“We can talk about socialized healthcare and the evils of capitalism all day, but before we go any further I need you to pass this two-factor authentication by criticizing China and Russia.”
but that’s not even what this post is suggesting we do. It’s just recognizing that China and Russia are also imperialist states, so we should be mindfull of where the information we consume comes from, since they’re all shoving propaganda down our throats and pitting us against one another, for their own imperialist intentions.
Exactly. I’ll never understand why certian leftists hold them up as examples to be followed instead of countries like Sweeden or Norway where every quality of life indicator is undeniably better.
If you want an actual answer, it’s because Sweden and Norway continue to participate in imperialism by propping up their economies through exploitation of the global south.
These are capitalist countries, social democracies, not socialist countries. The underlying contradictions that lead to problems under capitalism have not been resolved, so the problems inherent to capitalism persist. The only reason they seem better at this time is because of the exploitation of foreign workers and their participation in the financial models exploiting the global south.
It’s clear that the Nordic model of social democracy is unsustainable (because it’s just capitalism with more social reforms) and has slowly been eroding since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This unsustainability is also clearly recognized and discussed openly within those countries, which is why they explicitly state that the solutions are austerity or the exploration of foreigners.
So your objection with the nordic form of socialism is that it’s too close to/integrated wtih capitalism?
You know China and Russia do all of these things as well, plus the oppression of thier own people. China is defacto capitalist. Russia is all the way capitalist. Both are essentially oligarchies/dictatorships. Both also exploit developing countries in the global south, both have imperial ambitions on surrounding countries, one of them is even actively in an imperialst war. But leftists support them because they’re “socialist?”
Do you understand these countries are not worth your support? Especially if your motive is to oppose the oppression of exploited peoples.
It’s not that Norway and Sweden are “too integrated with capitalism” while being socialistic (or I would argue China is capitalist) but that these countries are explicitly not socialist at all. These are capitalist countries with social welfare programs and will therefore continue to suffer from the failures of the capitalist mode of production regardless of how many social welfare programs are introduced. Social welfare programs are not socialism. Capitalist and socialist countries both utilize social welfare programs. Capitalism and socialism are modes of organizing production and can be differentiated by exploring the following questions:
Which class owns and controls the means of production and how the economy is organized? (Alternatively, who is the dictator? Until we are all in the same class, there will always be a dictatorship and oppressed people.) The workers and their parties = socialism, the financiers/owners and their parties = capitalism. There can be exceptions within a system, but one will be strongly favored.
Is production aimed at profit or meeting human needs? Often has a messy answer, but profit will usually be favored under capitalism and usually at the expense of workers and their needs.
Is the economy planned at a large scale or is it directed by the profit-seeking whims of the market? Socialist economies are centrally planned at a large scale and while corporations often use central planning, this is across companies, not entire industries. Capitalist economies are driven by the needs and desires of corporations rather than planned for the good of the country as a whole.
Are key industries collectivized? In capitalism, they tend to be owned by individuals, in socialism, they tend to be nationalized or otherwise collectivized, though exceptions exist under both systems.
Norway, Sweden, and Russia all check the capitalist boxes. China checks the socialist boxes, but yes, oppression, inequality, and exploitation still exist as it is transitioning from capitalism to communism and the underlying class contradictions and subsequent conflict has not been resolved. They run a partially mixed economy because capitalist organization can be beneficial to building up industrial forces. You’ll also notice that they nationalize large and key industries before they became monopolies to prevent capital from holding parts of the economy hostage (as is often done in actual capitalist countries) and are shifting away from capitalist organization as a whole. It was a tool to modernize and does not make them defacto capitalist because capitalists never held political power.
I would never hold either Russia nor China up as some shining example of perfect countries. Russia is not socialist in any way and no socialist argues that they are. They happen to be be in a position that is directly opposed to US/Western imperialism right now, but not by choice. They hold this spot because the West forced them into it.
This is what socialists are arguing Russia is doing, not that they are a shining example of a socialist society that should be emulated. Socialists do not like Putin, but they do seek to understand him. To argue that socialists hold Russia up as a model country is to argue against a straw man.
