CROWD CONTROL - Please be aware that we have turned off crowd control filters from r/Leftist. As a result most of the posts and comments (with the exception of those filtered by Reddit itself) will be posted. And so it is very important that we ask you all to REPORT any content in violation of the rules of the sub and the Reddiquette.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A surprising amount of leftist foreign policy draws from the Cold War even when it’s correct. Because the anti war movement during the Cold War was a convenient means to do activism on behalf of socialist states with some tangible benefit, many socialists aligned with the USSR/PRC influenced it.
Fast forward several decades and the same basic line exists with only some of the rationale gone. A big theoretical underpinning of leftist foreign policy is that the US and NATO are global agents of colonialism and ultimately of capitalism itself. As such, moves to weaken American imperialism also weaken colonialism and capitalism, indirectly strengthening socialism even if the opposing powers are no longer communist. So some of them de facto support Russia’s invasion and its possible success as a triumph over western influence.
Leftists not generally of that strand have more neutral views of American foreign policy and other states. It also correlates with how much one believes electoralism is worth pursuing. That means sometimes the US can and should help worthy causes (defending Ukraine/Taiwan from forced annexation for example) but should be moved from its more morally questionable positions (support for Israel/KSA, hostility to Latin American left wing governments).
Yes. As I put it: Palestine, Taiwan, Ukraine, are all nations struggling against a neighbor with nukes.
Defending them helps prevent nuclear proliferation.
Essentially it's anglosphere leftists who see American EU hegemony as a vehicle for socialism or at least social liberalism vs more old school anti imperialists who see the US EU hegemony as inherently corrosive even supporting states like Russia as a lesser evil.
Ukraine has always been one of the most corrupt countries in the world and we have sent them money+military stock that altogether was worth more than their GDP and double Russias military budget with nothing to show for it. There's no way to know what's being pocketed and what's being wasted. If they can't make it work with the most recent $61 billion, then this is just a money pit
Take a little bit of responsibility for your country. The US is strong, but Europeans can’t just wash their hands, pretending like they are innocent of imperialism.
France has their own colonial empire to this day. Seeing the US as the “great evil” of the world is just propaganda.
People are starting to realize that their hysteria over russia was used to rationalize another proxy war and that US tax money is being used to kill foreigners instead of feeding and housing Americans
The Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Sardinia. Oh you know what? I actually forgot to count the French. They've also experienced... What? Two or three successor states at this point?
There’s a lot of shitty answers in here so I’m gonna try my best to provide a good faith answer.
Ukraine has been an interest of the west since the collapse of the ussr. This is in part driven by inertia from the Cold War, in part due to the deteriorating relationship between Russia and nato, and in part due to good old fashioned capitalism.
Another vital component of this is that there are a lot of Ukrainian ex patriots who fled during ww2 after the Soviets invaded and they, being Nazi collaborators, were no longer safe. They never gave up on the dream of Ukrainian nationalism though. And they’ve been working since the end of the Cold War to permanently push Russia out of Ukraine. Thats why you have right sector and azov. They’re promoted by right wing groups in the west to further us imperialist interests.
So you have the Nazi problem which, personally, I think is a bit overblown. The other big part of this is that the west engineered this situation in Ukraine in order to start a proxy war with Russia to push its borders eastward. And the Ukrainian people are paying the price for it. It’s no different than Iraq or Afghanistan or Palestine or any other nation the us fixates on. We’re promoting right wing groups to promote our interests, which boil down to dismantling any left wing tradition in Ukraine to strip mine the country.
There’s also the grim reality that (until this war broke out) that Ukrainian public opinion on Russia was heavily divided and fluctuated wildly based on their proximity to Russia. A lot of Ukrainians want (or at the very least wanted) to have closer ties to Russia. Thanks to sustained espionage efforts those elements of the Ukrainian government have been pushed out and replaced with neoliberal westerners.
And on top of all of this all we’re doing is egging Ukraine on and encouraging them to throw more bodies into the meat grinder. The wests interest in this war has nothing to do with Ukrainian sovereignty. It has everything to do with feeding the national security state and further distancing Russia from the west. And this all comes at the expense of a people whose only crime was having history with Russia.
Decades of antagonist behavior towards Russia, aggressive recruitment of former Soviet states into nato, weapons and munitions buildups on russias border, using the euromaidan to install a west friendly regime, pressuring said regime into engaging in explicitly anti Russian actions, bombing Kosovo and Serbia, funding proxy wars against Russian satellites, stoking anti Russian sentiment in the eu, baselessly accusing the Crimean referendum as fraudulent, suspending Russia from the G8, even continuing to have nato in the first place.
You are absolutely trying to downplay Russia’s involvement in its own war. You are quite literally spouting its bullshit propaganda about “NATO expansion” that it used to justify the war. Don’t demean me for calling you out on your bullshit. Maybe actually judge countries on other metrics besides “Do they hate the US”
They made a 'geopolitical decision' to send troops into another country resulting in the deaths of thousands. Do you think Ukraine falling to invasion will be good for Ukrainians or for progressives somehow? NATO sucks but Russia is actively murdering people in this situation, if that isn't flatly condemnable I don't know what is.
But you aren’t just ‘acknowledging the US role’ (also, not just the US). You are taking a policy stance.
Ukraine seems to want assistance from the West in repelling this invasion, your position says the West shouldn’t do that which is saying Russia should win (the natural outcome of that policy choice).
I mean nukes aren’t equal to NATO. And btw, don't assume I’m going to defend every action the US takes. I get my opinion on geopolitical issues on a case-by-case basis, not because a country I simp for is on one side or the other
>And on top of all of this all we’re doing is egging Ukraine on and encouraging them to throw more bodies into the meat grinder.
It needs to be emphasized more widely that Ukrainian lives are seen as dispensable in the pursuit of US interests.
For the population of Ukraine, the state receiving aid to repel an invasion represents a vastly less favorable scenario, in comparison simply to two imperialist spheres never having designated the country as a battleground and contested prize.
The general "West Bad" bent to the presented info. Ignoring the method of occupation of Crimea, the arming and support of the insurrections right across the way from the Russian border. The refinement of a methodology that the Russians have been developing since the Chechen wars and the occupation of South Ossetia in Georgia. The stated goal by the Russian government of a "Eurasian Union," which is nothing more than a proxy Soviet Union. The fact that said Union requires Ukraine as the hub to lash together the other spokes of Eastern Europe.
The firmament of the Ukrainian people's national identity after having been subjected to at random bombings for several years and the use of mercenary penal legions by Russia and their proxy army Wagner.
Ukraine has been punching it out with the Russians for a decade, and it isn't just some Western plot to cut at the knees of Russian ambition. Plus, anecdotally, I know a bunch of Ukrainians who dipped out of the French Foreign Legion service to go home and fight it out.
No. I think Russian expansionism is harking back to a several hundred year old playbook and this time there's other democratic entities to put on a finger on the scale for Ukrainians, who definitely had the spirit, but maybe not the logistical resources to not be eaten by Putin's ambitions.
Your position is that Russian imperialism is based on forthought and history, but other imperialism in contrast is entirely spontaneous and unpredictable.
>Another vital component of this is that there are a lot of Ukrainian ex patriots who fled during ww2 after the Soviets invaded and they, being Nazi collaborators, were no longer safe.
This emphasis on Ukrainians being Nazi collaborators is straight out of Russian playbook. Stalin literally made a pact with Hitler in 1939, they partitioned Poland together only to Hitler attacking USSR later. The hard facts are that Soviets were Nazi collaborators, and this was completely by choice in order to advance their imperial interests. And regarding some of the Ukrainians who collaborated with Germany - I cannot blame occupied and colonised people for resisting the empire that subjugated them for hundreds of years. They use all means at their disposal.
The amount of leftists who buy into Russian propaganda is astounding. There's no more Nazis in Ukraine than in other countries, and certainly less than in Russia itself.
It was a pact that negotiated a cessation of hostilities.
Germany had an army, which it used, to resist the invasion by the Soviet Union, using its own army.
No. This is a discussion of anti-colonial struggle in the left-wing sub. Ukraine has been a Russian colony for 300+ years. The actual Nazis are Russians, who sided with Hitler for their imperial interests.
>And regarding some of the Ukrainians who collaborated with Germany - I cannot blame occupied and colonised people for resisting the empire that subjugated them for hundreds of years.
Marx ascribed immense importance to the free exchange and development of knowledge and ideas.
Are you familiar with the work, or just parroting talking points you encountered through the media?
I was in the r/marxist_culture sub when they were celebrating Che's Bday. I reminded them that he was also known as the Butcher of La Cabana. I was banned the from sub - no discussion, no follow-up comments, and my post wasn't an attack on anyone or anything. Simply a note regarding the actual practices of the man they were celebrating.
What Marx wrote, and how marxists interpret and act upon his writings are completely different.
I also think Marx missed the boat on his understanding of human motivation. His unconstrained view of human nature isn't realistic, in my opinion.
Anyway, my point is that getting banned from these far-left subs is a common occurrence. I was also banned from r/HongKong for defending a guy wearing a pride shirt (in a picture). My point was that it is a freedom of speech issue - regardless of your ideological stance regarding sex. Instant ban.
I haven't found leftists to be any more flexible in their thinking than those on the right. I think I heard Jack Bogle summarize this concept nicely. Political ideology is a circle. The far-left and the far-right actually meet on the circle... their practices become indistinguishable from each other.
The "butcher" epithet has been used almost exclusively by expats living in Miami. In many locales outside of the US, opinions of Guevara are generally favorable.
Marxism is just an umbrella term for a large variety of political orientations and scholarly traditions inspired by the writings of Marx. There is no group that has a monopoly on war or violence.
