• 17 Posts
Joined 1Y ago
Cake day: Apr 06, 2022

Do you sometimes think about the worldview of opposing ideologies?
To have a comprehensive worldview is very desirable, because then you know how everything works, but in my opinion, you won't ever know how everything truly works until you also understand how people work, where are they coming from, and mainly, what informs and drives their decisions. So here's the deal, before becoming a communist, I used to be a liberal, and then also very briefly one of those alt right pseudointellectuals. As my ideological framework changed, I kept updating my worldview, and usually, I simply discarded those beliefs that I did not subscribe to anymore. However, I still think about them sometimes, and I wish I remembered them better, because I think it would also help me understand other people who still subscribe to them. Does anyone else think about such things sometimes, and is there also some resource or can someone personally shed some light on these ideologies? Because I would certainly like to learn more about them (and remember what I forgot), about how the people who subscribe to them think about things and the world at large. I was partly motivated to make this post by this Tumblr thread: [https://tsskyx.tumblr.com/post/711936491331436544/bemusedlybespectacled-hazeldomain](https://tsskyx.tumblr.com/post/711936491331436544/bemusedlybespectacled-hazeldomain)

How exactly is NATO escalating the Ukraine war?
Sometimes it's difficult to find a good argument against blindly siding with Ukraine against Russia, so I'm wondering what to say next time some NATO worshipper orders me to fulfill my daily NATO worship quota or else he's gonna cancel me on twitter dot com or whatever. What are the facts? For one, I don't believe Ukraine belongs to Russia and I don't want to be excusing Russian war crimes, let's get that out of the way. I don't want to make those kinds of arguments. For two, I also don't want to say that Ukraine should cede all ground, let Russia take over (assuming that's what they want to do), and only help the refugees who fled to us and do nothing else. (Also, I'm not sure what to make of Donbas and Crimea. It was indeed weird that NATO did nothing when the latter got annexed, but now...?) Three, I'm wary of "future predictions"; I don't want to predicate my stance on the matter on the possibility that Russia's war effort will eventually falter and things will get back to normal anyways. Opinions akin to this do not seem very thought-out to me. Something similar goes regarding the Ukraine corruption and Nazis arguments. Yes, these issues are real, but it doesn't seem to me like they justify letting Ukraine be invaded by someone who doesn't seem to be doing it for those reasons in particular. And lastly, if I should accept the idea that NATO is fundamentally bad because it is the muscle of the Euro-American empire, rather than just marginally bad due to whatever bad thing it's currently doing in regards to the Ukraine war (again, highlight what exactly it is), then what about those "NATO is just a defensive pact" arguments? Who exactly can and cannot join NATO, who are its enemies, what are its motivations, etc? I'm hearing a lot of comparisons between Russia and Nazi Germany where I live (I'm Czech). They compare the way both have expanded, were initially tolerated, but then they expanded too much and war broke out. They compare Hitler and Putin and their "Lebensraum" vs "vulnerable borders" and call both bs. BS because Germany had enough space, and because Russia isn't the only nation with vulnerable borders, yet they're the only ones complaining. What do I even say? At this point, my entire opinion amounts to "war is bad and the fighting should stop", which, despite how much I've learned over the past year, seems awfully uneducated.

I don’t think I’ve used any third party apps like this one, so I’m wondering what is it that I’ve actually done back then.

Lemmy homescreen app?
A few months ago when I first joined Lemmy, I saw a guide for adding Lemmy to my phone's homescreen. The app was just a chrome shortcut, but it always opened in a standalone window with a little chrome icon appearing on my notifications bar, and was pretty fast. Also, I'm registered on the Lemmygrad instance, but the app's icon was the default Lemmy logo. Recently, I've deleted this app while cleaning my phone, and found a way to add the website to my homescreen again, but this time, it's totally different. For one, the icon is more thematic, which is great, but the app now opens as a new browser tab and is therefore very slow. I don't imagine I've downloaded any dedicated app before, I think I did something much simpler but can't remember what anymore. If someone knows how to create what I had before (and if it's still possible even), that would be great.

mentions oppressive communist regimes

gives examples of backwards and genocidal third world regimes that are even further away from communism than the US regime itself

Liberals really just have only two braincells, do they? One for memorizing all the “good” stuff and places and one for all the “bad” stuff and places.

