And for what exactly? To fight the “pedophile, gay satanists” in the West? To fight “Mongolic orcs” in the East? Dogshit.
This is a reductionist framing. Communists everywhere are watching this conflict with bated breath because we want to believe the US war machine is on the outs. We want so badly to believe that the encirclement of China is a failure, that the US will not be able to continue to dominate the next century through military force nor through economic force. We interpret the conflict with much the same motivations that we interpret the dedollarization movement.
Communism is still fragile. Losing China to the West through war or through subversion would be a set back that would take decades, if not a century or more, to recover from. Emotionally, we are attached to the US losing this proxy war because of its implications for the future of global communism.
It has nothing to do with good vs evil, with dehumanization of the sides, nor with sports fanaticism. Sometimes it gets expressed in those ways, because of culture and psychology and because we’re on the socials, but these are aesthetic buffers to protect our psyches from the acknowledgement of the fear that if the US is triumphant here, then there will be darker times ahead of us and if the US fails here, and they don’t launch nukes, then there’s a chance they’re decline will be fast enough to avoid significant armed conflict with China and some of us may live to see a new stage of global human society.
The people dying on both sides in Ukraine are our working-class brethren. And they’re not dying to fight imperialism or advance the interests of the working class - though that could be a welcome side effect of the conflict. They’re being fed into this meatgrinder to further the interests of two bourgeois sides duking it out for their own material interests.
Donbas republics have been fighting the colonization of Ukraine since 2014, so fuck outta here with that. The Russian bourgeoisie is against the war, why? Because they’ve been trying to join the Western Imperialist order for decades now. Not fighting Imperialism, what the fuck would you call what the US did to Ukraine? What they did to Libya? What they tried to do to Syria? It’s not Imperialism if the target has a bourgeoisie?
There’s zero evidence that the Russian bourgeoisie or some usurper trying to take their place has any monopoly pressures guiding it into annexing Donbas. Donbas is insignificant in food production, and Donbas industry has been a carcass since the collapse of the USSR. These people live off of pensions from dead jobs. It just doesn’t compute that this is an inter-bourgeois conflict. It does compute that this is a colonial struggle as Donbas is taking up arms against the puppet state which has been privatizing land, devaluing the currency (lowering the cost of labor, and the value of pensions), cutting health benefits, etc. And Ukraine is not just an economic colony, it is stuffed with the empire’s weapons and the remnants of the Red Army. It is an offensive bulwark aimed at Russia. It’s entirely suspicious that a supposed bourgeois conflict is benefiting one country specifically, the Imperial Hegemon, at the expense of Europe. The contradictions of this Colonization effort are allowing the rest of the world to review their relationships with the USA and China, only because Russia is defeating the Ukraine colony can these developments take place.
The existing bourgeois state doesn’t negate the reality of a liberation struggle. Through the struggle the bourgeois state must be shed if it is not able to protect the nation. Frankly if one camp of the bourgeoisie decides to defend the nation that doesn’t mean a liberation struggle isn’t underway, it just means it has not developed to the point where the bourgeoisie should be tossed aside. Every Liberation struggle has had a split bourgeoisie.
If there was no class interest, Russia wouldn’t be doing it. Posing anything else is literally a rejection of class analysis and Marxism in general.
The bourgeois state isn’t absolute, this is something we like to forget it seems. The bourgeois state exists within a delicate balance of the state acting in class interests, and the strength of the state. This situation the Russian population is overwhelmingly supportive of the Donbas, as noted by the Communist Party, so if the state failed to defend Donbas, it would have looked too weak to defend Russia. This would have put the state itself into crisis. Does this mean a section of the bourgeoisie is fighting for its own existence, yes of course, but this doesn’t mean they haven’t been pushed into a concession by the toiling masses.
Not to mention this mischaracterizes the Donbass struggle itself severely. The Donbass Republics were literally praised by Russian nationalists for their extreme libertarian character.
Evidence? How could it possibly be more “libertarian” than Ukraine proper which cut social spending across the board and privatized land for an IMF deal. I’m sure Donbas pensioners captured the government buildings for their Libertarianism, talk about ignoring class interests.
