Does that matter to the people the UKR military kills in Iran and helps kill in Palestine?
But no, the Ukranian people have not had a choice in anything since having their government surgically replaced in 2014, or for that matter since having their government illegally dissolved in 1991.
My point with this specific post, as an olive branch to people who may not be familiar with the communist position, is not “Ukraine bad” so much as “This is what eventually happens to every American ‘ally’ no matter what promises have been made to the contrary, and other countries had best take notice”.
I don’t understand why tankies can’t make the logical step from “governments of the west don’t care about any peoples’ sovereignty (despite justifying their war efforts with claims that they do) because ultimately they just serve whatever keeps them in power” to “no governments care about any peoples’ sovereignty because ultimately they just serve whatever keeps them in power”
I actually did make that exact step as a teenage anarchist. Then I continued learning and realized this was an incorrect generalization, so I proceeded to update my understanding of the world in accordance with my dataset, something I have continued to do to this day and which has led me here. I followed a path of careful fact finding and reflection, and it turns out that political maturity is realizing the commies were correct.
If you learn enough, stay humble enough, and pay close enough attention, eventually that’s what happens. You realize that, generally speaking, the really high-octane commies have the most lucid understanding of the world out of any group out there, and the only reason this wasn’t always obvious to you was because you live under a capitalist power structure which aggressively indoctrinates its populace from birth into believing that communism is No No Bad Bad.
They have the most lucid and correct understanding of capitalism. They have the most lucid and correct understanding of imperialist extraction. They have the most lucid and correct understanding of western warmongering, global power dynamics, white supremacy, institutional racism and misogyny. That’s why they keep being proven right, about everything from US military actions to the fascism of the far right to the abusive nature of the so-called “moderate” liberal to the moral depravity of billionaires and the capitalist class.
there’s no group which perceives the abusive dynamics of this civilization with a greater degree of intellectual clarity as a whole.
…except for anarcho-communists who actually know what they’re talking about.
I don’t disagree with this as a whole–Marxists are pretty much dead on with most of their analysis and see the world a hell of a lot more clearly than people still indoctrinated by capitalism. The problem is that Marxists-Leninists don’t go far enough when they diagnose the problems with capitalist society. They think it’s enough that power structures are seized by the proletariat and set up to align with their interests, as they believe (based on their analysis of how societies work) this will inherently cause the power structures to wither away over time. But that’s not how power works. You can’t fully reduce it down to class conflict.
When a Marxist says “the history of societies is the history of class struggle”, imo there are two ways to read it:
(a) Class and class struggle has made up the core of all societies’ structure and general existence for all history; or
(b) There is nothing else to societies’ structure or general existence that is not reducible to class and class struggle
I agree with (a). It’s supported by history and evidence. (b) inherently can’t be because it presupposes itself.
From my own understanding of history, I think that a strictly ML understanding of how societies work misses a vitally important aspect of the role power plays. I could be wrong about that! But I’ve yet to see a ML explanation of why it’s necessarily wrong. And I think the reason for that it because ML theory presupposes itself. It wants to say (b). And in that sense, I think it’s actually a wildly un-humble framework: not only does it make the bold claim that all of history is just class, it forms the basis for governments that force this restrictive historical understanding on people and dismiss any other framework as liberal or reactionary.
As the article claims about MLs, there are plenty of anarchists who don’t know what they’re talking about–who have a really shallow understanding of power or are secretly just liberals. But anarcho-communism is thus far the only framework I’ve found that addresses all of the historical dynamics and structures identified by Marx and Marxists while still being humble enough to admit that it doesn’t necessarily hold all the right answers and that it’s not the only valid framework out there.
Is it? Or are y’all just so absorbed in your faux-scientific application of context-dependent dynamics to every aspect of how you think the world works that you’ve forgotten basic ideas like “people tend to want to hold onto power” and “people in power see threats to power as threats on their lives and will therefore do all they can to protect it”?
So true, bestie. When you completely make up nonsensical positions and assign them to people, completely unrelated to what they say or believe, those positions are indeed nonsensical!
Does that matter to the people the UKR military kills in Iran and helps kill in Palestine?
