Why is pointing out that the USSR was an imperialist power not allowed on here...

Why is pointing out that the USSR was an imperialist power not allowed on here? Why is there a double standard on here where supporting the USSR is OK despite the fact that it was an imperialist power? What's the reasoning among the mods/BO for this? Why do we accept that even having this thread asking these questions is no longer allowed on here?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/russian_imperialism.htm
rogerannis.com/the-myth-of-russian-imperialism-in-defense-of-lenins-analyses/
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

What's your definition of imperialism?

I like the definition that excludes all actual empires from being imperialist :^)

Is that not allowed on here? I wasn't aware. I'm an anarchist, so I'm with you. Read "Listen, Marxist!" for Bookchin's critique of the MLs. >Remember Kronstadt!

I think you're just going out of your way to mess with people. At least my guess is that from all your posts, unless you're not the infamous nihilist poster.

Apparently not, since I keep seeing people gettting banned and their posts deleted for making threads or posts like this. They seem to dislike posting this article as well marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/russian_imperialism.htm

That guy hasn't been banned yet ironically

I can do that while also being right you know.
The defense of the USSR as not being imperialist usually just boils down to only accepting their own definition of imperialism, which in my experience on this board conveniently excludes actual empires.

You're saying that like I said the USSR was not imperialist.

The ML definition of imperialism is the generally accepted one in the leftist community, which is the exploitation of a nation by military or diplomatic force. Meaning that the USSR was not imperialist as it did not exploit the nations, they rebuilt the infrastructure of those states due to the damage caused by WWII.

But again, that's the generally accepted one by the leftist community, from what I've seen.

Just read the article in

As I said before, I'm not speaking for myself. I'm saying from what I've seen the agreed definition is that.

But even by their own definition it's imperialist, that's my point

Well I didn't mean to put words in your mouth, just clarifying my position further.
Didn't the USSR exploit other nations, or at least took/attempted to take their land and resources through military force, and, even suppressed at least one revolution?

Explain how or fuck off.

again, see >>1833027

I don't think that's a fair example because of the conditions of the USSR after the war.

How is that not just excusing imperialism because it was convenient?

That isn't it, actually.
Lenin:

And here's Bukharin:

Did the USSR not have it's own system of finance capital though? It had markets, a centralized bank which essentially served as a monopoly and a currency that was traded.

It depends on whether the USSR's government was socialist or state-capitalist. I don't have much of a stake in that argument either way. I was only trying to correct misconceptions about imperialism. "Imperialism" refers to a historical development in capitalism, not a transhistorical phenomenon of states acting aggressively toward other states as and the black flag anarchist at seem to think.

Ironic, that was done because Anglo imperialism in the Middle east threatened the USSR, even your own post mentions "backed by the American and British interests". It was part of the soviet foreign policy to secure their position after history's most devastating war.

These. I'm sick an tired of arguing with illiterates.

Fair enough

Different poster, but what you just described was multiple imperialist powers competing with one another

That's stupid, but what is even more fucking stupid is that we have to argue what the definition of a fucking bannable offense is.

Not like it matters whether a definition is agreed upon or not, BO will just ban whomever for whatever reason and call it "imperialism"

The most tragic thing is that most likely, this thread will be pruned and you will be banned as well as myself and others for participating in it

It wasn't. Fite me faggot.

Probably should read the rest of the thread tbh

Name a single empire that existed before the development of capitalism

Bookchin is a joke.

I'll consider it in the morning, I am content with my shitpost for the time being however.

I don't think it's that bad yet.

Akkadian Empire
Achaemenid Empire
Alexander's Empire
Roman Empire
Aztec Empire
Byzantine Empire
Abbasid Empire
Holy Roman Empire
Ottoman Empire
Spanish Empire
French Empire

I'd name all of them if I could but I stopped caring.

Where did he ever possibly imply that? This whole "bookchin supported Israel" meme seems to come from a single opinion he had: that Israel sucks but so do its neighbors, and all of them treat Palestinians badly.

russia dindu nuffin they a gud boi

Those were both early capitalist empires. The rest are correct, though, minus the late Ottoman Empire and the late HRE.

That post was clearly falseflagging, my tankie friend.

