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.
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.
You did, you even reiterated it just now?
Correct. I don’t consider it a Western puppet because Russia invaded it, but because of the 2013 coup.
The first time,
The overthrow of the central government involved some degree of genuine support by the people and some degree of foreign backing and control.
the second time with back tracking. And you move forward claiming you never said it was solely controlled but that the US was the bad guy when they did it and Russia was not for… reasons?
I think we both agree that Ukraine doesn’t exist in a bubble. It not only has influence from these specific foreign powers but probably every single power in the world because that’s kind of how a global economy works. The US/the west/the EU have a financial incentive in Ukraine the same as Russia, both are somewhat legitimate to want what they want. I think we both understand that but also do not respect or enjoy that fact about the world as it is gross and imperialistic and removes a nation and it’s people’s sovereignty.
I’m merely saying that I don’t see a reason to treat one side as more legitimate than the other.
But there is for two massive reasons. First, Ukrainians have made their choice where they would like to go, towards the EU and what they want is a democratic country. That reason standing alone is the deciding factor. Neither Russia or the US was the reason hundreds of thousands marched in the street, every individual made that choice themselves. It is so silly when political leaders refer to protestors as fake or paid or whatever. I know for a fact in protests there are bad actors, some of them paid, some of them are even local law enforcement. But that many bodies did not walk into the street and get paid to do so, that was their choice. And for that reason their want to move towards the EU, which was the whole reason they protested in the first place. Ukraine wanted ties to the EU, they wanted those trade deals and benefits. When it was rejected, they stormed into the street and decided what they want. So for a foreign power allied with the EU or in the EU to take measures to aid a sovereign Ukraine to that direction is legitimate. Second, Russia engaging in deceitful and violent measures to derail that goal lessens their claims further, it literally makes them the bad guy here. They are trying to change what the Ukrainian people want and now there is a war of disgusting aggression going on, bodies are being destroyed and lives wasted and ruined for Russia (see Putin’s) personal wants. Which is absolutely disgusting and makes it so any argument to compare the west and Russia’s goals in Ukraine completely incomparable.
Incidentally, there was a leaked phone call from the state department discussing who should wind up in power from Euromaidan, and wouldn’t you know it, their picks were the ones who did.
Again as we both have stated above, these countries have vested interests it is unrealistic to say they shouldn’t discuss this. Nothing in that phone call was offensive or imperialistic. It’s not speaking of corruption or subverting law, it’s talking about their goals in Ukraine.
“A senior aide for Russian President Vladimir Putin has accused Washington of “interfering in Ukraine’s domestic affairs,” the BBC reported.”
Which is fuckin’ hilarious because A) Yanukovych is Putin’s guy. B) Putin is literally doing the same exact thing, you’re lying if you don’t admit that. C) If Yanukovych succeeded in snuffing out those protests you can bet Putin’s picks for Ukraine’s government would be sitting in their positions now too. You’re literally doing it again where you give Russia this invisible pass and act like the US/the west is the only one who is doing these things and at the same time you’re saying things like :
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 that the Russian-backed movement in the east? It’s utter nonsense.
But you’re BLATANTLY NOT. Which is what I’m arguing about here. You’re just not. I’m sitting here stating openly how both of these actors are doing the same behavior except one has turned to bloodshed and lies and the other has peddled in lies BUT with the caveat that the Ukrainian people have decided which direction they want to go, not towards the bloodshed guy who you are literally arguing in favor for. So no, you’re being dishonest or you don’t understand your own position or you’re straight up misunderstanding/being intentionally obtuse and ignorant.
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 fighting in 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.
As opposed to what/who? Putin who has sat in power for the last 20 years unchallenged? The Kim regime? China’s single party? You are given a choice, there are not two parties. There is not one election. Every two years and sometimes more there is a chance to vote. If “Not Voting” was an option to win the office it would win every single time. You’re parroting talking points of foreign interests in the United States/the west which is that democracy is a sham why bother voting. You see this all over lemmy from these supposed “marxists” who apparently don’t want any form of representation I guess and embrace authoritarianism? It’s nonsense. How can you call yourself any form of a left-leaning ideology without the understanding of representation and democratic procedures. You’re literally arguing on the behalf of authoritarians and stating at the same time you are a proud marxist. Make it make sense?
