The bill bans any “medical interventions aimed at changing the sex of a person,” as well as changing one’s gender in official documents and public records.
The dissolution of the Soviet Union and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race
Russia is a far-right anti-lgbt country?
Show
Wow. I didn't know that. You're telling me now for the first time
Show
But Russia hacked the 2016 election to put mango mussolini in office, so american homophobia is also their fault. /j
Why I want the far right shitheads in Ukraine and Russia to wipe each other out
Wagner vs Aztov was literally nazi on nazi.
Imagine having a dog in that Shipshow of a war.
Wagner getting wiped out would be cool and good, but acting like their existence makes the outcome of the war indifferent or mutual destruction preferable is ridiculous. If Russia is defeated by NATO, do you know who is next? Even neoliberals admit that China is the greater foe. If China is defeated, what happens to Cuba?
Oh yeah Finland and Sweden joining and Ukraine actually having a chances to join nato really slowed nato expansion. All things that would not have happened or were at least decades aways from happening.
![fidel-wut](https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/a09540fc-b297-4c0f-a5c3-44a3de5871e1.png
Vlad is an idiot.
And ya, the mutual destruction of literally nazis and literally nazis by means of "denazification" is not only good its fucking hilarious.
I was not talking about reasons for starting the war but merely the hypothetical outcomes of one or both sides being left in ruin. It's clearly better that Russia not be left in ruin even if we concede that Putin should not have invaded (which I think is too much of a catch-22 to say so casually, but whatever).
It would probably be better if neither Russia or Ukraine were left in ruin. .. nato has a significantly longer arm since vlad invaded. There is no catch 22 if your argument is anti nato expansion. Sweden and Finland were obvious fine with staying out of nato. Ukraine was decades away from joining and Russia could prolong that as long as they continued to dispute... I don't know say some territories onthe Ukraine/Russia border..
There was 100 ways to have a buffer state that including territories Russia had support in. That would have not resulted in a full out war... or nato expansion. Bombing cities on Poland's border is bagging for nato expansion and action.
If putin invading had anything to do with nato expansion he is the dumbest person on the planet.
So there should have just been civil war in Ukraine forever or until the resistance in Donbas was flattened and the Banderites had every means to commit genocide on ethnic minority dissidents? Are we saying that this is the longterm strategy for Russia to have a buffer state, the complete destruction of its sympathizers in eastern Ukraine?
No, Russia could have rolled his tanks into territories he actually has support in and no one would have done shit. You going to argue against that ?
He is the one that decided to bomb the entire country. Like I can't express how stupid you would have to be to not expect nato to respond.
Now he is in a unwinnable war vs an actual army that has nato backing. He's stuck.. because now America's military industrial complex is in full force with bipartisan support.
Explain how that's bad for nato... that is their whole bit... Ukrainians and Russian will keep killing each other because of putins dogshit leadership and the west will make sure they continue to export death. Because their leadership is owned by the people that manufacture machines of death.
No, Russia could have rolled his tanks into territories he actually has support in and no one would have done shit. You going to argue against that ?
Yes? Technically I believe that is what they actually did at first (preceding the full invasion by just one to three days, I forget the exact timeline). Ukraine was already fervently bombing Donbas and the action would already be billed as an invasion. Sitting on the land would not prevent Ukrainian artillery bombardments from continuing to escalate. Yes, it's not as escalated a response, but it's also one that has no end in sight. Invading all of Ukraine has an end in sight, that being to either break the back of the Ukrainian military so they are not capable of carrying out those bombardments or else to force Ukraine to finally stop in exchange for Russia withdrawing. Whether that will succeed or not is its own question that I am not fit to answer, but it seems to me to be a much more coherent plan than "send your troops to Donbas to just die for the foreseeable future". "But more troops are dying now" Yes! They are! But it makes more sense of the level of them carrying out an operation that has a definite set of goals instead of just acting as sitting ducks getting slaughtered forever like you bizarrely propose.
They were literally bombing Kiev like a minute after putin said he was going to denazificate Ukraine. Lol
Puttin honestly thought he would take the capital with special forces.. who obviously ate shit.
Then they surround Kiev and at even more shit for months till they had to pull back.
Ya they killed a lot of Ukrainians but don't get it twisted Russia ate enough shit to move the goal posts over and over again.
sitting ducks getting slaughtered forever like you bizarrely propose.
