Great post! I have one potentially minor quibble that probably doesn't matter to your audience, but I'll make it anyways in case it can lead to productive discussion.
The US and Russia are both expansionist, but it has been argued that only the US is imperialist - in terms of the concept described by Lenin and expanded on over time by others, including the great Utsa Patnaik. In that sense - one that can claim to be both original and the typical socialist understaffing - imperialism is the expansion of exploitation based on globally monopolizing capital, wherein entire countries become exploited by having their markets "opened" for "investment", by force or other coercive mechanisms. Russia is run by a monopoly capitalist class and a recent expansionist past, but it is harder to argue the effect of opening up foreign markets to ensure a greater scale of exploitation in their interest. To the extent that it does happen by, say, annexing Crimea, it would be a few steps removed. They have other plans related to th national, less so international, bourgeoisie, like having a big deep-water port for trade, nationalism-based defense from the global bourgeoisie who are trying to export capital to Russia, and selling oil and gas to Europeans to the west.
The Russian owner class would, of course, love to be the international fat cats, but they are not actually in a position to pull those levers. Those are firmly in the hands of the global bourgeoisie + their American regime partners.
tl;dr: wars and expansionism aren't the same thing as imperialism.
Yeah that totally makes sense. A message tailored for the audience! Unfortunately you can't assume an overwhelming appreciation of Lenin's theory on r/dankleft (yet!).
That is a good word! Ukraine national identity is relatively young, the region has a very long history being part of Russia, and we're talking about ethnic Russian areas. There's a much more local and historical component well-summarized by irredentism.
Great post! I have one potentially minor quibble that probably doesn't matter to your audience, but I'll make it anyways in case it can lead to productive discussion.
The US and Russia are both expansionist, but it has been argued that only the US is imperialist - in terms of the concept described by Lenin and expanded on over time by others, including the great Utsa Patnaik. In that sense - one that can claim to be both original and the typical socialist understaffing - imperialism is the expansion of exploitation based on globally monopolizing capital, wherein entire countries become exploited by having their markets "opened" for "investment", by force or other coercive mechanisms. Russia is run by a monopoly capitalist class and a recent expansionist past, but it is harder to argue the effect of opening up foreign markets to ensure a greater scale of exploitation in their interest. To the extent that it does happen by, say, annexing Crimea, it would be a few steps removed. They have other plans related to th national, less so international, bourgeoisie, like having a big deep-water port for trade, nationalism-based defense from the global bourgeoisie who are trying to export capital to Russia, and selling oil and gas to Europeans to the west.
The Russian owner class would, of course, love to be the international fat cats, but they are not actually in a position to pull those levers. Those are firmly in the hands of the global bourgeoisie + their American regime partners.
tl;dr: wars and expansionism aren't the same thing as imperialism.
deleted by creator
Yeah that totally makes sense. A message tailored for the audience! Unfortunately you can't assume an overwhelming appreciation of Lenin's theory on r/dankleft (yet!).
deleted by creator
That is a good word! Ukraine national identity is relatively young, the region has a very long history being part of Russia, and we're talking about ethnic Russian areas. There's a much more local and historical component well-summarized by irredentism.
Thank you, I've been trying to remember that word