Permanently Deleted
This concept that women would be less violent world leaders is just such a bizarrely sexist take.
There is no innate feature of the female body that makes them less prone to geopolitical conflict, lmfao.
:hillgasm: When you destroy Libya so you are the last Lib remaining.
:hillary-contempt: Next up: Liberia.
The funniest part is that lib who lib claimed Boudicca was an example to support the point. Siri, are massacres justified/non-violent?
It’s also very idealist and great person of history brained.
Executive leaders are just a cog in their nation state’s apparatus. Rarely do they have much ability to change anything, if they don’t go along with what the machine wants they get spit out. The entire structure and mechanisms of state and capital are much more powerful than any specific capitalist leader
Feminist international relations theory (specifically about how "war-like" leaders are) is not very compelling. We have historical evidence of a plenty of epic girlboss dictators who murdered their enemies. Indira Gandhi is one of my favorite examples. Fukuyama (yes the end of history guy) argues that in a democracy female voters are less likely to support war compared to men but even that has only shakey statistical evidence, plus the fact (that liberals won't accept) that democracy has never mattered in foreign policy and probably never will barring world revolution.
Other Feminist IR theorists are doing great work though deconstructing the international patriarchy. The "only men can be warmongers" is just a like a pop science thing in the field
Let's not go with the take that "women are alienated from the consequences of war". It is a really, really bad take.
To be fair under a patriarchy, the only women that are going to be elected into any form of power are going to be those that have politics that appeal to the patriarchy. So to say that Thatcher is any indication of what female leadership looks like is naive
hmm thats actually something i never really thought about…. really good point tbh
The capitalist state will spit out any leader that doesn’t inflict the necessary violence to suppress the growing contradictions. This is an irrelevant discussion under capitalism, it doesn’t matter what the personality of a leader is ultimately or whether the leadership is male of female dominated, it will have to violently wage class war or be toppled
Counterpoint: Fuck the british including the 4.000 britons peacefully inhabiting those isles who just want to keep on with their peaceful lives herding sheep and drinking tea. If they could they would colonize and destroy your country.
only in chapo chat would a stuggle session start up about the Falklands.
And most importantly, the people living there actually wanted to be Br*tish.
I'm not necessarily defending this stance, but NATO installing themselves in Ukraine could definitely be seen as aggression onto "disputed" land that was very recently Russian
Are these Russian government fascists in the room with us right now?
Nobody said they were socialist, but they aren’t fascist either. They are a boring old bourgeois liberal capitalist state like Syria, Belarus or Nicaragua - all of which we critically support for their anti-imperialist geopolitical actions.
Ukraine is quite literally fascist.
What makes Ukraine different from those boring old bourgeois liberal capitalist states? Pretty much every capitalist state has at some point supported fascists domestic and abroad.
8 years ago NATO threw a coup and backed local fascist militias Azov, Aidar, C14, Sveboda and Right Sector. These groups seized the state via illegitimate violence and murder of political opponents and civilian massacres. They have installed people from the aforementioned Nazi groups into all levels of power. Ministers, governors, mayors, military brass, police chiefs, etc. are filled top to bottom with out-and-out Nazi tattooed fascists. These Nazi militias in the tens of thousands were absorbed into the national guard and allowed to maintain their symbols and hierarchy. They wield control.
Azov battalion’s founder is a billionaire oligarch who also founded and funded Zelenskyy’s party. Either Zelenskyy can’t stop his Nazi army from slaughtering civilians in the Donbas and breaching the Minsk agreements (ceasefires that his government agreed to), or he doesn’t want to. Either way the fascists make the calls.
8 years ago NATO threw a coup and backed local fascist militias Azov, Aidar, C14, Sveboda and Right Sector. These groups seized the state via illegitimate violence and murder of political opponents and civilian massacres.
I agree with the first part, but what makes you think that these groups have seized the state? That is a pretty big claim. Does that mean that the legislature has no power now? Because the Nazis have one seat, so they're not really represented there. Is there anything on the Nazi presence in the Ukrainian government beyond anecdotes?
I mean I think Ukraine definitely tolerates Nazis and Zelenskyy is obviously corrupt and shady as hell, but I don't think that's the same as saying Ukraine is a fascist state. If the Nazis don't prove themselves useful anymore they might discard them entirely.
