top 81 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 31 points 2 months ago (4 children)

I have a 35 year-old coworker who is a Ride Or Die Russian dick rider he doesn’t fully support Trump since the Epstein cover-up, but he still will praise him, but he fully supports Russia in its invasion of Ukraine saying that Ukraine is full of pedophiles and they need to be wiped off the Earth. And somehow achieving this will make our lives in America better and everything will be cheaper somehow…

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] [S] 22 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    It's why Tucker Carlson supports them: they're right-wing authoritarian nationalists.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    My theory with Tucker and MTG is that they are sitting on the sidelines waiting for Donnie to die, and that will cause a power vacuum in maga and they will do everything in their power to take control and move the party in their own way forward, which I don’t think will work, but it will cause a spinoff, which will be worse than it was before.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 10 points 2 months ago*

    Don't give money to Ukraine because they're evil fascists. Let Putin and his glorious thousand year regime reign supreme and stamp out the parasites suckling the life out of the earth like ticks on the flesh of Matka Rossiya.

    This will also make eggs cheaper.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] [S] 51 points 2 months ago* (7 children)

    This sarcastic comment was removed and got me banned:

    I see. So the US western expansion wasn't imperialist because they weren't a hegemonic world power yet. They were just trying to make sure they could stand up to England! It wasn't about territorial expansion or resources at all. Ridiculous drivel.

    They can't let other tankies see how ridiculous their arguments are.

    The other one was mocking tankies for gargling Putin's asshole, which is a bit more understandable; I guess some people like the taste.

  • source
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Tankies are authoritarians. Red fascists. They don't give a fuck about anything or anyone, just their fascist kings being in charge so they can hurt people they think are inferior. Just like any other fascist.

    They shit on Marx and gargle Lenin and Mao, then tell you that actually state control and secret police are the real communism.

    Is it any wonder from people who cheer when the tanks roll over protesters and revolutionaries?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    I am still convinced a sizable chunk of online tankies are just right-wing extremists cosplaying. Oh, and of course foreign operatives.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago

    I'd say it's even simpler than that, it's just tribalism.

    $person has criticized our gracious $monarch. They deserve to die!

    $person speaks against $religion and is a heretic. They deserve to die!

    $person made fun of $fascist_leader. They deserve to die!

    $person goes against $party. They deserve to die!

    Whoever is in power speaks absolute truth. Be it a fascist leader, a church, a communist party or a monarch. Opposing that truth is heresy/treason/counter-revolutionary/evil and should be severely punished.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago*

    I hate how much they made Marx's name dirty, not only people will look at you funny for being communism because of the $$$ propaganda, they will also look at tankies and think communists are like this, infuriating

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [+] 32 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (33 children)
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I'm not familiar with Lenin's particular definition of imperialism. Does it somehow exclude what Russia is doing?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] -25 points 2 months ago (29 children)

    Oh god, what is the looser definition then? Because it really looks like libs are using it to mean any war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 29 child comments
  • [–] 25 points 2 months ago (21 children)

    I personally think Russia's long-standing attitude and justifications for undermining and attacking Ukraine are imperialist. It seems Russians view Ukraine as traditionally Russian, even the Ukraine has developed their own national identity. Same thing with how China views Taiwan and Tibet, they use past history to hand-wave away any claims of self-determinism and develop a narrative that manipulation and threats are justified.

    (I'm not a geopolitical expert and willing to hear good-faith arguments, but anyone who's just snarky or insulting will just get ignored. I'm here to learn, not to fight.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [+] -27 points 2 months ago (20 children)

    But why? What is your understanding of imperialism that qualifies Russia's invasion of Ukraine?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 20 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 months ago (17 children)

    I guess it's the textbook definition? A larger nation using its resources (cultural soft power, or military power) to extend their authority over a smaller country. Usually for economic or territorial ends. I apply it to Russia/Ukraine because I put more stock in Ukraine's sovereignty-from-cultural-identity than I do in Russia's historical claims over it. It seems adjacent to decolonization to me.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [+] -9 points 2 months ago (15 children)

    This is what I mean, by that definition you can cover almost every war. You don't see smaller nations invading larger, more powerful ones. You can even use it to say the US influence in Ukraine over the last 30 has been imperialist. The Norman invasion of 1066 becomes imperialist. Can you really not see how meaningless a definition that is?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago (13 children)

    Well, I mean, as an American I can mention a couple of important wars to my homeland that weren't driven by these motivations. Shall I elucidate?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 2 months ago

    Agreed as very well known and easy examples that prove not all wars got the definition.