I literally recommended Russia send tanks/ military to them in my post... more like you bizarrely made up . Lol
Maybe instead of having 200k troops spread out like dogshit, eating shit was not the best tactics. Maybe ... idk having them in the donbas would have been better... for you know protecting the people your so worried about.
I literally recommended Russia send tanks/ military to them in my post... more like you bizarrely made up . Lol
They get sent in and do what? Ukraine heavily relied on firing at them from a far distance (via artillery and a few snipers). Does the Russian military fire back? Then they have attacked Ukraine outside of Donbas on top of "invading" Ukraine generally by just being in Donbas!
They sure as fuck were not firing from kiev or lviv. That much I know.
I never said there would be no conflict. My point is if Vlads actual goal had anything to do Russians in donbas and nato expansion his actions do not show that. He thought he would roll ukraine before nato could reinforce them.
His focus was clearly the capital at the start. He then moved to mariupol... where he accomplished flattening the city while ironicly turning fucking nazis into martyrs.
I am done arguing. Vlad tried imperialism and ate shit. It's really that simple. Now nato is bigger and will probably be more aggressive then ever. The Ukrainian/Russia border will be a war zone for years. The American war machines chugs on. Good job, vlad.
Oh and all westerners get to pay for it.
I can forgive a person for thinking what you wrote is true, because it's what gets force-fed to everyone in the west by their bourgeois media and with immediate silencing of even the most mild dissent. But comrade, you need to educate yourself with some non-western sources as you have drunk deep from the NAFO koolaid cup. None of your comment is based in reality.
Lol go on point out where I am wrong.
putin should have sent 200k troops to the Donbas - Me
NAFO koolaid cup
Lol go on point out where I am wrong.
I would pretty much just be copy-pasting everything you've said so far on the topic and then have to type up a paragraph per sentence and I'm not interested in doing that, but I'll try to respond to just a couple things since you asked. Like the fact that you think Russia has been "eating shit" without any understanding of what attrition warfare is, or how Russia has had the upper hand through almost the entirety of the conflict and does even more so now after a completely failed joke of a counteroffensive. The fact you think NATO is stronger now even though its member states are now shown to be constantly bickering, paper tiger liars to the global south, are coming apart at the seams as an empire, and most of their members have lost the ability to wage war because they've depleted their respective military's equipment, plus totally undermined their productive ability to replenish it, and this isn't even getting into the boomerang effect their sanctions have had in wreaking havoc on their own economies while strengthening Russia's.
Let's see, this statement is part of why I responded in the first place:
My point is if Vlads actual goal had anything to do Russians in donbas and nato expansion his actions do not show that.
?? That's just nonsensical on its face. Russia stepping into an already 8-year old civil war in the Donbas shows that their goal had nothing to do with the Donbas?
Since you seem specifically hung up on the first couple weeks of the conflict and Russia's attack on Kiev and other cities not in east/south Ukraine (the 200k part of your comment)... You have heard of a feint, right? Do you know anything about the history of the USSR and how they used that concept, also to fight Nazis? You understand that the military of a country will have warehouses with supplies and munitions in places that aren't on the front? And that there will be logistic networks to move equipment and personnel around a very large country? As has been said elsewhere, why would one military attack another and only hit the things on the front and ignore the reinforcements behind it? Also stuff like how Russia "flattened" Mariupol. They have been doing great work rebuilding that city after ousting the Nazis who were trying to do a little ethnic cleansing there. Russia has been remarkably restrained in not damaging infrastructure or causing civilian casualties, but this is one of the many things you will think the opposite is true if you believe CNN, BBC, etc.
NAFO koolaid cup
Yes? Everything you've said has been western liberal media talking points.
@GarbageShoot@hexbear.net and @Rod_Blagojevic@hexbear.net were pointing out some of this, but it's like a Gish Gallop of bad takes and US propaganda, trying to respond to everything you're saying. I'm not going to reply any more partly because I have to go to bed.but also because I'm tired of trying to argue with people unwilling to learn. I'm not sure if that's the case with you, but your "lol, go on then" reply to my innocuous comment doesn't fill me with hope. If you do actually want to learn something, and curing yourself of some imperialist brainworms (which should be an ongoing project for any leftist) then I would strongly suggest bringing these things up in the news megathread. There are people there who are much more knowledgeable and have been closely following the conflict from the start, including all the ways western media has been spinning it that you clearly have taken to be true.
