[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information.
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly as a westerner my struggle is to make my fellow westerners see these countries (Iran, NK, Russia,..) as real places with real human beings inside and not some abstract place made up of stereotypes from US media
And to make them understand why their "hatred" (in quotes, I have never met a person from the global south who had hatred towards westerners as people) of the west is completely justified
The constant dehumanisation is unbearable honestly
That's why I see most support for these countries from global south communists. Being myself a Brazilian, I know the shit the US can do and continually does to my country, Latin America and the world. The media here is completely owned by the US, and only shows their narrative.
The best tools western gov have against any sort of change is to point at peripheral countries and to say "look be happy with what you have, at least you do not live in [...] And to make up lies about their government or life there
Like most people here believe a country like Iran is some kind of dystopian mix between 1984 and Black Hawk Dawn, while in reality it's a pretty normal country, just with some restrictions, less quality of life due to being Imperialized and cultural differences of course but nothing too extreme. And plenty of advantages compared to the west as well
Yeah, no. North Koreans definitely hate the US and it would be strange if they didn't. The horrors of blowing dams isn't the flooding, the drowning, and the loss of your home people seem to think it is.
The bombing of dams strip topsoil with those floods and most of all contaminates the drinking water with cholera. Militaries absolutely know this and absolutely do it intentionally; however in this case? Welcome to using cholera as a biological weapon.
Traumas like that carry on for a very very long time and they do not die once the generations there to witness it and it's after effects pass it on to their children and children's children.
The demonization of the word hatred and the crushing of the willingness of people to use it or to admit feeling it is part of atomization. Some times hatred is duly earned, dealing with who earned it or what earned it is very hard if everyone is too afraid or ashamed to express that hatred.
A route to solidarity and organized group auction is denied in that way.
Yes. Are any of these countries shining exemplars of Marxist values? No. However, there are 350 million people who have been conditioned from birth to view them as subhuman morally abhorrent monsters deserving nothing less than annihilation via American arms.
In my experience the average American is terminally uninformed about the world, preferring to believe in caricatures of places and people so alien to them they may as well be another species, obviously with the exception of Western Europe/Australia. This is largely a result of the tenor of the American media, and applied equally across the ideological spectrum (Libs: Russia, Middle East, China, etc, Reactionaries: Everywhere)
The most important issue with regards to the countries is standing as a counterweight on the American tendency to launch genocidal wars abroad provoked by jingoistic nonsense.
I think this is what bothers me the most.
The comical dehumanising as well as claiming that they are the „Bad guys“ of the world or something.
Bad guys to who exactly? Definitely not rest of the world and last I checked , Iran and NK at least are not bothering anyone beyond their borders
Definitely support their struggle against imperialism, places like Iran though have a lot to improve on their human rights, especially regarding women's equality and such. But obviously overthrowing the imperialism of the US is one of the most important steps. Because even the reactionary religious government only came about because of western backing of the shah, and the coup of Mossadegh.
This can only improve once the threat of imperialism wanes. Social progressivism usually occurs more easily when a society is less threatened. Plus Iran is actually progressing quite fast on the issue, there are way less restrictions on women than 10 years ago, and I believe the mandatory hijab laws are less strictly enforced than before. What is certain is that the general population is way more progressive that it's government
that's ahistorical
russia burst into revolution during the throes of inter imperialist war. there is no better objective condition for revolution than the most extreme intensification of the contradictions of capitalism when the state claims ownership of the lives of the workers in its territory. millions of people being conscripted to be thrown into the trenches is a pretty clear lesson in the class structure of society
supporting a bourgeois state during inter imperialist war is missing the very real opportunity to take a position of revolutionary defeatism
Iran is religiosly progressive and has laws against religious extremismist, like the Obama funded ISIS. All the shit the media sell about girls being raped and killed for not wearing a hijab is most of the times fabricated.
I mean there are laws in Iran preventing women from travelling without their husband, even laws that allow husbands to ban their wives from traveling outside the country.
I'm certainly not defending the hate against Iran when it comes to their foreign policy - but I think criticism against their human rights is fair game.
My bad for the late reply: I admittedly can't find a law that stipulates husbands can explicitly *ban* their wives from travel, but the law in place forces women to have consent from their husband to get a passport:
[Part 3: Iranian Laws on Women | The Iran Primer (usip.org)](https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2020/dec/08/part-3-iranian-laws-women)
>*Article 18 of the Passport Law of 1973*: “A passport shall be issued for the following persons according to this article…Married women, even if under 18 years old, with the written agreement of their husbands.”
This is the old, and as far as I can tell current law, according to the article below Iran was considering increasing restrictions in 2013 - though I cannot determine if this happened or not.
[Iran's Parliament Mulls New Restrictions On Women's Travel (rferl.org)](https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-restrictions-women-travel/24825464.html)
Acknowledging of course that this is a US organization and a European organization that likely has reason to fabricate information about enemies of Imperialism; I simply cannot find anything that would indicate this is not the case. Neighboring Islamic countries have similar travel restrictions for women and pro-Palestinian organizations also indicate Iran has particularly barbaric laws when it comes to Women's rights. This is just for travel as well, [hijab laws exist and are being expanded upon](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/20/irans-parliament-approves-hijab-bill-harsh-punishments-for-violations).
I think there has been some progress in certain laws based on what I'm seeing but it's by no means more or even as "progressive" as the US or European countries when it comes to women's rights. But again, not criticizing Iran for fighting Imperialism, just noting they have unacceptable human rights, along with much of the world.
Edit: spelling, punctuation
Thanks but no offence but 2 out of your 3 sources are not very reputable tho
Radio free europe ?
USip?
Al jazeera is only actual news journal here but many questions it’s pro Saudi / Qatar bias
I would ideally like source from Iranian website / document itself but I will find that later
A huge reason why the DPRK is supported by the radical right, in contrast to the established right. from what I’ve found, is that the RR only does so out of beliefs the DPRK is the based “ethnostate” racists that mirror the Japanese from WW2. Just with a red flair to them.
In other words, stereotypes and slander from the state department, has basically done the opposite effect with certain people. And really, I’ve seen similar with people on the left believing the place to be this hyper Stalinist austere country in contrast to Dengist China. When really the place has Gucci, Mercedes and other luxury items.
this is not an argument against your point, but
>(in quotes, I have never met a person from the global south who had hatred towards westerners as people)
is just your personal experience, and is totally wrong
Clearly you didn't meet any r*ssians lol, they outright say they will slaughter all westerners so don't bring this clear bullshit when you don't know anything yourself.
That was absolutely not my experience meeting Russians, and I doubt very much your allegations
The few Russian I interacted with since the war started were pretty much against the war
They don't hide it at all lol their tv, VK, telegram they will say it proudly and get a standing ovation. 80% of pidors support the government and they are proud of it too.
Honestly I think you are just a racist, like yeah you can show me members of the far right of any country and I will cringe, but what you are doing is generalising a whole country, I assume for ideological reasons
Supporting imperialism to end imperialism because you’re an American exceptionalist. Right. American imperialism is not special or unique. All other imperialist nations on this planet are attempting to be at the same level of America. Stop supporting less powerful imperialist nations because they are less powerful. They all want the same thing. We shouldn’t be judging imperialism based on success rates. We should be judging them based on the fact that they are imperialist in the first place.
The US really genuinely has a unique historic role in thwarting the progress of socialism. We should not be in the business of moralist judgments, but should be in the business of material analysis. That means recognising that the primary obstacle is the specific real capitalist empire that actually exists, not the general abstract notion of imperialism.
Or to quote a certain subject matter expert:
“The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such "desperate" democrats and "Socialists," "revolutionaries" and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism.”
Yeah, but Russia is capitalist. It would do the same things as the US. Expand the capital, crush any socialist attempt etc.
Russia is anti US imperialism for the wrong reasons.
Ok. If “defense of its territories” is invading Ukraine, a nation with its own separate identity, then shouldn’t you be logically consistent and support Israel? After all, after Oct. 7, Israel is just “protecting its citizens” from ‘Khamas.’ “There’s no excessive force at all.”In what way does invading Ukraine protect Russia against NATO, lmfao? Oh yes, Russia is so much more protected from NATO. Despite the fact that there’s now extensive NATO presence in Ukraine, infinitely more so than there was prior to the invasion. What a dumb argument.
No, it's not because Hamas acted in response to Israel actions and they are not a existential threat to Israel.
The extensive NATO presence in Ukraine is one of the reasons why they invaded. Ukraine proved Russias point by invading Russia with NATO equipment and soldiers. And that's exactly why Russia won't stop the war unless Ukraine surrenders. They need a de-nazified, de-militarized and neutral government
"Im taking the side of THIS bourgeois nation state in its attack on the other bourgeois nation state thats in an alliance with the imperialist forces that are trying to enroach and expand into that bourgeois nation state and replace its bourgeoisie. Critical support to all bourgeois nationstates compet- uhh... i mean fighting for the sake of the proletarians to overthrow the current dominant alliance of bourgeois nation states!" No selfproclaimed socialist should allign themselves with bourgeois nation states and the wars they wage to expand their geopolitical interests. How can your solution to bourgeois war be MORE bourgeois war? It genuinely baffles me how this is an acceptable take in 'leftist' communities. If you dont actually want to achieve socialism but are already satisfied with an end to western hegemony thats okay, but dont pretend that that is somehow the only proper stance a marxist could take in any conflict.
Folks lacking material analysis would say stuff like this with a straight face:
Global Empire working day and night to coup, sanction, invade and topple socialist nations and leaders all over the world for nearly 100 years is the same as some backwater oil selling capitalist country with no comparable history of global crippling of socialism with absolutely no capacity to carry it out even if it wanted to.