Have you stopped beating your wife yet?

wdhmbt?

you are being deliberately obtuse. Imperialism, even among bourgeois historians, is normally used to refer to the actions of the advanced capitalist countries.

Bans for "imperialism" are fucking stupid because there is no definition or list of imperialist countries everyone can agree on and BO should fucking kill herself for not knowing that.

Honestly, if she just said "I'm sorry it was dumb" I would forgive her. I just want the board to go back to the way it was

Pre-capitalist empires are a red herring. No one is saying Russia is invading countries to extract tributes or accumulate through disposession. Capitalism has changed the nature of imperialism; and changing dynamics withing capitalism have changed it further.

Modern imperialism is driven by overproduction in the metropole. It seeks less developed hinterlands to transform into markets whether through military invasion and reconstruction or by soft power with diplomacy and NGOs. Rather than being openly extractive, it diverts surplus value to the metropole through unequal trade.

Russia doesn't do any of those things, which is why it isn't imperialist. We don't live in a period of territorial empires scrambling for bits of land; we have a single system where transnational capital is protected by a regulated international capitalist order and the US and its allies do the enforcing.

Russia doesn't (and can't) trade unequally with the former SSRs, it doesn't overproduce and seek foreign markets, and it doesn't (and can't) enforce the rule of the transnational bourgeoisie everywhere in the world. This all goes even more so for Iran and other countries that people call imperialist when they are using the word to mean 'not very nice'.

That's wrong though. Syria gets something like 90% of it's weapons from Russia, and simply googling the figures will tell you that Russia exports much more to former SSRs then it imports from them. Russia also has consistently made trade deals and sought access to foreign markets simply for the reason that it's an advanced capitalist nation-state and would not behave any differently. Why on earth do you think they are an exception when all the facts clearly show they aren't?
It's absolutely absurd to claim that bourgeois do not still compete with each other, that Russian oligarchs are not in competition with western oligarchs

"Imperialism" is when the USA or Israel starts wars or does things in other countries because they're evil capitalists. It's not imperialism when other countries fight wars or violate other states' sovereignty because they're not as bad as the USA. As leftists, we have a duty to oppose America and Israel for everything they do, and that includes supporting their enemies. Because once every American and Israeli is dead, then world revolution will happen and we will have communism.

Just read the essay linked at the bottom. It answers all of your questions. Russia is not an advanced capitalist country, it is not at a markedly higher level of development than e.g. Ukraine, and it does not dominate the global trading structures. Imperialism is not any trade and overproduction isn't any production for export. Lenin is good on this topic, or else you could read the early twentieth century pro-imperialist writers like Reinsch.

Of course bourgeois compete with each other, and of course nation states compete with each other to offer more generous institutional arrangements to transnational capital. The imperialist power and its allies don't just compete in the system, they also manage and enforce the structures of the system itself.

rogerannis.com/the-myth-of-russian-imperialism-in-defense-of-lenins-analyses/

You call me obtuse yet you use a convoluted definition that excludes most empires and modern expansionist powers.

How does this apply to the US, which everyone would agree is an imperialist power? The main goal of recent US invasions seems to mostly be regime change to have a more cooperative government so as to aid the US's geopolitical goals (this is probably the biggest reason and the motive people give them for being in Syria) and opening up the native resources for US companies to extract.

It seems your position is entirely built on people taking Lenin's definition of Imperialism, if that's the case, then it might not apply to Russia. Yet, as shown here, many people do not take Lenin's definition and use others. Usually, like with every other argued subject here, people would just argue about it and find whatever is the more rational, meaningful definition, but this isn't like most arguments.

Not only is BO now declaring what opinions are and not allowed now (for some unexplained reason), they are now instituting their own definition of a hotly debated word and making it a bannable offense to go against it. The offensive thing is that BO is probably less educated than you when it comes to Imperialism, yet is making rules for it regardless.

I learned in grade school that an empire is a country that expands its size by taking another. Imperialism is, of course, things that lead to empires. It's not terribly complicated.

This thread is full of sophistry.

Russia does this shit constantly with former ssrs.

there's no reasoning. they're not thinking, they're just using memes as discourse.