this post was submitted on 12 Jun 2023
-4 points (35.7% liked)

GenZedong

4186 readers
25 users here now

This is a Dengist community in favor of Bashar al-Assad with no information that can lead to the arrest of Hillary Clinton, our fellow liberal and queen. This community is not ironic. We are Marxists-Leninists.

This community is for posts about Marxism and geopolitics (including shitposts to some extent). Serious posts can be posted here or in /c/GenZhou. Reactionary or ultra-leftist cringe posts belong in /c/shitreactionariessay or /c/shitultrassay respectively.

We have a Matrix homeserver and a Matrix space. See this thread for more information. If you believe the server may be down, check the status on status.elara.ws.

Rules:

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
GrainEater@lemmygrad.ml
Elara@lemmygrad.ml
ComradePupIvy@lemmygrad.ml
American_Communist22@lemmygrad.ml
-4
OPINION: NATO sucks, but cheering for Russia is unsolidaric (lemmygrad.ml)
submitted 1 year ago by WageSlave@lemmygrad.ml to c/genzedong@lemmygrad.ml
54 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Hey, comrades. I am new to lemmygrad and find it odd that there are so many marxist-leninist defending a war of agression started by an oligarch, possibly the richest man in the world. I get that you want to say that NATO is a source of evil on the global stage, but in this particular case you are defending Putin, a warlord, who has invaded many of his neighbouring countries and has stated plans to continue his campaign for megalomanial reasons.

No war but class war. Enabling an autocrat fascist oligarch does not do anything to counter the bad stuff done by NATO and the community should take a firm stand against the use of war for the sake of satisfying the dreams of a tyrant.

This is not a troll post or anything to that extent. Sorry if this is the wrong place to post this, but I think it needed to be said.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] WageSlave@lemmygrad.ml 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)
  1. Good point, I should have made the distinction. I still feel it does not change the sentiment much as Putin very much represents his group and class.
  2. I tried to make the point that he has transitioned from a labor aristocrat to an oligarch through his rise to power. I do not think it is delusional to think that money and power are two sides of the same coin in Russia as well as any other capitalist society.
  3. Musk and Bezos have both been the richest person in the world, though. The numbers are shaky, but the ballpark as the top of the top economical elite is right. I think that calculation of value of assets is hard, but it suffices to say that Putin is part of an economic class above most others.
  4. Technically, I think you are correct. Taking basis in the definition "a military leader who controls a country or, more often, an area within a country" it might be inaccurate since Putin is a president and not say a general. Though I am admittedly unsure of the official status of the president of the Russian federation with regards to the military in the case of war and in my country, the head of state (which is a ceremonial role), is in fact also the official head of military in case of war. Either way, I think it is clear that Putin has much control in his group of oligarchs and aristocrats, which include people leading the armed forces, making him a defacto leader of the military as well.
  5. I do not think these points are mutually exclusive. I do think Putin is a megalomanial leader who also happens to do a lot of the stuff you have said. That still does not excuse what I perceive to be his imperial ambitions and consequently does not garner my support. Ultimately I do not think the regime is a force for good as a whole and I think the issues with it are downplayed and the inadvertent upsides exaggerated. This is maybe the core of my disagreement with some of the other assessments and I am open to me being ignorant on some of the parts of this argument.
  6. I am pretty conflicted on idealism vs pragmatism, usually resorting to idealism though I admit that might be because it is easier for me to swallow. However, I do think we need to be clear that enemy of my enemy being a friend does not mean two wrongs always makes a right. Sometimes it does, but as I have written many places I do not think the war benefits the proletariat in any tangible way.
  7. Thank you for not dismissing me and for trying to answer me in a clear and respectful manner. I am equally grateful for your effort as well as your politeness.
[โ€“] Lemmy_Mouse@lemmygrad.ml 1 points 1 year ago

"Good point, I should have made the distinction. I still feel it does not change the sentiment much as Putin very much represents his group and class. I tried to make the point that he has transitioned from a labor aristocrat to an oligarch through his rise to power. I do not think it is delusional to think that money and power are two sides of the same coin in Russia as well as any other capitalist society."

It isn't about close enough or kind of like, it's a matter of scientific classification. It matters because it changes how we understand his actions and his role in all of this.

"it suffices to say that Putin is part of an economic class above most others."

Agreed, he's certainly not a toiling prol. His interests are tied to capital.

"usually resorting to idealism though I admit that might be because it is easier for me to swallow."

This is natural as we were all first taught idealism as it is the ideological MO of capitalism. I will say it takes education to be able to say and understand the phrase dialectical materialism alone without taking into account the teachings of this philosophy.

"However, I do think we need to be clear that enemy of my enemy being a friend does not mean two wrongs always makes a right. Sometimes it does, but as I have written many places I do not think the war benefits the proletariat in any tangible way."

I agree. I would say where idealism and pragmatism depart ways in today's conditions is at the point of hyper morality which sacrifices continuity. When one must be in the right to such a degree that it prevents the person from acting to uphold the values they hold dear and consequently watch them fall as a result of this. For example a father who is so determined to be civil that he watches a person kill his child in front of him after failing to persuade the person to not do this with words alone. A particularly dangerous aspect of this is the predictable changes which occur within one when this occurs - the indulgence in the dialectic of his previous position, casting aside all previous values with oversensitivities with them. Later he will see the failures of this method and equilibrium will be found, the dialectic process of development (the clashing of opposites based on their contradictions to forge a new future determined by the "most fit" characteristics of each) will forge a new man but only after such heartache.

We all know stories like this. Many of us have had major developments like this in our own lives.