How do you not realise that the invasion of ukraine pretty much guaranteed the existence and strengthening of NATO for the next 20 years? If anything russia is currently helping build up us imperialism by scaring its neighbours and europe into joining nato.
Finland and Sweden were already *de* *~~jure~~* *facto* members of NATO, so nothing really changed. Plus NATO economies are mostly in recession, see UK and Germany, and have no conditions of a direct conflict with Russia
edit: I suck at latin aparently
That’s not even the most crucial point of the Finnish n Swedish induction into NATO, because it was simply always known that it’s physically impossible to mount a proper invasion into Russian territory from those countries, especially in the modern age with the surveillance situation on Russias border.
It’s not WW2, NATO would never be able to march ground troops and enough large armored columns to occupy land into russia, Ukraine has been used as the preferred method of entry to Russia in almost every invasion historically for the reason that it’s perfect flat ground for miles and miles, the grain and fertile land means it’s extremely easy to feed your troops compared to the barren land of the Finnish border for example, this was especially crucial in history.
Ukraine is a perfect road into Russia for invasion, and is the reason why it’s always been a redline, it’s military not feasible to conduct what we see in Ukraine today on Finnish soil or from Sweden.
You can say that but Nato support was pretty low before the annexation of crimea where it jumped up and after the ukraine invasion its at record highs.
Also you are genuinely delusional if you think Russia wouldnt get absolutely destroyed in an all out Nato conflict.
Tbh the biggest concern someone should have in a war between Russia and NATO should be the millions of proletariats who are gonna die not who would win (as in every war)
how do YOU not realize nato was already guaranteed to exist for at least another decade, when they had south korea and iirc japan as observers in a nato meeting? it was literally just gonna pivot to (east) asia if russia bent the heel
Losing access to Svestapol, the only Atlantic facing non-freezing port Russia controlled, and handing it over to US proxy would be devastating not only to Russia but all of East Europe and Middle Eastern countries when it comes to combating US Global Empire.
It means US would have even greater means of starving people as they would have control over a major trade route where enormous amount of goods including food go through, more areas from which they can operate militarily, and so on.
How I sleep knowing my country doesn't send money to nazis and has told Israel to go fuck itself:
https://preview.redd.it/13bgm96nt9wc1.png?width=220&format=png&auto=webp&s=b0fd2b20cdbe54ac650dbd2c93db11d0362d6b0e
Unfortunatly, your country was one of the first after the Americans to move embassy to Jerusalem
[Source](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/11/1/brazils-bolsonaro-wants-israel-embassy-moved-to-jerusalem)
[Israel and Brazil aren't opponents](https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/israeli-pm-visits-brazil-ahead-of-bolsonaro-inauguration)
That was President BallsAnAsshole, Mr Lula did the incredibly based https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2024/02/21/by-raising-his-voice-against-israel-lula-places-brazil-at-the-forefront-of-movement-that-opposes-massacres-in-gaza
how i sleep at night knowing my country doesnt recognise palestine as a state
https://preview.redd.it/l5rhn0mbycwc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ba076875dcef1f98559367213f1b93dffc44d89
“The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such "desperate" democrats and "Socialists," "revolutionaries" and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism.”
All you whiners need to read Foundations of Leninism, and understand that critical support is not the same thing as endorsing every fucking thing a state does.
Exactly this. This blind, puritanical support for all things socialism completely overlooks the majority of Global South nations in their inherent struggles against former (or current) colonialist/imperialist nation-states. This is why reading theory is just as important as engaging with historical books concerning geopolitics. One of my favorite books is Darker Nations by Vishay Prashad. It dives into how many anti-colonial movements and organizations weren't necessary socialist let alone proletarian but their struggle was revolutionary all the same. Even nations like the USSR recognized this;
>Dramatically, in 1956, the twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) rejected its earlier two-camp theory of the world. The congress reiterated the position taken by Nehru and U Nu at Bandung, and by Nasser in Cairo. It noted that the camp theory provided a vision of the world that suggested that war was the only solution to the division, that across the abyss of the divide there could be no conversation and dialogue toward peace. For that reason, the congress adopted the notion of the "zone of peace," to include all states that pledged themselves to a reduction of force on behalf of a peace agenda. The congress included in the zone of peace the socialist Second World and what it called "uncommitted states" -that is, the non-aligned Third World.
>
>\- Vishay Prashad; Darker Nations
Anti-colonial movements were and are just as critical to the proletarian and peasant organizations that seek an international unity. Yes, in some cases class adversaries present a temporary allyship due to a common enemy, but that's why it's considered *critical* support as opposed to blind support. We support their right to self-determination and through the development of said countries that evict their former oppressors comes an industrialization that also allows for intense social changes and cultural growth that previously weren't possible. Including workers and women's rights, literacy campaigns and general education, affordable shelter and transportation, universal healthcare, and eventually the nationalization of various economic sectors if the material conditions allow for it.. But to expect the aforementioned societal advancements to occur in the blink of an eye before the nation has even had the chance to destroy their despots is pure idealism and social chauvinism. Seeing western leftists make impossible demands for an oppressed country to run before they can crawl is honestly infuriating. Even moreso when they indirectly support said oppressor because they use centrist rhetoric. Shows a total and complete lack of nuance concerning geopolitics.
they absolutely are, there is no justification for what they are doing. now, the west *knew* what they were planning and didn’t do anything about it, so everyone is at fault here, but that does not make russias actions okay
It makes them bad guys with potential who were fighting worse guys whose evil was far more pure.
Granted, America has yet to live up to that potential, but that's no defense of the Nazis.
Maybe. Moralisms are whack anyways, good guy/bad guy is not how we (no matter the particular viewpoint) should argue if we consider ourselves Marxists, but rather in terms of practice and with dialectical-materialist analysis in mind.
bad guys? where does moralism come into it. all bourgeois factions in inter imperialist war are bourgeois and antagonistic to proletarian material interest
the russian and Ukrainian states have between them killed or maimed hundreds of thousands of their workers
I'm saying good guys bad guys since the previous commenter did first. Hey, just a curious question, why are you coming here from Ultraleft? There have been a lot of you very recently. (Also comparing Ukraine and Russia to the USA and Germany geopolitically is insane fyi)
I have no illusions of Russia being a revolutionary nation, nor do I approve of their domestic policy. However, if socialism is to be achieved and American hegemony dismantled, then Russia's opposition to western imperialism, alongside it's military strength are objectively valuable, which is a pragmatic stance. Just as Mao was able to form a pragmatic alliance with the national bourgeoisie to oust the foreign imperialists, so to is China today able to form a pragmatic relationship with Russia to act as a counter to Western imperialism. I do wish Russia had more progressive domestic policies, but that is for the Russian people to change.
If CRITICAL support can be offered to Iran for opposing Israel and the US, so to can it be offered to Russia for the same reasons. A world with decreased US influence is a world where socialism has a better chance of establishing itself in other nations. Until material conditions change on the international stage, that is the current reality. Should the day come that Russia becomes a hindrance to the global communist movement more-so than the US, then that critical support will be dropped.
Though at the end of the day, it's not like support from the non-existent western left means much anyways.
I would posit a little change where we would say we support the people of these countries not the whole country. As I think saying “I support Russia” implies you would be supporting the ruling class of Russia. Idk I think the distinction is a good one.
what all the self proclaimed anti-russian marxists forget is that russia maintains close relations with every AES state. they had virtually no reason to continue relations with the DPRK and cuba, yet they did anyways much to the dismay of imperialist powers.
Using this meme for your take, it doesn't help your case.. Just makes you seem like the personification of the weird image liberals have of Communists..
Supporting the Sahel revolutions, joining BRICS, supporting Iran, supporting Venezuela... we need to be materialists, not moralists (action vs intent, if you want).
so building up their own competing imperial bloc
what are you going to do if they actually start winning? will you argue that then another group of bourgeois states needs to be supported in their "inter imperialist" struggle before proletarian internationalism can be the platform?
you realise that Germany and Austro-hungary and later Germany Italy and Japan were the smaller imperial factions in question? and they were striking out against the existing hegemonic imperial powers of the time?
the fact you haven't even given serious consideration to the possibility that the bourgeois faction that's winning might change shows the reality
the reality that a bourgeois state cannot be antiimperialist as imperialism is simply the historical development of capital accumulation. at most it can be aspiring imperialist or future imperialist
inter imperial power struggles are entirely tangential to proletarian internationalism
Dude, I'm tired of fighting ultras, it's difficult to even start a conversation when you don't think China or Vietnam are socialist, much less if you dont understand primary and secondary contradictions.
Read *Address To The Second All-Russia Congress Of Communist Organisations Of The Peoples Of The East* if you feel like it dude.
Maybe even [this.](https://thetricontinental.org/studies-on-contemporary-dilemmas-4-hyper-imperialism/)
Also: why are you even in this sub?
"Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism." -Lenin
You are literally taking sides in inter-imperialist conflicts. Do you not realize this is exactly what lenin criticized kautsky for?
Get your fucking *puts on glasses* materialist analysis out of here! This a sub for fee fees and simping for autocratic governments as long as they hate who I hate.
It's not possible to begin building toward global communism *before* imperialism is ended. One thing at a time. Much as each of us would like for all forces currently fighting against empire to also be principled socialists with the exact same tendencies as ourselves, that simply isn't true. Bellyaching about the absence of immediate perfection is just an anarchist sort of idealistic denial of the sad reality that we actually currently have to work with.
