I’m going to try to reset the tone and be clearer and without escalating this further.
I don’t support the Russian state, its oligarchs, or its internal politics. I’m Chinese, and my position is not based on liking or defending Russia. The issue is methodological. Disliking a government does not mean we can abandon serious analysis and replace it with moral labeling. Saying “this state is bad” is not the same thing as explaining how global power actually works.
I accept that I responded sharply at points. That said, the conversation deteriorated because any structural analysis I raised was immediately treated as propaganda or bootlicking. That reaction reflects a very common Western tendency to view people from the periphery as illegitimate speakers unless we repeat liberal conclusions. That dynamic matters, because it shuts down discussion before it even begins.
On China specifically: calling it “state capitalism” as a dismissal misunderstands Marxist theory. Lenin was explicit that state capitalism under proletarian political control is a necessary transitional stage in underdeveloped conditions. China has contradictions and real internal problems, but those are not the subject here. The discussion began with your claim that Russia is responsible for the rise of European fascism. Constantly shifting the debate to China avoids addressing that claim directly.
Imperialism is not defined simply by warfare, territorial disputes, or influence. It is a system of global capital accumulation based on monopoly finance, reserve currency power, control of trade routes, sanctions, debt regimes, and international institutions. The US, EU, NATO, and Five Eyes bloc dominate these structures. They can impose structural adjustment, control global payments, freeze assets worldwide, and extract surplus value permanently from the periphery. Russia and China cannot do this. They do not control the IMF, World Bank, SWIFT, global shipping insurance, or the world’s reserve currency. This is a structural distinction, not a moral defense of any state.
Yes, Russia operates regionally. Yes, it funds political actors abroad. That is not disputed. What is disputed is causality. Fascism does not originate from foreign funding. It arises from capitalist crisis. Austerity, privatization, labor precarity, housing collapse, and the betrayal of social democracy create the mass base for reaction. External funding can intensify these contradictions, but it cannot create them. Fuel is not the same thing as ignition.
If foreign money were the cause, Europe would not have produced fascist movements long before Putin, long before modern Russia, and long before 2014. European fascism is not imported. It is homegrown, rooted in European capitalism itself.
I will reiterate our disagreement is therefore not about whether Russia engages in harmful behavior which was never in question. It is about analytical framework. You approach politics through liberal moral reasoning focused on bad actors and state behavior. I approach it through dialectical materialism, focusing on systems, class relations, and global hierarchy.
I’m going to try to reset the tone and be clearer and without escalating this further.
I don’t support the Russian state, its oligarchs, or its internal politics. I’m Chinese, and my position is not based on liking or defending Russia. The issue is methodological. Disliking a government does not mean we can abandon serious analysis and replace it with moral labeling. Saying “this state is bad” is not the same thing as explaining how global power actually works.
I accept that I responded sharply at points. That said, the conversation deteriorated because any structural analysis I raised was immediately treated as propaganda or bootlicking. That reaction reflects a very common Western tendency to view people from the periphery as illegitimate speakers unless we repeat liberal conclusions. That dynamic matters, because it shuts down discussion before it even begins.
On China specifically: calling it “state capitalism” as a dismissal misunderstands Marxist theory. Lenin was explicit that state capitalism under proletarian political control is a necessary transitional stage in underdeveloped conditions. China has contradictions and real internal problems, but those are not the subject here. The discussion began with your claim that Russia is responsible for the rise of European fascism. Constantly shifting the debate to China avoids addressing that claim directly.
Imperialism is not defined simply by warfare, territorial disputes, or influence. It is a system of global capital accumulation based on monopoly finance, reserve currency power, control of trade routes, sanctions, debt regimes, and international institutions. The US, EU, NATO, and Five Eyes bloc dominate these structures. They can impose structural adjustment, control global payments, freeze assets worldwide, and extract surplus value permanently from the periphery. Russia and China cannot do this. They do not control the IMF, World Bank, SWIFT, global shipping insurance, or the world’s reserve currency. This is a structural distinction, not a moral defense of any state.
Yes, Russia operates regionally. Yes, it funds political actors abroad. That is not disputed. What is disputed is causality. Fascism does not originate from foreign funding. It arises from capitalist crisis. Austerity, privatization, labor precarity, housing collapse, and the betrayal of social democracy create the mass base for reaction. External funding can intensify these contradictions, but it cannot create them. Fuel is not the same thing as ignition.
If foreign money were the cause, Europe would not have produced fascist movements long before Putin, long before modern Russia, and long before 2014. European fascism is not imported. It is homegrown, rooted in European capitalism itself.
I will reiterate our disagreement is therefore not about whether Russia engages in harmful behavior which was never in question. It is about analytical framework. You approach politics through liberal moral reasoning focused on bad actors and state behavior. I approach it through dialectical materialism, focusing on systems, class relations, and global hierarchy.
That is the core issue.