Russian Tensions
- This topic has 5,149 replies, 37 voices, and was last updated 1 week, 3 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Despite the assertions of the self-hating faux socialists populating this site, Russia is not imperialist.
Maupin is a member of the Workers World Party
The concept of imperialism had been around long before Lenin’s interpretation which is not the definitive analysis.
Here is one of our members Johnny Mercer giving our answer at 10 minutes
“We maintain that the working class, having only their labor power to sell to survive, have no country. War and imperialism for us are a natural and inevitable extension of the war of the marketplace. In other words, nation-states create wars in the pursuit of natural resources, trade routes, labor markets, and spheres of influence. At certain times, it is inevitable that some capitalist nations dominate others, but we don’t accept Lenin’s notion of imperialist and anti-imperialist nations as kind of fixed categories. The problem with Lenin’s analysis of imperialism, as far we can see, is three-fold. Firstly, we hold that it lacks internationalism. Rather than seeing the world as divided fundamentally by wage labor and capital, workers and the bourgeoisie, it seeks to replace this analysis with the notion of imperialist nations and anti-imperialist nations. The anti-imperialist nations engage in a national liberation struggle to free themselves from the domination of the imperialist nations. As far as we’re concerned, national liberation is the right of the domestic bourgeoisie to conduct their affairs without interference from foreign capitalists.
Secondly, we disagree on Marxist grounds with Lenin’s economic analysis, that goes behind the notion of imperialism that Lenin posits. Accordion to Lenin, there were these super-profits, which is the concept that workers in imperialist countries partake in the exploitation of workers in non-imperialist nations by taking some of the surplus value that is created in the third world or in the non-imperialist world and partaking in the exploitation of these countries. The idea is, basically, that it’s a bribe. There is a top section in the working class in the Western world or in the imperialist world that receives extra capital that is exploited from the third-world working class, that they get in exchange for supporting capitalism and imperialism and reforms. Therefore, Lenin thought that national liberation struggle would deprive the western capitalists and their ability to bribe the western working class. So, we disagree.
Firstly, Lenin’s analysis ignores the labor theory of value. As Marx taught us, labor power’s value is determined like all commodities by the amount of labor power that’s invested in it. So higher wages reflect higher training and skill. It almost requires a kind of conspiracy theory to suppose that capitalists give their workers more than their labor power in order to bribe them. It led to the support of the creation of new capitalist nations to benefit the local capitalist class. So instead of the international working-class struggle, it became about the creation of new capitalist nations. Finally, Lenin’s analysis assumes a form of economic determinism, it assumes quite wrongly that workers are less likely to support reformism the poorer they become; the poorer workers become, the more they’re going to become radicalized. Obviously, quite often the opposite is true. In any case we think that the working class will only support socialism if they understand the case for socialism. So, we posit an analysis that is based on revolutionary activity coming out of class consciousness rather than an economic determinist analysis.
I think it’s worth talking about the legacy of anti-imperialism and where it ended up. Everywhere you look, whether it be in Northern Ireland or South Africa, for workers, at best anti-imperialist struggle has led to the creation of new capitalist states to manage their exploitation.
“Despite the assertions of the self-hating faux socialists populating this site, Russia is not imperialist.”
_______________________________________________-How rich – that a pro-capitalist supporter of an obnoxious capitalist regime like Russia should describe us as “self-hating faux socialists” when we have taken the only possible position that any genuine socialist could take in this squalid capitalist war – complete opposition to both the capitalist regimes of Ukraine and Russia. Not a drop of working-class blood is worth shedding in the disreputable cause of either side.
TS posts a video from some crank extolling Lenin`s utterly discredited theory of imperialism. (If anyone qualifies as a “faux socialist” it is the bourgeois revolutionary, Lenin). We don’t have to accept Lenin´s dogmatic definition of imperialism in order to see why Russia, like its western counterparts and China too, are all capitalist imperialist powers. Imperialism is rooted in the expansionist dynamic of capitalism itself. Every country in the world is capitalist and consequently, every country in the world is latently or manifestly imperialist. It’s just that some countries are more successful than others when it comes to being imperialist. Clearly Russia, for example, is not as successful as America for example when it comes to being an imperialist power
The video is littered with egregious errors. It claims for example that Russia relies on its own natural resources like energy and state-owned energy companies like Gasprom are not in business to make a profit. To which the only response one can give is LOL, LOL, LOL
According to this site:
“Russia’s Gazprom more than doubled net profit in the first half of 2022, the company said Tuesday.