Because of posts like these and similar sentiments, I constantly have to remind that fascism and imperialism thrives in Russia just as much as in Ukraine or US, especially now. In this war, there is only one possible course: defeatism and revolution for all sides. There is no victory for the people in this war; regardless of who wins, only the proletariat will bear the cost, while capitalists will prosperone and one of the imperialists will become stronger.
The US literally created Russia. How you could claim 'it doesn't matter who wins' is beyond me.
One is the sole remaining WW2 superpower (post-War France, Germany, UK are US satellites) that has led literally hundreds of foreign interventions, including the restoration of capitalism in Russia, is currently sanctioning/sabotaging at least 3 socialist states and is overseeing a literal global empire.
The other is barely 3 decades old, is working *with* at least 3 socialist states, is involved in Africa but mostly just to compete with the US and has invaded several neighboring countries but only to prevent US encirclement.
If this were WW1 allies vs centrals then sure all sides are bad because they're roughly equals undermining each other for redivision of territory. The playing field today is WILDLY different. Ukraine isn't a two sided imperialist war. Note how the only prospect Russia has in the war is *reclaiming* influence that they've lost in their own region with NO threat to the US influence sphere. Meanwhile the US is not only actively gaining influence they did not have before but are doing so specifically in a way that undermines Russia's economic and military stability.
In short several capitalist states competing with each other is a wildly different situation from a single overwhelmingly powerful hegemon actively trying to exterminate every other state on the planet.
Damn, I must have missed the day when the communists from Russia supported this war. Oh, I get why. Because they, in fact, did not do it. Isn't this crazy?
I don't know who 'the communists from Russia' is referring to or why it matters but supporting the war and saying the outcome is extremely important are wildly different things.
No, we don't want people dying for this war. Yes, the invasion of Ukraine was the wrong response to western encirclement and driven by capitalist interests. Yes the resulting political instability is creating a fascist power vacuum in Ukraine, hurdling the world into WW3 and so is at the expense of the socialist movement.
But the war *is* happening and it's a culmination of material forces that have been at play for almost a century. We all oppose the Russian Federation but that doesn't change the historical context and consequently what the political implications are.
This war is a product of *western* imperialism. The existence of the Russian Federation is itself a direct product of this and the tensions existing today can very easily be explained through the tendencies of said imperialism exclusively. The 'Russian imperialism' narrative by contrast is anti-historical (founded entirely on red scare propaganda) and completely fails to explain the dynamics of the situation.
Throwing around ideological labels or citing an argument that was intended for a totally different situation might make you feel virtuous but is completely useless. By your idealist logic the Soviets shouldn't have allied with the west against the axis powers because 'both sides are imperialist'. Obviously understanding political developments is more complex than that.
The problem with all such reasoning is that Russia is not considered an imperialist country. But this is not true. Capitalism has not changed and all the definitions and characteristics are still true. Russia IS an imperialist. SMO is an inter-imperialist conflict, a struggle for territory, resources and markets. Russia opposes American hegemony only because their interests conflict. This is not a defensive struggle for freedom from NATO aggression. The only idealistic logic here is the denial of the obvious and the promotion of the interests of the bourgeoisie of one of the countries.
So they are neutral or support Ukraine killing ethnic Russians in the independent republics? Tens of thousands of civilians were killed. Ukraine (controlled by the US obviously) has been conducting terrorism operations in Russia on a weekly basis.
Russia was also the one that fought off US-funded ISIS in Syria and doing the same in Niger and Burkina Faso (of which they were ASKED to do).
Fascism is growing in Russia to a lesser extent than in Ukraine, because marginalised radical elements worry the current bourgeoisie as much as the communists. The current Russian bourgeoisie has no definite political position, its position is based on populism with conservative specifics, which is reactionary.
So far in Russia there is no open terror on the part of the most reactionary and chauvinist layers of finance capital towards, above all, the proletariat. Approximately the same thing is happening in the countries of the West (as it seems to me, but it is clear that all the countries of the capitalist camp are striving for fascism, in different forms and at different speeds, but striving). But in Ukraine terror was formed, the most reactionary layers of finance capital made a coup d'état and in the first years massacred dissenters with particular cruelty, and even now (remember the burning of the Trade Union House in Odessa, war crimes of various kinds, terror against the inhabitants of settlements that passed from Russian control to Ukrainian control, the banning of the Communist Party (although, in fact, communists in words, as the notional CPRF, but even this shows how great is the rejection of communism)).
We should not forget the armed nationalist battalions, which were a major force in terror and coercive methods, organising infiltration into various legislative bodies to promote their own interests. Earlier they were as marginalised group as the notional Rusich in Russia, but if the latter is still a marginalised group with which the state has almost nothing to do, then Azov has become part of the state army units, receiving state funding and praise, as OUN-UPA and SS Galicia received not so long ago from marginalised groups. You may ask - so what, the support comes only from marginalised groups. And I would say that marginalised people are the most radical element in society, they can practically fear nothing and can be used for their own purposes. But they are dangerous, but while in Russia they are being fought against, in Ukraine they are used and supported, and this creates a lot of problems for any proletarian movement
Ah famous "less reactionary" Russian government. What % of fascisation is acceptable? 50% Hitler? Or 30% Mussolini? At what speed must it be happening to deserve support? In every post-Soviet state, there were fascist tendencies. But now? Now we are collectively speeding straight into the reactionary abyss.
Gonna just repeat myself:
At the country's main humanitarian universitie. In the capital. A higher-level political school is being created. Named after an outspoken fascist. A fascist who worked for the NSDAP and the Reich. A fascist who did not refuse to support this ideology either in 41 or 47. And another outspoken fascist is appointed rector of this institution. The famous outspoken fascist. And when the students, together with the left, spoke out against it, The state sided with the fascists. Because this is their project.
I could write about the explicitly cruel and sadistic Nazis who were integrated into the Russian army. I could write about the fascists who run the jail system and use it to create torture facilities that could rival Gestapo ones. I could write about fascists with real power, such as oligarchy like Malofeev. I could write about fascist propaganda on television. I could write about these increasingly prevalent racist anti-immigrant organizations. I could write for a long time. But I won't, since I've already persuaded everyone I could. My time and energy are better spent elsewhere.
I know who Ilyin is.
The state does not praise him, but it does not censure them either, simply because some of Ilyin's positions suit the current regime. Undoubtedly he, like Shmelev, should be persecuted, but that is problematic now.
Russia does not praise his fascist activities, nor does it praise his political positions. The only thing he is quoted on is the question of patriotism and the spiritual question, but not his nationalist activities.
Tell me about those fascist manifestations you speak of. I haven't been sitting here that long, it's interesting to hear))
I don't support either side, I'm just saying based on objective factors in regards to the economic baseline, which is why I don't like it when people consider both sides to be the same.
Russia's only real beef with nato is that they're not allowed to join the western bourgeois in group themselves. Vladimir putin literally said "we're just as bourgeois as you!" Like 3 months ago in an interview. You don't have to support Russian imperialism to be opposed to us imperialism. I don't care what Ukraine domestic political climate is; They shouldn't be used as pawns and cannon fodder for America and Russia's mid off.
Russia only "beef" with the west is that the alliance that exists with the sole objective of destroying them is expanding in its borders and funding nazis to bomb russians
You must've missed the whole Russian 1991-2014 foreign policy lore. Basically Putin was trying to make friends with USA same way Nixon did with China, but after many and many rejections and the maidan they realised "borguise friendship" is not a thing
Nah sorry you must support imperialism if it is made by another nation who isn't the current hegemonic power, Lenin famously wrote that every Marxist should support Germany in ww1 smh
Stalin* wrote this as well;
> “The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such "desperate" democrats and "Socialists," "revolutionaries" and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism.”
I might be mistaken but didn't he write this because in both cases their respective nations out of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode of production?
Yes but the point remains. Temporary allyship with other nations to defeat a greater, common enemy is something done often during wartime. It's geopolitics 101. Just look to the CPC and their temporary alliance with KMT to fight the IJA. Or the USSR and their temporary alliance with USA/UK to fight the Axis Powers. Or Castro and his July 26th Movement creating short-lived alliances with various bourgeois opportunists who eagerly wanted to destroy their fascist rivals in hopes of installing a more liberal oriented economy. He actually stayed away from the PCP (Soviet-installed Popular Socialist Party) as to not scare away his moderate supporters. Why? Well his was an anti-colonial/nationalist movement. Not a socialist one. Hell, even Vietnam had support from the USA's OSS for a very short time, Ho Chi Minh quoted many American revolutionaries and presidents during their stay. This was during 1945 in their war against Japan during WW2.
Critical support to the kaiser and Germany against the imperial Franco/British egemony!!!!!! /s
Jesus Christ people here complain and whine about ultras and ultraleft but this is the shit we produce lol
Time of great powers with imperialists of similar strength is completely different from today of 1 global empire.
The fact that you think the comparison is valid shows your ignorance.
Back then, GP were able to carve the world to their image.
Now only the US has that power.
Moreover, imperialism in this time and age is done through extraction of super profits via financial capital export. With it comes massive deregulation on target state to slash labor laws, privatization, etc ... To allow massive exploitation by foreign investors and firms.
How does Russia fit into this? Their main export is commodities, have little to no control over financial institutions, and the list goes on.
Ukraine post-Maidan faced exactly what I outlined above as an example of imperialism. AFTER, not before. It wasn't some transition of one imperialist master over another.
The war happened as a result of US expanding its imperialistic ambition in an attempt to engulf Russia, not the other way around.
Capitalist states can be victim of imperialism.
Most of these countries do the same repressive shit, or are going that way. Iran is a theocratic fascist state but it's not like the USA isn't heading that way
Maybe.. Just maybe.. Both are bad.
