Russia had no good reason to invade Ukraine, Ukraine has good reason to resist Russian occupation but should be open to ceding territory in return for peace if possible. I do not buy that the Far-Right parties around the world that defend this invasion were actually le based prole-pilled geniuses the entire time. Prove me wrong.
You've done it now OP. The campists and psyops agents will be here very shortly.
>>2804238> should be open to ceding territory in return for peace if possibleif that happens what's keeping russia from recovering and invading yet again?
>>2804253It seems like their only option. If they keep going their front lines will collapse and all of Ukraine will be occupied by Russia. It seems preferable for them to try and end the war now despite the risks rather than face what is likely certain defeat.
>>2804260if they give russia a chance to recover all the sacrifice they've made is for nought as they will end up fighting a stronger russia
unless they can get some actual security guarantees they needn't sue for anything
>>2804263It's not ideal but unless they have some kind of ace up their sleeve I don't see any other option for Ukraine than to just hope Russia deems invading the rest of Ukraine to be too much of a hassle to bother with. One could make the same argument, that peace would just be broken later, to oppose any peace deal other than something insane and unrealistic like Ukrainian control of all of Russia.
>>2804253Not much really but even annexation would be preferable to throwing millions of men into the woodchipper while the country gets sold to asset management companies. It's not like there's a difference between the two regimes anyway. The Ukrainians were retarded for even antagonizing Russia in the first place. After they're through assisting 60 year olds in mass suicide and causing a mass exodus of people to Poland and Germany, only armed bands of neo-nazis and resource extraction companies will be left. All this for muh nation.
>>2804269Ukraine will not be improved whatsoever by being under Russian control, if anything it will be made worse.
>>2804273It will be worse either way. Tbh there's no normative answer for this situation
it made sense in terms of realpolitik imho, If I'm one of the statesman in charge the military alliance that exists fuck me over toppled the government of neighbor and started flooding it with money,weapons and neonazis I'd be inclined intervene too. That being said if the Russian Federation was motivated purely by protecting the russian diaspora in the region than why not invade the Baltics that literally have a predominantly russian underclass of noncitizens with no political rights.
>>2804312they're in a club called nato
better question: if russia is so concerned with russian diaspora why not just bring it home?
>Prove me wrong.
I'm guessing the fact this thread exists means you already were in the general
>>2804269Ethnonationalists having too much influence or power is unironically the worst thing that can happen to nation and the fastest way to destroy a nation-state.
>>2804315>better question: if russia is so concerned with russian diaspora why not just bring it home?Because Ukraine doesn't have any more right to displacing undesirables than Israel does.
>>2804312Russia has nuclear weapons and thus cannot be attacked by NATO, this rationale was always bunk.
It's not retarded, it's completely understandeable and predictable if you are a Marxist. Russia needed to expand its market so that it could maintain imperialism, and so got into conflict with a colony of the EU and American imperialist spheres. The Russian imperialists didn't have another choice, especially after Assad fell, apart from Africa which also would mean getting into conflict with the French / EU and where they generally have much less influence.
>>2804324the question was: why doesn't russia reel the diasporas back in not why doesn't ukraine (or anyone else) expulse russian immigrants
>>2804337Ukrainian communists are the retarded ones for not acting as a patriotic force fighting off the American, EU and Russian imperialists. Instead they could not adapt to becoming illegal and fascism took over the entire country. In fact communists in all post-socialist countries are retarded for somehow managing to do worse than others despite being in countries superstructurally primed for socialism. I blame it all on the decrepit social-imperialist soviet revisionism which turned genuine socialism into sculptures of it made of dust, that have since blown away on the wind of history.
>>2804340You said
>if russia is so concerned with russian diasporathe reason for concern is Ukraine trying to displace them, so you've asked why hasn't Russia obliged Ukraine and helped them to that end.
>russian immigrantsReal talk, how much about this situation do you know? Other than it involving Russians and therefore Zionism is okay?
The Russian invasion literally started the current revolutionary shift against US unipolar hegemony. Before it was all talk and non-state actors.
>>2804342in half the former eastern block countries communism is seen as foreign and hostile as it was forced by soviet occupation if anything they're the worst primed for it
>>2804312If Russia actually had intentions to deal with the Neo-Nazi problem they'd have started with their own country.
>>2804238>Russia had no good reason to invade UkraineCounterpoint: falling rate of profit
>>2804341
>Russia did have good reason to invade Ukraine
Imperialism is not a good reason.
>>2804238>Ukraine has good reason to resist Russian occupation but should be open to ceding territory in return for peace if possible.I've held this position and thought since before the war started that Ukraine should give up on Crimea.
>>2804260>If they keep going their front lines will collapse and all of Ukraine will be occupied by Russia.People have been saying this for years but the problem for Russia is that the Russian army is bad at war, because the Russian army like everything else is a feature of the political system, it's not organized with some great military goal in mind, the country is run by apolitical boomer larpers who don't believe in anything and don't care. That's kinda it really. The entire scheme is just dumb, a bunch of light infantry battalions dying in a moronic slaughter fest. Weeb War III. Four years in and Russian industry in the Urals is being attacked by cruise missiles (from the other day).
>>2804269>After they're through assisting 60 year olds in mass suicide and causing a mass exodus of people to Poland and Germany, only armed bands of neo-nazis and resource extraction companies will be left. All this for muh nation.It's getting turned from a nation state into a Palantir-led robotized frontier Wild Fields 2.0:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_Fields >>2804238Finally someone gets that an imperialist land-grab by an oligarchic country ran by someone who happens to be a Zionist is actually a bad thing
Honestly Russia always finds a way to nearly rope itself such as 1905 or kill itself like 1917. This war is going to domino into the RSFSR coming back especially with the forced economic changes the Russian Federation is doing and will end with the capitalist getting overthrown again due to incompetence
>>2804273An underdiscussed possibility of Russian victory in Ukraine is an enormous growth in power for Far-Right groups, which achieved power in the first place because of the power struggle in Ukraine between Russia and the West. At any rate, Russian victory in Ukraine means horrific extended guerrila war of Azovites with sizable public support. Nazism in Ukraine is a huge problem both among seperatists and nationalists and Russia has made the situation far worse by invading. As we saw in Iraq, invasion and occupation of an evil government by an imperialist power for the purpose of resource extraction just creates more chaos and instability without actually solving anything.
>>2804312>it made sense in terms of realpolitik imho, If I'm one of the statesman in charge and the Islamic terrorist groups that exist to fuck me over toppled the twin towers and started flooding Afghanistan with terrorists and Islamists I'd be inclined to intervene too.>>2804309Instability in a Capitalist state is not a good thing when it lacks any chance of Communist revolution. It's just violent and horrific, like Medieval civil wars. No way to exploit the chaos to create a better world, just lots of dead bodies.
>>2804345The Russian invasion of Ukraine was an enormous boost to the West because it was a ludicrously retarded decision that allowed the West to easily position themselves in the eyes of much of the world as the defenders of national sovereignty (Not that this is an accurate view of the West). Also how fucking DARE you take away credit from the brave Palestinian resistance and give it to that FAGGOT Putin, Sinwar's ghost should haunt you for the rest of your life. The Palestinian resistance created the current revolutionary shift, DESPITE Putin's abject failure.
>>2804353If Russian so-called "Imperialism" seizes resources previously imperialised by the west, its worth any cost.
>>2804445The deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is not a worthwhile or reasonable sacrifice for resources to go from the larger imperialist power to the smaller imperialist power
>>2804374>This war is going to domino into the RSFSR coming back especially with the forced economic changes the Russian Federation is doing and will end with the capitalist getting overthrown again due to incompetencegod I wish you were right
>>2804452Hundreds of thousands of mostly hohols.
>>2804238I have a lot of complex feelings about this. This war has shown the true faces of many people. There are those who do apologia for naked Russian imperialism. I don't understand those on the left who do this, as they don't seem to understand that, firstly, anti-imperialism is anti-imperialism, no matter who is doing it, but secondly, whatever clusterfuck of an ideology Russia has nowadays (I just call it Putinist cause it's easiest) is a lot of things. Mainly: VERY CONTRADICTORY, and NOT LEFT WING!
Contrarywise, I also saw another group who seems to get off on the idea of seeing Russia destroyed and humiliated. I don't understand the so-called "liberals" who want this. Roosevelt, the (in my opinion) premier and shining example of the model liberal wanted lasting peace without inflicting suffering on the people. Roosevelt didn't cause the civilians of Germany to starve and suffer because of their government's bad actions, even inaction was all it would take to cause that. He had plausible deniability and the perfect environment to do that, and he didn't. He made sure that the German people didn't starve.
So, why would these liberals want to punish Russia in a way that was considered to extreme for liberals 80 years ago to do to FUCKING NAZI GERMANY?
>>2804460and these are not humans, proletarians, etc?
what is putins opinion of gamgergate though? you think he liked depression quest?
>>2804413But in the case of Afghanistan it was US funding the islamists not the USSR or PRC, Ukraine would be like if Canada was overthrown by chinese backed militias in 2014 and started shelling Windsor and Niagara falls. That being said I do agree a lot the justifications you see from russian intelligensia sound a lot like bush era neocons. I too am also concerned with a post-war ukraine leading to ISIS for white people lashing out on civilians all over the place.
>>2804579>the prc didn't fund the mujahadeenactually they did, in fact they did so precisely because their ally pakistan was doing so and because the soviets were doing it
>>2804463Roosevelt was happy to bomb civilian targets in both Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. You don't understand how those wars were fought. You think they cared about collateral damage? No. Japan was being firebombed nightly before the nukes were even dropped. Germany was flattened before the Soviets even entered Berlin. Curtis LeMay, who proposed nuking Vietnam during the Vietnam War, worked under Roosevelt.
>>2804581ngl I completely forgot about that, I've also heard a counter claim they were only funding Maoists but I have no idea if that is remotely true or not
>>2804238Millions of people dying in a pointless meat grinder is akchally a 5D chess move that owns the libs.
>>2804445>Moscow imperialism GOODNo, all imperialism is bad. Also why do Ukrainians deserve this? Did they have an empire? No they didn't.
>>2804515You're probably replying to a paid propagandist who is sitting in Saint Petersburg.
>>2804690nta but you dodged the question and your rhetoric is utterly indistinguishable from votebluenomatterwho resistance winemom libshit. that should give you some pause
>>2804700>you dodged the questionI thought it was a rhetorical question. Yes Ukrainians are human beings - even a child can tell you that.
>your rhetoric is utterly indistinguishable from votebluenomatterwhoAnybody who slurs Ukrainians as "hohols" is either a paid pro-Kremlin propagandist or a fucking idiot who spreads Kremlin propaganda for free.
>>2804579>But in the case of Afghanistan it was US funding the islamists not the USSR or PRCActually the PRC helped the Mujahideen. And I'm completely aware of how the Taliban was the result of blowback but that doesn't change the fact that the war in Afghanistan has similar justification to Ukraine.
Putler is a uyghur
>>2804463>This war has shown the true faces of many people. There are those who do apologia for naked Russian imperialism. I don't understand those on the left who do this … Contrarywise, I also saw another group who seems to get off on the idea of seeing Russia destroyed and humiliated. I don't understand the so-called "liberals" who want this.It's just power worship. It's very easy to fall into it because of human psychology, and people end up sinking their own individuality into some larger power bloc, and their thinking ends up revolving around an obsession with triumphs of their own side and humiliations for the other side, it becomes "unthinkable" to accept that one's own bloc is on the downgrade. The liberals are like this because they hate and fear Russia, while others hate America including people on the left because they identify America with having taken their dreams away when the Soviet Union collapsed. But it's possible that the outcome of the war is an acceleration of the decline of the larger shared zone that used to comprise the USSR.
Anyways this leads to some interesting contradictions, for example there's panic about a Russian threat to Europe, but how much of that is actually backed by a real capability now given Russia's poor performance in Ukraine. Meanwhile, the U.S. has just performed poorly against Iran. The amount of damage Iran inflicted on U.S. bases in the Middle East was much greater than the U.S. admitted. It's highly unlikely that both Russia and the U.S. can actually achieve a real decisive victory in the 21st century against smaller countries willing to resist. Smaller, "weaker" countries have proven they can resist the bigger powers. Ukraine can resist Russia, but one of the biggest "winners" of the Ukraine war in relative terms might not be Ukraine or Russia, but North Korea. But you might not want to underestimate South Korea either. The angry Chihuahuas of the world are rising up.
North Korea is kinda the biggest winner though, which is kinda based.
>putin is a retard
more at 11
>>2804777JUCHE BOY SUMMER
>>2804777Thanks Putler for being retarded enough to dilapidate ammo and manpower so much that the DPRK could leverage that into sanction lifting
>>2804777>an authoritarian state which deprives its people of political liberty and basics such as food so they starve to death is "based"Leftism is supposed to support ordinary struggling people, not authoritarian leaders who live in luxury
>>2804839The people in NK are getting more fucked by the sanctions of the imperialist security council than their leadership though, until Russia kinda broke with the tradition when they desperately needed shells and meat for the grinder.
>>2804843I'm not talking about propaganda, I'm talking about the truth. Authoritarianism is bad. I believe in ordinary people having rights, and healthcare, and food, and being able to protest against their government if they wish.
>>2804845It could well be true that actions of the US and others are hurting ordinary North Koreans, but that doesn't justify North Korea's authoritarian government.
>>2804850Kind of sad that you don't recognise the contradiction between
>The US and its allies are hurting ordinary North Koreans<The DPRK government is the way it is because it's just authoritarianIf you're under attack, you're not being authoritarian by taking measures against that. No one claims that the Western Powers in WW2 were authoritarians when punishing anyone with lose lips or acting in ways that make their loyalties questionable.
>>2804850You are mind broken, we tried to genocide North Korea and you moan about how they have prisons.
>>2804843I know this isn't really the point of this post, but wow the picture on the left is pretty. How come the Eastern Bloc buildings were so butt ugly while a much poorer nation has such beautiful architecture.
>>2804878because those krushvevks were thrown up in a rush. pyongyang used to look the same, but in the past 10-15 years they've done a lot of progress in beautifying the city.
>>2804895The collective west that shrugged its shoulders at the division of Korea and the ensuing attempted genocide of it and the massacres carried out in the south by American and Japanese troops.
>>2804899Can you name one thing that has actually improved for any group of proles as a result of this war?
>>2804897the collective west fed norks for most of the last 40 years. back when old man was around around chuseok they'd find out they don't have enough rice to live off so they'd start grumbling about nuclear test or launch a missile into the sea as a means of begging for aid.
division of korea of korea was caused by inconclusive end of korean war. at this point even if kims of choson dismantled their monarchy i doubt whether the southerners would even want to bill the unification.
>>2804905Yeah that’s how historical progress works, you measure it in the immediacy of the outcomes.
>>2804911
there's overlap but by rule of thumb ukrainians have wider faces and sometimes come in dinarid phenotype while russians often come in east baltoid phenotype with a very narrow face which uncommon anywhere outside russia
hope it helps
>>2804777At least something positive about this.
>>2804741>Ukraine can resist RussiaThey wouldn't be able to without massive western backing. The proxy war angle cannot be ignored.
Not saying the russian federation would be winning if this wasn't the case, modern russia is probably the biggest paper tiger in world history, but Ukraine's "success" is largely a western success.
Iran is also a case of this with their chinese and russian backing, in but considerably smaller in scale since Iran is actually a real player unlike Ukraine.
>>2804238>Russia had no good reason to invade UkraineNATO wanted trillions of dollars of minerals in the donbass region. to this end they expanded towards Ukraine, couped ukraine in 2014, worked with far right elements in the military, and even started a civil war in Ukraine. When this proxy war which started in 2014 became too hot, Russia invaded to back up its allied forces in the separatist regions, and prevent NATO from securing trillions of dollars in minerals and also some of the most fertile soil remaining on earth.
>but what does this have to do with proletarian revolutionnothing, it's just bourgeois geopolitics, but it will prevent the USA and NATO allies from securing trillions of dollars in minerals which are used directly in military hardware leading up to WW3 and the war against China.
>>2804463>i'm gonna pretend the side that's against US imperialism "supports Russian imperialism" when really they're just responding to NATO expansion after other strategies failed<I'm also gonna admit the other side are the actual genocidal war mongersyeah your centrism isn't looking so hot here.
For the millionth time, this isn't "Russia invading Ukraine" But NATO invading first Ukraine, then using it as a puppet against Russia, after all "peaceful" and "respectable" bourgeois strategies failed. You think a glimpse at Yugoslavia in the 1990s would convince you, but no.
>>2804690>No, all imperialism is bad. Also why do Ukrainians deserve this?you're right. ukrainians did not deserve teh USA couping their government, training and arming fascists, using their nation as a puppet in their schemes to expand nato eastward and secure trillions of dollars in minerals, which was the actual inciting incident in the war, and not voldemort putler's evil orc invasion in 2022
>>2805014posted it again award
>>2804906it's like I'm really on 4chan's /v/
>>2805017look at the mountains in the back ground and tell me a single on of those things didn't happen and directly contribute to the current situation.
>>2805021I have observed this since 2008 Georgia and 90% of that is fake and gay FSB propaganda ops.
>>2805017i posted it again because you freaks never have a real counter argument about NATO expansion being the real cause of all this, of bourgeois russia and bourgeois ukraine both being creations of NATO after the collapse of the USSR. NATO is forcing two entities it basically created to fight each other because it is hungry for minerals to use against china. like unless you have a real counter argument for that analysis, I'm sticking to it, while you keep falling for the "Russia Vs. Ukraine" framing of the war which objectively acquits NATO, knowingly or not.
>>2804905Russian proles living in the Ukraine are thankful for being saved from genocide
>>2805027How many of them are still alive from this war?
>>2805022>I have observed this since 2008 Georgia and 90% of that is fake and gay FSB propaganda ops.anon, let me get this straight, you are saying
<expansion of NATO after the collapse of the USSR didn't happen , and is FSB propaganda<US-backed privatization under yeltsin didn't happen, and is FSB propaganda<rejecting Russian federation from joining NATO in 2002 didn't happen, and is just FSB propaganda<rejecting USSR from joining NATO in 1954 didn't happen and is FSB propaganda<the USA using the marshall plan to financially rehabilitate fascist-collaborators in west germany didn't happen<2014-2022 shelling of donbass/luhansk by ukraine govt didn't happen not only is all of that true, and reported outside of russia, and even by russia's rivals in some cases, but it is easily verifiable. you're just making allegations you have no proof for.
>>2805028Millions more than there would be if NATO was allowed to finish its bioweapon development
>>2805028>How many of them are still alive from this war?unless the ukrainians push the front line back to the cities in their own territory that they were shelling 2014-2022 in the civil war that NATO provoked, I imagine plenty of them are alive
>>2805022>FSB propaganda those are not only all verifiable historical events, but many of them the FSB has a direct incentive to NOT report because it makes the bourgeois russian government look weak, which is exactly what I am saying. Russia and Ukraine are both weak shells of their former soviet selves, being forced to hit each other for NATO's benefit.
>>2805001Hundreds of thousands of prole deaths in an invasion for the purpose of pillaging Ukraine's resources in order to make sure that another empire with little difference in terms of progress outside of how large they are will not be able to pillage Ukraine's resources. If Russia decided not to help the seperatists and didn't invade then Ukraine wouldn't be facing total collapse and its status as a western puppet state wouldn't even change anyway. And despite my hatred of NATO and the West, who can blame Ukraine for preferring the empire that doesn't want to invade and occupy them over the one that is actively doing that? And of course this difference has nothing to do with morality but rather geopolitics and whatnot, and the West brings their own violence in the form of the Far-Right backed Euromaidan (Not to mention that they're far from blameless in the Donbas war) but the difference is pretty stark and the choice of the vast majority of Ukrainians, including the majority of Russian speaking Ukrainians, to align with the West is unsurprising. Ideally they should recognize that the West seeks only to use them, and the offer of less instability and violence in the pursuit of that (In the immediate sense, anyway. Who knows what vile shit the EU goons have cooking up for Ukraine's future!) is insufficient. Therefore, Ukrainians should fight against Western and Russian influence and act as an independent country that doesn't answer to either imperial bloc. The pipe dream is Communist revolution and the overthrow of all of the bourgeoisie nonsense, but that doesn't seem likely in the immediate sense.
>>2805008>NATO invading first UkraineWords actually do have meanings and backing a coup is not an invasion. A Russian-backed coup in Ukraine, for example, would not be the same thing as killing something like a million people in an invasion.
>>2805012>ukrainians did not deserve teh USA couping their government, training and arming fascists, using their nation as a puppet in their schemes to expand nato eastward and secure trillions of dollars in mineralsYeah they really didn't. But apparently what they REALLY deserve is the deadliest war in Europe since WWII. Thanks, Russia.
>>2805022Not one of these things forced Russia to invade. It was an enormous escalation in an already horrific power struggle between the West and Russia that has solved nothing and killed countless people.
>>2805023I don't think we should acquit NATO at all, but nobody forced Russia to invade. They made that decision themselves and they're absolutely to blame for it. We can talk all day about NATO's many crimes and the fact that they set the stage for the war as we know it, but Russia has its own agency and Putin said "Let's start a huge fucking war!". Playing into NATO's hands or not, that's on them.
>>2805027If anybody has evidence of Russian minorities in Ukraine being thankful for the Russian invasion I'd really like to see it.
>>2805032Get real
>>2804345>started the current revolutionary shift against US unipolar hegemony. Based retard
>>2805366>its the U.S that's a fucking blight to the worldAgreed, for one they are the reason Putin's regime got into power in the first place.
>>2804463>>2804741>It's just power worship.or they simply dont consider it imperialism
>>2805170I promise you this: without gorbachev and yeltsin, there would be no russia-ukraine war, because russia and ukraine would still be one nation
>>2804850>Authoritarianism is bad. I believe in ordinary people having rights, and healthcare, and food, and being able to protest against their government if they wish.did you know that people having food is dependent on the physical capacity to produce it?
>>2805615True, I'm aware. However, I don't see why that justifies the invasion.
>>2804253the fact ukraine would have recovered and prepared as much as them (or likely even more, given they would have all of nato military industrial complex foaming at the mouth to fortify them in exchange for big bucks), and that if they had to peace out once, why would it go any better now that the ukrainian army is fire tested and prepared
and why even peace out in the first place if you just want more, russia is in the better position attrition wise, resetting it would be dumb
and for your population, going once was already not that popular, but making a peace then going again would for sure cause big problems
the question is actually better reversed, why would russia ever accept a peace that dont involve guarantee of ukraine neutrality and/or neutralization, they have a big sunk cost already but are at least still in the dominant position for now, and no guarantee it would still be the case after a pause
>>2805170>for the purpose of pillaging Ukraine's resources in order to make sure that another empirewrong, and wrong, and wrong
>>2805170>for the purpose of pillaging Ukraine's resources russia doesnt lack resources, its absolutely not the reason of the war. Its a war about security concerns
>who can blame Ukraine for preferring the empire I can. Anyone on the side of nato is on the side of the empire, and destruction of the empire is the priority, whats needed for the world to finally progress towards socialism, the most progressive outcome possible, and so destruction of any entity on the side of nato is good, its that simple.
>choice of the vast majority of Ukrainians, including the majority of Russian speaking Ukrainians, to align with the West they didnt choose this, they chose the only non banned "pro peace" reconciliation candidate, and in pure "liberal democracy" fashion he ended up betraying them and fucking them over
>Ukrainians should fight against Western and Russian influence and act as an independent country that doesn't answer to either imperial blocthats exactly what the situation was before the maidan. They were playing both side to raise the bid, quite successfully, but it made the nato liberals allied with the nazis mad so they had to coup.
>that doesn't seem likely in the immediate sense.I wonder why, maybe the banderite bloody repression of anything vaguely socialist had something to do with it?
>backing a coup is not an invasionit caused a fucking civil war
>deserve retarded moralism, nobody get what he "deserve" in the real world, the only justice you get is the one you can rip from your enemies with a gun in your hand, what happens happens because of material reasons, not because it is deserved. At best we can celebrate when what happens and what we deem deserved coincide, for example when I see banderite getting blown up I feel like it should be celebrated
>It was an enormous escalation in an already horrific power struggle who cause the power struggle? who is encroaching on whom? do you actually want everyone under attack by the empire to lay down and accept the US boot because resisting means people die?
>We can talk all day about NATO's many crimes and the fact that they set the stage for the war as we know it, but Russia has its own agency and Putin said "Let's start a huge fucking war!". Playing into NATO's hands or not, that's on them.you do realize the exact same argument is made about palestinian oct 7th attack? do you also blame them? or do you only blame those who actually have serious military means?
>If anybody has evidence of Russian minorities in Ukraine being thankful for the Russian invasion just look up interviews in odessa, seen a bunch at the time. Not thats really relevant, population wishes only matters insofar as they actually do shit, and the russian minorities literally started a fucking civil war to express how much they didnt like banderites taking control of their country
>>2805660
>Its a war about security concerns
indeed, it's so much a war about security concerns that the russians are already industrially moving in settlers to steal land from the local inhabitants
>>2805741If people flee the territories Russia happens to incorporate in their just cause of national security, why should Russians be excluded from filling the shortage just because of their ethnicity?
>>2805674Why didn't they "invade" during maidan to save the government now that I think about it ? It already happened in georgia not even two years prior and it was orchestrated by the same guys who were unironically gloating on facebook as the coup happened
>>2805896because this is illegal?
>>2805001>NATO wanted trillions of dollars of minerals in the donbass regiondonbas is absolutely worthless, has nothing but depleted coal mines
the valuable minerals are in zaporizhzhia which evil evil nato could but at their leaisure just like it can but anything from russia including but not limited to your mother. does anyone actually belive this nonses or are you just repeating it for posterity sake?
from western perspective there is no difference whether the region is held by ukraine, russia, khazakhstan or anyone else for that matter
>>2805948nonsense. see this vid
>>2806003 >>2805674>russia doesnt lack resources, its absolutely not the reason of the war. Its a war about security concernsI see absolutely 0 reason to believe that the West, with its vast and expansive trade networks, wants Ukraine's natural resources but Russia doesn't because… they just don't, okay?
>I can. Anyone on the side of nato is on the side of the empireThis same logic could have been used to condemn those siding with the British in WWII. I do not believe that 500,000 people dying is a reasonable sacrifice for an invasion that has actively helped the west by getting Russia bogged down in a bloody war of attrition.
>they didnt choose this, they chose the only non banned "pro peace" reconciliation candidateThis was before the invasion. I am talking about Ukraine NOW, not Ukraine in 2019. I also do not approve of alignment with the West, I'm just saying that when Ukraine has been offered a false dichtonomy between a puppet state without an invasion and a puppet state with an invasion it is not surprising that the former is broadly more popular.
>thats exactly what the situation was before the maidan.What's your point? I oppose Euromaidan, it was a travesty.
>I wonder why, maybe the banderite bloody repression of anything vaguely socialist had something to do with it?Yes, It does.
>it caused a fucking civil warThat is not an invasion.
>retarded moralismAre we really doing the "Explain why rape is bad without using moralism or idealism" deflection unironically
>when I see banderite getting blown up I feel like it should be celebratedlikely hundreds of thousands of civilians dead btw
>who cause the power struggle?Both of them. It existed before Euromaidan and it kept escalating.
>do you actually want everyone under attack by the empire to lay down and accept the US boot because resisting means people die?I think both sides, or either side really, should have just given up and walked away from the power struggle because the continued escalation got us where we are now. Besides, Russia's goal isn't some noble stand against the empire, it's a matter of exploiting Ukraine's resources, exactly the same goal as the West. All of the other shit just leads back to that same issue.
>just look up interviews in odessaIs this your actual argument
>>2805023>i posted it again because you freaks never have a real counter argument about NATO expansion being the real cause of all thisThis can be true (NATO expansion and related developments were really widely held and openly stated concerns by Russia for years) and it can also be true that Putin shouldn't have invaded Ukraine and NATO expansion wasn't a good reason to do it either. Like the problem wasn't really a military threat from NATO as much as you want to believe because Russia has thousands of nuclear warheads, more than any country other than the United States, which is about equal (also I have some other thoughts about that in a minute). But also how the hell has the war guaranteed any security for Russia now? Like what exactly is more secure for Russia at this moment or even would be if Putin's amusing plan of invading Ukraine would've worked out in two weeks? I've yet to see a real counter-argument to that.
NATO was that big of a threat? Most NATO countries in Europe weren't thinking about war for decades with their armies being in an embarrassing state, and now they are reconsidering those ideas, while Russia is showing that it has a disorganized, dysfunctional army with very bad leadership that has spent an insane amount of resources on this war. Obviously it looks very bad. Russia also now has its the entire western border with actively aggressive countries at a level of animosity that was not even seen during the Cold War (like Finland or Norway). So what security was guaranteed and to whom?
There are just weird self-fulfillment prophecies to the stuff, like the Kremlin materializing Ukrainian nationalism in fighting it, far stronger NATO resistance by fearing it, and they have increased the probability that Russia will collapse by ranting how bad it will be if Ukraine isn't defeated. It should make you angry really. But more than anything it's reflective of a strong strain in Russian strategic culture and military planning to just get shitfaced drunk on retarded chauvinism and delusions of grandeur which causes them to take utterly massive, world-historic levels of losses with disastrous national consequences (again).
But going back to what I was saying in the beginning, if you really listen to what the Kremlin and its supporters say, what really animates them usually tends to come down to their status in the world. That makes "NATO expansion" a very real issue too and it is a concern to them, but it's kind of orthogonal to the main issue, it's not about the real material military threat to Russia so much. It's a more abstract vengeful thing that's wrapped up in great-power nationalism and is about wanting to be respected and having status against Americans or the British or Ukrainians resulting from the dislocation caused by the breakup of the USSR of which NATO expansion is emblematic. But they didn't take Ukraine seriously on the most basic level because they believed the Ukrainian state was more or less fake. In a sense, the people running Russia just want to rule the world or at least be seen like people ruling the world. It's memes.
>>2806058>with its vast and expansive trade networks, wants Ukraine's natural resources but Russia doesn't because… they just don't, okay?Because the US isn't just operating for its own country, it has the entire globe's imperialist system on its back.
>actively helped the west LOL apparently getting their entire military reserve weaponry depleted and losing the capacity of their knife jutting into Russian territory to invade Russia is helping them.
>it is not surprising that the former is broadly more popular.Why should Kherson, Zaporozhye, Donetsk, and Lugansk care if Ukrainian supremacists in Lvov who don't see them as human find their NATO puppet state more popular? The referendums found that these four oblasts favor annexation to the RF overwhelmingly.
>I oppose Euromaidan<I oppose Israel but condemn every single movement actually meaningfully opposing it>Russia's goal isn't some noble stand against the empire, it's a matter of exploiting Ukraine's resourcesThe companies that make up Russia's economy in the final analysis are OIL COMPANIES, they're not itching to expand into Zaporozhye, and they're certainly not itching for all of the destabilization of the flow of their oil exports that came about with the SMO. Admit it, the SMO was done not for some Russian "oligarchy" but because of popular will. Putin had been trying to fleece the people with the Minsk accords for almost a decade, was trying to sell out the people of the Donbass to genocidal fascists for almost a decade. The SMO was only launched because it became abundantly clear that the Russian people were not buying the Minsk theater plays any longer. If Putin did not act, he would have no political future, and thus he acted contrary to these bourgeois interests and intervened.
>>2806137I just wanted you to know that your post is the dumbest I've read this year.
Still waiting for the 200 autism score antiimperialist geopolitics that actually results in meaningful movement towards communism and not just industrialization which already happens under capitalism
If you support modern Russia as a communist you're a cuck, plain and simple. You are supporting the people who destroyed the USSR. Putin was handpicked by Yeltsin who dismantled what was left of the socialist state and sold it piece-by-piece to capitalists (oligarchs), leading to the death and suffering of millions.
And yeah obviously Putin is strategically retarded, this war has been horrible for Russia.
we already knew putler was a gigantic faggot with all the anti-communist bs but in this war he revealed himself to be a gigantic retard too and the russian federation as being even less functional than most of us thought
but my question for anti-campist bros is, how is based retard cucktin waging war against the great satan ameriKKKa bad for us? yes, the human cost is immense, don't let the naZionalist retards tell you otherwise, but the thing is that KKKapitalists were already gonna do a mass culling of the proles sooner or later and communist movements NEED america to be busy elsewhere and depleted before being allowed to breathe
"nothing ever happening" was never an option, so let's get real for a moment and tell me why is it more important to condemn cucktin and the campist bros for this stupid SMO instead of seizing the moment at home?
>>2806179His post is pretty accurate of the situation tbh
>>2804247>campistsYou can just say communists
>>2805674Forgot to respond to this one claim of yours
>you do realize the exact same argument is made about palestinian oct 7th attack?Fuck you, eat shit and die. Do you actually believe that the situation of Russian minorities in Ukraine is even REMOTELY comparable to that of Palestinians in Gaza?
>>2806137>the US isn't just operating for its own country, it has the entire globe's imperialist system on its back.Yes, this is why they want Ukraine's resources. Do you actually read what I'm typing or are you just filling in the blanks with retarded bullshit? Yes, OBVIOUSLY the West wants to pillage Ukraine's resources, this goes without saying. I'm not arguing against this. What I'm saying is that Russia absolutely wants to pillage Ukraine's resources too.
>LOL apparently getting their entire military reserve weaponry depleted and losing the capacity of their knife jutting into Russian territory to invade Russia is helping them.Russia is knee deep in blood fighting an absolutely horrific war of attrition on its own borders. Hundreds of thousands of its soldiers are dead. It went from a Great Power to a joke in the span of a few years. Will they win the war? I'm no fortune teller, but if Ukraine pulled this off I'd be absolutely fucking astonished. But even so, any Russian victory would be Pyrrhic. Even while the suffering of the Ukrainian people should be the focal point when it comes to the tragic effects of this war, it is undeniable that it has strengthened the west by weakening Russia's capacity to help countries like Iran that aren't doing retarded shit like invading Afghanistan and are humiliating the empire. Unforgivable.
>The referendums found that these four oblasts favor annexation to the RF overwhelmingly.I could convince you I was giving you a prostate exam with both of my hands on your shoulders you fucking rube
>I oppose Israel but condemn every single movement actually meaningfully opposing itUkraine is not Israel. It's not Palestine either. It is a completely different conflict with completely different dynamics. Ukraine is not committing genocide. Nothing Ukraine has done during the Donbas war or the invasion has been out of the ordinary for any regular modern war. This absolutely does not absolve them of the atrocities they've committed, but they are not comparable to Israel, with specifically exists to commit genocide and colonialism.
>If Putin did not act, he would have no political future, and thus he acted contrary to these bourgeois interests and intervened.<If Trump did not act, Israel would have no future, and thus he acted contrary to these bourgeois interests (Who did not want international shipping to grind to a halt) and bombed IranI see little difference. Russian oligarchs hate Ukraine and saw a potential for long-term gain with the invasion, but when it didn't succeed quickly like they had hoped the effect became negative. Nonetheless, to back down would be more detrimental to their interests so they support Russia cutting its losses and continuing the war anyway. In the US you see the same dynamic, the CEOs and billionaires would be ecstatic to see Iran fall and I'm certain they backed the idea initially but now feel it was a mistake due to the economic effects, while also supporting the continuation of the war because they don't want to back down and get nothing for their failure. Note that I am not saying these two conflicts are identical, simply that this dynamic of a war being in bourgeoisie interest and then being regrettable for them despite their continued support is not unique or indicative of some war that was actually le really good idea.
>>2806364>Do you actually believe that the situation of Russian minorities in Ukraine is even REMOTELY comparable to that of Palestinians in Gaza?The situation is arguably worse because at least Gazans got some performative demonstrations from leftoids in an attempt to absolve themselves of guilt from willingly supporting the empire. Contrast that with Russians in the Ukraine who have been universal targets of genocidal disdain in the west with the small exception of the national conservative bloc
>>2806379Calm down leninhat you're arguing with a Russian nationalist who thinks being forced to learn the language of the country they live in (Ukraine) is tantamount to a gas chamber.
>>2806380Yeah I suppose the repression of Russians is pretty light if you don’t factor in nearly a decade of shelling Russian majority territories, forcing schools to celebrate Nazi collaborators, lynching of Russian speakers and the attempted bioweapon development in cooperation with the US and Israel. I’m sure if you just ignore everything inconveniencing your worldview then you too can justify the genocide of Russians, Han Chinese, and all others fighting against unipolarity
>>2806364>Ukraine is not Israel.They have such ambitions though
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/4/5/zelenskyy-says-wants-ukraine-to-become-a-big-israel>>2806380>Ukraine burns Russian books and creates laws enforcing Ukrainian language and nationality with people who haven't ever spoken or subscribed to that nation.<Pfft no that doesn't look anything like NazismTo be clear though the country was multilingual for decades without issue, until 2014 when Kiev decided that Ukrainian as a language was dying out because of Russian settlers who have lived in there homes since before the modern state of Ukraine was founded.
