He is an authoritarien and the country went to shit.
Venezuela is not a nice place to live in.
Maduro is a corrupt dictator, trump aswell and the current opposition to maduro most likely will just be an authoritarian and fascist pupped goverment that will act in the USAs interest. So yeah multible things can be true at once, just because a nation is opposed to the american empire does not mean that it is automaticallly good.
Its quite sad to see that some terminally online leftist just automaticly replace siding with the imperialist systems that there born into( USA, EU Australia etc.) And just replace that with other imperial powers like russia and china.
Like why?? How about not bootlicking authoritarians?
Tell us what a non-authoritarian leader of Venezuela would look like to you and how they would resist the constant pressure and hostile actions of the US government, because it seems to me that leftist leaders are always denounced as authoritarian by North American and European based NGOs and governments.
The only way to avoid being labelled as authoritarian is to be friendly to the imperial core countries, i.e. being capitalist.
The USSR, PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. all were massive expansions on democracy and working class control. Capitalists, landlords, fascists, monarchists, etc were (usually) violently oppressed, while the working classes were uplifted and society was democratized. From the point of view of the capitalists, they found themselves living in a violent dictatorship, for the working classes they found themselves finally escaping violent dictatorship.
The Russian RSFR, the Paris Commune, The Bavarian soviet Republic, The Rhine Soviet Republic, The Hungarian Socialist Republic, socialist Cuba, socialist Vietnam, socialist Laos…
Turns out you don’t knwo what you’re talking about! All of them were immediately invaded, their opposition showered in material support and sanctioned to hell and back.
Those being anarchists, not socialists. There have been shitloads of anarchist communes working perfectly, until some external force fucks them up or reclaims the land or whatever.
Not even going to reply to your strawman. I said that it’s weak mentality to say “ends justify the means and sacrifice justice and freedom for the sake of fighting a foreign oppressor” - maybe that’s easier to understand? Weak people, weak minds, skill issue.
Lol you said nothing of the sort and now you’re running away shouting random reddit bullshit for cover (what strawman? That doesnt even make sense) because you’re acutely aware but too proud to admit that your dumb Marvel-brained bullshit has no basis in reality. Who’s freedom? Who’s justice? You haven’t put five seconds of thought into this and you’re talking to people who have considered it for years or decades. You’re adorable.
Or you can be smart and just and have your cake and eat it too. See dozens of countries that prosper without sacrificing their freedoms and justice. You guys are just doomer losers simping for dictators because your minds are too small to imagine a real victory.
So, which part is the just and free part that you mention, outside of the theory? As in, in detail, practical examples of those freedoms and justice, please. Besides the theoritscl “to each according to their needs, from each according to their possibilities” (sorry if misstranslated), what practical examples have been just and free throughout time.
The USSR, PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. all were massive expansions on democracy and working class control. They were finally free and just for the working classes, and society became more about trying to satisfy everyone’s needs than endless private profits, with public ownership as the principle aspect of their economies.
Well, most of those I could at some point agree on just, but definitely not free. And the USSR in particular i would not say just either. Holodomor and all that.
Tell us what a non-authoritarian leader of Venezuela would look like
Presumably they would look not-authoritarian, a description that doesn’t fit Maduro at all.
It could well be that, in the face of US policy regarding Venezuela, only an Authoritarian could hold onto the country. That still doesn’t make Maduro not an Authoritarian.
it seems to me that leftist leaders are always denounced as authoritarian by North American and European based NGOs and governments.
That’s a fair observation but, again, that doesn’t mean they are wrong when they say it about Maduro. Maduro is referred to as dictator by Human Rights Watch, the Organization of American States, and other human rights organizations, including some inside Venezuela.
Maduro is a dictator. It’s largely the fault of the US that Venezuela has a dictator. If the US succeeds in ousting Maduro, it will almost certainly replace him with an even worse Dictator. All of that can be true with no contradictions.
Venezuela is a developing country, that is developing despite the US Empire’s best efforts. It is regularly improving, which is why the working classes support Maduro.
