top 50 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 86 points 2 years ago (21 children)

Hate to say it but, wtf does this mean anyway? Does the left have anything to offer to Russia, China, etc? What does it mean for us to support them, or to withdraw our support?

My honest and most realistic appraisal is that our support means nothing, we have nothing to offer, and any engagement in discourse about the moral or political value of the projects of the Russian state or the Chinese state is basically fruitless when the discussion among those in the halls of power is so far removed from our discussion that the difference between the most fervently critical Anarchist comrade and the most ridiculously pro-SMO ML is completely irrelevant. It's not exactly arguing over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, but functionally it's just as useless of a discussion. If we all agree that we have to show up at protests resisting the MIC, calling for peace, supporting leftist local politicians, and doing everything we can to raise union membership, what difference does it make that I 'stan China' but you 'critically support Putin despite Duginist elements in the Russian government'? Is it not just as fruitless as political compass memes? Because from where I'm looking it literally is just PCM for people that have read the manifesto. The only value of the argument is to intellectually deduce the truth, a project that's completely separate to actually achieving political power.

And yes, where you land in the spectrum of supporting Russia and China can influence which political party in your area to support, but practically the only material difference a minority party will make is whether it's going to support sanctions and tariffs against Russia and China, or it won't. However, not to No True Scotsman, but no true leftist party is going to jump on such a blatantly neoliberal and imperialist position as to economically punish 2 of the largest populations on Earth while knowing how little effect those sanctions will have on the ruling classes of the target states. So we're back to square 1, regardless of your position, the actions you can take regarding Russia and China are the same.

Just to finish off the rant, here's a comment from 72T that I found really insightful. TL;DR the question isn't, "should we support a multipolar world," because we have no power to change that reality, whether it's going to arrive or not is entirely out of our hands. The question is "what is to be done about the incoming multipolar world," especially locally, with regards to how it affects our approach to building power.

No shade on JT though, as far as the question exists in a vacuum that's a good answer.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 43 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No, it's important to, as Mao said, properly delineate who's our friends and who's our enemies. Otherwise, your org will do cringey shit like the DSA delegation snubbing the Cuban president and talking to a bunch of traitors working for the CIA instead.

    Unless you want your org to be completely isolated from the international community and abandon internationalism, it has to connect and break bread with other orgs throughout the world and perhaps even anti-imperialist governments. While the DSA shit the bed with regards to Cuba, I think the DSA also send a delegation to Venezuela where they met Maduro. Obviously, Maduro isn't going to meet with a bunch of dipshits who shittalk him by calling him an authoritarian dictator, but by personally meeting with Maduro, they have tacitly (and rightfully) support Maduro and uphold the Bolivarian Revolution.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago

    Synthesis: The answer to this question,

    Does the left have anything to offer to Russia, China, etc? What does it mean for us to support them, or to withdraw our support?

    is that it is inconsequential what an individual leftist believes, but it matters a great deal for national leftist organizations to connect and build solidarity with international leftist organizations. What the American left (for example) has to offer China is quite simply a counterpart in America which can participate in the broader socialist movement, which is mutually beneficial. If/when shit does hit the fan, the left has to be ready both theoretically and organizationally.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

    I really agree with this but I’ll add a little more. A lot of the theory written by people like Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao occurred in the context of historical upheaval during which theory was absolutely necessary to chart a path forward for an actually existing political movement. So those writings should be understood first as practical and only second as abstractly philosophical.

    Theoretical development is still worth doing in order to prepare, but there is way too much emphasis on abstract correctness over real successes.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 26 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (2 children)
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Completely agree about the need for theory to evolve with material changes.

    Science needs to advance, but does it follow that every individual leftist needs to be preoccupied with theory, with becoming a scientist? For every Lenin there were millions of average people trusting in the party line that he and the Bolsheviks produced. Most Russian revolutionaries, of whom only a fraction were serious party members, likely did not have a strong grasp of theory outside of their own experience.

    Western leftists (myself included) have to combat their latent liberalism, one form of which is a belief in the "marketplace of ideas." This belief is the basis of electoralism, which as most lefitsts understand theoretically, is ineffectual in practice. Yet with so much emphasis on perfecting science, one has to wonder if the Western left has actually internalized the truth that the best idea does not inevitably win, that progress doesn't follow inevitably from worsening material conditions.