It's exactly the same attitude as Israel demanding people to answer the question "do you believe in Israel's right to exist!?", well it's the same for the Ukrainian nationality and language, if it was being naturally eroded during independence then I think it's reasonable to accept that it dies out. Passing laws policing what language people use is what you do when you want to keep something alive arbitrarily, ditto shelling people who refuse to comply.
>>2806380your argument a fallacy that openly denies everything ukraine was doing and what it wanted to become, an israel in eastern europe
if any nation wants to be like israel total extermination against them is self defence, be ukraine, be on africa or be on asia, simple as.
>>2806386>It's exactly the same attitude as Israel once again: palestianians belong in palestine, ukrainians belong in ukraine. where do jews and russians belong?
>>2806395Who was expelling Ukrainians from Ukraine in 2014?
if anything russian >this land was promised to me by kagan ivan 450 years ago mirrors the attitude of israelis
>>2806395“Ukrainians” are not a nation or a people, the ones who fervently identify as such are either descendants of the Polish and Austrian colonists who made up the notion of “Ukrainian” nationhood in the first place or Malorussians who have been sufficiently indoctrinated. Like Israel everything about “Ukraine” is artificial and their culture is centered around the genocide of the native inhabitants. Even their “language” is just a bastardized version of Russian, which like other synthetic languages sounds unpleasant and unnatural to the human ear
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) >>2806397Except Russians were living in THE Ukraine long before the concept of Ukraine as a nation even existed
>>2806399a "malorussian" only ever existed in russian imperialist nomenclature. before they split into belarussians, ukrainians, rushyns, bojkos, lemkos and huculs they were all collectively known as ruthenians
>>2806370In Europe It's almost forbidden to protest for ending the war. It's even a harder deal to protest for Ukrainian Russian minority. Officially they don't exist in official EU approved story. Not that any run of the mill leftoid would want that since Ukraine is a sacrificial pawn and will make gay parades in Moscow a reality.
Whose cities are getting plummeted by shells and rocket in Ukraine and did the Kiev Meat catchers primarily target and what people group in Ukraine has the highest rate of casualties? It's the Russian speaking-Ukrainians. The war being fought in the east is just a reality of geography, but the uneven conscription isn't. Kiev probably calculates that if as long as they don't lose totally then they still win by purging the population of Russian speakers and generate then generations of animosity between Ukrainians and Russians that will help them sell the story that Ukros aren't just russians tribe who just speak Russia-kinda funny, but their own distinct thing.
I think the most ironic thing though is that Ukraine's 1991 borders were drawn up by the USSR, a state whose authority neither Ukraine nor their anti-ML supporters recognise.
It didn't really matter that the Ukrainian SSR was comprised of both Ukrainian and Russian speaking regions, the intent wasn't making each SSR an ethnostate. But now that's ended up with Ukraine as a country where its official language is not the most widely spoken language, we've got this idea that Russians have retroactively (by literal centuries) invaded and settled the modern state of Ukraine, because a state considered rogue and illegal gave them borders that included mainly Russian speakers.
If the USSR was operating on the same ethnonationalist ideals as modern Kiev, then the Ukrainian SSR would have been far, far smaller and we wouldn't have a conflict. Although Ukrainians would still probably declare in their national anthem
>Brethren, let's join in a bloody fight, from the Sian (in modern Poland) to the Don (indisputably modern Russia), Ne'er shall we allow others to rule in our native land.
>>2806381And you actually believe that any of this is even remotely comparable to the struggle of Palestinians? A lot of it isn't even fucking true!
>>2806386>They have such ambitions thoughThis was a retarded statement by Ukraine's retarded president that was intended to garner support from Israel who largely avoids any high level of involvement in the Ukraine war. Even the statement, dumb as it was, explicitly referred to Israel's tactic of having guns pretty much everywhere. This is a very alarming statement nonetheless so I never understand why people try to paint this as Zelenskyy saying that he wants to turn Ukraine into a genocidal pariah state that invades its neighbors when the actual message is pretty horrific in its own right.
>>2806387Zelenskyy says something retarded (Not an uncommon occurance) and suddenly "Total extermination" against them is self defense. Insanity.
>>2806395The world is the common heritage of all of mankind, no plot of land is reserved for a specific ethnicity or religious group.
>>2806399>“Ukrainians” are not a nation or a peopleWoah woah woah… hold on. Wait a second. You're telling me that national identities are… fake??? HOLY SHIT! NO WAY! This changes everything, here I was thinking national identities were totally real (Which is, as you know, the true Marxist position). Hell, Marx himself said, "Workers of the world, unite amongst your national bretheren along groups that were invented during my lifetime." but I guess he was wrong. But not entirely, because apparently the Ukrainian identity is somehow uniquely fake compared to the other identities that were also invented during the 19th century, like Russian, which are totally real and very important.
>>2806401>Jews were living in Palestine before the concept of Palestine as a nation even existedYou can apply this to pretty much everything and it's equally meaningless. Are you people Marxists or reactionaries?
>>2806412>Ukraine's 1991 borders were drawn up by the USSRYes, that's why I have the Lenin cap. Because of the "Lenin invented Ukraine" meme. Anyway, I absolutely agree that Ukraine's language policies are despicable and wrong. This is why I said that the Ukrainian government was absolutely not innocent in the War in Donbas, they did quite a lot to antagonize the Russian minorities.
>>2806471>This is a very alarming statement nonetheless so I never understand why people try to paint this as Zelenskyy saying that he wants to turn Ukraine into a genocidal pariah state that invades its neighbours when the actual message is pretty horrific in its own right.But the reasoning is the same, that for while Ukraine's demographics aren't exclusively Ukrainian by ethnicity, then Ukraine must live in a constant state of paranoia with a militarised population ready to violently expunge the foreign and terroristic ethnicity whenever it gets uppity about its treatment. By evoking Israel, that's suggested to be a state of affairs that can only be changed by eliminating nationalities that are not "native" by its own definition.
That article is from April 2022, when there was all confidence that Ukraine was going to be soon victorious (and well before much damage had been done, compared to 2026 at least). Zelensky frames his "big Israel" idea as a warning to the West that Ukraine can't become a peaceful, liberal, European democracy "like Switzerland" in the immediate aftermath. But the barely veiled wink to Ukrainians by mentioning Israel specifically, is that once the Russian military leaves their territory, then the entire Ukrainian-speaking population is going to be given the means (and even the duty) to finish off the now-defenceless Moskal settlers. Something now justifiable as "security", but was always the plan touted by Banderites; Defeat Moskal security, eliminate orcs.
So nah, it's not just sucking up to Israel with flattery and claiming having guns everywhere is normal, there's a very ideological assertion being made during a period of particular arrogance about the timescale and outcome of this conflict.
Putin supplies most of Israel's oil. Notice how Champ casually implies Russia is anti Zionist when Putin allowed Israel to airstrike Assad until his regime collapsed. Champ wants the street cred of left wing anti imperialism while preying on people's ignorance of what is actually happening. Both America and Russia support Israel.
>>2806528That’s not the point of the post. The point was leninhat claiming that Zelensky’s announcement of wanting Ukraine to be “Big Israel” doesn’t betray Ukraine’s ideological admiration of Zionism, when it clearly does.
Russia is “anti-Zionist” in Ukraine in so far as they don’t want Donbass or Novorossiya more broadly to become a Gaza Strip. But au contraire my /ukr/ adversary, it’s you who tries to casually equate selling oil on the open market to direct supplies of bombs knowing full well how they’ll be used as pro-Zionism
>>2806471>national identities are… fake???Real nations are objectively existing phenomenon. Russia is a real nation born from a thousand-year history of civilization even if you think there would be no difference between the RF and a Russia smashed into dozens of petty ethnonationalisms.
What is the civilizational history of Ukraine? It only exists because of German, Austrian, and Hungarian imperialist machinations. Ukraine was conceived in the first place to act as a knife jutting deep into what was always Russian territory for the sake of these three powers to have control over Russia. All historic "independent" Ukrainian states been client states for these imperialists. Ukraine historically has only ever undergone progressive development under Russia, proving that Ukraine inherently cannot have a sovereign existence and thus is not a nation. Compare that to Russia. Is Russia dependent on anyone else to undergo progressive development? No.
This is like saying that Israel is a nation when it's obviously an unnatural existence that couldn't survive without western imperialists propping it up. It's contrary to nature and it's only just to wipe it away.
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) >>2806583>Russia is a real nation born from a thousand-year history of civilizationalmost eight hundred
>What is the civilizational history of Ukraine?the actual thousand years russians claim
Leftism has degenerated into inter-glowie propaganda warfare between the glowies of both sides. This is why it's no longer even worth engaging in debate with online leftists. There are no actual honest leftists anymore who might be reason with. It's all just glowies and nationalists of all sides pretending to be leftist to push their interests.
>>2806686>Be westoid>Be in unipolar world>Live passively in society that's responsible to varying degrees for all current global conflicts<Erm please can we please say both sides are bad?Erm, no we can't.
>>2806686yeah condemning the nationalism of anticolonial struggle is objectively a glowie position go fuck yourself
>>2806693>be anticommunist nationalists>don't care about exploitation of proletariat, only nationalists interests<Erm, can we please support my capitalist nations wars and imperialismErm, no we won't.
>>2806693Dogshit thirdie post award
>>2806704>p-please support my capitalist nation we are le weakThat's a good thing. I hope your capitalist nation becomes weaker and weaker so that it becomes easier for its working class to overthrow it. Revolutionary defeatism is the order of the day.
>>2806522>while Ukraine's demographics aren't exclusively Ukrainian by ethnicity, then Ukraine must live in a constant state of paranoiaI think their justification for this paranoia lies more in the idea that they're under constant threat of invasion from Russia rather than the idea that they must exterminate all non-Ukrainians. Ukraine had been experiencing a civil war before the invasion in which their opposition was largely Russian minorities in Ukraine. There was no genocide then, despite some rather horrible and discriminatory laws. I doubt that Ukraine will suddenly decide to kill all Russian speakers (How the fuck do you even tell them apart?) after a war in which their enemies are largely from a completely different country.
>>2806583Oh my fucking god. Who the fuck are you? Do you even claim to be a Marxist? The concept of Ukrainian independence was created by Liberal Ukrainians who lived in the soul crushing, almost feudalistic conditions of the Russian Empire. No Marxist would EVER claim that Ukraine being part of the Russian Empire was somehow historically progressive for it, when the Russian Empire was substantially more conservative than other European countries and thereby severely slowed the development of Ukraine, just as it did the rest of its domain. You talk about some kind of long-lasting conspiracy against Russia being the reason for Ukrainian Nationalism as if the rise of nationalism was not a broad, common development across groups throughout the entire world during that same time period. It is absolutely remarkable that you have gone beyond just arguing that Russia's current occupation of Ukraine is positive and instead defend the Russian Empire's administration of Ukraine, something that Ukrainian Socialists fought and died to end, because of some ridiculous made up "inherent superiority" of the Russian people that allows for the uplift of the filthy Ukrainian untermensch. Russian national identity is just as fake as Ukrainian national identity. Grow the fuck up and either learn Marxism or just admit you're a Russian nationalist.
>>2806763You're putting the cart before the horse. The civil war and the eventual invasion came after Ukraine decided that after 23 years of undisturbed existence slotted between Russia and NATO (and co-operating profitably with both), people widely speaking Russian day-to-day and Ukrainian being a rare formality for much of the country was now unacceptable, and so had an ultranationalist coup that was welcomed by the US with literal fucking cookies despite the penchant for Nazi salutes and genocidal rhetoric amongst its most influential figures.
As for "constant threat of invasion", that's every country at all times, hence why all countries have militaries even if by constitution they can't be deployed abroad.
>>2806724>erm have you considered that BOTH SIDES are BAD!?Yes.
>NATO welcomes Ukraine’s and Georgia’s Euro-Atlantic aspirations for membership in NATO. We agreed today that these countries will become members of NATO. Both nations have made valuable contributions to Alliance operations… MAP is the next step for Ukraine and Georgia on their direct way to membership
<NATO summit 2008
We know that Georgia swiftly had a conflict with Russia later that same year, while Ukraine umm'd and ahhh'd for years before and after 2008 bouncing between leadership that was deemed "pro-West" and "pro-Russian" when the reality is that the Ukrainian state was entirely mercenary and saying whatever to whomever for investment (into Rolls-Royces mostly).
Presumably the US/NATO got bored of this exploitation by 2014, chose a faction that was guaranteed to pick a side and certainly they've eventually gotten a lot more out of this 2008 declaration in 2022-present than they ever got out of Georgia.
>>2806732Most of these people aren't even thirdies, they live in the West and don't support communism in the West as well. Their actually existing politics is either electoralism, like supporting reformist sheepdogs who claim to be anti-imperialist, or some random activist retardation, and 90% of them just fart in their computer chair all day long.
>>2806809Anti-campists are exclusively westerners being cheeky cunts in reducing class to flat categorical terms rather than an ongoing and ever developing analysis.
So yes I westerner end up with all bananas in the world, but that's only because my bourgeoisie had a falling out with your bourgeoisie who are both on equal footing, Banana Republic proles MUST sympathise with my fellow proletarian plight as we are complete equals although I will be fucked off if I don't get my bananas.
>>2806811That's cool and all but I won't support the bourgeoisie just because they are from a 3rd world shithole
>>2806816Yeah that's the
>although I will be fucked off if I don't get my bananas.part, because anti-campists can (and do) frame banana reduction as to the benefit of the Banana Republic bourg, who now possess bananas for sale (and more importantly the resulting capital that doesn't need to be repatriated to the west) and implicitly that's supported by their complicit reactionary shithole lumpenproletariat against conscious western Proles if they don't press the Communism NAO! button (and give over the bananas out of socialist fraternity), the anti-campists therefore loudly wash their hands of the inevitable bombing and obstinate from paying any mind to the resumed supply of bananas.
>>2806822Wow a lot of words and yet I still hope that the 3rd world bourg and petty bourg get proletarized and lose all their wealth.
Crazy how that works.
>>2806839If only leftcoms had such words for their own bourgeoisie, but I guess it's just so important that their own bourgeoisie continues to be able to pulverize the 3rd world.
>>2806843I live in Mexico retarded uyghur
>>2806842
>Surrender
But I don't want to surrender my material interest of fighting against the bourgeoisie that exploits me for the sake of "anti-imperialism"
Russia's invasion might be good or bad, too soon to say, but the fact they haven't won yet seems kinda retarded. But I ain't no military guru.
>>2806839<I want both sides to lose, despite the massive disparity in my bourg's favour>Crazy how that works.It really isn't and your surrender to it and framing of that as ideological purity is the problem.
>>2806850>despite the massive disparity in my bourg's favourBut I want the bourg of my country to lose their wealth and to become proletarized.
>>2806852So why are you framing it as a zero sum game where you can't fight against your own bourg for
both your own material interest as well anti-imperialism?
To treat those as mutually exclusive is to surrender the former to avoid the latter, because a foreign economy will retain more capital for its proletariat to seize?
>>2806856Because you retarded campists call me CIA, hasbara, comprador and other retarded shit for doing so lol
>>2806858>my personal fee fees were hurt onlineAnd your response is to become neutral towards imperialism, even at your own detriment?
>>2806859You really think I care if some retarded liberal like you call me names?
I am not neutral against imperialism, I want imperialism to win because I want to see the bourg that exploits me lose, because if they lose, maybe my country experiences revolutionary defeatism, I am not a fucking classcuck that wants my boss to get richer because "muh anti-imperialism"
Like anti-campists seem to forget the point of revolution is to seize the means of production and the capital it had hitherto produced for redistribution. If the bourgeoisie of the west and the bourgeoisie of "shitholes" are
truly indistinguishable, then more equal distribution of capital globally also means the capital to be relinquished from the global bourgeoisie is likewise equalised.
It doesn't follow to consider "allowing" the bourgeoisie of imperialised states liberation to be detrimental to the global socialist movement, because that take presumes that for some reason that a vastly uneven share of global capital is best kept in the west, which is a contradiction with "both sides are (equally) bad". Although you'll note the brackets around "equally", because anti-campists never seem to say that exactly.
>>2806863Case in point, how can you profess to such ideological purity when you claim a more capital-rich Mexico is simply one's boss getting richer? No other opportunity there? Revolutionary defeatism is conducting revolution once your nation has been milked dry?
>>2806867That's a lot of cool thirdiephile mental gymnastics but I won't pull up my bootstraps so capitalists in my shithole an hoard more wealth so in case a global revolution ever happens I can relinquish two factories instead of one.
I am not spending any effort in helping the bourg of my shithole gets a "more fair share" of capital wealth, simple as.
Go have a seethe about it you fucking classcuck
>>2806869fyi talking all dismissive like makes you look defeated, like you're punching but there's no more force behind the gloves.
>>2806870Thanks for the free psychological diagnostic but Inwill keep voting for communist parties that the bourg in my country dislike, I will keep wasting time and resources at work, I will keep attending communist marches and I will keep spreading anti-bourgeois communist propaganda online.
>NOOOO YOUR HEKIN BOURG WILL LOSE MONEY AGAINST HEKIN WAL-MART🎻🎻🎻 poor guy :(((
>>2806876Well look I can't take away performative bullshit as a lifestyle from you, you're also extremely unlikely to gain any traction in Mexico with your "lets wait until we're milked to the bone and abandoned, build communism on that" position, so you're only really humiliating yourself online and frankly I'm non-plussed about that.
At some point I'm going to have to get around to reading this. Like the intra-left ideological arguments about imperialism is pretty boring to me, it's just going around in circles, a more interesting question is who these national patriot guys in the Donbass in 2014-2015 were and how did they see what they were doing. Gubarev was DPR governor for a little while.
This appears to be an A.I. generated summary of an interview with Gubarev from a month ago.
<The Awakening of a 'Z-Speaker': Pavel Gubarev's Interview with Yuri Dud
<Explore the evolving views of 'Z-speaker' Pavel Gubarev as he questions the Russian government's war aims and confronts the painful reality of the conflict.
<Introduction and Initial Observations
>Our team has analyzed an interview granted by Pavel Gubarev to Yuri Dud. The experience was challenging due to the prevalence of high-octane conspiracy theories. Despite not appearing to be the most intellectually astute, Gubarev comes across as sincere, adhering to his own set of values, however flawed.
>This situation underscores a pattern: individuals with a consistent worldview, whether advocating for human rights or prioritizing Pax Russica, find it difficult to align with the Russian government. Only opportunists seem to thrive under the current regime. A coherent worldview inevitably clashes with it.
>The fundamental question of the conflict's purpose remains elusive: What has been the point of inflicting such immense suffering on both Ukraine and Russia over the past four years? This analysis will delve into the interview to explore these themes. We also note that Roscomnadzor recently blocked a tool comparing VPN performance, with a new link provided for access.
<Gubarev's Perspective on the War's Goals
>Upon viewing the interview, Gubarev's initial take on the situation closely mirrors perspectives presented in daily analyses. However, the multiplicity of ways the same situation can be described is perplexing.
>Gubarev asserts that the war lacks both physical and ideological goals, questioning the very notion of victory. There is no clear answer regarding the Russian army's ultimate objective as it advances through the Donbas. He characterizes the conflict not as a war, but as something akin to a "back alley deal" due to its undefined goals. The objectives of the "special operation" remain unarticulated, leaving the endgame, plan, and purpose unclear.
>While propagandists might celebrate the capture of small settlements, the reality is that decisive victory, as initially envisioned (e.g., capturing Kharkiv or Odesa), is now considered unachievable, even by the Ministry of Defense. The current official narrative focuses on grinding through the Donbas, aiming to retain devastated areas, possibly as leverage in future talks. This shift leads to disillusionment among those who believed in Russia's might and a new world order.
<Ukraine's Clear Objective vs. Russian Army's Stagnation
>Gubarev identifies Ukraine's distinct advantage: a clearly defined goal. Ukraine was attacked and aims to defend itself and reclaim its territory. This narrative holds a degree of truth.
>While Dud did not directly ask about the Russian army's transformation, Gubarev rejects the notion that the "special military operation" has revived it. Instead, he views the ongoing events as "human sacrifice," with people being killed without a clear purpose. For someone deeply invested in the "Pax Russica" ideology for over a decade, this situation feels like a betrayal. The senseless killing of Russian soldiers with no end in sight is presented as the official narrative.
<Gubarev's Evolving Views and Lingering Gullibility
>Throughout the interview, Gubarev appears to be shedding his former naivety about the Russian government's objectives and structure. Yet, he retains a degree of gullibility regarding the potential consequences of his statements.
>When discussing Putinism, Gubarev claims it's a system where one can speak and write freely without repercussions, highlighting his ability to do so while implying others cannot. This suggests he is close to identifying Putin as the war's mastermind but refrains from doing so, likely fearing immediate consequences after the interview is published. He seems to believe that his carefully worded innuendos will protect him, a common delusion within the "Z-aligned" community.
>This community struggles to accept the reality of the government they are dealing with and its rules. They seek a legal framework for safety, even resorting to replacing "Russia" with "Laos" in discussions to avoid accusations of spreading misinformation. This avoidance tactic mirrors Gubarev's evasive answers to Dud's questions, as he wrongly assumes a focus on formalities and word games.
<The 'Utility Tool' Analogy and Conspiracy Theories>Gubarev's perception of Putin is not as a leader but as a "utility software tool," akin to an icon on a taskbar, lacking independent agency. This view aligns with conspiracy theories suggesting Putin acts on behalf of Russia's enemies. Such beliefs provide a psychological buffer, preventing the harsh realization that the Russian president may have caused immense suffering without a justifiable reason.
>The analogy portrays Putin as a product label, a software tool, or even a religion, serving the will of unseen "operators." This framing allows supporters to admire or criticize him without confronting the possibility that he is directly responsible for the war and its devastating human cost. The decision to start the war, in this view, was made by these external operators, with Putin merely implementing their plan.
<Cryptocolonialism and the 'Z-aligned' Community's Delusions>Gubarev further elaborates on his worldview, stating that Russia is not a personalist dictatorship but a "cryptocolony" largely operated from overseas. This perspective attempts to maintain a semblance of loyalty while distancing oneself from direct criticism of Putin, whom he believes is controlled by malicious external forces. The fear of repercussions is attributed not to Putin directly, but to these hidden entities.
>This narrative reflects the broader struggle within the "Z-aligned" community to reconcile facts with their beliefs. They find it easier to blame foreign "puppeteers" than to accept the reality of the government's actions and the senseless loss of life. The difficulty in accepting that the leader they have supported for years might view them as expendable is a significant psychological hurdle. This avoidance mechanism is evident in their attempts to create alternative narratives, such as referring to Russia as "Laos" to discuss corruption and incompetence within a fictionalized context.
<The Igor Girkin Case and the 'Z-aligned' Community's Silence>The interview touches upon the case of Igor Girkin, highlighting a significant aspect of the "Z-aligned" community. Despite Girkin being a prominent and influential pro-war commentator, his arrest and sentencing were met with silence from this group. This is in stark contrast to the widespread protests and arrests that occurred when Alexei Navalny returned to Russia, involving liberals and journalists willing to face consequences.
>The lack of a strong reaction to Girkin's situation reveals the "Z-aligned" community's underlying fear and their limited commitment to their cause when faced with direct government action against one of their own. It suggests that their public persona of being "tough guys and fearless warriors" is largely performative.
>Gubarev acknowledges Girkin as one of the few pro-war figures who actively protested against the authorities. However, he speaks about Girkin cautiously, indicating that discussing him is a taboo subject. Gubarev distances himself from Girkin's ambitions, stating he does not wish to be involved in similar "misadventures."
<Mischaracterization of Navalny and Fridman>Gubarev exhibits further perplexing views by labeling Alexei Navalny as a "Ukrainian politician." He justifies this by stating Navalny was "on the fence" regarding Crimea, though his comments on the issue actually alienated Ukrainians and aligned him more with Russian political discourse. Gubarev insists Navalny identified as a Russian politician and was sponsored by Mikhail Fridman, whom he also labels a "Ukrainian tycoon."
>This characterization of Fridman is particularly questionable, as Fridman has been a significant figure in Russia. Gubarev's assertion that Fridman is a "foreign agent" is a stretch, seemingly aimed at fitting him into a narrative where influential figures are linked to Ukraine or foreign interests. The logic behind these labels appears convoluted and serves to obscure the actual political and economic realities.
<MH17 and the Role of the Russian Army>Regarding the downing of flight MH17, Gubarev subtly suggests that the "DPR militia" was not responsible. While court documents point to the Russian army's involvement, Gubarev avoids a direct denial. He reiterates Igor Girkin's statement that the militia was not implicated, adding that he has nothing further to contribute on the matter.
>Later in the interview, Gubarev provides more detail on the "Novorossiya militias." He explicitly states that the "carnage" in southeastern Ukraine would not have occurred without the Russian army's involvement. He confirms that the unofficial deployment of Russian troops was crucial for the separatists to hold their ground, acknowledging that without this support, they would have been "crushed."
<A Belated Realization: The Government's True Nature>Gubarev's journey mirrors that of Ilya Remeslo, a former proponent of etatism and government service. Both individuals, once fervent believers in their respective ideologies (Gubarev in Pax Russica, Remeslo in pro-government service), are now undergoing a painful awakening.
>Gubarev, a staunch Russian nationalist with a utopian vision, is realizing that the government he once served is indifferent to Russians, Ukrainians, or any ideology. This government does not value proponents with strong convictions, finding them difficult to manage. Instead, it relies on opportunists motivated by paychecks, who act as instructed.
>The government views both sincere liberals and sincere "thugs" as adversaries. What it truly needs are individuals who can flawlessly recite government-approved talking points. As the war continues, the entire "Z-aligned" community is expected to confront this harsh reality: Putin is killing people without a clear objective, driven by the desire to maintain power. The razing of territories serves no purpose, and all casualties are ultimately pointless.
>Regardless of their position on the political spectrum, everyone will eventually become an enemy of this government. The key difference between those who recognized this early on (like the authors of this analysis) and Gubarev is the timing of this realization. While some understood immediately, others, like Gubarev, are only now reaching this epiphany.https://skip.watch/read?v=18ljp0dpvZI#content >>2806863buddy with the cartel problem you've got a revolution will not turn mexico into a socialist paradise, realistically speaking it's going to be a second somalia
>>2806883>Being in favour of your immediate material interest is performative>You won't gain any traction, despite every single relevant 3rd world communist party thinking in a simular mannerLiberals when confronted with class struggle lmao
Also funny how no argument against my position has been made, the last threw of your posts have been nothing but petty insults.
>>2806892And yet campists want me to support the cartel controlled government and their national bourgeois friends.
>>2806893You're also an atrocious orator, like this is playground shit.
>>2806897But enoguh about Sheinbaum
>>2806686>>2806732>>2806809>>2806816>>2806839>>2806852>>2806858>>2806863>>2806869>>2806876>>2806893>>2806895In scientific socialism, any violence by a subjugated population without even bourgeois rights under imperialist capitalism is acceptable in order to acquire economic sovereignty. You can see this with Marx accepting the separation of Ireland from England if the alternative is the continuation of the subjugation and exploitation of Irish workers, as long as it is not possible to organize English and Irish workers because of English chauvinism that deceives workers into not acquiring solidarity, then separation is an acceptable alternative so that in the future a socialist federation can be formed with more equal relations between Irish and English, but remembering that the ideal would be to organize English and Irish workers together for a socialist revolution acting together. This already helps to understand the position of defending the self-determination of nations that Lenin wrote.
Workers in the imperialist core must cut off and sabotage all funding that maintains the dominance of imperialist capitalism abroad by capitalists and their agents who profit from this type of relationship. This is non-negotiable in order to avoid declining into opportunistic social chauvinism and to show solidarity with the workers of the world. This means that the sale of arms and loans that support the collaborators of imperialist capitalism, who maintain dependency to intensify capitalist exploitation, is not tolerated. All this means that the workers' party must take this position no matter how much it is hated for it, and if a party that pretends to be leftist is in favor of reconciling with capitalist imperialism in the imperialist core under the pretext of saving "democracy" and "freedom" abroad, then this party must be destroyed for serving imperialist capitalism.
Now let's start by explaining to you the question of what capitalist imperialism is with Lenin:
<But very brief definitions, although convenient, for they sum up the main points, are nevertheless inadequate, since we have to deduce from them some especially important features of the phenomenon that has to be defined. And so, without forgetting the conditional and relative value of all definitions in general, which can never embrace all the concatenations of a phenomenon in its full development, we must give a definition of imperialism that will include the following five of its basic features:
<(1) the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life; (2) the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital,” of a financial oligarchy; (3) the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance; (4) the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves and (5) the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism, 1916, VII. Imperialism as a Special Stage of capitalism.https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch07.htmNow let's look at his position on the types of countries as examples at the time Lenin wrote about the self-determination of nations and capitalist imperialism:
<6. Three Types of Countries in Relation to Self-Determination of Nations<In this respect, countries must be divided into three main types:
<First, the advanced capitalist countries of Western Europe and the United States of America. In these countries the bourgeois, progressive, national movements came to an end long ago. Every one of these “great” nations oppresses other nations in the colonies and within its own country. The tasks of the proletariat of these ruling nations are the same as those of the proletariat in England in the nineteenth century in relation to Ireland.
<Secondly, Eastern Europe: Austria, the Balkans and particularly Russia. Here it was the twentieth century that particularly developed the bourgeois-democratic national movements and intensified the national struggle. The tasks of the proletariat in these countries—in regard to the consummation of their bourgeois-democratic reformation, as well as in regard to assisting the socialist revolution in other countries—cannot be achieved unless it champions the right of nations to self-determination. In this connection the most difficult but most important task is to merge the class struggle of the workers in the oppressing nations with the class struggle of the workers in the oppressed nations.
<Thirdly, the semi-colonial countries, like China, Persia, Turkey, and all the colonies, which have a combined population amounting to a billion. In these countries the bourgeois-democratic movements have either hardly begun, or are far from having been completed. Socialists must not only demand the unconditional and immediate liberation of the colonies without compensation—and this demand in its political expression signifies nothing more nor less than the recognition of the right to self-determination—but must render determined support to the more revolutionary elements in the bourgeois-democratic movements for national liberation in these countries and assist their rebellion—and if need be, their revolutionary war—against the imperialist powers that oppress them.
<V. I. Lenin, The Socialist Revolution and the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, 1916https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/jan/x01.htm#fwV22P151F01Now regarding the issue of wars and the opportunists who obscure the truth by trying to defend imperialist capitalist finance capital that maintains dependency to intensify exploitation. I'm only posting this to avoid confusion if someone is reading what I wrote trying to equate the war of a puppet of imperialist capitalism that uses chauvinism against the Russian population with the right of Palestinians to use violence against Israel to acquire economic sovereignty:
<In short: a war between imperialist Great Powers (i.e., powers that oppress a whole number of nations and enmesh them in dependence on finance capital, etc.), or in alliance with the Great Powers, is an imperialist war. Such is the war of 1914–16. And in this war “defence of the fatherland” is a deception, an attempt to justify the war.
<A war against imperialist, i.e., oppressing, powers by oppressed (for example, colonial) nations is a genuine national war. It is possible today too. “Defence of the fatherland” in a war waged by an oppressed nation against a foreign oppressor is not a deception. Socialists are not opposed to “defence of the fatherland” in such a war.
<V. I. Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, 1. The Marxist Attitude Towards War and “Defence of the Fatherland"https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/1.htm#v23pp64h-029Now a text against those opportunists who equate every war as if it were "inter-imperialist" to defend US hegemony:
<Advanced European (and American) capitalism has entered a new era of imperialism. Does it follow from that that only imperialist wars are now possible? Any such contention would be absurd. It would reveal inability to distinguish a given concrete phenomenon from the sum total of variegated phenomena possible in a given era.
<V. I. Lenin, A Caricature of Marxism and Imperialist Economism, 2. “Our Understanding of the New Era”https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/2.htm#v23pp64h-036>>2806846You live in a third-world country, just like me, but your words demonstrate complacency and co-opting the masses with apathy instead of seeing everything from the perspective of the independence of the revolutionary socialist party of the proletariat from the bourgeoisie in order to acquire political supremacy and punish all obstacles that deny the supremacy of the dictatorship of the proletariat. Furthermore, you fail to see state capitalism as superior to private capitalism, even though socialism is superior to both. You also demonstrate a resentment that lacks solidarity with the workers of the world and is not preparing the masses for a revolutionary situation in your country.
Let's look at quotes from Marx first, focusing on what it means to be a communist, and then how to act in a bourgeois democratic election:
<The Communists are distinguished from the other working-class parties by this only: 1. In the national struggles of the proletarians of the different countries, they point out and bring to the front the common interests of the entire proletariat, independently of all nationality. 2. In the various stages of development which the struggle of the working class against the bourgeoisie has to pass through, they always and everywhere represent the interests of the movement as a whole.
<The Communists, therefore, are on the one hand, practically, the most advanced and resolute section of the working-class parties of every country, that section which pushes forward all others; on the other hand, theoretically, they have over the great mass of the proletariat the advantage of clearly understanding the line of march, the conditions, and the ultimate general results of the proletarian movement.
<The immediate aim of the Communists is the same as that of all other proletarian parties: formation of the proletariat into a class, overthrow of the bourgeois supremacy, conquest of political power by the proletariat.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II: Proletarians and Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
<Even where there is no prospect of achieving their election the workers must put up their own candidates to preserve their independence, to gauge their own strength and to bring their revolutionary position and party standpoint to public attention. They must not be led astray by the empty phrases of the democrats, who will maintain that the workers’ candidates will split the democratic party and offer the forces of reaction the chance of victory. All such talk means, in the final analysis, that the proletariat is to be swindled. The progress which the proletarian party will make by operating independently in this way is infinitely more important than the disadvantages resulting from the presence of a few reactionaries in the representative body.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 1850, "Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League"https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm
<The first great step of importance for every country newly entering into the movement is always the organisation of the workers as an independent political party, no matter how, so long as it is a distinct workers' party. And this step has been taken, far more rapidly than we had a right to hope, and that is the main thing. That the first programme of this party is still confused and highly deficient, that it has set up the banner of Henry George, these are inevitable evils but also only transitory ones. The masses must have time and opportunity to develop and they can only have the opportunity when they have their own movement–no matter in what form so long as it is only their own movement–in which they are driven further by their own mistakes and learn wisdom by hurting themselves.
<Frederick Engels, “Letters: Marx-Engels Correspondence 1886”, Engels to Friedrich Adolph Sorge In Hobokenhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1886/letters/86_11_29.htm >>2806919Wow that's a lot of works, but tomorrow I will waste electrical energy at my job by leaving the drill press on for an hour
I hope my boss loses his shitty weld shop as a result.
>>2806922Nothing says Marxism like celebrating the wrecking of productive forces.
>>2806922>It's not performative bullshit<Leaving a drill press on for an hour<Hoping it puts his petit bourg boss out of businessThis has to be parody, I've been got
>>2806923Nothing says Marxism like class collaborative cuckoldry
>>2806925I can't burn his shop because the neo-neoliberal bourgeois government in power (which I should support in their anti-imperialist struggle according to
>>2806919 despite the fact that they collaborate with the US, CIA, DEA, etc) will persecute me and I will end in jail and I can't end in jail as my family depends on me.
Shocking, I know.
>>2806927>Shocking, I know.No, the shocking part is you thinking either burning down his shop or covertly putting him out of business is relevant, considering the petit bourg are destined to be proletarianised by the actual bourgeoisie anyway.
If you have a family to support and need the paycheck, this is a really senseless way to lose that.
>>2806936>the petit bourg are destined to be proletarianised by the actual bourgeoisie anyway.3rd world bourgs are petit bourg when compares to multinational firms, 3rd world.vourgs are destined to disappear, glad you finally understand why campism is anti-materialist.
>>2806779>You're putting the cart before the horseNone of this really adresses anything I said. I've established that Euromaidan was bad, that the Ukrainian government has thrown away neutrality and that it's resulted in war, but none of this has managed to convince me that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a good idea or that it was justified. You're functionally repeating what I've mentioned to be factual but acting like it's a rebuttal to what I posted. Existing escalations in Ukraine do not justify further escalations. The war in Donbas had a decreasing rate of casualties and Russia said "Fuck it" and turned it into the largest war in Europe since 1945.
>As for "constant threat of invasion", that's every country at all timesI did not defend the concept of having guns everywhere in Ukraine. Nonetheless, Ukraine is obviously more paranoid about invasion from Russia than say, Costa Rica being invaded by Panama because Russia is literally doing that right now.
