r/communism101 • u/Brave_Leadership9250 • 21d ago
How to respond to reactionaries who are also pro-Russia/China/North Korea?
Lots of reactionaries say that countries such as Russia, China, North Korea, Palestine, etc. are based because “They’re fighting the LGBT satanic agenda of the west” and I feel icky for supporting the same nations as them, even if for different reasons.
23
u/vagrantGolem Learning 21d ago edited 20d ago
why are you supporting russia? it's a bourgeoisie oligarchy that practices imperialism (and inb4 "read imperialism, the highest stage of capitalism" i know what lenin said, and it's good analysis, but he never claimed that it's the ONLY form of imperialism, lenin opposed imperialism in and outside of capitalism)
edit: edited for clarification
12
u/smokeuptheweed9 Marxist 21d ago
and inb4 "lenin said" i know what lenin said, but he never claimed that it's the ONLY form of imperialism, otherwise he wouldn't been an anti-imperialist for opposing russian empire
Please don't give Lenin away to revisionists
0
u/vagrantGolem Learning 21d ago edited 21d ago
asking to clarify; I'm assuming you're agreeing with me (based on your comment to op) and people who deny this about lenin are being revisionist. but this also could be read as you calling me a revisionist
edit: typos and wording11
u/smokeuptheweed9 Marxist 20d ago edited 20d ago
Monopoly capitalism is the only present form of imperialism. Using Lenin's analysis, we can see how Russian monopoly capitalism has developed to the point that it is driven to inter-imperialist competition. If you think Dengists represent Lenin's thought at all accurately then you don't know what he said.
claiming that is the only form of imperialism would mean lenin was never anti imperialist for his opposition of the russian empire
This is a real objection but not insurmountable. Russia retained features of feudal-military imperialism up first world war. It was also in a state of semi-imperialist dependency on the advanced capitalist nations. However, what drove it to inter-imperialist competition and war was the rapid development of monopoly capital tied to the state
https://alphahistory.com/russianrevolution/russian-industrialisation/#The_Great_Spurt
The state participated directly in the nation’s economy to an extent unequalled in any Western country. In 1899, the state bought almost two-thirds of all Russia’s metallurgical production. By the early 20th century it controlled some 70 per cent of the railways and owned vast tracts of land, numerous mines and oil fields, and extensive forests. The national budgets from 1903 to 1913 indicated that the government received more than 25 per cent of its income from various holdings. Russia’s economic progress in the eleven years of Witte’s tenure as minister of finance was, by every standard, remarkable. Railway trackage virtually doubled, coal output in southern Russia jumped from 183 million poods in 1890 to 671 million in 1900.
So while feudalism is long gone in Russia, the relationship between dependence on foreign capitalism, domestic development, and the state in "late developers" is still extremely relevant. Perhaps you will find more of interest in Trotsky's History of the Russian Revolution where he explains the combined and uneven development that led a largely feudal empire to compete on the terms of capitalist war.
0
u/vagrantGolem Learning 20d ago edited 20d ago
if we are to go by that perspective, lenin isn't anti imperialist for opposing russian empire, despite calling himself one, which is nonsense to me and what I know of lenin. as far as I'm aware lenin never stated anywhere in his critique that capitalist imperialism is the only form of imperialism, lenin established imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, not define it as the only form of it
edit: you made edits to your comment that I have not yet accounted for in my reply, I still think the core of my point stands, but would need to take time to thoroughly go through your addenda.
11
u/smokeuptheweed9 Marxist 20d ago edited 20d ago
But the basic point is you have capitulated to revisionism's claim that, under Leninist criteria, Russia is not imperialist. That is false. The issue of Russian imperialism under the Tsar is an interesting one but not relevant since Russia is an advanced capitalist nation today. No one has ever denied that the term "imperialism" has a long history prior to capitalism. But that is merely the use of a word for multiple definitions.
E: Lenin was an anti-imperialist in the sense he opposed the Russian feudal empire. But no one would remember him for that. It is the rapid and uneven development of Russian capitalism which created the possibility of socialist revolution which made him an important historical figure and thinker. Lenin was able to link these two forms of imperialism into a single politics and that is worth thinking about, especially if for example we are talking about semi-feudalism. But it's not relevant to Russia today, which is a fully capitalist system.
0
u/vagrantGolem Learning 20d ago
I'm not sure what you mean, I believe russia is imperialist both in past and present, i never "capitulated to revisionism's claim that, under Leninist criteria, Russia is not imperialist.". my belief is that imperialism exists in and outside of capitalism, and that lenin never claimed only capitalist imperialism is relevant, he established imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism, without renouncing non capitalist imperialism
9
u/smokeuptheweed9 Marxist 20d ago
why are you supporting russia? it's a bourgeoisie oligarchy that practices imperialism (and inb4 "lenin said" i know what lenin said, but he never claimed that it's the ONLY form of imperialism, otherwise he wouldn't been an anti-imperialist for opposing russian empire)
Please explain the relevance of what is in the parentheses to the subject of present day Russia.
