this post was submitted on 29 Oct 2025
-17 points (39.2% liked)
Memes
52991 readers
1072 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
That's not what imperialism means, though. China isn't trying to gain colonial territories to plunder, neither is Russia. Imperialism is an economic compulsion brought about by reaching higher developed stages of capitalism. China is socialist and thus doesn't have that drive, and Russia is capitalist but severely boxed in by NATO and lacks the financial capital or free territory to plunder from.
No?
Am I reading this wrong, or is there some western-materialist reading?
Than why is China attacking fishing boats on the sea it claims, and Russia took over mining region and abondoned the northern part of Ukraine it already had occupied?
Yeah, nothing says socialism like producing iPhones in factories with suicide prevention nets. You ever been to China? Would recommend, its a totalitarian capitalist state in every regard. No workers control, no communism, just workers stomped upon with a boot painted red.
Whaaaat? 11% of its border, and that's since Finland joined bacause of Russian imperialism, and doubled the border. You ever wonder why every European nation, once occupied by Russia feels the need to join an "anti-Russian" alliance?
Lybian, Syrian, Sudanese, Kongoise expirience may differ.
That wikipedia overview of imperialism would apply to all international negotiations. Imperialism as Marxists understand it comes from John Hobson, which was popular understanding at the time it was published. Russia isn't trying to "dominate" Ukraine, or the four oblasts, it's trying to gain a buffer zone between it and a hostile power that could use the four oblasts as a land bridge to invade.
Territorial disputes in the south China sea are not "plundering" nor is it imperialism. Secondly, just because Russia is at war with Ukraine for the purposes of establishing a buffer zone doesn't mean it isn't going to take advantage of gains in resources. The war is not because of the resources, but it isn't going to just let them sit there.
As for China, public ownership is the principle aspect of the economy, and the working class is in control of the state. It is definitionally a socialist country, and has overwhelming popular support. Socialism isn't when no factory or no iPhone, plus both Foxconn and China itself have lower suicide rates than countries like the US. Suicide prevention isn't a bad thing.
I'm well aware of Operation GLADIO and the far-right elements sponsored by the western powers in formerly socialist countries. Nationalist movements within former socialist countries combined with the devastation of shock therapy left much of them in utter disaster and under the thumb of the west. The oblasts in Eastern Ukraine serve as a vital land bridge into Russia, and NATO expansionism has continued even when NATO promised to stop.
Listing off countries known for having ties with Russia isn't the same as Russia having imperialist colonies, nor could these ever hope to compare to the sheer scale of plunder both at a qualitative and quantitative level committed by western countries.
Yeah all negotiations are establishing hegemony and using hard power, that's how say Iceland or Tobago and such negotiate with other states.
Sooo what Russia is doing is not imperialism, because you're choosing a murky 125 year old antisemitic definition of imperialism? Right. That clears the issue completely.
So when Russia... undominates(?) the 4 oblasts there will not be a land bridge between NATO and Russia any more? How does that work exactly in your mind?
Cuz either I dont understand how land works, or this is some absurd bullshit. Also, you did notice there is a land border with Russia in... Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Poland? So what particular change would occupying 1/5 of Ukraine achieve? And if Russia is so concerned with a NATO invasion why are the northern bases on the border with Norway and Finland empty?
Finally which part of NATO history suggests that land access is a key component for it's "interventions"? And if Russia threatens a nuclear war for supping arms to Ukraine is it that it couldn't actually lunch such an attack when attacked over land (as it's nuclear doctrine allows)?
Ah ok, that's a very strong argument, your absolutely right, don't know how I could not understand that straight away.
Mate, I gotta establish a buffer zone in your kitchen, just in case you might consider invading mine. I will take as much from it as I can and attempt to blow up any transport your resources in or out, but that's unrelated, it's just so you dont take mine (you might be a nazi after all).
Thats why majority of the market is in private corporations? Looking at... Chinese state media it would seem 92.1% of "entities" employing over 80% of urban workforce and responsible for 60% GDP are private. By public sector employment Hungary, Australia, Saudi Arabia and Seychelles (and 16 other) are more "communist" than China.
