Maybe if people with your ideology only make things that harm you it's an opportunity to reflect.
An international (English speaking) socialist Lemmy community free of "ML" (read: Dengist) influence. This is a place for undogmatic shitposting and memes from a progressive, anti-capitalist and truly anti-imperialist perspective, regardless of specific ideology.
Serious posts, news, discussion and agitprop/stuff that's better fit for a poster than a meme go in c/Socialism.
If you are new to socialism, you can ask questions and find resources over on c/Socialism101.
Please don't forget to help keep this community clean by reporting rule violations, updooting good contributions and downdooting those of low quality!
0. Only post socialist memes
That refers to funny image macros and means that generally videos and screenshots are not allowed. Exceptions include explicitly humorous and short videos, as well as (social media) screenshots depicting a funny situation, joke, or joke picture relating to socialist movements, theory, societal issues, or political opponents. Examples would be the classic case of humorous Tumblr or Twitter posts/threads. (and no, agitprop text does not count as a meme. Please post agitprop here)
0.5 [Provisional Rule] Try to use alt text or image descriptions to allow for greater accessibility
(Please take a look at our wiki page for the guidelines on how to actually write alternative text!)
We encourage alternative text (from now referred to as "alt text") to be added to all posts/comments containing media, such as images, animated GIFs, videos, audio files, and custom emojis.
EDIT: For files you share in the comments, a simple summary should be enough if they’re too complex.
We are committed to social equity and to reducing barriers of entry, including (digital) communication and culture. It takes each of us only a few moments to make a whole world of content (more) accessible to a bunch of folks.
When alt text is absent, a reminder will be issued. If you don't add the missing alt text within 48 hours, the post will be removed. No hard feelings.
0.5.1 Style tip about abbreviations and short forms
When writing stuff like "lol" and "iirc", it's a good idea to try and replace those with their all caps counterpart
Why? Because otherwise (AFAIK), screen readers will try to read them out as actually words instead of spelling them
1. Socialist Unity in the form of mutual respect and good faith interactions is enforced here
Try to keep an open mind, other schools of thought may offer points of view and analyses you haven't considered yet. Also: This is not a place for the Idealism vs. Materialism or rather Anarchism vs. Marxism debate(s), for that please visit c/AnarchismVsMarxism.
2. Anti-Imperialism means recognizing capitalist states like Russia and China as such
That means condemning (their) imperialism, even if it is of the "anti-USA" flavor.
3. No liberalism, (right-wing) revisionism or reactionaries.
That includes so called: Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Dengism, Market Socialism, Patriotic Socialism, National Bolshevism, Anarcho-Capitalism etc. . Anti-Socialist people and content have no place here, as well as the variety of "Marxist"-"Leninists" (read: Dengists) (actual ML's are welcome as long as they agree to the rules and don't just copy paste/larp about stuff from a hundred years ago).
4. No Bigotry.
The only dangerous minority is the rich.
5. Don't demonize previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.
We must constructively learn from their mistakes, while acknowledging their achievements and recognizing when they have strayed away from socialist principles.
6. Don't irrationally idolize/glorify previous and current socialist experiments or (leading) individuals.
Notable achievements in all spheres of society were made by various socialist/people's/democratic republics around the world. Mistakes, however, were made as well: bureaucratic castes of parasitic elites - as well as reactionary cults of personality - were established, many things were mismanaged and prejudice and bigotry sometimes replaced internationalism and progressiveness.
Nothing wrong with communists. I feel so radicalized by capitalism I'm almost there anyway.
It's the Russian/China apologists that are annoying.
Russia is bad, Chia.na is bad, and the U.S. is bad. All those things can be true. But all the insufferable posts about how great China and Russia are, and all the bad things you have heard about them m are just Western propaganda...
If they were serious about their ideology, then why do they care so much about someone thinks about China or Russia.
