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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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'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.
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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
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.
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.
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