Libertarian Socialist here… commie curious yet I am the top right booyah turds. Upvote for me.
If we’re recycling this meme I guess I’ll recycle my response and see if I get banned again for simple disagreement.
I personally embrace this framing.
At least until the fall of the US empire, 2nd camp has been on the right side of History almost every single time and especially lately
Dang, i thought the slrpnk instance was cool with communists. Guess they’re as zionazi libs as world is haha!
I don’t have a problem with communism, I have a problem with hierarchy and the consolidation of power under charismatic leaders who erroneously claim to be acting in the interest of establishing communism, but that’s not even what this meme is about.
This meme is about campism, which I also have a problem with. Campists are unable to cope with the historical failures of the socialist states established by vanguardist parties, so they blame it all on external imperialist aggression from capitalist nations rather than reflect on why those projects failed. This leads to them abandoning bottom-up organizing of working-class power in favor of picking sides in geopolitical power struggles between rivaling imperialist forces, believing that true communism is only possible after the big bad US empire crumbles. They get so caught up in the game of geopolitics that they convince themselves that the US is the only country that engages in imperialism and start believing fascist Russia and state capitalist China are the “good guys” of history.
so they blame it all on external imperialist aggression from capitalist nations rather than reflect on why those projects failed.
Unbelievable… we have more than enough proof of imperalist aggression being the reason why socialist states “fail”. I mean for fucks sake Cuba is constantly under threat and is actively being sanctioned. They fucking kidnapped the damn democratically elected president in Venezuela for fucks sake!!! Or how about the coup in Chile?
And your point on China as well as your problem with hierarchy has me believe you’re an idealistic anarchist. I recommend reading https://en.prolewiki.org/wiki/Essay:Why_China_is_not_Capitalist concerning China being “capitalist”.
I don’t see how the top left has a moral compass when Ukraine is one of Israel’s strongest allies, and the two cooperate millitarily. Further, it requires one to believe the victims in Donetsk and Luhansk that were being ethnically cleansed by the post-2014 Banderite regime have no right to self-determination. Also not sure what makes the top right “accelerationist” or “revolutionary defeatist.”
I disapprove of the Iranian regime but that doesn’t mean I support imperialist aggression against them. I feel the same way about Ukraine, and while there has been some discrimination against ethnic Russians in Ukraine it does not amount to ethnic cleansing, nor does it justify imperialist aggression. The separatist movements in Donetsk and Luhansk are far-right movements that have been artificially inflated by Russia in much the same way that the US is artificially inflating the right-wing Alberta separatist movement in Canada.
The Banderites in Kiev have killed thousands of people in Donetsk and Luhansk over the years, and were amassing a force to “finish off the separatists” before Russia got involved directly. The Minsk agreements were both tanked by the west and Ukraine, and could have avoided this war altogether. The movements in Donetsk and Luhansk are not far-right, they are a response to the far-right government that coup’d the president they supported:
Again, you have to believe that the people in the Donbass should quietly accept being ethnically cleansed by Banderites put in charge by the west, and that this is necessary despite the fact that Ukraine and Israel are close allies that aid each other millitarily. Call this “campist” if you want, but materially supporting Ukraine materially supports Israel and thus indirectly accelerates their genocidal settler-colonialism.
The moral compass:
How does this make sense in response to a meme showing that I support Palestine? I know y’all love to use rule 1 to censor people for “bigotry” but at least put some effort into making it plausible.
Me: Supports Palestinians, absolutely yes.
Supports Russia? I feel like I understand their geopolitical situation more than the average MSNBC viewer and appreciate their massive restraint they’ve conducted themselves with from committing war crimes while achieving their military goals (largely self defense from NATO encroachment). I’d prefer the war ends with Russia maintaining control over Donbas and Crimea without too much retribution against the Ukrainian people since they are largely the victims of the Nazi regime the US installed… Oh yeah, and the denazification of Ukraine with a neutral government and the removal of black rock would be nice… I wouldn’t define that as supporting Russia but it certainly puts me a little on the right of the Y axis line I suppose.
Yeah, I think we’re all about the same there
I would say that the left bottom also understands geopolitics, they’re just reactionary rats tho.