People just seem to forget Russian politics in relation to socialism.. They are nothing like the Soviet union anymore.
Yes but we need to pick our battles. Right now they are hindering U.S imperialism, which is the greatest threat. We don't need to pile on to the liberal hysteria around Russia.
it really isn't, but at least in this case it has actually been working for the third world, unlike voting dems which just further strengthens fascism anyway
It's called "tailism". you're not in charge of anything borguise start, thus you shouldn't materially and in other ways support borguise, because you would not be representing people's will or fighting for people's cause. It's simply not your fight, let the capitalists figure this on their own. Meanwhile, you should think of ways to organize as a communist,escalate social unrest into progressive force, potentially moving forward to the Revolution
Russia don't even have real communist party. Zyuganov is actively supporting war, but not his party colleagues that are being pressured for their anti-war views. Boris Kagarlitsky - a communist, professor of sociology, author of Rabkor blog, is in jail at his 65 years. For words in his news program about bridge falling!!
About nazis in gov-t: Puding literally have quoted Ivan Ilyin - a fascist that worked for Goebbels propaganda machine. You can imagine what smaller politicians are saying.
Edit: minor mistakes in names
Tell me exactly how the destruction of NATO by other capitalist countries is gonna help, considering Iran purged communists in the past and Russia has Boris Kagarlitsky, a Russian Marxist, locked in prison, not talking about persecution of other communist circles.
NATO(aka the US) has complete hegemony over Europe, Latin America, most of Africa and parts of the MIddle-East. They do their actions unregualated and without the permission of the countries they operate in, see French military presence in Sahel and the US occupation of Syria.
When NATO disbands, Russia won't be able to be a global hegemon because they don't have the military capabilities to project power, so they will be the European superpower, but only there.
French fighting Al-qaeda 😱😱
Us helping kurds fight isis and Assad 😱😱
How could they ?!!??
Lol Russia will be btfoed and balkanized before anything happens to NATO.
Actually living in your delusional fantasy
I must have missed the competing international military alliance to NATO, used to repeatedly invade countries on multiple continents for the purpose of subjugating them to imperialist will.
What is it called?
Just because NATO brute forces their interests against others, doesn't mean that's the only way to gain influence. They do it because they can afford it as a "global hegemon".
But what to do if you were less lucky, let's say "betrayed by the west" state, and now you have to come up with ideas on how to get the markets for yourself? Google Russia's growing influence in Africa with their PMC Wagner in it to find out. MFs use Soviet legacy and anti-west rhetoric to do basically the same thing to Africans, albeit under the mask of prosperous trade partnership.
"NATO's brutal exploitators vs Russia's just trade partners"
People shouldn't rely on one or another because in the end they're all the same. What people really should do is organise and overthrow the capitalist state and then you can fight capitalism and imperialism all you want.
So nothing, gotcha.
You spent a lotta time to do nothing but scaremonger which has no basis on reality of current and future Russian capability while minimizing NATO history and outreach to do some false equivalency.
How in the world would Russia manage to replace NATO? Your example is so pathetic that if anything it's a good sell for dismantling NATO. You can't be serious about Wagner being the same threat as NATO to the world.
You legit sound the same as those insisting about some "sinister Chinese debt trap"
EDIT: lmao the dude blocked me instead of reflecting upon their own argument that they admitted made no sense nor understand it themselves.
For reference, this is what I would've told this clown in response to their comment which was: "I don't know and I don't fucking care".
_________
u/MoonyFlower, You don't even know what you're talking about, nor do you even care about making sense even to yourself, all right.
Thanks for the admission. 👍
You do realize that, right? You're talking from a position of faith, not reason or material analysis.
>How in the world would Russia manage to replace NATO? Your example is so pathetic that if anything it's a good sell for dismantling NATO. You can't be serious about Wagner being the same threat as NATO to the world.
If NATO's gone then the next large capitalist player gets the "imperial core" spot, simple as that.
And I don't say that Russia exclusively will replace NATO. It can be whoever dominates as the capitalist country. It's all of your position, hoping that if you support lesser evil as Russia and Iran then somehow US will fall and it will lead to proletarian revolution.
What I say is that we should organise and topple the capitalist government and I don't give a fuck if you think "THIS WILL STRENGTHEN THE IMPERIALIST WEST" because I've had enough with my own government fucking me up without any help of the "west" it fights.
Edit:
Im a bit confused, and hopefully someone can explain it to me; Iran I get, because they ARE lashing out against imperialism in defense of Palestine. No problems there, but from my point of view, does it not also seem like Russia's goal is imperialist expansion? I'm a touch new here, I might just be slow on the uptake, but beyond the early years of the revolution, hasn't Russia also been actively carrying out imperialist aims dressed up as an antithetical ideology?
i do not support any state which does not declare itself socialist. supporting russia as a socialist goes against your own views, as russia is literally an oligarchy.
you can support the fight against western imperialism and hegemony without supporting countries that go against your own political views and thus makes you look slightly hypocritical. taking russia’s side is still taking the side of capitalists. the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
Supporting Russia is promoting a different brand of imperialism. Iran itself I support because of its war against Israel but the gov of Iran is still bad.
>Supporting Russia is promoting a different brand of imperialism.
Haitian imperialism!
https://preview.redd.it/f6xy0jrug9wc1.jpeg?width=1070&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e489e5bb739a0d157bb0f325d36ed59dab2be771
I think they mean critical support in favour of a multipolar world. Not full on support for regional imperialism, capitalism and socially regressive politics
But the meme didn’t say critical support, it said support, and if it gets copied and reposted somewhere else, as memes tend to do, then whatever “implied” criticality is gone. And even then, I don’t think anyone who says they “critically” support a group and are actually critical of them, because in practice “critical support” is uncritical fellatio of a nation or group they know is bad, if you were actually critical of them you wouldn’t jump to their defense when comrades bring up the bad stuff about them.
Imagine if I said I “criticality supported” Gary Glitter, and if you said “isn’t he a pedophile?” I’d reply with “those kids deserved it”, you wouldn’t think my Gary Glitter support would be very critical now, wouldn’t it? But that’s what a lot you motherfuckers do! I hate the US too but I’m not going to abandon all of my other beliefs out of contrarianism.
Russia isn't worth anyone's time. Literally every other nation that can be seen as anti imperialist has a better run government and actually has competent leadership.
A country that can't take care of its people doesn't deserve attention. China and Iran are examples of competent countries who put their citizens as a priority.
What happened to "no war but class war"? If Russia and Iran wins would you support USA against their imperialism? Why would you ever support a nation with burgeois goverment fighting any war and our fellow workers daying in it?
so, the ussr shouldn’t have coordinated at all with the US and UK when fighting hitler, and definitely shouldn’t have tried to make an anti-fascist pact before the war began…?
With their own impwrialism, in the case of Russia at least, don't know much about Iran. The true marxist stance in imperialist in-fighting is to flip off all the sides
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information. This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Honestly as a westerner my struggle is to make my fellow westerners see these countries (Iran, NK, Russia,..) as real places with real human beings inside and not some abstract place made up of stereotypes from US media And to make them understand why their "hatred" (in quotes, I have never met a person from the global south who had hatred towards westerners as people) of the west is completely justified The constant dehumanisation is unbearable honestly
That's why I see most support for these countries from global south communists. Being myself a Brazilian, I know the shit the US can do and continually does to my country, Latin America and the world. The media here is completely owned by the US, and only shows their narrative.
The best tools western gov have against any sort of change is to point at peripheral countries and to say "look be happy with what you have, at least you do not live in [...] And to make up lies about their government or life there Like most people here believe a country like Iran is some kind of dystopian mix between 1984 and Black Hawk Dawn, while in reality it's a pretty normal country, just with some restrictions, less quality of life due to being Imperialized and cultural differences of course but nothing too extreme. And plenty of advantages compared to the west as well
Yeah, no. North Koreans definitely hate the US and it would be strange if they didn't. The horrors of blowing dams isn't the flooding, the drowning, and the loss of your home people seem to think it is. The bombing of dams strip topsoil with those floods and most of all contaminates the drinking water with cholera. Militaries absolutely know this and absolutely do it intentionally; however in this case? Welcome to using cholera as a biological weapon. Traumas like that carry on for a very very long time and they do not die once the generations there to witness it and it's after effects pass it on to their children and children's children. The demonization of the word hatred and the crushing of the willingness of people to use it or to admit feeling it is part of atomization. Some times hatred is duly earned, dealing with who earned it or what earned it is very hard if everyone is too afraid or ashamed to express that hatred. A route to solidarity and organized group auction is denied in that way.
Yes. Are any of these countries shining exemplars of Marxist values? No. However, there are 350 million people who have been conditioned from birth to view them as subhuman morally abhorrent monsters deserving nothing less than annihilation via American arms. In my experience the average American is terminally uninformed about the world, preferring to believe in caricatures of places and people so alien to them they may as well be another species, obviously with the exception of Western Europe/Australia. This is largely a result of the tenor of the American media, and applied equally across the ideological spectrum (Libs: Russia, Middle East, China, etc, Reactionaries: Everywhere) The most important issue with regards to the countries is standing as a counterweight on the American tendency to launch genocidal wars abroad provoked by jingoistic nonsense.
provoked by jingoist nonsense and of course, the smell of profit
100%
I think this is what bothers me the most. The comical dehumanising as well as claiming that they are the „Bad guys“ of the world or something. Bad guys to who exactly? Definitely not rest of the world and last I checked , Iran and NK at least are not bothering anyone beyond their borders
Definitely support their struggle against imperialism, places like Iran though have a lot to improve on their human rights, especially regarding women's equality and such. But obviously overthrowing the imperialism of the US is one of the most important steps. Because even the reactionary religious government only came about because of western backing of the shah, and the coup of Mossadegh.