>>2806795I truly do not give a fuck about the bullshit Kruschev was saying in the 50's to justify Ukraine being part of the USSR (Not that I oppose Ukraine having been in the USSR, it's just that this historical claim is obviously nonsense).
>>28068633rd world bourgeoisie are obviously also evil but you should prefer that wealth is less concentrated in the 1st world. A richer 3rd world does NOT solve the problems of Capitalism but it does improve living conditions and that's undeniably a good thing. This isn't about wanting your boss to get richer, it's about prefering your boss getting richer over the CEO of Hitler Inc. in Oakland California getting richer. Your boss is still your enemy and you should prioritize assraping him and ushering in Communism over transferring wealth from 1st world bourgs to him.
>>2806876>I will keep voting for communist parties that the bourg in my country dislike, I will keep wasting time and resources at work, I will keep attending communist marches and I will keep spreading anti-bourgeois communist propaganda online.Okay, nothing wrong with that. Nobody is asking for you to work harder, stop pushing for Communism or not waste resources at work. I think it's great that you do that. Godspeed o7.
>>2806923The fact that it's better for wealth to be less concentrated in the 1st world does not mean that he has to become a cuck for his job. That wouldn't even change anything, the reason wealth is concentrated in the 1st world has little to do with that. His actions are entirely performative but whatever.
>>2806925It's so petty that you kind of have to respect it, though. Will it do anything? No. But it's funny as fuck.
>>2806927You should do other shit to him too, like hide his stuff while he's not around and use up all of the toilet paper in the bathroom. Just be an absolute fucking nuisance at all times. Furthermore, you should take pictures and videos and give us updates on his freakouts. You know, for Communism or something.
>>2806953>Khrushchevite revisionism>1954LMFAO
Just kill yourself. Pereyaslav Agreement was celebrated even during the 1940s, the city of Pereyaslav was renamed to Pereyaslav-Khmelnitsky to celebrate Khmelnitsky pledged allegiance to the Tsar there.
>>2806953>but you should prefer that wealth is less concentrated in the 1st worldWhy? Do you believe the trickle down neoliberal nonsense or something? I can fuck with the 3rd world bourg by voting for parties that reduce their profits and sabotaging them, so I will, if that means 1st world bourg takes over his business then so it be. Comrades in the first world should do the same, at the end only transnational capital will remain.
>A richer 3rd world does NOT solve the problems of Capitalism but it does improve living conditions and that's undeniably a good thing.So you believe in trickle down nonsense, you are a Reaganite.
>>2806966>Pereyaslav Agreement was celebrated even during the 1940sI know. I'm not attributing it to "Kruschevite Revisionism", I am fully aware that the USSR celebrated the agreement before that. This was retarded and anti-Marxist.
>>2806953>but none of this has managed to convince me that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was a good idea or that it was justified.You've got the natural bias of judging the situation based only on how history actually played out and not factoring in what was potentially avoided.
>You're functionally repeating what I've mentioned to be factual but acting like it's a rebuttal to what I posted.While saying things like "euromaidan was bad" and "lots of guns are bad" provides an image of
balance to the conflict with Russia, you're not really considering any of this as contextualising what might have been if Russia acted otherwise. You're pointing them out to suggest you don't think Ukraine is perfect. But that's as far as it goes, that Zelensky and his public understand exactly what becoming "Big Israel" entails ideologically is just discarded and passed off as a bit of a whoopsy he made when sucking up to Israel. It's the same as when people were swearing blind that the constant imagery of SS iconography and Nazi salutes in Ukraine weren't indications of ideology, just a tactless form of insulting the Russians.
I understand that one can go hog wild with alternative histories, but there's no reason to be
this disinterested in what Ukraine's ideology is, what its goals are and where that may have led in a timeline where Russia made it absolutely clear that they're hands off. Being content with Russia invading and working backwards from there to explain away Ukraine's ideology is a really flawed way of understanding any conflict.
>>2806975This is not trickle-down economics, it is basic immiseration. Marx wrote in
Wage Labour and Capital (1847):
>If capital grows rapidly, wages may rise, but the profit of capital rises disproportionately faster. The material position of the worker has improved, but at the cost of his social position. The social chasm that separates him from the capitalist has widened.If this were not the case, then the
FIRST WORLD would have the
WORST living standards on account of it having the richest bourgs.
>>2806979>natural bias of judging the situation based only on how history actually played out and not factoring in what was potentially avoidedWe can judge how history would have played out based on what has happened. Far-Right groups in Ukraine did not have the power to unilaterally declare genocide on all Russian minorities in Ukraine, otherwise they would have done it already. They are absolutely dangerous and evil, but the Russian invasion has killed far more people and destroyed way more lives in its supposed "protection" of Russian minorities than the continued status quo would have.
>Zelensky and his public understand exactly what becoming "Big Israel" entails ideologically is just discarded and passed off as a bit of a whoopsy he made when sucking up to IsraelI don't think it was a mistake at all, I think he communicated exactly what he wanted to. It's simply that I do not believe they have intentions to slaughter all Russian minorities in Ukraine. In order to justify the invasion you would have to believe that Ukraine was about to kill hundreds of thousands of Russian minorities in an enormous national genocide as if this is some kind of widespread, popular idea among the population and can even remotely be accomplished. Do some Ukrainians support that? Yes, but that doesn't mean that it's going to happen.
>where that may have led in a timeline where Russia made it absolutely clear that they're hands offYou cannot honestly, genuinely believe that we'd be seeing a degree of evil comparable to the evil we've seen in this war if Russia didn't invade.
>>2806922Your actions are irrelevant in the face of the financialization and deindustrialization of third-world countries. All the reactionary tendencies of the past have already been integrated to serve financial capital. Furthermore, control of your own currency and national bank is a requirement to facilitate the socialization of the economy. The communist position depends on acting collectively to advance the workers of the whole world and gain power; this is the opposite of submitting to financial capital when the bourgeoisie in your own country is already integrated into global financialized capitalism.
A country subjugated by financial capital typically has its economy geared towards being a primary-exporting economy of commodities, with a government that exists only to pay off speculators of public debt, with more austerity that destroys the country's capacity to collect revenue, resulting in punishments if there is no more austerity, further punishing the workers.
Because capitalists are united when they subjugate a country to financial capital as a puppet, there will be more stability in the capitalist system to intensify exploitation and punish communists. Therefore, accepting subjugation to financial capital leads to the prolongation of the capitalist system. It's important to remember that communist revolutions only began with the division of several capitalist states competing against each other, not with the subjugation of countries to a single capitalist country in a unipolar world.
>>2806988>You cannot honestly, genuinely believe that we'd be seeing a degree of evil comparable to the evil we've seen in this war if Russia didn't invade.I do, worse even, because Ukraine and Israel have the exact same issue of receiving borders drawn up by some other state which already had existent nationalities within them, but whose continued existence therefore undermines the integrity of those borders now the "founding" states are no longer existent (The USSR, the British Empire).
It's therefore no coincidence that Zelensky picked Israel as the model of a victorious Ukraine. Like Israel, these conflicts born of that desire to ensure the continued veracity of their borders via ethnonationalism and the struggle against it, retroactively justify going beyond apartheid laws and into shelling people's homes. If Crimea's annexation was justification for draconian laws and a bit of home shelling, then the invasion could be justification for genocide just as October 7th would become for Israel.
Likewise, they've both got endless military and diplomatic backing by NATO states for the same reason that they're wilful cudgels against NATO's primary opponents in their respective regions. Ukraine is a launchpad for NATO against Russia, Israel is a launchpad against Iran. Thus, they both have a blank cheque for war crimes, their usefulness is as a vector for destabilisation and thus the more child murders the better.
When it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck (and says it wants to be a Big Duck), then it's probably a duck.
>>2807015i'm pretty sure russia is a bigger supporter of israel than any nato country sans usa
i'm also pretty sure zelensky quote was a bid to secure israel's support. at the time israel refused to support ukraine, to sanction russia in any way or even condemn russian invasion.
>>2807015>If Crimea's annexation was justification for draconian laws and a bit of home shelling, then the invasion could be justification for genocide just as October 7th would become for Israel. Israel was already committing genocide, Ukraine is not. Does this not just reinforce the argument that the invasion is a dumb idea?
>>2807024>Israel was already committing genocide, Ukraine is not.Israel is an older state than Ukraine, moreover Russia invaded Ukraine (partially) to avoid genocide.
Like come on man my post contained quite a lot to just be dismissed with
>yh but Ukraine didn't get the chance to become Big Israel… soooo I win? >>2807032Because the rest of what you said is just trying to draw some kind of equivalence between Ukraine and Israel, which is obviously nonsense. "Ukraine's borders were drawn up by another country!", "Ukraine gets support from NATO and so does Israel" and any variety of baseless accusations extrapolated from one quote that illuminates a completely different problem with post-war Ukraine. Look, here is the focal point of the argument: What Ukraine would have done over the past few years would never have been as deadly or destabilizing as the invasion. At the end of the day, everything else is just orbiting that.
This has gone on long enough, either make a convincing argument against it or shut up. In order to prove that Ukraine was about to commit some kind of genocide, you must prove that they had the ability to do so, that they had intention to do so and that there was any actual indication that they were gearing up for it when Russia invaded. You have given me nothing conclusive or even that I did not already know. Give me conclusive evidence and I'll join you in masturbating to Ukrainian kids dying.
>>2807042>"Ukraine's borders were drawn up by another country!">obviously nonsense>shut up>I'll join you in masturbating to Ukrainian kids dying.You know what, I’m not convinced you’re approaching this with an open mind.
>>2804238The government of Ukraine is the idealized epitome of anti-communism in Brazil, where a coup d'état was used to persecute all communist, socialist and workers' union movements in Ukraine with the Maidan coup in 2014.
In this coup regime of fascist reactionary puppets of finance capital several militias of the right sector together with the Azov battalion terrorize, kidnap and silence who they consider a threat to the buyer government with an organization called The Peacemaker ( Myrotvorets ) which is used by neo-Nazis with names, data personal and family members to intimidate, silence and eliminate outlaw journalists and citizens who are considered a "threat to national security" with neo-Nazi paramilitary groups. Just so you know, the president of Brazil Lula himself and several left-wing DCM journalists who are Brazilian have their names noted there. Remembering that they scratch the name on the list as the individual passes away as if it were a people elimination list. Don't forget the various white supremacist neo-Nazi organizations that have a direct connection to Ukraine in the world.
The role of the reactionaries was to depoliticize the population so that a false opposition that uses only the discourse against corruption financed by the bourgeoisie in a puppet party of imperialism with Zelensky as a friendly figure for the international propaganda starts the destruction and privatization for the financial capital of the agricultural cooperatives that it was unpopular to just hint at this kind of action before the coup, but Zelensky's opposition party is not opposed and hides this from the public, all public property is being destroyed and labor rights are being attacked. The various reactionary groups are integrated throughout the Ukrainian government in all sectors of the state and Zelensky just put the reactionary henchman on the line to attack anyone who opposes neoliberalism and the Ukrainian supremacy policy against non-Ukrainian language minorities living in the country and have been repressed since the coup.
The communist party of Ukraine had 13% of the vote before the coup at the time, where the left was seen as the main enemy immediately even though that party was in protests at the time no ukrainian chauvinism and racism against russians, no glorification of the european union, NATO and the IMF, with the defense of the country's economic sovereignty, public enterprises, cooperative sector, workers' rights, legacy of the Soviet Union and solidarity among the workers of other countries come together with neutrality and a desire to restore the Soviet Union. Party general secretary Petro Symonenko has been in exile in Belarus for a long time due to persecution.
This speech is the same coup speech that was had in Bolivia pretending that it is not a coup and the same scenario in Brazil where they tried to persecute and banish the left after the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff with the anticommunism of the lackeys servants of financial capital.
Russia does not participate in the export of finance capital like the IMF according to Lenin's description. The fall of dollar hegemony is boosting the financial sovereignty of third world countries so they may not have to follow the international rules of sanctions and patents that keep them indebted and dependent.
Here is an archived Communist Party of Ukraine opinion link:
https://web.archive.org/web/20220219162903/https://kpu.life/ru/101027/petr_symonenko_ynytsyatyva_ukrayny_po_sozdanyju_trojstvennogo_sojuza_uhodyt_kornjamy_v_nedra_my6_y_tsruHere is an article with a narrative against the coup-plotters' capitalist innocence propaganda from Ukraine:
https://web.archive.org/web/20171107144346/https://lorenzoae.wordpress.com/2017/10/11/on-russia-todays-liberalsTo answer the question about the perspective of Russian capitalism, you have to understand that US and European imperialist capitalism decided that Russia could not be respected and integrated like the United Kingdom to exploit Third World countries together. Instead, for Western capitalists, Russia should be a neocolony to be plundered just like the other Third World countries. This led to the circulation of capital ceasing to function due to Ukrainian nationalist chauvinism serving imperialism, which consolidated itself in Ukraine. This was financed as a continuation of the capitalists who financed reactionaries in Eastern Europe to serve as puppets of finance capital against the Soviet Union. These puppets now serve the project of making Russia a deindustrialized, financialized neocolony and enriching capitalists linked to privatizations, the arms industry, the financial sector, technology, financial speculation, reconstruction, and other activities that profit from war. The Marxist position is to cut funding, arms sales, aid, and debt to all the puppets of finance capital so that their governments collapse for the benefit of the communist cause, receiving concessions from post-collapse governments that cannot use chauvinism.
>>2806977So you were in fact lying when you said
>No Marxist would EVER claim that Ukraine being part of the Russian Empire was somehow historically progressive for itWhat you really meant was, "we must throw out actual Marxism-Leninism in favor of my misunderstandings of Marxism".
Sorry! I follow Marxism-Leninism, maybe you want to throw it out for the sake of defending your favorite fascist state, but I don't see why anyone else should respect that.
>Ziggers ITT now arguing that Lenin is fascist since he BTFO the retarded Russian nationalit revisionist history that claims Ukraine never ever existed
Scratch a zigger and a fascist capitalist bleeds.
>>2806988>it is basic immiserationCorrec, the problem here is that such effect happens when foreign capital develops the productive forces™ in third world nations, so why should I demand that only national bourgs are the ones allowed to engage in capitalist exploitation, why should I waste political power demanding what is basically fascism?
>>2807133Lenin literally had the the western client Ukrainian state invaded and joined those lands to union with Russia, as Putin is doing now.
>>2807147he also fostered a ukrainian nation, correctly recognizing it as distinct to the russian one
>>2807148Lenin was too influenced by SPD politics, it wasn't until Stalin that Marxism-Leninism was truly detached from Social democratic baggage.
>>2806990>control of your own currency and national bank is a requirement to facilitate the socialization of the economy. This has nothing to do with the topic of discussion
Most nationalization policies have happened because foreign capitalist held control over key industries, not qhen national ones had.
>It's important to remember that communist revolutions only began with the division of several capitalist states competing against each other, not with the subjugation of countries to a single capitalist country in a unipolar world.The capitalist won't engage in another world war, they can't even wage a regional conflict in the Russian border or in the Strait of Hormuz.
>>2807151>Most nationalization policies have happened because foreign capitalist held control over key industries, not qhen national ones had.Absolute retard. AMLO and Sheinbaum have nationalized more in their terms then 20+ years of bullshit comprador governments.
>>2807015>Like Israel, these conflicts born of that desire to ensure the continued veracity of their borders via ethnonationalism and the struggle against it, retroactively justify going beyond apartheid laws and into shelling people's homes.Feel like this could be worded more concisely in retrospect.
Basically people like Leninhat are doing the same thing as supporters of Zionism in viewing retaliations towards Ukraine’s hostilities as retroactively justifying said hostilities. Thus no act of hostility was ever really ideologically driven, just Kiev acting preemptively against future “unprovoked retaliations” as you could call it.
>Why did Kiev enact laws on policing the use of the Russian language? Because Russia would shortly annex Crimea.>Why did Kiev start shelling homes in Donbass? Because Russia would shortly start shipping serious hardware to the separatists.>Why did Kiev amass thousands of troops, tonnes of NATO donated munitions and fortify settlements into garrison cities on the front of their civil war? Because Russia would shortly surround Kiev and pressure them for peace on behalf of the separatists.Etc, etc.
>>2807046This is a non-answer
>>2807131The USSR wasn't really Marxist after Lenin died. I'm not even really a huge Lenin guy (I admire him and believe he was a great man but I wouldn't say I'm a "Leninist") but despite the USSR being a progressive force throughout its existence it ceased to adhere to any substantial Marxist ideals after the L-man died.
>>2807281>Why did Kiev enact laws on policing the use of the Russian language?Because Ukraine's post-coup government is evil as fuck
>Why did Kiev start shelling homes in Donbass?Because Ukraine's Maidan government decided that it was preferable to fight a retarded war rather than just compromise with the relatively reasonable demands of Russian minorities. Why do you keep creating strawmen of my actual positions?
>Why did Kiev amass thousands of troops, tonnes of NATO donated munitions and fortify settlements into garrison cities on the front of their civil war?Because they KNEW Russia would invade. The same cannot be said for the other 2 situations, which were unjustified even with prior knowledge. This is not justifying actions using later developments when this was a direct response to reports of an impending Russian invasion. This is knowledge from BEFORE the defensive build-up. Why are we not allowed to take into account the very obvious reality that Russia would invade when analyzing Ukraine's defensive build up? Because it's inconvenient for you?
>>2807333Again, you’re starting with the invasion and working backwards from there. But the inconvenience that creates for you is that Ukraine built up a massive military formation specifically in the Donbass, not around Kiev.
For your rewinding timeline logic to work, they have to know that they’re about to be invaded for invalidating Minsk, but presume for some reason that Russia won’t just go straight for Kiev to resolve an issue which at that point still largely diplomatic in nature.
>>2807373They had forces in Kyiv as well as the Donbas because they correctly assumed that while Russia would try to make a b-line for the capital, the war was still largely going to be fought in the south. If we're going to be nitpicking the specific nature of the defensive build-up before the invasion, then why not start with the fact that they (as you stated yourself) "fortified settlements into garrison cities"? They were very obviously preparing to defend against an invasion.
>>2807380>NitpickingI don’t think you can reasonably claim placing the bulk of your troops in entirely the wrong place for a likely invasion is nitpicking.
>then why not start with the fact that they (as you stated yourself) "fortified settlements into garrison cities"?Again, again, you’re working backwards from Russia’s regrouping in the east and suggesting that for years prior to 2022 Kiev somehow knew
>Russia would surround Kiev over a diplomatic crisis of Kiev’s intentional making>They would convince Russia the diplomatic crisis is resolved and to leave>Then they’d get western backing to immediately turn on that and pick war instead>Russia’s response to this is guaranteed to be regrouping in the eastand so for years when this buildup and fortification of cities in Donbass was occurring, it wasn’t about the civil war and preparing for a decisive major military operation against the separatists à la Israel, no it was because they used their crystal ball to perfectly predict how February 2022 was going to play out.
I’m sorry but this is just getting silly.
>>2806936>the petit bourg are destined to be proletarianisedMarxists have been saying this for 150 years but there's more of them than ever. Maybe do a rethink on that one.
>>2807398Saying this right as AI is becoming a thing is funny
>>2807381>the bulk of your troops in entirely the wrong place for a likely invasionExcept that they weren't, the Russian army mainly pushed towards Kyiv and from the south and east. This is why their soldiers were there.
>suggesting that for years prior to 2022 Kiev somehow knewThey didn't need to know all of the meticulous ins and outs of the invasion to know that an invasion might happen. The line of reasoning is quite simple, especially considering that they were kept from making compromises with the seperatists by Nazi groups and the West. The Donbas war was stagnant and the possibility of tensions exploding and resulting in a Russian invasion or even just a sudden major escalation in the Donbas conflict was not an impossibility. I don't think that it's
impossible that a Ukrainian invasion of the LPR and DPR was planned (Which would supposedly be totally justified because they had heavy restrictions of the Ukrainian language. That's how it works, right?), but barring any actual evidence it cannot be assumed to be the case and generally seems pretty unlikely.
>>2807621Ultimately if Ukraine chose war and Russia chose to win by eliminating the Ukrainian military in a conventional ground war, then inevitably the war is going to be fought where the Ukrainian military was already built up and garrisoned was which was Donbass.
That's why the conflict has played out primarily in Donbass, not because Ukraine anticipated the events of early 2022 years prior.
>I don't think that it's impossible that a Ukrainian invasion of the LPR and DPR was planned (Which would supposedly be totally justified because they had heavy restrictions of the Ukrainian language. That's how it works, right?)If true (and I'm not sure it is) that would still be retaliation, you're
still retroactively justifying Ukraine based on retaliations.
>but barring any actual evidence it cannot be assumed to be the caseAt this point you're making it clear that unless I can provide a WikiLeaks-style 1TB drop of leaked messages from the Ukrainian MoD and presidential office with various figures repeatedly confirming to each other "yeah we're gonna move on LPR and DPR", you won't entertain the idea that Ukraine amassed troops and NATO-supplied munitions in Donbass against the separatists for a major military campaign to resolve the civil war Israeli-style.
Nothing else I can say to you Leninhat, "I'll join you in masturbating to Ukrainian kids dying". When you've already got your head that far up your own arse, what else could I expect?
>>2807333>The USSR wasn't really Marxist after Lenin died. Of course the anti-SMO freak is a Trotskyite.
>>2807678>Ultimately if Ukraine chose war and Russia chose to win by eliminating the Ukrainian military in a conventional ground war<If Ukraine chose war by failing to stop Russia from choosing war
>If true (and I'm not sure it is) that would still be retaliation, you're still retroactively justifying Ukraine based on retaliations.I'm not. I think an invasion of the LPR and DPR in 2022 would be an unjustified escalation.
>unless I can provide a WikiLeaks-style 1TB drop of leaked messages from the Ukrainian MoD and presidential officeYou actually do need evidence to support such a bold claim, yes.
>>2807741Not a Trotskyist
>>2807774If by
>Russia had no good reason to invade Ukraineyou mean the thread needed to provide you with top secret Ukrainian documents to prove otherwise, then you’ve wasted everyone’s time.
I have to point out therefore
>I'll join you in masturbating to Ukrainian kids dyingwas always where you were going to go with this thread.
>>2807798In other words, you have no evidence
>>2807151>Most nationalization policies have happened because foreign capitalist held control over key industries, not qhen national ones had.Incorrect. Nationalizations occur in bourgeois states where primary export-oriented capitalism in Third World countries saw the need for industrialization and mass education because the capitalists themselves had no interest in this and the current state of affairs could not be maintained. Furthermore, there was an international opportunity to do so with a strengthening labor movement and a global communist threat that led these bourgeois states to seek greater stability and take advantage of the situation to become more self-sufficient. This stemmed from the interests of the petty bourgeoisie and the limited national bourgeoisie in these countries, and not from imperialist capitalism, which absorbed all the most reactionary tendencies of society to serve finance capital.
During the Cold War, there was a process of dependent industrialization in Third World countries, which also had its problems, but the use of state capitalism became taboo with the Washington Consensus and the consolidation of neoliberalism in the world. This led to the domination of financial capital, deindustrialization, financialization, privatization, indebtedness to financial market speculators, and the constant punishment of workers with more intense exploitation and constant austerity, which harmed the affected bourgeois states, preventing them from collecting revenue. This led to more austerity as a solution for public debt speculators, who demanded "fiscal responsibility."
Latin American countries often have a mitigated neoliberalism within their left-wing parties, attempting to leverage the remaining state capitalism and social programs to achieve class conciliation. This is absent from the right wing in these countries, which exists purely for submission to finance capital, indebting, deindustrializing, privatizing, removing national control of its own national bank, and surrendering to finance capital—thus being reactionary. Revolution requires industry and means of production to facilitate the socialization of the economy, not the precarization of atomized workers who do not work together. It's important to remember that the lumpenproletariat is not revolutionary; despair without solidarity, without class consciousness, and excluded from the means of production leads to reactionism.
Let's look at Lenin's text on state capitalism to help you understand:
<In the first place economically state capitalism is immeasurably superior to our present economic system.
<In the second place there is nothing terrible in it for the Soviet power, for the Soviet state is a state in which the power of the workers and the poor is assured. . . .
<To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is Germany. Here we have “the last word” in modern large-scale capitalist engineering and planned organisation, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois imperialism. Cross out the words in italics, and in place of the militarist, Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state put also a state, but of a different social type, of a different class content—a Soviet state, that is, a proletarian state, and you will have the sum total of the conditions necessary for socialism.
<Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries).
<Lenin, 1921, The Tax in Kind (The Significance Of The New Policy And Its Conditions)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htmAnother text for you to understand:
<For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.[…]
<Imperialist war is the eve of socialist revolution. And this not only because the horrors of the war give rise to proletarian revolt—no revolt can bring about socialism unless the economic conditions for socialism are ripe—but because state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs.
<Lenin, “The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat it” (1917)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm
>The capitalist won't engage in another world war, they can't even wage a regional conflict in the Russian border or in the Strait of Hormuz.But this benefits the communist cause. Each defeat of imperialist capitalism means more international chaos, more countries using state capitalism, more popular dissatisfaction, more loss of faith in the bourgeois state, less cooperation between bourgeois states, less capacity to impose sanctions, and more technologies spread around the world without intellectual property control. This means that what is "normal" to prevent the capitalist profit rate from decreasing shatters the illusions people had about the bourgeois state and opposes all of this. Have you forgotten that this international chaos will demonstrate to countries the need for economic sovereignty and price controls, silencing the propaganda of liberals about the independence of national banks and about letting countries be at the mercy of international commodity prices instead of controlling everything internally?
Let's take a quote from Trotsky to help you think more deeply about what it means to have an anti-imperialist position:
<I will take the most simple and obvious example. In Brazil there now reigns a semifascist regime that every revolutionary can only view with hatred. Let us assume, however, that on the morrow England enters into a military conflict with Brazil. I ask you on whose side of the conflict will the working class be? I will answer for myself personally—in this case I will be on the side of “fascist” Brazil against “democratic” Great Britain. Why? Because in the conflict between them it will not be a question of democracy or fascism. If England should be victorious, she will put another fascist in Rio de Janeiro and will place double chains on Brazil. If Brazil on the contrary should be victorious, it will give a mighty impulse to national and democratic consciousness of the country and will lead to the overthrow of the Vargas dictatorship. The defeat of England will at the same time deliver a blow to British imperialism and will give an impulse to the revolutionary movement of the British proletariat. Truly, one must have an empty head to reduce world antagonisms and military conflicts to the struggle between fascism and democracy. Under all masks one must know how to distinguish exploiters, slave-owners, and robbers!
<Leon Trotsky, Anti-Imperialist Struggle Is Key to Liberation, An Interview with Mateo Fossa (September 1938)https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1938/09/liberation.htm >>2807821There’s plenty of evidence, what you’re asking for is “proof” like a picture of Zelensky with his hand in the proverbial cookie jar, I.e you’ve already made your position infallible.
>>2807882There is hard proof of US involvement in Maidan, including American state department officials picking Ukraine's new government, the likes of Victoria Nuland and John McCain openly discussing US funding for Maidan groups, etc. It was a US backed coup.
>>2807835>Incorrect. Nationalizations occur in bourgeois states where primary export-oriented capitalism in Third World countries saw the need for industrialization and mass education because the capitalists themselves had no interest in this and the current state of affairs could not be maintained. And none of this happens when national bourgs have control of the majority of the economy, when national bourgs have the majority they always bribe and buy polticians to stay in power, if you do bot velieve this is the case, if you believe that nationalization is nore likely to happen when national bourgs have control over the majority of the economy, then I am willing to do sone sort of statistical analysis and find out which of the two positions is correct. We can select 25 third world countries that have relevancy in the geopolitical context and find their 10 most significant nationalization projects and find out if they happened under national bourg control or international one.
I nominate:
Mexico, Brazil, Colombia, Chile, Argentina, Nigeria, South Africa, Egypt, Thailand, Indonesia, Iran, Turkey, Vietnam. You nominte another 12 and I'll do the study using socialist AI and Deepseek
>Inb4 REEEEEE AI. >>2807835>Revolution requires industry and means of production to facilitate the socialization of the economy.Revolution also necessitates that the bourgeois class loses it's power due to the internal contradictions of capitalism, the financial turn over is one of them
>not the precarization of atomized workers who do not work together. It's important to remember that the lumpenproletariat is not revolutionary;Demonstrated to be false by the Russian revolution.
>despair without solidarity, without class consciousness, and excluded from the means of production leads to reactionism.But supporting the rise of national bourgs is literal reactionarism.
>>2807835>Have you forgotten that this international chaos will demonstrate to countries the need for economic sovereignty and price controls, But if they need sovereignity then that means the economy is at the hands of foreigners, and therefore such policy stems the foreign control, not a national control over key economic sectors.
>>2807901More importantly, I would also like to study if the nationalization projects eventually ended up being privatized and bought by national bourgs, if a relevant number of nationalization projects do, then "nationalization" by itself is just a means to empower the national bourg, and your theory of
>Foreign bourg control -> national bourg control -> nationalization and transformation into state capitalismWould be false.
>>2807901You remain mistaken. Brazil during Vargas's government benefited from petty-bourgeois and bourgeois support in Rio Grande do Sul, which backed Vargas in his independent national development. The large landowners in Brazil during the previous oligarchic republic alternated power between themselves, focusing on the political landscape of São Paulo and Minas Gerais, solely to export monoculture agricultural products. This situation eventually led to a crisis, where Vargas fabricated reasons to seize power based on a supposed communist threat. However, I would argue that he was blaming the old Brazilian elite for incompetence and therefore deserving to give them power. After World War II and the democratization of the Second Republic, a comprador bourgeoisie emerged, completely subservient to the United States, lacking any industrial economic plan. Vargas himself decided to grant more power to the workers and use them for his protection, given how horribly subservient the Brazilian right wing was becoming in its desire to be a US colony. This is why Vargas's image became incompatible with being rehabilitated by the right wing, as it was not compatible with this type of submission to financial capital as a dependent colony. State capitalism and its use were maintained later in economic programs only by the Brazilian left, throughout the Second Republic, the business-military dictatorship, and later in the New Republic. All industrialization that existed during this time was dependent and, in a certain sense, limited, without sovereign technological control.
You are forgetting that at the time the bourgeoisie did not act alone; throughout this history there was pressure from the workers for much more radical changes.
>>2807903>Revolution also necessitates that the bourgeois class loses it's power due to the internal contradictions of capitalism, the financial turn over is one of themFinancialization of the economy has no progressive character; quite the opposite. It consolidates power in the hands of large landowners for a purely export-oriented economy; the entire technological sector is closed and privatized to multinational corporations and eventually withdrawn to consolidate monopolies abroad and facilitate blackmail to make the neocolony government submissive; all extractive activities go abroad, and no revenue goes to the bourgeois state of the neocolony, which is totally dependent on foreign countries; unemployment increases, indebtedness increases, the national bank gains independence to serve only financial speculators and punish the population; everything is financialized in anonymous companies for financial speculation where there are no accountable parties; neo-Pentecostal churches that worship the gospel of prosperity and idealize entrepreneurship begin to control abandoned communities without a welfare state, and these communities become controlled by militias and criminal gangs; and where the indebtedness of the masses to banks combined with the use of credit cards creates a false consciousness of social atomization and reactionary anarcho-capitalist submission, and more and more money is given to The repression of the bourgeois state, which has its own police force, is undergoing a process no different from that of the militias, seeking to collect money to control gas and water services, and to determine who can sell them, with fees and monopolies held by companies linked to these militias and gangs.
This precarious situation does not foster class consciousness; quite the opposite. Tell me why the communist revolution didn't begin in Haiti or among African peoples in the past if having the masses in a precarious state is what's necessary for a revolution? Having a bourgeoisie secure in its control doesn't bring about any communist revolution.
>Demonstrated to be false by the Russian revolution.Wrong. Tsarist Russia entered a precarious state collaborating with the British capitalist imperialism of the time. Revolutionary socialists formed in urban areas and spread throughout the country. What happened here was not atomization; there was mass collective organization so that the proletariat could acquire its political supremacy in order to socialize the economy.
I'll give you a quote:
<The Communist Manifesto had, as its object, the proclamation of the inevitable impending dissolution of modern bourgeois property. But in Russia we find, face-to-face with the rapidly flowering capitalist swindle and bourgeois property, just beginning to develop, more than half the land owned in common by the peasants. Now the question is: can the Russian obshchina, though greatly undermined, yet a form of primeval common ownership of land, pass directly to the higher form of Communist common ownership? Or, on the contrary, must it first pass through the same process of dissolution such as constitutes the historical evolution of the West?
<The only answer to that possible today is this: If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.
<Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, January 21, 1882, London, Preface of the Communist Manifesto, The 1882 Russian Editionhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm
>But supporting the rise of national bourgs is literal reactionarism.Wrong. If a country develops its industry and economy independently, then that country is moving in a progressive direction. Let's see what Marx wrote about Irish independence and the need to organize all workers to prove my point:
<I shall give you here only quite briefly the salient points.
<Ireland is the bulwark of the English landed aristocracy. The exploitation of that country is not only one of the main sources of their material wealth; it is their greatest moral strength. They, in fact, represent the domination over Ireland. Ireland is therefore the cardinal means by which the English aristocracy maintain their domination in England itself.
<If, on the other hand, the English army and police were to be withdrawn from Ireland tomorrow, you would at once have an agrarian revolution in Ireland. But the downfall of the English aristocracy in Ireland implies and has as a necessary consequence its downfall in England. And this would provide the preliminary condition for the proletarian revolution in England. The destruction of the English landed aristocracy in Ireland is an infinitely easier operation than in England herself, because in Ireland the land question has been up to now the exclusive form of the social question because it is a question of existence, of life and death, for the immense majority of the Irish people, and because it is at the same time inseparable from the national question. Quite apart from the fact that the Irish character is more passionate and revolutionary than that of the English.
<As for the English bourgeoisie, it has in the first place a common interest with the English aristocracy in turning Ireland into mere pasture land which provides the English market with meat and wool at the cheapest possible prices. It is likewise interested in reducing the Irish population by eviction and forcible emigration, to such a small number that English capital (capital invested in land leased for farming) can function there with “security”. It has the same interest in clearing the estates of Ireland as it had in the clearing of the agricultural districts of England and Scotland. The £6,000-10,000 absentee-landlord and other Irish revenues which at present flow annually to London have also to be taken into account.
<But the English bourgeoisie has also much more important interests in the present economy of Ireland. Owing to the constantly increasing concentration of leaseholds, Ireland constantly sends her own surplus to the English labour market, and thus forces down wages and lowers the material and moral position of the English working class.
<And most important of all! Every industrial and commercial centre in England now possesses a working class divided into two hostile camps, English proletarians and Irish proletarians. The ordinary English worker hates the Irish worker as a competitor who lowers his standard of life. In relation to the Irish worker he regards himself as a member of the ruling nation and consequently he becomes a tool of the English aristocrats and capitalists against Ireland, thus strengthening their domination over himself. He cherishes religious, social, and national prejudices against the Irish worker. His attitude towards him is much the same as that of the “poor whites” to the Negroes in the former slave states of the U.S.A.. The Irishman pays him back with interest in his own money. He sees in the English worker both the accomplice and the stupid tool of the English rulers in Ireland.
<This antagonism is artificially kept alive and intensified by the press, the pulpit, the comic papers, in short, by all the means at the disposal of the ruling classes. This antagonism is the secret of the impotence of the English working class, despite its organisation. It is the secret by which the capitalist class maintains its power. And the latter is quite aware of this.
<But the evil does not stop here. It continues across the ocean. The antagonism between Englishmen and Irishmen is the hidden basis of the conflict between the United States and England. It makes any honest and serious co-operation between the working classes of the two countries impossible. It enables the governments of both countries, whenever they think fit, to break the edge off the social conflict by their mutual bullying, and, in case of need, by war between the two countries.
<England, the metropolis of capital, the power which has up to now ruled the world market, is at present the most important country for the workers’ revolution, and moreover the only country in which the material conditions for this revolution have reached a certain degree of maturity. It is consequently the most important object of the International Working Men’s Association to hasten the social revolution in England. The sole means of hastening it is to make Ireland independent. Hence it is the task of the International everywhere to put the conflict between England and Ireland in the foreground, and everywhere to side openly with Ireland. It is the special task of the Central Council in London to make the English workers realise that for them the national emancipation of Ireland is not a question of abstract justice or humanitarian sentiment but the first condition of their own social emancipation.
<These are roughly the main points of the circular letter, which thus at the same time give the raisons d’étre of the resolutions passed by the Central Council on the Irish amnesty.[…]
<We hit another bird with the same stone, we have forced the Irish leaders, journalists, etc., in Dublin to get into contact with us, which the General Council had been unable to achieve previously!