Also the top left barely exists. They have no idea that the US couped Ukraine’s government in 2014, and since then started killing thousands of people in the Donbass, and pushing NATO expansion eastward. There was no peep from the anti-war ppl then about stopping the killings. The rhetoric from them has been dehumanizing slavic peoples, and against any negotiations with Russia to end the war.
The US has demonstrated that it will fight this war down to the last Ukrainian, and are the “anti-war” are mostly proud as long as its not western european or US blood being shed for NATO expansion.
For me the world policy is this
We don’t have to be dogmatic to be radical you know. Their is other way to oppose to capitalism and imperialism than to blindly believe in 50 years old theory that have be disproved since
50 years old theory that have be disproved since
Care to elaborate?
I’m referring to the idea that “Supporting the opposition of the main imperialist, in order to weaken the all system”, a position often simplified as “campist”. I’m not saying it was shaky, however as all the other political theories, the working class shall observe how it worked.
Their is a lot of academic and communist (mostly maoist and titoist, but not only) research to disprove this (see below), but what the point ? You may answer that this imperialist and bourgeois propaganda (which is partly true), and I will your sources are just others bourgeoisie propaganda.
So I would suggest to rely on self-organized working classes. Are they supported or not by the organization, states or union we talking about ? U.S, Nato, Russian federation, Europe, Ukraine, Israel, People’s Republic of China, all this state crush unions or collective that ask too much or are too independent. And what we see is that supporting those state or organization weaken the expression of a self-aware proletariat and enforce the tools of its repression. Even States at war have no issue to copy each other to do so. It seems that spreading armed and state conflicts just make the Military–industrial complex to grow, and strike population everywhere (but not with the same violence). The Military–industrial complex is not unique to the US; it’s something important in some European countries, others NATO State (i.e Turquey), or the USSR (at least in its last decade).
If you disagree, please, provide your sources
- Alvin Z. Rubinstein, “Soviet Imperialism in Afghanistan.”
- Arendt, Hannah “Totalitarian Imperialism: Reflections on the Hungarian Revolution”
- Velychenko, Stephen (2015). Painting Imperialism and Nationalism Red: The Ukrainian Marxist Critique of Russian Communist Rule in Ukraine
- The New Class: An Analysis of the Communist System
- “Family Resemblance”, Slavic Review
- Colonialism: An International Social, Cultural, and Political Encyclopedia
It’s late I may or may not get around to doing a full reply tomorrow, but I do want to say your sources are incredibly shit to put it lightly I’m afraid to say.
Hannah Arendt was a Zionist Cold War anti-communist liberal whose “totalitarianism” framework was built around collapsing fascism and communism into the same moral category.
Alvin Rubinstein was a U.S. Cold War foreign-policy / strategic-studies writer who spends most of his time downplaying US atrocities in the middle east while braying about how the soviets (invited by the legitimate government of the time) were the real imperialists
Stephen Velychenko is an out and out Ukrainian nationalist and “national-communist” (nazbol style bullshit)
Milovan Đilas was an anti-communist dissident whose work was eagerly taken up by Cold War publishing circuits, such as Praeger. (I hope you can see how quoting anything put out by Praeger as serious is flawed to put it mildly)
Not to mind the myriad of issues in framing, gaps in knowledge and other issues with each piece independently for example Arendts framing of the crushing of the fascist uprising in Hungary secretly being just as bad as fascism because they used force to quell the counter revolution. Or Dilas complete lack of understanding of the difference between administrative stratum and a new class, and much of this literature using “imperialism” as a moral or analogical label rather than in it’s proper analytical meaningful form.
And this is really only scratching the surface, but it’s all I have time for right now so I’ll leave it here for today. I’m sure @Cowbee@lemmy.ml will most likely beat me to the punch to give you a more proper reply.
I’ll do what I can! 🫡
Apologies if it seems like I’m pushing this onto you but I saw you asked the same question and I just don’t have the time now to give a proper thought out reply so felt you might be interested. Best of luck to you 🫡
No worries, comrade!
QinShiHuangsSchlong already responded pretty well to your sources, which are frankly pretty terrible. I’ll attempt to address the argument itself.
