/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

This is not a capitalist war. Calling it a capitalist war is a hundred times more opportunist than not doing so because by doing that you act like it isn't significant and is outside the socialist struggle. It is not. This is not WWI. You have Russia and China, neither of which is even capable of financial imperialism, challenging global imperialism. The war in Ukraine is objectively an anti-imperialist war with Russia as a progressive force.

Not every progressive force has to declare itself communist or socialist!

>>456037
>This is not a capitalist war
>The war in Ukraine is objectively an anti-imperialist war
>neither Russia nor China are capable of financial imperialism
Explain each of these.
>Calling it a capitalist war is a hundred times more opportunist than not doing so because by doing that you act like it isn't significant and is outside the socialist struggle.
Capitalist wars certainly are meaningful to the socialist struggle, but picking a side in such wars is not.

The first step to organizing people is to give them a vision of a world worth organizing. Socialist politics are mired in theory and insider linguistic tricks. We need a common and clear understanding of our goals. We need to stop infight and clinging to ghosts of the past ( though we should learn from them) we need a modern sociakist theory for our modern world and our ultimate goals to achieve long term that we can give to people.

Clearly this is about ownership of production but we need to envision how this will look and we must share our ideas and be willing to challenge them.

I don't care. Not gonna support any of them, fuck off.

>>456034
>Some clarification is necessary with regards to the Russo-Ukrainian War.
It's really a proxy-war between Russia and the US, and Ukraine drew the short straw that the US picked their country as a sacrificial battering-ram to be used for weakening the Russian federation. (which turns out to be a sacrifice in vein)

>When Lenin quoted Clausewitz in saying "war is politics by other means", he should have appended "in capitalism" to it
No that saying is also true for clan societies, slave societies and feudal societies. My guess is that socialist societies will not go to war against each other because socialism has no economic tendencies that produce war.

The basic economics of war is that rich people extract wealth from society and that creates a war-chest. Conquering is like investing that war-chest to get a return on investment by looting and by capturing the surplus of the conquered society. This mechanism isn't included in socialist economics because it does not use exploitation, and because eventually you run out of places to conquer and then shit breaks down. At the end of the conquering streak you run out of new "income" while the cost of maintaining your empire stays the same. And telling all those really heavily armed fighters that they gotta pack up their warrior gear and go back to doing normal labor is going to be a tough sell. Telling all the financiers, generals and officers lusting for glory, that they gotta retrain for the boring civilian industry. Yeah that might get you assassinated. Empires that can't convert back to non imperial structures tend to crumble under their own weight. (I can't think of a single empire in history that managed to do de-imperial-conversion, so that's why imperial structures are considered to be a form of societal suicide)

We do have to be honest tho, while economic reasons cause the vast majority of wars, there are other causes for war and socialism has yet to prove that it is immune against those as well. The current US-Russo proxy war in Ukraine was intended to create imperial super-profits for the US but it turned out to be a real shit show for the US. They are now loosing money on this but they still continue.

>>456037
>You have Russia and China, neither of which is even capable of financial imperialism, challenging global imperialism. The war in Ukraine is objectively an anti-imperialist war with Russia as a progressive force.
To make this argument more effectively you have to highlight the location of this proxy war. It's fought on the Russian boarder, hence the Russians are on the defensive. Hypothetical Russian imperial proxy wars would be fought in a country on the US border.

>>456045
Your economic explanation of war in capitalism remains on the level of fetishism for not examining the point of extracting wealth in such a way to begin with.

>>456037
>The war in Ukraine is objectively an anti-imperialist war with Russia as a progressive force.
Russia is fundamentally an empire. It has been since the 1500s. I shouldn't need to explain why a group of ruling elites installing their ethnicity as the socially dominant one at the expense of minorities is imperialist. Russia failed as a socialist state for exactly this reason. Russia only seeks to locally displace to United States so that it may rebuild its old empire. The Russian Federation is the textbook definition of late capitalism. Now stop pretending that they are in any way sympathetic because they also object to the neoliberal world order.

>>456094
>Russia is fundamentally an empire. It has been since the 1500s
Russia was an empire during the monarchical reign of Tsarism
But when Russia was part of the Soviet union it clearly wasn't an empire. The Soviet Union was clearly the primary anti-imperialist force of the 20th century. The Soviet Union helped so many national liberation struggles that they ended the colonial age. The Soviet Union helped many countries to industrialize and they acted as the equalizer in weapons technology. Colonialism became non-viable when the colonial subjects got powerful weapons.