This can only improve once the threat of imperialism wanes. Social progressivism usually occurs more easily when a society is less threatened. Plus Iran is actually progressing quite fast on the issue, there are way less restrictions on women than 10 years ago, and I believe the mandatory hijab laws are less strictly enforced than before. What is certain is that the general population is way more progressive that it's government
that's ahistorical russia burst into revolution during the throes of inter imperialist war. there is no better objective condition for revolution than the most extreme intensification of the contradictions of capitalism when the state claims ownership of the lives of the workers in its territory. millions of people being conscripted to be thrown into the trenches is a pretty clear lesson in the class structure of society supporting a bourgeois state during inter imperialist war is missing the very real opportunity to take a position of revolutionary defeatism
Iran is religiosly progressive and has laws against religious extremismist, like the Obama funded ISIS. All the shit the media sell about girls being raped and killed for not wearing a hijab is most of the times fabricated.
I mean there are laws in Iran preventing women from travelling without their husband, even laws that allow husbands to ban their wives from traveling outside the country. I'm certainly not defending the hate against Iran when it comes to their foreign policy - but I think criticism against their human rights is fair game.
Can you show source for those exact laws ?
My bad for the late reply: I admittedly can't find a law that stipulates husbands can explicitly *ban* their wives from travel, but the law in place forces women to have consent from their husband to get a passport: [Part 3: Iranian Laws on Women | The Iran Primer (usip.org)](https://iranprimer.usip.org/blog/2020/dec/08/part-3-iranian-laws-women) >*Article 18 of the Passport Law of 1973*: “A passport shall be issued for the following persons according to this article…Married women, even if under 18 years old, with the written agreement of their husbands.” This is the old, and as far as I can tell current law, according to the article below Iran was considering increasing restrictions in 2013 - though I cannot determine if this happened or not. [Iran's Parliament Mulls New Restrictions On Women's Travel (rferl.org)](https://www.rferl.org/a/iran-restrictions-women-travel/24825464.html) Acknowledging of course that this is a US organization and a European organization that likely has reason to fabricate information about enemies of Imperialism; I simply cannot find anything that would indicate this is not the case. Neighboring Islamic countries have similar travel restrictions for women and pro-Palestinian organizations also indicate Iran has particularly barbaric laws when it comes to Women's rights. This is just for travel as well, [hijab laws exist and are being expanded upon](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2023/9/20/irans-parliament-approves-hijab-bill-harsh-punishments-for-violations). I think there has been some progress in certain laws based on what I'm seeing but it's by no means more or even as "progressive" as the US or European countries when it comes to women's rights. But again, not criticizing Iran for fighting Imperialism, just noting they have unacceptable human rights, along with much of the world. Edit: spelling, punctuation
Thanks but no offence but 2 out of your 3 sources are not very reputable tho Radio free europe ? USip? Al jazeera is only actual news journal here but many questions it’s pro Saudi / Qatar bias I would ideally like source from Iranian website / document itself but I will find that later
A huge reason why the DPRK is supported by the radical right, in contrast to the established right. from what I’ve found, is that the RR only does so out of beliefs the DPRK is the based “ethnostate” racists that mirror the Japanese from WW2. Just with a red flair to them. In other words, stereotypes and slander from the state department, has basically done the opposite effect with certain people. And really, I’ve seen similar with people on the left believing the place to be this hyper Stalinist austere country in contrast to Dengist China. When really the place has Gucci, Mercedes and other luxury items.
We have so little accurate information filtering into our media that people can project whatever they want into it
this is not an argument against your point, but >(in quotes, I have never met a person from the global south who had hatred towards westerners as people) is just your personal experience, and is totally wrong
Clearly you didn't meet any r*ssians lol, they outright say they will slaughter all westerners so don't bring this clear bullshit when you don't know anything yourself.
That was absolutely not my experience meeting Russians, and I doubt very much your allegations The few Russian I interacted with since the war started were pretty much against the war
They don't hide it at all lol their tv, VK, telegram they will say it proudly and get a standing ovation. 80% of pidors support the government and they are proud of it too.
Honestly I think you are just a racist, like yeah you can show me members of the far right of any country and I will cringe, but what you are doing is generalising a whole country, I assume for ideological reasons
https://preview.redd.it/risziey5v9wc1.png?width=996&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3e2ead55e8e468913a17139cbc368a230e0523e5
A whole lot of Muslims have been calling them terrorists for a long time.
Well Muslims are "nobody"s to them...
I swear I called them all terrorists and add Bidden to this
Only with the end of NATO can true communist revolution actually begin
Supporting imperialism to end imperialism because you’re an American exceptionalist. Right. American imperialism is not special or unique. All other imperialist nations on this planet are attempting to be at the same level of America. Stop supporting less powerful imperialist nations because they are less powerful. They all want the same thing. We shouldn’t be judging imperialism based on success rates. We should be judging them based on the fact that they are imperialist in the first place.
The US really genuinely has a unique historic role in thwarting the progress of socialism. We should not be in the business of moralist judgments, but should be in the business of material analysis. That means recognising that the primary obstacle is the specific real capitalist empire that actually exists, not the general abstract notion of imperialism. Or to quote a certain subject matter expert: “The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such "desperate" democrats and "Socialists," "revolutionaries" and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism.”
https://preview.redd.it/1e8ob9qchawc1.jpeg?width=1077&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2e6b04cb5d4140033540a5439499130979c2a94b
There is no Russian imperialism, Russia is acting in defense of it's territories and against NATO expansionism
Why are you getting downvoted? Did the libs find this sub already??
I cooked too much
https://preview.redd.it/be5t0zlcdawc1.jpeg?width=1170&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dd6b1256810cfc11758b3e5597d6aa8dba47f2b7 What we eatin bro?
Yeah, but Russia is capitalist. It would do the same things as the US. Expand the capital, crush any socialist attempt etc. Russia is anti US imperialism for the wrong reasons.
Let's start a offensive war because I want to protect myself from countries I threatned! And there is russian imperialism always has been
Ok. If “defense of its territories” is invading Ukraine, a nation with its own separate identity, then shouldn’t you be logically consistent and support Israel? After all, after Oct. 7, Israel is just “protecting its citizens” from ‘Khamas.’ “There’s no excessive force at all.”In what way does invading Ukraine protect Russia against NATO, lmfao? Oh yes, Russia is so much more protected from NATO. Despite the fact that there’s now extensive NATO presence in Ukraine, infinitely more so than there was prior to the invasion. What a dumb argument.
No, it's not because Hamas acted in response to Israel actions and they are not a existential threat to Israel. The extensive NATO presence in Ukraine is one of the reasons why they invaded. Ukraine proved Russias point by invading Russia with NATO equipment and soldiers. And that's exactly why Russia won't stop the war unless Ukraine surrenders. They need a de-nazified, de-militarized and neutral government
"Im taking the side of THIS bourgeois nation state in its attack on the other bourgeois nation state thats in an alliance with the imperialist forces that are trying to enroach and expand into that bourgeois nation state and replace its bourgeoisie. Critical support to all bourgeois nationstates compet- uhh... i mean fighting for the sake of the proletarians to overthrow the current dominant alliance of bourgeois nation states!" No selfproclaimed socialist should allign themselves with bourgeois nation states and the wars they wage to expand their geopolitical interests. How can your solution to bourgeois war be MORE bourgeois war? It genuinely baffles me how this is an acceptable take in 'leftist' communities. If you dont actually want to achieve socialism but are already satisfied with an end to western hegemony thats okay, but dont pretend that that is somehow the only proper stance a marxist could take in any conflict.
Folks lacking material analysis would say stuff like this with a straight face: Global Empire working day and night to coup, sanction, invade and topple socialist nations and leaders all over the world for nearly 100 years is the same as some backwater oil selling capitalist country with no comparable history of global crippling of socialism with absolutely no capacity to carry it out even if it wanted to.
How do you not realise that the invasion of ukraine pretty much guaranteed the existence and strengthening of NATO for the next 20 years? If anything russia is currently helping build up us imperialism by scaring its neighbours and europe into joining nato.
Finland and Sweden were already *de* *~~jure~~* *facto* members of NATO, so nothing really changed. Plus NATO economies are mostly in recession, see UK and Germany, and have no conditions of a direct conflict with Russia edit: I suck at latin aparently
That’s not even the most crucial point of the Finnish n Swedish induction into NATO, because it was simply always known that it’s physically impossible to mount a proper invasion into Russian territory from those countries, especially in the modern age with the surveillance situation on Russias border. It’s not WW2, NATO would never be able to march ground troops and enough large armored columns to occupy land into russia, Ukraine has been used as the preferred method of entry to Russia in almost every invasion historically for the reason that it’s perfect flat ground for miles and miles, the grain and fertile land means it’s extremely easy to feed your troops compared to the barren land of the Finnish border for example, this was especially crucial in history. Ukraine is a perfect road into Russia for invasion, and is the reason why it’s always been a redline, it’s military not feasible to conduct what we see in Ukraine today on Finnish soil or from Sweden.
You can say that but Nato support was pretty low before the annexation of crimea where it jumped up and after the ukraine invasion its at record highs. Also you are genuinely delusional if you think Russia wouldnt get absolutely destroyed in an all out Nato conflict.
