Liberals just group anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their specific ideology into the same category. It’s wild how oversimplistic and childish that perspective is.
Tankies just group anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their specific ideology into the same category. It’s wild how oversimplistic and childish that perspective is.
To an extent. Maybe I’m spoiled because in Marxist circles people actually read things sometimes.
I guess I’m just amazed at how wildly wrong the comic is. The main reason any of them are on the same side in the first place is because the US can’t stop getting involved in conflicts all over the world, and Trump is absolutely not an exception to that trend. It’s utterly bizarre to look at Trump’s foreign policy, including starting a pointless trade war with China, and thinking that he needs to be more aggressive. But what’s actually happening in the real world is irrelevant to liberals, who don’t dare criticize US foreign policy for being too aggressive for fear of appearing disloyal, and so they’re only capable of criticizing it from the right.
But what’s actually happening in the real world is irrelevant to liberals, who don’t dare criticize US foreign policy for being too aggressive for fear of appearing disloyal, and so they’re only capable of criticizing it from the right.
When I hear stuff like this I literally do not understand what you’re talking about. Who are these liberals afraid to appear disloyal? Are you talking about international relations, internal government representatives or the voting bloc that might identify themselves as liberal or part of the liberal identity? Because my next question to whoever you’re going to label as the “liberals” is – what the hell are you talking about? Liberal voters are never-endingly critical of their representatives / government, politicians in liberal nations benefit from appearing to be “not the other guy” and cause disloyalty in all directions towards their opponents, international relations between liberal countries is literally the equivalent of public shaming to try and keep each other in step together. All left-leaning political factions engage in the circular firing squad, constant criticism that drags each other down, Marxists and socialists included.
It is actually insane to state there is any form of loyalty among liberals historically or today. Within a few years of America’s founding, the liberal facade shattered into political factions that have only become more and more polarized and fractured. It’s really just nonsense to say what you said. It’s also super arrogant to state marxist circles actually read things when here on lemmy the “marxists” constantly spread some of the fakest news you can find and ban each other on their instances for disloyalty or stating alternative opinions.
Trump’s foreign policies and all of his policies have nothing to do with the US agenda or historic goals.
Also this comic is taking arguably the most complex thing on this planet, international relations/history and framing it on a freakin’ seesaw, some delicate things are going to be lost in translation. That’s literally the point of political cartoons, to take super hard to define topics and basically make them into caricatures for people to laugh at and get a small grasp of the bigger picture.
Liberals are critical of specific politicians, and of their own governments, but only to and extent, and that critism is often framed in such a was as to reaffirm the thing they’re criticizing. The worst criticism a liberal is able to manage is that a leader (and it’s generally one specific person rather than any systemic analysis) is no better than foreigners, as presented in this comic. In doing so, they are in fact reaffirming their fundamental loyalty to the state even as they criticize it, because they cannot denounce the state without denouncing the state’s rivals and reaffirming their willingness to fight on the side of their own state against them.
This is what’s happening in the comic. The author is practically begging to rally behind Trump against the others, and criticizes him, not for all the fucked up things he’s doing, starting wars, sending masked thugs to raid workplaces, etc, but only for not being aggressive enough against the “real” villains of the world.
Liberals can’t help but try to outflank the right from the right. That’s why, for example, the Dems shifted hard-right on immigration and tried to say, “we’re the ones who will actually build the wall, Trump’s all talk.” It’s also why you often seen bizarre claims accusing Trump of being a communist. But it’s arguably worst when it comes to foreign policy, when Trump is bizarrely accused of being “too soft.” As if an “insufficiently” aggressive US foreign policy would be my problem somehow!
It is actually insane to state there is any form of loyalty among liberals historically or today.
I’m glad you brought up history, because it happens to contain a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Before WWI, the “social democrats” across Europe agreed on the necessity of opposing the coming war and uniting the people across borders against it. But then, the German SDP voted in favor of entering the war, and social democrats all across Europe fell in line behind the ruling class, ordering ordinary people to go kill and die in a pointless war for their masters. These same people were perfectly happy to denounce war and imperialism in the abstract, they would even criticize their own governments somewhat, but when push came to shove, they all fell in line (with Russia being the only exception).
It’s all the same shit today. Liberal criticism is just brattiness. It’s all keyfabe, it’s stepping out of line playfully, with the tacit understanding they are still loyal to the state and its leaders, that they will only oppose the state’s actions on principle, not even presenting true rhetorical opposition, much less taking any sort of action.
Trump’s foreign policies and all of his policies have nothing to do with the US agenda or historic goals.