I would say that Russia still is to some degree anti-imperialist, even if it's less than during soviet times.
Imperialism is the system of global capitalism, the hegemon of the structure is the US imperial bourgeoisie. And Russia, even-tho it no longer is communist, it does oppose this structure. They get credit for not letting the imperial system completely break down organized society in countries like Syria for example.

The Soviet union didn't fail because of their anti-imperialist activities. The cold war expenses certainly were a factor, but ultimately the Soviet Union could have been saved if they had improved their economic system faster, like for example embracing cybernetically planning the socialist economy, by improving party discipline, and of course by avoiding geopolitical blunders like the Sino-Soviet-splitt.

>Now stop pretending that they are in any way sympathetic because they also object to the neoliberal world order.
The Neo-liberal world order is bad because it has stalled human progress in so many ways, it caused a lot of de-industrialization that stalled a lot of technological innovation, it destroyed many progressive governments around the world. It wasted a lot of surplus on imperial military expansion. Obviously Russia is opposing the neoliberal world order because it goes against their interests. But so are we, if we are honest about it. Consider that if you object to a bunch of billionaires turning up the suffering for billions of other people that aren't you, to extract more profits from them, that still impacts your life, a world where everybody can live a nice life is a lot safer and it generates a lot more and better culture, science and technology.

>>456104
>Imperialism is the system of global capitalism
This definition is horribly limited. The vast majority of empires pre-date capitalism and modern banking.
The United States is a capitalist country with an imperium of client-countries that institute the US's preferred economic system.
This is in principle the same system the Soviet Union operated,weather through direct military rule over areas like eastern Europe, and central Asia, or through proxies in eastern Asia.
There are some theaters in which the soviets were genuinely anti-imperialist, like in Africa and Latin America, where there was no real hope of establishing tight control and the idea was simply to deny the US monopoly of power in these areas. I think for most of it's post-Lenin existence it was functionally the Russian Empire with a different ruling class. It basically abandoned the idea of internationalism under Stalin.
While I would respectfully disagree with your take on the soviet union, I don't know how you can begin to defend the Russian federation. It's a (notably brutal) capitalist state that's attempting to displace the influence of another capitalist state by conquering territory. I guess it's blue on blue conflict? Does it matter if the oppose global capitalism if their end-goal is to install themselves as the ruling capitalists?

>>456116
>This definition is horribly limited. The vast majority of empires pre-date capitalism and modern banking.
It's a definition for the imperial stage of capitalism. You have to take the mode of production into account, you can't define imperialism without that. Feudal empires worked differently because that's a different mode of production

>The United States … is in principle the same system the Soviet Union
No, this is just stupid. You're a brainlet who can't get over equivocation fallacy BS. Or you are a shill who is intentionally doing it to police the discourse. By the way the Soviet system subsidized it's satellite states.

>The Soviet Union was the Russian Empire on the inside and anti-imperialist on the outside.
This is what happens to you when you have bad theory. Capitalism created an imperialist system that reaches around the entire world, at the top of this system is the imperialist finance bourgeoisie (finance capital = banking capital + industrial monopolies). In our epoch the US imperial bourgeoisie rules over that system. The Soviet Union basically removed the ability of the imperial bourgeoisie to extract surplus-labor and resources from the Soviet system, that made it anti-imperialist.

>I don't know how you can begin to defend the Russian federation.
You can't reason properly because you think in moralistic Good vs Evil dichotomies.
The Russian federation is not capitalism in the imperial stage, it's primary exports are commodities not capital. There is no imperial finance bourgeoisie in the Russian federation that is capable of waging imperialism.

>It's a (notably brutal) capitalist state that's attempting to displace the influence of another capitalist state by conquering territory
The Ukraine conflict is a proxy war between the US and Russia. Even US officials (including President Biden) have admitted this. You can't be taken seriously if you don't.
The Conflict began with the US regime change operation in 2014, and when the Ukrainian military started to mass troops in the Donbass that escalated the conflict into full blown war with Russian military entering the battle field.
I think that the US is sacrificing Ukrainians in it's attempt to subjugate the Russian federation.
The most destructive elements in this conflict are the US sanctions, while that economic weapon hasn't affected Russia very much, it did cause unbelievable damage to the rest of the world.

