comic book pamphlet that was published by the Moscow Mayor's Office with white Slavic fairy tale characters teaching Central Asian migrants "rules of behavior":

    Okay.



    Anyway, if you are now going to find the time to take part in this thread again, why don't you answer my questions from post #33, instead of repeating your same old points, that I already refuted??

    For example, you replied to GiantMonkeyMan at #50,



    even though I already addressed this and pointed out why there is no honest comparison between the two lists you are linking to:



    (also from post #33)

    Well, on this issue of criteria-for-imperialist-status, I'll stand by the following characteristic:



    Marxism and the war in Donbass 9

    29/08/2015 by socialistfight

    https://socialistfight.com/2015/08/2...ar-in-donbass/

    In the Ukrainian crisis, the Russian capitalist elite have not conducted any deliberate imperialist strategy, they have only responded to the challenges of a rapidly developing situation. This reaction has been halfhearted, contradictory, inconsistent — demonstrating to the careful observer the absence of strategy.

    For any other issues from your post #33, please just repost them, as appropriate for this particular point in the conversation / exchanges, or at least make your argument here and *reference* (or copy-and-paste) the fuller point from that post. (My concern is that things were getting too long and detailed. I appreciate your insight into the fascist influences on matters of state, both in Russia and the U.S.)
  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to ckaihatsu For This Useful Post:


  25. #55
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 726
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    All I know is somebody's Hitler
  26. #56
    Join Date Nov 2003
    Posts 1,187
    Organisation
    underground resistance
    Rep Power 24

    Default

    Well, on this issue of criteria-for-imperialist-status, I'll stand by the following characteristic:

    In the Ukrainian crisis, the Russian capitalist elite have not conducted any deliberate imperialist strategy, they have only responded to the challenges of a rapidly developing situation. This reaction has been halfhearted, contradictory, inconsistent — demonstrating to the careful observer the absence of strategy.
    This seems like blatant spin doctoring. To take one counterexample: absorbing Crimea (where the principle base of the Black Sea Fleet is located) into the Russian Federation is clearly a strategic move, as it ensures long term Russian naval access to the Black Sea.

    _______________

    For any other issues from your post #33, please just repost them, as appropriate for this particular point in the conversation / exchanges, or at least make your argument here and *reference* (or copy-and-paste) the fuller point from that post. (My concern is that things were getting too long and detailed. I appreciate your insight into the fascist influences on matters of state, both in Russia and the U.S.)
    Okay, I've numbered 7 main points and referenced the relevant material from my previous post.

    1. Your contention of "an international ganging-up on Russia, relegating it to a virtual *semi-colony* status, which then means that it's being specifically *oppressed* internationally" (from post #52) sounds, in light of the history of Great-Russian chauvinism, a lot like the arguments of "reverse racism", and is even reminiscent of the claim nurtured by white supremacists that there is an "anti-white genocide" happening in South Africa, or the one nurtured by Zionists that paints "Israel [as] a tiny sliver of land in a vast tempest-ridden sea of the Arab-Muslim world".

    Russophobia and antisemitism exist, but elevating these to abstract universal status where Russian or Jewish identity are transcontextually read as "oppressed nationalities" leads to making excuses for the institutions, whether of the Zionist state and Israeli settlers, or the Russian state and fascist Russian paramilitaries, which are marshaling these identities in the service of their own brand of oppression, with the excuse that they are escaping from their particular oppression "by any means necessary".

    So this leads me back to what I perceived as inconsistent in your argument back on page 2 of this thread, when I quoted the following fragment of your argument and asked you:

    Originally Posted by Lacrimi de Chiciură
    Originally Posted by ckaihatsu
    [...]*many* in the world today are living in 'modern' times -- meaning a cross-ethnic / cross-racial *commonality* of working and living conditions, which is better addressed on a *class* basis, rather than on an oppressed-nationality *separatist* basis.
    Then why are you speaking in supportive and apologetic terms for the Russian bourgeois national separatism in Ukraine, which (dubiously) claims that those of Russian nationality are oppressed by Ukrainians?
    2. Why is it so difficult to recognize the litany of documented (including in posts #43 & #53) neo-fascist and neo-Nazi actors involved in leading pro-Russian separatism in Ukraine as "real" fascists?

