|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:It's good that the Russian bourgeoisie is independent of the global bourgeoisie which is dependent on American capital, because it makes them weaker and more vulnerable to a revolution. You read all that and thought it meant "Russia is good because they're not America, and Russia & China should both rule the world because they aren't American." independent how, and as opposed to exactly what kind of dependence?
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
Autism Sneaks posted:idk, Prester Jane is infinitely more coherent and consistent than lollontee imo it says a lot about the prevalence of liberal brainrot that even leftists ITT can't conceive of a world that isn't reducible to a choice between different imperialisms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 00:23
|
|
|
besides that, you've definately told me russian imperialism is better than american imperialism in the syrian civil war thread, so yeah i am getting really confused about what you actually believe
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 00:24
|
|
|
lollontee posted:independent how, and as opposed to exactly what kind of dependence? Well, they can't depend on the global banking system after all these rounds of sanctions for one thing - and access to finance capital is one of the most important elements of a Leninist conception of imperialism.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:imo it says a lot about the prevalence of liberal brainrot that even leftists ITT can't conceive of a world that isn't reducible to a choice between different imperialisms. well it's a good thing that i've done nothing of the srot then eh
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Well, they can't depend on the global banking system after all these rounds of sanctions for one thing - and access to finance capital is one of the most important elements of a Leninist conception of imperialism. yeah they can
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 00:25
|
|
|
lollontee posted:rude and confusing Don't sign ur posts
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 00:32
|
|
|
But an isolated section of the ruling class being overthrown will create an isolated workers state with little connection to the struggles of the internationalised working class and little useful knowledge to provide them for their own revolutions with a minimum of disruption to the global capitalist system. It'll follow the path of the USSR again but on a weaker smaller scale until collapse.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 00:35
|
|
|
also lenin's conception of imperialism was flawed in equating the interests of different capitalists with differing interests to the interests of world powers. they might, they might not, they might be conflicted between states themselves. there is no all-encompassing theory of imperialism that works in most cases. finance capital might drive a hegemon to demand debt repayments from the soviet union, or a fruit company might sponsor a military coup to protect its interests. And then again it might just be a couple of morons invading the middle-east because they were stupid enough to believe their own propaganda about bringing freedom and liberty to afghanistan. and then start auctioning off reconstruction contracts that never get fulfilled. And in that case the global capital is following the morons into the country, not the other way around. They're just there to skim off the top before the whole thing blows up.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 00:37
|
|
|
namesake posted:But an isolated section of the ruling class being overthrown will create an isolated workers state with little connection to the struggles of the internationalised working class and little useful knowledge to provide them for their own revolutions with a minimum of disruption to the global capitalist system. It'll follow the path of the USSR again but on a weaker smaller scale until collapse. Let's say a new USSR is created, what then? They aren't gonna regain their old borders, what with NATO's expansion into Eastern Europe. The Warsaw Pact not coming back, and their only possible ally is the revisionist China, which didn't really work out last time. (Sino-Soviet Split, arguably a bigger failure of Leninism than the USSRs dissolution!) Russia's fate seems to be marginalization at this point in time. The country I'd really like to see go Leninist is India, cause we're rapidly entering an age when absolute population size matters more than any other factor, economically speaking.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 00:51
|
|
|
namesake posted:But an isolated section of the ruling class being overthrown will create an isolated workers state with little connection to the struggles of the internationalised working class and little useful knowledge to provide them for their own revolutions with a minimum of disruption to the global capitalist system. It'll follow the path of the USSR again but on a weaker smaller scale until collapse. And yet Cuba persisted. lollontee posted:also lenin's conception of imperialism was flawed in equating the interests of different capitalists with differing interests to the interests of world powers. they might, they might not, they might be conflicted between states themselves. there is no all-encompassing theory of imperialism that works in most cases. finance capital might drive a hegemon to demand debt repayments from the soviet union, or a fruit company might sponsor a military coup to protect its interests. Lenin's conception of imperialism was proven correct by World War 1, lmao. Going from a multipolar world to a unipolar one with isolated independent powers only proves it even further. George Bush's personal grudge against Saddam is a convenient excuse that gives cover to the primary aim of the invasion of Iraq, which was to end its independence and drag Iraq back into the global system so its resources could be more easily exploited by the markets. That the Americans completely botched the occupation of Iraq doesn't invalidate the core motive of the war, which was imperialist.