"notably brutal capitalism" , as opposed to cuddly capitalism ?

>I guess it's blue on blue conflict?
color coded politics ? I don't know what that expression means.
It's not the same "color" on both sides though, because the Russian workers have increasing wages, increasing savings and increasing purchasing power. While the workers on the other side see their material interests being damaged.

>Does it matter if the oppose global capitalism if their end-goal is to install themselves as the ruling capitalists?
I wanted a neutral Ukraine in between blocks, that was the stable peace and prosperity configuration.
Russia seemed to be ok with that as long as they could keep Crimea. That was a perfectly acceptable deal because the Crimean referendum confirmed that a super-majority of the people living there were ok with that, which means there wasn't going to be any resulting political instability. The US was determined to create an US aligned Ukraine which split Ukraine into east and west causing a civil war.

If Russia wins this conflict and removes the CIA-Bandera tentacles from Ukraine, there is a small chance that they will create a neutral Ukrainian rump state, that will restore peace and at least some of the prosperity. If the US wins (which is extremely unlikely at this point) they would continue pressing against Russia and recreate the 1990s neo-liberal shock doctrine in Russia. That wouldn't just be bad for Russians it would likely perpetuate neo-liberal crisis capitalism beyond Russia and destroy yet more of organized human society.

I see no possible future where the Russian federation can become an imperial power like the US. First of all the age of empires is fading out and there simply is not enough time left for Russian capitalism to reach the imperial stage. Also Russia has aligned it self with China, the mutual win-win deals with China are worth more than potential imperial super-profits.

>>456094
.ogres BTFOed

>>456128
>The Ukraine conflict is a proxy war between the US and Russia. Even US officials (including President Biden) have admitted this.
No they didn't.
>You can't be taken seriously if you don't.
Cope
>The Conflict began with the US regime change operation in 2014,
Lol, it was a popular uprising against Russia's sanctions and pressure to keep Ukraine out of the EU. It's simple, Ukrainians don't want to be poor.
>The most destructive elements in this conflict are the US sanctions, while that economic weapon hasn't affected Russia very much, it did cause unbelievable damage to the rest of the world.
Kek, such as?
>Russia seemed to be ok with that as long as they could keep Crimea.
Oh is that why they invaded?
>I think that the US is sacrificing Ukrainians
Oh is it US munitions raining down on Ukrainian civlians?
>The US was determined to create an US aligned Ukraine which split Ukraine into east and west causing a civil war.
Lol, that'd be Russia
>The US was determined to create an US aligned Ukraine which split Ukraine into east and west causing a civil war.
Haha, fat chance, ask the Donbass rebels.
>If the US wins (which is extremely unlikely at this point)
Giga cope
>they would continue pressing against Russia and recreate the 1990s neo-liberal shock doctrine in Russia.
A shock doctrine that your precious little vanguard party invited.
>I see no possible future where the Russian federation can become an imperial power like the US.
Me neither, Russia will suffer a humiliation in Ukraine that Russians and supports like you can scarcely imagine.

The imperialist faction of the US bourgeoisie who caused the Russo-US proxy war in Ukraine have seriously miscalculated the cost-benefit ratio regarding the geopolitical fallout.

When the Russian military is done wearing down the Ukrainian Banderites who act as US imperial puppets, in a few months the fighting will end, there will be no fuel left for an "eternal war quagmire". The damage done to the Russian federation will be limited in scope and temporary, but the changes in global politics will not be reversed. All those capitalists that had to find new ways to work around the sanctions will not reverse course (pic related). Capitalists are very risk averse and they won't risk using economic structures that might pull the rug from under their feet again.

All the money that the US and it's EU colony flushed down the drain to make the Ukrainian proxies with fascistic characteristics inflict a few scratches on Russia, could have been used to invest into the Ukrainian economy. There would have been some profits and they would have gotten a vassal regime.

Of course some part of capital made profits, like the arms dealers and the fracking gas industry. But overall they lowered the rate of profit of the capitalist system as a hole, because the losses in profit by all the other capitalists were much greater. All those sacrificial Ukrainians that were force-marched into this meat-grinder, that wasn't just an act of barbarism, it also was bad economic decision making because they did not produce any surplus.

