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
So because NATO previously looted Russia that makes it more ok for NATO to attack them now?
I'm not pro NATO or think it's OK for NATO to do anything it has done. Where did I say it was ok for NATO to do anything? NATO shouldn't exist. And neither should the Russian federation. Bring back the USSR. Russian federation only exists because NATO destroyed the USSR through US-backed privatization and looting.
As I have said like 10 times already, fence sitting as a westerner is supporting NATO and failing your duty
how am I fence sitting when I said NATO/US/EU caused this war and also destroyed the USSR? Like if Ukraine and Russia were both still socialist and part of the USSR, and if NATO didn't exist, none of this would possible.
I won’t be happy until people here just are virulently anti-west in all scenarios and work to bring down their own empire instead of sitting back and enjoying the carnage. You live inside a Nazi regime, your inaction is complicity, and your attack of the enemies of your regime is a betrayal of socialism and internationalism
I agree with your political conclusions that being anti-west is necessary in all scenarios but not your characterization that comrades enjoy the carnage.
You live inside a Nazi regime, your inaction is complicity, and your attack of the enemies of your regime is a betrayal of socialism and internationalism
Socialism is the enemy of the United States, which is the imperial center of gravity. The Russian federation and Ukraine are both products of the destruction of the USSR by the United States. To the extent that the Russian federation is an "enemy" of the united states, it is only because it stands in the way of Unipolar US hegemony, but not in the way of Capitalism itself. I sincerely hope the bourgeois Russian government is ousted and Communists take power in Russia again. And I hope the same for the US. You're right, inaction is complicity. I'll try to demonstrate more against my country's actions, even if it gets me and my family tortured and killed.
There are multiple people in this thread who have literally said “let them fight”. That comes off as calloused glee to me, and a complete failure of critical support and revolutionary defeatism
It would be more coherent to address your objections to those people specifically than assume everyone who is commenting believes that.
Look, I'm not going to engage with you. It's not fair to attack other people because I won't give you the reaction you want.
The user above asked for specific examples of chauvinism, I was pointing right at you. You can go away if you want
You've never read my other posts, huh. I'm a self-hating landback type. Hating :cracker: is kinda one of my primary traits. I just don't lick Putin's asshole every time I open my mouth, which is your minimum requirement for a good post
You claim to hate the US yet you spread US propaganda about its enemies, curious
:very-intelligent:
You have yet to figure out the concepts of revolutionary defeatism, imperialism and critical support
You don’t read my posts do you? I have plenty of posts pointing out issues with Russian government structure, tactics, strategy.
There is literally nothing “support” about your critical support.
when you say tactics and strategy, do you mean to say that your criticism of Russia is that they aren't prosecuting the war effectively?
Yes, but also other areas.
For example, just yesterday I said that I don’t approve of Russia’s strategy of abandoning territory to save the lives of their troops if that means leaving behind sympathetic civilians that would be tortured and killed by the Ukrainians as traitors and collaborators.
I’ve also joined in with @granit in criticizing their neoliberal central bank policies, for example.
I shouldn’t even need to do these things to prove anything to you though. You should be following revolutionary defeatism.
You live inside a Nazi regime, your inaction is complicity, and your attack of the enemies of your regime is a betrayal of socialism and internationalism
what do you view as action in this case? is there a specific metric you have in mind for what meets your expectations?
I will not voice uncritical support for any country that actively attacks LGBTQIA+ people.
Organizing with whoever will join you to call for peace and and end to material support to Ukraine for weapons. Denouncing NATO. Calling for the dissolution of NATO. Not repeating anti-Russia propaganda.
Its clear you won’t voice critical support either, just sit on the fence. I assume you will be consistent in your take and denounce Palestine equally as Israel?
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.
yeah, "into the pipeline" I think nails it. i feel like this meme would be better aimed at the libs and socdems falling for the "NATO is protecting ukraine from Russian imperialism" BS than it is an adequate end goal for everyone's foreign policy takes.
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
If chauvinists reveal themselves in a time of crisis then all the better, but you don't fight against it by just stanning the opposite side to the other dudes lmao
Lenin didn't spend all day defending the German and Austro-Hungarian war effort
He did excoriate and scold his local Kautskyites and social chauvinists though, which is what we are doing here.
