@Spectre eh. Still capitalist. They still definitely have a lot of corporate power, whatever Putin says. In fact, if you still empower your corporations but just bring them under control of the government, that’s exactly what fascist economics is. Their lawmaking definitely fits with the fascist style, too, so I’m going to say that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it is one.
Remember that imperialism, per Lenin’s definition, is very much not about a single axis. There being a single axis for so long is actually sort of weird, so it’s quite sensible to view Russia as an imperial power from a Marxist perspective.
If you look at Russia’s socialist allies and what they say, they are alliances of convenience. They respect Russia’s power and its alignment against the USA. But they do not aspire to their politics, their economic model. They don’t see them as some beacon of working class power. And if you look at Russia’s influence in places like Burkina Faso, it’s sometimes downright Hitlerian, to the tune of “If you want to work with us, you have to criminalize your gays.”
The “marxist perspective” is definitely not something that would conclude Russia is imperialist. Imperialism is, for lack of a better way to put it offhand, capitalism externalized.
Some things imperialism isn’t:
-
Capital being strong locally (if this were the case, most capitalist states would qualify as imperialist)
-
Having geopolitical power/influence (if this were the case, China would be considered imperialist and they are instead doing win-win infrastructure deals and trade with the global south)
-
Exploitation of other countries as the only factor required to meet the definition (though imperialism definitely involves exploitation of other countries, other kinds of exploitation can exist - otherwise, there would be no meaningful distinction between colonialism and imperialism, for example)
There are others who I’m sure can explain the geopolitical economy aspects of it better than I can and hopefully will step in to do so. But I would be looking for things like coercive relationships where the capital of Nation A is growing as a result of exploiting the land/labor/resources of Nation B. From what I can tell, capitalist Russia’s actions are more just realpolitik dealing with the corner they’ve been backed into. Trying to be an imperialist country would put them in conflict with anti-imperialist forces in the world, which would make them even more alone; despised by the western empire that wants to subjugate them and despised by anti-imperialist forces. Easily isolated and picked off.
Do you really think the DPRK, as principled as it has tended to be on the global stage, would ally with Russia if they believed Russia was imperialist?
Strange dynamics call for more nuance in definitions. There is no need to shoehorn them into a definition that was made to describe something else. I would easily believe the Russian leadership/capitalists are opportunists who will follow whatever way the wind blows. But even that doesn’t in itself mean it is easy for them to change allegiances/goals at this point. Leaders are always part intention and part the limitations of the surrounding system and conditions.
The “marxist perspective” is definitely not something that would conclude Russia is imperialist.
No, not "definitely ", it’s very debatable especially because imperialism had a significant transformation since Lenin defined it. Remember, he was describing colonial imperialism and believed capitalist states will keep waging wars over colonies which would bring down capitalism, instead imperialism adapted and reshaped itself into neocolonialism where large powers gave up colonies in favour of economic domination and unequal exchange, then neoliberalism with it’s global value chains, labour arbitrage abroad and austerity at home, and now seems to be having another transformation into a much more militaristic expansion into new markets and simply exuberant destruction of the world to open opportunities for profitable investments into rebuilding.
But I would be looking for things like coercive relationships where the capital of Nation A is growing as a result of exploiting the land/labor/resources of Nation B.
Which is absolutely what Russian oligarchs did in Ukraine and other nations in the region, and large part of the reason for the war is so they can keep doing that unmolested.
@amemorablename Imperialism is the division of the world between larger powers, which is exactly what Russia is doing. And yes, nations do ally with imperialist nations because that’s what they are, not in spite of it. If the developing world didn’t ally with an imperialist country, it would be a pretty poor imperialist country.
You can mince words about what imperialism is and say that definitions need to change, and really it hardly matters. The main thing here is that Russia is absolutely not some principled beacon of anti-imperialism. Celebrating it as such is not principled, either.
Division of the world between large powers is only one aspect of Lenin’s definition of imperialism, others being concentration of production into monopolies, consolidation of industrial and financial capital (Russia meets those 100%), export of capital as a main economic activity as opposed of exporting labour, goods, or resources, and a creation of international capitalist associations (those are debatable).
Much more importantly though, a country doesn’t need to be an established imperialist power to be engaged in an imperialist war. The Russian Empire, a backwards, feudal agrarian state that ran on slave labour until the late 19th century and was only beginning to industrialise, fit that definition even less than the Russian Federation does currently, yet according to Lenin it was engaged in an imperialist war and he developed revolutionary defeatism exactly in this situation.