This is where you fall flat on your face claiming liberals fall into loyalty or something. Americans are so heavily critical of their government, there’s not a single president everyone has 100% liked in our life time. Every presidency is riddled with criticism and backlash and calls to remove them. You don’t have that in these countries you’re literally supporting, you’re going to tell me you don’t support them but you literally are by giving Russia these fake passes that allow them to engage in the same activity the west does, while also being far worse, and acting like they don’t fucking do it too. For lack of better words it’s childish to think other people don’t see through that instantly. And once again you fall into this same line of thinking that if they don’t agree with YOUR OPINION, it isn’t really democracy and it isn’t legitimate which is so funny because that’s the opposite of democracy. People don’t have to agree with you and your personal view of legitimacy doesn’t have to be accepted. How many elections across this entire country have happened since the year 2000? Likely over 100,000 elections, that’s my small estimate. You think out of 100,000 local to presidential elections not a single candidate has supported a withdraw from the middle east or afghanistan? Off the top of my head here’s a few: Dennis Kuchinich, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Bill Richardson, JOE BIDEN(WHO LITERALLY WITHDREW FROM THE MIDDLE EAST!?)
What we see here is you playing a pick and choose game. You decide the US is interfering in Ukraine not Russia. You decide they aren’t true liberals and it isn’t real democracy because they aren’t what YOU want. You parrot obvious Russian talking points trying to delegitimize both elections in the US and in Ukraine, the will of the people in both countries “aren’t real” and we can talk all day about corruption, foreign influence, the power of money and it’s ability to influence campaigns. But you’re just ignoring simple truths.
Again, if “Not Voting” was a candidate, it would win EVERY SINGLE TIME. The problem isn’t the system here, it is people like you who throw up their hands and whine when they don’t win. The solutions are there and obvious. I’m done here. Ridiculous
And you move forward claiming you never said it was solely controlled but that the US was the bad guy when they did it and Russia was not for… reasons?
I never claimed either part of that. What I said was that I’m applying the same standard to both, and I even said that I don’t agree with Russia’s actions. It’s you who wants to assign “good guy” and “bad guy” labels here.
First, Ukrainians have made their choice where they would like to go, towards the EU and what they want is a democratic country.
No, they have not. A faction of Ukrainians, who happened to be men with assault rifles, overthrew the central government and declared themselves to represent the will of the people. Then a different faction of Ukrainians, who also happened to be men with assault rifles, overthrew some regional governments and claimed to represent the will of the people. And you are arbitrarily declaring that this group of armed men actually does represent the people and that one doesn’t.
After the overthrow of the government, elections were held, which had some potential to legitimize the new government. But then that new government went and outlawed major opposition parties.
Which part of that represents “Ukrainians making a choice?” The men with assault rifles, or the elections where the opposition was banned?
Second, Russia engaging in deceitful and violent measures to derail that goal lessens their claims further, it literally makes them the bad guy here.
This isn’t really a separate point because it assumes your first point is true, which it isn’t.
If Yanukovych succeeded in snuffing out those protests you can bet Putin’s picks for Ukraine’s government would be sitting in their positions now too.
Agreed, so we’re on the same page.
You’re literally doing it again where you give Russia this invisible pass
What? Where did I do this? Is it invisible in the sense that I never said anything that substantiates your accusation?
But you’re BLATANTLY NOT. Which is what I’m arguing about here. You’re just not.
Great argument.
I’m sitting here stating openly how both of these actors are doing the same behavior except one has turned to bloodshed and lies and the other has peddled in lies BUT with the caveat that the Ukrainian people have decided which direction they want to go, not towards the bloodshed guy who you are literally arguing in favor for.
Right, you’re critical of both, except for the small little caveat where you completely accept one side’s narrative based on nothing.
So no, you’re being dishonest or you don’t understand your own position or you’re straight up misunderstanding/being intentionally obtuse and ignorant.