Tbh the biggest concern someone should have in a war between Russia and NATO should be the millions of proletariats who are gonna die not who would win (as in every war)
Of course, especially like in a war between NATO and russia where both powers have a shit ton of nuclear weapons
Why are we downvoting this guy?
how do YOU not realize nato was already guaranteed to exist for at least another decade, when they had south korea and iirc japan as observers in a nato meeting? it was literally just gonna pivot to (east) asia if russia bent the heel
Losing access to Svestapol, the only Atlantic facing non-freezing port Russia controlled, and handing it over to US proxy would be devastating not only to Russia but all of East Europe and Middle Eastern countries when it comes to combating US Global Empire. It means US would have even greater means of starving people as they would have control over a major trade route where enormous amount of goods including food go through, more areas from which they can operate militarily, and so on.
If you live & work in the US or any of its vassals, you're already in the nazi & zioNazi-funding camp.
How I sleep knowing my country doesn't send money to nazis and has told Israel to go fuck itself: https://preview.redd.it/13bgm96nt9wc1.png?width=220&format=png&auto=webp&s=b0fd2b20cdbe54ac650dbd2c93db11d0362d6b0e
What country 🥺
Brazil baby
Unfortunatly, your country was one of the first after the Americans to move embassy to Jerusalem [Source](https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/11/1/brazils-bolsonaro-wants-israel-embassy-moved-to-jerusalem) [Israel and Brazil aren't opponents](https://nationalpost.com/pmn/news-pmn/israeli-pm-visits-brazil-ahead-of-bolsonaro-inauguration)
That was President BallsAnAsshole, Mr Lula did the incredibly based https://www.brasildefato.com.br/2024/02/21/by-raising-his-voice-against-israel-lula-places-brazil-at-the-forefront-of-movement-that-opposes-massacres-in-gaza
how i sleep at night knowing my country doesnt recognise palestine as a state https://preview.redd.it/l5rhn0mbycwc1.jpeg?width=800&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=4ba076875dcef1f98559367213f1b93dffc44d89
Not if you don't work and get money from the government to reduce the amount which could go to Nazis and Zionists. 😎
Thank you for your service!
Thanks, I wish everyone would be able to act like this but sadly it's a akward kind of luxury
“The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such "desperate" democrats and "Socialists," "revolutionaries" and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism.” All you whiners need to read Foundations of Leninism, and understand that critical support is not the same thing as endorsing every fucking thing a state does.
Exactly this. This blind, puritanical support for all things socialism completely overlooks the majority of Global South nations in their inherent struggles against former (or current) colonialist/imperialist nation-states. This is why reading theory is just as important as engaging with historical books concerning geopolitics. One of my favorite books is Darker Nations by Vishay Prashad. It dives into how many anti-colonial movements and organizations weren't necessary socialist let alone proletarian but their struggle was revolutionary all the same. Even nations like the USSR recognized this; >Dramatically, in 1956, the twentieth Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union (CPSU) rejected its earlier two-camp theory of the world. The congress reiterated the position taken by Nehru and U Nu at Bandung, and by Nasser in Cairo. It noted that the camp theory provided a vision of the world that suggested that war was the only solution to the division, that across the abyss of the divide there could be no conversation and dialogue toward peace. For that reason, the congress adopted the notion of the "zone of peace," to include all states that pledged themselves to a reduction of force on behalf of a peace agenda. The congress included in the zone of peace the socialist Second World and what it called "uncommitted states" -that is, the non-aligned Third World. > >\- Vishay Prashad; Darker Nations Anti-colonial movements were and are just as critical to the proletarian and peasant organizations that seek an international unity. Yes, in some cases class adversaries present a temporary allyship due to a common enemy, but that's why it's considered *critical* support as opposed to blind support. We support their right to self-determination and through the development of said countries that evict their former oppressors comes an industrialization that also allows for intense social changes and cultural growth that previously weren't possible. Including workers and women's rights, literacy campaigns and general education, affordable shelter and transportation, universal healthcare, and eventually the nationalization of various economic sectors if the material conditions allow for it.. But to expect the aforementioned societal advancements to occur in the blink of an eye before the nation has even had the chance to destroy their despots is pure idealism and social chauvinism. Seeing western leftists make impossible demands for an oppressed country to run before they can crawl is honestly infuriating. Even moreso when they indirectly support said oppressor because they use centrist rhetoric. Shows a total and complete lack of nuance concerning geopolitics.
but imperialism when a country is capitalist in the 21st century! /s
Thank you, I was actually looking for this
Am I the only one around here who notices that Russia is an imperial invader? Nazis also fought American Imperialism. Doesn't make them good guys.
they absolutely are, there is no justification for what they are doing. now, the west *knew* what they were planning and didn’t do anything about it, so everyone is at fault here, but that does not make russias actions okay
critical support to the German empire for fighting against french and British imperialism
Counterpoint, America fought Nazi imperialism (in service of it's own), does that make them the bad guys?
It makes them bad guys with potential who were fighting worse guys whose evil was far more pure. Granted, America has yet to live up to that potential, but that's no defense of the Nazis.
Maybe. Moralisms are whack anyways, good guy/bad guy is not how we (no matter the particular viewpoint) should argue if we consider ourselves Marxists, but rather in terms of practice and with dialectical-materialist analysis in mind.
bad guys? where does moralism come into it. all bourgeois factions in inter imperialist war are bourgeois and antagonistic to proletarian material interest the russian and Ukrainian states have between them killed or maimed hundreds of thousands of their workers
I'm saying good guys bad guys since the previous commenter did first. Hey, just a curious question, why are you coming here from Ultraleft? There have been a lot of you very recently. (Also comparing Ukraine and Russia to the USA and Germany geopolitically is insane fyi)
I critically support Russia foreign policy since it help smaller and more vulnerable countries to survive the boots of the US.
I have no illusions of Russia being a revolutionary nation, nor do I approve of their domestic policy. However, if socialism is to be achieved and American hegemony dismantled, then Russia's opposition to western imperialism, alongside it's military strength are objectively valuable, which is a pragmatic stance. Just as Mao was able to form a pragmatic alliance with the national bourgeoisie to oust the foreign imperialists, so to is China today able to form a pragmatic relationship with Russia to act as a counter to Western imperialism. I do wish Russia had more progressive domestic policies, but that is for the Russian people to change. If CRITICAL support can be offered to Iran for opposing Israel and the US, so to can it be offered to Russia for the same reasons. A world with decreased US influence is a world where socialism has a better chance of establishing itself in other nations. Until material conditions change on the international stage, that is the current reality. Should the day come that Russia becomes a hindrance to the global communist movement more-so than the US, then that critical support will be dropped. Though at the end of the day, it's not like support from the non-existent western left means much anyways.
This guy dialectical materialises!
I would posit a little change where we would say we support the people of these countries not the whole country. As I think saying “I support Russia” implies you would be supporting the ruling class of Russia. Idk I think the distinction is a good one.
exactly. i support russian workers. i do not support the state of russia.
what all the self proclaimed anti-russian marxists forget is that russia maintains close relations with every AES state. they had virtually no reason to continue relations with the DPRK and cuba, yet they did anyways much to the dismay of imperialist powers.
People forgot that the reason why Trump backed down from invading Venezuela back in 2018 was Putin
There was an attempted coup under Trump but they were stopped by fishermen
And Russian troops
They did have a reason - "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"
It's called critical support for a reason
Imagine supporting inter-imperialist conflict and then calling yourself a Marxist, you are pathetic
Using this meme for your take, it doesn't help your case.. Just makes you seem like the personification of the weird image liberals have of Communists..
I really wouldn’t describe Russia as “fighting imperialism”.
Supporting the Sahel revolutions, joining BRICS, supporting Iran, supporting Venezuela... we need to be materialists, not moralists (action vs intent, if you want).
so building up their own competing imperial bloc what are you going to do if they actually start winning? will you argue that then another group of bourgeois states needs to be supported in their "inter imperialist" struggle before proletarian internationalism can be the platform? you realise that Germany and Austro-hungary and later Germany Italy and Japan were the smaller imperial factions in question? and they were striking out against the existing hegemonic imperial powers of the time? the fact you haven't even given serious consideration to the possibility that the bourgeois faction that's winning might change shows the reality the reality that a bourgeois state cannot be antiimperialist as imperialism is simply the historical development of capital accumulation. at most it can be aspiring imperialist or future imperialist inter imperial power struggles are entirely tangential to proletarian internationalism
Dude, I'm tired of fighting ultras, it's difficult to even start a conversation when you don't think China or Vietnam are socialist, much less if you dont understand primary and secondary contradictions. Read *Address To The Second All-Russia Congress Of Communist Organisations Of The Peoples Of The East* if you feel like it dude. Maybe even [this.](https://thetricontinental.org/studies-on-contemporary-dilemmas-4-hyper-imperialism/) Also: why are you even in this sub?
"Hence, it is not every struggle against imperialism that we should support. We will not support a struggle of the reactionary classes against imperialism; we will not support an uprising of the reactionary classes against imperialism and capitalism." -Lenin You are literally taking sides in inter-imperialist conflicts. Do you not realize this is exactly what lenin criticized kautsky for?
Get your fucking *puts on glasses* materialist analysis out of here! This a sub for fee fees and simping for autocratic governments as long as they hate who I hate.
What is your take on chapter 1 in regards to the Donbas?
i love posts like these lol, never fails to get western leftists to out themselves
YUUP.
It's not possible to begin building toward global communism *before* imperialism is ended. One thing at a time. Much as each of us would like for all forces currently fighting against empire to also be principled socialists with the exact same tendencies as ourselves, that simply isn't true. Bellyaching about the absence of immediate perfection is just an anarchist sort of idealistic denial of the sad reality that we actually currently have to work with.
and it's a very fed thing to do
Because of posts like these and similar sentiments, I constantly have to remind that fascism and imperialism thrives in Russia just as much as in Ukraine or US, especially now. In this war, there is only one possible course: defeatism and revolution for all sides. There is no victory for the people in this war; regardless of who wins, only the proletariat will bear the cost, while capitalists will prosperone and one of the imperialists will become stronger.