    Originally Posted by Lacrimi de Chiciură
    Originally Posted by Lacrimi de Chiciură
    As I showed in my original post (#7), "the fascists in 2014 were supporting Ukraine" is an inaccurate characterization of the conflict in Ukraine, since far-right organizations were/are active on the pro-Russian separatist side in Ukraine as well.
    Originally Posted by ckaihatsu
    I'll have to maintain that it's *inaccurate* and *incorrect* to term pro-Russian support as being 'fascist', because such support is counterposed to *real* fascism, as in Western-type directions in Ukraine by *real* fascists:
    I never said that "fascist" and "pro-Russian" are equivalents. I have shown however that fascist organizations and activists are less than negligible on the pro-Russian side and in the formation of the "people's republics". Pavel Gubarev, who even RT confirms as leader of the "Donbass People's Militia" and the first "People's Governor" of pro-Russian separatist Donetsk, is a swastika arm-band wearing neo-Nazi. Andrei Purgin, the first chairman of the "People's Council" declared right-wing ideas to be the predominate influence of the separatist movement, and worked closely with Eurasian Youth Union, a fascist organization. Are these "fake fascists"?


    You on the other hand, keep trying to make "fascist" and "Ukraine" out to be one and the same thing (implying that pro-Russian nationalist separatism is the "anti-fascist" choice), when far-right parties have in reality have been electorally marginal in Ukraine since the overthrow of Yanukovych in 2014 and social liberals, trade unionists, working class people, and a variety of leftist individuals and groups have been, if not supportive of the (Euro)Maidan movement, then just as critical of the anti-(Euro)Maidan movement, which collaborates with and includes in its composition imperialists, fascists, and neo-Nazis.
    3. Why is the ideological factor of neo-Eurasianism as a driver of the movement being discussed "not an anti-imperialist concern"?

    Originally Posted by Lacrimi de Chiciură
    Originally Posted by ckaihatsu
    Your concern over neo-Eurasianism isn't *anti-imperialist* -- you're actually getting drawn into the ideological battles of the *ruling class*.
    Originally Posted by Lacrimi de Chiciură
    Neo-Eurasianism is self-consciously imperialist, aiming to build a so-called "Eurasian empire" on the basis of the already existing Russian imperialism. Why would opponents of imperialism in the general abstract not be concerned with critiquing and understanding imperialist ideologies in their particular manifestations?
    4. How does a redivision of Ukrainian territory by great powers which ends with an outcome preferred by the Russian capitalist state redound to the benefit of anti-imperialism? Why wouldn't such an outcome be a boon to the neo-tsarists and simply set the stage for the next imperialist conflict?

    Originally Posted by Lacrimi de Chiciură
    Originally Posted by ckaihatsu
    Does it really matter to us as revolutionaries which 'great power' scarfs up which territories -- ?
    Originally Posted by Lacrimi de Chiciură
    Haven't you been arguing that it does -- that it is more beneficial if Russia "scarfs up" more territory, as opposed to some other (Western) country?


    My answer is that there is no benevolent form of imperialism, and anti-imperialism means abolition of imperialism as a world system, which means abolition of each national center of imperialism.
    5. Why is small-scale imperialism or colonialism not "real" imperialism or colonialism? Was Macau, a Portuguese colony in China until 1999, not "really" a colony? And what of the fact that Russia is globally tied for second place (with Britain) in terms of countries with military bases on foreign soil -- (rendering suspect the claim of Russian imperialist neocolonialism being insignificant and small-scale)?

    Originally Posted by Lacrimi de Chiciură
    Originally Posted by ckaihatsu
    You're continuing to show that you're unable to *make distinctions* between runaway, Western imperialism, and degrees of 'influence' that are far below the historic, Western norm of colonization and neocolonization.