But the neo-liberal wargoons are unperturbed by any of this. They just lost a war of attrition against Russia. And their next move seems to be doing the same shit against China, a country that has something like 20 times the industrial capacity.

>>456150
>The imperialist faction of the US bourgeoisie who caused the Russo-US proxy war in Ukraine
You tankies keep memeing that NATO started this war even though a layman can see that it's Russia invading.

>>456150
Dude, learn to be succinct, I'm not wadding through your tankie rambling.

>>456151
>>456152
based laconicism

>>456151
>>456152
imagine believing the imperial NATO narrative
using sectarian labels in the wrong context
you outed your self as a liberal who for some unfathomable reason still believes the line the big news-outlets are pushing

Everybody knows that the CIA started this war with a regime change color revolution in Kiev/Kyiv in 2014. This was revealed by the documented phone conversation between Victoria Nuland, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Ukraine. Even president Obama admitted to this by saying he “had brokered a deal to power in Ukraine.”

Some US officials have recently been admitting that this war in Ukraine is a proxy war.
This reality has become undeniable.

>>456159
That the U.S. instigated this conflict does not change the fact that Russia is the invader. But yes, all of this could have been avoided had the U.S. kept their hands off of Ukraine. Biden, Trump, Putin, all of these men are criminals whose crime is the continued degradation of the Ukrainian people.

>>456159
>Everybody knows that the CIA started this war with a regime change color revolution in Kiev/Kyiv in 2014
LMAO, yes it was the CIA that made Ukrainians want the wealth that would have come with being in the EU.
>This was revealed by the documented phone conversation between Victoria Nuland, assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs, and Geoffrey Pyatt, the US ambassador to Ukraine.
Lol proofs?
>Even president Obama admitted to this by saying he “had brokered a deal to power in Ukraine.”
More tankie lies, whatever he said was taken out of context. Tired of these dumbass "gotcha" talking points from Stalinboos.
>Some US officials have recently been admitting that this war in Ukraine is a proxy war.
Saying you want to help an ally isn't the same as admitting to being a proxy. And they're not a proxy, if they were a true NATO proxy this war would have been over with in March.
>>456164
>But yes, all of this could have been avoided had the U.S. kept their hands off of Ukraine.
This is wrong. This war is about oil independence for the EU. If Ukraine does get into the EU it will cut of Russia's single real source of income.
They can't even export cheap labor because their population is so broken by addiction and illiteracy.

>>456159
The Russian Federation is the product of imperialist Tsarist conquest. See the Circassian genocide for proof.
This is what Ukraine has to look forward to if they lose to Russia, have been invoking Tsarist ultranationalism for over a decade now.

>>456167
>This is wrong. This war is about oil independence for the EU.
But anon, why bother going to war over it in the first place?

>>456164
That the U.S. instigated this conflict does not change the fact that Russia is the invader.
It seems to me that the US started this war and Russia is ending it. There has been fighting in Ukraine for 8-9 years after-all.
>But yes, all of this could have been avoided had the U.S. kept their hands off of Ukraine.
Agreed
>Biden, Trump, Putin, all of these men are criminals whose crime is
I disagree with personality focused politics.
If Russia had remained a Soviet state after the collapse of the Soviet Union, you'd have a socialist general secretary doing basically the same thing as Putin.
I think Trump did try stopping the CIA weapons shipments to Azov at one point, so he gets credit for that, although not many credits because the weapons flow wasn't halted for more than a few weeks. Biden appears to have become senile, I'm not convinced he's present enough to know what he's doing.
>the continued degradation of the Ukrainian people.
The US is sacrificing Ukrainians on the altar of a geopolitical power-play. And they are doing it despite there being almost no chance of winning at this point. Ukrainians are dying because the western ruling class does not want to face the reality that they lost this. There is no rational reason to continue and yet there is no motion towards peace-talks.
With regards of suffering people lets not forget about the effects sanctions have on the rest of the world.

