|
Karl Barks posted:i'm trying to understand what you're saying here - you support russia overextending itself in ukraine and syria because it will lead to a communist revolution, and they have a weaker bourgeoisie? the russian bourgeoisie is far more susceptible to fracture than, say, any country in the imperialist bloc. it's in their best interest to align with the us but at present they're content as a national bourgeois, which gives russian communists an opening
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 06:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
letting the putin government continue course also denies the us and eu a compliant, resource-rich ally, which they desperately wanted with yeltsin
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 06:56
|
|
|
BrutalistMcDonalds posted:the olympics are dumb too Ive always advocated for the worldwide unlimited doping games. So you have running slabs of beef that do the 100m sprint in like 6 seconds and fall down dead straight after
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 07:08
|
|
|
actually...
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 07:15
|
|
|
Enjoy posted:Russia recently annexed a chunk of Ukraine and her proxy fighters in Donbass are still active. This in spite of opposition from the imperialists in both America and the EU. Clearly Russia is able to project force on other nations and is an imperialist power, only less effective than America. It can project force into nations immediately bordering and in the case of Syria where it has an agreement to share use of airfields and naval stations or whatever, sure. Like I said in my post though it's nowhere near the ability of the US for them to be comparable. A Typical Goon posted:the Spanish-American war was not imperialist because America was the #2 nation in the world and only Britain was allowed to do an imperialism at the time lol you big baby, you can't even respond to my posts you just piggyback the same lovely one liners off of other people's actual responses. read lenin please
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Rigged Death Trap posted:Ive always advocated for the worldwide unlimited doping games. http://www.nbc.com/saturday-night-live/video/update-all-drug-olympics/n9691?snl=1
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 08:02
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:the russian bourgeoisie is far more susceptible to fracture than, say, any country in the imperialist bloc. it's in their best interest to align with the us but at present they're content as a national bourgeois, which gives russian communists an opening so cuba didn't have an opening for a communist revolution because its bourgeois was subservient to u.s. capitalism under bautista? the only thing that needs to precede socialism is a "development of the productive forces." russia industrialized decades ago because of every tankie's favorite tankie. taking sides in putin vs. navalny is about as meaningful as democrats vs. republicans Yossarian-22 fucked around with this message at 09:28 on Dec 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 09:23
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:so cuba didn't have an opening for a communist revolution because its bourgeois was subservient to u.s. capitalism under bautista? i don't believe i said anything remotely construable this way. batista's cuba wasn't in the imperial center, regardless
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 09:32
|
|
|
I just don't see how an ardent nationalist gives russia any easier of a path to communism than a neoliberal imperialist stooge failson. Chiang Kai-Shek was a pawn of the West and successfully self-owned enough to make China ripe for the picking. Successful/expansionist right-wing nationalism is arguably the most successfulpreventative measure against communism, short of going fully fascist Netanyahu is perhaps better than avigdor lieberman, but it's not a priority of leftists to lend "tactical support" to Netanyahu as a result (who has been quite a nationalist himself) Right-wing nationalism: not a land of contrasts Yossarian-22 fucked around with this message at 09:56 on Dec 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 09:53
|
|
|
all your analogies use comprador governments which tells me you don't really "get" the argument at all
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 11:26
|
|
|
Putin is just as, if not more, ruthless and violent when it comes to suppressing political opposition, I don't know where you're getting this idea that a revolution under Putin's Russia is any more likely it is under the US
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 11:40
|
|
|
you also said right-wing nationalism is the best safeguard against communism in the same paragraph as an example which disproves that idea completely e: post directed at yossarian
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 11:41
|
|
|
your 3 dimensional chess bullshit also ignores that there simply isn't a viable international communist movement the same way there was at the turn of the 20th century, and that includes places like Syria. The realistic possibility of such an event is < 1%, and that's regardless of whether or not Syria is under Assad or not, or whether Russia 'wins' here or not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 11:42
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Putin is just as, if not more, ruthless and violent when it comes to suppressing political opposition, I don't know where you're getting this idea that a revolution under Putin's Russia is any more likely it is under the US intensified suppression indicates more fragile internal political conditions. if anything it proves the opposite of your claim
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 11:44
|
|
|
like you can LARP as much as you want, the world has changed drastically from all your source material you're using to justify your position, and not because imperialism has ceased, but because the viable opposition to 'western' imperialistic/nationalism is more and more 'eastern' imperialism/nationalism (and that includes organizations like ISIS).
