this post was submitted on 08 Jun 2025
289 points (92.1% liked)
Communism
2278 readers
363 users here now
Welcome to the communist Lemmy community! This is a community for all Marxist.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I spent the greater half of my comment elaborating on what I meant by that statement. If you have specific questions, please, ask away, but I already answered.
But it's all about the US, and you seem to just ignore what Russia (Putin) is doing. Nobody is forcing Putin to murder Ukrainians.
A similar point can me made about Iran that has no problem killing or beating up women that try to get equal (human) rights.
Your entire point about the US, isn't an excuse to just ignore the current leaders in those countries.
Bolded are the parts where I specifically stated why siding with the US bourgeoisie against Russia and Iran, ie getting them to capitulate to US demands and open up their markets for foreign plunder, is a bad thing for any Marxist. They aren't paragons of good, but neither are US allies in the area, like Israel, Ukraine, or Saudi Arabia. Socialist revolution is far easier in a country combatting Imperialism than capitulating to it, as experience has shown.
As for Russia and Ukraine, we could push this back onto the Nationalist Banderites who were shelling the Donbass region for a decade before the Russo-Ukrainian War. What we have now is a Nationalist-controlled Ukraine that is being carved out via predatory loans from the US on one side, and Russia on the other.
Russia seeks demilitarization, the US seeks full control of Ukrainian industry and profits, the working class of Ukraine suffers and the compradors profit. Russia seeks to counter NATO's millitant buildup on their border in order to threaten Russia into opening its markets to foreign plundering, and responded to Luhansk and Donetsk declaring independence from Ukraine.
This isn't a situation where an evil leader wants to do evil and spread evil for the sake of evil, there are materialist factors at play. The US only cares about damaging Russia and profiting off of Ukraine, and Russia primarily cares about keeping NATO off of its border and protecting the ethnic Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk.
How familiar are you with Marxism? This is a Marxist community, so being familiar with Marxist analysis of Imperialism and Economics helps greatly when discussing the Marxist POV of current global events.
TBF this comm seems like it's more for outreach to vague leftists to propagandize ML to them, not a place for followers of the immortal science to discuss among themselves like lemmygrad or hexbear. People with a vulgar understanding of class war chiming in is to be expected.
Completely fair, that's the way I use it, that line was more of a springboard to segue the convo in that direction more than anything.
Honestly as a post left anarchist I've completely given up on Lemmy as a leftist space. Cowbee is literally just a standard campist who has twisted Marx into sixteen layers of dogma to justify their geopolitical premise.
"Oh you have to be familiar with Marxist analysis..." Ok buddy, but apparently not any of the more contemporary leftist theory which doesn't buy into that campist slop. "Listen, Marxist" was published in 1968 but we just don't talk about that. Nor do we entertain any of the century long criticism and revisionism of leftist theory. Marcuse who? Beauvoir? Gesundheit!
We'd rather just huff farts and yell "left unity" until Russia seems like an ally.
I don't twist Marx into dogma, my analysis is very standard for Marxist-Leninist orgs around the world. I'm not a campist, either. I do agree with the Marxist-Leninist analysis of Imperialism, and those of Marxists well-after Lenin such as Fanon, Losurdo, Roderic Day, Nia Frome, Walter Rodney, and more. In my opinion, a coherent and consistent analysis of Imperialism is the number one most urgent issue on the Left to this day, and the Marxist-Leninist analysis as it has developed over the centuries and is actively developed to this day is the best answer.
We can talk about critiques of Marxism, that's valid. Marx was right, the tradition of all dead generations does weigh like a nightmare on the brains of the living. As a consequence of that, though, much of what I discuss with those unfamiliar with Marx is misunderstandings or distortions of Marx, once we get a correct baseline, we can discuss more coherently. Marx was wrong about some things, such as revolution happening in the advanced Capitalist countries first, after all, we now know that Imperialism delays that process and pushes it onto the Global South. Marx was overall very correct, though, and his framework of analysis continues to be the most useful for understanding the world around us. That's why Marxism is a living framework, it didn't stop at Lenin, but continues to this day.
Overall, if you want to have a discussion, I'm open to, but if you're going to misrepresent me and my views then we can't get anywhere.
I agree we are unlikely to get anywhere because this is a communist com and I am not a communist. You are quite taken with your modernist ideals so I will leave you to them, but the notion that Lenin's imperialism is axiomatic geopolitics without wide debate on the left is either ignorant, naive, or argued in bad faith.
