Among the pearls of wisdom in this video we have:
“Russia is imperialist because it has state capitalist monopolies” Yes, you heard it right, having certain economic sectors under exclusive state ownership is imperialism. Guess Putin should privatize Gazprom like Yeltsin did, that way he wont be imperialist right Paul?
“Russia is imperialist because it has a big state owned bank called Sberbank” Yes, having big state owned banks is imperialism
“Russia is imperialist because it invests and isnt indebted” He uses the Net International Investment Position (NIIP) as “proof” that Russia is imperialist. That index takes foreign assets held by residents of a country and subtracts it the total debt, both public and private, of a country. Thus, if the NIIP is positive, the country is a creditor/invester, and if its negative, its a debtor. Russia has a positive value, but what does that prove? That Russia isnt indebted, thats all it proves. He says this proves “Russia is a major exporter of capital”, which it doesnt, the index doesnt account for Russias biggest export, commodities, which makes it NOT imperialist. The NIIP only accounts for investment/credit and debt. Also this index has many flaws, since all you have to do to count in is be a resident of the country. Tax heavens thus have insane positive values, but that doesnt mean they are imperialist. I mean just look at the NIIP values online. France and the US are negative, yet Argentina and Botswana are positive! I guess Botswana is imperializing the US, you are right Paul.
“Russia is part of international monopolist organizations. Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a BRICS member” yes, he fkin said this i swear. Does this guy know the USSR was a permanent member of the UN Security Council? Im sure he would say they were dirty revisionists. Also apparently BRICS, an alliance formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, with no western countries in it, is imperialist. He does specify tho, that of BRICS only Russia and China are imperialist. Thanks Paul!
“Russia sending its military into Donbass, despite the people of Donbass wanting it, is imperialism” Wow, guess the Soviet presence in Afghanistan was imperialism. Nevermind hes a maoist, he probably thinks that.
“Russia helping Syria against the US is imperialism” I dont even know what to say, besides that he should go to Syria and tell the people there that Russia should leave them alone against US aggression, see what happens. Fkin idiot.
“Supporting Russia, China, Iran, Syria, etc is lesser evilism, they are all imperialist” 🤦♂️
“We must support the oppressed nations such as Cuba or Venezuela” Does this anglo idiot know that Cuba and Venezuela support Russia? The doublethink is insane.
“Russia is not an oppressed nation” Does this idiot know what happened in Russia in the 90s?
“Only anticapitalist countries can be antiimperialist” Oh, so i guess Venezuela (whom he supported just 2 seconds ago), Nicaragua, Allendes Chile, Bolivia, etc are not antiimperialist. Nice one Paul!
Then he finishes with an “inspiring” “no war but class war, long live communism” speech. Yeah yeah great words, says the stupid brit from his privileged house in the imperial core. Hes the true marxist, not the people of the third world who overwhelmingly support Russia and China, whom he calls “capitalist imperialist”. Fkin idiot
Edit: I want to add that Marxist Paul has good videos regarding theory and criticism of the west, but when he steps out of that, especially regarding China and Russia, he says the dumbest shit. Considering hes a maoist who loves Gonzalo and the Shining Path, i guess that was to be expected.
I completely agree, that video was awful and you pointed out perfectly and precisely why his arguments don’t hold any water.
There are plenty of problems that one can criticize Putin’s Russia for (e.g. reactionary social policies) but being imperialist is not one.
I agree. I had had that video recommended to me several times, but i didnt want to cringe so i hadnt watched it yet. I watched it today and omg, it was much worse than i thought. “Russia is imperialist because its a member of the UN Security Council” was one of the worst parts. I mean its not just Russia, the dude calls Iran and China imperialist, and says that no capitalist country can be antiimperialist, basically saying that only Cuba, DPRK, Laos and Vietnam are antiimperialist, which is ludicrous.
I think it’s even worse than that, if no capitalist country can be anti-imperialist, and he considers China to be capitalist, then that makes Cuba, Vietnam and Laos also capitalist and therefore not anti-imperialist because they too had market reforms in one form or another and have significant amounts of private enterprise.
By this logic there is only one anti-imperialist country left in the world and that is the DPRK because it is the only “pure” socialist one. This is evidently a ridiculous conclusion as it begs the question how can one tiny anti-imperialist country survive alone in a world in which all major powers are imperialist?
This is an ideological and geopolitical dead end if you believe something like this, i’m sorry to say, and it’s typical of first world leftists who are extremely prone to idealism because they are so far removed from the material reality in the global south where these are not theoretical discussions to be had in an academic void but questions of immediate practical importance.