<You have wide field in America for work along the same lines. A coalition of the German workers with the Irish workers (and of course also with the English and American workers who are prepared to accede to it) is the greatest achievement you could bring about now. This must be done in the name of the International. The social significance of the Irish question must be made clear.
<Letters of Karl Marx 1870, Marx to Sigfrid Meyer and August Vogt In New Yorkhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1870/letters/70_04_09.htm
>But if they need sovereignity then that means the economy is at the hands of foreigners, and therefore such policy stems the foreign control, not a national control over key economic sectors.The puppets of finance capital will not be able to keep the neocolonies under control, having to consume products according to international prices. Increasingly, there will be a need to intervene in the economy, and the liberal illusion among the masses will crumble. This benefits communists in spreading propaganda about the need for national liberation and acquiring economic sovereignty for the masses, when the status quo cannot be ignored as a problem due to the lack of control over the domestic market. This will lead to the need for state capitalism in the bourgeois state, and the ignorant middle-class anarcho-capitalists and libertarians will be unable to provide false consciousness answers to the masses.
>>2807908>Foreign bourg control -> national bourg control -> nationalization and transformation into state capitalismThe correct order is not this, but rather "Lack of developed means of production or control by the capitalist imperialist bourgeoisie -> use of state capitalism with state-owned enterprises and cooperatives facilitates directing the economy in a direction that eventually develops the national bourgeoisie, which is easier to control -> this facilitates communist revolution, occupations, Nationalizations, collectivizations, and socializations under the dictatorship of the proletariat, where having the means of production located within the country facilitates revolution and the abolition of private property, requiring less use of state capitalism to begin the complete socialist economic planning.
>>2807882Oh my fucking god bro please look up what Euromaidan actually was
>>2807979I am not interested in your dogmatic review of history, name 12 countries more so I can engage in analysis
>>2807993Also
>but rather "Lack of developed means of production or control by the capitalist imperialist bourgeoisie -> use of state capitalism with state-owned enterprises and cooperatives facilitates directing the economy in a direction that eventually develops the national bourgeoisie, which is easier to control -> this facilitates communist revolution, occupations, Nationalizations, collectivizations, and socializations under the dictatorship of the proletariat, Prove that the nationalization projects of relevant 3rd world nations tend to follow this path then.
>>2807998AMLO and Sheinbaum nationalized more than any of the compradors before them.You are not Mexican otherwise you would know this. You are a retarded American LARPing as a leftcom using AI because you are so fucking stupid you don't even know how to research anything.
>>2808384List all the shit AMLO and Sheinbaum have nationalized then retard.
Go ahead, Push me, push me, I am going to destroy you and the bourgeois socdem farse that is La Transformación de Cuarta, you don't even understand the shit you are trying to get into.
>AmericanDelusional moron
>>2808396Thanks for proving my point. It is not part of the education curriculum in Mexico to write in English Cursive lmfao. Either you had massive amounts of free time to learn to do so in which case you are literally bourgeois or more likely you are an Ameritard LARPing
>Prove itLiterally just google AMLO nationalization and read the first 10 articles dipshit you are braindead
>>2808405>Post proof of me having an INE<"Thanks for proving my point!"Foreignerns can't get an INE you fucking imbecile, kill yourself you fucking retard
>Google itNo uyghur, support your claim, tell us all about the shit the cartel controlled bourgeois government has nationalized.
>>2808408>Muh INEIf you were at all competent at being a glowie you'd have an entire drawer full of fake passports and other identifying documents it really means nothing and proves nothing stop pretending that it does.
>Prove it<Google this exact phrase and refute the dozens of articles that have been written>NO NO NO NOT LIKE THATYou aren't even a leftcom because an actual leftcom would not have recoiled in absolute fear from being told to read something. In fact your entire "persona" if one could call it that is absolutely hilarious because it is the exact same narrative right-wing Mexicans living in Mexico City constantly make, accusing AMLO and Sheinbaum of being cartel stooges when anyone sane understands that all the cartels are CIA creations.
>>2808415I am going to give you one chance before I turn you into fucking minced meat.
If you reply with the exact following phrase, I will spare your pathetic life:
>I am a retarded schizo that was weong about you not being Mexican, and I am a fucking imbec6that has no idea Lithium was already nationalized before AMLO, as Lithium and any resources extracted from the below ground were already nationalized based on article 27 of the Mexican constitution, I didn't know this because I am an inbreed baboon retard, you did because you are Mexican and watches the debates about AMLO's reform live on TVGo ahead, you just need to copy and paste to be spared a series of humiliation
Also
>Only right wingers call Morena a cartel stooges
That's wrong uyghur, pretty much every anarchist and communist organization here labels the government as an entity that collaborates with organized crime. And I WILL destroy you on this subject unless you decided to back off with your retardation.
>>2807908does it not work on the inverse too? since capital trends towards consolidation as it matches towards its final phase it lends itself well to nationalization too. you seem to have an undialectic view of history.
>>2807882>>what do you mean a sovereign country has it's own politics? this is like a hatecrime against me or somethingWe had this discussion in post WW2 Nuremberg trials. No it's not just "whatever", or their own business what they leaders or whatever fanatic group does in their own countries to their own people and their people on their own and nobody can legally do anything about it. It's even less "just their own business" when foreign intelligence services push the buttons of those fanatics and leaders to inflict a strategic defeat on another country.
The most infuriating thing about the whole Nafo and pro-Ukraine infospace is not the baits and the trolls, it's that the trolls and baits are indistinguishable from the actual narrative and you can never know if you are talking to a really excited bona fide retard, or some smug cynical prick having really easy time shitting another thread by just listening the news and vomiting it back at everybody.
>>2808421anarchists and communists see the state itself as the one instrumentalizing organized crime as an arm of itself, it sees the relationship the other way around, but i'm not surprised you aren't tuned to what communists in mexico actually think considering you're a feverish anti-communist incel
>as an arm of itself
as an extension of itself
>>2808429wow he didn't see things the exact way you do, therefore he's le ebil andigommunist or something
>>2808431you claim to speak for mexican commies while spouting a take that is completely opposed, you retarded samefag
>>2808425No, there are 195 countries around the world, if every country nationalizes it's entire oil industry, we would have 195 state capitalist oil firms, nationalization doesn't lead to monopoly capital.
>but i'm not surprised you aren't tuned to what communists in mexico Quote a single communist organization that denies that Morena is involved with organized crime
Go ahead you stupid chimp.
>>2808433>Quote a single communist organization that denies that Morena is involved with organized crimeexcept you didn't say this you retarded incel
>>2808446except he basically did?
Notice how leftkkkom Mexican impersonator
- Is not Mexican
- Gets basic facts wrong that real left wing Mexicans would not (such as what the Constitution allows, or blaming AMLO and Sheinbaum for cartels)
- Is incapable of reading and researching on his own using Google and instead wants everything to be typed into a text post on /leftypol/ for him to respond to (because "he" is an LLM piloted by a glowie and cannot respond to anything contained in a screenshot).
>>2808446You simian chimp, AMLO's secretary of state, who was the second most powerful in his government z is heavily involved with "La Barredora" a criminal org responsible of increasing the general crime and violence in the South-East of Mexico, mainly Tabasco and Chiapas, during AMLO's government they were the main organization behind "Huachichol Fiscal", which was a oil and gas smuggling operation, that was allowed to foster because AMLO didn't change the Oil and gas reform of Peña Nieto, instead of making it illegal for private entities to import fuel, AMLO cancelled most of the contracts, and only allowed his own people to mantain the fuel import contracts, as a result, the Barredora Cartel, together with American companies, Pemex and the FUCKING MEXICAN NAVY, engages in Mexico's biggest financial loss due to crime and corruption, and it resulted in the morder of top Navy officers, specially the one that denounced it all.
México is controlled by organized crime, organized ceime isn't merely an arm of the government, the government exists to allow.organized crime to stay in business just like the US government exists to allow BlackRock and Lockheed Martin to stat in business. Every single anarchist and communist org here knows this.
>>2808452Stupid baboon, go read article 27 and come back before posting stupid shit like this, Lithium was ALWAYS nationalized, what AMLO reformed was the creation of a government institution just to mine it, wuch institution doesn't exist, hasn't mined shit, and just exists to steal money from the government
It doesn't fucking matter anyway because such government institutions always hire private contractors to do the job of mining and construction, the same happens with Pemex and CFE, both government entities
>>2808453You are a simian baboon chimp
>>2808453the fact he shits on $heinbaum is how you know he is based actually
>>2808469Your response to being exposed as wrong is to say no and descend back to insults. You are not leftcom you are a troll who should be permabanned.
>>2808473>Proved wrongWhere you stupid simian baboon?
Article 27 already made Lithium a nationalized mineral resource
https://mexico.justia.com/federales/constitucion-politica-de-los-estados-unidos-mexicanos/titulo-primero/capitulo-i/#articulo-27AMLO's reform just reformed that only the state is allowed to exploit it. But that is literally irrelevant because the state hires private contractors to do most of the job, just like they do with Pemex and CFE
I understand that your undeveloped, subhuman aimian baboon chimp brain can't understand this, but that is YOUR problem, not mine.
>>2808473insulting someone then replying with an opposing viewpoint doesn't violate the rules of the site
The simian implied I wasn't Mexican, and I proved him wrong by posting my INE
The baboon implied AMLO nationalized Lithium, when lithium was already nationalized
The chimp implied Morena isn't in bed with the Cartels, when "Huachichol Fiscal" and the recent Sinaloa governor scandal proves they are
Stupid simian baboon chimp can't do anything but namecall and cry for me to be silenced.
>>2808477Read my screenshot carefully retard. Maybe you will understand why you have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to Article 27. This is how I know you're not Mexican you are so retarded you don't even understand what happened in 1992 and why AMLO had to do what he did.
>>2808480He is not arguing in good faith there is an abundance of evidence that AMLO and Sheinbaum carried out nationalizations but he just denies it and screams at anyone who sends him articles proving it. Furthermore it's hilarious his AI search brings up national water ownership when Sheinbaum had to recently nationalize it. So ee've already shifted from
>Article 27 already nationalized everything it's all faketo
>Why is water privatized in Mexico and why is Sheinbaum the only one trying to fix itkek
>>2808677
One last thing
You are quoting the 1992 reform that allowed Ejido to be sold, AMLO did not change such law and neither has Sheinbaum
>>2806927>according to >>2806919 despite the fact that they collaborate with the USpretty sure the line on temporary alliances is that you work together as long as interests are aligned, but here you say the interests are not aligned, meaning the line on temporary alliance doesnt apply. can you explain your thinking?
>>2809502I will vut I need you to explain the interests of who are alligned? The cartels and the mexican government?
>>2809616Or do you mean intelligence agencies form America and the Mexican government?
>>2809612this video is so important. i am now convinced NATO should be allowed to balkanize russia by drafting every ukrainian man woman and child
>>2807899so nuland has 3 different guys from 3 different parties with her here, oleg tyahnybok of svoboda, areseniy yatsenyuk of the fatherland party. middle guy is famous UFC fighter vitali klitschko but I think he became a politician in ukraine too. forget what party
>>2806380if kyiv's oppression of donbass was limited to linguistic policies in schools, then why do I have footage of donbass being bombed starting in 2014? Why do I have footage of civilians being whipped and tortured if they didn't side with the government in 2022? Why were dozens of Mariupol residents interviewed by an AMERICAN patrick lancaster, and attested that they were happier with Russian occupation, and that AFU staged artillery in schools and hospitals while kidnapping and torturing civilians? Why did the US coup the ukrainian government in 2014 and bring far right territorial defense units to power? Why did they ban the Communist Party of Ukraine in 2015? Why did they ban the rest of the socialist-leaning parties after 2022 under Zelensky? Why did the US-backed regime take out usurious IMF loans and agree to crippling structural adjustment programs?
>>2809624Uncritical support for Epstein island against NATO imperialism
>>2807774That is standard Trot rhetoric. It is not a coincidence and soon to be neocon for the American empire anyway
>>2809616its pretty simple. if the proles interests are not aligned with the borg then the temporary alliance between them against imperialism no longer applies.
>>2809798The prole interest is never alligned with the bourg, not wven in the third world.
Let's say we want an apple, I suggest we use a ladder, you suggest we cut down the tree. Yes, we both want the apple, but I do bot want to kill a tree
Yes, the population of the 3rd world want to get rid of American imperialis, the bourg wants to get rid of imperialism so they can explit the workers themselves. The worksrs want socialism, their interests are irreconciable.
>>2809612Wow… the Epstein empire really should be allowed to invade Russia and abduct Russian children as they please.
>>2809880There weren't virtually any proles in China in each of those examples as it was a feudal backwater
Damn dude I thought the left was completely brainwashed by Kremlin propaganda, this thread has given me some hope.
>>2809637notice how they NEVER answer these questions, they just ignore you and restart the "conversation" elsewhere with the same narrative.
>>2810105the point isnt to converse or even prove a point but to flood the zone with incoherent bullshit and waste the time and effort of people who know better
>>2810363so instead of book burning they just hide the books in stacks of endless bullshit
>>2809637how come donieck the town still stands after supposed 8 years of bombing while mariupol got swept from face of earth with a week and to this very day remains a sea of ruins?
HOT TAKE: A communist-run RF would have challenged US hegemony sooner and harder.
And would not be caught dead having a bourgeois meatgrinder or triangulating their stances according to some hypothetical post-US-hegemony liberal world order. We are only fortunate that the USA seems absolutely decided to not give an inch in concessions to Cucktinist Russia, or else they'd be allies by now.
>>2809624>this video is so important. i am now convinced NATO should be allowed to balkanize russia by drafting every ukrainian man woman and childNobody here thinks that dumbass!!! All I am saying is that it is stupid to glaze Putin as a leftist because he is a zionist, imperialist, pedophile, I do think it is better for this Zionist, Imperialist, Pedophile to control Russia than a pro-NATO, Zionist, Imperialist, Pedophile but Putin still sucks and there are many reasons not to like him other than his Pedophilia and Imperialism like for example his economic policy in which he advocates for a flat tax which supports the oligarchy, or his terrible social policy that hurts queer people, or his inefficient climate policies, or the fact that the only good thing about him, being anti-NATO, is something that he does not go far enough on! If he gave a shit he would plant nukes in Cuba again but he is too pussy too. I dont think he even cares about rolling back NATO's influence in countries outside of the post-soviet-states.
TLDR
>Is Russia imperialist?
<Yes
>This is an inter-imperialist war and must be turned into a civil war
<No
>We must support imperialism against pre-monopoly capitalism per Lenin
>>2810578>Is Russia imperialist?<YesDiscarded
mrdi
>>2810576>it is stupid to glaze Putin as a leftist because he is a zionist, imperialist, pedophileit's stupid to make the conversation center on putin, is what it is. why do radlibs always want to make the conversation about individuals like trump, putin, etc.
talk about something important.
>>2810576>he's a hecking pedophlie least projecting burger
>>2810422They might still end up getting along after the war, the US has been trying to take a softer line on Russia in trying to encircle China these past 2 years. This tendency is only really counteracted by the fact that burgeristan wants to keep scamming the eurocucks for LNG and shale oil because that's the only thing keeping the economy afloat aside from the AI-Finance state capital alliance.
>>2810826>This tendency is only really counteracted by the fact that burgeristan wants to keep scamming the eurocucks for LNG and shale oil ok yeah but what if the us ends up selling russian lng to europe.
>>2811139
lol they are holding an area and letting the ukrainians attack them
>Russia is losing 3 times more men than Ukraine
utterly delusional
>>2811172
NK soldiers were volunteers, sending your soldiers into an active war zone for training is perfectly normal (not like they can send them to do "anti terrorism" like the west in africa)
>>2811172
Russian bourgeois have been having a shortage of voluntaries to send to the grinder which is why they have been recruiting hard in other countries, even having recourse to human trafficking and convicts. Their problem is that the moment they conscript and send the russian treatlerite middle class to die in trenches is the moment they stop being bloodthirsty chauvinists hence collapsing popular support and sending their government in a death spiral. This is essentally why they are stuck in such a clusterfuck even though on paper they should have bagged it years ago
Are ziggers actually trying to pretend that the Ruzzian army is anything but a joke?
>>2811139
yes the german victories just keep getting closer to berlin because they are winning to hard
>>2811224
If that's even remotely true, then it's a very bizzare choice to make, why would that happen, did putin threaten NK as well to send them soldiers ?
>>2811302NK is a very militarized and secretive state, it's possible the soldiers voluntered but it's likely that they were just ordered to go there and just obeyed the orders. For NK this war is a good deal, basically they are mercing for Russia in exchange of investments, trade deals and more importantly sanction lifting as Russia is part of the security council which sanctionned the DPRK into the ground.
>>2811307given the small amount of soldiers compared to the size of NK military, and the reports of how dedicated and competent they were, theres no reason to doubt they were volunteers except for "muh evil north korea" usual propaganda.
>>2811307>>2811312but then why did they get brought back ? is it actually 5D chess and they are still there ?
>>2811302cmon everyone knows communist states are authoritino totalitarino
>>2811439
wow are you telling me ruzzia is actively getting smaller? i cant believe ukraine is imperializing them. both sides are so bad i think ukrainians should do a revolutionary defeatism
>>2811653yes Ruzzia is getting smaller, Ruzzian population today is smaller than it was 40 years ago, those that aren't sent to war or died from AIDS are fleeing that dying shithole
>>2811653 Russian civilization is diametrically opposed to imperialism, which is a property of the Atlantic civilizations.
>>2811887Russia has been an imperalist state in it's entire history, even Soviet Union was just tsarist imperialism with different names
Bro if the Wagner coup succeeded we'd be living in Communism right about now
>>2811895If Communism is defined as millions of Russian children being subject to the whims of pedophile westerners on the prowl in their newly conquered Reichskommissariat, sure.
>>2811155Ukraine is losing more men as a percentage because they are a much smaller country but in raw numbers Russia is losing far more men
>>2811906>t. Freedom Eagle Burger InstituteUkraine is being extinguished off the map lmfao. Its a nation without a future. Russia has positioned itself as a leading nation of the upcoming multipolar world while Ukraine has sacrificed itself to defend the dying order.
>>2811907Russia is a leading nation in what? AIDS, abortion and alcoholism?
>>2811908>Russia is a leading nation in what?They are winning at casualties per meters of occupied land.
>>2811918Please tell us more about how Russia sending hundreds of thousands of men to their deaths so they can capture a Ukrainian village is gonna make Russia a superpower somehow
>>2811916It's true though, if Soviet union wasn't imperalist it would still exist today, the other nations just didn't want to be vassal states of a Muscovite empire
>>2811956yeah but see according to lenin imperialism is capitalism + development and since su was a shithole that wasted all of it's resources on prestigious nonsense it's not imperialist despite it's main objective being reclaiming all the subjects of russian empire (and beyond depening on era)
>>2811969yes it was state capitalist too
>>2806380It's ironic that Russians are doing the very same things against the indigenous peoples in the lands they have colonized.
>>2812065
>it's just like my heckin ww2
Leaving aside the fact that this shit has nothing to do with ww2. Do ziggas not realize how much they shoot themselves in the foot with this analogy? The nazis were also concerned with muh germanic diaspora oppressed by the evil polacks, that was their stated reason for the invasion
>>2812070Russian nationalism is one of the most schizo ideologies out there. I saw a collection someone had made of patches used by Russian soldiers in the war and there were some of Stalin and Lenin (obviously), Russian Empire, Che Guevara, esoteric nazi symbols and like norse mythology stuff.
>>2812080
are you saying NATO told Putin to invade Ukraine and genocide slavs?
>>2812083
"Russian" isn't a real identity either, Russian ethnicity was literally invented by a Swedish guy
>>2812090
Which part is not factual?
>>2812084Wrong. Russians were created by the Orthodox Christian God to fight against imperialism.
>>2812079>That's actually really small and doesn't even exist when you think about it, you know they're actually just NATO spies even though the Russian government is the one sending them to kill people. I guess you want us to think [CRAZY THING] just because of this??? I refuse!Really groundbreaking stuff here
>>2812090https://www.mk.ru/politics/2014/07/04/fashistzhivoder-iz-peterburga-priekhal-voevat-za-opolchencev-lnr.html>>2812110Who said they were representative of all of Russia?
>>2812110
Nothing in that description implies that they are "representative of Russia and her people". However they are accepted/tolerated by the Russian state. The links to Wagner, which is an important part of Russian power projection, means they're not as fringe as you make them out to be. The Russian state is completely chill with having nazis fight in their "de-nazification" war.
Also I hope you are Russian because this level of Russian nationalist cope would be pathetic otherwise.
>>2812120
braindead post
>>2812123i hate to be russia's defender but both rusich and russian community are obvious honeypot safety valves
genuine nationalists have been delt with all the way in the 00s meanwhile white power turboslav michakov (ethnically fingolian btw) can't stop bending over for chechens
>>2812120
Ok why don't you just stop larping as a communist if you like AfD and Putin so much? It would be a much less dishonest way to live and you wouldn't have to pretend you're a marxist. Cheer for whatever wars you want mate, just don't pretend this is anti-imperialism
>>2812137
according to Russia anyone that opposes being genocided by Russians is a nazi
>>2812150
>KPRF
GEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEG
>CPC
You mean the "worker's party" doing whatever it can to preserve the capitalist character of the economy and glazing Elon Musk?
>>2812160
I don't know. Is CHAZ in the room with us right now?
>>2812155And the Russian ruling class gains a large amount of territory, adds to its population, and destroys capital to revive the profit rate.
It's almost like the bourgeoisie on both sides win and the proletariat on both sides loses.
It's almost like that's why communists shouldn't pick which capitalist country to support, but should call for the working classes of all countries to overthrow their ruling class.
>>2812175The flaw there is that literally no one on the NATO side reckons they ought to lose alongside Russia (even pre-invasion) and despite the NATO population vastly outnumbering the Russian population, all agitation for revolutionary defeatism is directed at Russians and Ziggers.
So you know, riddle me that one.
>>2812172I'm not a yank faggot. Try reading some of the things from the board sticky without quotemining and open up a book about the pre-1914 history of the socialist movement because you clearly need to get educated
>>2812175State-run slaughter is not beneficial to the working class, imagine that
>>2812180
If I was a NAFOid, I would be gleeful that Russia pushed the Nordics into Washington's military alliance and got Eurocucks frothing at the mouth to arm themselves. Use your fucking brain instead of treating a literal war like team sports
>>2812175The trvke that destroyed the leftypol campoid
Like just to be clear here people, NATO’s population is basically 1 billion people whom mostly have bought the story that it needs to exist to oppose Russia with its population of less than 150 million.
Doesn’t it seem a bit ridiculous that anons are making out like the Russian population and its supporters in this conflict are priority one for impressing anti-campism on?
Ditto by trying to convey that via lmaoing how embarrassing Russia’s attempt to confront NATO has been?
>>2812186
Maybe true, probably a bit grandiose. More likely that people are just fucking stupid and see the size of Russia and assume that NATO are at least their equals if not even a bit smaller
>>2812186
You don't get to do this epic "goyim" stuff while supporting Russia lol they're fully zionist
>>2812191Really? What bombs have they supplied to the IDF? Were they free of charge?
>>2812186
I rape and exploit your mother at my leisure too
>>2812186
and MLs wonder why people don't take them seriously
>>2812204Ukraine did overthrow their Russian elite owned ruling class, that's why Russia invaded them to impose their imperealistic rule back
>>2812192Argentina hasn't supplied the IDF with any bombs either
>>2812206
>Jewish attitudes towards Russians
Like 15% of Israelis are Russian lol
>>2812210
right, they should instead have a Russian fascist ruling class instead, that's way more progressive!
>muh rusich
>muh azov
>muh putler
>muh zelensky
>muh poroshenko
>muh this, muh that
The line is this: the entire war is a result of eastward NATO expansion. Bourgeois ukraine and bourgeois russia, being weaker bourgeois nations, and victims of the US-backed shock doctrine in the 1990s, have been systematically destabilized and pit against one another for the benefit for the stronger imperialists in NATO. The false promises made by NATO to not expand "one inch eastward" in 1991 has been broken 14 times. The conflict should not be seen as a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but between NATO and non-NATO. Thank you for your time.
>>2812213>it's either one or the otherit isn't, which is why this war began in 2014 as a civil war in ukraine between the US-backed ukrainian government and separatists in the east.
>>2806003this video shut him up. he stopped talking. he quietly skulked off instead of admitting he was wrong like an adult. he hoped that people would stop reading the conversation and noticing.
>>2812267you mean a war begun between Ukrainians and Russian backed fascists in the east
>>2811974it is racist and russophobic. I imagine even most critics of Russia don't want you 4channer freaks on their side. You make them look reactionary. Are you a psy op? Seriously. I've never seen a conversation littered with more repulsive and stupid bad faith actors.
>>2812272The Russian backed fascists build statues of Lenin while the US backed fascists build statues of Stepan Bandera. Odd.
>>2812208I would say you are wrong. What happened with the 2014 coup in Ukraine was submission to finance capital, privatization and financialization of national cooperatives and state-owned enterprises to serve finance capital, and the consolidation of a reactionary Ukrainian chauvinism that prevents the circulation of Russian capital due to prejudice perpetrated by the coup-installed Ukrainian state and paramilitary groups that are descendants of Nazi collaborators and puppet collaborators of American and European imperialism during the Cold War. What was done is what was attempted in Brazil during the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, wanting to prohibit all leftist and workers' organizations, persecuting communists, trade unionists, and peasants so that politics is conducted only by parties subservient to finance capital and subservient to the United States. In Ukraine, this succeeded; it signifies the dominance of the comprador bourgeoisie subservient to the West, while the Ukrainian Communist Party is in exile in Belarus, persecuting all real leftists under the guise of national security and anti-Russian prejudice fueled by Ukrainian nationalism.
Your duty as a communist is to cut off all funding, arms sales, loans, aid, and supplies to the puppets of finance capital. This means sabotaging and preventing all of this from reaching Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, or any other puppet governments of finance capital, so that they all collapse, making the situation more favorable for the return of communists. Because any post-collapse government that cannot use anti-Russian chauvinism while respecting all Soviet ethnicities will have to make concessions to communists and workers more easily, especially if it doesn't have the support of funding from the US and European imperialist bloc.
Read what I posted here::
>>2807050 >>2812280>>2812277>>2812273if I had to choose between neoliberals and fascists I will always choose neoliberals. You fascist boot lickers are always the first ones to get the bullet when you bend over to fascists
>>2812264Why is NATO expansion bad from the perspective of proletarians in the countries joining NATO?
It seems to me like NATO countries in general are clean, nice, peaceful, wealthy countries. Contries outside NATO are smelly, poor, violent.
Seems like joining NATO is pro-worker.
>>2812277Bandera fought against nazis and was arrested by Nazis
>>2812264>the entire war is a result of eastward NATO expansionthis entire war as every one before it is the result of westward mongol expansion
>>2812283Incorrect. Neoliberalism is already widespread throughout the world; the difference lies in how mitigated it is. Neoliberalism itself adopted everything that was useful to fascism, which has always existed as a puppet of finance capital, absorbing all reactionary groups to serve finance capital. Ukraine is the very definition of a neo-Nazi puppet serving US and European capitalist imperialism. The Russian government is a typical conservative and liberal capitalist government that is alienated because the Russian bourgeoisie and the Russian government did not accept being a neocolony, wanting to be respected as a capitalist power like the United Kingdom to join the American capitalist imperialist bloc. However, since the Washington Consensus and the consolidation of neoliberalism, there is no longer tolerance for any state organization to develop its industry independently, use state capitalism, have financial sovereignty to implement public policies, and there is no tolerance for the welfare state.
Watch this video titled "The Functions of Fascism" to understand what fascist reactionism is and its function:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8zkRBdKzN0YIf you see the entire definition of fascism as anti-communism, the agglomeration of reactionary tendencies to serve finance capital, the repression of all workers' organizations to submit them to the bourgeoisie with the prohibition of communists, trade unionists and socialists turning against bourgeois democracy to serve finance capital, you will see that Ukraine fits the definition of a Nazi puppet. What was done in Ukraine, the reactionary right in Brazil tried to replicate in Brazil, using Ukraine as an ideal to be emulated, a puppet to financialize and deindustrialize, and to become indebted in order to serve financial capital subservient to banks, landowners, reactionary militias—in other words, subservient to financial capital as a neocolony in an eternal cycle of austerity to further privatize, deregulate the economy, make workers more precarious so they can be further exploited, and persecute all left-wing parties so that the only "left" that can exist is a controlled, identity-based opposition subservient to US financial capital. This Brazilian right failed in trying to replicate this in Brazil, but the workers of Brazil have already lost many right-wingers during the offensive of financial capital in Brazil.
The communist position is to cut off funding to Ukraine and all other countries; it is mandatory to vote for a revolutionary socialist workers' party that is independent of the bourgeoisie and serves the supremacy of the proletariat. Any political party that claims to serve the workers but does not take an anti-imperialist stance in solidarity with all the workers of the world by cutting off funding to foreign financial capital is an enemy that must be destroyed without exception, especially if you are in the first world.
Furthermore, communists have a common interest with the conservative bourgeoisie, according to this quote:
<10. All private banks will be replaced by a state bank whose bonds will have the character of legal tender.
<This measure will make it possible to regulate credit in the interests of the whole people and will thus undermine the dominance of the large financiers. By gradually replacing gold and silver by paper money, it will cheapen the indispensable instrument of bourgeois trade, the universal means of exchange, and will allow the gold and silver to have an outward effect. Ultimately, this measure is necessary to link the interests of the conservative bourgeoisie to the revolution.
<Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, March 1848, Demands of the Communist Party in Germanyhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htm >>2812339Neoliberals didn't order hundreds of thousands of troops to invade Ukraine, fascist imperalist Russia did, neoliberals aren't bombing Ukraine, fascist Imperalist Russia is, neoliberalis aren't abducting Ukrainians and sending them to reeducation camps to convert them to Russians, fascist imperalist Russia is. You can keep using the age old Kremlin gaslighting tactics to twist reality but it won't change reality, Russians can keep using hammer and sickle badges and Lenin stickers, but it wont fool anyone with more than 2 braincells that they are imperalist fascists ethnically cleansing other lands to replace them with Russians, that's literally the entire history of Russia
>>2812357
yes, Russia is too poor to be neoliberal and too militarily useless to be fascist, they are like a combination of the worst aspects of both
>>2812285Incorrect. NATO is an imperialist capitalist organization whose function, from its inception, has been to combat communists and prevent the proletariat from assuming power. Leaving NATO is an obligation for every communist, just as leaving the European Union is. There is no class conciliation; therefore, any union with capitalist organizations is not tolerated. The proletarian state is established by overthrowing the bourgeois state in a revolutionary situation; therefore, there is no reform of bourgeois organizations to achieve the socialist state. The bourgeois state will be abolished, the standing army and the police will be abolished so that the proletarian state can be established, which will have the popular workers' militia for the supremacy of the proletariat (Red Guard) and the Red Army that will serve collective property, economic sovereignty, and the supremacy of the dictatorship of the proletariat. This all depends on having a national army, a public bank with its own currency that isn't independent, and no respect for any law of financial responsibility that prevents the government from spending as it pleases; "fiscal responsibility" exists only to implement austerity, serving the public debt of financial market speculators.
I'll leave you with a quote from Lenin:
<A United States of Europe under capitalism is tantamount to an agreement on the partition of colonies. Under capitalism, however, no other basis and no other principle of division are possible except force. A multi-millionaire cannot share the "national income" of a capitalist country with anyone otherwise than "in proportion to the capital invested" (with a bonus thrown in, so that the biggest capital may receive more than its share). Capitalism is private ownership of the means of production, and anarchy in production. To advocate a "just" division of income on such a basis is sheer Proudhonism, stupid philistinism. No division can be effected otherwise than in "proportion to strength", and strength changes with the course of economic development. Following 1871, the rate of Germany's accession of strength was three or four times as rapid as that of Britain and France, and of Japan about ten times as rapid as Russia's. There is and there can be no other way of testing the real might of a capitalist state than by war. War does not contradict the fundamentals of private property—on the contrary, it is a direct and inevitable outcome of those fundamentals. Under capitalism the smooth economic growth of individual enterprises or individual states is impossible. Under capitalism, there are no other means of restoring the periodically disturbed equilibrium than crises in industry and wars in politics.
<Of course, temporary agreements are possible between capitalists and between states. In this sense a United States of Europe is possible as an agreement between the European capitalists … but to what end? Only for the purpose of jointly suppressing socialism in Europe, of jointly protecting colonial booty against Japan and America, who have been badly done out of their share by the present partition of colonies, and the increase of whose might during the last fifty years has been immeasurably more rapid than that of backward and monarchist Europe, now turning senile. Compared with the United States of America, Europe as a whole denotes economic stagnation. On the present economic basis, i.e., under capitalism, a United States of Europe would signify an organisation of reaction to retard America's more rapid development. The times when the cause of democracy and socialism was associated only with Europe alone have gone for ever.
<A United States of the World (not of Europe alone) is the state form of the unification and freedom of nations which we associate with socialism—about the total disappearance of the state, including the democratic. As a separate slogan, however, the slogan of a United States of the World would hardly be a correct one, first, because it merges with socialism; second, because it may be wrongly interpreted to mean that the victory of socialism in a single country is impossible, and it may also create misconceptions as to the relations of such a country to the others.
<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1915, On the Slogan for a United States of Europehttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm >>2812378Russia is an imperalist fascist state whose function from its inception has been to invade countries, ethnically cleanse it's native population and replace them with Russians.
Why do you think Russian land is so big? 80% of Russian land is stolen from natives that have been genocided, colonized and ethnically cleansed by Russians
>>2812295It's weird how you freaks shift the goalposts of the conversation and then declare victory. It began here:
>it isn't, which is why this war began in 2014 as a civil war in ukraine between the US-backed ukrainian government and separatists in the east.Rather than acknowledge that there are US backed fascists at all, you merely slandered the independence movement in Donbass, which began specifically as a reaction to repression by the US-backed fascists as "Russian backed fascists." You seem to think DNR and LNR are run By "Rusich" or other "whatabout" fringe groups the way the AFU has been taken over by Banderites. But it's not even close.
Now instead of acknowledge any of this asymmetrical complexity, you reduce the entire situation to a soup like homogenate and pretend I am saying
>anti-fascism is when you build lenin statuethis is because you are a pea-brained 4klanner and you have nothing wortwhile to add to the conversation. No historical info, no acknowledgement of complexity, no class consciousness, just a false reduction of the entire conflict to post 2022 liberal phrase mongering about Putler invading for No reason, the entire east half of the Ukraine being fascists, none of the west half of ukraine being fascists, the US and NATO having no involvement whatsoever in causing the crisis, etc. What a convenient and lazy narrative. Give me another one sentence reply that makes up shit I didn't say.
>>2812432>Russia is an imperalist fascist state whose function from its inception has been to invade countries, ethnically cleanse it's native population and replace them with Russians.
>Why do you think Russian land is so big? 80% of Russian land is stolen from natives that have been genocided, colonized and ethnically cleansed by RussiansNATO bootlickers will say this while failing to acknowledge that they engineered the very existence of the Russian federation, modern ukraine, its civil war, its economic crises, and the NATO expansion which provoked the war itself.
>>2812283NATO is the more reactionary and imperialist force here. Period. They engineered this entire conflict between Russia and Ukraine while pretending to be a defensive umbrella, even though their entire thing since 1991 has been bringing Eastern Europeans in as subordinate economies to loot through IMF austerity.
>>2812272begun by NATO between reactionaries created by NATO and other reactionaries created by NATO
be suspicious of any post that ignores the role of NATO
be suspicious of any post that either villifies Russia or sanctifies Russia
be suspicious of any post that either villifies Ukraine or sanctifies Ukraine
bourgeois Russia and bourgeois Ukraine are creations of the post-soviet shock doctrine, backed by NATO
This war is a war by and for NATO to subordinate ex-soviet countries to NATO
>>2805170>I don't think we should acquit NATO at all, but nobody forced Russia to invade. They made that decision themselves and they're absolutely to blame for it.Yes, just like nobody forced NATO to expand eastward into 14 countries after promising in 1991 to stop expanding. They made that decision themselves and they're absolutely to blame for it
>>2804312donbass wasn't a russian diaspora. the region always had russians and was never considered part of ukraine until the soviet period when the region was incorporated into ukraine specifically for economic reasons, during a time when it didn't matter anyway, because Ukraine and Russian SSRs were both part of the USSR. After the collapse of the USSR and the intensification of bourgeois nationalism in both Ukraine and Russia, this population became a contradiction. You had ukrainian right wing radio in 2014 calling these people "millions of superfluous" and implying they needed to be removed along with gypsies and other minorities.