If anything, the struggle between post Soviet reactionary influence and the rise of western postmodern idealism has shown these concepts to be simplistic at best. Some sparks create infernos but most fizzle out. We have seen where the spark of ML thought takes us, and it is not setting the world on fire, regardles of excuses. Rather, it has twisted itself into a scheme of autocratic apology which too often insulates itself from introspection. Again, this is extremely basic libertarian left and post left theory which arguably traces itself back to Kropotkin, so pretending like these statements only exist as some ignorance of leftist knowledge is what makes me question your motivation. But it's really a tale as old as time. Time, of course, being modernist chauvinism.
Yet we aren't really enemies. Except I'm pretty sure you'd put me up against the wall if given the chance. But my final words would still be "To will oneself free is also to will others free."
I didn't claim Lenin's analysis was axiomatic:
There is debate, sure, I haven't found anything that convinces me of the opposite. I disagree with your conclusions about Marxism-Leninism. You've made quite a few assumptions about me that I thoroughly disagree with. I don't think it's valid to say I claim critique of Marxism can only come from ignorance, I've outright stated that in my experience it usually is. Same with the idea that if I could, I'd have you shot, it's silly. The version of me that exists in your head doesn't exist in reality, you've filled in blanks about me and taken them for fact.
Ultimately, I'm a Marxist-Leninist. I generally agree with Marxism-Leninism. I used to be an Anarchist, I'm not someone whose never engaged with ideas going against my understanding or providing an alternative, I find Marxism-Leninism to be the most correct framework and answered a lot of problems I had with Anarchism.
Again, I repeat: if you want to have a discussion, I’m open to, but if you’re going to misrepresent me and my views then we can’t get anywhere.
Is it really a huge leap to state that because you defend autocrats who would have me shot, out of an ideal which essentially reduces to a purely theoretical geopolitical convenience, that you'd have me shot? I actually didn't intent to really lean into this conversation much, but I think this is an interesting thread the pull. Surely that might suggest that we've wondered into a gray area which validates some revisionist thought? You are quite firm and outspoken on this particular topic all over Lemmy, so if you do see even a minor philosophical conundrum then you don't reveal it. Is that because of a broader insecurity (and I don't mean that as an attack, but a normal human trait) or is the abundance of assurance a desire to support a specific narrative? Do you feel like uncertainty is weakness or somehow anti revolutionary? I just find it hard to believe that someone broadly versed in leftist theory could actually be so confident.
I disagree with the premise that you'd be shot in, say, the PRC for espousing your opinions on the merits of post-Left Anarchism. The next leg is the idea that Imperialism (at least, the Leninist interpretation) is purely theoretical and not measured and material, which I'd also say is false. When both presumptions are, in my view, false, why would I have you shot?
The impression I am getting is that because I am outspoken about Marxism-Leninism on Lemmy, and you take issue with the core of my analysis, you've piled on a bunch of stereotypes you hold as valid for Marxist-Leninists onto my character in your head. I'm the prototypical demon for you to project your faults with Marxism-Leninism onto, which is why, to me, the idea that I'd have you shot comes off as LARP on your part, for lack of a better term.
As for how I'm confident, it's because I generally refrain from speaking on topics I haven't investigated to a degree that satisfies my confidence. There's a lot to Marxism-Leninism I don't fully know, not to speak of the rest of Leftist thought, but I don't go around speaking confidently on matters I haven't investigated so that may not show.
As a side-note, the reason I talk about Marxism and Marxism-Leninism on Lemmy is because I enjoy it. There's no LARP in it, I enjoy teaching others about Marxist theory and hope that in the future I will have played a small part in growing a successful revolution, even if that part is as small as a single water droplet boring through stone alongside countless others.
I mean sure, the PRC might tolerate me for a bit because you can call "harm reduction capitalism" fringe degism if you really want to squint. China is still quite skeptical of queer people though. I actually speak the language (not super well) and have family there so I am pretty familiar with the culture and politics.
But Iran would absolutely shoot me for being outspoken and queer. In Russia, the state might or might not shoot me, but a bunch of neo nazi thugs might mutilate my genitals and post it on the Internet and get an award for it. Like if you actually want to have this conversation, as you claim, then let's get on the same page. Russia and Iran are no friend to the oppressed by any definition of any of those words. China is borderline liberal and its leftist trajectory is arguably held back by its vestigial Maoism.