So I would suggest to rely on self-organized working classes.
What is the “self-organized working classes?” Why do you draw a distinction between the proletariat organizing state power, and the “self-organizing” proletariat? I assume you mean unions and the like, but these take on very different contexts depending on the system they find themselves in.
Are they supported or not by the organization, states or union we talking about ? U.S, Nato, Russian federation, Europe, Ukraine, Israel, People’s Republic of China, all this state crush unions or collective that ask too much or are too independent.
This is metaphysics. You’re taking a handful of fascist settler colonies, inter imperialist organizations, imperialist countries, and then one nationalist anti-imperialist state and one socialist anti-imperialist state, in order to equate them all. This is horrendously dishonest. Independent unions in, say, the US are organizing to contest the brutal exploitation of the capitalist system. China on the other hand has the largest federation of unions in the world, and is a socialist state, thus “independent” unions are contesting both this broader federation of unions and the socialist state itself. These are entirely different circumstances that you paint as equal.
And what we see is that supporting those state or organization weaken the expression of a self-aware proletariat and enforce the tools of its repression.
Except this isn’t the case of every state you listed, just some of them. You listed cases where this is indisputably true alongside cases where this is false and used that as evidence alone.
This is really where your entire argument rests on, the hope that people will not actually look beyond surface-level comparison to understand the complexity and context that fundamentally makes these cases entirely different.
You can’t possibly say this as we saw the the non-aligned movement getting completely crushed by the US.
Non-aligned movement are composed by States. Their is a lot of proletarian or people movement which are (by definition) not States. Of course their seems to be a minority, as well as western countries seems to be democratic. Such impression are made by the same system (the bourgeoisie) and are disproved when we do some research.
The non-aligned peaceful faction of Indonesian communists did pretty well with that doctrine! They only got slaughtered and their bones buried in the beaches.
There is a reason as to why all these peaceful non-aligned movements are history and the armed organized communist states, like China and the DPRK, are still standing strong yk.
What 50 year old disproven theory are you referring to?
for ukraine supporters and soon to be moldovian supporters
I dunno, mate. Maybe I’m an idiot, but when Putin goes on TV and says a bunch of overtly nazi shit like how LGBT rights is pure satanism, I just can’t help believe that maybe I shouldn’t be on their side.
What about when Ukrainian is are using overt Nazi symbols?
I want to outline what just happened here.
Someone posted a meme making fun of people saying two things can be bad, implying one side (Russia) isn’t really bad. Someone replies that the overt nazi stuff putin says is pretty bad.
You reply with whatabout Ukraine nazis.
Either you are agreeing with the point that two things can be bad at the same time, or saying that one side doing nazi stuff is fine, actually because the other side does as well. Which is it?
I want to outline what just happened here.
I want to engage in aggressive strawmanning*
Is that the right fallacy? What’s the strawman?
You are saying we are excluding Putin. That is the straw man. Putin is a capitalist oligarch that should have never led Russia and he has come into power due to the reforms led by western interests and the illegal dissolution of the USSR which has caused untold suffering, in ways like you have leeches like Putin that say Nazi stuff.
Now, what you’re “outlining” is just false, anyone who can read English can see what’s going on in this thread. Ukrainian soldiers are openly using Neo-Nazi imagery on their official uniforms. A US backed pro-NATO president is taking photos with these Nazi symbols proudly (while claiming to be a Jewish convert which is a whole other can of worms).
Yes, Putin is using Nazi rhetoric, as is Trump, many other western and European leaders, Indian and Asian leaders, etc. but this does not change the fact that you can find pictures of Zelensky posing with his own countries soldiers wearing swastikas or swastika/SS adjacent symbols like wolfsangel, black sun, totenkopf, etc.
I gotta stop feeding trolls this shit sucks too much energy out of me
I don’t doubt that the Ukrainian army is full nazis and fascists. I also don’t doubt that the Russian army is full of nazbols and fascists. Armies tend to attract those sorts.
I wouldn’t really know, but I would not imagine that Ukraine is a progressive country. Outside of the liberal enclaves of the bigger cities, I imagine it’s pretty bad actually. But here’s my surface level view.