If they didn't brigade those issues so much, straight up ban people, just because they disagree, or hlrefuse to have any real discussion that doesn't center on just shutting other people down, then maybe people outside their group might take them more seriously.
here’s the neat part: anyone who unironically thinks china or russia are communist is a dumbass and can be ignored or is trolling.
China and russia being communist is an American right wing talking point.
No leftists consider the russian federation communist, and not even the cpc considers china communist. They claim to be attempting to realise communism by first developing socialism to the point that they can.
Whether you believe them or not aside, you're sort of showing your ignorance. Even the scary tankies on hexbear and ml or whatever don't think they're communist. That's why the term actually existing socialism (aes) is aes and not aec.
tl;dr of my response: China ain't Socialist, and shouldn't be emulated in our struggle for socialist revolution worldwide.
Many leftists don't consider China and the CPC to even be socialist, many socialists around the world see the CPC as a ruling class of another capitalist country, albeit with much higher rates of nationalised industries.
We think you can't really call yourself socialist when the workers don't have meaningful democratic control over society. And unless you're being dishonest or are just misinformed, the workers most certainly don't have control of society in China. Less so then here (Australia), even.
One only need to talk to people in China to realise this, most people I've spoken to in China, even though who support the government, describe a very hierarchical benevolent government.
One simply can't look a lefty in the eye and say China is socialist, unless those "Chinese Characteristics" suffixed to "Socialism" simply stand for "without democracy".
There is no meaningful method to agitate for political change (no, being in one of the other parties most certainly doesn't count), there are no workers unions (strikes are heavily repressed and the only union that exists is controlled by the CPC, though despite that some groups of workers still sometimes bravely strike 💪) no freedom of political association, no democracy in the workplace.
It's really hard to claim China is socialist, yet people outside of China still do, just because they're holding the banner of socialism...
I don't hate China, it's a pretty nice place, with lovely people, and certainly a nicer place than the shithole of the US. I've been to China multiple times, and you wouldn't catch me dead in the US.
But they just ain't Socialist, and shouldn't be emulated in our struggle for revolution worldwide.
I think that's a bit reductive. While I am a sceptic that they'll ever really succeed and think they've fucked themselves a bit with how much power Chinese tech companies have been allowed to amass, there are true believers among the party and the central committee. I mean they teach Marxism in school (sort of).
In general chinese people describe extremely high satisfaction with their government, and respond more positively to questions like "If I have an issue I can go to my local politician and resolve it"^[https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/07/long-term-survey-reveals-chinese-government-satisfaction/] than Westminster derived systems (which I would also not dignify with the word democracy) and it is worth asking why this holds while most so called democracies have hostile and parasitic governments.
If the will of the people is enacted then this is a sort of democracy, while if you vote and then the people you elect serve elites and ignore you this isn't really democratic.
Structurally some things in China are working vastly better than elsewhere, and it's worth trying to understand /why/ their government seems to work for the people so much more than other systems.
But I was merely relaying what they claim about themselves to point out even people fully committed to toeing their party line would not call them communist.
Hexbear and .ml are really this weird, yeah. They don't even pretend to be socialist yet they just insist it's AES.
i made no indication i believed them or them to be communist. i was speaking of how trollish those who claim china/russia is communist are. they’re almost always “libertarians” or some form of boomer.
Anarcho communists welcome you. We hate all nation states equally. Unfortunately there aren't enough of us to brigade anything.
For anyone who wishes to know more Now And After: The ABC of Communist Anarchism was written to explain anarcho-communism in plain, easily understood, language.
It begins by explaining the current capitalist system (now) and then goes on to explain anarchism (after).
It is available to read or download in multiple formats, for free, here: https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/alexander-berkman-what-is-communist-anarchism#toc2
This isn't terrible, but it's important to be aware that the class analysis and definition of capitalism in this is nonsense. The capitalist class is not just "rich people" and the working class is not just "poor people." Capitalism is not defined by...whatever this attempts to define it by. Capital is the power to prioritize the allocation of resources and labor.
