How stupid do you have to be to literally post the quote that explicitly debunks your own argument?
For example, if tomorrow, Morocco were to declare war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, and so forth, those would be “just,” “defensive” wars, irrespective of who attacked first; and every Socialist would sympathise with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, unequal states against the oppressing, slaveowning, predatory “great” powers.
It says it right there: “sympathize with the oppressed, unequal states against the predatory great power.” What is Iran waging if not literally a just and defensive war? Lenin goes even further: Iran would be waging a just and defensive war even if they had attacked first, which they didn’t. Lenin also says this in the previous chapter:
We Marxists differ from both the pacifists and the Anarchists in that we deem it necessary historically (from the standpoint of Marx’s dialectical materialism) to study each war separately. In history there have been numerous wars which, in spite of all the horrors, atrocities, distress and suffering that inevitably accompany all wars, were progressive, i.e., benefited the development of mankind by helping to destroy the exceptionally harmful and reactionary institutions
It could not be clearer, the point he is making about how Revolutionary Defeatism only applies to inter-imperialist wars and not legitimate defensive and progressive wars. It very much does not “apply across the board”, Lenin is crystal clear about this. (And so is Stalin, btw).
OK, so this guy apparently just follows the KKE “imperialist pyramid” line: every capitalist country is imperialist, and they form a hierarchy of Imperialisms (a pyramid).
Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds. According to this line, Haiti is an imperialist power.
Arguing with people like this is ultimately pointless because they just live in an alternate reality where the words they use don’t have the same definition as the rest of us use. Their axiomatic framework is some fantastical mind-construct rather than objective reality. It’s like arguing about gravity with someone who has a completely alternative definition of what even gravity is and doesn’t acknowledge basic principles of physics.
The first part is pure nonsense that has nothing to do with the Leninist definition of imperialism.
The second part is just circular reasoning:
“all capitalist states have to be imperialist because if they were not this would mean some of their wars are defensive and justified, which they cannot be because all capitalist states are imperialist”.
![Thus spake the [mis]understander of Lenin's revolutionary defeatism](https://lemmygrad.ml/pictrs/image/6b2ca52d-c13e-42a3-af96-adadc46611f4.png){kind=link}
How stupid do you have to be to literally post the quote that explicitly debunks your own argument?
It says it right there: “sympathize with the oppressed, unequal states against the predatory great power.” What is Iran waging if not literally a just and defensive war? Lenin goes even further: Iran would be waging a just and defensive war even if they had attacked first, which they didn’t. Lenin also says this in the previous chapter:
It could not be clearer, the point he is making about how Revolutionary Defeatism only applies to inter-imperialist wars and not legitimate defensive and progressive wars. It very much does not “apply across the board”, Lenin is crystal clear about this. (And so is Stalin, btw).
You can read the whole piece here, it’s not that long.
OOP anticipated that and falsely accused Iran of “partaking in imperialist war”:
🙄😒
“Iran is just as imperialist as the USA” is not a serious argument and does not deserve a response.
More word-salads:
😑😞
OK, so this guy apparently just follows the KKE “imperialist pyramid” line: every capitalist country is imperialist, and they form a hierarchy of Imperialisms (a pyramid).
Yes, it is as stupid as it sounds. According to this line, Haiti is an imperialist power.
Arguing with people like this is ultimately pointless because they just live in an alternate reality where the words they use don’t have the same definition as the rest of us use. Their axiomatic framework is some fantastical mind-construct rather than objective reality. It’s like arguing about gravity with someone who has a completely alternative definition of what even gravity is and doesn’t acknowledge basic principles of physics.
The first part is pure nonsense that has nothing to do with the Leninist definition of imperialism.
The second part is just circular reasoning:
“all capitalist states have to be imperialist because if they were not this would mean some of their wars are defensive and justified, which they cannot be because all capitalist states are imperialist”.