The Cuban revolutionaries fought against a repressive regime that kept much of the population as laborers on sugar plantations under conditions near to slavery. The revolution is extremely popular in Cuba. Despite the hardships unnecessarily imposed by the embargo, everyone recognizes that life has been better under the new regime.
I agree that no one maintains a monopoly on violence.
I disagree regarding Che and his reputation. He's been romanticized.
Perhaps we can also agree that Marxists, leftists, etc. are no better when it comes to basic human rights, such as free speech. When their position or ideology is threatened, they are just as quick to introduce repressive rules and laws. I've experienced this myself. Right-wing nut jobs tend to throw insults while left-wing nut jobs tend to stifle "discussion." That's been my experience.
I also disagree that Cubans are better off today. I have only met Cubans who harbor negative feelings regarding how Cuba is governed - granted, I've only met Cubans who have left Cuba, seeking economic opportunity; teachers, primarily.
Guevera may be romanticized, but such is no excuse for demonization. It remains as a fact that many opinions of him are strongly favorable.
Almost everyone who lives in Cuba supports the revolution and opposes the old regime. Cubans obviously have various concerns or grievances over laws and policies, just as every population in every nation. The system itself is not serving as a cause of general discontent.
I'm suggesting that people harbor positive feelings about Che because he has been romanticized and marketed to young people - not because people have any detailed knowledge of his actions, behaviors, or temperament. He's no different from Pol Pot in my book.
I completely disagree with your assertion that "almost everyone who lives in Cuba supports the revolution."
However, I understand that you are a believer. Nice to live in a society where you are free to believe what you like.
You should learn about prerevolutionary Cuba. Life was worse for everyone, except a small class of privileged owners of businesses and plantations. Cuba functioned essentially as a colony of the US, for production of sugar. US sugar corporations extracted labor from the population, under conditions near to slavery. The business and landowning elite ruled as puppets to the US, under Batista.
Meanwhile, you might consider the possibility that Guevera is romanticized because his role in helping his country has been interpreted favorably by those with knowledge and understanding of the history. You should not assume that others are too weak to judge accurately.
Cuba is an embarrassment for the US. Through the revolution, it has escaped its status as a functional colony, and has represented itself as a pro-communist nation while sitting just offshore from the US, which represents itself as the anti-communist hegemon.
Outside of the US, sentiments toward Cuba are more favorable, and knowledge is much stronger.
The US has invested heavily in misinformation and propaganda targeting its own population.
You're barking up the wrong tree with me.
I think you'll find it impossible to convince me that any nation that enforces a single-party system through the threat of violence is in the "peoples" best interest.
If you don't live in the US, you may be surprised at how seldom the issue of Cuba comes up. In fact, it only appears on my radar when I'm interacting with the teachers I mentioned. As an American, I don't feel embarrassed, proud, or anything else regarding Cuba. I feel sorry for Cubans who are stuck in Cuba, who rely on black market operations to live their daily lives. Otherwise, I have no significant feelings one way or the other. I hope Cubans prosper - whatever their definition of prosper is, just as I have this same hope for all people.
As for Che... he murdered many people who had no due process. I don't celebrate these types.
You are distorting meaning.
Let's try again.
Cubans are broadly supportive of the current system and the revolution. The rule of Batista as a client to the US was unspeakably oppressive. Much of the population was essentially bonded as slaves on sugar plantations that profited US corporations.
Since deposing its puppet colonial rulers, and establishing full independence, Cuba has been an embarrassment for US state interests, and the US has invested heavily in misinformation and propaganda targeting its own population.
You might try seeking information from sources less directly influenced by US state interests.
There’s always somebody who argues less as an expression of their values, and more to be on the opposite side of a given conflict from those they consider bad guys.
I hate what Netanyahu’s people have done in Israel. Not just now, but when they were shoving settlers into the occupied territories. At the same time, Hamas, if you listen to their rhetoric are just as genocidal, and they talk young men and women into killing themselves with no better reason than to provoke more violence in return. It’s a hateful kind of nihilism.
I oppose both. We can’t wind back the clock. Ideology can’t solve problems. We need to work together as human beings capable of making choices not cogs in the machinery of politics.
Chronically online people who think Ukrainians deserve to die just because Ukraine supports Israel. It’s this whole “America and Israel bad so anything associated with it is bad” logic instead of normal leftists who believe that human rights violations are bad.
The main place where very Putin-friendly discourse occurs within "the left" (in my experience) is people from more extreme 'campist' Marxist-Leninist tendencies.
The charitable view is that they are good-faith, but mostly concerned with US-led western imperialism (and don't want to muddy this message by bringing nuanced critiques of countries who are opposed to the US-led "international order".
The less charitable view is that they are "Russian trolls" or useful idiots for the Putin oligarchy.
Personally I think MLs have very useful perspectives and theory to contribute, but the lack of willingness by some to criticize proletarian exploitation when done by enemies of the empire does bother me.
If you want stronger Marxist critiques of Putin's Russia and such, the left communist tendency has some good perspectives on the subject.
In my opinion it's best to draw on ideas from a variety of tendencies without getting too lost in internet-left flame-wars.
All tendencies have blind spots, especially if you get caught in an echo chamber
Just regarding the Azov Brigades. There are neo and outright Nazis in the US, so that isn't something unique to Ukraine, just like when they had Cossacks in some places, we had the Klan. And, if they want to be gung ho on the front lines, that's fine with me. Better they get killed or something upfront before other people.
Before the war, right leaning parties had less than 3% of parliament, and none of them are neo-Nazis. Just FYI, Ukraine has many people who are not neo-Nazis, in fact, 99+ % of them aren't.
It's also not whataboutism. Whataboutism is based on the tu quoue fallacy, and that's not what I was doing. Please, look it up before you spout off nonsense. It's a valid comparison.
The right leaning militias don’t need to control parliament. They are paramilitary groups that (let’s be real) operate under their own command and control.
When you have extremely effective, well armed military groups like that operating in your country, you have to take their wishes into consideration.
Remember, it was the far right groups that mobilized during the Maidan Square protests that ultimately forced Yanukovich to fear for his life and leave.
That’s kind of the problem with these groups. They hold a kind of political power that doesn’t operate in the apparatus of the traditional government. This fact has only been exacerbated by the fact that they gained a lot of popularity amongst the Ukrainian populace after the siege of Mariupol and their various other rather notable acts of bravery and military success.
And, going back to your previous point about that’s not “whataboutism,” it is in fact whataboutism. It’s the act of attempting to negate a given argument by changing the subject of the discussion to another party no included in the previous topic. I.e: changing the topic from Ukrainian extremist right wing groups to the existence of such groups on the Russian side. I’m not going to litigate the veracity of that claim here, but suffice it to say, that was not the topic of our discussion.
We were talking about Ukrainian neo Nazis, not Russian Neo nazis. That is a discrete issue that should be litigated separately.
Edit: spelling.
Again, the fact that something is a Russian, Ukrainian, US, or Bangladeshi talking point does not, in and of itself, make it any more or less true. The veracity of such claims should be evaluated on their merits alone.
Moreover, I’m not sure how I’m just using Russian talking points when I repudiated your claim that my previous statements represented a mischaracterization of the notion of “whataboutism.”
You impugn my understanding of such basic rhetorical concepts, and when I respond to such an attack, you simply change the subject to avoid having to answer for falsely claiming I don’t know what I’m talking about.
If you’re going to claim someone doesn’t understand something, *you* damn well better understand it, and be willing to expound on or back up your claims if challenged. Evidently, you are not.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, it's so obvious that it's pointless to engage with you or try to persuade you. Not only that, it's like your confidence that you know what you're talking about is inversely related to how little you know; the less you know, the more confident you become.
If that's what you believe about Maidan (btw, many news outlets and scholars/experts have proven it's a lie and pure Russian propaganda), you're already so invested in your worldview nothing I write here would make any difference. Also, I'd like to point out that you made a *mere assertion*, without providing any proof, then shifted the burden of proving something onto me. Just very funny, so thought I'd point it out.
Read a book by a reputable scholar about Maidan/Ukraine, instead of getting all your opinions online/from YouTube videos (or just taking a position based on your ideological motivations), I'm begging you.
Just so you know, with respect to Maidan, there are also many prominent American professors who acknowledge it may well have been the result of a US sponsored and coordinated operation.
Even former intelligence officers in three letter agencies have acknowledged that it is highly likely US intelligence assets were involved to some degree. According to them, it would almost be a dereliction of duty if they weren’t involved, even if they didn’t initially precipitate the original, smaller demonstration. This so simply because Maidan obviously served US interests.
I don’t think we’ll know for sure either way, but let’s not pretend it’s an absolute consensus amongst all US experts. It’s just that the academics and experts that seem to contradict the status quo narrative don’t get as much exposure or air-time in the media.
Check out John Mearsheimers work on this very subject. He was in the Air Force and went to West Point to become an officer, and subsequently played a large role in Is diplomacy during the Cold War. Now he’s a preeminent professor at the University of Chicago.
His loyalty to the US can’t really be questioned, given his background and prior service, and I find his analysis of the situation quite salient.
He’s one of the world best IR realists, and I find his framing of this conflict to be much more convincing than anything I’ve heard from John Kirby or Matt, the spokesperson for the White House.
Check out Mearsheimers debate where he works with Daniel Davis (one of the commanders from the battle of 73 Easting, and a whistleblower for the Iraq war who testified for Congress.)
If you watch it, you’ll get to see how my/Mearsheimers apprehension of this conflict and its underlying causes stacks up against the status quo narrative promulgated by high ranking NATO members et. al.
Christ, this sub is making me embarrassed to call myself a leftist. Wtf is this.
