This is lesser evilism. Sure, Russia has legitimate security concerns about NATO expansion, this doesn't make this war a "progressive struggle" though. Ultimately it is just as much about control over Ukrainian resources and Russia simply acts like any capitalist power would. Russia does support some progressive struggles around the world but Ukraine isn't it.
it gets incredibly complex when it’s about ascendant capitalist countries like Russia.
It really doesn't though. Russia was a backwards agrarian state barely on its way out of feudalism when Lenin wrote this, he even explicitly acknowledges it right in this text:
Russia, a most backward country, where an immediate socialist revolution is impossible.
If Lenin's thesis applied to WW1 Russia, it surely applies to SMO Russia.
Are you serious? Europeans colonised and enslaved most of the world, pick any genocide at random and more likely than not it will be commited by Europeans.
Not to mention there's a genocide ongoing right now with full support of the EU.
This is extremely eurocentric or rather Global North centric. There is no value (in the Marxist sense) in the "cloud". Real value is still created by workers mining minerals that go into CPUs, harvesting cotton, assembling smartphones, making sneakers in sweatshops etc.
The value of their labour is extracted by Western firms selling their products. Much of it is transferred to non productive employees in the Global North, influencers, content creators, marketing and PR people, you name it.
For Marxists, the fact that money flows to those people and not the ones making all the hardware necessary for their "content", doesn't mean influencers are actually more productive than sweatshop workers.
All the talk about technofeudalism, post-industrial economy, etc is only possible because the real production is removed from our sight (in the Global North) so it's easy to forget most of the world is still physically toiling to make all our shit.
"Patriotic socialism" is simply a new coat of linguistic paint for the good old "national socialism", same as "cultural Marxism" is just an updated name for "cultural Bolshevism".
Absolutely. Going further, Putin is undeniably better for the Russian people and for the world than e.g. Navalny would've been: a literal neo-Nazi who called immigrants "cockroaches who should be exterminated" in a televised interview, and who's top aide met with MI6 offering to create a color revolution for 10-20 mln USD.
For as long as the West is attempting to install a Yeltsin 2.0 in Russia, Russian people will keep electing Putin or some "continuation Putin" if they know what's good for them.
Having said that, I don't consider modern Russia "anti-imperialist" as some other posters here, and I have no love for Putin. It's a bit like Assad, the least bad option under the imperialist assault of the USA and it's vassals.
Capital is great at co-opting genuine social movements. It doesn't mean the grievances are not valid or that protesters are all compradors, it's just one of the way imperialist domination works.
But it does mean movements have to be explicitly anti-capitalist, antifascist and anti imperialist to have a chance at resisting being co-opted.
From Kronstadt to 21st century color revolutions, once you start taking Western capitalist money, accepting "support" from NED-adjacent orgs, or tolerating fascists because "they're fighting our common enemy", you lost control of the movement and it became the tool for CIA and the like.
This documentary covers the largest political leak in British political history which went completely unreported in the free British press so Al Jazeera had to do their job for them, and the British press didn't even report or react to Al Jazeera film. This is the state of the UK media.
I can hardly believe how different UK and the world would've been if Anglos elected him instead of Bojo the clown. Alas, hating immigrants was more important.
Not really similar, while not a communist Corbyn is a genuine leftist, consistent and principled in his way. Bernie on the other hand is controlled opposition, a sellout.
It's so perfect; it's a reputable Western newspaper so you can share it in almost any setting, just preface it for plausible deniability with something like: "It's a hilarious read, one of the greatest modern liberal intellectuals debates a genocidal maniac frothing at the mouth!"
Libs love the idea and usually swallow the bait expecting funzies, they looooove them a stuck-up Brit "speaking truth to power" and handing out "hitchslaps".
And then Stalin absolutely demolishes Wells and it really fucks with their world. Wells says FDR's New Deal will bring about socialism in the USA and Stalin's like nah cause the economy is in the hands of capitalists so at most you will get some concessions which capitalists will keep fighting to revert. Stalin's arguments are so clear and concise, and his predictions are so plainly correct, while Wells is just being confidently wrong and terribly smug about it.
I had some success with it too, including one well-meaning lib literally telling me the next day, "Stalin was right" which are the three words I would not expect a lib utter under any circumstances.
Wasn't the falling out with Vietnam essentially a side effect of Sino-Soviet split? Mao wanted Vietnam as China's satellite while Vietnam wanted independence and wouldn't cut ties with the USSR.
Apparently her son was living there for 20 years and she moved to him cause she was getting too frail to live on her own.