The party leadership is in control of the state. It dictates the line the rest of the party has to fallow, eliminates internal opposition and dictates the propaganda spewed to the masses as well as controls the forces of repression. You could just as well claim the workers are in charge of western democracies, because "definitionally" they could vote. You act as if when someone writes something that's how it works I could direct you to neo- institutional or any other critical sociology, but I think you do understand that it's not the case when that is said of any state you're not a psycho-fan of?
Re- the graph - could you please educate yourself on what might be the repercussions of speaking up against the party?
GLADIO was an operation in Western countries, not former socialist. And you severy undermine the rich history of both local nationalism's and far right movements (I'd expect you to at least know of UPA's genocidal activity from your propaganda intake), and the fact that the soviets regimes tendency to murder people for anti-nazi activity or using tanks against worker strikes might turn them against such a "workers" regime.
You ever been to eastern Europe? Honestly, mate, I live here. I've traveled most of all countries in the post-soviet block, including Soviet Union before the fall and Russia some 10 years ago as well as China. Your level of detachment from reality is only possible when learning about the world through propaganda. Maybe at least travel a little bit, it can be done cheaply. You might even learn enough not to try to explain people their own history, when you clearly don't know better.
The countries one would associate with higher level of devastation are the ones closest to Russia (politically). As much as I might hate neoliberal policies and exploitation the difference when you cross EU borders anywhere in the east or south is painfully clear. And if the alternative is to serve as Russia's buffer what is the difference? How is that better?
Holodomor pretty solidly stands up to the potato famine I'd say, same most of what Soviets did to natives in central Asia, or to it's ecology (you know, draining a sea is a rather impressive scale of destruction even by capitalist standards).
-The idea that influencing other nations is "imperialism" is the western, liberal consensus. It's vibes-based, rather than materialist. Marxists use a definition created by liberals like John Hobson and expanded upon by Lenin, Michael Hudson, Cheng Enfu, and more. Imperialism as a stage of capitalism was found over 130 years ago, but has been studied and refined ever since. Not one bit is "antisemitic."
-Russia is sticking to the four oblasts, because Ukraine has been continuously armed and the far-right empowered since 2014. The land bridge into Russia from Ukraine is the easiest way into Russia, there are other land bridges but this is the most historically significant with the most bellicose neighbor that was shelling ethnic Russians in Donbass for a decade.
-NATO is the millitary wing of western imperialism. It's the way the west strongarms the global south and geopolitical enemies into capitulation, and has sponsored terrorist attacks via Operation GLADIO as well as conducted invasions in Libya, Yugoslavia, and more. NATO countries are the world's largest exporters of plunder and genocide.
-Your wierd kitchen analogy doesn't work. I don't know what it is with liberals and using analogy in place of actual materialist analysis.
-I said the large firms and key industries being dominated by public ownership is what's important, not ratio of GDP, nor public sector employment. I'm not sure how you could misunderstand that unless you literally do not care at all and have already made up your mind. The ratio doesn't matter, who holds the most important aspects of society matters, and this is why the state sector is increasing:
-The CPC is a working class party. It isn't under the control of capitalists, and it's incredibly obvious that this is the case as production is oriented on vast infrastructure projects and poverty alleviation programs over private profits. People don't speak out against the party often because the CPC works for the people, and this is represented in good metrics over time.
-The soviets were anti-fascist. Fascist uprisings like in Hungary where Nazis were set free from prison and were lynching Jewish people and communists were put down by the Red Army. It takes a real torturing of history to try to play fascists as "true fighters for democracy."
-You can clearly see the devastation brought by capitalism and the absolute looting and plunder of Eastern Europe by the western powers. Imperialism has been devastating for the post-socialist countries. I've spoken to quite a few people living in post-socialist countries, and I've looked at hard data. I can't afford to travel everywhere, but I have traveled. I can tell you that your smug condescension towards me is just that, all posturing and no substance.
-There was no forced famine in the 1930s, that was a natural famine made worse by kulaks burning their grain and killing their crops to resist collectivization. There was no plunder here, only collectivization of farming which ended famine. This is further torturing of history on your part to serve a twisted narrative, such as calling the Marxist interpretation of imperialism "anti-semitic."