Like my human being you are clearly thoughtful and knowledgeable so why die for the sins of someone else's father, instead of extending the boundaries of this philosophy into something which actually speaks to people? Speak to first principles, not hackneyed dogma.
For starters, the PRC may have liberals, but the overall economic system is firmly Socialist and is guided by Marxism-Leninism. It's working as a Socialist state should, by gradual improvements.
As for Russia and Iran socially, I agree that they are indeed socially backwards. I have no reason to believe this is a problem of ethnicity, nor do I have any reason to believe that either nation capitulating to Western Imperialism would be a victory for queer people in either country. Massive social progress is necessary, and that is best found by retaining national sovereignty and progressing.
As a queer person myself, this line of thought of yours is the same as the Zionists who claim Israel has moral superiority over Palestine for being more LGBT friendly. The path to liberation of queer Palestinians does not exist in a world where Israel commits genocide of Palestinians, just like when the USSR was dissolved, the Russian Federation became far more socially reactionary.
Either your premise is that Russians and Iranians are genetically queerphobic, or we need to acknowledge that the path to progress is set backwards by capitulation to Imperialism. Once Western Imperialism is out of the picture, the already existing social movements in countries targeted by Imperialism will be able to struggle on a much greater footing.
Again, you call me dogmatic, but I am principled. My principles don't involve allowing Western Imperialists to use my sexuality as a cudgel against their enemies, when said cudgel would result in far more devastation for queer folk, not liberation. For more evidence, just look at Iraq post-US invasion, the million dead Iraqis had a large number of queer people too. There was no social liberation coming to them, just bombs and the US carving as many resources as they could out of Iraq.
Ultimately, the path to social progress anywhere, not just Russia and Iraq, is absolutely destroyed if they fall under the devastation of Western Imperialism. We can learn from Cuba, which now has one of the most progressive family codes in the world, or watch as the younger generations in the PRC increasingly fight for better LGBT rights as the older generations fade in relevancy.
Is any idea which emerges from the west imperialism? Is my brother, who stands on my shoulder and demands my rights as a human be respected, an imperialist because he was born in the United states? Am I to see him as less of an ally than a Russian nationalist who will lay down his life to oppose "globohomo" western ideals.
This is the structuralist shit I'm talking about. I thought the bourgeoisie state created the tools of its own demise! Or have we come full circle to where there ultimate sacrifice of the imperialist is to subrogate a lesser imperialism for a greater... non-socialism? Is progress counter revolutionary if we use the wrong words? Are we in a cartoon where Karl Marx has a flower for a face and a triangle flag running up his tail? We've transcended man versus author and have become man versus 19th century philosopher?
Like, nobody is making the normative argument that Russia should be a vassal state of the US. We are focused on the descriptive premise that Russia is not a symbol of leftist virtue. It's just wild to me that this is controversial.
You're doing it again.
No, people born in the US are not automatically Imperialists. They typically benefit from Imperialism, but can absolutely work towards organizing and overthrowing US Imperialism. Ideas created in the West aren't automatically bad, either, Marxism was created in the West. I don't like the insinuation that being queer is a western idea, people have been queer throughout history and today countries like Cuba have the best LGBT rights.
Imperialism does create its own demise, but it delays the process of decay. Countries push back against Imperialism and this leaves Imperialist countries with less industrialization, leading to crisis. Of course, due to benefiting from Imperialism, as well as being a settler-country, the US Proletariat is very reactionary, and this is a genuine obstacle that needs to be overcome. And it must be overcome, as @Edie@lemmy.ml said, it will not die by itself.
Russia is indeed not a symbol of Leftist virtue, that isn't controversial. What people in the West should do about Russia is what's controversial, and what people in the West should do is informed by their stance on Imperialism and how they view that word.
The bourgeoise will indeed make their own downfall. They will gladly sell us the rope used to hang them with. The laws, the working of capitalism will deteriorate conditions for the proletariat readying them to do that hanging.
But the bourgeois will not hang themselves. And without work, the downfall will not happen.
A fallow field will not make food, it will create dirt more ripe for it, through the laws, the working of nature. But we must sow the seeds, and watch them, potentially spray them with pesticide, and finally harvest them.
Least bad faith anti-communist lol.