There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Sagittarii ,

Fascist government does more fascist shit. More at 11

istanbullu ,

Didn’t Ukraine also ban the opposition party, jail opposition politicians and cancel elections?

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

yup

TomBombadil ,

Is this instance just tankies?

brain_in_a_box ,

Given that the word “tankie” has been so overused that it just means “anyone to the left of John McCain”, most places are.

hrosts ,

I saw a person lower in the thread talking about Stalin’s USSR being a democracy, while another said that Russia and China can’t be imperialist. Doesn’t seem like a case of overuse to me.

brain_in_a_box ,

I saw the tankies in the closet, and they were making authoritarianism, and I saw one of the authoritarianism, and the authoritarianism looked at me.

So, like, it’s completely meaningful to have a snarl word that refers to everyone left of the neo-cons.

hrosts ,

“Everyone is getting called a Nazi these days, the word has lost all meaning”.

Sure…

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

the enlightened centrist has logged on

hrosts ,

Tankies don’t exist, don’t you know? There’s no second half between which an enlightened centrist can position themselves. I am the furthest left there is, and you are a liberal.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

The only thing that exists is children running around calling people tankies when they’re unable to engage in actual discussion. The fact that you call me a liberal highlights just how utterly lost you are. Define what you think a liberal is child.

hrosts ,

Define deez nuts, lib

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

thanks for confirming that you just do name calling without actually having a clue what words mean, you’re like a chat bot 😂

hrosts ,

Beep! Boop!

Tangentism ,

Do you think the representational democracy throughout the west is real democracy or just a case of “vote for us every 4 years you pleb then STFU while we collect this lovely lobbyist money, filling our pockets and fail to deliver any campaign promises we ran on”

And you think tankies are fucking idiots?!

hrosts , (edited )

Was USSR a democracy under Stalin? Are Russia and China imperialist?

o_d ,
@o_d@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Was USSR a democracy under Stalin?

Yes

Are Russia and China imperialist?

No

hrosts ,

Thanks!

o_d ,
@o_d@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Youre welcome. The CIA agrees on the first point. www.cia.gov/…/CIA-RDP80-00810A006000360009-0.pdf

hrosts ,

Collective leadership is rule of the Politbureau - a group of ~10 party officials, of the Council of Ministers - a group of 7 bureaucrats, and of the Central Committee - a group of several dozen party officials, picked by the leadership from the GenSec’s loyalists. Stalin held presiding positions in all three.

Party oligarchy is different from a one-man dictatorship, and CIA agrees on that.

I don’t know how that helps your point though.

o_d ,
@o_d@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Okay mister Bolshevik. What you write is contrary to everything that I’ve read about soviet governance, but I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it.

The collective west is currently taking part in an active genocide, out in the open for all to see. But gommunism bad holodomor vuvuzela no iPhone. We can’t upset the genocidal ruling class now, can we?

hrosts ,

Okay mister Bolshevik. What you write is contrary to everything that I’ve read about soviet governance, but I guess I’ll just have to take your word for it.

I am neither a mister nor a Bolshevik. If you don’t know the meaning of “collective leadership”, then it’s on you.

The collective west is currently taking part in an active genocide, out in the open for all to see. But gommunism bad holodomor vuvuzela no iPhone. We can’t upset the genocidal ruling class now, can we?

Are you having a stroke?

o_d ,
@o_d@lemmygrad.ml avatar

I am neither a mister nor a Bolshevik.

I’ll take the L on this one. I shouldn’t have assumed your gender. I’m sorry.

The Bolshevik thing was sarcasm.

hrosts ,

Regarding what CIA means by “collective leadership”:

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP80-01446R000100020012-2.pdf

It is entirely possible that the Soviet leaders are about to develop a new form of “dictatorship by committee”, giving them the advantage of appearing to be quasi-democratic.

When we speak of collective leadership, we mean a committee of a very few men, probably not more than five or six. The larger the membership, the greater the likelihood that fractionalization may occur, dividing the committee into antagonistic groups.

o_d ,
@o_d@lemmygrad.ml avatar

So the CIA calls him a dictator in one memo and not in another. I suppose that proves nothing in the end. Except that the CIA clearly doesn’t understand Soviet governance based on the other details in the memo that you linked.

hrosts ,

They call Soviet leadership a party oligarchy in both cases. They do not “agree” with you in any way shape or form.

o_d , (edited )
@o_d@lemmygrad.ml avatar

And that’s different from Amerikkka how?

Pot calling the kettle black. 🤷

hrosts ,

Wait so you do agree USSR was a party oligarchy?

Both the pot and the kettle are black cause they are covered in soot.

o_d ,
@o_d@lemmygrad.ml avatar

I do not. You say that the CIA does however, so the analogy still works.

Sodium_nitride ,

In the despotic East, the people are forced to have free housing and highly subsidised food despite having sanctioned war torn peasant economies, in the democratic West, they choose to starve on the streets despite having more wealth than any other countries in history.

It’s really quite a conundrum.

hrosts ,

There are multiple ways to interpret this. I have no interest in guessing.

State your point.

Sodium_nitride ,

It’s sarcasm about how you think the USSR was not democratic despite it being able to feed, clothe and house all of its citizens even under immense economic pressure. Things which the so called democracies of today, despite being orders of magnitudes wealthier still choose to not do.

hrosts ,

So democracy to you is when a state does SocDem welfare policies?

I would understand if, as a purported socialist, you wanted to tie democracy to communism, as bourgeois democracy democratizes only the superstrucure, and even that one just partially. But that tie-in would clearly be hard to accept if you wanted to argue for USSR being democratic, as it was far from a stateless classless moneyless society.

Still - why social democracy? Why welfare? It’s kinda of a weird choice, unless you tie the idea of democracy to the liberal-fascist “will of the people” concept. But that would imply very bad things about your views, friend.

Sodium_nitride ,

So democracy to you is when a state does SocDem welfare policies?

A state only does welfare policies when it is compelled to by democratic forces. After WW2, western masses were both militarised, and the threat of the USSR loomed large. This new power balance favoring the labor movement was the only reason they won their welfare states. As soon as the power balance shifted, western governments started dismantling the welfare states. In other words, welfare policies, and the distribution of income are an effective gauge of the level of democratic power in a country.

The USSR, unlike the SocDems went well beyond mere welfare. Rents were capped to 5% of your income, and most people didn’t even pay that, as home ownership rates were well over 90%. Food was subsidized to such a degree that in many socialist countries, it severely distorted the economy (and was likely a contributing factor to their downfalls ironically). Transportation and many forms of entertainment were virtually free (soviet citizens had access to community spas, theaters, an opera house in basically every city, iirc). Income differentials in the socialist states were orders of magnitudes lower than in SocDem states.

Now obviously, these policies aren’t “proof” of democracy, but are certainly a strong indicator. And my statements were never meant to prove anything really, as it was a joke.

But that tie-in would clearly be hard to accept if you wanted to argue for USSR being democratic, as it was far from a stateless classless moneyless society.

Ah, the timeless technique of using a different definition of a word that a community clearly does not use, purely to generate confusion.

unless you tie the idea of democracy to the liberal-fascist “will of the people” concept. But that would imply very bad things about your views, friend.

I don’t remember making any references to “the will of the people”, but even if I did, thinking that would make me a “liberal-fascist” (what I think you are implying) because of that borders on asinine.

hrosts ,

A state only does welfare policies when it is compelled to by democratic forces.

Correction: by the need to disarm and pacify the proletariat, when class rule becomes too threatened. German Empire is a good example. Nobody would dare to call Bismarck’s rule “democratic”

And you’re still describing welfare. Most SocDems I know support things like this or similar ones, and food subsidies are done by many liberal governments, irrelevant of the democratic status.

using a different definition of a word that a community clearly does not use

I agree, MLs have long abandoned what communism was supposed to mean.

don’t remember making any references to “the will of the people”

I mean, your schpiel about welfare implying democracy is kinda it. You still haven’t made neither communist ties to mode of production, nor more liberal ties to the electoral structure. You’re only pushing the welfare angle.

