Surely you support the system that kept Ukraine well-fed, industrialized and at peace with the neighboring sister region, which maintained Ukrainian presidents of the entire Union such as Khrushchev and Brezhnev, and whose dissolution led to Ukraine becoming the poorest country in Europe?
Well no I was commenting on that specific part. It’s an interesting what if to consider if hardline communists hadn’t prevented the New Union Treaty, if we might still have that new union and what their ideology would be.
The question asked in the 1991 Soviet Union Referendum was “Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any ethnicity will be fully guaranteed?” It would have drastically reformed the Soviet Union if it had succeeded. And funnily enough, it was a coup by hardliners in the communist party that prevented the reforms (New Union Treaty). This coup, while not successful in seizing power, ultimately lead to the Soviet government losing influence, which in turn resulted in its dissolution. By the time the Supreme Soviet voted to formally dissolve the Soviet Union, it had de-facto already ceased to exist.
The declaration also proclaimed that the republic has intent to become “a permanently neutral state that does not participate in military blocs,”
Surely then you agree that the coming Ukrainian capitalist government violated the Ukrainian popular will by allowing NATO troops to be stationed in Ukraine more than a decade ago as confirmed by Jen Stoltenberg?
You mentioned nothing about the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe, only focusing on technicalities over referenda. My question stands: do you support the regime change that led to the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe, the war in Ukraine, and which prematurely ended the lives of millions of Ukrainians purely through economic destruction? Or do you want to focus on bickering over violated referenda instead of the material living conditions of people?
Surely then you agree that the coming Ukrainian capitalist government violated the Ukrainian popular will by allowing NATO troops to be stationed in Ukraine more than a decade ago as confirmed by Jen Stoltenberg?
You mentioned nothing about the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe, only focusing on technicalities over referenda.
Because there’s nothing to say about it other than that it was bad. And I honestly don’t get what point you’re trying to make. The Ukrainian people, along with ~70% of the Soviet Union, voted to reform the Soviet Union. Hardliners in the Communist Party staged a coup which stopped the New Union Treaty from being signed. Afterwards, the Soviet Union fell apart, and was then formally dissolved.
And when the Crimean annexation by Russia took place, where was the referendum to allow NATO troops? Or does the government suddenly get the unilateral decision-making power when it comes to NATO?
Because there’s nothing to say about it other than that it was bad
Yes, there is plenty to say, actually. You could, for example, stop pretending that you actually do care about the well-being of Ukrainian people, since you apparently have no mention of the millions of deaths from destruction of public healthcare, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, suicide, shitty diet and outright hunger that took place after 1991 and kept happening as Ukraine became the poorest country in Europe. You could admit that you only care about Ukrainians suffering now because the war happens to be against the geopolitical enemy of your country.
If you gave one flying fuck about the well-being of Ukrainians, you’d be supporting communism and the Soviet Union right now, since its disintegration led to the worst humanitarian crisis the country has seen since the Nazis invaded it, and to an ever-ongoing disintegration of public services which led to millions more premature deaths than the illegal Russian invasion. You would be complaining about Russian capitalism which is the one that invaded Ukraine, and you’d understand that there was no such war during Soviet times. It is precisely capitalism that brought all of this to Ukraine, and if you cared genuinely about Ukrainians and wished the best for them instead of using them as a pawn for your media-induced hatred of Russia, you’d wish for the USSR never to have fallen.
You’ve shown us in other comments that you’ve done no reading on the topic to the point that you don’t even bother to understand the difference between income and wealth, and you make up on-the-spot assumptions from your ill-informed, poorly-read, west-propagandized version of the topic. The problem isn’t that you do this, the problem is that you do this while claiming to be a leftist/anarchist. I’ll tell you something: if you, as a leftist/anarchist, share 90% of your opinion about a geopolitical enemy of the USA with the CIA, you’re doing something wrong.
Yes, there is plenty to say, actually. You could, for example, stop pretending that you actually do care about the well-being of Ukrainian people, since you apparently have no mention of the millions of deaths from destruction of public healthcare, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, suicide, shitty diet and outright hunger that took place after 1991 and kept happening as Ukraine became the poorest country in Europe. You could admit that you only care about Ukrainians suffering now because the war happens to be against the geopolitical enemy of your country.
The hardliners of the communist party prevented the needed reforms to prevent the chaotic collapse of the Soviet Unions, which would have prevented, or at least mitigated, the “millions of deaths from destruction of public healthcare, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, suicide, shitty diet and outright hunger that took place after 1991”. And if Lenin hadn’t betrayed the revolution, we wouldn’t have had the Holodomor. The Soviet Union fucked Ukraine first through malice, then through incompetence.