Yeah you know, the place where the people of hexbear post news articles from all over the web, with indigenous and global south sources strongly encouraged and where reactionary news is called out and dunked on. Yeah, that sure is a knee-slapper 🙄. Maybe you should stay away since it seems like you have zero interest in challenging US state department narrative. It would make sense for anyone committed to a "rules based order" to try to distance themselves from non-western news and actually engaging and learning something like the other commenter suggested.
Any one with even a remotely different view from you is state department. Lol
Vlads a piece of shit who single handily speed up nato expansion and started a never ending war. That I will be paying for the rest of my life.
Russia has ate their share of shit since Antonov Airport all the way up to their own nazi mercs marching on Moscow. Pretending any different is crazy.
Consent manufacturing for this conflict has been happening for 4 generations. The only off ramp would be for Russia to have another Boris Yelstin for president that would let the west pillage the country essentially for free. Russian peace with the west meant people were so emmiserated that life expectancy collapsed.
I'm a little older. I watched the collapse and subsequent looting of the USSR as it happened. I still have a couple connections with some of its refugees, and even in America everyone's lives from at least my grandparents on has been shaped by limited political possibilities because so many resources go into preparing the military for war with Russia (and now China too). People are dying in the streets here but the military grows.
Russia intervening in what certainly appears to be a genocide in Ukraine (based on western reporting, even if they never call it that), hasn't changed anything. Also, it's not like Sweden's NATO membership really changes anything either.
This is CNN-MSNBC thought. Contrary to popular belief among various liberals I know, Putin did not suddenly decide to conquer Ukraine in order to reestablish some unknown period of the Russian Empire. However, there has been an ongoing century plus effort to limit the autonomy of Russian people and to make their workers and resources available to the richest people in the west. All of western politics for the past century has been premised on furthering this goal. Provoking this conflict by rapidly escalating a genocide right on the Russian border is part of that project.
I think you should listen to people like Andrei Martyanov who can explain a lot of things that will clear your mind about who is winning and who is losing. And what strategy is.
Nobody tell him about Palestine's, Libya's, Iraq's, Syria's, Afghanistan's, and Cambodia's trans laws
Honestly in a world where I didn't have other factors to consider i'd just kind of hate most of everyone for being shitheads about this stuff for most of human history. I crave vengeance more than i really even want to live at this point
It would seem the Duma has escaped the denazification efforts
Mfkers going on about how they have to defend against the "progressive west", happily ignorant that all these brainworms are imported from the west
Fking Putin was ranting about "cancel culture" at the start of this damn thing
happily ignorant that all these brainworms are imported from the west
yeah i guess italy is west of byzantium
Speaking of imported, haven't Focus on The Family been super involved in the area? I've heard scuttlebutt suggesting they have some presence, but I can't recall where.
UK to switch sides in Ukraine conflict, says Diplomat Baroness Noncina Terfington-Smythe
He pointed to what he described as a growing trend of gender reassignment in the United States, and claimed this was leading to the “degeneration” of the country.
"Are
's policies so out of touch as to cause the empire to crumble? No, it's the trans people that are wrong"P.S. pretend I put Putin's head on the out of touch Skinner meme
P.P.S. further pretend I put it there with this:
Through out the war Putin basically says that NATO wants to turn your kids into gay, enby, nazi's, or something incomprehensible like that
Meanwhile the leader of NATO America is outlawing abortion and a group of powerful people in America are conspiring to create hate campaigns against trans people
A race to the bottom is it?
Also, the US just opposed Denmark's prime minister to become the next general secretary of NATO because of her pro-LGBT stance. Like, the Republicans opposing her nomination literally said that out loud. ofc that doesn't stop NATO's PR department from soiling the flag
with their fascist hate symbol.I'd like to own some libs in my life, you have a link? Can't find this anywhere.
Like, the Republicans opposing her nomination literally said that out loud.
Ah, but don't you see: republicans are ruzzian assets, so it was ruzzia all along. /j
The only exception will be medical intervention to treat congenital anomalies.
"Treating" the genitals of intersex babies without any medical need to do so is ofc ok in their book, even though that practice has a proven track record of causing massive psychological distress later in life, but informed adults wanting vaginoplasty, a procedure with a 99% satisfaction rate (higher than any other surgery in the world) is the end of Russian civilization.