Capitalism stands for the idea that the purpose of all value, surplus and base really, of production is to increase the capital of the holders of capital. That is it. It is the worship of allocative power solely for the sake of allocative power. And that's why it inevitably degenerates into fascism--the worship of power solely for the sake of power.
All class dynamics must oriented themselves within the structure of that allocative power analysis. The capitalist class is not "rich" people, or at least not definitionally, and the working class is not poor people. The capitalist class are those who derive increase to their allocative power primarily from the direction of capital under the capitalist system. On the flip side, working class is anyone who increases their own allocative power primarily through the application of their own labor. The vague vibes based class analysis in this would effectively place servers (like, at a restaurant) as bourgeoisie capitalist-class/adjacent just like doctors, lawyers, programmers, and the like. I think it's clear why that maybe feels like complete bullshit to most peeps.
Did you read a different book?...
He's very much aware of what capitalism is and clearly doesn't just believe it to be "rich people". What nonsense.
He literally says the bourgeoisie, namely doctors, lawyers, and the like, are, in their interests, aligned with the capitalist class if not altogether a part of it. And even the parts you quote are hard to parse as they are both focused on the outputs of production rather than the allocative power leading to production but also touch upon the problem of how our overly financialized economies obfuscate the allocative power issue. At the same time, when he says shit like "the business man is entirely at [the big bankers financiers] mercy" it makes me think we are not on the same page here, unless his definition of business man is not the investor class--absolutely capitalist class--business man I use.
It's almost as if anarcho communism isn't based upon Marxist definitions...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_communist_ideologies#Anarchist_communism
I can understand hating all nation states, but hating them equally? Couldn't be me.
there are dozens of us!
I'm fine with someone having a negative opinion of China so long as they don't use that as a purity test and demand everyone else denounce China, calling people "fascists" or "tankies" and refusing to work with them otherwise.
Obviously, the vast majority of people on here don't live in China, and we generally have bigger fish to fry domestically to worry about meddling in their affairs. I would turn the question around and ask why people are so invested in making sure everyone sufficiently condemns China instead of working together to address the more pressing matter of class conflict.
This is exactly how I feel about a lot of anti-China spaces. It's difficult to have a real discussion about almost any topic related to China because if you suggest that anything about them isn't the worst thing ever you get accused of being a fascist and dismissed, if not banned. If .ml goes too far in the other direction, then it is at least somewhat unique in doing so, and it's worthwhile to have a space where non-mainstream perspectives can be discussed.
Some of us are just tired of western people not wanting to get a little nuance about none western countries. And the instance you admit that ofcourse no place is perfect you get hit with. "See x is bad, communism can't work in reality." It is tiresome and eventually I end up defaulting to standard answers or blocking people if they are rude.
On top of that I do think it is amazing how for instance India, China and Vietnam has improved the lives of billions, but every single time it hit western news it is followed by "but at what price".
And finally I have realized that things are not always as they seem and the propaganda machine makes it hard to discern the reality of many things. This goes for everything. I have no clue if it actually is dangerous to go USA or it just seem that way.
The US is indeed very dangerous. If the police don't harass you out of boredom, the drugged up homeless man will chase you down the street screaming.
Literally happened to me a few days ago, fucking hate it here.
USian here. It's not dangerous as long as you're not even vaguely latino.
It kinda is though. You have to worry about scammers/pickpockets/hustlers/gangs in a couple or spots (although they mostly stick to murdering each other).
Plus basal violence is extremely high. Like even by intentional homicides it's in the top third https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate
There's a lot of the world without a "bad part of town"
Pickpocketing is not a thing in America. Too subtle. We are a mugging people. However, I will say that your chances of encountering gang violence as a tourist/traveler are quite low. The main danger when visiting here is the government/police.
I want to say "how much of that is gang violence" but I don't want to take one in the neck.
