this post was submitted on 10 Aug 2023
447 points (100.0% liked)
chapotraphouse
13530 readers
166 users here now
Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.
No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer
Gossip posts go in c/gossip. Don't post low-hanging fruit here after it gets removed from c/gossip
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
are there? shit. I'll support Cuba's offensive to liberate both Ukrainian and Russian territory from these countries and institute state socialism from now on then, what villages are they starting it from?
apologies for the snark, I just personally cannot see a future where NATO/Ukraine wins and things are better, but I can see a future where Russia wins and things are better, and drawing an equivalence between them because both countries are led by moronic oligarchs and supporting some secret third thing just feels like when communists are like "Actually, I don't support either America or China and Russia. I support the global working class who needs to organize and overthrow the bourgeoisie!" is just like, yeah, you're technically correct, but we've also been saying that for the last century now and it hasn't happened, and the powers fighting America seem like the best shot we have right now of creating the conditions for the working class to institute that global revolution
What future is that? I cannot see this war changing anything for the better. I don't think anybody's lives (except for the bourgeoisie's) improved due to this war. The nazis are getting more funding and support, people are getting conscripted, leftist parties are being banned, homes are getting shelled and countless working class peoples lives have been destroyed. Russia seems very far from a revolution, being a quasi-fascist dictatorship who's only major challenge is the equally far-right Wagner group.
It is damaging the western hegemony which has brought poverty and death to the third world under its reign of terror. Ending or weakening that is an unambiguous good.
I don't know if it will. I suppose Russia's policy in Niger weakens Western Hegemony in Africa, but Russia never challenges capitalist hegemony. I can't see what the material impacts on the global south would be if Russia had slightly more territory. Besides, if Russia wins, they will be feared. This fear would only serve to expedite NATO expansion. I can't see a future where Russia wins and things are better than they were pre-war.
Multipolarity I think is what people are hoping for here. Not having a single capitalist power so invincible that it can control the world unilaterally.
It would ostensibly allow smaller countries to play the larger powers off each other and extract some concessions for one. Just the very fact of having other options provides at least some leverage and makes development and security more likely. And if any of those alternatives are less bloodthirsty and exploitative than the US (how could they not be?), so much the better.
You’re right that none of this is a direct confrontation of capitalism, but even just as a demonstration that other nations can stand up to the US, perhaps with the help of a competing capitalist power, this war can (maybe already has) bolstered resistance to the worst of imperialism. It’s not global communism but it’s a step in the right direction, or at least a step away from complete subjugation to a single globe spanning hegemon.
So, emboldening for the global south at least. And perhaps it coalesces into a broader post-post-colonial movement at some point. Who’s to say. Hard to imagine any shift in the global balance of power away from the west right now being a bad thing anyway.
The war itself is of course a disaster and tragedy for everyone involved. But on a purely geopolitical level, I think there’s a real possibility that it ends up benefiting the global proletariat going forward.
I guess multipolarity makes sense as a possible positive outcome of the war. When you frame it like that, aren't we already starting to see that in Niger? Does Russia need an unconditional Ukrainian surrender (or even partial victory) to see multipolarity as an outcome or have they already demonstrated their military power enough?
Niger was actually exactly what I was thinking of. That’s an interesting question though. I think we have to bear in mind that while Russia is certainly interested in multipolarity, it also has its own more concrete individual interests to consider since the war is right next door. And these might not always line up precisely with a broader global interest in multipolarity.
I tend to think of multipolarity in this context more as a practical result than the single overarching conscious goal of Russia’s here. They’ve certainly demonstrated that there are cracks in the armor, but I think they’re after something closer to an actual security guarantee in the region moving forward. What it will take to achieve that (or whether it is in fact achievable in the short term) is anybody’s guess. Depends on how much both sides want to press the issue I guess.
And I think this is a point a lot of people miss when they think of critical support for Russia as a fondness for the Russian government or for war itself. It’s more about the recognition that there may be positive global outcomes from Russia winning the war, regardless of their motivations (though I personally think they are at least somewhat legitimate). More that Russia’s resistance to the west is useful to the rest of the world than that they are “the good guys.”
I think it's pretty evident that the western hegemony has already been greatly weakened by the conflict. While it's true Russia isn't trying to weaken capitalism, capitalist hegemony is a completely separate issue - Russia's actions are weakening western hegemony. Capitalism is a domino later in the chain. Africa breaking the neocolonial chains and hopefully being able to develop itself into the economic powerhouse it could be will be a massive boon to everywhere that isn't The West, because it's a new market and trading partner that doesn't require westerners to get their cut.
As far as the global south, the benefits don't really have anything to do with Russia getting more territory. The benefits are about demonstrating western weapons and tactics to be paper tigers, showing how shallow western weapons supplies are and how slow and unproductive western military industrial complexes are. It's also showing the value of western promises of military support - Taiwan and every other western vassal are surely watching this. The conflict is bleeding NATO resources dry, which is the reverse of what NATO hoped they would be getting out of this. The exposure of the west's weakness is what benefits the global south and the rest of the planet.
I think it's certainly true that Russia is now and will be feared in Europe, but that ship had already sailed. The US is doing as much economic warfare against Europe as they are Russia, and Europe is the one seriously damaged by it. America also started that warfare before this conflict expanded in 2022 - trying to cut Russia out of the European market has always been important for the US State Department. Europe has lost their energy sovereignty and is now undergoing shock doctrine style de-industrialization. It's not going to matter what Europe thinks about Russia as they get increasingly economically hobbled and poorer. The rest of the world however doesn't share Europe or America's view of Russia, so this is not really any loss for Russia geopolitically. In South America and Africa, for example, Russia is largely viewed positively. The people of the world know whose heel is on their necks - it's not Russia's.
Sure, their tactical usefulness in a defensive conflict has been disproven, but NATO has already proved how effectively it can destabilize and terrorize countries in an offensive situation. Even if it doesn't gain any land, like in all US wars after WWII, it still causes immense destruction and suffering for the people involved. The West has proven itself a poor ally, but not a poor enemy. I fear that even a multipolar world, capitalist powers will be willing to unite against leftist uprisings and be capable of thoroughly damaging them; as Russia is still able to gain by crushing left wing dissent.
A multipolar world will have less ability to crush leftist governments without consequence. This isn't the solution to capitalism, but it weakens it. This is a domino, not the final blow.
I guess it weakens capitalism very slightly. Although I might not argue that capitalist multi-polarity is worth cost of the war (Russia cracking down harder domestically, Ukrainian fascism on the rise, privatization, etc...). But in the end it doesn't really matter who I support as I can't create any sort of meaningful change to the material world.
Anything that weakens capitalism is good, comrade, particularly if it's capitalists on both sides doing it. It's a terrible tragedy that lives are lost but we can't stop that.
Russian independence shields China, which shields the global south.