I do argue that China is a socialist country despite their mixed economic system. Political control of the country resides in the hands of the communist party and the key industrial sectors and land is owned by the state rather than existing as private property. Again, I do not argue they are perfect. My argument is that they are a socialist project working towards communism and that undertaking such a change is a long and messy path that takes more than the 80 or so years the communist party has been in power. I think they genuinely aspire to accomplish the goals they say they are pursuing, but the road to liberation is messy and they definitely have made mistakes. To expect perfection at each individual moment along the path of change is unreasonable. Likewise, it’s not my country. I can learn from them and implement what I think works well in my own country. The Chinese people can direct their country as they see fit. Socialist projects are unique to their societies everywhere they spring up and no two will look the same.
I meant both this and the first comment to help explain these stances in good faith, but I get the feeling the first might not have been taken that way? I’ll leave any discussion of the topic here because the China one is deeper than I want to get into in an online thread. If you truly want to understand why socialists take these stances, I recommend you research socialist theory directly including the topic of imperialism as defined by Lenin and have some deep conversations with people who hold these views.
I hope this better explains not just why we argue what we do but what it is we are actually arguing for.
You know I was going to write this big huge thing, but after reading your last paragraph I see you don’t want to take it further. But thanks, you have confirmed for me that the only reason some leftists support China and Russia is because these countries are supposed to be socialist, and not because of any measurable quality of life standards such as wealth, life expectancy, education, freedom of the press, political representation, and so on.
In real life, Russia and China are defacto capitalist oligarchies. I think I’ll never support the corruption and oppression such governments propogate to uphold an ideology.
I mean, respectfully, it’s tiring writing out so much on a phone screen. I think the discussions are important, but it’s the wrong format to have a long-form discussion, you know?
I hope you didn’t find my tone dismissive even though we disagree. It wasn’t meant to be. If your take-away was that I’m being dogmatic and make choices purely on ideological lines, I don’t think writing up paragraphs of text turned out to be a very effective at communicating what I wanted to say.
These discussions are better held in person because it’s difficult to capture nuance in writing without being long-winded.
Never heard the word “irredentism” before, looked it up. It’s literally fascist logic. Do tankies seriously not realize that the logical endpoint of irredentism is a world made up exclusively of ethnostates?
If you actually read what the person was saying, they said:
i do not support the russian invasion of ukraine btw.
that being said, irredentism is still awful. i’m ideologically against all forms of killing, and that includes the russian attack on ukraine. just so we’re clear here, this is just about definitions, i’m not trying to argue that russia attacking its neighbors is good in any way.
Marxists tend to use a specific definition of imperialism, and that user’s position is that while Russia does engage in irredentism (bad), like invading Ukraine, they do not fit the Marxist definition of imperialism (which is more concerned with resource extraction on a global scale). This Marxist definition goes back at least to Lenin, so it isn’t something that they just made up (as they were accused of in the thread), but the common meaning today is different.
This is being misinterpreted or distorted here into, “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is fine because it’s irredentism” which was very clearly not what they were saying. What they were saying is that irredentism is bad (including the war in Ukraine), but that it is a distinct thing from imperialism.
They’re still doing apologia by playing with definitions to argue that not only is Russia not imperialist, but they’re anti-imperialist. Stating that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is irredentist and not imperialist carries the assumption that Russia’s officially stated reasons for invading Ukraine are truthful when they are clearly not. Russia wants Ukrainian territory not because it’s populated by ethnic Russians, but because they want to exploit the natural resources contained therein. Irredentism is the justification for imperialism, they are not mutually exclusive.
It’s inherently difficult and subjective to speculate about motivations, and doubly so when talking about a country with multiple groups with their own motivations. Of course, in any conflict, enemy countries will be assigned the worst motivations possible, which is why virtually every conflict draws comparisons to Nazis, and the idea that the enemy will just keep attacking forever if they are not defeated. This was said about Vietnam (Domino Theory) and Afghanistan (“if we don’t fight them there, we’ll be fighting them here”). Those examples show that motivations assigned to enemy countries are often inaccurate.
I don’t think it should be considered “apologia” to express reasonable skepticism that the motivations of a rival country aren’t what some people speculate. Especially when they’re still assigning a negative motivation to said country, just a different negative motivation than the one you assign. That’s kind of a ridiculous degree of purity testing, “It’s not enough to condemn Russia, you have to agree with my exact assessment of their motivations, otherwise you’re doing apologia by condemning them in the wrong way.”
As they said, they condemn both Russia’s invasion and irredentism in general, so my main point was to correct your misunderstanding, when you asked if “tankies” don’t realize that irredentism leads to negative results.