All in all, you've been confidently wrong several times here. Anecdotes you may have, but you're also rife with absurdities and contradictions in knowledge. Travel doesn't teach history, nor does it teach correct politics.
What is that definition, exactly? Also if I give you a definition used by any other particular ideological tendency you will accept it, or is your Marxism-western-armcharism the only acceptable one?
Would you maybe have any idea what happened in 2014, and how that holds against your "4 oblasts" mantra? Which of the 4 is Crimea?
Yeah, and not literal NATO states with borders closer to moscow because that's not what you were told?
Thats some superbly precise shelling, bypassing all the Ukrainians living in Donbass... Ok, no can you pull any sattelite pictures of the region after all this years and compare it to the regions of frontline? You might notice there's no evidence of the supposed 10 years of constant shelling.
And as for the rest: ill reply tomorrow, but it clear you can only put up your make belive world against reality.
-I've already explained, imperialism is best described as a system of international plunder. If we want to be technical about it, it's linked to export of capital and domination by finance capital, ie what the US and western Europe do in the global south. By the definition you gave, it was imperialism to stop Nazi Germany, and it was imperialism for the Statesian north to invade the south.
-Crimea isn't in the scope of the current war, because it was already annexed for similar reasons. I don't know why you're bringing it up, unless you're trying to conjure reasoning for why Russia is going to go beyond the 4 oblasts.
-I understand that literal NATO states border Russia. I also understand that the Ukrainian far-right has been empowered over the last decade and has been at war with the Donbass region for a decade. Ukraine in particular has been increasingly bellicose, and was threatening to join NATO as well. A weak, defanged country already in NATO is less dangerous than one that is actively at war and threatening to join NATO.
-As for Kiev's war on the Donbass:
Need any more?
I don't really care for you to reply, when you are this willing to torture history and present moments like this and yet dare to say I'm the one playing make-believe, it's farcical.
Yeah, but than you personally make the decision what constitutes plunder, so Russia taking land, resources and crops from Ukraine is not plunder because you simp for Putin on some absurd soviet nostalgia. Is there no financial system in Russia? Are oligarchs members of a communist party? How does that work in your head?
It's a land bridge to somewhere? Or did they actually had to build one of the largest bridges to connect it? It was necessary for strategic sunbathing?
Cuz it's one of 7 or 8 Ukrainian oblasts Russian military is currently occupying, it's clearly against the stated nonsensical logic and justification of a land bridge, and clearly, by Putins own statements is a case of historical revisionism. You just support nationalist imperialism.
Yeah, a satellite picture proving the shelling, with 10 years it should look somewhat like the surface of the moon, but somehow none of you propaganda eaters can show any evidence. For comparison you can check something like this or that (first search results, feel free to check any other sources for these locations since you will obviously object these particular sites), now load up Yandex maps and show me something remotely similar around Russian occupied Donbas (yeah I did check already on a bunch of different maps, good luck).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism_(Hobson_book)#%22Jewish_financiers%22_and_racism
It gets much better at "requir[ing] a repression of the spread of degenerate or unprogressive races". Nice theory you got there comrade.
Yeeeeeah, clearly you've never been to the region.
During the so called communist period in my country we'd often lack basic resources that were overproduced, as they would be force-exported into the CCCP. No meat, little grain, empty food shelves in shops, but we got money and vouchers allowing us to use them for foodstuffs, only there was very little of these. If that is not plunder, what is? Why is there not enough potatoes in Bealarus at the moment? Is it a CIA plot, or as Lukashenko states market mechanics and it's a better deal to sell them to Russia?
-Russia is not annexing the 4 oblasts for imperialist super-profits. It's not exporting capital, it's not trying to gain access to resources. The purpose of the SMO is to gain the land buffer and demillitarize Ukraine so that it is no longer a threat. There's no "simping" going on here, the fact that yet again you have to describe my positions in unbacked claims of "simping," antisemitism, etc rather than engage with the actual points just further proves your own idealism.
-Crimea is strategically located between Ukraine and Russia, yes. I don't support imperialism in any way.
