the title
Russia is the better side in the war with Ukraine
I understand combating imperialist propaganda but I’ve seen people who actually want Russia to win the war. The war is a proxy war between two imperial powers, but the USA just happens to be the stronger one. The war in Ukraine is a war between capitalists and the damage it does to the working class should be the focus.
I will be going to sleep immediately after posting this and not looking at my replies
Calling Russia an imperial power is objectively wrong
Not gonna get into a big debate but just ask yourselves: Do you think you would’ve called Iraq or Afghanistan an imperial power if they were as strong as Russia is now and able to fight back against the US instead of getting carpet bombed?
Once again, it seems people are equivocating about the use of the terms ‘empire’ and ‘imperialism’. If you’re using the Leninist definition, then probably no. But this is not the only meaning that people are using when they are calling Russian imperialist. They mean something different and it has its own valid meaning and legitimately negative connotations. By only using the Leninist definition most ‘Empires’ in history would not actually be empires at all. It’s a semantical debate, not a real one. It’s difficult to escape the conclusion that Russian would, if it wanted and could, exert its political power more broadly broadly. The invasion was, yes, triggered and caused to a great degree by American imperialism (in both senses), but that does not imply that Russia is necessarily a progressive historical actor. Other powers can aspire and struggle to an imperial position within an increasingly or potentially multipolar world. Russian’s international activity doesn’t seem to indicate that they wouldn’t take that opportunity. They are a mafioso-capitalist, nationalist state whose discourse is filled with Great-Russian pretensions, and that political ideology doesn’t come out of nowhere by accident.
I agree that Russia is not at the same level of fascisation as Ukraine, where its particularly intense, but that doesn’t change the fact that Russian has become a deeply chauvinistic, nationalistic, racist, misogynistic place in general. These problems were ofc not solved in the Soviet era, but they have become far, far worse. And you can see this much of their military and their most publically influential thinkers. One of the weirdest experiences honestly when you watch Russian political talk shows is that they are both at a far more intelligent level of conversation of debate than comparable western political discussion, but also how deeply set alot of the reactionary ideology is. Or go on Russian telegram. It will take 10 seconds to find some kind of transphobic or homophobic trash about how the west will lose because we’re all becoming gay or trans apparently. Honestly I pray I never have to see what a fully fascist modern Russia would look like.
At the end of the day I agree that the US has been the more dangerous actor, including for the reasons another person above has mentioned, namely the bloodthirstness of their policies and their unpredictability. It seems that the Russian state is currently far more intelligently run than the US’s.
Honestly I would say they have pretensions to imperial status over their immediate historical sphere of influence, but they would not be one on the distinct, full leninist definition as of yet, unless they developed in the longer term within their own sphere of influence in a multipolar order.
Also I think the latter question is loaded or abstract, and is basically implying that you’re morally obliged to say no to the question because, I’m guessing, that would be to support the US and delegitimise their right to self defence and not getting bombed? Firstly the masses of Ukraine also have a fucking right not to be bombed and raped and tortured by either side, so that defence argument if you’re implying it, would apply here. Secondly whether or not a state is reactionary from a local, regional, or global political or geopolitical perspective is somewhat independent of whether or not the US is.
At the end of the day the argument I most sympathise with I seen is simply stating that it would be better for us in the long run due to geopolitical consequences of multipolarity. But then people are basically saying that the lives of innoncent Ukrainians are a worthwhile price to pay. It’s doubly ironic because often the same leftists want to have their cake and eat it from the safety of their bedrooms when it comes to these serious and bloody geopolitical questions, because on the one hand they’re claim that you can never justify war or violence against the innocent for consequentialist reasons (say, which would favor the US, also tbh from a consequentialist perspective its almost never true that what the US state wants is best for all involved), while on the other hand being willing to make consequentialist judgements in favor of Russia invading and waging this war. I’m not even saying the latter arguments are illegitimate, but it’s interesting to see people who don’t see the contradiction there.