Russia:
- has invaded a neighbouring sovereign country,
- puts people in prison for being openly gay,
- has banned legal and healthcare provision for trans people, and
- openly declares to the world stage that it is fighting a rearguard action against western degeneracy in favour of Christian family values. (Admittedly I do not speak Russian and I can’t speak to what is translated as degeneracy or satanism or what-have-you, but no one has credibly disputed that this is the essence of what Russian ministers are saying on camera.)
Ukraine:
- has not invaded any of its neighbours recently,
- has, on paper at least, legal protections for LGBT people, and
- is still signed up to the European Convention of Human Rights.
Regardless of the specific iconography that the less pleasant members of its citizenry choose to display their chuddery, one of the countries is prima facie more nazi than the other in its behaviour at this moment in time. And it’s going to take a lot more than “hurr durr imperialist propaganda” to convince me that it’s Ukraine, given those bare facts.
Ukraine:
Has been engaged in ethnic cleansing since 2014
A pretty big one to leave out
I suppose you’re going to tell me that every allegation that Ukraine is ethnically cleansing Russians is true, and every allegation than Russia is ethnically cleansing Ukrainians (and Georgians, for that matter) is a lie?
they’re “pro”-LGBT tho 🥴
Pride parade in Kiev in 2022 lasted 10 minutes, organisators dispersed them because crowd of neonazis gathered and it started to look really dangerous. In 2023 it was cancelled afaik, in 2024 there was 500 participants and way more cops, and in 2025 there was around 1500 participants including soldiers and support from other countries (with unknown numbers for both) and there was so many cops they formed multiple ranks around.
So much for “I just can’t help believe that maybe I shouldn’t be on their side” when it comes to Nazis…
Pretty sure I just pointed out which one was less nazi. I think I was pretty clear about the fact that I definitely wouldn’t consider either one of them my friends.
They’re not invading Russia other than a small little portion a few years after the war started.
Those Nazi battalions would be far less defensible if Russia didn’t pose a credible military threat to Ukraine.
You consider Nazi battalions defensible?
I would say that Nazis are always indefensible.
Yes we all know history started in 2022
Yes, we all know history ended in 1991
I was very clearly (I felt) referencing the context from 1990-2022 that you had left out of your caping for and downplaying of the Nazis in Ukraine.
Imagine thinking it’s bad to be anti-war.
It’s not saying it’s bad to be anti-war, it’s saying that it’s a naive position in this case - a simple “anti-war-ism” as opposed to the more complicated “fully understands the core of modern geopolitics”. “Anti-war-ism” is still placed exactly opposite social darwinism, but is adjacent to both “fully understands geopolitics” and “dogs of US empire”.
No one believes that Russia is a moral actor in this, just that they’re acting rationally in the face of a threat. In fact, Russia should be the weakest link in the anti-imperial camp. The Russian Federation would have been perfectly happy to join NATO and assist with the oppression of the third world, but for one reason or another, NATO wasn’t interested - my personal theory is that Russia would have provided too much of a counterbalance to the US within NATO, potentially making NATO dangerously independent. Thus, Russia remained a designated enemy even after it liberalized. But, the specific reason isn’t the main point, the main point is that Russia has been forced by circumstance into the anti-imperial camp, while Ukraine has chosen to be a tool of the imperial camp. It’s as simple as that, and you can be as anti-campist as you want, but there are objectively two camps, and no unaligned alternative. If you asked any Ukrainian nationalist, they would agree that they are with the west against the oriental hordes.
Ukraine was the culmination of a process of bringing former eastern bloc states into NATO in order to surround and weaken Russia. Russia understood this, and had Ukraine as a red line. From the Russian point of view, a Ukraine allied with the west would be a hostile state placed at the furthest southern line of advance of Operation Barbarossa in 1941. That is to say, any potential attack on Russia by NATO would begin where the Germans stalled out (at least on the northern and southern fronts), and thus have a much greater chance of reaching Moscow. Or, a bit more realistically, NATO missiles and aircraft could be based much closer to the Russian heartland than before. You can argue that their assessment would be wrong, but that only makes sense if you trust NATO over Russia, where even a neutral position (i.e. don’t trust Russia or NATO) would hold that Russia’s concerns are valid.