It’s a lot of you count ICE as a gang.
Based on this thread I think I will stay my horses. No fun in that kind worry for what would have been a once in a life time experience.
Also I find it interesting I get 7 downvotes for answering OP in good faith. Lemmy is not Reddit and I am happy for it, but there are a lot of trenches here
Those people are called tankies
Im not communist but China is not that bad, people have a lot more freedom in China than in the US.
Is it really freedom if you can't stand outside a school with a battle rifle?
I haven't seen any posts about how great Russia is
I see countless posts about how Russia is the brave defender against American imperialism and their invasion of Ukraine is a good thing to support.
Citation needed
> opens account
No no they don't do that but will do it the moment you say Russia isn't socialist at all.
They're very smart like that. They say don't do that as they do it.
Russia isn't socialist at all
I once got at least 10 comments telling me how good russia and china are and how bad USA is and that i am a USA sucker, welp kinda my fault for making a comment in the wrong instance
I'm sure you've had this explained before, how a unipolar world is worse than a detente.
In the same way an oligarchy is preferable to an absolute monopoly, sure
Yeah sure. And the way in how peace is preferable to endless imperialist proxy wars.
And the way how reality is preferable to fantasy. How woke is preferable to asleep. Like acknowledging that the CIA funded the coup by far right elements in Ukraine. Like they did plenty of times before all over the word! But facts are only selected among alternative facts if they serve politics in this post truth world. Nothing can be true that could lead to diplomacy and acknowledging "this is partially our fault".
Because if we acknowledged the historical facts and that Russia just might genuinely feel threatened by NATO we could move forward with diplomacy to end this war.
All I see when I look at "leftists" today is the image of nazis endlessly screaming YES! YES! WE WANT THE TOTAL WAR! YES! YES! WAR!
How sanity is preferable to insanity. Although I am slightly envious of your blissfully empty minds just flowing along with the majority opinion towards the end of history.
You know if you were even a little bit sane, you'd think about how bad this war is for climate change and you'd let Russia have a little Crimea. God forbid a burgeoning empire have a little Ukraine. Like even if the evil caricature of Russia was true, in a utilitarian perspective it would be better to let them take half of Ukraine because of the insane amounts of greenhouse gases this war produces. Less people would be dead too. But you can only think in childish principles and scold anyone who doesn't want Ukraine fighting to the last man. Surrender was always a shitty option.
Basically it's better in every way to not support an endless and pointless war.
Anyway, lets agree to disagree.
Russia's whole economy relies on green house gas production, so much for the climate. It's really easy to say you should capitulate to a foreign military invasion when you aren't the one being sacrificed. Russia wanted control of Ukraine, and every place they lost when the USSR collapsed. Making it clear his goals are to annex land from other nations he sees as part of their lost empire. If you don't believe me Putin keeps saying things like how annexing lost land isn't invasion, it's reclamation, then uses the Peter the Great's similar justification for expanding their empire into Sweden centuries ago, how it's just reclaiming their god given lands, like on the 350th anniversary of the event, in a speech defending his invasion of Ukraine, which undermines the veracity of how threatened they felt in this situation, or how that was why they invaded Ukraine. He rambles on about it so much he even went on an tangent about it in a meeting with an organization of young Russia entrepreneurs who were still in university. NATO and the EU, also acting in their self interest, wanted Ukraine to favor trade, and defense pacts with them instead. So there has been a proxy war between them, in Ukraine, and guess what? Russia lost. So, unwilling to accept a cold defeat, and going with the concept that they have a god given right to Ukraine, they fired up the military again, and went in for a full invasion this time, with a bunch of BS excuses, like de-nazification, as they sent in a PMC ran by nazis, to accomplish this task.