I mean yeah, thats the logical conclusion xD. My guess is he doesnt say “Vietnam, Cuba, Laos are imperialist” because they are weak and attacked by the west so it looks bad. China he can do it because China is strong. Which brings us back to the typical western “not true socialism”, the only socialists westerners like is the ones that lose. Also, he has a “muh chinese social imperialism” video in which he quotes gonzaloites like Tjen Folket and Jose Maria Sison, which is even worse because those people think not even DPRK is socialist, because they were proUSSR in the Cold War so they must be revisionists and capitalists. According to these people, there are no socialist states and the global vanguard of communism is Gonzalo and the Shining Path xD
Edit: The video in question: https://youtu.be/oc-3aE8mAlA
western leftists support every revolution except the ones that succeed
Use of the word “campist” is an extremely strong marker for idiocy.
… Syria and Iran are imperialist now?
Also… I’ve never seen anyone claim that Putin specifically is anti-imperialist, but Russia’s current foreign policy is undeniably very important for several anti-imperialist countries (primarily Syria)
(Is he actually a Gonzaloist? I figured he meant “Maoism” as in “Mao Zedong Thought”)
I mean, he says China is capitalist and imperialist, he has a video ranting about “chinese social imperialism” in which he almost exclusively cites gonzaloite groups and authors such as Jose Maria Sison, Tjen Folket (norwegian gonzaloites) and others. He also cites a documentary by The Guardian about “ebil china exploiting Africa” lmfao
He also has an interview on his channel with a first world gonzaloite where he agrees that Lucanamarca is western propaganda and that Gonzalo was a great revolutionary who did nothing wrong, and if you say otherwise you are brainwashed or evil revisionist.
I cant say for certain hes a gonzaloite, but he definetely leans toward that.
He’s a Gonzaloite, he quotes Gonzalo in his videos and has said he is.
That’s unfortunate. He had some decent introductory videos about socialism.
I mean, im still subscribed to him, his introductory videos are great. But i avoid his videos on Russia and China like the plague xD
Yes he’s a gonzaloite. He thinks China, Cuba, and Vietnam are imperialist. Dude is trash and not worth spending a second thinking about, another youtube grifter.
Actually i dont think he thinks Vietnam and Cuba are imperialist, that just looks too bad, China he can get away with. He still has some cool videos for beginners tho, but yes i agree with you.
This is similar to Proletkult’s take on Russia although it is much worse lmao. Proletkult focuses in on Russia exploiting Uzbekistan, and claims the war in Ukraine, from Russia’s point of view is about securing more grain production to drive home the point that Russia is imperialist. Doesnt really add up to me but its much better that the security council thing, which is just pure dogma.
Russia is semi peripheral so its not outrageous to find it has wage differences compared to Uzbekistan, but Russia is mostly not exporting capital to my knowledge, but rather commodities like you said. If exporting any capital at all makes someone imperialist then im pretty sure most countries are imperialist and then the term is meaningless. If exploiting any country at all makes Russia imperialist, and imperialist to the quality of the European powers, then likewise a whole list of others countries including the Dominican Republic and Brazil are imperialist. (This is not a moral statement)
As for the war in Ukraine having to do with taking more grain producing lands, it just seems like a hot take that wasn’t backed up very well, although it is intriguing. Certainly its not unreasonable to say that you cant always take Putin at face value, but its weird to try to play Russia and NATO as equal players with equivalent aims.
I do think there is a bigger conversation to be had about the quality of the Russian state and therefore the quality of its state enterprises but calling it “state capitalism” like is like blowing a dogwhistle so its just eye rolling. Proletkult has a definition of fascism that is “the dictatorship of, and over, capital” and so I think this definition can allow for calling the Russian state fascist. Its certainly not a dictatorship of the proletariat afterall. I generally think this definition is very helpful in differentiating between liberal imperialist democracy and fascism in the core. But this doesn’t fully deal with the fact that oftentimes nationalistic responses to capital’s globalization outside of the core are called fascist, sometimes disingenuously or erroneously or maybe just simply too emphatically or moralisticly. To me imperialism and fascism are something I assume to find in the core capitalist nations depending on certain developments and conditions, internal contradictions, and anxieties regarding their colonies. So when I see people use these terms to describe the semi periphery or periphery nations I feel like they have entered a rhetorical realm and left the analytical realm, because there is more to hash out than just looking at the state, or just comparing a country to its poorest neighbors.
I think Michael Hudson probably is closer to being correct about the nature of the present intra-imperialist conflict. It is between the US and Europe as the US tries to lock down its most valuable tributaries and Europe naturally grows closer with the rest of Eurasia. Putin and Xi are used scapegoats, and strawman scarecrows, that can keep Europe in line with the US.
Obviously I try to say all of this with humility because honestly it is not always easy to parse out what is going on.
Respectfully, i think that definition of fascism is bs. Russia is not fascist, its identical to liberal democracies, including the west. Fascism is a form of bonapartism, when the capitalist state enters a serious crisis and workers have a serious chance of seizing state power, the capitalists turn on each other, and thus one section of the capitalists seizes total state power and uses the state to destroy its opponents, both capitalists and anticapitalists, to try to stop the crisis and stabilize the situation. This is what happened in Europe before WW2, communism was getting stronger through the Comintern, so capitalists resorted to fascism to try to stop it. Same with 1970s-1980s latin american dictators and Suharto in Indonesia.
