You're viewing a single thread.
Hey I'm a terminally online leftist.
Fuck Russia, fuck China, fuck the US too. I'm not going to gaslight myself in to thinking someone else is doing it right just because the West is also fucked.
Working class people all over the planet are getting fucked by billionaires who've purchased their governments, few places are exempt from that problem.
Fuck all countries and their imaginary lines.
And double fuck Russia for starting a war.
Found the anarchist.
This is seeing the wood for the trees.
Nation states largely exist to protect the power of their respective elites. No country is immune, but there are shining examples in the world, like the nordic model, that other nations choose to ignore because, unlike those nations, most nation's decision maker's goal isn't to maximize the well being of their people, but to maximize their own individual power, which capital is a form of.
What's your opinion of the West lending aid to Ukraine to help it defend itself?
I think the military industrial complex will be the end of us all. Generally, I think military spending is fucking atrocious and is a huge contributor to the myriad problems we as people face on a daily basis.
While I agree, Russia has no right to annex territory in Ukraine or Georgia or anywhere else, and I agree, like any rational person will, that Ukraine has every right to defend itself to the fullest extent, including matching on Moscow and fucking up the place, that's decidedly not our problem.
Ukraine found a fucking massive oil ans natural gas deposit, large enough it threatens Russia's market dominance. Ukraine kicked out it's Russian puppet. Russia wants control back and will bleed itself dry to obtain it. In so doing, they're bleeding us too.
I wish Ukraine the best, I really do. But at the top, this isn't about defending the freedom of a downtrodden underdog. That's a convenient story to sell to the American public. It's about resources, and resource wars will only become more common.
While I agree, Russia has no right to annex territory in Ukraine or Georgia or anywhere else, and I agree, like any rational person will, that Ukraine has every right to defend itself to the fullest extent, including matching on Moscow and fucking up the place, that’s decidedly not our problem.
How convenient that every time a moral issue comes up that we're on the right side of, it's not our problem.
How convenient that every time a moral issue comes up that we're on the right side of, it's not our problem.
I think the last time this happened was World War 2.
and even then internment camps happened
I think the last time this happened was World War 2
No, don't worry, MLs advocated us staying out of the 'Capitalist Imperialist War' there too, until their favorite Nazi-allied country got betrayed.
Unsurprising that you find preventing the genocide of Ukrainians to be the 'wrong side' of this war.
It's only a moral issue because it's being billed as one. For the prime actually making the decisions it's strictly strategic, you're fooling yourself if you think it's more than that. You think all of a sudden their making altruistic choices?
It's greed. It's all greed. Always has been. This greed is just convenient.
How is this bleeding the US? I thought we were giving them cast-offs the military had no interest in using anyway.
It's whatever rhetoric needs to be used in order to discourage US support for Ukraine. But they're definitely not pro-genocide, honest.
What's funny is how frequently I get downvoted to oblivion for daring to suggest that genocide isn't acceptable in any circumstances, including when voting for US presidents.
It's you guys that seem to be ok with it when your guy is the one supporting it.
Genocide is always evil.
When confronted with two evils, one must choose the lesser evil if there is no realistic alternative; as letting the greater evil in helps literally no one.
Is that too complex? Do I need to simplify it further?
"Genocide is good if 'the lesser evil' is doing it!"
You claim genocide is always evil yet you make excuses for it. What's the difference between an authoritarian dictatorship carrying out genocide and a plutocracy giving you a Fisher-Price voting ballot that will result in genocide no matter which option you pick?
Kindly inform me of the non-genocide vote that is more effectual than throwing my vote away in the United States.
Palestine will be gone long before third party is elected in America, or the revolution happens. An optimist would hope that the genocide in Gaza would initiate mass resistance in america, but a realist knows that it won't happen in time to stop the Israeli march on Gaza.
In the meantime I'm putting my bets on the somewhat-less-genocide guy while continuing to advocate for third parties and the revolution and sending support however I can, personally.
