What’s up with this straight up pro-china and pro-russia stuff on Lemmy lately?

It’s not even praising the people of China and Russia, but rather their gov directly.

Obviously the states have problems, and the EU to a lesser degree, but they at least have some human rights.

Is this some kind of organized disinformation campaign?

  • ctrl_alt_esc@lemmy.ml
    213·
    4 days ago

    Oh cool, so you made your own definition of Imperialism to fit your world view. Hilarious.

    the claims of Russia destroying languages and cultures

    This is demonstratably true and I’m not talking about Tsarist Russia.

    I’m not disagreeing with your critique of France and its treatment of its former colonies and the same goes for other European countries. None of that has anything to do with Russia being Imperialist though.

    • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
      34·
      4 days ago

      I didn’t make up any definition of imperialism. John A. Hobson was the most significant theorist on imperialism pre-Lenin and Lenin’s work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. This is the most relevant definition of imperialism over the last century, and accurately explains the world position today where wealthy elites in the global north offshore production and utilize state power like the millitary, sanctions, and coups to keep a class of compradors in power in the global south. It’s super-exploitation for super-profits. Russia doesn’t do this.

      What would be more legitimate is me saying that you have created your own definition. Everyone else that has mentioned imperialism thus far has been following somewhere around what I’ve described, yet you seem to be dramatically unclear, and moreover erasing this process of wealth expropriation so as to minimize the crimes of the west.

      As for Russia destroying language and cultures, no, that’s silly. The USSR had no colonies, and neither does the Russian Federation. It would have to be Tsarist Russia to make any sense.

      • ctrl_alt_esc@lemmy.ml
        111·
        4 days ago

        I didn’t make up any definition of imperialism. John A. Hobson was the most significant theorist on imperialism pre-Lenin and Lenin’s work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. This is the most relevant definition of imperialism over the last century, and accurately explains the world position today where wealthy elites in the global north offshore production and utilize state power like the millitary, sanctions, and coups to keep a class of compradors in power in the global south. It’s super-exploitation for super-profits. Russia doesn’t do this.

        Sounds interesting, I will look into it. Not sure Russia doesn’t do this though. Not by means of capital, but it definitely extracts wealth from the global south, for example by using mercenaries to take over mines.

        What would be more legitimate is me saying that you have created your own definition. This is the definition of Imperialism:

        imperialism, state policy, practice, or advocacy of extending power and dominion, especially by direct territorial acquisition or by gaining political and economic control of other areas.

        Trying to change the meaning of a well established concept is not helpful. While the definition you posted above is certainly interesting, it should not try to change the meaning of an existing word (if it even tries to do that, maybe it’s a conscious or unconscious misrepresentation by you).

        As for Russia destroying language and cultures, no, that’s silly Please inform yourself. This is honestly not even controversial. Why do you think there is only one official language in a state as large as Russia, while Switzerland has four? France was very successful at exterminating all other languages on its territory as well, btw, and it was also an imperialist state for a long time and perhaps still is in some sense.

        The USSR had no colonies, and neither does the Russian Federation. You’re aware that colonies don’t necessarily have to be overseas?

        • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
          29·
          4 days ago

          Russia has an extraction industry, but it doesn’t “take over” mines in Africa. Trade does not equal imperialism, imperialism specifically relates to super-exploitation for super-profits, and Russia doesn’t have the ability to do that.

          As for your definition of imperialism, it’s much less useful and is far more vague. It’s entirely unsurprising that bourgeois economists would erase the true nature of imperialism in the modern era by de-linking it from capitalism, and moreover this definition fails to analyze why imperialism happens, and why it happens in greater and lesser extents, and how to end it forever. Lenin’s analysis answers all of that. It is the bourgeois economist that has blunted the theories of imperialism in the modern era, not the Marxist-Leninists.

          Again, I re-iterate: it was the bourgeois economists who erased the link between capitalism and imperialism! John A. Hobson had the most popular and coherent definituon of imperialism, which Lenin advanced further, and this definition of imperialism is the one that has guided state policy throughout the last century! Anti-imperialists of the last century have all been adhering to Lenin’s definition, be they from the USSR, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Vietnam, Korea, Latin America, South America, Africa in general, Palestine, etc.

          And no, the USSR had no colonies, period. Not overseas, not nearby.

          You don’t have the background knowledge necessary to have this debate if you think it is the Marxists that have the less wide-spread definition. Perhaps if you only think western, pro-imperialist discourse is valid, but that’s chauvanism.

        • ZeroHora@lemmy.mlEnglish
          26·
          4 days ago

          Why do you think there is only one official language in a state as large as Russia, while Switzerland has four?

          LUL. By that logic Brazil is imperialist.