Gazprom reported $41.75 billion, or 2.5 trillion rubles, in profits, up from about 968 billion rubles in the first half of 2021.”Knowing TS’s shaky grasp of economics I imagine he thinks Gasprom is some sort of charity that has the well-being of its customers in mind, rather than a ruthless capitalist enterprise intent upon maximizing its profits in a highly competitive global capitalist environment
Lol. Anti-fascist is actually fascist. Anti-imperialist is actually imperialist. No doubt boy means girl and up means down. So very post-modernist of you all. Words don’t have meaning here. Purple not very tree symptom.
TS – ‘Anti-imperialist is actually imperialist.’
An example would be Japan’s the supposed ‘pan-Asianism’ of its Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere (a development of the earlier New Order in East Asia) against European and American colonialism where Asian countries which would be free from white domination. ‘Asia for Asiatics, was the slogan.
It was all simply an ideological subterfuge for Japan’s own imperialist expansionism.
It would be a parallel with Russia, today, an aim of creating puppet nations serving the interests of Russia
Hitler too would use anti-imperialist propaganda about the abuses by the British and French in their empires.
“Knowing TS’s shaky grasp of economics I imagine he thinks Gasprom is some sort of charity that has the well-being of its customers in mind, rather than a ruthless capitalist enterprise intent upon maximizing its profits in a highly competitive global capitalist environment”
This is what an ideological snowflake looks like. Yes, Gazprom makes a profit but the shareholders are the Russian people not a select group of capitalist investors. The idea that there can be no surplus to reinvest into an enterprise or to redistribute among the population is so asinine it beggars belief. But that’s Robbo for you. Dumber than a sack of hammers.
“Hitler too would use anti-imperialist propaganda about the abuses by the British and French in their empires.”
Lol. Fighting Nazis makes you as bad as Hitler. Think you’ve just maxed out stupid. Participation trophies for everyone!
“This is what an ideological snowflake looks like. Yes, Gazprom makes a profit but the shareholders are the Russian people not a select group of capitalist investors. The idea that there can be no surplus to reinvest into an enterprise or to redistribute among the population is so asinine it beggars belief.”
_____________________________
True Nazi (our resident pro-Putin troll who thinks it is perfectly OK to turn little kids, amongst others, into “fertiliser” to advance the cause of Russian capitalism) now presumes to lecture us on economics. Talk about beggaring belief – it should be pointed out to this simpleton that nobody here has suggested there “can be no surplus to reinvest into an enterprise” etc. We live in a capitalist economy, after all, and Russian capitalist enterprises of course have to make a surplus to reinvest and survive in a global capitalist market.
However, I would point out to TN that it is not me that is saying that GAZPROM does not sell its commodities in order to make a profit but the person in the video he approvingly posted. (see post 239) That person clearly stated that entities like Gazprom don’t sell their stuff “in order to make a profit”. It’s hilarious. True Nazi is so muddled and confused he fails to see that it is that person he should be attacking, not me
The other point our snowflake makes is about the Russian people allegedly being the “shareholders” of Gazprom. Really? In what way are the “Russian people” shareholders of GAZPROM? Do tell us TN.
Meanwhile back in the real world, GAZPROM´S actual shareholders had other things on their mind:
“MOSCOW, Sept 30 (Reuters) – Gazprom (GAZP.MM) shareholders backed Russia’s biggest ever dividend payout totalling 1.208 trillion roubles ($21 billion) at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of the state-controlled gas giant on Friday.
Shareholders backed an interim dividend of 51.03 roubles ($0.8921) per share, the gas producer said in a regulatory disclosure. Gazprom shareholders in June unexpectedly decided not to pay dividends on last year’s results, doing so for the first time since 1998.Dividends offer retail investors a way to profit at a time when Western sanctions have hit the value of Russian companies. VTB Moi Investitsii brokerage said retail investors may cash in some 144 billion roubles from the dividend.
“We expect the second-half 2022 dividend may reach some 10.3 roubles (per share) with dividend yield of 4.7% due to exports decline,” it said.”TN seems to think that state-owned industries are somehow owned by the “people”. Proof if proof were needed as to just how clueless this individual is about either capitalism or socialism. I will leave him with one final quote from Engels which should put the record straight
“The modern state, no matter what its form, is essentially a capitalist machine — the state of the capitalists, the ideal personification of the total national capital. The more it proceeds to the taking over of productive forces, the more does it actually become the national capitalist, the more citizens does it exploit. The workers remain wage-workers — proletarians. The capitalist relation is not done away with. It is, rather, brought to a head.”