Or, I do understand my own position, it’s just different from the one you made up and assigned to me. Y’all think its somehow bad faith when we don’t defend the strawman positions you make up and assign to us, it’s ridiculous.
You’re parroting talking points of foreign interests in the United States/the west which is that democracy is a sham why bother voting.
There it is. The age old talking point that communists are only opposing the government because we’re agents of foreign powers, go back a hundred years and the rhetoric is exactly the same. Red Scare nonsense.
JOE BIDEN(WHO LITERALLY WITHDREW FROM THE MIDDLE EAST!?)
After being the second highest official for 8 years of occupation, and sanctioning them into a humanitarian crisis afterwards, yes, he finally gave up on the pointless decades-long war of aggression that was unwinnable from the day it was started. And then increased the military budget even higher afterwards.
You decide the US is interfering in Ukraine not Russia
Complete strawman. I’ve reiterated over and over again that both factions in Ukraine have foreign backing, I have never claimed that Russia is not interfering. Maybe I just “don’t understand my own position” 🙄
You parrot obvious Russian talking points trying to delegitimize both elections in the US and in Ukraine, the will of the people in both countries “aren’t real”
And you do the same with elections in China. Not every election is automatically a legitimate expression of popular will.
The solutions are there and obvious
Lol, so obvious that there’s no need to actually explain what they supposedly are or how they supposedly function. Right.
After being the second highest official for 8 years of occupation
This is such a funny thing to say when you’re doing laps and mental gymnastics to support Putin, the guy who has ruled a country for 20 years unchallenged and unimpeded, who has bombed his own citizens, spreads fake news and instigated a full scale “tHRee dAY spEciAL OPerAtion” into millions dead while pressganging innocent Indians, Africans and South Americans into the war. Bombing apartments, shopping centers and having his goons torture Ukrainians.
This is exactly why I can’t take you seriously. Double standard. Completely a joke. Classic .ml 🙄
Just because you’re saying what your position is, doesn’t actually make that your position. You are literally going “I TREAT BOTH EQUALLY” and then do nothing but pump Russia and their talking points - Voting doesn’t work, Ukraine didn’t want democracy, the US is worse. You have not levied a single criticism equally in the direction of any of the other three in that image. Every single step of the way I have been equally critical of the US and pointed out their actions are the same as Russia does, they are imperialist and their goals are selfish. You’re disingenuous and think just because you say it, it becomes true. Just the same as you treat everything: It isn’t liberal unless you agree, it isn’t democracy unless you say so, it is fair if you say it is fair. You’re like a five year old.
Nice strawman bro. Get out of here you’ve got nothing to offer me but crap opinions and false positions. You stand for nothing and your beliefs are paper thin. A “marxist” who supports authoritarianism. What an absolute living breathing joke of a human being go back to your little circles of “wELl ReAd mARxIsTs”. Buncha dorks, classic .ml
You are literally going “I TREAT BOTH EQUALLY” and then do nothing but pump Russia and their talking points
That’s because you completely accept one side’s narrative, despite having nothing to back it up, so anything that challenges that one-sided view you just label as a “Russian talking point.”
You have not levied a single criticism equally in the direction of any of the other three in that image.
That’s a blatant lie. I criticized Russia’s invasion and accused them of doing the exact same thing that I accused the US of. Plenty of actually pro-Russia people would take issue with that, and say that their armed men with guns are the real expression of popular support and the other side is just a foreign puppet, exactly the way you do in reverse.
Unless I see a reason why I should trust one group of armed men seizing government buildings more than the other, then it’s perfectly reasonable to regard both claims with equal skepticism.
The main reason you’re turning to these accusations and talking about ending the discussion is because you can’t answer the simple question I posed, which is how we know the faction in the west legitimately represents the people’s will. I’m assuming the answer is that the media told you so and you never thought to critically examine it. So now we have all this bullshit to hide the fact that you don’t have an answer.
