In a word, no. In a few more words, support for Russia (not Putin, as historical materialists don’t subscribe to great man theory) is only a partial, temporary, tactical one, in the context of imperialist liberation. Russia is still a capitalist state, though, so it’s a two stage strategy: first liberate colonized bourgeois states from colonizer states, and second revolution within those liberated bourgeois states.
Russia is an interesting case: it has already liberated itself from the post-Soviet “shock therapy” neocolonizers. This occurred during Putin’s administration, which is why he is especially hated by the US. So now the support for Russia is in the context of keeping the colonizers from recolonizing it, and supporting Russia to the extent that it helps other states liberate themselves. But Russia isn’t trying to “liberate” Ukraine, at least not all of Ukraine. It’s trying to resolve the genocidal attacks on the people of the Donbas, and it’s trying to resolve the imperialist military expansion at its border.
Hardly; I’ve never known actual communists who uncritically supported that man. It’s always critical support, at best– which is to say, he may do some things correct, but he’s still an absolute affront to what came before, and honestly a problem Amerika themselves created. Advocating for wanting to kill a man in the midst of denazifying a NATO-backed neighbor, out of self-defense from NATO encirclement though; that’s beyond the pale, as is everything else I’ve found regarding that member’s carriage.
Fair enough. I don’t believe this is what is happening (“denazifying a NATO-backed neighbor”) and haven’t seen a source suggesting it is that doesn’t itself look like propaganda, but I’m also OK agreeing to disagree on that. I asked only because without further context it seemed like not supporting Putin was a big component of your comment.
I understand your position now, even if we disagree on Putin also.
Yeah no, my support of Putin is critical at best, and only because Ukraine is the last piece of the puzzle NATO needs to assemble to have Russia at checkmate gunpoint. Allowing the Five-Eyed Empire to genocide more innocent civilians is not how we solve the Putin problem.
Our problem here is, we have a guy here who stands against the voice of the people, decrying populism as “a horrible idea” like all our favorite Amerikan neoliberals; replaces “the imperial core” with ‘the civilized world’ in casual parlance, indicating a virulent and toxic western chauvinism at best and outright white supremacy at worst; an uncritical gamer too, so I’m erring more toward the latter than the former, I could go on til Nimrod’s release day honestly.
Fair. I suspect it would be interesting to discuss these things with you over a beer, but also that it’s too likely to end up feeling like an argument here, so I won’t press further. Thanks for the clarification.
You don’t need to support Putin to be a Marxist, him and Russia are deserving of a lot of criticism, but it’s maybe a little suspicious if someone sees everything happening geopolitically right now and consistently chooses to focus their anger towards Russia.
To be honest when I read Supavillain’s quotes my first reaction was also 'So they don’t like Russia, who cares?", Ukrainian national identify exists, if Russia annexed western Ukraine they wouldn’t be able to erase it. Non-principled populist politicians do always suck. And Russia would’ve loved (I assume this is about) Donetsk PR to have been their puppet.
But then those last two quotes are pretty bad. Killing Putin or even having Putin do a 180 wouldn’t change anything. He’d just be replaced. And the poor countries are no less civilised.
But then those last two quotes are pretty bad. Killing Putin or even having Putin do a 180 wouldn’t change anything.
Assassination is never something I advocate, but there are a few world leaders who I would not complain about if natural causes could catch up to them sometime soon.
Honest question from a non-communist, based on your reply here. Does one need to support Putin to be a Marxist?
In a word, no. In a few more words, support for Russia (not Putin, as historical materialists don’t subscribe to great man theory) is only a partial, temporary, tactical one, in the context of imperialist liberation. Russia is still a capitalist state, though, so it’s a two stage strategy: first liberate colonized bourgeois states from colonizer states, and second revolution within those liberated bourgeois states.
Russia is an interesting case: it has already liberated itself from the post-Soviet “shock therapy” neocolonizers. This occurred during Putin’s administration, which is why he is especially hated by the US. So now the support for Russia is in the context of keeping the colonizers from recolonizing it, and supporting Russia to the extent that it helps other states liberate themselves. But Russia isn’t trying to “liberate” Ukraine, at least not all of Ukraine. It’s trying to resolve the genocidal attacks on the people of the Donbas, and it’s trying to resolve the imperialist military expansion at its border.
Thank you! I didn’t read your links, but I will.
Hardly; I’ve never known actual communists who uncritically supported that man. It’s always critical support, at best– which is to say, he may do some things correct, but he’s still an absolute affront to what came before, and honestly a problem Amerika themselves created. Advocating for wanting to kill a man in the midst of denazifying a NATO-backed neighbor, out of self-defense from NATO encirclement though; that’s beyond the pale, as is everything else I’ve found regarding that member’s carriage.
Fair enough. I don’t believe this is what is happening (“denazifying a NATO-backed neighbor”) and haven’t seen a source suggesting it is that doesn’t itself look like propaganda, but I’m also OK agreeing to disagree on that. I asked only because without further context it seemed like not supporting Putin was a big component of your comment.
I understand your position now, even if we disagree on Putin also.
Yeah no, my support of Putin is critical at best, and only because Ukraine is the last piece of the puzzle NATO needs to assemble to have Russia at checkmate gunpoint. Allowing the Five-Eyed Empire to genocide more innocent civilians is not how we solve the Putin problem.
Our problem here is, we have a guy here who stands against the voice of the people, decrying populism as “a horrible idea” like all our favorite Amerikan neoliberals; replaces “the imperial core” with ‘the civilized world’ in casual parlance, indicating a virulent and toxic western chauvinism at best and outright white supremacy at worst; an uncritical gamer too, so I’m erring more toward the latter than the former, I could go on til Nimrod’s release day honestly.
Fair. I suspect it would be interesting to discuss these things with you over a beer, but also that it’s too likely to end up feeling like an argument here, so I won’t press further. Thanks for the clarification.
I appreciate good-faith chatters like you. Don’t change.
You too!
You don’t need to support Putin to be a Marxist, him and Russia are deserving of a lot of criticism, but it’s maybe a little suspicious if someone sees everything happening geopolitically right now and consistently chooses to focus their anger towards Russia.
To be honest when I read Supavillain’s quotes my first reaction was also 'So they don’t like Russia, who cares?", Ukrainian national identify exists, if Russia annexed western Ukraine they wouldn’t be able to erase it. Non-principled populist politicians do always suck. And Russia would’ve loved (I assume this is about) Donetsk PR to have been their puppet.
But then those last two quotes are pretty bad. Killing Putin or even having Putin do a 180 wouldn’t change anything. He’d just be replaced. And the poor countries are no less civilised.
Assassination is never something I advocate, but there are a few world leaders who I would not complain about if natural causes could catch up to them sometime soon.
Thanks for the additional info and feedback. 🙂