A new pension law has been approved by the Czech house of representatives and passed to the senate for approval, aiming to lower pensions for former government representatives during the communist era (which ended over 30 years ago) by 300 crowns (cca 12 USD) **per each year** in service. (I fucking hate populism.) ((For anyone confused by that translated title, "knocked down" should have been translated as "approved", in the sense of striking a table with a gavel.))

Is this perhaps an indicator that an actual non-"color revolution" revolution might be possible in Iran?

At the cost of sounding like an anarkiddie, I would call this a conservative current in communism. Many communists are deeply patriotic, so my question was aimed mainly at them. From an idealist perspective however, my personal opinion is pretty clear. I would betray whoever tried to draft me, regardless of which side they were on. I don’t know if that’s an anti-communist thing to say. I just want to believe in something that would produce the most happiness for everyone.

Should Russians resist the draft?
Keep in mind, I am not Russian, and that I do not consider Russia to be imperialist. I do have this one question however. Considering that the Russian communist party originally disagreed with going beyond Donbas and invading the rest of Ukraine too (and also because in WW1, it was the communists who decided against continuing to fight in the war, but that is distant history), I have to ask, is this truly a fight for Russia's survival, that absolutely necessitates drafting regular people, at this point in the conflict? The draft, despite being partial and applicable to ex-soldiers only, still affects some people that have nothing to do with the army - this is happening because there are quotas that need to be fulfilled. Some privileged people also seem to have been given immunity from it, and some protesters were also drafted: https://zona.media/chronicle/211#49874 https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-excludes-some-it-professionals-bankers-state-journalists-mobilisation-2022-09-23/ https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/sep/22/russia-mobilisation-ukraine-war-army-drive Assuming that all of these stories are true, what should regular Russians do about it? Should they do anything, should they oppose it? And, if these stories are not true, should they still do something? Even if it's true that only ex-soldiers are being drafted, that still carries a similar weight with it - because they are still just regular people, who could have joined the army for a variety of reasons, voluntarily or otherwise. I know next to nothing about Russia, the true state of the Ukraine conflict, and the present threat level that NATO poses. All I know is that multipolarity is preferable to unipolarity, but is this the only correct path forward towards that goal?

The recent 70,000-strong demonstration in Prague has been slandered in a similar fashion

There's a lot of talk about NATO expansion, but it sometimes rings a bit hollow, whereas economical/resource arguments are much more compelling imo.

What does Marxism say about banking?
Before I became a communist, I used to believe that the largest de-facto conspiracy out there was the money-issuing capability of national and international banks. After discovering the truth behind communism, I immediately stopped being interested in this conspiracy theory, because it was plagued by antisemitism and all too often coincided with cryptocurrency promotion programs or religious preaching. That said, after two years or so of exploring Marxism, I haven't stumbled upon almost any solid attempts at debunking the narrative that is being spread in many of the right-wing "libertarian" circles, as most Marxist analysis is focused on class and class differences, rather than bourgeois economical ideas. So, I am asking now, what does Marxism say about banking? Specifically, here are a few videos that I used to watch and get my ideas about banking from before I became a communist. Some of them peddle obvious falsehoods, such as the one about the Rothschilds and the events of the battle of Waterloo, but others are more difficult to disprove: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQUhJTxK5mA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mDlnM481Gcg https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nBPN-MKefA

I’m not taking it into consideration. On the contrary, I’m looking for sources to debunk it. Ever since genzhou got banned, I’ve lost access to a lot of good resources.