    Plus what in the world is wrong with it fitting 80-90% of wars for at least one side of the conflict? It is easily one of the most likely reasons for counties to go to war.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    You mean the revolution? Because I'm pretty sure you aren't about the raise the civil war, where the more powerful north imposed it's will on the confederacy through military power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (9 children)

    As I understand them,

    • American Revolution - "No Taxation Without Representation" and resulted in documents foundational to American liberalism, like the Bill of Rights and Declaration. Politically and philosophically motivated, not expansionist.
    • American Civil War - A war of secession, with abolitionism as a root issue. There were economic factors, like the North's industrialization, but to say that this war is imperialist is to legitimize the Confederacy's claim to preserve the institution of American slavery.
    • WWI - America supported Britain and France but was isolationist, until the sinking of the Lusitania. America entered the war to defend trading partners, but again, that doesn't make this imperialist.
    • WWII - Again, America was initially isolationist until a decisive moment (this time, Pearl Harbor). Again, this was more diplomatically motivated than a surplus of capital or land-grabbingly expansionism.

    It wasn't until the post-WWII era of the Cold War that America shifted gears from a habit of isolationism to global interventionism, and began a long line of imperialist atrocities.

    I'm only bringing these wars up because they're the ones I'm familiar with - I'm sure there are plenty of examples of wars across the globe, even in more modern eras, that Western Liberals wouldn't call imperialist.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    The US Revolution was justified as being in protest against taxes, but taxes raised to pay for the Seven Years War which (chronologically, if not causally) began with George Washington ambushing French troops and resulted in colonists gaining significant territory. One of the nowadays less romanticised causes of the revolution itself was the block on westward expansion of the colonies by the British government too, incidentally.

    Your outline there also ignores the many wars and atrocities that describe the westward expansion of the USA (and beyond, the Philippines for example) as it actually did happen too, they very much did not begin their imperialism with the start of the cold war.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    That's a really interesting perspective on the precursors to the US Revolutionary War, and exactly the kind of think I hope to learn about in these exchanges. I will also concede that Manifest Destiny was, to be glib, manifestly imperialistic and one of the many grand sins of my country.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Are you saying the south didn't want to preserve slavery? You'll note your definition of imperialism doesn't include anything about right or wrong, just one nation imposing it's will on another. This is what people mean when they describe liberal politics as vibe based - it fits the definition exactly, but you don't feel it's imperialist because it was the morally right thing to do.

    While America wasn't the imperialist power in the world wars, they were thoroughly imperialist wars, by either definition, between European countries.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (1 child)

    It was a war of secession, they were part of the same nation....

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago*

    According to one side. I don't think there would had been a war if they weren't actually split. One side declared itself separate, and the other militarily brought them back under their political control. It fits your definition.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (3 children)

    Hey I don’t have time to do a whole infodump style reply but off the dome Washington profited immensely from the revolutionary war because he was a land speculator and the us needed to get into ww2 so it could stop the empire of japan from taking control of all the island territories it chased Spain off of.

    I wouldn’t personally call the first example imperialism because you gotta make a distinction between Byzantine and American somehow and the one from imperialism the highest stage of capitalism seems appropriate and answers a lot of questions but the second one is literally imperialism by any definition you wanna call it.

    Also even if you fully reject Lenin’s work you gotta grapple with the historical facts that the eastern states didn’t really create a program of mass import of raw materials from the western expansion states and complete control over the western states government to the detriment of the people who lived in them to the extent that the nation they represented did to the Philippines for example. The distinction between imperialism and colonialism for the modern age helps with that and fits many other modern examples, most notably israel. Israel isnt doing imperialism to Palestinians, they are doing colonialism.