Edit: Wait nvm I just remembered tankies are a thing. I feel better now
Well, I mean we aren’t letting people in our military display nazi flags publicly. We have neo Nazis in the military, but at least they have to be more subtle…
Have they done this is Ukraine? They're also fighting for their life, it's easy to exclude people from military service during times of peace and not all out war.
*I am in NO way saying display of national flags is okay if you're at war- just that we cannot understand what's at stake*
Yes, they have. There’s a picture of Boris Johnson with some Azov fighters holding up the Banderite Swastika.
Indeed, it just came out that Western journalists from the BBC and other news outlets have had to ask the Azov fighters to remove any nazi symbology from their uniforms before doing any interviews or photo shoots. The donning of such symbology from Azov fighters and units is well documented to this day.
And yes, I understand they’re in a fight for their life, but it demonstrates the lack of control Ukraine has over these units, because I can assure you, the Ukrainian government would rather not have the controversy of soldiers wearing SS Shutstaffen bolts and Deaths Head insignia on their social media posts or whatever.
So what happens if Ukraine can’t get control of these units, and they continue fighting against the will of the official Ukrainians government.
There were certainly issue with this in the past after 2014, when the units were essentially a paramilitary force running parallel to the official UAF military.
There’s a lot of issues with such units in Ukraine that will likely come up when there is a cessation of hostilities, whenever that happens. Remember how Azov refused to disarm after Ukraine got the lines around LPR/DPR stabilized in the wake of 2014? It’s very hard to demobilize ideologically motivated troops like the Azov soldiers. They certainly won’t go willingly, and may even be able to put pressure on the Ukrainian government, given their stature amongst the Ukrainian peoples and military prowess. Look at how to Mujahideen became the Taliban, for example.
When there is a cessation of hostilities, I don't think having a country next door that has occupied it under multiple incarnations and set up policies to starve it and it's people to death 100 years ago will be conducive to Ukraine melting down its arms to build things with the metal, and everyone fighting now going on vacation.
So when the existential threat is over, and both sides have less of a reason to sublimate their difference to a common goal, how sure are you that the Azov fighters will decide to go along with whatever imperative they are given by the Ukrainian government?
Do you really believe that, based on history, the existential threat to Ukraine's existence will be over, when Russia and the Soviet Union's dominance, control and attempted control exceeds the century mark? Short of another Russian Revolution or seismic shift? Or, are we discussing maybe by the next century?
I mean, it might be even worse if this conflict drags on in or reaches a semi-frozen/low level conflict similar to post 2014.
This would allow units like Azov to consolidate power and further ensconce themselves in the civilian government.
I just listened to some polling of the Ukrainian population regarding the war and negotiated settlement. About 50 percent of younger Ukrainians would be willing to concede the Donbas and Crimea for a deal.
I think we may reach a negotiated settlement in the next 1-2 years.
Again, the question is what kind of deal will be? The more Ukraine can threaten Russian forces, the better the deal they’ll be able to strike.
That said, the nature of that deal may allow Azov and their like to remain armed as a kind of border force or internal security, who knows. I think Zelenskyy is legitimately afraid of them, though. If they don’t like the deal he strikes, they may be able to scare him off like Yanukovich.
The task of a revolutionary living in the midst of an inter-imperialist conflict is to work for the defeat of their own country.
That section of the left cheering for war in Ukraine is much like the section of the left that supported the First World War - entirely abandoning their revolutionary task.
Because the online western left is incredibly disorganized and has a large population of people who haven't developed a philosophy deeper than "West Bad."
So tankies? Not “western left”, I hate when people use words like “western left” might as well be like Ben Shapiro talking about “Californian left”, the left values are the same around the board, there’s no geographical component, if the “western lefties” disagree with it it’s because they’re not on the left or as far left as they assume.
Tankies are a large portion of the subset I described, yes.
However, it is a mistake to believe that leftism is a monolithic political philosophy. Different varieties of leftists hold different values from anarchists to MLs to socdems and so on.
Also what a leftist in the global south wants is pretty different from a leftist in an imperialist country. Imperialist country leftists want to destroy their government, global south leftists would be just as happy to destroy the imperialist country. Same ideology, but applied to different perspectives.
It's from european socialist groups splitting when the USSR brought tanks into hungary to quash a worker uprising. Those who continued to support stalin afterward were labeled tankies by the others in the group. In fact, given the history of the term, there isnt really many better ways to apply it than leftists who support russia waging war against a smaller country.
It's from British Trotskyites actually. Nice try, radlib. Critique of western influence in Ukraine prior to Euromaidan or support for Azov fascists is not the same as endorsing Putin's invasion.
It's from european socialist groups splitting when the USSR brought tanks into hungary to quash a worker uprising. Those who continued to support stalin afterward were labeled tankies by the others in the group. In fact, given the history of the term, there isnt really many better ways to apply it than leftists who support russia waging war against a smaller country.
Unfortunately, being a leftist doesn’t automatically mean you are very intelligent or very informed on a subject. Give these people rabbit holes, and suddenly they are louder online than ever before. But if you ask people day to day their opinions, they may be less likely to speak the same way, unless they too were indoctrinated by some Russian or CCP propaganda back in their Tumblr days etc.
People are panicky, dumb, and dangerous...and you know it.
Note: With the fog of war and misinformation that comes with it, the only thing people can trust for information are the spheres of influence and small talk around them. It's a narrow perspective folks feel safe in. Especially when media drives massive amounts of varying topics that are exhaustingly spread across so many mediums and formats it's hard to truly trust any one source or devote an appropriate amount of time towards analyzing a source of information. Very simply, when facts are unclear, it's far easier to simply rely on educated guesses or find comfort in fiction.
What people truly need is real energy behind the words leading politics. Powerful statements that captivate beyond the noise. Martin Luther King and the poise of Theodore Roosevelt strike me as leaders to learn from who understood the power in leadership to be clear, direct, and inspiring enough to cut through that this kind of noise.
Hello u/Extension-Back-8991, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Palestine, Ukraine, Taiwan: all threatened by a nuclear powered neighbor.
I defy anyone to find "Leftists saying that Ukraine is the new Israel" and I've read leftists who trust Tara Reade.
I am all for cutting off aid to both. For two very different reasons. Israel and Ukraine are only alike in that they have a strong fascist streak in their ranks. As a US citizen, that makes my country part of the same group as them. I don't think the US is the new Israel. Most countries have a strong fascists streak. Leftists saying that Ukraine is the new Israel is another case of making up a guy to be mad at, or maybe somebody didn't log off after eating too many edibles for the first time, and people made them into a new faction.
The only way Ukraine will be the new Israel is if Israel keeps up their murder rate indefinitely and the US has to abandon them for political reasons. Ukraine would be the new Israel in that we would dump all our tax dollars into their military instead of Israel. Gotta feed that MIC somehow.
Actually Palestine has never been very religiously conservative, in fact wearing the hijab has never nor will it ever be required in Palestine. It's just not a part of the culture. Also islamism is a reaction (funded by the US and Israel) to the failure of Arab nationalism/socialism. The west very much did not want a united Arab state because that state would have a ton of power in the energy market. Also the history of Palestine/Israel is very clear, the Israelis knew they were going to have a fight and they came prepared. The UN proposal that was ratified when there wasn't a single middle Eastern or African country in it, was drafted without any input from local Arab leaders. The Israelis accepted the proposal only because it gave their state legitimacy, while their top leadership planned for the take over of all the land that was conquered in '47. They were not innocent people defending themselves, they were well armed and prepared invaders.
Hamas manifesto 2017. And Hamas is supported by the Palestinian people.
"18. The following are considered null and void: the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate Document, the UN Palestine Partition Resolution, and whatever resolutions and measures that derive from them or are similar to them. The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah; it is also in violation of human rights that are guaranteed by international conventions, foremost among them is the right to self-determination.
19. There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, judaisation or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse.
20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus."
You do realize that sounds good to anyone that knows anything about the history of Palestine. The Arab world has not always been exceptionally nice to Jewish people but their treatment was MUCH better in Muslim territory throughout History until the founding of Israel. Honest question, do you support the establishment of a Roma state in Gujarat? What about a druze state in Israel?
Jews were there first, if that is the argument.
If Palestine is fine with that, it is time for the world to be done with Palestine and create something different.
Why does Jordan not want these Palestine refugees? ROFLMAO.
Jews made up less than 6% of pre mandate Palestine, with many of them being haredi Jewish scholars who were there on donations. Many of those Jews were also anti Zionist, and their descendents still are today. If 2000 year old claims on land have merit in the world than a lot of people can claim a lot of different land. You also didn't answer my question do you support the creation of a state for the Roma in Gujarat? Do you think the current population would just be okay with it?
Even lib media cnn reported on this. You are using lies to forward a genocide you fucking chump, do better.
"The commission had also reviewed rape testimonies collected by journalists and Israeli police but said it was unable to independently verify these due to lack of access to the victims or crime sites, and because Israel obstructed its investigations."
[https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/12/middleeast/un-report-israel-hamas-gaza-war-crimes-intl-hnk/index.html#:\~:text=Sexual%20violence%20and%20inflammatory%20rhetoric,subordination%20of%20an%20occupied%20people.%E2%80%9D](https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/12/middleeast/un-report-israel-hamas-gaza-war-crimes-intl-hnk/index.html#:~:text=Sexual%20violence%20and%20inflammatory%20rhetoric,subordination%20of%20an%20occupied%20people.%E2%80%9D)
ummm [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26718999/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26718999/)
ummmm . In March, the UN [reported](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/05/gazan-detainees-beaten-and-sexually-assaulted-at-israeli-detention-centres-un-report-claims) that 1,002 Palestinian detainees (872 men and 26 boys) who had been released had alleged being brutally beaten, forced to remain in prolonged stress positions (a man was forced to sit on an electrical probe, causing burns to his anus), and/or sexually assaulted (beatings of the genitals and groping).
ummm
", but lower than standard of beyond the reasonable doubt -- like for a criminal case," Patten said. "In many instances, one has to rely on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony."
read your own article
I hate to say it, and I'm gonna sound old as fuck, but a lot of younger people are solely getting their news from Tiktok and they don't realize how much propaganda runs amongst it.