We live in times where things can get much worse, so we fear far more than living horrors. We fear what has happened in the past and what is primed to happen again. This goes, one way or another, for communists, liberals, and fascists alike. The war must end because of the toll it is taking on the world, but it will continue because the die is cast. Even if peace talks and mediation prevails the structures that fostered this conflict will likely remain and the sentiments that the conflict has exacerbated will not relent. I’m afraid there is no rhetoric, and no disposition, that can stop things from getting worse and we don’t have the social infrastructure to try if it could. Indeed, we are no longer crossing the brook by feeling for the stones because the waters have risen much too high.
This is a reductionist framing. Communists everywhere are watching this conflict with bated breath because we want to believe the US war machine is on the outs. We want so badly to believe that the encirclement of China is a failure, that the US will not be able to continue to dominate the next century through military force nor through economic force. We interpret the conflict with much the same motivations that we interpret the dedollarization movement.
Communism is still fragile. Losing China to the West through war or through subversion would be a set back that would take decades, if not a century or more, to recover from. Emotionally, we are attached to the US losing this proxy war because of its implications for the future of global communism.
It has nothing to do with good vs evil, with dehumanization of the sides, nor with sports fanaticism. Sometimes it gets expressed in those ways, because of culture and psychology and because we’re on the socials, but these are aesthetic buffers to protect our psyches from the acknowledgement of the fear that if the US is triumphant here, then there will be darker times ahead of us and if the US fails here, and they don’t launch nukes, then there’s a chance they’re decline will be fast enough to avoid significant armed conflict with China and some of us may live to see a new stage of global human society.
deleted by creator
Donbas republics have been fighting the colonization of Ukraine since 2014, so fuck outta here with that. The Russian bourgeoisie is against the war, why? Because they’ve been trying to join the Western Imperialist order for decades now. Not fighting Imperialism, what the fuck would you call what the US did to Ukraine? What they did to Libya? What they tried to do to Syria? It’s not Imperialism if the target has a bourgeoisie?
There’s zero evidence that the Russian bourgeoisie or some usurper trying to take their place has any monopoly pressures guiding it into annexing Donbas. Donbas is insignificant in food production, and Donbas industry has been a carcass since the collapse of the USSR. These people live off of pensions from dead jobs. It just doesn’t compute that this is an inter-bourgeois conflict. It does compute that this is a colonial struggle as Donbas is taking up arms against the puppet state which has been privatizing land, devaluing the currency (lowering the cost of labor, and the value of pensions), cutting health benefits, etc. And Ukraine is not just an economic colony, it is stuffed with the empire’s weapons and the remnants of the Red Army. It is an offensive bulwark aimed at Russia. It’s entirely suspicious that a supposed bourgeois conflict is benefiting one country specifically, the Imperial Hegemon, at the expense of Europe. The contradictions of this Colonization effort are allowing the rest of the world to review their relationships with the USA and China, only because Russia is defeating the Ukraine colony can these developments take place.
deleted by creator
The existing bourgeois state doesn’t negate the reality of a liberation struggle. Through the struggle the bourgeois state must be shed if it is not able to protect the nation. Frankly if one camp of the bourgeoisie decides to defend the nation that doesn’t mean a liberation struggle isn’t underway, it just means it has not developed to the point where the bourgeoisie should be tossed aside. Every Liberation struggle has had a split bourgeoisie.
The bourgeois state isn’t absolute, this is something we like to forget it seems. The bourgeois state exists within a delicate balance of the state acting in class interests, and the strength of the state. This situation the Russian population is overwhelmingly supportive of the Donbas, as noted by the Communist Party, so if the state failed to defend Donbas, it would have looked too weak to defend Russia. This would have put the state itself into crisis. Does this mean a section of the bourgeoisie is fighting for its own existence, yes of course, but this doesn’t mean they haven’t been pushed into a concession by the toiling masses.
Evidence? How could it possibly be more “libertarian” than Ukraine proper which cut social spending across the board and privatized land for an IMF deal. I’m sure Donbas pensioners captured the government buildings for their Libertarianism, talk about ignoring class interests.
We live in times where things can get much worse, so we fear far more than living horrors. We fear what has happened in the past and what is primed to happen again. This goes, one way or another, for communists, liberals, and fascists alike. The war must end because of the toll it is taking on the world, but it will continue because the die is cast. Even if peace talks and mediation prevails the structures that fostered this conflict will likely remain and the sentiments that the conflict has exacerbated will not relent. I’m afraid there is no rhetoric, and no disposition, that can stop things from getting worse and we don’t have the social infrastructure to try if it could. Indeed, we are no longer crossing the brook by feeling for the stones because the waters have risen much too high.