How do you mean? Trump has taken aggressive stances against all three of the leaders depicted in the comic. The proxy war in Ukraine continues, a pointless trade war was started with China, and the largest military exercise in the world still takes place every year on the Korean DMZ, right on schedule.
Of course, we need to be clear what we’re talking about with “US agenda or historic goals.” Ordinary Americans have virtually no input on any foreign policy decision, not has US foreign policy ever been about serving the interests of ordinary Americans. The ruling class wishes to expand the power and influence of the empire in order to seize more wealth and resources for themselves, which is why they keep starting conflicts in every corner of the globe.
If Trump were taking a more peaceful and amicable approach to foreign policy, which he absolutely is not, that would be in line with the interests of ordinary Americans. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Vietnam, who got any benefit out of those wars but the ruling class, while our own people killed and died pointlessly on their whims?
Trump’s foreign policy is entirely in line with those goals of the ruling class. The only thing different is that he’s pursuing those goals brazenly, whereas before there was more of a pretense that it was about some higher purpose, but that pretense was never anything more than that.
get a small grasp of the bigger picture.
This isn’t “a small grasp of a bigger picture,” it’s just entirely out of line with reality in every possible way.
Man look you’re right on some parts but you’re either intentionally or unintentionally pushing almost all the responsibility onto one party while giving the others in this image a pass.
You’re applying an analysis of the United States’ structure that you’re not applying to Russia, China or North Korea. These countries all have a ruling class, capital, engage in imperialism and wield a specifically unique geopolitical power.
If we agree states are vehicles through which a ruling class pursues power, wealth and control then that has to apply to them all equally. They all have ruling elites, their own geopolitical ambitions and engage in their own means of repression or information control. Russia cracks down heavily on dissent, China engages in transnational repression and border disputes, North Korea has literally destroyed any meaningful space for political opposition or criticism of the Kim regime.
You’re portraying American actions as the product of imperial interests but repeatedly explain the actions of the other three in this image as reactions.
Look at Ukraine. You called it a “proxy war”, that doesn’t erase the fact that Russia chose to invade Ukraine. It doesn’t suddenly magically make Ukraine a puppet of the west. Western governments have a strategic interest in Ukraine you expect them to just throw up their hands in the face of a genuine invasion? Ukraine has its own interest and agency, they have their own aspirations. So why does western strategic interest erase Ukrainian agency while Russian interest in Ukraine doesn’t? Is Russia not engaging in one of the most obtuse and offensive acts of imperialism in the 21st century in their actions? They’re grinding an entire generation away into a supposedly “three day special operation” and pressganging any foreign national they can into the conflict as well. That’s a pretty disgusting thing to do.
they are in fact reaffirming their fundamental loyalty to the state even as they criticize it, because they cannot denounce the state without denouncing the state’s rivals and reaffirming their willingness to fight on the side of their own state against them.
Okay but what would genuine opposition look like to you? Abandoning ship entirely at the first sight of a disagreement or infringement? If criticizing your own government is keyfabe opposite its foreign policy is loyalty to the state and criticizing the leaders is just reaffirming the system. Then what could an individual, a liberal person, actually do that you would recognize as opposition?
I don’t understand what you think here. I don’t have to defend imperialism done by the Trump president or any president before to oppose Russian or Chinese imperialism. I don’t support the foreign policies of the United States to support Ukrainian sovereignty. I don’t believe China and North Kore are good because the United States has done terrible things. I think you’re missing that point entirely, or intentionally glossing over it all.
If you’re going to analyze power structures to define the flaws of liberals, then analyze all of it and paint the full picture. Otherwise you’re not analyzing power you’re just picking a side, the side of the other three in the image Trump has now joined. Which is what the artist is depicting.
You’re portraying American actions as the product of imperial interests but repeatedly explain the actions of the other three in this image as reactions.
Do I? Are you talking about something I said in this thread?
Look at Ukraine. You called it a “proxy war”, that doesn’t erase the fact that Russia chose to invade Ukraine. It doesn’t suddenly magically make Ukraine a puppet of the west.
Correct. I don’t consider it a Western puppet because Russia invaded it, but because of the 2013 coup.
However, that’s largely tangential to the discussion. If you take exception to calling it a proxy war, call it whatever you like. The point is that it’s still ongoing under Trump. The fact that Trump has said things about potentially being open to negotiations, or that he’s disrespected Zelensky, doesn’t change that what’s happening materially is consistent with prior policy.
Is Russia not engaging in one of the most obtuse and offensive acts of imperialism in the 21st century in their actions?
Indeed. I don’t really agree with Russia’s approach to the situation, though I confess I don’t really have a good answer to how they should have handled the developments. The only answer I tend to get is that said developments are fake news (regardless of evidence) and that acknowledging them makes me some kind of fascist.