Neither actor in this is operating for some sort of altruistic reason, Ukrainian oligarchs are pursuing who they think they can use to enrich themselves the most with, and the Ukrainian people are stuck between two forces they are much smaller than, who are fighting over their homeland. You give favor to one empire in this situation (and you acknowledge that is what they are, and what they are doing), the one who has used it's military to slaughter 150 thousand, or more, innocent people, because you believe it will be the best option for you. You are both acting in self interest on top of the lives lost, because "just giving" Russia Ukraine is just that, sacrificing the lives of those who's home they are invading, and falling for the falsehood that trying to appease imperialists will make them stop waging wars, taking land, and slaughtering people in the process, thus supporting endless war by giving the empirical power what they want, more empire, thus justifying use of military force, because it results in more empire. You are doing is with the thin veneer of an excuse that is b-b-but the environment, ignoring how, by your own ideas of a utilitarian perspective, that it's actually best to allow Ukraine to align more with the west, because it was Russia that sent the military killing machine in, while NATO was sticking to routes far, far, less damaging to the environment, and human life.
And you call me insane?
So your argument boils down to that the CIA operation to regime change the democratically elected government of Ukraine is a preemptive strike to...
uh, gain control of Ukraine. And Russia should just concede that they lost.
I mean fine, I think that is what the people who planned this brinkmanship thought too. All is fair in love and war and so on. With "people" I mean Obama and Biden btw.
The problem is this was dangerous warmongering and we KNEW how Russia would most likely react. Even during the Maidan "protests" when senior US politicians visited Ukraine as support there were articles in western newspapers warning of this.
Because the exact same thing happened when the CIA interfered in Georgia with the "Rose Revolution" and talk of EU and NATO led to Russia invading. And yes there is hard evidence for CIA/NED interference in Georgia as well.
So: if you know that action A leads to consequence B, and you do action A anyway, you are accepting the consequence as the price for your actions.
So the moral question becomes - is it justified to start a war in order to bleed the dangerous ~~Orc~~Russian empire?
If your answer is yes, then that puts the onus of providing hard evidence that the alternative would have been likely to occur and to be worse.
And even then it doesn't justify fucking shitting on everybody who points out the historical facts and that this war was partially provoked? Why continue demanding unwavering support for the US, NATO and EU imperialism? Why deny reality? Why pretend that the western mainstream media is somehow reporting the objective truth and everything else is "Russian propaganda"?
The answer is that ONLY if you deny all historical evidence can you build consensus to endlessly continue the proxy war and make it sound like diplomacy is impossible.
Anyway, yeah Putin talks a lot of shit, he's known to do that. He's a sociopath who rules Russia by means of propaganda. But he hasn't started any wars except in response to US imperialist aggression (or maybe one, don't know about the Chechen war). So I don't think he would actually invade neighbors unprovoked. Ukraine could have stayed neutral and be... well not perfectly fine. But better than it is now.
What Russia did do is pretty much the same as what the US does - interfere through propaganda and other means in the democracy of other countries. This would justify harsh sanctions in my opinion, but does not justify war because moderating social media like facebook and twitter to filter propaganda would not even be that expensive. But that is not something you'd hear from a neoliberal.
It all boils down to this: This war was provoked, the evidence for interference and regime change is indisputable (they admitted it), there are actual nazi sympathizers holding power in Ukraine's military today. Would Ukraine be better off without a CIA plot and still neutral under Yanukovych's successor?
BTW this does not excuse Russia's invasion or make me pro Russia. And neither is this argument invalidated by any war crimes committed since the coup, or excuse these war crimes.
On a personal note I have to say that well at least the EU would be whole fucking lot better off without this imperialist bullshit. Without this insane wealth transfer to the military industrial complex. Without rearmament. Without the left completely turning off their brain and drinking the fucking NATO cool aid.
I did not, do not misrepresent what I wrote! I called them a burgeoning empire, an itty bitty little cute empireling! (/s in case you missed it again)
But yeah I think objectively Russia is the lesser of two evils by far.
