EDIT: I'm very proud of this community. All the posts are making me think and solidly criticizing from an anti-imperialist perspective. Thanks, hexbear
The both-sides purity chauvinism would make Lenin mad too. He advocated revolutionary defeatism, which is attacking your own government and not being neutral/both sides
Both sidesism that includes your side is fence sitting and is not “opposing first and foremost your own nation”
Both sidesism that includes your side is fence sitting
I didn't include "My side". None of these bourgeois nations or international institutions represent the working class.
I think Russia's invasion was strategically necessary from a bourgeois nationalist perspective of protecting themselves from NATO expansion, and I absolutely think NATO/US/EU carry the largest responsibility in provoking the war. We should stand against all forms of bourgeois nationalism, while recognizing Russia and Ukraine as victims of US imperialism, and a byproduct of US-backed privatization in the 90s. I hope this isn't right deviationism but feel free to correct and critique this stance.
So you aren’t a Leninist? Lenin is talking about foreign capitalist nations and how attacking them while your own imperialist nation is at war is a form of imperialist intrigue. You are just doing ultraleftism right now and not principled Leninism.
The difference between organizing around the two:
Principled: Oppose NATO and work to stop weapon shipments and push for peaceful negotiation as soon as possible
Unprincipled: oppose everyone equally and sit on your ass going “let them fight”
So you aren’t a Leninist? Lenin is talking about foreign capitalist nations and how attacking them while your own imperialist nation is at war is a form of imperialist intrigue. You are just doing ultraleftism right now and not principled Leninism.
The US/NATO/EU are responsible for the war, and they're also responsible for the Russian federation existing in its current form. I don't think I'm doing "imperialist intrigue" since Russian Federation wouldn't exist in the first place if it weren't for US/NATO/EU. If I criticize Russian Federation in any way, it is only insofar as they are a direct result of US imperialism. Hope that makes sense. Same goes for Ukraine and any other post-soviet country. They're all victims of US imperialism. To the extent that the meme is an incomplete or lazy metaphor, I apologize. I was hoping it could pipeline libs away from a pro-NATO stance but if it fails at that, maybe it needs to be rethought.
Principled: Oppose NATO and work to stop weapon shipments and push for peaceful negotiation as soon as possible
Unprincipled: oppose everyone equally and sit on your ass going “let them fight”
I don't oppose everyone equally or think the fighting should continue. I'd agree that a peaceful negotiation is necessary as soon as possible. But I don't see NATO relenting, or Russia letting its guard down, or the Ukraine govt. accepting any peace terms put forward by Russia.
So because NATO previously looted Russia that makes it more ok for NATO to attack them now? I don’t follow your convoluted logic to get out of revolutionary defeatism
I think this is a fantastic meme to get people into the pipeline. Propagandizing requires tact. The less you say, the more likely people are to engage with it. While it would be cool if there were some meme out there that condensed all of ML theory into a funny wojak face, this is a pretty good way of explaining a current issue without immediately turning your audience against you.
As far as online activitism goes, I think our primary responsibility is to plant the seeds of class consciousness. This thread is proof that your meme can successfully facilitate the right kind of discussions.
Calling bourgeois states that are the enemy of your own imperialist bourgeois nation “bad” during war is indeed chauvinism and failing your internationalist duty
I'm sure the russian war effort was severely impacted by this meme on an obscure bear enthusiast forum
It does represent the prevailing stance in even the "radical" western left and that's the best case scenario since the prevailing stance is more pro NATO than even that. So it's naturalfor users to try and push back and argue against it
I'm just being annoying because I've got better stuff to do than argue this.
So...bye!
This shallow surface-level refusal to engage with context and just have a pithy remark is exactly why you are coming to the wrong conclusions
Palestine, Iran, Yemen, Syria, Libya are all evil and bad! They are just as evil as NATO. Let them fight
revolutionary defeatism only works when one of the sides isn't a capitalist bourgeoisie state. I am revolutionarily defeatist in that I want the capitalist nations in this conflict to lose
That’s absolutely false. The term was coined for WW1, where all sides were imperialists. You are failing your international duty, please read Lenin
Revolutionary defeatism is a concept made most prominent by Vladimir Lenin in World War I. It is based on the Marxist idea of class struggle. Arguing that the proletariat could not win or gain in a capitalist war, Lenin declared its true enemy is the imperialist leaders who sent their lower classes into battle. Workers would gain more from their own nations' defeats, he argued, if the war could be turned into civil war and then international revolution.
- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolutionary_defeatism
NATOpedia, I know, but this really isn't that objectionable of a definition.
America's defeat in this conflict will not lead to a civil war. The primary motivation here is to take the opportunity of destabilization to build socialism - not only will there be no destabilization as a result of a US loss in Ukraine, but even if the US should become destabilized, it's not hard to see that our scales are tipped far in favor of fascism and against socialism. And since the stakes are about the same for the US and Russia, I want for the bourgeoisie of both sides to suffer.
I have read more Lenin than a Wikipedia article, I promise. Revolutionary defeatism is a good and valid theory but Lenin lived before the age of proxy wars and like all theory, it needs to be evaluated in a different light after time passes. Lenin's writings aren't a permanently immutable bible.
edit: to more directly address your terms, in the language of Lenin and his own theory of revolutionary defeatism, as an American I want my side to lose, and as a proletarian I stand in solidarity and share the interests of Russians who want their side to lose. I hold both of these in equal standing.
For the Socialist of another country cannot expose the government and bourgeoisie of a country at war with “his own” nation, and not only because he does not know that country’s language, history, specific features, etc., but also because such exposure is part of imperialist intrigue, and not an internationalist duty.
He is not an internationalist who vows and swears by internationalism. Only he is an internationalist who in a really internationalist way combats his own bourgeoisie, his own social-chauvinists, his own Kautskyites.
(b) In every country the Socialist must above all emphasise in all his propaganda the need to distrust not only every political phrase of his own government, but also every political phrase of his own social-chauvinists, who in reality serve that government.
-Lenin
Are the Russian Leninists wrong for wanting the defeat of their own country in this conflict? If so, why? If not, why am I wrong to stand with them if they are right?
Are you a Russian Leninist? No, you are a western one so worry about your own duty that you are failing before pointing fingers across the sea
Also, I caught your accusation earlier that I didn't know that revolutionary defeatism applies to world war 1 - I don't really know what you're basing that on, but as someone interested in the concept, you might appreciate knowing that the concept is actually older than the specific verbage, and originates from the Russo-Japanese war.
You said that Revolutionary Defeatism only applies when one side isn’t imperialist/capitalist. That’s false. It was invented for a war where all sides were imperialist.
should I not desire the defeat of the government of other revolutionary classes? If they should desire the defeat of their government, should I not stand alongside my fellow revolutionaries around the world? I get that we have our own problems domestically and I would never even briefly consider putting even the tiniest bit of organizational effort into helping the United States defeat one of its enemies, so where's the problem?
If you disagree with Leninist revolutionary defeatism and think those living in the imperial core should not practice it, make your case for why that is.
Don’t twist and distort concepts beyond recognition. At least do the reading and understand what you are talking about. No investigation, no right to speak.
I've generally been primarily critical of the US since before the beginning of this war, but I see your point. Leninist revolutionary defeatism is always necessary.
It’s not enough to be critical of the US. You have to oppose it first and foremost, which means not equivocating
You're right. it should be opposed first and foremost. The entire situation at present is a result of US imperialism going back decades. The fact that all sides produce self-serving bourgeois nationalist propaganda doesn't change that the imperial center of gravity is the USA, or that NATO is an imperialist tool, or that Ukraine and Russia are both victims of US imperialism.
I like how the Russian propaganda is the only one that can use an actual photo of their enemy
I mean, Russia waited five days after the artillery strikes stepped up before recognizing the LDNR independence (and signing mutual defense treaties with them, making it officially declared policy what would happen if the nazis didn't stop) , and three more days before starting the SMO. It was provoked, and I've read a Canadian lawyer saying it isn't even illegal under international law. Telesur's reporting is always more aligned with what the Russian government is claiming.