Even then, Russia didn’t immediately invade Ukraine after the 2014 coup (Maidan wasn’t a revolution, it was just a seizure of power by right wing nationalists). Yes, they seized Crimea and supported the eastern separatists, but they didn’t fully commit until it was completely clear that no diplomatic solution was forthcoming. For the Ukrainian side, Zelensky had been elected as the peace candidate - people wanted the civil war to end, and that’s what he campaigned on. He ended up being too weak to stop the nationalist militias from fighting, so the war continued, and with a diplomatic solution dead in the water, Russia took their shot.
In short, Ukraine allowed itself to be instrumentalized by the west as a weapon against Russia. Ukraine placed itself in the imperialist camp, and this forced Russia solidly into the anti-imperial camp. To support Ukraine is to support a victory for imperialism. Thus, to support both Palestine and Ukraine is to support the empire being weakened in one region and strengthened in another - it’s a geopolitically incoherent position because it comes from a geopolitically naive read of the overall situation.
In short, Ukraine allowed itself to be instrumentalized by the west as a weapon against Russia.
Pretty sure Ukrainians just want better living conditions just like anyone else. And “the west” happens to have arguably the best living conditions; I’m not surprised anyone would want to be at this table. Are you really arguing that people are looking at Russia as a nice place to go live? I’ve never actually set foot there, but from the other side of the world it doesn’t look good. Even I know it’s not actually “liberalized”.
Also, invading Ukraine as a preventative measure against NATO expansion turned out to be spectacularly stupid, because it directly led to NATO expansion to a direct neighbour (Finland).
But yeah, in general I’m not on the side of countries invading other ones. What Russia is doing in Ukraine is wrong, what Israel is doing in Palestine is wrong, and what the US is doing in Venezuela/Iran/Greenland/Cuba is also wrong.
Do you think they were ever going to give Ukrainians a chance to be “western”? They just wanted to use them as a tool against Russia, not elevate them to a western European standard of living. The entire inciting incident of Euromaidan and all of this was Yanukovych’s cancellation of the Ukraine-EU association agreement in favour of a deal with Russia, but the thing is, Russia actually offered a better deal than the EU. This pissed off the nationalists (read: Nazis) because they really hated Russia, and pissed off the NGO liberals because they hated Russia and loved the EU.
But Yanukovych did actually have his own constituency, which was the Russian speaking east, and they saw the “revolution” as the nationalists undemocratically imposing their will on the country. The new government pretty much immediately sent in the army to quell the unrest, and this sparked the civil war, which led to the eventual Russian invasion. Once again, I will reiterate that Zelensky was elected as the peace candidate who would stop the war, but the nationalists sabotaged the peace process. He went to the frontline and ordered them to stand down, and they stonewalled him. I saw the video, and this was before AI video was even close to convincing (will smith eating the spaghetti era).
So what you have is a Ukrainian state that’s captured by, on one hand, extreme nationalists who idolize Stepan Bandera (a fascist genocidaire from WW2), and on the other by NGO liberals, who aren’t much less bloodthirsty and see the easterners (really, see the whole working class) as expendable post-soviet refuse. The NGO liberals don’t fight on the front, and while the Azovites did put up a fight at Mariupol, they seem to mostly fill the line with middle aged conscripts they drag off the street rather than have the hardcore nationalists do the fighting.
As far as what they’re fighting for, the reforms of the post-maidan government just amounted to decommunization and Ukrainization - that is to say, they removed old Soviet monuments and banned the Communist party; and they suppressed the main minority language of the country. They didn’t make life better for anyone, they didn’t strengthen labour laws or the welfare state, they just did a right wing culture war. Actually, that’s not quite correct - they also cut natural gas subsidies and lifted a ban on sale of farmland (i.e. to foreign investors),, and privatized the economy further.
They could have had a peace treaty, and the only cost would have been giving eastern Ukraine a seat at the table. Instead, the nationalists and liberals opted to let their country be used as a kamikaze against Russia. Sure, Russia could have just not invaded, but they saw the issue as an existential red line. The west knew that they would eventually respond to provocation, but they figured there would be little cost to the west, and didn’t care about the cost to Ukraine. Now there have been entire generations of men fed into the meat grinder with no end in sight, and Russia continuing to slowly advance. In what world is this better than just signing a peace treaty and ending the civil war? Do you think Europe is going to rebuild what’s left of Ukraine once this is over?