Russia isn’t imperialist, it has no colonies nor neocolonies, and a tiny amount of global financial capital. China isn’t imperialist either, it’s a socialist country wituout any financial domination of the state or economy. There’s no mechanisms pushing for imperialism within China, and this manifests in regular south-south trade leading to development of global south countries when trading with China, unlike the unequal exchange of trade with the west where the west charges monopoly prices for tech and places compradors in power to prevent industrial development.
Multiple things are true, correct. This isn’t the grand own you think it is, though. You’re passively parroting imperialist narratives.
And we thought we were so enlightened. This is the last layer of the imperial core propaganda onion: that the “other side” is no better, which leads to apathy and disengagement.
The general Marxist take is that when Yanukovych was offered an IMF loan that required austerity policies and privatization of safety nets, and a Russian loan that did not come with the same restrictions, he went with the Russian loan and was couped for it, including a western-supported Banderite false-flag shooting. Following the western-supported coup, the areas in the Donbass region seceded, as they supported Yanukovych, are culturally and ethnically Russian, and were unhappy with the Banderites taking over the government under the cover of “democracy.” Said Banderites were also legally suppressing the Russian language in the Donbass region.
What ensued was a decade of fighting, 2 failed Minsk agreements that Kiev broke and admitted to never wanting to follow, and massive risk of NATO on Russia’s doorstep. The Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics requested Russian assistance, and Russia complied, sparking the next stage of the war.
Russia purely wants the Donbass region and NATO neutrality. They want the Donbass region not out of the kindness of their hearts, nor for plunder or further expansion, but because it’s a land bridge straight to Russia, the same route the Nazis took in World War II. NATO was building up because the West uses their millitary to threaten countries into opening up their economies to foreign plunder (like what’s happening right now in Venezuela), a tradition employed since NATO was founded, destroyed Yugoslavia and Libya, etc.
This is the common Marxist take, shared largely by PSL’s statement and FRSO’s statement. Essentially, the war is tragic, should end as quickly as possible, and was provoked by the west.
Nato is not a risk to russia, and never has been. Nato is a defensive alliance. The only way they’re a risk is if russia plans to attack them first. Anyone suggesting that nato provoked it is on something
NATO is the millitary alliance of the world’s imperialist powers. This group of countries uses this alliance to prevent the global south from going against it and liberating themselved from foreign plunder via overwhelming financial domination. The way imperialism tends to work in the modern day is countries like the US, France, Germany, UK, etc expropriate vast wealth from countries in the global south, similar to how capitalists steal value created by the working class.
NATO is as “defensive” as the Iron Dome in Israel. These countries export genocide and terrorism on the third world, expropriate huge sums of wealth, and then “defend” against anyone that pushes back against that.
The Marxist definition of imperialism is more specific than just “big country invade small country”.
In, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism Lenin lays out five aspects of what makes Imperialism:
the concentration of production and capital has developed to such a high stage that it has created monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life;
the merging of bank capital with industrial capital, and the creation, on the basis of this “finance capital”, of a financial oligarchy;
the export of capital as distinguished from the export of commodities acquires exceptional importance;
the formation of international monopolist capitalist associations which share the world among themselves, and
the territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers is completed. Imperialism is capitalism at that stage of development at which the dominance of monopolies and finance capital is established; in which the export of capital has acquired pronounced importance; in which the division of the world among the international trusts has begun, in which the division of all territories of the globe among the biggest capitalist powers has been completed.
The question of “Is Russia Imperialist” isn’t a moral one, it’s a technical one. So if Russia were do to something that we all agree is morally reprehensible, that’s a separate concern from whether Russia is imperialist.
The technicality revolves around whether Russia has developed an oligarchy of Financial Capital, such that its invasion of Ukraine or other flexes of its influence, perpetuates the export of Russian finance capital around the world.
As it stands now, I don’t think that’s currently the case, but with Marxism being a dialectal philosophy, I do wonder if this war will accelerate that merging of Bank and industrial capital that Lenin discusses. It’s a Bourgeois states, and there’s financial capital in there somewhere that absolutely has an interest in forming a Russian imperialism.