Holodomor timeline?
I've heard so many retellings of this event already. Both sides present their own cohesive version of the events that implicates the other side, and it's hard to distill what the actual truth is. Obviously, two contradictory narratives cannot be right at the same time, unless they do not mutually exclude each other, but both sides present theirs as if there was nothing more to it. For example, the most recent anti-communist timeline I've seen was a one presented by Vox in one of their recent videos, but it is clear to me that they omitted a lot of key details (they for example did not mention anything about the Kulaks, instead choosing to label them a mere target of Stalin's propaganda, thus implying they literally did nothing at all during the time, or claiming that grain was being exported out of Ukraine on purpose, thus once again supporting the genocide argument). What I would like to see is a timeline that not only says things as they happened, but also addresses the many common misconceptions, rumors and lies. A few claims I'm picking from Wikipedia: - "rejection of outside aid, confiscation of all household foodstuffs and restriction of population movement" (intentional, or unrelated?) - "a peacetime catastrophe unprecedented in Ukrainian history" (thus implying that it was an intentional genocide, since nothing, which is "the biggest", could possibly be of natural origin, at least that is the implication here) - "the famine arose because of rapid Soviet industrialisation and collectivization of agriculture" (the exact opposite case of what is usually claimed in ML circles) One would think that we'd finally get to the bottom of it, a hundred years later.

The laptop story was obviously real, the QAnon part was just randos making wild conjectures and blowing it up into completely unrelated territories like population mind control, new lizard world order, child blood drinking, and similar nonsense. I suppose, when I look at it from the other side, when the emphasis is placed on the easily discreditable parts of it, then that makes it look like the entire story is fake. Perhaps the biolabs really are producing WMDs, it just so happens that this one guy presented the story without evidence it and it turned into this entire thing before actual evidence of anything was discovered.

Did Nuland or someone else testify that the DoD funded them? Even then, did DoD send more than just money and/or did it promote large-scale bioculture manufacturing, way above the publicly disclosed scope? The US has its fingers in everything, but evidence is still required to present such claims, especially when they implicate a foreign nation. At lest, I would consider that common sense. I’ve heard stories of various US departments funding the weirdest of shit, so the story could turn out to be a dead end.

Bro seriously? How does their bias affect the facts that they’ve reported on? Or do you have actual evidence showing that the biolabs story did not in fact originate from a QAnon dumpster? And there’s no need to cite Nuland, I’ve heard about it, the existence of those labs is public knowledge. Whether they actually contain biological weapons is unknown as of yet.

But that just sounds like shifting the blame now. Both sides can be guilty of the same thing, and just because that one side is heavily biased doesn’t mean that their own sources that they present are bunk too. By all means, we can investigate these claims ourselves, there’s no need for Vice to spoon-feed us a prepared narrative.

Also yeah, its not imperialism per se, but it still has a strategic / economical motive, ie. a motive beneficial to Russia. Why would Russia launch a war, if it had nothing to gain? And for the record, I don’t buy the idea that they’re just trying to level the odds. No one is automatically this nice and polite, especially not bourgeois nation-states. When Russia becomes a communist state again, then perhaps it will become more believable.

For now, I don’t think the evidence for biological warfare research in Ukraine amounts to anything. Though if a secret facility does exist somewhere that no one has discovered yet, then that would be quite the coincidence.



I haven’t actively researched this story, but these two did cross my path over the past few days. The first explains that the claim originated from a bogus conspiracy theory, and the second debunks some supposed evidence that has been presented towards the claim. (The second one has a strong “anti-tankie” vibe, but if you can stomach that, it’s a pretty well-researched video overall.)

As of right now, I don’t have any “good” sources that would be in favor of the theory. If there are any, they would need to debunk the above two links in their entirety.

Anywhere I can read more about this? The news are moving very fast now, so it’s difficult to search for stuff like that.

I was going off of the supposed news that Putin was dismayed by how slowly the war is going, as well as the reports that the Russian army is lacking in equipment. Personally, I think that a lack of intelligence did play a role too. As for the sanctions, this seems to be implying that they indeed were effective at stalling Russia’s advance. Would you say that this is the case? I know it’s a big lib talking point, that sanctions work, so I am hesitant to draw conclusions.

