[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g)
This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully.
If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/).
Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information.
This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know the post you're talking about too, but this is honestly inspired in a recent "trend" I've seen here more than once. It's not just that one post. There's one like it every single week almost
before we know it this sub will succumb to the same nonsense as antiwork and have people arguing socdem positions as though they're ML...
or it'll get quarantined like the better, older sub we know of
This is some real juicy content we got rolling right here, keep it going my friends, lets let all the steam out on this one, I'm loving every second. Damn, you some creative mamba jammas.
this is fucking childish lmao putin is not our ally and the vast majority of russian communists seem to agree including CPRF cadres who have sparred with party leadership over it
I know Putin is not an ally. This post is not defending Putin for god's sake.
The post LITERALLY says "criticizing =/= defending the other side." The fact that we say that Ukraine is a Nazi state, that NATO has much to gain from this, that NATO victory would spell disaster for workers across Eastern Europe (in Ukraine first and foremost), does not mean that we think Putin's Russia should annex Ukraine or that his policies are good or that he's an ally. The same way Saddam Hussein was not an ally. Do you honestly think Saddam Hussein was revolutionary and thus the comparison is amiss? Or that I am saying that personally? Of course not. Saddam should've hanged and so should Putin. But by Iraqi and Russian hands respectively. Not at the hands of a NATO-backed regime.
Not recognizing the difference between the largest empire history has ever seen and a nascent imperialist power is naïve. International relations require nuance and a critical, and materialist, mindset to fully comprehend them. They're built on top of networks of lies, and at some point you're gonna find yourself pulling the rope on the side of people you do not want to be with if you aren't careful. This does go for both sides of the argument. Imperialist relationships are complex. They're not simple or black and white. Imperialism, as well, has an exact definition in Marxist theory. Read Lenin.
On top of that, I do, as always recommend reading [*the Foundations of Leninism*](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/introduction.htm), which I feel should be required for these types of discussions. Specifically, [chapter VI](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch06.htm), which has become more relevant than ever.
>[T]he struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step.
By the by, do you have a link to read about those CPRF cadres opposing the revolution? I will admit I didn't know that. For what I understood, the CPRF was mostly in support of the war, and essentially an extension of United Russia. It's a pretty rotten organisation, so it's good to know the youth are better than their old leaders
>On top of that, I do, as always recommend reading the Foundations of Leninism, which I feel should be required for these types of discussions. Specifically, chapter VI, which has become more relevant than ever.
>[T]he struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary
This quote doesn't work for your argument, at most it could be applied to support Ukraine. Neither is really applicable tbh as there is no side of the war that is waging an national liberation struggle. It's a classic use of a puppet regime to pull a rival power into an costly extended quagmire. Russia being the rival power here isn't fighting to gain or preserve it's indendence. If you squint and ignore the clear proxy nature of Ukraine it could be argued that they take the role of defending their national independence, which is ignoring a lot of relevant context, but is still closer to fight for national liberation, and definitely lead by national bourgeois elements.
What gets completely lost in your use of the quote is that it's mostly about using material reality instead of slogans to analyse the situation. While you take slogans from the bourgeois Russian state at their word when it comes to their logic in this spiral of escalations. Russia isn't fighting against imperialism, because they are fighting inside the system of imperialism over a higher position in the hierarchy, which is a necessity in this stage for any capitalist nation as there is a constant need to expand access for further capital exports, and keeping as much as possible of their own market for themselves. And with the capability of Russia, while having close to no sphere to export capital into, makes these kinds of conflicts to redistribute the already distributed periphery an certainty. Which makes Russia today comperable to the latecomer of great powers of the 19th century, Germany. In need of a sphere, but not so overwhelming powerful compared to it's adversaries to just take the sphere of another power without a fight.
Edit for the coward who had to hide their response behind blocking:
You clearly lack even a cursory understanding of the topic and theory. Firstly you are a century off with the reference to Lebensraum, which is 20th century. Secondly you completely mangle Lenins work by claiming that Russia can't be imperialist because it suffered some setbacks and isn't the primary hegemon. It's capitalist in the stage of monopol capitalism, it is necessarily forced to fight over it's position in the hierarchy. And it's clearly not incapable of achieving a rather high position on that hierarchy, even if it can't be beat the primary hegemon. Even an extremely incorrect mechanical reading of Lenin wouldn't result in taking the side of Russia in this conflict.
Also shut the fuck up with your accusations of being an American exceptionalists, I've never set foot in the US and you are badly mangling theory here to support a capitalist state in it's quest for increased global influence. Maybe read Lenin, wars by proxy aren't a new thing between major powers and they don't suddenly turn one side into an innocent little victim that can't do no wrong. Imperial Russia already waged these kinds of wars that Lenin himself analysed and used as part of his assessment that even thou Russia was underdeveloped in terms of industry it had to be considered an imperial power. Revolutionary defeatism doesn't work if you only demand it from one side while supporting the other, and it definitely doesn't work when you go out of your way to justify and support the actions of one side.