-There's zero chance you actually looked at the sources I provided in any real depth. Kiev has been at war with the Donbass region for a decade, this is well-documented as my sources show. There's not a single person saying that the Donbass region should look like the surface of the moon or that the shelling has been going on 24 hours a day for the last decade, this is just nonsense.
-Hobson's personal social views on why imperialism happens are entirely distinct from his observations on how finance capital plunders the world. Lenin advanced upon it, removing the racist undertones, and establishing its connection to capitalism. Since Lenin, other theorists like Kwame Nkrumha, Cheng Enfu, and Michael Hudson have advanced upon Lenin. Not a shred of the antisemitism of Hobson remained in Lenin's analysis, and no antisemitism has existed among the Marxist analysis of imperialism since. You have no actual counter to the Marxist analysis of imperialism, so you attack the liberal Hobson instead, hoping that Marxists somehow adopt the exact same theory as liberals do. More evidence of your absurdism.
-Goods were indeed moved around the soviet union, as it was an expansive system. Overall, everyone was uplifted. The RSFSR was more developed, and thus enjoyed higher quality of life, but there was no export of capital, no domination by a financial oligarchy at play. The planned economy required planned production and distribution at a multi-national scale, and did not have the same profit motive that drives imperialism.
Overall, you have no points. You misframe my own points, and then when I point out how you've done it, you ignore the subject entirely. You also resort to ad hominem, trying to claim Marxists follow an anti-semitic definition of imperialism and thus Marxists must be anti-semitic, when neither are true. Again, I really don't need you to reply, it's clear that you're content with lying about and misframing my positions when it's clear that you don't actually have a counter. It's rude and tiring.
It's annexing 7/8 at the moment, as pointed out, and you seem to ignore.
So it exports grain and oil, mines rare earths and coal for... anti-profits? At loss? It would claim to the contrary, so are you wrong or are Russian state media wrong?
Even if that were the stated objective (and not the strategic ambiguity that has been going on since 2014); Ukraine only became a threat after it was invaded, after a comically corrupt pro-Russian leader was ejected. And what has since the SMO achieved? Ukraine is more militarized and more in favour of NATO than ever before. 2 states bordering Russia joined NATO. NATO gained access to first hand experience against Russian army and a testing ground against it weapons and tactics. There's also catastrophic losses, numbers of which you will dispute, but I encourage you read up ru mil-bloggers, and do read between the lines as is the eastern tradition. So it's a complete failure, and even if it wasn't... What would be the difference?
NATO's power is high tech long range weapons, not mass tank armies that need Ukrainian steppes. And even if any one attempted there would be a nuclear response, so why would any one try that? This makes absolutely no sense, no matter how many times you repeat the line.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was strategically located inside of Ukraine, wasn't it? And than someone decided to occupy it, even tho in no way what so ever it could be a land bridge, which is your claimed rationale? How was it strategical against Russia?
You guys use the same examples over and over, and I had a few of these discussions already.
No one is questioning that. Only you ignore that is because Russia occupied that region with the exact same scenario as they used against Georgia before.
Weird, maybe I somehow misread your statement of
Because we both know you're referring to a manufactured propaganda item used as casus belli, that could not be proved outside of Russian/aligned media. You could compare pictures of any Ukrainian front line city with these of Donbas and would be faced with a rather radical discrepancy.
I'm addressing it since that is a theory you initially claimed to subscribe to, check your own comments. And as stated; even if you would follow the Leninist reinterpretation there's no point in me addressing it, since you then ignore the facts of Russia's exploitative economy and the fact it is a capitalist state like any other with concentration of wealth not much different from USA. In fact oddly enough most "western" capitalist countries seem to have a more egalitarian wealth division than Russia.
Obviously not everyone, but the masses, yes - I'm not questioning that.
Yeah, I could kinda agree with that. Also it didn't work out, obviously. But let's make it funnier and fit Afghanistan into your lovely fairly-tale. That was clearly in favour of the local population? Or just to secure the crucial supply of poppy seed to the population of RSFSR as it became aware of the fact that the central planning brought the economy of a system spanning two continents and a European bread basket to a point where it could not feed it's own population reliably?