>>456167
>LMAO, yes it was the CIA that made Ukrainians want the wealth that would have come with being in the EU.
You can neither claim the mantel of democracy, nor the mantel of prosperity.
Before 2014 when Viktor Yanukovych was still president, he negotiated with the EU and Russia for investment deals. The EU wanted Ukraine to take on IMF loans that came with heavy interference in domestic politics (called restructuring). The IMF demanded that in order for Ukraine to get IMF loans, Ukraine had to privatize it's state owned industries as well as slash labor protection laws and social services. Russia made a counter offer that didn't include these neo-liberal restructurings. Yanukovych took the Russian deal because the demands that IMF made were so brutal towards the Ukrainian population that it would have killed his political support. The US then toppled Yanukovych in a color revolution in alliance with the Azov fascists who slaughtered a bunch of people in Kiev and started a civil war in the eastern Ukraine. After the regime change operation the US installed the US puppet Petro Poroshenko.
The notion that Neo-liberal economics creates wealth or foster democracy is in stark contrast with reality. Countries that take IMF loans and do the neo-liberal restructuring , almost always end up poorer and less democratic.

>Saying you want to help an ally isn't the same as admitting to being a proxy.
Lol nothing but semantics, The US is practically running what's left of Ukraine at this point.
>if they were a true NATO proxy this war would have been over with in March.
Calm down with the chauvinism, It this wasn't just a proxy war, but instead had direct involvement of official NATO troops this would have been a nuclear war.
>This war is about oil independence for the EU.
To some extend this is correct, the US wanted to kill the energy trade between Germany and Russia.
If Europe wants energy independence it has to build nuclear power plants in combination with renewable energy.
>If Ukraine does get into the EU it will cut of Russia's single real source of income.
Russia does not appear to have problems selling oil and gas to Asia instead of Europe. And the Russian economy is exporting a lot more than just energy. The global food and fertilizer shortages attest to that.

>>456187
>The IMF demanded that in order for Ukraine to get IMF loans, Ukraine had to privatize it's state owned industries as well as slash labor protection laws and social services.
When Viktor was ousted and IMF negotiations re began, the only thing that happened that there's proof of is that gas subsidies to working people were cut in half. None of the doomer carpet bagging you're talking about. The IMF is evil, but you tankies like to exaggerate facts to make things seem more dire than they are.
>Yanukovych took the Russian deal because the demands that IMF made were so brutal towards the Ukrainian population that it would have killed his political support.
Bullshit, he stopped EU negotiations he because Russia was Ukraine's main trading partner and Putin wrecked their economy with sanctions.
>But the agreement and Ukraine’s move closer to Europe angered Putin, who engaged in a campaign of economic pressure against Ukraine: cutting off energy supplies to the country and blocking almost all imports from Ukraine. This resulted in a 25% reduction in Ukrainian exports and pushed the country’s economy into recession. The Kremlin publicly threatened to drive Ukraine into default on its sovereign debt if it went ahead with the EU trade deal.
https://fortune.com/2022/03/02/viktor-yanukovych-yanukovich-putin-put-back-in-power-ukraine-russia/
You dumbass little tankies love to frame this shit as some epic moral struggle when it's really all about money and power. Yanukovych didn't abandon EU negotiations (negotiations that he fucking started) because of some heartfelt concern about workers, he did it because Putin was making his economy collapse.
>The US then toppled Yanukovych in a color revolution
The CIA can't pull 100's of thousands of protestors out of their ass willing to fight police for months on end. There was major popular support for integration into the EU for very OBVIOUS REASONS. Look no further than how the average EU worker lives and how the average Russian Federation worker lives.
>in alliance with the Azov fascists
Nazis opportunistically flying flags does not make the protest "in alliance" with them.
The number of protestors were estimated to have been between 400,000 to 800,000 people. Of course some fash are going to slip in.
>who slaughtered a bunch of people in Kiev
What in the fuck are you talking about.
>and started a civil war in the eastern Ukraine.
Haha no, the separatists started that.

>>456187
>It seems to me that the US started this war and Russia is ending it. There has been fighting in Ukraine for 8-9 years after-all.
We are talking about the specific event where the Russian military and the Ukrainian military are directly fighting each other. Prior conflicts might have instigated it, but they are not the same. Russia could have chosen not to invade, just as the U.S. could have chosen not to start a color revolution.
>If Russia had remained a Soviet state after the collapse of the Soviet Union, you'd have a socialist general secretary doing basically the same thing as Putin.
How can you be so certain?
Furthermore, the context here is different from the scenario you proposed. We are talking about a war between two sets of capitalist powers. Do you think that politics in socialism is the same as politics in capitalism?
>The US is sacrificing Ukrainians on the altar of a geopolitical power-play.
>Ukrainians are dying because the western ruling class does not want to face the reality that they lost this.
Everything you're saying might very well be true, but Ukrainains are still dying to Russian bullets and Russian bombs. This is the other reality and your perspective is incomplete without addressing it.

