Working against imperialism for selfish, pragmatic reasons, is still anti-imperialist. There isn't an ideological basis for it, sure, but the actions fundamentally undermine global imperialism as the primary obstacle towards global socialism.

I don't see how Russia undermines global imperialism, sorry. Putin sometimes tries to frame his regime that way, but that narrative crumbles with the slightest critical analysis. The Ukrainian war feeds the military industrial complex globally, creates new oppressive narratives in the West, and overall strengthens the global elites. How is that anti-imperialist?

As for jackeroni posting pro-Russian sources, they've stated that they intend on making the information field more even than purely using western sources. Exposure to non-western points of view is helpful analysis.

I completely agree. It just seems from the context that they might have a different agenda. What do you make of their strong-arm emoji in their description of the link?

Thanks for the style tip 😊

The Russo-Ukrainian War has generally not worked out in the west's favor, and the resources tied up in it have allowed countries in the global south to align themselves more with the PRC or even pursue national sovereignty, like Burkina Faso. Further, the Russo-Ukrainian War has shown that the west is severely deficient in industrial production, the west has flashy toys but can't field them for long. It hasn't strengthened the imperialist bourgeoisie, in fact it's been more of an increase in imperial overhead costs in keeping the system going.

As for jackeroni's agenda, they are pro-Russian in the Russo-Ukrainian War. I wasn't trying to argue against that point. I disagree with the appeared implication that jackeroni is paid propaganda, they haven't made that seem apparent and sufficient evidence is needed, but if your point is that being pro-Russian means the post itself should be discarded I also disagree. Careful analysis of the facts at hand requires looking at all sides, which is something I think you're agreeing with.

You make a good point, but in my eyes Russia is just another cog in the machine. Both sides are the same and the Ukrainian war keeps the engine going. Powerful men sacrifice their country's youth on the altar of greed. Nothing new under the sun. There are competing empires within the Empire but it all just solidifies the same selfish attitudes. Anti-imperialism (okay let's get semantic) is something far more subversive in my view.

I didn't say they were paid propaganda, I said they have a different agenda than just leveling the playing field. Which you now also confirm. I also haven't said that the post should be discarded. I just said that it's Russian propaganda (which it is) and I think that's important context. Maybe it's obvious to everyone but me, but I think people should know, and that's why I commented.

I don't follow, if Russia is fundamentally opposed to western imperialism for its own selfish, pragmatic, even existential reasons, then it's working against imperialism. Russia is not allowed to be a cog in the imperial machine, it asked to be allowed in 2 and a half decades ago but was denied. Russia is a bourgeois nationalist country, sure, it isn't a beacon of socialism, but it's backed into a corner and forced into working with socialist countries like the PRC and working against global imperialism just to continue existing. Russia can't be an empire, it has neither the colonies to extract from nor the financial capital to do so.

As for being propaganda or not, do you list, say, the NYT as western propaganda in the comments too? I think most people are capable of recognizing pro-Russian and anti-Russian sources at this point, so I'm not quite sure what point you're serving other than to draw additonal emphasis.

I don't follow, if Russia is fundamentally opposed to western imperialism for its own selfish, pragmatic, even existential reasons, then it's working against imperialism. Russia is not allowed to be a cog in the imperial machine, it asked to be allowed in 2 and a half decades ago but was denied. Russia is a bourgeois nationalist country, sure, it isn't a beacon of socialism, but it's backed into a corner and forced into working with socialist countries like the PRC and working against global imperialism just to continue existing. Russia can't be an empire, it has neither the colonies to extract from nor the financial capital to do so.

I don't know if we can converge on this topic. I think our analyses are just based on very different premises. To me, the system that even allows the West/Russia dichotomy to exist is the Empire, i.e. the current world order which centers around the idea of private property. Anti-empirialism is about fighting the right to property itself.

As for being propaganda or not, do you list, say, the NYT as western propaganda in the comments too? I think most people are capable of recognizing pro-Russian and anti-Russian sources at this point, so I'm not quite sure what point you're serving other than to draw additonal emphasis.

I do, in fact, make a point of pointing out when the media is biased. The Russo-Ukrainian war is not something I debate a lot, and might be a little naive when it comes to the reporting on the issue. I'm sorry if I upset someone by stating something obvious.

I'm a Marxist-Leninist, I'm using Lenin's analysis of imperialism as the highest stage of capitalism. The global north/south divide is imperialism. Russia is not the only country incentivized more to work against the global system of western hegemony, the entire global south stands to gain. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, but isn't synonymous with private property. Imperialism is currently a system by which the west loots and plunders the world through massive financial capital and uses millitary force to cement this system. It's why most goods are produced in the global south yet consumed in the global north. Russia isn't a benefactor of that system, it isn't a participant, and is materially incentivized into working against it despite relying on private property because its kept out of it.

Anti-imperialism is about fighting imperialism. We cannot fundamentally progress towards fighting private property without accurately analyzing and engaging the system that most directly perpetuates it globally. Countries in the global south are intentionally underdeveloped to keep them under the thumb of empire, and are attacked with force if they express sovereignty and lack nukes.

As for pointing out when the media is biased, it always is. Bias isn't avoidable. There's hidden bias and overt bias, it's important to distinguish but ultimately all media is told from a viewpoint and with an agenda.