See, the thing is; I'm very much not a fan of market economy, I see some positives of the communist regime in my country. But I also see it's murderous failures and what seems to differentiate our positions is that I can remember the fall of Soviet Union and seen it in Moscow itself before the fall of the RSFSR and in my country before that. What you read about in glorifying brochures I've seen. It was a failure, and that any honest person who lived though it will tell you. It collapsed from day to day, and suddenly there's no food. It was not a resilient system, it was not an effective system, the waste was astronomical and the lack of rationality made entire nations starve. It collapsed the economy and alienated the people beyond the conditions that brought it to be. In it's ruined social hellscape it gave birth to a new kleptocratic oligarchic state that you for some deeply absurd reason seem to support, even tho there is clearly no interest with marxism-leninism on it's part.
The only rational explanation for your support of this war would be if you're a Russian nationalist. This I could understand. Detest, but consider it rational in it's crooked way.
Half of your points is claiming things are the way you imagine them, because you do. I'm not going after every fallacy you believe in (like the tiny thing of ownership in Chinese economy). I'm just hoping you'll actually question some of the stuff you try to push on to others that's ostensibly false or misguided.
-Selling commodities is not imperialism. I said export of capital. Commodities can function as capital, but in selling them through export these are not exported as capital.
-The IMF wanted Ukraine to destroy its safety nets for loans, Ukraine's ousted president went with the Russian loan that didn't. It's as simple as that.
-Russia is achieving its goals with respect to the SMO. Crimea was in Ukraine, but voted to join Russia.
-Ukraine has been at war with the Donbass region for a decade. This is fact.
-I've never said Russia was socialist, or a model to emulate. I'm aware of the wealth disparity.
-The USSR had stable food supply. It was a remarkably effective system, and capitalism has been devastating for it.
-I don't support imperialism. I'm a Marxist-Leninist, and my opinions are in line with that.
All in all, none of your points are worth responding to in any greater depth than that. They're all coated in doublespeak and anecdote.
The only definition of imperialism you accept contradicts every common dictionary definition and servers the one country where it was mostly developed. Ok, no point in discussing that further. Just one final question then.
Let's theoretically accept "SMO" is to defend against NATO and only about the 4 oblasts and you claim "land bridge". According to recent demands they are Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk and Luhansk, yes? So; why? Land bridge to what?
It's 630 km from Moscow to Luhansk, 730 to Donetsk, 860 to Zaporizhzhia, 980 to Kherson.
It's 500 km from Chernichiv oblast, 450 km from Sumy oblast to downtown Moscow. About half an hour of flight for a subsonic Tomahawk, few minutes for a hypersonic rocket. Russia occupied that area but retreated, mostly even before Ukrainian counter attacks. If you have a look at a map access to Russia proper is broadly open from the "pro-NATO regime" terrain. Moscow is also closer then the 4 oblasts from Latvia, and marginally more distant from Estonia and Finland, so 3 NATO states together some 8% of Russias border? There's 8 Ukrainian oblasts Russia is not making any claims against closer to Moscow then Zaporizhzhia.
Why are only resource rich regions of east on southern Ukraine occupied and not the ones closest to key industrial and administrative region of Russia? And if you're about to claim that there's anything so important in the south - Turkey, the second biggest NATO army is 200km from Russian border to the south or less then the Moscow-Donbas distance if they wanted to hit most of Russian south over the sea. Is there some "materialist" reading of the map I'm not understanding?
No, the definition of imperialism as a system of international extraction is consistent and is the most widely used. The west is not the world.
Secondly, it's not about absolute proximity, but the terrain and capability of moving troops and materiel through. You keep relying on metrics that don't actually matter nearly as much, you did it earlier too when you thought socialism was a ratio thing.
Im not from the west, you yourself confirmed russia is engaged in extraction and is a capitalist country, and ML definition is not used outside of specialised discourse. You're just going "well akshuly..."
Did you even look at a topo map before spewing this nonsense?
Doing a few hundred km detour to bypass the mighty peaks of 400 m over sea level while requireing many more river passages is something you think any one would consider? Why?