Also, more concretely, why would they have that power to defend themselves? Modern states do not have that power without the international relations that that brings with it and which, above a certain level, implies a capacity to exert political authority, power and hegemony beyond your formal borders. A modern capitalist and nationalist state, i.e. a non-socialist state, will structurally tend to that whether we want it or not, as part of being in a broader capitalist global system, if it does not want to stay stuck in a periphery status.
The Russian government sucks, my heart hopes the war causes both governments to topple and we see a peaceful revolution in both countries along socialist lines. It’s a pipe dream but I gotta keep a little ember of hope to keep doomer thoughts at bay.
I hope Putin and zelensky both get the kind Vladimir Ilyich treatment
the US wants to coup putin and replace him with Navalny, an incredibly Islamophobic reactionary who wants to make Russia even more of a privatized hellhole than it already is
and with regards to Zelensky, he’s just a dumbass who tripped over his own dick into inheriting a mess from Poroshenko, who was practically installed by a US-backed coup and massively escalated the situation and (along with Yatsenyuk) made Ukraine’s economy somehow even worse than it would have been under Yanukovych, and that’s saying something.
Calling Russia an imperial power is objectively wrong
Not only is it wrong, it’s largely irrelevant, which is even worse. Are people under the impression that a hypothetical still-existing RSFSR would do absolutely nothing while a fascist Ukraine continue to shell the civilian population of the Donbass, that they would sit on their collective soviet socialist asses while fascist Ukraine attempt to ethnically cleanse Russians living in Ukraine and mass their troops close to the Russian border while making overtures to join NATO? We have clear precedent of a socialist country invading a fascist country in order to do a great service to humanity by snapping its neck, so the idea of a socialist Russia just doing nothing (because socialist means pacifism apparently) has no merit. And if Russia would invade Ukraine anyways regardless of whether it’s socialist or capitalist or “imperialist,” then what is the fucking problem?
A socialist soldier of socialist Russia socialistically pulling the socialist trigger of the socialist rifle to have the socialist bullet socialistically enter and exit the skull of the fascist Right Sektor goon is good while a capitalist soldier of capitalist Russia capitalistically pulling the capitalist trigger of the capitalist rifle to have the capitalist bullet capitalistically enter and exit the skull of the fascist Right Sektor goon is bad apparently. All I see is a dead fascist.
while a fascist Ukraine continue to shell the civilian population of the Donbas
This is what I keep coming back to in every argument about this online and IRL. Russia’s invasion wasn’t the start of the war, it was an escalation of an ongoing conflict - and yes it fucking sucks that the war got escalated in this way, but it’s patently false to say that there wasn’t an attempt to end it peacefully. Minsk 2 would have reintegrated Donbas with Ukraine with some protections for its minority population, but Ukraine didn’t even implement the first step. Zelensky was elected on a platform of ending the war, but when he tried Azov told him they would rather coup his government than stand down. At some point when negotiations are broken down the only thing any organization has left to do is resort to violence, which the Russian state did when it felt threatened enough by NATO (which if you’ll recall spent months warmongering prior to the invasion start) to justify the risk.
IDK, I’d say all state powers are imperialist to some degree regardless of what they’ve done/are currently doing because they’re always going to be motivated to act in such a way. Even China, which I will defend as being the best in this hellworld isn’t going to be pure of that sin.
That being said they’ve done amazingly at it overall. Their claim to Taiwan is justified (although whether or not it’s practical is a different question) and as a whole aren’t exploitative.
The conservative ruling powers of Russia however, are a bit different. They’d be hand in hand with the US in idealogy if it wasn’t for them competing in other fields.
Wanting Russia to win is a calculation people have made based on the effect it would have on the international communist position if Russia were to lose.
A loss in more concrete terms would mean Ukraine achieving their goals, which are the destruction of the Russian state and turning it over to western imperialists.