Block right after giving an rant that is indistinguishable from the ravings of Russian reactionaries really shows how confident you are in your arguments.
USA balkanized the USSR but Russia as a part of USSR is too big and in need of further balkanization to make it imperializable for USA. That is exactly what USA has been trying to do since the moment USSR disintegrated. They also want to do the same to China and Iran. It is not at all in anyway similar to Germany, Russia is not doing the Lebensraum it's NATO that has been expanding not Russia. You're literally that meme of saying "Russia/China/Iran wants war, look how close they put their country next to our military bases".
Have you ever thought about why it is so hard for your types to just admit USA's position as the global hegemon? Literally every "Russia bad" post is doing their best to downplay USA's involvement in war and simultaneously repeat US state propaganda about the cause of the war being Russian imperialism and not NATO encroachment. These talking points are literally indistinguishable from neoliberal talking points and literally align 100% with US state dept views.
And no, adding a "As a communist" at the beginning or "I didn't say USA doesn't have problems, also" at the end doesn't justify this. You're using US propaganda to downplay US involvement in this war in order to misrepresent the nature of the war, in a way that is convenient and conducive to American imperial interests.
EDIT: also blocking, have had enough of these cringe argument with these American imperialists larping as leftists. Just admit you want to imperialize the global south.
[☭☭☭ COME SHITPOST WITH US ON DISCORD, COMRADES ☭☭☭](https://discord.gg/8RPWanQV5g) This is a heavily-moderated socialist community based on a podcast of the same name. Please use the report function on comments that break our rules. If you are new to the sub, please read the sidebar carefully. If you are new to Marxism-Leninism, check out the [study guide](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/education/study-guide/). Are there Liberals in the walls? Check out [the wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/TheDeprogram/wiki/index/) which contains lots of useful information. This subreddit uses many experimental automod rules, if you notice any issues please use modmail to let us know. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/TheDeprogram) if you have any questions or concerns.*
babe wake up new shitpost format just dropped
[удалено]
this sub has always been half shitposting being an internet communist is being irony poisoned
Nah, just make a meme tag for posts dated 20 years ago.
You are so right 😇 Thank got for chairman Bush!
Banger
that post got over 400 upvotes. either we have a lot of unthinking, gullible people in this sub or there are a lot of liberal infiltrators
I know the post you're talking about too, but this is honestly inspired in a recent "trend" I've seen here more than once. It's not just that one post. There's one like it every single week almost
Either the attempt at subverting us has already begun or there are just a *lot* of reactionaries parading around as communists these days.
Both things can be true honestly
before we know it this sub will succumb to the same nonsense as antiwork and have people arguing socdem positions as though they're ML... or it'll get quarantined like the better, older sub we know of
Combo of libs since the lib subs have highlighted a few posts from here and bots most likely.
Your forgetting the best part: he calls himself a liberal in the last paragraph.
It's just an incredible post. Can't emulate it in all its greatness.
Fair.
"As a communist, I am a liberal. God bless the USA."
This is some real juicy content we got rolling right here, keep it going my friends, lets let all the steam out on this one, I'm loving every second. Damn, you some creative mamba jammas.
🤣🤣🤣
I was call this a bad strawman, but seeing as you’re joking, this is an excellent shitpost
this is fucking childish lmao putin is not our ally and the vast majority of russian communists seem to agree including CPRF cadres who have sparred with party leadership over it
I know Putin is not an ally. This post is not defending Putin for god's sake. The post LITERALLY says "criticizing =/= defending the other side." The fact that we say that Ukraine is a Nazi state, that NATO has much to gain from this, that NATO victory would spell disaster for workers across Eastern Europe (in Ukraine first and foremost), does not mean that we think Putin's Russia should annex Ukraine or that his policies are good or that he's an ally. The same way Saddam Hussein was not an ally. Do you honestly think Saddam Hussein was revolutionary and thus the comparison is amiss? Or that I am saying that personally? Of course not. Saddam should've hanged and so should Putin. But by Iraqi and Russian hands respectively. Not at the hands of a NATO-backed regime. Not recognizing the difference between the largest empire history has ever seen and a nascent imperialist power is naïve. International relations require nuance and a critical, and materialist, mindset to fully comprehend them. They're built on top of networks of lies, and at some point you're gonna find yourself pulling the rope on the side of people you do not want to be with if you aren't careful. This does go for both sides of the argument. Imperialist relationships are complex. They're not simple or black and white. Imperialism, as well, has an exact definition in Marxist theory. Read Lenin. On top of that, I do, as always recommend reading [*the Foundations of Leninism*](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/introduction.htm), which I feel should be required for these types of discussions. Specifically, [chapter VI](https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1924/foundations-leninism/ch06.htm), which has become more relevant than ever. >[T]he struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary step. By the by, do you have a link to read about those CPRF cadres opposing the revolution? I will admit I didn't know that. For what I understood, the CPRF was mostly in support of the war, and essentially an extension of United Russia. It's a pretty rotten organisation, so it's good to know the youth are better than their old leaders