Trying to divine Russia’s True Motivations for invading Ukraine is a total Red Herring side show distraction in the context of this discussion.
The problem we’re discussing is that tankies employ definitions gymnastics to escape giving traditionally capitalist negative labels to their beloved authoritarian dictatorships, like “imperialist” and “tyrant.”
“Russia is not imperialist because they only invade for irredentist reasons” and “Russia is not imperialist because they oppose imperialist nations” are both half-cooked, dumb assertions.
It doesn’t matter if Russia invades other countries and takes their resources because they think the Bible says they should, because there are people with similar genetics in neighboring countries, or because Putin is bored; it’s still imperialist.
Imagine if someone said the USA is not imperialist because they’re only bombing Iran to fulfill a biblical prophesy, so they’re actually just theocratic. That’s obviously a ridiculous thing to say and you wouldn’t jump in to defend them because you’re biased to defend tankies but not western capitalists.
I’m not interested in discussing anything else with you until you answer my other comment, because it seems to me that you just blatantly lied claiming you didn’t label the other user a tankie. If you blatantly lied about that conversation, then I should expect you’ll lie about this one too. Even now you’re labelling them a tankie again, after claiming not to.
If they’re going with a niche definition rather than the common definitions everyone uses, they should have stated that to prevent the confusion and argument that it seeded, as I said further down in the argument.
I actually agree with you on that. However, “being too prone to using Marxist definitions and terminology” does not warrant labelling them as a “tankie” or “Russian propagandist.”
It’s this sort of thing that makes me see every accusation of “tankie” as a complete joke. If you can literally say, word for word, “I do not support the Russian invasion of Ukraine” and still get called a tankie and Russian propagandist, then those words have no meaning, aside from, “You disagreed with a liberal about literally anything.”
Did their condemnation of Russia not give you a moment’s pause before dismissing them as a Russian propagandist and misrepresenting their positions to others afterwards? It seems like you just recognized that they’re not part of your political in-group so you ignore everything and jump straight to labelling them a fascist. Yes, they communicated in a way that’s somewhat confusing, but you’re much more at fault for jumping to those unwarranted accusations.
Even if we take the assertion that they are doing apologia for Russia as true; the accusation of ‘tankie’ is strange. As if people who identify as communist have never heard of the fall of the USSR.
Maybe it would make sense when defending China in some contemporary contexts, but Russia?
It all reminds me of how George Bush used the term terrorism. Anyone who thought we need a different approach to respond to 9/11 than GWB was ‘letting the terrorist win’. Now anyone who thinks we need to find a different approach other than throwing the military industrial complex at the war in Ukraine is a tankie.
Do these same people think the war in Iran would be better if China got involved. Of course not, that would be insane. But change China to US and Iran to Ukraine and all of a sudden they support it.
The point is to have more skepticism toward all militarism; that’s not to say militarism is never justified. But NATO was literally built to contain the USSR, it worked on some level, the USSR fell. Russia’s militarism toward Ukraine is completely unjustified, but their complaint about still being contained NATO is valid. They subjected their people to a ton of economic hardship in the 90s to appease the west. But we can’t disband or renegotiate NATO because too many people benefit from it staying how it is.
The answer to the Ukraine war was to bring Russia into the western block on more equal terms 30 years ago. Now the situation is fucked, it gets more dangerous to more people every day it goes on.
The point is to have more skepticism toward all militarism
I completely agree. Throughout history people opposing war have almost always been accused of treason and supporting the other side. 20 years ago the term was “terrorist sympathizer,” today it’s “tankie” and when we’re still at war 20 years from now it’ll probably be something equally meaningless.
Social democrats tend to rally around the flag during wartime, going all the way back to the social democrats in Germany and Western Europe who supported WWI. The reason for that is that they contain their stances to what is acceptable to the powers that be, and during wartime the scope of what is a permissible opinion narrows considerably. If they were prepared to break from that, they wouldn’t be social democrats. For this reason, careerist social democrats will never be able to have any kind of international solidarity, nor will they generally oppose war in practice, no matter how much they condemn it in the abstract.
The best case scenario in Ukraine is, and has been from day 1, whatever peace agreement can end the war quickly and uphold lasting peace, regardless of who ends up with what.
I actually agree with you on that. However, “being too prone to using Marxist definitions and terminology” does not warrant labelling them as a “tankie” or “Russian propagandist.”
That’s not what I was asserting, no.
The rest of your comment soapboxes on that straw man so I’ll not respond to it.
