23
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 08 Jul 2023
23 points (73.5% liked)
Socialism
5256 readers
247 users here now
Rules TBD.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
How are you defining fascism? Is it broad enough to include NATO members? Is it broad enough to include neo-nazis?
You seem to have a positive view of Lenin. Is that right? If so, what do you think of Lenin?
Bro look at the writings about fascism by Umberto Eco to have an idea about how I do define Fascism.
The US is 100% fascist. Many NATO members too. Who the fuck wouldnt think Neo nazis are fascist? That is the most obvious place to look at.
I dont wanna write an essay about Lenin so Ill just say he was BASED.
Thank you for the reference.
I wasn't asking because I don't know what fascism is. I was asking so that I knew where you stood. I don't want to challenge what you're saying on the basis of faulty assumptions or a misunderstanding.
Given the context of the thread, I'm assuming you're taking about the war in Ukraine? I think so, but I realise you could be talking about quite a few subjects, such as homophobia.
You say Lenin is based, which suggests you understand dialectical and historical materialism and that you are familiar with Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. And you wrote:
In the context of the thread it sounds like you are saying that socialists who 'support Russia' are the ones who are 'justifying Russian actions'. Have I read that correctly?
If so, is it true? The only people I see getting stick for 'supporting Russia' or 'justifying it's actions' are Marxist-Leninists, who seem to be the only people challenging the bourgeois narrative about the war in Ukraine. Are these the people you're referring to?
Are the people you're criticising 'justifying' Russia's actions or are they happy to see fascists (by your definition it is fascists who are supplying Ukraine) being challenged?
I think Putin (and by extension, the current Russian Government) is a far right wing ultranationalist, who operates in fascist ways, some straight out of 1984.
I do not agree with the war on Ukrane, not on the basis of defender the Ukranian Government, but on the basis that this war seems to be part of a bigger plan to extent the Russian current "empire" into Europe by force. And by doing this they are targeting civilian institutions, cities, hospitals, etc, among commuting many war crimes.
Im upset with some socialists people who defend Russia because they are falling for Russian propaganda and actively refuse to see the bigger picture of the conflict.
A turning point of me was seeing some self described "socialist" supporting Russia by telling conspiracy theories agaisnt Ukraine that were too close to "The Jewish Question" and talking about Hunter Biden for some God damn reason. And this was not a casual talk, this was someone talking at a conference, a left wing conference in my country.
And no, me opposing Russia does not mean I support American Imperialism. Some people cant believe that 2 things can be bad at the same time.
Thanks for your responses. I can address some of your concerns now. This is quite long. Not all of it is directed at you. Some is to address the wider question in the OP so please don’t think that I am putting words in your mouth and criticising you for them.
I understand the reference but be wary of relying on frameworks made by George Orwell. He was an anti-communist who snitched on marginalised people.
I won’t try to excuse any war crimes.
Russia is already in Europe. And although it seems as though Russia may have invaded merely to expand its landholdings, I’m less sure that the facts support that conclusion.
Following Lenin, every process must be considered in its historical context. This means looking wider than and before February 2022.
I’ll explain why that is problematic by referring to Lenin’s ‘The three sources and three component parts of Marxism’ (bold emphasis added), followed by short paragraphs to apply the theory to the current situation.
The Ukraine war did not start in 2022. At the least, it began in 2014. Neither is it possible to isolate the Ukraine war from the development of capitalism (more on that, below).
Part of the reason that Marxism ‘harmonious[ly]’ explains so much is that it insists that all processes are internally related and contradictory. Everything is a process, including the Ukraine war.
While there are some remnants of feudal social relations, feudalist concepts don’t map well onto the modern world. This includes a concept of empire based on pre-capitalist empires or on pre-imperialist empires (because capitalism has developed into imperialism).
This ‘monopoly position’ is a brief way of describing Lenin’s concept of imperialism. Any move to annex parts of Ukraine cannot simply be ‘empire building’ but must (also) be imperialism.
If the Ukraine war is about the appropriation of Ukrainian resources by a handful of Russian capitalists, it is a mistake to characterise the invasion as Putin’s or the Russian government’s. It must be the expression of Russian capitalists as a class. If this is the claim, then it means Russian capitalists are ‘furious[ly] chas[ing] after’ Ukrainian markets. To this we can add (from Imperialism) Ukrainian resources and labour.
This aim must be considered in light of the history of Ukraine and of other strands of imperialism. All three are internally related processes. One does not make sense without the other(s). To separate these factors would be anti-dialectical and return us to the ‘chaos and arbitrariness that had previously reigned in views on history and politics’. (The Soviet/Cold War history is also deeply entwined in all this, but let’s park that for now.)
Lenin called that system imperialism, after it reached a certain stage of development around the turn of the twentieth century. Michael Hudson continued this work, e.g. in Super Imperialism. Hudson shows how the US dominates world markets through ‘dollar hegemony’ – not Russia. As Russia and the US are ‘bound together in a regular economic organism’ (to quote Lenin), any Russian action can only be understood in light of the fact that the US was already involved (long before 2014, at least since the Berlin Wall fell). That US involvement was in the form of imperialism.
Any Russian moves towards ‘empire’ must be seen not only as annexing Ukraine, but annexing land, resources, labour, and markets away from the US or before the US completes it’s plan to that end. Even if Russia succeeds, it would not affect the US’s monopoly over the global reserve currency, and therefore Russia could not be(come) imperialist (this claim is contentious but I’ll stand by it for now).
