No.577535
>>577521>And where the fuck do you think you are, as if any threat means anything lol.I think i've met this poster before. If he is who i think he is- He got absolutely booty blasted when I pointed out the same thing and then tried to defend the ethnic deportation of Kurds during the Arab belt.
The only thing this guy can do is just respond with death threats when you call him out on his bullshit.
Quite pathetic, really.
No.577538
>talking about Chechnya
>implying the u.s. wasn't funding al-qaeda to destabilize Russia
No.577541
>>577526>I never disputed this, the point was that being on the border makes no difference in regards to intervention over a spill over of violence. The US fighting it's own CIA backed cartels because of its own policy coming back to bite it, or it fighting violence spillover that didn't involve it, doesn't refute the main point made about the rationalization of invasion.And the point I'm making isn't one about location. If the US funds terrorists and a third party stops terrorists thats good. If the US funds terrorists and the US intervenes and says they are stopping terrorists they are lying, they are not stopping terrorists, its for some unknown reason related to their imperialist designs, probably to create more terrorrists. If its not I don't care because they don't get the benefit of the doubt when all of their history shows the opposite. The relative closeness to the hypothetical third party is just more justification for something already good.
No.577545
>>577514we should make it clear that inter imperialist antagonism doesn't refer to this. It's not a non dominant power under a new mode of production using old forms of imperialism. It's a conclusion of capitalist development and you can credibly argue BRICS hasn't reached it.
Imperialism is about whether you uphold the oppression needed to spread or maintain the the world's dominant mode of production. The imperialists all do even when they feud. The only question here is whether Russia, China, or Iran could become imperialist given sufficient development of that mode of production. But at the moment they do not uphold its dictatorships. The rot of these dictatorships is what is causing the crisis, not a battle between premodern and modern imperialism
No.577548
>>577519>It's called imperialism, late stage capitalism for a reason. Russia is not a late stage capitalist nation: The basic commodity extraction companies, banking, and many other companies are state-run, not capital-owned.Nearly half of each of those sectors are private, bit we are diverting off of the main argument.
>you don't engage in imperialism if your state structure is not highly monopolized, trying to secure resources.Again, what do you not get that imperialism can still be engaged in by a state that has not become imperialist wholesale? Imperialism is always the destination of a capitalist state, but you don't have to be at an advanced stage of capital to engage in it. It's just that the highest stage will always be imperialism at its epoch.
>more so, who are some of Russia's closest allies, but nations like Venezuela and Iran that also produce the resources they would like to monopolizeThis is irrelevant to the point.
>what lack of theory does to a MF.I actually took the time to go back and ensure I didn't miss something from Lenin, all I've done is point out that imperialism isn't so thing that can only be engaged by advanced capitalist states. Advanced capitalist states primarily engage in it out of dependency, making the entirety of the system itself an imperialist one structurally, but it is not exclusive to them.
No.577551
>>577548>making the entirety of the system itself an imperialist one structurallythat is the defining characteristic of Imperial
ism™
you now have permission to call things imperialian or imperialistical but your imperialism labeling card is revoked
No.577557
>>577548>Nearly half of each of those sectors are privateand none of them are monopolies inside Russia - that was the idea of the sanctions, to impose a shake inside Russia for the companies from outside working inside Russia to leave and destabilize Russia - the difference is that europe is too dependent on Russia's energy, to do what the u.s. did to Iran or Venezuela, nor as small economically to suffer as Cuba.
you have 0 knowledge of economics.
>This is irrelevant to the point.100% relevant. monopoly states on late stage capitalism have no friends, more in particular sectors they want to impose a monopoly. that's why europe is subdued to the u.s. because the u.s. doesn't want to lose the
exorbitant privilege the dollar has to the euro.
No.577560
>>577554>that developing capitalist nationslmao, how can a developing nation have a say on a business opened abroad over the other nation where it operates the business? worst, how can they impose violence, when the developing nation can't impose coercive measures to any degree it becomes a threat to have that business closed for the counterpart if the business violated the labor laws?
you are reading Lenin, you are not understanding Lenin.
No.577563
>>577528>Theres no point in calling them imperialist except to equate them with the US. Just call them capitalist.Only if you think this way, which anons fucking shouldn't. Why the hell would calling a state imperialist then make you say "well, that means it's to the same level as the US". At no point did I say that. You can have a seperate imperialist state, while acknowledging that the imperialism it's conducted is largely that of a less advanced form. Also, the whole point was that non-imperialist states (as in lacking an advanced form of capitalism) can still engage in imperialism, so I already gave the benefit of the doubt that Russia wasn't an imperialist state, just that it engaged in imperialism.