So when people say “Russia isn’t Imperialist”, this is what’s being referred to. You can take it or leave it, but it’s worth getting into the weeds a bit, so we aren’t all talking passed each other
Marxist does not get to exclusively define what imperialism is. A more standard definition is far more reasonable to use. However, your comment is very informative to me, I’m glad you took the time to write this out
“A more standard definition” than the one that’s been in use for over a hundred years and accurately describes the dynamic in question? The definition liberals use is both new and entirely vibes-based. It is useless for anything but bringing geopolitical conversations to a screeching halt with murky equivocations. The Marxist definition exists to clarify, while the liberal definition exists to obscure. It’s the “socialism is when the government does stuff” of international relations.
The Marxist definition is strictly different, not a clarification. The Marxist one posits only capitalism can be imperialist, something I would say is strictly incorrect
Marxist does not get to exclusively define what imperialism is
Marxism isn’t the only analytical lens out there, no. But the people you’re arguing with are working with that definition, which is why I took the time to clarify. Thank you for appreciating my effort post though lol
Russia isn’t imperialist, it has no colonies nor neocolonies
Yeah, tell that to Crimea, the Donbas, or even Siberia or the puppet states like Belarus, Georgia and Moldova. Russian neo-colonialism is all over Africa.
China isn’t imperialist either, it’s a socialist country wituout any financial domination of the state or economy.
China is a kinder imperialist, but they are using largely the same playbook that the west used in Africa, including debt-trap diplomacy, undermining local sovereignty and regulation, and undermining labor movements.
They also have a mix of socialism and capitalism, sometimes getting the best of both, and sometimes the worst. They definitely dominate the state economy through control of banking and the use of capital controls to direct funding to national priorities. The current real estate crisis and “ghost cities” are a pretty obvious example.
Consortium News, 2015: The Mess That Nuland MadeAssistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland engineered Ukraine’s regime change without weighing the likely consequences.
Consortium News, 2023: The West’s Sabotage of Peace in UkraineFormer Israeli Prime Minister Bennett’s recent comments about getting his mediation efforts squashed in the early days of the war adds more to the growing pile of evidence that Western powers are intent on regime change in Russia.
China is a kinder imperialist, but they are using largely the same playbook that the west used in Africa, including debt-trap diplomacy, undermining local sovereignty and regulation, and undermining labor movements.
What is China doing to undermine local sovereignty or labor movements in Africa?
The current real estate crisis
What “current” real estate crisis? The Chinese state intentionally popped the real estate bubble over a year ago, making the capitalists eat their losses.
“We will scale up the building and supply of government-subsidized housing and improve the basic systems for commodity housing to meet people’s essential need for a home to live in and their different demands for better housing,” an English-language version of the report said.
Compare that to Obama, who bailed out the private banks at the expense of people with home mortgages, banks that knowingly wrote those bad mortgages. Michael Hudson, 2023: Why the Bank Crisis isn’t Over
The financial sector is the core of Democratic Party support, and the party leadership is loyal to its supporters. As President Obama told the bankers who worried that he might follow through on his campaign promises to write down mortgage debts to realistic market valuations in order to enable exploited junk-mortgage clients to remain in their homes, “I’m the only one between you [the bankers visiting the White House] and the mob with the pitchforks,” that is, his characterization of voters who believed his “hope and change” patter talk.
I see you have your cut and paste propaganda all ready to go there.
The people in Crimea and the Donbas wanted to join Russia, to protect them from Ukraine,
Sounds an awful lot like claiming Iraqis wanted the US to overthrow Sadam and would welcome it with open arms. It worked out about the same too, except for the Russian military embarrassing themselves. Even taken at face value, all you are doing is justifying the imperialism, not showing it doesn’t exist.
China is the biggest debt holder nation in the world. Zambia just had to default on loans for infrastructure that largely served Chinese needs, and Kenya and Ethiopia are not far behind. Meanwhile, the DRC is falling into debt paying for infrastructure to ship Copper and Cobalt to Chinese. China has not been as abusive as the west was, but they aren’t that much better either. It’s still the same tactics.
I see you have your cut and paste propaganda all ready to go there.
