I appreciate that you are being more reasonable than the others commenting to me. I will give it a read.
to be clear though, I’m not even opposed to revolution, but a society can’t take one autocratic rule and replace it with another. I think, especially with this thread, that a lot of people here are taking their rightful hatred of capitalism and channeling it into the support of an oligarchic authoritarian (Putin and Russia). Oligarchic Russia should not be the model of communist nation. This is why I largely don’t consider these commenters to be arguing in good faith. They are rooting for a Capitalist nation to win in a fight with a bunch of other capitalist nations.
I don’t know a single communist who supports Russia or Putin. Why would they support a capitalist state? Do you mean that they argue why, in historical materialist terms, war between Russia and the West has been caused by western expansion? In that case, they are explaining geopolitical movements to our current situation, not supporting Russia if that makes sense. I can see how “critical support” against American imperialism (eg, support with heavy criticism) can come off as being “pro-Russia” from the outside, but it really is just explaining, contra the neoliberal take on geopolitical war, why war is happening. Communists don’t approach international politics as good vs bad, they are far more nuanced which can be read as “pro” things they aren’t. Does that make sense? I am inebriated
During World War I, Lenin advocated for a position called “Revolutionary Defeatism”, the idea that the working class does not benefit from sacrificing themselves for the sake of winning a bourgeois war, and that if the working class is organized, a war which is lost presents more of an opportunity for civil war to escalate into proletarian revolution than a war which is won.
I believe this is the stance of most people discussing Russia-Ukraine here, although delving into that seems like an easy way to get off topic.
I’ll second the Jakarta Method. It’s a very stark picture of what we are up against as people who believe in the abolition of money, among other things.
a lot of people here are taking their rightful hatred of capitalism and channeling it into the support of an oligarchic authoritarian (Putin and Russia)
Google “1993 constitutional crisis” to see where the correct channeling of hate for capitalism went.
FWIW similar fates for leftists have occurred in Iran, Palestine, Afghanistan, and other countries that hate the US but have ended up being run by highly reactionary factions.
If you’re communist you should learn what that means. And probably not tell us what you think we believe. Just deciding you know what we believe and telling us that our whole ideology is about misplaced anger, and how we don’t make sense is actually a little authoritarian to borrow your language
I appreciate that you are being more reasonable than the others commenting to me. I will give it a read.
to be clear though, I’m not even opposed to revolution, but a society can’t take one autocratic rule and replace it with another. I think, especially with this thread, that a lot of people here are taking their rightful hatred of capitalism and channeling it into the support of an oligarchic authoritarian (Putin and Russia). Oligarchic Russia should not be the model of communist nation. This is why I largely don’t consider these commenters to be arguing in good faith. They are rooting for a Capitalist nation to win in a fight with a bunch of other capitalist nations.
I don’t know a single communist who supports Russia or Putin. Why would they support a capitalist state? Do you mean that they argue why, in historical materialist terms, war between Russia and the West has been caused by western expansion? In that case, they are explaining geopolitical movements to our current situation, not supporting Russia if that makes sense. I can see how “critical support” against American imperialism (eg, support with heavy criticism) can come off as being “pro-Russia” from the outside, but it really is just explaining, contra the neoliberal take on geopolitical war, why war is happening. Communists don’t approach international politics as good vs bad, they are far more nuanced which can be read as “pro” things they aren’t. Does that make sense? I am inebriated
During World War I, Lenin advocated for a position called “Revolutionary Defeatism”, the idea that the working class does not benefit from sacrificing themselves for the sake of winning a bourgeois war, and that if the working class is organized, a war which is lost presents more of an opportunity for civil war to escalate into proletarian revolution than a war which is won.
I believe this is the stance of most people discussing Russia-Ukraine here, although delving into that seems like an easy way to get off topic.
I’ll second the Jakarta Method. It’s a very stark picture of what we are up against as people who believe in the abolition of money, among other things.
Google “1993 constitutional crisis” to see where the correct channeling of hate for capitalism went.
FWIW similar fates for leftists have occurred in Iran, Palestine, Afghanistan, and other countries that hate the US but have ended up being run by highly reactionary factions.
I think you’re a really confused kid. I hope you read the Jakarta method, and hopefully at some point any book by an actual communist. Here’s a good one by Engel’s, its very short, https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm
If you’re communist you should learn what that means. And probably not tell us what you think we believe. Just deciding you know what we believe and telling us that our whole ideology is about misplaced anger, and how we don’t make sense is actually a little authoritarian to borrow your language