Famous for being social chauvinists who refused to do revolutionary defeatism, like anyone in here who doesn’t land firmly on one side of this conflict. Revolutionary defeatism is not fence sitting, it entails siding firmly against your own side and with the enemy of your side
Then I think you might be confused what revolutionary defeatism means. You're right it is aligning yourself against your own government, but it most certainly is not unflinchingly supporting the other guy. It's not "fence-sitting" to recognize the proletariat has absolutely nothing to gain from the war in any outcome, unless you think Lenin was a Kautskyite chauvinist, revolutionary defeatism means seizing the opportunity of bougies being weak and disunited to seize proletarian power by trying to turn the war into civil war. This is why NATO collectively shitting themselves and killing themselves with sanctions would be a good consequence of the war -- provides an ample opportunity for communists to agitate against their own governments, provided you actually seize it. Likewise, Russian communists should oppose the war and fight against their own government, not unflinchingly support NATO, no? (if KRPF and Zyuganov weren't cucked to Putin, that is). This doesn't require you to sit on any "side", quite the opposite, since revolutionary defeatism inherently acknowledges that communists should take no side, but take advantage of it to sabotage and rally against their own state in whatever way they can.
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.
What Russian communists should do is outside the scope of this discussion because nobody here is a Russian communist. I’ll let them figure this one out
Lenin worked with the German imperialists to overthrow the Tsar. Fanon joined the French imperialists to shoot Nazis. Marx worked with the Ottoman imperialists to weaken European powers. Revolutionary defeatism ABSOLUTELY means working with the opposing capitalists
Lenin worked with the German imperialists to overthrow the Tsar. Fanon joined the French imperialists to shoot Nazis. Marx worked with the Ottoman imperialists to weaken European powers.
That would still fall under taking advantage of the conflict when an opportunity arises, not supporting the other side, no? Lenin took the train ride, not dedicated the rest of his career to singing the praises of Kaiser Wilhelm II's anti-imperialism lol
The Fanon example is also out of place. If you claim people should unflinchingly support the opposite side in a capitalist war, shouldn't Fanon be on the German side?
Edit:
What Russian communists should do is outside the scope of this discussion because nobody here is a Russian communist. I’ll let them figure this one out
This line is also sussy, what difference would it make which side of the war you're on? Is Russian Kautskyism excused?
I don’t believe Russia is imperialist or that this is an inter-imperialist war, so I don’t think that Russian socialists should use the tactic of revolutionary defeatism here - just like Libyan socialists under Gaddafi should not have exercised revolutionary defeatism while imperialists were invading and destroying the nation.
Revolutionary Defeatism is the duty of socialists in an imperialist nation. Not the duty of socialists in a non-imperialist capitalist nation under attack from imperialists.
Is Russia today engaged in capitalist imperialism? The answer is contradictory. In the first place, the answer is a plain no. Callinicos wants to call only the ‘top six’ countries imperialist; it is then wholly artificial for him to include Russia among them. More fundamentally, the Russian economy is primarily agricultural and extractive, with significant secondary line in arms exports; and there is not - yet - a fully-autonomous banking sector. On the contrary, Russian ‘foreign direct investments’ consist of individual oligarchs pulling cash out of the Russian domestic economy and putting it into prestige objects like Chelsea FC or real estate. It is not investment of capital: that is, money put to work as investments, which return a profit through the application of capital and labour in combination. If the US wins this proxy war, Russia will more or less rapidly become a semi-colony.
On the other side, Russia might become capitalist-imperialist - if it devises financial mechanisms independent of Swift, etc, and wins this war. Japan in 1894 was not an imperialist power, but victory over China in the war of 1894-95 made it into one, with the annexation of Taiwan. The Russo-Japanese war of 1904 could have reduced Japan to the status of a semi-colony of Russia; Japanese victory produced, instead, annexation of Korea and clear Japanese entry into the ranks of the great powers. Going further back, but similarly, Germany in 1870 was not an imperialist power. Prussian victory over France in that year provided the conditions for both German unification and an imperialist expansion.
1870
1870 is a better guide to our political tasks than either 1914 or 1940. As Mason asserts and Callinicos accepts, the workers’ movement cannot possibly use this war to challenge for power, as the 1912 Second International Congress at Basel urged and as Lenin and Zinoviev urged in 1914. We do not have a powerful mass movement, built up over decades, which could pose an international alternative.