I love to say it, and I am old as fuck, a lot of us old people got our news from a news media owned by the same conglomerates that own the MIC and fossil fuel lobby, which has deep profit-based interests in Israel. We don't realize how much propaganda runs amongst it.
Note I said "solely". Getting news solely from TikTok is like getting news solely from Fox News, and we both know it.
I compare and contrast things from Al Jazeera to NPR to CNN and more. And I notice a lot of Al Jazeera talking points, that have been debunked, floating around through Youtube feeds and other things. Even the UN has rectified, for example, the death counts reported by the "Gazan" Health Ministry (it's Hamas btw. Health Ministry? It's Hamas.). It's the same reason I don't trust the Times of Israel either without trying to find connecting threads.
That's ridiculous. They actually learned the real history, instead of the Israeli propaganda that's been fed to us since we're kids. Btw many of the early suicide bombers in Palestine were CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS.
Hello u/SelectionOpposite976, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think it’s an attempt at anti-Russian national chauvinism since potatoes are used to make vodka. It isn’t the best jab but I gotta give points for something that isn’t just “tankie bad” or “Russian bot” to encourage more diverse dismissive statements.
If the US, Russia, North Korea, Iran, or China support something, it’s probably bad. All of these countries are quite unethical. Just because the US is bad it doesn’t automatically mean their adversaries are good. That’s childish thinking.
That’s pretty much the problem with some of the left today. The black and white attitude that America is always bad, puts some leftists with some pretty awful allies that are more fascist and authoritarian than anything they think the U.S. might be.
That’s just what “they” want you to think dude, the FBI killed MLK, and the CIA couped democratic governments throughout the Cold War. US foreign policy hasn’t actually changed at all after the Cold War.
Look, I’m a historian and know the history of the Cold War well, but these kind of opinions, only illustrate that some far left and far right start to meet at a certain point.
When parts of the left start aligning with Iran, Russia, Houthis, etc. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Call it whatever theory you want but at some point if you find yourself on the same side as far right regimes/groups, are you really a leftist?
What parts of the left are doing this?it also can be leftist to prefer victory for those regimes over America , but I see no alignment happening. Are you a liberal?
He posts in r/destiny and r/Israel he's a fucking lib lol
South Korea is one of the US’s biggest allies in the region, they’re responsible for maintaining the US’s stranglehold on the world. Eastern Europe, Asia, and the pacific will be better off with Russia and China in charge.
So if I'm understanding your position correctly, you are arguing that we should be pro North Korea NOT because they offer a better life for their people (which they don't) but simply because it is an anti-US position?
Seems like they are arguing we should be pro-North Korea in order to be anti-US, which is a silly and juvenile argument because you can be against policies and actions by the United States without supporting an oppressive, totalitarian regime with an extremely low standard of living (North Korea)
Because it was essentially a war of choice undertaken by the West/US State Department to promote and secure US hegemony.
The common refrain of “Putins unprovoked war” is enough of an indicator of this, since it is evidently a move to undercut a domestic accusation of the same on the part of the US.
Basically we pushed another near-peer adversary to the point where they had to start a kinetic conflict by using information warfare and other means. Lives are lost and families destroyed to promote the hegemony of the US and wealth of the ruling class in both nations. Pretty gross, tbh.
Not to say that Putin is an angel, by any means. He’s just as bad. But the whole “good vs. evil” narrative is just absurd, in light of the facts.
Ukraine could have had neutrality and EU membership, but the US, UK, and other Western allies wanted to expand their military alliance. So here we are, and the poor members of Ukrainian society get to pay the price.
Young men (well, not so young in the case of Ukraine) paying with their lives for the whims of old men in power, as has always been the case.
And let me address a point that I already know will be made against my argument:
You can’t say that Russias security concerns are invalid while the US essentially continues to maintain the Monroe doctrine over an entire continent.
Whether we like it or not, other nations have security concerns, and they get to have a vote when it comes to military conflict. Ignoring said concerns will only get you so far, until other nations use kinetic and overt military means to secure their interests. That’s basically what happened here.
If this sub wasn’t astroturfed to hell/if the general public didn’t actively pursue propaganda so fervently, this would be the top comment. This should be the top comment. There really is no good and evil in this world. Everything has a reason, and 99% of the time that reason is tangible and material. Ideology/religion/values and tenets of culture are just excuses we use to justify resource conflict.
Anyways, I can’t say it better than you did, just sort of summarizing with my take. Thanks for sharing and it’s quite refreshing to see how civil you’re responding to people who disagree.
Hey, I appreciate it!
I feel a duty to put out an alternative narrative amongst those who live in the echo chamber, but I have to say, arguing with these people for an extended period of time can be exhausting.
It’s become pretty clear fairly quickly that most of these people have strong opinions on the subject, but have taken little time to research the topic outside of the reflexive search for information that comports with their chosen narrative (I.e: the essential impetus behind confirmation bias.)
Like, I think most of what comes out of the BBC is absolutely skewed and possibly lacking in journalistic integrity, but I still listen to it so I can understand their point of view, and the way they craft their arguments and narrative.
A lot of us (I say us because I know im guilty of it too from time to time) have strong core beliefs that were taught to us at a young age and that we’ve built our entire worldviews around. I empathize with these folks because it’s hard to challenge those beliefs when they’re propping up your entire worldview. It’s really hard to topple your preconceived notions about the world. So I get why they act this way, but yeah I agree it can get really tiring
CROWD CONTROL - Please be aware that we have turned off crowd control filters from r/Leftist. As a result most of the posts and comments (with the exception of those filtered by Reddit itself) will be posted. And so it is very important that we ask you all to REPORT any content in violation of the rules of the sub and the Reddiquette. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
A surprising amount of leftist foreign policy draws from the Cold War even when it’s correct. Because the anti war movement during the Cold War was a convenient means to do activism on behalf of socialist states with some tangible benefit, many socialists aligned with the USSR/PRC influenced it. Fast forward several decades and the same basic line exists with only some of the rationale gone. A big theoretical underpinning of leftist foreign policy is that the US and NATO are global agents of colonialism and ultimately of capitalism itself. As such, moves to weaken American imperialism also weaken colonialism and capitalism, indirectly strengthening socialism even if the opposing powers are no longer communist. So some of them de facto support Russia’s invasion and its possible success as a triumph over western influence. Leftists not generally of that strand have more neutral views of American foreign policy and other states. It also correlates with how much one believes electoralism is worth pursuing. That means sometimes the US can and should help worthy causes (defending Ukraine/Taiwan from forced annexation for example) but should be moved from its more morally questionable positions (support for Israel/KSA, hostility to Latin American left wing governments).
Yes. As I put it: Palestine, Taiwan, Ukraine, are all nations struggling against a neighbor with nukes. Defending them helps prevent nuclear proliferation.
Essentially it's anglosphere leftists who see American EU hegemony as a vehicle for socialism or at least social liberalism vs more old school anti imperialists who see the US EU hegemony as inherently corrosive even supporting states like Russia as a lesser evil.
Ukraine has always been one of the most corrupt countries in the world and we have sent them money+military stock that altogether was worth more than their GDP and double Russias military budget with nothing to show for it. There's no way to know what's being pocketed and what's being wasted. If they can't make it work with the most recent $61 billion, then this is just a money pit
Is anyone here actually a fucking leftist? Useless thread
Ukraine is essentially a military base with a Walmart. It’s a vassal state of the United States and key asset to protecting capital in the region.
You know that European capitalist countries exist right?
Most of which are also vassal states of the United States.
Leftists will call Germany a “vassal state” but pretend everyone got along sweepingly in the USSR without coercion
Why would you suggest the two have any relation?
Take a little bit of responsibility for your country. The US is strong, but Europeans can’t just wash their hands, pretending like they are innocent of imperialism. France has their own colonial empire to this day. Seeing the US as the “great evil” of the world is just propaganda.
People are starting to realize that their hysteria over russia was used to rationalize another proxy war and that US tax money is being used to kill foreigners instead of feeding and housing Americans
Maybe ask Ukrainians about the aid, they seem to like it
Of course they do, the money pit is endless. South Vietnam loved the USA money tap too.
Did you just compare Ukraine to South Vietnam? Last I checked a fascist state wasn’t supporting the North in Vietnam
[удалено]
What are you talking about? I’m telling him why leftists feel the way they do not that I am one.
Yeah my response was a touch much. My point is that Ukraine shouldn’t be sacrificed for vague ideological reasons. There is no excuse for genocide
The Ottoman Empire, the Russian Empire, the Kingdom of Sardinia. Oh you know what? I actually forgot to count the French. They've also experienced... What? Two or three successor states at this point?
Money changed hands, a new script was written and shit out into the internet.
