I am a Marxist in China
Orthodox Marxists in the Chinese internet community often view Russia and Iran as weak links in imperialism, rather than as anti-imperialist forces .However, in the view of Chinese Marxists, opposing the global hegemony of the United States takes precedence over opposing secondary imperialisms (Iran, Russia).
The person in the picture is Yang Heping, a US citizen with a Chinese green card, and he is the most popular orthodox Marxist-Leninist-Maoist self-media figure on the Chinese internet (with 3 million followers on Tiktok and 800,000 on Bilibili). Yang Heping advocates that whether it’s Ukraine, Russia, or Iran, “the truth is on the side of the proletariat, not on the side of any government or capitalist.”
In China, those who unconditionally support Iran and Russia are usually nationalists or national leftists.
I wonder if the differences between the left-wing in Europe and America and the left-wing in China are really that significant?
我觉得你就是在倒打一耙扣帽子。
“Would that mean a country must first become socialist before it can engage in warfare in another country to prevent ethnic cleansing otherwise it has engaged in imperialism?”这种二极管式结论除了你在暗示我和他在支持种族灭绝、美帝国主义之外，我完全想不到任何理由。
我在最初与其他人的回复已经明确提到过了，他对帝国主义的判断是基于当前国家的金融资本、垄断资本比例，对待本国资本主义政府抵抗入侵应该是利用，而不是支持。就像是日本帝国入侵中国时，利用国民党，支持中国共产党一样。
Rather than presume you could instead answer the question. You could, for example, explain how a capitalist country could engage in warfare to prevent ethnic cleansing without it being considered imperialism.
“谁主张谁举证”，你不如先回答我这个世界上有多少资本主义国家，是以“阻止种族清洗”为根本目的才主动或参加对外发动战争的。
Don’t move the goalpost. Furthermore, it is your own claim that is being tested.
Even with presumption of something never been done before does not mean it can’t; such a presumption is metaphysical, ahistorical and anti-scientific, and certainly not dialectical materialist.
There are various times in history the bourgoisie has collaborated with their domestic proleteriat in order to kick out an imperialist power to prevent ethnic cleansing of its proleteriat - pretty much the story of nearly every country that ended formal colonisation, especially those that did not have a socialist revolution following that ie remained capitalist. You already know this which is why you put the qualifier “foreign” as if this then gets you out of your own trap. It is not a stretch of the imagination to consider the Nazi Ukrainians as a proxy of US foreign policy, similar to DPP of Taiwan.
Just answer the question mate, if you can.
这分明是你在设置语言陷阱。
是的“历史上，资产阶级曾多次与本国无产阶级合作，驱逐帝国主义列强，以防止其无产阶级遭受种族清洗——这几乎是所有结束正式殖民统治的国家的共同经历，尤其是那些之后没有发生社会主义革命、仍然是资本主义国家的国家。”我从来没有否定这一点。
那你判断“抵抗种族清洗的标准”是什么，我的标准已经明确了，“基于该国资本主义的发展阶段”。你说“资产阶级曾多次与本国无产阶级合作，驱逐帝国主义列强，以防止其无产阶级遭受种族清洗”，我承认这是伊朗正在做的事情，“伊朗此时本国境内正在抵抗美国”，这同样也是阳和平承认的事情。
“但是”俄罗斯不是在“俄罗斯境内抵抗种族清洗”，俄罗斯是在“乌克兰境内抵抗种族清洗”。我恰恰就是对此心知肚明，所以才加上“外国”这个限定词，俄罗斯在一个灰色地带，在本国国境线之外“抵抗种族清洗”标准是什么，你怎么界定。“欧盟干预南斯拉夫内战”说自己在保障民族独立、抵抗种族清洗，“美国干预台海、新疆”也说在保障民族独立、抵抗种族清洗，现在这个世界上所有帝国主义干涉都会说说自己在抵抗种族清洗，你的标准是什么
Did the ethnic cleansing happen? Is there a historical precedent of Lebensraum? Has that been effectively attempted to be continued with NATO? What slowed /stop the ethnic cleansing from happening? Does Russia like the US and Europe here have an extensive history of colour revolutions and regime change? If not, why flatten their claims?
Authorship of those making the claims, whether the claims are happening and historical precedent can help guage what’s happening. It makes the abstract more concrete.
(Furthermore, as marxists when considering nations we should consider nations of peoples rather than just the bourgoisie border that encloses them.)
还有一点必须指出的是，我知道在欧美“民族”与“种族”强绑定，但是在中国不是这样的，“中华民族”并不是指“汉族”，而是56个民族合并起来的多元化民族体系，比如“旗袍”，旗袍是满族服饰现代化而来，但是任何中国民族主义者都会将其自豪的视为自己民族服饰。
汉族主义者（皇汉）有自己的种族认同感，他们极端排斥蒙古族、满族传统和服饰，也排斥中华多元民族这个概念。
如果没有中华人民共和国改变旧中国的封建传统和分配秩序（通过阶级斗争），中华民族这个概念可能就会解体
I meant in the sense as: the indigenous americans or the descendants of slaves in the US could be considered nations of peoples within the US. As a marxist, I would centre nations of peoples in class dynamics so for example the above would be in the context of US settler colonialism.
