The role of the western bourgeoisie in the Russia-Ukraine war
| As neofascism becomes more clearly the political program of the western bourgeois, Russia reaffirms its role as the vanguard of fascism. Russia is currently backing most far-right parties in Europe, such as the RN, the AfD, Vox in Spain and Fidesz. Bolloré, the chief propagandist of french fascism and owner of the Cnwes network, has used his media apparatus to promote russian geopolitical interests. The american bourgeoisie, represented by Trump, has also promoted russian interests
| The western bourgeoisie feels threatened by the increased hostility to its interests, fearing taxation, assassination and working class militancy. They feel that switching from western liberalism to a russian-style oligarchy would be better for the dominance of their social class.
| Because Russia is the vanguard of neofascism, if you don't oppose Russia, you don't oppose neofascism. If you don't oppose neofascism, you don't oppose the bourgeoisie, since neofascism is the political program of the modern western bourgeoisie. If you don't oppose the bourgeoisie, then you're objectively on their side. There is no neutrality possible.
| Interesting take. However I think you should always distinguish between a country, its people and its government.
Also you can't talk about global geopolitical conflicts from an marxist/antifascist POV without even mentioning China, which is the last important global player ruled by communist party.
| Fascinating, how niggers factor in this tho?
| I also don't think there is such a thing as an international "vanguard of neofascism". The Russian support for far-right movements has more to do with causing chaos and destabilization than with actual helping for ideological reasons. Another historical example to illustrate: The German Empires support for the Bolsheviks durig the great war didn't make it to the "vanguard for communism" or did it?
Fascism is inherently tied to nationalism. Fascist alliances are always temporary.
| The fascist leaders of Axis Powers during WW2 shared a deep distrust to each other. Internationalism is a socialist/communist concept. It contradicts the bourgeois concept of Nationalism and fascism is nothing but the ugly face of the bourgeoisie: Liberal in times of economical property (achieved through offshoring the ugly part of exploitation, often by supporting fascists) turning fascists themselves during times of economical crisis.
| >>1069382 I don't really believe that China is currently socialist, sorry. But if I had to integrate China to this take, I'd say that China is uninterested in promoting its ideology and govt system to other countries, it's mainly interested in developing its economy and geopolitical power.
| >>1069384 Because I don't think that the kaiser sending lenin to russia is a good historical parallel. A good historical parallel would be Mussolini and Hitler helping Franco during the civil war.I think the "patriotism" of fascism is ultimately a farce. In the same way that a worker has more in common with another foreign worker than with a bourgeois in his own country, the reactionary bourgeois in say, the US has more in common with Pitler or Orban than with a gringo worker.
| I think that the reactionary bourgeoisie exhibits the characteristics of the "rootless cosmopolitan", loyal to the international neofascist movement rather than to any national interest. We can see historical examples like how the "patriotic" french bourgeoisie collaborated with the nazis during ww2, or today with the brazilian bolsonarista bourgeoisie supporting trump's sanctions on brazil as punishment for lula jailing bolsonaro. sacrifing the interest of the nation for fascism.
| And I do think that the bourgeoisie is not a monolith, as some parts of the bourgeoisie will still defend liberalism even in crisis (someone like de gaulle for example), but most of the bourgeoisie today is switching to neofascism. We can see today in polls in France that the people who vote for fascism are people that got radicalized from the center-right to the far-right. basically the bourgeoisie getting radicalized, especially the petty bourgeoisie
| >>1069386
So,focusing on the base instead the superstructure like China is not socialist?