>Trying to say they are imperialist is like trying to say fast food chains are imperialist when they move in to a new town and the mom and pop restaurants go out of business. Its not nice and it sucks big time but its not imperialism. Its just capitalism. Russia is capitalist, irredentist, revanchist, maybe expansionist but its not imperialist. Didn't we just make the point about the difference of an imperialist state vs imperialism as a form of oppression?
>The only contradiction is that because we are an international board Russian citizens also post here and they can be for ending the war from their side. A principled anti-war stance would demand putting a stop to escalation from your own government not condemning other countries or trying to redefine words to make them uniquely evil.I never made Russia uniquely evil, that much should be evident. And I am against escalation and calls for peace in general. We weren't even largely talking about Ukraine, the discussion was about Chechnya, which blindsided me in this thread given how radically it differs from most Marxist positions on it, and it feels like most defend it now retroactively because of Ukraine.
No.577567
>>577554Russia doesn't engage in any pre-capitalist imperialism, either.
No.577570
>>577563>most defend it now retroactively because of UkraineWho the fuck defended Ichkeria here?
No.577573
>>577560>lmao, how can a developing nation have a say on a business opened abroad over the other nation where it operates the business? worst, how can they impose violence, when the developing nation can't impose coercive measures to any degree it becomes a threat to have that business closed for the counterpart if the business violated the labor laws?With tanks? The whole crux of your argument is that in order for any nation to engage in the game of imperialism, they must have a monopoly over some sort of resource, but Britain didn't have any monopoly when they started engaging in imperialism. They used imperialism to gain their monopolies.
>>577567>>577570Damn son, you've been watching from the sidelines throwing in one liners but have nothing of substance to say. Classic /chug/ behavior.
No.577576
>>577541>And the point I'm making isn't one about location. If the US funds terrorists and a third party stops terrorists thats good. If the US funds terrorists and the US intervenes and says they are stopping terrorists they are lying, they are not stopping terrorists, its for some unknown reason related to their imperialist designs, probably to create more terrorrists. If its not I don't care because they don't get the benefit of the doubt when all of their history shows the opposite. The relative closeness to the hypothetical third party is just more justification for something already goodThe point being made here is that the reason for invasion wasn't about terrorists, the terrorists were just a casus belli. That was the point being made, which is that the distance doesn't refute the main issue of the rationalization. You people are laser focusing on US involvement with cartels, which I am already aware of, and not the point that violent spillover isn't some reason to seize a country you have a treaty with.
No.577579
>>577503>Calm down. It's actually much worse than that. kek
No.577582
>>577554>Imperialism predates capitalism, so it stands to reason that developing capitalist nations and even non-capitalist nations can practice imperialism.No. You cannot go backwards in history. You cannot restore an empire after its mode of production has been abolished. What Lenin is saying is that there were different oppressor states of a different epochal or globally dominant mode of production. Yesterday's oppressors could become oppressed, like China and Turkey immediately after the collapse of their precapitalist empires.
No.577586
>🇷🇺🇺🇦 It is reported about the liquidation of one of the organizers of the arson of the House of Trade Unions in Odessa on May 2, 2014.
>Sniper Roman Chernomaz was eliminated near Bakhmut, and his compatriots write about death.
some justice being served
No.577588
>>577570>Who the fuck defended Ichkeria here?I'm talking about defending the war, why are you commenting on something you just jumped into without reading? Largely no Marxist defended the war before this, ML or not.
No.577591
Are we still arguing with Iranian gusano?
Either way here’s your daily reminder that America needs to die first
No.577597
>>577573>With tanks?no, modern imperiaism uses financial imperialism. any nation holding international reserves on another currency to estabilize their economy, using dollars, for example, or euros, is susceptible of imperialism.
>tanksTanks do have not that strength to coerce. 100 years ago perhaps that's the point that ukraine strayed into nazism faster thanks to the u.s. hegemony, than any military threat of the u.s.
>but Britain didn't have any monopolythe fuck?
No.577600
>>577563>Didn't we just make the point about the difference of an imperialist state vs imperialism as a form of oppression? you did but i don't think there is an "imperialism as a form of oppression". you are talking about capitalist exploitation and calling it imperialism.
