/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

Elaborate?

>>489546
i bet theyre sweet and milky

>>489547
What

>>489546
>Elaborate?
I don't think Putin's ideology is related to Nazism by any means. Sure, it's reactionary, ultraconservative, ultranationalist, religious, illiberal, oppressive, bourgeois, militarist and Nazi collaborationist but I feel like people compare Putin to Hitler either because they don't know who Mussolini is or think that Mussolini isn't as scary (both are fascists so Mussolini still deserved the rope). The Russian propaganda claims that they're "denazifying" Ukraine, YET Mussolini and Italian fascism are defended and excused. And Putin himself not only supports the values Mussolini espoused but also tries to look more macho and cool like Mussolini did. Not really comparable to the scrawny, ill soyboy Hitler. Not to mention that Russian propaganda isn't anti-Semitic. Maybe he's still trying to get support of the Russian jews?

>>489550
>YET Mussolini and Italian fascism are defended and excused.
Are they?
>And Putin himself not only supports the values Mussolini espoused
Does he?

>>489550 (me)
I think Putin's ideology can best be described an "Ruscism" as some liberals call it. It's by no means equivalent to Stalinism (it's anti-communist) so I use this term differently but I haven't found any other word that can encompass the unique authoritarian ultraconservative capitalist regime Russia has.

>>489551
>Are they?
https://imdb.com/title/tt6277962/
>Does he?
I mean, he does support national unity, ultrapatriotism, class collaborationism and traditional institutions such as the church and the traditional nuclear family over class unity, class struggle and secular progressive values. He also loves to remeniscence about how great the Russian Empire was and how those evil Bolsheviks killed the tsar and his family.

>>489554
>He also loves to remeniscence about how great the Russian Empire was and how those evil Bolsheviks killed the tsar and his family.
I assume this is a NATO-aligned media smear until I see some actual evidence otherwise. I have never gotten that sense from reading Putin's actual speeches.

>>489556
>I assume this is a NATO-aligned media smear until I see some actual evidence otherwise.
Here we go again, lol. Okay, bro. Here's your evidence.

>>489557
>heavily edited clips taken out of context with no English translation
Sure, bro, I believe you.

>>489558
>heavily edited
Are you stupid? I deliberately gave you the most unedited questions and answers so you wouldn't complain about it. And yet you noticed an editing somewhere? What is this editing? Watch the whole fucking video. Because nothing was cut.
>original audio
<"Why no English translation?"
>English translation
<"It's obviously fake."
Turn on the fucking auto-generated subtitles or use a translation software, Jesus. Wtf do you want from me? What other evidence do I have to give? The hour-and-a-half-long stream of the complete interview?

>>489559
No, no, anon, that's not how persuasion works. You made the suspect assertion. NATO propaganda rags have incessantly taken quotes out of context or outright made shit up to build a propaganda narrative of Vladolf Putler trying to rebuild the Russian Empire. This is an extraordinary claim that has repeatedly failed to stand up to scrutiny and the onus is on you to make it easy for others to take it seriously. Putin is very historically minded and references historical events probably more than any other world leader, but to say that he actually loves the Russian Empire is another matter.

Comparing Putin to Hitler is western projection. Putin is engaged in fighting imperialists right now and therefore materially has nothing in common with fascism.

You can compare anyone to anyone though but it's not serious.

>>489561
>Putin is engaged in fighting imperialists right now and therefore materially has nothing in common with fascism.
You lost me there.

Fighting imperialism by… invading another country? And what about Hitler using the fact that the European countries left Germany in ruin after World War I as a pretext for World War II?

>>489560
>outright made shit up to build a propaganda narrative of Vladolf Putler trying to rebuild the Russian Empire
Oh, my God, bro. All I said is that Putin likes the Russian Empire, I didn't say that he wants to rebuild the Russian Empire (I think he does but thot's not the point I was arguing). If you actually watched the video you'd actually see that he's trying to shift the blame from the Russian Empire by basically saying "B-but Bolsheviks killed one gormillion people!" Why not just watch the video for yourself? It's a pro-Russian video. It's in Russian. Why would it have anything out of context? That's what many Russians AGREE WITH as well. "Bolsheviks evil, Russian Empire good." It's not just Putin's opinions in a vacuum, it's the mainstream Russian propaganda.

>>489544
>Why is Putin compared to Hitler
Lazy propaganda, WW2 was worth fighting unlike all the wars that followed, they hope the fight-worthyness of WW2 rubs off on their current war-racket if they reference big_H, or maybe they just want to torture people who know about history.

Duche who ?

>>489561
>Comparing Putin to Hitler is western projection.
That might be an element considering they backed the Bandera-gang who historically were allied to Hitler.

>>489566
>Fighting imperialism by… invading another country?
When we regime change Ukraine, that's ok
When the Russians blow up our regime, that's not ok

>And what about Hitler
Got stuck in Stalingrad, the current attempt only made it to Kursk.

>>489569
>they hope the fight-worthyness of WW2 rubs off on their current war-racket if they reference big_H
Well, certainly if they reference Mussolini or Franco instead it wouldn't sound as threatening, that's for sure.
>Duche who ?
Italians' improvized punching bag, lol.
>When we regime change Ukraine, that's ok
>When the Russians blow up our regime, that's not ok
I thought this is a leftist board. You should know that what the bourgeoisie are doing is NOT okay, no matter what kind of bourgeoisie. Class > nation, viewing it in reverse is a fascist (right-Hegellian) analysis. "Both-sideism," yadda-yadda-yadda.
>>489569
>the current attempt only made it to Kursk
Both countries use Nazitards as PMCs (Azov, Rusich, Wagner, Right Sector). Doesn't mean that any of the two are Nazis, you're just doing NATO propaganda backwards.

>>489571
Wagner Group may have been your typical mercenary scumbag outfit, but I never saw any evidence that they had a Nazi element.

>>489572
>but I never saw any evidence that they had a Nazi element
They're NazBols. Dugin openly supported fascism even before he left NBP and his 90s' speeches were intermixed with anti-Semitism (look it up. In the original language ofc, don't want to look like I'm "spreading pro-NATO propaganda").

>>489573
Alexander Dugin is not a member of the Wagner Group, what the fuck are you even trying to imply?