No, that wasn't my argument. The US and Russia have been having a cold war over trade, and defense, with ex-soviets countries since the soviet union fell. Both have been exercising various amounts of power over Ukiraine against each other. For instancem, Poroshenko was involved in very Trump like corrupt business deals with Russia. He was also playing cards of possibly siding with the EU to get more favorable outcomes from Russia, and vice versa. People in Ukraine had valid reasons to sour on him. I am not saying the CIA didn't act on this momentum, but you paint the CIA as a total control mechanism of Ukraine, and Ukrainians without, or very greatly reduced, agency over their own actions. This is something the "non-western" imperial apologists have a tendency to do. The CIA is credited with so much they are like some sort of near politically omnipotent entity, and the people in the countries they operate in are little more than easily controlled, witless, puppets. This is not true. Outside of situations where the military was totally willing to be pocketed by the US, the CIA has only the ability to give fuel towards already existing political momentum. Put their hand on the scale, so-to-speak. They also ignore the same proxy war crap Russia does, because it makes their narrative cleaner when they are only pointing to one provocateur. Yanukovich was corrupt, and his position within Ukraine was deeply soured by his own actions. Did the CIA play a hand in euromaiden? Of course they did. However they did not create the backlash to his presidency, nor was euroomaiden something the CIA fabricated whole cloth. In the end Yanukovich was deeply corrupt, had lost most of his favor with the people, and Oligarchs that would better profit from the deal with the EU, that he killed, likely false flagged some protestors, as an icing on the cake measure towards someone already in free-fall. Poroshenko was not assassinated, the military, and other security organs did not oust him, there was no massive public backlash, ala euromaiden. He lost an election to Zelenskyy, who won by a large margin for a national election. Zelenskyy was popular for a number of reasons, he was relatively popular as a comedian, he was charasmatic, and found it easy to defend himself with words, probably aided by his occupation. Also he garnered a LOT of popularity being that he was just some comedian, and Poroshenko was just another corrupt politician in Ukraine. So this was not some situation where Russia was just trying to be Ukraine's BFF, and giving them the best possible diplomatic outcomes. They had FSB on the ground, they were buying people, they were reaching deeper into Ukrainian trade interests, etc. They lost. Guess what? Neither group is the good guy here. You seem to take my stance that Russia is complete shit, and held back by NATO being a barrier of a, currently, greater imperial power, as me supporting the US/NATO. I see them both the same, just that NATO has a lot more wealth, so they are currently the ones exercising that power most broadly. If Russia could, they would, and Putin, when addressing his own people, even in private events, makes speeches about how that is exactly his intent. Nationalistic fervor is hugely popular in Russia. The point being, Russia is not JUST innocently defending themselves, they are vying for power projection as they can.
This same two way interference went on with Georgia as well. Difference is I don't turn a blind eye to Russia's empire expansion, or the "west's". They are both knowing players in a political campaign that predates the USSR.
"So your argument boils down to that the CIA operation to regime change the democratically elected government of Ukraine is a preemptive strike to…
uh, gain control of Ukraine. And Russia should just concede that they lost."
Correct, I have modeled it after your argument of just surrendering Ukraine to Russia. If it's an acceptable outcome for Russia, it should be acceptable the other way around too. Both are just empires maneuvering for control of spheres of influence, and strategic resources.
"So: if you know that action A leads to consequence B, and you do action A anyway, you are accepting the consequence as the price for your actions." - in relationship to seeing expansion of western sphere of influence into Ukraine as something that will trigger war.
This cuts both ways, there has always been two players, at least, vying for Ukraine. Whoever lost the cold war either has to choose to cut their losses, or turn their military power on Ukraine, and invade. There is no morally upright outcome to this. Neither side was going to just give up. Well, at least I believe the US probably would have invaded, in case of loss, but that's not how it played out, so I may be wrong, but I am pretty certain I am not. I have no doubts it would have been an incredible tragedy for the Ukrainian people either way, and that is what I am concerned with. People who defend non-western empires so often call for nuance, but what they want is for only information painting their opposing camp in the worst light, and apologia when the corruptions, FSB manipulation, etc. of Russia is brought up. Always playing Russia as merely defending its self, and never just suffering the consequences of participating empire building proxy wars. This is the outcome when you are capitalists, you compete for trade, and influence, and you do whatever to achieve your goals. This inevitably leads to wars.