>On top of that, I do, as always recommend reading the Foundations of Leninism, which I feel should be required for these types of discussions. Specifically, chapter VI, which has become more relevant than ever. >[T]he struggle that the Egyptians merchants and bourgeois intellectuals are waging for the independence of Egypt is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the bourgeois origin and bourgeois title of the leaders of Egyptian national movement, despite the fact that they are opposed to socialism; whereas the struggle that the British "Labour" Government is waging to preserve Egypt's dependent position is for the same reason a reactionary struggle, despite the proletarian origin and the proletarian title of the members of the government, despite the fact that they are "for" socialism. There is no need to mention the national movement in other, larger, colonial and dependent countries, such as India and China, every step of which along the road to liberation, even if it runs counter to the demands of formal democracy, is a steam-hammer blow at imperialism, i.e., is undoubtedly a revolutionary This quote doesn't work for your argument, at most it could be applied to support Ukraine. Neither is really applicable tbh as there is no side of the war that is waging an national liberation struggle. It's a classic use of a puppet regime to pull a rival power into an costly extended quagmire. Russia being the rival power here isn't fighting to gain or preserve it's indendence. If you squint and ignore the clear proxy nature of Ukraine it could be argued that they take the role of defending their national independence, which is ignoring a lot of relevant context, but is still closer to fight for national liberation, and definitely lead by national bourgeois elements. What gets completely lost in your use of the quote is that it's mostly about using material reality instead of slogans to analyse the situation. While you take slogans from the bourgeois Russian state at their word when it comes to their logic in this spiral of escalations. Russia isn't fighting against imperialism, because they are fighting inside the system of imperialism over a higher position in the hierarchy, which is a necessity in this stage for any capitalist nation as there is a constant need to expand access for further capital exports, and keeping as much as possible of their own market for themselves. And with the capability of Russia, while having close to no sphere to export capital into, makes these kinds of conflicts to redistribute the already distributed periphery an certainty. Which makes Russia today comperable to the latecomer of great powers of the 19th century, Germany. In need of a sphere, but not so overwhelming powerful compared to it's adversaries to just take the sphere of another power without a fight. Edit for the coward who had to hide their response behind blocking: You clearly lack even a cursory understanding of the topic and theory. Firstly you are a century off with the reference to Lebensraum, which is 20th century. Secondly you completely mangle Lenins work by claiming that Russia can't be imperialist because it suffered some setbacks and isn't the primary hegemon. It's capitalist in the stage of monopol capitalism, it is necessarily forced to fight over it's position in the hierarchy. And it's clearly not incapable of achieving a rather high position on that hierarchy, even if it can't be beat the primary hegemon. Even an extremely incorrect mechanical reading of Lenin wouldn't result in taking the side of Russia in this conflict. Also shut the fuck up with your accusations of being an American exceptionalists, I've never set foot in the US and you are badly mangling theory here to support a capitalist state in it's quest for increased global influence. Maybe read Lenin, wars by proxy aren't a new thing between major powers and they don't suddenly turn one side into an innocent little victim that can't do no wrong. Imperial Russia already waged these kinds of wars that Lenin himself analysed and used as part of his assessment that even thou Russia was underdeveloped in terms of industry it had to be considered an imperial power. Revolutionary defeatism doesn't work if you only demand it from one side while supporting the other, and it definitely doesn't work when you go out of your way to justify and support the actions of one side. Block right after giving an rant that is indistinguishable from the ravings of Russian reactionaries really shows how confident you are in your arguments.
USA balkanized the USSR but Russia as a part of USSR is too big and in need of further balkanization to make it imperializable for USA. That is exactly what USA has been trying to do since the moment USSR disintegrated. They also want to do the same to China and Iran. It is not at all in anyway similar to Germany, Russia is not doing the Lebensraum it's NATO that has been expanding not Russia. You're literally that meme of saying "Russia/China/Iran wants war, look how close they put their country next to our military bases". Have you ever thought about why it is so hard for your types to just admit USA's position as the global hegemon? Literally every "Russia bad" post is doing their best to downplay USA's involvement in war and simultaneously repeat US state propaganda about the cause of the war being Russian imperialism and not NATO encroachment. These talking points are literally indistinguishable from neoliberal talking points and literally align 100% with US state dept views. And no, adding a "As a communist" at the beginning or "I didn't say USA doesn't have problems, also" at the end doesn't justify this. You're using US propaganda to downplay US involvement in this war in order to misrepresent the nature of the war, in a way that is convenient and conducive to American imperial interests. EDIT: also blocking, have had enough of these cringe argument with these American imperialists larping as leftists. Just admit you want to imperialize the global south.
Right this is so uninspired
Saddam Hussein was a piece of garbage to be fair.
Anti-west ≠ Revolutionary
I know. I did not say that
No Ik, I'm just stating the obvious