The West backed their preferred faction and helped them overthrow the central government, Russia backed their preferred faction and helped them overthrow regional governments, yet somehow I’m supposed to see it as a black and white struggle of good vs evil.
Okay but what would genuine opposition look like to you?
Genuine opposition means recognizing that the interests of the state and the interests of the people are distinct. Instead of trying to frame every criticism in terms of “this person isn’t patriotic enough” it means framing it in terms of the actual harm being caused to ordinary people.
In the Bush years, there was lots of criticism of the wars in the Middle East. Yet even when Obama was elected, he continued them. The same happened with Trump, who in part succeeded because of his distance from the forever wars in the Middle East, but then he went out and started one. It’s clear that when a war is being criticized, it’s important to look at what, specifically, is being criticized, and what the person saying it actually wants to do differently. Otherwise, it’s no different from the rubes who think people like Tulsi Gabbard or Tucker Carlson are legitimately antiwar.
What is actually in the people’s interests is a massive reduction in military, a wholesale withdrawal from the role of imperial hegemon, and instead a refocus on addressing the many, many domestic crises that we’re facing.
However, if you advocate this, you’re bound to be accused of just subverting US interests for the benefit of foreign adversaries, or at least, of being soft on them. Nevermind the fact that China’s rise in power has come without waging war across every corner of the globe, but from investing in domestic production the same way I advocate for. Nevermind that trying to maintain this whole empire while massively overextended is going to result in a collapse that will be significantly worse than an intentional downscaling. Nevermind the soft power losses that come from people looking at the state of things domestically in the US and deciding that they absolutely want no part of it.
All I want is fucking healthcare, and to not be party to genocide, and to not have masked thugs breaking into my workplace and abducting my coworkers. I don’t know where people get this idea that we’re supposed to go around “solving” every problem in the world (with military force, for the benefit of the ruling class) like some kind of superhero. If we can’t fix our own shit, the fascists are going to win, and that will obviously be a much bigger problem for the world than the even the worst case scenario from the US not being aggressive enough.
I don’t have to defend imperialism done by the Trump president or any president before to oppose Russian or Chinese imperialism. I don’t support the foreign policies of the United States to support Ukrainian sovereignty. I don’t believe China and North Kore are good because the United States has done terrible things.
I don’t recall making any of those points. Again, are you talking about things I said in this thread?
I said that the worst criticism a liberal is able to make is to compare a leader to foreign rivals. Every criticism must be couched with a reaffirmation of opposition to the enemies of the ruling class, who are recognized as a greater evil, thereby leaving no doubt that they will never act against the ruling class. I didn’t say that everyone who opposed the West is “a good guy.”
I think you’re using the term liberal to mean too many things and also nothing at all. You’re crafting a bogeyman. The things you’ve said suggest liberal means the liberal ideology, democratic politicians, liberal voters, western governments, social democrats and really anyone who isn’t a marxist. They’re not the same thing. Genuine opposition also doesn’t mean anything, if someone criticizes their government but doesn’t go as far as you believe then suddenly their position is loyalty to a state, insufficiently anti-imperialist or basically a fake. That’s moving a goal post or a strawman or something, I dunno but it is disingenuous.
If genuine opposition means adopting your personal belief of a solution then you’re saying genuine opposition is an agreement with your politics. Someone can oppose all those things without arriving at the same conclusion as you. You can’t just decide what is a genuine opposition because it doesn’t go far enough for you.
I also think it’s pretty hypocritical the way you speak of Ukraine. The 2013/2014 events as a western backed coup is just not true. There was an enormous domestic protest of hundreds of thousands, a lot of which died during their protests because of a state crackdown lead by Yanukovych. When they kept pushing he literally fled the country TO RUSSIA where he is now hanging out with bashar al assad probably at some swanky resort because he’s never been anything but a Russian puppet. Now you can criticize Ukraine on how it used its procedures to remove Yanukovych and maybe that was questionable. You can debate the west or the EU had strategic investments in Ukraine, sure. But calling it a western led coup delegitimizes the sovereignty of Ukrainians who ultimately decide how the hell their government should and will function.
Which is extremely relevant to your argument about liberals. You’re suggesting they don’t genuinely oppose their government because their opposition doesn’t result in change of the state. But when Ukraine does, you’re inclined to interpret their actions as if it was solely a foreign power than the agency of it’s citizens.
I see this all the time with marxist, socialist, etc folk here on Lemmy. Their analysis of the United States in comparison to China or Russia is lopsided. Russia has its own ruling elite and imperial interests, as does China and North Korea. Russia invaded Ukraine like assholes because Ukraine didn’t do what it wanted. China has engaged in coercive territorial disputes with neighboring states and has been accused with really strong evidence of operating overseas citizen policing centers as part of transnational repression.
