Among the pearls of wisdom in this video we have:

“Russia is imperialist because it has state capitalist monopolies” Yes, you heard it right, having certain economic sectors under exclusive state ownership is imperialism. Guess Putin should privatize Gazprom like Yeltsin did, that way he wont be imperialist right Paul?

“Russia is imperialist because it has a big state owned bank called Sberbank” Yes, having big state owned banks is imperialism

“Russia is imperialist because it invests and isnt indebted” He uses the Net International Investment Position (NIIP) as “proof” that Russia is imperialist. That index takes foreign assets held by residents of a country and subtracts it the total debt, both public and private, of a country. Thus, if the NIIP is positive, the country is a creditor/invester, and if its negative, its a debtor. Russia has a positive value, but what does that prove? That Russia isnt indebted, thats all it proves. He says this proves “Russia is a major exporter of capital”, which it doesnt, the index doesnt account for Russias biggest export, commodities, which makes it NOT imperialist. The NIIP only accounts for investment/credit and debt. Also this index has many flaws, since all you have to do to count in is be a resident of the country. Tax heavens thus have insane positive values, but that doesnt mean they are imperialist. I mean just look at the NIIP values online. France and the US are negative, yet Argentina and Botswana are positive! I guess Botswana is imperializing the US, you are right Paul.

“Russia is part of international monopolist organizations. Russia is a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a BRICS member” yes, he fkin said this i swear. Does this guy know the USSR was a permanent member of the UN Security Council? Im sure he would say they were dirty revisionists. Also apparently BRICS, an alliance formed by Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa, with no western countries in it, is imperialist. He does specify tho, that of BRICS only Russia and China are imperialist. Thanks Paul!

“Russia sending its military into Donbass, despite the people of Donbass wanting it, is imperialism” Wow, guess the Soviet presence in Afghanistan was imperialism. Nevermind hes a maoist, he probably thinks that.

“Russia helping Syria against the US is imperialism” I dont even know what to say, besides that he should go to Syria and tell the people there that Russia should leave them alone against US aggression, see what happens. Fkin idiot.

“Supporting Russia, China, Iran, Syria, etc is lesser evilism, they are all imperialist” 🤦‍♂️

“We must support the oppressed nations such as Cuba or Venezuela” Does this anglo idiot know that Cuba and Venezuela support Russia? The doublethink is insane.

“Russia is not an oppressed nation” Does this idiot know what happened in Russia in the 90s?

“Only anticapitalist countries can be antiimperialist” Oh, so i guess Venezuela (whom he supported just 2 seconds ago), Nicaragua, Allendes Chile, Bolivia, etc are not antiimperialist. Nice one Paul!

Then he finishes with an “inspiring” “no war but class war, long live communism” speech. Yeah yeah great words, says the stupid brit from his privileged house in the imperial core. Hes the true marxist, not the people of the third world who overwhelmingly support Russia and China, whom he calls “capitalist imperialist”. Fkin idiot

Edit: I want to add that Marxist Paul has good videos regarding theory and criticism of the west, but when he steps out of that, especially regarding China and Russia, he says the dumbest shit. Considering hes a maoist who loves Gonzalo and the Shining Path, i guess that was to be expected.

  • SaddamHussein24@lemmygrad.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    2 years ago

    Respectfully, i think that definition of fascism is bs. Russia is not fascist, its identical to liberal democracies, including the west. Fascism is a form of bonapartism, when the capitalist state enters a serious crisis and workers have a serious chance of seizing state power, the capitalists turn on each other, and thus one section of the capitalists seizes total state power and uses the state to destroy its opponents, both capitalists and anticapitalists, to try to stop the crisis and stabilize the situation. This is what happened in Europe before WW2, communism was getting stronger through the Comintern, so capitalists resorted to fascism to try to stop it. Same with 1970s-1980s latin american dictators and Suharto in Indonesia.

    • CountryBreakfast@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 years ago

      Yes indeed there is a very prominent anti communist character to fascism. But I think when this sort of thing goes down in the periphery we find interference from the west. So it is a policy of imperialism more so than “organic” fascism, because it is less possible without interference and lethal aid to create, sustain, and justify such violent reaction.

      But this sort of thing masifesting in the core amidst intra-imperialst tension also has a sense of needing more colonies, or losing colonies to other imperial countries, and the problems this causes quickly causing political chaos. It needs to put down any proletarian power structures for its survival, but it also needs to relieve its internal contradictions through liquidating portions of the working class (usually with the exception of the “legitimate” self identifying cultural group, such as the white people or whatever) and the seizure of new colonies, all with absolutely no tolerance for intra-bourgeoisie infighting.

      Would you agree that fascism is like a return home of internal contradictions between imperialist powers comoeting for colonies? Or do you think it is possible that fascism can arise without colonies, and without an imperialist quality?