Monarchs wanting to keep the populace docile, like in modern Saudi Arabia or in the German Empire would often implement welfare, and it would be ridiculous to call that in any way a democracy. However fascists often define “democracy” as the ruler following the will of the people, which is shown through fulfilling certain needs of the population, like food, healthcare, housing. Your “welfare implies democracy” take runs parallel to that idea, and can be argued to be a slight repackaging of the reactionary concept.

would make me a “liberal-fascist”

That is not how it works. It is possible to believe fascist things while being a liberal and to believe liberal and fascist things while being a socialist. The point is not that you are that shitty thing, but that you should change your position from the wrong one to the right one.

Sodium_nitride ,

Correction: by the need to disarm and pacify the proletariat, when class rule becomes too threatened. German Empire is a good example. Nobody would dare to call Bismarck’s rule “democratic”

You have managed to miss both the point of the joke and my explanation of it. I was being sarcastic in my comment and not writing a thesis on democracy. The joke was never meant to accurately define democracy. As for my explanation, you have somehow missed the fact that I explicitly say that welfare is an indicator for the strength of democratic forces, and not “proof” that a country is a democracy.

I agree, MLs have long abandoned what communism was supposed to mean.

Are you being purposefully obtuse?

However fascists often define “democracy” as the ruler following the will of the people, which is shown through fulfilling certain needs of the population, like food, healthcare, housing

Oh, was the USSR under Stalin fascist then? Was it simply “placating” and “disarming” the working population? Or was it liberal or monarchist? Because that is the original topic I replied to. Nobody but the most dumbass of ultras can pretend that the USSR under Stalin was not socialist. Certainly did not achieve higher stage communism as it still had a large peasant class.

hrosts ,

You have managed to miss both the point of the joke and my explanation of it

I know you were sarcastic in the original comment, which is why I asked you to make an actual point.

They key points of your response were:

A state only does welfare policies when it is compelled to by democratic forces.

The USSR [did a lot of welfare]

these policies … are certainly a strong indicator [of democracy]

The first point you’re wrong on, as I have explained.

The second point I agree on.

The third point you are again wrong on, as examples I’ve provided demonstrate.

Both proofs and indicators serve similar goals rhetorically, I don’t see the point of your distinction here. I also didn’t say “proof” when criticizing your point:

Your “welfare implies democracy” take

Now going further.

Oh, was the USSR under Stalin fascist then?

I have no idea what led you to think I’m saying this, stop being defensive. It did do some things that, if were done by a western liberal government, would’ve lead to accusations of fascism, but that is beside the point.

Was it simply “placating” and “disarming” the working population?

That is correct, however; both figuratively and literally.

Nobody but the most dumbass of ultras can pretend

Now you’re just posturing. Please stop.

Sodium_nitride ,

The first point you’re wrong on, as I have explained.

No you haven’t. Bismark only implemented his policies to placate a working class as you yourself claim. You only need to placate and disarm a class if they become a threat to your power. Your examples only further reinforce my point that states in general have to be compelled to provide welfare policies. It takes some level of success in class conflict to win concessions.

Both proofs and indicators serve similar goals rhetorically, I don’t see the point of your distinction here. I also didn’t say “proof” when criticizing your point:

They do not at all. If you drank a soda that tasted sweet, that would be an indicator that it had fructose in it. But it would not be proof as the soda could have artificial sweetners like sacharine instead. The implementation of welfare policies are the result of an intermingling of factors, and each country has its own circumstances.

That is correct, however; both figuratively and literally.

So far, you have yet to explain how exactly the USSR under Stalin was not democratic, which was the whole thing I was mocking your views over.

hrosts ,

You only need to placate and disarm a class if they become a threat to your power.

Or you want to push them further to achieve your goals.

Or there’s a threat of external forces using internal disorder for their purposes.

Why is this important?

Your original statement - “compelled to by democratic forces” - was implying (maybe accidentally), that those forces have at least partial power in the government. It sounded similar to the social democratic idea of “The workers have a say in the government, so they vote for things they desire”.

Your newer statement - “become a threat to your power” - is then paralleled with “success in class conflict”. Both imply there’s a strong workers’ movement making demands. What I want to point out is that it is not necessarily the case, as there are often other pressures at play which don’t directly involve the labor movement.

USSR had both a need for a compliant workforce to simplify the execution of economic plans and a great threat of external hostile forces leveraging internal strife, both of which made it a very appealing option to keep the working class as non-threatening as possible.

[Proofs and indicators] do not at all [serve similar goal rhetorically]

You don’t need to explain to me how formal proofs work. However, I was talking about rhetoric, not logic.

When you are talking to a person or a group of people and say things like:

  • “The use of word ‘degeneracy’ implies fascist beliefs”
  • “The desire for class collaboration is a proof of fascism”
  • “The obsession with a plotting Other suggest fascist ideology”

All of these serve the same goal in your speech. It tells people around:

“Because of X you should believe that person is a fascist”.

My point is that it doesn’t matter whether you used “proof” or “indication”, that either of them would be there to have a person read about the USSR’s welfare policies and go “Hm, I guess USSR was actually democratic”.

Your original sarcastic comment had other possible interpretations: “democracy is a meaningless term”, or “democracy is secondary to well-being of the populace”, but these are even more reactionary than the welfare-democracy one, and your following response suggested that was the one you intended.

So far, you have yet to explain how exactly the USSR under Stalin was not democratic

I’ve been waiting for you to explain the contrary, as your only point to that so far was the welfare one. You also haven’t yet explained what meaning of “democracy” you subscribe to, as you have suggested you don’t believe the welfare explanation. It would be a waste of time for me to present a refutal, only for you to not believe in its core, thus rendering all the work futile.

Sodium_nitride ,

Your original statement - “compelled to by democratic forces” - was implying (maybe accidentally), that those forces have at least partial power in the government. It sounded similar to the social democratic idea of “The workers have a say in the government, so they vote for things they desire”.

In the case of the USSR, it was almost entirely workers. Workers (and non-working lower class folk) who voted in representatives for their local soviets, the local soviets who then voted in representatives for higher soviets and so on. The soviet structure, which existed for the workplace as well, although higher level government bodies still had some say in how the workplace was run (necessary to ensure coherence in the economic plan). It was common for people to personally write letters to Stalin or other officials, who would then be required to respond to their requests. I have even heard stories from non-communist eastern europeans who say things like “my grandmother once wrote to Stalin to ask him to transfer her to a new unit because she thought the commander was hot. And that’s how my father was born”. This level of extreme intermingling between the citizenry and the leadership is surely a strong mechanism of democracy. Another democratic mechanism existed in the USSR whereby the 1936 constitution was crafted with suggestions from the populace and had to be approved by a vote from the population. It is in the context of these democratic mechanisms that my comments about welfare become “proof” for the USSR being democratic. If it wasn’t democratic and all of the mechanism I listed above are lies, how would that square with the USSR working to abolish surplus value or having income distributions orders of magnitudes more equal than countries with comparable levels of industrialisation. It wouldn’t.

Your original sarcastic comment had other possible interpretations: “democracy is a meaningless term”, or “democracy is secondary to well-being of the populace”, but these are even more reactionary than the welfare-democracy one, and your following response suggested that was the one you intended.

No it didn’t. It went “In the despotic east, the people are forced to …, in the democratic west, the people choose to starve in the streets”. The idea that in a democracy, a population would choose to impoverish and immiserate itself is the whole joke to begin with. When I was writing that comment, I was operating under the assumption that you were the type who would defend western “democracies”.

hrosts , (edited )

Fucking hell, the editor did not save my message again.

