57
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 26 May 2026
57 points (62.7% liked)
Memes
55871 readers
891 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 7 years ago
MODERATORS
You’re aware that everyone is aware of that, right? If you’re going to argue with a straw man, at least build a better straw man.
Look at the OPs post history, they post constantly in support of Russia, China and North Korea, as though Russia is in some way ideologically aligned with the other two.
They aren't ideologically aligned (at least for the most part), but they're geopolitically aligned by circumstance.
Sure, but that's basically irrelevant to the point being made in OP's memes.
Also, there is no 'for the most part'. Geopolitical alliances notwithstanding, they are in no way ideologically aligned: I'll say it once more for the people with their fingers in their ears, "Russia is not a socialist state, and hasn't been for over three decades!"
It is relevant, though. They're geopolitically aligned with China and are the junior partner. It's ridiculous to think that they're the biggest threat to world peace
So you're too stupid to know what the argument you're facing is and you're too childish to listen
I'm the one who's comment is being replied to, so I'm the one that defined the argument. You've got some nerve calling other people stupid 😂
Sorry how could I not have known you were defining other people's arguments for them. It's like I wasn't paying attention to how you were acting this whole time.
I should have made that my criticism in the comment I wrote you nine minutes ago
Always the No U and the seething emoji
What does that even mean?
Fyi, playing dumb after getting owned is a quintessential liberal move.
Owned? Oh, I get it, you're a literal child.
Your friend referenced emojis I've never even heard of as thought that somehow rebutted any of my points, which is not how you do discourse. If you want people to take your ideas seriously you need to demonstrate an understanding of those ideas, not resort to school-yard insults.
Dude you're running through every defensive loser move to try to position yourself in your own mind as anything other than a person whose stupid ideas just got rejected.
Oh no, some strangers on the Internet have downvoted me, how ever will I cope?
Only one person responded in a meaningful way to anything I said, and even then my point about Russia being a capitalist hellhole was not disputed in any way, which was the only point I was actually really making. Getting dogpiled by a bunch of butthurt fanboys because I 'insulted' daddy Putin doesn't bother me even a tiny little bit.
Yeah that's true you look incredibly unbothered right now
So what?
I've spelled it out twice now, if you honestly still don't understand I don't think there's anything I can say that will make it clear to you...
No, I don't understand, because I'm not a demagogue. I know for a fact that most liberals think we're all demagogues.
Guess where they got it from: the liberals themselves made it up to smear us.
You fell for your own propaganda. You can't successfully talk to us because you operate off of flawed assumptions.
You played yourself.
🙄 I'm not any kind of liberal, I'm just not so black and white in my thinking that I believe Russia poses any kind of opposition to the global capitalist oligarchy (because they themselves are a capitalist oligarchy).
The fact of the matter is that both Russia and the US are working to further the aims of the billionaire technocracy that rules our planet, and I therefore consider shilling for either regime (or for the EU) to be despicable behaviour.
You guys consider yourselves communists but give support to capitalist states. Do better.
Russia is self-interested in opposing the imperialist system dominated by the US. It isn't ideologically aligned with socialism, but it is practically aligned with socialists in overthrowing imperialism. The Russian bourgeoisie is nationalist, not imperialist, as there simply isn't space for Russia to colonize as the west has the entire imperialized world under its thumb.
Capitalism and imperialism are essentially the same thing, lack of opportunity for imperialist projects is in no way evidence of opposition to imperialism. If you believe the elites in Russia have any ideological objections to imperialism then I have a bridge to sell you.
Nationalism (like all populist ideologies) exists purely as a means of controlling the masses, the oligarchs who control every capitalist state are interested only in how much money/power they are personally able to amass.
Imperialism is a stage in capitalist development, it is not the same thing as capitalism. Mexico isn't imperialist, for example. The lack of ability to be imperialist means Russia is on the side targeted by imperialism, and for its own self-interest is working against the very system targeting it. This is why it's helping Cuba, trading heavily with socialist countries like China, and supporting the Alliance of Sahel States in kicking out France. Ideology isn't the reason for Russia's anti-imperialism, its geopolitical context is.
As for nationalism, you oversimplified it dangerously. Nationalism against imperialism and colonialism is progressive, nationalism preserving imperialism and colonialism is regressive. Palestinian nationalism is a progressive movement against settler-colonialism and genocide, and weakens the international imperialist movement.
Returning to Russia, the nationalist bourgeoisie is interested in opposing imperialism out of their own self a preservation. They aren't good people, but they are backed into a corner by a common threat. Russia is not an imperialist country, it already succeeded in a nationalist revolution in the 90s against imperialism and as such needs to have a socialist revolution to completely liberate itself.
Hi, do you have any further reading/recommended sources on the nationalist revolution of the 90s?
It wasn't a true revolution, but it was when the nationalists kicked out the liberals who were letting Russia be plundered by the west in "Shock Doctrine." Putin's party took power precisely on a nationalist platform, kicking out the compradors, and thus earned legitimate popularity among the Russian people and western demonization.
