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
-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.