Oh yeah, famous Chinese propaganda outlet: The Atlantic.
Fuck off; you’re just using the word “propaganda” to mean "anything I disagree with. There is nothing that anyone could say to you to disagree that you wouldn’t immediately say “that’s propaganda and therefore wrong!” to.
It worked out about the same too
Are you stupid? Iraq immediately erupted into long term insurgency, a thing that categorically did not happen in Crimea or Donbas.
There is still a significant pro Ukrainian resistance operating in both Crimea and Donbas. Russian has had to resort to brutal tactics to suppress them, but has still not been entirely successful. Many of the resisters retreated to fight with the rest of Ukraine, and they are certainly giving Russia a fight. In any case, it’s still imperialism.
Yes he’s certainly an authoritarian. Authoritarian doesn’t automatically mean bad…there’s such a thing as the concept of a benevolent dictator.
What evidence do you have that “the country went to shit” or “Venezuela is not a nice place to live in” or that he’s a “corrupt dictator”?
This original post, presumably, attempts to scratch slightly beneath the surface of what we hear on the news and suggest that your above statements only apply to a certain “deserving” class.
I don’t actually know a lot about Venezuela, and I’m asking these questions in earnest. I started to ask questions a lot earlier, but certainly looking into Maria Machado (this years Nobel Peace Prize winner) made some alarm bells go off. Could it be that the narrative is controlled by Machado and her neoliberal/right wing ilk, and she actually represents a large minority class of people that was purged/displaced in Venezuela?
Where do we get the idea that Maduro is an authoritarian dictator? We get it from what our governments say, our corporate media say, and our NGOs (which are funded by our governments & corporations) say. These are the very same governments & corporations that want to vassalize Venezuela and pillage its resources. They are—all day, every day—working to manufacture our consent, or if not consent then at least acquiescence.
We also get it from Maduro and the rest of the Chavanistas: his party rules by supreme power and decree. The way his party allocates power as a matter of internal affairs, may be another story.
Please, let’s not talk in absolutes. This notion that any and all narratives that you deem negative are part of a grand conspiracy just isn’t true.
I implied in my original reply that I believe Maduro may be benevolent, along the lines of Castro. I don’t really have a problem with dictators…the problem with dictators is they’re usually fascists. That isn’t the case in Venezuela.
There’s a concept true. Just not an example. Technically it’s possible for sub atomic particles in deep space to randomly coaless as a Ruben sandwich. But you’re far more likely to see the evaporation of a super massive black hole.
Power corrupts. And sometimes there really is no point to arguing which shitty person is slightly less shitty than the other shitty person. The only true answer is not play, and that there shouldn’t be such positions of power. Anything else is calvinball.
You’ll notice that there are no real arguments that he isn’t a authoritarian/dictator. Just justification that certain people identify with him, so it’s okay. Or that because one cringe group of privileged people criticize him. All criticism against him is from similar cringe groups of people. The meme in a nutshell. A non sequitur.
Maduro absolutely is an authoritarian. As is Trump. I don’t agree with either one of them. But Trump absolutely means to fuck all the way off when it comes to continuing to meddle in South America. Argentina and Venezuela have enough problems of their own. They don’t need ours.
What makes Maduro an dictator? He’s popularly supported, was democratically elected, and is setting up participatory systems in the economy. I can agree that he’s “authoritarian” against capitalists and fascists, but that’s absolutely a good use of authority.
Secondly, there’s no evidence to the notion that “power corrupts,” just correlation. In systems like capitalism, corrupt leaders are pushed upwards because that’s profitable, it wasn’t the power that corrupted them but a system that selects for corruption.
Tell the cryptofash on MeanwhileOnGrad that they’re a hoot, btw.
Authoritarian is when you don’t capitulate to the imperial core’s will, and the less you capitulate the more authoritarian you are. If you’re genuinely democratic then you need a color revolution for sure, because the demos doesn’t want to be vassalized by imperialists.
He is an authoritarien and the country went to shit.
Venezuela is not a nice place to live in.