Imperialism - ProleWiki

Imperialism is the highest stage of the capitalist mode of production, in which monopolies and cartels become the prevalent economic force of society. Lenin synthesized...

^ProleWiki

That's fair enough. I am familiar with Marxist-Leninist analysis. I even once called myself a Marxist-Leninist. But I personally don't think today's capitalism can be described in those terms anymore. I don't really want to subscribe to a certain way of thinking but if it helps you understand where I'm coming from, I like Kropotkin and more recently Negri & Hardt.

I suppose, from that perspective, it's possible to define Russia as anti-imperialist. That's fine, but I think that particular fault line is irrelevant to the global revolution. I don't see how sacrificing millions of young Russians on the front lines is a net benefit to the global proletariat. That war is a distraction, and a way to maintain the status quo. And, therefore, counter revolutionary.

It's certainly true that all media is biased but I don't see how explicitly pointing out their bias can be a bad thing. If you really care about the analysis, as you have said earlier, you should also care about having that kind of context.

I truly don't see how a bunch of NATO equipment being destroyed and a significant amount of western resources being poured in as overhead costs is somehow maintaining the status quo. Palestinian liberation heated up, economic ties to the PRC increased, Russia was further economically isolated from the west and had to solidify its alliances further with anti-imperialist countries, and more.

Imperialism isn't a system that everyone perpetuates and participates in. The largest obstacle in the world for any country building socialism, like Cuba, the PRC, or even socialist states that don't exist yet, is the US Empire and western imperialism in general. There is a clear set of benefactors of this global plunder, the global north, and a clear set of victims, the global south. In order to build socialism, we must overcome that system, and that requires us to struggle against it, countries in the global south to break free (like Burkina Faso is doing), etc, and those tasks are halted if NATO is given free reign and imperial resources are itching to be used.

Russia isn't ideologically working against imperialism, but it does do because it needs to to survive.

Who is benefiting from NATO equipment being destroyed? Arms manufacturers. It's not a null-sum game. They just make more arms. The Russo-Ukrainian war is just what the conservative establishment in Europe has been waiting for. The defense budgets are currently being boosted significantly. Who is befitting? Arms manufacturers. The establishment. This is not weakening imperialism, even in the narrow, Marxist-Leninist, sense. It's strengthening it.

I agree with the entire second paragraph you write. I just think Russia, and in particular the Russian elite (which runs the country) absolutely benefits from imperialism (again, in the narrow sense). They are deeply integrated in the Western capitalist banking hegemony. They own half of London. Until the war started, they supplied all of Western Europe with gas, and was paid in imperialist money. Hence benefiting from the global imperialist exploitation.

On a side note, I can't believe what a toxic place this sub is. People keep downvoting my replies simply because they don't agree with me. This is the first and last time I have contributed to this community. Enjoy your echo chamber.

The west is heavily de-industrialized. There's increased demand for millitary equipment, but very little in the way of factories to reproduce them. Palestine has benefited massively from the west not being able to fully commit to Israel, as an example. There just aren't the actual factories necessary to continue to front proxy wars for NATO, again, big flashy toys but no real industry to keep fielding them. It's the cost of empire increasing. I cannot fathom a world where this is benefiting empire, just like how the cost of maintaining empire increasing led to the collapse of the British Empire and the rise of the US Empire.

As for Russia benefiting from imperialism, no, not really. The vast bulk of Russia's capital exports are for tax havens. Russia has billionaires and the ultra-wealthy, but is absolutely sidelined by the west and is blocked out of looting and plundering the global south because of it. Also, selling the west gas isn't the same as plundering the global south through financial domination, trade isn't imperialism.

Russia lacks finance capital and division of the world's resources. It only has 4 of the top 100 corporations in the world and 6 of the top 500. 82% of Russian exports are raw materials, including 58% oil, 11% metal, and 6% food. In 2017, Russia imported $106.2 billion worth' of machine goods and only exported $12.8 billion. Russia does not have any of the top 100 corporations in terms of capital export, and most Russian capital export is capital flight to tax havens. Russia only controls 0.7% of the world's wealth and has much less wealth per adult than the United States ($8,843 vs $336,528). Russia has intervened militarily in other countries such as Yugoslavia, Georgia, Ukraine, and Syria, but not to seize natural resources like imperialist countries do.

As for toxicity, I can't really say I agree. Don't put too much stock into downvotes, but at the same time, try to reconsider your own positions.

try to reconsider your own positions.

Try to go out into the real world and talk to some real people some time. Honestly, I mean it, not as a mean comment, but sincere concern. You are clearly very well read and informed. But there is a world beyond discussing theory with random strangers on the internet.

sometimes i wonder why people shit on .ml so much.

sometimes.

Because like you they are some mixture of stupid and evil.

Are you stupid because you don't realize I'm being completely fair by coming back at that shithead for being hypocritical and a troll? Or are you evil because you're just at an ideological dead end and mindlessly defend US empire?

It's not "conflicts" though. It's backing a government or militant group, often in the Global South, in exchange for their own benefit

Russia's Wagner Group 'getting rich in Sudan' from gold mines and government

Russia's Wagner Group 'getting rich in Sudan' from gold mines and government

Sudan’s military leader General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan issued an order preventing the search of a Russian military plane suspected of smuggling gold, a former Sudanese anti-corruption official has told the New York Times.

^{Oscar Rickett (Middle East Eye)}