You may encounter more debate-lord focused MLs, but again, I see Lemmygrad and Hexbear content regularly and on ML home turf, you are describing outliers.
What counts as “justifying” an invasion of Ukraine? Just like you say no government should be defended from valid criticisms, does that include Ukraine? For clarity, I am anti-war, I am just trying to figure out where you personally draw the line between criticism and justification. I see a lot of criticism, but not an actual desire for war to continue. That may be the source of our differed experience.
Same largely goes for China and Taiwan.
I think it’s important to see what Imperialism actually means to MLs to understand both what they oppose, and why. If we take Imperialism at its face value and assume from there, ML stances appear to be nonsensical.
MLs follow Lenin’s definition of Imperialism, which is extremely simply the export of Capital to regions where production is cheaper due to lower cost of living to super-exploit for super-profits. In the eyes of MLs, Russia has a largely insular economy and produces largely domestically, so invasion of Ukraine isn’t justified, but also doesn’t fit Lenin’s definition of Imperialism, largely.
As for the why of opposing Lenin’s definition of Imperialism, rather than all expansionism from more powerful states across the board in equal measure, Imperialism perpetuates Capitalism by slowing its decline in the Imperial Core, off the backs of the majority of the globe. The US isn’t Socialist yet because the majority of the Workers enjoy higher standards of living than the majority of the world, so the Workers support US foreign interests. The MIC continues churning and Palestinians continue to be bombed into oblivion. This can’t last forever, but certainly is an evil system. By comparison, Expansionism doesn’t contribute to continuous global exploitation, it is just individually largely evil. Opposing the system that causes the most conflicts is seen as the most important system to oppose.
Personally, I wish no states were expansionist or Imperialist, and I believe that to be the majority opinion.
As for why I believe Socialist States are fundamentally better than Capitalist States, I again ask if you would rather be employed by a Worker Co-Op or a Capitalist business. A State that serves the interests of Capital and the small class that holds the Capital is fundamentally worse than a State that serves the Workers and their interests, via worker ownership.
Anarchism is nice, and I wouldn’t oppose Anarchism, but I believe Marxism to be more practical.
To be clear, I would definitely prefer your particular version of a Socialist State with worker co-ops compared to working for a neoliberal free market capitalist business. And thanks for taking the time to engage with me in good faith. I’ve enjoyed our discussion.
For clarity, my example was within the framework of Capitalism. I do believe a centrally planned, democratic worker-state is better than a liberal democracy with worker coops, as the profit motive inevitably leads to monopolic power among the better coops, and can lead to a new bourgeois class. Marx makes a compelling argument in Critique of the Gotha Programme, if you’re particularly inclined to check it out and haven’t already. At the same time, I would absolutely support a worker co-op system over neoliberalism, don’t misunderstand.
Thanks for hearing me out, I am particularly annoyed by the rise in liberalism and liberal sympathy lately. Earlier today I was called a tankie for saying that the US is a net negative on global stability due to its hand in funding terrorist movements and fascist regimes to protect its economic, Imperialist interests, which I believe any Leftist should hold, Anarchist or Marxist alike.
You may encounter more debate-lord focused MLs, but again, I see Lemmygrad and Hexbear content regularly and on ML home turf, you are describing outliers.
What counts as “justifying” an invasion of Ukraine? Just like you say no government should be defended from valid criticisms, does that include Ukraine? For clarity, I am anti-war, I am just trying to figure out where you personally draw the line between criticism and justification. I see a lot of criticism, but not an actual desire for war to continue. That may be the source of our differed experience.
Same largely goes for China and Taiwan.
I think it’s important to see what Imperialism actually means to MLs to understand both what they oppose, and why. If we take Imperialism at its face value and assume from there, ML stances appear to be nonsensical.
MLs follow Lenin’s definition of Imperialism, which is extremely simply the export of Capital to regions where production is cheaper due to lower cost of living to super-exploit for super-profits. In the eyes of MLs, Russia has a largely insular economy and produces largely domestically, so invasion of Ukraine isn’t justified, but also doesn’t fit Lenin’s definition of Imperialism, largely.
As for the why of opposing Lenin’s definition of Imperialism, rather than all expansionism from more powerful states across the board in equal measure, Imperialism perpetuates Capitalism by slowing its decline in the Imperial Core, off the backs of the majority of the globe. The US isn’t Socialist yet because the majority of the Workers enjoy higher standards of living than the majority of the world, so the Workers support US foreign interests. The MIC continues churning and Palestinians continue to be bombed into oblivion. This can’t last forever, but certainly is an evil system. By comparison, Expansionism doesn’t contribute to continuous global exploitation, it is just individually largely evil. Opposing the system that causes the most conflicts is seen as the most important system to oppose.
Personally, I wish no states were expansionist or Imperialist, and I believe that to be the majority opinion.
As for why I believe Socialist States are fundamentally better than Capitalist States, I again ask if you would rather be employed by a Worker Co-Op or a Capitalist business. A State that serves the interests of Capital and the small class that holds the Capital is fundamentally worse than a State that serves the Workers and their interests, via worker ownership.
Anarchism is nice, and I wouldn’t oppose Anarchism, but I believe Marxism to be more practical.
To be clear, I would definitely prefer your particular version of a Socialist State with worker co-ops compared to working for a neoliberal free market capitalist business. And thanks for taking the time to engage with me in good faith. I’ve enjoyed our discussion.
For clarity, my example was within the framework of Capitalism. I do believe a centrally planned, democratic worker-state is better than a liberal democracy with worker coops, as the profit motive inevitably leads to monopolic power among the better coops, and can lead to a new bourgeois class. Marx makes a compelling argument in Critique of the Gotha Programme, if you’re particularly inclined to check it out and haven’t already. At the same time, I would absolutely support a worker co-op system over neoliberalism, don’t misunderstand.
Thanks for hearing me out, I am particularly annoyed by the rise in liberalism and liberal sympathy lately. Earlier today I was called a tankie for saying that the US is a net negative on global stability due to its hand in funding terrorist movements and fascist regimes to protect its economic, Imperialist interests, which I believe any Leftist should hold, Anarchist or Marxist alike.