Even I know it’s not actually “liberalized”.
Yes it is, the USSR was destroyed and the economy was liberalized.
No one believes that Russia is a moral actor in this
You must be talking to different tankies than I am.
lol. Now THIS is what you call a straw man. I like how you got proven super wrong then you were like “well some of u fucking tankies believe this shit” Lol. Do yourself a favor and shut the fuck up & read dude. Read something that wasn’t written by an asset. God damn
Eh, some people go a little too far with things
Tbh I think people are trying to hard to dunk on you rather than actually explaining how we see things and why.
Opposing war is generally the correct take, in most cases, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you should turn it into a hard rule, because there are exceptions. The American Civil War is an example I think most people would agree with. As violent and bloody as it was, it was still outweighed by the centuries of systemic violence baked into the system.
As Marxists we concern ourselves less with “who started it” (an inherently subjective question) and more with who’s fighting it and why, and what outcomes can be expected. War is the continuation of politics by other means, so to understand a conflict it’s important to look at the political questions at stake, on a case-by-case basis.
Without getting into the specifics of these conflicts, that’s what’s meant by “anti-war-ism,” not just opposing war, but doing so without really bothering to understand the specifics of a given conflict.
it’s bad being anti-war against fascists.
It’s not bad being anti-war, but easy to being instrumentalized when not understanding the full context or even normalizing the dismissal of parts of it as enemy propaganda. It makes you naive
You need a lot of justify the loss of life these wars cause. Putting aside whether they’re justified or not, neither of them meet that threshold.
Genuine question, but has there ever been a war where the expansionist was justified?
Genuine question, but has there ever been a war where the expansionist was justified?
No, and NATO expansion is being the root cause here
History shows that wars are divided into two kinds, just and unjust. All wars that are progressive are just, and all wars that impede progress are unjust. We Communists oppose all unjust wars that impede progress, but we do not oppose progressive, just wars. Not only do we Communists not oppose just wars; we actively participate in them. As for unjust wars, World War I is an instance in which both sides fought for imperialist interests; therefore, the Communists of the whole world firmly opposed that war. The way to oppose a war of this kind is to do everything possible to prevent it before it breaks out and, once it breaks out, to oppose war with war, to oppose unjust war with just war, whenever possible.
–Quotations from Chairman Mao ZeDong Chapter 5 War and Peace
Okay, but what’s the justification for supporting Russia from that perspective, what makes that war “just”.
Decades of provocations from the West
- The looting of the former USSR by the West, which they euphemistically called “shock therapy”
- round after round of NATO expansion
- tantamount declaration of war at the Munich conference in 2008
- training and equipping literal explicit Neo-Nazi militias
- Euromaidan coup in 2014 (color revolution)
- Neo-Nazi militias given free rein to terrorize civilians in the East
- Legal repression of Russian language and culture by the Ukrainian state
- negotiating Minsk 1 and 2 with no intention of ever upholding it
- 11th hour sabotage of the Istanbul agreement
So I understand the point you’re making about NATO vs Russia.
But with Ukraine, all the events you point to are more akin to civil war/civil unrest. I don’t see how that directly conflates with Russia’s invasion being just. Especially since there is little evidence of Russia directly suffering from that unrest and all evidence points to Russia actually fanning the flames of that conflict leading up to their invasion.
The thing that’s extra backwards is that if you’re claiming Russia’s war is just, by those merits Israel’s war is more just. Iran’s government has repeatedly called for the annihilation of Israel and it’s not even disputed that they provide funds for Hezbollah and Hamas. Not to mention Israel has actually been invaded in recent history.
I don’t think either is just, but Russia’s stance is more tenuous than Israel’s, which is why this graphic seems to be pushing a narrative more than anything else.
So I understand the point you’re making about NATO vs Russia.
Namely that the western powers deliberately engineered a crisis and neo-nazi takeover of Ukraine to use it as a battering ram against Russia?
