Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,312 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 3 weeks, 2 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
“This is not a war of competing capitalisms. For the US/NATOstan it is an imperialist war for markets and resources but for Russia it is an existential war of defense against said imperialist aggression. The very existence of the entity known as Russia is at stake.”
========================================Of course it is a war of competing capitalisms. Russia is a capitalist state as are its backers. Ukraine is a capitalist state as are its backers. The very existence of the nation-state itself is a capitalist construct. The expansionist dynamic built into capitalism that expresses itself in a latent or manifest tendency towards imperialism in the widest meaning of the term – if not in Lenin´s absurdly narrow meaning – is fully evident in this war. In Russia´s case, the territorial expression of this imperialist tendency was pretty much self-evident in the annexation of Crimea – a place of great strategic interest – and the resource-rich Donbas as well as, more obviously, in the invasion of Ukraine itself
All the other reasons for Russia´s imperialism – like Russia is engaged in an “existential war of defense against said imperialist aggression” or Russia wants to “denazify Ukraine” (when both regimes are pretty much similar in outlook) – are just the usual BS pretexts advanced by every capitalist government to garner the support of its populace. Ukraine is no different. It is demonstrably untrue that the Zelensky regime – a far-right repressive obnoxious regime if ever there was one – stands as some kind of beacon of “democracy” and “freedom ” against Russian despotism. Zelensky himself, like Putin, is a corrupt businessman along with being head of state of a corrupt regime
All of these feeble wishy-washy excuses put forward by the sociopathic warmongers on both sides are just pure idealist explanations for a phenomenon that really requires a solid materialistic explanation. They are an ideological smokescreen and about as connected with reality as British propaganda during WW1 depicting German soldiers bayoneting babies. War brutalises all who support one side or another and turns them all into Fascists of one kind or another
“And why should any worker care?”
Ask a Syrian worker whether they’re better off under their present government or one of extremist headchoppers. Some forms of government are very much worse than others.
““The working men have no country. We cannot take away from them what they have not got.” The Communist Manifesto”
In principle all well and good. In reality, until the whole world is communist, a bunch of bollocks.
“It is Russia and Ukraine and all other nation-states around the world that we should seek to eliminate.”
Yes, but until then we’re stuck with them and some are very much worse than others.
“Our case is that it should not simply be the Russian worker to wish defeat upon its government but that workers everywhere should aspire for the same.”
And that is why you are an infantile ideologue. As long as nation states exist the only means of protecting oneself from the predations of other states is to have one of your own. Without it you’re a babe in the woods moments away from being torn to shreds by the wolves.
““The existence of the state and the existence of slavery are inseparable” – Marx”
And yet Marx accepted that a state was necessary til it withered away. You’re being very selective with your quotations.
“Do you oppose another Russian Revolution that deposes the Russian oligarchy from power and ownership?”
NATOstan can go first.
“A defeat for Russia could possibly facilitate and lead to such a social revolution.”
No, it would mean the immiseration of the Russian people on such a scale that the 90s would look like a picnic. But Russia won’t lose so the point is moot.
“A defeat for Ukraine merely brings occupation and the imposition of a puppet regime.”
That is what Ukraine is now. A puppet of NATOstan. The Minsk agreement allowed for Ukrainian neutrality. Remind me, who scuppered the deal?
“And that is why you are an infantile ideologue. As long as nation states exist the only means of protecting oneself from the predations of other states is to have one of your own. Without it you’re a babe in the woods moments away from being torn to shreds by the wolves.”
………………………
You have to despair at the sheer inanity of this feeble attempt to justify the continuation of capitalism and its core institution, the nation-state. Having agreed with the principle that “The working men have no country” TS continues: ” as long as nation-states exist the only means of protecting oneself from the predations of other states is to have one of your own”. Who is the “your” in your sentence TS???
It cannot be the workers you have in mind if you seriously agree with the socialist claim that “workers have no country”. It is not us you are addressing but one group of capitalists vis a vis another. And that has been clear as daylight all along. You support one capitalist regime vis a vis another and therefore the indefinite continuation of capitalism itself. The very (il)logic of your own argument commits you to indefinitely resisting socialism as an alternative to capitalism, since according to you “As long as nation states exist” you will continue to need to support the nation-state and hence capitalism
In other words a self-fulfilling prophecy!
Instead of sneering at what you characterise as the “infantilism” of the socialist position it is in fact the ONLY mature and logical way out of the impasse of endless capitalist warmongering that your position commits you to
You have to despair at the sheer inanity of this feeble attempt to justify the continuation of capitalism and its core institution, the nation-state. Having agreed with the principle that “The working men have no country” TS continues: ” as long as nation-states exist the only means of protecting oneself from the predations of other states is to have one of your own”. Who is the “your” in your sentence TS???
“It cannot be the workers you have in mind if you seriously agree with the socialist claim that “workers have no country”.”
