• harc@szmer.info
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    17 hours ago

    Marxists use a definition

    What is that definition, exactly? Also if I give you a definition used by any other particular ideological tendency you will accept it, or is your Marxism-western-armcharism the only acceptable one?

    Russia is sticking to the four oblasts, because Ukraine has been continuously armed and the far-right empowered since 2014

    Would you maybe have any idea what happened in 2014, and how that holds against your “4 oblasts” mantra? Which of the 4 is Crimea?

    The land bridge into Russia from Ukraine is the easiest way into Russia,

    Yeah, and not literal NATO states with borders closer to moscow because that’s not what you were told?

    shelling ethnic Russians in Donbass for a decade.

    Thats some superbly precise shelling, bypassing all the Ukrainians living in Donbass… Ok, no can you pull any sattelite pictures of the region after all this years and compare it to the regions of frontline? You might notice there’s no evidence of the supposed 10 years of constant shelling.

    And as for the rest: ill reply tomorrow, but it clear you can only put up your make belive world against reality.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      17 hours ago

      -I’ve already explained, imperialism is best described as a system of international plunder. If we want to be technical about it, it’s linked to export of capital and domination by finance capital, ie what the US and western Europe do in the global south. By the definition you gave, it was imperialism to stop Nazi Germany, and it was imperialism for the Statesian north to invade the south.

      -Crimea isn’t in the scope of the current war, because it was already annexed for similar reasons. I don’t know why you’re bringing it up, unless you’re trying to conjure reasoning for why Russia is going to go beyond the 4 oblasts.

      -I understand that literal NATO states border Russia. I also understand that the Ukrainian far-right has been empowered over the last decade and has been at war with the Donbass region for a decade. Ukraine in particular has been increasingly bellicose, and was threatening to join NATO as well. A weak, defanged country already in NATO is less dangerous than one that is actively at war and threatening to join NATO.

      -As for Kiev’s war on the Donbass:

      Need any more?

      I don’t really care for you to reply, when you are this willing to torture history and present moments like this and yet dare to say I’m the one playing make-believe, it’s farcical.

      • harc@szmer.info
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        5 hours ago

        I’ve already explained, imperialism is best described as a system of international plunder.

        Yeah, but than you personally make the decision what constitutes plunder, so Russia taking land, resources and crops from Ukraine is not plunder because you simp for Putin on some absurd soviet nostalgia. Is there no financial system in Russia? Are oligarchs members of a communist party? How does that work in your head?

        Crimea isn’t in the scope of the current war, because it was already annexed for similar reasons.

        It’s a land bridge to somewhere? Or did they actually had to build one of the largest bridges to connect it? It was necessary for strategic sunbathing?

        I don’t know why you’re bringing it up, unless you’re trying to conjure reasoning for why Russia is going to go beyond the 4 oblasts.

        Cuz it’s one of 7 or 8 Ukrainian oblasts Russian military is currently occupying, it’s clearly against the stated nonsensical logic and justification of a land bridge, and clearly, by Putins own statements is a case of historical revisionism. You just support nationalist imperialism.

        Need any more?

        Yeah, a satellite picture proving the shelling, with 10 years it should look somewhat like the surface of the moon, but somehow none of you propaganda eaters can show any evidence. For comparison you can check something like this or that (first search results, feel free to check any other sources for these locations since you will obviously object these particular sites), now load up Yandex maps and show me something remotely similar around Russian occupied Donbas (yeah I did check already on a bunch of different maps, good luck).

        calling the Marxist interpretation of imperialism “anti-semitic.”
        Imperialism as Marxists understand it comes from John Hobson

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism_(Hobson_book)#"Jewish_financiers"_and_racism

        It gets much better at “requir[ing] a repression of the spread of degenerate or unprogressive races”. Nice theory you got there comrade.

        You can clearly see the devastation brought by capitalism and the absolute looting and plunder of Eastern Europe by the western powers.

        Yeeeeeah, clearly you’ve never been to the region.

        During the so called communist period in my country we’d often lack basic resources that were overproduced, as they would be force-exported into the CCCP. No meat, little grain, empty food shelves in shops, but we got money and vouchers allowing us to use them for foodstuffs, only there was very little of these. If that is not plunder, what is? Why is there not enough potatoes in Bealarus at the moment? Is it a CIA plot, or as Lukashenko states market mechanics and it’s a better deal to sell them to Russia?

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          5 hours ago

          -Russia is not annexing the 4 oblasts for imperialist super-profits. It’s not exporting capital, it’s not trying to gain access to resources. The purpose of the SMO is to gain the land buffer and demillitarize Ukraine so that it is no longer a threat. There’s no “simping” going on here, the fact that yet again you have to describe my positions in unbacked claims of “simping,” antisemitism, etc rather than engage with the actual points just further proves your own idealism.

          -Crimea is strategically located between Ukraine and Russia, yes. I don’t support imperialism in any way.

          -There’s zero chance you actually looked at the sources I provided in any real depth. Kiev has been at war with the Donbass region for a decade, this is well-documented as my sources show. There’s not a single person saying that the Donbass region should look like the surface of the moon or that the shelling has been going on 24 hours a day for the last decade, this is just nonsense.

          -Hobson’s personal social views on why imperialism happens are entirely distinct from his observations on how finance capital plunders the world. Lenin advanced upon it, removing the racist undertones, and establishing its connection to capitalism. Since Lenin, other theorists like Kwame Nkrumha, Cheng Enfu, and Michael Hudson have advanced upon Lenin. Not a shred of the antisemitism of Hobson remained in Lenin’s analysis, and no antisemitism has existed among the Marxist analysis of imperialism since. You have no actual counter to the Marxist analysis of imperialism, so you attack the liberal Hobson instead, hoping that Marxists somehow adopt the exact same theory as liberals do. More evidence of your absurdism.

          -Goods were indeed moved around the soviet union, as it was an expansive system. Overall, everyone was uplifted. The RSFSR was more developed, and thus enjoyed higher quality of life, but there was no export of capital, no domination by a financial oligarchy at play. The planned economy required planned production and distribution at a multi-national scale, and did not have the same profit motive that drives imperialism.

          Overall, you have no points. You misframe my own points, and then when I point out how you’ve done it, you ignore the subject entirely. You also resort to ad hominem, trying to claim Marxists follow an anti-semitic definition of imperialism and thus Marxists must be anti-semitic, when neither are true. Again, I really don’t need you to reply, it’s clear that you’re content with lying about and misframing my positions when it’s clear that you don’t actually have a counter. It’s rude and tiring.