It’s more or less exactly the content of this post here. Literal Russian propaganda, I’m sure. Couldn’t confirm 100% because I don’t waste my precious time checking what Russia has to say about their invasion, but I’m sure the term/topic of “irredentism” comes up and never “invasion” or “genocide.”
Couldn’t confirm 100% because I don’t waste my precious time checking what Russia has to say about their invasion, but I’m sure the term/topic of “irredentism” comes up and never “invasion” or “genocide.”
Irredentism is a negative word, nobody would use it in their own propaganda to describe their own actions. Furthermore, the user you were talking to clearly and explicitly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine:
i do not support the russian invasion of ukraine btw.
You seem to have misunderstood what they were saying, and the idea that they’re spouting “literal Russian propaganda” while explicitly condemning the invasion, and labelling it an invasion, is completely absurd.
I guess that’s why you felt the need to pretend they didn’t label it as an invasion. I do wish y’all would practice a slightly higher degree of intellectual honesty though.
“We can talk about socialized healthcare and the evils of capitalism all day, but before we go any further I need you to pass this two-factor recognizing that the US’s military/prison industrial complex has done more harm to the world since WWII than China Russia and Iran.”
Ah yes, let’s complain when people post factual memes about countries that both commit genocide, and are both heavily invested in destabilizing western governments
I take it you’re one of those “free” thinkers too?
How hard is it to recognize that, yes, the US is fucking evil, yes, always has been, but that the exact same goes for Russia and China? Ooohh, what a concept, multiple parties being evil? *brain explodes
So how much does daddy Putin or mommy xi pay exactly? Is it worth it, or are you actually one of those people that just ignores the thousands of photos, videos, and witness testimonies? Or are you one of those conspiracy types that believes its all orchestrated by reptilians or something?
Doesn’t really matter, all those options make you a horrible person
There will be no third party. The bank rolled two party system needs two bags of dildos and they will stop at nothing to crush any change from the bottom. The third party will be split between two optically moderates from both parties as plants. The stank yanks got amnesia… talking out both sides of the mouth unable to balance their contradictions. It is agonizing to watch since I share their inheritance.
Why can’t Americans just admit that their country suck and leave it at that?
It’s a good question. Because our land is beautiful and a lot of us are working to keep it that way. Because we still see lots of people trying to come here for a better life. There are much fewer now, and a lot of us have deep shame for what the asshole in power has done to their communities. Despite appearances, a lot of us respect and admire them for taking the hard, unwanted jobs that nevertheless still need to get done. We still believe in what the Statue of Liberty stands for despite anything the asshole tries to do to it. Yes, we functionally conquered the world when we became the sole superpower after the Soviet Union fell apart. But we also led the world with science, inventions, entertainment, and aid. That’s lost now, and a lot of us deeply resent everyone who had a hand in ruining that.
Yes, we functionally conquered the world when we became the sole superpower after the Soviet Union fell apart. But we also led the world with science, inventions, entertainment, and aid. That’s lost now, and a lot of us deeply resent everyone who had a hand in ruining that.
Oh. So it’s because you haven’t studied history. Got it.
Read your words. You are trying to reclaim a lost position of “goodness” for the USA, that was lost through the bad actions of bad people. You are trying to reclaim the position of helping the world, being a beautiful country that respects others and is welcoming.
We call that “Blue MAGA”. You’re imagining a time before the Rs fucked everything up and trying to move “forward” to reclaim the position of “good”.
The USA was never good. Not only did FDR put anyone vaguely asian looking into concentration camps, the administration stole all of their commercial property and wealth. Not only that, but the FDR administration established the entirety of racial redlining. The USA has been at war for >90% of its existence, and half of the years it wasn’t at war, it was engaged in the massive chattel slavery and maintenance of the genocide of indigenous peoples. The USA wasn’t taken over by racist pedophilic raping oligarchs, it was founded by them. Trump doesn’t hold a candle to the evils of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.
As long as you believe in some mythical past where the USA was a net good for the world, you will never be able to understand why the rest of the world wants to see your country destroyed and dismantled.
I understand. My question was: why can’t Americans NOT involve Russia, china or whichever other superpower to make themselves seem better? It’s ok to just admit that you suck and leave it at that.
I didn’t downvote you. I think the answer to that is that all humans everywhere, Americans included, want to immediately jump to whatabboutism to save face.