The biggest thing I want to make clear when I’m talking about liberals, I mean people broadly committed to liberal traditions of individual liberty, democratic government, civil liberties. Recognizing that liberal democracies provide citizens with substantially greater autonomy and political rights than authoritariajn states is not the same thing as being loyal to the state. These people likely realize democratic institutions and civil liberties are preferable to authoritarian alternatives like you find in Russia, China, North Korea.
Ordinary Americans have virtually no input on any foreign policy decision, not has US foreign policy ever been about serving the interests of ordinary Americans.
Democracy creates mechanisms which ordinary people can influence state policy even if those mechanisms are imperfect. At least in this country we have them and we understand why they’re failing, because wealthy individuals, many of which aren’t native to this country or even live here, have spent a lot of money encouraging a culture of Americans to not vote, not believe in democracy and allow them to continue to descend into an authoritarian state. China, Russia and North Korea don’t have that and Trump wishes the United States didn’t have that. Which is partly why Trump is depicted on that side of the seewsaw, because he wants to be on that side acting as those countries you’re heavily less critical of, act.
I also think it’s pretty hypocritical the way you speak of Ukraine. The 2013/2014 events as a western backed coup is just not true. There was an enormous domestic protest of hundreds of thousands, a lot of which died during their protests because of a state crackdown lead by Yanukovych. When they kept pushing he literally fled the country TO RUSSIA where he is now hanging out with bashar al assad probably at some swanky resort because he’s never been anything but a Russian puppet. Now you can criticize Ukraine on how it used its procedures to remove Yanukovych and maybe that was questionable. You can debate the west or the EU had strategic investments in Ukraine, sure. But calling it a western led coup delegitimizes the sovereignty of Ukrainians who ultimately decide how the hell their government should and will function.
I see this all the time with marxist, socialist, etc folk here on Lemmy. Their analysis of the United States in comparison to China or Russia is lopsided.
It’s your analysis that’s lopsided here, and mine that’s balanced. The overthrow of the central government involved some degree of genuine support by the people and some degree of foreign backing and control. The overthrow of the regional governments also involved some degree of genuine support by the people and some degree of foreign backing and control. However, when the West does it, it’s simply providing aid to the genuine will of the people, but when Russia does it, it’s an imperialist ploy to control the region.
I am perfectly happy to apply the same standard in both cases, it’s you who’s applying a double standard. On what basis should I determine that the Western-backed movement in western Ukraine is more legitimate than the Russian-backed movement in the east? It’s utter nonsense.
I don’t see how Yanukovych fleeing to Russia retroactively delegitimizes him. He was overthrown by a Western-backed movement, so it’s fairly natural. Edward Snowden fled to Russia after being declared an enemy of the state by the US. When the shah of Iran was overthrown, he fled to the US. And if Yanukovych’s crackdowns justified his overthrow, then why is it that when the new government outlawed a bunch of opposition parties, that somehow didn’t justify the separatists’ actions?
Incidentally, there was a leaked phone call from the state department hand-picking who should wind up in power from Euromaidan, and wouldn’t you know it, their picks were the ones who did.
You’re suggesting they don’t genuinely oppose their government because their opposition doesn’t result in change of the state. But when Ukraine does, you’re inclined to interpret their actions as if it was solely a foreign power than the agency of it’s citizens.
Is it even possible to not interpret Ukrainian opposition to the state as influenced by a foreign power? Either you interpret the actions against the previous government in the west that way, or you do so for the separatists in the east. I suppose you could take the position that neither side is foreign-backed, but I don’t think anyone does, because it would be kind of absurd.
I never claimed that either of those factions was being solely controlled by a foreign power, by the way. As I said, there is some genuine support and some foreign influence in both cases, and I’m merely saying that I don’t see a reason to treat one side as more legitimate than the other.
Also, the material conditions in Ukraine are just different, because Ukraine does not have a massive overseas empire like the US does. It’s apples and oranges. I don’t call for opposing the US state just because it’s a state, but because of the giant militaristic empire oppressing the global poor.
Democracy creates mechanisms which ordinary people can influence state policy even if those mechanisms are imperfect.
Ha! And what mechanisms are those, exactly? I was given a binary choice between two parties, both of which supported the Palestinian genocide, both of which supported an aggressive stance against China, both of which opposed lifting sanctions against North Korea or similar countries, etc. When I voted for a third party that actually represented my interests but had no chance of winning, I received constant criticism for it and was accused of being a secret Trump supporter.