>>489574
>Alexander Dugin is not a member of the Wagner Group,
Not the point I was making.
>what the fuck are you even trying to imply?
I'm saying there are NazBols in their ranks.

>>489571
>Well, certainly if they reference Mussolini or Franco instead it wouldn't sound as threatening, that's for sure.
Only if you don't know what these 2 did.

>Italians' improvized punching bag, lol.
is that some kind of reference ? I don't get it.

>I thought this is a leftist board.
Yes the politically incorrect left, not the imperialism compatible left.

>You should know that what the bourgeoisie are doing is NOT okay, no matter what kind of bourgeoisie. Class > nation, viewing it in reverse is a fascist (right-Hegellian) analysis. "Both-sideism," yadda-yadda-yadda.
I basically think that you are attempting to find leftist arguments to support imperial policy against Russia. The US started a proxy war when they regime changed Ukraine. You have to credit the Russians for trying diplomacy for a decade before going smashy smashy.
If we are talking class struggle, we're talking reducing military spending and increasing social spending, infrastructure spending and restoring the industrial base. The evil Russian narrative is not helping with that.

>Both countries use Nazitards as PMCs
What a strange conceptual framework. Consider that during low-intensity fighting in the period from 2014 to 2022 the Russians actually supported some Ukrainian communist factions in Donbass like the one that hosted ourguy Russel Texas Bentley, while the US funded Ukranian fascists trying to subjugate eastern Ukrainians as underclass. As far as i remember the Russians disbanded that one mercenary group and re-integrated it into their regular military.
It appears you are trying to equivocate, that which is not the same.

This debate can be reduced to whether or not Russia should be considered an enemy or not, and that ties into whether the war-racket keeps going or not. Obviously we want Russia to be removed from the enemy list, so that the war-racket stops.

>>489575
>I'm saying there are NazBols
I think "Nazbols" are a spook in your head. There was indeed a national Bolshevik party in the 90s but it was super fringe and it only existed for a handful of years. Barely worth a footnote in a history book.

>>489579
>is that some kind of reference ? I don't get it.
Mussolini's dead body was hanged so Italians could throw rocks at it for weeks.
>the politically incorrect left
I don't think you know what "politically incorrect" means.
>You're a Banderite/NATO shill
Oh, my God, not this shit again. Just because I don't support Putin DOESN'T MEAN I SUPPORT AZOV OR NATO, GET THAT SHIT STRAIGHT.
>Consider that during low-intensity fighting in the period from 2014 to 2022 the Russians actually supported some Ukrainian communist factions in Donbass like the one that hosted ourguy Russel Texas Bentley
The Ukrainian antifa were also active during that period. Not like it changes anything that happens now. And not like Russian support doesn't come without any strings attached either (think SDP in WW1's Germany or the Brittish Labour Party).
>If we are talking class struggle, we're talking reducing military spending and increasing social spending, infrastructure spending and restoring the industrial base.
Okay? You can do that without shilling for Putin.
>>489580
>it was super fringe and it only existed for a handful of years
They've just rebranded themselves into "A Different Russia."

>>489580
It's also extremely dishonest to conflate them with Nazis.

>>489587
>Mussolini's dead body was hanged so Italians could throw rocks at it for weeks.
I didn't know that, thanks for elaborating. Not sure i understand why they did that tho. I mean i get why people wanted to brutalize fascists, considering what they had done in WW2. But it seems kinda pointless after they're dead ?

>I don't think you know what "politically incorrect" means.
What do you think it means ?

>Oh, my God, not this shit again. Just because I don't support Putin DOESN'T MEAN I SUPPORT AZOV OR NATO, GET THAT SHIT STRAIGHT.
I hear what you say but you are weirding me out again. The warmongers have a litmus-test where they all must proclaim opposing the Russian president. It's so strange. You're kinda tripping a warning circuit that looks out for warmongers trying to "designate the enemy" that justifies looting public funds.

>Okay? You can do that without shilling for Putin.
In order to make these domestic policies happen, the threat of war has to be reduced. That means we have to restore normal diplomatic relations with Russia and in order for that to work we have to reverse the dehumanization of Russians. They're just normal people, and they have regular politicians running their government.

>They've just rebranded themselves into "A Different Russia."
I guess that means they're still bad at naming things. Because that'll just make people wonder different how ?
I still think you got psy-op-ed into believing into a boogieman with that nasbowl stuff.
There probably are many thousands of tiny political parties in the world, and you care a great deal about this particular one for some odd reason.

>>489591
>But it seems kinda pointless after they're dead ?
To numb their grief ig.
>What do you think it means ?
Making edgy jokes and saying controversial opinions. That doesn't mean that you have to agree with a certain position though, like, politically incorrect does not mean pro-Putin. I consider South Park and The Boondocks to be pretty politically incorrect series.
>That means we have to restore normal diplomatic relations with Russia and in order for that to work we have to reverse the dehumanization of Russians.
Sure.
>They're just normal people
Sure.
>and they have regular politicians running their government
You sure you are a Marxist? You see no class distinctions, you see the nation as one monolith, you think the state serves the proletariat. This is so wrong, it contradicts everything Marx standed for.
>I still think you got psy-op-ed into believing into a boogieman with that nasbowl stuff.
I mean, if Dugin wasn't so close to the president I wouldn't complain.

>>489597
>if Dugin wasn't so close to the president
Uh huh, and how did you come to this conclusion that Alexander Dugin and Vladimir Putin, two people with highly divergent politics, were besties? Sounds like another media smear job.

>>489600
>two people with highly divergent politics
Not really. Multipolarity, Eurasianism, anti-Atlanticism, support of tradition and Eastern Orthodoxy and a positive opinion of the Russian empire and the White Army are something they both share. There are many ideas Putin took from Dugin and Ilyin, his kind gestures towards communists are no more than an opportunistic performance.
>besties
I didn't say they're "besties," I just said he's close to Putin (how close I dunno). But RT claims that he isn't so I'm not going to argue for that, though Putin was certainly heavily influenced by Dugin and Ilyin. I do not claim he genuinely believes this shit (I wouldn't claim ANY modern politician to have even an ounce of genuineness) but at the very least he opportunistically uses these ideas to justify his policies in the eyes of the Russian public and the overseas supporters. Dugin probably believes in them, he's a goofy old man.
>Sounds like another media smear job.
I think you view anything that contradicts the Russian narrative as a Western smear job, no matter how nuanced or well-documented. Which is really a different side of the same coin. Modern politics are reduced to team sports: progressives vs conservatives, NATO vs BRICS, Bloods vs Crips, etc. And all sides claim that their side is correct and anything that contradicts it is Western propaganda. But the world isn't just "My side good, your side bad." The world is complex. It's multidimensional. Take individualism for example. Many leftists claimed that it's "bourgeois," "idealist," "antisocial." But some leftists started to ask themselves: "What's so bad about individualism exactly?" The answer? Nothing. It's all just fearmongering, the rapid adaption of Stirner and Nietzsche by leftists is a testament to that. Some ideas that seem reactionary at first glance turn out to be far more complicated than you first imagine.