In case you hadn’t noticed I don’t seriously agree with the claim. Nation states are a necessary evil. The Palestinians have no nation state and look at them. Torn asunder by the wolves. Ask the Somalis what it’s like having no state. Socialists can and do have states. Where you got the idea that states must be capitalist I’ve no idea. But then again nothing you say makes much sense. Your thinking is as convoluted and confused as all the other blockheads in your little gaggle of a “party”.
“It is not us you are addressing but one group of capitalists vis a vis another.”
Lol. I don’t think any members of the capitalist class are dropping in on this thread.
“And that has been clear as daylight all along. You support one capitalist regime vis a vis another”
I support the right to self defence against imperialist aggression. Something beyond the ken of a coward of your ilk.
“and therefore the indefinite continuation of capitalism itself.”
Lol, that’s quite the leap of logic you’ve made there. Hate to rain on your parade but supporting the right of self defence has no bearing whatsoever on capitalism.
“The very (il)logic of your own argument commits you to indefinitely resisting socialism as an alternative to capitalism”
Erm, no. That you’ve got that covered with your endless, yawn inducing tirades against actually existing socialists and socialism.
“since according to you “As long as nation states exist” you will continue to need to support the nation-state and hence capitalism”
I never said that last part so no, not according to me. That would be according to you. So give credit where it’s due.
“In other words a self-fulfilling prophecy!”
You mean in your words.
“Instead of sneering at what you characterise as the “infantilism” of the socialist position”
The infantilism of your interpretation of the socialist position. Plenty of socialists believe in the state.
“it is in fact the ONLY mature and logical way out of the impasse of endless capitalist warmongering that your position commits you to”
Whatevs. Lol
TS – “the Somalis what it’s like having no state.”
The Somalis actually have more than one state.
Or do you refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the breakaway republics Somaliland and Puntland?
I note no mention of the Kurds in Syria and their movement to create an independent state from Syria.
Just as you rightly criticise the Ukrainian government of discriminating against Russian-speakers, Syria forbids the use of the Kurdish language.
TS – “Socialists can and do have states. Where you got the idea that states must be capitalist”
If by your earlier definition socialism means “An economy organised around providing for peoples’ needs rather than maximising profits for the capitalist class.”
Would you care to name these non-capitalist states?
You offered an example: “Yes, Gazprom makes a profit but the shareholders are the Russian people, not a select group of capitalist investors.”
But individuals who own Gazprom stock do receive dividends from profits made, not the Russian people. Last September Gazprom shareholders had a dividend payout totalling 1.208 trillion roubles ($21 billion) – 50 roubles per share. Half the shareholdings are not owned by the Russian government but by individuals and foreign corporations .
I also take it you understand the nature of buying government bonds. The income derived by the government from Gazprom partly goes to repaying the Russian bond buyers and the interest due to them.
The ordinary Russian citizen does not benefit directly from the state ownership of Gazprom as you presume.
“The Somalis actually have more than one state.
Or do you refuse to recognise the legitimacy of the breakaway republics Somaliland and Puntland?”
Somalia is in the grip of warlordism. This is not controversial. And what of the Palestinians? Crickets.
“I note no mention of the Kurds in Syria and their movement to create an independent state from Syria.”
Rubbish. I’ve spoken of the Kurds who are from Turkey not Syria and are a terrorist movement supported by your mates in the CIA.
“Just as you rightly criticise the Ukrainian government of discriminating against Russian-speakers, Syria forbids the use of the Kurdish language.”
Rubbish. The Kurdish terrorists are CIA contras. I’ve previously linked to an article on this very thread explaining as much.
“Would you care to name these non-capitalist states?”
The USSR, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, China, etc.
“Half the shareholdings are not owned by the Russian government but by individuals and foreign corporations.”
I was bringing up the fact in regards Russia not being imperialist. Do keep up.
“I also take it you understand the nature of buying government bonds. The income derived by the government from Gazprom partly goes to repaying the Russian bond buyers and the interest due to them.”
And the relevance of that to Russia not being imperialist is?
“The ordinary Russian citizen does not benefit directly from the state ownership of Gazprom as you presume.”
And how else is healthcare, education, pensions, infrastructure, etc subsidised and paid for?
TS – “how else is healthcare, education, pensions, infrastructure, etc subsidised and paid for?”
Any Marxist will tell you – from the surplus labour of the worker as per the Labour Theory of Value.
So you seek the same wealth distribution as in Vietnam as positive.
Vietnam had 458 people with a net worth of above $30 million in 2019. The number of ultra-high net worth (UHNWI) individuals in Vietnam is projected to hit 753 by 2024. Vietnam had five billionaires by the end of 2019, with the figure expected to rise to six in 2024.
How do those rich people acquire their wealth?
Again any Marxist will tell you. From the theft of labour of the workers according to the Labour Theory of Value.
AJ – “Would you care to name these non-capitalist states?”
Tinky Winky says “The USSR, Vietnam, Cuba, Laos, China, etc.”
