Downvotes mean I’m right.
Whether a country is democratic or not doesn’t really have anything to do with it. Every country, including non-democratic ones, has different factions and inner workings.
We cannot blame a single president for the same
Is this a typo? You just said that Trump was responsible for pulling out of the Iran deal, which is true, and which he had the power to do unilaterally.
Trump ripped up the agreement***
That’s true, but also let me just say this.
Whenever the US does something bad, you can’t just blame it on the whole US, you have to look at the specific people responsible for it, right? But what about when another country, like Iran, for example, does something bad? Do we say, “Oh well obviously you can’t blame Iran in general for it?” Very rarely. Often, people go so far as to not only paint an entire government negatively off a bad action, but to paint and entire culture and people that way, going back even to previous, unrelated governments that governed previous generations, completely different structures doing completely different things. Post-9/11, you saw people painting the entire Muslim world as warlike religious fanatics, even going back to Mideval times. People sometimes fail to make a distinction between the USSR and modern Russia. And likewise in China, I’ve seen people before trying to argue that China is inherently domineering based on ancient history.
When we’re taught history in school, all of our country’s decisions are taught with the full context and perspective, we’re taught what people were concerned about and why they did it and who were the ones who actually did it, and the conclusion for bad stuff is that it was an unfortunate necessity, or a mistake, or the product of a few bad apples in an otherwise positive project.
You are right, of course, that it was Trump who pulled out of the deal. But I think it’s important to understand that that nuance is only really seen from the inside, that from the perspective of Iran, for example, it’s just the US being fickle, and that if we expect the world to be understanding of that sort of nuance to our government’s actions, it’s important to apply the same sort of nuance any time we look at the actions of other countries.
I only brought up Jim Crow in response to the claim that the the state will protect people and that there are ways to appeal the state of it doesn’t. The point being that having legal protections on paper is not always enough to keep people safe.
The “fascist enablers” don’t have consciences you can appeal to, because what drives them is money, and they are specifically selected for their willingness to serve capital and cause harm to innocent people. The system selects for sociopaths.
You analysis takes absolutely zero account of the systems or material conditions that exist which compel people to act in certain ways. Germany had an unemployment rate of 30% in 1932, but in your mind, it seems like the communists were only fighting because they wanted to and the capitalists were just reacting to that.
Had everyone on the left coordinated on mass nonviolent actions, like mass strikes for example, the capitalists would still have turned to the fascists in order to preserve their money and power. Violence or nonviolence doesn’t matter, what matters is whether their positions are threatened. You either never do anything to gain power in hopes of being able to beg your enemies for mercy, or you do whatever it takes to win so you don’t have to rely on that. The in between stuff where you pull your punches and try to disrupt things without defending yourself is the surest way to get yourself killed.
Yeah, and those same mechanisms existed in the Jim Crow South but that didn’t stop the Klan from lynching people and getting away with it.
Maybe if we just don’t fight the Nazis, they won’t be able to justify violence against us 🤡
Yeah let’s just allow roving gangs of brownshirts to run around attacking and terrorizing minorities because if we don’t they might stage an attack and the “atmosphere of violence” we’ve created by trying to keep people safe will allow them to blame it on us and seize power. The solution is to just allow them to seize power directly through force, without resistance.
This is nonsense. Nazis don’t need a justification to use force against you, they can literally just lie and make shit up, like they did with the Reichstag Fire. It doesn’t matter if it’s true because it’s directed at the weakest and most vulnerable and stigmatized populations, who have the least capacity to fight back and the fewest platforms to counter their narratives, and once they’re done with them they work their way up. They will create terror on the streets and then use the fact that the streets are full of terror to seize power. People are going to try to defend themselves when attacked whether you think they should or not, so the only question is whether that resistance is strong enough to actually work.
I’ve seen too many examples throughout history of people trying to use nonviolence and do things the right way and just getting slaughtered because the other side simply does not care to be a pacifist. The world is clearly a better place because people employed violence in WWII to stop the Nazis. And street fighting in the 30’s was one of the ways that the Nazis secured their power in the first place.