"But yeah I think objectively Russia is the lesser of two evils by far"
As do I, but only because they are the poorer empire, by far. They walk like a duck, and quack like a duck, so they are a duck, and loss of western control of these spheres of influence will only open a vacuum Russia will do everything in it's power to fill, as long as they are physically able to do so.
Well great we agree on the basic facts then.
And yeah the CIA put their hands on the scale, but they funded and trained the main organizer behind Euromaidan who created a kind of alternative news channel. And the NED had funded 65 projects in Ukraine totaling over $20 million. So sure what the CIA/NED does doesn't always work out, but controlling about 5% witless puppets is often enough. If you continue to do it at least some of your seeds will bear fruit. Subversion of democracy in another country is a crime in itself. But we just ignore it when the US does it.
You can't just say "well whatever, both do it, we won, it's just what we do". The US and the EU and the liberals are responsible for ignoring it, censoring it, covering for this despicable criminal behavior. And fundamental to morality is that we are responsible for OUR behavior or what we can influence. We can condemn Russia, but it's outside of our control.
You literally cannot have a free press and a democratic government if a major superpower is spending millions to subvert you. And if some country takes action they are called authoritarian or corrupt by the west.
Yeah definitely. But that does not mean we should dismiss their legitimate security concerns. Like if China somehow did a regime change in Mexico (put their hand on the scale) the US would immediately react. And then if Mexico were to plan a military alliance with China, the US would invade. This is how superpowers who have actual enemies react. And Ukraine is like 400 miles away from Moscow, that is nothing so Russia does have a legitimate security problem with Nato and the US building bases there.
And THAT problem gets censored or shouted down at least outside of socialist subs. And in real life, it easily can get you fired, like loosing your job. The EU literally passed regulation to ban people from seeing any other viewpoint (even though RT is a legitimate propaganda outlet).
And the problem with this is that any diplomatic solution towards peace CANNOT go forward if all people see is "Russia evil empire attacked Ukraine for no reason".
And all this leads to an endless proxy war, down to the last Ukrainian.
This is what I was responding to. Being called apologists and insulted and then they clutch their pearls when they get banned out of communities when they want to spew their lies and insults everywhere. This is what is insane.
You have provided me no new information about what the CIA has done.
You also assume that any diplomatic solution with Putin is not just a temporary measure as, from his own mouth, he is really intent on empire building, and tells organizations like the future entrepreneurs of Russia that they should be building their lives towards these goals. Russia attacked Ukraine for their own interests. He has been preaching that since 2000, and one of his most pushed messages for why the law should be changed to make him president for life is that the restoration of the empire is not a plan that can survive through numerous elections.
So, NATO seeing this, over and over, while some leaders had reservations, they also had legitimate security concerns about Russia adding the Black Sea, and a huge amount of new borderland that connected to the Shenzhen Economic Zone. To add more to the picture: Life long leader from the secret police of the previous empire, and the contemporary Russia, with known power over their most prominent oligarchs, can't shut-up about expanding their empire, for over a decade. Then, when the re-ratification of the CFE was hinged on Russia pulling it's illegal military bases from Georgia, and Moldova, something both countries had been making clear they want gone since they were established, Russia completely withdrew. They then started a military build up, and began running advanced forces training in the caucuses, while giving more strength to boarders with Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Then they had those bases break away from their respective countries, and began defending them from being re-absorbed. Do you not see how the EU/NATO, could have legitimate security issues with Russia, keeping this in mind? Do you just paint the western hegemony the way many in the US just go around saying "dur hur Russia evil"? Because that is what a lot of people on lemmy do. Then demand nuance because the picture is more complicated than that, but only for non-western aligned countries.