Lenin didn’t call to support what he called “young imperialist countries” like Germany or Japan against established imperialist countries like Britain or France. He called for the workers of all those countries to fight against their own governments, to turn the imperialist war abroad into the revolution at home.
-
eh… I wouldn’t call russia “not an oligarchy.” I definitely wouldn’t call them part of the Axis of Resistance. They are fighting on the same side as the Axis of resistance but not because they had a choice.
The Axis of Resistance didn’t choose their fate either. The only choice they made is to resist rather than submit, so the same as Russia.
Iran didn’t try to join the genocidal empire.
Putin chose to join the Western capitalist order and was rejected.
Iran on the other hand secured their sovereignty in a revolution and was the only state that took military action against the genocide, which they could simply not do like all the other states.
You can’t compare the two at all.
Nobody is comparing them. They simply were pushed into a situation where they had to be part of this axis or die, just like the other countries within this resistance.
How can they be considered capitalist without s dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?
Are you implying that Russia is a dictatorship of the proletariat? They certainly aren’t feudalist, and certainly aren’t bonapartist.
The meme sayz by 2005 putin removed all political power from billionairs. How should this be possible?
Russia is not fascist
Tell that to the LGBT people there…
There is more to fascism than queerphobia.
Seems people’s first instinct to this kind of criticism is to say “but what about the US?” Ineffective because many people who say this already know the US is bad. So instead I’ll say; I have queer friends in Russia. Queerphobia is horrendous, backwards, and not to be brushed off. Thus I deeply resent the US for forcing me to side with reactionaries against it. The US is that much of a threat to the planet.
Granted “side with” is doing heavy lifting. I can do the “critical” but I’m not sure how to do the “support” beyond simply voicing my opinions.
Whatever the case, though queerphobia is a tendency rightfully associated with fascists, that alone is not sufficient for fascism.
Queerphobia is horrendous, backwards, and not to be brushed off. Thus I deeply resent the US for forcing me to side with reactionaries against it. The US is that much of a threat to the planet.
Also, it is important to highlight that Russia; along with China, the Palestinian resistance and Iran; were victims of the dialectical baiting made by the US. I wrote a post about it going into detail what is the dialectical bait:
In this other comment, I added two emails of Epstein and his russian collaborator where they stated that they wanted to use this State Duma legislator that has support with the LGTB community.
yeah, those russkies should learn of the US about treating their LGBT community!
How’s trans rights looking in the US these days? Guess the US is fascist too huh
Treatment of [Internationally Marginalized Communities] living in this one country, that proves that they are Fascist? This is a bad standard to set. Fascism is not merely reactionary social heirarchy, if we think along this line then we have to also accept that practically every non socially progressive society is Fascist, which would be most of them today.
It’s Bonapartist. Not fascist.
As Marx defined it? (stalemate between bourgeoisie and proletariat, state not fully controlled by either, capitalist property relations intact?) Yeah, that seems like a more accurate description of Russia’s present state.
There is no stalemate between proletariat and bourgeoisie, what are you smoking. Russian proletariat has no political power whatsoever, same as in other capitalist countries. Putin reigned in the oligarchs to some extent purely to end the selling out of Russia to the west, if anything he transformed comprador bourgeoisie into national bourgeoisie. This is a lesser evil compared to continued looting of the country like under Yeltsin, but it does not empower proletariat politically.
tell that to trans people in America. Women too. Anyone of color and especially south of the border.
Why do you assume that if I’m criticizing an anti-imperialist country for something then that must mean I think everything in the imperial core is all fine and dandy? You can support a nation in their struggle to defend themselves without whitewashing their shortcomings.
Because they aren’t “fascist” as another user said. They are still an anti-imperialist country with backwards/regressive social policies (quite literally regressive from the USSR). They aren’t even a “fascist” state in the traditional sense, as much as Putin holds power there are significant opposition parties that face typical capitalist prosecution, yes, but aren’t totally eliminated as you would see in a nationalist or national socialist regime. Imperialism is fascism, Russia is not imperialist.
What point are you trying to illustrate by pointing out their regressive social policies?
I got the impression from OP that Russia was above reproach and were entitled to uncritical support. This was mostly a knee-jerk response…
We use and live the term critical support around here. You can support a party/nation/group for their fight against, say, the primary global contradiction of imperialism and fascism, while being critical of other behaviours or contradictions, say capitalist organization of the economy or treatment of minority groups.
Yes, they are still capitalist however.
Once the US/NATO falls inshallah and the balance of power shifts globally we will need to refocus our efforts on these capitalist states (Iran/Russia) that fought US/NATO imperialism.
hopefully the Russians and the Iranians can focus on their own bourgeoise once the external pressure vanishes.
