Not at all, Marxists are quite critical of Russia, for example, for being deeply socially reactionary, or China for engaging with trade with Israel, rather than sanctioning it. Marxists don’t accept prevailing western narratives surrounding enemies of the US Empire, which anti-Marxists try to simplify into simple reaction against the US Empire, rather than actually engage with the reasoning for supporting, say, China overall fronted by Marxists.
This is deliberate ignorance. Marxists see the modern Russian Federation as a right-wing, Nationalist Capitalist country that is socially reactionary. Marxists tend to support Russia’s movements against the US Empire, which is seen as a much greater evil, and appreciate ties to countries like China that may have a positive influence on Russia reverting to Socialism, but there is much to be critical of in Russia. When you have to make up your opponent’s position, you’re deliberately lying to others, and frequently yourself as well.
How do Marxists see the USSR, China under Mao, Hoxhua, North Korea, Pol Pot, and Sendero Luminoso?
Let me guess:
USSR and Mao generally good, particularly given circumstances; Hoxhua who?; North Korea better than South Korea (and PRC even today is better than ROC); Pol Pot wasn’t a true Scotsman; and you like at least a few RATM songs.
You’re pretty close, generally. Pol Pot wasn’t a Marxist at all, though, the Khmer Rouge rejected Marxism, and his form of “communism” was deeply anti-materialist and was idealist in nature. He was also stopped by the Vietnamese. Hoxha is Hoxha. The Korea bit and USSR/PRC bits are of course oversimplified, but broadly accepted as correct.
So the content is the resolution is good, but its nonetheless contacted some kind of metaphysical badness unrelated to it’s content due to it being proposed by a bad guy and not a good guy.
Maybe we can get it proposed by Israel instead, then it would be a good guy presenting it because they only invade non-white countries
Russia wrote it for a reason. Think for a few seconds on why that might be.
And please stop lumping me in with the imperialist crowd. I’m anti-imperialism, but unlike some of y’all I (rhetorically) oppose all imperialism not just western imperialism.
Russia wrote it for a reason. Think for a few seconds on why that might be.
Because NATO put a bunch of Nazis in its command structure and the U.S. has backed various fascists countless times in the last 80 years, so it would put the western alliance in an embarrassing spot.
That’s like half of politics: trying to embarass your opponents into backing off various positions.
So the content is the resolution is good, but its nonetheless contacted some kind of metaphysical badness unrelated to it’s content due to it being proposed by a bad guy and not a good guy.
I’m anti-imperialism, but unlike some of y’all I (rhetorically) oppose all imperialism not just western imperialism.
“Unlike you, I believe that all lives matter, not just black ones”
I never said the content of the resolution is good. I haven’t read it. I’m just assuming it isn’t since Russia sponsored it. And even if it is actually good, the hypocrisy of the Russians sponsoring a condemnation of Nazism is notable.
Just because a country is anti-American doesn’t mean it’s anti-evil. I shouldn’t need to explain this. I don’t know why I even tried. This isn’t worth it. You’re not acting in good faith. Drawing a false equivalency between “all lives matter” and “all colonialism is bad”. Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine is bad. Israel’s genocide of Palestinians is bad. America is bad. All three things can be true at once, the world isn’t black and white. Seriously what level of Reddit-brain must you have to try to say stuff like this.
I should really just mute this whole conversation. I’m gonna look for the button.
I’m just assuming it isn’t since Russia sponsored it.
Ok, I’m just going to not read your comments and assume they’re bad because your a westerner.
the hypocrisy of the Russians sponsoring a condemnation of Nazism is notable.
What a disgusting thing to say.
You’re not acting in good faith.
Can I ask a serious question? Who is it that told you idiots that any disagreement is “bad faith”? Because you all deploy this exact phrase, word for word, any time anyone disagrees with you. It’s your favourite thought terminating cliche.
Drawing a false equivalency between “all lives matter” and “all colonialism is bad”.
It’s a completely apt equivalence, you just don’t want it to be.
Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine is bad. Israel’s genocide of Palestinians is bad. America is bad. All three things can be true at once, the world isn’t black and white. Seriously what level of Reddit-brain must you have to try to say stuff like this.
What the fuck is this complete non-sequitor? Not to mention it runs counter to your position up to know (“if Russia says Nazis bad, then Nazis good”)
the world isn’t black and white.
Your whole argument is that Russia is bad, so anything they do is bad! That’s the most black and white argument imaginable!
I should really just mute this whole conversation. I’m gonna look for the button.
Liberals are so insecure in their white supremacy, they need to shut their eyes and ears whenever someone even suggests that westerners aren’t superior
“If Russia says Nazis are bad, than Nazis must be good!”
Liberal politics is just reaction.
fyp
I love it, it leads to epic blunders like having an homage to a nazi in Canada.
Yeah, but they just expunge that from their collective memory.
There’s at least one Nazi who fought in the SS buried in the Arlington Cemetery in DC.
It is funny because tankie thought is literal positive reaction to anything Russia and China does. Your comment shows it is also pure projection.