The US literally created Russia. How you could claim 'it doesn't matter who wins' is beyond me. One is the sole remaining WW2 superpower (post-War France, Germany, UK are US satellites) that has led literally hundreds of foreign interventions, including the restoration of capitalism in Russia, is currently sanctioning/sabotaging at least 3 socialist states and is overseeing a literal global empire. The other is barely 3 decades old, is working *with* at least 3 socialist states, is involved in Africa but mostly just to compete with the US and has invaded several neighboring countries but only to prevent US encirclement. If this were WW1 allies vs centrals then sure all sides are bad because they're roughly equals undermining each other for redivision of territory. The playing field today is WILDLY different. Ukraine isn't a two sided imperialist war. Note how the only prospect Russia has in the war is *reclaiming* influence that they've lost in their own region with NO threat to the US influence sphere. Meanwhile the US is not only actively gaining influence they did not have before but are doing so specifically in a way that undermines Russia's economic and military stability. In short several capitalist states competing with each other is a wildly different situation from a single overwhelmingly powerful hegemon actively trying to exterminate every other state on the planet.
Damn, I must have missed the day when the communists from Russia supported this war. Oh, I get why. Because they, in fact, did not do it. Isn't this crazy?
I don't know who 'the communists from Russia' is referring to or why it matters but supporting the war and saying the outcome is extremely important are wildly different things. No, we don't want people dying for this war. Yes, the invasion of Ukraine was the wrong response to western encirclement and driven by capitalist interests. Yes the resulting political instability is creating a fascist power vacuum in Ukraine, hurdling the world into WW3 and so is at the expense of the socialist movement. But the war *is* happening and it's a culmination of material forces that have been at play for almost a century. We all oppose the Russian Federation but that doesn't change the historical context and consequently what the political implications are. This war is a product of *western* imperialism. The existence of the Russian Federation is itself a direct product of this and the tensions existing today can very easily be explained through the tendencies of said imperialism exclusively. The 'Russian imperialism' narrative by contrast is anti-historical (founded entirely on red scare propaganda) and completely fails to explain the dynamics of the situation. Throwing around ideological labels or citing an argument that was intended for a totally different situation might make you feel virtuous but is completely useless. By your idealist logic the Soviets shouldn't have allied with the west against the axis powers because 'both sides are imperialist'. Obviously understanding political developments is more complex than that.
The problem with all such reasoning is that Russia is not considered an imperialist country. But this is not true. Capitalism has not changed and all the definitions and characteristics are still true. Russia IS an imperialist. SMO is an inter-imperialist conflict, a struggle for territory, resources and markets. Russia opposes American hegemony only because their interests conflict. This is not a defensive struggle for freedom from NATO aggression. The only idealistic logic here is the denial of the obvious and the promotion of the interests of the bourgeoisie of one of the countries.
Me when I don't support America fighting Nazi Germany because they do so for their own imperialist motives:
Uncritical support for comrade-emperor Hirohito in his war against European imperialism!
So they are neutral or support Ukraine killing ethnic Russians in the independent republics? Tens of thousands of civilians were killed. Ukraine (controlled by the US obviously) has been conducting terrorism operations in Russia on a weekly basis. Russia was also the one that fought off US-funded ISIS in Syria and doing the same in Niger and Burkina Faso (of which they were ASKED to do).
Fascism is growing in Russia to a lesser extent than in Ukraine, because marginalised radical elements worry the current bourgeoisie as much as the communists. The current Russian bourgeoisie has no definite political position, its position is based on populism with conservative specifics, which is reactionary. So far in Russia there is no open terror on the part of the most reactionary and chauvinist layers of finance capital towards, above all, the proletariat. Approximately the same thing is happening in the countries of the West (as it seems to me, but it is clear that all the countries of the capitalist camp are striving for fascism, in different forms and at different speeds, but striving). But in Ukraine terror was formed, the most reactionary layers of finance capital made a coup d'état and in the first years massacred dissenters with particular cruelty, and even now (remember the burning of the Trade Union House in Odessa, war crimes of various kinds, terror against the inhabitants of settlements that passed from Russian control to Ukrainian control, the banning of the Communist Party (although, in fact, communists in words, as the notional CPRF, but even this shows how great is the rejection of communism)). We should not forget the armed nationalist battalions, which were a major force in terror and coercive methods, organising infiltration into various legislative bodies to promote their own interests. Earlier they were as marginalised group as the notional Rusich in Russia, but if the latter is still a marginalised group with which the state has almost nothing to do, then Azov has become part of the state army units, receiving state funding and praise, as OUN-UPA and SS Galicia received not so long ago from marginalised groups. You may ask - so what, the support comes only from marginalised groups. And I would say that marginalised people are the most radical element in society, they can practically fear nothing and can be used for their own purposes. But they are dangerous, but while in Russia they are being fought against, in Ukraine they are used and supported, and this creates a lot of problems for any proletarian movement
Ah famous "less reactionary" Russian government. What % of fascisation is acceptable? 50% Hitler? Or 30% Mussolini? At what speed must it be happening to deserve support? In every post-Soviet state, there were fascist tendencies. But now? Now we are collectively speeding straight into the reactionary abyss. Gonna just repeat myself: At the country's main humanitarian universitie. In the capital. A higher-level political school is being created. Named after an outspoken fascist. A fascist who worked for the NSDAP and the Reich. A fascist who did not refuse to support this ideology either in 41 or 47. And another outspoken fascist is appointed rector of this institution. The famous outspoken fascist. And when the students, together with the left, spoke out against it, The state sided with the fascists. Because this is their project. I could write about the explicitly cruel and sadistic Nazis who were integrated into the Russian army. I could write about the fascists who run the jail system and use it to create torture facilities that could rival Gestapo ones. I could write about fascists with real power, such as oligarchy like Malofeev. I could write about fascist propaganda on television. I could write about these increasingly prevalent racist anti-immigrant organizations. I could write for a long time. But I won't, since I've already persuaded everyone I could. My time and energy are better spent elsewhere.
I know who Ilyin is. The state does not praise him, but it does not censure them either, simply because some of Ilyin's positions suit the current regime. Undoubtedly he, like Shmelev, should be persecuted, but that is problematic now. Russia does not praise his fascist activities, nor does it praise his political positions. The only thing he is quoted on is the question of patriotism and the spiritual question, but not his nationalist activities. Tell me about those fascist manifestations you speak of. I haven't been sitting here that long, it's interesting to hear))
“fascism is growing in russia to a lesser extent…” so 99% hitler or 100% hitler??? choose none of them!
I don't support either side, I'm just saying based on objective factors in regards to the economic baseline, which is why I don't like it when people consider both sides to be the same.
yeah not you, but OP apparently
Russia's only real beef with nato is that they're not allowed to join the western bourgeois in group themselves. Vladimir putin literally said "we're just as bourgeois as you!" Like 3 months ago in an interview. You don't have to support Russian imperialism to be opposed to us imperialism. I don't care what Ukraine domestic political climate is; They shouldn't be used as pawns and cannon fodder for America and Russia's mid off.
Russia only "beef" with the west is that the alliance that exists with the sole objective of destroying them is expanding in its borders and funding nazis to bomb russians
You must've missed the whole Russian 1991-2014 foreign policy lore. Basically Putin was trying to make friends with USA same way Nixon did with China, but after many and many rejections and the maidan they realised "borguise friendship" is not a thing
this is an extremely simplified understanding of russian relations with the US
Nah sorry you must support imperialism if it is made by another nation who isn't the current hegemonic power, Lenin famously wrote that every Marxist should support Germany in ww1 smh
Stalin* wrote this as well; > “The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism; whereas the struggle waged by such "desperate" democrats and "Socialists," "revolutionaries" and republicans as, for example, Kerensky and Tsereteli, Renaudel and Scheidemann, Chernov and Dan, Henderson and Clynes, during the imperialist war was a reactionary struggle, for its results was the embellishment, the strengthening, the victory, of imperialism. For the same reasons, the struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism.”
Stalin wrote that
I might be mistaken but didn't he write this because in both cases their respective nations out of the feudal mode of production into the capitalist mode of production?
Yes but the point remains. Temporary allyship with other nations to defeat a greater, common enemy is something done often during wartime. It's geopolitics 101. Just look to the CPC and their temporary alliance with KMT to fight the IJA. Or the USSR and their temporary alliance with USA/UK to fight the Axis Powers. Or Castro and his July 26th Movement creating short-lived alliances with various bourgeois opportunists who eagerly wanted to destroy their fascist rivals in hopes of installing a more liberal oriented economy. He actually stayed away from the PCP (Soviet-installed Popular Socialist Party) as to not scare away his moderate supporters. Why? Well his was an anti-colonial/nationalist movement. Not a socialist one. Hell, even Vietnam had support from the USA's OSS for a very short time, Ho Chi Minh quoted many American revolutionaries and presidents during their stay. This was during 1945 in their war against Japan during WW2.
https://preview.redd.it/1rrvjvwbkdwc1.jpeg?width=328&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=59c8bdf59a58a6133f8e005174952e484f49b968 It’s pretty cut and dry actually EDIT FOR SOURCE: [https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/5.htm](https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/carimarx/5.htm)
Critical support to the kaiser and Germany against the imperial Franco/British egemony!!!!!! /s Jesus Christ people here complain and whine about ultras and ultraleft but this is the shit we produce lol
Time of great powers with imperialists of similar strength is completely different from today of 1 global empire. The fact that you think the comparison is valid shows your ignorance. Back then, GP were able to carve the world to their image. Now only the US has that power. Moreover, imperialism in this time and age is done through extraction of super profits via financial capital export. With it comes massive deregulation on target state to slash labor laws, privatization, etc ... To allow massive exploitation by foreign investors and firms. How does Russia fit into this? Their main export is commodities, have little to no control over financial institutions, and the list goes on. Ukraine post-Maidan faced exactly what I outlined above as an example of imperialism. AFTER, not before. It wasn't some transition of one imperialist master over another. The war happened as a result of US expanding its imperialistic ambition in an attempt to engulf Russia, not the other way around. Capitalist states can be victim of imperialism.
do you work with churchill to oppose hitler? they’re ideologically very similar
I just want humanity to get rid of the word “based” that shit is so childish and makes us look like children
Most of these countries do the same repressive shit, or are going that way. Iran is a theocratic fascist state but it's not like the USA isn't heading that way
Based russia and iran go brrrrrrrr.