TL;DR

Having a referendum to ratify constitutional changes is a thing in a large number of countries. It’s not out of the ordinary.

The Congress of Soviets was removed with the 1936 constitution. Supreme Soviet took its place. Supreme Soviet was elected directly, but all ballots had only a single candidate. You can try to look up a picture of a ballot - they all have a single name on them. There is one picture of a ballot template with 3 names, but that’s it.

The candidates in the ballots would be nominated on meetings of industrial plant and factory staff. Meetings are not elections. Meetings is when you sit and listen to the management read out their decisions.

There Supreme Soviet would convene a few times per year for a week or less. All other time there would be ~40 guys from the Presidium who would take on its duties.

There are stenograms of sessions available in Russian.. I can read Russian. What I’m reading is:

  • The single-candidate ballots seem to be a norm, as one of the sessions mentions ~7000 ballots “with crossed out candidate names” out of ~1 million votes. Crossing out is how you vote on those ballots, it’s written above the right column, and you have to cross all but one name. If there are only 0.7% of crossed out ballots, that means all of the ballots had only 1 name on them.
  • All of the decisions I read through have been accepted, ratified, voted on completely unanimously. No “nays”, no abstentions. This whole thing is just a glorified green stamp.
  • A lot of time is spent on speeches. None of those speeches show any dissent. E.g. when Molotov is talking about friendly relationships with Nazi Germany and Italy in 1940, there’s zero dissent.

Supreme Soviet was officially the highest legislative authority in the country. It was an undemocratic sham.

No it didn’t [have those other interpretations].

It did, but I don’t want to argue about that. It’s all semantics and sophistry and we’re past that anyway.

Sodium_nitride ,

Having a referendum to ratify constitutional changes is a thing in a large number of countries. It’s not out of the ordinary.

Does a mechanism need to be out of the ordinary to be democratic?

The Congress of Soviets was removed with the 1936 constitution. Supreme Soviet took its place. Supreme Soviet was elected directly

Apologies, I had gotten confused since that period of soviet history saw many restructurings in the government. But this only means that all along, you knew a little about how the soviet government worked, and yet you still have many comments wasting everyone’s and your own time with nonsense and tangents.

but all ballots had only a single candidate. You can try to look up a picture of a ballot - they all have a single name on them.

I know this

The candidates in the ballots would be nominated on meetings of industrial plant and factory staff. Meetings are not elections.

Yes, that is the point. The bolsheviks explicitly abandoned liberal parliamentarianism. Despite calling other people liberals and saying that I had liberal ideas about democracy, are you now going to turn around and say that elections, the most liberal of liberal ideas about democracy are the way to go? Anyone who is not a liberal can easily recognize that electoral systems are undemocratic. Even the best of electoral “democracies” have elected representatives that are deeply unrepresentative of their constituents. I would not say that the system of meetings was the best choice exactly, but it was both the result of the democratic centralist philosophy (evolved partly as a result of the needs of the civil war) and of seeing electoral systems utterly fail both in liberalised Russia and the other parliamentary countries.

Meetings is when you sit and listen to the management read out their decisions.

Yeah … totally. All of the gains in the worker’s rights and living standards happened despite the workers having no input. By some miracle, the democratic mechanism which was just for show produced one of the most equal and highly industrialized societies of all time. By arguing that the USSR wasn’t democratic, the only thing you are arguing for is the idea that democracy is not necessary to achieve equality and standards of living. No matter how much you deride welfare as an indicator of democracy, your whole narrative doesn’t make sense. It also doesn’t make sense how the Russian working class, which had very recently launched a revolution could be disarmed so easily, or at all.

There Supreme Soviet would convene a few times per year for a week or less. All other time there would be ~40 guys from the Presidium who would take on its duties.

As opposed to doing what? Representatives cannot manage the day to day affairs of the government. No government on earth does that.

There are stenograms of sessions available in Russian… I can read Russian. What I’m reading is:

And I cannot comment on whether or not you are cherry picking or misrepresenting anything from the reports.

All of the decisions I read through have been accepted, ratified, voted on completely unanimously. No “nays”, no abstentions. This whole thing is just a glorified green stamp.

Can’t comment on this, even though I smell bs.

A lot of time is spent on speeches

This is a problem because?

None of those speeches show any dissent.

I neither trust that you have actually read and remember the contents of that many speeches, or that you understand the all of the contexts or nuances of those speeches. Furthermore, during conditions of wartime or near wartime (as your only example is in), there naturally tends to be less disagreement. You can see how quickly factions unite under external threats.

E.g. when Molotov is talking about friendly relationships with Nazi Germany and Italy in 1940, there’s zero dissent.

What is this supposed to mean? I assume you bring this particular point up specifically to play on the “USSR collaborated with nazis” trope (straining your credibility), but what does “talking about” mean exactly? For example, if he mentions that the government has stabilized the situation (stating facts), why would that generate dissent (unless he was factually incorrect)?

hrosts ,

Have you been to meetings with management? I used to work at a government-run place in Belarus. The meetings were precisely as what I described them. I had a longer explanation typed out, but then lost it; I might redo it at a later date.

you still have many comments wasting… …time

I wanted to know the reason behind you thinking it was democratic. The first reason you gave was the welfare. I’ve provided several reasons which were true for USSR at the time for why they would want to keep the proletariat pacified and disarmed. Speaking of which, the proletariat was literally disarmed in 1924.

The second reason you gave is the electoral system. So now we’re talking about the electoral system.

As opposed to doing what? Representatives cannot manage the day to day affairs of the government. No government on earth does that.

US House and Senate are in session approximately 150(+/-20) days a year, for most weeks there’s at least one day they’re in session. There’s also not a separate group which makes decisions for the rest of the parliament in the meantime.

And I cannot comment on whether or not you are cherry picking or misrepresenting anything from the reports.

You have the link now. You can always ask someone else to look through them for you to verify if I’m right or wrong. You can also ask me - pick out any session of any convocation out there and I will get you a translation of at least the key points, the votes, stuff like that.

This is a problem because?

Ok, I think I was vague here. There are reports, there are congratulations, there are suggestions. I don’t see any discussions, nor appeals, nor debates. I don’t see disagreement. What I see is a lot of self-congratulation. Even if I can’t prove it by giving you an authoritative translation here and now, you will remember this characterization and it will sit there in your head when you’ll hear similar things in the future.

I [don’t] trust that you have actually read and remember the contents of that many speeches

You would be right to do so, as what I meant and keep meaning when I talk here was only the speeches I looked through, which is only like 5 or 6, picked randomly from random sessions of the 1st convocation (I think we’re both would be mostly interested in the 1st convocation, as that is the one which lasted from 1937 to 1945). One of the sessions I clicked was the 7th session, which had the Molotov’s speech - I stumbled upon it mostly by chance. Being friendly with the Nazi state would be an obviously contentious topic among leftists, so it piqued my interest to see the Soviet’s reaction to the report. Which is also why I mentioned it to you - it’s much easier to disregard absence of dissent on a matter of industrial or agricultural administration than on this topic.

but what does “talking about [friendly relationships with Nazi Germany and Italy]” mean exactly?

I will try to summarize the part of the speech which pertains to the Nazis here. You’re free to disregard it as me bs-ing you.

  • Italy has joined the war
  • France was quickly defeated and capitulated
    • France signed a ceasefire and is under occupation
    • Reasons for France’s defeat
      • Poor military readiness
      • French leadership, unlike Germany, underestimated USSR’s role in Europe
      • French leadership was afraid of its people, known for its revolutionary potential
    • France now has to lick its wounds and rebuild
  • England is still at war with USA’s support
  • Germany achieved great successes, but it wants to end the war on the terms it desires.
  • German reichschancellor offered peace to England on July 19th
  • Despite that, England decided to continue the war.
    • It even cut ties with France
    • That is because England doesn’t want to lose its colonies and lose this war for war domination.
    • It does this even though the Italy’s participation and France’s defeat make it harder for England
  • The war is far from the end
  • USSR holds to peace and neutrality
    • The agreement has prevented any potential tensions with Germany, and gave it confidence about its eastern borders.
    • Voices from England want to scare USSR with potential disagreements with Germany, with Germany becoming too powerful
  • The relationships between USSR and Germany are neighborly and friendly.
    • That is not due to situation-specific factors, but because of the core interests of both states.

