CamaradeBoina [comrade/them, any]

No worries at all, it’s really my pleasure. As you said, establishing nonemclature within its theoretical and academic context really goes a long way, otherwise it’s super easy to find oneself in a “dialogue amongst deafs`” (idk if it makes sense, it’s a saying in my first language), and everyone speaks past each other while assuming the worst from one another.

Really happy to hear that other hexbear users were patient too, and I hope you get to brush up on your Marx notes (and include the Lenin texts I linked you, being serious they are very important, Marx only ever alluded to what Lenin ended up theorizing about !)

I am referring to the Marxist-Leninist definition of the term, see these two texts: https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ and https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/s-w/index.htm

To be clear its not some cooky ideologically driven fantasy, the marxist analysis of imperialism and subsequent impacts on geopolitical and international political analysis is a well recognized analytical and theoretical model in IR theory.

From that perspective “imperialism” does not predate capitalism. It does not refer to “empires” in the vague sense of “Roman Empire, French empire, etc”. The mechanics are vastly different. Aggressive expansion of feudal states in europe and their colonial expansion around the world (funnily enough that second one directly fueling feudalism’s demise, serving as the “primitive accumulation of capital” that allowed the emergent bourgeois class to gain gradual economic hegemony, and eventual state hegemony) is not the same as the form of imperialism that emerges out of the most “advanced” expression of capitalism). It’s understood as the monopoly stage of capital wherein bank and industrial capital merge, forming large scale monopolies, seeking new markets, and leading the state to engage in imperial plunder of less economically advanced states, and direct confrontation with other imperialist entities.

Furthermore, capitalism is positively not an “invention” nor is it dated to the 18th century ! Capitalism emerged organically from class struggle in the feudal period, with capitalistic elements emerging from within feudal society as early as the 15th century. It established itself as a dominant mode of production well into the 17th century in various areas of the world, but yes only fully superseded the feudal state structure and took control of the state as a whole in the 18th century. If anything was invented, it was the “word” for it, referring to what is an objectively observable scientific fact of human development (again, from the POV of marxist analysis, and its thesis of historical-materialism).

Yes it would be. A very strong argument can be made that Russia fits to a T the 5 conditions to be imperialist as set by Lenin. To note also that imperialism is NOT a policy decision, it’s an objective stage of capitalist development, any advanced or semi advanced state with its material base being capitalist will express variations of imperialist tendencies.

I would argue that while the thesis “the war in Ukraine is a provoked (by the west) interimperialist confrontation”, holds a lot of merit, it does fail to account sufficiently for the extent this war was provoked, for the remaining fact the western imperialist alliances and particularly the US, remain hegemonic af, and for the more minute analysis of the Russian economy. That being said, if Russia isn’t an imperialist state, it is at the very least an aspiring-imperialist one (and in certain regions very much already acts as one).

Regardless these two variations of analysis are FAR more accurate than those which aim to posit Russia as ANTI imperialist somehow, that one is just caricatural campist nonsense that isn’t rooten in an honest materialist analysis, and which echo a lot the (erroneous) thesis of “super-imperialism” that Kautsky put forward.

In all the above this doesn’t change the role of communists in the west tho: revolutionary defeatism, fight our own imperialists. It does raise question about those who go further and give concrete support towards Russia (an IMO very damaging position that harms anti-imperialist organizing here), and it does change the attitude for say, Russian and Ukrainian communists ought to have with regards to the war ( attitude being a choice between revolutionary defeatism or critical support).

Umm okay?

What tankie tears are you referring to? This entire post is everyone joking around and generally not giving a FUCK that a PMC far right oligarch got got.

Also you ARE aware that the vast majority of communist parties are not pro-Russia whatsoever right? That the “critical support to Russia” people are ultra minoritarian in the world communist movement, whereas the majority condemns BOTH NATO’s role since 2014 (and prior) in precipating the situation leading to the Russian invasion, AND Russia for well, invading? Some even saying this war is one of inter-imperialist competition or close to one? That there is no good side but that of seeking peace asap for the sake of the working class, given the possibility of turning this bourgeois war into a revolutionary class war in both Ukraine, Russia, and the west is impossible atm?

Slava Ukraini! Slava NATO!

Deeply embarassing behavior. It’s a war dude, not a sport match.

Brotherly peoples after all

One general dude got dismissed too today, it’s a belated consolidation of power IMO.

Let things chill from the “march on moscow”, get people complacent, wack hard.

What’s for sure is that Wagner is absolutely not going to open a “new front” from Belarus as things stand.

Let the speculation commence, one hypothesis is that said cleaning house is necessary for the preliminary steps to negotiations? After all, key NATO elements and some major western news have been hinted that the conflict can only end by negotiation. A key element to make that happen from the Russian POV is to get rid of their “rabbid dogs” like Wagner. They also cracked down last months on pro-insane escalation elements like ppl who were key to stage of conflict starting 2014, like Strelkov (who’s now jailed).

As far as I know no, it refers to a telegram channel operated by an ex-Wagner soldier. Unofficial Wagner news basically from what I gather. The Grey Zone aren’t connected.

From the reports its the entire high command that got merked on that plane sooooo…maybe nobody and Wagner get fully absored in the Russian armed forces, who is to say

I’m pretty sure the Talibans (not to defend them, mind you), were already cracking down on poppy farming before 9/11 and the subsequent decade long war.

So how were they benefitting? Or do you mean to say the US and allied forces allowed mass poppy crop farming that was then utilized by the Taliban to fund itself? You know there is an alternative hypothesis: the US and other occupation allied forces tolerated poppy farming to pacify and win over tribal chiefs and keep corrupt Afghan officials squarely on their side. Maybe both were happening, who is to say.

Well I mean barring your personal dislike of the source, it does report an objective fact: opium cash crop farming exploded under the US / Joint alliance occupation and decade+long anti insurgency war, and died out once they left.

And this objective fact DOES raise important questions: what in the hell was the US doing all this time? They had infinitely more resources than the Talibans do now to subsidize non opium crops for farmers, to encourage diversification and development, etc. Did they turn a blind eye to the mass scale poppy farming? If so, why? It generated huge sums, was it a strategic use of and encouragement of corruption of local Afghan administrators and tribal elite to “make the occupation easier”? Did some money return to western elements? What was the impact on world trafficking?

Like you can dislike mintpress news but IMO it’s important to, now that the US/West occupation of Afghanistan is over, not swipe it all under the rug and investigate.