    Regarding Americas western expansion I am compressing a million pages of history and some really powerful counterexamples into a did they didn’t they statement here and I know that.

    Like I said I don’t have time to do the other two without referring to a bunch of books to get my claims perfectly exactly irrefutably correct on the (no offense intended) Redditor instance.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago (2 children)

    Most wars have economic causes and impacts, but that alone does not imperialism make. There are "unprovoked punching down" as well as interventionist components that I don't think describe America's intentions or entries into either World War.

    Either way, the argument I'm trying to refute is that me, as a Western Liberal, view any kind of modern war as imperialist, and thus dilute the definition of the term. I think I've demonstrated that while I don't adhere to Lenin's more strict definition, I don't want to use the term lightly, either.

    I'm also not trying to make an argument that the USA isn't imperialist, in any strictness of the term. Western Liberals aren't a monolith, my bud.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I don’t care about whatever argument you’re having. It’s extremely inaccurate to claim Americas entry into ww2 was diplomatically motivated when Japan was taking by military force islands that had been part of an extractive zone contested by them and America. It’s literally two imperial powers low key fighting over their periphery then one goes PISS NUKE INCOMING.

    Again, I do not care about whatever argument you’re having. If anything I want you to be able to integrate more information into your understanding of imperialism. It’s really hard for us as westerners to do that when so much of the groundwork of our historical understanding is jingoism and great man and it’s good you’re interrogating your own ideas.

    Also you should probably start with the Spanish American war as your American point of entry into imperialism (you say here “global interventionism” but idk wth that means.)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Right on, as I said, I'm here to learn too. And I agree that the education and milieu I got in Florida in the 80s is pretty poor. What recommendations would you make to find out about these subjects?

    BTW what I meant by "global interventionism" is how the US Government really ramped up manipulating the internal affairs of countries across all over the world, both depth and breadth. Twilight Struggle is one of my favorite board games, because of how much history I learned from it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    What definition are you using, just out of curiosity?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] -5 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Exploitation of a nation for labour and resources. You know, like America invading Iraq and Afghanistan for oil and heroin, or America invading Korea so they could get cheap sweatshop labour, or Europe invading Africa for everything and everyone that wasn't nailed down.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Yeah I'd call those all imperialism as well. There's a distinct theme of economic expansion - and that certainly doesn't describe every war I know about

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    I can't help but feel you are actually engaging in bad faith when you've commented twice that you definitely know other wars but don't mention what they are.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    You say it like I'm some capitalist pig that doesn't agree with all of the above. I don't get why Russia gets a pass though, they mucked about in Africa, Asia and Latin America in their past too. They are still in Africa from what I understand and it's hard to pretend they aren't in Ukraine specifically for ressources.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Russia doesn't get a pass for it's actual imperialism, but Russia's other actions doesn't make this action imperialist.
    It's hard to pretend they are in Ukraine for resources, Ukraine was having a full blown civil war over the banning of speaking russian. I know we're used to standing idly by and shrugging our shoulders when someone's attempting genocide, but saying Russia is there for resources is just pretending history started in 2022.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 25 points 2 months ago (10 children)

    It's only imperialism if it's being produced in the special empire

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 23 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (1 child)

    If it doesn't come from the regions of the Western Imperialist Pigs then it's not real imperialism. It's sparkling annexation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago*

    No, no, no - it's no annexaion, it's freeing people (as I got from some tankie about China's occupation of Tibet).

    Mind you, all Imperialists (no matter from which region) tend to claim they're freeing the people they're attacking - America and its allies are constantly "freeing" people in the Middle East from some autoritarian or other all the while leaving behind 10x - 100x more dead than the dictator ever killed, Russia claimed to be invading to free Ukranians from Nazism.

    Even the Genociders claim they're somehow freeing people: notice Israel's talk about how the Palestineans treat homosexuals badly, all the while they were indiscriminatelly mass murdering people in Gaza, including said homosexuals.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    You're only being upvoted because people think you're being sarcastic, but I know you're being serious because I've seen you do this before.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    No? I suspect you are talking about threads where I've been saying that the Russian-Ukranian war must be stopped, threads where I defended/explained some Putin's talking points, and literally telling people that there's no difference between deaths of Ukrainian civilians and Russian civilians, the fact that killing more Russians will not grant Ukraine victory. I also recall a few threads where I called out literal neonazis in Ukraine and got downvoted by Ukraine larping supporters from the left to hell.