This is only a part of the larger report on foreign policy, but I would still expect there to be some voices of concern regarding the shit Nazis were doing, or the fact that the report puts the blame for the war and its continuation on primarily UK and USA and their “imperialist ambitions”. The “peace or destruction” threat from Hitler’s July 19th speech is framed as a humble peace offer, which the greedy Britain has unreasonable refused. The cutting ties with the Nazi puppet Vichy is framed as Britain abandoning its former ally. No mention of persecution of Jews by the Nazis. Also neither terms “Nazi”, “National Socialist”, nor Hitler’s name appear in the report - he’s referred to as “the reichschancellor”.

Not all of these things I would expect from Molotov’s report itself - but I would be appalled if there was no other delegates to point at least one of the things I’ve outlined.

Instead, the report was accepted unanimously and without any debate.

The stenogram link for that place precisely

Those who are in favor of accepting this proposal, please raise your hands… Please lower them. Who’s against it? No. Who abstains? No. The proposal is accepted.

This phrase is everywhere in those stenograms. No against, no abstentions, accepted.

Sodium_nitride ,

Forgive me if I seem overly pedantic in this reply, but you seem to know quite a bit, so I would like to extract as much information as possible.

Have you been to meetings with management? I used to work at a government-run place in Belarus. The meetings were precisely as what I described them.

Did you go to a government run place when the soviet union existed? I mean, it seems strange to me that you specify “government-run” for a workplace that existed during the soviet times. And even if you were there, I imagine that the late soviet union worked differently from the early soviet union. I cannot say if this applies to the meetings themselves.

Those who are in favor of accepting this proposal, please raise your hands… Please lower them. Who’s against it? No. Who abstains? No. The proposal is accepted.

That doesn’t sound any different from what one would say for voting as it is done in other situations. Who votes, who is against, who abstains is common. Do the “no” parts mean that no-one abstained in Russian? Because in English it doesn’t make sense. Did you mean to wrote “no one abstained”?

1rst convocation

Part of this maybe that during these years, the soviet government was heavily focused on war aims. 1937 incidentally is the year when the soviet government switched to focusing on preparing for war. Another part of it maybe the small sample size (maybe you just looked at the wrong section). And another part maybe that the stwnographix reports aren’t capturing all of the discussions. From whay I know about the us government, most of the discussion for policies happens outside the official convening times. Legislators negotiate with each other, they discuss bills in committees before even presenting them for a vote, etc.

Not all of these things I would expect from Molotov’s report itself - but I would be appalled if there was no other delegates to point at least one of the things I’ve outlined.

I can imagine nobody in the supereme soviet taking objection to such statements. They had relatively recently been subject to a brutal war of aggression from these states. Certainly their opinion of Britain and the United States would be very low enough that they would blame everything on them (especially since these were actively genocidal empires at the time). On the other hand, I believe attempts were made to form an alliance against Hitler previously, which the British and French rejected. It was also a widespread belief at the time that the treaty of versailles was responsible for the rise of Hitler. Certainly, the French could be blamed for their occupation of the rhineland and rural valley.

carl_marks_1312 ,
@carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml avatar

if you wanted to argue for USSR being democratic, as it was far from a stateless classless moneyless society.

When you don’t know the difference between communism and socialism

hrosts ,

Your username looks particularly funny in the context. I hope you know why.

carl_marks_1312 ,
@carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml avatar

Your comments look very uninformed in the context of this entire thread.I hope understand why.

www.marxists.org/archive/marx/…/authority.htm

hrosts ,

Lol

hrosts ,

Worse, it’s sometimes tankies, which means ditching it outright doesn’t feel justified enough

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

whatever you say dronie

hrosts ,

jokes on you I’m into that 😜

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

yeah we know you’re a fascist

hrosts ,

we

You’re alone in the room calling people NPCs online. Get a life you silly lib.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

pretty sure lots of people downvted you in this thread loser, also learn what liberalism is so you don’t make a clown of yourself in the future

hrosts ,

No pwease don’t caww me wibewal!!! You don’t know what it meanf!!! Get a downdoot you meanie!!!

Please explain me how you’re not a lib, you will get even more upvotes for this for sure.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

nah I just asked you to define what a liberal is and you can’t because you’re just a sad troll

hrosts ,

Shame, I really liked trolling your ass.

Time for arguments was around a day ago, but you was too overflowing with sass to engage. Davel was more coherent, so I wrestled with him until he realized he can’t really prove there was a genocide and left.

Bye, you silly liberal. I still have to discover if there’s any difference between positions of you lot and of an average TV-addled Russian boomer. The lack of class analysis in explaining Russia’s behavior is your bane, together with tankie brainrot.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

thanks for finally admitting that you are just an attention seeking troll

hrosts ,

You keep thanking me time and time again. Is this a kink thing?

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

you keep replying to me, is that a kink thing?

hrosts ,

And what if it is? You seem to be fine with continuing on so far.

o_d ,
@o_d@lemmygrad.ml avatar

Uses both “tankie” and “lib” as an insult. Isn’t a fascist. Something’s not adding up.

hrosts ,

I am very mysterious, true

FluffyPotato ,

Always has been

hrosts ,

What is this liberal handwringing? The justness of of fighting off an imperialist invasion doesn’t come from adhering to some vague notions of “western values”, but from not wanting to be subjected to that violence.

If you truly believe what you insinuate, your support for Palestine is conditional at best, irrational or deceitful at worst. If you don’t believe that - then stop being an agitator.

Draedron ,

Defending yourself against an aggressor should only ever be focussed against the agressor, not against civillians not taking part in the war and no person ever should be forced to fight in any war.

hrosts ,

I agree. Ukraine shouldn’t do this.

The OP’s insinuation, however was not :

Ukraine is doing bad, it should do good

But:

Ukraine is doing bad, it doesn’t deserve support

When you go this route, you side with the oppressor.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

Equating the people of Ukraine with the western backed regime is the height of idiocy.

hrosts ,

I am far from equating. Liberation of Ukrainian people must culminate in the destruction of the Ukrainian state, be it western- or Russian-backed, as is the case for all other peoples and states.

On the other hand, destruction of only Ukraine serves only their imperialist oppressor - Russia.

It’s so funny when a liberal crying about “western values” is lecturing me on what constitutes idiocy.

Urist ,
@Urist@lemmy.ml avatar

They think western hegemony will fall anytime now if only Russia can “win” the war. Also, they think somehow a multi polar world order with Russia on the stage is going to be a step towards freeing the people of the earth.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

Western hegemony is already falling as can clearly seen with western imperialist pigs being shoved out of Africa. Anybody who thinks that western repression is preferable to a multipolar world can get fucked.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

Thanks for plainly admitting that what you actually care about is preserving western hegemony.

davel ,
@davel@lemmy.ml avatar

It’s so funny when a liberal crying about “western values” is lecturing me on what constitutes idiocy.

Yogthos is not defending Western/liberal values, he is pointing out the hypocrisy of liberalism.

Liberation of Ukrainian people must culminate in the destruction of the Ukrainian state, be it western- or Russian-backed, as is the case for all other peoples and states.

Yes.

On the other hand, destruction of only Ukraine serves only their imperialist oppressor - Russia.

Russia is not predominantly an imperialist state at the moment, though it is a capitalist state which should ultimately be destroyed. And being a capitalist state, in time it may well develop into a full-throated imperialist state. To elaborate I’ll copypasta myself:

Honest question from a non-communist, based on your reply here. Does one need to support Putin to be a Marxist?