It's pretty clear to me what's going on, in case there was any doubt about how much I'm gay for authoritarian daddies Putin and Trump.
I’m gay for authoritarian daddies Putin and Trump
You jest, but it is interesting how often any type of debunking of western imperialist narratives is met with “you just want to suck dick/lick boot/lick butthole/bend over” and other overtly sexual and often homophobic/misogynistic attacks. Chauvinists reveal themselves, I remember being called a “Assadist dick sucker” on many occasions.
It's interesting how users on this website will sometimes make categorical statements that are easily disproven (in large part because of how the statements are categorical).
Here's an example of US news media using "an actual photo of their enemy": "Russian soldiers shot two unarmed civilians as they walked away after an encounter in the outskirts of the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv." - CNN
Bro I'm talking about the meme, you know the one that we're in a comment section for. Where the NATO side has some orc shit photoshop and the Russia side has a photo of Azov fighters posing with Azov, NATO, and Nazi flags.
If you want to start with the war crimes accusations and the best you can come up with after 7 months is a shooting of two civilians, I'm gonna start posting butterfly mine videos from Donetsk. This hasn't been a Russian propaganda site but buddy, I can make it one.
Ah, I see. I thought you were speaking generally rather than about the meme. My mistake.
Regarding my example, it was just the easiest for me to pull up for a quick counterexample to what I thought you were saying because I'd recently seen the footage of this particular incident. (For what it's worth, I've also seen stuff about the butterfly mines in Donetsk.)
Nah, this meme is good, actually. If you've reduced this situation to either side being the good/bad guy you've got MCU brain.
Nope the western imperialist hegemony promoting fascists worldwide are actually the bad guys.
Especially if you are a western socialist, it is your international duty to first and foremost expose and attack YOUR OWN GOVERNMENT and not the government of the enemy you are at war with. This is revolutionary defeatism, and if you are “both sidesing” then you are continuing the chauvinist betrayal of western socialism
Yeah, excuse me while I don't pick my favorite reactionary capitalist government. Best you're gonna get from me is a "Let them fight", no matter how many insults you toss at me.
Idealist purity moralizing fencesitting. Continuing the beautiful centuries long tradition of the failed western left that refuses to engage with geopolitics, the real world and context. Isn’t it embarrassing to be part of this trot tradition of both-sidesing everything to be above it all and gaining nothing in reality?
It gives me heart comfort to realize it’s not all socialists that are like this. There are principled communists in China, DPRK, Cuba, Vietnam and throughout the colonized world who know which side of the line to get on and how to engage dialectically with the world. This site is probably the best place in the English speaking internet and yet 50% of the population here is still chauvinist.
I really have no hope whatsoever for the western left until the west collapses and suffers deeply and is humiliated out of their brainworms of superiority (even the belief that any other entity on Earth is somewhat comparable to the American empire hegemony and colonial domination and murder/enslavement of millions is a form of brainworms. If they are ever putting the US on a scale against any enemy and coming up with “they are both bad” the scale is miscalibrated, specifically because they are a westoid most likely and have their thumb on the scale subconsciously with their own biases)
This site is probably the best place in the English speaking internet
lol
I read an interesting series of tweets from a Vietnamese communist once. He articulated four general tiers:
-
Socialist countries where the workers control the levels of power.
-
Global south capitalist countries that suffer under superexploitation.
-
Global north capitalist countries that reap the benefits of superexploitation.
-
Fascist countries that have been completely infested with fascists
with the general rule that if countries from different tiers are at war, you should almost always support the higher tier. In the end, he saw the Russian invasion of Ukraine in almost exactly the same way as the Vietnamese invasion of the Khmer Rouge, a fascist regime that had existed for far too long that needed to be put out of its misery for the sake of humanity.
-
The outcomes of this war are:
A. Western-backed oligarchs in charge in Ukraine
B. Russian-backed oligarchs in charge in Ukraine
C. No side gets what they want and the whole carnage was worthless
The war is a symptom of the US-led unipolar world order crumbling, not a cause. It is the fact that bourgies are fighting that is good, who the victor is literally does not make a difference. Should the Russian communists not also seize this opportunity to fight against their own government?