Equally, however, this is not 1940. The Russian regime is authoritarian, but not fascist. There have not been mass arrests of oppositionists, as in spring 1933 in Germany, but merely harassment and repression of protests. There continue to be multi-party elections - violently skewed in favour of United Russia, true, but Republicans and Tories aspire to skew elections in the US and Britain in their favour too. Our own states increasingly demand police permission for demonstrations, and so on. Russia plays footsy with far-right nationalists - but so does the ‘west’ - and not only in Ukraine. To advocate a people’s front with ‘liberal’ imperialism - as Callinicos rightly says Mason does - for fear of Russian ‘fascism’, is to repeat the betrayals of the Eustonites and other ‘left’ backers of the invasion of Iraq.
In 1870 Germany was not yet an imperialist power. The war appeared to be a war launched by French emperor Louis Bonaparte (Napoleon III). French victory would have prevented German unification and secured the subordination of the Germanies as semi-colonies. The left had small and divided forces. But Wilhelm Liebknecht and August Bebel - leaders of an organisation less than 10,000 strong who by chance held parliamentary seats - raised their voices against the Prussian regime and its war plans. Their principled commitment - ‘Not a penny, not a man for this system’ - allowed German social democracy to build a voice of unambiguous opposition to the regime under which they lived, which was able to grow on a mass scale because it offered a voice of unequivocal opposition.
Today, again, the left has small and divided forces. But we can raise our voices against our own state’s wars: and by doing so take a stand which in the long term can rally forces for unequivocal opposition to the warmongering imperialist regime under which we live.
Even if we're gonna ignore Russia's resource extraction and super-profits in Central Asia, the reason Russia is not part of the big boy imperialists is because they've been denied a seat at the big boy table at every turn. It's not as if they didn't try to join NATO or cozy up to the US, the fact that they're currently aligned against them is less out of Russia's goodwill and more the consequence of decades of US foreign policy blunders and hostility toward Russia. The only way Russia can be imperialist in a world already conquered by the US is to go through them and try to secure a foothold, which is what this war is about. Once again your example is weird, Libya was attacked not the one attacking like in this case. Are you saying Ukrainians should not exercise revolutionary defeatism?
Russia did not start this or “attack”. NATO threw a fascist coup in 2014, started a civil war and just before the current crisis they prepared invasion of Donbas and did massive artillery strikes in breach of ceasefire. Russia is the victim of imperialism here, of imperialist sanctions and encroachment and encirclement
Ukrainian army is fascist arm of imperialism so Ukrainians should absolutely exercise revolutionary defeatism.
If they cared at all about 2014, they wouldn't have taken 8 years to do anything about it. The reason Russia was not accepted into the big boys club is because they're a little too big to leave the US unilateral control over the imperialist bloc, which is why they've tried to contain them as much as possible, that much is true, but it really doesn't make a difference when it comes to their intentions. Why do you think Russia would care about being excluded and ostracized from global imperialist system if they didn't want you to participate in it? What exactly do you think Russia's long term goals are here, and what do you think they'd be doing had the US not been around? Imperialism is not just something the bad countries do, it's an economic inevitability. Russia's problem is that their imperialism is limited to their former backyard of Central Asia at the moment, and to fix that they gotta do like capitalist countries do, and expand. I have no fucking clue how people keep falling for capitalist countries' cynical justification for their actions both on the NATOid and Russian side
The fact that you can pick and choose which countries should do revolutionary defeatism and even imply there is such a thing as a good capitalist war just tells me there's nothing of worth left discussing here lol
I suppose you don’t support Palestine then, they are capitalist and conservative. Israel-Palestine conflict is just an inter-capitalist war
I’m not going to bother responding to this load of moralizing ultra drivel
Small oppressed nation fighting against settlers and colonizers vs former empire upset that they've been denied their share of imperialist spoils so they decide to secure a place in the sun on their own :thinking-about-it:
ultra
You know someone's not mad when the snarl words come out lmao, eat my ass Kautskyite
Ukraine is a "small oppressed" nation? Just a smol bean fascist NATO base. "fighting against settlers and colonizers" is that really what you think Azov was doing in Donbas? Your lack of material analysis is a disgrace to your name
Got it, thought you were framing the Ukrainian conflict this way.
