Lemmy was made by communists, seeking to build an alternative to Reddit where communists will not be able to be fully censored. Federation also is similar to how the USSR was federated, and FOSS attracts the left. As such, many areas on Lemmy are going to be pro-CPC (and supportive of socialist states in general).

This isn’t the case on every instance, though. Each instance has its own political leanings, some very anti-China and anti-communist in general. It depends on the moderation, federation practices, and focus of the instance itself.

Communists tend to be pro-African, especially the Alliance of Sahel States.

There are a lot of communists here. We don’t “glorify enemies of the USA indiscriminately,” but we do oppose western framing and propaganda. There are plenty of valid reasons to be critical of Putin.

It’s useful for onlookers to see clear takedowns.

The social credit score myth in China is highly exaggerated in the west, and is largely projection, considering the very real credit scores dictating where we can live and get loans for.

No, the US Empire has been a genocidal settler-colony since its existence, and is actively plundering the world of surplus value created by the global south. It actively bombs and destroys countries that go against that, under both major parties, because both major parties serve capitalist interests.

Tankie is a pejorative for those who defend socialist states. The “authoritarian” part doesn’t really make any sense, considering the Marxist analysis of authority is that what matters most is which class has the authority of the state.

Either way, the ethnic cleansing of the Donbass region was widely reported even by western organizations until 2022, then this was all wiped away and minimized.

I’m following imperialism as it was first analyzed by John A. Hobson as it was arising in its modern form, then correctly carried forward and codified by Lenin, then advanced to the modern day by people like Nkrumah and Cheng Enfu. Imperialism is characterized by the following:

-The presence of monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.

-The merging of bank capital with industrial capital into finance capital controlled by a financial oligarchy.

-The export of capital as distinguished from the simple export of commodities.

-The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations (cartels) and multinational corporations.

-The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism.

-The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers.

These are the mechanisms by which imperialism functions today, and they do not apply to Russia. Russia is largely a commodity exporter, with a paltry sum of finance capital, and no colonies nor neocolonies. Russia is not economically exploiting the global south, either. It is not colonial, nor neocolonial, nor imperialist.

Instead, Russia is working against the western powers that do fit this definition. It’s undermining NATO, the IMF, the Petrodollar, all means by which the global south is super-exploited by the global north.

It’s a vague, liberal definition. Again, the imperialist stage of capitalism was well understood already by Hobson, a non-Marxist economist. The Wikipedia version is so vague it can apply to Burkina Faso kicking out France, or to the Statesian North annexing the confederacy. It’s worthless and non-technical, resulting in a vibes-based understanding.

You have yet to prove why you believe the Wikipedia definition to be better than the commonly understood Marxist interpretation, which was the driving analysis for the last century.

Russia does not aim to expand influence and territory by any means necessary. This is baseless extension of their desire to annex the four oblasts far beyond their actual context. When you don’t have a materialist understanding of imperialism like I do, and instead work off of vibes, you come to clearly incorrect analysis like you are here.

Your definition of “imperialism” as it relates to Russia is so vague it would also apply to the Statesian north annexing the confederacy, or Burkina Faso kicking France out. All you really mean is that Russia is an active player on the global stage, but that isn’t inherently a bad thing. Imperialism as a system is a well-understood stage in capitalist development, that itself is bad, and is the biggest obstacle to socialism and human progression. Not Russia, which is actively working against said imperialist system.

Again, Russia is not exploiting the global south, and is actively working in the interests of the global south in contesting imperialism as a global system.

The broad characteristics of imperialism as a stage in capitalism were observed by Hobson. Lenin then codified it and created the basis of the theory, that still holds up today. As conditions have evolved, Nkrumah, Cheng Enfu, and more have carried this same basic analysis to modern, contemporary conditions, such as the transition from European supremacy to Statesian supremacy.

The Roman Empire had a system of imperialism that, in function, is entirely different from modern imperialism. They could just as easily be understood as entirely different words, as they function entirely differently, same with early tribal communism and future, highly industrialized communism.

I’m not handwaiving history, I am definitively stating that the imperialist stage of capitalism only came to be in the turn of the 20th century. It may be similar in some ways to previous forms of imperialism, but these forms no longer exist and are relics of history.

My argument isn’t flawed, you’re more than capable of comprehending it. Again, do you have any objections to the Marxist understanding of imperialism? Why do you believe the vibe-based understanding is better?

No, I’m using the original and developed understanding of imperialism as a stage in capitalism, advanced by people actively fighting against it. Lenin famously overthrew Tsarist Russia, established socialism, and got rid of Russia’s imperial holdings, after writing Imperialism, the Current Highest Stage of Capitalism. Kwame Nkrumah was a Ghanaian that fought against neocolonialism, and wrote Neocolonialism, the Last Stage of Imperialism, and Cheng Enfu is one of China’s top economists and theorists of neoimperialism.

