Be very of these false narratives which seek to bend the framework of reality towards a position in accord with the US Empire.
This is not “a conflict between two bourgeois countries”. This is an abstract, undialectical analysis.
It is adapting the framework of Western Imperialists.
This is a complex conflict decades in the making, at it’s core, it is a war between Russia and the Blood Empire.
The Ukrainian people are being used as a weapon by their bloodthirsty American masters.
I hope people here see how deceptive and devious this “both sides bad capitalists” narrative is.
It is poisonous to us communist communities, and it shows that western propaganda is very much able to spread on GenZedong.
Do not allow them to infiltrate our minds.
Godspeed comrades. o7
Lenin’s definition captured imperialism in a fully developed form however there is a transition from premonopoly capitalist relations to imperialist monopoly capitalism. You do not just one day have fully developed finance capitalism the day after you build a factory. These things co develop and though it is undeveloped in Russia you can clearly see that such institutions are developing. They are hindered by the west already controlling most things meaning they have less to expand themselves.
Let’s look at the Russia economy. Is Russian industry highly cartelized? Yes. A few extremely wealthy capitalists hold basically everything and control much of the economic life of the country.
Has bank and industrial capital fully merged? No. Are they continually growing closer? Yes. The Russian banking system has a lot of state control so ofcourse it won’t look identical to the western way of such institutions fully merging however the state itself is only a tool of the Russian national bourgeois so they are still merging as a financial oligarchy, it is simply going to look somewhat different from a superstructure level due to higher state involvement.
Is the export of finance capital of special importance above that of exporting commodities? No. This is because again, most financial markets that could be invested in are already oversaturated with western money with very little else left. They do export capital, just on a much smaller scale then the great powers of today.
Have they formed international monopolistic relations? Ofcourse not. They are unable to. Again, not enough of the world left for them to develop that to a high degree.
Is the territorial division of the world happening between them and other powers? Well yes. That is the Ukrainian situation. Even if Russia will rule in a softer way than the west it is still trying to divide the world between itself and the west. This is quite small scale because again Russia is not a fully developed imperialist power, it is a small imperialist.
Does Russia fully conform to Lenin’s imperialist definition? No, but that wasn’t the point. The point was to show that it is developing towards that goal which was what my entire statement on the topic was about.
I disagree with your point that it’s moving towards imperialism. Of course, Russia is capitalist in the bourgeois kind of way and of course imperialism is the final stage of all such economies, I’m not arguing against that. What I’m saying is that Russia is nowhere near this stage yet and framing the discussion in this way distracts from the capitalists who undeniably are at this stage already and who have a big stake in this war (NATO).
The territorial division of the world has already happened and Russia did not get a slice of the pie. Russia was, in fact, part of the pie that was sliced. It’s because of their opposition to western imperialists that they have been acting as an anti-imperialist force in recent years despite being capitalist themselves (like with the interventions in Syria and Kazakhstan).
Russia would likely not have invaded Ukraine if they remained a neutral country and stopped their ethnic cleansing of Russian Ukrainians. This war began because of NATO’s constant encroachment towards Russia, not because of Russian desires for Ukrainian capital. Because if their goal was to colonize Ukraine, then why are they killing Nazis and supporting the establishment of 2 socialist countries?
I disagree. Russia is at the border of this stage. They however cannot develop further with the west in the way. This is why they play such a progressive role. Because it is the only way they can expand further.
Russia supports anti imperialist forces because it is not yet at tge stage where it can enforce its will by capital and arms alone. This forces them to make compromises.
Russia didn’t care about the ethnic cleansing. Its been going on for a while now. That was simply their excuse. They cared that Ukraine was going to join NATO (which is a reasonable fear, I’m not against Russia on this, I support them). We need to reconize that Russia is not a permanent ally or some ally of the people by virtue of itself. Its in a position where it is forced to work with progressive causes because to not would leave it wholly isolated.
As far as I know the DPR and LPR aren’t socialist (despite the name) but they do have large communist presence as they are both built from coalitions and they both are striving for a better future against imperialism so I fully support them.
I said in every comment that I support what Russia is doing, I just reconize why they’re doing it instead of just naively believing they have everyone else’s interests at heart.
In terms of economics, Russia is more like Mexico than they are like any of big NATO countries. They don’t have the financial power to exert themselves onto other places like the US can, despite having a strong military.
And I think that Russia does care about the ethnic cleansing considering they are the ones being cleansed (Russians) and that both of the Minsk protocols called for a ceasefire and recognition of self-governance in Donetsk and Luhansk. I agree that this wasn’t the sole reason for the intervention and that NATO was a bigger threat, but it doesn’t have to be one or the other. Remember that barely 30 years ago, all of these territories were the same country and had been the same country for centuries.