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1880/soc-utop/ch03.htm
TN states – “This is what an ideological snowflake looks like. Yes, Gazprom makes a profit but the shareholders are the Russian people not a select group of capitalist investors.”
Sadly TN once again trips over his ill informed boot laces. Gazprom is jointly owned between the Russian State (approximately 51%) and individual and institutional shareholders. So TN and the clown from the video are incorrect when they say that the profits from use of natural resources in Russia are not used to increase the wealth of a select few.
What then about the 51% state owned part of Gazprom. TN’s lazy source cites Marx to support his argument regarding state capitalism, yet Engels wrote in 1880:
“But neither the conversion into joint stock companies nor into state property deprives the productive forces of their character as capital. In the case of joint-stock companies this is obvious. And the modern state, too, is only the organization with which bourgeois society provides itself in order to maintain the general external conditions of the capitalist mode of production against encroachments either by the workers or by individual capitalists. The modern state, whatever its form, is then the state of the capitalists, the ideal collective body of all the capitalists. The more productive forces it takes over as its property, the more it becomes the real collective body of the capitalists, the more citizens it exploits. The workers remain wage-earners, proletarians. The capitalist relationship isn’t abolished; it is rather pushed to the extreme. But at this extreme it is transformed into its opposite. State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but it contains within itself the formal means, the key to the solution.”
So presumably TN considers Engels an ideological snowflake.
As to the Leninist concept of imperialism, which Johnny Mercer correctly analyses as follows “It almost requires a kind of conspiracy theory to suppose that capitalists give their workers more than their labour power in order to bribe them.”
When asked about how this bribe occurs and what the mechanism is by which the surplus value of third world workers is exploited by one capitalist enterprise (capitalist A) and a portion of it is consciously identified to be redistributed by western workers and then consciously distributed by other capitalist enterprises (capitalist B), Leninist supporters of this theory tend to fall silent.
Similarly when asked why on earth Capitalist A would give up part of their profits to support capitalist B, they either remain silent or try to explain that the invisible cabal that run the system want to ensure that western workers are getting a more wealth than they produce in order to keep them from turning revolutionary!
This leads to the question, why are the third world workers not likely to turn into revolutionaries as a result of their double exploitation, when western workers need to be bribed not to become revolutionary.
Of course the whole shaky edifice of Lenin’s theory of Imperialism is full of holes. I wouldn’t criticise TN re this, it is very clear he has never read anything by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxembourg, etc. As his replies on this forum shows, TN wallows and basks in his lack of knowledge and his scant grasp on Marxist theory, rather like a pig wallowing in its own shite.
!Lol. Anti-fascist is actually fascist. Anti-imperialist is actually imperialist. No doubt boy means girl and up means down. So very post-modernist of you all. Words don’t have meaning here. Purple not very tree symptom.”
_______________________________
Our pro-Putin snowflake continues not to see the point. Calling oneself an “anti-fascist” or an “anti-imperialist” does not make one so. There are self-declared fascists fighting for both Russia and Ukraine (and some of TS´s abhorrent comments are clearly fascistic in nature). Putin´s claim that he is waging this war to denazify Ukraine is about as credible as Zelensky´s claim that his obnoxious repressive regime is standing up for “freedom” and “democracy”. They are both remarkably similar in practice and outlook, its just the labels that are different
Well said both BD and Robbo.
I may be a post structural thinker. I wear that label. I see TSs statements as projecting fascism onto the other: while engaging in a field of discourse that opens up a new period of fascism.
Russian imperialism is very real (the engine room of any capital class). And it uses the very same arguement and ideology of ‘defending democratic ideals’ whilst using the tools of oppression and legitimising them as said defenders of democracy.
The only sane stance is to express concerns for workers killing workers and point out the the false ideological myth building being used to put a spin on this war.TS, once again you fail to comprehend.
It is not about what is said, it is what is done.
Saying you are anti-imperialist, doesn’t make you one if your actions are imperialist in essence.
Although Russia and the former Soviet Union described themselves as anti-imperialist they possessed the same traits as any other colonialist empire.
To quote Marx
“As in private life one differentiates between what a man thinks and says of himself and what he really is and does, so in historical struggles one must still more distinguish the language and the imaginary aspirations of parties from their real organism and their real interests, their conception of themselves from their reality.” – 18TH BRUMAIRE
It was economic rivalry that can be seen as the root of the conflict. Ukraine could either forge closer ties with the EU or accept Russia’s proposal that it joins the Eurasian Economic Union. Yanukovych decided not to sign planned Association Agreement with the EU and it was that decision which sparked demonstrations and led to his overthrow.