    We could have a perfect theoretical understanding of capitalism and it would not matter until the left has politically organized in such a way as to put that theory into practice. There are enough theorizers/philosophers/"scientists" on the left and not enough direct action and organizing.

    Reading the abstract theory of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Mao — it is too easy to forget the context in which those writings happen. Many believe that Marx invented communism, but his actual result was consolidating an otherwise disorganized proletarian movement under a single theoretical basis.

    The manifesto itself was written intentionally watered down on some points so as to receive buy-in from various socialist factions. The intellectual disagreements between the factions worked themselves out because the correctness of this or that idea was demonstrated in practice. Engels wrote in his 1888 preface to the manifesto,

    Marx, who drew up this programme to the satisfaction of all parties, entirely trusted to the intellectual development of the working class, which was sure to result from combined action and mutual discussion. The very events and vicissitudes in the struggle against capital, the defeats even more than the victories, could not help bringing home to men’ s minds the insufficiency of their various favorite nostrums, and preparing the way for a more complete insight into the true conditions for working-class emancipation. And Marx was right. The International, on its breaking in 1874, left the workers quite different men from what it found them in 1864. Proudhonism in France, Lassalleanism in Germany, were dying out, and even the conservative English trade unions, though most of them had long since severed their connection with the International, were gradually advancing towards that point at which, last year at Swansea, their president [W. Bevan] could say in their name: “Continental socialism has lost its terror for us.” In fact, the principles of the Manifesto had made considerable headway among the working men of all countries.

    Leftist theory does need to advance, but not through contemplation alone. It needs to be tested in practice. And I think that is what JT is saying here, that theoretical correctness is secondary to direct action.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 18 points 2 years ago (4 children)
  • [–] 15 points 2 years ago (3 children)
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    If you stand back and be silent when "enemy" countries get slandered, you are legitimizing imperalism and help cultural imperalism do its work. This applies on a micro & marco-level.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • load more comments (5 replies)
    [–] 61 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    I def get schadenfreude from Russia being a pain in the ass for the US empire. It's fun to watch state department ghouls run around with their hair on fire trying to figure out Russia's next moves, which is often just rational capitalist moves given their circumstances. My fever dream is the PRC continuing to undermine US hegemony and court/guide Russia back into an era of a new USSR, finally driving the rest of the global south into revolution and choking off the great Satan.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 52 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Support them when they do good things, criticize when they do bad things. It goes for any country. Feels like its 2022 again and people are relearning what "critical support" means.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [+] 56 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago

    Yeah when we look at the narrative around Putin. Its unironic great man theory as if he is behind all the reactionary and conservative aspects. The worst part being the liberal fetish for color revolutions. The idea there is some liberal hero being oppressed and would be ready to replace him if only we support them. They tried that shit with Navalny even though nobody anywhere even knows him and not realizing he was just as racist and a nazi shit as everyone else.

    Putin would be coup by the kind of people that think the war is embarrassing and would be ready to do a full mobilization(an additional 1 million or so) and actualy start bombing and destroying Ukraine indiscriminately.

    This whole idea of a slow paced war of a attrition is not without its shaky moments(the Moskva,Kherson retreat, the Moscow attack etc). Nobody pretends the war is without cost, but Russia is managing this cost because they're being very conscious and smart about e.g building the military industry, making sure to transfer more wealth to workers even if just government subsidies etc.

    Of course none of this is to say Putin deserves any praise but he was willing to admit to his previous mistake of being naive and willing to bring Russia closer to the west. His replacement in a coup would be someone even more resentful not less, someone even more agressive towards Ukraine not less.

    The mythical "western values" loving Russian? That was quite literaly Putin 25 years ago lol.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 23 points 2 years ago

    But you don't support Ukraine, so that means you want all Ukrainians fed into a woodchipper and Putin to rule all of Eurasia forever

    Liberals really mock conservatives for having no nuance, then turn around and proceed to show they have none either

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 46 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    The leaders of the counter-hegemonic pole are Russia, China, and Iran, and no amount of coping or malding about the real and imagined inadequacies of these three will change this simple fact.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago

    There is a reason we say "critical support"

    If I were a Iranian I would have major issues with my national government. If I were Russian I would have major issues with my elected leaders. If I were Cuban, Vietnamese, or Chinese, I'm sure I would find something to complain about.