    *Any* finger-pointing at Russian and/or China expansionism and their respective 'spheres of influence' is automatically misplaced because of the overwhelming, gargantuan amount of *real* imperialism from the Western powers, particularly the U.S.
    Can you demonstrate that Russian influence over subordinate nations is less than say, that of other imperialist countries (Western powers) whose influence has waned to a greater or lesser extent such as Canada, Germany, Britain, Japan, Italy, France, Portugal, etc.? For instance, Portugal maintained a vestige of its colonial empire in the colony of Macau in China, which it controlled until 1999. It's pretty clear that Russia in 2017 is a more formidable imperial power than Portugal in 1997. When it comes to colonial imperialism, it's not a question of degree of influence; any imperialistic relation at all is real. Did Portuguese colonial imperialism in Asia stop being colonialist once it lost its big colonies in Africa, simply because it was happening on a reduced scale? For a non-colonial imperialism, like the one Lenin calls "usury imperialism", it may be more a question of degree or magnitude. It could then be investigated to what degree Russia's imperialism mixes these "types" of imperialism (which are definitely not mutually exclusive--France had a huge colonial empire despite Lenin's characterization of French imperialism as "usury imperialism"). The other thing that is significant about Russia in 2017 as compared to Portugal in 1997 is that Russia definitely seems to be on a more ascendant trajectory as opposed to Portuguese imperialism which by the late 20th century had clearly experienced a steep decline.
    6. Why is it sound anti-imperialist praxis to universally prioritize opposition to U.S. imperialism over other national centers of imperialism? Doesn't reducing opposition to imperialism, which is multi-polar by definition, to only expressing opposition to U.S. imperialism, lead to turning a blind eye a whole lot of imperialist activity that is not organized by the U.S. ruling class?

    Originally Posted by Lacrimi de Chiciură
    Originally Posted by ckaihatsu
    On *your* point, though, the reason that the dynamic is so binary is because that's just how it is, empirically / objectively, due to the finite space on the globe -- if one *does* indict Russia or China for their spheres-of-influence, that means that one is *preferring* to indict those countries instead of being anti-imperialist against the *largest* perpetrator of imperialism worldwide, the United States. So, as a matter of *priority*, one is pursuing the wrong direction, geopolitically.
    Here you are muddling up two distinct things: (1) a theoretical understanding of a country like Russia as an imperialist great power, and (2) a general anti-imperialist praxis of prioritizing the "indictment" of imperialist countries based on the scale of their imperialism.


    I do think that you are overgeneralizing here. If we are concerned with a particular context where Russian imperialism is the main antagonizing factor, say in its relation with the indigenous people of Siberia and the Russian Far East for example, why should we prioritize U.S. imperialism, when this has little to nothing to do with the matter? Is agitation against French neo-colonial imperialism in Françafrique similarly a treacherous distraction and a way of tacitly condoning U.S. imperialism by not making it the centerpiece of all anti-imperialist discourse? This is actually a symptom of ethnocentric American cultural imperialism which infects the very discourse of anti-imperialism, as if America was the world and always needs to be centered.
    7. Doesn't Lenin's presentation of inequalities between the various imperialist powers a century ago imply that the claim that Russian imperialism is non-existent "for reasons of relative magnitude" would have been rejected by him, and should be rejected if we accept a Marxist or Leninist conception of what imperialism is? Why didn't these inequalities lead him to the conclusion that the small-scale imperialism of the weaker great powers was insignificant or not real? (this ties back to question #5)

    Originally Posted by Lacrimi de Chiciură
    Originally Posted by ckaihatsu
    I'll agree that it's *generically* nationalist, and I'm not a Russia nationalist, so I'm not trying to *validate* Russia's sphere of influence -- but in relative, geopolitical terms, it's really not a big deal, either, compared to what the Western nations have done to the rest of the world, and continue to do with their current attacks, invasions, and occupations.
    Can you show that these inequalities you allude to between great powers (Russia and Western countries) are any more significant or any more fundamentally negating of the weaker power's imperialist character than these inequalities between imperialist powers which Lenin presented in his book Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism?

    - The value of deposits in French banks was only 15.95% of the value of deposits in British banks in 1908. Does this show that French imperialism was "not really a big deal"?

