From Rosa Luxemberg’s private letters to Jan Tyzska:

From Rosa Luxemberg’s private letters to Jan Tyzska:

What did she mean by this? I thought the Bolsheviks were a Anti-Imperialist?

Attached: IMG_1103.JPG (535x500, 48.08K)

If you are Germany and you're more afraid of the Russian state than some currently powerless communists, you might find it opportune to aid the communists if they are also enemies of the Russian state. If you're communist and you want a reasonable chance at toppling the Russian state, you might find accepting that aid to be opportune.
Rejecting aid from any and all imperialist sources is great if you want to maintain some retarded moral high ground, but it's not really conducive to worldwide communism either if it gets you squashed.

Many on the left take a stupid stance towards the issue, letting base morality completely cloud practical decision-making. The world is filled with massively powerful imperial powers. To think you can fight them all at the same time on your own is just peak crazy. Fuck the US, but fuck all the armchairs who shit on the Kurds for actually not succumbing to dumb purity spiralling and moralism.


Why would a tankie support the Kurds?

I don't know, why would Stalin support the Emir of Afghanistan?

This. Pragmatism first, moralism second.

The comparison doesn't really make sense. Whatever one thinks of the situation in Syria, the Emir of Afghanistan was supported by Lenin and Stalin because he waged a war against British imperialism and sought to centralize and modernize his country, so he was viewed as objectively progressive.

It was a pretty clear-cut situation, unlike Syria where the Kurdish groups are accused of collaborating with imperialism to split up that country.

Yeah, tell that to Poland, the Baltic States, Ukraine and the Central Asian states.

Where's the imperialism?

Those areas all had their own local Bolshevik movements.

The imperialism comes from the fact the Soviets had signed a treaty giving the Baltic States and Poland to Germany and recognizing Ukraine's independence. Once Germany had collapsed all it's eastern puppet states gained their independence. Lenin saw this as an opportunity to establish more Soviet states and invaded.

Not in Eastern Europe, those where just puppet governments.

How do you define puppet government?
Is it EVERYONE who got support from another country?

The Kurds aren't communist and letting Americans have fucking airbases in your territory isn't practical, its a death sentence for any chance of communism.

No, I'm actually wrong here. You're right. Why would Stalinists support bourgeoisie states? They never wanted communism to begin with - that's why.

I'm not the person you responded to, but support for Emir Amanullah began under Lenin, as was support for Atatürk, Sun Yat-sen, Kuchik Khan, etc.

How is that an example of Bolshevik "imperialism"? They were forced to conclude a humiliating peace treaty with Germany, which was used by Entente propagandists to "prove" that the Bolsheviks were actually German agents whose goal was to neuter Russia and keep it out of WWI on Germany's behalf. Lenin actually had to argue against those who claimed Brest-Litovsk was a betrayal of the Russian "fatherland."

In other words, once the German armies of occupation withdrew the Bolsheviks and local communists tried to establish (or restore where it had earlier existed) soviet power. Again, where's the imperialism?

The communist parties in Eastern Europe were often founded by people with many years of experience in the socialist movement before 1917. Blagoev, first leader of the Bulgarian Communist Party, actually helped organize Russia's Marxist movement back in the 1880s. These were not "puppets."

I could assume you are right on Poland, and the the Baltic Chicken, but Ukraine and the Central Asian states.


In the same capacity that the movements the CIA props up are "local movements".

Because the whole thing happening in Rojava has been built up by PKK TANKIES that are war hardened by the war with the Turkish state in the 80's.

But the tankies I talk took don't support the PKK, and think its an imperialist stooge of the United States.

Maybe those idiots should read about PKK and even the Rojava "revolution". Kurdish "nationalism" and the Rojava stuff is inspired by Lenin and they openly say so.

We both know saying something isn't the same as doing something. Even Lenin himself is at fault for this. Democratic Confederalism isn't socialism. They've retained private property, wage labor, and commodity production, and ultimately the law of value. Of course, you can't get rid of these things overnight. The allocation of scarce resources, for human need, requires an international proletarian revolution to extirpate the bourgeois control of these resources. The Kurds, however, won't ever be in the position to do this. So, why bother supporting them? In all likelihood, they'll simply be crushed by Assad and the Turks. You're fighting a losing battle.

