Sorry if this question seems inflammatory or uninformed, it comes from a place of simple curiosity.
While getting into socialist theory, partly through breadtube content, I often stumbled upon creators/commentators/writers who absolutely crucify the US (rightfully so in many regards), but either justify wrongdoings of the CCP/Russian regime or outright support them.
To me it seems absolutely incongruous to claim socialist ideals for oneself but to champion authoritarian regimes that have ties to Socialism merely semantically or through some spurious historical traditions.
Can you enlighten me about this? Thank you.
People will believe some preposterous things to keep their beliefs intact. Capitalists somehow still believe that markets efficiently allocate resources, and any evidence they don’t is chalked up to government interference or whatever. Christians believe that saying “God works in mysterious ways” and/or “that’s the price of free will” accounts for how fucked up the world is. And communists believe that, when a communist does it, it’s not an atrocity.
I dont have an answer on how this happens but it is also frustrating to me. Russian government is straight up fascist and yet you see people coping hard justifying their actions.
Maybe they are unaware that Mao and Lennin are dead and their current leaders are a whole galaxy away from continuing their legacy. (I dont even justify Mao since he was a cruel strongman who killed way too many innocent people once in power).
How are you defining fascism? Is it broad enough to include NATO members? Is it broad enough to include neo-nazis?
You seem to have a positive view of Lenin. Is that right? If so, what do you think of Lenin?
Bro look at the writings about fascism by Umberto Eco to have an idea about how I do define Fascism.
The US is 100% fascist. Many NATO members too. Who the fuck wouldnt think Neo nazis are fascist? That is the most obvious place to look at.
I dont wanna write an essay about Lenin so Ill just say he was BASED.
Thank you for the reference.
I wasn’t asking because I don’t know what fascism is. I was asking so that I knew where you stood. I don’t want to challenge what you’re saying on the basis of faulty assumptions or a misunderstanding.
Given the context of the thread, I’m assuming you’re taking about the war in Ukraine? I think so, but I realise you could be talking about quite a few subjects, such as homophobia.
You say Lenin is based, which suggests you understand dialectical and historical materialism and that you are familiar with Imperialism: The Highest Stage of Capitalism. And you wrote:
Russian government is straight up fascist and yet you see people coping hard justifying their actions.
In the context of the thread it sounds like you are saying that socialists who ‘support Russia’ are the ones who are ‘justifying Russian actions’. Have I read that correctly?
If so, is it true? The only people I see getting stick for ‘supporting Russia’ or ‘justifying it’s actions’ are Marxist-Leninists, who seem to be the only people challenging the bourgeois narrative about the war in Ukraine. Are these the people you’re referring to?
Are the people you’re criticising ‘justifying’ Russia’s actions or are they happy to see fascists (by your definition it is fascists who are supplying Ukraine) being challenged?
I think Putin (and by extension, the current Russian Government) is a far right wing ultranationalist, who operates in fascist ways, some straight out of 1984.
I do not agree with the war on Ukrane, not on the basis of defender the Ukranian Government, but on the basis that this war seems to be part of a bigger plan to extent the Russian current “empire” into Europe by force. And by doing this they are targeting civilian institutions, cities, hospitals, etc, among commuting many war crimes.
Im upset with some socialists people who defend Russia because they are falling for Russian propaganda and actively refuse to see the bigger picture of the conflict.
A turning point of me was seeing some self described “socialist” supporting Russia by telling conspiracy theories agaisnt Ukraine that were too close to “The Jewish Question” and talking about Hunter Biden for some God damn reason. And this was not a casual talk, this was someone talking at a conference, a left wing conference in my country.
And no, me opposing Russia does not mean I support American Imperialism. Some people cant believe that 2 things can be bad at the same time.
We critically support Russian anti-imperialist action (forced upon the liberal and anti-communist national leaders by the strong communist party and anti-imperialist political bloc), and we critically support Socialism with Chinese Characteristics (as led by and carried out by the CPC). We don’t “champion authoritarian regimes,” whatever it is you actually mean by that.