The outcome of this would be catastrophic for the global communist position as it would result in dozens of nato bases on China’s northern border and likely cripple China’s plans for toppling US hegemony. China would be isolated and drained until it is defeated.
This calculation results in communists wanting peace asap or a victory. Given that peace is not even on the table many push for victory instead.
This doesn’t mean anyone thinks they’re actually good or not. It’s a pretty simple outcome you come to if you zoom out and look at things from a geo-strategic viewpoint.
What is best for the working class globally - the US getting weakened, potentially to the point of losing its status as hegemon, or one of a handful of powers capable of meaningfully challenging US hegemony being kicked to the curb, vindicating NATO as an organization? And in some kind of far-fetched “Ukraine wins” scenario - how exactly is the working class of Ukraine helped by a neoliberal, anti-union, pro-nazi government being vindicated and hailed as heroes - while backed by militias with US hardware? Kind of academic, since it’s not happening, but really curious to understand your logic there.
The whole war is a shitshow, no doubt. War always is. I also have no qualms with your characterization of both sides, but it’s missing the important fact that of the two sides, the US/NATO/Ukraine side has been markedly more A) bloodthirsty and B) unpredictable. I don’t think it is unreasonable that the side that is actively escalating the conflict seemingly with no understanding of globally important concepts like strategic parity or geopolitical realism in general is the worse of the two. Russia, for how shitty it is as a political entity, is at least consistent, and has actually been- despite what libs will claim again and again - relatively honest about its intentions, what it would and wouldn’t accept, etc. Again, the other side is the complete opposite, obfuscating constantly, to the point of denying basic historical facts about what the breaking up of the USSR meant for the region.
Unless your argument is that the US is so volatile that the prospect of losing this conflict is too likely to cause them to just slam the red button and launch nuclear armageddon, then I simply fail to see any argument for supporting the US in this conflict.
Yh the whole thing kinda revealed that alot of white bois on the internet would have backed the Romanovs over their western home countries.
Similar on alot of the Iran and Syria takes tbh. Clearly alot of the people here have never met Syrian refugees or Iranian feminist activists.
I think alot of comrades are also equivocating between uses of the term ‘empire’ to deny that Russian has the negative qualities we associate with the word. On the older definition of an Empire which fits into the ideal of the Roman, Byzantine, Chinese, or Russian Empires, modern Russian does clearly seem to have such ambitions. Which isn’t surprising because its a modern neoliberalized but increasingly state-capitalist state run by reactionary nationalists and the founders or descendents of the mafia who took control of the economy and made their money through corruption, sales of public assets, monpoly rents, murder, slavery, drugs and prostitution. It perhaps does not fully fit the later, theoretically distinct (so referring to a different concept) Leninist use of the term where it refers to a particular stage in the later development of modern, mature, globalized capitalism. But this is just restating the fact that Russian does not as yet have the capability of the US to enforce a form of globalized dominance or hegemony over the international capitalist system of production, trade and commerce. But it’s not at all clear why these comrades this in any way means that Russia is not the fucked up, depraved place that it is. For what it’s worth, I think anyone who thinks that the Russian bourgeoisie would maintain their dominance any less ruthlessly in their sphere of influence than the Americans doesn’t know nearly enough about them.
I think at times people have forgotten that their obligation is first and foremost to the well-being of the broad masses of society, including that of Ukraine, and that’s been masked by paradox-game style speculations of when Russian ‘will humiliate Ukraine’, or rejoicing over the deaths of Ukrainians, even The most important thing, including when we take all the political considerations about US power, seems to me to be ending the war as soon as possible in a way that does not give the US its geopolitical objectives. Ofc then we’d have to worry about whether such a set back would make US policy makers more desperate and dangerous in the classic style of declining empires as opposed to feeling more disempowered and accepting that it cannot maintain unipolarity.