Nations and races are social constructs so deconstructing them can be useful in understanding concrete property relations.
For example, the settler nation of the US allows some people of colour to join and share in its loot actively suppressing both indigenous peoples (some reservation areas have a life expectancy of 40yo) and the plurality of black folks (the world’s largest incarceration system ever is primarily designed to lock up black folks to (1) remove labour competition from the settler nation (2) provide a rural jobs programme in terms of priaon guard labour (3) stifle the revolutionary threat against the capital order.
我必须提醒你，世界上并不是只有顶级霸权国家（美国、德国）才能成为法西斯主义国家，“无产阶级民族”（Proletarian Nation / Nazione proletaria）理论同样也是意大利法西斯、日本法西斯核心理论，这两个国家都是半农业半工业国，在二战爆发之前似乎看起来“楚楚可怜”。特别是日本法西斯，日本入侵中国的一个核心理由就是打击身为英美资本傀儡的国民党政权、将东亚从英美殖民统治下解放出来，这在大屠杀发生之前一切都看起来很“正当”
列宁提出工人贵族理论，本意是解读为什么一战工人没有反对战争，他强调，被帝国主义超额利润收买的只是工人阶级中的“上层、少数和特权阶层”，而不是沙俄无产阶级应该对抗德国无产阶级，列宁一直希望德国革命可以支援沙俄。
总得来说“无产阶级民族”（Proletarian Nation / Nazione proletaria）是一套非常危险的理论，使用他时应当谨慎再谨慎
我同意在巴勒斯坦、美洲原住民、美国黑人身上使用“无产阶级民族理论”，但是俄罗斯？正如我所说，俄罗斯处于灰色地带，俄罗斯的攻击性远甚于中国、伊朗，俄罗斯现在与其他被压迫民族是盟友，并不意味他真的具有无产阶级性质
“种族清洗真的发生过吗？历史上是否存在“生存空间”的先例？北约是否曾有效地延续过这一理念？是什么减缓/阻止了种族清洗的发生？俄罗斯是否像美国和欧洲一样，有着丰富的“颜色革命”和政权更迭历史？如果没有，为何要否定他们的说法？”
俄罗斯当然有颠覆政权的历史，格鲁吉亚、克里米亚、德左。而如果你首先要考虑民族而不是资产阶级性质，那么这就完全是一个站队的问题，取决于你相信谁的说法。
如果站在这些被颠覆政权民族的一边，那么就是他们在“自由”的基于民族意愿加入北约，是俄罗斯在种族清洗；如果站在俄罗斯的一边，就是对北约扩张的防御性攻击、以及保护俄罗斯族的免受这些国家的种族主义迫害。
中国则是另一个很好的对照组，西方对中国新疆的质控完全是基于口供的阴谋论式闭环，一个涉及百万人的事件没有任何图像证据足以证明其指控的荒诞，中国从来没有以“防御性进攻”为理由进攻任何一个国家，哪怕像印尼真的爆发了血腥的种族屠杀
There are those who claim to be pro-palestinian and then say the israeli proleteriat and the gazan proleteriat should get together overthrow their bourgoisie together. They say in doing so they are centring class dynamics over ethnic lines.
The above paradigm is a load of nonsense. In doing the above they are not centring class dynamics but flattening them instead. The israeli proleteriat collaborate with the bourgoisie against palestinians of various classes; the class dynamics and relations of settler colonialism shouldn’t be erased in favour of some idealised form of class. This serves noone except the genocidaires.
Another example of this was noted by Marx and Lenin on how the English proleteriat has been “bourgeoisified”. Remember, class is primarily a relation to property. It is explored further in Lenin’s labour aristocracy and we have a century of marxist science thereafter examining imperialism and nations as classes.
Western proleteriat are effectively a class of labour aristicrats in relation to the global south and it is partly why true international solaridity has been difficult to develop in the west - western proleteriat benefit from a slice of imperialist profit superexploited from the global south.
If one then flattens this difference between Western and Global South proleteriat we then erase the class dynamics of imperialism! Imperialism is not just the relations between elite bourgoisie but all the cogs in the system that make it happen.
When we zoom out we understand the primary global contradiction is imperialism of which the height of capital control sits in the US. Every example you gave has western involvement in destablisation, why would we equalise Russia and US here?
Marxism is not workerism. The proleterian are considered the most revolutionary because they were considered propertyless but as dialectics teaches us a group’s characteristics are not immutable, we have to understand any given group’s relations to property in the concrete form not just an abstract generalised way.
Going back to Russia, the Western bourgoisie want to balkanise and extract superprofits in labour and resources from Russia - it is an extension of Hitler’s Lebensraum, which itself was directly inspired from the US Manifest Destiny. It is in that context the west is funding, arming and giving political cover for Ukrainian Nazis against Russia. When one chastises Russia in this context then one needs to give a concrete alternative on how the ethnic cleansing in East Ukraine was to be stopped. Remember the West broke two Minsk agreements before the war broke out.
Stated goals infamously often don’t align with actual goals. Like US food aid to Palestine actual goal was to lure more Palestinians to the open for easy slaughter.