In a word, no. In a few more words, support for Russia (not Putin, as historical materialists don’t subscribe to great man theory) is only a partial, temporary, tactical one, in the context of imperialist liberation. Russia is still a capitalist state, though, so it’s a two stage strategy: first liberate colonized bourgeois states from colonizer states, and second revolution within those liberated bourgeois states.

Russia is an interesting case: it has already liberated itself from the post-Soviet “shock therapy” neocolonizers. This occurred during Putin’s administration, which is why he is especially hated by the US. So now the support for Russia is in the context of keeping the colonizers from recolonizing it, and supporting Russia to the extent that it helps other states liberate themselves. But Russia isn’t trying to “liberate” Ukraine, at least not all of Ukraine. It’s trying to resolve the genocidal attacks on the people of the Donbas, and it’s trying to resolve the imperialist military expansion at its border.

hrosts ,

Yogthos is not defending Western/liberal values, he is pointing out the hypocrisy.

Appeal to hypocrisy is one of the lowest, filthiest of arguments, used by trolls, propagandists and hacks of all allegiances. You didn’t make him look much better.

Russia is not predominantly an imperialist state

Russian war against Ukraine is a textbook example of an imperialist war - a plunderous attempt to cut up and consume, annex a smaller neighbor in order to expand the sphere of influence of Russian capital, to turn back the losses of the 2010s, when Ukraine escaped, though not unscathed, the clutches of the Russian bourgeoisie in favor of apparently more appealing clutches of the US and EU capital.

Russia is also a colonial power, which you seem to disregard in favor of the following:

Russia is an interesting case: it has already liberated itself from the post-Soviet “shock therapy” neocolonizers.

Positioning the victory of Russian owning class in the act of class warfare which was the shock therapy, calling it and the following consolidation of power by the national bourgeoisie a “liberation” is just disgusting. It was class war, first and foremost. It could give birth to a neocolonial relationship, if it “succeeded” - but it did not. It was a boost for the capital class, which then metastasized into the current liberal turned fascist regime.

It’s also funny to me how you completely disregard oppressor part, which is as important as the imperialist part.

In a word, no. In a few more words, support for Russia is only a partial, temporary, tactical one

So, lesser evilism? Russia is definitely a smaller evil, but I’m not sure how it’s a lesser one. I might be biased though, given Russia’s desire to eradicate me.

It’s trying to resolve the genocidal attacks on the people of the Donbas

There were 25 civilian deaths on both sides during the whole of 2021; large portion of them due to mines and other wartime remains. The claims of genocide in Donbas are some of the most blatant lies there, and you should be ashamed of yourself for ever uttering them.

By ignoring the imperialist nature of the invasion, by repeating the position of Russian capital - “the genocide, the aggression, the protection of the motherland against foreign interests” - you inadvertently serve as their lackey.

davel , (edited )
@davel@lemmy.ml avatar

Oh I see, this conversation would just be a repeat of eight months ago, where no successful communist states have ever existed, the USSR was an ethnic cleanser, and Russia today is a fascist state. You also seemed to downplay Ukraine’s Nazi problem.

You were right on at least one account, though: Haz, Maupin, and Hinkle are patsocs and/or nazbol pieces of shit. But I don’t know why you thought anyone on Lemmy/Lemmygrad/Hexbear would give them the time of day. Where did you get that idea?

As for Ukraine’s Nazi problem:

hrosts ,

If you think you can just dump on me a bunch of articles and leave me to piece together what your argument might be or not be, you’re wrong.

You said Ukraine is/was doing a genocide. You did not provide any evidence, while ignoring that cries of “national integrity” and “national security” are barely something more than legitimization mechanism for imperialist conflicts and has been such since imperialism existed.

You said Russia is not imperialist, or that Russian invasion is not imperialist, and chose to ignore my actual stated argument.

The Nazis - please make a statement I can argue with.

successful communist states

It’s either an oxymoron, or you’re begging the question. Also no argument again.

Don’t be a lazy fuck and actually argue.

davel ,
@davel@lemmy.ml avatar

No one here seems interested in our opinion, and no one’s going to click on more replies in a three day old post, so bugs-no

hrosts ,

So you know the genocide story is a lie and keep spreading it? That’s fucked up.

shucks ,

What a lame reply.

empireOfLove2 , (edited )
@empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

What do you mean by “western values Ukraine is defending”? This change doesnt really have anything to do with values, they’re running out of resources. And if you think Russia gives the tiniest shit about human and property rights… lol

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

Oh this must be that whataboutism we keep hearing about. Meanwhile, I love how running out of resources means it’s ok to abandon all your values in the minds of liberals. Mask sure falls off pretty fast.

empireOfLove2 , (edited )
@empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

So explain, then, what point you’re making and what your alternative is? Your initial statement is intentionally vague and seems to have a very direct agenda to make Ukraine look bad by posting this article. And I didn’t claim Ukraine expanding its martial law powers was “right”, because its not, but it is at least understandable considering how their entire country is teetering on the edge of complete civil collapse (and such restrictions are with precedent, most nations do during wars and even America did restrict a lot of liberties during WWII/vietnam/etc). Sticking to your morals is valiant but pointless if it means you get overrun by those without morals.
But your vague statement seem to think this change makes them worse than Russia.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

The point I’m making is very simple and should be obvious. When the regime has to grab people off the street and force them to fight, then it has no legitimacy. This isn’t a case of people willingly defending their country, it’s fascist regime backed by the west that’s forcing people to die in a senseless war. If you can’t understand such basic things then what else is there to say to you.

gladflag ,

So if enough people won’t fight the government should shut down and let the invaders take over? Is that your alternative? Civilisations sometimes need to force people to work for a common good. See also vaccines.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

How to say you don’t understand the concept of democracy.

gladflag ,

Lmao. They’ve got an army from another country tearing through their land. I reckon they’ve got larger problems than “this isn’t the best form of democracy in the world”. Again, no solution from you apart from lying on their backs.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

If people wanted to defend their land they would do it voluntarily. Evidently this is a hard concept for liberals to wrap their heads around.

Aussiemandeus ,
@Aussiemandeus@aussie.zone avatar

Hey man, there’s no point arguing with this guy, he’s a Russian shill.

He’s all over lemmy spreading this shit all the time

empireOfLove2 ,
@empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Yep, and the instant horde of Hexbear users brigading the comments section in their defense is patently obvious as to what’s going on. Astroturfs gonna astroturf.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

Ah yes people demonstrating that you’re full of shit with sources are the ones astroturfing. Go home little turd.

davel , (edited )
@davel@lemmy.ml avatar

Orc hordes at Hexbear, their meat waves astroturfing.

NuclearDolphin ,

You got 8 downvotes. Hexbears can’t even downvote

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

Ah yes, anybody pointing out the obvious is a Russian shill. Amazing how McCarthyism is still alive and well.

Bartsbigbugbag ,

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/6b005054-e9be-408f-8d73-c06a0e332375.jpeg

Wakmrow ,

Do you know how revolutions start?

Dolores ,
@Dolores@hexbear.net avatar

common good

what is good for the commons about shoveling more unwilling ukrainian bodies at a fight they want to be over

empireOfLove2 , (edited )
@empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

awesome yes, they should let putin take everything over so he can then shovel Ukrainian *and Russian bodies into his next annexation project!

Dolores ,
@Dolores@hexbear.net avatar

yeah if they want to surrender that’s their decision, lmao? people in other countries don’t exist to be pawns of US foreign policy, they actually have their own lives and interests

freagle ,

That’s literally what will happen if Ukraine keeps on fighting. They have sent literally every soldier and every piece of equipment they had into the breach. They have sent multiple times over the budget of Russia’s military in and it’s been destroyed. They are running out of everything. The average age of a Ukrainian soldier has sky rocketed.

