This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.
This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.
We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.
Rules:
Welcome again to everybody! Make yourself at home. In the time-honoured tradition of our sect, here is our weekly discussion thread.
● Matrix homeserver and space
● Theory discussion group on Matrix
● Find theory on ProleWiki, marxists.org, Anna's Archive and libgen; audio versions by Socialism For All
@[email protected] @[email protected]
Concentration of production and capital leading to monopolies. In Russia, there is significant concentration of capital in some sectors, such as the energy sector, which is dominated by large state-owned and private companies. This can be consistent with the Leninist understanding of monopolization
The merging of banking capital with industrial capital and the creation of a financial oligarchy. In Russia there is a close relationship between the financial sector and industrial companies, often with state involvement.
Capital exports. The deciding factor in determining whether Russia is imperialistic is the fact whether it exports capital: production and means of production (not to be confused with the export of goods) to gain more influence in the region and profit from it by hooking up "developing countries" to its means of production and exploiting the surplus value. Russia actively exports capital, especially in the energy and natural resources sectors, and through foreign direct investment in various countries. This similarity to Lenin's criteria in particular can reflect Russia's desire to increase its influence abroad through economic instruments.
International monopolistic alliances. Although Russia participates in various international economic unions and organizations, such as the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), BRICS, and has partnerships with other countries, it is unclear how closely these structures fit Lenin's concept of international monopolistic unions. Primary, Because Russia cannot yet claim a global monopoly due to the weakness of its own capital. Nevertheless, it has quite a claim to regional domination and the division of regional markets by monopolies with, for example, China. I can provide sources on that if you want, its just that i look up stuff on russian so it would take some time translating this for you .
Territorial division of the world. Russia actively divides territories, and even participates in the neo-colonial division of Africa, Wagner's troops have been making sure that the gold of the Central African Republic belongs to Russia for a long time. Not to forget Russia's efforts in Syria to seize local oil and gas assets. Besides, the war in Ukraine can be called imperialist by a few criteria, because it is not primarily conducted for national liberation purposes, but in accordance with Russian economic interests (seizure of resource markets, labor markets, natural assets in eastern Ukraine), and if it were not profitable in the long term for Russia, Russia would not have started this war.
Also if you haven't read it yet, i recommend Lenin's "Imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism" Analyzing it will help understanding why we shouldn't support capitalist governments despite the fact they are "less reactionary". Because when time comes, and the power of such states strengthens, they eventually raise their bourgeois appetites and remove the mask of “good guys” Before reading it, Familiarize yourself with the history of the First World War (preferably from Marxist sources)
I’ve read imperialism and know the gist of WWI. I don’t imagine Russia is benevolent or anything. My understanding is that it, as a minor power defended its interests against the fascists who control the world. I know I’ve heard a thorough debunking of the imperialism argument, but I’ll see what I can do here.
For the first part, do you think China’s imperialist because they meet your same standard? https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/china-imperialist If China’s as non-interventionist and anti-hegemonic as they proclaim and is shown by fact, then why would they allow their ally to become the opposite?
Maybe Russia would like to do imperialism if it had the chance, but right now it is on the side of the colonized fighting against the greatest hegemon.
The main goal of the SMO as far as I can tell was to avoid having a fascist NATO puppet that could get nukes right on the border.
In terms of foreign involvement, the west is at least a hundred times as bad.
Didn’t Lenin advocate revolutionary defeatism? As most of us our westerners we should hope that the bloody states we live under should be defeated by Russia in order to help the liberatory movements of us and others under the boot of US and euro imperialism.
Ask yourself who benefits if each side wins. If the US can beat Russia through its Ukrainian proxy it will be emboldened to take China and other anti-imperialist countries. It will carve them up giving decades to their brutal imperialist system. If Russia beats Ukraine the west will have wasted a lot of resources. The west will be shown to be even weaker than they seemed. Their imperialist system will continue to crumble while the global south has a chance to breath free while they develop in a multipolar world.
Edit: also, “they’d be doing even eviler things if they had power instead of the people who do” is not a good argument. It’s the same as “white genocide” people use. The US can only be the hegemon because had the most beneficial outcome from WWII and the old European empires passed the reins to them.
Exactly. We must play divide and conquer, not neutrality.
I agree on what you're saying, this being said, i understand that leftists around the world should rather focus on fighting for Revolution, and Russian imperialist ambitions may be the secondary problem. Important note though, fighting for Revolution does not mean join either side, rather, it means use the world capitalist system failure to turn more people on our side and fight with us for a good cause.
Critical support doesn’t mean we should go join Russia as mercenaries and spend all our days being obnoxious on their behalf like some “MLs” do. What is means is that we recognize the role Russia and China are playing in challenging unipolar dominance and try to be pragmatic, using whatever progressive force to our advantage. In the west there isn’t that much we can do towards revolution besides try to plant seeds in the intelligent and oppressed people around us. What we can do even better in the interests of the international oppressed is to support groups fighting imperialist hegemony. That means Palestine, Venezuela, Cuba and so on solidarity. Who is helping these countries the most at the moment? Progressive but non-socialist countries like Iran and Russia. Russia intervened on behalf of the anti-colonial socdems of both Venezuela and Syria. All these countries are building the foundations global economy that doesn’t rely on the west. That is why we must critically support them. Revolutions happen at the weakest chains of imperialism, so we should weaken all the chains we can.
"I envy you. You North Americans are very lucky. You are fighting the most important fight of all. You live in the belly of the beast." — Dr. Ernesto "Che" Guevara
You guys are lucky to have guns legalized, we, eastern communists could only have dreamed about that!
Although i agree, Revolution usually starts in the most oppressed places, and USA is not having Revolution in near future