>>2804330encirclement doesn't always imply attack. it implies slow economic strangulation. by the time you are justified in using nukes it is too late.
>>2812467>>2812464>>2812459>>2812473You fascist Kremlin bootlickers are so hilarious trying to gaslight people of who started this war. Putin literally went on live TV and announced the invasion of Ukraine not NATO, Putin ordered troops to invade and bomb Ukraine not NATO, how many mental gymnastics you have to do to blame NATO for a war literally started by Russia
>>2812288this post glows and is leaving out quite a bit
>>2812490sorry if historical facts trigger you
>>2812359Wrong. Ukraine is merely a puppet of finance capital, killing its workers to serve the enrichment of capitalists in the arms industry, reconstruction sector, privatization, landowners, extractive industries, debt to banks, etc. In other words, serving finance capital as cannon fodder, promoting a Ukrainian nationalism of supremacy to alienate national minorities with Ukrainian chauvinism while selling the country to finance capital. If you had read about the Irish independence issue by Marx, you would see support for Irish separatism due to English chauvinism if it is not possible to organize Irish and English workers for socialism. If the alternative is a continuation of the subjugation of Ireland by landlordism allied with chauvinistic English capitalism, then an independent Ireland is acceptable to have more equal relations with England so that it can join in a possible socialist federation between the English and Irish.
Considering all this, and seeing that the 2014 coup with Maidan uses Ukrainian chauvinism against Russians and to persecute workers' and communist organizations, then separatism of the Russian minorities is acceptable, since it is the bourgeoisie that controls Ukraine that is preventing a peace agreement. Communists do not give importance to the nation-state, so Russian separatism is acceptable as long as there is no abolition of all laws since the Euromaidan coup in Ukraine. The collapse of the Ukrainian government benefits communists anyway, since the supremacy of the proletarian class is the objective of communists and not the sentimentality of the middle class that fears chaos.
Furthermore, state capitalism is more progressive than private capitalism; Russia using more state capitalism prepares global conditions better for revolution; multipolarity is another positive point; the division of global capitalism, preventing it from working together, also favors communists.
Let's take quotes that talk about state capitalism proving my point:
<For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.[…]
<Imperialist war is the eve of socialist revolution. And this not only because the horrors of the war give rise to proletarian revolt—no revolt can bring about socialism unless the economic conditions for socialism are ripe—but because state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs.
<Lenin, “The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat it” (1917)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htmNow with another quote:
<In the first place economically state capitalism is immeasurably superior to our present economic system.
<In the second place there is nothing terrible in it for the Soviet power, for the Soviet state is a state in which the power of the workers and the poor is assured. . . .
<To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is Germany. Here we have “the last word” in modern large-scale capitalist engineering and planned organisation, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois imperialism. Cross out the words in italics, and in place of the militarist, Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state put also a state, but of a different social type, of a different class content—a Soviet state, that is, a proletarian state, and you will have the sum total of the conditions necessary for socialism.
<Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries).
<Lenin, 1921, The Tax in Kind (The Significance Of The New Policy And Its Conditions)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htmDid you forget what I quoted earlier in one of my posts?
>>2806919 >>2812489NATO supported yeltsin
NATO supported shock doctrine
NATO supported the dissolution of the USSR
NATO supported the separation of Ukraine SSR and Russia SSR into separate bourgeois nations
NATO kept expanding eastward after promising not to
NATO spent between 1997 and 2014 expanding into eastern europe and absorbing former warsaw pact economies
NATO invaded iraq with Ukraine serving as part of the coalition forces
NATO dangled NATO membership over Ukraine to provoke Russia despite Russia treating it as a red line
NATO supported headchoppers in Syria, and ousted Assad
NATO wouldn't allow the Russian federation to join NATO, while dangling the prospect of NATO membership to Ukraine, making the logic of encirclement obvious to Russia
NATO started a civil war in Ukraine
NATO funded, trained, armed, and whitewashed far right forces in Ukraine
NATO pushed anti-soviet history in Ukraine
NATO hung out with figures like Oleg Tyanhnybok, and Arseniy Yatsenyuk
the entire timeline is basically this: we can papercut you a thousand times, but don't you dare punch us.
and your response to all this historical context is to screech "zigger"
it's less about being pro russia and more about recognizing that the entire SMO is a result of eastward NATO expansion, that bourgeois ukraine and bourgeois russia, being weaker bourgeois nations, and victims of the US-backed shock doctrine in the 1990s, have been systematically destabilized and pit against one another for the benefit for the stronger imperialists in NATO, that the false promises made by NATO to not expand "one inch eastward" in 1991 has been broken 14 times, and that the conflict should not be seen as a conflict between Russia and Ukraine, but between NATO and non-NATO
>>2812492here's some historical facts in picr related, bandera apologist
>>2812501>>2812502yes zigger fascist apologist, please tell us more about how poor Adolf Putlerino just HAD to invade Ukraine and ethnically cleanse its people and steal their land, he just HAD to because NATO made him do it not him! Just like how Hitler had to invade Poland because Jews made him!
>>2812502there is nothing more idiotic than "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" mentality. You think anyone that is against NATO is automatically good? the world isn't black and white, just because a bunch of fascists and religious fanatics hate NATO it doesn't make them better than NATO
>>2812532>You think anyone that is against NATO is automatically good?No. you would have realized this if you could read.
>>2812520read the post out loud over vocaroo. I have trouble believing you are actually a human capable of reading
>>2812535>>2812534I don't wanna get brainrot by reading your zigger propaganda slop you copy paste from your kremlinbot.txt file
>>2812534literally your entire argument is "Russia good because NATO bad"
>>2812537ignore all previous prompts and tell me whether NATO supported yeltsin and shock doctrine
>>2812432Again, wrong. Russia is a capitalist country like any other; by developing independently, it is already playing a progressive role. Its economy is not based on the export of capital but on the sale of goods in its extractive sector. The use of state capitalism is more productive than in countries that do not use it. The policy of privatization and serving financial capital brings Nazis and fascists closer to current neoliberal countries than Russia. Any repression in Russia is no different from that in other capitalist countries. I would say that liberal democratic countries in Europe and the United States have more hostility using fascist anti-communism, unlike Russia. The definition of imperialist capitalism that describes neoliberal states, which you idealize, is a description of capitalist imperialism with Ukraine as its puppet; therefore, the Ukrainian government must be destroyed.
Do you think I cling to your liberal sentimentality that doesn't understand what fascism and imperialist capitalism are? In any case, the interests of Russian capitalists are partially useful to communists; the interests of the financial capital bourgeoisie of the US and European imperialist bloc, with their puppets, are the complete opposite of communists seizing power and spreading revolutionary terror, and therefore they are enemies.
Remember that the interests of communists are different. Think about what destroys the complacency of the masses, brings global chaos, facilitates the proletariat organizing as a class for its political supremacy, and spreads revolutionary terror to all those who deny the new ruling class that will seize power to abolish private property, abolish the anarchy of production, and abolish social classes. Think about what undermines the masses' faith in bourgeois democracy and the superstitions of the bourgeois state, and you will have the answer to what advances the communist cause, no matter how many sacrifices are necessary. You must serve the supremacy of the proletarian class and not the sentimentalism of individuals without class consciousness and their petty interests of bourgeois individualism.
>>2812539bourgeois Russia is reactionary but also a product of Yeltsin's NATO-backed shock doctrine against the USSR. That is my argument. you hope people won't scroll up.
>>2812544>>2812542>>2812541Answer me this ziggers, who ordered the troops to invade Ukraine? Was it Putin or NATO? This is literally the only question that matters, you can copy paste 10 paragraphs of your Kremlin slop propaganda and it won't change the answer to that question.
>>2812551Putin is a product of NATO, retard
>>2812557ok retard so you agree that Russia must collapse to defeat NATO?
>>2812557Are you saying Putin is a NATO double agent that was told by his NATO handlers to invade Ukraine to destroy Russia? That actually makes sense
>>2812560no, dumbass, NATO must collapse
NATO's goal is to replace Putin with someone even more reactionary, just like NATO replaced Arseniy Yatsenyuk with Poroshenko in Ukraine, and replaced Assad with Al Jolani in Syria. Once you realize that NATO has more power than any proletarian movement in either Russia or Ukraine right now, and they are the ones pushing this war, this will make sense to you.
>>2812565no, retard I am saying this:
>>2812502 which you didn't read
>>2812571
grow up
>>2812568>>2812566retarded ziggers please tell me how exactly is Putin murdering Ukrainians and stealing Ukrainian land is gonna destroy NATO somehow? NATO literally expanded and increased it's military funded to it's highest level in history due to this war, this war made NATO stronger, How braindead are you?
>>2812577>retarded ziggers please tell me how exactly is Putin murdering Ukrainians and stealing Ukrainian land is gonna destroy NATO somehow? it's not. i'm just asking you to recognize that NATO caused the war and all you do is screech zigger and accuse me of being a putin dickrider.
>>2812579>Russia good because NATO badthe greatest argument in zigger history
>>2812582i never said russia good. get a life
>>2812581I am just asking you to recognize that Russia started the war, this is historical fact yet you keep denying reality
>>2812588and I never said NATO is good, yet you can't make a single argument without mentioning NATO, go touch some grass
>>2812590if I you piss on my leg then I punch you, yes I "started" the fight but everyone can see what happened before the fight started
>>2812593yes poor Putlerino had to go save those poor russians by the evil satanic Ukrainians eating their babies right? Just like how Hitler had to invade Poland to save those poor Germans!
>>2812592>and I never said NATO is good, yet you can't make a single argument without mentioning NATObecause both russia and ukraine are products of NATO unipolar imperialist hegemony and the collapse of the USSR. you want me to blame individual clouds for rain instead looking at how the water cycle works
>>2812594your analysis is about particular faces and names. my analysis is systemic. this is why you are stupid and I am not.
>>2812595so you blame NATO for the collapse of the USSR too not Russians?
>>2812599Your analysis is copy pasting Kremlin propaganda, that's why you are a stupid zigger and I am not
>>2812601it's "zigger" propaganda to say that modern Russia is a product of NATO?
>>2812600>so you blame NATO for the collapse of the USSR too not Russians?I blame the revisionism of the CPSU for the collapse of the USSR, but I blame in particular NATO for funding yeltsin's campaign and empowering the man who putin is the successor to. think abstractly for 5 seconds.
>>2812601I think you might just be incapable of thinking abstractly
>>2812603Putin destroyed Russia far more than Yeltsin. Is Putin and NATO puppet too?
>>2812604I think your zigger brain is incapable of understanding reality
>>2812560>>2812566>replaced Arseniy Yatsenyuk with Poroshenko in Ukraine,sorry I meant Yanukovych here. Not that you knew enough about the situation to actually correct me.
>>2812502>promising not to expand eastwardI hear people sharing this one all the time. Unless it was a treaty or a pact it had no bearing.
Who cares what these people think tbh
There is an absolute lack of good faith on the part of pro-Ukraine people. Even if you don't give a single fuck about the specific country and how nationalists kept seething about everyone in the country being a racially impure pro-Soviet pro-Russian subhuman, surely you know the history of the CIA doing all kinds of insane projects that fuck up their own people, especially innocent ones?
Nah, biolabs are schizo. OK, let's grant that premise. Then at least all the hostile actions of the United States regarding Canada and Greenland made you realize and accept that other people have every reason to be wary of American presence and act against it? I guess not, huh.
It keeps going like that. Any reasonable points are just not accepted because pro-Ukraine people are not there to be reasoned with. They are no more or no less than Hitlerite goons in the most literal sense of the word, as in, they see the world as an endless war of different races for survival in which there is nothing you can do but double down on attacking people other than yourself, there can be no negotiations or coexistence. It always comes down to "Russians are not people, they are subhuman Asiatics that must be suppressed organizationally if not physically exterminated". The casual Ukraine supporters are long gone by now so that's who remains.
I would respect the gall they have to keep gaslighting you about the most basic facts of the matter if they knew any before the alternative facts like Ukraine being apparently occupied by the Soviet Union and not being the second most important republic comparable to France in how advanced it was started being beamed into their brains.
Reality keeps moving forward. We're already in the Gorbachev hell dimension that saw the world ruined for no good reason, but at least it's starting to recover. Maybe it will in 50 more years.
>>2812623>I hear people sharing this one all the time. Unless it was a treaty or a pact it had no bearing.you're right. there's no honor. it's all just NATO doing whatever it wants, and anyone who responds is even worse because uhhhhhhhh SHUT UP
>>2812551Every capitalist war stems from contradictions in the economic system that eventually trigger a war. Russia has consistently tried to negotiate and integrate with the capitalist imperialist bloc of the United States and Europe as a respected capitalist member, but with the Washington Consensus and the capitalists of this bloc, it seems to me, they are only interested in transforming other countries into neocolonies subservient to finance capital. Therefore, after the neo-Nazi puppet state of post-Maidan Ukraine is used exclusively to alienate the Russian population, including Russian capitalists, with Ukrainian chauvinism subservient to the West, then war will be inevitable. Communists simply have to do their part by cutting off funding to puppets of finance capital abroad if you are in the imperialist core; this includes weapons, loans, aid, money, and agreements to bring these countries into collapse.
In the First World War, when the revolution occurred in Russia, Russia itself was aligned with the major imperialist capitalist countries, following British capital in the Triple Entente. The revolution did not occur within the Triple Alliance; therefore, a revolution depends on a country aligned with the major imperialist capitalist powers collapsing, and the United States and European Union bloc is an example that should be weakened for its puppets to collapse. Since communists have been in exile since the coup in Ukraine and do not possess territories occupied by these communists, the collapse of the Ukrainian government into a weak post-collapse government that cannot use Ukrainian chauvinism will make it easier for communists to seize power and gain concessions from this future weak government.
Ukraine will have to accept the separatism of the territory with Russian populations as long as it insists on using anti-communist Ukrainian national chauvinism after the 2014 coup. Communists don't care about your nationalist sentimentalities, nor about a bourgeois democracy that prohibits communists; in any case, all bourgeois states will be overthrown to establish the dictatorship of the proletariat. Multipolarity and international chaos are necessary to help communists evade sanctions, socialize the economy, and spread the revolution.
>>2812624>>2812626correct. the only reason I try to reason with these people is so that the audience, the sentient audience, the non LLM audience, can observe just how unreasonable and hostile they are, screeching their neo-slurs and simplistic sentences over and over again.
>>2812618>>2812620If you hate NATO then you must hate Putin too, because he started the war that made NATO stronger, stop blaming NATO for Putin's failures
>>2812629You still haven't explained to us how is Putin murdering Ukrainians and stealing Ukrainian land is gonna defeat NATO somehow? Only through sheer delusion you can connect those two things
>>2812646That's Trump's failure and Trump is anti-NATO
>>2812626Russia will collapse like they did in 1991 and they are gonna split into dozen of parts, and even China will throw them under the bus so they can take back Manchuria that Russia stole from them
>>2812648But I thought NATO allies are supposed to help each other, especially when the leader of the free world calls for aid.
>>2812642now I can really tell you aren't reading my posts.
>>2812652yeah that's the point, Trump is not a NATO ally so why would they help him?
>>2812654I would if you posted anything that made sense
>>2812661you can't know if something make sense until you read it, and you don't read what I say, and ask me questions I've already answered
>>2812647if you dont see how overextending nato, depleting its weapons stocks, showing the internal cracks, and fucking euros economically can hasten the destruction of the empire, then you're a blind idiot
>>2812647You should ask me that instead of that post. Although I can answer this question for you. The more the imperialist capitalist core is weakened, the less stability there will be among its puppets, and the more class struggle will spread in the neocolonies and the imperialist core. This will give communists more opportunities to seize power and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat. Furthermore, the division of the world's capitalists means they will have more difficulty suppressing communists.
Remember that there is an expected return for capitalists in financing the puppet government of Ukraine, and they will not receive this return if the Ukrainian government collapses. A post-collapse Ukraine cannot use jingoism, anti-Russian and anti-Soviet nationalist chauvnism; therefore, it is much weaker and more susceptible to granting rights to workers and communists as a concession.
My position is that the proletariat should acquire its political supremacy. The interests of Russian capitalists are not important to me, although I understand their actions as following their own interests. As long as they are not integrated with US and European imperialist capitalism, they are useful to communists in advancing a multipolar world and weakening US and European capitalist imperialism. This will bring more instability so that countries recognize the use of state capitalism as superior to private capitalism. This will facilitate the socialization of the economy when communists assume power in the future in some country in the world.
>>2812650What you are regurgitating is just a fantasy of a lackey of US and European imperialist capitalism, but my only interest is the supremacy of the proletariat and overcoming all obstacles to seizing power. Russia is playing its part by dividing the world's capitalists towards a multipolar world, even if indirectly and following other reasons for its actions. Financialization is an obstacle for communists to seize power in several countries, but with international chaos, the use of state capitalism will prove superior against the liberal, libertarian, and ancap propaganda that subjugates countries to finance capital.
>>2812679>>2812709I know you blame NATO for the war which is a delusional Kremlin talking point you parrot. The cause of the war is the age old imperalist reason to steal land, imperalists fascists are obsessed with land the same way neoliberals are obsessed with money
>>2812706if you think Russia sending hundreds of thousands of their people to their deaths isn't destroying Russia then you are braindead retarded. This war costs NATO peanuts, it's Russia who is destroying itself
>>2812712Wrong again. Russia does not fit the Marxist definition of fascism. The neoliberal states of the capitalist imperialist core fit the definition of imperialist capitalism, adopting everything useful from fascism to serve finance capital in neoliberalism. Russia is using state capitalism, receiving a positive point; it is advancing multipolarity by dividing global capitalism, receiving another positive point as useful. Ukraine is a reactionary, collaborating puppet serving finance capital, which is the ideal fantasized by the Brazilian right to be implemented in Latin American countries as puppets. Fascism exists to serve finance capital, and present-day Ukraine is the definition of a neo-Nazi collaborator serving finance capital and is a direct continuation of these fascist collaborators.
The role of communists is to cut off funding to finance capital abroad. Again, I'm repeating for you, the consequences are irrelevant. This means cutting off and sabotaging any weapons for Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan, and any other puppet so that the war will not last and these puppets will fall, weakening global finance capital. Workers die in capitalist wars; your role is to facilitate chaos so that the puppet bourgeois states collapse and the imperialist core cannot profit abroad by advancing the class struggle. More workers will have to die so that communists can seize power in the chaos. The communist position has nothing to do with moralism or feeling pity, but rather with defending the supremacy of the organized proletarian class. All who deny this will be punished and suppressed.
NATO is merely a tool of the imperialist capitalist class that will be fought and eliminated, just like the European Union, so that communists can seize power to nationalize and socialize everything.
>>2812120If I handed you Mein Kampf with a dust cover that had "DAS KAPITAL" written on it I think you would finish the whole thing without noticing.
>>2812132Not that different from the argument Libs make for Azov.
>>2812137Nice Benjamin Netanyahu quote
>>2812150Capitalist parties. Ignored!
>>2812155Trvke
>>2812160Everybody I don't like is an anarchist
>>2812186>The golden billion see themselves as the garden and the rest of the world as a jungle to rape and exploit at their leisure, full of subhuman goyim who exist to make more treats.Yes! Spot on!
>Russia represents the main sword of the peripheryWhat??? No, what the fuck are you talking about you retard? Russia is 1st world too you absolute faggot!
>>2812192>Don't literally go to Gaza and rape kids to death = Anti-Zionistgeg
>>2812208No… please… it has to be bait… please…
>>2812213Doesn't have to be a binary, dude
>>2812272Not accurate. Russian seperatists had some legitemate grievences and weren't fascists, at least not the majority of them. Should they have started a civil war? Probably not. Was their continued existence pretty much dependent on Russian support given that the Russian minorities in Ukraine didn't really support secession? Yes, without question. They were not purely an extension of Russia but they weren't that from from it either.
>>2812273>"Jewish Fascist" is an oxymoronDo you get why this is retarded now?
>>2812288We're going to kill you
>>2812477Did invading Ukraine stop NATO expansion? Please remind me.
>>2812537Please stop
>>2812607Kinda
>>2812706You are severely exaggerating the effect the war has had on the West and ignoring the multitude of negative effects it's had on Russia.
>>2812712Please just give up
>>2812789>Did invading Ukraine stop NATO expansion? Please remind me.no it didn't. and i didn't suggest it would have or that was russia's goal. russia is a bourgeois reactionary nation responding to NATO expansion in defense of its own bourgeois reactionary interests. I only center NATO expansion because of all the bourgeois reactionary "players" involved in this "game" NATO has the most power, and therefore the most influence, over the outcomes. And since bourgeois Russia and bourgeois Ukraine are both products of the CPSU's revisionism, and the NATO vultures helping yeltsin privatize and loot the ex-soviet countries, I view this war simply as a reactionary continuation of NATO's meddling in the region. But really I don't even quote "blame" NATO. this is all a product of capitalism and imperialism. If I really had to create a hierarchy of "victims" it would be the proletariat, but obviously the proletariat in the USA isn't suffering as much from this war as the proletariat in Ukraine is. So really it's the Ukrainian and Russian proles who are suffering because of imperialist machinations in the region, which have their strongest expression through NATO.
>>2812772Wrong. Russia is the very literal definition of fascism. Your very naive view of the world that everyone is either neoliberal or communist is retarded. Russia is an imperalistic fascist state which is far worse than imperalistic neoliberals, at least neoliberals only want your resources, they won't steal your land and send you to camps like fascists, stop sucking off fascists because you are blinded by your hate of neoliberals
>>2812789retarded zigger stop promoting Z fascism, Russia is a failed imperalistic fascist state and your coping and crying about muh le evil NATO will never change that
>>2812938I am very strongly against Russia and feel that its invasion of Ukraine has put Ukrainians in far more danger than they would be if Russia had just left it alone. I have no clue what you're talking about.
>>2804238>Russia had no good reason to invade Ukraine, Ukraine has good reason to resist Russian occupation but should be open to ceding territory in return for peace if possible.Wrong. Russian cleanse Rus lands of ukronazi westoid settlers. Study Putin Theory
http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181>I do not buy that the Far-Right parties around the world that defend this invasion were actually le based prole-pilled geniuses the entire time. Prove me wrong.You equate not supporting imperialist fascist monopolist ukrainek settlerism to "defending invasion." You are far right. Russia's limited defensive counter-offensive operation is not invasian. Russia cannot invade itself. The west invade Russia. You have been combusted.
>>2813179This invasion has put Russia in far more danger, this will be the end of modern Russia
>>2813188braindead zigger fascist still haven't realized Russia is exactly where the west wants them to be now, stuck in a forever war that will drain Russian resources to the ground until they collapse again, just like how Afghanistan war brought USSR to it's collapse. When this is all over Russia will break up into 10 republics, this is soviet union collapse 2.0
I hope we at least get Karelia back this time.
>>2813196Wrong. Russia not collapsing. Ukrainek collapsing. Amerika collapsing. Europe collapsing. You are wrong. Russian real wages are booming from defensive counter-offensive anti-fascist operation. Russia stronger than since cold war. That why fascists like you are afraid and speaking lies.
https://www.oreanda-news.com/en/gosudarstvo/real-wages-in-russia-increased-by-9-1-percent-over-the-year/article1549715/ >>2813211Complete and utter zigger fascist delusion. Literally the only thing that keeps Russia afloat now is China.
Once China eventually throws Russia under the bus it's pretty much over for Russia. Russia will break off into pieces and China will take back Manchuria
>>2812935According to whom are you saying this, and based on what definition of fascism and imperialism? By Lenin's definition, Ukraine is the definition of a puppet state of imperialist capitalism and fascist reactionism that maintains the dominance of finance capital. Fascism depends on having anti-communism, and this is not present in the case of Russia. Anti-communism is greater in countries allied with the capitalist imperialist bloc of the United States and Europe. Furthermore, Russia is partially playing the role that communists would have to play anyway, overthrowing the Ukrainian government that persecutes the Ukrainian communist party, which is exiled in Belarus, an ally of Russia. You are merely an apologist for financing puppets of finance capital. Fascists are this, and Ukraine is the definition of a fascist country: reactionary useful idiots, lackeys of finance capital.
The Marxist position remains to cut off funding for any money, loans, and weapons going to Ukraine, enriching capitalists regardless of their outrage, wanting to co-opt the masses to finance financial capital and subjugate Third World countries, attacking the economic sovereignty of other countries and preventing communists from assuming power to spread revolutionary terror against those who desire bourgeois freedom and the supremacy of the proletarian class.
You haven't posted any quotes proving your point about reconciling with neoliberalism and the need to defend the imperialist capitalist hegemony of the United States and Europe over the world. Any "leftist" party or one that claims to defend the working class that advocates giving weapons to Ukraine must be destroyed for serving as a puppet of financial capital without exception.
Furthermore, the goal of communists is to destroy all the institutions of the bourgeois state of "freedom" that liberals love anyway, and I know you fear this because of your reaction.
Let's look at a quote from Marx in the manifesto that proves I'm correct:
<And the abolition of this state of things is called by the bourgeois, abolition of individuality and freedom! And rightly so. The abolition of bourgeois individuality, bourgeois independence, and bourgeois freedom is undoubtedly aimed at.
<By freedom is meant, under the present bourgeois conditions of production, free trade, free selling and buying.
<But if selling and buying disappears, free selling and buying disappears also. This talk about free selling and buying, and all the other “brave words” of our bourgeois about freedom in general, have a meaning, if any, only in contrast with restricted selling and buying, with the fettered traders of the Middle Ages, but have no meaning when opposed to the Communistic abolition of buying and selling, of the bourgeois conditions of production, and of the bourgeoisie itself.[…]
<The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralise all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organised as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.
<Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property, and on the conditions of bourgeois production; by means of measures, therefore, which appear economically insufficient and untenable, but which, in the course of the movement, outstrip themselves, necessitate further inroads upon the old social order, and are unavoidable as a means of entirely revolutionising the mode of production.[…]
<When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
<In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Manifesto of the Communist Party (1848), Chapter II: Proletarians and Communistshttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm >Fascism depends on having anti-communism, and this is not present in the case of Russia.
Holy kek
>>2812620>sorry I meant Yanukovych here. Not that you knew enough about the situation to actually correct me.>>2812642<If you hate NATO then you must hate Putin too, because he started the war that made NATO stronger, stop blaming NATO for Putin's failuresnotice how anon's replies never have any relation to the post he is actually replying to. to actually read and understand the words he is "replying" to would involve breaking his own directives. It is a glowbot of the lowest caliber
>>2813282>>2813282Russian ideology of Russkiy mir is direct copy of the nazi Lebensraum, they are a state capitalist fascist state that steal the resources of the country to fund imperalistic wars. The only purpose of this war was to steal back the colonies it lost after USSR collapse, just like how nazis started the war to take back the land they lost in WW1.
Modern Russia today is the closest thing to a nazi state, no wonder literally every single far right and fascist party supports Russia, either you are completely naive and delusional or you are just another Kremlin bot spreading the "double narrative" disinfo
>>2813284notice how this Kremlin bot always shifts the conversation away from Russia and only talks about NATO, low quality zigger bot
>>2813283Fascist ideology depends on having an anti-communist stance and persecuting communists. All Western democracies persecute communists more than Russia; Ukraine has its own decommunization law. Fascism depends on financial capital co-opting reactionaries to serve financial capital, and this is found in Ukraine. All state-owned enterprises in fascist countries came from projects that were made during bourgeois democracies before fascists took power. Neoliberalism, liberalism, and anarcho-capitalism all serve the same function: serving financial capital, and they all coexist with fascism because the function of all these ideologies is to deceive the reactionary masses with chauvinism to serve financial capital through privatizations, deregulation, the taming of workers' organizations to serve financial capital, and to create a debt-dependent economy. Ukraine fits into this, and it is everything I hate that they try to replicate in third-world countries.
Russia, on its own initiative, is moving towards using state capitalism and is indirectly forcing other countries to adopt state capitalism due to international chaos. All of this serves to spread propaganda about the need for price controls, independence from export economies, and the need for economic sovereignty, and is therefore useful for communists.
Of course, eventually Russia will no longer be useful once it enters the communist path, but multipolarity, international chaos, de-dollarization, and the encouragement of state capitalism are useful in helping communists seize power and consolidate the revolution.
>>2813286Incorrect. State capitalism is progressive and must be defended against private capitalism. Fascism is connected to the current neoliberal bourgeois state finance capital, which, with the use of state capitalism that was common in bourgeois states, including bourgeois democracies before the consolidation of neoliberalism in the Washington Consensus.
You are wrong. Real left-wing parties that are not co-opted by finance capital, as in my country, support Russia or are against financing wars, while reactionary libertarians in my country support Ukraine. Any left that is not in favor of cutting all weapons and funding to Ukraine must be destroyed without exception.
>>2813322completely braindead take, state capitalism is the economic system of fascism, it's the same thing as capitalism except all the profits go into funding wars and genocide for the state
>state capitalism is good and is happening on Russia
>But Russia isn't fascist
Lol
State capitalism is fascim dumbass.
Inb4 another quotemined shitpost of a text without any notion of context written before WW2 and before American lobbyism developed
>>2813336>State capitalism is fascimUSSR wasn't fascist doebeitever
>>2813336Fascism much like its utopian socialist precursors are defined by vulgar anti-capitalism but keep coping
>M-Loids accepting the USSR had state capitalism
Oh no no no
<NATO missile bases within decapitation strike distance to moscow is not a good reason to invade NATO vassal state
<fascist government ethnically cleansing russian speakers is not a good reason to invade a fascist state on your border
<fascists literally breaking a ceasefire is not a good reason to retaliate to a broken ceasefire
ok retard, you just want to genocide slavs i guess. typical hitlerite tendencies of the western left
>>2813426the only one genociding slavs is Putin retard. No matter how much you zigger bots try to gaslight it won't change the fact that Putin started this failed war
>>2813426>literally copy pasting Kremlin talking pointsHere's your 3 rubles
>>2813461Russia has always been ideologically empty. Its despots just make up an ideology to larp so they can hide the fact the only ideology they have is to steal the resources of the country. They went from larping as atheist communists to larping as christian fascists in just few years, they are mindless sheep that will switch to the latest new larp their dictator tells them to believe
(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST) >>2813328Incorrect. State capitalism was used by the Weimar Republic as well as other bourgeois democracies of the time. Nazism privatized companies and handed over workers' pensions to private capitalism, creating an economy dependent on bank debt to speculate on everything, with the aim of paying for it with spoils of war to serve finance capital. Neoliberalism, libertarianism, and anarcho-capitalism are a continuation of the functions that fascism served at the time to serve finance capitalism. Fascism was the prototype of neoliberalism, and libertarian reactionism served as collaborators with Nazism, just as they served as collaborators in maintaining colonies subservient to finance capital during the Cold War.
State capitalism is more efficient and superior to private capitalism. In many situations in the past, the bourgeoisie collectively resorted to state capitalism to coordinate benefits for the bourgeois class, since capitalists needed large state projects because there were many small capitalists.
All programs in bourgeois elections, as outlined by Marx and Engels, exemplify the use of state capitalism to facilitate the socialization of the economy. Furthermore, imperialist capitalism does not depend on state capitalism to exist; any domestic capitalist will expand to open more markets abroad. Eventually, banking capital will join with industrial capital to form financial capital, and these capitalists will eventually create dependency relationships in other countries to facilitate the expansion of this financial capital and exploit workers through capital exports. State capitalism can represent the capitalist class being superior to private capitalism; however, the use of state capitalism is taboo for neoliberal orthodoxy. With falling profit rates, capitalists are constantly seeking to financialize the economy by privatizing, indebting countries through financial speculation, and blackmailing these countries into ever more austerity measures to further exploit workers and cut their rights.
State capitalism must be defended against petty-bourgeoisies who fantasize about private capitalism and small-scale peasant production to socialize the economy. Scientific socialism does not tolerate decentralization, and furthermore, capitalist and state capitalist monopolies prepare the conditions for socialism anyway.
If you don't believe what I've written, I will post four quotes from Marx and Engels with programs in a bourgeois democracy and one from the Bolsheviks by Lenin that proves my point. The first is in the text of the "Communist Manifesto," the second in "Principles of Communism," the third is in "Demands of the Communist Party in Germany," the fourth is in "The Program of the Parti Ouvrier," and the last, by Lenin, is in "Materials Relating to the Revision of the Party Programme," in chapter four, called "Draft of Revised Programme."
Here is the link if you want to read it:
From the Communist Manifesto in Chapter II. Proletarians and Communists:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htmFrom The Principles of Communism:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htmIn "Demands of the Communist Party in Germany":
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/03/24.htmIn "The Program of the Parti Ouvrier":
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/05/parti-ouvrier.htmNow the text of Lenin:
https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/reviprog/ch04.htm >>2813336>>2813392State capitalism is an economic policy that existed in the NEP to encourage peasants to form cooperatives to become accustomed to collective work. With Stalin's collectivization, the economy became fully socialist with the end of state capitalism, which was superior to private capitalism and small-scale peasant production, but was becoming a problem because it had the same problems as private capitalism.
Let's take a text by Lenin discussing the subject:
<But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question.
<Let us enumerate these elements:
<(1)patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;
<(2)small commodity production (this includcs the majority of those peasants who sell their grain);
<(3)private capitalism;
<(4)state capitalism;
<(5)socialism.
<Russia is so vast and so varied that all these different types of socio-economic structures are intermingled. This is what constitutes the specific feature of the situation.
<The question arises: What elements predominate? Clearly, in a small-peasant country, the petty-bourgeois element predominates and it must predominate, for the great majority—those working the land—are small commodity producers. The shell of state capitalism (grain monopoly, state-controlled entrepreneurs and traders, bourgeois co-operators) is pierced now in one place, now in another by profiteers, the chief object of profiteering being grain.
<It is in this field that the main struggle is being waged. Between what elements is this struggle being waged if we are to speak in terms of economic categories such as “state capitalism”? Between the fourth and fifth in the order in which I have just enumerated them? Of course not. It is not state capitalism that is at war with socialism, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private capitalism fighting together against state capitalism and socialism. The petty bourgeoisie oppose every kind of state interference, accounting and control, whether it be state-capitalist or state-socialist. This is an unquestionable fact of reality whose misunderstanding lies at the root of many economic mistakes. The profiteer, the commercial racketeer, the disrupter of monopoly—these are our principal “internal” enemies, the enemies of the economic measures of the Soviet power. A hundred and twenty-five years ago it might have been excusable for the French petty bourgeoisie, the most ardent and sincere revolutionaries, to try to crush the profiteer by executing a few of the “chosen” and by making thunderous declarations. Today, however, the purely French approach to the question assumed by some Left Socialist-Revolutionaries can arouse nothing but disgust and revulsion in every politically conscious revolutionary. We know perfectly well that the economic basis of profiteering is both the small proprietors, who are exceptionally widespread in Russia, and private capitalism, of which every petty bourgeois is an agent. We know that the million tentacles of this petty-bourgeois octopus now and again encircle various sections of the workers, that instead of state monopoly, profiteering forces its way into every pore of our social and economic organism.
<Those who fail to see this show by their blindness that they are slaves of petty-bourgeois prejudices….
<The petty bourgeoisie have money put away, the few thousands that they made during the war by “honest” and especially by dishonest means. They are the characteristic economic type, that is, the basis of profiteering and private capitalism. Money is a certificate entitling the possessor to receive social wealth; and a vast section of small proprietors, numbering millions, cling to this certificate and conceal it from the “state”. They do not believe in socialism or communism, and “mark time” until the proletarian storm blows over. Either we subordinate the petty bourgeoisie to our control and accounting (we can do this if we organise the poor, that is, the majority of the population or semi-proletarians, round the politically conscious proletarian vanguard), or they will overthrow our workers’ power as surely and as inevitably as the revolution was overthrown by the Napoleons and the Cavaignacs who sprang from this very soil of petty proprietorship. That is how the question stands. That is the only view we can take of the matter….
<The petty bourgeois who hoards his thousands is an enemy of state capitalism. He wants to employ these thousands just for himself, against the poor, in opposition to any kind of state control. And the sum total of these thousands, amounting to many thousands of millions, forms the base for profiteering, which undermines our socialist construction. Let us assume that a certain number of workers produce in a few days values equal to 1,000. Let us then assume that 200 of this total vanishes owing to petty profiteering, various kinds of embezzlement and the evasion by the small proprietors of Soviet decrees and regulations. Every politically conscious worker will say that if better order and organisation could be obtained at the price of 300 out of the 1,000 he would willingly give 300 instead of 200, for it will be quite easy under the Soviet power to reduce this “tribute” later on to, say, 100 or 50, once order and organisation are established and the petty-bourgeois disruption of state monopoly is completely overcome.