If you gave one flying fuck about the well-being of Ukrainians, you’d be supporting communism and the Soviet Union right now, since its disintegration led to the worst humanitarian crisis the country has seen since the Nazis invaded it, and to an ever-ongoing disintegration of public services which led to millions more premature deaths than the illegal Russian invasion. You would be complaining about Russian capitalism which is the one that invaded Ukraine, and you’d understand that there was no such war during Soviet times. It is precisely capitalism that brought all of this to Ukraine, and if you cared genuinely about Ukrainians and wished the best for them instead of using them as a pawn for your media-induced hatred of Russia, you’d wish for the USSR never to have fallen.
The one mostly responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union is the communist party of the Soviet Union.
You’ve shown us in other comments that you’ve done no reading on the topic to the point that you don’t even bother to understand the difference between income and wealth, and you make up on-the-spot assumptions from your ill-informed, poorly-read, west-propagandized version of the topic. The problem isn’t that you do this, the problem is that you do this while claiming to be a leftist/anarchist. I’ll tell you something: if you, as a leftist/anarchist, share 90% of your opinion about a geopolitical enemy of the USA with the CIA, you’re doing something wrong.
At least I’m coherent, unlike you. The fault for the collapse of the Soviet Unions lies by its incompetent government.
So everything bad that happens during communism is communism’s fault, and everything bad that happens after communism is also communism’s fault, gotcha.
Btw, keep in mind that you’re being a CIA pawn when you make such political use of “Holodomor”:
It’s a western-promoted propaganda word to refer to the Soviet Famine of the collectivization effort, and it’s used to blow over the Russian and Central-Asian deaths from the famine as if only Ukrainians had suffered it. It attempts to turn an unfortunate hunger during the first successful nation-wide land collectivization in human history into some sort of manufactured genocide of Ukrainians now that they can be used as a token to promote hate on communism and Russians. Do you also have a special scary word to refer to, e.g., the Bengal Famine in India, or is it something reserved to the enemies of capitalism?
So everything bad that happens during communism is communism’s fault, and everything bad that happens after communism is also communism’s fault, gotcha.
I’m blaming the leadership of the Soviet Union, not communism. The Soviet Union wasn’t communist, and neither was the communist party of the Soviet Union. And yes, if you cause a disaster through incompetence, then You’re also responsible to the long term consequences caused by said disaster.
Now, the holodomor happened 220 years ago. No, wait, it was 1932-1933. Okay, I realize 1800-2022 is the default time range, still, it’s quite pointless to look for mentions of a concept in text from before it happened. Secondly, since the Holodomor refers to a specific event, is is capitalized.
Here is the graph with your methodical errors corrected.
It attempts to turn an unfortunate hunger during the first successful nation-wide land collectivization in human history
succesful
Dude, 3.5 million deaths (That’s the low estimate, by the way) through famine does not qualify as “successful nation-wide land collectivization”.
Tankies are people who identify as communist or socialist, but want a state where the ruler cannot be switched out through elections, or a comparable peaceful process. Such as the Soviet Union. In fact, the term “tankie” was first coined to describe people who supported the Soviet Union sending tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution.
Authoritarianism and communism are incompatible. Under communism, the means of production are publicly owned. Ownership over a thing means that either a) you control the thing, and owe no accountability to anybody. Or b) the person controlling the thing is accountable to you. If the person who claims to control the means of production as the representative of the people is not accountable to the people, then he is actually the owner of the means of production. For example, Stalin effectively owned the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union wasn’t communism, it was the end state of capitalism, the complete enslavement of the working class to the owner class.
And for some reason, people who think Stalin was great like Russia, even though modern Russia doesn’t even claim to be communist.
Such as the Soviet Union. In fact, the term “tankie” was first coined to describe people who supported the Soviet Union sending tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution
Not to be pedantic or anything, but wasn’t the etymology of the word “tankie” vindicated recently when it was released by Trump that the leader of the Hungarian Freedom Fighters ended up being funded by CIA?
Regarding your point of Stalin controlling the Soviet Union and dictating whatever happened with the means of production, I actually have stuff to add: union membership was highest in the USSR than it’s ever been anywhere to that point of history, with unions taking care of a lot of stuff such as guaranteeing workers access to housing and healthcare, organizing vacation, ensuring workplace safety, and obviously representing the will of workers: in every factory there was a factory newspaper where workers could submit their complaints or comments on the work organizing, and unions had the power to change the workplace director. As for sources of this, you can have a look at Pat Sloan’s “Soviet Democracy”, a book written by an Englishman who left the UK to go to the USSR in the Stalin era and lived there for about a decade; also Mick Costello’s “Worker Participation in the Soviet Union”, a book written after a series of interviews to workers all over the USSR by the author, published 1977 so a very different era, tells a lot about this. I think most of the misconception that “workers had no say in production” comes mostly from western anticommunist propaganda and isn’t substantiated by any serious evidence. If you have any works contradicting what I’ve said above, I’d be glad to look into it.