To integrate with Europe or with Russia?
I have no doubt that both the EU and Russia’s EEU had the intention of turning Ukraine into a vassal state.
“Gazprom is jointly owned between the Russian State (approximately 51%) and individual and institutional shareholders.”
Meaning a majority of the profits go towards the state to be spent on the Russian people.
“So TN and the clown from the video are incorrect when they say that the profits from use of natural resources in Russia are not used to increase the wealth of a select few.”
Russia’s is a mixed economy. I’ve never said otherwise.
“State ownership of the productive forces is not the solution of the conflict, but it contains within itself the formal means, the key to the solution.”
Exactly.
“So presumably TN considers Engels an ideological snowflake.”
No, only you and your merry band of Socialist Posers Guardian Bros.
“As to the Leninist concept of imperialism, which Johnny Mercer correctly analyses as follows “It almost requires a kind of conspiracy theory to suppose that capitalists give their workers more than their labour power in order to bribe them.”
And I’m sure that when a parent gives their child food, a warm bed and protects them from harm that is merely a bribe to get them to do their homework.
“When asked about how this bribe occurs and what the mechanism is by which the surplus value of third world workers is exploited by one capitalist enterprise (capitalist A) and a portion of it is consciously identified to be redistributed by western workers and then consciously distributed by other capitalist enterprises (capitalist B), Leninist supporters of this theory tend to fall silent.”
My, you are a bore. No one is arguing that parts of the Russian economy are not capitalist. With the betrayal of the USSR the capitalists had a field day. But since then they’ve been put in their place. The oligarchs no longer exercise singular control over the ship of state. Imperialism is not the Russian state’s reason for being.
“Similarly when asked why on earth Capitalist A would give up part of their profits to support capitalist B, they either remain silent or try to explain that the invisible cabal that run the system want to ensure that western workers are getting a more wealth than they produce in order to keep them from turning revolutionary!”
The issue is imperialism not the existence of capitalist enterprises in Russia.
“he has never read anything by Marx, Engels, Lenin, Luxembourg, etc.”
And you have and have come to the conclusion that everyone else who has, and has acted on those beliefs to bring about a Marxist state, are actually evil capitalists. Yet, your irrelevant little mutual masturbation society are the True Scotsmen, the true seeing keepers of the socialist flame. Lol. Your God-level arrogance is only matched by your insipid pedantry and gormless wit.
“TS, once again you fail to comprehend.”
I comprehend perfectly. You are a group of pusillanimous keyboard warriors. Despite apparently having the resources of a “party” at your disposal instead of organising the working class in a time of capitalist crisis you choose to snipe at and mewl about actually existing socialists. You harp on ad nauseum about what a bunch of frauds socialists and communists are only to then go on to enjoin I don’t know whom that socialism is the answer to all our problems. Who is going to take that pitch seriously? Talk about confused messaging.
“It is not about what is said, it is what is done.”
Indeed, and you lot do nothing but smear actually existing socialists, or anyone else for that matter, who actually acts to undermine the capitalist order.
“Saying you are anti-imperialist, doesn’t make you one if your actions are imperialist in essence.”
And saying you are a socialist doesn’t make you one if all you do is undermine socialism.
“Although Russia and the former Soviet Union described themselves as anti-imperialist they possessed the same traits as any other colonialist empire.”
BS.
“To quote Marx”
Don’t bother. You use Marx to undermine Marxism and birth liberals. Marx would have nothing but contempt for you. You’ve no interest in
changing the world otherwise you’d be furiously organising the working class in this time of capitalist crisis. Face it, you like things just the way they are.“It was economic rivalry that can be seen as the root of the conflict. Ukraine could either forge closer ties with the EU or accept Russia’s proposal that it joins the Eurasian Economic Union. Yanukovych decided not to sign planned Association Agreement with the EU and it was that decision which sparked demonstrations and led to his overthrow.”
No, the root of the conflict was NATO expansion and aggression.
“To integrate with Europe or with Russia?”
No, to be an armed camp for a hostile military alliance or to be neutral.
“I have no doubt that both the EU and Russia’s EEU had the intention of turning Ukraine into a vassal state.”
That’s your problem. Like a religious fanatic you have no doubt. Well, fanaticism alienates just about everyone. It’s probably why your “party” remains so irrelevant.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.