Russia is part of the axis of resistance -

Russia is part of the axis of resistance

2026-11-05 14:47:50

Spectre via Memes

Confidant6198@lemmy.ml

cross-posted from: lemmy.ml/post/54954438

memes

2026-11-05 16:18:13

readmotherfucker

readmotherfucker@lemmygrad.ml

Yes, they are still capitalist however.

Once the US/NATO falls inshallah and the balance of power shifts globally we will need to refocus our efforts on these capitalist states (Iran/Russia) that fought US/NATO imperialism.

2026-11-05 17:12:25

Trioxin

Trioxin@lemmygrad.ml

Russia is not fascist

Tell that to the LGBT people there…

2026-11-05 20:04:57

pineapple_

pineapple_@lemmygrad.ml

How can they be considered capitalist without s dictatorship of the bourgeoisie?

2026-11-06 01:27:16

Commiejones

Commiejones@lemmygrad.ml

eh… I wouldn’t call russia “not an oligarchy.” I definitely wouldn’t call them part of the Axis of Resistance. They are fighting on the same side as the Axis of resistance but not because they had a choice.

2026-11-06 06:21:40

Red_Scare [he/him]

Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml

2026-11-06 21:09:48

Ferret

ferret@hub.workersofthe.world

@Spectre eh. Still capitalist. They still definitely have a lot of corporate power, whatever Putin says. In fact, if you still empower your corporations but just bring them under control of the government, that's exactly what fascist economics is. Their lawmaking definitely fits with the fascist style, too, so I'm going to say that if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, then it is one.

Remember that imperialism, per Lenin's definition, is very much not about a single axis. There being a single axis for so long is actually sort of weird, so it's quite sensible to view Russia as an imperial power from a Marxist perspective. It is an advanced capitalist power, and therefore it would be, from a dialectical point of view, very unlikely for it to not be imperialist.

If you look at Russia's socialist allies and what they say, they are alliances of convenience. They respect Russia's power and its alignment against the USA. But they do not aspire to their politics, their economic model. They don't see them as some beacon of working class power. And if you look at Russia's influence in places like Burkina Faso, it's sometimes downright Hitlerian, to the tune of "If you want to work with us, you have to criminalize your gays."

edit: And I see the yankees who can't think outside Disney levels of good versus evil are already downvoting me. Good ol' Lemmy.

2026-11-06 21:51:56

amemorablename

amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml

The “marxist perspective” is definitely not something that would conclude Russia is imperialist. Imperialism is, for lack of a better way to put it offhand, capitalism externalized.

Some things imperialism isn’t:

Capital being strong locally (if this were the case, most capitalist states would qualify as imperialist)
Having geopolitical power/influence (if this were the case, China would be considered imperialist and they are instead doing win-win infrastructure deals and trade with the global south)
Exploitation of other countries as the only factor required to meet the definition (though imperialism definitely involves exploitation of other countries, other kinds of exploitation can exist - otherwise, there would be no meaningful distinction between colonialism and imperialism, for example)

There are others who I’m sure can explain the geopolitical economy aspects of it better than I can and hopefully will step in to do so. But I would be looking for things like coercive relationships where the capital of Nation A is growing as a result of exploiting the land/labor/resources of Nation B. From what I can tell, capitalist Russia’s actions are more just realpolitik dealing with the corner they’ve been backed into. Trying to be an imperialist country would put them in conflict with anti-imperialist forces in the world, which would make them even more alone; despised by the western empire that wants to subjugate them and despised by anti-imperialist forces. Easily isolated and picked off.

Do you really think the DPRK, as principled as it has tended to be on the global stage, would ally with Russia if they believed Russia was imperialist?

Strange dynamics call for more nuance in definitions. There is no need to shoehorn them into a definition that was made to describe something else. I would easily believe the Russian leadership/capitalists are opportunists who will follow whatever way the wind blows. But even that doesn’t in itself mean it is easy for them to change allegiances/goals at this point. Leaders are always part intention and part the limitations of the surrounding system and conditions.

2026-11-07 01:49:39

Ferret

ferret@hub.workersofthe.world

@amemorablename Imperialism is the division of the world between larger powers, which is exactly what Russia is doing. And yes, nations do ally with imperialist nations because that's what they are, not in spite of it. If the developing world didn't ally with an imperialist country, it would be a pretty poor imperialist country.

You can mince words about what imperialism is and say that definitions need to change, and really it hardly matters. The main thing here is that Russia is absolutely not some principled beacon of anti-imperialism. Celebrating it as such is not principled, either.

2026-11-07 03:16:38

Red_Scare [he/him]

Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml

Division of the world between large powers is only one aspect of Lenin’s definition of imperialism, others being concentration of production into monopolies, consolidation of industrial and financial capital (Russia meets those 100%), export of capital as a main economic activity as opposed of exporting labour, goods, or resources, and a creation of international capitalist associations (those are debatable).

Much more importantly though, a country doesn’t need to be an established imperialist power to be engaged in an imperialist war. The Russian Empire, a backwards, feudal agrarian state that ran on slave labour until the late 19th century and was only beginning to industrialise, fit that definition even less than the Russian Federation does currently, yet according to Lenin it was engaged in an imperialist war and he developed revolutionary defeatism exactly in this situation.