Yes indeed there is a very prominent anti communist character to fascism. But I think when this sort of thing goes down in the periphery we find interference from the west. So it is a policy of imperialism more so than “organic” fascism, because it is less possible without interference and lethal aid to create, sustain, and justify such violent reaction.
But this sort of thing masifesting in the core amidst intra-imperialst tension also has a sense of needing more colonies, or losing colonies to other imperial countries, and the problems this causes quickly causing political chaos. It needs to put down any proletarian power structures for its survival, but it also needs to relieve its internal contradictions through liquidating portions of the working class (usually with the exception of the “legitimate” self identifying cultural group, such as the white people or whatever) and the seizure of new colonies, all with absolutely no tolerance for intra-bourgeoisie infighting.
Would you agree that fascism is like a return home of internal contradictions between imperialist powers comoeting for colonies? Or do you think it is possible that fascism can arise without colonies, and without an imperialist quality?
Russian federation is a dictatorship. I agree it has nothing to do with US or British imperialism.
Russia is not a dictatorship, not unless you consider all capitalist countries one, especially the west. Russia is just another liberal democracy. Same political order, same problems and oppression.
This discussion was had earlier on another GZD post, but I’ll post my previous comment. to spice up a bit of the discourse about it.
Something I don’t seem people talking about is Russian Imperialism. And I mean like for real. (I’m not sure if this is touched on the video, I probably will agree with Paul’s conclusion, but I haven’t watched it yet.) Russia has finance capital in other countries. (Pretty important for imperialism lol.) In places like Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Pridnestrovia (weird right?) and also until recently Ukraine. I feel very firmly Ukraine is thoroughly fascist, and perhaps being in a critical position of Russia, removed their finance capital. Still though the invasion (special operation, whatever you call it) is a Imperialist action in my view. I also do not like Putin playing off the ethnic conflicts and fascism in the area. I support full succession of the Donbass region (Maybe not as the Donestsk and Lugansk republics still though.) As well as Crimea. if not a Tatar republic or independent oblast in the Soviet Union, (as we know all the states in the conflict are illegal and should be part of the USSR.) as part of Russia. (Brezhnev Gave it to Ukraine for some god damned reason.) The fascism is serious and using for a Imperial war is fucked. Still either way Ukraine should be de-nazified. Feel free to debate though, I’m open to new ideas.
Also in my view Syria is anti-imperialist, I don’t know enough about Iran, and Venezuela is as well anti-imperial.
Simply having finance isnt imperialism. According to that logic almost all countries are imperialist, even the poorest one have some foreign investment, mainly by their rich elites. An imperialist country is a country whose main export is capital, and whose economy is dominated by finance, vs just industry. Is that the case with the US? Yes, its economy is dominated by Wall Street moguls, finance capital, the richest industries, Google, Amazon, etc, dont produce anything, they only profit from advertisement and so on, and they only care about their stocks going up, finance capital. The US economy is based on the value of its currency through the petrodollar, and its main export is capital, theres no country you cant find US brands in. And whenever that is threatened, US military and CIA intervene.
Meanwhile Russia, is not imperialist. Its economy isnt based around finance, but around industry. Russias biggest export and what sustains their economy is their state owned export of gas and oil. Imperialist countries, such as the west, import products, produced at cheap prices, they dont export it for the most part. Russia exports products mostly, it doesnt import. Russia is almost self sufficient, as we are seeing now with the sanctions, which is literally the opposite of imperialism, imperialist states depend on their neocolonies to survive. Russia is almost 100% economically independent. Russia doesnt intervene for economic reasons. When Orange Color Revolution of 2004 happened in Ukraine and Ukraine reduced economic ties with Russia, did they intervene? No. Did they intervene in Euromaidan 2014? No, they only got Crimea (which has always been russian territory btw) because of the Sevastopol Naval Base which was a national security threat. Russia only intervened after Ukraine was planning to invade Donbass, where they had been killing people for 8 years. You say you support Donbass? Well you should be happy that Russia is intervening, because otherwise they would be all slaughtered.
There is no “russian imperialism”, who controls the world finance institutions, the IMF and the World Bank? The west. Who controls the global trade currency, the USD? The US. Literally noone used the ruble in international trade until the 2022 Ukraine crisis, how is this “russian imperialism”? Why are world assets all held in western banks and not russian ones, if Russia is imperialist? Because Russia IS NOT imperialist, this is just westerners trying to reconcile their subconscious “Putin bad” bias western media indoctrinated them with, with leftism.
Also it was Khrushchev who gave Crimea to Ukraine, not Brezhnev. And he did just because he was ukrainian, it was a personal petty decision. Crimea is part of Russia, it is inhabited by russians mostly.
Yeah sorry, it wasn’t Brezhnev, and yeah I know that’s why I support it going to russia.
Oh sorry, i thought you were saying Crimea should go to Ukraine. My bad sorry