I agree that Russia has their own interests at heart, but so what? Every country does, even the socialist ones. Right now Russia’s self interest means furthering the destruction of US hegemony and that’s the biggest thing holding the global working class back from socialism.
I agree that Russia is not NATO level. I’ve said that multiple times. It definitely say Russia is somewhere between the US and Mexico in terms of imperialist development. Its ofcourse not comparable to a massive power like the US because the US had the ability to fully develop imperialism while Russia has had such development halted by the west because the west already has everything. This is why I compare it to pre WW1 Germany which was a strong developed capitalist country but couldn’t colonize other countries not by virtue of its weakness but because of how late it was to reaching the point in which it could sustain imperialist conquest. If NATO just dissolved overnight Russia would rapidly begin to pick up these newly opened countries for itself as its already primed for it and now just needs the space to expand.
I’m sure the average Russia citizen cares about the genocide, but the wealthy? They let Russian citizens die every day. The bourgeois are the ones making this decision not the people. If tge bourgeois cared about something as simple as their nation they would fight to make the lives of the average Russian better, but they don’t.
I already said I’m fine with Russia being self interested, its entirely expected. At ever point I’ve said that I support them against NATO. As I said before, the point is that it is wrong to try and paint Russia as a saint. Just like the Communists in China worked with the Nationalists to fight imperialism from Japan we should ally with Russia to fight imperialism however this is an alliance of convenience and circumstance, not of ideological unity. That is what I’ve maintained in every comment I’ve made. Support Russia, but reconize it for what it is, not some idealized notion of it fighting imperialism for anti imperialist reasons, but fighting imperialism because it hopes to eventually take the place of the current imperialist.
I agree your point that Russia isn’t a saint. If I ever came across like I was hallowing Russia or canonizing Putin, then I apologize.
However I do still disagree that Russia invaded Ukraine for imperialist reasons. Because if that were the case, then why didn’t they invade any of their smaller, weaker neighbors first? Why didn’t they coup the governments of Syria or Kazakhstan when they had the opportunity? And why aren’t they obliterating Ukraine like they could be? (the destruction of foreign capital means more opportunity for growth)
Ultimately I just think that you’re using the word “imperialism” too lightly. We’re on the same page otherwise.
The reason is that Ukraine presented a more pressing threat and those other countries are already allied with Russia so the gains of harming them wouldn’t be worth the effort relative to Ukraine.
If I use imperialism too lightly then others use it too strictly, only being able to conceptualize a world with only a single imperialist institution because that is what they are used to.
One person even said that France and the EU may not be imperialist because the US is interfering with them. An entirely ridiculous notion. We need to reconize that things are constantly changing towards different outcomes. This is the essence of dialectics. I’m just tracking the trends of Russia and an imperialist direction is the only way left for its capitalism to really expand. Its being limited by the west which has slowed this development and put the Russian national bourgeois against the western bourgeois.
We need to recognize Russia’s true interests so that we can then understand how to properly predict, work with, and deal with them. Otherwise we’ll turn into nothing more than Russian nationalists outside of Russian.
Allied with Russia or colonized by Russia? These are very different things and calling the former imperialism only serves to whitewash the latter. Not to mention that it isn’t even true. Like, the countries in the Caucasus are buddied up with the EU and the Baltics are each NATO member states…
I repeat: up until 30 years ago, all of these countries used to be part of the same country and had been for centuries prior. They have been split apart thanks to NATO and it is NATO that seeks to split Russia apart even further. The integrity of Russia is actually pretty unstable so if you want to know Russia’s true interests, you must view this conflict with historical context.
NATO has been encircling Russia for decades now and seeks to divide the Russian federation because they are one of the few countries that pose a meaningful threat to American hegemony. And I’m not theorizing here, this plan was explicitly laid out by Zbigniew Brzezinski decades ago. Using Ukraine as a spearhead, integrating the Baltics, and using NATO as a way to expand US influence without creating a Europe that could challenge the US, everything has all been going according to plan.
This war has been a long time coming and it is the US who is to blame for it. I’m sorry, but framing this war as an act of imperialist aggression by Russia is ignorant. Instead of worrying about a hypothetical “imperialist Russia” you should be worrying about the very real, very powerful imperialist USA.
? I said allied with Russia. I’m not particularly concerned with Russian imperialism at the moment. I’m not sure what in my comment set you off but now you’re basically arguing with yourself here. Nothing I said or believe contradicts anything in your last comment.
I also didn’t frame the war as an imperialist act by Russia. In fact I consider it a continuation of the war the DPR and LPR have been waging against Ukraine. Russia simply saw this war, saw the moves Ukraine was doing angling towards NATO and decided to intervene for its own defense and to secure its pipelines that run through Ukraine. Nothing more, nothing less.