Lenin didn’t call to support what he called “young imperialist countries” like Germany or Japan against established imperialist countries like Britain or France. He called for the workers of all those countries to fight against their own governments, to turn the imperialist war abroad into the revolution at home.

2026-11-07 08:41:18

DonLongSchlong

DonLongSchlong@lemmygrad.ml

Listen, you are correct that Lenin did not see his definition of imperialism as a checklist and that the role tsarist russia played was of imperial nature because it still had enough “old world power” with its army, huge land and colonial periphery to play in the imperial division game.

However, it is absolutely ridiculous to look at the current situation Russia is in, with NATO funding a (imo) genocidal proxy war against it and raining every sanction known to man down on it, and then still call Russia imperialist.

As we have just established that Lenin did not give us a checklist for imperialism, it becomes rather clear that Russia is anti-imperialist if we actually look at the 100% imperialist nations and how they interact with Russia.

They want to do to Russia, what they have done to their colonies. Russia is currently engaging in a fight for their own survival just like Iran is and none of the moralism of “but Putin WANTED to be part of Europe/NATO and play the imperialist game” matters because…he simply isn’t even at the table. The other players didn’t invite them and now Russia is forced to act anti-imperialist or be a victim of imperialism.

Now, i am not even sure if Russia actually wants part of the imperial cake or if they had other plans within the systems created by the imperialists, but i rarely make moral judgements because their material reality and how they deal with it matters much more to me.

2026-11-07 09:18:03

Ferret

ferret@hub.workersofthe.world

@DonLongSchlong An imperialist nation being against another imperialist nation doesn't make the second imperialist nation not imperialist. Very, very much the opposite. Again, multiple axes was the original point of the definition.

2026-11-07 12:13:16

Red_Scare [he/him]

Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml

Disclaimer - obviously I don’t think Russia is imperialist in the same sense / measure as the USA, UK or EU. But I also don’t think it’s anti-imperialist in the same sense / measure as China, DPRK or Iran. It’s a capitalist oligarchy that is defending from NATO aggression and it’s global role is much more complex so it’s a discussion worth having and not something to just handwave away.

the role tsarist russia played was of imperial nature because it still had enough “old world power” with its army, huge land and colonial periphery

Are you saying Russia is not a global power anymore? Go say it anywhere on runet and see what happens 😂
Recently the president of Azerbaijan dared to publicly say “China and America are the world’s two superpowers. There is no third.” and Russians were calling to expel every Azeri migrant from the country.

Anyway and on a more serious note, obviously Russia still has everything you listed: an army including the largest nuclear arsenal in the world, huge land (largest state by territory) with immense natural wealth, and significant economic interest not only in the post-USSR territory but also in Africa, where it’s not doing what China is doing (building infrastructure and assisting development) but rather what the West has always been doing (selling arms and extracting gold, diamonds, uranium, oil, etc). Where China writes off debt, Russia writes it off under condition that same amount of money (or, often, larger) will be spent on Russian arms. Wagner group exchanged security services for access to natural resources, and so on.

Of course, both modern Russia and China have nothing on genuine solidarity USSR extended to developing countries. Russia is still benefitting from the legacy of Soviet support for African liberation movements and lingering goodwill.

genocidal proxy war

This war decimated Ukraine demographically but it is not genocidal.

If you’re calling drone strikes on Russian territory a genocide while Palestine and Sudan are ongoing… I don’t know what to tell you.

They want to do to Russia, what they have done to their colonies.

And what do you think they wanted to do to the Russian Empire?

Russia is currently engaging in a fight for their own survival just like Iran

You see, there, this is the problem with you. No, not “just like Iran”, nobody is carpet bombing Moscow like they do Tehran.

I agree NATO is the primary aggressor and Russia is in a defensive position, and that ultimately the West just wants to bring the 90s back so they can extract resources and cheap labour from Russia. However it doesn’t itself establish that Russia doesn’t have imperialist aspirations, or that the escalation of 2022 was not imperialist in character.

i am not even sure if Russia actually wants part of the imperial cake

www.youtube.com/shorts/FWLqjf6sIBI

2026-11-07 10:25:21

amemorablename

amemorablename@lemmygrad.ml

In what meaning is Russia even “dividing the world between larger powers”? Since when do they have the power to do that? Are you seriously trying to say that the rise of multi-polarity is the same as embracing imperialism? 🫠

2026-11-07 03:40:17

Red_Scare [he/him]

Red_Scare@lemmygrad.ml

The “marxist perspective” is definitely not something that would conclude Russia is imperialist.

No, not "definitely ", it’s very debatable especially because imperialism had a significant transformation since Lenin defined it. Remember, he was describing colonial imperialism and believed capitalist states will keep waging wars over colonies which would bring down capitalism, instead imperialism adapted and reshaped itself into neocolonialism where large powers gave up colonies in favour of economic domination and unequal exchange, then neoliberalism with it’s global value chains, labour arbitrage abroad and austerity at home, and now seems to be having another transformation into a much more militaristic expansion into new markets and simply exuberant destruction of the world to open opportunities for profitable investments into rebuilding.

But I would be looking for things like coercive relationships where the capital of Nation A is growing as a result of exploiting the land/labor/resources of Nation B.

Which is absolutely what Russian oligarchs did in Ukraine and other nations in the region, and large part of the reason for the war is so they can keep doing that unmolested.