“We can talk about socialized healthcare and the evils of capitalism all day, but before we go any further I need you to pass this two-factor authentication by criticizing China and Russia.”
“Have you condemned Hamas today?”
but that’s not even what this post is suggesting we do. It’s just recognizing that China and Russia are also imperialist states, so we should be mindfull of where the information we consume comes from, since they’re all shoving propaganda down our throats and pitting us against one another, for their own imperialist intentions.
Bedrock based
Exactly. I’ll never understand why certian leftists hold them up as examples to be followed instead of countries like Sweeden or Norway where every quality of life indicator is undeniably better.
If you want an actual answer, it’s because Sweden and Norway continue to participate in imperialism by propping up their economies through exploitation of the global south.
These are capitalist countries, social democracies, not socialist countries. The underlying contradictions that lead to problems under capitalism have not been resolved, so the problems inherent to capitalism persist. The only reason they seem better at this time is because of the exploitation of foreign workers and their participation in the financial models exploiting the global south.
It’s clear that the Nordic model of social democracy is unsustainable (because it’s just capitalism with more social reforms) and has slowly been eroding since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. This unsustainability is also clearly recognized and discussed openly within those countries, which is why they explicitly state that the solutions are austerity or the exploration of foreigners.
So your objection with the nordic form of socialism is that it’s too close to/integrated wtih capitalism?
You know China and Russia do all of these things as well, plus the oppression of thier own people. China is defacto capitalist. Russia is all the way capitalist. Both are essentially oligarchies/dictatorships. Both also exploit developing countries in the global south, both have imperial ambitions on surrounding countries, one of them is even actively in an imperialst war. But leftists support them because they’re “socialist?”
Do you understand these countries are not worth your support? Especially if your motive is to oppose the oppression of exploited peoples.
It’s not that Norway and Sweden are “too integrated with capitalism” while being socialistic (or I would argue China is capitalist) but that these countries are explicitly not socialist at all. These are capitalist countries with social welfare programs and will therefore continue to suffer from the failures of the capitalist mode of production regardless of how many social welfare programs are introduced. Social welfare programs are not socialism. Capitalist and socialist countries both utilize social welfare programs. Capitalism and socialism are modes of organizing production and can be differentiated by exploring the following questions:
Which class owns and controls the means of production and how the economy is organized? (Alternatively, who is the dictator? Until we are all in the same class, there will always be a dictatorship and oppressed people.) The workers and their parties = socialism, the financiers/owners and their parties = capitalism. There can be exceptions within a system, but one will be strongly favored.
Is production aimed at profit or meeting human needs? Often has a messy answer, but profit will usually be favored under capitalism and usually at the expense of workers and their needs.
Is the economy planned at a large scale or is it directed by the profit-seeking whims of the market? Socialist economies are centrally planned at a large scale and while corporations often use central planning, this is across companies, not entire industries. Capitalist economies are driven by the needs and desires of corporations rather than planned for the good of the country as a whole.
Are key industries collectivized? In capitalism, they tend to be owned by individuals, in socialism, they tend to be nationalized or otherwise collectivized, though exceptions exist under both systems.
Norway, Sweden, and Russia all check the capitalist boxes. China checks the socialist boxes, but yes, oppression, inequality, and exploitation still exist as it is transitioning from capitalism to communism and the underlying class contradictions and subsequent conflict has not been resolved. They run a partially mixed economy because capitalist organization can be beneficial to building up industrial forces. You’ll also notice that they nationalize large and key industries before they became monopolies to prevent capital from holding parts of the economy hostage (as is often done in actual capitalist countries) and are shifting away from capitalist organization as a whole. It was a tool to modernize and does not make them defacto capitalist because capitalists never held political power.
I would never hold either Russia nor China up as some shining example of perfect countries. Russia is not socialist in any way and no socialist argues that they are. They happen to be be in a position that is directly opposed to US/Western imperialism right now, but not by choice. They hold this spot because the West forced them into it.
This is what socialists are arguing Russia is doing, not that they are a shining example of a socialist society that should be emulated. Socialists do not like Putin, but they do seek to understand him. To argue that socialists hold Russia up as a model country is to argue against a straw man.