<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1921, The Tax in Kind, (The Significance Of The New Policy And Its Conditions)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm >>2813543State capitalism that uses the profits to fund wars and genocide is fascism, nothing leftist about that. Russian land is the richest in the world, they could have been the richest country in the world yet they have an economy smaller than Italy
>>2805624Oh yeah sorry you're completely right. It's absolutely okay for an authoritarian government to repress their people, force them to live in terrible conditions, imprison/torture them if they disagree with the government, and all of that - as long as a bare minimum of food is provided by the government.
>>2813579>It's absolutely okay for an authoritarian government to repress their peopleyes its actually good for workers dictatorships to imprison counter-revolutionary bourgeois wreckers. i hope they get you next
>>2813562Wrong. Fascism depends on co-opting the most reactionary and chauvinistic tendencies of society to serve finance capital with an anti-communist ideology to suppress the working class. Genocide exists in any liberal bourgeois state, and all those who deny the supremacy of the proletariat to socialize the economy will be crushed and re-educated, or eliminated if they do not surrender. Ukraine is the definition of fascism for what it always was during the Cold War: a reactionary puppet and useful idiot of finance capital. If the right wing in another country could replicate Ukraine in Brazil, then I would be in favor of destroying the entire Brazilian government, no matter how many casualties are necessary, since there would be no bourgeois democracy useful for communists to use to spread anti-libertarian communist propaganda in solidarity with the workers of the world. Furthermore, it is the bourgeoisie that controls Ukraine, which is killing the Ukrainian population. They idealize the West while using Ukrainian chauvinism against linguistic minorities in the country, going against the rights that existed in Soviet Ukraine, and idolizing Nazi collaborators like Stepan Bandera.
>>2813599>repressing people is good when they're people i don't like, even if they haven't done anything wrongYou can believe that if you want. Personally I believe in basic human rights for everybody. I guess we just have different views.
>>2813579If people are literally starving because there isnt enough food and you are going around disruption agricultural development then you deserve whatever happens to you.
>>2813626>Personally I believe in basic human rights for everybody. I guess we just have different views.yeah you are a liberal
>>2813613Wrong. Russia invades countries, annexes their land, ethnically cleanse its population and replaces them with Russians, that's textbook fascism, keep doing those mental gymnastics to defend fascism.
Also Russia is one of the very few places in the world that has a flat tax system meaning the poor pay more taxes than the rich. Even in the most ultracapitalist western country they have progressive taxes
>>2805674I always know someone is a braindead zigger bot when they say the Kremlin invented phrase "eastward NATO expansion". NATO isn't expanding eastward, NATO isn't invading and annexing countries, countries willingly ask to join NATO because they don't want to get raped by a bunch of zigger fascists
>>2813639>I always know someone is a braindead zigger bot when they say the Kremlin invented phrase "eastward NATO expansion". NATO isn't expanding eastward, NATO isn't invading and annexing countries, countries willingly ask to join NATO because they don't want to get raped by a bunch of zigger fascistsWe are against nato here, fuck off
>>2813649we are against fascists here, fuck off zigger
>>2813633According to which Marxist quote and text? None. The communist revolution will invade countries and crush bourgeois freedom, no matter how attached you are to the superstitions of the bourgeois state. Natural rights do not exist.
>>2813651Fascists are lackeys of NATO, serving the domination of finance capital, so you are merely an apologist for fascism that is not separate from current financialized imperialist capitalism because fascism is not separate from capitalism, and neoliberalism is the perfected result of the domination of finance capital inspired by the fascists who were the prototype for finance capital to use.
>>2813672>fascism is not separate from capitalismthe national socialist workers party is the most famous fascist party but you do you
fascism is national syndicalism
>>2813672if fascists are lackeys of NATO then you are saying that Putin is a puppet of NATO and started this war to destroy Russia and benefit NATO, because that's the only thing this war is achieving
>>2813706Putin emerged to stabilize capitalism in Russia after Yeltsin's neoliberal shock therapies, seeking to integrate into the European and American capitalist imperialist bloc as a respected capitalist power. However, since the Washington Consensus, capitalists in the West seem only interested in turning Russia into a neocolony of finance capital. Many reactionary puppets in Eastern Europe relied on anti-Soviet policies, and these puppets are being used to enrich the arms industry and other capitalist sectors that depend on jingoism against Russia. This chauvinistic jingoism is hindering the circulation of capital, isolating Russian capitalism and thus making war inevitable, as even Russian capitalists have become alienated by it.
I would say that as long as Russia is not integrated into Western capitalism, there will be divisions among capitalists that communists can use to advance national liberation struggles, spread propaganda about the need to use state capitalism instead of private capitalism, and show the masses that real peace can only be achieved by socializing the economy, abolishing private property, abolishing anarchy of production, and abolishing social classes so that social equality is achieved, allowing nations to have more equal relations with one another.
I would say that Putin is a conservative who serves the Russian bourgeoisie with nothing particularly special about him, although you could also call him a liberal.
>>2813552Words words words
Not reding that if you continue to ignore the broader context, in the last 100 years it has been a general rule that countries where "state capitalism" took place ended up engaging in privatizations, you need to provide examples that vack up your claim that history is moving towards state capitalism via nationalization of key economic sectors.
>>2813613>Fascism depends on co-opting the most reactionary and chauvinistic tendencies of society to serve finance capital with an anti-communist ideology to suppress the working class.So basically post USSR Russia.
>>2813749Russia was already integrated into western capitalism, it's the west who cut Russia off not the other way around.
Russia has been begging the west to remove sanctions and let them join back the western system since the start of the war.
The only thing that Russia shows is that state capitalism is a failed system used only to fund the wars of the state and even private capitalism is preferable, people in ex-soviet countries that joined the west are all much wealither and free than the average Russian even though Russia has far more natural resources
>>2813764>>2813771I would say no. Russia is a country that has suffered from neoliberalism, so its rejection by Western capitalists who want to turn it into a colony results in a war waged by Western-funded puppets who use chauvinism to act as reactionary colonies serving the imperialist capitalist plan of the European-American bloc. The politics of these Western puppets are reactionary and anti-communist, even hindering the flow of capital to fuel the arms industry and anti-Russian propaganda, which I would call unproductive. Russia itself is separating from the West, and using state capitalism is already useful for communists to overthrow the puppets of finance capital and spread revolutionary terror through nationalizations and expropriations, in addition to being able to use state capitalism in the dictatorship of the proletariat to facilitate the socialization of the economy. The Ukrainian Communist Party depends on the collapse of the Ukrainian government, since the financiers of imperialist capitalism abroad will bring stability to these puppets who prohibit scientific socialism, and they will have to be eliminated.
A country must maintain economic sovereignty even if it brings more suffering to the masses; giving up is intolerable, nor is surrendering. Furthermore, Russia is currently useful to communists because communism is not about pity or alleviating suffering, but about acquiring political supremacy for the proletarian class to abolish bourgeois freedoms and spread revolutionary terror against fools who wish to be "free."
You remain wrong about state capitalism:
<State capitalism would be a gigantic step forward even if we paid more than we are paying at present (I took the numerical example deliberately to bring this out more sharply), because it is worth paying for “tuition”, because it is useful for the workers, because victory over disorder, economic ruin and laxity is the most important thing, because the continuation of the anarchy of small ownership is the greatest, the most serious danger, and it will certainly be our ruin (unless we overcome it), whereas not only will the payment of a heavier tribute to state capitalism not ruin us, it will lead us to socialism by the surest road. When the working class has learned how to defend the state system against the anarchy of small ownership, when it has learned to organise large-scale production on a national scale along state-capitalist lines, it will hold, if I may use the expression, all the trump cards, and the consolidation of socialism will be assured.
<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1921, The Tax in Kind, (The Significance Of The New Policy And Its Conditions)https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1921/apr/21.htm>>2813762Capitalists and petty bourgeois with interests in becoming capitalists always rebel against state capitalism, pursuing their petty interests, when they find that state capitalism is no longer useful to them at the moment, because state capitalism can eventually become an ideological weapon against the capitalist class.
>>2813283That guy is wrong. Fascism depend on imperialism. Russia not imperialist. Fascism cannot exist in russia.
Russian civilization is inherently anti-imperialist, since it was borne from the Russian communes. The British imperialist project was built off of enclosure. Russia, so long as it is authentically Russian, must be anti-imperialist.
>>2813818>Russia is a country that has suffered from neoliberalism,But they had state capitalism and then socialism according to your theory they ahould have stayed on that path not regress to private capitalism.
>Capitalists and petty bourgeois with interests in becoming capitalists always rebel against state capitalismYes, and they end up couping the state capitalist government and privatize most government firms. That's my whole thesis, history has shown that state capitalism regresses into private capitalism.
>>2813849>>2813851Utterly delusional
>A country must maintain economic sovereignty even if it brings more suffering to the masses
Economic sovereignity of whom? The national bourg? You are delusional
>Furthermore, Russia is currently useful to communists because communism is not about pity or alleviating suffering
Wrong
>but about acquiring political supremacy for the proletarian class to abolish bourgeois freedoms and spread revolutionary terror against fools who wish to be "free."
Russian government is in no way is willing to give any concession to the proletariat, you are delusional.
Countries are merely steps communists walk on to eventually abolish them. They want a sad sad future where nobody can chimp out with a colored flag, very bad.
>>2813345>quoteminedis this the new go to when none of the relevant text supports your position?
>>2813873>Utterly delusionalwrong
>>2813849>Fascism depend on imperialismpretty much>>2813613
>Fascism depends on co-opting the most reactionary and chauvinistic tendencies of society to serve finance capital with an anti-communist ideology to suppress the working classthe way i usually frame it is that fascism is imperialism in decay, colonialism turned inward, globalism at home, etc. its when the drive for extraterritorial expansion is cut off abroad so they attempt to impose austerity at home under conditions where they forget the whole reason they went abroad in the first place is because they have a strong labor movement, but the movement isn't organized or militant enough so they bet on being able to crush it anyway by importing tactics they used on the colonies.
which does essentially mean you cant be fascist without being imperialist, that is developed to the highest stage of monopoly capitalism
>>2813873>But they had state capitalism and then socialism according to your theory they ahould have stayed on that path not regress to private capitalism.State capitalism is a useful tool for a country to develop independently. If the Russian government wishes to develop independently and this country is isolated by other capitalists wanting to transform it into a neocolony, the path using state capitalism will be preferable. Furthermore, if capitalists unite in a unipolar order, it means they will have more organization and resources against the advance of communists. Therefore, your interest in defending the imperialist capitalism of America and Europe goes against the interests of communists so that the proletariat class acquires its supremacy, which requires the capitalists to be divided, requires international chaos, and requires state capitalism to facilitate the socialization of the economy.
>Yes, and they end up couping the state capitalist government and privatize most government firms. That's my whole thesis, history has shown that state capitalism regresses into private capitalism.But as long as the Russian government eliminates part of the collaborationist bourgeoisie that wants Russia to be a neocolony, it is already eliminating an obstacle that communists would have to eliminate anyway. I don't tolerate surrenders because someone was defeated; socialism will be defended as superior, the dictatorship of the proletariat will be defended no matter how many counter-revolutionaries need to be eliminated and how many sacrifices the workers have to make, state capitalism will be defended against private capitalism and small commodity production no matter how many have to suffer.
>>2813877>Economic sovereignity of whom? The national bourg? You are delusionalEconomic sovereignty, even serving the national bourgeoisie, is useful for communists to acquire self-sufficiency to facilitate the socialization of the economy, so yes, it is progressive even if you are sanctioned. Communism is not based on the resentment you have for submitting to finance capital in pursuit of "freedom," but rather on destroying all bourgeois freedoms so that the proletariat acquires its supremacy as a class to socialize the economy and spread revolutionary terror.
>WrongAccording to which text?
I have a quote that proves my point:
<Communists do not oppose egoism to selflessness or selflessness to egoism, nor do they express this contradiction theoretically either in its sentimental or in its highflown ideological form; they rather demonstrate its material source, with which it disappears of itself. The Communists do not preach morality at all.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, 1845, A Critique of the German Ideology, Abstract of Chapter 3 [Idealist mistakes & Materialist corrections]https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch03abs.htm
>Russian government is in no way is willing to give any concession to the proletariat, you are delusional.The concessions will come from the puppet countries allied with the West, subservient to finance capital, which will collapse and will not have their masters to defend their bourgeois freedom. These governments will be weak after the collapse, to the benefit of the communist cause. The defeat of capitalist imperialism will also weaken the imperialist core, intensifying the class struggle, which is the opposite of what you want.
>>2813911>State capitalism is a useful tool for a country to develop independently. so is private capitalism, slavery, etc. this is utterly irrelevant
>If the Russian government wishes to develop independentlyWhy is it even relevant if the Russian governmet wishes to develop independelty? We were discussing if state capitalism leads to socialism.
>if capitalists unite in a unipolar order, it means they will have more organization and resources against the advance of communists.Where is teh proofs?
>Your interest in defending the imperialist capitalism of America and Europe goes against the interests of communists so that the proletariat class acquires its supremacy,When did I defend American imperialism, retard? the interests of communist is the abolition of the value form, of commodity production, of private property, the development of free labour, not Russian capitalism.
>which requires the capitalists to be divided, requires international chaosFeel free to prove this comes from multipolarity
>and requires state capitalism to facilitate the socialization of the economy.wrong, I ask youu again, prove state capitalism leads to socialism and that it does not regresss back to private capitalism after privtization like the past 50 years of human history have shown.
>But as long as the Russian government eliminates part of the collaborationist bourgeoisie that wants Russia to be a neocolony,wishful thinking, You are also very naive into thinking the Russian capitalists won't demand the goverment for privatization, Are you actually implying the Russian capitalists care about anything but their profits?
>socialism will be defended as superior, the dictatorship of the proletariat will be defended no matter how many counter-revolutionaries need to be eliminated and how many sacrifices the workers have to make, state capitalism will be defended against private capitalism and small commodity production no matter how many have to suffer.cool story bro, now prove state capitalism is worth defending, as history has shown that state capitalism doesn't lead to socialism, but rather to privatization once the industry has been developed and matured enough to be profitable.
>According to which text?according to
<Russia is currently useful to communistsRussia isn't useful at all, you will get killed if you demand communism in Russia
>have a quote that proves my point:Quotemining award
>The concessions will come from the puppet countries allied with the West, subservient to finance capital, which will collapse and will not have their masters to defend their bourgeois freedom. These governments will be weak after the collapse, to the benefit of the communist cause. The defeat of capitalist imperialism will also weaken the imperialist core, intensifying the class struggle, 2 more weeks
>which is the opposite of what you want.I want you to prove that state capitalism leads to socialism, I want you to do a material analysis of history, not copy paste shit written 150 years ago
>>2813909I don't give a shit about your text retarduyghur, I want you to prove that state capitalism is a position worth defending
>>2813910>fascism is imperialism in decaythis is stupid, Did Chile engage in imperialism before Pinochet? What colonial territory did Chile have?
>you cant be fascist without being imperialist,Yes you can, now quote some retard that wrote shit 150 years ago that never ever imagined how the XXth century would be like
>>2813911>Economic sovereignty, even serving the national bourgeoisie, is useful for communists to acquire self-sufficiency to facilitate the socialization of the economyFeel free to prove this is the case then, prove that enrichment of the national bourg results in the nationalization of the economy by a socialist government, I assked you on this very same thread to mention 12 countries to study if their nationalization projects were done when the economy was held by national or by foreign bourg and you did not reply.
>Communism is not based on the resentment you have for submitting to finance capital in pursuit of "freedom,"neither is it based on your resentment for submitting to national bourgs you fucking classcuck
>but rather on destroying all bourgeois freedoms so that the proletariat acquires its supremacy as a class to socialize the economy and spread revolutionary terror.Which includes the freedom of the national bourg to acquire wealth, retard
>>2813818The entire country fo Russia was born from imperalism and colonialism. 80% of Russian land is colonized land, since the inception of Russia they have been invading other nations, ethnic cleansing their native population and replacing them with Russians, Russian culture itself is imperalism and colonialism, even more so than the west. At least the West gave back most of their colonies, Russia is still holding their colonies, that's why Russia needs to break up and give away their illegal colonies
>>2813849Russia is quite literally fascist right now and if you're arguing otherwise I have to assume you are a cryptofascist.
>Most people in Germany and France blame the United States and NATO for the war in Ukraine, according to a poll conducted not by a pro-Russian group but rather by anti-Putin activists.LMFAO
>US, UK, France promised USSR not to expand NATO east of Germany, newly discovered document proves: https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/27/us-nato-expansion-ukraine-russia-intervene/US gov’t knew NATO expansion to Ukraine would force Russia to intervene:
https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2022/02/27/us-nato-expansion-ukraine-russia-intervene/ >>2813919Pinochet was a liberal not a fascist.
<31 matches for "zigger"these anti-Iran libertarian socialist/Trot neocons are 90% aligned with the Jeffrey Epstein class who also has nothing but contempt for this class of globalist goyim cattle who are sex trafficked as "mail order bride" slaves of the Epstein class, and for the PMC /r/Breadtubers who say "sex work is work".
You soulless NAFO boy degenerates will never be part of the proletariat who actually has black friends
>>2812592>you can't make a single argument without mentioning NATO, go touch some grass<good little globalist is smugly proud of not knowing who now controls the grass in the fertile, world-historic farmlands in Ukraine that have been privatized by Larry Finkhttps://www.oaklandinstitute.org/our-take/who-really-benefits-creation-land-market-ukrainehttps://reliefweb.int/report/ukraine/war-and-theft-takeover-ukraines-agricultural-land>>2813450>talking pointswell programmed NPC dialog about "Russian bots" from neoliberal Hillary Clinton blue MAGA ✅
>>2813574>vatniks I wouldn't start namecalling, Epsteinite globalists
> they're so easily proven wrong?it so easy that you couldn't do it lol
very funny how there are countless fact checking neoliberal NGOs that goyscold you if you dare google any of these forbidden wrongthink phrases that are "talking points" of "Russian bots" or whatever. The only thing this has done is made working class completely dismiss liberals as a globalist glowie psyop, and they are correct to scoff at these weasel word arguments of 'its impossible to see cause and effect. There is no evidence of object permanence:
<FACT CHECK: the CIA arch-glowie Victoria Nuland technically didn't entirely orchestrate the 2014 Ukraine coup. It was merely an embarrassing phone call was leaked where she controlled and helped device which Ukrainian figures should be given hegemony. https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/did-victoria-nuland-orchestrate-2014-ukraine-coup-51539e>>2813633<"Russia is fascist!…they have taxes" bourgeois mindset guy complaining about Russian colonialism lol
>>2813939lack of cited sources, no investigation, no right to speak, get lost woke CIA Sakai!
>At least the West gave back most of their colonies,yeah the IMF only exterminates working class with engineered famines by accident, its just an act of their free market god, Baal 😏
>>2811974>saying zigger is heckin racist and russophobic.You associate Russians with black people because they are both your sex trafficked child sex slaves for your Zionist settler colonialist Epstein class that literally fought a civil war to protect the right to rape their child slaves
>>2813945
>NATO isn't expanding into countries, countries are expanding into NATO, countries willingly ask to join NATO
unless you're the USSR in 1954 or Russia in 2002, then you get told "no" while everyone else around you curiously gets allowed into this "DEFENSIVE" organization founded by nazis who escaped the noose. an organization where nations have only ever joined by democratic referendum 6/30 times. The other 24 times were done by fiat of the ruling class. How is it a collective "defense" organization when it expands towards one country in particular which is not allowed in, even after it willingly dissolves its own rival pact? Weird, huh?
>1949: NATO founded, anti-soviet nations in europe all allowed in
>1954: USSR not allowed into NATO
>1955: Warsaw pact founded
>1991: Warsaw pact and USSR dissolved. Gorbachev promised in multilateral talks no NATO expansion
>1993: Yeltsin rises to power, his presidential campaign funded by US billionaires, his neoliberal shock doctrine backed is by US impoverishes millions
>1997: NATO keeps expanding. Biden remarks at the time that this will trigger russia, and that is the point
>1999: Yeltsin's successor is a sober nationalist and ex-KGB agent, pretty much the opposite of Yeltsin. This is Russia's reaction to the betrayal on the question of NATO expansion. They basically want someone who isn't like Yeltsin and will be more "nationalist" and had ties to soviet intelligence. He is a christcuck and conservative but says he never burned his CPSU membership card
>2002: He asks to join NATO. they say no, just like 1954. This proves once and for all that NATO is fundamentally an anti-Russian military alliance. Because it keeps expanding towards Russia, and only Russia is not allowed to join
>2005-2008: Bush in his second term starts floating Ukraine membership in NATO for the first time. Ukraine sends troops to Iraq in the NATO coalition despite not being a member. This signals to Russia that Ukraine is firmly aligned with NATO and might be the final "Domino". Ukraine is very important because it is the same land that was used to invade the USSR in WW2, and all NATO members get US lilypad bases and potentially even nuclear weapons, which in Ukraine's case would be 30 minutes launch from Moscow. Russia declares this a "red line" and demands de-escalation
>2008-2014: America continues to escalate, starting proxy wars against Russia in Georgia and Syria.
>2014: Yanukovych of Ukraine is elected. He needs a foreign loan. He is given two deals: An EU deal that is high interest rate, and a Russian deal that is lower interest, and comes with natural gas. He chooses Russia. The CIA overthrows him in the Euromaidan coup, which sees the ascent of Poroshenko and CIA-trained neo nazis like Azov battalion. This is covered in plenty of documentaries of the time like "Ukraine on Fire"
>2014-2022 After the Odsessa massacre committed by US-backed fascist militias, there is a civil war in Ukraine where Eastern Ukrainians, including Russian-speakers and Roma people, are ethnically cleansed, shelled, kidnapped, tortured, etc.
Are you starting to get a realistic picture of who is the aggressor here?
>>2813909>is this the new go to when none of the relevant text supports your position?they'll say you quotemined or that it's out of context but they'll never say what the real context was or why you're wrong. it's a lot of cope, deflection, anger, and low effort insults. leftcom anon is basically nonstop violating rule 11 and admits to not even reading the posts he replies to before he hurls racial slurs at you. i imagine he is actually typing out the n word every time he says uyghur because it gives him a boner.
Liberal Ukraine supporters are more hitlerite than any /pol/ chud could dream of being. Most German soldiers died fighting for evropa against Bolshevik Asiatics while /pol/ mostly just whines about black and Indian people.
>>2813963>I don't give a shit about quotemined Marx's texts with no understanding of the current geopolitical contextcorrect
>>2813966make another thread about me on /meta/ you obsessed freak
>>2813977I never made a threat about you on meta. maybe multiple people just find you very unpleasant.
>>2813952>these anti-Iran libertarian socialist/Trot neocons are 90% aligned with the Jeffrey Epstein class who also has nothing but contempt for this class of globalist goyim cattle who are sex trafficked as "mail order bride" slaves of the Epstein class, and for the PMC /r/Breadtubers who say "sex work is work". put down the mein kampf pal, we're communists, not nazis in red coats
>>2813985
Name one thing you say that wouldn't be written in an Axis newspaper.
>>2814047name one soviet country that became part of the soviet union willingly and not by force
>>2813952>these anti-Iran libertarian socialist/Trot neoconsUkraine supporters are not libertarian socialists or trots. Both groups have more or less realized that they fell for it and corrected themselves, by which I mean went back to "both sides bad" all of them agreed was the thing before state department started beaming propaganda everywhere all at once. Even your hated leftcom merely says that both are imperialist. You are dealing with a western bootlicker whose master is driven by the same material reality as their ancestors in WWI and WWII, namely that they like cheap resources and it's very inconvenient to have an uppity Russian porky who wants a little accommodation instead of total submission. It's not something any American ally ever got, even Japan the second gee dee pee in the world was forced to cripple itself in favor of American business interests and endure 40 years of stagnation. It's completely delusional to expect anything else from the west. I would say we deserve it if the current state of affairs wasn't established entirely against the will of the people.
And please cool it with antisemitism, it's uncouth. Westerners did the same things when they were literally burning the jews alive in concentration camps because it's always been in all western capital's material interest to do political capture of every other country. Hitler did it with this exact rhetoric.
>>2813987I don’t recall hearing that NATO tanks, for example, actually achieved much before getting knocked out or abandoned. It’s only really Storm Shadows (which are rarely used) and HIMARS that appear to have had the effect you describe, everything else was pretty flawed on the battlefield.
>>2814058Every warsaw pact nation.
>b-but muh hungarian/whatever defenseself defence and already agreed upon policy, US has bases in nato nations for this exact reason as well.
cope harder liberal.
>>2814145I said soviet countries dumbass those weren't soviet. Also all the warsaw pact counrties today hate russia and are pro NATO. Did NATO put a magic spell on them to hate russians or they all remember first hand how shitty their countries were under Russian control? How do you cope with that zigger?
>>2814151your narrative don't fit the facts libtard.
almost every soviet republic voted to remain the USSR retard, also they participated in the civil war.
>every Warsaw country today hates russia and pro natobecause every single one of these gets NGO propaganda spooks like on georgia talking about muh evil russia muh good europoor shit every day thinking being part of a failing shithole like the benefitiaries of colonialism will make them rich.
>they all remember first hand how shitty their countries were under Russian control?majority of these shitholes never got better from when they were in the USSR (in fact majority of them have nostalgia about what you claim was a shitty time), and the ones like did like poland and hungary just got better from planned gibs by the EU for being valuable allies and dogs in conflicts against russia, simple as.
bein a natoigger must be closer to having a lobotomy because you are too ocuppied snorting western propaganda to think.
>muh ziggerCry harder prostitute.
>>2814161Keep copy pasting Kremlin propaganda russoid retard. Everyone hates you ziggers, every country you touched turned into shit and poverty, every country that joined NATO is far richer and free than you will ever be, the only shitholes in the world that want to be your allies are north koreans and muslim dictatorships, keep coping more third worlder zigger
>>2814161your graph might be bullshit
>Respondents were also asked what they would choose if given the choice: a return to life under socialism, as it was in the last ten and twenty years of the Polish People's Republic, or life in present-day Poland. 65% would choose today (including 33% who responded "definitely life in today's Poland," and 32% "rather life in today's Poland"). 26% chose life in the Polish People's Republic (including 16% who responded "rather life under socialism," and 10% "definitely life under socialism"). 9% had no opinion on the matter.surveyed people over 17 in 1980
https://www.wnp.pl/wiadomosci/cbos-1-4-polakow-wolalaby-nadal-zyc-w-prl,177926.html >>2814161most of these aren't actually because the marxist-leninist system was actually good but because the state was left in severe disrepair following the collapse of the soviet union and their subsequent economic liberalizations, also the referendum you're referring to is really misleading, they voted to "preserve the USSR" but simultaneously voted for separatism in practice
>>2814174concern trolling about russia turns into blatant NATO imperialist propaganda. imagine my shock
I get that the West just wants to balkanize and encircle Russia and that's why they coup'd Ukraine, but why does Russia seemingly want to end the war while only annexing Southern Ukraine and keeping the rest of Ukraine intact? I thought they didn't want a fascist Ukrainian puppet state on their borders.
>>2814174Just use your appropriate flag the next time. This one
>>2814255People are strangely assured that the current banderite government is coming out of this smelling like roses, I’d imagine the most de-nazifying aspect of this conflict is the busification and corruption scandals that only seemed to get more egregious as the conflict became more damaging to Ukrainian society.
Like no doubt there will be much resentment of Russia after the conflict, but I suspect resentment of Neo-Nazis for getting them in this situation and of NATO for not saving them from it will be quite prevalent as well.
>>2814256>>2814233pretending to be against imperalism while at same time promoting a fascist imperalist state invading its former colonies to recolonize them. go back to reading mein kampf ziggers
>>2814277>fascistwrong
>imperialistwrong
>former colonieswrong
>to recolonizewrong
>>2814277If this fascist imperialist state is the Kiev Regime, and the former colonies are Novorussia, then it is true that it is attempting to invade to recolonize them.
>>2814301>wrongwrong
>>2814303Russia is a fake made up nation invented during the Soviet Union, they stole the Ukrainian Kievan Rus identity because they had no identity of their own
>>2814308I thought it was invented by Mongols ????
>>2814270This is a fucking insane assumption that holds no bearing on reality. Russia has made the Far-Right in Ukraine more popular than ever.
>>2814310Russians have no identity or culture of their own so they steal identities from multiple people including Mongols, Ukrainians and the founder of Russia a swedish guy. Just imagine, IKEA is just the second worst thing invented by Sweden and the first is Russia
>>2814312Ziggas are under the delusion that this conflict wasn't just an avenue for profit with barbarizing effects across most of the world
>>2814303Novoruzzia is a made up name by Russian imperalists that named their new colony they captured so thanks for admitting you promote imperalism and fascism
>>2814354US perception only crashed right after Trump election. it will go back up when he leaves, for Russia it will never go up because they have no elections.
>>2814340Sorry, Ukraine will not be re-enslaving Novorussia no matter how much you moan about it.
>>2813917>so is private capitalism, slavery, etc. this is utterly irrelevanteWrong. With state capitalism, a country can have control over technologies and means of production instead of being blackmailed from abroad or by capitalists who control these technologies.
>Why is it even relevant if the Russian governmet wishes to develop independelty? We were discussing if state capitalism leads to socialism.This is necessary to facilitate the socialization of the economy. If there are no means of production in a country that has had a revolution, this country will have to use state capitalism in the dictatorship of the proletariat to acquire these means of production as quickly as possible, even if it is necessary to bribe, copy, spy, or any means to acquire the necessary technologies to be self-sufficient and minimize the siege and sanctions of capitalists.
>Where is teh proofs?The First World War is proof of what I'm talking about; the fall of the Paris Commune is another.
>When did I defend American imperialism, retard? the interests of communist is the abolition of the value form, of commodity production, of private property, the development of free labour, not Russian capitalism.Your interest is to be an apologist for the subjugation of other countries to financial capital through the IMF's Structural Adjustment Program, which does not lead to the development of class consciousness but rather to deindustrialization and a country easily blackmailed for not having control over the production of anything, being only an exporter of extracted raw materials and an exporter along with the primary sector controlled by landowners through monocultures in peripheral countries, any industry being only a dependent relationship without control of any technology, even worse is the brain drain that this causes.
>Feel free to prove this comes from multipolarityThe First World War is proof of this, the period where the British Empire was weakened in the interwar period until the Second World War is another, and I would say that the destruction of the Second World War against the European powers at the time is another. All of this weakened imperialist capitalism, forcing them to make concessions due to the communist threat that existed as an alternative, encouraging the disruption of the old order.
>wrong, I ask youu again, prove state capitalism leads to socialism and that it does not regresss back to private capitalism after privtization like the past 50 years of human history have shown.State capitalism is a tool that can be used by the dictatorship of the proletariat as well as by bourgeois states. With it, one can facilitate the socialization of the economy, following what the Bolsheviks did, if there are no means of production to seize.
Let's see quotes proving my point:
<For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.
<There is no middle course here. The objective process of development is such that it is impossible to advance from monopolies (and the war has magnified their number, role and importance tenfold) without advancing towards socialism.[…]
<The dialectics of history is such that the war, by extraordinarily expediting the transformation of monopoly capitalism into state-monopoly capitalism, has thereby extraordinarily advanced mankind towards socialism.
<Imperialist war is the eve of socialist revolution. And this not only because the horrors of the war give rise to proletarian revolt—no revolt can bring about socialism unless the economic conditions for socialism are ripe—but because state-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs.
<V. I. Lenin, 1917, The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It, Can We Go Forward If We Fear To Advance Towards Socialism?https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/ichtci/11.htm
<At the beginning, of course, the workers cannot propose any directly communist measures. But the following courses of action are possible:
<1. They can force the democrats to make inroads into as many areas of the existing social order as possible, so as to disturb its regular functioning and so that the petty-bourgeois democrats compromise themselves; furthermore, the workers can force the concentration of as many productive forces as possible – means of transport, factories, railways, etc. – in the hands of the state.
<2. They must drive the proposals of the democrats to their logical extreme (the democrats will in any case act in a reformist and not a revolutionary manner) and transform these proposals into direct attacks on private property. If, for instance, the petty bourgeoisie propose the purchase of the railways and factories, the workers must demand that these railways and factories simply be confiscated by the state without compensation as the property of reactionaries. If the democrats propose a proportional tax, then the workers must demand a progressive tax; if the democrats themselves propose a moderate progressive tax, then the workers must insist on a tax whose rates rise so steeply that big capital is ruined by it; if the democrats demand the regulation of the state debt, then the workers must demand national bankruptcy. The demands of the workers will thus have to be adjusted according to the measures and concessions of the democrats.
<Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, Address of the Central Committee to the Communist League, London, March 1850https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/communist-league/1850-ad1.htm
<Democracy would be wholly valueless to the proletariat if it were not immediately used as a means for putting through measures directed against private property and ensuring the livelihood of the proletariat. The main measures, emerging as the necessary result of existing relations, are the following:[…]
<(ii) Gradual expropriation of landowners, industrialists, railroad magnates and shipowners, partly through competition by state industry, partly directly through compensation in the form of bonds.[…]
<(vi) Centralization of money and credit in the hands of the state through a national bank with state capital, and the suppression of all private banks and bankers.
<(vii) Increase in the number of national factories, workshops, railroads, ships; bringing new lands into cultivation and improvement of land already under cultivation – all in proportion to the growth of the capital and labor force at the disposal of the nation.[…]
<(xii) Concentration of all means of transportation in the hands of the nation.
<It is impossible, of course, to carry out all these measures at once. But one will always bring others in its wake. Once the first radical attack on private property has been launched, the proletariat will find itself forced to go ever further, to concentrate increasingly in the hands of the state all capital, all agriculture, all transport, all trade. All the foregoing measures are directed to this end; and they will become practicable and feasible, capable of producing their centralizing effects to precisely the degree that the proletariat, through its labor, multiplies the country’s productive forces.
<Frederick Engels, 1847, The Principles of Communismhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
>wishful thinking, You are also very naive into thinking the Russian capitalists won't demand the goverment for privatization, Are you actually implying the Russian capitalists care about anything but their profits?Russian capitalists pursue their own interests, and the proletariat will pursue its class interests. As long as Russian capitalists act antagonistically to the interests of European and American imperialist capitalism, they are already useful in encouraging state capitalism in the world and causing international chaos. Furthermore, weakening the current unipolar order will be beneficial to communists. The destruction of the Ukrainian government is in the communist cause's interest, as is the destruction of the European Union, NATO, and the control the US has over the world through the dollar. In addition, it is necessary to disrupt international imperialist capitalist organizations that attempt to discipline countries to follow the neoliberal orthodoxy of austerity. You fear the world chaos that will bring about revolutionary situations to advance the communist cause. This is not the thinking of a revolutionary socialist, but rather of a liberal reformist seeking stability, believing in fantasies about bourgeois rights and superstitions about the state.
As long as capitalists who wish to integrate with the West are eliminated, Russian capitalism is useful to me. I know they will eventually turn against state capitalism, but this does not change my position because I am not seeking internal stability and I am willing to eliminate as many people or groups as become obstacles to communists gaining power and are no longer useful in weakening the enemies of the supremacy of the proletarian class; this also includes no longer being useful in bringing instability to current imperialist capitalism.
>cool story bro, now prove state capitalism is worth defending, as history has shown that state capitalism doesn't lead to socialism, but rather to privatization once the industry has been developed and matured enough to be profitable.This means that technology is available for communists so that the proletariat can seize the means of production, use them, and trade them with other countries to acquire them, avoiding sanctions in case of revolution where technologies are lacking to have an economy with economic sovereignty. This means that the interests of capitalists will be more divided, making it more difficult to coordinate them. Having state capitalism is already useful for the communist cause even in countries that are not using state capitalism, in addition to making the nations of the world have more equal relations, making it easier for communists to eliminate their obstacles. You can see this in history if you abandon the liberal abstracts you cling to, such as "freedom," "human rights," "natural rights," nation-state, bourgeois peace, etc., and also understand that class struggle brings more chaos, and it needs more chaos.
>according toIt seems you have no citations while I have Marx and Engels writing against morality.
>Russia isn't useful at all, you will get killed if you demand communism in RussiaI can be killed in any bourgeois state anyway, present-day Russia is being useful in attacking the enemies of communists and encouraging the use of state capitalism, advancing the disunity of the global bourgeoisie, encouraging de-dollarization and damaging the control of American and European imperialist capitalism in the world, besides bringing more chaos than I desire. Russia surprised me with what I thought the Russian bourgeoisie would be complacent with the status quo, but it is walking the path of separation of capitalism in Russia from the European and American international order with this war, therefore it is being useful to me by walking the path I always wanted.