>>456191
>We are talking about the specific event where the Russian military and the Ukrainian military are directly fighting each other. Prior conflicts might have instigated it, but they are not the same.
No you can't ignore the context, and this is clearly the same ongoing power struggle between the US and Russia since 2014 only the means of the fight have changed and the stakes got higher.
>Russia could have chosen not to invade, just as the U.S. could have chosen not to start a color revolution.
The US color revolution is the causal factor, that started the sequence of events that ultimately lead to the Russia military intervention.
The Russians have made many attempts to redirect the sequence of events to wards a peaceful outcome, they created many opportunities for diplomatic solutions. It would not have been unreasonable to uphold the Minsk agreements for example. The US made peace conditional to Russia capitulating on it's regional security. They knew that position would eventually lead to military conflict. The US has no vital security interests in Ukraine, they could have chosen to let this go, The Russians do have vital security interests in that region. There is no equivalence.


>Everything you're saying might very well be true, but Ukrainains are still dying to Russian bullets and Russian bombs.
The reality is that Ukrainians are being conscripted and forced to fight and die in an unwinnable war, on behalf of US imperial ambition.
There simply is no valid reason to send these people to their deaths.

>>456589
>No you can't ignore the context, and this is clearly the same ongoing power struggle between the US and Russia since 2014 only the means of the fight have changed and the stakes got higher.
>The US color revolution is the causal factor, that started the sequence of events that ultimately lead to the Russia military intervention.
Don't be stupid, you know what I'm talking about. Reality is that the Russian leadership does have political agency, and that their contribution to this sequence of events was not inevitable. For example, when you say:
>They knew that position would eventually lead to military conflict.
The part I am contesting is where you say "eventually". Statements like this imply that the Russians had no choice but to escalate and are absolved of any responsibility.
>The reality is that Ukrainians are being conscripted and forced to fight and die in an unwinnable war, on behalf of US imperial ambition.
>There simply is no valid reason to send these people to their deaths.
I agree, though I find it pitiful that you don't seem to understand the point I'm making. In fact, you're just proving it.

>>456601
>the Russian leadership does have political agency, and their contribution to this sequence of events was not inevitable
>The part I am contesting is where you say "eventually". Statements like this imply that the Russians had no choice but to escalate and are absolved of any responsibility.
Oh lets play out a thought experiment with an alternate reality, where Russia retains it's soviet political and economic System, after the larger Soviet Union is dissolved.
What do you think would happen if the US starts meddling with Ukraine, by sending CIA agents and using neonazis as shock troopers to change Ukraine's government ?
In that time-line the only thing that changes is that a soviet government would not have tried diplomacy for 8 years, they would have gone for the big smash option right away. If you look at the geopolitics from a realist point of view, Russia did not choose the most aggressive option.
It is unrealistic to expect Russia to roll over and submit to the US, regardless what political system they have. Every political system that Russia could have will eventually be forced to push back on this. It's imperial chauvinism to expect otherwise. Your arguments amount to Russia having a moral responsibility to capitulate to the US empire.
If you still can't grasp this, imagine the situation being reversed, and Russia doing to Mexico what the US did to Ukraine.
Would you still have that same opinion ? Would you declare that the US be obligated to just sit by and watch, while Russia changed Mexico into a garrisoned vassal state that Russia could potentially use as a beach-head to launch attacks against the US.

There is another part to this equation of political lines: By demonizing Russia and by erasing their security concerns, you are essentially making it harder for a diplomatic resolution to end the fighting.

>>456675
>Oh lets play out a thought experiment with an alternate reality, where Russia retains it's soviet political and economic System, after the larger Soviet Union is dissolved.
>What do you think would happen if the US starts meddling with Ukraine, by sending CIA agents and using neonazis as shock troopers to change Ukraine's government ?
I don't know, it probably would have never happened. Regardless, I don't believe that socialists have the same politics as capitalists.
The rest of your post, you're missing the point AGAIN. Did you know that the leadership of the USSR is also responsible for the death of every German soldier who was shot by a Soviet one? This is how responsibility works, anon. I don't care about the context, because I'm not making a moral argument. I'm simply stating the reality that you seem to be so afraid of confronting.
Hey anon, Russians are killimg Ukrainians right now - and not even just Nazis, but regular ordinary Ukrainians too. If reading this bothers you, maybe you should think about why.

