top 100 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 20 points 9 months ago

I really do think that liberals should take a hard look at themselves. They don't flinch to call Russian soldiers orcs, and ascribe to their foreign policy a mindless bloodthirst. Do they think of US soldiers the same way? Or US foreign policy (even under someone like darling Obama)? Seriously: who is more "evil" Putin or Obama? By what measure?

  • source
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago

    Both, both is good

  • source
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (22 children)

    It isn’t “fuck the [imperialist/authoritarian nation] government and its enforcers” for most people?

  • source
  • hideshow 22 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (21 children)

    Russia isn't imperialist. Imperialism isn't when invasion or when big country is bad

    Authoritarian is a useless pejorative as every nation that has been or currently is is "authoritarian".

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago (11 children)

    How do you define imperialism if invading other countries with the same explicit intent to annex them isn’t it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago*

    One of the reasons for this war was that the Russian Federation did not want NATO weapons and forces on their permanent border. If they were to annex Ukraine, they would have NATO weapons and forces on their permanent border. I understand why this narrative that they want to has spread, because it's an easy to understand "bad guy" thing that makes it simple to frame this war as some kind of random medieval war of conquest, but when you think about it for five minutes, annexing Ukraine would go completely against their goal, which is to either dissuade the coup government from it's NATO ambitions (now irrelevant) or, if they wont agree to a peace treaty, establish a buffer zone in the form of a Ukranian rump state. In no scenario does a full annexation serve their interests, and the pragmatic thing from their perspective is to let the basket case that Ukraine has become be Europe's peoblem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] 6 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (3 children)
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago

    If you pay attention to what Russia does internally and externally, Russia fulfills every one of those requirements except the last one (because they can’t, but they would be very happy too)

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Cowbee means economic imperialism - using the resources / wealth of another country for yourself. So invading another country would not, by itself, be imperialism.

    I think this definition is a bit reductionist, but it's a good starting point to ask 'is this war for profit or some other reason?'.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -3 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    but it’s a good starting point to ask ‘is this war for profit or some other reason?’.

    Always an important question to ask but if Cowbee does mean that, then they should use the modifier to signify that they are talking about economic imperialism and not about Imperialism Imperialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] -1 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    I do think your wording is causing some confusion. Of course, the aim of most imperialists is economic exploitation, but there historically there have been other drivers of conquest such as religion and racism.

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

    I think it's not too much to expect to know basic terminology in a leftist space. In Argentina I've met plenty of social democrats who understand imperialism in its leftist sense, because being in the periphery means you see the consequences of imperialism, and this is a country where like 99% of the media is owned by the comprador class or international capital making propaganda for austerity, meritocracy and other bullshit.

    If somebody doesn't understand why their definition of imperialism doesn't seem to be the one we use, maybe they can ask questions rather than interpret us in bad faith and so on.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -5 points 9 months ago (8 children)

    That's a laugh. Putin and his political machine have expressed a desire to return to the days of the Russian Empire and has engaged in acts of conquest to that effect.

    Russia is a mirror image of the US. While Anglo-Saxons were pushing west across North America, conquering indigenous peoples, Russians were pushing east out of Europe into Asia conquering indigenous peoples. They're both dysfunctional countries with dysfunctional world views.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    I never claimed that modern Russia is progressive, socialist, or something to be defended. I am a communist; Russia today is a capitalist oligarchy. Russia being imperialist and if I support them are separate questions.

    Imperialism is not “when a country invades” or “when a big country has bad politics.” Imperialism refers to a specific stage of capitalism characterized by monopoly capital, finance capital dominance, export of capital, and systemic exploitation of dependent nations. By that definition, Russia today does not function as an imperialist power in the same way the US or the rest of the imperial core does. This is a simple statement of facts, not an endorsement.

    Pointing to the Russian Empire’s historical expansion is irrelevant to whether the Russian Federation in the 21st century is imperialist. History alone does not determine a country’s position in the current global capitalist system. By that logic, nearly every existing state would be “imperialist” forever and the term would be rendered useless for meaningful analysis.

