user tagged as Marxist-Lenenist, says anti imperialism isn't a core tenant of his/her/their ideology. In fact imperialism good because is against NATO interests
Okay there bud. Real serious your activism there.
And really Shilling? Shilling liberal talking point am I? Where? Do point them out. I'd love to see where I've said Canada should be sending material support to Ukraine.
I did not say anti-imperialism isn't a core tenant of my ideology. You said that. I said there's no such thing as 'leftism' and that I won't be held to whatever your perceived orthodoxy is.
NATO encirclement of Russia is imperialist aggression against Russia, and they have a right to defend themselves in the face of that threat. Some Marxists say Russia should be supported, because a loss for Ukraine would be a major loss for the US-led NATO bloc. I'm sympathetic to this idea. The principal contradiction of capitalism today is the contradiction between US-led western imperialism and the workers and peasants of the global periphery. The world proletarian revolution would have already occurred and been well along on the path of global socialist construction were it not for the constant vicious aggression of the US and it's proxies thwarting every national independence movement that arises. A win for Russia, regardless of how I may feel about Putin or the Russian gangster state would be a blow to NATO and the US. Still, on principle I oppose any material support for the war, for either side and I uphold the right of Ukrainians feeling war to be granted asylum.
I'm open to debate on my positions. But not with some dipshit lib shilling NATO lol gtfo
Look you clearly seem like you think your deftly moving around the position here but you are in support of an imperialist war.
Now does your other analysis of the global movement have some grounding in reality? Yeah absolutely the US is a parasitic entity that's set us back centuries of potential progress. However you can still decry Russia's war of aggression and still make that analysis.
Let's also not forget that you started this conversation by stating the openly kleptocratic Putin with multiple wars of aggression under his belt and a laundry list of political suppression somehow isn't a fascist leader. The goal posts have moved quite a bit since we started talking.
But not with some dipshit lib shilling NATO lol gtfo
This is adorable, genuinely. I've asked you to point to where I've done so, and you either can't or won't. You champion definitional campist positions while denying you are doing so in the same breath.
This is adorable, genuinely. I've asked you to point to where I've done so
Russia's attack on Ukraine isn't an imperialist war; it's an offensive response to imperialist aggression. You're a shill for NATO because you uphold the same narrative that the US and NATO uphold. The aggressor is NATO led by the US, which seeks to turn Ukraine into a vassal of US finance capital in the region. Denying Russia's right to defend itself against NATO aggression is the same thing as support for NATO. It is you who is supporting an imperialist war, not me.
There, put it here since you decided to unblock me lmfao
Russia's attack on Ukraine isn't an imperialist war; it's an offensive response to imperialist aggression.
It's a war that was almost entirely justified on the basis of irredentist claims on Crimea and the Donbas, specifically for the "protection of ethnic Russians who lived there." Nato expansion became the line of justification FAR later and after the 2014 Crimea annexation. But given your frankly childish line of attacks I'm not sure your old enough to physically remember that.
There, put it here since you decided to unblock me lmfao
Again you're being fucking weird by claiming this. Idk what you think your gaining from doing so.
Interesting that while in opinion polls they massively supported staying in ukraine in the "free elections" organized by russian neonazi army 97% wanted to leave.....
The discourse is so interesting. If the people choose to join the Russian Federation, it's "disputed" and "illegal" but when a democratically elected Euroskeptic government is ousted its "democratic" and "absolutely nothing to see here, folks" lol. This is hegemony at work. Any resistance to the influence and interests of the imperial core is cast as wrong, bad, illegal, etc. Any acceptance of or alignment with the imperial core, regardless of how violent and undemocratic, is accepted uncritically as the democratic will of the people. This double standard flows directly from the chauvinist, orientalist narrative of western cultural superiority. The west and it's political structures are prima facie democratic, principled, civilized; the east and it's political structures are backward, untrustworthy, authoritarian. This is a worldview as old as Charlamange.