    - The financial securities of Japan were only 8.45% of the financial securities of Britain in 1910. Was Japanese imperialism "not really a big deal"?

    - The capital invested abroad of Germany was only 20.16% of the capital invested abroad of Britain in 1902. Was German imperialism "no big deal"?

    (Compare: The foreign direct investment abroad of Russia was 23.31% of the foreign direct investment abroad of Britain in 2013.)

    - German colonial possessions by area were only 10.75% of British colonial possessions in 1899.

    - Japanese colonial possessions by area were only 1.72% of Russian colonial possessions in 1914.

    - Russian coal output was only 6.43% of British coal output in 1906.
  27. The Following User Says Thank You to Lacrimi de Chiciură For This Useful Post:


  28. #57
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,734
    Rep Power 62

    Default


    This seems like blatant spin doctoring. To take one counterexample: absorbing Crimea (where the principle base of the Black Sea Fleet is located) into the Russian Federation is clearly a strategic move, as it ensures long term Russian naval access to the Black Sea.

    But my original point still stands -- none of these moves were *pre-planned*, as we consistently see from predatory Western imperialism. Russia has been relegated to a mostly *passive* international role, which indicates a lack of (any hostile) *agency*.



    Okay, I've numbered 7 main points and referenced the relevant material from my previous post.

    Thanks -- your structuring is much better now.



    1. Your contention of "an international ganging-up on Russia, relegating it to a virtual *semi-colony* status, which then means that it's being specifically *oppressed* internationally" (from post #52) sounds, in light of the history of Great-Russian chauvinism, a lot like the arguments of "reverse racism",

    You're being indecisive here, and are stereotyping the situation into sounding like historical Great-Russian chauvinism.

    *I'm* not putting forth any arguments of so-called 'reverse racism', nor am I advancing Russia's interests as a great-power.



    and is even reminiscent of the claim nurtured by white supremacists that there is an "anti-white genocide" happening in South Africa, or the one nurtured by Zionists that paints "Israel [as] a tiny sliver of land in a vast tempest-ridden sea of the Arab-Muslim world".

    I agree that those two are examples of wrong politics, but you're going off on a fantasy if you're trying to attribute such erroneous political sentiments to me and my position regarding Russia.



    Russophobia and antisemitism exist, but elevating these to abstract universal status where Russian or Jewish identity are transcontextually read as "oppressed nationalities" leads to making excuses for the institutions, whether of the Zionist state and Israeli settlers, or the Russian state and fascist Russian paramilitaries, which are marshaling these identities in the service of their own brand of oppression, with the excuse that they are escaping from their particular oppression "by any means necessary".

    Again, agreed, but I'm only addressing *one* 'level' / context -- that of Russia within the 'international [bourgeois] community', where it does *not* have the power and sway of a typical imperialist nation-state.



    So this leads me back to what I perceived as inconsistent in your argument back on page 2 of this thread, when I quoted the following fragment of your argument and asked you:


    [...]*many* in the world today are living in 'modern' times -- meaning a cross-ethnic / cross-racial *commonality* of working and living conditions, which is better addressed on a *class* basis, rather than on an oppressed-nationality *separatist* basis.


    Then why are you speaking in supportive and apologetic terms for the Russian bourgeois national separatism in Ukraine, which (dubiously) claims that those of Russian nationality are oppressed by Ukrainians?

    Because Russia and its population shouldn't have to fall into the sway of Ukrainian fascism, if it doesn't have to. I understand that fascism is affecting the Russian state, too, but Putin isn't one, anyway, so Russian bourgeois national separatism is incrementally better than siding with the West-capitulating Ukrainian nation-state.



    2. Why is it so difficult to recognize the litany of documented (including in posts #43 & #53) neo-fascist and neo-Nazi actors involved in leading pro-Russian separatism in Ukraine as "real" fascists?

    The historical contentions you're providing are unfamiliar to me and are quite suspect. I don't recognize neo-fascist actors as characterizing the main composition of the politics of the Russian state.



