If you’re describing Marxist-Leninists as being interchangeable with “tankies,” and MLs are by far the most common form of Marxist and Socialist world-wide, what’s the point in denoting the top-left quadrant as “Socialist/Anarchist?” Moreover, Anarchists are not a monolith, many don’t support continuing the war.
I think the original is more generous, anti-war-ism is genuinely a relatively positive way of putting it even if critical support for Russia is deemed to be “fully knowledgeable.” The original fully acknowledges the principles of never striking first millitarily as a viewpoint with understandable moral basis, while also suggesting that that isn’t the complete picture.
I don’t think you’re accurately describing the reasons Russia invaded Ukraine, the material reality points more towards Russia wanting to thoroughly demillitarize Ukraine by any means necessary and certify Ukrainian neutrality with NATO, rather than joining it.
As for standing for Socialism and the liberation of the working class, the majority of Marxists believe that the current largest obstacle in that path globally is the US Empire, and US Hegemony. Russia poses less of a threat to Socialism worldwide than the US by virtue of not having nearly the power of the US. I have no doubt that the Russian Federation would be just as exploitative of the Global South if they were in the same position as the US Empire, but they aren’t, and instead their path to further profits relies on dethroning the US. This dethroning of the US is also necessary for Socialists, hence critical support insofar as it appears to be working against the US Empire.
Let’s consider the opposite viewpoint, though. What happens if Ukraine, against all odds, succeeds in beating back Russia, maintains millitarization, and joins NATO? Russia further weakens, and becomes folded into subjugation under the US Empire. This likely results in opening up of some of Russia’s assets to foreign plundering, strengthens NATO (the US Empire’s millitary wing, essentially), and thus also weakens the position of the Global South.
What most Marxists support is a quick end to the war, via peace deals. The US continuing the war in order to shackle Ukraine with massive IMF loans and secure ownership of key resources and minerals stands in the way of that, and wishes to prolong the war so they can carve out as much value out of Ukraine as they can. Increasingly, Ukrainians themselves want the war to end, rather than sacrificing themselves for US profits, even if it means Russian victory. There is no actual path to victory for Ukraine without NATO full-on joining in, causing a catastrophic level of death and destruction.
What should a Socialist side with, in this situation? Where is the path to the best possible outcome, in your opinion?
Removed by mod
If you’re describing Marxist-Leninists as being interchangeable with “tankies,” and MLs are by far the most common form of Marxist and Socialist world-wide, what’s the point in denoting the top-left quadrant as “Socialist/Anarchist?” Moreover, Anarchists are not a monolith, many don’t support continuing the war.
I think the original is more generous, anti-war-ism is genuinely a relatively positive way of putting it even if critical support for Russia is deemed to be “fully knowledgeable.” The original fully acknowledges the principles of never striking first millitarily as a viewpoint with understandable moral basis, while also suggesting that that isn’t the complete picture.
Removed by mod
I don’t think you’re accurately describing the reasons Russia invaded Ukraine, the material reality points more towards Russia wanting to thoroughly demillitarize Ukraine by any means necessary and certify Ukrainian neutrality with NATO, rather than joining it.
As for standing for Socialism and the liberation of the working class, the majority of Marxists believe that the current largest obstacle in that path globally is the US Empire, and US Hegemony. Russia poses less of a threat to Socialism worldwide than the US by virtue of not having nearly the power of the US. I have no doubt that the Russian Federation would be just as exploitative of the Global South if they were in the same position as the US Empire, but they aren’t, and instead their path to further profits relies on dethroning the US. This dethroning of the US is also necessary for Socialists, hence critical support insofar as it appears to be working against the US Empire.
Let’s consider the opposite viewpoint, though. What happens if Ukraine, against all odds, succeeds in beating back Russia, maintains millitarization, and joins NATO? Russia further weakens, and becomes folded into subjugation under the US Empire. This likely results in opening up of some of Russia’s assets to foreign plundering, strengthens NATO (the US Empire’s millitary wing, essentially), and thus also weakens the position of the Global South.
What most Marxists support is a quick end to the war, via peace deals. The US continuing the war in order to shackle Ukraine with massive IMF loans and secure ownership of key resources and minerals stands in the way of that, and wishes to prolong the war so they can carve out as much value out of Ukraine as they can. Increasingly, Ukrainians themselves want the war to end, rather than sacrificing themselves for US profits, even if it means Russian victory. There is no actual path to victory for Ukraine without NATO full-on joining in, causing a catastrophic level of death and destruction.
What should a Socialist side with, in this situation? Where is the path to the best possible outcome, in your opinion?
le DAE campism! True marxism is being a useless western trot!