Maybe it's the other way around:
Promoting socialism/communism as an ideology was/is the actual failure by many "socialists". At least how I understood Marx, it's more likely the basis to determine the superstructure.
| >>1069385 I think there does exist a fascist internationale, and communist leaders did distrust each other as well. Of course if we get into that debate then we're gonna have to go on about who's a "real" communist and who isn't what I'm interested in.
| >>1069390 I mean what China is doing is just developmentalism. Which I don't think is a bad thing, clearly it lifted millions out of poverty in China which I'm all good with, but it doesn't really have anything to do with socialism. Clearly a lot of people in the CPC would rather be doing "eternal Singapore" style economics.
| Although if I have to be honest with you my approach to marxism is a lot more heterodox, since marxism is not my only lens of analysis but rather one of many. I defend a heterodox reading of history that isn't just solely based on marxism or materialism.
| so yeah if you have an orthodox marxist or leninist reading we're probably not gonna be seeing eye to eye.
| >>1069392
Almost any communist/socialist government had to do "developmentalism" since they all emerged in underdeveloped countries. Funny thing is that fascist regimes in similar situation historically did not rely on free markets but on central planned economies. This is also a key difference to "modern" (neo)fascists, who rather tend to promote free markets (with a very social darwinist "law of the djungle" take). Russian fascism is a bit more traditional in this point.
| TL;DR:
erotic fanfic
| >>16f65a They actually don't factor at all, and I have nothing against them. In fact, I'm quite fond of them.
| >>1069394
You seem to have a tendency to absolutization, only seeing the end of an scale. While my reading of marx may be more orthodox than yours, it doesn't make me an "orthodox marxist". I think Marx critical Analyis of capitalism is unmatched and should be much more focused than his very flawed political prophecies/expectations. A critical reception of Lenin is more important for questions of practice.
| >>d62fee I don't particularly like Lenin as a historical figure, but he was a decent theorist. I think many people today should read up on his identification of multipolarity as a necessary component of imperialism.
| “but you still have a lot to learn.” he added with a giggle, “about sex as well as Marxism-Leninism”
| >>1069405
Well, the one with the collapse of the capitalist system causing a proletarian revolution.
Also making predictions about conscious beings (which I hope we are) who can hear/read and understand those predictions may change their behavior in a way that makes those prediction fail. While the poor exploited masses once saw in Marx writings a call for action, the capitalists obviously noticed it and - well reacted either with reforms or with repression or a mixture of both.
| A major flaw is that those who would benefit from understanding those theories have no resources (time and education) to study them. Those who are potentially threatened by those theories have. Many socialist leaders and theorists rather belonged to the bourgeoisie than to the proletariat making them traitors to their class either out of opportunism or of ideological zeal. This is also a huge problem about Lenis "vanguard" concept, which historically lead to Stalinism.
| Dont care, Metternich blast
| >>16f65a Metternich was a moron lil bro, the system he set up eventually died cause he didn't factor in the political processes of nationalism that were happening.
| basically modern historians agree that because Metternich tried to stop the development of europe under liberalism and nationalism, he held back europe for decades, arguably leading to ww1.
| >>1069422 >>1069421 yes, I know, we are going back to feudalism with no brakes, maybe even up to early kind, like with serfdom instead of land rent
| This is not good, mind you. But comedic.
| >>16f65a If at least they had the decency to legalize weed and whores that would make it liveable. But it looks like that's not gonna happen.
| >when you close your eyes on active measures ideological subversion
| what point are you trying to make OP?
|
| >>1069383
niggers are imported by the bushel to dilute the political and economic power of the working class
read what marx thought about the irish
| >>1069478 Marx thought that the irish had the duty to be nationalists lol
Bruh these red-brown morons are getting more retarded by the hour
| Marx supported national liberation for the irish, as well as for the polish and ukrainians
| >>1069489 red-browns are retarded, and this sort of racialistic thinking has nothing to do with marxism. it's just soy groypers trying to get easy dunks
| next time you try to quote marx try to read him first shit for brains
| >>1069491
go outside, first of all
once you do that, learn what human capital is, its interaction with the rate of profit, and why people more from imperialized countries to the imperial core. then spend 5-10 minutes thinking about the benefits the bourgs get from this system
| >>e8cac5 sure lil bro then we can get to how you're an objective ally of the bourgeoisie by rehashing the same retarded migration hysteria that the russkies have been promoting for the last decade. Oh wait Brexit fucked the UK and Trump killed anime imports with tariffs cause migration hysteria doesn't work. damn tough shit looks like the same shit that's been promoted non-stop by bourg media for the last decade actually reinforces bourg power. Who could have seen that one coming.
