I don’t know about you, but saying that Marxists should prioritize dismantling their own country’s bourgeoisie over global imperialism seems a bit ultra-leftist
Also a bit weird that they didn’t talk about Donbass
You must log in or register to comment.
That fella comes from the group of “lefty influencers” who denounced war as “Russia doing imperialism”, called those trying to organize humanitarian aid “Putin’s collaborators” and called the entirety of Russian military imperialist nazis. One of that group, Andrew Rudoy, escaped to France a couple of days ago aided by French trots and through them by Macron himself. Guess all that should give you an idea of what kind of guy we’re looking at here. He also admitted to being funded by some bourgeois guy, probably someone from the western-rigged opposition. Never looked into it, the fact itself is enough.
P.S. “Прииивеееееет, козлыыыыыыы!” Those who know - they know.
He also admitted to being funded by some bourgeois guy, probably someone from the western-rigged opposition.
Rudoy or Syomin?
Syomin, yeah.
Yikes, do you remember where he admitted this?
…Jesus fuck, I really gotta start saving this bullshit on my harddrive because it gets cleaned up in the times where you really needed. I can swear on my effing blood and guts that he made a post in his YouTube Community tab and cross-posted it to his VKontakte page where he boasted about enchancing his home studio and finally finding a stable source of financing that he refused to disclose which allowed him to continue his work.
Now the only thing that I could find is this old boring shit BUT THIS IS NOT THE THING I WAS INITIALLY SPEAKING ABOUT. https://youtu.be/-Cp3m8qs1Do
I generally agree with most things discussed on the podcast but the whole “Putin did this because he wanted to be immortalized in history books” take is a johnny harris level take.
This is like… The third time I’ve seen them strafe around in the issues of the Donbas war.
Im gonna be honest. I dont think ANY medium to big leftist commentators currently can be honest about this war.
Other than RBN or Breakthrough News the only people who seem to be able to afford being honest are “nonleft but not really right wing” commentators and independant right wingers; The New Atlas, Nathan Rich, The Duran…
Well… There is Richard Medhurst who is absolutely left wing.
(RBN?) I’d include Danny Haiphong and Ben Norton as well (reasonably popular, and explicitly communist)
deleted by creator
I don’t actively read much MSM either, but I’m exposed to plenty of it through Multipolarista and similar channels
deleted by creator
Revolutionary Blackout Network. And I guess I dont know EVERYONE. It’s just strange to see those you KNOW they know better go along with this stuff.
It The Deprogram knows talking about this war is bad for their brand to the point of telling lies through omission and both sidesing; they should just not cover it.
Thank you, I hadn’t heard about that one.
I agree. They should just clarify that talking about it is risky and say that they prioritize other kinds of content at the moment
RBN (Revolutionary Blackout Network) is based as fuck. Danny too. Ben Norton depends on the topic. Last night he had on someone who was talking about the war as “Russia doing imperialism” and so on without any pushback or qualification. Always am taking Ben with a grain of salt but I do think he means well.
This one?
I haven’t watched it yet, but I’ve never seen any signs of him being ultra-leftist beforeI watched it and didn’t notice him saying anything about Russian “imperialism” (although I might’ve missed it)
I’m probably just way to charitable and naive but I usually give the benefit of the doubt to leftist creators not directly tackling an issue considering how hostile mainstream platforms are to explicitly communist content.
They could, in theory, move to a site/app that is more tolerant but they’d never be able to reach the masses and combat disinformation effectively.
Living in a western country, especially the US and even Canada, one has to tread carefully.
So many of the leftist podcasts i listen to have had on really shitty people from the left in eastern europe, i think this calls attention more to the decline in leftism in eastern europe than the podcasters in general
I have not listened to this or any other episode of theirs, so I’m unsure of their politics…
I’ll unpack a few ideas to see where it gets us (I’ll be talking from the perspective of someone within the imperial core)…
Does it depend on where one lives?
Where I live, struggles against the bourgeoisie are also, naturally, struggles against global imperialism. And that bourgeoisie comprises national and foreign capitalists. A mix of US, British, French, German, and Canadian, mainly.
Should the struggle be against all the bourgeois operating in one’s own country? Or only against the citizen-bourgeois? Is there even such a thing as a domestic bourgeoisie today? The US capitalists are everywhere. And in the US, even Chinese investors have a stake (which may or may not be imperialism – I’m inclined to say it is, although I don’t have a view on whether it’s ‘successful’ in the way that US imperialists successfully use their power for, well, evil).
What about in a colony? In, say, 1920s Ireland or 1960s Algeria? Surely siding with the national bourgeoisie to oust the Brits and French is acceptable by Marxist standards? But it is complicated… Like, we know that the Catholic Church betrayed the Irish revolutionaries… Then more history happened, until the ‘national’ bourgeoisie sold out to the EU after 2008. And how can one separate comprador bourgeois in Africa from a national or domestic bourgeois? Isn’t that exactly why outsiders use compradors?
