cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/54954438
eh… I wouldn’t call russia “not an oligarchy.” I definitely wouldn’t call them part of the Axis of Resistance. They are fighting on the same side as the Axis of resistance but not because they had a choice.
The Axis of Resistance didn’t choose their fate either. The only choice they made is to resist rather than submit, so the same as Russia.
Iran didn’t try to join the genocidal empire.
Putin chose to join the Western capitalist order and was rejected.
Iran on the other hand secured their sovereignty in a revolution and was the only state that took military action against the genocide, which they could simply not do like all the other states.
You can’t compare the two at all.
Nobody is comparing them. They simply were pushed into a situation where they had to be part of this axis or die, just like the other countries within this resistance.
Yes, they are still capitalist however.
Once the US/NATO falls inshallah and the balance of power shifts globally we will need to refocus our efforts on these capitalist states (Iran/Russia) that fought US/NATO imperialism.
hopefully the Russians and the Iranians can focus on their own bourgeoise once the external pressure vanishes.
@Spectre eh. Still capitalist. They still definitely have a lot of corporate power, whatever Putin says. In fact, if you still empower your corporations but just bring them under control of the government, that’s exactly what fascist economics is. Their lawmaking definitely fits with the fascist style, too, so I’m going to say that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it is one.
Remember that imperialism, per Lenin’s definition, is very much not about a single axis. There being a single axis for so long is actually sort of weird, so it’s quite sensible to view Russia as an imperial power from a Marxist perspective.
The “marxist perspective” is definitely not something that would conclude Russia is imperialist. Imperialism is, for lack of a better way to put it offhand, capitalism externalized.
Some things imperialism isn’t:
-
Capital being strong locally (if this were the case, most capitalist states would qualify as imperialist)
-
Having geopolitical power/influence (if this were the case, China would be considered imperialist and they are instead doing win-win infrastructure deals and trade with the global south)
-
Exploitation of other countries as the only factor required to meet the definition (though imperialism definitely involves exploitation of other countries, other kinds of exploitation can exist - otherwise, there would be no meaningful distinction between colonialism and imperialism, for example)
There are others who I’m sure can explain the geopolitical economy aspects of it better than I can and hopefully will step in to do so. But I would be looking for things like coercive relationships where the capital of Nation A is growing as a result of exploiting the land/labor/resources of Nation B. From what I can tell, capitalist Russia’s actions are more just realpolitik dealing with the corner they’ve been backed into. Trying to be an imperialist country would put them in conflict with anti-imperialist forces in the world, which would make them even more alone; despised by the western empire that wants to subjugate them and despised by anti-imperialist forces. Easily isolated and picked off.
Do you really think the DPRK, as principled as it has tended to be on the global stage, would ally with Russia if they believed Russia was imperialist?
Strange dynamics call for more nuance in definitions. There is no need to shoehorn them into a definition that was made to describe something else. I would easily believe the Russian leadership/capitalists are opportunists who will follow whatever way the wind blows. But even that doesn’t in itself mean it is easy for them to change allegiances/goals at this point. Leaders are always part intention and part the limitations of the surrounding system and conditions.
The “marxist perspective” is definitely not something that would conclude Russia is imperialist.
No, not "definitely ", it’s very debatable especially because imperialism had a significant transformation since Lenin defined it. Remember, he was describing colonial imperialism and believed capitalist states will keep waging wars over colonies which would bring down capitalism, instead imperialism adapted and reshaped itself into neocolonialism where large powers gave up colonies in favour of economic domination and unequal exchange, then neoliberalism with it’s global value chains, labour arbitrage abroad and austerity at home, and now seems to be having another transformation into a much more militaristic expansion into new markets and simply exuberant destruction of the world to open opportunities for profitable investments into rebuilding.
But I would be looking for things like coercive relationships where the capital of Nation A is growing as a result of exploiting the land/labor/resources of Nation B.
Which is absolutely what Russian oligarchs did in Ukraine and other nations in the region, and large part of the reason for the war is so they can keep doing that unmolested.
Which is absolutely what Russian oligarchs did in Ukraine and other nations in the region, and large part of the reason for the war is so they can keep doing that unmolested.
I don’t know what you mean. Did when? Ukraine has been under NATO proxy influence since the Euromaidan coup in 2014, followed by a lot of history and buildup to the open war. It wasn’t like Russia spontaneously decided to “invade” Ukraine to expand capital or something; that would be an October 7th style narrative that pretends history began on the day the SMO started.