>>489601 (me)
>Western propaganda
I meant "Western OR RUSSIAN propaganda," my brain glitched out and when I sent it it was already too late to change anything. Imageboards, smh.

>>489591
>I guess that means they're still bad at naming things.
They just used a typical pretty-sounding template many Russian parties use (United Russia, A Just Russia, A Different Russia, Our Russia, Your Mom's Russia, Whateverthefuck Russia). Also, the actual English translation is "The Other Russia." For… some reason.

>>489603 (me)
It's either "Oh-So-Cool Based Special Snowflake Russia" or "ABCDPR." Russian parties are very creative and you can definitely distinguish them from one another… maybe… I don't know, I sure can't.

>>489597
>Making edgy jokes and saying controversial opinions. That doesn't mean that you have to agree with a certain position though, like, politically incorrect does not mean pro-Putin. I consider South Park and The Boondocks to be pretty politically incorrect series.
At the moment its considered "politically correct" that the Russian president is le big bad. I think that's silly, which makes me politically incorrect.

>You sure you are a Marxist? You see no class distinctions, you see the nation as one monolith, you think the state serves the proletariat. This is so wrong, it contradicts everything Marx standed for.
Nope class struggle is when you struggle against the ruling class at home. When you rhetorically attack the governments of other countries that the empire considers it's rival or opponent, you are just singing the imperial song.

If diplomacy is to end the war in Ukraine, the bourgois states have to do the diplomacy dance. Implying:
<Lets continue the war with Russia until the Russian workers overthrow capitalism in Russia.
Is very dishonest.

>I mean, if Dugin wasn't
So Dugin lives in your head rent free, Huh ?
Can you at least say which parts of Dugin's philosophy/theory/etc is bugging you so much, because you're just name-dropping this guy and I don't really get what you want to say.

>>489625
>I think that's silly, which makes me politically incorrect.
My point is, you don't have to agree with this position to be politically incorrect.
>When you rhetorically attack the governments of other countries that the empire considers it's rival or opponent, you are just singing the imperial song.
Got it, people in Europe criticizing NATO are singing the imperial song. Makes perfect sense (no).
>SO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THE WAR??
No, you bafoon. I certainly want diplomacy to happen. I don't want war. Are you even listening?
>So Dugin lives in your head rent free, Huh ?
No? Wtf are you talking about?
>Can you at least say which parts of Dugin's philosophy/theory/etc is bugging you so much
I literally wrote it in a post below the one you're responding to. You're responding to an old post I already moved on from and then get baffled why I didn't say something that I said in a later post. Don't just respond to random posts in a thread without a proper context, your questions may be already answered in later or earlier posts.

>>489647
>Got it, people in Europe criticizing NATO are singing the imperial song. Makes perfect sense (no).
Makes about as much sense as your retarded false equivalency.

>>489659
I'm just demonstrating that your argument makes no sense, moron. Besides, I live in Russia so by your own logic I'm fully justified in criticizing my own bourgeois government and sabotaging its war effort.

>>489662
Not even the anon you were replying to. People in Europe criticizing NATO is quite obviously not the same thing as people criticizing a rival power in their home country. You didn't demonstrate anything with that retarded false equivalence, moron.

>>489665
>People in Europe criticizing NATO is quite obviously not the same thing as people criticizing a rival power in their home country.
Okay, Europe isn't exactly a rival to the US, very well. Russians can't criticize NATO then? Is that what you're trying to say?
>You didn't demonstrate anything with that retarded false equivalence, moron.
Kys, faggot.

>>489659
>people in Europe criticizing NATO are singing the imperial song
dafuck ? Nato is the empire

>I live in Russia so by your own logic I'm fully justified in criticizing my own bourgeois government
That part is correct. Russians criticizing the Russian government is not likely to function as a pretext to manufacture consent for US imperialism, the way criticizing Russia in the west tends to.
>and sabotaging
that part is not correct, nobody said anything about sabotage.

>>489667
>Russians can't criticize NATO then?
That one is somewhat true, in the sense that it's pointless. Nato does not care about political consent from Russian citizens. If Nato gets criticism from citizens in Europe or the US there is at least a possibility that it could move the political needle at least a little bit. Russians really don't need to convince the Russian government about the "downsides" of Nato, they already know.

>>489697
>nobody said anything about sabotage
Is it bad for Ukrainiens to sabotage the war effort then?
>That part is correct. Russians criticizing the Russian government is not likely to function as a pretext to manufacture consent for US imperialism, the way criticizing Russia in the west tends to.
Okay, okay, but we can at least be honest with ourselves about both NATO and Russia. Just because we want Ukraine to make peace with Russia doesn't mean we must genuinely believe that Russia is "le good guy," that's some Orwellian doublethink. You can be like: "Yes, Russia is fascist but I support their brand of fascism because it's against Western imperialism." Although I don't think Russian leftists will be excited to hear this… because they live here.

>>489698 (me)
Also, opportunism, opportunism, opportunism.

Heil anarchy.

>>489698
>Is it bad for Ukrainiens to sabotage the war effort then?
It's Nato's war "effort", Ukraine had no agency in this, the Ukranians voted for theLensky because he promised he'd make peace with Russia. Also all the Ukranians who chose to not show up for the war, were just being sensible people, it doesn't count as sabotage.

>Okay, okay, but we can at least be honest with ourselves about both NATO and Russia. Just because we want Ukraine to make peace with Russia doesn't mean we must genuinely believe that Russia is "le good guy," that's some Orwellian doublethink. You can be like: "Yes, Russia is fascist but I support their brand of fascism because it's against Western imperialism."
This seems like absurd narrative construction gibberish to me.