Or tell me, which major presidential candidate did not want to continue pouring endless amounts of blood and treasure into conquering Afghanistan for 20 years? Bush, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, and Clinton were all 100% in favor them, despite their unpopularity. As I said, part of the reason for Trump’s success was appearing to be an outsider to that bipartisan consensus, but then he of course continued the war in Afghanistan and even started another one in Iran. The ruling class will never allow you to vote away the war machine.
Our elections are not democratic, by design. A handful of immensely wealthy people, the ruling class, can pour massive amounts of money into them with no regulation. The two major parties have no requirement to provide a free and fair primary process and are perfectly within their rights to rig them or just hand pick whatever candidate they like. Congress consistently operates with an approval rating below 20%.
Once again, we see your double standard at play. When the US has such factors compromising our elections, it’s exceptional, it’s because of foreign money, etc. But Russia and China have elections too, and when there are issues with those elections, they don’t get any sort of excuses, they are simply rotten to their core, fundamentally undemocratic. It’s because I don’t make exceptions in my analysis of the US that you see my analysis as biased and unfair, because you don’t realize your own bias.
Liberals just group anyone who doesn’t subscribe to their specific ideology into the same category. It’s wild how oversimplistic and childish that perspective is.
The classic, “I know you are but what am I?” but the problem is that the comic is the thing that actually does it.
Wow. Deep.
Not as deep as the comic tho. Really insightful stuff there.
Isn’t that what all political factions do? Everyone who isn’t them is stupid, then they engage in infighting with their own.
To an extent. Maybe I’m spoiled because in Marxist circles people actually read things sometimes.
I guess I’m just amazed at how wildly wrong the comic is. The main reason any of them are on the same side in the first place is because the US can’t stop getting involved in conflicts all over the world, and Trump is absolutely not an exception to that trend. It’s utterly bizarre to look at Trump’s foreign policy, including starting a pointless trade war with China, and thinking that he needs to be more aggressive. But what’s actually happening in the real world is irrelevant to liberals, who don’t dare criticize US foreign policy for being too aggressive for fear of appearing disloyal, and so they’re only capable of criticizing it from the right.
When I hear stuff like this I literally do not understand what you’re talking about. Who are these liberals afraid to appear disloyal? Are you talking about international relations, internal government representatives or the voting bloc that might identify themselves as liberal or part of the liberal identity? Because my next question to whoever you’re going to label as the “liberals” is – what the hell are you talking about? Liberal voters are never-endingly critical of their representatives / government, politicians in liberal nations benefit from appearing to be “not the other guy” and cause disloyalty in all directions towards their opponents, international relations between liberal countries is literally the equivalent of public shaming to try and keep each other in step together. All left-leaning political factions engage in the circular firing squad, constant criticism that drags each other down, Marxists and socialists included.
It is actually insane to state there is any form of loyalty among liberals historically or today. Within a few years of America’s founding, the liberal facade shattered into political factions that have only become more and more polarized and fractured. It’s really just nonsense to say what you said. It’s also super arrogant to state marxist circles actually read things when here on lemmy the “marxists” constantly spread some of the fakest news you can find and ban each other on their instances for disloyalty or stating alternative opinions.
Trump’s foreign policies and all of his policies have nothing to do with the US agenda or historic goals.
Also this comic is taking arguably the most complex thing on this planet, international relations/history and framing it on a freakin’ seesaw, some delicate things are going to be lost in translation. That’s literally the point of political cartoons, to take super hard to define topics and basically make them into caricatures for people to laugh at and get a small grasp of the bigger picture.
Liberals are critical of specific politicians, and of their own governments, but only to and extent, and that critism is often framed in such a was as to reaffirm the thing they’re criticizing. The worst criticism a liberal is able to manage is that a leader (and it’s generally one specific person rather than any systemic analysis) is no better than foreigners, as presented in this comic. In doing so, they are in fact reaffirming their fundamental loyalty to the state even as they criticize it, because they cannot denounce the state without denouncing the state’s rivals and reaffirming their willingness to fight on the side of their own state against them.
This is what’s happening in the comic. The author is practically begging to rally behind Trump against the others, and criticizes him, not for all the fucked up things he’s doing, starting wars, sending masked thugs to raid workplaces, etc, but only for not being aggressive enough against the “real” villains of the world.
Liberals can’t help but try to outflank the right from the right. That’s why, for example, the Dems shifted hard-right on immigration and tried to say, “we’re the ones who will actually build the wall, Trump’s all talk.” It’s also why you often seen bizarre claims accusing Trump of being a communist. But it’s arguably worst when it comes to foreign policy, when Trump is bizarrely accused of being “too soft.” As if an “insufficiently” aggressive US foreign policy would be my problem somehow!