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5X8qDDMC-o Lemme quote your post just now: "Electoral politics will never realize socialism when any marginal gains can be immediately rolled back by one bad election." I agree, which is why I think your optimism for the Russian Communist Party given their occasional pisspoor 2nd place results in elections is downright bizarre. You can't decry the successes of electoral politics but then at the same time hype up the opportunities that a "weak national bourgeoisie" presents for a political party that is all but irrelevant at this point
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 00:56
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:Lemme quote your post just now: "Electoral politics will never realize socialism when any marginal gains can be immediately rolled back by one bad election." 2nd place in any election is a much better track record than any First World communist party in the United States or the UK, and the Russian communist party also has a much bigger membership than any of its western counterparts as well. It's weird how you guys think that it's insane to think it's more likely to see a return of communism to Russia than a communist revolution in the United States, at least within our lifetimes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 00:58
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:This is like trying to have a dialogue with a schizophrenic. My sister is smarter than you and got all A's so take that back you gently caress
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
I for one can't wait for Communists to engage in Imperialism disguised as revolutionary support.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:Lemme quote your post just now: "Electoral politics will never realize socialism when any marginal gains can be immediately rolled back by one bad election." so did you not read the posts where they explicitly named revolution instead of electoral politics or are you deliberately ignoring them so this loving argument never ends
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:George Bush's personal grudge against Saddam is a convenient excuse that gives cover to the primary aim of the invasion of Iraq, which was to end its independence and drag Iraq back into the global system so its resources could be more easily exploited by the markets. That the Americans completely botched the occupation of Iraq doesn't invalidate the core motive of the war, which was imperialist. And your reason for thinking that is? Just because the two correlate doesn't imply causation. Like I said, capital will always exploit every possible weakness for profit, but it takes more than the instinct for exploitation to invade a country. I think blair and bush genuinely thought they were going on a crusade for freedom, that they thought they were going to create a better world through high explosives. And that's why they're first on the firing line, before anyone else.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:00
|
|
|
lollontee posted:And your reason for thinking that is? Just because the two correlate doesn't imply causation. Like I said, capital will always exploit every possible weakness for profit, but it takes more than the instinct for exploitation to invade a country. ah yes I remember when bush and blair, with zero non nada pressure or influence from the capitalist vultures around them, unilaterally decided to invade the middle east
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:03
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:2nd place in any election is a much better track record than any First World communist party in the United States or the UK, and the Russian communist party also has a much bigger membership than any of its western counterparts as well. It's weird how you guys think that it's insane to think it's more likely to see a return of communism to Russia than a communist revolution in the United States, at least within our lifetimes. lol, beyond you putting words in my mouth just now regarding the chances of revolution, the one making the claim of which nations are most likely to see revolution is you, and I find it bizarre that you're conflating the meager success of a failson electoral party with odds of revolution because of russia's magical weak burgeoisie. It's especially odd because you just dismissed socialist success elsewhere, including the toppling of Western backed dictatorships, as nothing more than transient happenstance I have another theory for the successes of Russias CP: maybe it has something to do with votes from old nostalgics and it once being one of the most powerful and institutionalized political parties in world history? Nawww that couldn't be
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:05
|
|
|