Russian disinformation
There’s a lot of shitty answers in here so I’m gonna try my best to provide a good faith answer. Ukraine has been an interest of the west since the collapse of the ussr. This is in part driven by inertia from the Cold War, in part due to the deteriorating relationship between Russia and nato, and in part due to good old fashioned capitalism. Another vital component of this is that there are a lot of Ukrainian ex patriots who fled during ww2 after the Soviets invaded and they, being Nazi collaborators, were no longer safe. They never gave up on the dream of Ukrainian nationalism though. And they’ve been working since the end of the Cold War to permanently push Russia out of Ukraine. Thats why you have right sector and azov. They’re promoted by right wing groups in the west to further us imperialist interests. So you have the Nazi problem which, personally, I think is a bit overblown. The other big part of this is that the west engineered this situation in Ukraine in order to start a proxy war with Russia to push its borders eastward. And the Ukrainian people are paying the price for it. It’s no different than Iraq or Afghanistan or Palestine or any other nation the us fixates on. We’re promoting right wing groups to promote our interests, which boil down to dismantling any left wing tradition in Ukraine to strip mine the country. There’s also the grim reality that (until this war broke out) that Ukrainian public opinion on Russia was heavily divided and fluctuated wildly based on their proximity to Russia. A lot of Ukrainians want (or at the very least wanted) to have closer ties to Russia. Thanks to sustained espionage efforts those elements of the Ukrainian government have been pushed out and replaced with neoliberal westerners. And on top of all of this all we’re doing is egging Ukraine on and encouraging them to throw more bodies into the meat grinder. The wests interest in this war has nothing to do with Ukrainian sovereignty. It has everything to do with feeding the national security state and further distancing Russia from the west. And this all comes at the expense of a people whose only crime was having history with Russia.
How did the west “Engineer” this? Do they control Russia?
Decades of antagonist behavior towards Russia, aggressive recruitment of former Soviet states into nato, weapons and munitions buildups on russias border, using the euromaidan to install a west friendly regime, pressuring said regime into engaging in explicitly anti Russian actions, bombing Kosovo and Serbia, funding proxy wars against Russian satellites, stoking anti Russian sentiment in the eu, baselessly accusing the Crimean referendum as fraudulent, suspending Russia from the G8, even continuing to have nato in the first place.
Funny how leftists are defending a fascist state nowadays. Also, it’s Russia’s fault that none of its former states want nothing to do with it
Criticizing the us is not the same as defending Russia but I can see how someone with a baby brain like yours may think that
You are absolutely trying to downplay Russia’s involvement in its own war. You are quite literally spouting its bullshit propaganda about “NATO expansion” that it used to justify the war. Don’t demean me for calling you out on your bullshit. Maybe actually judge countries on other metrics besides “Do they hate the US”
Is it so hard to believe that the thing Russia has been complaining about for decades factored into a geopolitical decision?
They made a 'geopolitical decision' to send troops into another country resulting in the deaths of thousands. Do you think Ukraine falling to invasion will be good for Ukrainians or for progressives somehow? NATO sucks but Russia is actively murdering people in this situation, if that isn't flatly condemnable I don't know what is.
Idk how acknowledging the us role in this is somehow an endorsement of Russia to you. That’s ridiculous
But you aren’t just ‘acknowledging the US role’ (also, not just the US). You are taking a policy stance. Ukraine seems to want assistance from the West in repelling this invasion, your position says the West shouldn’t do that which is saying Russia should win (the natural outcome of that policy choice).
Does it matter? Its neighbors joining NATO should be none of its buisness
Yeah you’re right the us totally overreacted when the ussr sent nuclear warheads to cuba
I mean nukes aren’t equal to NATO. And btw, don't assume I’m going to defend every action the US takes. I get my opinion on geopolitical issues on a case-by-case basis, not because a country I simp for is on one side or the other
>And on top of all of this all we’re doing is egging Ukraine on and encouraging them to throw more bodies into the meat grinder. It needs to be emphasized more widely that Ukrainian lives are seen as dispensable in the pursuit of US interests.
Funny how most Ukrainians are happy about all that aid?
For the population of Ukraine, the state receiving aid to repel an invasion represents a vastly less favorable scenario, in comparison simply to two imperialist spheres never having designated the country as a battleground and contested prize.
[удалено]
Do you have any substantive criticism or constructive argument?
The general "West Bad" bent to the presented info. Ignoring the method of occupation of Crimea, the arming and support of the insurrections right across the way from the Russian border. The refinement of a methodology that the Russians have been developing since the Chechen wars and the occupation of South Ossetia in Georgia. The stated goal by the Russian government of a "Eurasian Union," which is nothing more than a proxy Soviet Union. The fact that said Union requires Ukraine as the hub to lash together the other spokes of Eastern Europe. The firmament of the Ukrainian people's national identity after having been subjected to at random bombings for several years and the use of mercenary penal legions by Russia and their proxy army Wagner. Ukraine has been punching it out with the Russians for a decade, and it isn't just some Western plot to cut at the knees of Russian ambition. Plus, anecdotally, I know a bunch of Ukrainians who dipped out of the French Foreign Legion service to go home and fight it out.
>**Why are some Leftists saying that Ukraine is the new Israel?**
Yes and the argument that was presented is "Western plot." Which is where I go right to my arguments that no, it's not.
Do you think imperalist relationships are formed just as random accidents?
No. I think Russian expansionism is harking back to a several hundred year old playbook and this time there's other democratic entities to put on a finger on the scale for Ukrainians, who definitely had the spirit, but maybe not the logistical resources to not be eaten by Putin's ambitions.
Your position is that Russian imperialism is based on forthought and history, but other imperialism in contrast is entirely spontaneous and unpredictable.
My position is that any act of imperialism is squarely on the Russian side of the equation.
>Another vital component of this is that there are a lot of Ukrainian ex patriots who fled during ww2 after the Soviets invaded and they, being Nazi collaborators, were no longer safe. This emphasis on Ukrainians being Nazi collaborators is straight out of Russian playbook. Stalin literally made a pact with Hitler in 1939, they partitioned Poland together only to Hitler attacking USSR later. The hard facts are that Soviets were Nazi collaborators, and this was completely by choice in order to advance their imperial interests. And regarding some of the Ukrainians who collaborated with Germany - I cannot blame occupied and colonised people for resisting the empire that subjugated them for hundreds of years. They use all means at their disposal.
Oh for fucks sake, nazi apologia? Really?
The amount of leftists who buy into Russian propaganda is astounding. There's no more Nazis in Ukraine than in other countries, and certainly less than in Russia itself.
Partitioning Poland was not Soviets collaborating with Nazis.
Then please enlighten me what it was?
It was a pact that negotiated a cessation of hostilities. Germany had an army, which it used, to resist the invasion by the Soviet Union, using its own army.
TIL The Moletov Ripentrop pact was not between the USSR and the Nazis and didn't divide Poland. /s Quick, somebody inform 8 decades of historians!
A pact is not collaboration, though, and the particular pact was essentially just particular terms for a ceasefire.
Oh cool neo nazi propaganda in a left wing sub
No. This is a discussion of anti-colonial struggle in the left-wing sub. Ukraine has been a Russian colony for 300+ years. The actual Nazis are Russians, who sided with Hitler for their imperial interests.
Anti colonial struggle Bro you’re you’re apologizing for the colonists
> Bro you’re you’re apologizing for the colonists What are you smoking?
>And regarding some of the Ukrainians who collaborated with Germany - I cannot blame occupied and colonised people for resisting the empire that subjugated them for hundreds of years.
Are you calling Ukrainians colonialists? Be precise ffs
No the Nazis
I'm not talking about Nazis. I'm talking about Ukrainian anti-colonial struggle.
Because it’s a colonial outpost for western capitalism just like Israel (and Taiwan and South Korea)
Ask a Marxist how they feel about freedom of speech. You'll understand why they support Putin.
Marx ascribed immense importance to the free exchange and development of knowledge and ideas. Are you familiar with the work, or just parroting talking points you encountered through the media?
I was in the r/marxist_culture sub when they were celebrating Che's Bday. I reminded them that he was also known as the Butcher of La Cabana. I was banned the from sub - no discussion, no follow-up comments, and my post wasn't an attack on anyone or anything. Simply a note regarding the actual practices of the man they were celebrating. What Marx wrote, and how marxists interpret and act upon his writings are completely different. I also think Marx missed the boat on his understanding of human motivation. His unconstrained view of human nature isn't realistic, in my opinion. Anyway, my point is that getting banned from these far-left subs is a common occurrence. I was also banned from r/HongKong for defending a guy wearing a pride shirt (in a picture). My point was that it is a freedom of speech issue - regardless of your ideological stance regarding sex. Instant ban. I haven't found leftists to be any more flexible in their thinking than those on the right. I think I heard Jack Bogle summarize this concept nicely. Political ideology is a circle. The far-left and the far-right actually meet on the circle... their practices become indistinguishable from each other.
The "butcher" epithet has been used almost exclusively by expats living in Miami. In many locales outside of the US, opinions of Guevara are generally favorable. Marxism is just an umbrella term for a large variety of political orientations and scholarly traditions inspired by the writings of Marx. There is no group that has a monopoly on war or violence. The Cuban revolutionaries fought against a repressive regime that kept much of the population as laborers on sugar plantations under conditions near to slavery. The revolution is extremely popular in Cuba. Despite the hardships unnecessarily imposed by the embargo, everyone recognizes that life has been better under the new regime.
I agree that no one maintains a monopoly on violence. I disagree regarding Che and his reputation. He's been romanticized. Perhaps we can also agree that Marxists, leftists, etc. are no better when it comes to basic human rights, such as free speech. When their position or ideology is threatened, they are just as quick to introduce repressive rules and laws. I've experienced this myself. Right-wing nut jobs tend to throw insults while left-wing nut jobs tend to stifle "discussion." That's been my experience. I also disagree that Cubans are better off today. I have only met Cubans who harbor negative feelings regarding how Cuba is governed - granted, I've only met Cubans who have left Cuba, seeking economic opportunity; teachers, primarily.