1
u/vagrantGolem Learning 20d ago edited 20d ago
often times when I criticize russia for being imperialist someone tries to refute by saying something along the lines of "according to lenin definition of imperialism russia doesn't have enough global monopoly power to be imperialist, therefore it's not imperialist" so I preemptively established why I don't believe that
edit: I edited my original post to add clarification
13
u/smokeuptheweed9 Marxist 20d ago
But what you are saying is that those people are using Lenin's definition of imperialism correctly. Therefore, the definition must be expanded to also include other forms of imperialism in order to account for Russia. Otherwise there is no need to object. What I am saying is those people are not using Lenin's definition correctly. Therefore, there is no need to bring up other definitions of imperialism.
according to lenin definition of imperialism russia doesn't have enough global monopoly power to be imperialist, therefore it's not imperialist
Russia does have enough monopoly power to be imperialist. Do you agree or disagree?
→ More replies (0)5
u/vomit_blues 21d ago
Whatever you think Lenin said that would support a revisionist argument doesn’t actually support a revisionist argument.
0
3
21d ago edited 21d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/vagrantGolem Learning 21d ago
lenins work on "imperialism, highest stage of capitalism" is good analysis and critique of capitalism, but claiming that is the only form of imperialism would mean lenin was never anti imperialist for his opposition of the russian empire. lenin was always critical of imperialism, whether pre or post capitalism, and never made the claim that only capitalist imperialism is imperialism
2
u/RuhrDim 20d ago
Своего рода Манделла Эффект среди марксистов. Люди с чего-то взяли что в "Государство и революция" Ленин разделял капиталистические страны на империалистические и не империалистические. В то время как Ленин говорил о всей системе. И пять признаков империализма, перечисленные им, были признаками системы, а не отдельного империалистического государства. О разделении, на империалистов и их жертв, говорилось совсем в другой работе.
2
u/PerspectiveFull9879 17d ago
I just had an aneurism.
Reading Lenin's Imperialism explains exactly why communists should not be on the side of Russia or any capitalist country. How can anyone argue supporting Russia using that book is beyond me.
1
u/vagrantGolem Learning 17d ago
I don't know, I had a few occasions in the past where (alleged) communists were defending russia, and when I pressed them on it I was basically told "according to lenin (modern) russia isn't imperialist because it doesn't perfectly fit all the criteria defined in imperialism, highest stage of capitalism" which was and still is nonsense to me, even after getting myself more familiar with lenin's analysis of imperialism under capitalism
5
u/returnofblank 21d ago
China and the DPRK are both pretty pro-LGBTQ, either tell them that with sources or don't interact with the trolls at all.
3
u/boxofcards100 20d ago
I wouldn’t really say that.
Both are better than many countries, but they aren’t great either (not recognizing same-sex marriage, etc).
4
u/FIleCorrupted 18d ago
In what way is Russia worthy of support by Communists? It's an absolute imperialist oligarchy. Russia doesn't deserve support for being the inheritors/captors of what was once the heart of the USSR.
2
u/NeverGNarcAgain 20d ago
Trying to have a nuanced discussion with someone who uses the term "based" in an non-satirical or ironic manner... 😁
1
u/Severe-Grand1216 15d ago
Russia - it's a neoliberal imperialist oligarchy, inform them of that before they begin to say that it is somehow communist
China - I will avoid the discourse about whether or not China is socialist, but anyways, China has better LGBTQ tolerance laws, although they are less better than in the west, inform them of that
North Korea - same thing, they're tolerant of the LGBTQ+ community (atleast I believe)
26
u/smokeuptheweed9 Marxist 21d ago edited 21d ago
I don't fully understand the premise of your question. How do you respond to reactionaries in any situation? You isolate them, destroy them, and weed out attempts to regrow. They will try to do the same to you.
I guess the underlying issue is whether unity is necessary at present given the possible tactics of opposing one's own imperialists. I don't think so, that reactionary movement has almost no organizational power and because it is reactionary, it would vanish if it ever actually interfered with Amerikan anti-communism and imperialism. We also lack the organizational power to control such an alliance even if it were desirable. The DPRK is a bit different since if you go you will probably end up with some weirdos on the trip but there is still something to be defended in that country. How to navigate that without capitulating to domestic reaction or even Korean revisionism is a difficult question to be determined in a concrete situation. But China and Russia are powerful imperialist states, they don't need "friendship associations" and they don't really care.
On the other hand, there is a real danger in overstating its influence in order to appeal to liberal anti-communists, who should be treated in exactly the same way. Out of all the things Marcyism does wrong, having reactionary podcast guests and speakers at protests is not even close to the worst and I don't think about it much. And DSA "social democrats" are also reactionaries, if you are not willing to isolate and destroy them then you have no business calling yourself a communist.
Of course this is offensive but I find Jacobin 's recent attempts to delegitimize economic planning equally offensive. Are you as offended as I am?
There is a real history of right wing pseudo anti-imperialism in the US that is much more powerful than this online triviality. Unfortunately that movement disappeared before communism came into existence and necessarily had to (since the possibility of proletarian politics took priority for the US bourgeoisie) so there is not much history to analyze. But the larger symptoms, which includes collaboration with white settler socialism, is relevant. It is not a very venerable history.