overview for RedPandaRedGuard

Why critical support for Russia? by RedPandaRedGuard in c/[email protected]

[+] [email protected] -24 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Now this is just an irrational and insulting response, calling me a lib.

All you're doing is throwing the word nazi around.

Neither Russia nor Ukraine is run by nazis.

But both have nazis and other fascists running rampant in their society and army. Wagner quite famously had many far right elements. The only difference between Wagner and Azov was that Wagner was a mercenary troop and not directly part of the Russian army.

What you're describing essentially draws no difference between the two countries, except that one has been aligned by NATO. So again I have to ask, why support Russia in this case? And as it seems from your comment, why so uncritically on top of it?

Russia is not struggling against western imperialism, it's trying to cling onto it's past sphere through it's own imperialism which just so happens to put them up against the expansion of the US hegemony.

As I said before I can understand the strategic interest in Russia winning. But again morally I do not see how this justifies it. Neither government is worse than the other, both filled with corruption, far right elements, oligarchs, oppression and massacres. But only one is defending.

I'm not defending Ukraine. I'm saying they have a right to defend themselves against aggression. As any nation does with the rare exception of countries that commit massive atrocities and genocides (Cambodia, Nazi Germany (ofc tho they were in fact the aggressor), Rwanda, Myanmar).

Furthermore if not a full scale invasion, then what was the push for Kiev when the war started? Its goal was the quick overthrow and surrender of the Ukrainian government and armed forces. After that failing Russia is still occupying probably around 1/4 to 1/3 of Ukrainian lands since the war started. Troop movements and the front lines are objective facts.

Why critical support for Russia? by RedPandaRedGuard in c/[email protected]

-2

Why critical support for Russia? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 1 day ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

77 comments fedilink

I'm not sure how to write this without it sounding like ragebait or a fed post.

But why do most fellow Marxists critically support Russia today?

I can understand having seen Russia as a potential temporary ally or a necessary power that can stand against US / NATO hegemony over the globe. In short I can understand it from a strategic standpoint.

But what about morals of this?

To explain I've seen seen Russia as a necessary potential ally in the past too. But that has changed with the Ukraine war and concurrent events in Russia.

The way I see it, even with a CIA coup, a full scale invasion of a country still isn't justified. It's bordering on insanity in my mind to start such a war. The way the war and conscription is handled in Russia is also highly critiquable. The way people who fall from grace, also "fall out of windows" too.

The other major event that made me doubt Putin more was part of the leaks that happened with Navalny's death. Specifically the revelation of how Putin spend hundreds of millions not just on a palace like so many corrupt leaders and dictators do, but essentially what amounts to an own private town.

This is what lead me to believe that Putin devolved into insanity and paranoia from what he used to be, a calculated sensible dictator.

With all this in mind, why should we offer critical support to Russia instead of Ukraine?

Yes you can argue that Ukraine has been taken over via a pro-western coup regime, but they're still not the aggressors in the war.

I find it morally questionable to support an aggressor in such a clear scenario. And purely strategically speaking with how Russia is bogged down in Ukraine, I find their military capabilities not great either for any conflict with NATO.

Do any of you have any moral reasoning to critically support Russia? Or do you support it out of strategic reasons despite moral objections?

13

Marxist perspectives on the Arab Cold War, Nasserism and Pan-Arabism? (lemmygrad.ml)

submitted 1 year ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

3 comments fedilink

I do not know that much about the Cold War in regards to the Middle East, but most Marxists of whatever variety hold very positive opinions on Nasserism, Pan-Arabism during the Cold War or even Ba'athism. While Nasser didn't align too closely with the Soviet Union, whether due to ideological disagreements or simple pragmatism / necessity, he was still a socialist, even if not a Marxist one.

So I have been wondering in particular since a lot of communists see Nasser and other pan-arabian or "arab-socialist" leaders like Gaddafi positively, why did the North and South Yemen split remain throughout the cold war? As far as I'm aware South Yemen was at least nominally a marxist-leninist state while North Yemen initially was a monarchy, but was then overthrowing by a pan-arabist pro-Nasser movement, ending up socialist in some way. Was there not enough common ground found for Arab communists to fully integrate themselves within Nasser's pan-arabism?

Likewise Syria "left" the United Arab Republic following a coup by disgruntled Syrian military leaders, but interestingly enough the communist party of Syria seems to have supported this coup and secession from the UAR. I cannot find much on the reason however. Could someone explain this?

Have you ever thought about moving to a socialist country? by RedPandaRedGuard in c/[email protected]

[-] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago

Of course. Cuba would be great, my only issue is that I'm not too fond of high temperatures like in the Caribbean. But that will be a problem in the future anyway.