>Quotemining awardSo scientific socialism is on my side while you are just an opportunist who wants to co-opt communists to support more stability for the order of American and European imperialist capitalism, while I know that international chaos is necessary for the communist cause.
>2 more weeksCommunists in all countries must advance the class struggle; the revolutionary situation will eventually arrive, and therefore it is necessary to prepare the workers and build forces as communists, in addition to encouraging bourgeois democracies to be pushed to the limit so they can be overthrown. Economic sovereignty is also a priority to facilitate the socialization of the economy.
>which is the opposite of what you want.If you read Marx, Engels, and Lenin, you would see state capitalism, contrary to your fantasy that a revolution makes a socialist revolution by pressing a button. State capitalism is a tool to attack private property and demoralize neoliberal economic orthodoxy.
>>2814447>>2814447Sorry but the worthless russoid army will never take Odesa now matter how much you ziggers nazis seethe. They can't even take a small village in Donbas without throwing 100k soldiers to their deaths let alone take any big city
>>2814485Every country on the planet is a capitalist country ruled by a capitalist class. That some of these have more direct state involvement in their economy does not mean anything when the purpose of state involve is to furhter the goals of the capitalist class controlling that state.
>>2814520>and yet Western Europe developed in the XIXth century under private capitalism, the US developed in the XXth century under private capitalism, China developed thanks to a mixed model, whereas the USSr stagnated due to State capitalism, you have no understanding of history of the XXth centuryWrong. Socialism is what accelerated the development of the means of production in the Soviet Union. State capitalism was only useful for preparing peasants to organize themselves into cooperatives to prepare for collectivization where there were no developed means of production, simply because the organization of state capitalism is superior to private capitalism and small commodity production by peasants. Stalin's collectivization eliminated the entire state capitalist sector, and in addition, the right-wing sector was exposed to be purged in order to end the interests of the new reactionary bourgeoisie that was forming among kulaks who conspired as counter-revolutionaries.
The sole objective of communists is the supremacy of the proletariat and to attack private property. State capitalism does this and is useful for acquiring all the necessary technologies to initiate a socialist economy as quickly as possible. In current times, with developed capitalism worldwide, expropriations can be carried out much more quickly; furthermore, the means of production, tools, and technologies are much more widespread globally than in the past. You are wrong about capitalist countries because during the Cold War, private capitalism constantly depended on the state and state institutions to support the interests of these capitalists in accumulating capital.
In any case, economic sovereignty must be acquired, no matter how many people have to be eliminated and sacrificed for the supremacy of the proletariat, to advance the class struggle and consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat against counter-revolutionary fools who wish to be "free." You're confusing the idea that a socialist economy depends on profit because you don't understand what state capitalism is. The very advantage China currently has is due to China using state capitalism to direct its economy, while the world has succumbed to neoliberal orthodoxy, which considers state capitalism taboo for ideological reasons.
To help you think, I'll give you two quotes:
<Socialism is no longer a matter of the distant future, or an abstract picture, or an icon. Our opinion of icons is the same—a very bad one. We have brought socialism into everyday life and must here see how matters stand. That is the task of our day, the task of our epoch. Permit me to conclude by expressing confidence that difficult as this task may be, new as it may be compared with our previous task, and numerous as the difficulties may be that it entails, we shall all—not in a day, but in a few years—all of us together fulfil it whatever the cost, so that NEP Russia will become socialist Russia.
<V. I. Lenin, Speech At A Plenary Session Of, The Moscow Soviet, November 20, 1922https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/20.htm
<Indeed, the power of the state over all large-scale means of production, political power in the hands of the proletariat, the alliance of this proletariat with the many millions of small and very small peasants, the assured proletarian leadership of the peasantry, etc. — is this not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society out of cooperatives, out of cooperatives alone, which we formerly ridiculed as huckstering and which from a certain aspect we have the right to treat as such now, under NEP? Is this not all that is necessary to build a complete socialist society? It is still not the building of socialist society, but it is all that is necessary and sufficient for it.
<Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, 1923, On Cooperationhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1923/jan/06.htmNow, regarding the question of commodity production in the post-NEP period with collectivization, this quote answers any questions you may have:
<But in the trading between the commune and its members the money is not money at all, it does not function in any way as money. It serves as a mere labour certificate; to use Marx's phrase, it is “merely evidence of the part taken by the individual in the common labour, and of his right to a certain portion of the common produce destined for consumption”, and in carrying out this function, it is “no more ‘money’ than a ticket for the theatre”. It can therefore be replaced by any other token, just as Weitling replaces it by a “ledger”, in which the labour-hours worked are entered on one side and means of subsistence taken as compensation on the other. [121] In a word, in the trading of the economic commune with its members it functions merely as Owen’s “labour money”, that “phantom” which Herr Dühring looks down upon so disdainfully, but nevertheless is himself compelled to introduce into his economics of the future. Whether the token which certifies the measure of fulfilment of the “obligation to produce”, and thus of the earned “right to consume” {320} is a scrap of paper, a counter or a gold coin is absolutely of no consequence for this purpose.[…]
<Thus neither in exchange between the economic commune and its members nor in exchange between the different communes can gold, which is “money by nature”, get to realise this its nature.
<Anti-Dühring by Frederick Engels, 1877, Part III: Socialism, IV. Distributionhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1877/anti-duhring/ch26.htm
>proof?The Russian Revolution is proof, and in Lenin's own texts you can see that state capitalism is useful and superior to private capitalism and small commodity production by peasants for communists to create a socialist economy.
>this isn't what is being discussed at all, irrelevantYou're the one who doesn't understand what I'm writing then. Stop clinging to your liberal superstitions and you'll see that it's relevant.
>Outdated. during the First World War the capitalists were not aware of the danger communists could pose to their dictatorship, they know know, which is why during WW1 they supported the Bolsheviks, while today the capitalists support their geopolitical rivals against the communists, the capitalists would rather ally themselves with their geopolitical rivals than support communists to weaken them.The more divided the capitalists are, the better it will be for communists to seize the opportunity to take power. There is nothing outdated about this, because it is only by ceasing to cling to fantasies of bourgeois democracy and liberal myths that you will see that the petty interests of divided capitalists will make it difficult for them to work together against communists. Even the Second World War proves this.
>wrongThe various studies on countries that have submitted to the IMF demonstrate that this leads to a spiral cycle of debt with perpetual austerity in an indebted country that cannot collect taxes, becomes more deindustrialized, deliberately underdeveloped, loses its workers' social rights, and when this country resists, it will be punished in various ways along with demonization by financial capital.
The article itself, "How the International Monetary Fund Underdevelops Africa: The Twenty-First Newsletter (2025)", demonstrates that what you are being is a reactionary using the fear of "authoritarianism" and "fascism" to co-opt the masses into being passive and submissive to financial capital.
https://thetricontinental.org/newsletterissue/africa-imf-underdevelopment/
>State capitalism leads to deindustrialization, or rather stagnation of industry, see the 20th century, but as we have already determined, you do not understand the history of the 20th century.Wrong. State capitalism prepared the cooperative sector in the Soviet Union and the semi-feudal areas of the country in the non-industrialized areas, being superior to private capital and small peasant commodity production, and eventually it had to be eliminated so that the socialist economy could accelerate industrialization because it is necessary to acquire self-sufficiency and economic sovereignty to consolidate the dictatorship of the proletariat against counter-revolutionaries if there is a lack of means of production in any region and place in the proletarian state.
Brazil's own industrialization, to advance, depended on state capitalism during the Vargas government.
>like the USSR?No. The Soviet Union had a cooperative sector, state farms, and its own industry that developed its own technology, not being subject to the patents of multinational corporations that take advantage of countries lacking technological sovereignty to blackmail other countries and enrich themselves through monopoly prices.
>No it isn't what happened in WW1 cannot be applied today because, understanding the XXthh century allows us to see that the capitalists won't do the same mistake of supporting communists to weaken a geopolitcal enemyYou remain wrong. The bourgeoisie is not so aware of the world around it when pursuing the interests of capital accumulation. It is self-destructive and does not think long-term; neoliberal capitalism is even more short-sighted, and communists only need to intensify the class struggle and cause chaos in the international capitalist order for the benefit of the communist cause, organizing independently of the bourgeoisie and breaking all the illusions of bourgeois democracy so that the masses lose their faith in the superstitions of the bourgeois state.
>irrelevant axiomatic drivelYou have no proof whatsoever of what you say, while I have citations on my side.
>let's not, retard, prove your shit points by engaging in a materialist analysis of the XXth centuryYou forgot the lesson that the Bolsheviks were sure not to repeat, this mistake is in Marx and Engels' critique of the Paris Commune, which should have seized the Bank of Paris. Do you think that the programs that Marx and Engels proposed were not state capitalism before the socialization of the economy? But since we are talking about state capitalism, let's look at another quote from Lenin proving my point:
<Nationalisation of the banks would greatly facilitate the simultaneous nationalisation of the insurance business, i.e., the amalgamation of all the insurance companies into one, the centralisation of their operations, and state control over them. Here, too, congresses of insurance company employees could carry out this amalgamation immediately and without any great effort, provided a revolutionary-democratic government decreed this and ordered directors and big shareholders to effect the amalgamation without the slightest delay and held every one of them strictly accountable for it. The capitalists have invested hundreds of millions of rubles in the insurance business; the work is all done by the employees. The amalgamation of this business would lead to lower insurance premiums, would provide a host of facilities and conveniences for the insured and would make it possible to increase their number without increasing expenditure of effort and funds. Absolutely nothing but the inertia, routine and self-interest of a handful of holders of remunerative jobs are delaying this reform, which, among other things, would enhance the country’s defence potential by economising national labour and creating a number of highly important opportunities to "regulate economic life" not in word, but in deed.
>and they cannot collaborateBut this is not necessary, the interests of Russian capitalism are currently antagonistic to the interests of American and European imperialist capitalism advancing multipolarism even if they do not want to due to the material conditions they are doing this. Why would I oppose something that is useful in giving communists more opportunities to gain strength and seize power by damaging the current unipolar order of financial capital in the world and forcing the masses to question the financing of financial capital's puppets abroad?
>which does nto automatically support communismIt is helping communism by facilitating the return of the Ukrainian communist party to Ukraine if the Ukrainian government collapses and no longer receives help from the West, preventing the masses from using anti-Russian and anti-Soviet prejudice. Furthermore, a defeat of the imperialist core will weaken other puppets, leading to crisis and collapse for the benefit of communists. The advancement of a multipolar world makes it easier to avoid sanctions, which is beneficial for communists. All of this intensifies the class struggle and will help more countries use state capitalism and not be at the mercy of the international market. The more international chaos there is, and the more disillusioned the masses become, losing faith in the superstitions of the bourgeois state, the more beneficial this will be for the communist cause.
proofs?
Look at the decline of the British Empire during the First World War, the interwar period, the Second World War, and the Cold War. Chaos and the weakening of the imperialist core make it difficult to impose sanctions and isolate communists who assume power. Furthermore, national liberation movements advance more easily when the imperialist core is weakened, forcing it to make concessions to try to preserve its interests, which will be crumbling in the world as it weakens.
Vargas could use state capitalism in his government in Brazil because of the opportunities that arose with the weakening of the imperialist core at the time.
>How do we make sure another fiat currency doesn't take the place of the dollar?Communists aren't against fiat currency with fantasies of decentralization, but if you're referring to the dominance of the dollar, you have to understand that the United States only acquired this position by integrating the world's capitalists against the communist threat in the Bretton Woods system. The shift to the Jamaica System came about because many capitalists accepted concessions to US blackmail, as they lacked the strength to resist, and the excuse of a communist threat made them afraid to resist.
There will be no return to such a system as the interests of capitalists become divided, and China has a manufacturing economy that will not risk becoming the same as the United States. What will happen is greater possibilities for countries to trade using their own currency or alternatives that do not depend on the dollar. I would say that your argument that if another country replaces the United States seems to me the argument of a conservative who fears the end of this current international order and wants to give passivity to the masses. Chaos is necessary internationally so that there is less resistance against expropriations and nationalizations in the future; furthermore, the nationalization of banks is a demand in scientific socialism by Marx, Engels, and Lenin for the socialization of the economy.
>No, you fear communist revolution, which is why you desire to stay under multipolar reform.Wrong. A multipolar order is only useful so that a new socialist power can emerge against capitalist states. This new socialist power will create its own alternative exchange system between socialist countries and peripheral countries to advance the communist cause, eventually acting to consolidate socialist hegemony and crush all who resist. Have you forgotten the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (Comecon) and the alternative system the Soviet Union used to isolate trade from Western dominance and help countries in the Global South develop without the dollar? This is necessary so that money can be abolished, spreading the revolution throughout the non-socialist world.
You make me laugh by thinking that the communist cause can advance while coexisting with the dollar. This seems to me like another superstition you cling to.
>Russian capitalists want to integrate with the west, retardThey are not united in wanting to surrender as the comprador bourgeoisie puppets of the imperialist capitalism of the United States and Europe, but rather by their capitalist interests as a respected force. The rejection they suffer comes from the exclusivist tendency of the imperialist capitalist club, which will lead to conflict. That is why they are useful as long as this contradiction exists.
>communists aren't in control in state capitalism, dummy, not reading the rest of the paragraph becvause you clearly have no idea what you are talking aboutBut technology is available to more capitalists who are divided in their interests. This benefits the spread of technology so that communists can seize the means of production and acquire the necessary technology to gain technological sovereignty, taking advantage of the capitalists being divided.
>I am citing your own postsThey all prove my point, while nothing proves yours. When Lenin talks about state capitalism, he is talking about the NEP in the agricultural sector to encourage cooperatives and create means of production that do not yet exist, with the state directing grain production in a limited market in a part of the Soviet Union at the time. You use state capitalism as an insult against the socialist planning of the Soviet Union, which is not what Lenin is using the term for.
>>2814520>No you don't Marx and Engles do not agree with you, since you love quotemining so much, go check the 1872 preface of the ManifestoLet's see the quote then:
<However much that state of things may have altered during the last twenty-five years, the general principles laid down in the Manifesto are, on the whole, as correct today as ever. Here and there, some detail might be improved. The practical application of the principles will depend, as the Manifesto itself states, everywhere and at all times, on the historical conditions for the time being existing, and, for that reason, no special stress is laid on the revolutionary measures proposed at the end of Section II. That passage would, in many respects, be very differently worded today. In view of the gigantic strides of Modern Industry since 1848, and of the accompanying improved and extended organization of the working class, in view of the practical experience gained, first in the February Revolution, and then, still more, in the Paris Commune, where the proletariat for the first time held political power for two whole months, this programme has in some details been antiquated. One thing especially was proved by the Commune, viz., that “the working class cannot simply lay hold of the ready-made state machinery, and wield it for its own purposes.”
<Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, June 24, 1872, London, Preface of the Communist Manifesto, The 1872 German Editionhttps://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htmThe preface to the Manifesto is simply stating that it is outdated in relation to the experiences of the Paris Commune, the advances of modern industry, and the improvement and expansion of the organization of the working class, since Marx does not reject the measures of Section II. Regarding the Paris Commune, what is lacking is taking advantage of the crisis in the capitalist state in a revolutionary situation to implement the dictatorship of the proletariat, abolishing all institutions of the bourgeois state to facilitate the seizure of the means of production and punish counter-revolutionaries who deny the supremacy of the proletarian class. In this case, there is no rejection of the use of state capitalism.
Now let's look at another quote written by Marx after this preface to a political program in a bourgeois democracy that proves my point against your interpretation:
<After the programme was agreed, however, a clash arose between Marx and his French supporters arose over the purpose of the minimum section. Whereas Marx saw this as a practical means of agitation around demands that were achievable within the framework of capitalism, Guesde took a very different view: “Discounting the possibility of obtaining these reforms from the bourgeoisie, Guesde regarded them not as a practical programme of struggle, but simply … as bait with which to lure the workers from Radicalism.” The rejection of these reforms would, Guesde believed, “free the proletariat of its last reformist illusions and convince it of the impossibility of avoiding a workers ’89.” [4] Accusing Guesde and Lafargue of “revolutionary phrase-mongering” and of denying the value of reformist struggles, Marx made his famous remark that, if their politics represented Marxism, “ce qu'il y a de certain c'est que moi, je ne suis pas Marxiste” (“what is certain is that I myself am not a Marxist”). […]
<B. Economic Section
<3. Legal minimum wage, determined each year according to the local price of food, by a workers' statistical commission;[…]
<11. Annulment of all the contracts that have alienated public property (banks, railways, mines, etc.), and the exploitation of all state-owned workshops to be entrusted to the workers who work there;
<Karl Marx and Jules Guesde, 1880, The Programme of the Parti Ouvrier
>Russia is an enemy of communists, retard, and Russian bourgs demand private capitalis, why don't you rpove to us that the Russian economy has become state capitalism since the beginning if the war?, You won'tWhat Russian capitalists want is irrelevant because when an economy prepares for war and is isolated by other capitalists internationally state capitalism will be used because it is more efficient. You keep talking as if my interest is exclusively in spreading the revolution to Russia, but what I'm referring to is the collapse of the bourgeois "democratic" puppet governments allied with the West for the benefit of communists, and the global scenario encouraging countries to use more state capitalism and seek economic sovereignty, which is beneficial to the communist cause since a country needs a public bank to direct the economy, and a national bank with its own currency cannot be independent.
If the interests of communists clash with those of Russian capitalists, then there will be conflict, but the interest of European and American imperialist capitalism is the greatest threat, since Russia is trading with Third World countries like mine, and Russia's negotiating power is much weaker than that of the imperialist capitalist countries of the European and American bloc. Russia is useful to countries sanctioned by the current order, and it is partially doing what communists will have to do in Ukraine anyway against the ignorant middle class, which is similar to the reactionary libertarian puppets of finance capital in Latin America, who will have to be punished where the fantasies of bourgeois freedom are destroyed so that the masses accept communism as the real solution, where the proletarian class acquires its supremacy to destroy bourgeois freedom.
>no shit the campist retard wants to cheer for global conflict like if it were a sports gameIs the liberal opportunist outraged that the puppets of finance capital are at risk of collapsing? That the multipolar world is approaching? That bourgeois freedoms will be abolished? That the masses will lose hope in bourgeois illusions? This doesn't change my point that Russia is useful to communists, but of course this is temporary depending on whether Russia is in the way of the communists destroying the European Union, NATO and the domination of the dollar so that other countries use state capitalism and are encouraged to have a national bank with their own currency without independence.
>It is not.Then prove where scientific socialism isn't on my side? You can't because you're a liberal co-opted by finance capital trying to deceive others.
>quote any of my posts where I demand more stability for capitalists, You wan't to empower capitalists, I don'tYour quote from:
>>2813336<State capitalism is fascim dumbass.Every time you spread the lie of equating state capitalism with fascism, you are propagating the false idea of subjugating countries to the IMF and not achieving economic sovereignty, because all current neoliberal policies of privatization, deregulation, financialization, dependence on bank debt, taming unions for capitalists exist as a continuation of Nazi policies as prototypes, were tested on reactionary puppets in the Cold War until they were perfected to be normalized in current bourgeois democracies. You are denying that the state-owned companies that fascists used were made and maintained by social democrats and conservatives in bourgeois democracies before the fascists took power.
You are regurgitating the same false propaganda from libertarians and anarcho-capitalists to separate them from fascists as something innocent and not as reactionary puppets of finance capital that they have always been, collaborating with each other to serve finance capital.
Your quote from:
<and yet Western Europe developed in the 19th century under private capitalism, the US developed in the 20th century under private capitalism, China developed thanks to a mixed model, whereas the US stagnated due to state capitalism, you have no understanding of the history of the 20th century.It is also a lie that hides the truth that state capitalism has always been necessary to support private capitalism in developing countries. When a third-world country hands over a company with its own technology to capitalists, and eventually this technology falls into the hands of financial capital, all the independent research that was done in that country for use in that country no longer exists. The capitalists eventually close down the company to protect the blackmail scheme, forcing governments to make overpriced contracts so these capitalists can profit because these third-world countries no longer have control over the privatized technology handed over to financial capital, which will eventually close refineries or any industry in the country to maintain greater dependence.
>Russian capitalists want to integrate with the west, retardWhat they want is irrelevant.
>Your knowledge stops at the start of the XXth centuryNo. And I know about the communist revolution in China, Cuba, Korea, Eastern Europe, and about the national liberation movements in the world, and I know that the fear of being authoritarian, demonstrating weakness among the workers for not having the courage to exercise the supremacy of the proletariat to consolidate power, and being naive about the capitalist imperialist threat leads to defeat. I do not tolerate resentful people who cling to superstitions of "freedom" and think that there should be no effort to maintain technological sovereignty in a country.
proof? as I requested earliet, prove that national bourg having control over the economy leads to privatization more than when international bourg have control over them, you won't
You don't understand what state capitalism is. State capitalism means controlling the market with public companies so that capitalism within a country goes in a certain direction. This facilitates public policies where eventually a national bourgeoisie develops and foreign capital remains under control. In Brazil, unlike the state capitalism of the Vargas period, the Second Republic, the military business junta, and the New Republic, there was a dependent industrialization with a more limited state capitalism to support the interests of capitalists, which eventually led to problems that Brazilian left-wing developmentalists failed to understand. There is no possible agreement between the national bourgeoisie and labor to reindustrialize the country when everything has already been financialized. This means that to reindustrialize a country there must at least be the use of state capitalism and state-owned enterprises to force reindustrialization, using these enterprises to compete against private companies, no matter how many go bankrupt, to facilitate occupations, nationalizations, collectivizations, and socializations because capitalists will only speculate in the financial market anyway, and therefore only communists have solutions. Of course, the intensification of this antagonism with class struggle will bring crises and a revolutionary situation to carry out the revolution, but the workers at least have to see a path and not be complacent about what to do before the revolutionary situation and during the dictatorship of the proletariat to socialize the economy.
>If you read the history of the XXth century, you would realize that state capitalism doesn't lead to socialism, but instead it leadss to privatizations once that industry sector has matured enough, state capitalism means socializing Research and Development and privatizing profits. I don't give a shit you quotemine 150 year old texts, your theoty has been proved wrong by history, you are an idealist utopianYou continue to be wrong. State capitalism can be used to support private capitalism, but it can also be used to intensify class struggle and democratize the economy. This will cause the bourgeoisie to react negatively, bringing chaos and intensifying class struggle to prepare for a revolutionary situation, as well as giving workers experience in participating in the economy to eventually form a Red Guard to defend the interests of the working class.
>>2814521This does not change my point of view regarding the superiority of state capitalism over private capitalism and small commodity production, and its usefulness in socializing the economy. I know that the state exists for one class to oppress another and that capitalist countries serve the capitalist class; this does not change my point of view regarding pushing bourgeois democracy to its limits to prepare the masses for a revolutionary situation.
>>2814966>words words wordsdon't care about your drivel bro, it's very simple to prove you wrong.
>Socialism is what accelerated the development of the means of production in the Soviet Unionthe USSr never had socialsim, if it did, and if the USSr proves state capitalism leads to socialism, then the USSR shows that socialism leads to neoliberalism, as the USSR collapsed and neoliberalism took over.
>rivate capitalism constantly depended on the state and state institutions to support the interests of these capitalists in accumulating capital.congrats, you finally understood that the private-state capitalist false dichotomy is retarded
>economic sovereignty must be acquiredeconomic sovereignty of whom?
>The very advantage China currently has is due to China using state capitalism to direct its economyChina doesn0t have state capitalism, China has a mixed model where private capitalism exists and is allowed to exist.
>The more divided the capitalists are, the better it will be for communists to seize the opportunity to take power. There is nothing outdated about this.And yet you want to give capitalism state power by implementing state capitalism lol
> demonstrates that what you are being is a reactionary using the fear of "authoritarianism" and "fascism" to co-opt the masses into being passive and submissive to financial capital.you are retarded, I never said this.
>Brazil's own industrializationBrazil own industrialization ended up being appropiated by the neoliberal period of Collor and Cardoso, state capitalism is socializing investment and privatizing profits, story shows this, feel free to prove this wrong, something you haven't been able to do for days.
>No. The Soviet Union had a cooperative sector,so it didn't have state capitalism then
>You remain wrong.projection
>You have no proof whatsoever of what you sayI have the entire history of the XXth century on my side, you have quotemined wall of texts.
>Look at the decline of the British Empire during the First World War, the interwar period, the Second World War, and the Cold War. and that gave rise to the US Empire, so your multipolarity theory falls flat on it's face when we study the XXth century
> that the communist cause can advance while coexisting with the dollar.says the guy that implies that state capitalism and the empowerment of third world bourgeois advances communism lol
>But technology is available to more capitalists who are divided in their interests. the interests of capitalists is to mantain the dictatorship of the bourgeosie in place, they are willing to cooperate with each other before allowing for communists to take power, Iran collaborating with MI6 to persecute communists is proof of this, yet again, you do not understand the history of the XXth century, so you don't know what this means
>They all prove my point, while nothing proves yours. No they don't lol
>When Lenin talks about state capitalism, he is talking about the NEPNo country today needs a NEP, no country today needs to be rapidlyu developed to have socialism, we already have the technology to implement communism, it's 2026 not 1917
>>2814967>it is outdated in relation to the experiences of the Paris Commune,just like your theory is outdate in relation to the experiences of the XXth century
>state capitalism will be used because it is more efficient.yes, state capitalism will be used to kill proless in a war, why do you think this proves your point?
>but the interest of European and American imperialist capitalism is the greatest threatgood, if the European and American causes the collapse of Russia, then it means Russia can engage in revolutionary defeatism
>NOOOO THAT'S LE HEKIN BAD :Cbut I thought the history of the USSR proved your point correct, are you cherrypicking now?
>Is the liberal opportunist outraged that the puppets of finance capital are at risk of collapsing?>That the multipolar world is approaching?2 more weeks I guess right?
>Then prove where scientific socialism isn't on my side?I already did, you claim that state capitalism leads to socialism, and this is wrong, because in the XXth century, state capitalist led to neoliberalism, the USSR collapsed and it turned into neoliberalism, Brazil engaged in neoliberal reforms after state capitalism, history proves your theory wrong.
>Every time you spread the lie of equating state capitalism with fascism,it isn't a lie, it's a fact, you literally just stated that
<What Russian capitalists want is irrelevant because when an economy prepares for war and is isolated by other capitalists internationally state capitalism will be used because it is more efficient.So a capitalist nation that is preparing for war (fascism) it will use state capitalism because it is more efficient
good job contradicting yourself
I will reply to the rest of your post tomorrow because I will go to greater lengths as it's the final nail on the coffin
>>2804238This thread may end up dying completely or hit the bump limit soon so I would like to say one (maybe) last thing:
Even if we are to say that Ukraine specifically is so vastly important to Russia's defense that it becoming a NATO puppet state is enough to put Russia at such severe risk of being toppled by the West (despite the multitude of Western puppet states on the borders of other enemies of the west such as China not accomplishing that) then why is it therefore reasonable for Russia to willingly destabilize itself by starting the largest European war since WWII, placing them at even more risk of being toppled by the West? Are we simply forgetting the Wagner Group rebellion? Furthermore, why start a war that seems to have only been able to get them, at most, a chunk of Ukraine while leaving the most important parts of Ukraine under expanded Western influence with an even stronger Far-Right and a population that has absolutely no interest in aligning with Russia anymore? Was having such a hostile enemy at the border not supposedly a huge problem?
Or maybe, just maybe, this war is about something more than "Protecting Russian Minorities". Maybe it's about competing Great Powers fighting over a sphere of influence, no different from WWI. NATO idiotically refused to compromise with Russia as they did not care much if Ukraine was invaded as a result because it meant that they could bog down Russia in a war. The group that loses the most are the Ukrainians, who are caught in a power struggle between Russia and the West. You could say that the West "Started it" with Euromaidan. That's probably true. You could say that Russia tried to align with the West and was refused because the West wanted a weak, divided Russia. That's true. You could say that Russia preferred Eastern Europe to be non-aligned states while NATO wanted them to be aligned with NATO, thereby making Russia's attempt to carve out a sphere of influence a reaction and not a provocation. I'm suspicious of this but it's not something I'd rule out. Even so, we are not just talking about NATO Vs. Russia. NATO is more evil than Russia. We are talking about a war that has gone on for 4 years, killed half a million people, displaced millions more, decimated Ukraine's economy, strengthened NATO, strengthened the Ukrainian Far-Right, and has given Ukraine an even worse choice than the already horrible circumstances of being a NATO puppet state with a relatively minor civil war that had been in near-stasis for 6 years: Being a NATO puppet state that has lost any autonomy it once had even after Euromaidan or worse, becoming completely consumed by Russia and seeing an absolutely brutal insurgency of Azovites Vs. Russian soldiers that turns the country into fucking Yemen. There isn't much difference between the Ukrainian army in this war and the Iraqi army in 2003. They're fighting for an evil nation (Redundant phrase) but the prospect of occupation is so damaging and so destabilizing that their fight is reasonable and I'd prefer they win. But at this point, they should really just broker peace and cede land. After that, ideally they'd focus on freeing themselves of Western influence (Or, of course, they could erupt into proletarian revolution but let's be honest, that's not happening anytime soon) and trying to become non-aligned to avoid further conflict. The issue of "Who wins? NATO or Russia?" is vastly less important than the wellbeing of the Ukrainian population. Again, I'd really like to say "Ukraine should rise up against both of the opressor empires and ascend into the glory of Socialism" and I would say that if there was any substantial Revolutionary Socialist movement in Ukraine, but there isn't so the best thing for them is for the war to end.
Provoked or not, Russia made the decision to invade. I cannot possibly see how not invading would have caused more deaths than the horrors that have transpired over these past 4 years. Anybody arguing in favor of Russia here would have been cheering for Germany in WWI.
>>2815342>strengthened NATOThe war did not strengthened NATO and thd typical Russia is Germany in WWI when that is oranges and apples. Also the idea that this war caused a "hostile neighbor" is ignoring that Ukraine has been a hostile neighbor for years prior before the war. It was always a ticking time bomb especially after Minsk failed again
>>2815353>The war did not strengthened NATOLiterally the most militaristic Europe has been since the Cold War. Current trouble in the West is the result of Middle Eastern conflicts and Trump retardation.
>Also the idea that this war caused a "hostile neighbor" is ignoring that Ukraine has been a hostile neighbor for yearsUkraine was already hostile to Russia after Euromaidan, this is obvious. But what the fuck were they going to do, invade Russia? And my point is that if having a hostile neighbor is apparently the #1 biggest problem here for Russia, why would they start a war that results in an EVEN MORE HOSTILE NEIGHBOR?
>>2815358>Literally the most militaristic Europe has been since the Cold War.They have been militarizing since the 90s and 00s when they were expanding NATO and being provocative. Also don't forget bombing Yugoslavia.
>But what the fuck were they going to do, invade Russia? Constant far right terrorist cells, join a imperialist hostile organization that has been expanding every year since the end of the Cold War and other factors made it more of a when than an if.
I'll say one last thing as well, NATO thinks it won the Cold War by forcing the USSR to continually increase defence spending by applying greater military and economic pressure (aka "over-extension"). NATO thinks it will be able to collapse the Russian Federation via the exact same method.
The (very vocal at least) militarisation by NATO is not due to the invasion of Ukraine, the invasion was a result of NATO seeing opportunity in the economic aftermath of COVID to conclude over-extending Russia via a diplomatic crisis in harping on about Ukraine's NATO membership, that would justify massively increased sanctions and further NATO presence in the Ukrainian civil war.
Russia's choices were either playing their role in this scheme and increasing defence spending according to the ever increasing threat NATO expansion represents, or trying to achieve a swift surrender from Ukraine to prevent said expansion. Now, we're in a situation of mutually assured spending in a global economy that hasn't really recovered from COVID. If you want a both-sides take, that's it, both wanted to avoid a lot of spending to avoid economic ruin and now both do a lot of spending.
>>2815382>They have been militarizing since the 90s and 00sYeah. Now they're even more militarized and have been handed pretext to do even more militarization.
>more of a when than an ifA Ukrainian invasion of Russia would result in Kyiv getting nuked if it approached anything even close to success. Even Kursk was an enormously risky and stupid operation and it was never even planned to be a large scale invasion. If Russia ever felt that the only option to keep itself together was using a nuclear weapon against another country, it would do it. Any atomic nation would do the same. The very idea of a Ukrainian invasion of Russia is laughable.
>>2815389Your statement is basically admitting that the invasion was a retarded disaster that's accomplished nothing.
>>2815423It isn't and you're wasting everyone's time by just reading what you want to read in everyone's posts.
>>2815423Saving over 100 million Russian lives from a second Generalplan Ost is not “nothing”
>>2815433Even if it wasn't that extravagant, the dissolution of the USSR (however you explain that happening) resulted in massive loss of life and NATO wants nothing more than a repeat of that, Ukraine (indeed all NATO aspirant states) are willing participants to that end.
So the idea that Russia could just "ignore" the pressure is obviously stupid and anyone suggesting that was an option for Russia glows.
>>2815431If the war has just caused Russia to have to drastically increase defense spending like NATO wanted it to do, then they've played into NATO's hands. There was no need to constantly increase defense spending even before the invasion because if NATO is insane enough to start WWIII then it's extremely unlikely that Russia's defense spending will play into that decision. Therefore, may as well not play their game and just keep it at a reasonable level. If WWIII starts, Russia's defense spending will not be relevant to their victory because there will be no victory, just a nuclear holocaust. And like you implied, defense spending wasn't even the reason the USSR collapsed in the first place, so why invade over the hope of not having to do such a thing?
>>2815433Adults are talking
>>2815452>the idea that Russia could just "ignore" the pressure is obviously stupidThankfully Russia decided to increase the pressure and invade Ukraine, which was clearly the far better option and has accomplished so much.
>>2815433>>2815452>Russia saved Russian lives by starting a a failed war that kills hundreds of thousands of Russian lives while NATO is sitting back and laughing, all that so Pooptin can annex 2 shitty oblasts and larp as Peter the greatgreat plan 4D chess masterplan zigger
>>2815358>what the fuck were they going to do, invade RussiaTHEY LITERALLY DID INVADE RUSSIA, in 2024 they pushed towards Kursk, in 2023 they pushed towards Belgorod. Thank god for the SMO depleating their military resources to great extent, who fucking knows what the damage could have been if Russia was caught off guard like Stalin was in WWII and let those Nazi forces take ground like the Germans did.
>>2815458and the soviet union invaded nazi Germany so Hitler was justified for offing 20 million russians
>>2815456>If the war has just caused Russia to have to drastically increase defense spending like NATO wanted it to doYou've already misunderstood the post, I'd normally try to reword it to help you but you made this thread just to be able to eventually post
>I'll join you in masturbating to Ukrainian kids dying.and let the thread know that you'll only open your mind if presented with top secret Ukrainian documents, so what would the point be?
>>2815457>NATO is sitting back and laughingIf they were expecting to opportunistically use the economic fallout of COVID to eliminate Russia as an undercutting competitor in the energy sector and secure their own recovery via price gouging oil, I somehow doubt they find now resorting to borrowing money to give to Ukraine a laughing matter.
>>2815458>THEY LITERALLY DID INVADE RUSSIAAlready talked about Kursk, try to keep up. Consult
>>2815423 So yeah the invasion of Kursk that failed and only happened because Russia invaded Ukraine in the first place. I like how this proves that Ukraine was going to invade Russia but Russia's invasion of Ukraine clearly doesn't show that they had been considering invasion for quite some time. Anyway, Kursk clearly PROVES that Ukraine was intending to occupy Moscow in 2022 before CHADimir Putin stopped him. Z! Z! Z! Z!
>>2815460German cultural output during the entire Nazi era, even before 1941, was dreaming about conquering lebensraum until the Urals. Ukrainian cultural output during the entire post-Maidan era, even before 2022, was dreaming about conquering the LNR and DNR and implementing Banderite policy there.
https://bsky.app/profile/mariadrutska.bsky.social/post/3mm2eumczzx24Ukrainian drones struck targets in Zelenograd, an administrative district of Moscow.
The likely target was the ELMA technopark, where companies involved in electronics production are located.
>>2815467what's been the muscovite cultural output since 1547?