The fascist faction in this conflict are the Bandera/asov type guys, not only in the historic and ideological sense but also by the Marxist definition of fascism as in fighting on behalf of reactionary imperial finance capital. Russian anti-imperial struggles are not fascist.

If you want to advocate for peace, you have to break with the neocon narrative where Russia is described with designated enemy words

>Although I don't think Russian leftists will be excited to hear this… because they live here.
I doubt very much that you are speaking on behalf of Russian leftists.

>>489711
>It's Nato's war "effort"
That doesn't answer the question. Is it wrong for Ukrainians to desert and protest the war?
>The fascist faction in this conflict are the Bandera/asov type guys
Yes. But so is the Russian faction too, it's not "either/or." It isn't just "good nation vs bad nation," use actual class analysis plz.
>I doubt very much that you are speaking on behalf of Russian leftists.
I know quite a lot of Russian leftists who are opposed to the war effort. One of the more famous ones is Boris Kagarlitskiy. The other famous leftist, Konstantin Syomin, is also against the war. And I'm not even mentioning anarcho-syndicalists, this should be obvious.

>>489714
>That doesn't answer the question. Is it wrong for Ukrainians to desert and protest the war?
You want to skip the part where we discus the issue about whether or not Ukraine currently has a legitimate government, and instead you want to question the actions of the Ukranian population. I'm sorry but that's not how this works. If Ukraine doesn't have a legit government the question whether the Ukrainian population has obligations towards it is moot.

If you think Ukraine has a legit government you have to justify why it should be allowed to kidnap people, to suspend democracy, to violate virtually all civil rights and so on. You are not allowed to use the argument from external enemy fallacy.

>Yes. But so is the Russian faction too, it's not "either/or." It isn't just "good nation vs bad nation," use actual class analysis plz.
You appear to me as if you were motivated to confabulate a reason to say Russia bad I already explained to you that my political goals are diplomatic conflict resolution and therefore i reject this framing categorically. If you deamonize Russia you support military conflict resolution.

If you want a class analysis. Russia is doing state capitalism, and it's run by a national bourgoisie that is refusing to be subjugated by an imperial bourgeoisie. Said imperial bourgoisie has hijacked Ukraine and is attempting to use as an instrument to wear down the Russian state. This has failed and I don't understand why it continues. The only reason i can come up with is that the secondary purpose of this "project" is to destroy Europe.

>I know quite a lot of Russian leftists
I don't know any, and i don't trust you enough to take your word for it.

>>489714
>One of the more famous ones is Boris Kagarlitskiy.
Funny because I had never heard of this clown until the war. From the interviews I've seen of him, he seemed to mouth some of the platitudes of the left out of one side and then the standard NATO canards out the other. I knew it would be impossible to take him seriously again when he said "Putin is deathly ill" like all the other dumbshit Western propaganda rags of the time. A few years later now, is Putin ready to drop dead at any moment? Someone's dead now and it isn't Putin.

The left (note: not Russian liberals) in Russia is actually someone divided on the war. A lot of Russian leftists, in fact, critically support the war effort.

>>489718
Ah yes, going back to some old interviews, a couple years ago Kagarlitsky was also peddling bullshit over Bucha, asserting that over 100,000 Russians had already died in the war and that Russia was close to being defeated, and that there was some kind of threat of Putin facing a coup in spite of him currently enjoying the highest approval ratings of his career. This famous Russian "leftist" sure seemed to read a lot of NATO-aligned Western liberal rags. His assertions were so dumb and detached from actual Russian society that I remember thinking that I wouldn't be at all surprised to learn that he receives NED or USAID funding at some point.

>>489718
>A lot of Russian leftists
What leftists? KPRF? KPRF is controlled opposition. Or is Brittish Labour suddenly a revolutionary leftist party? Is German SPD a revolutionary leftist party? I don't think so.
>>489725
>"leftist"
See? If we cut out all the anti-Putin leftists then ofc all the leftists would be in support of Putin, this is a pretty biased narrative. Just replace "leftists" with "people who agree with me" and nothing will change. It's not a factual analysis, it's all based on vibes. You claim that Kagarlitsky gets USAID? Okay then, show actual proof. Otherwise it's just you being oversensitive.

>>489717
>You want to skip the part where we discus the issue about whether or not Ukraine currently has a legitimate government
No? I do not legitimize the Ukrainian government. In fact, I don't legitimize ANY government, legitimacy is a bourgeois concept.
>obligations towards it
Man, I'm really starting to doubt your cred as a leftist. Obligations? To a bourgeois government? What are you, a class collaborationist or something? The proletariat has no obligations to its bourgeois government, period.
>You appear to me as if you were motivated to confabulate a reason to say Russia bad
You appear to me as if you are motivated to confabulate a reason to call me a NATO shill to reenforce your class collaborationist black-and-white world view where anyone who disagrees with you is a NATO shill. I am not a NATO shill and Ukraine is deeply anti-communist, the fash is literally allowed to beat up any leftist activist on a street with zero consequences. Do you see me sitting here and defending that? Do you see me denying that the Azov batallion are neo-Nazi scum? Wake up from your dream world plz.
>deamonize Russia
I do not demonize Russia. But I don't support it either. I know very well how psychotic Western liberals can get with their Russophobia, how they're too edger to put collective responsibility on the entire population (a practice I completely denounce). But that doesn't mean I have to kiss Putin's ass purely out of spite.
>Russia is doing state capitalism
It's no more state capitalist than Germany.
>it's run by a national bourgoisie that is refusing to be subjugated by an imperial bourgeoisie
They'll get subjugated by the Chinese bourgeoisie instead. Where's all the economic analysis?
>i don't trust you enough to take your word for it
You know, this is an issue with the Internet I especially hate. We should just unplug and see stuff for ourselves instead of speculating on places we haven't been in. I have a massive respect for Situationists, these people touch grass a lot. The whole strength of Marxism isn't these theoretical discussions in isolation but rather that it starts making sense more the more grass you touch. That's why rightoids are so delusional: they are socially isolated and talk about things they haven't seen or experienced themselves. So I advise you to talk to actual Russians. Or even travel to Russia. Travel to LDPR, travel to Ukraine. Maybe you'll be ab?e to form your own opinion instead of relying on third-party sources. I encourage actually visiting these places, it would be a way more informative experience than me banging my head against the wall for days on an ANONYMOUS imageboard trying to explain the things I've seen.