>>456676
>I don't know, it probably would have never happened.
>I don't believe that socialists have the same politics as capitalists.
When the Soviets made a deal with NATO to unify Germany and to remove the Soviet military from east Europe they warned that if NATO attempted to expand into Georgia or Ukraine that would lead to certain war. (which is what happened, in case you forgot there was a war in Georgia in 2008) So this is clearly not about ideology this is about strategic stuff.

>Did you know that the leadership of the USSR is also responsible for the death of every German soldier who was shot by a Soviet one?
This is almost touching on Nazi apologetics territory, of course the Soviet Union wasn't responsible for deaths that occurred in WW2, the Nazis started that war, they bare the responsibility for it. Also the capitalists who supported Hitler, they too bare responsibility. But the Soviet Union and the allied forces who put an end to it are not to blame. There can be no moral reprieve for people who start wars.
>I don't care about the context
But context matters, there is hardly anything that can be viewed out of context.

>I'm simply stating the reality
You are attempting to misrepresent reality by cherry picking the information that is considered.

>Hey anon, Russians are killimg Ukrainians right now - and not even just Nazis.
This tells us nothing without the context of how this came to be.
The most noteworthy aspect is that these Ukrainians that are dying are forced to fight by mandatory conscription. They are dying because western powers that ultimately dictate policy for Ukraine are unwilling to engage in diplomacy to end the fighting.

>>456680
>This is almost touching on Nazi apologetics territory
We clearly have nothing more to discuss, id you don't even understand something as basic as responsibility.

By the way, the Soviets DID take responsibility for killing the German invaders. They took responsibility for it and made it a point of pride. I guess the Soviets were borderline "Nazi apologists" as well.
What a joke.

>>456680
>There can be no moral reprieve for people who start wars.
So by your own calculus there can be no moral reprieve for Russia's oligarchy with respect to Putin's war of choice against Ukraine then.

>>456045
>My guess is that socialist societies will not go to war against each other because socialism has no economic tendencies that produce war.
It might also be entirely possible that once socialism becomes the dominant form of society globally, there will still remain competition between socialist powers for ideological reasons.

>>463514
>ideological reasons
There are none that are worth going to war over.

>>456150
Man, this has aged very poorly. kek

>>463518
delusional natoid ?
this >>456150 seems to be correct
The Dollar has lost global trade share to Yuan/Renminbi
Ukraine is loosing the war against Russia
And the West's economic war backfired, Russia's economy was resilient enough, and now there's rumors about Credit Suisse, a huge finance clearing house, going belly up.
https://teddit.net/r/Superstonk/comments/zyevfz/complete_dd_of_the_fdic_meeting_credit_suisse_is/

>>463519
>Ukraine is loosing the war against Russia
I am beginning to get the impression that whoever posts this statement is full of shit in general and should be ignored.

>>463527
Keep projecting, your delusional squealing is getting downright hilarious.

>>463519
>delusional natoid ?
So did this war end like you predicted? Because it looks like the Russian situation has only gotten worse.
>And the West's economic war backfired, Russia's economy was resilient enough, and now there's rumors about Credit Suisse, a huge finance clearing house, going belly up.
Yes, I'm sure it's totally going to go broke, just like NATO is going to run out of stuff. Just too more weeks, comrade. Trust da plun.

>>463537
>Keep projecting
You use this meme like you don't understand what it means.

>>463519
>>463527
>>463537
>>463538
>>463543
Keep the sports bar tier discussion in the containment thread please and thank you

Just aother capitalist imperialist war where workers are brainwashed with patriotism to kill each other instead of the corrupt oligarchs that profit from the bloodshed.

>>463545
What the fuck sports bars have you been going to? Are you from Boston or something?

>>463563
I go to the kind of sports bars where every bar fight ends in a very drunk angloid and an even more drunk vatnik accidentally stabbing their own chests, all following a dispute where they were too drunk to figure out whether or not the soccer game on TV was really supposed to be football or rugby.

>>463565
Ohhh, Philadelphia. Say no more.

>>466559
<If anyone should be challenging Russian president Vladmir Putin … it’s communists
The Neo-cons declared Putin as their enemy, as the villain that justifies their crusade against Russia and for their warmongering.