| is this bait yet?
| >>e8cac5
>muh radlibs
>akshully the real problem is migrants
Yeah that puts you way more on the liberal side bro, just cause you quote marx without having read him isn't enough lmao
| but rightards can't read so I guess you exposed yourself by your own admission
| >tries to make it look like they read marx
>they actually can't and don't read
many such cases
| >>1069525 >>1069526 >>1069527
You're a very obsessive person, are you not? It reminds me of the people on reddit, always crywanking about trump/MAGA.
| what's your opinion of fascism OP?
| >>1069584 are you gonna call me an NPC, a soyboy or a consoomer or another equally devastating insult next? Lmao
| what's your opinion of capitalism OP?
| >>1069584
Oh i'm not surprised at all you've been called reddit before!!! Refer to DUNNING KRUEGER! It's reddit incarnate
| Dunning Krooger
| >>1069613 bruh everyone calls everyone reddit it doesn't mean anything, it's the most generic buzzword ever, same a dunning-kruger (which doesn't actually exist)
| He's not smart enough to think of any other response than shouting about reddit lmao. Take a lesson from this brainlet: you can't fake intelligence.
| I know i know little. In contrast to people like >>1069618 >>1069621 >>1069625 >>1069629 who act like they're they're so much better than you and muh specialists at what they say. Turns out, that's a perfect dunning krueger effect. Stupid people don't have humility. They can't recognize their own blind spots.
| what's your opinion of cuckoldry OP?
| First of all: The bourgeoisie is, like the proletariat, not a homogeneous block. They may share the same class interests but there is no consensus about what measurements serve this interests best. The key difference to the proletariat is, that the bourgeoisie is in charge, so they benefit themselves most from good decisions and can pass bad consequences of their failures downwards.
| Regarding the role of western bourgeoisie in the Russian Ukraine War, this means there are very different positions. While on one side some are driven by progressive society ideals or by anti-russian nationalism on the other side some sympathize with Putins russia even seeing a potential ally against the spectre of communism they see in China or local socially progressive movements.
There is no consensus about the political nature of those regimes and movements.
| On top of the inability of the bourgeoisie for common sense, there is also a lot of spreading contradicting misinformation and scheming on purpose to fool the proletariat (up to an orwellian degree). The only difference between the west and russia here is the quality and effectivity. In my opinion the Kremlins methods are more inelegant but much more cost effective, while the western methods are more subtile but also became kind of worn out over the last decades.
| tldr
| In Russia, the war is only allowed to be called "special operation".
In the west the post-soviet russian aggression(s) are presented as unique and outstanding violation of international law - which is not true. The NATO bombing of Yugoslavia or the USAs Invasion of Iraq were neither "civilized" nor "lawful".
In Iraq Poland was part of the "coalition of willing" and ukraine supported them with troops. The current reuse of this term is either historical ignorance or awareness.
| TL;DR
Many young Ukrainian and Russians men fight and kill each other, and the survivors will "rewarded" by being allowed to watch their dumb leaders signing new contracts, shaking hands and selling the rest of their partially already destroyed/stolen lives to the local oligarchy. If Zelenskyy was the heroic "freedom fighter" his supporters portray him, he would take the chance and blow Pitler and Trump up - if they ever they come together. A pity nothing of this will happen.
| >>1069872
>If Zelensky was the heroic freedom fighter his supporters portray him he should start a war with America.