Ya know, after making this thread I now remember that liberals compare anyone they don't like to Hitler, no matter if it makes sense or not. And they call anti-idpol leftists NazBols! Imagine that! It's like they're searching for Hitler everywhere. Comparing someone to Mussolini or Franco isn't a strong enough insult in their eyes it seems.

>>489895
>No? I do not legitimize the Ukrainian government.
Great
>In fact, I don't legitimize ANY government,
Fair enough, i guess, you can have your anarchist principles.
>legitimacy is a bourgeois concept.
So the capitalists own the concept of legitimacy now ?
I can't use words anymore ?
>Man, I'm really starting to doubt your cred as a leftist. Obligations? To a bourgeois government? What are you, a class collaborationist or something? The proletariat has no obligations to its bourgeois government, period.
I strongly implied that Ukrainians don't have any obligations to the current regime in Ukraine, your reaction makes no sense.

>You appear to me as if you are motivated to confabulate a reason to call me a NATO shill
You demanded that i label Russia as fascist (in this post >>489698) , that's what Nato shills usually do, you can't blame me for drawing the conclusion that you were trying to push "Russiabad"

>I do not demonize Russia.
other than calling it fascist

>But I don't support it either.
You have to give them credit for their measured reactions, that's the reasons we didn't all die in a nuclear war already.

>I know very well how psychotic Western liberals can get with their Russophobia,
Yeah I'm having a hard time figuring out where that came from, it was like somebody flipped a switch, Bam intense hatred.

>how they're too edger to put collective responsibility on the entire population (a practice I completely denounce).
That is a valid criticism.

>But that doesn't mean I have to kiss Putin's ass purely out of spite.
I think he genuinely tried to make nice with the west. What i don't get is that none of the Soviet leaders were even remotely as accommodating, yet they got a lot less vitriol. Well Stalin got slandered pretty badly too, but that came later during the first cold war

>They'll get subjugated by the Chinese bourgeoisie instead. Where's all the economic analysis?
Where's the evidence the Chinese are subjugating other countries.

>travel to Ukraine
you forget they have a war going ? Or are you just giving bad advice ?

>>489906
>you can have your anarchist principles
Even putting aside my anarchist principles, I'm pretty sure proletarian internationalism is a pretty widely accepted concept in socialist circles. But then again, NazBols exist so…
>So the capitalists own the concept of legitimacy now ?
Nationalism and property rights are bourgeois concepts, yes.
>your reaction makes no sense
This was just an extension of the point I made above, I was just restating my anarchist principles again, not claiming that you think Ukrainians have an obligation to their government.
>You demanded that i label Russia as fascist
I'm not forcing you to do anything, my fren, that would be silly for me to do, I'm a "live and let live" kinda guy. It's simply my personal opinion that Russia is para-fascist, you can take it as you will.
>in this post
<but we can at least be honest with ourselves
That's not me demanding you to view Russia as fascist, it's me asking you to understand that supporting Russia because it's politically advantageous doesn't mean Russia isn't reactionary. You can believe whatever you want, I'm not forcing you to change your opinion. I'm just saying that you don't have to support Russia's internal politics to support the war. How reactionary Russia is shouldn't be important to you if it's fighting NATO, right?
>other than calling it fascist
I called it "para-fascist" and denied that Putin is a Nazi (but it's not like I like Mussolini or Franco) or that Russians should be collectively responsible for what's happening in Ukraine, I am rather soft to it compared to many shitlibs. I'm just stating my observations, I don't actually hate Russia (for Christ's sake, I live here). One compliment I'll give Russia is that its progressive youth is immune to wokeness so that's cool. Russia is still ultraconservative but at least our progressives don't have the excesses the Americunts have.
>that's the reasons we didn't all die in a nuclear war already
Tbf nobody wants a nuclear war. Not even the American elite.
>What i don't get is that none of the Soviet leaders were even remotely as accommodating, yet they got a lot less vitriol.
I don't think people dislike Putin because he isn't lovey-dovey with the West, although I assume many shitlibs do think this way. In fact, some things from the West like wokeness, Big Tech, proprietary software, etc., etc. I'd rather not see here. Although we have our own alternative wokeness (Christian conservatism), alternative Big Tech (Yandex, VK) and alternative proprietary software (made by Yandex and VK too) so there is no escape…
>Where's the evidence the Chinese are subjugating other countries.
I mean, culturally and economically. Chinese products and dunhua are very popular in Russia. Chinese cars are outperforming Russian cars in sales (the brand Cherry for example). People buy Chinese goods on AliExpress more often. Russian and Chinese economies are blurring together, and since the Chinese economy is stronger (credit's where credit is due) and the Russian goods, services and entertainment industry are trash it's only a matter of time. Heck, China started producing games and animation that are unironically good! And look at Russian games and animation. Very sad state of these industries, very sad. The only good Russian games in the recent past I can remember are World of Warships and Atomic Heart.
>you forget they have a war going ?
I mean you can go to Western Ukraine or talk to the citizens behind the front. You don't have to literally go to war (although I assume it would be useful for making sure whether there are warcrimes or not).

>>489909 (me)
>The only good Russian games in the recent past I can remember are World of Warships and Atomic Heart.
Oh, I forgor. Pathologic 2 was released. That was based.

>>489909
>I'm pretty sure proletarian internationalism is a pretty widely accepted concept in socialist circles.
Sure, remind me again how it relates to me bitching about the Ukrainian regime kidnapping people to force them to fight.
>But then again, NazBols exist so…
as a spook in your head

<So the capitalists own the concept of legitimacy now ?
> …yes.
bruh

>Russia is para-fascist
para means along side or against
I don't see how this makes sense, it appears to be a vibe.

>it's me asking you to understand that supporting Russia because it's politically advantageous doesn't mean Russia isn't reactionary.
>I'm not forcing you to change your opinion. I'm just saying that you don't have to support Russia's internal politics
I only looked at the economic side, i have no clue how to evaluate Russias internal politics. I don't have a reference frame.

>I called it "para-fascist" and denied that Putin is a Nazi
Yeah I'm giving up trying to understand what you mean with this.