Most of the rest of world do not like Russia. They just don’t give nearly as much of a fuck about white imperialists crying about a war they caused, and despise and increasingly feel less need to give a fuck about towing the line when the West is pressuring them through moral castigation and threats of material, economic, political and potentially miliary aggression if they don’t fall in line. At best some of the more geopolitically aware and savy are conscious of and potentially optimistic for the prosects of a genuinely multipolar order. The Ukraine war is not even the most deadly ongoing conflict. That’s the war in Ethiopia.
The interesting theoretical question is raises is whether a multipolar world order in which the major blocs are still all equally committed to deepening late, uber exploitative capitalism and often under very explicitly authoritarian governments, will be more or less prone to geopolitical conflict and war. I fear it’s the later, but it also seems to obviously be something that will inevitably have to happen as US global hegemony has to be defeated for socialism as a global project to have even snowman’s chance in hell.
Most people in the global south (the working classes of the world in general tbh) are too fucking poor, exhausted, overworked, concerned with more pressing material issues to be able to willing to give a fuck. Yes, many people outside the west are making constant jokes about it, but this is not the same thing as having a developed theoretical opinion that Russia is a positive influence in the world or should win.
Yh the whole thing kinda revealed that alot of white bois on the internet would have backed the Romanovs over their western home countries.
TFW you don’t understand revolutionary defeatism.
except many people slobbering at the mouth for a crushing russian victory clearly don’t understand it either lmao. Not as if they’ve been crawling out of the woodwork much to say that, from the pov of the russian working class, they would hope that the Russian working class also overthrows the Russian government. I also want Nato to lose, for obvious reasons. But it often looks on here like people saying they hope the Germans get defeated by the Romanovs but dont want the Romanov dynasty to fall because it would inevitably lead to a foreign intervention and imperialist domination of Russia, when the clear thing to want is that is fundamentally destabilizes both governments. But again, that’s not what alot of people on here have been suggesting wrt russia (hey maybe because its mainly alienated people shitposting). Tbf, the best arguments I can think of in defence of that is the absence of sufficient leftist presence in Russia (due to that not being allowed by the gov). But it does raise the obvious question of when we should support anti-government movements in other countries. Like many people here seem to perceive every movement in countries opposed by Nato as astroturfed CIA-plants. The later obviously exist as a matter of public record at large, politically important scales (Ukraine’s fascist coup d’était being the obvious example), but the latter normally need to latch on to and redirect organic social movements. Honestly I think alot of people just want to make the real world politics of this seem alot simplier and easier than it is from the comfort of their computer screens, abstracting from the messy detail by doing some geopolitical analysis.
Again, just to change the reference a bit to Iran and Syria, its really, really evident from how they talk about these issues that a bunch of people here have not really interacted with many people from these places, let alone been to them. Like would people here be making their Assad jokes to comrades who’ve come out of a Syrian prison, or iranian feminist activists who’ve been raped in prison? It’s obviously correct to not want Nato to intervene imperialistically in these countries affairs, and people in the west have a political responsibility to organize to prevent that, but many people on here who make the pro-russian/syrian/iranian comments are not even doing that. They’re playing video games and watching anime. Its important to be conscious of the fact that you’re then talking about yet more governments that use mass repression, killings, torture and rape prisons against masses of communist, socialist, anarchist, feminist and indigeneous activists and militants, and use the political power they have to crush genuinely progressive movements as well. They’d murder you in a heartbeat if necessary or convenient. The other side of the revolutionary defeatist equation is normally not being consistently brought up here either, nor the related question on what conditions make revolutionary situations possible in these countries, and so when and how to support them if possible in any way.
The irony is that many people are would then point out that the Russian Communist Party has a decently sized base in Russia, not realising how reactionary the current org bearing that name it (to not get into the details of the other groups), and how they are fully integrated into the current ruling regime in Russia, seen as a asset by Putin’s faction to bolsher United Russia.