    From my current position, in the imperial core, I refuse to speak ill of the countries working to dismantle American hegemony.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 19 points 2 years ago

    It's also completely gross and disingenous to equate Russia with the US. Russia does not have thousands of military bases across the planet, it does not exploit other countries, and checks none of the boxes for any modern definitfon of imperialism.

    Russia is capitalist, but like most capitalist countries on the planet, its a victim of US imperialism, not a recipient of its benefits.

    First-world ultralefts can't help themselves but criticize countries for not meeting their high and abitrary standards. Russia is the main country in the world rn killing NATO troops and draining the west's military resources.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 36 points 2 years ago (12 children)

    Russia also has a lot of influence in the global south that China lacks. You can give me all the history lessons you want as to why that is but at the end of the day it’s the Russian flag you see rebels waving and not the Chinese one.

  • source
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 years ago

    Russia has a much better track record in Africa than China going way back to Tsar Nicholas II. It says a lot that even when Russia was at its most imperialist and reactionary, it still played a progressive role in Africa. Because if it wasn't for Tsarist Russia under Tsar Nicholas II, Ethiopia wouldn't have done so well in the First Italo-Ethiopian War, perhaps even be colonized by the Italians. At the height of European colonization of Africa, Ethiopia was the only African country that held onto its sovereignty (Liberia doesn't count since Liberia was a de facto US colony), and much of it was thanks to Tsarist Russia.

    Russia's hands are almost completely clean when it comes to Africa. More Africans died from being tossed overboard in a single slave ship headed to the Americas than however many Africans Wagner or any other Russian-affiliated group has killed. As long as the current Russia leader isn't as bad as some inbred anti-Semitic chump who got owned by communists, Russia will most likely continue to play a progressive role in Africa.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 27 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    This is why I always say that if China is serious about leading the anti-imperialist movement against the global hegemon, it can start by using its vast amount of foreign reserves to pay back the Global South debt. This will improve China’s image in the eyes of many Global South countries.

    isnt china already doing this?

    On the other hand, and unfortunately, China still has some issues with their image across the Global South (and I say this as a Chinese myself). Many countries are still quite suspicious of China’s intentions and there is an impression that China is only interested in doing business where profit matters.

    is there some truth to his or is it another fabrication from western media?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    I wouldn't say that's true. China doesn't try to enact regime change, they work with the establishment. That's why you don't see rebels flying the Chinese flag, but it doesn't mean China lacks influence. They just lack influence with rebel groups.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 16 points 2 years ago (4 children)

    Nah, I don't really see people wave Chinese flags. And it has little to do with them being anti-communist because I see them occasionally wave DPRK flags as well.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (3 children)

    Chinese foreign policy has been shit since they helped the DPRK during the Korean War(which was basically the last good thing they did). Meanwhile the DPRK has always been on the right side of history when it comes to conflicts in MENA and Africa

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (2 replies)
  • [+] 33 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (13 children)
  • [–] 40 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (12 children)

    From the Tucker Carlson interview. Putin compares Russia with the US. Putin says "We are bourgeois now as you are. We are a market economy and there is no communist party with power."



  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • load more comments (10 replies)
  • [–] 32 points 2 years ago

    When the empire is targeting a designated enemy that undermines the empire, it will deploy constant propaganda against that target.

    Those who want to see the end of the empire will then need to take time to explain why the target is not uniquely bad, the criticisms are largely false, etc etc. Otherwise you're just helping manufacture consent for the targeting of that country.

    This is the kind of "support" socialists should provide. Push back on Russophobia, collective punishment, the US war machine, support for NATO, and false histories of what's happened in Ukraine and Syria.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Folow up question: Would Russia be such a deranged right-wing oligarchy if it wasn't for the constant US/EU meddling and shitfuckery?

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 years ago (5 children)

    Russia is literally the only reason why countries like Cuba or DPRK are still standing- I do not think China would ever put up the slag in that regard. So the preserverance of russian independence is one of the major ways the global south can be helped.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 20 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    This is kinda what I was explaining to a lib friend the other day: I was a lot more ambivalent about the SMO before NATO got involved. I didn’t really have a pro/anti position, I just pointed out that this was the natural consequence of the events from 2014 onward.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 17 points 2 years ago

    ever so slightly less dogshit than his dogshit party

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 2 years ago

    Disappointed it's not Justin Timberlake

  • source
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›