🤣😂🤣😂
Honestly, this guy is so funny, 🤡🤡🤡“in case you hadn’t noticed I don’t seriously agree with the claim. Nation states are a necessary evil. The Palestinians have no nation state and look at them. Torn asunder by the wolves. Ask the Somalis what it’s like having no state. Socialists can and do have states. Where you got the idea that states must be capitalist I’ve no idea. But then again nothing you say makes much sense. Your thinking is as convoluted and confused as all the other blockheads in your little gaggle of a “party”.”
__________________________Well, perhaps as a virulent anti-socialist and pro-capitalist Putinist, you are not likely to be particularly familiar with the Marxist theory of the state, I guess. A State is an institutional tool by which one class rules over another. The existence of the state, therefore, presupposes the existence of classes. A classless society, therefore, presupposes the disappearance of the state. Comprende?
So no – socialists do NOT have or can NOT logically have “their state”. The existence of a state precludes socialism and vice versa. So-called “socialists” who have assumed state power in various parts of the world are merely the administrators of capitalism (aka the wages system) in those parts of the world. Their state can only, therefore, be a capitalist state (as opposed to, say, a feudal state) since the system they operate is a form of capitalism called state-administered capitalism, or “state capitalism”.
Laughably (or should that be, disingenuously) you say “Where you got the idea that states must be capitalist I’ve no idea.” We have already explained several times where the idea comes from but as usual, you pay no attention. The Marxist position is pretty clear on this score. To quote Engels once again:
“The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital.” (Socialism; Utopian and Scientific)
If states are a “necessary evil” as you claim they are only a necessary part of operating and perpetuating a class-divided capitalist society which you apparently want to perpetuate yourself
You say in defense of this class institution called the state: “The Palestinians have no nation-state and look at them. Torn asunder by the wolves” LOL. And who, pray, do you think is “tearing them asunder” if not a state, (the Israeli state in this case) – the very institution you are so proud to defend!
You think “your” state will be different as far you are concerned insofar as it affords you protective shelter much like a mother hen, her chicks. How naive can you get? Capitalist states are hostile to the interests of the working class the world over and will always side with the interests of their domestic capitalists at the end of the day – as they must, and as capitalism itself dictates.
Amusingly, you earlier drew attention to the fact that the Ukrainian state has now inflicted compulsory conscription on Ukrainian workers in order to use them as cannon fodder in its capitalist war against Russian imperialism. Even by the pathetic logic of your own argument, the suggestion that states are needed to prevent lives from being torn asunder is surely a sick joke. The lives of millions of Ukrainian and Russian workers are currently being comprehensively “torn asunder” by their respective capitalist states. So much for your precious institution called the nation-state. As if it cares a flying fuck about you, you gullible fool
And you have the nerve to call socialists “blockheads”! It’s about time you took that ostrich head of yours from out of the sand in which it has been firmly wedged and have a serious good look at the world around you…
“Any Marxist will tell you – from the surplus labour of the worker as per the Labour Theory of Value.”
No shit Sherlock, but that surplus wealth is at the disposal of the community as a whole when an enterprise is nationalised.
“So you seek the same wealth distribution as in Vietnam as positive.”
No, I was merely pointing out that socialism and a state are not incomoatible.
“Vietnam had 458 people with a net worth of above $30 million in 2019. The number of ultra-high net worth (UHNWI) individuals in Vietnam is projected to hit 753 by 2024. Vietnam had five billionaires by the end of 2019, with the figure expected to rise to six in 2024.”
Irrelevant to my point.
“How do those rich people acquire their wealth?”
Again any Marxist will tell you. From the theft of labour of the workers according to the Labour Theory of Value.”
Newsflash! Water still wet, fire still hot.
Dear Tinky Winky
There is a huge difference between “surplus value” and “surplus wealth”
“As any fule kno”
SPOT THE CONTRADICTION…
AJ¨: “Any Marxist will tell you – from the surplus labour of the worker as per the Labour Theory of Value.”
TRUE BLOCKHEAD “No shit Sherlock, but that surplus wealth is at the disposal of the community as a whole when an enterprise is nationalised.”AND
AJ: “How do those rich people acquire their wealth? Again any Marxist will tell you. From the theft of labour of the workers according to the Labour Theory of Value.”
TRUE BLOCKHEAD: Newsflash! Water still wet, fire still hot.TRUE BLOCKHEAD: “No, I was merely pointing out that socialism and a state are not incompatible.”
If the state is essentially a class tool that a ruling class use to rule over an exploited class (according to socialist theory) and if socialism is a classless society (again, according to socialist theory)
then…
How could socialism and the state be compatible???
The existence of a state must imply the existence of classes and therefore the absence of socialism
Over to you TB…
Interesting speculation in today’s issue by a Times journalist (Roger Boyes) of what might happen in the event of it becoming “a forever war”:
Zelensky’s being overthrown and replaced by “a disruptive revanchist dictator”.
Not an impossibility. One candidate might be the armed forces chief, Zaluzhny, an open Banderite sympathiser.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.