Maduro is a corrupt dictator, trump aswell and the current opposition to maduro most likely will just be an authoritarian and fascist pupped goverment that will act in the USAs interest. So yeah multible things can be true at once, just because a nation is opposed to the american empire does not mean that it is automaticallly good.
Its quite sad to see that some terminally online leftist just automaticly replace siding with the imperialist systems that there born into( USA, EU Australia etc.) And just replace that with other imperial powers like russia and china.
Like why?? How about not bootlicking authoritarians?
Tell us what a non-authoritarian leader of Venezuela would look like to you and how they would resist the constant pressure and hostile actions of the US government, because it seems to me that leftist leaders are always denounced as authoritarian by North American and European based NGOs and governments.
The only way to avoid being labelled as authoritarian is to be friendly to the imperial core countries, i.e. being capitalist.
👆If you don’t suppress the inevitable imperial-supported bourgeois counterinsurgencies, your socialist project will go the way of Allende’s Chile.
What a loser-ass mentality. It’s absolutely possible to remain just and free while being secure. Skill issue.
Point me to one single socialist revolution that wasn’t immediately attacked by capital. Just one. You can’t.
Name one single socialist revolution that didn’t start as a violent dictatorship. You can’t.
Lol stay stupid patriot
What do you mean patriot?
The USSR, PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. all were massive expansions on democracy and working class control. Capitalists, landlords, fascists, monarchists, etc were (usually) violently oppressed, while the working classes were uplifted and society was democratized. From the point of view of the capitalists, they found themselves living in a violent dictatorship, for the working classes they found themselves finally escaping violent dictatorship.
The Russian RSFR, the Paris Commune, The Bavarian soviet Republic, The Rhine Soviet Republic, The Hungarian Socialist Republic, socialist Cuba, socialist Vietnam, socialist Laos…
Turns out you don’t knwo what you’re talking about! All of them were immediately invaded, their opposition showered in material support and sanctioned to hell and back.
exarcheia, and the Paris commune
Those being anarchists, not socialists. There have been shitloads of anarchist communes working perfectly, until some external force fucks them up or reclaims the land or whatever.
I asked specifically for socialist ones.
And you were given a dozen that you ignored
Not even going to reply to your strawman. I said that it’s weak mentality to say “ends justify the means and sacrifice justice and freedom for the sake of fighting a foreign oppressor” - maybe that’s easier to understand? Weak people, weak minds, skill issue.
Lol you said nothing of the sort and now you’re running away shouting random reddit bullshit for cover (what strawman? That doesnt even make sense) because you’re acutely aware but too proud to admit that your dumb Marvel-brained bullshit has no basis in reality. Who’s freedom? Who’s justice? You haven’t put five seconds of thought into this and you’re talking to people who have considered it for years or decades. You’re adorable.
Maybe read it again?
Name one single socialist revolution that hasn’t been immediately attacked by capital. You can’t.
Just and free while being secure: “authoritarian”
Unjust and unfree while being insecure and overrun by bears: Libertarian
Or you can be smart and just and have your cake and eat it too. See dozens of countries that prosper without sacrificing their freedoms and justice. You guys are just doomer losers simping for dictators because your minds are too small to imagine a real victory.
So name one
They’d probably have named imperial core “socialist” nordic states.
So, which part is the just and free part that you mention, outside of the theory? As in, in detail, practical examples of those freedoms and justice, please. Besides the theoritscl “to each according to their needs, from each according to their possibilities” (sorry if misstranslated), what practical examples have been just and free throughout time.
The USSR, PRC, Vietnam, Laos, DPRK, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba, etc. all were massive expansions on democracy and working class control. They were finally free and just for the working classes, and society became more about trying to satisfy everyone’s needs than endless private profits, with public ownership as the principle aspect of their economies.
Well, most of those I could at some point agree on just, but definitely not free. And the USSR in particular i would not say just either. Holodomor and all that.
Presumably they would look not-authoritarian, a description that doesn’t fit Maduro at all.
It could well be that, in the face of US policy regarding Venezuela, only an Authoritarian could hold onto the country. That still doesn’t make Maduro not an Authoritarian.