Your arguments are that of an anarcho-bidenist and you refuse revolutionary defeatism, not sure how that makes me the kautskyite. I attack my own country, that's not what kautsky did
Your arguments are that of a duginist multipolarista. See? I, too, can say a bunch of garbage instead of actually engaging with your post
The anarcho-bidenists are the ones doing lesser evil-ism and praising NATO's mutual military aid and whatever the fuck, you're doing the same thing but for the opposite side lol. Or rather, you're making the same mistake as them by even think there are two sides when it's just bougies fighting eachother with proles stuck in the middle getting slaughtered. I ask again, should Russians also do revolutionary defeatism and fight back against their own government? If your answer is no, then you've given up on revolutionary defeatism by admitting there is such a thing as a good side in a capitalist war. At that point, stop hiding behind revolutionary defeatism and just call yourself pro-Russia outright
You conveniently skipped over Marx and Engels raising funds for the Ottomans
Marx also supported reformists and succdems in England, doesn't mean I'm gonna do it :lenin-laugh:
You conveniently skipped like half of my comments so I don't think there's anything more to discuss
There's two very big difference between WWI and the decades since then:
-
The existence of socialism. Socialism didn't exist in WWI, neither in principled nor revisionist forms. Democratic socialism and social democracy didn't exist either, the closest being the Kingdom of Sweden, which acted more like a failed imperialist has-been empire than a progressive force. Successful national liberation struggles that captured state power and were able to expel imperialists from their lands didn't really exist during WWI either, the closest being Liberia and Ethiopia. The Republic of China was controlled by the comprador beiyang government, Iran was also semi-colonized, and the rest of the world can be neatly divided between imperialist powers and imperialized colonies. This is not at all today where you have various progressive countries like Bolivia as well as countries like China which constitutes a form of socialism or at least a progressive force if you don't believe they're actually socialist.
-
The existence of fascism. Fascism also didn't exist in WWI. And there's a qualitative difference standard liberal barbarism as articulated by Rosa Luxemburg and the absolute debased barbarism as demonstrated by rabid fascists. A proven tactic towards opposing fascism is the united front, where socialists tactically unite with various progressive liberal forces to stomp out fascism. Because at the end of the day, fascists should be dealt with by shoving them into woodchippers feet first. They should be thrown down wells and have grenades thrown at their broken mangled bodies to make sure they stay dead. British soldiers charging no-man-lands to kill German soldiers is a tragedy because it's workers killing workers while British soldiers charging the machine gun nests at Normandy to kill German soldiers is an act of heroism towards ridding the world of fascist dogs.
It's the simultaneous existence of both socialism and fascism that greatly complicates the application of revolutionary defeatism. Like seriously, how would revolutionary defeatism pan out during WWII? Do nothing until Nazi Germany invaded the Soviet Union, in affect copying the absolute opportunistic vulture that is the US? Obviously, when your revolutionary theory makes you act in almost the exact same way as the US, it's time to go back to the drawing board and think things over.
As for Russia vs Ukraine, how you evaluate the conflict goes back to my two points. Russia may not be socialist, but Ukraine isn't exactly free of fascism either. At a certain point, it doesn't matter how far from socialism Russia has fallen from if it can demonstrated that Ukraine has been completely consumed by fascism.
-
Lenin didn’t spend all day defending the German and Austro-Hungarian war effort
He did, however, spend all day scolding the “socialists” around him to stop being chauvinists when they spent all day talking about enemy imperialists instead of focusing on their own bourgeoise, their own nation.
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
Lol, I hope the SCO wins. I just think Russian Federation stans cling too hard to black-and-white reasoning and think they're annoying. Who'dve thought geopolitics is multifaceted.
Ironically it’s you that is using a shallow surface level stance and the “Russia Stans” who have the most nuanced understanding of the Ukrainian conflict
I think at the end of the day it is moralism. They have a deep, deep seated hatred of Russia and Russia is always evil and bad to them. That colors their judgment and makes them take the incorrect stance, when they may otherwise have seen the truth clearly (Compare support for Libya or Palestine, which few here would oppose, to support for Russia. All of them are capitalist nations being colonized and attacked by imperialists, but only 2 of the 3 get any type of critical support… for some reason)
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
It's not like I'm out helping America in the war effort, I'm just expressing my opinions and having a discussion on an online bear form. In real life, I don't do any anti-Russian action, I don't do any pro-Russian action, and I don't do any pro-American action.
Do you do any anti-American action? Your duty as an internationalist socialist is to oppose and damage your own empire, and not attack others. Simple as.
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.
I would add another tier right in the middle. Capitalist nation that is begrudgingly anti-imperialist because it’s under imperialist attack, but nonetheless an anti-imperialist force and ally to the higher tiers.
That’s where I would put Iran, Russia, Syria, Libya under Gaddafi, Belarus, Kazakhstan, etc.
Then I would say only those living in the bottom 2 have an obligation to use revolutionary defeatism.
-
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.