But no, the Ukranian people have not had a choice in anything since having their government surgically replaced in 2014, or for that matter since having their government illegally dissolved in 1991.
My point with this specific post, as an olive branch to people who may not be familiar with the communist position, is not “Ukraine bad” so much as “This is what eventually happens to every American ‘ally’ no matter what promises have been made to the contrary, and other countries had best take notice”.
I don’t understand why tankies can’t make the logical step from “governments of the west don’t care about any peoples’ sovereignty (despite justifying their war efforts with claims that they do) because ultimately they just serve whatever keeps them in power” to “no governments care about any peoples’ sovereignty because ultimately they just serve whatever keeps them in power”
I actually did make that exact step as a teenage anarchist. Then I continued learning and realized this was an incorrect generalization, so I proceeded to update my understanding of the world in accordance with my dataset, something I have continued to do to this day and which has led me here. I followed a path of careful fact finding and reflection, and it turns out that political maturity is realizing the commies were correct.
…except for anarcho-communists who actually know what they’re talking about.
I don’t disagree with this as a whole–Marxists are pretty much dead on with most of their analysis and see the world a hell of a lot more clearly than people still indoctrinated by capitalism. The problem is that Marxists-Leninists don’t go far enough when they diagnose the problems with capitalist society. They think it’s enough that power structures are seized by the proletariat and set up to align with their interests, as they believe (based on their analysis of how societies work) this will inherently cause the power structures to wither away over time. But that’s not how power works. You can’t fully reduce it down to class conflict.
When a Marxist says “the history of societies is the history of class struggle”, imo there are two ways to read it: (a) Class and class struggle has made up the core of all societies’ structure and general existence for all history; or (b) There is nothing else to societies’ structure or general existence that is not reducible to class and class struggle
I agree with (a). It’s supported by history and evidence. (b) inherently can’t be because it presupposes itself.
From my own understanding of history, I think that a strictly ML understanding of how societies work misses a vitally important aspect of the role power plays. I could be wrong about that! But I’ve yet to see a ML explanation of why it’s necessarily wrong. And I think the reason for that it because ML theory presupposes itself. It wants to say (b). And in that sense, I think it’s actually a wildly un-humble framework: not only does it make the bold claim that all of history is just class, it forms the basis for governments that force this restrictive historical understanding on people and dismiss any other framework as liberal or reactionary.
As the article claims about MLs, there are plenty of anarchists who don’t know what they’re talking about–who have a really shallow understanding of power or are secretly just liberals. But anarcho-communism is thus far the only framework I’ve found that addresses all of the historical dynamics and structures identified by Marx and Marxists while still being humble enough to admit that it doesn’t necessarily hold all the right answers and that it’s not the only valid framework out there.
Because that’s a kindergarten understanding of socialist/ML theory and politics in general
Is it? Or are y’all just so absorbed in your faux-scientific application of context-dependent dynamics to every aspect of how you think the world works that you’ve forgotten basic ideas like “people tend to want to hold onto power” and “people in power see threats to power as threats on their lives and will therefore do all they can to protect it”?
That’s a position I respect. Yep.
Yes American promises are why Russia invaded despite being signatories to a treaty guaranteeing Ukrainian sovereignty.
Why do you think Russia invaded?
Excuses are great, still breaks a treaty.
That sort of thing has a real cost in geopolitics.
Condescension aside, saying that in favor of the faction that kicked this off by breaking both Minsk Agreements is some crazy irony
Anyway why did Russia cross the border, according to you?
Ukraine didn’t break the Minsk agreements and no reputable source claims they did.
Russia invaded Ukraine because they fear neighbouring states that aren’t under Russia’s boot.
If you were a communist you’d recognise that Russia is a totalitarian Oligarchy and a terrible place for the proletariat.
That’s the best part. They’re communist in name only. Like China!
They can’t understand anything not told to them by propaganda outlets, don’t expect them to know history or reality.
So true, bestie. When you completely make up nonsensical positions and assign them to people, completely unrelated to what they say or believe, those positions are indeed nonsensical!
That really tells us a lot about the world 🤓