>the discussion was about Chechnya, which blindsided me in this thread given how radically it differs from most Marxist positions on itChechnya 1 or 2? Marxist positions then or now? Its possible Russia was colluding with the US to fuck up Chechnya but that doesn't mean it is still a comprador state. And now we know that the US pushed Chechnya to invade Russia, just like Ukraine was about to back at the beginning. To believe that you would basically have to prove some kind of illuminati shit like the USSR was faking communism and the Bilderburgs were controlling them and the US too.
>>577576>the terrorists were just a casus belliSo then why did Russia invade? Do you have any examples of resources or industry was taken over by Russia?
>not the point that violent spillover isn't some reason to seize a country you have a treaty withIt is a reason to invade it, and they didn't seize it. Its rational to be skeptical of the claims but if they are true I think its justified. You can't just let a failed state mired in civil war run into destitution sit on your border and fester while outside forces are pumping them full of weaponry.
>>577588> Largely no Marxist defended the war before this, ML or not.I think things might have changed after revelations about US involvement.
No.577604
>>577591Funny how they never even begin to consider how living and being raised in the West, surrounded by Westerners who never felt the effects of their nation's own imperialism, may somehow skew their worldview in such a way. God forbid a Westoid has to listen to the voices in the global south.
No.577607
>>577582NTA, but while you can't restore an empire once it's primary mode of production it depend on is superceded, what oppressor states come next has nothing to do with imperialism being engaged in by capitalist states which are not of a sufficiently advanced level. Imperialism as a stage is not the same as imperialism as a form of oppression, which is something we agree on. But imperialism merely achieves it's epoch in advanced capitalist countries which have reached such a stage, it's not that imperialism cannot be conducted by lesser capitalist states. It's that at the later end of capitalist development lies imperialism in its most advanced form.
No.577614
>>577535I didn't do a death threat to you in particular, little bitch, I said: If you (or any pseudoleftist) try to come to my country and do an ethnic minority 'le based communist' separatist group to split my country, I will go to the front to kill you.
seethe all you want, it will be 2030, 2040, 2050, and you will keep babbling about how based the ypg sells Syrian resources to Syria as a good argument.
No.577617
>>577551>that is the defining characteristic of Imperialism™ >you now have permission to call things imperialian or imperialistical but your imperialism labeling card is revokedImperialism isn't exclusive to capitalism, and not only advanced capitalist countries engage in it. It's just that advanced capitalist countries engage in imperialism by necessity of its structure, while non advanced ones can engage in imperialism, but not be imperialist as a state.
No.577620
>>577617Tell me you haven’t read Lenin without telling me you haven’t read Lenin
No.577627
New thread
>>1503308
No.577630
>>577548>what do you not get that imperialism can still be engaged in by a state that has not become imperialist wholesale?I'm having flashbacks. Caught in the time loop.
TWO MORE WEEKS
TWO MORE WEEKS
>>>/leftypol_archive/494523>>>/leftypol_archive/494534>>>/leftypol_archive/494607>>>/leftypol_archive/494626>>>/leftypol_archive/494649 No.577634
>>577614I BTFO of you on that argument too, and you deliberately refused evidence as you always do.
>If you (or any pseudoleftist) try to come to my country and do an ethnic minority 'le based communist' separatist group to split my country, I will go to the front to kill you.Like I said, pathetic death threats. You couldn't throw a punch let alone pull a trigger.
No.577637
>>577634You didn't do shit, you got dogpiled for being a retard.
No.577640
>>577600>you did but i don't think there is an "imperialism as a form of oppression". you are talking about capitalist exploitation and calling it imperialism.We just had a discussion about it as a form of oppression. Engaging in imperialism is not the same as there being an imperialist state, otherwise Lenin's point on imperialism reaching its epoch makes no sense.
>Chechnya 1 or 2? Marxist positions then or now? Its possible Russia was colluding with the US to fuck up Chechnya but that doesn't mean it is still a comprador state. And now we know that the US pushed Chechnya to invade Russia, just like Ukraine was about to back at the beginning. To believe that you would basically have to prove some kind of illuminati shit like the USSR was faking communism and the Bilderburgs were controlling them and the US tooTwo, and then. Also, the US literally thought it was a good thing regarding what Russia was doing in the region.
>So then why did Russia invade? Do you have any examples of resources or industry was taken over by Russia?Largely further oil and natural gas sites.
>It is a reason to invade it, and they didn't seize it. Its rational to be skeptical of the claims but if they are true I think its justified. You can't just let a failed state mired in civil war run into destitution sit on your border and fester while outside forces are pumping them full of weaponryThey did seize it, and the government requested a peace deal with Russia that would allow the insurgents to be crushed while maintaining the existing government. That was denied.