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 11:45
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:intensified suppression indicates more fragile internal political conditions. if anything it proves the opposite of your claim
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 11:46
|
|
|
rudatron posted:like you can LARP as much as you want, the world has changed drastically from all your source material you're using to justify your position, and not because imperialism has ceased, but because the viable opposition to 'western' imperialistic/nationalism is more and more 'eastern' imperialism/nationalism (and that includes organizations like ISIS). the positions i'm taking are also the ones held by communist parties in those countries. i trust them over Internet Men in the west
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 11:49
|
|
|
Yeah, I'm sure it is: and they're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 11:53
|
|
|
ps gently caress off with your boring rear end "larping" line that gets tossed around by internet celebs and repeated ad nauseum by other dilettantes
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
as we all know, communist revolutions have never happened under repressive right wing governments
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 12:14
|
|
|
the bolsheviks, and the people that came before them, had a much greater organizational capacity and political reach than do left groups today - they were able to retaliate against massacres and such with real and wide spread political action, including general strikes. No equivalent strength exist today on the left, in the west it is in tatters and has been since reagan, and in russia it's all controlled opposition, nothing threatens Putin's hold on power. if you seriously want to argue that more repression = more strength, then you need to kindly explain why Indonesia isn't a communist country right now. Clearly the brutal repression had no effect, right?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 12:23
|
|
|
rudatron posted:the bolsheviks, and the people that came before them, had a much greater organizational capacity and political reach than do left groups today - they were able to retaliate against massacres and such with real and wide spread political action, including general strikes. No equivalent strength exist today on the left, in the west it is in tatters and has been since reagan, and in russia it's all controlled opposition, nothing threatens Putin's hold on power. Indonesia was also directly allied to the United States, the Americans were advising them on the best way to carry out the genocide, and our media was framing the mass murder in terms that the global community wouldn't find too objectionable. The Indonesian government was an imperialist subject, in other words. More repression doesn't equate to more power, but it does create more openings for discontent to create a genuine movement towards socialism. The Russian Communist Party might be a controlled opposition, but that can always change and they're the second largest party in Russia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 12:27
|
|
|
Hmm let me just run these political calculations one more time... drat! Still only a <1% chance of succeeding, this revolution needs at least 5% chance of success to advance to the next stage! *Opens GameFAQs "revolution.txt" by berniesanders7* Huh? The Global South is wrong? I should get them to listen to a bunch of nerds who post online about communism despite their ravenous appetite for liberal propaganda which they accept at face value? Teach them about their wicked Eastern Imperialism? Resistance is a dump stat and they need to spec hard into Bootlicking? WTF... This wasn't explained in the tutorial!
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 12:28
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:Hmm let me just run these political calculations one more time... are you having a stroke
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 13:01
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Indonesia was also directly allied to the United States, the Americans were advising them on the best way to carry out the genocide, and our media was framing the mass murder in terms that the global community wouldn't find too objectionable. The Indonesian government was an imperialist subject, in other words. Point is 'well actually repression is a sign of fragility' isn't actually true, which is relevant to the absurd 3d chess position HomeEx is apparently unironically taking here. Point in case: Syria is an imperial subject as well, it's just of Russia.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 13:08
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:Hmm let me just run these political calculations one more time... You're so angry all the time
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 14:05
|
|
|
Odobenidae posted:Hmm let me just run these political calculations one more time...