Every single step of the way I have been equally critical of the US and pointed out their actions are the same as Russia does
Lol, no you haven’t. You’re depicting the US as heroically coming to the rescue of a poor, defenseless country that’s fully democratic and representive of the popular will, while possibly having an ulterior motive for doing so, while Russia is depicted as using proxies to seize territory in a brazen attempt at expansionism. This despite the fact that there is nothing you can point to to actually demonstrate that the Western-backed faction is any less of a proxy or any more of a legitimate representation of popular will. Like I said, when the conversation hits that point, you just hastily change the subject and start throwing out baseless accusations.
Just the same as you treat everything: It isn’t liberal unless you agree, it isn’t democracy unless you say so, it is fair if you say it is fair. You’re like a five year old.
To be clear, the policies I was mentioning, like ending the war in Afghanistan, were popular policies. It’s not the fact that the US government doesn’t respond to my, personal views that makes it not a democracy, it’s the fact that it does not respond to what the people in general want.
A “marxist” who supports authoritarianism.
Lol, and I suppose you either haven’t read Engles or don’t consider him a Marxist either. Next you’ll be telling me that Marx himself wasn’t a Marxist. Nevermind the fact that this “support for authoritarianism” is just something you made up to get out of answering a difficult question.
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.
You did, you even reiterated it just now?
The first time,
the second time with back tracking. And you move forward claiming you never said it was solely controlled but that the US was the bad guy when they did it and Russia was not for… reasons?
I think we both agree that Ukraine doesn’t exist in a bubble. It not only has influence from these specific foreign powers but probably every single power in the world because that’s kind of how a global economy works. The US/the west/the EU have a financial incentive in Ukraine the same as Russia, both are somewhat legitimate to want what they want. I think we both understand that but also do not respect or enjoy that fact about the world as it is gross and imperialistic and removes a nation and it’s people’s sovereignty.
But there is for two massive reasons. First, Ukrainians have made their choice where they would like to go, towards the EU and what they want is a democratic country. That reason standing alone is the deciding factor. Neither Russia or the US was the reason hundreds of thousands marched in the street, every individual made that choice themselves. It is so silly when political leaders refer to protestors as fake or paid or whatever. I know for a fact in protests there are bad actors, some of them paid, some of them are even local law enforcement. But that many bodies did not walk into the street and get paid to do so, that was their choice. And for that reason their want to move towards the EU, which was the whole reason they protested in the first place. Ukraine wanted ties to the EU, they wanted those trade deals and benefits. When it was rejected, they stormed into the street and decided what they want. So for a foreign power allied with the EU or in the EU to take measures to aid a sovereign Ukraine to that direction is legitimate. Second, Russia engaging in deceitful and violent measures to derail that goal lessens their claims further, it literally makes them the bad guy here. They are trying to change what the Ukrainian people want and now there is a war of disgusting aggression going on, bodies are being destroyed and lives wasted and ruined for Russia (see Putin’s) personal wants. Which is absolutely disgusting and makes it so any argument to compare the west and Russia’s goals in Ukraine completely incomparable.
Again as we both have stated above, these countries have vested interests it is unrealistic to say they shouldn’t discuss this. Nothing in that phone call was offensive or imperialistic. It’s not speaking of corruption or subverting law, it’s talking about their goals in Ukraine.
Which is fuckin’ hilarious because A) Yanukovych is Putin’s guy. B) Putin is literally doing the same exact thing, you’re lying if you don’t admit that. C) If Yanukovych succeeded in snuffing out those protests you can bet Putin’s picks for Ukraine’s government would be sitting in their positions now too. You’re literally doing it again where you give Russia this invisible pass and act like the US/the west is the only one who is doing these things and at the same time you’re saying things like :
But you’re BLATANTLY NOT. Which is what I’m arguing about here. You’re just not. I’m sitting here stating openly how both of these actors are doing the same behavior except one has turned to bloodshed and lies and the other has peddled in lies BUT with the caveat that the Ukrainian people have decided which direction they want to go, not towards the bloodshed guy who you are literally arguing in favor for. So no, you’re being dishonest or you don’t understand your own position or you’re straight up misunderstanding/being intentionally obtuse and ignorant.
