Pretty much now an argument between pro-Putin communists (Which sounds like a fucking oxymoron to me) and anti-Putin communists (which I thought was the fucking norm).

  • T34 [they/them]
    link
    123 years ago

    Here’s that one Trotsky quote I agree with:

    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.

    The point is not that Putin is a communist. He is a liberal nationalist. But his nationalism is a self-defense against what imperialism did to his country under Yeltsin. Self-defensive nationalism, even when it’s liberal, is worth our support as a blow against capitalist imperialism.

    • Muad'DibberA
      link
      73 years ago

      That’s a pretty rad quote. So strange how trotsky vacillates between euro-centrism (“Revolution can only happen in western europe!”), and genuine anti-imperialist / national self-determination here.

  • @SovietIntl
    link
    73 years ago

    Putin isn’t an autocrat but a state oligarch. Yeltsin sold out the country to a very small number of oligarchs and when Putin came around he set the country forward. He ain’t no Communist but he still looks after the interests of Russia, in that way he’s a nationalist but no more than America is. The hypocrisy would be to say Putin “worse” than the US which is wrong. If America were in a similar political-economic situation as Russia it would be the same in many ways.

  • Free PalestineA
    link
    73 years ago

    I used to hate Putin with a burning passion, then some comrades explained that Russia only exists today in the form it does because of Putin and his leadership. Russia would be nothing more than an American colony today, it may have balkanized further than it had after the fall of the USSR. But, Putin gave the new Russian Federation an identity to uphold and turned the state around.

    Now I don’t hate Putin. I don’t like him ideologically, but, the man’s worth praise. Especially from anti-imperialists. He turned his crippled nation into a real threat towards the west, stabilized its economy, and improved the quality of life of its citizens. And now with news that he’s reforming the government then stepping down (I haven’t been following this closely, so idk if it’s still happening or how much progress has been made on it), I’m left nervous for the future of the Russian Federation post-Putin.

    • @The_Lobster_EmperorOP
      link
      -33 years ago

      I don’t think the Putin government has much of a right to call itself anti-imperialist after Crimea.

      • Free PalestineA
        link
        23 years ago

        Russia’s actions towards Ukraine have a lot to do with Ukraine’s government going Fascist and partnering with the western powers. Crimea is a historically important port for Eastern Europe, and it’s a historically vital port for Russia. Ukraine could use NATO’s military strength to enact a soft-sanction on Russia via limiting Russia’s use of the port. The annexation of Crimea was a strategic war to ensure Russia doesn’t get bullied into regression. Like the Afghan War, it’s not very fortunate and there’s a lot to be critical of. But, also like the Afghan War, there were valid strategic justifications for the war and those justifications never get spoken about in non-CSTO spheres of influence.

        I’m not fully in support of the annexation of Crimea, but it’s dishonest to oppose it fully when discontinued use of the port could mean economic and logistical troubles for the Russian Federation and its trading partners.