Russian oligarchs owned major businesses in Ukraine since the dissolution of the USSR, many of those were nationalised after 2022 but there’s still a lot of Russian economic interest active in Ukraine, using offshore accounts, fake owners etc.
This is the argument for Russia that I go by: https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Imperialism#Russian_"imperialism"
Wanted to link it before but prolewiki wasn’t working for me when I wrote my original response to the other poster.
In certain circles, there have been attempts to paint the Russo-Ukrainian conflict as a war between two imperialist countries, the United States and Russia. Similarly to the above Chinese example, this is incorrect.
Unlike the western powers, Russia does not have any capital monopolies that control the world market or supply chains. Russia having Gazprom and an extraction industry doesn’t mean they are imperialist. The essence of imperialism is monopolistic on a global scale, which is precisely why Russia is not imperialist, not whether they have capital generally. A perfect example of monopolies that share the world amongst themselves is the West, specifically the United States in their control of the WEF, IMF, World Bank, and UN Security Council, allowing the western powers to enforce this dominance through jingoistic foreign policy, embargoes, and hindering the development of other countries. Neither Russia nor China has anywhere close to this level of global power through finance capital.
Russia lacks finance capital and division of the world’s resources. It only has 4 of the top 100 corporations in the world and 6 of the top 500. 82% of Russian exports are raw materials, including 58% oil, 11% metal, and 6% food. In 2017, Russia imported $106.2 billion worth’ of machine goods and only exported $12.8 billion. Russia does not have any of the top 100 corporations in terms of capital export, and most Russian capital export is capital flight to tax havens. Russia only controls 0.7% of the world’s wealth and has much less wealth per adult than the United States ($8,843 vs $336,528). Russia has intervened militarily in other countries such as Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria, but not to seize natural resources like imperialist countries do.[8]
As to the specifics of what you claimed, I would not be surprised if there are Russian oligarchs who see potential opportunity in Ukraine, but that doesn’t intrinsically mean Russia went to war for the purpose of imperialist conquest.
All true but it’s a very rigid definition of imperialism, WW1 Russian Empire or Japan also wouldn’t meet it but their role in WW1 was imperialist.
I’ll only take factual offence with this:
Russia has intervened militarily in other countries such as Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria, but not to seize natural resources like imperialist countries do.
Russia used arms sales, security contracts, and direct military intervention to secure natural resources in several African countries; and claiming Russia didn’t consider natural resources in Donbas at all is just silly. I don’t think it was the main reason but it definitely was part of the equation.
I guess I would need details/examples.
Cause my familiarity with Russia in Africa in recent times is them allegedly helping the Sahel states stay secure, with intelligence assistance. Their actions in recent years (that I have seen/heard of) look pretty consistent as part of an anti-imperialist bloc to me. That doesn’t mean it’s all out of the goodness of their hearts, but right now, western imperialism is the primary contradiction, so if they can contribute to taking down western hegemony, that is worth something.
I do want to emphasize, and perhaps this is a reason your replies are getting downvoted (I’m not among those downvoting them to be clear), that any definition considering a country like current Russia to be “imperialist” risks encouraging ultra-left thought, as in framing geopolitics as little more than cynically warring states who all want to exploit each other.
For me, that’s part of the reason to push back for sure. It is worth investigating precisely what the external and internal behaviors of the Russian Federation are and not pulling punches on where those actions are a problem. I just think insisting on imperialism as a way of describing it is not helping our cause and tends to feed western narratives. One of the favorite tactics of the western empire is to get people on the “left” to look at forces of resistance in the world and go “well I despise the west but I also despise these entities who are resisting.”
So for me, some of it’s a matter of definitions and some of it’s simply down to messaging and tactics.
@amemorablename Imperialism is the division of the world between larger powers, which is exactly what Russia is doing. And yes, nations do ally with imperialist nations because it’s what they are, not in spite of it.
In what meaning is Russia even “dividing the world between larger powers”? Since when do they have the power to do that? Are you seriously trying to say that the rise of multi-polarity is the same as embracing imperialism? 🫠
Division of the world between large powers is only one aspect of Lenin’s definition of imperialism, others being concentration of production into monopolies, consolidation of industrial and financial capital (Russia meets those 100%), export of capital as a main economic activity as opposed of exporting labour, goods, or resources, and a creation of international capitalist associations (those are debatable).