Waiting 2 hours in line at Lenin's Mausoleum and upon reaching his case start screaming "GET UP YOU LAZY FUCK GET UUUUUP" before promptly being thrown out
Breaking open the coffin and attempting to kiss Lenin like he's Snow White.
I'm a Luxemburgist...I can only imagine he'd start emitting gamma rays and turn into a Kaiiju.
Lenin should have killed every orthodox priest that interfered in the political affairs of the country
Why can't we have a major world power that is both unashamedly pro-LGBT and anti-imperialist?
If the whole world adopted Cuba's model, we'd be at Star Trek level development by the end of the century
State medicine also included gender affirming care all the way back in the 80s too.
Russia is anti-imperialist but it’s also socially reactionary, that was the point of the comment you’re replying to.
They're incidentally anti-imperialist rather than ideologically so. And frankly this kind of reactionary nonsense does them no favors, since it allows the West to pretend like they have an ideological monopoly on not treating LGBT people like shit. Which, they treat LGBT like shit, but they sure like to pretend they don't.
It does do Putin and the Russian state favors because it makes him internally popular with Russian homophobes. Which is a political group whose support is actually useful to the Russian state. This is the root of the problem.
the man has been committed to this for so long that it doesn't make sense to try and excuse this as politically expedient. we'd make this excuse for no other politician and we shouldn't do do here.
I just get the impression he's more of a cynic
also it's been politically expedient for the entire time because Russian homophobia is not a social factor that came into being in the last year
It's arguable that Russia is effectively the most anti-imperialist country on the planet right now for taking on NATO.
I don't like calling them anti-imperialist when they would totally be doing it if they could. There is a difference between being "anti-imperialism" and "currently fighting Nato Imperialism."
Yeah, I think I would mostly agree with that take. See my reply to jabrd. They aren't imperialist themselves (despite what some in this thread might think), they are anti-the-empire-currently-responsible-for-nearly-all-imperialism, are and they are absolutely serving the purpose of anti-imperialist interests. In just casual language, I think that's plenty enough to be called anti-imperialist. But if we want to reserve that term for liberation struggles and the like, I would be fully on board and would exclude Russia. It might get into some hairsplitting at some point though. Is Iran anti-imperialist?
Totally appreciate where you're coming from. The whole anti-imperialism thing seems, to me, to be a huge part of what turns people off of communism. Like, once you give someone the basics the revolutionary defeatism aspect of appreciating Assad, Iran, ghaddafi, ect comes sorta naturally. Once you realize that America is the great satan its super obvious. But the point isn't that those states are actually good. The USA is using moral arguments to justify a war that was not started for moral reasons. People must understand that the wars in Libya and Ukraine or the blockades in Iran, Cuba, DPRK, are the result of capitals unending hunger and literally nothing else. You don't need to say the DPRK is anti-imperialist you just need to say that they offered to end their nuclear program in exchange for a peace treaty and the USA said no.
Choosing to say things like, Russia is anti-imperialist plays into every single bit of lib propaganda. It slowed my acceptance of these issues for sure. I believe that its important to maintain a certain moral purity. Liberals see us as people that are contrarian and edgy, that they are above. But, the reality is that liberals support horrifying shit. Their whole fucking identity is being nicer than republicans, if we want them to change we need to convince them their ideology is cruel. We have the moral highground and it's essential for spreading our message to keep it. Doing literally anything that implies we actually like or appreciate Russia will mean they will never listen to what is actually important about this conflict. NATO warmongering.
Having a thread referring to Russia as anti imperialist on the same day that they ban sexual reassignment is genuinely the dumbest thing imaginable. Its not just about seeming good for liberals though, this sorta shit makes this site unnecessarily repulsive to anarchists. I'm not going to risk alienating Anarchists from this site any more for the sake of giving russia their flowers. I don't care about what is "correct" or the "best theory," I would rather defecate on putin's face than say a single kind word to him. He leads an oligarchic, extractivist, capitalist state. Anything good they will ever do is incidental.
As far as Iran and stuff? I don't know the most about Iran, so I won't say anything directly. The only states we should ever even imply we like are the ones that are in some way reflective of the society we want to build. Unless there is something about their democratic processes (how their people are nurtured and cared for) then we shouldn't imply we like them.
Liberals don’t believe their ideology is without cruelty, they just think it’s the best of all possible worlds and that any other ideology would be more cruel.