I’m glad you brought up history, because it happens to contain a perfect example of what I’m talking about. Before WWI, the “social democrats” across Europe agreed on the necessity of opposing the coming war and uniting the people across borders against it. But then, the German SDP voted in favor of entering the war, and social democrats all across Europe fell in line behind the ruling class, ordering ordinary people to go kill and die in a pointless war for their masters. These same people were perfectly happy to denounce war and imperialism in the abstract, they would even criticize their own governments somewhat, but when push came to shove, they all fell in line (with Russia being the only exception).
It’s all the same shit today. Liberal criticism is just brattiness. It’s all keyfabe, it’s stepping out of line playfully, with the tacit understanding they are still loyal to the state and its leaders, that they will only oppose the state’s actions on principle, not even presenting true rhetorical opposition, much less taking any sort of action.
How do you mean? Trump has taken aggressive stances against all three of the leaders depicted in the comic. The proxy war in Ukraine continues, a pointless trade war was started with China, and the largest military exercise in the world still takes place every year on the Korean DMZ, right on schedule.
Of course, we need to be clear what we’re talking about with “US agenda or historic goals.” Ordinary Americans have virtually no input on any foreign policy decision, not has US foreign policy ever been about serving the interests of ordinary Americans. The ruling class wishes to expand the power and influence of the empire in order to seize more wealth and resources for themselves, which is why they keep starting conflicts in every corner of the globe.
If Trump were taking a more peaceful and amicable approach to foreign policy, which he absolutely is not, that would be in line with the interests of ordinary Americans. Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Vietnam, who got any benefit out of those wars but the ruling class, while our own people killed and died pointlessly on their whims?
Trump’s foreign policy is entirely in line with those goals of the ruling class. The only thing different is that he’s pursuing those goals brazenly, whereas before there was more of a pretense that it was about some higher purpose, but that pretense was never anything more than that.
This isn’t “a small grasp of a bigger picture,” it’s just entirely out of line with reality in every possible way.
Man look you’re right on some parts but you’re either intentionally or unintentionally pushing almost all the responsibility onto one party while giving the others in this image a pass.
You’re applying an analysis of the United States’ structure that you’re not applying to Russia, China or North Korea. These countries all have a ruling class, capital, engage in imperialism and wield a specifically unique geopolitical power.
If we agree states are vehicles through which a ruling class pursues power, wealth and control then that has to apply to them all equally. They all have ruling elites, their own geopolitical ambitions and engage in their own means of repression or information control. Russia cracks down heavily on dissent, China engages in transnational repression and border disputes, North Korea has literally destroyed any meaningful space for political opposition or criticism of the Kim regime.
You’re portraying American actions as the product of imperial interests but repeatedly explain the actions of the other three in this image as reactions.
Look at Ukraine. You called it a “proxy war”, that doesn’t erase the fact that Russia chose to invade Ukraine. It doesn’t suddenly magically make Ukraine a puppet of the west. Western governments have a strategic interest in Ukraine you expect them to just throw up their hands in the face of a genuine invasion? Ukraine has its own interest and agency, they have their own aspirations. So why does western strategic interest erase Ukrainian agency while Russian interest in Ukraine doesn’t? Is Russia not engaging in one of the most obtuse and offensive acts of imperialism in the 21st century in their actions? They’re grinding an entire generation away into a supposedly “three day special operation” and pressganging any foreign national they can into the conflict as well. That’s a pretty disgusting thing to do.
Okay but what would genuine opposition look like to you? Abandoning ship entirely at the first sight of a disagreement or infringement? If criticizing your own government is keyfabe opposite its foreign policy is loyalty to the state and criticizing the leaders is just reaffirming the system. Then what could an individual, a liberal person, actually do that you would recognize as opposition?
I don’t understand what you think here. I don’t have to defend imperialism done by the Trump president or any president before to oppose Russian or Chinese imperialism. I don’t support the foreign policies of the United States to support Ukrainian sovereignty. I don’t believe China and North Kore are good because the United States has done terrible things. I think you’re missing that point entirely, or intentionally glossing over it all.
If you’re going to analyze power structures to define the flaws of liberals, then analyze all of it and paint the full picture. Otherwise you’re not analyzing power you’re just picking a side, the side of the other three in the image Trump has now joined. Which is what the artist is depicting.
Do I? Are you talking about something I said in this thread?
Correct. I don’t consider it a Western puppet because Russia invaded it, but because of the 2013 coup.