Russia is the better side in the war with Ukraine
the war is between Russia and NATO, not Russia and Ukraine. Ukraine and Russia are both hollowed out shells of their former soviet selves thanks to the 1990s. They are being made to slaughter each other so America can sell Liquid Natural Gas to Europeans.
Overgeneralisations. People will complain that “hexbear thinks” or something, and you dig a little and find out it was one particularly vocal person.
The general misanthropy and eagerness for violence. I know it’s a lot of people just being frustrated and venting, but I still think it’s unhealthy to fantasize about perpetrating violence against people and being cruel as a form of gratification for its own sake. A revolution is a not a picnic and the refusal of the cruel masters of this world to accept anything but their continued domination by way of blood will require violence to overturn, yes, but this is a fact I face with deep regret and sorrow. I try to cultivate forgiveness and love for everyone. I don’t believe that there are people who are fundamentally wicked; the capacity for cruelty and oppression is in all of us. This is why it’s important to guard ourselves against the temptation to delight in violence in itself.
I don’t exactly blame people for feeling this way, but I hope they don’t lose themselves in it, don’t forget that we’re struggling for universal human dignity and compassion.
i hold those same principles, and building on that, I think it often reeks of compensation. like, a movement with actual military capacity isn’t constantly making absurd, empty threats.
of course like every 5th post i make is calling for my enemies to burn eternally in the lake of fire, so i’m fully projecting here.
I’m very guilty of this, but I will say that to some extent it allows me to cultivate forgiveness and love for everyone in real life, which I consider a core part of who I am as a person. In reality I try to see the best in everyone and give the benefit of the doubt. If someone cuts me off in traffic I assume they’re about to shit their pants.
I reserve my anger for the the worst of the worst and vent it on this website. Which is still maybe not healthy
I think it’s very important to be as kind as possible, to make the choice to be better when one can, and reject cruelty.
We want to built a world that eliminates unecessairy suffering, so we should never stoop to perpetuating it ourselves. Someone on here once wrote an essay about “Communism of Love” of which I have forgotten most of the content, and I can’t read it anymore, but the sentiment is still important to me. I am a socialist because I love people, all of them.
With the ones, that are inarguably causing unimaginable suffering, we shouldn’t just feel hatred(or maybe at all), but sadness for the lost humanity and lost potential.
We want to create a world without monsters, not become them.
I think a lot of americans on here are way too dismissive of, like say, britain and france, considering their working class is way more powerful and organized relative to their states. Seems like cope sometimes
yh classic dialectical paradox i guess where it would be specially impactful but also for the same reason is very difficult to radicalize people properly
honestly also makes me genuinely think that if the hard left actually does ever take power in a place like america its gonna unironically be a bloodbath for its enemies
also American’s have no right to hate the British or French for the actions of their nation especially as they do not allow that logic to be applied in reverse
also terfism would never have gained the hold it has in Britian without American money astroturfing it
:kelly: astroterf
Tbh it’s more the thing of people being edgy about their hatred for a country and then wishing it ‘sinks into the sea under cloud of nuclear hellfire’, come what may for its working class. Tbh it also sometimes devolves into people literally stating that these working classes are brought their situations on themselves, which I think is a really vile pov and that anyone who says that should be ashamed. It’s especially incredible coming from the keyboards of yanks. But yh some yanks are frequently showing that they don’t know much of anything about the working classes of these countries; all they’ve got is a vague idea of ‘labour aristrocracy’.
I’ve also seen people here celebrating for example actual food shortages in the UK which are both real and directly hurting the poorest
I don’t know, I live in Germany and while nowadays even here some union activity happens, the benefit to the left is minimal and both radical and radlib orgs don’t really see any growth. The fash do.
Are there more potential leftists that simply do not trust in any current political organization and thus just withdraw from caring about politics in the bourgeois state, while not trusting the revolutionary left or are the fash absorbing these people like a sponge?
It’s probably the latter, but at this point I just don’t know and doomer about the world we live in and life in general.