>One compliment I'll give Russia is that its progressive youth is immune to wokeness so that's cool.
Interesting do elaborate

>Tbf nobody wants a nuclear war.
you underestimate how utterly mad some people can be
>Not even the American elite.
it's unclear where they stand

>I mean, culturally and economically. Chinese products and dunhua are very popular in Russia.
<We are being subjugate by China
<how ?
<they sell nice stuff
seriously ?

>>489909
>Atomic Heart
DRM-crippled cinematic slop.

>>489912
>Sure, remind me again how it relates to me bitching about the Ukrainian regime kidnapping people to force them to fight.
It doesn't.
>bruh
Yes. Repression doesn't make the government "illegitimate," the government always views itself as legitimate because it gives itself that very legitimacy. Heck, USA was built on imperialism and slavery, does the concept of legitimacy even matter at this point? It's a useless concept used by shitlibs to justify the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The problem with Israel for example isn't that it's "illegitimate" but rather that it's an apartheid state.
>para means along side or against
Plz don't be so autistic, you could've just looked for the actual term on the Internet. "Para-fascist" means "semi-fascist," the retarded use of the "para-" prefix is not my fault.
>Interesting do elaborate
Even the pro-LGBT activists who support black liberation and early feminism are strongly against political correctness, misandry, anti-white racism, forced diversity, DEI and all that nonsense (we refer to this as "the politics of tolerance" or "tolerastiya" which is the combination of "tolerance" and "pederasty"). Maybe the Western propaganda wasn't that strong. There are some freaks like Nixel Pixel but nobody gives a shit.
>you underestimate how utterly mad some people can be
Nobody except Posadists and Himmlerites.
>it's unclear where they stand
I don't think the bourgeoisie want to destroy capitalism and live in a bunker for the rest of their lives.
>seriously ?
Well, globalism is a form of American economic imperialism so kinda? China uses the same tactics as globalists do on the countries it has influence over, it's just that it's an aspiring globalist superpower. It has been said many times that America is a decaying empire. That's why the American politicians shit their pants over China all the time, they're taking a taste of their own medicine. I don't think Russia is NEARLY as important to the global politics as the US and China are.
>>489913
>DRM-crippled cinematic slop.
I mean, it is the best Russian studios have done for years, excluding some obscure indies nobody heard about. Or Endless Summer (which is an indie too but less obscure).

>>489914
>Yes. Repression doesn't make the government "illegitimate," the government always views itself as legitimate because it gives itself that very legitimacy.
Nope, legitimacy doesn't depend on self perception, and you can't grant it to your self.

Heck, USA was built on imperialism and slavery, does the concept of legitimacy even matter at this point? It's a useless concept used by shitlibs to justify the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The problem with Israel for example isn't that it's "illegitimate" but rather that it's an apartheid state.
Why not just phrase it as Israel is not legit because it's doing apartheid stuff. Why the mental gymnastics to avoid using the word "legitimacy" ?

>"Para-fascist" means "semi-fascist,"
I'm using the standard definition of fascism, as in fascism is caused by the most reactionary imperial finance bourgeoisie. I don't know what a semi-reactionary, semi-imperial finance bourgeoisie would be. I get the impression you are thinking about some kind of rating system, rather than material forces interacting.

>Well, globalism is a form of American economic imperialism so kinda?
I don't think China and the US agree about the meaning of the word "globalism".

>China uses the same tactics as globalists do on the countries it has influence over
If by "globalist" you mean imperial capital based in the US, then NO. The Chinese are far more humanitarian than any imperialist from the west. When the Chinese went into Africa they sought soft-power by building ports, roads, telecommunication, etc. They didn't build military bases, they didn't fund mercenaries and so on.

>That's why the American politicians shit their pants over China all the time, they're taking a taste of their own medicine.
That's also not true, China isn't trying to regime change the US, it's not trying to militarily encircle the US either. US politicians are freaking out because they're loosing hegemonic power.

This argument was originally about China-Russia economic relationship. And the Chinese products that flooded into Russia filled the void left behind by the western companies pulling out of Russia because of sanctions. So i don't see how that is harming the Russian economy.

>I don't think Russia is NEARLY as important to the global politics as the US and China are.
very strange that you are echoing the US secretary of offense, what's his name, Pete Hegseth. He said something along the lines of the history books of the 21 century having more chapters about the US's confrontation on China than Russia.

The Chinese have so much economic power because they invest into their infrastructure, industrial base, production and so on. The capitalist in the west haven't done that, hence the shrinking economic power . So the story here is not primarily about trade. Don't get me wrong trade is an important factor, but not the decisive factor.

>>489916
>Why the mental gymnastics to avoid using the word "legitimacy" ?
Well, how do we even define "legitimacy?" Legitimacy implies some legal standard like international law. What standard should we use? UN's? Anyway, legitimacy is a legalese spook so I don't really care about it much.
>fascism is caused by the most reactionary imperial finance bourgeoisie
Implying the finance capital doesn't exist in Russia…
>I don't think China and the US agree about the meaning of the word "globalism".
I don't think any of them would ever admit their economic imperialism, economic imperialism is always brushed off as "providing good products" by Americans. Because that's what they're told to believe.
>The Chinese are far more humanitarian than any imperialist from the west.
I said economic imperialism, not military imperialism.
>When the Chinese went into Africa they sought SOFT-POWER by building ports,
Thank you for proving my point, anon, love you.
>China isn't trying to regime change the US,
Nah, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the US has finally got a new rival whose soft power is so strong that it even has the American corpos' balls so the American elite is afraid to lose its grip on world capitalism.
>He said something along the lines of the history books of the 21 century having more chapters about the US's confrontation on China than Russia.
I'm not sure how it's similar to what I'm saying except for a vague surface-level resemblance. As an economic superpower Russia isn't as relevant as China is, and I'm not saying that the military confrontations are only between USA and China but rather between Team USA (USA, EU, UK, Israel Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.) and Team China (China, Russia, DPRK, Palestine, Iran, etc.). That doesn't mean its individual members can't fight but USA and China provide the financing.

>>489919
>Well, how do we even define "legitimacy?"
There's lots of different types.
For example Zelensky made a campaign promise to make peace with Russia, he had a chance to do that during the first Istanbul peace talks, but he didn't and instead chose war. He didn't do what people elected him for, so his democratic legitimacy went out of the window. Of course he later became a dictator when he abolished democracy in Ukraine by ending elections.