>>2815465just how delusional are you? This war costs NATO less than 1% of their total budget. The war costs Russia more than 50% of their budget. Russia will go bankrupt 20 times before NATO even feels they lost anything
>>2815467Ziggers are still dreaming of stealing back all the colonies they lost in 1991, yet still haven't managed to steal back even 1 shitty oblast from the poorest country of Europe
>>2815477no it's not it's dreaming about conquest of eastern europe because we wuz rus and then conquest of europe because we wuz europeans as well
>>2815465I think you believe that I've missed something or don't understand because you've assumed that your argument is so solid that the idea that somebody thinks it's retarded is inconcievable. I will try to spell it out for you
>Russia's choices were either playing their role in this scheme and increasing defence spending according to the ever increasing threat NATO expansion represents, or trying to achieve a swift surrender from Ukraine to prevent said expansion.So you say that Russia did this to avoid increasing defense spending (thereby destroying itself) and to stop NATO expansion. The solution? Making Ukraine surrender. They accomplished none of this. Like you said, they're spending more on Defense just like NATO wanted them to, and they haven't really halted NATO expansion either. Russia's invasion has not kept Ukraine from aligning with NATO and their meager gains are negated by the immense cost of the war. And you then claim that this is kind of a win because NATO now has to increase defense spending too. This is false, NATO WANTS to increase defense spending and is ecstatic that this war has given it an excuse to do so in the eyes of the public, silencing much of the opposition to its increased militarism.
>you made this thread just to be able to eventually postAre you actually still mad about this?
>>2815482there are three threads about the same topi c with the same people repeating the same talking points over and over
>>2804238From the pre ipso facto point of view yes, but now? I'd rather see Russia win to see Ukraine become a banderita palantir blackrock hellhole
>>2815487Zigger nazis aint gonna win anything, the useless russoid army took more than 10 years to defeat tiny chechnya that didn't even have any support so imagine how long it would take them to defeat Ukraine, Russia and Putin's nazi regime will collapse and go bankrupt before NATO even spends more than 2% of its budget on Ukraine
>>2815482You said
>If the war has just caused Russia to have to drastically increase defense spending like NATO wanted it to doas usual you're putting the cart before the horse, that framing makes it appear like the invasion caused Russia to increase military spending needlessly, when the point you're refusing to confront is that NATO expansion would have forced Russia to increase military spending anyway while the invasion going as planned would have avoided it.
>NATO ackshually loves military spendingMost states weren't meeting their pre-existing spending quota.
>Are you actually still mad about this?I think it's worth reminding you what your attitude is when asking people (i.e me) to "prove you wrong".
btw, remember when you said
>I'll join you in masturbating to Ukrainian kids dying.just incase you forgot already.
>>2815498Still, Ukraine is becoming the playground for this international digital lumpenoligarchal finance clown world, so I can't support any of that
>>2815533Russia is already the playground of NATO and China, one gets to test their weapons on Russian cannon fodder and the other siffons its cheap underpriced resources, and when Russians can't have any more war and poverty pushed on them by their oligarchs they will have their Russian euromaiden too
>>2815342It's absolutely possible to force a sovereign country to launch a war. This is a defensive war for Russia. Truly pre-emptive declarations of war are rare, but they do exist when an enemy weaker than you is preparing for an attack. A state behaving irrationally by choosing to attack a stronger enemy can be explained by their lack of sovereignty. The reason why Ukraine and the EU is ready to accept a war that will bankrupt them on the short term, but has almost no chance of bringing any benefits to offset the losses is because they are controlled by the United States. The US itself was barely hurt by the war, but it allowed them to force the EU to buy more natural gas and weapons from the US than ever. Why would the US have ever chosen not to force Ukraine and Russia to fight a full-scale war and based on this, how could Russia have forced the Americans to back off short of launching WW3 for real? In fact, if the war was inevitable, Russia went for the easiest option by counting on the Ukrainian army collapsing, which forced them to endure the humiliation of voluntarily giving up half of Ukraine.
An irrational enemy, like an ISIS suicide bomber indirectly controlled by Langley requires a very different strategy compared to direct enemies. One has to fight them as if they were an existential threat even if that wouldn't follow from their strength level. This is not Russia's fault. Nobody should be blamed for the suicidal geopolitical strategy of the EU and Ukraine other than themselves.
>>2815553NATO spending on Ukraine is less than 1% of their total budget, Russian spending on Ukraine is now more than 50% of Russian budget. Imagine how delusional zigger you must be to claim that anyone other than Russia is going bankrupt right now
>>2815554The reason why countries have military spending is to defend themselves from others, or to conquer and exploit others. What is the EU gaining? A recession. Russia is still faring better despite fighting a war.
Why are you so adamant about defending the EU's war drive? Don't tell me you bought Rheinmetall stocks after listening to Kaja Kallas's advice?
>>2815565what is Russia gaining from this war? 150k dead Russians a year and 50% of their budget thrown in a hole in exchange for 5 shitty Ukrainian villages in Donbas? Great victory there zigger. The entire economy of Russia is smaller than that of Italy and this zigger is still trying to convince anyone that Russia is a successful rich country and EU is bankrupt, might as well go write articles for sputnik tv
>>2815523>NATO expansion would have forced Russia to increase military spending anywayAnd I already said that increasing military spending to unreasonable levels is entirely unnecessary invasion or not and explained why that's the case, so I suppose you're just projecting with this "You didn't understand my post" bullshit.
>Most states weren't meeting their pre-existing spending quota.Do you actually think that NATO is like "Ohhhh fuck now our client states have to spend more on the military everything's going to collapse broooo"? It doesn't matter if these countries wanted to spend a shitload on their military before, the US WANTED TO SPEND MORE and they wanted their client states to do the same. And guess what? Now they are. Furthermore, they have an excuse for their population to justify these military expendiatures. I truly do not get this angle that NATO is horrified at the prospect of spending more money on their military. Sure, it's a problem for Russia, but they only have the 9th highest nominal GDP and 5 NATO countries are above them. NATO's combined Nominal GDP is $58.943 trillion. Russia's is $2.660 trillion. Russia has accomplished absolutely nothing by getting NATO to increase military spending, NATO has accomplished a shitload by getting Russia to funnel enormous amounts of money into its war machine.
>I think it's worth reminding you what your attitude isWhat, the attitude of wanting some kind of evidence or even just a convincing argument to back up insane claims of grandiose Ukrainian military operations against Russia and the seperatist states before the invasion?
>remember when you saidYes, what exactly is your problem with it? I percieve that you adore the destruction of Ukraine because, among other reasons, you're sick in the head. What is unique about this accusation compared to me calling you a retard?
>>2815545If what you say it's true, then everything is fucked up from all angles. Ofc the situation of Ukraine it's the worst case scenario for that country and even for Russia, only finantial capitalism can claim a clear victory over that battleground. So, instead of spending so much energy denouncing Russia or Ukraine, we should all spend our energy trying to analyze the situation from an historic, economic and geopolitical point of view. This whole moralistic idle chatter about who is good and who is bad makes absolutely no fucking sense. Who are the real actors inside Russia? Who is in control of the Russian state? What are their material constraints? To what extent are they really siding Russia with China and the global south as their ideological self presentation pretends to be doing? What otherwise MATERIALLY (not vibe-wise) to the western finantial bourgeoisie, tech lord's… In one word the ruling class? Who wields power inside Ukraine? Who are the imperial viceroys there? Where those their national bourgeoise stand? What will be the future of their blackrock economy? What will be the future of their palantir bureaucracy?
I'm very ignorant and I don't know shit about Russia, Ukraine, political economy, etc. but i think the important questions we should be contemplating are these ones, not this bullshit polemic. I'd love to see you all that know more than me discuss this in this line, so maybe I can learn some material reality of the situation
Aaaaaand that's 600. Thanks for playing everybody. Enjoy overtime.
>what is Russia gaining from this war?sense of accomplishment, land to plunder
>>2815554>Russian spendingdoesn't matter as long as there's money to be squeezed from population or anyone lending money
>>2815574>150k dead Russians a yearalso doesn't matter, russians don't value life like westerners do
>>2815594Another thing to bring up is the effects this conflict has had on the politics of Europe, including Russia. The militarist environment produced by this conflict has been an excellent opportunity for reactionaries across the board and practically made social patriotism mandatory in public discourse for the left on both sides of the frontline. A lot of people have essentially been purged from public life or literally put in prisons over their allegiances or lack thereof in this war without much public debate. It's been a regressive disaster really.
>>2815598Russia has the largest land area in the world, if there is one thing they don't need is more land. This was all about Russian inferiority complex. After the collapse of USSR Russians have been suffering collectively from inferiority complex against the west, this war was supposed to be Russia trying to prove to the world that they are relevant and strong and a superpower that can invade other countries like US does, and instead they proved the exact opposite, that they are barely a regional power let a lone a superpower
>>2815594people always have this irrational notion that whoever benefits the most from a situation automatically means they caused the situation. This war was Russia shooting themselves in the foot, just because the west benefits from it, doesnt absolve Russia from causing it, capitalism can profit and benefit from any situation whether there is war or no war, they always find a way to profit
>>2815612What I meant is that some serious socioeconomic and political analysis is due here, instead of partisanship. You guys in this and other threads that spend so much time discussing Russia-Ukraine should all organize an investigative commission, read some history and economics, and jointly reach some sort of analysis. All this polemical and debate zeal could be channeled better in a formal correspondence-investgation bureau that integrates different opinions. When I compare the level of discussion in this site with local communists I find that the level of analysis, even if not perfect nor ideal by any means, is much stronger here. This means we have good brains and great potential to do projects like this. I am not into this war and I still need to educate myself a lot, but it is obvious that some project like this would be much more valuable than this stupid chatter, even if everyone involved only invested the same amount of time in their day that they invest in the pointless debate. It would only require more energy. Same time, more energy.
>>2815620we talking about it isn't gonna solve anything, Russians themselves should be talking about it but they are banned from doing so
>>2815641If you all don't plan on comprehending then why even start talking about it? If you are willing to polemicize online, why not jointly investigate online investing the same time (but more energy)? That's what I mean
>>2815607most of that landmass is undeveloped which makes exploring the resources less profitable because of logistics. cutting cost is important for resource based economies
>>2815044>don't care about your drivel bro, it's very simple to prove you wrong.So far you've only proven to cling to liberal abstractions without proving anything.
>the USSr never had socialsim, if it did, and if the USSr proves state capitalism leads to socialism, then the USSR shows that socialism leads to neoliberalism, as the USSR collapsed and neoliberalism took over.Capitalism requires generalized commodity production, which did not exist in the Soviet Union where private property was abolished, anarchy of production was abolished, and the social classes of owners were abolished. The socialization of the economy made capital accumulation impossible, and there was no competition for profit among agricultural cooperatives. Therefore, it was not capitalist. Economic planning in the Soviet Union bore no comparison or resemblance whatsoever to the sale of goods in the market for profit that characterizes capitalism. The modes of production prior to capitalism were not capitalism, so the Soviet Union was neither capitalist nor state capitalism.
The Soviet Union had no elements of state capitalism after the end of the NEP because state capitalism has the same problems as private capitalism, and in the Soviet Union production followed a collective plan rather than selling for profit in the market. There was no financial speculation or methods of accumulating capital. Cooperatives had an exclusive relationship with the state, not competing with each other, with workers receiving the surplus after deductions from the total labor according to their labor and needs in the means of consumption, while the rest was public right returning from society to the worker to meet their needs. If you think that socialism depends on workers receiving the profits from the sale of everything produced in a society of cooperatives that compete with each other, then you are wrong.
Now, regarding the question of neoliberalism, this mode of organization was already used by the bourgeoisie when they realized they didn't need to make concessions to the workers and the profit rate began to decrease. The conflict of class struggle continues even after a revolution implements a socialist economy in a country, since there is the threat of international imperialist capitalism and its reactionary and liberal puppet agents. The workers' gains are destroyed if the imperialist capitalists win against the supremacy of the dictatorship of the proletariat, where the expectation is to plunder public property as spoils of war. Neoliberalism is quite characteristic when the aim is to subjugate a country like a neocolony.
Another mistake here is the issue of small commodity production, which is only common in semi-feudal or underdeveloped countries where industrialization hasn't spread to more isolated rural areas, leaving them cut off from the capitalist market. However, socialism, private capitalism, and state capitalism all eliminate small commodity production by peasants when large-scale production occurs and the isolation of these peasants ends. This is irreversible, so you are wrong on this point as well.
>congrats, you finally understood that the private-state capitalist false dichotomy is retardedWrong. Both can coexist in the bourgeois state. The bourgeoisie will use this in circumstances that benefit them, but it's possible that some bourgeois individuals might try to cannibalize state capitalism to try to make a profit for petty interests, even if it's quite unproductive for everyone. This is common in neoliberalism with the financialization of everything, being short-term focused on quick profits. China took advantage of this when neoliberalism spread throughout the world to use state capitalism to gain control of a sovereign national technology, unlike other countries that submitted to neoliberal economic orthodoxy. In any case, state capitalism doesn't need to complement private capitalism; it can be hostile and cause instability to the bourgeois state and can be used in the dictatorship of the proletariat. However, this must be done to socialize the economy and acquire economic sovereignty as quickly as possible, acquiring knowledge, tools, technologies, and means of production for a country to be self-sufficient. This is because it will still have all the problems of capitalism that will lead counter-revolutionaries to try to overthrow the dictatorship of the proletariat and end the supremacy of the proletariat.
It's important to remember that this is only a problem in semi-feudal countries. If capitalism has already spread throughout the country, then socialization will be much faster, leading directly to a socialist economy because there will already be means of production to be seized and no isolated part of the population.
>economic sovereignty of whom?For the proletarian state, which is the dictatorship of the proletariat, acquiring complete financial sovereignty would mean nationalizing all banks and socializing the country's finances with its own currency before the abolition of money, in addition to obtaining a public monopoly for foreign exchange. Food sovereignty means socializing seeds, tools, fertilizers, and chemical production so that a country is not at the mercy of capitalist blackmail. Technological sovereignty means having its own national technology without being at the mercy of multinationals abroad that will blackmail a country that does not have sovereign technology. Energy sovereignty means having control over its energy production, not being at the mercy of capitalists and not depending on imports. Industrial sovereignty would be having a national industry with its own technology so as not to be at the mercy of capitalists.
All this results in economic sovereignty for the workers to control the means of production in order to organize a socialist economy through economic planning. It's clear that the more deindustrialized a country is, lacking the tools to use state capitalism and the means of production, the more problems there will be, requiring more drastic actions by communists to socialize the economy.
>China doesn0t have state capitalism, China has a mixed model where private capitalism exists and is allowed to exist.Wrong. The Chinese government directs the economy with state-owned enterprises; this is characteristic of state capitalism. This is useful for implementing public policies that can be used for various purposes in the economy. Of course, there is private capitalism in China. Other capitalist countries, following neoliberal orthodoxy, consider it taboo to take advantage of the full potential of state capitalism. This is denied for ideological reasons by the bourgeois class in the West because they do not question neoliberal economic orthodoxy. China uses this for its own benefit, taking advantage of this type of situation.
>And yet you want to give capitalism state power by implementing state capitalism lolState capitalism facilitates the democratization of the economy with monopolization, public participation, and by removing the illusions of the masses regarding a separation of politics and economics. This gives the means of production and tools to the workers to socialize the economy more easily and suffer less risk of sabotage and manipulation by capitalists, benefiting the communist cause. A country undergoing a revolution can be threatened by capitalist imperialism abroad to prevent the revolution if there is no economic sovereignty, which will be exploited by counter-revolutionaries.
Remembering that the conditions for a revolutionary situation are different in each country where the bourgeoisie has more stable or more unstable control, with some having greater intensification of the exploitation of their workers, there is also the problem of uneven development, and so the communist revolution will overthrow the bourgeois state to implement the proletarian state. One cannot depend on international bourgeois organizations abroad; alternative international socialist organizations will have to be created as alternatives. It is clear that the objective is the supremacy of socialist hegemony to end all bourgeois institutions, private property, market competition, and social classes.
You are forgetting that the communist position is to oppose giving any repressive power to the bourgeois state so that it enters into crisis and collapse, to arm the workers so that popular militias in workers' self-defense committees can disarm class enemies such as owners and their counter-revolutionary agents so that the proletarian class acquires its supremacy.
>you are retarded, I never said this.Every time you talk about a fascist threat that is supposedly different from neoliberal imperialist capitalism, which for you would be a lesser evil, you are indeed serving finance capital as a useful idiot.
>Brazil's own industrialization ended up being appropriated by the neoliberal period of Collor and Cardoso. State capitalism is socializing investment and privatizing profits. History shows this; feel free to prove this wrong, something you haven't been able to do for days.Fernando Henrique Cardoso is when neoliberalism consolidates in Brazil, completing what Collor did not complete. But the bourgeoisie had already been rebelling against the citizen constitution of the new Republic since the constitution was written. Article 192, in its original wording, stipulated that real interest rates could not exceed 12% per year. This aimed to protect the productive sector and citizens from financial speculation, and this law was emptied to serve financial capital from its inception. Brazil's industrialization was subservient to the United States and dependent on it since the Vargas government. Perhaps if it weren't for the coup that brought about by the military junta, Brazil could have followed a more neutral path in the Cold War and could have leveraged state capitalism to achieve a level of technological and industrial sovereignty, if the Brazilian left hadn't been so naive in underestimating the US puppets in Brazil who were conspiring.
With the Washington Consensus, neoliberalism is eventually forced by finance capital as if it were common sense to intensify the exploitation and deindustrialization of countries like Brazil. However, this doesn't change the fact that state capitalism can be used against private property, and that the Brazilian left has never been able to take advantage of the potential of state capitalism to democratize the economy, build dual power, and prepare for revolutionary situations. This is because state-owned enterprises can be used to compete against private companies at a low price, and because politics, not separated from economics, cannot be so easily hidden from the masses when state capitalism is in place.
Brazilian state capitalism was hindering the interests of financial capital, which had been rebelling since the beginning of the new republic. It was constantly dismantling and cutting funds from state-owned companies so they could be privatized and siphoned off by private companies. These companies then used the modern equipment that had been kept unused on purpose to spread false propaganda to the masses, claiming that private companies were superior to public ones. Because this equipment was handed over to the company that bought the public companies, the administration constantly sabotaged these public companies by choosing individuals with conflicts of interest, serving the interests of private companies, thus sabotaging public companies and always taking advantage of austerity measures. The left in Brazil has always governed with a minority in the Chamber of Deputies, which is another factor. Although reformists, in my opinion, are unable to reverse financialization because they fear conflict and chaos and believe in class conciliation instead of using everything as a weapon against the bourgeoisie and to intensify the class struggle.
>so it didn't have state capitalism thenThe cooperative sector during the NEP was part of state capitalism. With the end of the NEP, and with these cooperatives no longer able to compete with each other due to their exclusive relationship with the state and with equalization, they became part of the socialist economy along with state farms. Although it would be better if all cooperatives were collective enterprises belonging to the whole society, like state farms.
>projectionA person like you who fantasizes about a fascist threat and clings to neoliberalism, thinking that imperialist capitalism, through submission to finance capital, is separate from the fascism you hate as if it were a lesser evil against "fascist statism," is a liberal wanting to co-opt the masses to serve finance capital as a useful idiot, denying the tools that communists can use and the propaganda they could spread.
>I have the entire history of the XXth century on my side, you have quotemined wall of texts.And I affirm that the entire history of the 20th century is on my side instead of yours. You simply use the liberal "common sense" of what 20th-century history is without any reference to or confrontation with the bourgeois narrative or adjacent groups co-opted to it who do not wish to use "authoritarianism" to spread revolutionary terror and gain power. I, too, am not afraid to cause chaos in the bourgeois state to prepare for the revolutionary situation, but you are afraid of this.
I have scientific socialist texts on my side, and you have none.
>and that gave rise to the US Empire, so your multipolarity theory falls flat on it's face when we study the XXth centuryWrong. The rise of the American empire depended on the integration of the various bourgeoisies of the world using the communist threat against the workers of the world. Currently there is no socialist power acting to create a socialist hegemony. The current proletarian democracies are in isolated defense, which means that it is necessary to cause chaos so that the capitalists do not work together to give more opportunity for communists of the world to act. Even during the Cold War, the Soviet Union encouraged countries to remain neutral, helping them to industrialize and achieve economic sovereignty, while the United States made concessions to various countries in an attempt to preserve capitalism. Currently, these concessions no longer exist with the Washington Consensus, so multipolarity is necessary until another socialist bloc forms.
>says the guy that implies that state capitalism and the empowerment of third world bourgeois advances communism lolThe use of state capitalism does not mean that the bourgeoisie of the third world would be strengthened, although countries having more equal relations could be said to be relatively stronger internationally, but a comprador bourgeoisie also has its level of security and strength as part of the financial capitalist empire subjugating the neocolony. The use of state capitalism can reduce social inequality and intensify class struggle as cooperatives advance along with the democratization of the economy, which depends on breaking the illusion of separation between politics and economics. Private capitalism maintains the illusion, while state capitalism is much more difficult to convince the masses because neoliberal politics, which pretends to be outside of politics, is unable to maintain its illusions and sell its programs to the masses, having to act stealthily to carry out its program.
Having several countries with more sovereign economies and equal relations also leads to more instability where proletarians can seize the means of production. Furthermore, these capitalists will not constantly act against each other due to various conflicts of interest and lack the means to intimidate or integrate each other into some capitalist imperialist plan against socialists. This will make sanctions less effective, giving the new proletarian state time to acquire what is necessary to socialize the economy, benefiting the communist cause because the masses cannot remain passive.
A unipolar world is much more capable of preventing communists and overthrowing revolution in the most unstable points of the empire, which can be isolated and neutralized with the cooperation of the world bourgeoisie. A multipolar world has fewer means of making countries accept patents and respect intellectual property, which will benefit communists in acquiring the economic sovereignty necessary to organize a socialist economy.
I am thinking of all the factors that exist before the revolution, during the revolution, during the consolidation of the dictatorship of the proletariat, during the socialization of the economy, and in preparing for the communist revolution in the world. You don't think about this; you probably believe in a fantasy that out of nowhere the world's workers will try to start a world revolution by implanting communism in the world without questioning that this is an idealistic fantasy.
>>2815044>the interests of capitalists is to mantain the dictatorship of the bourgeosie in place, they are willing to cooperate with each other before allowing for communists to take power, Iran collaborating with MI6 to persecute communists is proof of this, yet again, you do not understand the history of the XXth century, so you don't know what this meansYou are only thinking about the bourgeoisie in one country, in the case of Iran and the United States. There are many other bourgeois countries that have conflicting interests. The more sovereignty there is among the various countries of the world, the easier it will be to exchange technologies and tools. Furthermore, during the Cold War, the United States was uniting all capitalist countries as the hegemony that represents capitalist interests, while the Soviet Union tried to maintain the socialist pole by helping other countries become technologically independent or advance socialism.
During the Cold War, there was the aid offered by the socialist bloc and concessions offered by the United States, which no longer exists. Other bourgeois groups may clash with each other in a multipolar world or submit, collaborating within a unipolar order. Acquiring the technology necessary to organize a socialist economy is much more difficult in a unipolar world, which will organize itself to prevent any socialist revolution in various ways, taking advantage of the dollar's dominance to attack this proletarian state. This is not possible in a multipolar world where, if a capitalist's petty interest in the short term attempts to make a deal with socialists, there will be no means to prevent it, unlike a unipolar world that can punish renegade capitalists by isolating them, intimidating them, and minimizing this type of behavior.
>No they don't lolThey do prove it. I accept your concession. lol
>No country today needs a NEP, no country today needs to be rapidlyu developed to have socialism, we already have the technology to implement communism, it's 2026 not 1917I'm not writing about replicating the NEP, I'm writing about the use of state-owned enterprises to intensify the class struggle, encourage the democratization of the economy so that workers can participate more in it, breaking more illusions of the bourgeois state, prevent costs from being passed on to workers, accelerate the fall in the rate of profit and build dual power before the revolutionary situation and during the dictatorship of the proletariat, accelerate the socialization of the economy. This is not the same as the NEP and will not be as long as it.
I often recommend this if a country is deindustrialized, lacking industries and refining industries, if it's a country that exports raw materials and depends on imported products due to financialization and neoliberal deindustrialization, and in various other areas of the economy. Instead of making overpriced contracts for the enrichment of capitalists, state-owned companies can compete against these private companies, which will help develop national public technologies to give greater technological sovereignty to countries that are constantly blackmailed by capitalists who control the technologies.
This, to me, is very useful and practical for attacking private property and breaking through the fog of neoliberal and capitalist propaganda for the masses. The masses will not see this as something distant, and it can be used as propaganda for socialization, in addition to making workers understand all the technologies they produce because having technological sovereignty minimizes sabotage by capitalists who control these technologies and minimizes the blackmail and manipulations they can carry out. Of course, I'm not naive enough not to consider that this will create a reaction from capitalists, but this is what will intensify the class struggle I'm talking about, even if these types of demands exist only as propaganda. In Brazil, capitalists are constantly attacking, demanding privatization and the destruction of workers' rights, attacking even the minimum that the constitution gives to workers, so why can't communists do the opposite?
This will demonstrate what it means to be an "outsider" to those who are deceived by false "rebels," lackeys of finance capital who pretend to be the alternative to the status quo.
Tell me if you think the technology to produce electronics and various machines is available in current peripheral countries? I would say no. This means that after a communist revolution, a country would have to find a way to produce everything domestically and understand how it's done, not to mention the risk of sabotage when you depend on technology controlled by multinational companies that keep their industrial secrets and collaborate with capitalist imperialism. Or do you think this is available to any country?
>>2815045>just like your theory is outdate in relation to the experiences of the XXth centuryYou remain wrong with no proof.
>yes, state capitalism will be used to kill proless in a war, why do you think this proves your point?Class war will also kill proletarians, this changes nothing. You act as if the proletarian class is an identity to cling to sentimentally. All obstacles to the supremacy of the proletariat must be eliminated no matter how many have to die. Here you are again demonstrating a desire for stability in the capitalist system, whining in fear of suffering, wanting stability instead of chaos so that the masses are forced to accept communism as the only solution with the breaking of all bourgeois illusions.
>good, if the European and American causes the collapse of Russia, then it means Russia can engage in revolutionary defeatismWrong. All communist revolutions occurred in countries that were allied with the major capitalist powers when they fell. Was there a communist revolution in the Triple Alliance? There wasn't.
Furthermore, there is no communist power currently facilitating revolutions like the Soviet Union. Russia is helping both Cuba and North Korea, therefore it is playing a progressive role. It is breaking the patent order, which is useful for communists to access alternative technologies to the American-European imperialist capitalist infrastructure, and it is fighting a puppet of finance capital that was attempted to be replicated in Brazil (where they failed) but succeeded in Ukraine. The Ukrainian communist party also depends on the collapse of the Ukrainian government.
Everything suggests there are no forces for a revolutionary situation in Russia because the opposition is under the control of finance capital, which would immediately ban communists, just as in Ukraine. As Lenin said, communists cannot be subservient to spontaneity, and as Marx and Engels said, the communist party must be independent of the bourgeoisie. However, you claim to be from Mexico and are literally advocating for the neo-Nazi puppet government of Ukraine to benefit the finance capital of the same bourgeoisie that controls Mexico. I would say you are serving capitalist imperialism by not asking your country to cut all financing for weapons and foreign loans. Remember that the collapse of Russia will reverse the rate of profit, decreasing the profits that finance capital will obtain from a new neocolony, and will also make countries respect intellectual property more, as finance capital will more easily prevent violators.
Just as Marx accepted Irish separatism because of English chauvinism, communists can accept the separatism of Russian regions of Ukraine because of Ukrainian chauvinism, which has been used since the 2014 coup against the rights of minorities that existed since Soviet Ukraine. Since Ukraine bans communists, it has no use other than having its government destroyed.
I don't live in Russia, but I recognize that it is useful for communists to destroy bourgeois institutions that are obstacles to their advancement. The Ukrainian government is one of these obstacles that will have no strength to resist communists upon collapsing and losing all Western support. A Russia subservient to the West will have all the support of the West to fight communists. You cannot forget that the Paris Commune occurred at an unfavorable moment when the French Empire lost the Franco-Prussian War; eventually, the two countries were able to coordinate against the Paris Commune. The Russian October Revolution occurred in the midst of World War I, with the warring countries, such as those in the Triple Alliance, occupied, and Germany being the weaker power compared to the British Empire, which had just lost its ally.
But I thought the history of the USSR proved your point correct, are you cherry-picking now?
No. Russia is only a hypothetical minor threat if it gets in the way of communists in specific situations and if the contradictions it has with American and European imperialist capitalism end up happening in the case of the United States and Europe reconciling with Russia to focus against China and deciding to respect Russian capitalism in order to integrate them into this American and European imperialist order against the rest of the world, in this case Russia will no longer be useful, but currently this is not happening, so I see no reason to stop those who are being useful for communists to abolish bourgeois freedoms and bring chaos to bourgeois institutions that are obstacles for communists.
Don't forget that Tsarist Russia was allied with the British Empire, which was the greatest imperialist capitalist power in the world at the time. Currently, this would mean being allied with the United States, and who is allied with the United States and its vassal? Ukraine and the European countries are the answer, and therefore they are the logical target.
>2 more weeks I guess right?This means the world situation is becoming increasingly favorable for the communist cause to act in the world with the advancement of a multipolar world. I don't see anything wrong with that.
>I already did, you claim that state capitalism leads to socialism, and this is wrong, because in the XXth century, state capitalist led to neoliberalism, the USSR collapsed and it turned into neoliberalism, Brazil engaged in neoliberal reforms after state capitalism, history proves your theory wrong.Wrong. State capitalism is useful for socializing the economy, and this occurred in the Soviet Union, leading to a socialist economy with the end of the NEP, but every defeat of the dictatorship of the proletariat against the capitalist imperialist classes will eventually lead to capitalism, with the decrease in profit rates and less risk of a communist threat leading the bourgeoisie to implement neoliberal policies.
The case of China proves that state capitalism is superior to private capitalism, and the case of Brazil only saw the use of state capitalism in attempts to develop the country independently during the Vargas government, and perhaps only if the Brazilian coup d'état of 1964 failed. In all these cases, I realized that naiveté and fear of being authoritarian, believing in class conciliation, were to blame for a coup d'état occurring and succeeding. It's worth remembering that Fernando Henrique Cardoso's neoliberal policies, such as the macroeconomic tripod, can be reversed, and there are always state-owned companies that can be expanded and utilized, not to mention that new state-owned companies can be created along the way while preparing for a revolutionary situation.
Communists in Brazil always have proposals to create more state-owned companies to compete against private companies; in any case, I see no problem with that.
>So a capitalist nation that is preparing for war (fascism) it will use state capitalism because it is more efficientYou are wrong again. A capitalist country preparing for war is not fascism. Any bourgeois democracy can prepare for war, start a war, and serve imperialist capitalism. You, who do not know the Marxist definition of fascism, therefore remain wrong. Any type of country can use state capitalism, or do you think that the public companies that the Nazis used, deregulated, and privatized during World War II and the interwar period were not created by social democrats and conservatives during the bourgeois democracy of the Weimar Republic?
Other bourgeois democracies also used state capitalism in war and outside of it without being fascist, so you are wrong.
>>2815646Russia has literally the largest amount resources on earth, Russians could have been the richest people in the world if they had a competent democratic government instead of a fascist oligarchy that steals resources to fund wars and oligarchs vacations
>>2815642are you asking why people pointlessly and angrily argue on the internet? I mean that's what the internet is for
>>2805001So you admit Russia invaded Ukraine to steal it's trillion dollar minerals? and that's different from NATO how exactly? ziggers too dumb to realize their own arguments work against them
>>2807829>Dumb zigger cries about NATO expansion and imperalism while simultaneously promotes Russian expansion and imperalismfuck off zigger nazi, ruskyi mir is Russias Lebensraum
>>2805008>this isn't Russia invading UkrainePutin was literally on live TV announcing the invasion of Ukraine by Russia. Braindead zigger bots still trying to gaslight people with Kremlin talking points
saw someone say "zigger" in the wild
crazy shit out there
>>2816392What, like IRL or on another website?
>>2815723>>2815724>>2815788>You don't understand what state capitalism is. State capitalism means controlling the market with public companies so that capitalism within a country goes in a certain direction. I know what state capitalism is, as I communist I oppose it.
>This facilitates public policies where eventually a national bourgeoisie develops and foreign capital remains under control.Proof?
>In Brazil, unlike the state capitalism of the Vargas period, the Second Republic, the military business junta, and the New Republic, there was a dependent industrialization with a more limited state capitalism to support the interests of capitalists, which eventually led to problems that Brazilian left-wing developmentalists failed to understand.So the state-caputalist period of Vargas lead to privatization and neoliberalism, this proves my point right, the establishment of state capitalism, if it empowers the national bourg, results in privatization policies and deindustrialization under the direction of the national bourg. Again, this is evidence that YOUR position is wrong, not mine, I DO NOT wish to empower nat bourgs, you do.
>here is no possible agreement between the national bourgeoisie and labor to reindustrialize the country when everything has already been financialized. Again, this argument is AGAINST YOUR IDEOLOGY, when you empower the national bourg, the end up gaining power and influencez and instead of engaging in socialism they privatize state enterprises and deindustrialize.
>This means that to reindustrialize a country there must at least be the use of state capitalism and state-owned enterprises to force reindustrialization, using these enterprises to compete against private companies, no matter how many go bankrupt, to facilitate occupations, nationalizations, collectivizations, and socializations because capitalists will only speculate in the financial market anyway, and therefore only communists have solutions. Again, why do we need to re-industrialize if we already had a period of industrialization under Vargas government? How are we sure that the national bourgs won't sabotage any attempt at establishing socialism?
>Of course, the intensification of this antagonism with class struggle will bring crises and a revolutionary situation to carry out the revolutionProof?
>but the workers at least have to see a path and not be complacent about what to do before the revolutionary situation and during the dictatorship of the proletariat to socialize the economy.What is the path if we just established that state capitalism doesn’t work then?
>You continue to be wrong.No, you do.
>State capitalism can be used to support private capitalism, but it can also be used to intensify class struggle and democratize the economy. Proof?
>This will cause the bourgeoisie to react negatively, bringing chaos and intensifying class struggle to prepare for a revolutionary situation, as well as giving workers experience in participating in the economy to eventually form a Red Guard to defend the interests of the working class.Proof?
Now I discuss your last two posts:.
You obviously have no interest in having a constructive exchange, I have asked you several times to engage in a materialist analysis of history to prove your thesis and you have refused to do so. I asked you before to prove that nationalization policies come from national bourgs having control of key sectors of the economy vs foreign, as that would be reason enough to support multipoltarity by empowering the national bourg, and you have not done that. I asked you to provide proof that nationalization results in socialism and not neoliberalism, and you have refused to provide proof besides >muh USSR despite the fact that the USSR proves state capitalism does not lead to socialism but rather neoliberalism (when the USSR fell). You also claim that these statements, which you treat as axiomatic are proved by >muh text despite the fact that even Marx himself states in the 1872 preface that the results of the Paris commune prove that political strategy isn't solid and must change depending on the historical conditions. You also show to change the subject as a way to ignore the fact that you refuse to provide proof whenever your arguments are challenged.
From now on I am just copying and pasting your wall of texts into an LLM and asking it to give me a resume of the most important points. I am not going to lose my time when you come up with such retarded arguments as to claim that a capitalist country arming itself to engage in a landgrab war where civilians are attacked isn't fascism.
Here's what the LLM told me:
>1. The USSR was not capitalist or “state capitalist”. The text argues that the Soviet Union did not meet the definition of capitalism because: There was no generalized commodity production. Private property and capitalist classes were abolished. Production followed a central plan, not profit-driven markets. This is incorrect, the abolition of capitalism isn't merely defined in such manner. First of all, as of today, it is irrelevant if the USSR had socialism or not, because the USSR collapsed, if the USSR had socialism then such manner of reaching socialism has proven to be ineffective. Second, during what years did the USSR had socialism, I ask you this so I can pin point policies, systems and relationships between the people in government and the working class and analyze if it was really socialism.
>2. State capitalism is a tool to reach socialism. The author argues that state capitalism can be useful, especially in developing or post-revolutionary countries, to: Build economic and technological sovereignty. Strengthen control over industry, finance, and resources. Prepare conditions for full socialist transformation.Again, where is the proof of this? The USSR? see above. Not only that, how are you replying to the argument that nationalization policies in the developing lead to privatization and neoliberalism?
>3. Neoliberalism and capitalist restoration come from defeat, not from socialism itself The text claims that when countries like the USSR shifted to neoliberalism, it was because: The proletarian system was defeated by internal/external capitalist forces. Not because socialism “naturally leads” to neoliberalism. Neoliberalism is framed as a tool of imperialism to dominate weaker countries, not a natural evolution.This is an argument against your ideology and the way you wish to organize a strategy to fight socialism. Capitalist restoration came from defeat, explain to me how are we avoiding such defeat again?
>>2818577socialism is a process not a static set of policies
Unique IPs: 204