    Likewise, saying Russia “mirrors” the US ignores material reality. The US sits at the core of global finance, enforces dollar hegemony, maintains hundreds of overseas bases, and systematically dominates entire regions. Russia does not occupy that structural position (even if they may wish to). You can criticize Russian nationalism or militarism without flattening all distinctions or redefining imperialism into a catch all for when big countries do bad things or when invasions.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago (5 children)

    Imperialism refers to a specific stage of capitalism

    Then you've redefined the term Imperialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)

    The term imperialism was coined by Lenin Hobson, and it's definition has remained constant for over a century. It's actually liberals who have tried to flatten and bastardize it's definition to hide the inevitable systemic nature of their crimes against humanity. The fact that you were introduced to the wrong definition first doesn't make it the right one.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 5 months ago

    The word imperialism is derived from the Latin word imperium,[8] which means 'to command', 'to be sovereign', or 'to rule'.[9] It was coined in the 19th century to describe Napoleon III's attempts to gain political support by invasion.[10][11] The term was applied to the British Empire during the 1870s; by the 1880s it had acquired a positive connotation in the West.[12] By the end of the 19th century, the term was used to describe the behavior of empires at all times and places.[13] Hannah Arendt and Joseph Schumpeter defined imperialism as expansion for the sake of expansion.[14]

    Hobson, and in 1917, Lenin, attempted to redefine imperialism as the "highest stage of capitalism", as firms exported capital to dominate economically rather than territorially.[15]

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago*

    expressed a desire to return to the days of the Russian Empire

    Show me. Pull up a shred of evidence for this obvious propaganda. Show me Vladmir Putin expressing the desire to reform the pre-1917 Russian Empire.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago (29 children)
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago (23 children)

    Upper right is similar to lower left - inconsistent values and inconsistent ideology. Pure hypocrisy. Dogs of US vs Dogs of Russia.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 23 child comments
  • [–] 15 points 9 months ago

    I would love to hear you try to explain how the Russian Federation somehow gained as many sympathizers virtually overnight as the US empire did through decades of world-spanning regime change, propaganda networks and bribery

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago (6 children)

    Do you actually believe it's inconsistent? Because it's really quite straightforward: The US-centered capitalist empire must be stopped, and it's genocidal proxies need to be eliminated, for the survival of the human race.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    The inconsistent part is giving a free pass to Russia when they do everything the US does just not as extensively.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [+] 11 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (2 children)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] 11 points 9 months ago (13 children)
  • [+] -9 points 9 months ago (9 children)

    Honestly can’t tell if it’s satire

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

    Then you might not be very knowledgeable on the topic, lol

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    Fascist coup? Donetsk and Luhansk?
    8 years of war?

    The average westoid never heard of that.
    Can't make it too complicated for the simpletons.
    It all started when the RuZZian Putler invaded innocent ukraine for no reason, just like the conflict in Palestine started on oct 7 and nothing happened before that.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -7 points 9 months ago (6 children)
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    Campism is when you can remember things that happened more than two weeks ago. And if you can remember things that happened more than three weeks ago, oh buddy, that's tankie

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

    See, if the government of a country want to genocide part of the population and that government is my husbando Zelensky, that me and western media mysteriously agree on being the most wholesome democratic leader ever, that's democracy in action 😍😍😍 and don't forget international law applies when evil Russia invades smol bean Ukraine, but if China even ATTEMPTS to breathe near Taiwan, international law is just a technicality anyway, we need to go in and fight evil authoritarian China! I'm very smart, you silly campists!

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 7 points 9 months ago*

    It's libwest.asocial, they support Ukraine because while they think they are anti-war/pacifist western propaganda convinced them that it actually is (it's also convenient because they don't have to investigate the other perspective if the enemy are one dimensional orc villains)

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -5 points 9 months ago (2 children)

    That's like an onion, just layers of naive. Russia has had imperial ambitions on Ukraine for a while and thinking that they care at all about the "liberation" of Donetsk and Luhansk is crazy talk.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [–] -5 points 9 months ago (2 children)
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago

    You seem confused if you think supporting Russia and Palestine makes you anti-war/pacifist and supporting Russia and Israel makes you America's laptop.

    Last time I checked supporting Russia and Israel doesn't make you anti-war/pacifist. And supporting Russia hardly makes you America's lapdog

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    No, please, we need liberation. Our government has been a problem for a long time, just that neo-liberals are getting scared.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 12 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    Also works for them saying bomb them.

    fuck those dirty Russians Ukraine should bomb all the cities

    So you want them to hit civilians?

    no I meant only places without people but still they need to retaliate

    Then why say bomb the cities?

    stop twisting my words when I want they're the evil bad ones

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    Who's out here saying Ukraine should bomb "all the cities"? Most people from the first frame of OP would also be saying stop the bombing, not bomb more. E.g. stop the bombing of Palestine etc.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 9 months ago (17 children)

    what? no one reasonable is saying all russians are bad or all americans are bad. being born in a country does not automatically make you a fan of what their military does, that's just racist

  • source
  • hideshow 17 child comments
  • [–] 27 points 9 months ago* (3 children)

    I have seen like two dozen outspoken liberals on this very site refer to Russian people writ large as orcs, and the Russian language as orcish

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 9 months ago (1 child)
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago

    I also have yet to see a single reasonable person call this behavior out without immediately being accused of being a paid Russian actor tankie chinese bot. The "orcs" shit has mainstream acceptance in liberal instances. Only leftists object to it, while liberals defend it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [+] [S] 15 points 9 months ago (12 children)
  • [–] 0 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (6 children)

    Splitting hairs. If you think a group of people are intrinsically worse than others, you are effectively racist.

