Lemmy_Mouse 8 points 3 years ago

An oligarch did not start this war, a group of them did. Bourgeois are a class, not kings who act alone.
Putin is not an oligarch, he is a labor aristocrat as all politicians are.
Putin is far from the richest man in the world. As far as free capital (PPP) goes, I believe it has been continuously fluctuating between Musk and Bezos. As far as value of total assets goes, this by far goes to the US bourgeoisie as they effectively own and control the entire west and command servitude from much of the developing nations, defacto owning those as well. (basically not literally)
Typically warlords participate in battles, no? If this is the case, then I do not believe Putin is to be classified as a warlord.
Putin has invaded many nations around him, yes, but not due to megalomania, this is an anarchist/radlib belief which is injected to fill the void left by lack of understanding. NATO has couped the governments of the pette bourgeois nations surrounding Russia in attempts to make them as how we see Ukraine today in an attempt to invade, defeat, and ultimately seize the assets of Russia to fulfill the necessity of profit, to counteract the falling rate of profit, and to eliminate a major global competitor thus reinforcing and magnifying their own monopoly in preparation towards going on to attack China for the same reasons. Russia was defending it's national security by invading, as they are doing so in Ukraine. As well, they are defending AES nations such as China and Cuba from US imperialism. They are like batman; not the hero we want, but the hero we need have.
Yes no war but class war, but the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Pragmatically speaking, anyone and I mean anyone fighting imperial capital which currently holds a practical worldwide monopoly is essential to creating open spaces for revolutions to flourish. As well, we must reject trotskyism which asserts that a world revolution lead by the west seeking it's own unimpeded interests is the way towards communism.
Thank you for voicing your opinion maturely and respectfully, it helps legitimate conversion on matters to be had.

path: 0 84394, hotness: undefined, score: 8, children: 2

WageSlave 0 points 3 years ago

Good point, I should have made the distinction. I still feel it does not change the sentiment much as Putin very much represents his group and class.
I tried to make the point that he has transitioned from a labor aristocrat to an oligarch through his rise to power. I do not think it is delusional to think that money and power are two sides of the same coin in Russia as well as any other capitalist society.
Musk and Bezos have both been the richest person in the world, though. The numbers are shaky, but the ballpark as the top of the top economical elite is right. I think that calculation of value of assets is hard, but it suffices to say that Putin is part of an economic class above most others.
Technically, I think you are correct. Taking basis in the definition "a military leader who controls a country or, more often, an area within a country" it might be inaccurate since Putin is a president and not say a general. Though I am admittedly unsure of the official status of the president of the Russian federation with regards to the military in the case of war and in my country, the head of state (which is a ceremonial role), is in fact also the official head of military in case of war. Either way, I think it is clear that Putin has much control in his group of oligarchs and aristocrats, which include people leading the armed forces, making him a defacto leader of the military as well.
I do not think these points are mutually exclusive. I do think Putin is a megalomanial leader who also happens to do a lot of the stuff you have said. That still does not excuse what I perceive to be his imperial ambitions and consequently does not garner my support. Ultimately I do not think the regime is a force for good as a whole and I think the issues with it are downplayed and the inadvertent upsides exaggerated. This is maybe the core of my disagreement with some of the other assessments and I am open to me being ignorant on some of the parts of this argument.
I am pretty conflicted on idealism vs pragmatism, usually resorting to idealism though I admit that might be because it is easier for me to swallow. However, I do think we need to be clear that enemy of my enemy being a friend does not mean two wrongs always makes a right. Sometimes it does, but as I have written many places I do not think the war benefits the proletariat in any tangible way.
Thank you for not dismissing me and for trying to answer me in a clear and respectful manner. I am equally grateful for your effort as well as your politeness.

path: 0 84394 91986, hotness: undefined, score: 0, children: 1

Lemmy_Mouse 1 point 3 years ago

"Good point, I should have made the distinction. I still feel it does not change the sentiment much as Putin very much represents his group and class. I tried to make the point that he has transitioned from a labor aristocrat to an oligarch through his rise to power. I do not think it is delusional to think that money and power are two sides of the same coin in Russia as well as any other capitalist society."

It isn't about close enough or kind of like, it's a matter of scientific classification. It matters because it changes how we understand his actions and his role in all of this.

"it suffices to say that Putin is part of an economic class above most others."

Agreed, he's certainly not a toiling prol. His interests are tied to capital.

"usually resorting to idealism though I admit that might be because it is easier for me to swallow."

This is natural as we were all first taught idealism as it is the ideological MO of capitalism. I will say it takes education to be able to say and understand the phrase dialectical materialism alone without taking into account the teachings of this philosophy.

"However, I do think we need to be clear that enemy of my enemy being a friend does not mean two wrongs always makes a right. Sometimes it does, but as I have written many places I do not think the war benefits the proletariat in any tangible way."

I agree. I would say where idealism and pragmatism depart ways in today's conditions is at the point of hyper morality which sacrifices continuity. When one must be in the right to such a degree that it prevents the person from acting to uphold the values they hold dear and consequently watch them fall as a result of this. For example a father who is so determined to be civil that he watches a person kill his child in front of him after failing to persuade the person to not do this with words alone. A particularly dangerous aspect of this is the predictable changes which occur within one when this occurs - the indulgence in the dialectic of his previous position, casting aside all previous values with oversensitivities with them. Later he will see the failures of this method and equilibrium will be found, the dialectic process of development (the clashing of opposites based on their contradictions to forge a new future determined by the "most fit" characteristics of each) will forge a new man but only after such heartache.

We all know stories like this. Many of us have had major developments like this in our own lives.

save

path: 0 84394 91986 104354, hotness: undefined, score: 1, children: 0