“The biggest take away here is that if you think im a liberal you are sorely mistaken.”
Your self-identification doesn’t determine your analysis. What matters is the material position your argument occupies. You can say you’re not a liberal all day. Your logic still functions as one.
“I am no way doing that.”
You are. You equate the periphery and it’s backers in the fight against imperialism to the imperial core which runs the most advanced wide reaching immiseration and extraction apparatus in human history.
“Its a good thing that I dont condem the Warsaw ghetto fighters are violent extremists then eh?”
That was clearly an analogy you idiot. You are effectively taking a stance in the same vein when you say ridiculous things like “east and west are both shit” with zero analysis or thought. Covering for the hegemon.
“No shit that’s why I was all for Palestine defending itself, same thing with Ukraine defending itself from russian imperialis”
These are not the same category. Palestine is a colonized people under military occupation, denied statehood, fighting for basic sovereignty. Ukraine is a state receiving billions in Western arms, integrated into NATO command structures, and now exporting weapons to Israel. You can’t claim solidarity with Palestinians while endorsing a node in the same military network enabling Gaza’s destruction. That’s massive contradiction.
“Ukraine is siding with the side that isn’t actively trying to destroy it.”
Ukraine isn’t just “defending.” It’s becoming structurally dependent. Yanukovych wasn’t removed by pure popular will. He was ousted after refusing to sign an EU agreement that would have locked Ukraine into Western structures and after seeking balanced relations with Russia. The post-2014 government legalized Banderite symbolism, marginalized Russian-language media, and launched an eight-year military campaign against Donbas that killed over 5,600 civilians, including hundreds of children. That isn’t “defending sovereignty.” That’s ethnicized state violence.
“Fascist boot lickers like yourself dont understand what a ‘whataboutism’ is.”
Calling me names because I distinguish a 1939 tactical delay from 2024 imperial integration isn’t an argument. It’s what you do when you can’t engage the substance.
You also misuse “imperialism.” Imperialism isn’t just “big country does bad thing.” It’s the export of capital, the division of the world into oppressor and oppressed nations and the extraction of super profits through enforced unequal exchange. Russia in the 1990s was gutted by shock therapy imposed by the IMF and US advisors: GDP collapsed by ~40%, life expectancy plummeted, industrial capacity was liquidated. It was deindustrialization by design. Russia’s subsequent alignment with anti-colonial movements was material necessity, the only path to regain strategic autonomy against a unipolar order that had already declared it a target.
And fascism? Fascism isn’t “authoritarianism.” It’s monopoly capital in open terroristic dictatorship, the physical annihilation of working-class organizations. Neither China nor Russia meet that definition (who I assume you mean when you say the East). China lifted hundreds of millions from poverty through planned development. And yes, Russia is an oligarchic kleptocracy, a product of the capitalist restoration that followed shock therapy. But oligarchy isn’t fascism. Russia’s state, however flawed, maintains formal elections, permits legal communist opposition, and structurally opposes NATO expansion. That’s reactionary bourgeois politics, not fascism. Calling them “fascist” isn’t analysis. It’s simply polemical dilution that protects actual fascism, like the Azov-linked elements integrated into Ukraine’s security apparatus.
NATO’s own Secretary General (Rutte) has stated its purpose is serving US geopolitical interests. When you arm a state integrated into that structure, you aren’t supporting “self-defense.” You’re reinforcing a containment architecture aimed at the backers of the global souths liberation (Russia and China).
Your “both sides are shit” posture isn’t radical. It’s abdication. When you equate a state fighting to survive encirclement with a state actively enabling genocide, you aren’t “above” ideology. You’re reproducing the hegemon’s narrative: all resistance is equally illegitimate, all power is equally corrupt. That sustains the empire.
Your responses are incredibly well formulated, patient and thorough. Too bad your interlocutor chose not to put in the same effort (or any at all) in engaging with your arguments…
Removed by mod
Your self-identification doesn’t determine your analysis. What matters is the material position your argument occupies. You can say you’re not a liberal all day. Your logic still functions as one.
