Calling for Russians to shoot Putin while condemining “political violins” when Trump got shot will never not be funny.
I was saying BOOligarchs
The double standard is real but also fuck both the US and Russia for invading.
Both based takes
You know what’s even more fucked up? Europe, Australia and even Ukraine sent troops also to murder Iraqis and Afghans then bragged how they did things for the US
That certainly sounds like Europe, Australia, and Ukraine.
Ukraine is in Europe… Also, Europe is not a monolith, i. e. France was strongly against the invasion of Iraq to the point some crazy amis renamed fries as freedom fries. Jesus, that’s the equivalent to confusing arabs with Ottomans… That’s some double standards right there.
I’m aware that Ukraine is in Europe, I was responding to their comment in the format they made it in.
@usamemes
Our humanitarian intervention vs. their FULL-SCALE invasion
It’s not just FULL-SCALE, it is also ILLEGAL!
Our benevolent soldiers vs their satanic death squads
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?
At least the Donbass was experiencing genuine turmoil. The Obama regime had to invent a pretext for invasion whole cloth. And fifteen years later NATO hasn’t rebuilt even a single building in Libya. Mariupol looks a lot better than it did a year and a half ago.
ukros fully support the shitrahell genociders
“fully understands the core of international politics” lol
bit timid. I would have gone for
“intimately fathoms the very essence of international politics”
flip on the x-axis
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
Upper right is similar to lower left - inconsistent values and inconsistent ideology. Pure hypocrisy. Dogs of US vs Dogs of Russia.
Supporting Palestine makes you a dog of Russia? Sounds like you don’t fully understand the core of international geopolitics
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.
Bottom line. Thank you.
The inconsistent part is giving a free pass to Russia when they do everything the US does just not as extensively.
If you actually believe they’re doing even a tenth of “everything” the US is doing, you are woefully underinformed to be having this conversation
Russia is not stealing the surplus value and resources of the global south on an immense scale, which is the primary reason why its resistance to the US Empire and its European vassals plays a progressive role because of this.
Russia steals the surplus value for within it’s borders, the US steals surplus value from beyond it’s borders. Like I said, Russia does everything the US does just not as extensively.
Russia is indeed capitalist, correct, not imperialist. Glad we can come to an understanding on why the US Empire is the biggest global obstacle to socialism, and that the Russian Federation’s lack of imperialism makes it worthy of critical support in undermining the US Empire.
So you support the Soviet Union, back when the USSR didn’t steal the surplus value within its borders?
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
Supporting the liberation of Donetsk and Luhansk from the Banderite government they have been trying to secede from for a decade is a good thing, and that’s why the CPRF supports the Russian nationalists in the war. Had the west not supported a far-right coup back in 2014, it’s likely the war never would have happened.
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.
“Material concerns? Physical reality? Oh ho ho, how charmingly naive, my dear boy. The true core of the matter is actually very simple, you see. Pushes glasses up anime-style Russia…is Just Evil.”
That broke me lmfao
What “imperial ambitions” do they have? Why would Russia not care about the survival of ethnic Russians right on their borders? Again, the CPRF supports Donetsk and Luhansk, as do most communist parties globally, so just saying I’m “naive” doesn’t actually form a coherent counterpoint.
Honestly can’t tell if it’s satire
Nope, why would it be?
Then you might not be very knowledgeable on the topic, lol
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.
Redditor npc response #912
As if Redditors even have enough canned responses to reach 912. I wish they had that much veriaty
Removed by mod
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
lmao
Are you arguing that Donetsk and Luhansk don’t deserve liberation, on account of that being a “campist” take? Why would a “non-campist” not support their liberation?
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!
USA law too
Pretty much, lol!
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)
Nah-uh
No, please, we need liberation. Our government has been a problem for a long time, just that neo-liberals are getting scared.
Liberation, Libya or Syria style?
what kind of natural reserves do you guys have ?
Oil, non-rare earth elements and rare earth elements.
when hamas does it it’s genocidal intent, when ukraine/israel do it is self-defence.
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
It’s incredibly interesting how, according to western media, all the ukrainian attacks on russian infrastructure never cause any deaths but russian attacks always cause deaths every time.
Usually they just say there are no civilians in Russia and Ukraine killing ANY Russian is completely justified. Not the other way around though.