But with Ukraine, all the events you point to are more akin to civil war/civil unrest
I absolutely do not agree. What I’m describing is literal apartheid and ethnic cleansing, endorsed at the state level both tacitly and explicitly in force of law. In fact that’s one of the main reasons we can clearly identify both the Banderite regime in Ukraine and the genocidal aparteid entity as the “bad guys” - they are doing the same crimes against humanity using the same methods.
Iran’s government has repeatedly called for the annihilation of Israel and it’s not even disputed that they provide funds for Hezbollah and Hamas.
Iran, Hezbollah and Hamas are all allies in a resistance struggle against the most evil country on earth, backed by the waning empire of the West. The colonial genocidal “state of Israel” should be disbanded and the settlers should go back to the West from whence they came.
but Russia’s stance is more tenuous than Israel’s
I absolutely do not agree with this at all. Israel is a tiny waning colonial outpost and worldwide pariah while Russia is an enormous civilizational state and natural resources superpower. However it is easy to confuse the situation when they have near total media control in the West while Russia rolls over and doesn’t even try.
In what way is Ukraine a battering ram? All the issues you point to are internal issues in Ukraine (even if we were to believe that they are NATO backed). I never heard a Ukranian backed assault on Russia (until after Russia invaded). Even if we believe everything you claim none of that indicates a planned attack on Russia.
Best case you’re arguing that Russia is making a pre-emptive strike because they believe there is some external threat from Ukraine in the future, but that seems kinda weak.
2nd time I’ve had to post this today:
Red Phoenix - Pacifism - How to do the enemy’s job for them. Youtube Audiobook
I ain’t got time for a whole damn audiobook. If you want to make a pro-war argument, make it yourself.
People ain’t got time for reading and educating themselves, but have enough confidence to spew ignorant comments.
Its about ~30m read.
you know oppressed people stop being oppressed because of war right?
Or, war itself is a tool of oppression.
This mf thinks it was oppressive to end slavery in the US
This ml thinks slavery was ended in the US.
There are more slaves in the US now than there were in 1860. So tell me again, what is war good for?
This is just an expansion on “violence is inherently bad” which as an anarchist I hope isn’t something you believe
Violence is inherently harmful.
Some people and institutions do deserve to be harmed. Those people and institutions are almost never who actually gets harmed in war. War sucks.
Must be nice to be this naive.
We fundamentally disagree on your literal first premise.
Violence is inherently nothing. It’s not something that can be looked at without the context in which it occurs. Violence against oppression is ALWAYS a good thing. This isn’t up for debate. Violence against oppression is historically the most effective way of ending said oppression.
we got a fascifist over here
do you know what’s harmful? capitalism. i’d suffer every pain for the world to achieve socialism. yes, you might not believe it, having a comfortable life in the global north, but there are people willing to be harmed to achieve liberation.
So would you oppose a war of liberation, such as the Vietnamese fought against Japan, France and America?
No, not really.
But neither of the wars mentioned in this ‘infographic’ are wars of liberation.
So you lied when you said war is a tool of oppression and you oppose all war
But neither of the wars mentioned in this ‘infographic’ are wars of liberation.
“The Palestinian struggle against the Israeli settler colonialists is not a war of liberation actually”
You might possibly be the least intelligent person I’ve ever seen.
imagine thinking capitalists will just decide they are rich enough and give you everything for free.
And you’re going to fix this by having one capitalist country blow people up in another capitalist country?
vassals blowing up the emperor, yes. that’s how it usually goes.
You must be seeing some very different wars than the ones I’ve seen.
In the wars I’ve seen, ‘emperors’ are rarely blown up, but vassals getting blown up is extremely common.
hence why we root for them when they are winning.
In the wars I’ve seen, ‘emperors’ are rarely blown up, but vassals getting blown up is extremely common.
e g. Ukraine
Every goddamn war ever.
For little kids is fine.
No actually is not fine either, it’s better for kids to understand reality.
really cool “giving an award to myself” infograph
Do you post this comment on every PizzaCake comic?
I also don’t even agree, it’s an explanatory tool for helping explain the difference between the top left and the top right quadrants, spurring the exact discussion we see in this thread
sorry if we’re correct.