We live in a broken system that forces you to vote for politicians who believe things that you don't believe in, this is the reality of American politics.
Pro tip; you can continue to protest and advocate AND vote for the lesser of two evils. We don't live in a vacuum we're voting for Joe Biden suddenly renders you his full political supporter. Voting is a tool not a declaration of fealty.
You can acknowledge that we are stuck between a rock and a hard place without defaulting to doing what amounts to nothing and complaining that others won't do nothing in protest with you.
This is also ignoring the fact that there are real consequences for the outcome of the election for those who live in the United States itself.
Not every person has the privilege to care about the outcomes of the US election internationally when they are struggling to survive under the current leadership.
Would you tell these people to vote for the politician that changes nothing or the politician that makes things worse?
I wish politics was so simple as " politician supports bad thing and we all stopped voting for him ". It is unfortunately not.
Kindly inform me of the non-genocide vote that is more effectual than throwing my vote away in the United States.
There isn't one. That is my point.
If we had STAR voting I could give these two guys a 1 and a 2 while progressives all get 8 to 10. Unfortunately, that isn't a reality we exist in. In reality only one of these two guys will win.
There is no realistic scenario this year where a third party candidate receives enough EC votes to become president. Like both guys would have to die before the election and the third party would have to be a popular household name.
Given that these two are the only realistic candidates, my only option on this issue is throwing my vote in the trash (expressing that one doesn't give a fuck how many Palestinians die, no preference either way) or voting for the person I think will kill fewer Palestinians.
that's decidedly not our problem.
Disagree. The putin propaganda parties are fucking up every democracy possible - most importantly, or perhaps most relevantly to this topic, the US. And the invasion and destruction of Ukraine is the proof that it’s working. We’ve got to help Ukraine win, rebuild, and be a peaceful and prosperous democracy because russia will stop at nothing to bend everything to them.
trump and the Qult will stop at nothing to help putin destroy the US ideals and become a malleable Christofascist oligopoly like they are. If you think Ukraine is not our problem you’re not addressing our problem. Ukraine is the leading edge of the problem.
fucking up every democracy possible - most importantly, or perhaps most relevantly to this topic, the US
I'm sorry but that's peak lib. "We're a democracy, they're the bad guys, they're affecting us, the US is the center of the world".
To start off: fuck the imperialist illegal invasion of Ukraine, Russia's government is on a spiral towards fascism and anyone who actively supports the current Russian government is a ghoul.
Now let's examine closer the far right propaganda and where it's coming from. Ben Shapiro, Russian asset? The Daily Wire, Russian asset? Jordan Peterson, Andrew Tate, Russian assets? Sure, they may align in some of their goals, but these people have their own agenda and a funding of their own: western capitalist sources. The same applies in Europe for most far right influencers, propagandists, politicians and mouthpieces. Like, come on, who owns private media in Europe, leftist progressive movements or capitalist companies interested in their own profit? Our social media is mostly American, with the most popular platforms being Xitter, IG, Facebook... and of course TikTok, which everyone talks about being Chinese, and fair enough, but nobody says anything about the rest of social media in Europe being US-based. There's PLENTY of far right in the west without the need for Russian intervention in that process, and while it's true that there are links, it doesn't mean that Russia is to blame, just rather collaterally profiting from it. You have a ton of interested parties such as tobacco, fossil fuels, multinational companies and such, profiting from harming the left in Europe and the US, and fascism is a really good tool historically to get rid of those pesky leftists. Let's not even comment on western governments directly supporting fascism all over the world, such as in the case of Pinochet in Chile or Franco in Spain. Let's not pretend that the west is the enemy of fascism and the upholder of democracy, we're more than capable of creating fascism by ourselves. It's important to understand the degree to which Russian interference is helping the far right and fight against it, but remember, all of this is done with a vast majority of western support and funding, and would likely happen anyway.