Nonviolent methods are tools that are useful to have in your toolbox, and in many situations, they are more practical in achieving your ends. But there are cases were violence is more practical, even necessary, and one shouldn’t shy away from it when it’s needed. You gotta have your head in the game, the stakes are too high. A diversity of tactics is best.
The logic that violence is oppressive so it should be renounced in all cases in order to reduce oppression is idealist. You have to look at the actual evidence and material situation to evaluate what effects violence will have in a given situation.
Punching Nazis is cool and good. Just try not to get arrested for it because it’ll take you out of the action longer than it will them.
It appears that I don’t need to be present for this conversation, you just want to rant and rave at ghosts and the strawman you’ve invented in your head out of nothing. You have fun with that.
And you totally didn’t say “I’m a communist” or “I look to Lenin” in your previous comments. Got it.
How on earth does being a communist and referencing Lenin have anything to do with the positions you invented for me?
Literally right next to each other. Incredible source of comedy.
Btw, if I didn’t know better, I’d say you just assigned the label of “tankie” to me. What happened to everyone getting complete control over what labels apply to them 🤔
Removed by mod
As long as we both understand the definitions being used there is no issue here. Again, you seem to think that words have objective meaning and that uses outside of that are “wrong”. That’s not how words work. You can call yourself a noble prize winner in this conversation since I know what you mean, but might have a harder time once you try that with someone else who doesn’t know your definition. Your argument isn’t a gotcha just because you think it sounds ridiculous.
OK, great! So, if you accept that I’m a Nobel Prize winner, then for the rest of this conversation, let’s use “Nazi Germany” whenever we’re talking about Ukraine. Sound good? Exactly how far are you willing to roll with this?
You seem to think that I don’t understand that language is mutable and collectively defined. I understand that just fine. What I also understand is that language can be used as a tool of manipulation. I’ve picked absurd examples hoping to illustrate that point, which you seem to be failing to understand. Yes, you can understand what I mean if I define terms differently, but if you give me license to define terms however I want, then I could make all sorts of unreasonable things sound reasonable. If you’re really committed to this stubborn, inane exercise to prove that language doesn’t matter, then I can go through the effort of redefining terms until your positions sound equal parts absurd and vile, but that seems like quite a bit of effort to prove a point that should be obvious.
You said you are a communist, you talked about following Lenin, you have been doing everything you can to justify why Ukraine should not fight back against the aggressor in this conflict. I don’t have a reach very far to find your actual opinions on things.
You literally made everything up whole cloth, and the positions you made up for me were obviously absurd and incoherent.
I didn’t assign any label to you or tell you what words you can or cannot use.
Oh, I see. So the rule that I get to have complete control about which things apply to me or don’t only applies specifically to things that are phrased as labels. Truly fascinating. Where does the line get drawn, exactly? You can’t call someone a murderer because that’s a label, but you can say that they murdered someone, because that’s not a label (even though it means the same thing), but what if you call them “A person who murders people?” Does that count as a label? What is it that’s so special about labels that gives them this special quality that doesn’t apply to other words?
Are you saying you don’t support Russia?
No, I don’t, they should seek peace.
That Ukraine should continue to fight against their invaders?
No, they should seek peace.
Of course not!
Incorrect.
Just man-up and state your positions with gusto.
I have. The “secret positions” that I’m supposedly hiding are entirely your invention.
Words are tools. As long as both parties understand the meaning behind them, they are useful. If you don’t understand the way someone is using a term, ask them. You don’t get to tell them it’s wrong, there are no wrong ways to use words as long as both parties understand the meaning.
So let me make sure I’ve got this right.
I go out and murder someone in cold blood. People call me a murderer. I tell them that I’m not a murderer - yes, I did take an innocent life by choice, but I don’t like the way “murderer” sounds, so I don’t apply it to myself. You don’t get to decide what terms apply to me.
Got it. For the rest of this conversation, let “Nobel Prize winner” be defined as, “Lemmy.ml user.” I am a Nobel Prize winner, we both understand how I’m using the term, so it’s valid and you don’t get to tell me otherwise.