If you aren't using a bourgeoisie in crisis to your every tactical advantage, then you're shooting yourself in the foot.

Sometimes it's a game of access to things, that's what the bourgeois class has in spades, sometimes it's running and hiding in the fold of a social formation whose interests align tangentially to yours. There's no pure way to do revolutionary struggle. You just have to be smart enough to know your point of departure. Lenin did.

Wasn't all of this part of the "Great Game" thing too? How the British and later the Americans wanted to keep the Russians from getting a warm water port, which is why the British and Russians had a lot of agents in the area. I think historians usually say it ended after WW1 but I'd say it's never really ended, hence all the sides funding armed groups in the name of "freedom fighting" or "fighting imperialism"

Attached: rambo3.png (600x317, 220.93K)

I would say most MLs support Rojava. the ones that don’t are a vocal minority

In this case though it's hard to see why "fighting imperialism" should be in quotation marks. Emir Habibullah *did* fight for Afghanistan's independence against the British empire. The Bolsheviks likewise supported independence movements in Turkey and Persia.

Obviously Soviet Russia also had a "geopolitical" stake in doing this, since the British tried to use Pan-Islamic and local bourgeois movements to struggle against Bolshevism in Central Asia and the Caucasus, but it doesn't change the fact that the Bolsheviks backed progressive forces and renounced Tsarist-era concessions in neighboring countries. I don't see what else the Bolsheviks should have done under the circumstances besides what they actually did.

The relation between Entente/Central Powers forces and the separatists they supported fit that description more accurately.
Members of the groups CIA props up don't find their way into CIA leadership. Caucasians and Baltics were over-represented in the Bolshevik leadership compared to their population percentage. Stalin himself was a Caucasian.
And there were Red Guards in every major city including the ones in Finland, Ukraine, and the Baltics, along with Bolshevik uprisings and establishment of Soviet power in places like Kiev and Tashkent. It wasn't "muh evil imperialist chauvinist Great Russians dominating and directing everything".
Either way I fail to see how supporting and allying with your comrades across the country in Civil War is "imperialist".

They haven't been "tankies" since the 90s.

Attached: Stepan_Shaumyan.jpg (300x427, 47.82K)

I meant to write Amanullah, as I correctly did in an earlier post.

Moralism never, thank you very much.

So you have practical experience in bulding something else.

Are you a communist?

From Rosa Luxemberg’s private letters to dennis prager:

the goal is moral the method is pragmatic. pragmatism without a moral ideal is capitalism.

Because a few hundred burgers with drones is more powerful then thousands of YPG militia. Besides the Burgers would never attack the YPG because the IFB has a lot of volunteers from NATO states.

All anti-imperialists should be shot in mass graves with machine guns because they support anti communist causes.

how is resisting global capitalism "anti communist"?

You are not resisting capitalism in any form by supporting weaker capitalist countries from larger capitalist countries domination.

read machiavelli

Yes lets support the underdog capitalist country out of pity. If anything communist should focus on subverting and causing revolution in the stronger player if we were to be machiavellian.

Attached: 2ae4bcdf810f39ee7caebcc4175838b7f829db310dc0270a8e20137cca3a4685.jpg (250x201, 11.72K)

You seriously need to learn some geopolitics and military strategy, dude.

The local national bourgeoisie are based locally and their forces are local, their rule and holdings largely still need to be maintained and justified against the locals who feel their effects directly. Internationalist capitalists have forces and resources further out that they can push in to keep you subservient, and do not have to justify themselves to your local populace to just crush you under their boot.

Aiding the local capitalists is nothing more than a strategy of divide and conquer. Keeping the international bourgs out and stopping them from looting other countries weakens capitalism globally by putting resources beyond its reach, while the local capitalists are still stuck with only the resources that are there. It is FAR easier to suggest the local socialists fight off local bourgs than to suggest local socialists fight local bourgs AND international ones. That isn't to say that they're our allies, they're just not the first targets. Exploit the fact that local national bourgs have resources at their disposal and that they want internationalists out.

It's not the only strategy and it carries real risks, so I don't think it's always exactly as appropriate as people on this board sometimes make it out to be, and I think there's times where the popular socialist swell can be strong enough that they can take out the local bourgs and turn their resources against the internationalists, but that doesn't invalidate the entire strategy.