This only stops with a negotiated peace deal.

ShimmeringKoi ,
@ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net avatar

If even an actual invasion does not motivate a sufficient number of people to volunteer to fight for their government, then why should that government be seen as worth preserving?

davel , (edited )
@davel@lemmy.ml avatar

The “common good” in bourgeois democracies is the good of the capitalist class at the expense of the working class.

Wikipedia: Bourgeois revolution

Bourgeois revolution is a term used in Marxist theory to refer to a social revolution that aims to destroy a feudal system or its vestiges, establish the rule of the bourgeoisie, and create a bourgeois (capitalist) state. In colonised or subjugated countries, bourgeois revolutions often take the form of a war of national independence. The Dutch, English, American, and French revolutions are considered the archetypal bourgeois revolutions, in that they attempted to clear away the remnants of the medieval feudal system, so as to pave the way for the rise of capitalism. The term is usually used in contrast to “proletarian revolution”, and is also sometimes called a “bourgeois-democratic revolution”

BBC: [Princeton] Study: US is an oligarchy, not a democracy

I don’t mean to imply that Russia isn’t a bourgeoise democracy—it is as well, but at least it’s not under the boot of the imperial core like Ukraine is. Russia emancipated itself from the US neocolonial shock therapy plundering that began with Yeltsin and ended with Putin.

empireOfLove2 ,
@empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Alright, let’s roll with that logic: A sovereign government that violates the sovereignty of it’s citizens is illegitimate. Since Ukraine is now violating the sovereignty of it’s citizens for wartime mobilization, it is an illegitimate government. That’s a sound premise, actually. In a vacuum this would be true.

However, that completely loses the nuance that Ukraine is not the aggressor in this “senseless war”. Ukraine did not violate it’s citizen’s sovereignty, RUSSIA DID by initiating the war of annexation against the sovereign government of Ukraine. By violating the sovereignty of the government, Russia thus violated the sovereignty of every citizen under that government. None of this would have been necessary had the initial aggression not been committed.
So, now extend your argument: Let’s go ahead and accuse Ukraine of violating human rights with this expansion of power. You must also do so for Russia, who backed Ukraine into this corner in the first place, and who is also committing infinitely worse violations against the civilian territory they have thus far annexed. Are you willing to do that? Because so far, you haven’t.

You seem to be echoing a large number of Russian propaganda points trying to paint Ukraine as some fascist shithole, and not the independent nation being overrun by a expansionist dictatorship that it is. This argument is not in good faith.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

However, that completely loses the nuance that Ukraine is not the aggressor in this “senseless war”.

Weird, last I checked Ukraine was involved in a war against Donbas since 2014 as even western media reported at the time.

Ukraine did not violate it’s citizen’s sovereignty, RUSSIA DID by initiating the war of annexation against the sovereign government of Ukraine.

And if people of Ukraine wanted to defend the state then they would be voluntarily fighting to do so.

By violating the sovereignty of the government, Russia thus violated the sovereignty of every citizen under that government. None of this would have been necessary had the initial aggression not been committed.

None of that has anything to do with the western sponsored regime in Ukraine forcing people to fight Russia for western interests.

So, now extend your argument: Let’s go ahead and accuse Ukraine of violating human rights with this expansion of power. You must also do so for Russia, who backed Ukraine into this corner in the first place, and who is also committing infinitely worse violations against the civilian territory they have thus far annexed. Are you willing to do that? Because so far, you haven’t.

The premise the west peddles is that Ukraine is defending western values against Russia which is already presumed to be bad. However, if it turns out that Ukraine is doing the same things you claim are bad when Russia is doing, then what values is Ukraine defending exactly?

Turns out this conflict isn’t about values it all, it’s about whose sphere of influence Ukraine is going to be under.

You seem to be echoing a large number of Russian propaganda points trying to paint Ukraine as some fascist shithole, and not the independent nation being overrun by a expansionist dictatorship that it is. This argument is not in good faith.

Meanwhile, you’re making an incoherent argument that doesn’t make a lick of sense trying to defend literal fascism in Ukraine.

empireOfLove2 ,
@empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

That’s a lot of words to boil down into “I think Russia is right”.

Thank you for making your alliances clear. I think we’re done here, as I have better things to do than argue with brick walls that have pockets full of rubles.

freagle ,

LOL. What a ridiculous take. “Alliances”. You don’t have national alliances, neither do any of us, because we’re people. We have opinions. And the opinions of most of the left globally is that the USA is the greatest scourge of humanity and Russia is in a fight for its existence against an American proxy in the form of Ukraine.

It’s also such a thought terminator when you libs assume the only way people could arrive at this opinion is if you’re paid to do it, as opposed to libs who clearly are free thinkers and don’t get paid for their ideas they just arrive at them fully independently even though it completely aligns with US propaganda efforts, official State Dept narratives, and the clear oligarch-run news media consensus. You could never be paid to have your ideas, but your opponents? Of course they have nothing worthy of arguing because they are paid shills regurgitating from a script.

robinnn ,
@robinnn@hexbear.net avatar

Thought-terminating “you’re a Russian propaganda agent” cliche.

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/59705d13-c29d-43b8-ab10-8930540e1115.jpeg

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

I love how you just straw man when being called out on your bullshit and then try to take the high ground. A real class act.

ShimmeringKoi ,
@ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net avatar

alliances

Go outside

pockets full of rubles

Fall in love with and marry a patch of grass

xionzui ,

Weird, last I checked Ukraine was involved in a war against Donbas since 2014 as even western media reported at the time.

It’s almost like Russia has expressed its desire to annex Ukraine for over a decade now and has been sending disguised military units to create a “resistance” to fabricate a justification for “liberating” parts of Ukraine into Russian territory. Weird… It’s not like they explicitly gave that as one of the 20 conflicting reasons for this invasion or anything

freagle ,

Wow. Conspiracy mind activated. So you think all the civilians Ukraine burned to death in that office building were crisis actors?

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

a lot of things are weird when you just make them up

xionzui ,

And apparently anything can be made up if you just pretend it didn’t happen

yogthos OP ,
@yogthos@lemmy.ml avatar

I see you’ve made a self referential comment

robinnn ,
@robinnn@hexbear.net avatar

It literally is a fascist shithole. It’s littered with monuments to Nazis and Nazi collaborators, it’s armed forces are filled with Nazis, its leadership pays homage to Nazi collaborators, and the entire reason we’re in this situation is the US-backed coup in 2014 of which Nazis were the prime domestic force, and which led to the proliferation of Nazi gangs. Ukraine is not an independent nation.

You talk about Russia violating sovereignty, what about the Ukrainian bombing of the Donbas (illegal cluster munitions used) and repeated violations of ceasefires? Russia didn’t invade Ukraine out of the blue, they had specific demands for the end of far-right nationalism, repression of Russian speakers, and NATO expansion (NATO itself being a Nazi collaborationist institution).

empireOfLove2 ,
@empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

ahhh, a very normal, rational and source-supported hexbear user comment. great discourse based in logic, this has been very enlightening.

cool story bro (my comment will be removed and I will be banned in about 1 hour because we are commenting on the .ml instance and calling out hexbear users is Not Allowed by the devs)

AntiOutsideAktion ,
@AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net avatar

piss baby comment

empireOfLove2 , (edited )
@empireOfLove2@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Sorry that opinions and facts exist outside of your instance’s echochamber.

robinnn ,
@robinnn@hexbear.net avatar

Sorry that opinions and facts exist outside of your instance’s echochamber.

Kumikommunism ,
@Kumikommunism@hexbear.net avatar

If you’re concerned with opinions and facts, why did you ignore all the well-sourced replies debunking your comments?