    3. Why is the ideological factor of neo-Eurasianism as a driver of the movement being discussed "not an anti-imperialist concern"?

    Again, I think you're exaggerating the 'influence' of the far-right on Russian state politics -- you're trying to conflate Euromaidan with its opposition from Russian troops, and then you're *swapping* the political orientations of both.



    4. How does a redivision of Ukrainian territory by great powers which ends with an outcome preferred by the Russian capitalist state redound to the benefit of anti-imperialism? Why wouldn't such an outcome be a boon to the neo-tsarists and simply set the stage for the next imperialist conflict?

    Again, I think you're exaggerating the 'influence' of the far-right on Russian state politics. You're *underestimating* the ties between Ukraine and the imperialist West.



    5. Why is small-scale imperialism or colonialism not "real" imperialism or colonialism? Was Macau, a Portuguese colony in China until 1999, not "really" a colony? And what of the fact that Russia is globally tied for second place (with Britain) in terms of countries with military bases on foreign soil -- (rendering suspect the claim of Russian imperialist neocolonialism being insignificant and small-scale)?

    Because we need to gauge not just *potential* (for militaristic actions), but actual *actions* as well -- Russia can't be compared to NATO in terms of predation because it's nowhere close.



    6. Why is it sound anti-imperialist praxis to universally prioritize opposition to U.S. imperialism over other national centers of imperialism? Doesn't reducing opposition to imperialism, which is multi-polar by definition, to only expressing opposition to U.S. imperialism, lead to turning a blind eye a whole lot of imperialist activity that is not organized by the U.S. ruling class?

    There's *not* 'a whole lot of imperialist activity that is not organized by the U.S. ruling class' -- that's the *point*. We could call it a matter of *priorities*, if you like, with the U.S. / NATO being the predominant predatory geopolitical actor.



    7. Doesn't Lenin's presentation of inequalities between the various imperialist powers a century ago imply that the claim that Russian imperialism is non-existent "for reasons of relative magnitude" would have been rejected by him, and should be rejected if we accept a Marxist or Leninist conception of what imperialism is? Why didn't these inequalities lead him to the conclusion that the small-scale imperialism of the weaker great powers was insignificant or not real? (this ties back to question #5)

    I'm never saying that the Russian (bourgeois) state is *benign*, and should be considered a paragon or model of what nation-states should look like, until the day of proletarian revolution.

    Today's international situation *shouldn't* be likened to that of conditions right before World War I -- today the U.S. is an undeniable *hegemon*, and there *are no* contentious competitive wars among roughly-even regional empires, for global hegemony.

    To express such consistent ongoing concern over Russia's modest regional reach is to show an agenda of bad priorities -- the Western powers are now hegemonic, geopolitically, and should be firstly and foremostly opposed, as a matter of priorities. An imminent proletarian revolutionary movement would be *ideal*, of course.

    Also:



    “History has known in the past (and very likely will know, must know, in the future) wars (democratic and revolutionary wars) which, while replacing every kind of ‘right,’ every kind of democracy, by violence during the war, nevertheless, in their social content and implications, served the cause of democracy, and consequently socialism,” Lenin wrote. (6) It is this kind of war we have now in the Donbass.

    (6) V.I. Lenin, “Reply to P. Kievsky (Y. Pyatakov),” Aug.-Sept. 1916.


    [comment]

    The dynamic of capital accumulation and the resulting export of capital is a major driver of the Ukraine crisis. Russia is very much a capitalist power but rather than being an exporter of capital it is heavily dependent on exporting raw materials and energy. Rather than an inherent drive to expand, Russia is vulnerable to being reduced in status. A colour revolution in Moscow or a weakening of the centre leaving the regions competing to serve international capital, are entirely possible. A leader cult, religious and nationalist moods may give the appearance of strength but the shell could prove brittle.

