the comments and the downvotes would be fascinating if it weren’t so clear that they come from a place of deeply ingrained willful ignorance.
even the american liberal media is starting to admit that this is true, yet american liberals clutch onto it for whatever reason and i wish i could understand why.
Redditors please consult the chart:
hmm… And why would you say supporting Russia and Palestine count has “understanding geopolitics”? I say this as someone who does not know too much about it.
Posting to !asklemmygrad@lemmygrad.ml would likely get a lot of good answers.
Both work against US Imperial Hegemony. Palestinian liberation is fully supported as it’s a national liberation movement for people subjected to settler-colonial genocide, critical support for Russia is due to it currently working against US dominance, which is the primary obstacle for Humanity to progress economically into a more equitable global system.
Hey I fixed it for you!
If you’re describing Marxist-Leninists as being interchangeable with “tankies,” and MLs are by far the most common form of Marxist and Socialist world-wide, what’s the point in denoting the top-left quadrant as “Socialist/Anarchist?” Moreover, Anarchists are not a monolith, many don’t support continuing the war.
I think the original is more generous, anti-war-ism is genuinely a relatively positive way of putting it even if critical support for Russia is deemed to be “fully knowledgeable.” The original fully acknowledges the principles of never striking first millitarily as a viewpoint with understandable moral basis, while also suggesting that that isn’t the complete picture.
I didn’t intend to make them interchangeable any more than I meant to make socialist and anarchist interchangeable, they’re just in the same quadrant of this graph. Although that being said, if they support Russia they’re at least tankie-adjacent. This is exactly the problem I have with campism in general - “critical support” for a fascist-imperialist autocracy that invades its’ neighbors for the purpose of subjugating them is unhinged for someone who ostensibly believes in socialism and the liberation of the working class. I despise the way it makes people view geopolitics as a game to be won without regard for actual people on the ground.
I don’t think you’re accurately describing the reasons Russia invaded Ukraine, the material reality points more towards Russia wanting to thoroughly demillitarize Ukraine by any means necessary and certify Ukrainian neutrality with NATO, rather than joining it.
As for standing for Socialism and the liberation of the working class, the majority of Marxists believe that the current largest obstacle in that path globally is the US Empire, and US Hegemony. Russia poses less of a threat to Socialism worldwide than the US by virtue of not having nearly the power of the US. I have no doubt that the Russian Federation would be just as exploitative of the Global South if they were in the same position as the US Empire, but they aren’t, and instead their path to further profits relies on dethroning the US. This dethroning of the US is also necessary for Socialists, hence critical support insofar as it appears to be working against the US Empire.
Let’s consider the opposite viewpoint, though. What happens if Ukraine, against all odds, succeeds in beating back Russia, maintains millitarization, and joins NATO? Russia further weakens, and becomes folded into subjugation under the US Empire. This likely results in opening up of some of Russia’s assets to foreign plundering, strengthens NATO (the US Empire’s millitary wing, essentially), and thus also weakens the position of the Global South.
What most Marxists support is a quick end to the war, via peace deals. The US continuing the war in order to shackle Ukraine with massive IMF loans and secure ownership of key resources and minerals stands in the way of that, and wishes to prolong the war so they can carve out as much value out of Ukraine as they can. Increasingly, Ukrainians themselves want the war to end, rather than sacrificing themselves for US profits, even if it means Russian victory. There is no actual path to victory for Ukraine without NATO full-on joining in, causing a catastrophic level of death and destruction.
What should a Socialist side with, in this situation? Where is the path to the best possible outcome, in your opinion?
the lemmyworlds and their orbiters are gonna be upset about this one
I feel like you’ve built two straw-men and conflated them together. I haven’t seen anybody arguing either case on the left side of the meme in response to the images depicted (or similar) on the right side of the meme. People wanting to send weapons to Ukraine generally tend to also say it doesn’t have a Nazi problem (and may compare Russia with Nazis), and people wanting pacifism in Palestine also don’t like weapons and support sent to Israel.
I’m interested to hear from someone that will disprove this, surely there are good examples given the voting on this.
There will be violence in Ukraine regardless of whether weapons are sent there or not. The second option will make it so there’s noone to police the russians. Pretty much like palestinians can’t do much about israelis slaughtering them.
Violence is always the answer. The questions are simple:
How do we gain a political advantage? How do we gain an economic advantage? How do we gain a social advantage?
Anyone that says violence is not the answer doesn’t understand the tools that marginalize them and the people they care about.
Lemmygrad crosspost. Says everything u need to know.
Do you find it hard to sleep at night, knowing that the Spectre could be lurking in your room?