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 14:11
|
|
|
Nice meltdown(s)
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Point in case: Syria is an imperial subject as well, it's just of Russia. noted bastion of stability syria
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 14:17
|
|
|
rudatron posted:none of that poo poo is relevant to your little joke post though. There's literally a better historical record for communist revolutions in repressive weak bourgeois regimes or semifeudal agrarian countries than anything else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 14:25
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:There's literally a better historical record for communist revolutions in repressive weak bourgeois regimes or semifeudal agrarian countries than anything else. i dunno rudatron DID say less than 1 percent, which is definitely not a number he pulled square from his rear end. better believe him
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 14:46
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/turing_police/status/940490929634291713
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 15:19
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:There's literally a better historical record for communist revolutions in repressive weak bourgeois regimes or semifeudal agrarian countries than anything else. i'd probably say the latter is the more likely one in general. i'm trying to think of a fully industrialized society having a communist revolution and i can't think of one. maybe cuba is close?
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 15:27
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:i'd probably say the latter is the more likely one in general. i'm trying to think of a fully industrialized society having a communist revolution and i can't think of one. maybe cuba is close? "Fully industrialized" is something you could move the goalposts over, but I wouldn't say Cuba was an industrialized country. That's why I said weak bourgeois states, because you don't necessarily need industrial capital to have a bourgeois dictatorship when primary resource extraction is already so profitable. The Kerensky government itself was nominally liberal. That's also a major part of why Russia is such a relatively weak state, since the ex-Soviet bourgeoisie cannibalized most of Russia's productive industries and transformed it into a resource extraction economy that's susceptible to oil and gas gluts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/crsdavies/status/940531935968886784
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 15:36
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:"Fully industrialized" is something you could move the goalposts over, but I wouldn't say Cuba was an industrialized country. That's why I said weak bourgeois states, because you don't necessarily need industrial capital to have a bourgeois dictatorship when primary resource extraction is already so profitable. The Kerensky government itself was nominally liberal. That's also a major part of why Russia is such a relatively weak state, since the ex-Soviet bourgeoisie cannibalized most of Russia's productive industries and transformed it into a resource extraction economy that's susceptible to oil and gas gluts. yeah but kerensky also lead an agrarian state (that lasted about 5 months). what i'm saying here is that the pre-industrial side of the equation is more important than the weak bourgeois regime. i think the latter is far more likely to just end in fascism than communism, which is why home-ex position seems truly strange to me - not to mention the requirement of everything going perfectly right for it to work. edit: also from what i recall the russian communist party backs putin Karl Barks fucked around with this message at 15:49 on Dec 12, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 15:42
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:yeah but kerensky also lead an agrarian state (that lasted about 5 months). what i'm saying here is that the pre-industrial side of the equation is more important than the weak bourgeois regime. i think the latter is far more likely to just end in fascism than communism, which is why home-ex position seems truly strange to me - not to mention the requirement of everything going perfectly right for it to work. Russia wasn't pre-industrial at all. Russian industrialization was unfocused and all over the place, but it was enough to develop an urban proletariat that formed the core of communist and SR membership. The character of the Russian and Chinese revolutions are markedly different, primarily because Russia was industrialized enough for an educated proletariat to be revolutionary agents.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 15:52
|
|
|
russia isn't a socialist state and arguably never was, so I don't see why russia today needs defending when they do lovely great power politics. They're no different from any other imperialist state in history, and their conflicting geopolitical interests with america isn't an acceptable reason support and defend their crap. it reeks of base tribalism, without any kind of ideological justification
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 15:59
|
|
|
accelerationism is cool i guess
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 16:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 05:21 |
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Russia wasn't pre-industrial at all. Russian industrialization was unfocused and all over the place, but it was enough to develop an urban proletariat that formed the core of communist and SR membership. The character of the Russian and Chinese revolutions are markedly different, primarily because Russia was industrialized enough for an educated proletariat to be revolutionary agents. SR’s political base was in the peasantry, I believe. Urban-industrial proletariat comprised the Menshevik and Bolshevik bases though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 12, 2017 16:05
|
|