Much more importantly though, a country doesn’t need to be an established imperialist power to be engaged in an imperialist war. The Russian Empire, a backwards, feudal agrarian state that ran on slave labour until the late 19th century and was only beginning to industrialise, fit that definition even less than the Russian Federation does currently, yet according to Lenin it was engaged in an imperialist war and he developed revolutionary defeatism exactly in this situation.
Lenin didn’t call to support what he called “young imperialist countries” like Germany or Japan against established imperialist countries like Britain or France. He called for the workers of all those countries to fight against their own governments, to turn the imperialist war abroad into the revolution at home.
Listen, you are correct that Lenin did not see his definition of imperialism as a checklist and that the role tsarist russia played was of imperial nature because it still had enough “old world power” with its army, huge land and colonial periphery to play in the imperial division game.
However, it is absolutely ridiculous to look at the current situation Russia is in, with NATO funding a (imo) genocidal proxy war against it and raining every sanction known to man down on it, and then still call Russia imperialist.
As we have just established that Lenin did not give us a checklist for imperialism, it becomes rather clear that Russia is anti-imperialist if we actually look at the 100% imperialist nations and how they interact with Russia.
They want to do to Russia, what they have done to their colonies. Russia is currently engaging in a fight for their own survival just like Iran is and none of the moralism of “but Putin WANTED to be part of Europe/NATO and play the imperialist game” matters because…he simply isn’t even at the table. The other players didn’t invite them and now Russia is forced to act anti-imperialist or be a victim of imperialism.
Now, i am not even sure if Russia actually wants part of the imperial cake or if they had other plans within the systems created by the imperialists, but i rarely make moral judgements because their material reality and how they deal with it matters much more to me.
Disclaimer - obviously I don’t think Russia is imperialist in the same sense / measure as the USA, UK or EU. But I also don’t think it’s anti-imperialist in the same sense / measure as China, DPRK or Iran. It’s a capitalist oligarchy that is defending from NATO aggression and it’s global role is much more complex so it’s a discussion worth having and not something to just handwave away.
the role tsarist russia played was of imperial nature because it still had enough “old world power” with its army, huge land and colonial periphery
Are you saying Russia is not a global power anymore? Go say it anywhere on runet and see what happens 😂
Recently the president of Azerbaijan dared to publicly say “China and America are the world’s two superpowers. There is no third.” and Russians were calling to expel every Azeri migrant from the country.
Anyway and on a more serious note, obviously Russia still has everything you listed: an army including the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, huge land (largest state by territory) with immense natural wealth, and significant economic interest not only in the post-USSR territory but also in Africa, where it’s not doing what China is doing (building infrastructure and assisting development) but rather what the West has always been doing (selling arms and extracting gold, diamonds, uranium, oil, etc). Where China writes off debt, Russia writes it off under condition that same amount of money (or, often, larger) will be spent on Russian arms. Wagner group exchanged security services for access to natural resources, and so on.
Of course, both modern Russia and China have nothing on genuine solidarity USSR extended to developing countries. Russia is still benefitting from the legacy of Soviet support for African liberation movements and lingering goodwill.
genocidal proxy war
This war decimated Ukraine demographically but it is not genocidal.
If you’re calling drone strikes on Russian territory a genocide while Palestine and Sudan are ongoing… I don’t know what to tell you.
They want to do to Russia, what they have done to their colonies.
And what do you think they wanted to do to the Russian Empire?
Russia is currently engaging in a fight for their own survival just like Iran
You see, there, this is the problem with you. No, not “just like Iran”, nobody is carpet bombing Moscow like they do Tehran.
I agree NATO is the primary aggressor and Russia is in a defensive position, and that ultimately the West just wants to bring the 90s back so they can extract resources and cheap labour from Russia. However it doesn’t itself establish that Russia doesn’t have imperialist aspirations, or that the escalation of 2022 was not imperialist in character.
i am not even sure if Russia actually wants part of the imperial cake
I found a YouTube link in your comment. Here are links to the same video on alternative frontends that protect your privacy:
@DonLongSchlong An imperialist nation being against another imperialist nation doesn’t make the second imperialist nation not imperialist. Very, very much the opposite. Again, multiple axes was the original point of the definition.
But where are their colonies? Their exploitation of Africa and west asia? Where do they extract resources without giving anything but hunger in return?