And yes, it is rather interesting to speculate just how much could Russia be hiding. Then again, for me, such speculations always seemed bordering with hidden tech fantasies and conspiracy theories, so I prefer relying on confirmed info. It could be that the news that Putin is unhappy with the development of the war is itself propaganda, meant to convince us that the Russian war machine is running out of juice, but the opposite would imply that Ukraine is not important enough for Russia to be worth investing much into war resources, so it’s difficult to say. Put simply, is it a blunder, or a strategic loss? I don’t know, and I hope I can learn more about this somewhere.

And yes, I meant that Putin seems like a conservative bigot from the american point of view, so it’s understandable why some might say these things and draw these Hitler comparisons.

Very well, thank you for explaining it. That said, we do see that the progress of Russian troops is beginning to stagnate. It seems that Putin or his generals miscalculated. Why do you think it is, that the war didn’t go for them as expected?

See, the reason for all these questions is, that aside from this place, my other major source for info about the war is the many liberal, usually apolitical subreddits, that I’m subscribed to on Reddit. That’s how they get me, they act apolitical, but then the mods pin some atrocity that I simply must take a look at. And, well… there were many stories covered by them that the communists around here and on Reddit haven’t really talked about that much, such as for example the material impact of the war on the ground, coverage of the civilian victims, i.e. things that illicit the greatest emotional response in liberals. (They also debunked some stories that I’ve seen around here, such as the claim that the dead bodies in Bucha were moving. Apparently they weren’t after all.)

And the times that this topic came up in my family’s circles, the discussion always circled back to this topic, and I didn’t really have anything to say, so I simply agreed to pretty much every single talking point they were having, because obviously, the loss of innocent life is terrible no matter what, and I also didn’t want to resort to whataboutisms regarding America’s wars, as that doesn’t seem very appropriate. (If anything, it looks dismissive or ignorant.)

Lastly, I originally mentioned Hitler, as he was exactly one of those types that believed in superstitious war strategies. He provided the general plans, and his generals fleshed them out to the best of their abilities. At least that’s how I’ve heard it be told. For example, his decision to invade the USSR apparently came to him after a solitary deliberation in the Alps. I.e., he picked the time of the invasion based on a nonsense reason. I initially thought that maybe Putin could have also been motivated by some superstition to greenlight such an operation, all else being left to his skilled generals as far as logistics go (so pretty much every single important decision, aside from the initial idea for the invasion itself).

I suppose that in the end, it doesn’t really matter what Putin thinks, right? The reason could have been anything and it wouldn’t change the fact that Putin decided to invade Ukraine in late February of 2022, superstitious or not. So I guess I really am arguing about nonsense. But he obviously is a conservative bigot, no denying that, so it’s understandable where the video that I shared was coming from.

I have explained in the original post that I do not think that this is the case, that there are material reasons for this war, as with anything else. I have merely wondered whether “LGBT issues” were a contributing factor.

So just to be clear, Putin does not think that the west is “weak”, he did not see an opportunity with Ukraine because of that, and when he displays such attitudes publicly, he is merely pandering to domestic bigots. Is that right? And also, speaking of Sun Tzu, is that something that played a role? It is an ancient book, most famous for telling how to defeat your opponent without fighting, i.e. through propaganda. Did Putin read Sun Tzu and did it influence his decision making? Or, what exactly are you saying?

It did seem rather far fetched to me too, but I wasn’t entirely sure, so I had to ask. So then, what is the main cause of Putin opening a war in this specific timeframe, early 2022? What specific opportunity did he see in it?

Well obviously they are. Is it therefore itself a rightist idea to suggest that this played a role in his decision making, i. e. something that only rightists alone would believe? Because obviously there are historical examples of various leaders nonetheless succumbing to such line of thinking.