As opposed to what/who? Putin who has sat in power for the last 20 years unchallenged? The Kim regime? China’s single party? You are given a choice, there are not two parties. There is not one election. Every two years and sometimes more there is a chance to vote. If “Not Voting” was an option to win the office it would win every single time. You’re parroting talking points of foreign interests in the United States/the west which is that democracy is a sham why bother voting. You see this all over lemmy from these supposed “marxists” who apparently don’t want any form of representation I guess and embrace authoritarianism? It’s nonsense. How can you call yourself any form of a left-leaning ideology without the understanding of representation and democratic procedures. You’re literally arguing on the behalf of authoritarians and stating at the same time you are a proud marxist. Make it make sense?
This is where you fall flat on your face claiming liberals fall into loyalty or something. Americans are so heavily critical of their government, there’s not a single president everyone has 100% liked in our life time. Every presidency is riddled with criticism and backlash and calls to remove them. You don’t have that in these countries you’re literally supporting, you’re going to tell me you don’t support them but you literally are by giving Russia these fake passes that allow them to engage in the same activity the west does, while also being far worse, and acting like they don’t fucking do it too. For lack of better words it’s childish to think other people don’t see through that instantly. And once again you fall into this same line of thinking that if they don’t agree with YOUR OPINION, it isn’t really democracy and it isn’t legitimate which is so funny because that’s the opposite of democracy. People don’t have to agree with you and your personal view of legitimacy doesn’t have to be accepted. How many elections across this entire country have happened since the year 2000? Likely over 100,000 elections, that’s my small estimate. You think out of 100,000 local to presidential elections not a single candidate has supported a withdraw from the middle east or afghanistan? Off the top of my head here’s a few: Dennis Kuchinich, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Bill Richardson, JOE BIDEN(WHO LITERALLY WITHDREW FROM THE MIDDLE EAST!?)
What we see here is you playing a pick and choose game. You decide the US is interfering in Ukraine not Russia. You decide they aren’t true liberals and it isn’t real democracy because they aren’t what YOU want. You parrot obvious Russian talking points trying to delegitimize both elections in the US and in Ukraine, the will of the people in both countries “aren’t real” and we can talk all day about corruption, foreign influence, the power of money and it’s ability to influence campaigns. But you’re just ignoring simple truths.
Again, if “Not Voting” was a candidate, it would win EVERY SINGLE TIME. The problem isn’t the system here, it is people like you who throw up their hands and whine when they don’t win. The solutions are there and obvious. I’m done here. Ridiculous
I never claimed either part of that. What I said was that I’m applying the same standard to both, and I even said that I don’t agree with Russia’s actions. It’s you who wants to assign “good guy” and “bad guy” labels here.
No, they have not. A faction of Ukrainians, who happened to be men with assault rifles, overthrew the central government and declared themselves to represent the will of the people. Then a different faction of Ukrainians, who also happened to be men with assault rifles, overthrew some regional governments and claimed to represent the will of the people. And you are arbitrarily declaring that this group of armed men actually does represent the people and that one doesn’t.
After the overthrow of the government, elections were held, which had some potential to legitimize the new government. But then that new government went and outlawed major opposition parties.
Which part of that represents “Ukrainians making a choice?” The men with assault rifles, or the elections where the opposition was banned?
This isn’t really a separate point because it assumes your first point is true, which it isn’t.
Agreed, so we’re on the same page.
What? Where did I do this? Is it invisible in the sense that I never said anything that substantiates your accusation?
Great argument.
Right, you’re critical of both, except for the small little caveat where you completely accept one side’s narrative based on nothing.
Or, I do understand my own position, it’s just different from the one you made up and assigned to me. Y’all think its somehow bad faith when we don’t defend the strawman positions you make up and assign to us, it’s ridiculous.
There it is. The age old talking point that communists are only opposing the government because we’re agents of foreign powers, go back a hundred years and the rhetoric is exactly the same. Red Scare nonsense.