lollontee posted:And your reason for thinking that is? Just because the two correlate doesn't imply causation. Like I said, capital will always exploit every possible weakness for profit, but it takes more than the instinct for exploitation to invade a country. Yeah, it takes a lot of bullshit propaganda, and the fact you're still accepting that propaganda at face value after all these years suggests that your analysis of capitalism and imperialism isn't sufficiently materialistic. The imperial powers of the United States and the UK aren't solely invested in their heads of state and government, they're systems that require the collusion of a ton of different parties and bureaus to realize policy. Accepting the propaganda of empire at face value is the epitome of false consciousness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
Autism Sneaks posted:ah yes I remember when bush and blair, with zero non nada pressure or influence from the capitalist vultures around them, unilaterally decided to invade the middle east those are not mutually exclusive in any way?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:06
|
|
|
lollontee posted:yeah they can see: our very own secretary of state making deals with russia while in charge of exxon mobil
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:07
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Yeah, it takes a lot of bullshit propaganda, and the fact you're still accepting that propaganda at face value after all these years suggests that your analysis of capitalism and imperialism isn't sufficiently materialistic. The imperial powers of the United States and the UK aren't solely invested in their heads of state and government, they're systems that require the collusion of a ton of different parties and bureaus to realize policy. Accepting the propaganda of empire at face value is the epitome of false consciousness. me demanding that you show causation in addition correlation means that im brainwashed, ok.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:10
|
|
|
Yossarian-22 posted:lol, beyond you putting words in my mouth just now regarding the chances of revolution I literally just framed the point of contention, but apparently everyone who has a problem with it is interpreting a completely different conversation. quote:the one making the claim of which nations are most likely to see revolution is you, and I find it bizarre that you're conflating the meager success of a failson electoral party with odds of revolution because of russia's magical weak burgeoisie. It's especially odd because you just dismissed socialist success elsewhere, including the toppling of Western backed dictatorships, as nothing more than transient happenstance Social Democracy is the reference image under "transient happenstance" for the idiomatic dictionary. If you don't realize socialism then it's not a "socialist success."
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:12
|
|
|
lollontee posted:me demanding that you show causation in addition correlation means that im brainwashed, ok. You think the supposed material benefits of invading a foreign country are correlative?
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:You think the supposed material benefits of invading a foreign country are correlative? insofar as they're a constant in all imperialistic invasions, yes. they do not on their own explain anything, you do actually have to show that (in the case of afghanistan and iraq) the neoconservative ideology wasn't the primary motive. capitalist exploitation happens in every case, but it does not determine what countries get invaded by the world powers. they do complement each other in many cases, and capitalist exploitation always follows an invasion, if that was the point you wanted to make? but then so what? that doesn't make geopolitics or (toxic neocon) ideology go away.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:23
|
|
|
:endless_screaming:
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:31
|
|
|
cool av
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:39
|
|
|
lollontee posted:insofar as they're a constant in all imperialistic invasions, yes. they do not on their own explain anything, you do actually have to show that (in the case of afghanistan and iraq) the neoconservative ideology wasn't the primary motive. capitalist exploitation happens in every case, but it does not determine what countries get invaded by the world powers. they do complement each other in many cases, and capitalist exploitation always follows an invasion, if that was the point you wanted to make? but then so what? that doesn't make geopolitics or (toxic neocon) ideology go away. Neoconservatism is an explicitly imperialist ideology that seeks to overthrow every inconvenient dictatorship in the world, so they can all be transformed into liberal democracies which are essentially forced into open cooperation with the first world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:Social Democracy is the reference image under "transient happenstance" for the idiomatic dictionary. If you don't realize socialism then it's not a "socialist success." It's no wonder that state socialist regimes have all collapsed or gone capitalist then, seeing as they're essentially social democracy behind the barrel of a gun and have little to nothing to do with workers owning the means of production
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 02:02
|
|
|
Pener Kropoopkin posted:I literally just framed the point of contention, but apparently everyone who has a problem with it is interpreting a completely different conversation. Do you sincerely think that Venezuela is a social democracy? If so, what separates it's conditions and circumstances from, say Cuba? I'm not trying to be a troll here, cause it's what I usually think of when I hear people talking about Democratic Socialism in Latin America.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 02:16