So, you are of the opinion that Putin does in fact not factor western gendersex attitudes in matters of war, despite being seemingly full about it as of recent? (Such has his recent remarks about J. K. Rowling, which most people found very strange, coming from him.)

The attached video explains that a contributing element to Putin's decision to invade Ukraine was his perception that, due to the advancement of LGBT rights, the west has grown feebleminded. Since this is purely a matter of speculation that cannot be properly analysed on a material basis, I wanted to ask what is yours opinion on this. Is he making the same mistake that countless leaders have done over the years, including the prime example that was Hitler himself? For sure, there are material reasons why invading Ukraine is something he would want to do, but when it came to the decision alone, it is this fact that supposedly played a major role, i.e. predicting the enemy's response based on the state of their sexual culture. It also seems to be the reason why so many western rightists seem to be siding with him, since they perceive him as more macho than the imperial core. Are there any texts that attempt to analyze this phenomenon from a materialist viewpoint, and also, how similar is this to actual fascism?

My current opinion:

One doesn’t have to be fully pro-US to recognize that Russia is doing shitty things out of strategical geopolitics that just so happen to be anti-imperialist, and vice versa, one doesn’t have to be pro-Russia to recognize the amount of influence that the US exerts and wants to exert over the entire world. Obviously, every bold move requires certain sacrifices, but this shouldn’t be the cost of economical freedom. What’s the point of hoping for a better economical future, when the country is turned to ruin? It’s not like Russia has come to liberate Ukraine with the promise of building it back better and ensuring human rights; Putin is not Lenin. Not to mention that the crux of the issue seems to be with the Russian military’s command chain (you absolutely do have some abhorrent troop leaders in there).

I do not want to see any country or place ruined over what essentially amounts to a botched anti-imperialist struggle. Russia might be de-facto an anti-imperialist actor, but it does not have anti-imperialist goals. If it did, it would care about human lives and it wouldn’t disperse so much one-sided propaganda. Russia has patriotic (country-oriented) interests, which include nationalism, religion, and patriarchy. These goals serve only its own interests, and other people-groups are paying the price of it. (Although it is not so absolute either; Russia still is a multi-ethnic country, after all.) We must not forget that socialism is primarily an international movement. Socialism for one people-group at the expense of another is no socialism whatsoever. Judging by state TV propaganda, Russia isn’t interested in helping Ukraine, it’s only interested in “reclaiming what was once theirs”, completely disregarding all else. Anti-imperialism in general is too about more than just territorial control.

One top comment here said that Russia does not yet possess the capability to be as ruthless as the US, and that by siding with the less powerful entity, our chances at revolution increase, whereas (implying) that our chances when siding with the US are nil. This attempt to quantize the probability is quite naïve, since it is entirely possible that our chances are zero under both circumstances, perhaps because we lack the power. At the cost of sounding like an anarchist, unless we can create an actual organized mass movement with strong leadership that can strike and overthrow a whole state apparatus, we remain vulnerable, and the only thing we can do in the meantime is to engage in smaller-scale struggles, if not straight up organize.

In this sense, the greatest good we can do is help Ukrainian refugees, aka the people whose material realities were impacted the most by this event. Their suffering does not bring a revolution any closer to existence, it can come with or without thousands of innocents dead or displaced. But other than this, I don’t see much else we can do, aside from giving our opinions. For real, what material impact should our critical support of Russia generate? If it’s blocs we’re talking about, then one can most definitely support China and its allies, including Russia in general, while simultaneously condemning this one specific event. The Soviet bloc was not a monolith either, after all, and it had its good and bad moments throughout the years.

Finally, remember that all of this is just my personal opinion, I do not claim to possess the only correct and true narrative. If I have misunderstood anything or if there’s something you want to add, I am open to criticism.

Edit tl;dr: I support Russia and its people in the long run, but I mostly disagree with this war, and I strongly disagree with how it’s been conducted so far. Russia could have done a better job, but hasn’t done so not by accident, but due to ideology.