Yes, it’s terrible that our clothes are made in sweatshops, but if we stopped using sweatshops, those workers wouldn’t have an income AND my clothes would be more expensive.
They also like to pretend to care about other people’s suffering but will not give up an ounce of comfort to help them.
Yeah no this is true. The hardest, and most important part, is convincing them that a better world is possible. Going tic for tac on world atrocities can break down their shells too though. The "capitalism kills 20mil a year by the standards of the black book of cummunism" bit helps.
I have a lib in my life I will never convince because hes a cis het white man who makes 150k minimum and cares more about his republican family than the homeless. He literally thinks america is improving. Liiiiike wtf.
I honestly think i could but id need to have like 2 hour political conversations once a week for maybe a year and thats not a good time.
Fwiw, I also appreciate where you're coming from, I'd even say I agree with a lot of it, even if I deeply disagree with the main thrust. I likewise appreciate that hexbear remains a place where these kinds of conversations can be had without always devolving into petty arguments.
Anyway, as I see it, so much of your disdain for applying the term to Russia seems to stem from optics. How liberals will respond, then how anarchists will respond. I get what you're saying and I don't disagree per se. But I think just telling the truth about a country, what it really is from our perspective as Marxists, is what's best for everyone, even if they don't want to or can't hear it. First of all, hexbear is the last place we should worry about liberals and what they think of us. But even if we were being performative for liberals, I personally don't think that sugar coating how things are is a good strategy. Clearly, there is nuance to this issue or we wouldn't be having this conversation. Any lib worth even trying to win over should be able to understand there is more nuance to it than the narrative they're being told. It would be a bad idea to simply go along with their good/bad dichotomy and just talk about Russia as though it's a black and white issue. May as well cow tow and agree with them that Ukraine is just an innocent smol bean that the evil Putler invaded them because he's a big mean marvel supervillian maniac. No material circumstances, no history, just idealism and vibes.
The whole anti-imperialism thing seems, to me, to be a huge part of what turns people off of communism.
Telling the truth about what imperialism is, how it effects the world, how it is the highest stage of capitalism - the very thing we oppose above all else as leftists... turns people off to communism? "One of the fundamental aspects of communism turns people off to communism." Yikes.
Choosing to say things like, Russia is anti-imperialist plays into every single bit of lib propaganda.
No, it's a statement that is directly contrary to every single bit of lib propaganda on the issue. Disagreeing with their simplistic view is playing into their propaganda? I very much disagree. On the other hand, I think laying out the reality of the situation for them is a more important strategy than worrying about whether we 'sound crazy' or some shit. They think we sound crazy for saying that Lenin was right and that Stalin isn't as bad as Hitler. We shouldn't pretend otherwise on those topics and we shouldn't sanitize what's true on any other topic either. If they can accept the importance of anti-imperialism, they can stand to hear that while Russia is another neoliberal capitalist state (that by the way, ironically has had to adopt more and more socialist economic policies, like nationalizing industries, due to the material circumstances of being at economic war with the collective west) and that we oppose such capitalist states, Russia is also serving the interests of anyone in the world who would oppose US hegemony, and playing the most direct role in showing the world that multipolarity is not only possible but inevitable, all of which we fervently support. The comment by @SoyViking@hexbear.net that sparked all this off was lamenting the fact that such a state is also fucking socially reactionary, which all of us hate, and which we should definitely point out if we're talking to libs. I know we knock on libs' intelligence a lot here, but I think most of them can recognize that a thing isn't necessarily all good or all bad.
I'm not going to risk alienating Anarchists from this site any more for the sake of giving russia their flowers.
Who is doing that? If any anarchist is incapable of understanding what I just said above, they are still a lib. Even more so than talking with liberals, we shouldn't try to smooth other the reality that there is nuance just for the sake of optics.
I don't care about what is "correct" or the "best theory," I would rather defecate on putin's face than say a single kind word to him.
Ok this is just weird. What? Am I misunderstanding you? Surely you care what is correct and what the best theory is - I hope?? No one here has to say a single kind word to Putin and no one here will ever get the chance to say a kind word to Putin. Are you saying you think it's important to display the proper level of hatred for that capitalist oligarch in particular in order to win over anarchists? If so, no one said you have to refrain from doing that - just don't also deny the fact that what Russia's government under Putin is doing geopolitically is good for the global south and good for socialist movements the world over.
I don't know the most about Iran, so I won't say anything directly.
