The Hungary schlock they refer to was of course a gladio-style CIA backed color revolution in which Hungarian fascist death squads were purging Jews, Roma, and Communists.
Awesome! Cool! Dope!
Huh, reading the comments...
TIL that The Intercept's founder, billionaire Pierre Omidyar, funded the Ukrainian coup in 2014
:agony-shivering:
if only the mass of people knew how bad things really are
article has 700 likes, single comment pointing out Omidyar helped fund the coup has 2.2k
posting cringe + L + Omidyar face looks like a rucksack + ratio
No, we don't. We use materialist analysis to see WHY Putin is doing what he's doing, but I suppose that's "defending behavior" to these dipshits.
"You're either with us or you're against us." - The Bush Admin on the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan.
No honey it's okay when the US invades countries on bogus claims
They will be using this war to further criminalise leftists in any way they can. They already have been trying to associate Putin and Modern Russia with the Soviet Union and Communism.
Biden coming out and saying that Putin wants to "reestablish the former Soviet Union" was a huge tell.
"Maybe there's more to this than just 'Putin is insane'"
Fuck you. You might as well be tried at the Hague for war crimes.
I'm convinced Americans have been so inundated with "good guy/bad guy" stories their whole lives that materialism breaks their brains.
Oh but you see, if you can explain how the gas chambers in Auschwitz worked, you're obviously a nazi and you support industrialised mass murder.
What is this in reference to? Is there a misconception about the gas chambers I'm unaware of, or is this a dig at "being educated enough to recognise the reasons for war makes you an enemy."
He’s making a joke because of what the person above him said. like if making any attempt at understanding how putin operates makes someone a tankie or fascist or etc then by the same logic, understanding how the nazis gas chambers worked makes someone also a nazi
Tankie: Someone to the left of the official US bi-party who doesn't believe every word the state department says.
I was only a kid back when everyone wouldn't shut the fuck up about Saddam Hussein but I guess it must have been a lot like this
It’s sort of close. I think the big difference between then and now is you can stay quiet now, but then if you didn’t actively suck off the administration you were in league with the axis of evil
That's interesting because back then in the UK being against it was fucking easy but now if I'm not deepthroating Ukrainian dick I'm pro-russia apparently.
and amongst all that patriotic nonsense you occasionally saw articles like this which, while far from being a complete understanding of history, still managed to undermine the dogshit narratives nearly everyone was lapping up.
Don't Be a Tankie
"Tankie" is a completely meaningless term, so no problem.
it is a slander leveled at anyone who talks about what the USA has been up to since 1776, but it is especially used against people who talk about US-backed fascist coups, or people who are willing to admit "controversial figures" on the left did anything good in their lives (usually Lenin and Stalin and Mao, but I've seen "tankie" even leveled at defenders of Thomas Sankara, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Hugo Chavez, Nicolas Maduro, or Evo Morales)
It is a slander aimed at anyone vaguely doing or saying anything correct that threatens the establishment.
It will evolve to antifa levels of uselessness. And anarchists who previously got called antifa will get called tankies when they protest anything even slightly militantly.
listen fat, i beat the tankie, i beat bernie gorbeltsin in the 1984 demopublican primary. that warhawk didn't stand a chance. he tried to shell parliament, i challenged him to pushups, he couldn't even do one, can you imagine that? my wife doctor jill nye the science guy laughed at him.
Not necessarily, there were gangs that tried to purge minorities and it's probable that secret agencies were involved (even though the only evidence is an interview with Sebastian Gorka's father from 2011) but he emphasizes a minor part of the happenings in a very chaotic situation and omits things like that a common slogan among the workers councils that shut down the country was "we're not giving anything back" and organized defensive forces against the fash gangs too. So i'd say it's biased analysis rather than factually wrong.
This does pre-suppose that the US not doing the most in that region at that time and that is not a claim that fits other observeable data.
You are right that we don't have conclusive evidence about clandestine agencies. However given their behavior I really feel like it can be reasonably assumed.
Sure, it can be assumed and i didn't suggest otherwise (in the right wing collective memory it lives on as an event "where the West failed Hungary"), i just said outright dismissing what happened in Hungary as a color revolution is not necessarily sound analysis.
It's true that color revolutions need some underlying social factors to get started but especially as if didn't work there must not of have been that strong a base of support.
Abolition of communism didn't have a strong base support though, that's why JS' analysis is biased.
And that's basically Maidan too, right? There was an organic movement within the country it's just the US/NATO used it for their own ends?
Which works. Cause it means when there are groups with legitimate grievance the government has to keep then down just in case the CIA finds out and gets claws into it.
That's why we should be in those movements and directing them towards radical ends. If the CIA and fascists are there, we need to be there too, opposing them wherever they pop up.
thanks for that thoughtful feedback, I'll keep that in mind.
Is anyone on the left defending Russia? I can't think of any reasons a leftist would support what is happening.
understanding the economic conditions of the post-soviet states and how the US has been taking advantage of those conditions in order to destabilize, divide, conquer, and profit off of post-soviet states is, in the eyes of liberals, the same as defending Putin.
Pointing out Putin's presidency and the oligarchic control of the Russian economy is a direct consequence of a US-backed coup in 1993 is, in the eyes of liberals, the same as defending Putin.
Pointing out the warnings against expanding NATO by military officials in the late 90s is, in the eyes of liberals, the same as defending Putin.
Try any of these strategies outside of a Marxist-Leninist space and you will feel the wrath of liberals. Especially American liberals, and even the small cadre of elected "socialists" (barely even social democrats ) like Bernie and the squad are backing up the dem party line with respect to US foreign policy.
Some people are critically supporting Russia against the US/NATO (iirc this is the /r/genzedong party line). A much smaller group go further into full support of Russia out of the misguided belief that this is a black and white conflict, where "NATO bad" must mean "Russia good".
As Thomas_Dankara says, however, these allegations are mostly being thrown at anyone who so much as says "Hey maybe NATO isn't the good guys".
I mean it's okay to write and publish an op-ed that's completely baseless, manipulative and only delivers rhetorical tools to shut down opposition. It's fine. It won't matter anyway, NATO is completely immune to public opinion
I am a pseudo leftist
yes we are that
we are 100% that
Secretly I am a Nazi, this is why I bully socdems
reactionary sleeper cell, boughta make r/main look like Battle of Marawi
I normally like the Intercept, but that article was stuck on "tankies can't see Putin is bad" instead of addressing the actual points we're making.
https://hexbear.net/post/178850/comment/2221577
Huh, reading the comments...
TIL that The Intercept's founder, billionaire Pierre Omidyar, funded the Ukrainian coup in 2014