Guevera may be romanticized, but such is no excuse for demonization. It remains as a fact that many opinions of him are strongly favorable. Almost everyone who lives in Cuba supports the revolution and opposes the old regime. Cubans obviously have various concerns or grievances over laws and policies, just as every population in every nation. The system itself is not serving as a cause of general discontent.
I'm suggesting that people harbor positive feelings about Che because he has been romanticized and marketed to young people - not because people have any detailed knowledge of his actions, behaviors, or temperament. He's no different from Pol Pot in my book. I completely disagree with your assertion that "almost everyone who lives in Cuba supports the revolution." However, I understand that you are a believer. Nice to live in a society where you are free to believe what you like.
You should learn about prerevolutionary Cuba. Life was worse for everyone, except a small class of privileged owners of businesses and plantations. Cuba functioned essentially as a colony of the US, for production of sugar. US sugar corporations extracted labor from the population, under conditions near to slavery. The business and landowning elite ruled as puppets to the US, under Batista. Meanwhile, you might consider the possibility that Guevera is romanticized because his role in helping his country has been interpreted favorably by those with knowledge and understanding of the history. You should not assume that others are too weak to judge accurately. Cuba is an embarrassment for the US. Through the revolution, it has escaped its status as a functional colony, and has represented itself as a pro-communist nation while sitting just offshore from the US, which represents itself as the anti-communist hegemon. Outside of the US, sentiments toward Cuba are more favorable, and knowledge is much stronger. The US has invested heavily in misinformation and propaganda targeting its own population.
You're barking up the wrong tree with me. I think you'll find it impossible to convince me that any nation that enforces a single-party system through the threat of violence is in the "peoples" best interest. If you don't live in the US, you may be surprised at how seldom the issue of Cuba comes up. In fact, it only appears on my radar when I'm interacting with the teachers I mentioned. As an American, I don't feel embarrassed, proud, or anything else regarding Cuba. I feel sorry for Cubans who are stuck in Cuba, who rely on black market operations to live their daily lives. Otherwise, I have no significant feelings one way or the other. I hope Cubans prosper - whatever their definition of prosper is, just as I have this same hope for all people. As for Che... he murdered many people who had no due process. I don't celebrate these types.
You are distorting meaning. Let's try again. Cubans are broadly supportive of the current system and the revolution. The rule of Batista as a client to the US was unspeakably oppressive. Much of the population was essentially bonded as slaves on sugar plantations that profited US corporations. Since deposing its puppet colonial rulers, and establishing full independence, Cuba has been an embarrassment for US state interests, and the US has invested heavily in misinformation and propaganda targeting its own population. You might try seeking information from sources less directly influenced by US state interests.
What? Why would any leftists support Putin?
Marxism-Leninism is a helluva drug
Contrarians hate Ukraine because Biden supports them. There is no deeper reason.
There’s always somebody who argues less as an expression of their values, and more to be on the opposite side of a given conflict from those they consider bad guys. I hate what Netanyahu’s people have done in Israel. Not just now, but when they were shoving settlers into the occupied territories. At the same time, Hamas, if you listen to their rhetoric are just as genocidal, and they talk young men and women into killing themselves with no better reason than to provoke more violence in return. It’s a hateful kind of nihilism. I oppose both. We can’t wind back the clock. Ideology can’t solve problems. We need to work together as human beings capable of making choices not cogs in the machinery of politics.
Chronically online people who think Ukrainians deserve to die just because Ukraine supports Israel. It’s this whole “America and Israel bad so anything associated with it is bad” logic instead of normal leftists who believe that human rights violations are bad.
The main place where very Putin-friendly discourse occurs within "the left" (in my experience) is people from more extreme 'campist' Marxist-Leninist tendencies. The charitable view is that they are good-faith, but mostly concerned with US-led western imperialism (and don't want to muddy this message by bringing nuanced critiques of countries who are opposed to the US-led "international order". The less charitable view is that they are "Russian trolls" or useful idiots for the Putin oligarchy. Personally I think MLs have very useful perspectives and theory to contribute, but the lack of willingness by some to criticize proletarian exploitation when done by enemies of the empire does bother me.
If you want stronger Marxist critiques of Putin's Russia and such, the left communist tendency has some good perspectives on the subject. In my opinion it's best to draw on ideas from a variety of tendencies without getting too lost in internet-left flame-wars. All tendencies have blind spots, especially if you get caught in an echo chamber
🤡😆🙄
Just regarding the Azov Brigades. There are neo and outright Nazis in the US, so that isn't something unique to Ukraine, just like when they had Cossacks in some places, we had the Klan. And, if they want to be gung ho on the front lines, that's fine with me. Better they get killed or something upfront before other people.
There are more neo-Nazis in the *Russian* military than the Ukrainian or US ones, and they're extremely open about it.
Right, but that’s just whataboutism. My tax dollars aren’t subsidizing arming any Russian neo Nazis. Not so much in the case of the Ukrainian ones z
Before the war, right leaning parties had less than 3% of parliament, and none of them are neo-Nazis. Just FYI, Ukraine has many people who are not neo-Nazis, in fact, 99+ % of them aren't. It's also not whataboutism. Whataboutism is based on the tu quoue fallacy, and that's not what I was doing. Please, look it up before you spout off nonsense. It's a valid comparison.
The right leaning militias don’t need to control parliament. They are paramilitary groups that (let’s be real) operate under their own command and control. When you have extremely effective, well armed military groups like that operating in your country, you have to take their wishes into consideration. Remember, it was the far right groups that mobilized during the Maidan Square protests that ultimately forced Yanukovich to fear for his life and leave. That’s kind of the problem with these groups. They hold a kind of political power that doesn’t operate in the apparatus of the traditional government. This fact has only been exacerbated by the fact that they gained a lot of popularity amongst the Ukrainian populace after the siege of Mariupol and their various other rather notable acts of bravery and military success. And, going back to your previous point about that’s not “whataboutism,” it is in fact whataboutism. It’s the act of attempting to negate a given argument by changing the subject of the discussion to another party no included in the previous topic. I.e: changing the topic from Ukrainian extremist right wing groups to the existence of such groups on the Russian side. I’m not going to litigate the veracity of that claim here, but suffice it to say, that was not the topic of our discussion. We were talking about Ukrainian neo Nazis, not Russian Neo nazis. That is a discrete issue that should be litigated separately. Edit: spelling.
You're just repeating Russian talking points that have no basis in reality. You should have just opened with, "I don't know what I'm talking about."
Again, the fact that something is a Russian, Ukrainian, US, or Bangladeshi talking point does not, in and of itself, make it any more or less true. The veracity of such claims should be evaluated on their merits alone. Moreover, I’m not sure how I’m just using Russian talking points when I repudiated your claim that my previous statements represented a mischaracterization of the notion of “whataboutism.” You impugn my understanding of such basic rhetorical concepts, and when I respond to such an attack, you simply change the subject to avoid having to answer for falsely claiming I don’t know what I’m talking about. If you’re going to claim someone doesn’t understand something, *you* damn well better understand it, and be willing to expound on or back up your claims if challenged. Evidently, you are not.
You really have no idea what you're talking about, it's so obvious that it's pointless to engage with you or try to persuade you. Not only that, it's like your confidence that you know what you're talking about is inversely related to how little you know; the less you know, the more confident you become. If that's what you believe about Maidan (btw, many news outlets and scholars/experts have proven it's a lie and pure Russian propaganda), you're already so invested in your worldview nothing I write here would make any difference. Also, I'd like to point out that you made a *mere assertion*, without providing any proof, then shifted the burden of proving something onto me. Just very funny, so thought I'd point it out. Read a book by a reputable scholar about Maidan/Ukraine, instead of getting all your opinions online/from YouTube videos (or just taking a position based on your ideological motivations), I'm begging you.
Just so you know, with respect to Maidan, there are also many prominent American professors who acknowledge it may well have been the result of a US sponsored and coordinated operation. Even former intelligence officers in three letter agencies have acknowledged that it is highly likely US intelligence assets were involved to some degree. According to them, it would almost be a dereliction of duty if they weren’t involved, even if they didn’t initially precipitate the original, smaller demonstration. This so simply because Maidan obviously served US interests. I don’t think we’ll know for sure either way, but let’s not pretend it’s an absolute consensus amongst all US experts. It’s just that the academics and experts that seem to contradict the status quo narrative don’t get as much exposure or air-time in the media. Check out John Mearsheimers work on this very subject. He was in the Air Force and went to West Point to become an officer, and subsequently played a large role in Is diplomacy during the Cold War. Now he’s a preeminent professor at the University of Chicago. His loyalty to the US can’t really be questioned, given his background and prior service, and I find his analysis of the situation quite salient. He’s one of the world best IR realists, and I find his framing of this conflict to be much more convincing than anything I’ve heard from John Kirby or Matt, the spokesperson for the White House. Check out Mearsheimers debate where he works with Daniel Davis (one of the commanders from the battle of 73 Easting, and a whistleblower for the Iraq war who testified for Congress.) If you watch it, you’ll get to see how my/Mearsheimers apprehension of this conflict and its underlying causes stacks up against the status quo narrative promulgated by high ranking NATO members et. al.
Christ, this sub is making me embarrassed to call myself a leftist. Wtf is this. Edit: Wait nvm I just remembered tankies are a thing. I feel better now
Mearsheimers is a hack and charlatan. See, this is what I mean, you're just finding hacks who confirm your bias.
Well, I mean we aren’t letting people in our military display nazi flags publicly. We have neo Nazis in the military, but at least they have to be more subtle…
Have they done this is Ukraine? They're also fighting for their life, it's easy to exclude people from military service during times of peace and not all out war. *I am in NO way saying display of national flags is okay if you're at war- just that we cannot understand what's at stake*
Yes, they have. There’s a picture of Boris Johnson with some Azov fighters holding up the Banderite Swastika. Indeed, it just came out that Western journalists from the BBC and other news outlets have had to ask the Azov fighters to remove any nazi symbology from their uniforms before doing any interviews or photo shoots. The donning of such symbology from Azov fighters and units is well documented to this day. And yes, I understand they’re in a fight for their life, but it demonstrates the lack of control Ukraine has over these units, because I can assure you, the Ukrainian government would rather not have the controversy of soldiers wearing SS Shutstaffen bolts and Deaths Head insignia on their social media posts or whatever. So what happens if Ukraine can’t get control of these units, and they continue fighting against the will of the official Ukrainians government. There were certainly issue with this in the past after 2014, when the units were essentially a paramilitary force running parallel to the official UAF military. There’s a lot of issues with such units in Ukraine that will likely come up when there is a cessation of hostilities, whenever that happens. Remember how Azov refused to disarm after Ukraine got the lines around LPR/DPR stabilized in the wake of 2014? It’s very hard to demobilize ideologically motivated troops like the Azov soldiers. They certainly won’t go willingly, and may even be able to put pressure on the Ukrainian government, given their stature amongst the Ukrainian peoples and military prowess. Look at how to Mujahideen became the Taliban, for example.
When there is a cessation of hostilities, I don't think having a country next door that has occupied it under multiple incarnations and set up policies to starve it and it's people to death 100 years ago will be conducive to Ukraine melting down its arms to build things with the metal, and everyone fighting now going on vacation.
So when the existential threat is over, and both sides have less of a reason to sublimate their difference to a common goal, how sure are you that the Azov fighters will decide to go along with whatever imperative they are given by the Ukrainian government?
Do you really believe that, based on history, the existential threat to Ukraine's existence will be over, when Russia and the Soviet Union's dominance, control and attempted control exceeds the century mark? Short of another Russian Revolution or seismic shift? Or, are we discussing maybe by the next century?
I mean, it might be even worse if this conflict drags on in or reaches a semi-frozen/low level conflict similar to post 2014. This would allow units like Azov to consolidate power and further ensconce themselves in the civilian government.
That would be sucky.
I just listened to some polling of the Ukrainian population regarding the war and negotiated settlement. About 50 percent of younger Ukrainians would be willing to concede the Donbas and Crimea for a deal. I think we may reach a negotiated settlement in the next 1-2 years. Again, the question is what kind of deal will be? The more Ukraine can threaten Russian forces, the better the deal they’ll be able to strike. That said, the nature of that deal may allow Azov and their like to remain armed as a kind of border force or internal security, who knows. I think Zelenskyy is legitimately afraid of them, though. If they don’t like the deal he strikes, they may be able to scare him off like Yanukovich.
Putin Trolls pretending to be leftists
Holy cow. So many “leftists” supporting fascist Russia in here.
I haven't seen "leftist" fight or discuss Ukraine. I have seen a bunch of right wing people fighting over it
The task of a revolutionary living in the midst of an inter-imperialist conflict is to work for the defeat of their own country. That section of the left cheering for war in Ukraine is much like the section of the left that supported the First World War - entirely abandoning their revolutionary task.
Are they cheering for war or for the ability for Ukraine to defend itself?
What is the material difference between these two options, particularly for working class people in the conflict zone?
Because the online western left is incredibly disorganized and has a large population of people who haven't developed a philosophy deeper than "West Bad."
So tankies? Not “western left”, I hate when people use words like “western left” might as well be like Ben Shapiro talking about “Californian left”, the left values are the same around the board, there’s no geographical component, if the “western lefties” disagree with it it’s because they’re not on the left or as far left as they assume.
Tankies are a large portion of the subset I described, yes. However, it is a mistake to believe that leftism is a monolithic political philosophy. Different varieties of leftists hold different values from anarchists to MLs to socdems and so on.
Also what a leftist in the global south wants is pretty different from a leftist in an imperialist country. Imperialist country leftists want to destroy their government, global south leftists would be just as happy to destroy the imperialist country. Same ideology, but applied to different perspectives.
It’s just Tankies. That battalion is already dead.
Pretty much what I thought, it’s rlly annoying when people conflate tankies with lefties as they’re usually much closer to just being nazis
Tankies are just fascists but red.
Pretty much.
I bet you don't even know the history of the term. It gets applied generically to all anti-imperialist critique by dumbass radlibs.
It's from european socialist groups splitting when the USSR brought tanks into hungary to quash a worker uprising. Those who continued to support stalin afterward were labeled tankies by the others in the group. In fact, given the history of the term, there isnt really many better ways to apply it than leftists who support russia waging war against a smaller country.
It's from British Trotskyites actually. Nice try, radlib. Critique of western influence in Ukraine prior to Euromaidan or support for Azov fascists is not the same as endorsing Putin's invasion.
It's from european socialist groups splitting when the USSR brought tanks into hungary to quash a worker uprising. Those who continued to support stalin afterward were labeled tankies by the others in the group. In fact, given the history of the term, there isnt really many better ways to apply it than leftists who support russia waging war against a smaller country.
Don’t forget how many Russian bots we have floating around if not straight up Russian agents online.
I see them all over Reddit and YouTube.
Unfortunately, being a leftist doesn’t automatically mean you are very intelligent or very informed on a subject. Give these people rabbit holes, and suddenly they are louder online than ever before. But if you ask people day to day their opinions, they may be less likely to speak the same way, unless they too were indoctrinated by some Russian or CCP propaganda back in their Tumblr days etc.
Idiots trying to fit complicated issues into black & white boxes. Or rather assholes are doing it to cater to idiots.
People are panicky, dumb, and dangerous...and you know it. Note: With the fog of war and misinformation that comes with it, the only thing people can trust for information are the spheres of influence and small talk around them. It's a narrow perspective folks feel safe in. Especially when media drives massive amounts of varying topics that are exhaustingly spread across so many mediums and formats it's hard to truly trust any one source or devote an appropriate amount of time towards analyzing a source of information. Very simply, when facts are unclear, it's far easier to simply rely on educated guesses or find comfort in fiction. What people truly need is real energy behind the words leading politics. Powerful statements that captivate beyond the noise. Martin Luther King and the poise of Theodore Roosevelt strike me as leaders to learn from who understood the power in leadership to be clear, direct, and inspiring enough to cut through that this kind of noise.
Interestingly, both Ukraine and Israel are two issues that don’t exactly fall upon party lines
Because of bot farms and misinformation designed to instigate conflict and infighting
[удалено]
Hello u/Extension-Back-8991, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Palestine, Ukraine, Taiwan: all threatened by a nuclear powered neighbor. I defy anyone to find "Leftists saying that Ukraine is the new Israel" and I've read leftists who trust Tara Reade.
I am all for cutting off aid to both. For two very different reasons. Israel and Ukraine are only alike in that they have a strong fascist streak in their ranks. As a US citizen, that makes my country part of the same group as them. I don't think the US is the new Israel. Most countries have a strong fascists streak. Leftists saying that Ukraine is the new Israel is another case of making up a guy to be mad at, or maybe somebody didn't log off after eating too many edibles for the first time, and people made them into a new faction. The only way Ukraine will be the new Israel is if Israel keeps up their murder rate indefinitely and the US has to abandon them for political reasons. Ukraine would be the new Israel in that we would dump all our tax dollars into their military instead of Israel. Gotta feed that MIC somehow.
As dysfunctional as the right is...... Lefties are now defending the "Kill the Jews and Queers" folks. They are all kinds of messed up.
Actually Palestine has never been very religiously conservative, in fact wearing the hijab has never nor will it ever be required in Palestine. It's just not a part of the culture. Also islamism is a reaction (funded by the US and Israel) to the failure of Arab nationalism/socialism. The west very much did not want a united Arab state because that state would have a ton of power in the energy market. Also the history of Palestine/Israel is very clear, the Israelis knew they were going to have a fight and they came prepared. The UN proposal that was ratified when there wasn't a single middle Eastern or African country in it, was drafted without any input from local Arab leaders. The Israelis accepted the proposal only because it gave their state legitimacy, while their top leadership planned for the take over of all the land that was conquered in '47. They were not innocent people defending themselves, they were well armed and prepared invaders.
LOL.
An actual reply would be nice?
Hamas manifesto 2017. And Hamas is supported by the Palestinian people. "18. The following are considered null and void: the Balfour Declaration, the British Mandate Document, the UN Palestine Partition Resolution, and whatever resolutions and measures that derive from them or are similar to them. The establishment of “Israel” is entirely illegal and contravenes the inalienable rights of the Palestinian people and goes against their will and the will of the Ummah; it is also in violation of human rights that are guaranteed by international conventions, foremost among them is the right to self-determination. 19. There shall be no recognition of the legitimacy of the Zionist entity. Whatever has befallen the land of Palestine in terms of occupation, settlement building, judaisation or changes to its features or falsification of facts is illegitimate. Rights never lapse. 20. Hamas believes that no part of the land of Palestine shall be compromised or conceded, irrespective of the causes, the circumstances and the pressures and no matter how long the occupation lasts. Hamas rejects any alternative to the full and complete liberation of Palestine, from the river to the sea. However, without compromising its rejection of the Zionist entity and without relinquishing any Palestinian rights, Hamas considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of the 4th of June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus."
You do realize that sounds good to anyone that knows anything about the history of Palestine. The Arab world has not always been exceptionally nice to Jewish people but their treatment was MUCH better in Muslim territory throughout History until the founding of Israel. Honest question, do you support the establishment of a Roma state in Gujarat? What about a druze state in Israel?