Historically every key invasion from the west (Polish, French, German) rolled pretty much straight on to Moscow. The only notable exception being the Crimean one, coming from the south and closer to the route you seem to be picturing. Unless NATO is quietly assembling a cavalry force in place of it's 5th generation fighter and global reach drone force this might not be a serious concern for anyone since 15th century.
What?
No, the idea that imperialism is about extraction and not about vague "influence" is the dominant understanding in the global south, China, etc. It's dominant because it has clear roots and causes, as well as mechanics. It's an established process rather than a vibe.
Secondly, as I had already stated, the fact that Ukraine was increasingly belligerant and warming up to NATO was why the war kicked off. Location plays a part, as Russia isn't going to go to war with, say, Israel despite Ukraine being similarly used by the US. I don't know why you keep forgetting things we've already covered.
As for the ratio thing, you tried to show GDP ratios and whatnot even though I said what matters in determining if a system is capitalist or socialist is whichever is principle. You just kinda brushed that under the rug and made up your own definition to attack. You've done similar things to it many times here.
Edit: corrected imperialism comment.
Wonder why I'm having trouble understanding your point?
So Ukraine has no right to self determination if Russian influence might wane? And if location plays part, why are the bases on the border with Norway and Finland empty? Why is the south of Ukraine occupied and not the entire border? Why does that align with rousources maps? Why do you look at a historically imperialist country, with hundreds of years of subjecting other nations, and are surprised its neighbors might want to join a millitary aliance against it. Why are you acting like a russian nationalist ignoring the interest of any other etnicity/community/nation of the region? You said yourself its just another capitalist state by now.
Ah, you mean your claim that China is socialist despite its deep commitment to capitalist exploitation of its workforce and majority private control of it's enterprise. But they state their socialism, so that's ok? Im afraid to ask about your take on NSDAP, or did 3rd reich "export capital"? This may surprise you, but just because you state something does not make it reality. You can call exploitation of the working class socialism if you wish, does not make it so.
This is going in circles.
Ukraine is right on Russia's doorstep, is still at active war with Donetsk and Luhansk, and was increasingly belligerant and building up troops in the Donbass while getting closer to NATO. Norway and Finland are not at active war and are not increasingly belligerant towards Russia beyond the usual condemnations. Self-determination, morals, etc are not the driving reasons for why this war is happening. Why not support the rights of Donetsk and Luhansk to self determination? Why are you acting like a Banderite ignoring the interest of any other etnicity/community/nation of the region?
I know Russia is capitalist. I also know that it isn't at war with Kiev to plunder Ukraine.
As for China, I already explained, the large firms and key industries are publicly owned:
Markets are not capitalism, nor are markets incompatible with socialism. China is in the developing phases of socialism, they can't just nationalize all industry overnight without serious problems arising:
I know you aren't a Marxist, so I'm not sure why you're so obsessed with misunderstanding socialism.
The Nazis were imperialist, and went to war specifically to try to create new colonies. This is well-documented.
So is Finland.
Which were occupied by Russia, so you're claiming they can not defend against a foreign invasion of their borders. If you did not notice Putin admitted it was Russian millitary taking them over initially.
So is Finland.
Pretty sure they are very openly arming themselves and Ukraine.
Unless its a defensive war which it is for Ukraine.
Because they are fake, as admitted by Putin, and as practiced before by the "peoples republics" in Georgia, that are now mostly abandoned and forced into merging with Russia proper, as the ukrainian once already were.
Mate banderites sloughtered my people. Thats the level of unity Russia can achive against itself.
You choose to belive so ignoring the material facts.
This entire comment is just erasing Donetsk and Luhansk, and the right of their self-determination. Documentation of the war in Donbass has been going on for over a decade. Finland is not nearly as armed as Ukraine, nor was it in active war with ethnic Russians. This is going in circles, you deny material facts then dance around points I bring up, or drop the subject entirely when you're disproven without acknowledging.
How many casualties of this war were there before Russian troops moved in to occupy the supposedly self-determinating regions? Your argument is that of a bully asking why is Ukraine punching itself in the face. Yes, this has been going for over a decade, you can stop repeating this mantra, as this is one of the few things we do agree on.
