1502
Are we the baddies?
(i.imgur.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Mar 2024
1502 points (100.0% liked)
Memes
45205 readers
1884 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
It's an international poker game and everyone is cheating. To see politics through a campist lens helps no one.
Acknowledging that the US has been the leader of the imperial core — the countries that have been colonizing the rest of the world for 500 years now — since WW2 is the realistic, materialist view.
Only difference now is that it's changed form to mainly the economic subjugation (neocolonialism) of "former" colonies through unequal exchange under capitalism rather than direct military subjugation — though the US still has a major actual settler colony committing a genocide in Palestine right now.
Any country that tries to escape this system (by nationalizing its resources to prevent extraction by unequal exchange, usually by establishing a socialist state) is sanctioned (DPRK, Vietnam in the past, Zimbabwe etc), embargoed (Cuba), overthrown (Chile, Burkina Faso etc), or invaded (Vietnam, Libya, Korea, etc).
I acknowledge the US has been the "imperial core". The thing I take issue with is the finger pointing.
As if the United States is unique in seeking out and pursuing its interests. China and Russia may not be the "imperial core" but, all nations will do what's in their best interest.
That's the flaw with nations, the campist lens of "America bad, Russia and China good" isn't productive. Das all I'm saying.
No other country controls the global financial system like the US, and imperial core countries in general, does through its dollar hegemony and global monopolies.
Which is natural, since the entire modern world, its institutions and trade systems, are built on the past few centuries of brutal colonization of the rest of the world by western europe and japan.
Acknowledging reality isn't "finger pointing".
Given the same opportunity would Russia and China not do the same things?
But they don't, so talking about those "what if"s are pointless. China's current interests — and, broadly speaking, those of capitalist Russia even after the USSR has been overthrown — are mostly in line with the Global South's against imperial core countries. There's a reason sentiment like this is common across the developing world.
Many of western countries' victims, like Cuba, DPRK, Burkina Faso, Palestine, etc., would not be able to function right now, or perhaps even exist, if they did not have China and Russia's support. Of course, alot of them like Libya aren't able to function anymore.
Some information might change your point of view:
I once thought that the US had made mistakes but generally was trying to do the right thing. But the more I read and learned history, the more damning it was towards America.
Thing is, there is no "trying" to do something on a national scale. What nations do — what they can do — and how they react entirely depends on their mode of production and material conditions. And that mode of production for the US is imperialist capitalism.
It really does explain so much history. Why were you and I able to see through the charade, and why do others have trouble? I was watching Jonas Ceika’s newest video essay on Urban Guerrillas and left wing terrorism, and it made me think about how left wing groups have trouble translating into mass movements. Something about the conditions being right; and how the conditions will never be right in America.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
Jonas Ceika’s
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
Here is an alternative Piped link(s):
sentiment like this
Piped is a privacy-respecting open-source alternative frontend to YouTube.
I'm open-source; check me out at GitHub.
"Imperial Core" is from Star Wars and sounds like a cringe LARP.
It is literally from anti-colonial theory lmao
Was this theory developed after Star Wars was already released?
Star Wars was loosely based on it so no wonder you'll see parallels.
Even if it was, using media to explain ideas of politics isn't new nor is it bad. Like how is using Star Trek or Star Wars or any other piece of media that the public is familiar with on a cultural level inherently a "Gotcha!" to an argument/debate?
"Hey this book that was taught in classrooms has some parallels to current events." "Wow, you're using your understandings of the world around you to make commentary? Weirdo."
Everything you said can be true, and it can also still sound like a cringe LARP.
That just sounds like you think people who can critically analyze media and the world suck. You must be a very boring person to have a conversation with, I can tell from this brief interaction.
No critical analysis of Star Wars has happened in this thread yet.
I'm sure if you keep calling those who do as LARPers, it will surely encourage such dialogue.
Very convenient of you to mentally gymnastics the explanation of how it's my fault that other people cannot engage in critical media analysis.