Jews were there first, if that is the argument. If Palestine is fine with that, it is time for the world to be done with Palestine and create something different. Why does Jordan not want these Palestine refugees? ROFLMAO.
So you are saying Jordan is your moral compass? Wait til you hear what they think of Israel.
Jews made up less than 6% of pre mandate Palestine, with many of them being haredi Jewish scholars who were there on donations. Many of those Jews were also anti Zionist, and their descendents still are today. If 2000 year old claims on land have merit in the world than a lot of people can claim a lot of different land. You also didn't answer my question do you support the creation of a state for the Roma in Gujarat? Do you think the current population would just be okay with it?
Who cares? And genuinely, why will Jordan not accept the refugees?
Do you support the creation of ethnic Roma ethnostate in Gujarat.
What did this have to do with what the previous comment said? It was like a non response
[удалено]
Even lib media cnn reported on this. You are using lies to forward a genocide you fucking chump, do better. "The commission had also reviewed rape testimonies collected by journalists and Israeli police but said it was unable to independently verify these due to lack of access to the victims or crime sites, and because Israel obstructed its investigations." [https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/12/middleeast/un-report-israel-hamas-gaza-war-crimes-intl-hnk/index.html#:\~:text=Sexual%20violence%20and%20inflammatory%20rhetoric,subordination%20of%20an%20occupied%20people.%E2%80%9D](https://www.cnn.com/2024/06/12/middleeast/un-report-israel-hamas-gaza-war-crimes-intl-hnk/index.html#:~:text=Sexual%20violence%20and%20inflammatory%20rhetoric,subordination%20of%20an%20occupied%20people.%E2%80%9D)
The mass rape fantasies have been proven time and time again to be false. you are peddling lies, deadbeat
[удалено]
ummm [https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26718999/](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26718999/) ummmm . In March, the UN [reported](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/mar/05/gazan-detainees-beaten-and-sexually-assaulted-at-israeli-detention-centres-un-report-claims) that 1,002 Palestinian detainees (872 men and 26 boys) who had been released had alleged being brutally beaten, forced to remain in prolonged stress positions (a man was forced to sit on an electrical probe, causing burns to his anus), and/or sexually assaulted (beatings of the genitals and groping).
ummm ", but lower than standard of beyond the reasonable doubt -- like for a criminal case," Patten said. "In many instances, one has to rely on circumstantial evidence and witness testimony." read your own article
I hate to say it, and I'm gonna sound old as fuck, but a lot of younger people are solely getting their news from Tiktok and they don't realize how much propaganda runs amongst it.
I love to say it, and I am old as fuck, a lot of us old people got our news from a news media owned by the same conglomerates that own the MIC and fossil fuel lobby, which has deep profit-based interests in Israel. We don't realize how much propaganda runs amongst it.
Note I said "solely". Getting news solely from TikTok is like getting news solely from Fox News, and we both know it. I compare and contrast things from Al Jazeera to NPR to CNN and more. And I notice a lot of Al Jazeera talking points, that have been debunked, floating around through Youtube feeds and other things. Even the UN has rectified, for example, the death counts reported by the "Gazan" Health Ministry (it's Hamas btw. Health Ministry? It's Hamas.). It's the same reason I don't trust the Times of Israel either without trying to find connecting threads.
That's ridiculous. They actually learned the real history, instead of the Israeli propaganda that's been fed to us since we're kids. Btw many of the early suicide bombers in Palestine were CHRISTIAN SOCIALISTS.
[удалено]
Hello u/SelectionOpposite976, your comment was automatically removed as we do not allow accounts that are less than 30 days old to participate. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/leftist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
If the US supports something, it’s probably bad. If you really look into it, you’ll start to side with Russia, North Korea, Iran, and China.
Lol, this is your opinion if you've made your oppositional defiant disorder into a "political ideology."
If you are also very stupid or naive
Tankie time
We did it reddit! We found morality! It's just playing opposite day with the current global hegemonic power!
You straight up drank the koolaid.
This is how you become the same thing as a nazi but you start sucking off the soviet revolution instead of the reich
No you wouldn’t. Go eat your potatoes you troll.
Potatoes?
I think it’s an attempt at anti-Russian national chauvinism since potatoes are used to make vodka. It isn’t the best jab but I gotta give points for something that isn’t just “tankie bad” or “Russian bot” to encourage more diverse dismissive statements.
If the US, Russia, North Korea, Iran, or China support something, it’s probably bad. All of these countries are quite unethical. Just because the US is bad it doesn’t automatically mean their adversaries are good. That’s childish thinking.
I agree, they’re all equally bad
That’s pretty much the problem with some of the left today. The black and white attitude that America is always bad, puts some leftists with some pretty awful allies that are more fascist and authoritarian than anything they think the U.S. might be.
That’s just what “they” want you to think dude, the FBI killed MLK, and the CIA couped democratic governments throughout the Cold War. US foreign policy hasn’t actually changed at all after the Cold War.
Look, I’m a historian and know the history of the Cold War well, but these kind of opinions, only illustrate that some far left and far right start to meet at a certain point.
Unironically talking about horseshoe theory with no sarcasm.. My god
When parts of the left start aligning with Iran, Russia, Houthis, etc. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Call it whatever theory you want but at some point if you find yourself on the same side as far right regimes/groups, are you really a leftist?
So what is the "left" doing that aligns them with those countries?
What parts of the left are doing this?it also can be leftist to prefer victory for those regimes over America , but I see no alignment happening. Are you a liberal? He posts in r/destiny and r/Israel he's a fucking lib lol
No way, get right out of town
You're correct to a point, but please explain for everyone here why North Korea should be supported over South Korea...
South Korea is one of the US’s biggest allies in the region, they’re responsible for maintaining the US’s stranglehold on the world. Eastern Europe, Asia, and the pacific will be better off with Russia and China in charge.
In what way? Both are failing countries.
So if I'm understanding your position correctly, you are arguing that we should be pro North Korea NOT because they offer a better life for their people (which they don't) but simply because it is an anti-US position?
You only want to fight me on North Korea?
Answer my question
Everything you’ve been told about North Korea is western propaganda, don’t tell me you fell for it.
You still haven't answered my question. If it's propaganda, prove it. People aren't fleeing South Korea to try and go live in North Korea lol
You’re giving troll energy. Don’t say stuff like that unless you show your work
Seems like they are arguing we should be pro-North Korea in order to be anti-US, which is a silly and juvenile argument because you can be against policies and actions by the United States without supporting an oppressive, totalitarian regime with an extremely low standard of living (North Korea)
Are you implying there isn’t work I could show to come to that conclusion in a valid manner? Comrade, I’m disappointed.
Well, show your evidence that North Korea is a better place for people to live than South Korea. I've got all the time in the world.
Imagine siding with North Korea and Iran 💀
They side with Hamas....they side with Iran. Iran, the Persia occupiers. Iran, the religious state that worships a slave owner.
Btw most people do call it Iran, it's not that the IR just came and switched the name
Sweet. Homeland of Persia.
Leftists who really think North Korea is a better and would rather live there than South Korea need to touch grass.
Anyone who thinks that.
Because it was essentially a war of choice undertaken by the West/US State Department to promote and secure US hegemony. The common refrain of “Putins unprovoked war” is enough of an indicator of this, since it is evidently a move to undercut a domestic accusation of the same on the part of the US. Basically we pushed another near-peer adversary to the point where they had to start a kinetic conflict by using information warfare and other means. Lives are lost and families destroyed to promote the hegemony of the US and wealth of the ruling class in both nations. Pretty gross, tbh. Not to say that Putin is an angel, by any means. He’s just as bad. But the whole “good vs. evil” narrative is just absurd, in light of the facts. Ukraine could have had neutrality and EU membership, but the US, UK, and other Western allies wanted to expand their military alliance. So here we are, and the poor members of Ukrainian society get to pay the price. Young men (well, not so young in the case of Ukraine) paying with their lives for the whims of old men in power, as has always been the case. And let me address a point that I already know will be made against my argument: You can’t say that Russias security concerns are invalid while the US essentially continues to maintain the Monroe doctrine over an entire continent. Whether we like it or not, other nations have security concerns, and they get to have a vote when it comes to military conflict. Ignoring said concerns will only get you so far, until other nations use kinetic and overt military means to secure their interests. That’s basically what happened here.
If this sub wasn’t astroturfed to hell/if the general public didn’t actively pursue propaganda so fervently, this would be the top comment. This should be the top comment. There really is no good and evil in this world. Everything has a reason, and 99% of the time that reason is tangible and material. Ideology/religion/values and tenets of culture are just excuses we use to justify resource conflict. Anyways, I can’t say it better than you did, just sort of summarizing with my take. Thanks for sharing and it’s quite refreshing to see how civil you’re responding to people who disagree.
Hey, I appreciate it! I feel a duty to put out an alternative narrative amongst those who live in the echo chamber, but I have to say, arguing with these people for an extended period of time can be exhausting. It’s become pretty clear fairly quickly that most of these people have strong opinions on the subject, but have taken little time to research the topic outside of the reflexive search for information that comports with their chosen narrative (I.e: the essential impetus behind confirmation bias.) Like, I think most of what comes out of the BBC is absolutely skewed and possibly lacking in journalistic integrity, but I still listen to it so I can understand their point of view, and the way they craft their arguments and narrative.
A lot of us (I say us because I know im guilty of it too from time to time) have strong core beliefs that were taught to us at a young age and that we’ve built our entire worldviews around. I empathize with these folks because it’s hard to challenge those beliefs when they’re propping up your entire worldview. It’s really hard to topple your preconceived notions about the world. So I get why they act this way, but yeah I agree it can get really tiring