You are. You equate the periphery and it’s backers in the fight against imperialism to the imperial core which runs the most advanced wide reaching immiseration and extraction apparatus in human history.
That was clearly an analogy you idiot. You are effectively taking a stance in the same vein when you say ridiculous things like “east and west are both shit” with zero analysis or thought. Covering for the hegemon.
These are not the same category. Palestine is a colonized people under military occupation, denied statehood, fighting for basic sovereignty. Ukraine is a state receiving billions in Western arms, integrated into NATO command structures, and now exporting weapons to Israel. You can’t claim solidarity with Palestinians while endorsing a node in the same military network enabling Gaza’s destruction. That’s massive contradiction.
Ukraine isn’t just “defending.” It’s becoming structurally dependent. Yanukovych wasn’t removed by pure popular will. He was ousted after refusing to sign an EU agreement that would have locked Ukraine into Western structures and after seeking balanced relations with Russia. The post-2014 government legalized Banderite symbolism, marginalized Russian-language media, and launched an eight-year military campaign against Donbas that killed over 5,600 civilians, including hundreds of children. That isn’t “defending sovereignty.” That’s ethnicized state violence.
Calling me names because I distinguish a 1939 tactical delay from 2024 imperial integration isn’t an argument. It’s what you do when you can’t engage the substance.
You also misuse “imperialism.” Imperialism isn’t just “big country does bad thing.” It’s the export of capital, the division of the world into oppressor and oppressed nations and the extraction of super profits through enforced unequal exchange. Russia in the 1990s was gutted by shock therapy imposed by the IMF and US advisors: GDP collapsed by ~40%, life expectancy plummeted, industrial capacity was liquidated. It was deindustrialization by design. Russia’s subsequent alignment with anti-colonial movements was material necessity, the only path to regain strategic autonomy against a unipolar order that had already declared it a target.
And fascism? Fascism isn’t “authoritarianism.” It’s monopoly capital in open terroristic dictatorship, the physical annihilation of working-class organizations. Neither China nor Russia meet that definition (who I assume you mean when you say the East). China lifted hundreds of millions from poverty through planned development. And yes, Russia is an oligarchic kleptocracy, a product of the capitalist restoration that followed shock therapy. But oligarchy isn’t fascism. Russia’s state, however flawed, maintains formal elections, permits legal communist opposition, and structurally opposes NATO expansion. That’s reactionary bourgeois politics, not fascism. Calling them “fascist” isn’t analysis. It’s simply polemical dilution that protects actual fascism, like the Azov-linked elements integrated into Ukraine’s security apparatus.
NATO’s own Secretary General (Rutte) has stated its purpose is serving US geopolitical interests. When you arm a state integrated into that structure, you aren’t supporting “self-defense.” You’re reinforcing a containment architecture aimed at the backers of the global souths liberation (Russia and China).
Your “both sides are shit” posture isn’t radical. It’s abdication. When you equate a state fighting to survive encirclement with a state actively enabling genocide, you aren’t “above” ideology. You’re reproducing the hegemon’s narrative: all resistance is equally illegitimate, all power is equally corrupt. That sustains the empire.
Your responses are incredibly well formulated, patient and thorough. Too bad your interlocutor chose not to put in the same effort (or any at all) in engaging with your arguments…
I unfortunately let myself devolve from proper responses after this as well but thank you.
Understandable. It is disappointing when genuine effort to educate someone is reciprocated only with thought-terminating clichés.
Removed by mod
Lol you have nothing
Removed by mod
Lol cmon you’re not even trying. Have one original thought today
Removed by mod
Cope shitlib.
Removed by mod
Project much shitlib. You really should learn what words mean.
Removed by mod
Lmao shitlib. You have no independent thoughts. Again I beg please learn what words mean.
Removed by mod
Libfash talking like incels, who’d have thought. Fitting since you are basically political incels
Removed by mod