Why the fuck would you want to herd communist towards taking a line that could get them confused with the neo-cons ?
Their stupid sanctions-war has been really bad for the living conditions for the proletariat, communists have to pay extra attention to not do anything that might be interpreted as support for any of this shit.
And that means never joining the enemy vilification chorus.
Once the neo-cons pick a justification-enemy, it becomes impossible to criticize that "enemy", without being seen as supporting the neo-con line.

This is political self-sabotage.

>>466560
Putin is a neocon with a different set of backers.

>>466559
This idiot already outed himself as a dumb Russophobe in his last post.

>>466568
https://gowans.blog/2023/02/16/speeches-about-a-nice-little-peace/
>Expressing disgust at the crimes of the bourgeois-controlled Russian state no more makes one a Russophobe than expressing disgust at Nazi crimes makes one a Germanophobe or criticizing Israel makes one an anti-Semite.
>You would have hit the mark had you described me as a bourgeois-phobe–against the bourgeois order, as much the Chinese one and US one as the Russian one.
- Stephen Gowans (comments)

>>466573
Yeah, now read his full comments. He's an ignorant dumbass who uses ideology as an excuse to avoid informing himself about the facts of the conflict and then when someone calls him out on his bullshit he plays the useful-idiot-Putin-puppet card.

Maybe Clausewitz is just a retard and war is not about politics at all? We've had the concept of war before we conducted politics in any way we would appreciate. War goes all the way back to the animal kingdom in its core purpose, while politics is particular to highly developed symbolic communication. You would need a baseline level of mental and social development to speak of "politics", but it's always been easy to pick up a pointy stick and use it.

What we are seeing in the 21st century is the revelation of a role always had - war as a social engineering project, or a ritual invoked to create blood sacrifices so that one society can affect another. From the outset, plans to rebuild Ukraine are advanced by the competing parties, with a pronouncement beforehand that Ukraine will be a test case of this plan war and development strategy. Iraq was another example where the "nation-building" exercise was boosted by advocates of the world, who speak of it like it was a technocratic policy they punched into their computer program. The death and the toil of war is all mystified away, because for their class, it really is a game. That is how the nobility has always seen war. They don't suffer and die for it, and war's glory is for them. For us, it was always mooonshine and we've known it was bullshit.

>>466576
https://gowans.blog/2023/02/16/speeches-about-a-nice-little-peace/
>Let’s get a few things straight.

>-No one has invaded Russia and challenged its sovereignty.
>-No one is going to invade Russia. The country’s nuclear arsenal, the largest in the world, is a formidable deterrent.
>-There is no genocide in Ukraine, evidenced by the reality that the accuser, Moscow, has not invoked the Genocide Convention, something it would do if it truly believed its accusation.
>-Like the George W. Bush White House, which had a rotating list of ridiculous pretexts for its war of aggression on Iraq, the Kremlin cycles through a list of specious reasons for invading Ukraine that only a credulous half-wit would believe.
>-Donbas belongs to Ukraine, not Russia. Russia has no legitimate right to intervene in or annex the territory.
>-It is Russia that has invaded Ukraine, not Ukraine that has invaded Russia (though you seem to have fallen prey to the illusion that the very opposite is true.)

>A coup d’etat in Kyiv in 2014 that led Ukraine out of Russia’s sphere of influence; NATO’s expansion to Russia’s borders; a civil war in Ukraine; none of these events legitimize Russia’s invasion of its neighbor. US actions are aimed at denying Russia its sphere of influence and expanding that of the United States. Russia’s actions are aimed at restoring its sphere of influence in Ukraine. The conduct of both powers is imperialist. Each seeks to demote Ukraine to a means of gratifying its own ends. Russia is no more a virtuous or heroic state than is the United States. Both are rapacious powers, bent on seeking advantage at the expense of other states, not, to the benefit of their working class, but to the benefit of their capitalist class. In both cases it is their working classes which suffer and pay the price in order that their oligarchs may benefit.

>Since you grow tired of my Luxemburg quotes, I’ll leave you with one from Lenin, this one in connection with your arguments: “Fairy tales suitable to the mental level of political infants.”

- Stephen Gowans (comments)

>>466578
Comrade Langley is really burning that midnight oil

>>466582
Sorry glowfag, it's ober for u