    We can come up with new names, but ultimately it's all the same. If you think racism means black vs white then your understanding is kindergarten level.

    If you prefer, we can use the term bigoted. That term also covers other intrinsic groups like trans, gay and disabled people among others.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [+] [S] 16 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago) (6 children)
  • [–] 3 points 9 months ago (3 children)

    When a country does war crimes, the entirety of its populace is not to blame, the systems, power structures and people in charge are.

    Most people in a country are not for wars or other attacking other countries. This is true for America and Russia alike, to the best of my knowledge (which granted, is anecdotal).

    More people should be engaged in activism and should push back against the inhumane actions of their state, and people should be less gullible to the promises of their leaders.

    Both America and Russia are overdue for major reform. Their systems are broken and many of their people brainwashed. Wishing harm on them does not help and imo is not a constructive approach. If anything, hate just begets more hate, making things worse.

    If you are going to have hate, it should be more focused on the people in power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 9 months ago* (2 children)

    The funny thing about "hate begets more hate" is that the user you're replying to has a good reason to feel hate, and the racist Americans on the other side of that equation don't. And yet, between those two groups, whose hate results in millions of people dying through sanctions and warfare?

    The problem with the idea of "racism" against Americans, or even hatred against Americans being problematic, is that there's no power structure behind it that makes it real. You're essentially policing the tone of victims here and acting like their anger at what was done to them is equivalent to the very real wrongdoing they are reacting to.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • [+] -6 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    Fine, it's discriminating against people based on national origin. Whatever you call it it's stupid

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [+] [S] 17 points 9 months ago* (4 children)
  • [–] -2 points 9 months ago (1 child)

    Do you think every Russian or every American is just able to leave the country as soon as they realize the awful things their government is doing? People don't choose where to be born. Whether I was going to be Swiss or American was a decision made before I was born that if I had any say in would probably have gone the other way

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 8 points 9 months ago

    Right. Not wishing death to you personally or your community or etc etc. But your country has no right to exist in its current form, and people projecting their extremely valid grievances on all of you will continue to be a problem until you all organize and change or replace the government. We constantly meet people from your country defending our nations being butchered in the name of democracy™, most people still defend the army and veterans, we have the right to be really angry, and not all of us have the patience to treat you all with silk gloves.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
  • load more comments (-1 replies)
    [–] 1 point 9 months ago
    [–] 7 points 9 months ago

    The double standard is real but also fuck both the US and Russia for invading.

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 9 months ago (4 children)

    How people see the US as "the good guys" is beyond me. The only thing they had going was defending the rules based global order but that is now becoming less relevant in favor of power politics.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 9 months ago

    From their inception the "rules based" global order and international "law" were simply shields for the imperial cores worst excesses and sticks to beat states that refused to submit. There was no good in defending them they were simply more tools of imperialism.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 9 months ago* (last edited 9 months ago)

    Like objectively, as an American, America has(more like had) great PR but has been a horribly violent imperialist nation for ages. The horrors they've exported have destabilized several nations for baseless power grabs and war profiteering.

    I'm not saying Americans as a whole but the US government and the forces that actually drive it. Money and power has corrupted this nation and it is evil at its core. The tenuous peace that has existed for the past few decades is propped up but fraud and military excess. It's not good for this planet as a whole. The genocidal history of America has been white washed and glossed over. What's they've don't to south America, the middle east, and south east Asia is unforgivable kind of shit man.

    They aren't the good guys, they're the "victors" who have written history in their favor.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 9 months ago*

    Pre-WW2, the answer was WASPs convinced of their own greatness. After WW2 it was because the US did a good thing and let it get to their heads. To this day, I'll see Americans online see the US get criticized and pull out the old "if it wasn't for us, you'd all be talking German" line. Like dude, you're taking credit for something you didn't do, probably wouldn't do, and it doesn't justify the shitty things that ARE happening.

    And the rules based global order was a good idea that some Americans had but too many other Americans decided that the US got to have constant exceptions to the rules which makes the whole thing ultimately not work.

  • source
  • parent
  • load more comments
    view more: next ›