As a Nobel Prize winner, I think this is completely ridiculous.
How did I know this would turn into a parade of Russia apologia. If you can’t see the difference between an army bombing violent separatists armed and given orders by a hostile neighbor and troops fighting back against that neighbor after it invades I can’t help you.
So should I automatically oppose all separatists who accept help from other countries? I don’t agree with that. I think the question of when succession is justified is a complex and nuanced issue.
As far as I can tell, you are exclusively opposed to violence when it’s your nation’s geopolitical enemies doing it, and you have no problem with your side even firing on civilian targets. The same as pretty much anyone else, no matter where you go.
As long as you accept that there is a possible situation where fighting back against an invading force is good then your whole argument about the definition of pacifism is mute. You aren’t one and have no stake in that conversation at all, other than to obfuscate your actual position. “Ukraine bad because west, Russia not as bad because they used to wear red. Find any excuse possible to have Ukraine stop defending themselves.” That’s all this is. Why not just have the balls to say what you really think? Why not just say “Ukraine should stop defending itself because I think autocratic governments that used to be socialist are preferable to western democracies because America bad”?
It’s very funny to me that for all your claims about respecting the labels people apply to themselves, you go on to put a bunch of words in my mouth and assign positions to me that I don’t hold and have not said anything remotely similar to.
Putin has said he wants to rebuild the Soviet empire
No, he has not. Source.
Removed by mod
But fine, they are not technically the same country.
I thought you had conceded the point. Guess I misunderstood.
Let me take a step back and use an example. Suppose a Native American reservation puts out a document talking about how, historically, the land that the US was founded on was stolen from Native tribes. Now, hypothetically, someone could use that argument to delegitimize the US and claim all of its territory, if, like, this reservation had a massive army somehow. But just saying that would all still be theoretical.
If I say, “Taiwan claims territory occupied by the PRC” (or vice versa) I am making an objectively true statement, because they’ve made those claims formally and explicitly. But when you say that Russia is claiming all of Ukraine, that’s just your opinion about Putin’s opinion, it’s speculation. If you say that he claims Donbass, that’s a fact, because that’s something that’s formalized. But when he’s talking about history, of course his goal is to delegitimize Ukraine, but unless it’s explicitly applied to the present day, it’s not an actual claim.
Since Belarus is a Russian vassal state?
That’s also not true.
Sorry, I’m talking about things that are actually formalized. Maybe that’s where the confusion is? Russia has never (to my knowledge) claimed any part of Belarus.
Just saying, like, “I think we have a common heritage” is not the same as saying, “All your territory belongs to me and I intend to take it.” The distinction is enormous.
It’s literally not.
In the essay, Putin argues that Russians and Ukrainians, along with Belarusians, are one people, belonging to what has historically been known as the triune Russian nation.
Do you think he’s also claiming Belarus?
Putin claimed there is “no historical basis” for the “idea of Ukrainian people as a nation separate from the Russians”
There’s your evidence. Don’t know what else to tell you. He could try to use that argument to claim all of Ukraine’s territory, but he has not claimed all of Ukraine’s territory, the quote simply does not show him doing that.
He’s making a claim about history that seeks to delegitimize the Ukrainian government, but that is not the same thing as saying that all Ukrainian territory belongs to Russia. At present, it’s just a theoretical argument.
You’re making another giant leap again. His essay just questions Ukraine’s national identity, that’s not the same the same as asserting a right to all of Ukraine’s territory. I have not lied, and I won’t continue either unless you apologize for that false accusation.
That’s not true. Even in dictatorships, the person at the top still has people who they need to keep happy in order to stay in power. Nobody gets to or stays at the top on their own, what happens is that they’re supported in that position by whatever interests they represent. If someone comes to power in a military coup, for instance, they have to keep the military happy or they’ll get replaced.
More to the point, it’s not just about who gets blame or credit for stuff, it’s about understanding the mechanics of a system, and the history, and the various material factors and interests that go into decision making.