Three points. First, this depends on one’s definition of socialism. I can only give you one ML-socialist perspective: there is no question of falling for Russian propaganda but only of the ‘ruthless criticism of all that exists’ and the ‘concrete analysis of concrete conditions’. Failing to put the war into its historical and political economic context fails at these tasks and is likely to lead to accepting US-imperialist propaganda (I’m not saying this is you, btw) or to mischaracterise those who put the Russian war into that context as ‘pro-Russian’ or ‘pro-Putin’.
Second, Russian imperialism could only be one factor, if it is a factor. It is hard to see how two states could have a monopoly in the same realm. The US maintains its monopoly over the dollar. US sanctions have led parts of the world to pivot away from the US dollar, undermining its hegemony.
This result may seem to create space for Russia to be imperialist but this shock to US dollar hegemony was not because Russia has imposed the ruble on the world – it cannot, because the US still controls the relevant institutions, on behalf of western capital in general. This latter fact suggests that Russia could not become imperialist through a war in Ukraine.
Third, there are local events to consider between 2014 and the invasion. The UN reported on the horrors. Whatever Russia’s imperialist plans (Russian capitalists might have hoped it possible), this conflict is at the heart of the matter. The refusal of Ukraine to comply with Minsk. The shelling of ethnic Russian Ukrainians. Even if Russia was solely motivated by ‘empire’, the result is an intervention in that conflict. See: [my reply to a criticism of a Hudson article](https://lemmygrad.ml/comment/651663].
German and French officials have admitted that they never intended to use Minsk to end the conflict. It was only to buy time to prepare Ukraine for greater conflict. That fact, understandably to Russians who saw through the ploy, would make them feel as if Ukraine was going to become much more aggressive (compounded by the stated intent to join NATO).
Needless to say but I’ll say it to be clear: fuck antisemites. If someone is antisemitic, they can call themselves socialist all they like but it doesn’t make it true. Unfortunately, this is and other shit-takes (liberal-aligned and ‘Western-Marxist) are commonplace. What kind of conference were you at? (Don’t dox yourself!)
I hope my explanation above addresses this issue. Two things can be bad at the same time, I agree. In the Ukrainian context, the two bad things (US imperialism and the Russian invasion) and a third (neo-nazi militias1, 2, 3, 4, 5), however, are not separate. They are part of the same equation.
BTW yes I know 1984 was partially based on Stalin's government and has anti communist messages. But I really like 1984. Orwell was also inspired by Franco's regime in Spain. He was also very well surprised by the Democratic socialist society of Barcelona at the time.
Finally. Some real Marxist analysis. Haven't seen one of these in a while.
Ill take time to digest your nice response.
To answer your question, I work at a public company in Venezuela and we had to attend a conference by a government official about the Russian war on Ukraine. This was barely like 2 or 3 weeks after the war started.
This guy started getting closer and closer to the Jewish Question, and ended up naming "The Jews" at the center of this conspiracy theories to justify why Russia had to invade Ukraine. I had to text everybody I personally knew at the conference to tell them "dont let him bullshit you, this is straight up Nazi talking points" and we discussed it after everything ended.
Feel free to come back if you disagree. I'm happy to talk these ideas through.
Have you spent much time on Lemmygrad? There's quite a bit of Marxist analysis over there.
I would not have expected the conference to be in Venezuela! This is why I don't like to make assumptions. I thought you were going to say you had attended an academic conference somewhere in the west.
Could you link me to any websites that will give me a better picture of Venezuela (or Latin America in general)? I started reading Telesur and found one resource – the Simón Bolívar institute – from this video (at 1:27:00): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iapefs8EXCc&list=PLQFBO6UUfDCQoIxtdxX5dVRwl1kS9IhnV&index=7. If you know of any other good resources, I would be grateful. It could be blogs, local news websites, 'independent' publishing. I would prefer websites written in Spanish, as I can then improve my Spanish as I'm learning. Even better if they're Marxists.
Im not on lemmygrad often.
The left in Venezuela is kinda fucked. There is almost no Marxist discussion in Venezuela anymore, and the PSUV now is kinda outlawing the communist party.
Right now the mainstream Left in Venezuela feels like 1960s Cuban Revolution from Aliexpress. There is almost no intelectual discussion anymore, its all propaganda, it is extremely homophobic and Russia/China/Iran loving, and USA bad without explaining why USA bad.
Also I dont like Russia in other aspects like surveilance, censorship, homophobia, lack of religious freedom (im an atheist but come on, Russia way is no good) and so on.
Can't disagree with that. But this is no different to the west. Raising these issues without unpacking the presence of the same features of liberal democracies means fuelling the pro-US imperialism narrative. It does the job of three-letter agencies for them. Socialists living in the west should spend their time challenging their own bourgeois and their own governments, the prime forces behind (US) imperialism. Only when they have achieved that, where their action might actually achieve something, should they turn their gaze elsewhere. The Soviet Union was making plenty progress before the US toppled it; it's a bit rich for westerners to now decry the consequences of that toppling (even if these are things that shouldn't happen).
EDIT: Now I know you're not in the west, I come across as a bit of an arse in this comment – sorry! I'll leave it up in case any western readers are thinking about criticising other countries before they criticise their own.