Oh yeah, after 10+ years of war against Russia Ukraine is likely better armed than a number of times smaller country. Still, wouldn't be that sure when it came to per capita expense/militarization, particularly before the Russian invasion, but that's not important. What is that Russia is in fact not concerned with NATO being a stone throw away from it's second largest city, or surrounding it's key military installations in the north. It's only concerned with resources rich regions of the south Ukraine. Go figure.
Which material fact did I deny? In particular?
Dude, at least have the decency to look critically at your own arguments, most of them are not even beyond "because I say so". Is Chinas economy controlled by private capital, and majority work for private enterprise? Yes. But it says "socialism" on the box, so EOT. Is Russia exploiting occupied land? Yes, but "not exporting capital" as if that means something when it's only the ruling cast accumulation capital and the rest of the nation living worse off then they did 40 years ago. Is Russia establishing control over global south countries in exchange for explicit control of resources like gold mines? Yes, but somehow it's not colonialism, Each time somehow it's ok, because Russia can. Russia has the right to establish whatever it wishes on any other countries, but said countries have no rights over their own territory or politics as anything not pro-Russian is western imperialism. And the thing is - for us it's not a support of either, it's an existential struggle not to be crushed by either. Our countries have endured Nazi occupation as well as Russian and Soviet ones. The amount of threats of invasion against the Baltic states for example is just absurd, we had a weekly threat of a nuclear war from Russia towards most of CEE. But somehow you will claim their security, the one of a 140 million strong nuclear empire stretching two continents, depends on a "a land bridge" in southern Ukraine, despite historical precedence, how wars have been conducted in the last 50 years and ignoring the very material, obvious resources capture and extraction.
You have yet to prove that the war is about extraction, your only point is that Russia hasn't invaded Finland despite being entirely different situations.
Secondly, in China the large firms and key industries are overwhelmingly publicly owned and planned, and the working class is in control. Socialism is not the absence of private property, no matter how much you point at China having markets you still won't have a point.
Russia has an absolutely tiny amount of the world's largest companies, it's an industrialized economy that has no colonies. Doing production overseas is not itself colonialism nor imperialism. There is both a massive quantitative difference and a qualitative difference as a result of that massive gap.
You have yet to prove anything you've asserted, you just keep re-asserting.
No, my main point is this; https://www.arcgis.com/apps/mapviewer/index.html?webmap=9f04944a2fe84edab9da31750c2b15eb&extent=36.6605%2C47.7199%2C36.6815%2C47.7363 and secondary, that your "NATO to close" argument is ostensibly irrelevant anywhere else. Your "disproving" of this point was what? Saying "no it's not"?
Didnt take you for a social democrat. I was pretty sure we actually share fondness for actual workers control, my bad.
True, yet a very disproportionate amount of the worlds richest people. Just as if their was some wild exploitation going on there.
The ones recently "couped" in Africa aside.
And that means they can invade key resource rich regions of other countries, exploit these and other resources benefiting their own economy and it's ok?
I aware of your point about Finland's proximity. I've already explained that Ukraine is different because it's more millitarized, was actively at war, and was cozying up to NATO. I don't think you repeating that they're the same and me repeating that they're different is going to solve anything.
Secondly, as for socialism not being the absence of private property, I'm a communist, not an anarchist. Once a socialist state is established, production and distribution is gradually collectivized as it develops. This is increasing over time in China, after a correction from the ultraleft Gang of Four period. Socialism is the transition from capitalism to communism, it has elements of the former as they are gradually phased out. Again, here's Cheng Enfu's diagram illustrating it:
As for Russia being wildly unequal, you're correct! It's a nationalist capitalist country, I've never stated otherwise. Secondly, I am not interested in "justifying" Russia, I'm telling you that it's important to understand actual root causes rather than invent ones. The idea that Russia is trying to conquer all of Europe or something isn't accurate.
Sorry, edited my reply before noticing this.
Totally mistyped when I said the "influence" idea was dominant in the global south, China, etc. In the global south, China, etc, understanding imperialism as a form of international extraction is the dominant understanding. I corrected the comment.
OK, no problem. But then is it extraction or "capital export"? If it were extraction we'd arrive at the very point that started this discussion, where I stated this is exactly what is happening.