Also parallels their thoughts on Israel vs Palestine. Israel can kill any Palestinian and be “self defense” but when it comes to Israelis suddenly they care about the civilian distinction.
https://lemmy.world/comment/21824437
They don’t even go that far to distinguish the difference from my experience. Just go I didn’t mean that but I’m just gonna blame you for reading the words I used
(paraphrased) Murdering civilians is what Russia does. Why are you suggesting Ukraine do it?
It’s the only thing Russia will understand.
Later: “Noooo, I never said that Ukraine should murder civilians!”
Later: "Noooo, I never said that Ukraine should murder civilians
how dare you put words in my mouth dirty mler. I totally meant they should ignore civilians when saying it was the only thing Russia would understand
Amazing the overlap with the ones saying usa just needs more dems in congress to fix everything
One of my favorite kind of lemmitors on the fediverse is the “how dare you read the things I wrote” kind, where they start backpedaling only after getting massive backlash and then expect people to automatically believe their “clarifications” are sincere.
Even better when it’s also about something they do that with AND have no idea what they are talking about, cough that banjo guy and minimum wage|ACA being Romneycare|anything political
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.
To echo divas post where the user could not comprehend how them saying Ukraine should bomb Russian cities because it’s the only way Russians will understand was frowned upon.
https://lemmy.ml/post/42340425/23621958
Then what asked to clarify said stop putting words in my mouth
here’s one I ran into just last week, someone claiming to have been unfairly modded on .ml, when they had received a temp ban because they were actually advocating for collective punishment of russian civilians “because it’s the only thing that Russia will understand”:
Murdering civilians is what Russia does.
Which side made a post stamp out of blowing up a family car with kids onboard >_>
Stop knocking over their straw man! They worked so hard to prop it up.
It must be an election year. Here comes the “both sides” posts
Leftists have been opposing the US Empire every day for years, election season has nothing to do with it.
Libs can’t imagine any “activism” beyond voting for garbage people.
I was in a conversation w one yesterday where we were talking about how the Epstein illuminati had been in control of American politics for the last few decades using mass 4chan to control maga and also using reddit to control vote-blue-no-matter-who.
We got to the last election and how they’ll probably engineer the next one and he said that he would vote for Kamala Harris again despite knowing that the Epstein illuminati will mass social engineer a choice between someone like Harris and JD Vance because Vance is a fascist and Harris isn’t; as if we instantly forgot the conversation we were having.
Then I became completely stupified when he posited that Americans will react once they discover how Russia was using Epstein to collect the kompromat.
He’s the most political informed person I know and unquestionably more so than the American plebiscite and even he is clearly conditioned to accept the Russia narrative and i think it makes it clear that our cultural conditioning will outlast any impact that the Epstein will have on our society.
Yep, and going to brunch.
Hey now! I enjoyed a very nice brunch this morning, right at home. No mimosas though. And my dining companion needs a full body shave.
Brunch isn’t bad itself!
Revisionism! This is where Deng Xiaoping Thought will lead you. /joke
🫠
I know. I just wanted to chat you up. 😋
Haha, I appreciate it!
Oh no no no. Not both sides. One side.
I’m not American I don’t know when their elections are. Liberal doesn’t mean “Democrat” it means someone who believes in the capitalist “free market” policies and opposes alternate economic systems. In the US all parties are Liberal. This meme isn’t even just about Americans, it is more about how westerners in general post on Lemmy about what Russia did in Ukraine versus about what they all did in Iraq.
I’m not American I don’t know when their elections are.
Part of the Yankee political system is that “election cycles” are so long it’s basically always close to one at least. “Election year” describes at least one in every two years.
I’m a liberal, and I support both statements.
“Liberalism is a word that means different things to different people, especially from country to country.”
Liberal values are the basis of Marx’s work. He, rightly in my opinion, thinks the liberal state cannot bring about those values for all people.
Liberalism is all about individual “rights” and “freedoms”. Such as the right of the factory owner to exploit his workers or the freedom of the newspaper owner control the narrative. This is completely at odds with communism.
Marxism is also in favor the individual and their liberty, but not the liberty to dispossess another of those liberties. He doesn’t see the individual as a natural object, but a creation of social and historical conditions. By destroying the class system, it liberates the individual to pursue their aims when they wish.
[I]n communist society, where nobody has one exclusive sphere of activity but each can become accomplished in any branch he wishes, society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner, just as I have a mind, without ever becoming hunter, fisherman, herdsman or critic.
For Marx, the ‘Individual’ is not a finished product to be protected from society, but a potential to be realized through an equitable society.
PS… Dig your username
Liberalism and “liberal values” are not the basis of Marx’s work at all, they are one of his main targets of critique. Marx doesn’t start from liberal individual rights and then argue they’re imperfectly realized. He argues those rights are themselves products of bourgeois society and function to mask class domination. Saying Marx supports “individual liberty” doesn’t make him a supporter of “liberal values”, because liberal liberty is abstract and formal, while Marx’s freedom is material and social. This second response just restates Marx’s view of the individual as socially produced, which is correct, but it is reinforcing Marx rejection of liberalism. Marx was never refining liberal values, he was explaining why they arise under capitalism and why they cannot deliver real human freedom.
When I say liberal values are the ‘basis’ of Marx’s work, I am not suggesting he was a ‘liberal reformer.’ I am arguing that Marx’s work is a dialectical sublation of liberalism. He takes the some of the liberal achievements (rationalism, the end of feudal bondage, and the Labor Theory of Value) and shows that they can only be fully realized by moving beyond the capitalist mode of production. He doesn’t reject the ‘Individual’ out of hand; he rejects the liberal version of the individual (the abstract citizen) to make way for the real individual (the species-being).
Only when the real, individual man re-absorbs in himself the abstract citizen, and as an individual human being has become a species-being in his everyday life, in his particular work, and in his particular situation, only when man has recognized and organized his “own powers” as social powers, and, consequently, no longer separates social power from himself in the shape of political power, only then will human emancipation have been accomplished.
– On The Jewish Question
I wrote a full reply but realized none of it really matters until we get clarity on terms. What do you actually mean by liberal values, and which of those do you think are foundational to Marxism?
When I say liberal values, I mean things like: the primacy of private property; formal equality before the law regardless of material conditions; individual rights abstracted from real social relations; freedom of contract between unequal classes; the liberal state as a supposedly neutral arbiter standing above society; and “freedoms” of speech, press, and association that in practice follow ownership and class power, up to and including a legal system that treats rich and poor “equally” such as criminalizing both for sleeping under bridges. These are not accidental features of liberalism or it’s values but flow directly from its idealist foundations.
Liberalism begins from abstract ideas (rights, the individual, the citizen) and treats them as primary, as if they exist independently of history and material conditions. Marxism begins from the opposite direction: dialectical and historical materialism, which treats those liberal categories as historically specific social products tied to a particular mode of production. That is a fundamental theoretical clash.
Because of this, Marxism does not aim to complete or realize liberal values, but to explain why they arise under capitalism and why they cannot deliver real human emancipation. So before talking about “sublation” or continuity, we need to be clear whether liberalism is being treated as an ideal to be fulfilled, or as an ideological form to be scientifically analyzed and superseded.
Marx rejected liberal values of individualism and the free reign of private property, I’m not sure exactly what you’re including in “liberal values.”
By ‘liberal values,’ I’m referring to the core Enlightenment goals of individual autonomy (Descartes), secularism and rationalism (Spinoza), labor theory of value (Locke/Smith/Ricardo) and universal human rights (Kant). Marx rejected the liberal state, private property, and the capitalist mode of production. But I’d argue he did so because he believed they were obstacles to those very values. Who is an individual when you’ve been commodified?
By socializing production, the individual doesn’t dissolve into the collective; but the material security is created for the individual to freely development themselves and provide to a social order.
You’re looking more at what the capitalists used to overthrow the aristocracy while entrenching their own rule here. Marx was an atheist, and built on the labor theory of value, for example. However, these liberal values were made with a mechanistic materialist outlook, not a dialectical materialist outlook, and as such could not actually stand for proletarian liberation.
Marxism is secular, has the labor theory of value, etc, but not because Marx was a staunch liberal and believed capitalism to not be capable of fulfilling these. Rather, he built upon what was already created to build new ideology.
I don’t disagree with any of this and I’m not sure what I said that would have made you think I did.
What have you actually done to support anything besides ideas? Are you actually making choices in life or are you playing life like a video game, where others design it for you and all you do is pick between what they let you?
Ye, fuck them both. United states of Russia.