Prior forms of pre-capitalist imperialism are not at all what we observe today. The Roman Empire no longer exists. Imperialism as a stage in capitalism is the only form of imperialism that exists at present, which is why we need to analyze it as such. I am thinking about imperialism critically, that’s why I analyze it as a material system and study it, rather than reduce it to a vibe. Do you have any objections to the Marxist understanding of imperialism? Why do you believe the vibe-based understanding is better?

You are redefining imperialism. I’m following imperialism as it was first analyzed by John A. Hobson as it was arising in its modern form, then correctly carried forward and codified by Lenin, then advanced to the modern day by people like Nkrumah and Cheng Enfu. Imperialism is characterized by the following:

-The presence of monopolies which play a decisive role in economic life.

-The merging of bank capital with industrial capital into finance capital controlled by a financial oligarchy.

-The export of capital as distinguished from the simple export of commodities.

-The formation of international monopolist capitalist associations (cartels) and multinational corporations.

-The domination and exploitation of other countries by militaristic imperialist powers, now through neocolonialism.

-The territorial division of the whole world among the biggest capitalist powers.

These are the mechanisms by which imperialism functions today, and they do not apply to Russia. Russia is largely a commodity exporter, with a paltry sum of finance capital, and no colonies nor neocolonies. Russia is not economically exploiting the global south, either. It is not colonial, nor neocolonial, nor imperialist.

Russia is governed by nationalists. Fascist is cutting it a bit, but I won’t hotly contest that like I would the farcical claims that it is imperialist. Fascism is best understood as capitalism in decay, the logic of colonialism applied domestically. Russia doesn’t quite fit that, though it is squarely nationalist and capitalist, and certainly not imperialist.

Yep, or they think it’s ironic that a pro-China instance is blocked in China. The problem is the Mali domain, not an ideological difference.

No, I’m saying Russia isn’t imperialist, period. You’re redefining imperialism from a concrete, analyzed, material system into a vibe, an emotion, a gut-feeling, because you want Russia to be evil. That’s why you try to redefine it as something incredibly particular and formless, impossible to definitively nail down, but the problem there is that if we can’t nail it down, then we can’t analyze it.

At the end of the day, Russia is not getting wealthy off the backs of the global south. The west is, and Russia is working against that system. It may be for its own self-interest, sure, but fighting imperialism does not make a country imperialist. And yes, Putin isn’t a socialist. He’s a nationalist, over capitalist country that is not at the imperialist stage like the west is.

This is all good-faith on my part. The problem here is that you’re defining good-faith by how much it coheres to your vibes-based worldview, which is obviously going to run counter to materialist analysis.

Marxist-Leninists typically critically support the Russian Federation for it’s progressive role in opposing imperialism, presently spearheaded by the United States and secondarily from the broader west, such as the UK, France, Germany, and the various settler-colonies and imperialist coalition groups. Lemmy.ml has always had MLs.

Russia is neither similar to the ancient Roman Empire nor to contemporary western imperialism. You haven’t actually explained why, other than the fact that they are at war, and I already explained that war itself is not imperialism. Russia is not super exploiting countries for super profits, and in fact it is assisting countries like Burkina Faso in expelling imperialist countries like France. It isn’t that Russia can’t do wrong, it’s that it is not imperialist, and isn’t doing imperialism.

Russia certainly isn’t “my favorite,” it’s far from a socialist country. It does not need to be socialist to be worthy of critical support, however, in its role in contesting imperialism. It isn’t at all embarrassing to have a consistent and principled stance on this. I’m not making the case because I think you’re “stupid,” I believe you’re fully capable of grasping that Russia by no means is exploiting the global south in the same way or degree as actual imperialist countries like the US, France, UK, Germany, etc.

My question is why bring it up in the first place?

Extension is a relative term. Burkina Faso is extending its own influence to that of France by kicking them out. Every action has a reaction, in regaining their sovereignty they have reduced France’s. This is a good thing, but if we are being technical, it counts as imperialism according to Wikipedia. This is obviously an absurd statement, but that’s the point, Wikipedia’s definition isn’t actually a technical one, and instead is trying to describe a gut feeling more than a material process with concrete characteristics and motions.

And no problem!

I didn’t lie about anything, I’m merely extrapolating. If you think Russia is entirely unjustified in assisting the DPR and LPR against the campaign of ethnic cleansing from Kiev, then this is a clear value judgment on your part. I don’t see what you mean by “bad reputation,” how exactly am I contributing to that?

What is your point?