• cfgaussian@lemmygrad.mlOP
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Who said that Russia is communist? Why does Russia need to be communist for it to be engaged in actions that are objectively anti-imperialist?

      • If the only two possible positions are Nato or Russia

        And one favors Russia

        Therefore that Russia > Nato

        And if the assertion is that Russia beating Nato would mean more communism

        And if the options are, again, communism or not communism,

        Then, by dualist logic, Nato = not communism and Russia = communism.

        Because everything can either be one or the other, using the same logic behind “Nato bad, therefore Russia good.”

        • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.mlOP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Russia IS better than NATO. That does not make Russia good. But what they are doing is. You seem unable to distinguish between an action and the entity taking said action.

          “The struggle that the Emir of Afghanistan is waging for the independence of Afghanistan is objectively a revolutionary struggle, despite the monarchist views of the Emir and his associates, for it weakens, disintegrates and undermines imperialism;”

          • J. Stalin, The Foundations of Leninism, 1924

          Was this passage saying that a monarchist regime is good? No. It was saying that the actions taken by said regime in combatting imperialism were objectively beneficial for the global struggle.