However, that’s largely tangential to the discussion. If you take exception to calling it a proxy war, call it whatever you like. The point is that it’s still ongoing under Trump. The fact that Trump has said things about potentially being open to negotiations, or that he’s disrespected Zelensky, doesn’t change that what’s happening materially is consistent with prior policy.
Indeed. I don’t really agree with Russia’s approach to the situation, though I confess I don’t really have a good answer to how they should have handled the developments. The only answer I tend to get is that said developments are fake news (regardless of evidence) and that acknowledging them makes me some kind of fascist.
The West backed their preferred faction and helped them overthrow the central government, Russia backed their preferred faction and helped them overthrow regional governments, yet somehow I’m supposed to see it as a black and white struggle of good vs evil.
Genuine opposition means recognizing that the interests of the state and the interests of the people are distinct. Instead of trying to frame every criticism in terms of “this person isn’t patriotic enough” it means framing it in terms of the actual harm being caused to ordinary people.
In the Bush years, there was lots of criticism of the wars in the Middle East. Yet even when Obama was elected, he continued them. The same happened with Trump, who in part succeeded because of his distance from the forever wars in the Middle East, but then he went out and started one. It’s clear that when a war is being criticized, it’s important to look at what, specifically, is being criticized, and what the person saying it actually wants to do differently. Otherwise, it’s no different from the rubes who think people like Tulsi Gabbard or Tucker Carlson are legitimately antiwar.
What is actually in the people’s interests is a massive reduction in military, a wholesale withdrawal from the role of imperial hegemon, and instead a refocus on addressing the many, many domestic crises that we’re facing.
However, if you advocate this, you’re bound to be accused of just subverting US interests for the benefit of foreign adversaries, or at least, of being soft on them. Nevermind the fact that China’s rise in power has come without waging war across every corner of the globe, but from investing in domestic production the same way I advocate for. Nevermind that trying to maintain this whole empire while massively overextended is going to result in a collapse that will be significantly worse than an intentional downscaling. Nevermind the soft power losses that come from people looking at the state of things domestically in the US and deciding that they absolutely want no part of it.
All I want is fucking healthcare, and to not be party to genocide, and to not have masked thugs breaking into my workplace and abducting my coworkers. I don’t know where people get this idea that we’re supposed to go around “solving” every problem in the world (with military force, for the benefit of the ruling class) like some kind of superhero. If we can’t fix our own shit, the fascists are going to win, and that will obviously be a much bigger problem for the world than the even the worst case scenario from the US not being aggressive enough.
I don’t recall making any of those points. Again, are you talking about things I said in this thread?
I said that the worst criticism a liberal is able to make is to compare a leader to foreign rivals. Every criticism must be couched with a reaffirmation of opposition to the enemies of the ruling class, who are recognized as a greater evil, thereby leaving no doubt that they will never act against the ruling class. I didn’t say that everyone who opposed the West is “a good guy.”
I think you’re using the term liberal to mean too many things and also nothing at all. You’re crafting a bogeyman. The things you’ve said suggest liberal means the liberal ideology, democratic politicians, liberal voters, western governments, social democrats and really anyone who isn’t a marxist. They’re not the same thing. Genuine opposition also doesn’t mean anything, if someone criticizes their government but doesn’t go as far as you believe then suddenly their position is loyalty to a state, insufficiently anti-imperialist or basically a fake. That’s moving a goal post or a strawman or something, I dunno but it is disingenuous.
If genuine opposition means adopting your personal belief of a solution then you’re saying genuine opposition is an agreement with your politics. Someone can oppose all those things without arriving at the same conclusion as you. You can’t just decide what is a genuine opposition because it doesn’t go far enough for you.
I also think it’s pretty hypocritical the way you speak of Ukraine. The 2013/2014 events as a western backed coup is just not true. There was an enormous domestic protest of hundreds of thousands, a lot of which died during their protests because of a state crackdown lead by Yanukovych. When they kept pushing he literally fled the country TO RUSSIA where he is now hanging out with bashar al assad probably at some swanky resort because he’s never been anything but a Russian puppet. Now you can criticize Ukraine on how it used its procedures to remove Yanukovych and maybe that was questionable. You can debate the west or the EU had strategic investments in Ukraine, sure. But calling it a western led coup delegitimizes the sovereignty of Ukrainians who ultimately decide how the hell their government should and will function.
Which is extremely relevant to your argument about liberals. You’re suggesting they don’t genuinely oppose their government because their opposition doesn’t result in change of the state. But when Ukraine does, you’re inclined to interpret their actions as if it was solely a foreign power than the agency of it’s citizens.