What’s incongruous to what Marxism-Leninism teaches us is any analysis of current material conditions that does not lead to the conclusion that the primary contradiction in the world today is imperialism. What’s incongruous to Marxism-Leninism is opportunist idealism.
You’re making a lot of sense.
Just to clarify, are you saying that the communist party of Russia wanted to intervene in Ukraine?
I’ll have to look again at sources but a lot of people have been talking about that on the grad over the last year or so.
IIRC Russian communists wanted to intervene in 2014 already, as they knew the conditions in Donbas would only worsen as the fascist Ukrainian regime only got stronger. These Russian internal political tensions finally boiled over and forced Putin to make a move in February 2022 when all even nominally oppositional media was banned in Ukraine. It was then that Putin and the rest of the liberals at the top of the Russian government were finally convinced that the situation in Ukraine for whoever the government determined to be non-Ukranians could only get worse without outside help. It also looked like an all out attack against the residents of Donbas was imminent.
Dude most leftist I meet in real life can’t even agree on how to eat hotdogs. I love em in my mouth
Nostalgia in part and desperation for some form of win. In 1991, the Soviet experiment dismantled itself, no thanks to the tireless efforts of its enemies, but what was once the world’s second superpower became little more than another colony of the West. Its wealth and gains for its peoples sold off to the highest bidder. Liberal academics called it the end of history for a reason.
But there is more to the issue. The Cold War proved there was no lie too great for the West to peddle to destroy its enemy. No boundary it would not cross. I’ve even read Gorbachev once cried in his car because Reagan would not shut up about the Star Wars project at a nuclear disarmament conference. A project we now know was little more than science fiction. Nazis in Ukraine? Read about Operation Bloodstone. They were present in the country way before 2014 and anyone with geopolitical knowledge knew it.
So with Russia it is because Russia, while not the Soviet Union, still occasionally stands up to the United States like the good ole days. This is amusingly a poor reading of Lenin, who made it very clear what his stance was on inter-capitalist conflict. There is nothing wrong with rooting for NATO lose though. Putin himself despises the Soviet legacy. He pulled pensions from the half a million red army women who served, describes Bolshevism as a stab in the back (not-so-subtle dog-whistle there) and only pays it lip services when he remembers most of his country wants it back.
China, on the other hand, is a harder one to explain. Much of what we learn about China in the West is just straight made up. And I mean it. The great firewall isn’t just a pejorative. It protects the sensitive ears of the West from China as much as it protects them from the West. This has been exacerbated by the Obama administration’s “pivot to Asia,” which has the express goal of containing China.
Let me ask what wrongdoings of China are being defended? How far back you want to rewind decades of propaganda with the explicit goal of demonizing the country? Or are we speaking of more recent claims like Uyghurs? However, your question was why defend it. I’ll answer that one. Because China still considers itself on the path to Socialism. This isn’t a Russia situation. China still keeps its private sector locked in special economic zones and monitors them heavily. It still prioritizes common prosperity and has provided many third world countries an alternative to the IMF.
China’s road to socialism was always going to be different since it was … on the other side of the world, from where the theories of socialism were written. But Lenin himself described socialism as ascending a high mountain. It might take many tries. Even restarts to get it right but is better China handles its path its way than trying to conform to some stringent imagined idea of what socialism should be. Therefore it is worthy of defense.
… either justify wrongdoings of the CCP/Russian regime or outright support them.
Can you give some examples?
absolutely incongruous to claim socialist ideals for oneself but to champion authoritarian regimes that have ties to Socialism merely semantically or through some spurious historical traditions.
Can you be more specific here, too? Who is getting support merely for their traditions? What ‘authoritarian’ regimes are getting support? And what do you mean by authoritarian?
What do you mean by having ‘ties to Socialism merely semantically’?
These are not rhetorical questions. You don’t have to answer them all, but I’ll follow up on the ones that you do answer.