I'm not quite an expert either, but I know enough to realize it's another example where the principled position Marxists or leftists in general needs to identify why we support their fight against the Great Satan without supporting their reactionary social policies. But this kind of conversation won't come up when someone here on hexbear calls Iran anti-imperialist, in large part because the West isn't hyper-focused on hating Iran right now the way it is on hating Russia.
The only states we should ever even imply we like are the ones that are in some way reflective of the society we want to build. Unless there is something about their democratic processes (how their people are nurtured and cared for) then we shouldn't imply we like them.
This is just pure idealism imo. We can talk about how we think many things a state is doing is good on the world stage and is even directly beneficial to the states "we like," while also talking about how the same state is doing bad things domestically that we oppose. I don't get all this either/or, we like/don't like absolutism. It's not materialist, it's not dialectical. It sounds like tailism at best, and I don't think it's even helpful when it comes to trying to appeal to people who are ignorant of what imperialism is and how it needs to be opposed.
Thanks for the detailed response. I made most of that post about optics for some reason, and I really dont know why. Optics are important but this is a site that is better at giving community to leftists than recruitment.
My main issue is that in a situation where the USA/NATO did fall, wouldnt they try and fill the power vaccuum with their own imperialism? Why would I be using the A-I term for a country that would be doing it if they could? Arent Germany and Russia the most likely countries to try and be the heirs of the USA? I dont think they can, and Germany is going down with NATO anyway.
I mean obviously they dont have the IMF or the World Bank.
I guess I could see how they are anti imperialist because until the fall of the west any country protecting their soverignty is anti imperialist. And each country that chooses to weakens the west.
Ok this might be the simplest explaination of my thinking:
Russia in current world affairs: anti imperialism
Russia's state mechanisms: a capitalist state incentivised to do imperialism
Do you get where im coming from? Is this lib?
I was way too tired while writing my first comment and it made me phrase certain things... oddly.
Sorry for the late response, I didn't have much time to reply yesterday but I did want to make sure to follow up on what you said.
I made most of that post about optics for some reason, and I really dont know why. Optics are important but this is a site that is better at giving community to leftists than recruitment.
Nah, I hear you. They're valid concerns, they just seemed a bit misplaced. Seems like we're on the same page at this point though. It is definitely important to be aware of how we're coming across to people when we are trying to persuade them, and it's also worthwhile to discuss the best strategies for doing that.
My main issue is that in a situation where the USA/NATO did fall, wouldnt they try and fill the power vaccuum with their own imperialism?
Maybe? While imperialism clearly is the direction that capitalism takes as it develops and consumes everything in its path, there are so so many unknown variables on a world where the US empire has collapsed and where climate chaos inevitably has ensued, it's impossible to predict how a country is going to move forward into that future, in no small part because it's impossible to predict what the material conditions will be in any given country. We might have the same concern with any currently capitalist country (which I realize you pointed out by referencing Germany as another example).
Why would I be using the A-I term for a country that would be doing it if they could?
Personally, I would just call it anti-imperialist while a country is legitimately fighting against imperialism but stop and call it imperialism if/when it's actually doing imperialism itself. But I can understand why some people wouldn't be comfortable with that and I'd be open to being convinced that we should use the term more specifically with a tighter definition.
Arent Germany and Russia the most likely countries to try and be the heirs of the USA? I dont think they can, and Germany is going down with NATO anyway.
Historically, yeah. They stood to be the economic powerhouses of the world. It's the reason why the US wants to drive a wedge between Russia and Germany right now and prevent any cooperation between them (hence their bombing of Nordstream) let alone an alliance that would threaten US hegemony/supremacy. It's also why it's such a fucking tragedy that Germany didn't succeed in revolution and building Germany as a socialist state alongside the USSR. Had that happened, we could well all be living in FALGSC right now.
And you're right on, it seems contemporary Germany is choosing to be a good vassal to its US master by accepting the US's destruction of their industrial productivity and towing the line on pointing at Putin's Russia as being the great evil. Also "derisking" from China. All of that's no surprise though.I guess I could see how they are anti imperialist because until the fall of the west any country protecting their sovereignty is anti imperialist. And each country that chooses to weakens the west.