^This is your brain on ruzzian propaganda. This is the most nonsensical idiotic argument I've ever heard and only a true idiot would ever utter such nonsense.
| this thread is a manifestation of the manic episode of OP
| >>1069862 To think this you'd have to ignore basically the entire last ten years of the bourgeoisie progressively getting radicalized into fascism and openly funding fascist parties. Bolloré in France is a big example of this. Bolloré's media apparatus has openly pushed Pitler's talking points, and Bolloré is very much representative of the modern reactionary bourgeoisie.
| >>1069870 The inclusion of the bombing of yugoslavia is very funny, cause the intervention was done because the serbs were carrying out a genocide in Kosovo. Idk what your argument is supposed to be in this paragraph apart from being a whataboutism. Yes NATO and its allies have also committed crimes against humanity, and it doesn't make russia's invasion any more lawful or humane.
| >>1069872 This is also a strange argument that comes either out of willfull ignorance or confusion. The left-adjacent argument for supporting Ukraine isn't that Zelensky is a particularly moral individual. That's a caricature of the argument that betrays either a bias or negative polarization. The argument for supporting UA is that they are fighting against an enemy that has attacked them first, is committing genocide, and is currently promoting neofascism around the world.
| What happened was that russia attacked first, committing mass murder, torture, and arguably genocide. Russia is at the end of the day responsible. Framing it as equal responsibility from both parties is absurd. It's currently fashionable to dismiss the war as "inter-imperialist" and "inter-bourgeois", which is only a salient point if you ignore the appeal of neofascism to the western bourgeoisie, and if you ignore the history of resistance to fascism.
| If anything, the western bourgeoisie is responsible for the war in the sense that, much like Hitler, it tried to appease Pitler in 2014, and continued to appease Pitler in 2022 by restricting aid to Ukraine and forbidding the UAF from striking within russia. If you look at what the "bloodthirsty NATOists" were doing in 2014, people like Merkel and Hollande were all trying to appease Pitler, and all thought that Pitler could be reasoned with, if given the good incentives.
| The idea that both ukraine and russia are "sending out their youth to die" at an equal degree is something you can only believe if you think that Russia wasn't the one to invade first. Except it did, not only in 2022, but in 2014 as well.
| Zelensky is presented as this evil warmonger, equally guilty as Pitler. Which betrays a complete misunderstanding of internal ukrainian politics as well. Zelensky was the pro-peace candidate between him and Poroshenko. He was a russian-speaker who only started learning ukrainian in 2017, he was favorable to negotiations with Pitler, and russian speakers in the ukrainian-controlled parts of Donbas voted for him en masse. Poroshenko on the other hand, was openly nationalist.
| Nowadays the narrative is that Zelensky is some sort of warmonger ultranat banderite, which is completely laughable lol. He was always open to negotiating with Pitler, but after the 2022 invasion that ship had already sailed. The smears that the russians used against Poroshenko in 2014 got reused against zelensky despite the fact they had lost all their relevance. Anyone who still thinks like this has basically lost all credibility to talk about the conflict.
| TL;DR in 2014 the western bourgeoisie appeased Pitler. After that an increasingly larger segment of the bourgeoisie became convinced that Pitler's model of authoritarianism was necessary because of pressures from progressive movements at home. The bourgeois felt like they got a bad deal out of the liberal democratic model, and prefer neofascism. Read Michel Clouscard.
| also: If you're gonna make the argument that the russo-ukraine war is an inter-bourgeoisie war, I think that is true. However WW2 was also an inter-bourgeoisie and inter-imperialist war, and I don't think you could make the argument that Hitler winning is an equally desirable outcome as the allies winning. Many leftcoms would actually make that argument, which amounts to saying that the human toll of WW2 doesn't matter. Obviously I don't agree with that assessment.
| also read strelkov's interview on the early days of the donbas separatists, he destroys quite a few leftoid myths on 2014.
| >>3b4196
wow, i should've read that before laughing because you're right on the money. shame on me
| >>1069942
Also very true. I still think she stared out strong but went wrong in equating Pitler too much to Zelensky. The interviews sound interesting.
Refresh
| The marxist author Michel Clouscard identifies that following the social liberation of the 1960's, the liberal bourgeoisie which had previously championed liberalism and democracy, would end up backing neofascist forces and returning to societal austerity. Today in the western world, we can see that the previously liberal bourgeoisie is increasingly attracted to the idea of switching towards the russian model of neofascism.