It just doesn’t compute that this is an inter-bourgeois conflict.
It is literally a conflict fought by thoroughly bourgeois states on all sides. That literally makes it inter-bourgeois. Like what’s there even to discuss about?
Russia isn’t some benevolent anti-colonial people’s liberation power. There is an element of anti-colonial struggle in Donbass. Or at least there was. But that’s not what this stage of the conflict is about at all. It’s not Donbass fighting against Western Ukrainian dominance anymore, it’s Russia fighting NATO. It’s an entirely different conflict at this point. 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.
Not to mention this mischaracterizes the Donbass struggle itself severely. The Donbass Republics were literally praised by Russian nationalists for their extreme libertarian character. They’ve not been “People’s Republics” for a long time and much of the basis of the 2014 conflict was contradiction within the Ukrainian bourgeoisie - part of it leaning more Russian, the other more Western.
It’s entirely suspicious that a supposed bourgeois conflict is benefiting one country specifically, the Imperial Hegemon, at the expense of Europe
It isn’t though. It’s literally the Russian bourgeoisie’s struggle to survive from international subjugation. It’s not a people’s struggle in any way at all. (Though that doesn’t mean it can’t have positive side effects for the working class) Russia isn’t a proletarian state, it’s a bourgeois state and therefore necessarily operates in the interest of the class it exists for. Contradictions within the Russian bourgeoisie do not negate this at all.
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.
Yes, nobody’s denying that. But that’s not what this war is being fought for. WW1 allowed the rest of the world to renew their relationships with the colonial powers and many of the real anti-colonial people’s liberation struggles of the 20th century could only take place due to the fallout of that conflict. That doesn’t mean WW1 wasn’t inter-bourgeois and neither does it mean that’s what the war was fought for.
And just to reiterate: None of this means that somehow a Russian victory - whatever that even means - couldn’t have positive ramifications for the working class especially in the global south. Nobody’s denying that. That doesn’t mean it is our war or somehow makes the absurd violence in Ukraine any less tragic or awful or the celebration of a couple blocks more for one side or the other any less gross.
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.
It is literally a conflict fought by thoroughly bourgeois states on all sides. That literally makes it inter-bourgeois. Like what’s there even to discuss about?
Russia isn’t some benevolent anti-colonial people’s liberation power. There is an element of anti-colonial struggle in Donbass. Or at least there was. But that’s not what this stage of the conflict is about at all. It’s not Donbass fighting against Western Ukrainian dominance anymore, it’s Russia fighting NATO. It’s an entirely different conflict at this point. 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.
Not to mention this mischaracterizes the Donbass struggle itself severely. The Donbass Republics were literally praised by Russian nationalists for their extreme libertarian character. They’ve not been “People’s Republics” for a long time and much of the basis of the 2014 conflict was contradiction within the Ukrainian bourgeoisie - part of it leaning more Russian, the other more Western.
It isn’t though. It’s literally the Russian bourgeoisie’s struggle to survive from international subjugation. It’s not a people’s struggle in any way at all. (Though that doesn’t mean it can’t have positive side effects for the working class) Russia isn’t a proletarian state, it’s a bourgeois state and therefore necessarily operates in the interest of the class it exists for. Contradictions within the Russian bourgeoisie do not negate this at all.
Yes, nobody’s denying that. But that’s not what this war is being fought for. WW1 allowed the rest of the world to renew their relationships with the colonial powers and many of the real anti-colonial people’s liberation struggles of the 20th century could only take place due to the fallout of that conflict. That doesn’t mean WW1 wasn’t inter-bourgeois and neither does it mean that’s what the war was fought for.
And just to reiterate: None of this means that somehow a Russian victory - whatever that even means - couldn’t have positive ramifications for the working class especially in the global south. Nobody’s denying that. That doesn’t mean it is our war or somehow makes the absurd violence in Ukraine any less tragic or awful or the celebration of a couple blocks more for one side or the other any less gross.
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.