That’s a fair observation but, again, that doesn’t mean they are wrong when they say it about Maduro. Maduro is referred to as dictator by Human Rights Watch, the Organization of American States, and other human rights organizations, including some inside Venezuela.
Maduro is a dictator. It’s largely the fault of the US that Venezuela has a dictator. If the US succeeds in ousting Maduro, it will almost certainly replace him with an even worse Dictator. All of that can be true with no contradictions.
And what does that even look like? Something like Allende, I’m guessing.
The liberal Zionist western propaganda outlet?
Human Rights Watch is “zionist” now? Lmao
Under Maduro, Venezuelan communes and participatory democracy is flourishing. In addition, massive social programs have been implemented, focusing on housing, food security, and poverty eradication. I’m not sure on what basis you distrust him so much, Venezuela is building socialism under Maduro from the bottom-up, and Maduro is doing his part from the top.
Venezuela is a developing country, that is developing despite the US Empire’s best efforts. It is regularly improving, which is why the working classes support Maduro.
Russia isn’t imperialist, it has no colonies nor neocolonies, and a tiny amount of global financial capital. China isn’t imperialist either, it’s a socialist country wituout any financial domination of the state or economy. There’s no mechanisms pushing for imperialism within China, and this manifests in regular south-south trade leading to development of global south countries when trading with China, unlike the unequal exchange of trade with the west where the west charges monopoly prices for tech and places compradors in power to prevent industrial development.
Multiple things are true, correct. This isn’t the grand own you think it is, though. You’re passively parroting imperialist narratives.
Man i remember when I was a “damn, the US and it’s enemies are both evil” guy. I thought i was done thinking about the world
And we thought we were so enlightened. This is the last layer of the imperial core propaganda onion: that the “other side” is no better, which leads to apathy and disengagement.
Why do you think they’re invading Ukraine. Sparkles and rainbows?
The general Marxist take is that when Yanukovych was offered an IMF loan that required austerity policies and privatization of safety nets, and a Russian loan that did not come with the same restrictions, he went with the Russian loan and was couped for it, including a western-supported Banderite false-flag shooting. Following the western-supported coup, the areas in the Donbass region seceded, as they supported Yanukovych, are culturally and ethnically Russian, and were unhappy with the Banderites taking over the government under the cover of “democracy.” Said Banderites were also legally suppressing the Russian language in the Donbass region.
What ensued was a decade of fighting, 2 failed Minsk agreements that Kiev broke and admitted to never wanting to follow, and massive risk of NATO on Russia’s doorstep. The Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics requested Russian assistance, and Russia complied, sparking the next stage of the war.
Russia purely wants the Donbass region and NATO neutrality. They want the Donbass region not out of the kindness of their hearts, nor for plunder or further expansion, but because it’s a land bridge straight to Russia, the same route the Nazis took in World War II. NATO was building up because the West uses their millitary to threaten countries into opening up their economies to foreign plunder (like what’s happening right now in Venezuela), a tradition employed since NATO was founded, destroyed Yugoslavia and Libya, etc.
This is the common Marxist take, shared largely by PSL’s statement and FRSO’s statement. Essentially, the war is tragic, should end as quickly as possible, and was provoked by the west.
Nato is not a risk to russia, and never has been. Nato is a defensive alliance. The only way they’re a risk is if russia plans to attack them first. Anyone suggesting that nato provoked it is on something
NATO is the millitary alliance of the world’s imperialist powers. This group of countries uses this alliance to prevent the global south from going against it and liberating themselved from foreign plunder via overwhelming financial domination. The way imperialism tends to work in the modern day is countries like the US, France, Germany, UK, etc expropriate vast wealth from countries in the global south, similar to how capitalists steal value created by the working class.
NATO is as “defensive” as the Iron Dome in Israel. These countries export genocide and terrorism on the third world, expropriate huge sums of wealth, and then “defend” against anyone that pushes back against that.
Anything’s possible when you make shit up kiddo
Yeah, like pretending genociding Ukrainianes is because of nato
Many such cases!
Lol fictional genocide, thanks for making my point for me beautifully
Yeah man ask Libya and Yugoslavia how defended they feel
Nato is a defensive alliance just like cops are there to help you
Invading / starting a war is not the same thing as imperialism.