>I think things might have changed after revelations about US involvement.The US is always somehow involved, it was even involved supporting the Russians engaging in "anti-terrorism" operations in the region, because at the time the US government was gearing up with its rhetoric on global Islamic terror.
No.577643
>>577637Matter of fact I did, you just stuck your head in the sand and continued your Zircle jerk.
I refuted each point, you and your bud got booty blasted and refused to read evidence and proceeded to say the same buzzwords and scream "glow".
You guys can't argue to save your skin and I exposed you for the reactionaries in red-paint that you are. But then again, what should i expect when im arguing with people who argue in favour of ethnic persecution and defend Russia's reactionary policies.
No.577646
>>577620>Tell me you haven’t read Lenin without telling me you haven’t read LeninI've read Lenin, it doesn't make sense to say I haven't when we're literally debating the nuance of six paragraphs in two specific chapters, that is to say the question of imperialism as a form of oppression outside of a strictly advanced capitalist imperialist state.
No.577649
>>577643Oh, I just watched. I'm not giving extra-retarded ultras (You)s.
No.577652
Getting off now, I have to get to work later. See ya.
No.577654
>>577649>ultraagain, like I said to the last guy, meaningless buzzword
No.577657
>>577643>I refuted each pointso it's based to ransack Syria's resources, right?
No.577660
>>577640>We just had a discussion about it as a form of oppression.I don't have the slightest idea what you mean by "imperialism as a form of oppression"
>Engaging in imperialismis not a thing
>otherwise Lenin's point on imperialism makes no senseLenins point is that imperialism is a stage, not a policy. Its pretty explicit. His definition of imperialism is a dialectical materialist one, similar to the communist definition of fascism, or the marxist definition of communism. Fascism isn't when people do things you don't like and its not a checklist of 14 policies you choose to implement. Communism is not a state of affairs, its a process, it is the real movement to abolish the present state of things. Making up a list of policy positions that are imperialist and calling anyone imperialist who does some of these policies and saying they are "engaging in imperialism" is an idealist construction of what imperialism is, not a materialist analysis of how and why it operates in reality.
No.577663
>>577654Repeating this does not make it true. "Ultra-leftists" are the ones that treat Marxist writings like religious scripture and reality not conforming to theory as heresy. That's exactly what you do.
No.577667
>>577663> "Ultra-leftists" are the ones that treat Marxist writings like religious scripture and reality not conforming to theory as heresy. That's exactly what you do.Except I don't. Just because I point out a glaring flaw in a Socialist project doesn't mean I outright renounce them. Like I said- there are things China does do that I don't agree with, that doesn't mean that they aren't worthy of support.
>>577657>noooo you can't establish a seperate government during a revolution and seize resources to maintain it because…. BECAUSE YOU JUST CAN'T OK cope.
No.577670
>>577667>cope.ok, so it's based, cool to know :^)
No.577673
>>577654Now what if I was writing in latin and used the world ultra. In such a sentence as Ultra Posse Nemo Obligatur.
No.577676
REMINDER it's ok if the CIA/Pentagon/U.S. interests ransack another state, because you can call it a revolution, and use the argument that this state selling resources to the original state is 100% communist/leftist
I welcome anyone to do it in my country with a 7.62×54 caliber bullet :^), comrade
No.577678
>>577610>>577604Literally all i did was point out that the focus for communists is the working class not supporting one side of capital, it is quite literally the most basic communist stance. Nothing about this is demsoc.
No.577681
>>577676Except that's not even happening you delusional schizo.
Rojava hasn't even sold said oil to the united states.
>but t-they ransackedThey took control of a region which the Assad government left for dead. You can scream CIA all you want- it's clear you're incapable of having a rational thought and/or argument.
No.577684
>>577660>Lenins point is that imperialism is a stage, not a policy. Its pretty explicit. His definition of imperialism is a dialectical materialist one, similar to the communist definition of fascism, or the marxist definition of communism. Lenin explicitly states that imperialism existed prior to the latest stage of capitalism. The imperialist stage is different then imperialism as a form of oppression as expressed in the past, but that in no way makes that imperialism any less a case of imperialism. The imperialist stage is the epoch of imperialism and has different principle features compared to the imperialism of the past, but that doesn't make imperialism lacking the domination of monopolist associations of big employers not imperialism, because then talking about those in chapter 6 makes no sense.
No.577687
>>576788>By Lenins definition imperialism is when capitalist nations forcefully export capitalNo it's not theorylet
Besides every nation exports capital retard loser
Unique IPs: 16