AntiOutsideAktion ,
@AntiOutsideAktion@hexbear.net avatar

You’re right the thing about having maligned political opinions is I’ve never heard the mainstream side.

BeamBrain ,
@BeamBrain@hexbear.net avatar

You literally accused someone of being a paid Kremlin agent because they had facts and opinions you didn’t like lmao

ShimmeringKoi ,
@ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net avatar

It’s hilarious that you people think the mods of a random instance are a front for the Hexbear NKVD or something, as opposed to the simple explanation that what you call “Russian propaganda” is what we call “things the west will admit six month later.”

Six months from now you’ll be pretending you always knew Ukraine was a fascist shithole as you argue for the emergency conscription of Volksturm units to stop the Russian horde.

Doubledee ,
@Doubledee@hexbear.net avatar

Three years ago they were all also admitting that, we’ve just decided that this particular war fell out of the coconut tree.

Flatworm7591 ,
@Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

I think it’s hilarious that 90% of your upvotes are from hexbear users. I wonder when will you stop apologising for Russian imperialist wars of aggression using the “everyone’s a nazi!” tactic? Even if it was a “Nazi” state, which it patently isn’t, that doesn’t for one minute excuse the Russian invasion. All you guys do is try to justify it at every opportunity. I thought you were supposed to be anti-imperialist? I guess that only counts when the US is doing something reprehensible.

Doubledee , (edited )
@Doubledee@hexbear.net avatar

Well I only speak for myself but I don’t care for Putin personally. I think it’s a shame he’s the head of state, I really wish he wasn’t the favored successor of the guy the US helped install at the head of the new state after the USSR started to fold. That entire era was a massive human rights tragedy, I think we agree.

I think what is irritating to a lot of people who aren’t pro-Ukraine is that the entire world knew there was a fascism problem before the war. Now we’re expected to support them like they’re noble underdogs, because the government wants to do things western governments approve of.

I don’t think it’s good to round up young men and force them to die in a war they don’t want to participate in. I have no control over Putin but a bunch of my labor value is being used, against my will, to turn a bunch of people into corpses.

davel ,
@davel@lemmy.ml avatar

Even if it was a “Nazi” state, which it patently isn’t

It is by Western corporate media’s own accounts: lemmy.ml/comment/10679555

that doesn’t for one minute excuse the Russian invasion.

I wouldn’t go so far as to say “excuse,” but I’ll further add:

davel ,
@davel@lemmy.ml avatar

Six months from now you’ll be pretending you always knew Ukraine was a fascist shithole

Just as Western corporate media admitted to it up until just before 2022, as I showed elsewhere in this post.

freagle ,

Are you saying that Ukraine does not celebrate Bandera as a national hero or that Bandera was not a Nazi? Are you saying that Ukraine did not knowingly integrate explicitly neo-Nazi militias who recruited on the basis of their neo-Nazi ideology or that that those battalions are not neo-Nazis? Are you saying that the USA doesn’t vote against the resolution to condemn celebration of Nazis every single time it comes to vote or that the resolution isn’t actually about condemning the celebration of Nazis?

Just trying to figure out which “facts” you’re working with here.

robinnn ,
@robinnn@hexbear.net avatar

I don’t care if my comment is “normal,” but it is “rational and source-supported.” You’re not “calling out hexbear users,” you’re flaunting your ignorance. Points sourced one by one:

It’s littered with monuments to Nazis and Nazi collaborators [*] [*]

its armed forces are filled with Nazis [*] [*] [*]

Tweet by the National Guard of Ukraine:

https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/a5885c96-0493-4076-bb3d-d3122b8dfa5a.png

its leadership pays homage to Nazi collaborators [*] [*] [*]

and the entire reason we’re in this situation is the US-backed coup in 2014 of which Nazis were the prime domestic force [*] [*]

and which led to the proliferation of Nazi gangs [*] [*]

(illegal cluster munitions used) and repeated violations of ceasefires [*] [*]

they had specific demands for the end of far-right nationalism, repression of Russian speakers, and NATO expansion [*] [*]

NATO itself being a Nazi collaborationist institution [*] [*]

IzyaKatzmann ,

there is no practical benefit to adding fats to bullets right? can anyone comment?

robinnn ,
@robinnn@hexbear.net avatar

Of course there isn’t.

IzyaKatzmann ,

Yeah, thanks for clarifying.

davel ,
@davel@lemmy.ml avatar

Lard is pig fat, which they use because it’s not kosher, despite most of their targets not being Jews. Nazism is vibes-based and seldom makes sense. Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. —Voltaire

QuietCupcake ,
@QuietCupcake@hexbear.net avatar

It wasn’t because the fascists thought they were fighting Jews (in this case), it was because most of the Chechen soldiers were Muslim, who also have prohibitions on using or consuming pigs. It was of course typical nazi-style petty racism, but it was specifically about targeting Muslims.

davel ,
@davel@lemmy.ml avatar

oic tanks! en.wikipedia.org/…/Comparison_of_Islamic_and_Jewi…

ShimmeringKoi ,
@ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net avatar

It’s good for making your magazines more irritating to load

WittyProfileName2 ,
@WittyProfileName2@hexbear.net avatar

No it’s just thinly veiled Islamophobia.

Some fascists have an urban myth that since pork is haram, Muslims shot by a bullet covered in lard go to hell.

Chechnya has a lot of Muslims and Ramzan Kadyrov is the head of state of Chechnya, so “Kadyrov orcs” is a dog whistle for Muslims.

IzyaKatzmann ,

Ah I didn’t know lard only came from pigs. I thought it was a general descriptor of like solid fats.

QuietCupcake ,
@QuietCupcake@hexbear.net avatar

I just want to thank you and @davel for the time and effort you put into these heavily-sourced and informative comments. Even if these lying, willfully ignorant shitlibs can’t appreciate it because it so clearly demonstrates how wrong they are and how little they know, some of us reading do appreciate it. I’ve learned a lot as a result and am better equipped to help others who might be willing to try to better understand the situation too.

davel , (edited )
@davel@lemmy.ml avatar

https://lemmy.ml/pictrs/image/26888855-135e-4627-bfc9-b6083d03f913.jpeg

lying, willfully ignorant shitlibs

Not everyone in the audience is that. I was a Burgerland lib once, too, exposed to the exact same propaganda for decades, so I know at least some can break out of it, if they’re curious & intellectually honest.

After witnessing in real time how obviously fabricated the justification for the Iraq War was, and how seemingly credulously the media propagated it, I was no longer able to ignore the cracks in the propaganda. It still took me many, many years to peel away layer after layer. It’s a process. I’m just trying to help people get there faster than I did. The dissonance between what’s happening in Gaza & the West Bank right now and Western governments’ & corporate media’s coverage of it is even harder to ignore than the Iraqi WMD lies were twenty years ago, so this is an opportune moment for others.

QuietCupcake ,
@QuietCupcake@hexbear.net avatar

Not everyone in the audience is that.

For sure, and I hope it didn’t look like I was implying that. It’s why I made a point to say that “some of us reading” appreciate your commentary. The “lying, willfully ignorant” thing was referring specifically to Unruffled and empireOfLove who you and robinnn were replying to respectively. The long process of questioning propaganda and the widening cracks that you describe is similar to my own experience, and I even commented recently about how the purpose of debating people in these online threads is rarely to change the mind of the person you’re arguing with, but rather to speak to the audience and plant the seeds that their doubt will hopefully grow from over time.

davel ,
@davel@lemmy.ml avatar

Yup, you totally get it. I doubt I’ll see the fruits of my labor on a pseudonymous social media platform, and I’m okay with that.

robinnn , (edited )
@robinnn@hexbear.net avatar

@empireOfLove2 Your comment has been up for over four hours, so 0 for 1 on predictions. I gave you citations for what I said in my comment, things you would have known if you would’ve looked into the conflict at all. You were so concerned with “discourse based in logic” and “source-supported comments,” so what happened?