It literally is? They are expanding power over a foreign nation via military means. That’s basically the definition of imperialism.
The Soviet Union expanded their power over Germany via military means. WW2 was simply an inter-imperialist war.
Invading for territory gain is absolutely synonymous with imperialistic tendencies
The Marxist definition of imperialism is more specific than just “big country invade small country”.
In, Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism Lenin lays out five aspects of what makes Imperialism:
The question of “Is Russia Imperialist” isn’t a moral one, it’s a technical one. So if Russia were do to something that we all agree is morally reprehensible, that’s a separate concern from whether Russia is imperialist.
The technicality revolves around whether Russia has developed an oligarchy of Financial Capital, such that its invasion of Ukraine or other flexes of its influence, perpetuates the export of Russian finance capital around the world.
As it stands now, I don’t think that’s currently the case, but with Marxism being a dialectal philosophy, I do wonder if this war will accelerate that merging of Bank and industrial capital that Lenin discusses. It’s a Bourgeois states, and there’s financial capital in there somewhere that absolutely has an interest in forming a Russian imperialism.
So when people say “Russia isn’t Imperialist”, this is what’s being referred to. You can take it or leave it, but it’s worth getting into the weeds a bit, so we aren’t all talking passed each other
Marxist does not get to exclusively define what imperialism is. A more standard definition is far more reasonable to use. However, your comment is very informative to me, I’m glad you took the time to write this out
“A more standard definition” than the one that’s been in use for over a hundred years and accurately describes the dynamic in question? The definition liberals use is both new and entirely vibes-based. It is useless for anything but bringing geopolitical conversations to a screeching halt with murky equivocations. The Marxist definition exists to clarify, while the liberal definition exists to obscure. It’s the “socialism is when the government does stuff” of international relations.
The Marxist definition is strictly different, not a clarification. The Marxist one posits only capitalism can be imperialist, something I would say is strictly incorrect
Marxism isn’t the only analytical lens out there, no. But the people you’re arguing with are working with that definition, which is why I took the time to clarify. Thank you for appreciating my effort post though lol
Yeah, tell that to Crimea, the Donbas, or even Siberia or the puppet states like Belarus, Georgia and Moldova. Russian neo-colonialism is all over Africa.
China is a kinder imperialist, but they are using largely the same playbook that the west used in Africa, including debt-trap diplomacy, undermining local sovereignty and regulation, and undermining labor movements.
They also have a mix of socialism and capitalism, sometimes getting the best of both, and sometimes the worst. They definitely dominate the state economy through control of banking and the use of capital controls to direct funding to national priorities. The current real estate crisis and “ghost cities” are a pretty obvious example.
Are you kidding me? The people in Crimea and the Donbas wanted to join Russia, to protect them from Ukraine, which had been killing them since 2014.
The Atlantic, 2021: The Chinese ‘Debt Trap’ Is a Myth
What is China doing to undermine local sovereignty or labor movements in Africa?
What “current” real estate crisis? The Chinese state intentionally popped the real estate bubble over a year ago, making the capitalists eat their losses.
Compare that to Obama, who bailed out the private banks at the expense of people with home mortgages, banks that knowingly wrote those bad mortgages. Michael Hudson, 2023: Why the Bank Crisis isn’t Over
Reuters, 2015: The myth of China’s ghost cities
Wherever you’re getting your information from, it’s dogshit.
I see you have your cut and paste propaganda all ready to go there.
Sounds an awful lot like claiming Iraqis wanted the US to overthrow Sadam and would welcome it with open arms. It worked out about the same too, except for the Russian military embarrassing themselves. Even taken at face value, all you are doing is justifying the imperialism, not showing it doesn’t exist.
China is the biggest debt holder nation in the world. Zambia just had to default on loans for infrastructure that largely served Chinese needs, and Kenya and Ethiopia are not far behind. Meanwhile, the DRC is falling into debt paying for infrastructure to ship Copper and Cobalt to Chinese. China has not been as abusive as the west was, but they aren’t that much better either. It’s still the same tactics.