>Implying the finance capital doesn't exist in Russia…
Finance capital by it self does not cause fascism, it has to be imperial finance capital, there is a big difference. I see no indication of Russia having an imperial bourgeoisie.

>I don't think any of them would ever admit their economic imperialism, economic imperialism is always brushed off
>I said economic imperialism, not military imperialism.
I don't think you understand what imperialism means, do you see any Chinese capitalists making imperial super profits ? Do i have to explain super profits ?

The only case i know where a Chinese capitalist attempted "going imperial" was ANT-group (not sure if that's the correct name). The CPC put the hammer down, their hole IPO got scrubbed. The infamous hedge fund manager Georges Sorros had a tamper tantrum and called Xi Jinping "the most evil man in the world" because of it.

>Thank you for proving my point, anon, love you.
No when the Chinese go to Africa and build ports and all the other infrastructure stuff in order to get on the short list when it comes to getting resource mining concessions, that's fair game. Africa needed ports and infrastructure, the arrangement was mutually beneficial.

>Nah, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that the US has finally got a new rival whose soft power is so strong that it even has the American corpos' balls so the American elite is afraid to lose its grip on world capitalism.
Yeah but that's not imperialism. The US capitalists could choose to invest in industrial production in the US to get "their balls released", you know hire US workers to build all that, but then US workers would get bargaining power again and social democracy might break out.

>I'm not sure how it's similar to what I'm saying except for a vague surface-level resemblance. As an economic superpower Russia isn't as relevant as China is,
That's fair.
>and I'm not saying that the military confrontations are only between USA and China but rather between Team USA (USA, EU, UK, Israel Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, etc.) and Team China (China, Russia, DPRK, Palestine, Iran, etc.). That doesn't mean its individual members can't fight but USA and China provide the financing.
You are delusional if you think the Chinese are financing wars, they're pumping the breaks on wars more than anybody else at the moment.

>>489944
>it has to be imperial finance capital
This too is missing the point to be honest. Fascism is simply the brutal reaction by the capitalist class when a crisis threatens the system. And imperialism at a more base level is an outgrowth of profitability crises. That's what causes industrial capital to migrate into finance capital, and what ultimately pushes governments to plunder labor and resources abroad. If China or Russia have unresolved profitability crises, then they will surely engage in imperialism.

>>489962
I think you are not entirely correct about the function of fascism in capitalism. It can be a reaction to crisis sure, but if you look at the history of fascism it all too often seems to be more like a mechanism that imperial capital uses to sacrifice a country for imperial objectives. You have to admit that there is a pattern of countries going fascist and then commit national suicide pursuing aims that make no sense in terms of national interests, but do appear to serve the aims of imperial capital.

>And imperialism at a more base level is an outgrowth of profitability crises.
Not sure that is correct, historically there is generation of imperial capital during economic booms and downturns alike. So crisis being the impetus for imperialism seems questionable. I think capitalist chase after imperial super profits even if there isn't a crisis.

>That's what causes industrial capital to migrate into finance capital
Imperial finance comes from industrial monopoly capital merging with bank capital.

>If China or Russia have unresolved profitability crises, then they will surely engage in imperialism.
China probably will not go for imperialism, all the international structures they are building up like BRICS are utterly unsuitable for that. I think that if the capitalist aspects of the Chinese economy stop generating economic success and becomes a fetter on the productive forces, they will change their economic structures again, that seems to be the tendency of their political economy. If China doesn't create an imperial order, realistically nobody else will be able to do that either. The Chinese saw the fall of the British empire and are now seeing the fall of the US empire, and have drawn the conclusion that it's a foolish strategy.

>>489965
>The Chinese
"The Chinese" are not a monolithic hivemind of 1.5 billion people, nor are they an actual democracy whose government policies can be said to be directed by the workers. The Chinese state is an electoral oligarchy which practices state capitalism on the one hand and allows private capitalism to operate in the other half of the economy. Both forms of industrial capital are ultimately governed by the iron law of value. If it make sense for a private capitalist or a government bureaucrat to pursue exploitation abroad because it enhances their profitability, then they will try to make it happen. The nature of electoral oligarchies is that they cannot resist the will of these actors. The lesson of the rise and fall of capitalist empires of the last 250 years is not that these things are bad and we should avoid them, it's that they are inextricably linked to the raw movement of capital and out of the control of this or that idealist. If China wants to avoid repeating history then they're almost certainly going to need another revolution, this time winning actual democracy for the workers.

>>489967
>"The Chinese" are not a monolithic hivemind
Nobody said so.
>nor are they an actual democracy whose government policies can be said to be directed by the workers.
Chinese workers have rising wages, that means they must have political power.

>The Chinese state is an electoral oligarchy
No that ain't it, the people in China you consider oligarchs, did try to get political power in the 2000s, a bunch of them got executed as a result. Nominally the Chinese state resembles a ML-type leadership democracy, of note is that decision making in their system is relatively decentralized, which is unusual.

>ultimately governed by the iron law of value
This is true for every system, socialist systems also have a law of value, just not the same as the capitalist one.

> If it make sense for a private capitalist or a government bureaucrat to pursue exploitation abroad because it enhances their profitability, then they will try to make it happen.
It doesn't make sense, look at the dustbin of history that contains all the fallen empires.

>The lesson of the rise and fall of capitalist empires of the last 250 years is not that these things are bad and we should avoid them, it's that they are inextricably linked to the raw movement of capital and out of the control
I don't see any indication the China is an empire nor do i see any indication that they're trying to become one. The age of empires might just be over and the US was the last one.

>If China wants to avoid repeating history
What history are they supposed to repeat ? Chinese history ? There was hardly any imperial conquering.
>then they're almost certainly going to need another revolution,
Independent polling indicates that around 80-90% of the Chinese population approves of their government. They have effective poverty reduction and generally rising standards of living, it seems very unlikely they would revolt.

>>489981
>No that ain't it, the people in China you consider oligarchs, did try to get political power in the 2000s, a bunch of them got executed as a result. Nominally the Chinese state resembles a ML-type leadership democracy, of note is that decision making in their system is relatively decentralized, which is unusual.
Anon, you've got to disabuse yourself of liberal propagandistic notions of what the modern republic is. Oligarchy is not "that thing that comes with capitalism or some previous system", it is simply rule by the few. Elections are not democracy. They are fundamentally oligarchic in nature because they always have and always will select from only that stratum of society able to run for office in the first place. Failure to recognize the role of electoral oligarchies in reinforcing class rule will only lead once more to the tragedies of the sabotage and repeal of the soviet experiments.