I see this all the time with marxist, socialist, etc folk here on Lemmy. Their analysis of the United States in comparison to China or Russia is lopsided. Russia has its own ruling elite and imperial interests, as does China and North Korea. Russia invaded Ukraine like assholes because Ukraine didn’t do what it wanted. China has engaged in coercive territorial disputes with neighboring states and has been accused with really strong evidence of operating overseas citizen policing centers as part of transnational repression.
The biggest thing I want to make clear when I’m talking about liberals, I mean people broadly committed to liberal traditions of individual liberty, democratic government, civil liberties. Recognizing that liberal democracies provide citizens with substantially greater autonomy and political rights than authoritariajn states is not the same thing as being loyal to the state. These people likely realize democratic institutions and civil liberties are preferable to authoritarian alternatives like you find in Russia, China, North Korea.
Democracy creates mechanisms which ordinary people can influence state policy even if those mechanisms are imperfect. At least in this country we have them and we understand why they’re failing, because wealthy individuals, many of which aren’t native to this country or even live here, have spent a lot of money encouraging a culture of Americans to not vote, not believe in democracy and allow them to continue to descend into an authoritarian state. China, Russia and North Korea don’t have that and Trump wishes the United States didn’t have that. Which is partly why Trump is depicted on that side of the seewsaw, because he wants to be on that side acting as those countries you’re heavily less critical of, act.
It’s your analysis that’s lopsided here, and mine that’s balanced. The overthrow of the central government involved some degree of genuine support by the people and some degree of foreign backing and control. The overthrow of the regional governments also involved some degree of genuine support by the people and some degree of foreign backing and control. However, when the West does it, it’s simply providing aid to the genuine will of the people, but when Russia does it, it’s an imperialist ploy to control the region.
I am perfectly happy to apply the same standard in both cases, it’s you who’s applying a double standard. On what basis should I determine that the Western-backed movement in western Ukraine is more legitimate than the Russian-backed movement in the east? It’s utter nonsense.
I don’t see how Yanukovych fleeing to Russia retroactively delegitimizes him. He was overthrown by a Western-backed movement, so it’s fairly natural. Edward Snowden fled to Russia after being declared an enemy of the state by the US. When the shah of Iran was overthrown, he fled to the US. And if Yanukovych’s crackdowns justified his overthrow, then why is it that when the new government outlawed a bunch of opposition parties, that somehow didn’t justify the separatists’ actions?
Incidentally, there was a leaked phone call from the state department hand-picking who should wind up in power from Euromaidan, and wouldn’t you know it, their picks were the ones who did.
Is it even possible to not interpret Ukrainian opposition to the state as influenced by a foreign power? Either you interpret the actions against the previous government in the west that way, or you do so for the separatists in the east. I suppose you could take the position that neither side is foreign-backed, but I don’t think anyone does, because it would be kind of absurd.
I never claimed that either of those factions was being solely controlled by a foreign power, by the way. As I said, there is some genuine support and some foreign influence in both cases, and I’m merely saying that I don’t see a reason to treat one side as more legitimate than the other.
Also, the material conditions in Ukraine are just different, because Ukraine does not have a massive overseas empire like the US does. It’s apples and oranges. I don’t call for opposing the US state just because it’s a state, but because of the giant militaristic empire oppressing the global poor.
Ha! And what mechanisms are those, exactly? I was given a binary choice between two parties, both of which supported the Palestinian genocide, both of which supported an aggressive stance against China, both of which opposed lifting sanctions against North Korea or similar countries, etc. When I voted for a third party that actually represented my interests but had no chance of winning, I received constant criticism for it and was accused of being a secret Trump supporter.
Or tell me, which major presidential candidate did not want to continue pouring endless amounts of blood and treasure into conquering Afghanistan for 20 years? Bush, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, and Clinton were all 100% in favor them, despite their unpopularity. As I said, part of the reason for Trump’s success was appearing to be an outsider to that bipartisan consensus, but then he of course continued the war in Afghanistan and even started another one in Iran. The ruling class will never allow you to vote away the war machine.
Our elections are not democratic, by design. A handful of immensely wealthy people, the ruling class, can pour massive amounts of money into them with no regulation. The two major parties have no requirement to provide a free and fair primary process and are perfectly within their rights to rig them or just hand pick whatever candidate they like. Congress consistently operates with an approval rating below 20%.
Once again, we see your double standard at play. When the US has such factors compromising our elections, it’s exceptional, it’s because of foreign money, etc. But Russia and China have elections too, and when there are issues with those elections, they don’t get any sort of excuses, they are simply rotten to their core, fundamentally undemocratic. It’s because I don’t make exceptions in my analysis of the US that you see my analysis as biased and unfair, because you don’t realize your own bias.