As far as i know, everyone is very happy to work with Russia unless it is a western country that is part of the imperial system of the US (NATO, EU etc.).
Like you said, we are not talking about the same exact imperialism as Lenin anymore. The imperialist nations gave a lot of their colonial strive up in order to be part of the hegemonic imperialism of the US (i think at least, i am wonky on my history ngl). Russia is just not part of this at all and got almost turned into one of those colonies if it hadn’t violently resisted.
Be it Lenin’s or the more modern definition of imperialism; Russia is not to be considered part of it
But where are their colonies?
Where are French colonies?
Their exploitation of Africa
Did you even try searching?
Where do they extract resources without giving anything but hunger in return?
You can’t eat weapons you know.
-
How can they be considered capitalist without s dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?
Are you implying that Russia is a dictatorship of the proletariat? They certainly aren’t feudalist, and certainly aren’t bonapartist.
The meme sayz by 2005 putin removed all political power from billionairs. How should this be possible?
I’m sorry, I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
Russia is not fascist
Tell that to the LGBT people there…
There is more to fascism than queerphobia.
Seems people’s first instinct to this kind of criticism is to say “but what about the US?” Ineffective because many people who say this already know the US is bad. So instead I’ll say; I have queer friends in Russia. Queerphobia is horrendous, backwards, and not to be brushed off. Thus I deeply resent the US for forcing me to side with reactionaries against it. The US is that much of a threat to the planet.
Granted “side with” is doing heavy lifting. I can do the “critical” but I’m not sure how to do the “support” beyond simply voicing my opinions.
Whatever the case, though queerphobia is a tendency rightfully associated with fascists, that alone is not sufficient for fascism.
Queerphobia is horrendous, backwards, and not to be brushed off. Thus I deeply resent the US for forcing me to side with reactionaries against it. The US is that much of a threat to the planet.
Also, it is important to highlight that Russia; along with China, the Palestinian resistance and Iran; were victims of the dialectical baiting made by the US. I wrote a post about it going into detail what is the dialectical bait:
In this other comment, I added two emails of Epstein and his russian collaborator where they stated that they wanted to use this State Duma legislator that has support with the LGTB community.
Treatment of [Internationally Marginalized Communities] living in this one country, that proves that they are Fascist? This is a bad standard to set. Fascism is not merely reactionary social heirarchy, if we think along this line then we have to also accept that practically every non socially progressive society is Fascist, which would be most of them today.
tell that to trans people in America. Women too. Anyone of color and especially south of the border.
Why do you assume that if I’m criticizing an anti-imperialist country for something then that must mean I think everything in the imperial core is all fine and dandy? You can support a nation in their struggle to defend themselves without whitewashing their shortcomings.
Because they aren’t “fascist” as another user said. They are still an anti-imperialist country with backwards/regressive social policies (quite literally regressive from the USSR). They aren’t even a “fascist” state in the traditional sense, as much as Putin holds power there are significant opposition parties that face typical capitalist prosecution and compete with capitalist interests. Yes, heavy prosecution exists but aren’t totally eliminated as you would see in a nationalist or national socialist regime. Imperialism is fascism; their LGBTQ rights are regressive but compare the incarceration numbers in America alone to Russia.
What point are you trying to illustrate by pointing out their regressive social policies?
What point are you trying to illustrate by pointing out their regressive social policies?
I got the impression from OP that Russia was above reproach and were entitled to uncritical support. This was mostly a knee-jerk response…
We use and live the term critical support around here. You can support a party/nation/group for their fight against, say, the primary global contradiction of imperialism and fascism, while being critical of other behaviours or contradictions, say capitalist organization of the economy or treatment of minority groups.
yeah, those russkies should learn of the US about treating their LGBT community!
It’s Bonapartist. Not fascist.
As Marx defined it? (stalemate between bourgeoisie and proletariat, state not fully controlled by either, capitalist property relations intact?) Yeah, that seems like a more accurate description of Russia’s present state.
There is no stalemate between proletariat and bourgeoisie, what are you smoking. Russian proletariat has no political power whatsoever, same as in other capitalist countries. Putin reigned in the oligarchs to some extent purely to end the selling out of Russia to the west, if anything he transformed comprador bourgeoisie into national bourgeoisie. This is a lesser evil compared to continued looting of the country like under Yeltsin, but it does not empower proletariat politically.
