Marxism does not distinguish between capitalism managed by a liberal free market, an oligarchy, or a state. The distinction between them is quite trivial and does not change the analysis.
Your Marxism might not, but actual Marx certainly distinguished between England-style capitalism and what he called the Asiatic mode of production.
What point are you trying to make? That Russia in 2023 constitutes some kind of non-capitalist mode of production? That's beyond stupid if that's what you're getting at. The asiatic mode of production is pre-capitalist
In classic Marxism, the economic conditions of a class generate political ideology as a superstructure.
Liberalism is the political ideology of the Western bourgeoisie, generated by an interest in both private property and social and industrial innovation. The bourgeois capitalist seeks to preserve private ownership of property while securing independence of his investment venture from the disapproval of earlier elite classes; thus the bourgeoisie favors liberal ideas such as "freedom of contract" and "freedom of the press" while scorning both traditional authorities (the church, the aristocracy) and populist or "Digger" radicalism.
The Russian oligarchic elite is not in that sort of socioeconomic situation, and so they don't generate the same sort of ideology.
Russia's history included a violent overthrow of the Czar followed by a subsequent extremely fast and turbulent industrialization process under state capitalism. Yes, this is a different developmental situation from that of the Western bourgeoisie, which evolved much more slowly and continuously from the liberal bourgeoisie revolutions. This could lead to variations in the superstructures (including political ideologies), but this does not imply a different economic base.
Capitalism's laws are independent of the will of individual capitalists. Even when individual bourgeoisie espouse liberal ideas like "freedom of the press", etc, they are ultimately driven by the imperative to accumulate Capital above all else and respond to its inherent crises in such a way that preserves it. This is because Capital is a social, impersonal force, not an individual one.
This is as true in "the west" as it is in Russia. Their actions and their stated ideals do not need to align at all, and can/ must change as a response to social conditions and crisis in production. The Russian oligarchic bourgeoisie is driven to accumulate Capital in the same way, having the same economic base, even if the specific form it takes is different due to different historic conditions. As it is in China, as well.
The bourgeoisie of the world do not want war, but they must, nevertheless, go to war if they want to preserve their class privileges due to the imperatives the laws of Capital places on them.
I hope you've noticed that there's not really any separation between Russian "industrial capital", Russian "government", and Russian "organized crime". That is not the case under bourgeois liberal capitalism; those things are normally at least somewhat separated from one another by rival interests. In modern Russia those interests are united.
This is all really trivial and only really even true during relative peacetime. As the imperial blocs approach general conflict and subsequent intensification of class struggle these appearances will easily melt away and all competing interests are subordinated to the national interest. If the tools at the disposal of liberal democracy are not enough to contain and subordinate the class struggle happening at the time to the national interest, the bourgeoisie will easily abandon all those illusions and resort to fascism. It's really going to depend on the strength of the labor movement to come. The bourgeoisie of the west has enjoyed a weak labor movement since the end of WWII but that's a trend that may change as we approach the third world war.
Marxism does not distinguish between capitalism managed by a liberal free market, an oligarchy, or a state. The distinction between them is quite trivial and does not change the analysis.
Your Marxism might not, but actual Marx certainly distinguished between England-style capitalism and what he called the Asiatic mode of production.
What point are you trying to make? That Russia in 2023 constitutes some kind of non-capitalist mode of production? That's beyond stupid if that's what you're getting at. The asiatic mode of production is pre-capitalist
In classic Marxism, the economic conditions of a class generate political ideology as a superstructure.
Liberalism is the political ideology of the Western bourgeoisie, generated by an interest in both private property and social and industrial innovation. The bourgeois capitalist seeks to preserve private ownership of property while securing independence of his investment venture from the disapproval of earlier elite classes; thus the bourgeoisie favors liberal ideas such as "freedom of contract" and "freedom of the press" while scorning both traditional authorities (the church, the aristocracy) and populist or "Digger" radicalism.
The Russian oligarchic elite is not in that sort of socioeconomic situation, and so they don't generate the same sort of ideology.
Russia's history included a violent overthrow of the Czar followed by a subsequent extremely fast and turbulent industrialization process under state capitalism. Yes, this is a different developmental situation from that of the Western bourgeoisie, which evolved much more slowly and continuously from the liberal bourgeoisie revolutions. This could lead to variations in the superstructures (including political ideologies), but this does not imply a different economic base.
Capitalism's laws are independent of the will of individual capitalists. Even when individual bourgeoisie espouse liberal ideas like "freedom of the press", etc, they are ultimately driven by the imperative to accumulate Capital above all else and respond to its inherent crises in such a way that preserves it. This is because Capital is a social, impersonal force, not an individual one.
This is as true in "the west" as it is in Russia. Their actions and their stated ideals do not need to align at all, and can/ must change as a response to social conditions and crisis in production. The Russian oligarchic bourgeoisie is driven to accumulate Capital in the same way, having the same economic base, even if the specific form it takes is different due to different historic conditions. As it is in China, as well.
The bourgeoisie of the world do not want war, but they must, nevertheless, go to war if they want to preserve their class privileges due to the imperatives the laws of Capital places on them.
I hope you've noticed that there's not really any separation between Russian "industrial capital", Russian "government", and Russian "organized crime". That is not the case under bourgeois liberal capitalism; those things are normally at least somewhat separated from one another by rival interests. In modern Russia those interests are united.
This is all really trivial and only really even true during relative peacetime. As the imperial blocs approach general conflict and subsequent intensification of class struggle these appearances will easily melt away and all competing interests are subordinated to the national interest. If the tools at the disposal of liberal democracy are not enough to contain and subordinate the class struggle happening at the time to the national interest, the bourgeoisie will easily abandon all those illusions and resort to fascism. It's really going to depend on the strength of the labor movement to come. The bourgeoisie of the west has enjoyed a weak labor movement since the end of WWII but that's a trend that may change as we approach the third world war.