You okay? I'm talking about behavior, and you're making it about people's abilities. If you want people to engage in critical analysis, don't start by saying they're unable to do it.
Well, the empire from Star Wars was based on the US empire after all, and the rebels were based on the Viet Cong.
That's partially true, the Empire was based on inspiration from the US, Nazi Germany, and USSR. The rebels are of course the Viet Cong.
Thank god the "empire" funded and supported the rebels against the empire lmao
The Viet Cong are not the only rebels to have ever existed, the USSR is well known to use excessive military force against its own rebels.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_massacres_in_the_Soviet_Union
How much force would have been appropriate then, do you think?
Also, NATOpedia article lmao
Citation needed on that USSR claim, Lucas has only, to my knowledge, spoken of the USSR with respect to the inspiration he took from their film industry. He's outright stated that the Empire is the US and the Rebels the Viet Cong, plus there are the obvious allusions to the Nazis with Stormtroopers and the color of the Empire's unirorms, but to my knowledge nothing connecting to the USSR.
Return of the Jedi special edition commentary.
Believe it or not, Lucas is capable of finding both positives and negatives about both the US and the USSR.
Most of the aesthetic of Empire architecture is inspired by brutalist Soviet architecture, and ceremony for the Emperor's arrival was inspired by October Revolution Day military parades.
Thanks for the answer, any links or quotes? Can't find anything online.
If I have the time and motivation when I'm home I'll rip the relevant portion of the commentary and upload.
Thanks, I'd appreciate it! Don't stress out over it though, I'm just a curious rando.
The USSR was also a fascist dictatorship, the actual bureaucratic structure of the Galactic Empire much more closely resembles the USSR.
Edit: good points were made, it's overly reductive to call the USSR a facist dictatorship
This, I disagree with. The USSR was Marxist-Leninist and run by Soviets, not a fascist millitary dictatorship. Whether or not you or I believe the USSR was truly democratic or a betrayal of Socialist values is of little consequence when compared to the vastly different structure of Nazi Germany, which was a blend of corporations and an ethno-state.
The Empire appears to be more similar to Nazi Germany, where there exists a blend of corporations with a totalitarian state, rather than a command economy centered around worker councils.
I think it's hard to argue that the USSR wasn't a military dictatorship under Stalin. The USSR was hyper-nationalist and relied heavily on extensive police and military forces that used excessive violence to keep dissenters in line.
The USSR wasn't pursuing an ethno-state like Germany, but neither is the Galactic Empire. You might argue that despite the Galactic Empire being diverse in species, notably only white human men served as officers and leaders and dominated the military, but I'm not sure that's an intentional world-building decision rather than that's just how films in 1977 were made. I'm not yet aware if the USSR was known for being gender and race inclusive in its government or military structure either.
The USSR was a one-party state, and the state did own and control everything. However, this is fundamentally entirely different from Nazi Germany, which was a combination of corporations and a party owning and controlling everything in a totalitarian Capitalist manner.
It's reductive to call the USSR fascist, in my opinion. The USSR wasn't a shining beacon of tolerance and democracy, of course, but at the same time it absolutely was not fascist. The Russian Federation, that rose from the ruins of the USSR, is fascist, and run by extremely wealthy Capitalists.
As for equality in the USSR, gender economic equality was generally high overall, especially when compared to other nations, and especially in the military, but not within government. As for racism, it was apparently much, much better than modern Russia, so make of that what you will, but the state was seemingly mostly composed of white men. Homosexuality was made illegal by Stalin, I do know that.
You made some good points, I concede I was being overly reductive. I think you made a great summary of it.
I edited my previous comment to reflect how you changed my mind.
Thanks, no problem! I think it's totally fine to be firmly against the USSR, for clarification, but I also believe that fascism should be as clearly defined and understood as possible, because in the modern era it poses a genuine threat, so understanding what it looks like and how it operates is key.