I see. That was certainly a step in the right direction. I'll look into that further, thanks.
No problem! Sorry that I don't have good reading, I fear most liberal narratives would use it to talk about "the rise of the evil Putin" rather than explain the materialist causes behind the nationalists taking power.
Capitalism is a global movement, the idea that elites of different nation states are 'at war' with one another is an illusion designed to keep the masses fighting amongst ourselves rather than against our common enemies: i.e the capitalist class. This has never been more clear than today, with the US president doing everything he can to support his allies in Russia.
In universalizing imperialism, you're erasing it's actual character.
Capitalism by its very nature is a system of accumulation. The fact that Russia is not imperialized by the west means the west is working to open Russia's markets by force. This isn't unique to Russia, it's just that Russia is the topic here.
Trump is not a Russia ally. The two countries stand opposed on the emerging multipolar world. What Trump is forced to recognize is industrial and millitary power, which Russia is still rising in while the imperialist countries de-industrialize.
The capitalist class is the enemy. However, what you are doing is erasing imperialism as a stage in capitalism, vulgarly reducing it to being synonymous with capitalism and therefore either universally applicable, ie Burkina Faso would be imperialist, or a simple policy preference by some states, essentially Kautsky's error. Neither are accurate. In eliminating national distinctions between the capitalist class, you eliminate proletarian internationalism.
Imperialism is a stage of capitalism, an essential stage in which all capitalists would engage if only given the opportunity: whether they be from America, Russia, Mexico, or even Burkina Faso. Ownership of the means of production (or owing shares in the corporations that own the means of production) is available to capitalists of every nationality.
If Trump isn't an ally of Russia's capitalists then why did he declare that Russia posed no cybersecurity threat to the US and then dissolve the wing of the pentagon that worked to counter such a threat.
The idea that denying the fact that the capitalists have no personal belief in nationalism somehow magically negates international solidarity is nonsensical: the truth is that nationalism is just codified xenophobia, and is a tool used by the capitalists (and relentlessly promoted through their mass media empires) in order to divide the workers, this preventing cooperation across national and ethnic 'borders'.
Edit to add: Russia's markets were opened to capitalists 35 years ago (which was the point of my original post on this thread), the idea that Russia is somehow separate from the global imperialist program is pure disinformation.
Nobody is arguing that Russia would not engage in imperialism if given the opportunity. The point being driven home is that they do not have that opportunity, and as such are targeted by imperialists. This puts them on opposing sides. Again, it's purely self-interest, not ideology.
As for Trump, this is just BlueAnon conspiracy theory. Trump is self-interested. If Trump was a Russian ally, Trump would have erased sanctions and forced an end to the Russo-Ukrainian war, would have dissolved NATO already, and more.
As for capitalists not having a "belief" in nationalism, that's not at all what I mean. The national bourgeoisie are those that are largely constrained within the domestic markets, not international financiers. Think the people that own factories, vs. the ones owning Blackrock. The national bourgeoisie of countries under threat of imperialism have aligned interests with the proletariat and peasantry in opposing imperialism. They are still obstacles to socialism, but are progressive against imperialism.
Nationalism in the imperial core protects imperialism, but national liberation in the global south opposes imperialism. Palestinian nationalism is progressive, as is the nationalism of Burkina Faso, as was Vietnamese and Cuban nationalism. The National liberation movement is a progressive one against imperialism and therefore assists the transition to socialism.
But he has tried his hardest to do all of tgose things. The only reason he hasn't succeeded (yet) is because he isn't a dictator and so doesn't have absolute power (again, yet).
The petty bourgeoisie are themselves part of the working class, much as they may deny it.
I don't agree with this at all, 'nationalist solidarity' is a trap designed to pervert true class solidarity. The revolution is either international or it is doomed to fail.
I think we basically have to agree to disagree, though I do commend you for taking the time to have an actual discussion, rather than just accusing me of being a liberal and resorting to cheap insults :)
Trump has not tried his hardest to erase sanctions, end the war in Ukraine, etc. If he wanted, he could do so right now. Trump has no reason to be a Russian ally.
As for the petite bourgeoisie, they aren't necessarily working class, though they do labor. The national bourgeoisie aren't the same as the petite bourgeoisie.
As for nationalism in the global south, this is also internationalist. I recommend looking into Marxist analysis of the nation and nationalism, again, Cuban, Palestinian, Vietnamese, Chinese, etc. nationalism is all progressive against imperialism in their wars for liberation. Once liberated, then the process of building socialism can genuinely begin (as it has in the socialist countries mentioned).
Trump definitely has worked towards removing sanctions from Russia, and has several times promoted Russian 'peace deals' which would gift them chunks of Ukraine (an imperialist aim of Russia's). He can't do literally anything he wants, which is why this hasn't happened. His reasons for being a Russian ally go back decades to his longstanding business interests, which have been entwined with Russia for decades.