After being the second highest official for 8 years of occupation, and sanctioning them into a humanitarian crisis afterwards, yes, he finally gave up on the pointless decades-long war of aggression that was unwinnable from the day it was started. And then increased the military budget even higher afterwards.
Complete strawman. I’ve reiterated over and over again that both factions in Ukraine have foreign backing, I have never claimed that Russia is not interfering. Maybe I just “don’t understand my own position” 🙄
And you do the same with elections in China. Not every election is automatically a legitimate expression of popular will.
Lol, so obvious that there’s no need to actually explain what they supposedly are or how they supposedly function. Right.
This is such a funny thing to say when you’re doing laps and mental gymnastics to support Putin, the guy who has ruled a country for 20 years unchallenged and unimpeded, who has bombed his own citizens, spreads fake news and instigated a full scale “tHRee dAY spEciAL OPerAtion” into millions dead while pressganging innocent Indians, Africans and South Americans into the war. Bombing apartments, shopping centers and having his goons torture Ukrainians.
This is exactly why I can’t take you seriously. Double standard. Completely a joke. Classic .ml 🙄
Because you completely ignore my actual positions and assign me positions that you can more easily dismiss? Yeah that checks out.
20 years ago, you would be accusing me of supporting bin Laden and 9/11 because of my opposing the war in Afghanistan.
Just because you’re saying what your position is, doesn’t actually make that your position. You are literally going “I TREAT BOTH EQUALLY” and then do nothing but pump Russia and their talking points - Voting doesn’t work, Ukraine didn’t want democracy, the US is worse. You have not levied a single criticism equally in the direction of any of the other three in that image. Every single step of the way I have been equally critical of the US and pointed out their actions are the same as Russia does, they are imperialist and their goals are selfish. You’re disingenuous and think just because you say it, it becomes true. Just the same as you treat everything: It isn’t liberal unless you agree, it isn’t democracy unless you say so, it is fair if you say it is fair. You’re like a five year old.
Nice strawman bro. Get out of here you’ve got nothing to offer me but crap opinions and false positions. You stand for nothing and your beliefs are paper thin. A “marxist” who supports authoritarianism. What an absolute living breathing joke of a human being go back to your little circles of “wELl ReAd mARxIsTs”. Buncha dorks, classic .ml
That’s because you completely accept one side’s narrative, despite having nothing to back it up, so anything that challenges that one-sided view you just label as a “Russian talking point.”
That’s a blatant lie. I criticized Russia’s invasion and accused them of doing the exact same thing that I accused the US of. Plenty of actually pro-Russia people would take issue with that, and say that their armed men with guns are the real expression of popular support and the other side is just a foreign puppet, exactly the way you do in reverse.
Unless I see a reason why I should trust one group of armed men seizing government buildings more than the other, then it’s perfectly reasonable to regard both claims with equal skepticism.
The main reason you’re turning to these accusations and talking about ending the discussion is because you can’t answer the simple question I posed, which is how we know the faction in the west legitimately represents the people’s will. I’m assuming the answer is that the media told you so and you never thought to critically examine it. So now we have all this bullshit to hide the fact that you don’t have an answer.
Lol, no you haven’t. You’re depicting the US as heroically coming to the rescue of a poor, defenseless country that’s fully democratic and representive of the popular will, while possibly having an ulterior motive for doing so, while Russia is depicted as using proxies to seize territory in a brazen attempt at expansionism. This despite the fact that there is nothing you can point to to actually demonstrate that the Western-backed faction is any less of a proxy or any more of a legitimate representation of popular will. Like I said, when the conversation hits that point, you just hastily change the subject and start throwing out baseless accusations.
To be clear, the policies I was mentioning, like ending the war in Afghanistan, were popular policies. It’s not the fact that the US government doesn’t respond to my, personal views that makes it not a democracy, it’s the fact that it does not respond to what the people in general want.
Lol, and I suppose you either haven’t read Engles or don’t consider him a Marxist either. Next you’ll be telling me that Marx himself wasn’t a Marxist. Nevermind the fact that this “support for authoritarianism” is just something you made up to get out of answering a difficult question.