We’ve seen them do this so many times to so many countries by now, if you still fall for it at this point you’re just a stupid asshole who deserves to have their feelings hurt. All out of patience …
Even Caitlin Johnstone acknowledges that Russia is an empire engaging in imperialism in this article. She just also recognizes that the US is doing the same. Neither empire gives a single shit about the sovereignty of Ukrainians.
I don’t know the author but I did a quick search within the article, which didn’t call Russia an empire, nor does it claims Russia is engaging in imperialism, it only called Russia an aggressor.
The issue is that empire and imperialism aren’t simply “big country bullies small country”, imperialism describes a specific relation under financial capitalism and Russia doesn’t fulfill the conditions. That doesn’t mean we necessarily think Russia is good, or moral, or whatever, but that calling it “imperialist” is incorrect.
It would be wrong, as some have argued, to mechanically take Lenin’s “five essential features” found in Chapter VII as giving a criterion for admission into some kind of imperialist club.
It could not be clearer that Imperialism as a Special Stage of Capitalism is not about the status of individual countries in the imperialist system, but about imperialism as a whole.
Capital concentration, the merging of financial capital with industrial capital, the export of capital, international monopolies, and the territorial division of the world (spheres of interest) are features of the imperialist stage of capitalism, and not necessarily any individual country in the imperial project.
Whether it is tsarist Russia (a mix of emerging capitalist relations in urban areas and only weakly exited feudal relations in rural areas) or Vladimir Putin’s Russia (a stunted industrial capitalist economy, but with enormous essential resources), the capacity to participate in great power activity, to enlarge or protect spheres of interest, to confront other great powers is an unquestionable reality. Whether it is tsarist Russia (a mix of emerging capitalist relations in urban areas and only weakly exited feudal relations in rural areas) or Vladimir Putin’s Russia (a stunted industrial capitalist economy, but with enormous essential resources), the capacity to participate in great power activity, to enlarge or protect spheres of interest, to confront other great powers is an unquestionable reality.
To hide this reality — this active participation in the conflict with other capitalist countries — behind the facade that Russia does not meet the “five essential features” characterising the imperialist era is sheer sophistry.
That’s an opinion piece, I disagree with the quoted bit as I don’t think people calling Russia imperialist are doing so because they believe we exist in an era of financial capital, etc etc, I think they say Russia is imperialist because they’re trying to equate the western empire to Russia and I don’t think they’re the same in scale or in character, even if I don’t think Russia is moral or whatever.
So are you disagreeing with Russia being an imperialist power or with people using that cynically to minimize American Empire? Because I’ve never remotely equated the two, so what’s the disagreement here.
It’s a very comprehensive analysis utilizing Lenin’s theory on imperialism within the framework of contemporary global capitalism. If you weren’t disagreeing with Russia being imperialist based on a Marxist definition, then I’m not clear what you’re arguing on. Since in practice, Russia’s belligerent actions on-the-ground in Ukraine are clearly imperialist. Did you have an actual critique of the article? Because otherwise this conversation just seems unproductive.
Even Caitlin Johnstone acknowledges that Russia is an empire engaging in imperialism in this article. She just also recognizes that the US is doing the same. Neither empire gives a single shit about the sovereignty of Ukrainians.
I don’t know the author but I did a quick search within the article, which didn’t call Russia an empire, nor does it claims Russia is engaging in imperialism, it only called Russia an aggressor.
I took that as both the Russian and Western Empire.
I also don’t know anything about the author, I just know that both being empires is correct, neither is anti-imperialist either.
The issue is that empire and imperialism aren’t simply “big country bullies small country”, imperialism describes a specific relation under financial capitalism and Russia doesn’t fulfill the conditions. That doesn’t mean we necessarily think Russia is good, or moral, or whatever, but that calling it “imperialist” is incorrect.
https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/f/russia-imperialist-country-thats-not-right-question-ask
Spoiler
It would be wrong, as some have argued, to mechanically take Lenin’s “five essential features” found in Chapter VII as giving a criterion for admission into some kind of imperialist club.
It could not be clearer that Imperialism as a Special Stage of Capitalism is not about the status of individual countries in the imperialist system, but about imperialism as a whole. Capital concentration, the merging of financial capital with industrial capital, the export of capital, international monopolies, and the territorial division of the world (spheres of interest) are features of the imperialist stage of capitalism, and not necessarily any individual country in the imperial project.
Whether it is tsarist Russia (a mix of emerging capitalist relations in urban areas and only weakly exited feudal relations in rural areas) or Vladimir Putin’s Russia (a stunted industrial capitalist economy, but with enormous essential resources), the capacity to participate in great power activity, to enlarge or protect spheres of interest, to confront other great powers is an unquestionable reality. Whether it is tsarist Russia (a mix of emerging capitalist relations in urban areas and only weakly exited feudal relations in rural areas) or Vladimir Putin’s Russia (a stunted industrial capitalist economy, but with enormous essential resources), the capacity to participate in great power activity, to enlarge or protect spheres of interest, to confront other great powers is an unquestionable reality.
To hide this reality — this active participation in the conflict with other capitalist countries — behind the facade that Russia does not meet the “five essential features” characterising the imperialist era is sheer sophistry.
That’s an opinion piece, I disagree with the quoted bit as I don’t think people calling Russia imperialist are doing so because they believe we exist in an era of financial capital, etc etc, I think they say Russia is imperialist because they’re trying to equate the western empire to Russia and I don’t think they’re the same in scale or in character, even if I don’t think Russia is moral or whatever.
So are you disagreeing with Russia being an imperialist power or with people using that cynically to minimize American Empire? Because I’ve never remotely equated the two, so what’s the disagreement here.
It’s a very comprehensive analysis utilizing Lenin’s theory on imperialism within the framework of contemporary global capitalism. If you weren’t disagreeing with Russia being imperialist based on a Marxist definition, then I’m not clear what you’re arguing on. Since in practice, Russia’s belligerent actions on-the-ground in Ukraine are clearly imperialist. Did you have an actual critique of the article? Because otherwise this conversation just seems unproductive.
6 days later and the Tankie has no answer, big shock. These are the people screaming read theory.