Regarding the peace negotiations. I don't know why in this platform, which is supposedly progressive, every time peace negotiations are brought up, people are labeled Putin bots or tankies. Like, how the fuck do people think most wars end, with unconditional surrender of one side or total conquest? (There were in fact peace talks towards the beginning of the war)[https://archive.ph/Y2Ok8], and they almost managed to get to a peace deal, which sadly never ended up happening, for disputed reasons that I won't get into. The only "progress" of this war so far are some territorial gains from one side or the other going back and forth, hundreds of thousands of deaths, and millions of refugees, on both sides of the conflict mind you. "But saying peace negotiations amounts to saying Putin's invasion was right!" No, it amounts to wanting the least amount of deaths and suffering possible and reaching an AGREEMENT between the countries, not an unconditional surrender of Ukraine. Given the history of usage of weapons by the EU for the past half a century, it's no wonder that many people on the left are skeptical of increased military budgets, especially when linked to NATO. Sure, the EU should have a military alliance, but why does the US have to be in there? Do you really think that a non-US-intervened cooperative military in the EU wouldn't be a more stabilizing, less threatening force in the region? Why push NATO towards the East, which Russia (understandably) perceives as a threat, when instead NATO could be dismantled and Europe could have its own military alliance?
Fuck, even if we go to the modern state of Russia, how did it even appear? The current Russian oligarchs and kleptocrats that control the country are a consequence of the 90s neoliberal shock therapy upon the dismantling of the USSR, when the country was illegally and corruptly auctioned not even to the highest bidder, but to the most corrupt one. This was all done under the watchful direction of MIT economist "experts" and our beloved IMF. The west has a huge part to play in this, and we're reaping the benefits of enabling an imperialist capitalist oligarchy in the rule of one of the world's biggest powers.
So all in all, we have a ton of problems with the far right to looks inwards, more than we look outwards. We must keep sight of the Kremlin propaganda for sure, and fight against it, but we must keep an even closer look at the propaganda coming from ourselves, and fight it even harder since we're actually responsible for it.
I'm sorry but that's peak lib.
“volodya_ilich”, you’re not convinced russian disinfo is in the conservative politics? Well, I certainly won’t convince you. I will block you though.
I'm western-european mate, I prefaced my long-ass comment with a condemnation of the russian government and the war, and said multiple times through it that russian propaganda has an influence if you cared to read it. But sure, block me because you're too bothered to read a comment because the nickname sounds russian (it's a reference to Lenin because I'm a commie, the current Russian government is as far from communism as the US)
Military industrial complex is relatively tiny.
If you want to see who will be the end of us, follow the bigger fish.
Oil companies will destroy the environment.
Agrochemical companies will destroy biodiversity.
Food companies will make us obese.
Social media companies will misinform and divide us.
But you're not a tankie
OP didn’t specify
You are just a libtard with brainrot and not a proper tankie leftist!
Where is my main man Youghurt and OmegaHaxor at?! Gish galop that western ass.
Aneurism posting in real time!
few places are exempt from that problem.
Please provide examples
No
Cuba, no billionaires there
Castro and its elite didn't have billions, right?
Quite literally no, they didn't. Care to provide any evidence otherwise?
Google it. "Fidel Castro wealth" search turns up with various claims ranging from a net worth of 100 million to "more than 900 million $". And that's just a small part of what he had access to.
When you are the sole and absolute ruler of a country, you have access to all the wealth of the state and its people (which are fucking poor) and have little to no accountability.
.Do you really think he was as poor as all the other people of Cuba?
Btw, source: https://www.yahoo.com/news/fidel-castros-amassed-massive-fortune-142104351.html
Oh yeah, the famous Forbes claims of Castro being rich because "he had control of the state in a communist country where the means of production belonged to the state". No reference to his frugal lifestyle, no serious data backing up the claim other than "YOLO". The fact that he could conceivably and potentially have access to certain goods or services that other people didn't have access too, and an assumption from Forbes that he did access them and "died a multi-millionaire", tells us more about Forbes and the writer than about Fidel.
This is The Comment