|
|
|
Dreddout posted:Do you sincerely think that Venezuela is a social democracy? If so, what separates it's conditions and circumstances from, say Cuba? Well, I for sure think Venezuela is a social democracy, but it's also easy for people to confuse social democracy with democratic socialism. I wouldn't say Venezuela realized socialism in any meaningful sense, when democratic confederalist Rojava has a higher rate of socialized workplaces. There's a common criticism of Venezuela even under Chavez of operating like a caudillo government, but at least one which was populist in favor of the needs of the poor. The changes made by Bolivarianism are certainly positive, but it's not socialist in a meaningful way. Cuba is a much more thoroughly socialized country where there are democratic institutions at every level of community and organizing, which translates into a democratic direction of the economy through the centralized control of the communist party. Even after the reforms, Cuba is primarily seeking to transform the economy from a state-directed centrally planned one to one dominated by co-ops and the self-employed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
Karl Barks posted:this idea that russia, powered by putin and his oligarchs, will defeat western imperialism and then be overthrown in a communist revolution seems... suspect they won't defeat western imperialism. that's the point. are you even bothering to read
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:09
|
|
|
and all the ostensible "leftists" sincerely upholding the end of history itt make me do some serious lols
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:11
|
|
|
R. Guyovich posted:they won't defeat western imperialism. that's the point. are you even bothering to read i wrote it wrong, communist overthrow then defeating western imperialism Karl Barks fucked around with this message at 03:17 on Dec 13, 2017 |
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
The obsession with this 11th dimensional chess bullshit doesn't fit its inherent uncertainity. Each step is based on an assumption that, using Bayesian thinking, makes the outcome more flimsy and less certain. Yet these assumptions aren't presented as such. Is it really the case that a natural bourgeise will have a weaker hold on power? Not really, not when such a power can simply ask for, and get, massive international support to suppress any communist revolution, or any other revolution (In Syria's case, from Russia). This wasn't true in Lenin's time, because rapid air movement wasn't a thing. Yet people here are ignoring that change. Is it really true that a multipolar world will inherently create openings for a new revolution? Not really, because MAD means the center of each pole will never be under threat, will never collapse, and that conflict is constrained to an ever shifting periphery. This wasn't true in Lenin's time, yet people here are ignoring that change. Is it really true that a non western power like Russia is more likely to revolt? Not true, they're simply using different, and just as effective methods, to maintain total control. New technology means that such suppression is less costly than it was before, and things like the the total surveillance system in China, where every meeting and movement of the population is being tracked, is legit scary in terms of how effective it is. In Russia's case, this total control is achieved through a managed and intentionally chaos in the mass media political sphere, combined with a just as ruthless secret police, who do things like murder dissidents when thrmey flee to London with polonium. None of that poo poo was possoble in Lenin's time. So we have all these very uncertain and flimsy assumptions, being presented with almost breathless confidence and obsession, being used to justify taking a side in thr petty conflict between regional powers - as if there was any chance of a positive outcome if any dose wins. There is no rational logic that supports such a decision, with any confidence. No, the truth is nuch simpler. Just as Aabamas republicans support Roy Moore to stick it the libs, your going to support Assad to...also stick it to the libs. The simple truth is that this support is not based on any rational or scientific thinking, its motivated by a very specific emotion: spite. Its not-US, therefore good. Everything else, the 11th dimensional chess, the larping, everything else, is just a rationalization to cover that up, to hide that fact. Its a post hoc justification for a conclusion already reached.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:33
|
|
|
The sad truth is that there is no left in geopolitics today, its simply a non-factor. You can larp all you want, it's true. I wish it weren't, but that's the reality of the situation, and you have to be willing to accept the reality for what it is, before you can change it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:36
|
|
|
my life for rojava
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:37
|
|
|
well at least rudatron has evolved from constantly referencing 3-dimensional chess to 11-dimensional chess, still throwing in LARPing in every paragraph-thick post though
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2024 18:41 |
|
|
actually,, your the one who's mad, rudatron.
|
|
#
?
Dec 13, 2017 03:43
|
|