Judging and weighting what the likely outcome is of either bloc coming out on top of this conflict shouldnt just be confined into what happens with Ukraine within Ukraine it has much greater geopolitical and material ramifications all over the world. Also Ukraine being within Russias sphere of "influence" and militarily neutral was the more stable post 90s status quo that was unilateraly breached by western coups ,expansion and aggression and that didnt translate to the huge fascist-ification of the Ukrainian state so it does make a difference both for Russian and Ukrainian masses if its a US protectorat or if its forced to return into being a military toothless buffer state
Should the Russian communists not also seize this opportunity to fight against their own government?
Set up dual power structures and an effective opposition to the government, yes. Actively trying to topple the government now? Eh...
I think experience from 2014 Ukraine has shown to leftist opposition movements all around the world that heightening political instability while the center of Global Capital has you in their crosshairs is not the move.
Those are all shit outcomes, but I'd say B is objectively the least bad outcome. And C is the same as A really, since Ukraine is already ruled by Western-backed oligarchs.
Russian propaganda (the top right) is actually more accurate than than any of the other images
False consciousness, white supremacy, and labor aristocracy
So it should be us and EU pulling Ukraine towards the same direction/dismemberment but also the US horse being ahead and pulling apart the rider of the EU horse as well
I think no one should pull apart Ukraine, i think the EU and US and NATO should be pulled apart (also ukrainian nazis).
lol that would be a very complicated visual metaphor, though probably more accurate, yes
I think the imperial hierarchy is like this: America uses and exploits NATO as a tool to uses and exploit the EU as a tool to use and exploit Ukraine. Though even that might be an oversimplification.
I may not agree with you on everything but Jesus the flack you're getting for calling people out the both sides moralism is astonishing
Leaving a comment here so I can come back and find this thread when people try to tell me that hexbear doesn't have any Putin bootlickers
excellent and entirely cool meme OP :comfy-cool:
You didn’t even know that revolutionary defeatism applied to WW1, that’s how out of your depth you are discussing imperialism
People are attacking this meme for trying to both-sides the situation but I think the UN flag gives some nuance. The global "Rules-based Order" works for and benefits certain nations, and it ain't Russia or the Emergent Bloc. Also, Russia is only one of the horses.
Or maybe that's just my spin on it.
I guess some people are understandably knee-jerky about the "Neither Washington nor Moscow" rhetoric that often dominates Western leftist spaces. Some take any indictment of Russia as an aspiring imperial power (which it is) to mean that you see them in the same condemning light as the West.
Yup. I should also add that, while I echo the idea that Revolutionary Defeatism should take priority and that Leftists should be hard at work opposing their own imperial governments, the accusation from libs that we're supportive of Russia is something that needs to be combated, as it has been an effective thought-canceller even before this conflict (see: Iraq War opposers being called Saddam's Lackeys). Easier said than done, but needs to be considered.
It’s a much much stronger indictment of the west and the Ukrainian state than of Russia.
Your interpretation definitely says that, and you aren't really wrong. But was that what the creator meant, and is that what most people who see this will think it means?
i created it. yes it is what i meant. i was hoping to pipeline libs away from a pro-NATO stance with this but I ended up pissing off comrades instead because I made the mistake of not posting this somewhere like twitter.
:meow-popcorn: :antelope-popcorn: :party-parrot-popcorn: :popcorn-time: :meow-popcorn:
Donetskaya Narodnaya Respublik
Luganskaya Narodnaya Respublika
(The romanized Russian acronym, basically)
comrade, you don't gotta slap your forehead, I fell for an obvious photoshop the other day
this turned into quite the struggle session, good job comrades :popcorn-time:
What's the dude with the sword supposed to be doing? I though the point of this method of execution was to have the person ripped apart by the horses, but it looks like that guy is about the cleave the poor dude in half?
I think he gets the head when the horses are done, idk. you're asking the real questions
I think in this position the horses can't gain enough momentum for the force required to tear a person apart like that. I would guess the sword guy is there to do prep work so the horses can do the rest.
I'm glad the animals get some relief and don't need to work so hard.
Comrade sword guy, helping the hoofed proletariat.