This is all capitalist empire building bullshit. There is not one major economic power on Earth not participating in this shit in one form or another. While the west is the empire of establishment, the newer ones growing are committing a lot of the same horrors. The only difference I see, is that that they are restrained from just going on bombing campaigns, like the US, because the old empire is still there, and the consequences of dealing with that, as they are still extremely powerful, regardless of what is being said about the collapse of the west, will be extreme, and dire for everyone. Not just active warring empires, the entire world. As western influence over sphere in places like SEA, eastern Europe, central asia, etc, wain, you will see hostilities from other major economic powers grow in their regions. They are all hyper-nationalistic, and spending time on their social media reveals annexing countries, especially their neighbors, is very popular.
Then you seem to be arguing that the regime change in Ukraine was a justified preemptive strike because Russia evil.
I actually half agree with this because Russia has been doing interference and disinformation and various denialist campaigns that significantly damaged the western democracy. But the rational arguments against this are:
But again, my main problem here is what is "allowed to be said". There is a literal psychosis going on where even just understanding the enemy is treason. It's a complete and utter propaganda victory for the US imperialist forces.
And this is an issue because we are responsible for the influence we can bring to bear on our governments to seek diplomatic solutions and stop supporting an endless war.
No I don't see that. And I judge people based on what they do, not what they say. (or say they are going to do and then do it)
The only thing I've ever seen here labelled "extremist" and I've never really looked into it, is the claim that the Tiananmen Square Massacre was instigated by the CIA. Agian, I have never looked into it, but that's the only thing I've ever seen ruffle people's feathers.
I really think we all have a lot in common here, and maybe it's just boredom, but we shouldn't be at each other's throats.
I'm a strong believer in facts (wow can't believe I have to say that) but if someone compiled a large list of grievances with sources, that would be great. I always see lemmings labeld as "tankies" coming in with troves of links and sources, but never anyone else.
Anyone that comes in with proper sources is immediately banned and their comments removed, that’s why you never see them.
Such as?
There’s no argument here to defend. But posting a blog from someone in China and calling it a proper source is never going to be correct. They also think that the UN is “western imperialism” and so sources from them will be deleted (even though those sources are from every nation state in the UN).
Not trying to argue just that different people have different standards of what constitutes a proper source. Personally I wouldn't consider Wikipedia or RadioFreeAsia as proper sources for instance.
I don't think it's inherently wrong to point out that much of those with sway within the UN come from within the US sphere of influence (look at the UN intervention on the side of the US in their war of exterminaton against the DPRK for example) and thus treat it as such however with that being said I also haven't really seen UN sources being deleted before unless the comment containing it breaks rules such as being chauvinist for example (as tends to unfortunately happen).
Not entirely true, not every paper etc published by the UN is signed off on by every member (hence the back and forth between the un commission and Chinese government on Xinjiang).
Those back and forths happen with every nation in the UN, especially when those nations are trying to avoid blame. It’s like claiming that the US and Israel aren’t committing a genocide because they didn’t sign off on the papers the UN released saying they did. The exact same thing is true of all the sources saying China and Russia are doing the same. And yet if you post those sources, immediate ban and comments removed.
I don't think you really understood what I'm saying. You claimed every UN source is from every member nation this isn't true, the UN has many members under the US umbrella this is true. Being skeptical is thus reasonable given these 2 facts.
Also the UN report on Xinjiang explicitly did not call it a genocide but that there were abuses which is true, during the ETIM crackdowns there definitely were abuses genocide however is another story the only "source" for which is a German evangelical on a mission from god to destroy china who speaks neither Uyghur nor mandarin and works for the victims of communism memorial foundation (I really should have to explain why that would cast doubt in this case I hope).