    I have never defended Putin's expansionism and have always called it imperialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    So you're against the war, but only when it means criticizing Ukraine?

    Not full-strength kremlin propaganda then, just kremlin propaganda lite. Got it.

    How about you tell everyone that the war could end in a day if Putin simply decides to pull his troops out of Ukraine? I don't recall you ever mentioning that.

    Oh, by the way, there's a substantial difference between one or two collateral civilian casualties now and then, and deliberate targeting of civilians and civilian infrastructure, killing them in the thousands, as well as detaining, displacing, torturing, and raping them.

    The fact that you try so hard to draw a false equivalence between the two, is itself kremlin propaganda.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Otherwise it's... Sparkling fascism?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Otherwise it's a defense against imperialism

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    So... Are you saying that Russia invasion of Ukraine is Russia's defence against Ukraine imperial expansion?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 2 months ago

    Yes, in the current tankie narrative it is:

    Only the US can perform imperial expansion, therefore Russia's invasion into Ukraine is the defense against US expansion. Go ask ml guys, they'll confirm it

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Pfff, a real tankie would never admit it was for territorial expansion. Don't you know Zelensky is the new Hitler? Russia is just saving Europe from Ukraine.

    We should be thanking them.

    (Totally not sarcasm, I'm super cereal)

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 62 points 2 months ago* (1 child)

    Or when they say that Russia's genocide of the Ukrainians or China's genocide of the Uyghurs isn't real and claiming it is real is actually genocide denialism?


    /This is an actual image of .ml's and dbzer0's admins.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 8 points 2 months ago

    Doing good work 🏴

  • source
  • [–] 30 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    It blows my mind that pro- Palestinians think they shouldn't support Ukraine.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 29 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I wonder if MLs around here are pro-Palestine only because that's a pushback against the Western representation in the Middle East, Isreal

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    I think some of that stems from Zelensky holding Israel in favor a lot. He's had multiple positive comments about it, even though Israel is doing what Russia did to Ukraine (or tried to do really)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    His view on Israel has shifted considerably. I don't blame him for trying to highlight the parallels to gain favor and cooperation immediately after October 7. Naturally he's signaling, "Ah, you're going through what we've been going through! Let's work together!"

    Though of course after months went on and Israel's response became orders of magnitude more atrocious and russian-like than the attack itself, then Ukraine began distancing itself and even providing aid to Gaza.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 20 points 2 months ago

    Of course it's imperialism.

    What kinda irks me, as an American, is when other Americans act like this is the first time anyone's done an invasion in the 21st century. As though our government didn't spend the last twenty+ years establishing what huge economic, nuclear powers can get away with on the world stage.

  • source
  • [–] 11 points 2 months ago (11 children)

    Where do you guys find these people?

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 24 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    Lemmy.ml/socialism is a toxic wasteland filled with Stalinists and DPRK supporters (really)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 months ago

    Lemmy.ml in general. Mod of lemmy.ml/worldnews called Ukrainians terrorists for drone striking oil depots. I called him out badly (won't use the word) for not calling Russia terrorists for bombing hospitals. Got banned from lemmy.ml/jellyfin. So yeah, arguing on worldnews got me banned from jellyfin, and a few other completely unrelated forums despite them not sharing mods.

    That means their homeserver, jellyfin and a few other forums are run by hardcore tankies. If you insult Russians , you are banned from helping people with their server problems.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 months ago

    Right, would that be the only place? I can't say I've seen any DPRK supporters like, ever. Maybe during that period where people began challenging US propaganda and understandably assumed it was all bullshit; that was like seven or eight years ago though.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (4 children)
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago) (2 children)

    I have certainly seen more posts like this than the posts it references, of which I could recall none

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    They are everywhere but less impactful if you block some instances

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›