Also, my experience of nationalism in the global south suggests otherwise. Take Latin America, for example: nationalist movements may have been instrumental in developing support for independence from Spain, but actual independence from Spain was won by transnational movements not limited to any one state or ethnic identify. Moreover, the modern day nationalists in each state are basically racist movements which do nothing but undermine working class solidarity (Chilean nationalists, for example, are known to carry out acts of violence against anyone whose skin is dark enough that they might conceivably be Peruvian or Bolivian, despite the fact that this includes many Chileans with indigenous ancestry).
Trump is not a Russian ally, he is interested in harvesting Ukraine for minerals. The Russo-Ukrainain war is not one of imperialism on Russia's part, annexation is not imperialism. This is just BlueAnon, sorry to say, it's blaming the Russians on Statesian failures.
As for nationalism in the global south, it is not opposed to internationalism. It is nationalism in the global north that is opposed to internationalism. I highly recommend reading Fanon, who wrote extensively on the psychological aspects of colonialism and the class outlook of national liberation.
Trump has been an explicit supporter of Russian business interests for a lot longer than he has been involved in politics: this is not a conspiracy theory, it is a statement of fact.
Be wary of making such generalisations about nationalism, even in the global south. Like I said, I have personal experience of Latin American nationalists partaking in racially motivated violence against indigenous people, and so therefore very much opposed to internationalism.
Trump being a Russian ally is a conspiracy theory, and is used to justify pushing problems from the US onto Russia. Trump's problems and interests are of American origin.
As for Nationalism in the global south, it's necessarily an oversimplification. Trade unions can also be violently racist, it's wrong but not indicative of trade unions being wrong. And for indigenous peoples, they are the ones whose nationalism would be progressive, not the nationalism of those not indigenous.
See, this is the point where you start to deny manifest reality and/or move the goalposts to deny examplles which contradict your claims. Trump first started agitating to end NATO about thirty years ago, immediately after his first business trip to Russia.
Also, these Chilean nationalists that I'm talking about are very much working class people, you can't suddenly decide that they don't come from the global south just because that doesn't fit your narrative - they sure as fuck don't come from the global north.
Edit to add: as for your statement that 'Trump's problems and interests are of American origin': this habit of viewing the elites through the lense of their national origin is fatally flawed, as the elites themselves do not see the world through this lense. The reason the billionaires are winning the class war is because they are the only ones that are actually fighting it from a class perspective. As I have tried to get across, nationalism only exists to divide and conquer the working classes.
Again, you're confusing Trump's position as a nationalist with being pro-Russian. Trump is not a Russian ally, he already would have pulled out of Ukraine and NATO, and would not be attacking Iran, Cuba, and Venezuela.
As for the Chilean nationalists, I never said they weren't working class. I am specifically saying that individual groups can be bad, but if they are fighting against indigenous peoples then this is definitely reactionary. This is why I recommended reading Fanon, I of course oversimplified the situation, and gave the trade union example to illustrate that exceptions exist.
Trump isn't a nationalist though. He is deliberately gutting the United States. The lense of 'nation vs nation' is constantly promoted to us through capitalist mass media because seeing the world in this way prevents us from effectively fighting for our own interests. Divide and conquer, it is one of the oldest tricks in the book.
Trump is absolutely relying on nationalism, white supremacy, and more, and is using it to support imperialism. I think your understanding of what constitutes nationalism is different from mine, and again, I recommend Fanon.
Yes, he uses nationalism to manipulate the masses, but that doesn't mean he himself believes (and the fact that you bundle white supremacy with nationalism only supports my point that nationalism is a xenophobic ideology).
Is there a particular work of Fanon's that you would recommend?
You're mixing belief with Trump's actual positions, which are nationalist in character. Whether or not Trump believes white supremacism is correct is irrelevant to the fact that his positions are those of a white supremacist. Nationalism is often opposed to the outer, for example Algerians slaughtered any Europeans they saw on sight during the Algerian revolution. It is nevertheless true that this violent national liberation was a progressive movement against colonialism, and was created by colonialism.
As for Fanon, his masterwork (and the one most relevant to our discussion) is The Wretched of the Earth.
You can't tell me what to do, liberal (or person who got fooled by liberals into thinking all communists are demagogues and actively ignores evidence to the contrary).
Can you demonstrate any point at which I have promoted liberalism, or any comment in which I have suggested that all communists are demagogues?
You seem to believe that communists are forbidden from supporting non-communist things. (I'm not sure demagogue was the right word choice for this. Maybe dogmatist or cultist fits better)
Not only that, you demand communists to stop supporting all non-communist things. Both of these things show your complete maleducation regarding communism.
You say you are not a liberal, okay, so you are
And, riddle me this, why would we ever give in to demands from a person who doesn't want to understand us and has exactly zero leverage over us???
No, but vocally supporting the polar opposite of communism is a strange position for communists to take. (You are correct that demogogue nonsensical word to use, and you used it several times. It's hard to take someone seriously when they clearly don't know what point they are even trying to make).
When did I do that? I've been a socialist for decades, it just annoys me when little kids cosplaying as soviets act like they're the only ones that understand communism, while demonstrating they don't even know the definitions of the words they are using.
So what? They're ideologically aligned in being opposed to the Great Satan