    Marxism and the war in Donbass

    29/08/2015 by socialistfight

    https://socialistfight.com/2015/08/2...ar-in-donbass/
  29. The Following User Says Thank You to ckaihatsu For This Useful Post:


  30. #58
    Join Date Aug 2017
    Posts 12
    Organisation
    American Party of Labor
    Rep Power 0

    Default

    This is so fantastic people are acknowledging Russia and China as imperialist countries. I mean if they weren't they would be saying that there would only be one united imperialist country against anti-imperialist countries which is insane. Imperialist countries will always compete and have contradictions with each other. There is always more than one alliance of imperialist powers.
  31. #59
    Join Date May 2015
    Location Virgo Supercluster
    Posts 726
    Organisation
    PerfectPontiff 8th degree
    Rep Power 5

    Default

    I dont think we can define Russia or China today as imperialist I think its intellectually dishonest to seriously describe any country today as being imperialist. Any more than you can describe one as being fascist. You can say they have imperialist or fascist characteristics, or their actions are, like the iraq war or the crimean occupation, but to describe the US or Russian government today as being imperialist is nonsensical.

    An imperialist government needs a king, it needs supreme authority, it requires colonization and acquisition of provinces. More importantly it requires the goal of world domination no empire has ever existed that claims it only wants to rule over a few square feet on some small corner of the earth. An imperialist does not wish to setup a colony as a short term investment either to make a quick dollar, only to leave and never come back. They wish to rule and conquer those lands. Are we saying Russian influence in Moldova is similar to a Caribbean slave colony? I don't think so, but it is important to define both states as capitalist nation states and that this behavior is inherent in the capitalist system.
  32. #60
    Join Date Mar 2008
    Location traveling (U.S.)
    Posts 14,734
    Rep Power 62

    Default


    I dont think we can define Russia or China today as imperialist

    I agree, but your underlying reasoning is throwing the baby out with the bathwater, by saying that *zero* countries today are imperialist.



    I think its intellectually dishonest to seriously describe any country today as being imperialist. Any more than you can describe one as being fascist. You can say they have imperialist or fascist characteristics,

    or their actions are, like the iraq war or the crimean occupation,

    These two geopolitical events are nowhere near being comparable -- the U.S. invasion of Iraq, *twice*, *was* imperialist because it had no business being there at all. (It was due to the U.S. CIA's employee, Saddam Hussein, becoming too unmanageable, especially with his preparing to set up Iraq's own oil bourse, thus eschewing U.S. petrodollars as the active currency there.)

    Crimea had a popular referendum about whether to join-in with Russia.



    but to describe the US or Russian government today as being imperialist is nonsensical.

    No, it's not -- we *know* that the Western powers, like the U.S. and NATO, *are* imperialist because they militarily invade other countries and install their own puppet directors, and control local oil production (etc.) with U.S. oil companies.



    An imperialist government needs a king, it needs supreme authority, it requires colonization and acquisition of provinces.

    Take a look at Libya, for starters.



    More importantly it requires the goal of world domination no empire has ever existed that claims it only wants to rule over a few square feet on some small corner of the earth. An imperialist does not wish to setup a colony as a short term investment either to make a quick dollar, only to leave and never come back. They wish to rule and conquer those lands.

    Doesn't this description appropriately fit to the U.S. -- ?



    Are we saying Russian influence in Moldova is similar to a Caribbean slave colony?

    No, it's more correctly described as 'influence', mostly due to local economic factors, than (Western) imperialism's outright *expropriation* of foreign lands, as with the Caribbean in past centuries.



    I don't think so, but it is important to define both states as capitalist nation states and that this behavior is inherent in the capitalist system.

    Yes, this point here is valid and factual.

Similar Threads

  1. Banda Bassotti - Solidarity with Donbass/Ukraine
    By Babeufist in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 18th October 2016, 12:42
  2. Violence in Venezuela (HEAVY trigger warnings)
    By Comrade Chernov in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 196
    Last Post: 3rd October 2014, 03:44
  3. Syria Is a Pseudo-Struggle
    By Rafiq in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 75
    Last Post: 16th September 2013, 00:30
  4. Which countries are 'imperialist'?
    By Blanquist in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 28th February 2012, 04:45
  5. China as an imperialist country
    By Die Neue Zeit in forum News & Ongoing Struggles
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 21st February 2009, 09:26

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Website Security Test