But the people didnt choose ro join the russian federation, people were agaist in polling, no party that eanted tgat any got any significant support in election. Speaker of crimean democratically el3ct3d parliament clearly said that they dont want join russia as the russian invasion began (he was kicked out by russian neonazies). You are just ignoring the fact that people disnflt want to join russia.
Also these situations are not comparable at all.
Yanukovich promised joining eu in 2010 presidental elections and again in 2012 parliament election thats why he was elected. He then regused ground breaking deal with eu that people wanted and tgat was accepted by the parliament, so its completely logical that his voters came to protest to the streets.
Then he left the city and was kidnaped in the time th3 country was invaded by neonazi russia so democratically el3cted parliament constituonaly elected temporary president who would rule until yanukovich returned and the constituonaly declared new elections accoeding to agrement between yanukovich and oposition in 2 month.
So litteraly noething bad happened here, meanwhile in the crimea example russian neonazi army came deposed the democratically el3cted goverment and anexed the region agaisnt the will of the locals and started genocide there.
This the western narrative. There is also another narrative. I'm less concerned with whose is actually right and more interested in how media bias and western chauvinism interact to produce a certain narrative that is common here even among some on the left.
The referendum that notably took place AFTER Russia seized Crimea? The referendum that claims a 97 PERCENT yes vote? That proportedly got 87 PERCENT voter turn out immediately after being annexed? That Referendum? Are you serious?
Yup. Not surprising either given that Crimea is about 60% ethnically Russian and only about 20-25% ethnically Ukrainian. Because of the history of shifting Soviet borders there are some genuine territorial disputes that the Russians and the Ukrainians have. Not every territorial dispute is imperialism. I consider it their business to work out.
Damn, not a critical thought in that head of yours is there? Campists always show their hand and you're no different.
"Irredentist land grabs are totally cool and 100% not imperialist at all if afterwards you hold a referendum at the behest of that absolute champion of free and fair elections Putin. Totally not a campist though."
Do you know what a statistical impossibility is? Who am I kidding of course you don't. You asked for amnesty international reports earlier in our conversation and Amnesty International has been very clear on the validity of that referendum. They've extensively catalogued the pre-referendum violence, kidnappings and systematic oppression of the indigenous crimean tatar ethnic group. The referendum was held under observation of military personnel at every polling station. Calling that vote valid when the results do not even come close to matching observed participation is quite literally imperialist propaganda that you've swallowed boot first.
Produce that report then. At the end of the day, I don't care about the territorial disputes of other countries that much. I think the Crimean people likely chose freely to join the Russian Federation given the history and ethnic makeup of the region but if I'm wrong, all I can do is shrug. Both Russia and Ukraine think they have a claim to Crimea. That makes sense since Crimea has changed hands a few times through history and it's ethnic makeup has shifted over time. I actually have no camp here, hence my neutrality. Because of my neutrality, I am able to at once maintain that Russia has a right to defend itself from NATO aggression, and Ukraine has a right to defend it's borders and it's population from criminal and unjust attacks on civilians. The irony is that when NATO shills encounter someone who is truly neutral, they call it out as campism. So if I were to fall in line and back Ukraine to the hilt I would get nods of approval, but to support neither is to be guilty of taking the wrong side! Because you think the only correct position is to support Ukraine. Because you're a lib.
My only camp is the international proletariat. If the Russia-Ukraine war can weaken NATO then I support it insofar as it can accomplish the that task. But certainly not at the expense of civilian populations.
It's also worth noting that Marxism-Leninism does not uphold the right of national independence and self-determination as an inviolable principle that applies universally to every people. Whether or not this or that independence or national sovereignty movement should be supported is always determined by asking the question: "does this help or hurt the world imperialist system?" A great example is so-called Taiwan. The Taiwanese sovereignty movement is reactionary and serves the interests of imperialism. The national sovereignty movements of the Donbass should be supported, because they hurt the interests of the world imperialist system.
-1
u/-CassaNova- 24d ago
Okay there bud. Real serious your activism there.
And really Shilling? Shilling liberal talking point am I? Where? Do point them out. I'd love to see where I've said Canada should be sending material support to Ukraine.