New Labor Forum: Chinese Investments in Africa: Twenty-First Century Colonialism?
Oh yeah, famous Chinese propaganda outlet: The Atlantic.
Fuck off; you’re just using the word “propaganda” to mean "anything I disagree with. There is nothing that anyone could say to you to disagree that you wouldn’t immediately say “that’s propaganda and therefore wrong!” to.
Are you stupid? Iraq immediately erupted into long term insurgency, a thing that categorically did not happen in Crimea or Donbas.
There is still a significant pro Ukrainian resistance operating in both Crimea and Donbas. Russian has had to resort to brutal tactics to suppress them, but has still not been entirely successful. Many of the resisters retreated to fight with the rest of Ukraine, and they are certainly giving Russia a fight. In any case, it’s still imperialism.
Yes he’s certainly an authoritarian. Authoritarian doesn’t automatically mean bad…there’s such a thing as the concept of a benevolent dictator.
What evidence do you have that “the country went to shit” or “Venezuela is not a nice place to live in” or that he’s a “corrupt dictator”?
This original post, presumably, attempts to scratch slightly beneath the surface of what we hear on the news and suggest that your above statements only apply to a certain “deserving” class.
I don’t actually know a lot about Venezuela, and I’m asking these questions in earnest. I started to ask questions a lot earlier, but certainly looking into Maria Machado (this years Nobel Peace Prize winner) made some alarm bells go off. Could it be that the narrative is controlled by Machado and her neoliberal/right wing ilk, and she actually represents a large minority class of people that was purged/displaced in Venezuela?
I’m still investigating.
Where do we get the idea that Maduro is an authoritarian dictator? We get it from what our governments say, our corporate media say, and our NGOs (which are funded by our governments & corporations) say. These are the very same governments & corporations that want to vassalize Venezuela and pillage its resources. They are—all day, every day—working to manufacture our consent, or if not consent then at least acquiescence.
We also get it from Maduro and the rest of the Chavanistas: his party rules by supreme power and decree. The way his party allocates power as a matter of internal affairs, may be another story.
Please, let’s not talk in absolutes. This notion that any and all narratives that you deem negative are part of a grand conspiracy just isn’t true.
I implied in my original reply that I believe Maduro may be benevolent, along the lines of Castro. I don’t really have a problem with dictators…the problem with dictators is they’re usually fascists. That isn’t the case in Venezuela.
There’s a concept true. Just not an example. Technically it’s possible for sub atomic particles in deep space to randomly coaless as a Ruben sandwich. But you’re far more likely to see the evaporation of a super massive black hole.
Power corrupts. And sometimes there really is no point to arguing which shitty person is slightly less shitty than the other shitty person. The only true answer is not play, and that there shouldn’t be such positions of power. Anything else is calvinball.
You’ll notice that there are no real arguments that he isn’t a authoritarian/dictator. Just justification that certain people identify with him, so it’s okay. Or that because one cringe group of privileged people criticize him. All criticism against him is from similar cringe groups of people. The meme in a nutshell. A non sequitur.
Maduro absolutely is an authoritarian. As is Trump. I don’t agree with either one of them. But Trump absolutely means to fuck all the way off when it comes to continuing to meddle in South America. Argentina and Venezuela have enough problems of their own. They don’t need ours.
What makes Maduro an dictator? He’s popularly supported, was democratically elected, and is setting up participatory systems in the economy. I can agree that he’s “authoritarian” against capitalists and fascists, but that’s absolutely a good use of authority.
Secondly, there’s no evidence to the notion that “power corrupts,” just correlation. In systems like capitalism, corrupt leaders are pushed upwards because that’s profitable, it wasn’t the power that corrupted them but a system that selects for corruption.
Tell the cryptofash on MeanwhileOnGrad that they’re a hoot, btw.
Authoritarian is when you don’t capitulate to the imperial core’s will, and the less you capitulate the more authoritarian you are. If you’re genuinely democratic then you need a color revolution for sure, because the demos doesn’t want to be vassalized by imperialists.
Bad faith responses from both of you. Bravo!