So my main question is: what is the difference between one’s
own country’s bourgeoisie [and] global imperialism[?]
There’s probably a different answer for people who live nearer to and further from the imperial core. For example, it would not make much sense to me for a Libyan to struggle against the Libyan bourgeois before 2008 because realistically this would only ever support global imperialism by creating another route into Africa for Anglo-capital. But struggling for socialism within that framework, without weakening the country’s defenses against the West? That seems different.
However, I do agree that the focus should be domestic. Within liberal discourse, any criticism of domestic capitalism is brushed off because there’s always a bigger enemy somewhere else. How can you criticise our government at a time like this, don’t you know [Putin is on a warpath / COVID is indiscriminate / China… such and such]?
So part of the problem is convincing liberals that (i) even if ‘outside’ is as bad as they suggest, this does not excuse their ‘own’ bourgeoisie, and (ii) they better start thinking about what they can do at home because they cannot do much from France/Denmark/Wales, etc about Russia/China, etc. They could blockade arms manufacturing or shipping that happens on their own soil, for example.
Focusing on what one can achieve within an hour’s journey from one’s front door does not mean forgetting about internationality or imperialism. Indeed, it’s the opposite: it’s realising that helping the people that Western liberals claim to pity means taking action at home and not expecting the Global South to do all the hard work.
Class consciousness is mostly absent in the West. So if turning the gaze onto a ‘domestic’ bourgeoisie helps people realise that there is a national and international class struggle, then the message isn’t terrible. I do not know if this podcast makes these points or others.
What do we think? Is this a better way of seeing it?
I would perhaps caution against ‘global imperialism’. Imperialism is inherently global already. And there seems to be a rise in anti-Semitism in which ‘globalism’ is used as a synonym for Jewish people organising in secret. So (i) the addition may be redundant, and (ii) we probably want to avoid accidental support for anti-Semitism.
Edit: typos.
(Let me know if I misunderstood any of this.)
Is there even such a thing as a domestic bourgeoisie today?
Yes, I would definitely say so, either entirely (e.g. smaller corporations) or mostly (e.g. domestic private banks)
But struggling for socialism within that framework, without weakening the country’s defenses against the West?
Theoretically, I agree. In practice, I can’t see how this could apply to modern-day Russia or any other country under serious threat from the imperialist countries
And in the US, even Chinese investors have a stake (which may or may not be imperialism – I’m inclined to say it is
If I understood this correctly, you’re saying that you believe that some individual Chinese corporations are imperialist (not the government itself). If so, that might be true
Focusing on what one can achieve within an hour’s journey from one’s front door does not mean forgetting about internationality or imperialism. Indeed, it’s the opposite
This is true in the imperial core. Russia, on the other hand, is currently acting as a force against imperialism (regardless of what the individual politicians and capitalists personally want) – IMO, a revolution would be extremely risky at the moment unless the military was already on board, because it would leave the country more or less defenseless for a significant period of time (enough for Amerika to take advantage of it). This also applies to reactionary but anti-imperialist governments like the one in Iran, which is largely why Amerika is trying so hard to vilify it
Class consciousness is mostly absent in the West. So if turning the gaze onto a ‘domestic’ bourgeoisie helps people realise that there is a national and international class struggle, then the message isn’t terrible.
Sure, that may be a good starting point for liberals in the imperial core, but I don’t think this applies for Russian liberals
Imperialism is inherently global already
I was using “global” to mean basically every single country. Imperialism can be more concentrated
So if bigger countries have to wait for revolution because of foreign threats, how do we decide when is a good time? It seems like this thinking could lead to a whole lot of idling. Or are there other actions that can be taken without threatening the integrity of the countries security?
If it’s a country that’s integral to the downfall of imperialism, unless you’ve managed to convince the military and other potential internal dangers to side with your organization (so that there’s no significant security gap right away), I don’t think it’s a good idea to attempt a revolution as long as the outcome would almost certainly be a foreign invasion. Of course, that doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t prepare for a revolution (you definitely shouldn’t be idling, as you said), but the foreign imperialists are far more of a threat than the internal bourgeoisie is, to the world’s proletariat
If you’re in the imperial core (excluding Amerika), while a revolution certainly would put your country in danger of an invasion or the like, a successful counter-revolution likely wouldn’t have a worse outcome (in terms of foreign policy, at least) than what you had before the attempt
Apologies, I replied to this several days late, on the day that our posts were lost. I cannot fully remember my comment. But…
I think you have understood what I was saying.
I did not mean to suggest that China itself / the CPC is imperialist.
And I agree with you.
After reflection, I’ve also come to reject my caution against using ‘global’. It’s a useful word, as you note. Fuck the anti-Semites turning every word they can into dogwhistles, still.
Yeah, I read your first reply (it should still be available on lemmy.ml). I’m glad we agree 👍