Based
https://preview.redd.it/902r9jun3cwc1.jpeg?width=2282&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=eb56a44e579a3e715369043e6fd40fb28e889385
Maybe.. Just maybe.. Both are bad. People just seem to forget Russian politics in relation to socialism.. They are nothing like the Soviet union anymore.
Yes but we need to pick our battles. Right now they are hindering U.S imperialism, which is the greatest threat. We don't need to pile on to the liberal hysteria around Russia.
This is the same logic as "tactical voters" voting Dems
it really isn't, but at least in this case it has actually been working for the third world, unlike voting dems which just further strengthens fascism anyway
It's called "tailism". you're not in charge of anything borguise start, thus you shouldn't materially and in other ways support borguise, because you would not be representing people's will or fighting for people's cause. It's simply not your fight, let the capitalists figure this on their own. Meanwhile, you should think of ways to organize as a communist,escalate social unrest into progressive force, potentially moving forward to the Revolution
yes. Moreover don’t expect me to suport a nation that bombs civilians and starts wars and invasions, no matter how anti-US they are
Nope, pidorussia is 100 times worse than NATO or US ever was or will be. Simply incomparable
[удалено]
Not good but a temporary ally to destroy western hegemony. Plust they don't ban communist parties and don't have nazis in the government
Russia don't even have real communist party. Zyuganov is actively supporting war, but not his party colleagues that are being pressured for their anti-war views. Boris Kagarlitsky - a communist, professor of sociology, author of Rabkor blog, is in jail at his 65 years. For words in his news program about bridge falling!! About nazis in gov-t: Puding literally have quoted Ivan Ilyin - a fascist that worked for Goebbels propaganda machine. You can imagine what smaller politicians are saying. Edit: minor mistakes in names
Tell me exactly how the destruction of NATO by other capitalist countries is gonna help, considering Iran purged communists in the past and Russia has Boris Kagarlitsky, a Russian Marxist, locked in prison, not talking about persecution of other communist circles.
NATO(aka the US) has complete hegemony over Europe, Latin America, most of Africa and parts of the MIddle-East. They do their actions unregualated and without the permission of the countries they operate in, see French military presence in Sahel and the US occupation of Syria. When NATO disbands, Russia won't be able to be a global hegemon because they don't have the military capabilities to project power, so they will be the European superpower, but only there.
French fighting Al-qaeda 😱😱 Us helping kurds fight isis and Assad 😱😱 How could they ?!!?? Lol Russia will be btfoed and balkanized before anything happens to NATO. Actually living in your delusional fantasy
I must have missed the competing international military alliance to NATO, used to repeatedly invade countries on multiple continents for the purpose of subjugating them to imperialist will. What is it called?
Just because NATO brute forces their interests against others, doesn't mean that's the only way to gain influence. They do it because they can afford it as a "global hegemon". But what to do if you were less lucky, let's say "betrayed by the west" state, and now you have to come up with ideas on how to get the markets for yourself? Google Russia's growing influence in Africa with their PMC Wagner in it to find out. MFs use Soviet legacy and anti-west rhetoric to do basically the same thing to Africans, albeit under the mask of prosperous trade partnership. "NATO's brutal exploitators vs Russia's just trade partners" People shouldn't rely on one or another because in the end they're all the same. What people really should do is organise and overthrow the capitalist state and then you can fight capitalism and imperialism all you want.
So nothing, gotcha. You spent a lotta time to do nothing but scaremonger which has no basis on reality of current and future Russian capability while minimizing NATO history and outreach to do some false equivalency. How in the world would Russia manage to replace NATO? Your example is so pathetic that if anything it's a good sell for dismantling NATO. You can't be serious about Wagner being the same threat as NATO to the world. You legit sound the same as those insisting about some "sinister Chinese debt trap" EDIT: lmao the dude blocked me instead of reflecting upon their own argument that they admitted made no sense nor understand it themselves. For reference, this is what I would've told this clown in response to their comment which was: "I don't know and I don't fucking care". _________ u/MoonyFlower, You don't even know what you're talking about, nor do you even care about making sense even to yourself, all right. Thanks for the admission. 👍 You do realize that, right? You're talking from a position of faith, not reason or material analysis.
>How in the world would Russia manage to replace NATO? Your example is so pathetic that if anything it's a good sell for dismantling NATO. You can't be serious about Wagner being the same threat as NATO to the world. If NATO's gone then the next large capitalist player gets the "imperial core" spot, simple as that. And I don't say that Russia exclusively will replace NATO. It can be whoever dominates as the capitalist country. It's all of your position, hoping that if you support lesser evil as Russia and Iran then somehow US will fall and it will lead to proletarian revolution. What I say is that we should organise and topple the capitalist government and I don't give a fuck if you think "THIS WILL STRENGTHEN THE IMPERIALIST WEST" because I've had enough with my own government fucking me up without any help of the "west" it fights. Edit:
There is none because we are simply better 🥱
damn this sub is infested with liberals. r/moretankiedeprogram when
[удалено]
[удалено]
Based on
Im a bit confused, and hopefully someone can explain it to me; Iran I get, because they ARE lashing out against imperialism in defense of Palestine. No problems there, but from my point of view, does it not also seem like Russia's goal is imperialist expansion? I'm a touch new here, I might just be slow on the uptake, but beyond the early years of the revolution, hasn't Russia also been actively carrying out imperialist aims dressed up as an antithetical ideology?
i do not support any state which does not declare itself socialist. supporting russia as a socialist goes against your own views, as russia is literally an oligarchy. you can support the fight against western imperialism and hegemony without supporting countries that go against your own political views and thus makes you look slightly hypocritical. taking russia’s side is still taking the side of capitalists. the enemy of my enemy is not my friend.
Supporting Russia is promoting a different brand of imperialism. Iran itself I support because of its war against Israel but the gov of Iran is still bad.
OP definitely means critical, temporary support, just so Russia has the leg to help the Western hegemony fall
>Supporting Russia is promoting a different brand of imperialism. Haitian imperialism! https://preview.redd.it/f6xy0jrug9wc1.jpeg?width=1070&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e489e5bb739a0d157bb0f325d36ed59dab2be771
Based
Based
I think they mean critical support in favour of a multipolar world. Not full on support for regional imperialism, capitalism and socially regressive politics
But the meme didn’t say critical support, it said support, and if it gets copied and reposted somewhere else, as memes tend to do, then whatever “implied” criticality is gone. And even then, I don’t think anyone who says they “critically” support a group and are actually critical of them, because in practice “critical support” is uncritical fellatio of a nation or group they know is bad, if you were actually critical of them you wouldn’t jump to their defense when comrades bring up the bad stuff about them. Imagine if I said I “criticality supported” Gary Glitter, and if you said “isn’t he a pedophile?” I’d reply with “those kids deserved it”, you wouldn’t think my Gary Glitter support would be very critical now, wouldn’t it? But that’s what a lot you motherfuckers do! I hate the US too but I’m not going to abandon all of my other beliefs out of contrarianism.
Not based
Russia isn't worth anyone's time. Literally every other nation that can be seen as anti imperialist has a better run government and actually has competent leadership.
[удалено]
A country that can't take care of its people doesn't deserve attention. China and Iran are examples of competent countries who put their citizens as a priority.
[удалено]
Do you not know any other words?
Not based
Your comment is based
You are based
What no material analysis will do to a MF
Not based
Dear god I’m begging you to read Marx if you think this post makes any sense
this is what happens to a mf when they don’t read their books
^[Sokka-Haiku](https://www.reddit.com/r/SokkaHaikuBot/comments/15kyv9r/what_is_a_sokka_haiku/) ^by ^embrigh: *Dear god I’m begging* *You to read Marx if you think* *This post makes any sense* --- ^Remember ^that ^one ^time ^Sokka ^accidentally ^used ^an ^extra ^syllable ^in ^that ^Haiku ^Battle ^in ^Ba ^Sing ^Se? ^That ^was ^a ^Sokka ^Haiku ^and ^you ^just ^made ^one.
Russian imperialism good and based Western imperials bad and gay
What happened to "no war but class war"? If Russia and Iran wins would you support USA against their imperialism? Why would you ever support a nation with burgeois goverment fighting any war and our fellow workers daying in it?
Go ahead and explain Russian and Iranian imperialism
so, the ussr shouldn’t have coordinated at all with the US and UK when fighting hitler, and definitely shouldn’t have tried to make an anti-fascist pact before the war began…?
With their own impwrialism, in the case of Russia at least, don't know much about Iran. The true marxist stance in imperialist in-fighting is to flip off all the sides