Extraction happens via export of capital. Think outsourcing, where factories are built overseas to take advantage of cheap labor, and millitant force is used to keep wages low.
You do know, that Slavic (and so also Muscovian) history is mostly based on self exploitation; literally slave trade with own people, holding serfs/peasantry as slaves tied to land and so on?
Why would a country bother exporting factories, when it has unlimited land, and impoverished and underdeveloped "republics" with freely exploitable ethnic minorities? Would say Chechnya (their Luhansk/Donetsk style right to self-determination aside) be a place of expensive labour and lack of militant force to keep it in check? But then again, it's not like the USA owns factories in China, the same factories that produce for the west produce for Russia.
China has soveriegnty over their own factories, China's large firms and key industries are publicly owned and the working class is in control, rather than a comprador regime selling out the people.
Ultimately, the problem is that you're trying to have an in-depth conversation about a subject you haven't studied and have already made up your mind about.
Yeah, we both did made up our minds about this clearly. I did watching how stuff is produced in Chinese factories as a hired translator for a small time capitalist making deals there, you did from ideological texts. And yet you are the one defending private ownership and market economy, while my problem is that it's been nearly a hundred years and they have less public ownership then they had say 40 years ago. Also this is not an issue I'm trying to have an in depth conversation about, this is only a side note.
China had a larger portion of public ownership under the Gang of Four, and they were poor. They tried to collectivize production before the level of development actually suited publiv ownership, at the expense of growth and prosperity. The market reforms were a return to Marxist understandings of economics, and stableized growth. I read Marxist-Leninist theory, and I study China's growth and metrics over time. Being a translator while remaining entirely disengaged from Marxist theory and Chinese economics doesn't give you a leg up, I can find people that believe Trump is a communist unironically.
In the People's Republic of China, under Mao and later the Gang of Four, growth was overall positive but was unstable. The centrally planned economy had brought great benefits in many areas, but because the productive forces themselves were underdeveloped, economic growth wasn't steady. There began to be discussion and division in the party, until Deng Xiapoing's faction pushing for Reform and Opening Up won out, and growth was stabilized:
Deng's plan was to introduce market reforms, localized around Special Economic Zones, while maintaining full control over the principle aspects of the economy. Limited private capital would be introduced, especially by luring in foreign investors, such as the US, pivoting from more isolationist positions into one fully immersed in the global marketplace. As the small and medium firms grow into large firms, the state exerts more control and subsumes them more into the public sector. This was a gamble, but unlike what happened to the USSR, this was done in a controlled manner that ended up not undermining the socialist system overall.
China's rapidly improving productive forces and cheap labor ended up being an irresistable match for US financial capital, even though the CPC maintained full sovereignty. This is in stark contrast to how the global north traditionally acts imperialistically, because it relies on financial and millitant dominance of the global south. This is why there is a "love/hate" relationship between the US Empire and PRC, the US wants more freedom for capital movement while the CPC is maintaining dominance.
Fast-forward to today, and the benefits of the CPC's gamble are paying off. The US Empire is de-industrializing, while China is a productive super-power. The CPC has managed to maintain full control, and while there are neoliberals in China pushing for more liberalization now, the path to exerting more socialization is also open, and the economy is still socialist. It is the job of the CPC to continue building up the productive forces, while gradually winning back more of the benefits the working class enjoyed under the previous era, developing to higher and higher stages of socialism.
Yeah and its not like these firms grow on extracting the value added of the workers, because its socialism and its totally different. They just get horrible job conditions for a pay allowing at best sustaining themselves, but its their country because the irreplacable goverment says so.
As for the rest I could actually agree in most points, China clearly played USA, it did manage to pull a lot of people from extream poverty. That being said it is not communist in everyday life of normal people it could be hardly considered socialist. What I've seen is just another totalitarian capitalist state on it neverending path toward better times and I just don't belive there's socialism comming out of that. It already developed a new sort of owners class, same as other socialist republics you join the party to conduct your buisnesses, not much different from a american country club or scientologists. Never ending ideological BS and in the end its always the workers paying with their loves.
Id say only time will tell who's right, but then your cheerleading for a clearly corrupt capitalist state of Russia so no point in arguing on that further.