>a ML-type leadership democracy
This especially is completely Orwellian gibberish. If you want to defend vanguardism as a necessary and useful tool to transition from a revolution to socialism that's fine, but please don't pretend it resembles actual democracy. The point of vanguardism, ostensibly, is to lead the proles to democracy. Not to give up and settle for an obviously oligarchic system where a class of bureaucrats jockey for power and direct the economy.

>>489982
>Anon, you've got to disabuse yourself of liberal propagandistic notions of what the modern republic is. Oligarchy is not "that thing that comes with capitalism or some previous system", it is simply rule by the few. Elections are not democracy. They are fundamentally oligarchic in nature because they always have and always will select from only that stratum of society able to run for office in the first place.
Xi Jinping (China's current head of state) started out as a peasant that did manual labor in the fields.
That's pretty good in terms of social mobility. China's political system requires politicians to rise up through the system, they start out in their local government. That always struck me as somewhat more favorable in terms of regular people having the chance to get into high offices.

I don't know why you think that China is an electoral democracy, it's clearly not and they don't describe their system as such either. They call it deliberative democracy.

>This especially is completely Orwellian gibberish.
Leadership democracy is not a term I've made up to befuddle you with double-speak, I've seen other Marxists use it.

> If you want to defend vanguardism as a necessary and useful tool to transition from a revolution to socialism that's fine, but please don't pretend it resembles actual democracy. The point of vanguardism, ostensibly, is to lead the proles to democracy. Not to give up and settle for an obviously oligarchic system where a class of bureaucrats jockey for power and direct the economy.
The Chinese consider their current system as lowerstage socialism, they have a different name tho, something along the lines of "building towards a moderately prosperous society". That seems to imply that they intent to change their system once a higher stage becomes available, so they kinda agree with you a little bit.

I don't get the impression their economic plans represents the dictatorship of the "bureaucrat-jockeys". THey generally appear to

I'll be honest with you, i didn't think we were debating political principles, like whether or not vanguard-ism is a good strategy, i think we have a word-contest where you try to say China bad, and i try to say China not bad.

If you want to have a deeper discussion about this, then we kinda have to bring material conditions into this as well. And we kinda have to take into account the development path, China had a revolution, so it clearly will not develop along the same lines as a capitalist country that didn't have one. You're kinda trying to ignore one side of political economy. I mean China clearly hasn't developed like any capitalist country so far.

>>490008
Social mobility doesn't refute the point about elections selecting from a limited stratum of society. Cicero was a so-called novus homo, a "new man", who came from a plebian family which never had political power but he rose to become the most notorious slum lord of the late Roman Republic as well as senator and consul. Traditionally, access to the senate and consulship was so ossified that only established patrician families remained in power throughout generations, so it was often a sensation when a new family rose to power. Did that make Rome any less of an oligarchy? Of course not.

Despite some pretentious "developments" in the naval-gazing profession of political science, "oligarchy" is not about social mobility or even how much inequality a political system has. Is it simply a form of government where a limited group of people rule. Is it true that oligarchy can reinforce class rule? Very much so, classes that already have advantages over another can utilize that advantage to select for themselves in electoral systems. Then, once they're in government, they can implement policies that further privilege themselves. Not only have we seen this trend throughout history since the Greeks coined the term, but it's also been the clear case in "socialist" countries of the contemporary period. Again and again, oligarchic systems of government have privileged the already-existing power of a bureaucratic "state capitalist" class which eventually used them to undermine and overturn the very system they were supposed to defend. Many of the modern "oligarchs" of post-Soviet countries were in fact former Soviet bureaucrats who took the chance to privatize state infrastructure that the originally administered. "Oligarchs" in this sense is a vulgar distortion of the term's original meaning though. Everyone in office in an electoral system is by original definition an oligarch.

>i think we have a word-contest where you try to say China bad, and i try to say China not bad.
This is an unfortunate way to interpret this exchange and it seems to be biasing you against a more important, more fundamental discussion of forms of government and how they interact with capitalism. We don't need to play out another round of Neocons vs Idolized Foreign Country Defense Force here.

I like discussing forms of government because I think it is a critical blind spot that the organized Left has ignored for something like 150 years now. Marx himself grew up in a time when the Orwellian inversion of the meaning of "democracy" had already happened thanks to leaders of the French and American revolutions. Ever since his time the Left has far too often assumed uncritically that the modern electoral republic is an inherently good thing and a natural vehicle for socialism if an ideologically-driven party can simply seize power.

>>490019
Ok you are using the text-book definition of oligarchy. The most common interpretation these days however is that oligarchs are just the biggest capitalists who have captured the keys to power.

As far as china is concerned, i will say again, Chinese workers have rising wages, rising standards of living, and so on. That means they must have political power/influence.

>This is an unfortunate way to interpret this exchange and it seems to be biasing you against a more important, more fundamental discussion of forms of government and how they interact with capitalism. We don't need to play out another round of Neocons vs Idolized Foreign Country Defense Force here.
As long as there are all those neocons and similar creatures lurking around looking to provoke more wars, everything goes through the filter of avoiding anything that can be used to manufacture consent for wars. Find a way of criticizing our political structures in the west in a way that it can't be co-opted by the neocons. I don't want a repeat of freedom-bombs democracy-bombs and human-rights-bombs.

>I like discussing forms of government because I think it is a critical blind spot that the organized Left has ignored for something like 150 years now. Marx himself grew up in a time when the Orwellian inversion of the meaning of "democracy" had already happened thanks to leaders of the French and American revolutions. Ever since his time the Left has far too often assumed uncritically that the modern electoral republic is an inherently good thing and a natural vehicle for socialism if an ideologically-driven party can simply seize power.
If you want to argue that in the west we should try out a Sortition democracy, that's worth a try, the current political systems don't appear to be working, and there might be material conditions for changing that. But that advocacy has to be tied to the west. There cannot be anything that is usable for undermining foreign governments. What China's government is supposed to be is for the Chinese to decide. Not just for the sake of letting other countries have sovereignty, but also to avoid systemic criticism getting diverted to talking about other countries, instead of our systems.