I do argue that China is a socialist country despite their mixed economic system. Political control of the country resides in the hands of the communist party and the key industrial sectors and land is owned by the state rather than existing as private property. Again, I do not argue they are perfect. My argument is that they are a socialist project working towards communism and that undertaking such a change is a long and messy path that takes more than the 80 or so years the communist party has been in power. I think they genuinely aspire to accomplish the goals they say they are pursuing, but the road to liberation is messy and they definitely have made mistakes. To expect perfection at each individual moment along the path of change is unreasonable. Likewise, it’s not my country. I can learn from them and implement what I think works well in my own country. The Chinese people can direct their country as they see fit. Socialist projects are unique to their societies everywhere they spring up and no two will look the same.
I meant both this and the first comment to help explain these stances in good faith, but I get the feeling the first might not have been taken that way? I’ll leave any discussion of the topic here because the China one is deeper than I want to get into in an online thread. If you truly want to understand why socialists take these stances, I recommend you research socialist theory directly including the topic of imperialism as defined by Lenin and have some deep conversations with people who hold these views.
I hope this better explains not just why we argue what we do but what it is we are actually arguing for.
You know I was going to write this big huge thing, but after reading your last paragraph I see you don’t want to take it further. But thanks, you have confirmed for me that the only reason some leftists support China and Russia is because these countries are supposed to be socialist, and not because of any measurable quality of life standards such as wealth, life expectancy, education, freedom of the press, political representation, and so on.
In real life, Russia and China are defacto capitalist oligarchies. I think I’ll never support the corruption and oppression such governments propogate to uphold an ideology.
I mean, respectfully, it’s tiring writing out so much on a phone screen. I think the discussions are important, but it’s the wrong format to have a long-form discussion, you know?
I hope you didn’t find my tone dismissive even though we disagree. It wasn’t meant to be. If your take-away was that I’m being dogmatic and make choices purely on ideological lines, I don’t think writing up paragraphs of text turned out to be a very effective at communicating what I wanted to say.
These discussions are better held in person because it’s difficult to capture nuance in writing without being long-winded.
This comment is so real it hurts.
I just had someone trying to convince me that Russia can’t be imperialist because they oppose the US, an imperialist nation.
… that’s not the definition of “imperialist,” my dear tankie.
Not sure if linking it so others can laugh/cry is “brigading” worthy of getting me banned off of various Lemmy communities/instances or not.
Fuck it, here’s the thread:
https://lemmy.world/comment/25044062
I needed a good laugh.
Never heard the word “irredentism” before, looked it up. It’s literally fascist logic. Do tankies seriously not realize that the logical endpoint of irredentism is a world made up exclusively of ethnostates?
If you actually read what the person was saying, they said:
Marxists tend to use a specific definition of imperialism, and that user’s position is that while Russia does engage in irredentism (bad), like invading Ukraine, they do not fit the Marxist definition of imperialism (which is more concerned with resource extraction on a global scale). This Marxist definition goes back at least to Lenin, so it isn’t something that they just made up (as they were accused of in the thread), but the common meaning today is different.
This is being misinterpreted or distorted here into, “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is fine because it’s irredentism” which was very clearly not what they were saying. What they were saying is that irredentism is bad (including the war in Ukraine), but that it is a distinct thing from imperialism.
They’re still doing apologia by playing with definitions to argue that not only is Russia not imperialist, but they’re anti-imperialist. Stating that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is irredentist and not imperialist carries the assumption that Russia’s officially stated reasons for invading Ukraine are truthful when they are clearly not. Russia wants Ukrainian territory not because it’s populated by ethnic Russians, but because they want to exploit the natural resources contained therein. Irredentism is the justification for imperialism, they are not mutually exclusive.
It’s inherently difficult and subjective to speculate about motivations, and doubly so when talking about a country with multiple groups with their own motivations. Of course, in any conflict, enemy countries will be assigned the worst motivations possible, which is why virtually every conflict draws comparisons to Nazis, and the idea that the enemy will just keep attacking forever if they are not defeated. This was said about Vietnam (Domino Theory) and Afghanistan (“if we don’t fight them there, we’ll be fighting them here”). Those examples show that motivations assigned to enemy countries are often inaccurate.
I don’t think it should be considered “apologia” to express reasonable skepticism that the motivations of a rival country aren’t what some people speculate. Especially when they’re still assigning a negative motivation to said country, just a different negative motivation than the one you assign. That’s kind of a ridiculous degree of purity testing, “It’s not enough to condemn Russia, you have to agree with my exact assessment of their motivations, otherwise you’re doing apologia by condemning them in the wrong way.”