It’s extremely scummy to imply I’m a liar or making stuff up, then when I go and prove what I’ve said, you can’t even respond to apologize. If your comment was just a dishonest method of wasting my time, then you should be banned and have your comment removed.

BurgerPunk ,
@BurgerPunk@hexbear.net avatar

I wish just once that one of these “market place of ideas-facts and logic-rational source-supported” lib debate perverts would actually engage with your posts. You always have tons of sources for everything and you cite them in posts like its an MLA style essay, and then these libs just ignore it.

I know “rational discource-logic-source supported” are just affectations for these people, but they clearly don’t even care about trying to appear like its anything more than that

davel ,
@davel@lemmy.ml avatar

Oh well it got removed after four hours, and they caught a 30 day c/worldnews ban. Another victim of communism rip-bozo-grave

robinnn ,
@robinnn@hexbear.net avatar

Rightfully so

BeamBrain ,
@BeamBrain@hexbear.net avatar

🌽

davel , (edited )
@davel@lemmy.ml avatar

You seem to be echoing a large number of Russian propaganda points trying to paint Ukraine as some fascist shithole

Edit to add: Usually someone responds with, yeah well Russia has fascists, too, to which I usually respond:

There are Russian fascists. Take Navalny, for example, who the US tried to use in its regime change efforts so that it could resume its neoliberal .

Flatworm7591 ,
@Flatworm7591@lemmy.dbzer0.com avatar

Quoting Internationalist 360° as a reliable source isn’t going to win anyone over. And the ‘The Hill’ article you listed concludes something that is the opposite of what you are claiming:

The odious Russian media tried to paint Ukraine as a land of Nazis, though that is patently wrong. Ukraine has a thriving Jewish community, and its far-right is still on the fringe.

We all understand your point of view, everyone’s a Nazi if they are against Russian/Chinese imperialism.

davel , (edited )
@davel@lemmy.ml avatar

We all understand your point of view, everyone’s a Nazi if they are against Russian/Chinese imperialism.

I don’t think that at all. Being “against” Russia or China doesn’t per-se make someone a fascist. I’m not confused about what fascism is, and I don’t use it as a floating signifier for stuff I don’t like.

But neither Russia nor China is imperialist. The imperial core is imperialist, otherwise known as the Global North.

.
Over 20 years go Russia—at the time lead by Putin—wanted to join the imperialism club, but the US rejected them: Ex-Nato head says Putin wanted to join alliance early on in his rule. Now Russia, rejected by the Global North, has no choice but to join with the Global South as allies instead. This shift in allegiances has been massively accelerated by the sanctions of this war.

Ukraine has a thriving Jewish community

So fascism means hating Jews? What about the fascists genociding Palestinians in Israel as we speak?

robinnn ,
@robinnn@hexbear.net avatar

Notice that point from “The Hill” has no examples or evidence. It’s not relevant; they were citing the examples given not the author’s out-of-the-blue conclusion (which can be chalked up to the counter-bias that was the reason it was cited). I have another comment on this post proving that the far-right is not “still on the fringe.”

Quoting Internationalist 360° as a reliable source isn’t going to win anyone over.

Oh, I see the issue: you don’t understand how sources work. They’re not citing Internationalist 360° as a reliable source by itself—if you would’ve read until the end of the article you would’ve seen that the author provided a list of sources used. The article is simply a summary of the history using those sources.

Please tell me about “Chinese imperialism.” I’d love to hear about how Chinese investment in Africa, the only FDI with a positive impact on development, is “imperialism.” I’d love to hear how the PRC’s claim to Taiwan, despite being accepted by nearly every country on earth and recognized by the UN (and favored upon by the majority of Taiwanese despite no clear support for total reunification, hence its not happening yet when China could conceivably force it upon the population), the US admitting that their cynical support for separatism is only to keep the PRC down, is “imperialism,” and in fact Taiwan is an independent state with no relation to China (despite its constitution being the Constitution of the Republic of China, and its president the president of the Republic of China, with the so-called ROC claiming sovereignty over all of the mainland of China, Outer Mongolia, and Russia—see the emblem of the ROC Marine Corps).

zkrzsz ,

We all understand your point of view, everyone’s a Nazi if they are against Russian/Chinese imperialism.

https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/16652b46-edc8-4bbb-bcdb-eb6563755144.jpeghttps://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/e6319e67-28a8-4904-bcbd-1cbfbf08a03b.jpeg

ShimmeringKoi ,
@ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net avatar

https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/e1a28157-b6aa-4674-adb0-e30e1da2ef03.png

xionzui ,

So basically, a country that is invaded has the option to either roll over and be destroyed or fight back and become “illegitimate” and should be destroyed anyway? Basically an invader has free rein to do destroy any country they feel like? That’s some nice victim blaming there. Incredibly abusive thinking.

freagle , (edited )

Who was Ukraine invaded by? Russia only? Or does it count when the USA foments a coup and even sends its regime change agents to oversee the coup, hand picks the successor, and deliberately hand picks someone that will invite the undemocratic nuclear-armed nazi-led transnational NATO to take it’s land for military installations? Because as Russia sees it, a nuclear armed military has been marching across Europe to it’s Ukrainian border across which Europe has invaded Russia twice. Is NATO allowed to move in as long as the USA coups the leaders who are against it?

Ukraine’s legitimacy in the West is founded on the narrative that it’s a white Christian democratic freedom loving bastion. When it suspends human rights, bans unions, bans communist parties, shells civilians, attacks civilians bridges with civilians on it, enlists Nazis, celebrates Nazis, honors Nazis, and then just starts grabbing men off the street and sending them to die with no training, it loses that legitimacy. Ukraine must surrender and negotiate a peace deal. The only other option is mass murder of its civilian population through forced consignment in a war of attrition that it is badly losing, has always been losing, and has never had a chance of winning.

Ram_The_Manparts ,
@Ram_The_Manparts@hexbear.net avatar

even America did restrict a lot of liberties during WWII/vietnam/etc

Hilarious that you think this is an argument that works in your favor

ShimmeringKoi ,
@ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net avatar

Yes, America did concentration camps in WW2. One more piece of evidence that the US government is an irreconcilable danger to everyone both outside and inside itself.

Doubledee ,
@Doubledee@hexbear.net avatar

I think one thing that’s getting lost in the discussion here is you keep talking about governments as if they are people. Ostensibly liberal states exist to protect human beings and their rights. At the point where “you” have to let “your” values slide in order to deal with “your” existential crisis we are talking about the governent as if it has feelings and its own aspirations that deserve to be treated with the same seriousness we theoretically want to apply to human welfare.

I feel very bad for Ukrainians, to be clear, I think they’ve been mistreated by the US who used them to try and get one over on an adversary in the knowledge that other people will be the ones dying if it goes poorly. That’s certainly very bad.

However you feel about the justice of the invasion, though, we’ve reached the point where even people who support the war and want Ukraine to win are defining winning as a negotiated settlement where they give up territory. If NATO is not willing to fight Russia directly (clearly they aren’t) and continuing the aid to the conflict is not even providing a reasonable way for Ukraine to retain its territory and even cheerleaders who are on the side of Ukraine’s government believe they will have to negotiate a settlement then WHY ARE WE NOT PUSHING THAT? More Ukrainians are being expected to die, against their will as you freely acknowledge, for no long term strategic purpose.

The death and destruction from this war is a human tragedy. It will be more tragic if it is prolonged for years only to end in the same way it could have within months.

freagle ,

Uhhh, Russia is a capitalist country, not a socialist one. They absolutely care about property rights because that is what capitalism requires. Russia has no intention of executing land reform any time soon.

CascadeOfLight ,

https://hexbear.net/pictrs/image/e0f9a381-3710-4b18-a243-ff2c6799a2ab.jpeg

Ukraine is defending the western values of Hitlerite racism

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •