Which question? All people have the right to defend themselves against outside aggression. This obviously includes the people of eastern Ukraine. But the imperial war of aggression by the Russian side has long overshadowed the localized conflict that started around 2014, and by now people that didn’t agree with the Russian occupation are either dead or have fled.
And your argument about the vanguard is on the same logical level as monarchs proclaiming to be loved by their subjects 🙄 Completely circular logic that really no one buys, including people that actually live(d) under such regimes.
Do the people of Donetsk and Luhansk have a right to defend themselves against the Banderite regime in Kiev?
Russia entering the war at the request of the DPR and LPR is an extension of that question, when faced with a regime intent on ethnically cleansing the Donbass region the people of the DPR and LPR extended a request for support.
As for saying vanguard parties deriving their support from the people, I already explained this is not circular. The monarchy was a small class that wielded the power of the feudal state to keep the peasantry in line, and were thus entitled to vast riches.
Vanguard parties are formed from within the working classes, succeed in revolution only through mass revolt, and once taking political power in the hands of the working classes have the same class interests as the rest of the proletariat, that being collectivization of production and distribution in the hands of the socialist state. Administrators are wage laborers, not owners of capital, and thus are not a unique owning class but instead a subsection of the proletariat.
By the time the Russians decided to send actual forces instead of just undercover puppets, there was nothing you could even remotely call “banderite” in power in Kyiv. Because as flawed as the Ukrainian democracy might be, there were actual elections and those right-wing parties that briefly took power after 2014 had long lost it by then.
Those self proclaimed republics also didn’t have real democratic legitimisation nor was there broad support in these regions for asking the Russians to intervene.
The rest of your argument is more circular logic, and nostalgia for regimes propped up by petro-dollars in it’s later years is neither uncommon, nor does it reflect in actual voting behaviour of these very same people today (if they are allowed to vote in free and fair elections).
The voting records pre-coup paint a very clear picture:
Despite the democratic process, far-right Banderites took over the government, and began ethnically repressing those in the Donbass, resulting in Donetsk and Luhansk seceding. Contrary to your position, fascism has been rising in Ukraine post-2014, with the Banderite state pushing for normalization of Nazism. This is why there are so many Nazis constantly caught on camera in various Ukrainian forces.
As for the fact that salaried administrators are not in fact the same as capitalists, what part of this is circular? Proletarian vanguards come into power via the proletariat, this is the first ruling class in history to be of the working classes. All prior ruling classes have been of the owning classes. You are erasing class and vital context to equate systems with states despite massively different forms and results.
If you are skeptical of people directly telling you they lived better lives in socialism because it was in the past, why not ask those presently living in socialism? Well over 90% of Chinese citizens support their government.
The Victor Yanukovyth government did not proposed annexation by Russia, and thus these voting results are no argument that people in these regions were in favour of such.
And there are also many Nazis constantly seen in Russian forces, or Americal forces, or German forces… your argument is completly pointless in that regard. And by the time the Russians started their full force attempt at imperial annexation the right-wing parties were not in Government and had only a very small representation in the Ukrainian parliarment.
China is the example of state-capitalism par exellence. So your argument is that 90% of the Chinese supposedly are in favour of capitalism? 🤡
The voting regions absolutely show the modern division in Ukraine, between the Banderites and the Donbass region. The political lines did not change, the governments did. The government of Ukraine itself is far-right, even if the parties are not the same as the coup.
As for China, I very clearly explained how it is a socialist market economy. The working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. This has had enormously positive results, and as time goes on marketization is shrinking in favor of more planned economy. See Cheng Enfu:
Your refusal to grasp the key differences between capitalism and socialism turn you to logical pretzels.
Which question? All people have the right to defend themselves against outside aggression. This obviously includes the people of eastern Ukraine. But the imperial war of aggression by the Russian side has long overshadowed the localized conflict that started around 2014, and by now people that didn’t agree with the Russian occupation are either dead or have fled.
And your argument about the vanguard is on the same logical level as monarchs proclaiming to be loved by their subjects 🙄 Completely circular logic that really no one buys, including people that actually live(d) under such regimes.
I was referring to this question:
Russia entering the war at the request of the DPR and LPR is an extension of that question, when faced with a regime intent on ethnically cleansing the Donbass region the people of the DPR and LPR extended a request for support.
As for saying vanguard parties deriving their support from the people, I already explained this is not circular. The monarchy was a small class that wielded the power of the feudal state to keep the peasantry in line, and were thus entitled to vast riches.
Vanguard parties are formed from within the working classes, succeed in revolution only through mass revolt, and once taking political power in the hands of the working classes have the same class interests as the rest of the proletariat, that being collectivization of production and distribution in the hands of the socialist state. Administrators are wage laborers, not owners of capital, and thus are not a unique owning class but instead a subsection of the proletariat.
It isn’t even true that people living in socialist countries perceive administration as a unique class. The majority of people who lived in Eastern European socialism regret its fall, the broad majority supported their government and played an active role in running society.
By the time the Russians decided to send actual forces instead of just undercover puppets, there was nothing you could even remotely call “banderite” in power in Kyiv. Because as flawed as the Ukrainian democracy might be, there were actual elections and those right-wing parties that briefly took power after 2014 had long lost it by then.
Those self proclaimed republics also didn’t have real democratic legitimisation nor was there broad support in these regions for asking the Russians to intervene.
The rest of your argument is more circular logic, and nostalgia for regimes propped up by petro-dollars in it’s later years is neither uncommon, nor does it reflect in actual voting behaviour of these very same people today (if they are allowed to vote in free and fair elections).
The voting records pre-coup paint a very clear picture:
Despite the democratic process, far-right Banderites took over the government, and began ethnically repressing those in the Donbass, resulting in Donetsk and Luhansk seceding. Contrary to your position, fascism has been rising in Ukraine post-2014, with the Banderite state pushing for normalization of Nazism. This is why there are so many Nazis constantly caught on camera in various Ukrainian forces.
As for the fact that salaried administrators are not in fact the same as capitalists, what part of this is circular? Proletarian vanguards come into power via the proletariat, this is the first ruling class in history to be of the working classes. All prior ruling classes have been of the owning classes. You are erasing class and vital context to equate systems with states despite massively different forms and results.
If you are skeptical of people directly telling you they lived better lives in socialism because it was in the past, why not ask those presently living in socialism? Well over 90% of Chinese citizens support their government.
The Victor Yanukovyth government did not proposed annexation by Russia, and thus these voting results are no argument that people in these regions were in favour of such.
And there are also many Nazis constantly seen in Russian forces, or Americal forces, or German forces… your argument is completly pointless in that regard. And by the time the Russians started their full force attempt at imperial annexation the right-wing parties were not in Government and had only a very small representation in the Ukrainian parliarment.
China is the example of state-capitalism par exellence. So your argument is that 90% of the Chinese supposedly are in favour of capitalism? 🤡
The voting regions absolutely show the modern division in Ukraine, between the Banderites and the Donbass region. The political lines did not change, the governments did. The government of Ukraine itself is far-right, even if the parties are not the same as the coup.
As for China, I very clearly explained how it is a socialist market economy. The working classes control the state, and public ownership is the principal aspect of the economy. This has had enormously positive results, and as time goes on marketization is shrinking in favor of more planned economy. See Cheng Enfu:
Your refusal to grasp the key differences between capitalism and socialism turn you to logical pretzels.