As they said, they condemn both Russia’s invasion and irredentism in general, so my main point was to correct your misunderstanding, when you asked if “tankies” don’t realize that irredentism leads to negative results.
Trying to divine Russia’s True Motivations for invading Ukraine is a total Red Herring side show distraction in the context of this discussion.
The problem we’re discussing is that tankies employ definitions gymnastics to escape giving traditionally capitalist negative labels to their beloved authoritarian dictatorships, like “imperialist” and “tyrant.”
“Russia is not imperialist because they only invade for irredentist reasons” and “Russia is not imperialist because they oppose imperialist nations” are both half-cooked, dumb assertions.
It doesn’t matter if Russia invades other countries and takes their resources because they think the Bible says they should, because there are people with similar genetics in neighboring countries, or because Putin is bored; it’s still imperialist.
Imagine if someone said the USA is not imperialist because they’re only bombing Iran to fulfill a biblical prophesy, so they’re actually just theocratic. That’s obviously a ridiculous thing to say and you wouldn’t jump in to defend them because you’re biased to defend tankies but not western capitalists.
I’m not interested in discussing anything else with you until you answer my other comment, because it seems to me that you just blatantly lied claiming you didn’t label the other user a tankie. If you blatantly lied about that conversation, then I should expect you’ll lie about this one too. Even now you’re labelling them a tankie again, after claiming not to.
If they’re going with a niche definition rather than the common definitions everyone uses, they should have stated that to prevent the confusion and argument that it seeded, as I said further down in the argument.
I actually agree with you on that. However, “being too prone to using Marxist definitions and terminology” does not warrant labelling them as a “tankie” or “Russian propagandist.”
It’s this sort of thing that makes me see every accusation of “tankie” as a complete joke. If you can literally say, word for word, “I do not support the Russian invasion of Ukraine” and still get called a tankie and Russian propagandist, then those words have no meaning, aside from, “You disagreed with a liberal about literally anything.”
Did their condemnation of Russia not give you a moment’s pause before dismissing them as a Russian propagandist and misrepresenting their positions to others afterwards? It seems like you just recognized that they’re not part of your political in-group so you ignore everything and jump straight to labelling them a fascist. Yes, they communicated in a way that’s somewhat confusing, but you’re much more at fault for jumping to those unwarranted accusations.
Even if we take the assertion that they are doing apologia for Russia as true; the accusation of ‘tankie’ is strange. As if people who identify as communist have never heard of the fall of the USSR.
Maybe it would make sense when defending China in some contemporary contexts, but Russia?
It all reminds me of how George Bush used the term terrorism. Anyone who thought we need a different approach to respond to 9/11 than GWB was ‘letting the terrorist win’. Now anyone who thinks we need to find a different approach other than throwing the military industrial complex at the war in Ukraine is a tankie.
Do these same people think the war in Iran would be better if China got involved. Of course not, that would be insane. But change China to US and Iran to Ukraine and all of a sudden they support it.
The point is to have more skepticism toward all militarism; that’s not to say militarism is never justified. But NATO was literally built to contain the USSR, it worked on some level, the USSR fell. Russia’s militarism toward Ukraine is completely unjustified, but their complaint about still being contained NATO is valid. They subjected their people to a ton of economic hardship in the 90s to appease the west. But we can’t disband or renegotiate NATO because too many people benefit from it staying how it is.
The answer to the Ukraine war was to bring Russia into the western block on more equal terms 30 years ago. Now the situation is fucked, it gets more dangerous to more people every day it goes on.
I completely agree. Throughout history people opposing war have almost always been accused of treason and supporting the other side. 20 years ago the term was “terrorist sympathizer,” today it’s “tankie” and when we’re still at war 20 years from now it’ll probably be something equally meaningless.
Social democrats tend to rally around the flag during wartime, going all the way back to the social democrats in Germany and Western Europe who supported WWI. The reason for that is that they contain their stances to what is acceptable to the powers that be, and during wartime the scope of what is a permissible opinion narrows considerably. If they were prepared to break from that, they wouldn’t be social democrats. For this reason, careerist social democrats will never be able to have any kind of international solidarity, nor will they generally oppose war in practice, no matter how much they condemn it in the abstract.
The best case scenario in Ukraine is, and has been from day 1, whatever peace agreement can end the war quickly and uphold lasting peace, regardless of who ends up with what.
That’s not what I was asserting, no.
The rest of your comment soapboxes on that straw man so I’ll not respond to it.
Uh huh.
You’re trying to deny labelling them a tankie now? That’s just a blatant lie.
It’s more or less exactly the content of this post here. Literal Russian propaganda, I’m sure. Couldn’t confirm 100% because I don’t waste my precious time checking what Russia has to say about their invasion, but I’m sure the term/topic of “irredentism” comes up and never “invasion” or “genocide.”
Irredentism is a negative word, nobody would use it in their own propaganda to describe their own actions. Furthermore, the user you were talking to clearly and explicitly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine:
You seem to have misunderstood what they were saying, and the idea that they’re spouting “literal Russian propaganda” while explicitly condemning the invasion, and labelling it an invasion, is completely absurd.
I guess that’s why you felt the need to pretend they didn’t label it as an invasion. I do wish y’all would practice a slightly higher degree of intellectual honesty though.
What a mind-bogglingly stupid thing to say
“We can talk about socialized healthcare and the evils of capitalism all day, but before we go any further I need you to pass this two-factor recognizing that the US’s military/prison industrial complex has done more harm to the world since WWII than China Russia and Iran.”
Yes actually
This but unironically
Ah yes, let’s complain when people post factual memes about countries that both commit genocide, and are both heavily invested in destabilizing western governments
I take it you’re one of those “free” thinkers too?
How hard is it to recognize that, yes, the US is fucking evil, yes, always has been, but that the exact same goes for Russia and China? Ooohh, what a concept, multiple parties being evil? *brain explodes
I can’t tell if this is directed at me or a hypothetical conversation with a tankie.
I’m 90% sure they’re directing it at a hypothetical tankie.
Anything’s possible when you make shit up
So how much does daddy Putin or mommy xi pay exactly? Is it worth it, or are you actually one of those people that just ignores the thousands of photos, videos, and witness testimonies? Or are you one of those conspiracy types that believes its all orchestrated by reptilians or something?
Doesn’t really matter, all those options make you a horrible person
The concept of having more then two parties does indeed stupify the liberal mind.
For the haters, the limit is one.
There will be no third party. The bank rolled two party system needs two bags of dildos and they will stop at nothing to crush any change from the bottom. The third party will be split between two optically moderates from both parties as plants. The stank yanks got amnesia… talking out both sides of the mouth unable to balance their contradictions. It is agonizing to watch since I share their inheritance.
Jesus Christ can you at least write like a normal person? Why can’t Americans just admit that their country suck and leave it at that?
It’s a good question. Because our land is beautiful and a lot of us are working to keep it that way. Because we still see lots of people trying to come here for a better life. There are much fewer now, and a lot of us have deep shame for what the asshole in power has done to their communities. Despite appearances, a lot of us respect and admire them for taking the hard, unwanted jobs that nevertheless still need to get done. We still believe in what the Statue of Liberty stands for despite anything the asshole tries to do to it. Yes, we functionally conquered the world when we became the sole superpower after the Soviet Union fell apart. But we also led the world with science, inventions, entertainment, and aid. That’s lost now, and a lot of us deeply resent everyone who had a hand in ruining that.
We are still working to make ourselves better.
Oh. So it’s because you haven’t studied history. Got it.
Read your words. You are trying to reclaim a lost position of “goodness” for the USA, that was lost through the bad actions of bad people. You are trying to reclaim the position of helping the world, being a beautiful country that respects others and is welcoming.
We call that “Blue MAGA”. You’re imagining a time before the Rs fucked everything up and trying to move “forward” to reclaim the position of “good”.
The USA was never good. Not only did FDR put anyone vaguely asian looking into concentration camps, the administration stole all of their commercial property and wealth. Not only that, but the FDR administration established the entirety of racial redlining. The USA has been at war for >90% of its existence, and half of the years it wasn’t at war, it was engaged in the massive chattel slavery and maintenance of the genocide of indigenous peoples. The USA wasn’t taken over by racist pedophilic raping oligarchs, it was founded by them. Trump doesn’t hold a candle to the evils of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington.
As long as you believe in some mythical past where the USA was a net good for the world, you will never be able to understand why the rest of the world wants to see your country destroyed and dismantled.
I understand. My question was: why can’t Americans NOT involve Russia, china or whichever other superpower to make themselves seem better? It’s ok to just admit that you suck and leave it at that.
I didn’t downvote you. I think the answer to that is that all humans everywhere, Americans included, want to immediately jump to whatabboutism to save face.