Not at all, Marxists are quite critical of Russia, for example, for being deeply socially reactionary, or China for engaging with trade with Israel, rather than sanctioning it. Marxists don’t accept prevailing western narratives surrounding enemies of the US Empire, which anti-Marxists try to simplify into simple reaction against the US Empire, rather than actually engage with the reasoning for supporting, say, China overall fronted by Marxists.
That remains to be seen. Hasn’t happened yet. But perhaps some day?
This is deliberate ignorance. Marxists see the modern Russian Federation as a right-wing, Nationalist Capitalist country that is socially reactionary. Marxists tend to support Russia’s movements against the US Empire, which is seen as a much greater evil, and appreciate ties to countries like China that may have a positive influence on Russia reverting to Socialism, but there is much to be critical of in Russia. When you have to make up your opponent’s position, you’re deliberately lying to others, and frequently yourself as well.
How do Marxists see the USSR, China under Mao, Hoxhua, North Korea, Pol Pot, and Sendero Luminoso?
Let me guess:
USSR and Mao generally good, particularly given circumstances; Hoxhua who?; North Korea better than South Korea (and PRC even today is better than ROC); Pol Pot wasn’t a true Scotsman; and you like at least a few RATM songs.
You’re pretty close, generally. Pol Pot wasn’t a Marxist at all, though, the Khmer Rouge rejected Marxism, and his form of “communism” was deeply anti-materialist and was idealist in nature. He was also stopped by the Vietnamese. Hoxha is Hoxha. The Korea bit and USSR/PRC bits are of course oversimplified, but broadly accepted as correct.
Thank you for your reply. 😁🙂
No problem!
Turns out when you refuse to open your eyes, you don’t see things. What a shock.
“it’s funny because I’ve strawmanned you”
Yes, that is exactly what you did. Repeating it does also make it funnier.
I was paraphrasing you. Given that you were the one strawmanning, that should have been obvious.
I said the resolution is bad, not the principle. You’re again misrepresenting something to further your own narrative.
So the content is the resolution is good, but its nonetheless contacted some kind of metaphysical badness unrelated to it’s content due to it being proposed by a bad guy and not a good guy.
Maybe we can get it proposed by Israel instead, then it would be a good guy presenting it because they only invade non-white countries
Russia wrote it for a reason. Think for a few seconds on why that might be.
And please stop lumping me in with the imperialist crowd. I’m anti-imperialism, but unlike some of y’all I (rhetorically) oppose all imperialism not just western imperialism.
Because NATO put a bunch of Nazis in its command structure and the U.S. has backed various fascists countless times in the last 80 years, so it would put the western alliance in an embarrassing spot.
That’s like half of politics: trying to embarass your opponents into backing off various positions.
So the content is the resolution is good, but its nonetheless contacted some kind of metaphysical badness unrelated to it’s content due to it being proposed by a bad guy and not a good guy.
“Unlike you, I believe that all lives matter, not just black ones”
I never said the content of the resolution is good. I haven’t read it. I’m just assuming it isn’t since Russia sponsored it. And even if it is actually good, the hypocrisy of the Russians sponsoring a condemnation of Nazism is notable.
Just because a country is anti-American doesn’t mean it’s anti-evil. I shouldn’t need to explain this. I don’t know why I even tried. This isn’t worth it. You’re not acting in good faith. Drawing a false equivalency between “all lives matter” and “all colonialism is bad”. Russia’s Invasion of Ukraine is bad. Israel’s genocide of Palestinians is bad. America is bad. All three things can be true at once, the world isn’t black and white. Seriously what level of Reddit-brain must you have to try to say stuff like this.
I should really just mute this whole conversation. I’m gonna look for the button.
Ok, I’m just going to not read your comments and assume they’re bad because your a westerner.
What a disgusting thing to say.
Can I ask a serious question? Who is it that told you idiots that any disagreement is “bad faith”? Because you all deploy this exact phrase, word for word, any time anyone disagrees with you. It’s your favourite thought terminating cliche.
It’s a completely apt equivalence, you just don’t want it to be.
What the fuck is this complete non-sequitor? Not to mention it runs counter to your position up to know (“if Russia says Nazis bad, then Nazis good”)
Your whole argument is that Russia is bad, so anything they do is bad! That’s the most black and white argument imaginable!
Google Satre’s quote about anti-Semites
Elaborate?
They’re doing double genocide theory, I’m guessing
Bummer, i wanted him to say that the soviets were nazi allies during ww2.
Russia is at war with nazis currently. Of course they have the most to gain from condemning nazism.
God I wish I could’ve found the mute button, just so I could avoid hearing this bad take.
Liberals are so insecure in their white supremacy, they need to shut their eyes and ears whenever someone even suggests that westerners aren’t superior
Then stop trying to get the last word in, dumb ass
I cant find that mute button but the block option is in the three dots menu below my comment if you’re on web
Removed by mod
“The resolution is bad because it condemns people who fought alongside the Nazis to genocide the USSR.”
Not beating the Nazi allegations.
“People who fought for freedom from the USSR were genociding it.”
This is just the European equivelant of defending the confederates, except the confederates weren’t allied with the literal Nazis.