this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2024
0 points (NaN% liked)
chapotraphouse
13787 readers
731 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Imperialism is a higher stage of capitalism in which the means of production of the country have concentrated into the hands of a few, there's no longer competition in the main private sectors of the economy, and the economy has financialized. Capitalists don't live off the profits of the companies anymore, they live off stock trading and investment funds. The high rate of development of local industry leads capitalist firms to exporting their capital to other countries to expand the markets and the production and to abuse the cheap resources and labor elsewhere. Please explain me how this situation doesn't describe Russia or most NATO countries.
Imperialist war is when a war is fought between countries in the stage of imperialism for imperialist reasons.
Are we going to pretend that imperialism only exists in this specific and convenient definition that you make and did not exist before industrialization and the financialization of economies, or that the Russian entry into this war was for "imperialist" reasons or that Russia is exploiting its new territories (which have always had indigenous Russians as the main population base) in the model (of "expanding markets and abusing cheap resources/labor") you describe, rather than painstakingly taking effort to integrate and develop the regions that Ukraine and the collective west has been shelling for a decade?
There is a clear difference between the imperialist warmongering of the western nations, and this war of defense by Russia, capitalist as it may be- a war to defend their country from being further encircled, threatened, and carved up, and to protect the legitimate human rights of the indigenous Russo-Ukranians. The entire majority of the world can see it, but somehow you- by the looks of your recent comment history, a Spaniard (white west European, whose imperialist heyday it should be noted fell outside of the definitions of imperialism as you describe it) conveniently do not. I'd recommend taking a look at your own biases, because you're clearly Euro-brained and it's not a good look.
They literally sent me Lenin, I'm abiding to Lenin's definition of imperialism on "Imperialism: higher stage of capitalism".
Forgive me for not believing Putin's intent here is humanitarian development of western-liberalism-affected regions with Russian majority.
Yeah, NATO is objectively worse, there's no arguing that
All of that is true. The former Warsaw pact has seen color revolution after color revolution (what a coincidence that similar protests like the Occupy Movement in the US or the 15M in Spain don't produce any results). That doesn't invalidate anything of what I'm saying, it's still warmongering between advanced capitalist states for geopolitical control. Forgive me for not praising Steven fucking Seagal for wanting to give his life for the well-being of Russian oligarchic companies.
Famous defender of human rights capitalist Russia, not at all constantly passing laws against minorities (whether women, queer, or national minorities like central-asians), and on a downwards spiral towards fascism (sadly like the rest of Europe).
Your last paragraph is a tirade calling me basically an eurolib and linking me to the Spanish empire (like, seriously, wtf) for not wanting to defend the modern Russian capitalist regime. Believe it or not, there are people on the left who don't critically support Russia for being 90% Hitler defending itself from the 99% Hitler that NATO is.
Thank you for your good-faith comment, and for your insight.
I don't share your analysis of Russia's reaction to NATO as a consequence of neoliberal shock therapy, because modern Russia isn't a regime born from opposition to the shock therapy, but from the elements that became rich as a consequence. The modern Russian elites that direct Russia's policy are those who profited directly from the neoliberal shock therapy. If they now oppose NATO, I'd argue it's because, somehow, during the hurried process of privatization of the economy, the west allowed local, non-NATO elites to rise in the country from the preexisting black markets and capitalist subversive elements in the late USSR. Russian capital mostly being in Russia and in Russian oligarch hands, basically implies that their interests are in competition with those of NATO.
Your last point about the contrast between socialists in western countries vs socialists in the global south perceiving the Russia-Ukraine war differently makes me think, so I thank you for that, and if you can point me towards any article on the topic, I'd be glad to read it. Thanks again for your comment