Well yes, but not just protecting their sovereignty but also explicitly challenging US imperialism across the globe. They are fighting imperialism militarily and economically. And they say they are even doing so ideologically. For example: Russia to Focus on Ending US Hegemony: Foreign Policy Concept. Russia and China are openly committed to working together to bring about a true multipolar world. There was that meeting between Xi and Putin last March... and I tried to find a non-lib source for it... I know we had one posted, but I think the user who posted it deleted their account and I can't find it, but there are plenty of lib articles talking about the two megalomaniacal dictators meeting and in cahoots to destroy freedom.
All this is to say that there are reasons I think it's appropriate to call Russia anti-imperialist beyond just sovereignty and not being part of "the west." Though that is part of it. Even though they may be anti-imperialist, that doesn't automatically make them "good" or a state that we as leftists should look to as if it's something to emulate. It's not. At all. Russia is rather grotesquely reactionary (I think the US is worse in a lot of ways, but that's a pretty fucking low bar). This OP topic is proof enough of that. That's why we must always include the "critical" part to when we say we support Russia's anti-imperialist activities.
Russia in current world affairs: anti imperialism
Russia's state mechanisms: a capitalist state incentivised to do imperialism
Do you get where im coming from? Is this lib?
I do get where you're coming from for sure, and no, I wouldn't consider that lib at all, I'd say it's pretty accurate. Any capitalist state is incentivized to do imperialism, but until they're actually doing imperialism, they shouldn't be counted among those who actively are doing imperialism. Especially if the state not doing the imperialism is fighting to stop the imperialism of the states that are. Kind of a mouthful, but hopefully that makes sense. I know there are eloquent comrades here who could and would word it much better than that.
deserved so much better. My heart weeps that she only saw barbarism.Even if your words were ineloquent they lost no meaning for it.
I think we're pretty aligned at this point. I guess my suggestion would be to propose using it as a verb. "They are doing A-I" "They are advancing A-I"
yeah I don't believe those states are good I just believe that America and it's allies have no moral right to use force to police their behavior
anti-imperialist in the same way as Shaka Zulu or the Aztecs
That’s an incredibly impoverished definition of anti-imperialism imo, and does injustice to true anti-imperialist struggles. I get what your arguing for but maybe we can define it differently because it’s very different from traditional anti-imperialist struggles
Well... I don't disagree. I mean, I also wouldn't call Russia anti-imperialist the way that say, Cuba obviously is. But that's why I bolded "effectively." Because in terms of what has been accomplished wrt anti-imperialism at least in recent decades, you'd be hard-pressed to find anything that approaches what Russia has done. I don't hesitate to say that Russia gets my critical support when it comes to the war/SMO and I think that is the correct position for any anti-imperialist (regardless of definition) to take. It is good for the global south. It is good for multipolarity. It is good for any future anti-imperialist struggle. And by that same token, it is obviously bad for western imperialism, US hegemony, and the monopolar "rules based order." It's also good for China.
Let me just quote our comrade @AssortedBiscuits@hexbear.net from an old thread on this very topic:
It doesn't matter whether Russia is anti-imperialist or not, but whether it performs an anti-imperialist function and ultimately serves the cause of anti-imperialism. People like to debate whether this or that org or country is anti-imperialist, treating anti-imperialism as a metaphysical property that's imbued within something and not as a real material movement towards the end of imperialism.
I don't know whether Iran is truly anti-imperialist in the sense that I don't know whether Khamenei has secret designs in creating a Shia caliphate that covers all of Western Asia or a neo-Achaemenid Empire. But what I do know, based on what has happened and is happening in the material world, is that Iran is playing a pivotal role in undermining Western hegemony by being a key player in the Axis of Al-Quds. I don't know whether Iran has malicious designs in turning Palestine into an Iranian neocolony, but what I do know is that Iran has done more to help the Palestinian resistance against the Zionist entity than any other country. One is mere speculation while the other is cold reality.
The sad truth is that anti-imperialist forces, principled or otherwise, within the imperial core is weak and enfeebled enough that the cause of anti-imperialism is advanced through incompetent Western imperialists rather than Western anti-imperialists. Trump's incompetent buffoonery has done more to undermine Western imperialism than any other anti-imperialist force within the West.
Perhaps this is one reason why Western leftists love to treat anti-imperialist as a metaphysical property. They retreat to idealism because even aspiring non-Western imperialists who no longer want to play second fiddle to Western imperialism are doing more.
It's anti-imperialist in the same way the Kuomintang was anti-imperialist.
But OUR nazis have to win!
