Liberalism was pushed by capitalists in fighting the aristocracy. In that sense, it was progressive, but only in that context. Now, it’s outstayed that welcome, and is used to fight against progress. We have lived up to the constitution, it was designed to protect capitalist profits and rule as a settler-colony founded on genocide.

As for communism, the various socialist countries have lived up to Marxist ideals. The problem is that, at least in the eyes of some typically western communists, socialism in real life means having all of the struggles and imperfections that come with being real, and these imperfections can’t compare to the perfect, almost religiously pure ideal of socialism in western leftist heads. If we uphold Marxism correctly, we support this existing socialism, warts and all, for being dramatically progressive and liberatory for the working classes.

MLs have a lot to be frustrated about. We advocate organizing in real life, which has its own frustrations, and when most people are still supportive of capitalism it’s a constant uphill battle. We arn’t angsty edgelords using ML as an excuse, but often tired and drained because we are MLs, leading to many of us lashing out.

Liberalism is the ideology supportive of capitalism. Marxism is supportive of socialism. I think it’s important to recognize that liberalism was driven by capitalists to fight the aristocracy while justifying their own future rule.

Yes, being fine with the system of capitalism and all it entails when it’s clear that we need to advance to socialism is a problem.

Neoliberalism is a subset of liberalism. Liberalism is older than neoliberalism, and was in fact built on the slave trade and colonialism.

Marx rejected liberal values of individualism and the free reign of private property, I’m not sure exactly what you’re including in “liberal values.”

Yep, and going to brunch.

Sure, but we must still understand their utility exists to justify the base, ie the economic structures.

Imperalism wasn’t coined by Lenin, he built off of Hobson and used Marxist analysis. Just a minor correction.

Pretty much, lol!

Religion and racism were more justifications for the same base economic motivations, to be clear.

Leftists have been opposing the US Empire every day for years, election season has nothing to do with it.

Are you arguing that Donetsk and Luhansk don’t deserve liberation, on account of that being a “campist” take? Why would a “non-campist” not support their liberation?

Lol, thanks!

Russia is indeed capitalist, correct, not imperialist. Glad we can come to an understanding on why the US Empire is the biggest global obstacle to socialism, and that the Russian Federation’s lack of imperialism makes it worthy of critical support in undermining the US Empire.

I am talking about what most leftists understand to be imperialism, which is why I called it as such, and explained it so there’s no room for doubt. The vauge concept of influence along international lines popular among apologists for imperialism as I describe it isn’t inherently a bad thing, while imperialism as I describe it is, and is the biggest obstacle to socialism globally.

If you want to rename imperialism to something else, and call imperialism “economic imperialism” then we can do that, I’d rather talk about the actual process itself than argue about nomenclature.

In this case, the Statesian North imperialized the Statesian South, the Soviet Union imperialized Nazi Germany, etc. The definition you’re using is absurd and reductionist, the one I’m using is consistent, explains why it exists, how it functions, and how to end it.

If you’re truly using “annexation” as a definition of imperialism, then communists don’t have a problem with this “annexationist imperialism,” as it can absolutely be a good thing. Communists oppose the definition I explained, let’s call it “economic imperialism,” because it’s always bad and is the biggest obstacle to socialism globally.

Changing the name of the process doesn’t change the nature of it. Why are you getting so tripped up on what we call it, rather than the process itself?

Russia is not stealing the surplus value and resources of the global south on an immense scale, which is the primary reason why its resistance to the US Empire and its European vassals plays a progressive role because of this.

What “imperial ambitions” do they have? Why would Russia not care about the survival of ethnic Russians right on their borders? Again, the CPRF supports Donetsk and Luhansk, as do most communist parties globally, so just saying I’m “naive” doesn’t actually form a coherent counterpoint.

The “rules based global order” has really just been the institution by which the US Empire solidified their hegemony, that’s the only reason they “defended” it.