• Hmm [none/use name]
    ·
    3 years ago

    Your description of Russia actually makes it sound more like Japan's modernization period.

    • Z_Poster365 [none/use name]
      ·
      3 years ago

      However you twist history around to justify your eternal westoid hate of Russia is up to you.

      • Hmm [none/use name]
        ·
        3 years ago

        I've yet to see any possibility of you having any sort of threshold of "if this is true then some conclusion I previously arrived at is wrong". You started at a conclusion and worked backwards, in part to flatten nuance and frame Russia in a way that lets you be uncritically supportive. This is clear given how you make bold statements and then refuse to ever actually even say "well, that might've been an overstatement" or "that's a good point that I hadn't considered before that highlights the complexity of our situation".

        You just stick to your guns regardless of what others say, resorting to name calling when nothing else is left. Your crusading is unprincipled moralizing and quite literally undialectical.

        • Z_Poster365 [none/use name]
          ·
          3 years ago

          My stance is principled anti-imperialism and sticking to a line, instead of the unprincipled moral purity obsession of the west.

          • Hmm [none/use name]
            ·
            edit-2
            3 years ago

            The way you're "sticking to a line" is unprincipled 'anti-imperialism' considering how you choose to flatten out all nuance. You can't even admit when you're slightly wrong about something. (This is NOT to overlook how people also try to hide behind 'nuance' to also take an unprincipled stance, as many radlibs have done recently regarding Ukraine.)

              • Hmm [none/use name]
                ·
                3 years ago

                You've refused to reckon with the clear contradiction in your reasoning that I pointed out in the second half of this comment: https://hexbear.net/post/198201/comment/2494868

                You also refused to even accept that your original statement about Russian media coverage was too strong. I wouldn't give someone trouble for making a self-correction like that in most instances. Overtstating things is often an honest mistake made in the moment. But you haven't yet taken the opportunity to do this even though I explicitly presented it to you: https://hexbear.net/post/198201/comment/2494909

                • Z_Poster365 [none/use name]
                  ·
                  3 years ago

                  I don’t see this as a contradiction. Westerners should primarily be focused on destroying their own empire and avoid joining any chorus that villainize the target of their own empire. Outspoken criticisms of enemies only serves to empower the imperialist narrative and framing.

                  We should of course use critical thought and Marxian lens to suss out the truth, and the truth appears to be that Russia is winning this war and that it is heavily damaging the empire. Using a historical materialist lens we can see that Russia has the economy of a colonized developing nation and not that of an advanced imperialist state (resource based economy, low capital, high amounts of foreign capital and compradors). We can see that Russia is aligned with AES states almost universally. Their position as a target of the empire has forced them to become anti-imperialist to continue to survive.

                  It’s only a “contradiction” if you already assume Ukrainian sources are true, Russia is getting destroyed and also being very evil. I don’t think we should suppress the hidden truth of Ukraine victories and imperialist Russia, because it simply isn’t the truth. I used 2 rhetorical tactics in that thread, first trying to reason using anti-imperialist principles and second, bludgeoning them as chauvinists and social imperialists when they refused to budge

                  • Hmm [none/use name]
                    ·
                    3 years ago

                    Thank you. Your positions are now much clearer to me. There are some parts of this I agree with and others I dispute to some lesser or greater extent. I'd like to respond properly, but it may be some time before I do since I have other things I need to do.