And even then, making the jump from that to Russia genuinely cares about fighting Nazis and doesn't have its own agenda is a pretty big leap. If Ukraine didn't have any Nazis I don't think much would have changed on Russias side. And frankly I don't see why I should afford so much goodwill to the politicians and oligarchs who dissolved the USSR and robbed its people. Fuck them.
The Ukrainian nazi militias being killed in the war is a nice side effect though, I will say that. :nazi-punching:
Why couldn’t Zelenskyy get his army to abide by the Minsk II ceasefire? Their are videos of him going to the Donbas front in the civil war in like 2019 and ordering them to back down and follow orders and they laugh at his face and keep shelling Donbas.
Who does it sound like is in charge here?
Ok, so the militias are able to defy the state and act independently. That just proves that the state is weak. I don't see how that shows that they're in charge. Do they regularly order him to do stuff?
No it proves the Nazis are de facto in control, and the US military fills in the gaps and funds and arms the Nazis. This is imperialist fascism, and Russia crushing it is based regardless of motive or if you trust their intent
This wasn’t just some militias. This is the national guard and the military. The military doesn’t obey the commander-in-chief and prefers their local swatstika covered officers and their guys in the interior ministry and intelligence. You know the people who actually wield the violent apparatus of the state.
It definitely does not prove that.
Nazis being defeated is good. But Russia isn't just defeating the nazis and then leaving are they. They just bombed a mall lmao.
Putin: Lenin was a moron for saying Ukraine has a right to exist
Online Marxist - Leninists : go off king
The most important structural aspect of this issue is the Ministry of Internal Affairs .
Deputy Minister for Internal Affairs, Vadym Troyan, Azov Batallion nazi. Minister for Internal Affairs, Arsen Avakov, Azov Batallion commander and nazi. Why are these two important? Because the Ministry of Internal Affairs holds executive power over a HUGE amount of the important levers of power in the country, including:
National Guard of Ukraine National Police of Ukraine Special Tasks Patrol Police State Border Guard Service of Ukraine Ukrainian Sea Guard State Emergency Service of Ukraine State Migration Service of Ukraine These roles, in control of nazis, gives free reign to the nazis to do ANYTHING they want. They control law and order in the country.
If you try to do anything the nazis don’t want they can just kill you or your family and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it. The nazis are the police. They will not investigate that killing afterwards.
What environment does this create? One where the nazis get everything they want because everyone knows they can’t go against them.
Moralist idealism. This shit is so boring. Look at effective actions and de jure power. Everything else is a smokescreen of ideology confusing you
Idealism is not when you make a statement about morality. I didn't make a universal statement about the morality of invasions.
Judging whether a geopolitical action is “good” based on what the intentions within the mind of Putin are is asinine libshit.
Their action is objectively, scientifically anti-imperialist and anti-fascist and the intentions of the actors is not relevant, only the actions themselves. You cannot even know the intentions, so you just assume the worst to maintain your chauvinist or ignorant neutrality
The problem is you cannot know what their actions 'objectively' are, as that does depend on their intentions.
-
If they want to defeat Nazis they will defeat them and leave (and maybe somehow ensure that they won't return).
-
If they want to annex Ukraine they will stay and impose their will on the Ukrainian people.
-
If they want to erase Ukrainian culture they will stay and suppress and possibly kill a certain section of Ukrainians.
-
If they want to ensure neutrality of Ukraine they could enforce demilitarisation, they could damage Ukraine enough to ensure unrest or economic destruction to prevent Ukraine from independently developing in a direction they don't like.
-
If they want to ensure Ukraine being independent but economically useful, they could try and install a useful government and ensure Ukraines economic subjugation.
I'm not saying that they want to do any of that, and not all of those things would be bad and some are more likely than others. And if the first thing happens and Ukrainian democracy is allowed to flourish afterwards I would be very happy to admit I'm wrong. But by saying that they're objectively, scientifically fighting imperialism and fascism you are making an assumption about their intention.
Now you are talking about “flourishing democracy” as if that’s even a possibility in bourgeois dictatorships. Exactly how much liberalism are you huffing right now?
Maybe that was poorly phrased but I think it's clear what I meant. A right to self-determination, at least as much as is possible under capitalism. A DotP would be great but I don't think that's realistic rn.
But accusing everyone who disagrees with you of liberalisms is easier than trying to understand what they're saying I suppose.
I’m not accusing you of anything, I’m recognizing moralism, idealism and liberalism in your comments and pointing it out
Then I disagree with how you're using those words. But honestly I really don't think we will come to an agreement on this so I think we should just leave it at that, it's pretty late where I live. We both agree that America is the worst and communism is good so I think thats fine for now. :fidel-peace:
The “Ukrainian people” in the Donbas have made their decision, they are never going back to the fascist Ukraine that attacked them openly. They will be joining Russia, as will Crimea and Southern Ukraine. This is the natural consequence of collapse of legitimacy and power, and persecution of your own people.
Again, intentions don’t matter. They are not relevant. You can just analyze what has occurred with a Marxist anti-imperialist lens
I fully support the people of the Donbas in their right to self-determination.
Intentions matter when they decide what the warring parties will do. If Russias intention is to annex all of Ukraine they will do that. If they don't intend that then they won't. One result would be bad and one wouldn't.
You are judging current Russia off of future hypotheticals you have no way of knowing.
Judge Russia by their actions they have actually done, in the real world not the hypothetical one. Things like crushing NATO coups in Belarus, Syria and Kazakhstan. All objectively anti-imperialist actions, none of which they have annexed.
By the way, that mall story was actually that there was a massive arms and ammo warehouse right next door which is now a crater. Fire spread across the train tracks to the mall, which is a standing smoldering ruin from fire not missiles. It is the responsibility of Ukraine not to put their military targets right on top of heavily populated and trafficked civilian areas, or at least close the mall down. Russia striking an arms warehouse is a legitimate military target, it’s not their fault Ukraine always uses civilian hostages and human shields.
-
No offense but you couldn’t spot a Nazi state if it was running you over with a tank and gassing ethnic minorities right in front of you. This is as clear cut, 100% obvious as it gets and you are still in denial
Everyone who you would call a Nazi I think I would also call a Nazi. All I'm disputing is the level of influence they wield in the Ukrainian government.
No you agree that fascists exist within Ukraine. Fascists exist within every nation, that’s not even under dispute. You don’t believe Ukraine is fascist state when it clearly is dominated by fascists backed by imperialists (who work hand-in-hand, as seen with Al Qaeda, ISIS, contras, Pinochet, the ROC, etc.)
The imperialist finance capitalists (US, UK, NATO) and the fascist militaries. That’s it. There are no other factions. Both work together, both need to be destroyed.
I can’t believe you can’t recognize this after a cursory glance over the last decade’s history. Color revolution -> fascist paramilitaries killing ethnic minorities -> fascist paramilitaries gaining control of the government and absorbing themselves into it -> continued shelling of Donbas in breach of ceasefires -> destruction of all soviet legacy and glorifying Bandera
They could not possibly be more fascist than they are. How can you not recognize a fascist state?
The funny thing is I don't even disagree with most of the things you're saying. Just some of your conclusions. But have you ever looked at what fascist Italy and Spain and Germany looked like? By your definition the Weimar Republic was also fascist. And once you start there the word uses its meaning pretty quickly.
I’m not really sure what your point is even bring that up, how is the Weimar Germany comparable to Maidan Ukraine? Did Weimar Germany have thousands of Nazi officials installed all throughout the government and control of the military, intelligence and executive branches? No, but Nazi Germany did.
Maidan Ukraine is much like Nazi Germany. Pre-Maidan Ukraine was more comparable to Weimar Germany.
Yes, Weimar had a pretty widespread infiltration of the judicial system by Nazi sympathisers and monarchists. And yes they had a militia, the SA they're pretty famous actually, that was tolerated by the government. Of course there were Nazis throughout the government they were a party that won a few elections.
Not “a militia”. THE military. Fascists in Ukraine control THE military, police and national guard
This is their fascist aspect. They are also imperialists. They are an outpost and forward operating base of NATO, which has been training their troops since 2014; funding their military & building NATO airbases. The global imperialist hegemony is the Atlanticist bloc, the anglo-American finance capitalists. This includes the governments of USA, UK, western Europe, Australia, Canada, NZ and their compradors and allies around the world.
Anyone who opposes this unipolar hegemony militarily is functionally anti-imperialist, even conservative bourgeois dictatorships like Iran. It would be anti-imperialist, for example, if Iran invaded Israel to liberate Palestine (even if it was done for selfish reasons like regional power and influence). I would support this action, I would not “both sides” the situation and say that both Israel and Iran are fascists. That’s lazy flattening lib shit
*Disagree with the nuke part but that was clearly hyperbole I hope
Do not apologize for outspoken critical support of Russia’s anti-imperialist action
falklands? i thought he was talking about russia and ukr**ne