Lastly, regarding your point of “Soviet Union being the end state of Capitalism and the enslavement of the working class to the owner class”: who was said owner class?
Source for the graph above, hopefully you know Meduza well enough to know that it’s not very much aligned with socialism. Wealth inequality has never been lower in any Soviet Union territories as it was during the Soviet Union, not before, not after. In fact, wealth inequality was remarkably low compared to most capitalist countries (again as you see in the graph), and the highest salaries belonged actually not to politicians as you could expect, but to highly trained intellectuals such as University professors or military researchers (my sources for this are Albert Szymanski’s “Is the Red Flag Flying” and Robert C. Allen’s "Farm to Factory: a Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution). If there were an “owning class vs. working class” dynamic, wouldn’t we expect high wealth disparity between workers and “owners”, whoever they were? Why, if workers had no say over 70 years in industrial and economic production, was wealth inequality consistently at historic minima and not growing as is the case in proven class-societies such as capitalism (Russia post-1990 per the graph) or feudalism (Russia pre-1929ish per the graph)?
That declassified document you posted doesn’t say a whole lot. Basically boils down to “we gave them a phone call”. If that’s all the proof there is for collaboration, then your evidence is pathetic.
Secondly, you notice that blue line going up almost vertically? I’ve already lined out my definition of ownership, there’s also a second one, namely that you own something if the sovereign legally recognizes you as the owner. What happened was that the Communist party went from controlling the means of production without accountability (de facto owning them), to being the recognized owner of the means of production (de jure owning them). The graph you posted just tracks the latter, that’s why it looks like the Soviet Union had low wealth inequality.
If you took care to actually read the graph, you would see it says “income inequality”. How income (i.e. regular earnings, NOT amount of property owned) relates to formal ownership of something is beyond me. Additionally:
What happened was that the Communist party went from controlling the means of production without accountability (de facto owning them), to being the recognized owner of the means of production (de jure owning them)
I don’t even know what to say. Are you not aware that in 1991 the USSR was dissolved? How exactly would the communist party achieve formal ownership of means of production in 1991 if the system was discarded in favour of capitalism? What happened is kinda exactly the opposite: means of production went from formal ownership by the state, to formal and de-facto ownership by private owners over the following 5-10 years (the “vertical” line you talk about).
I’m under the impression that you have done 0 reading on the topic of actual worker representation, which you haven’t rebuked and haven’t given any sources too, and you’re pulling stuff out of your ass from hearsay, because your comment literally makes no sense whatsoever
The people who took over the government of Russia were the same people who ran the communist party of the USSR. For example the first president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin. That’s how they were able to steal all the stuff.
They gave a response which you can check out. It boils down to “I don’t understand the difference between income and wealth, and I’m choosing to make up an on-the-spot interpretation based on my preconceived views”.
Not supporting the “dictatorship of the proletariat” types, but the reason tankies support Russia isn’t because they think modern Russia is Communist. It’s because Russia is fighting Ukraine, which they see as a proxy war against the United States and its puppets in NATO.
In the authoritarian Communist worldview, the United States is the vanguard of capitalism and the most dangerous threat to global communism. That’s why they think Communist nations need authoritarian governments and powerful militaries: to protect themselves from the United States and its client states.
So tankies support anyone fighting the United States or its allies, no matter who they are or how bad their governments are. Because they think anything that weakens the United States is good for the world.
Democrats and Conservatives. Anyone who sides with capitalism, supports state sanctioned violence by the police along with genocide and thinks that human rights are something to be debated over with shit like “up to the states to decide” or whatever is a fascist.
The current regime in Ukraine is the result of a coup staged by the US, it’s our imperialism at work as usual. Yes Russia sucks ass, the US is still the bigger problem globally and a loss for the US proxy state is a preferable outcome. There’s nothing questionable about whether it’s a genocide or not, the only people claiming it is are feds pushing for more gun money and incurable fucking morons.
Do you want 🇷🇺 to win the 🇺🇦 war?
You seem to care so much about Ukrainians. Surely then you support the Soviet Union, which in 1991 71.5% of Ukrainians voted to uphold and whose antidemocratic dissolution led to the worst humanitarian crisis in the history of post-WW2 Europe:
Surely you support the system that kept Ukraine well-fed, industrialized and at peace with the neighboring sister region, which maintained Ukrainian presidents of the entire Union such as Khrushchev and Brezhnev, and whose dissolution led to Ukraine becoming the poorest country in Europe?
After hardliners in Moscow made the New Union Treaty (that people voted for) fail, Ukraine voted to be independent.
No comment on the millions of Ukrainian deaths and lives ruined in the transition away from communism?
Well no I was commenting on that specific part. It’s an interesting what if to consider if hardline communists hadn’t prevented the New Union Treaty, if we might still have that new union and what their ideology would be.
The question asked in the 1991 Soviet Union Referendum was “Do you consider necessary the preservation of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics as a renewed federation of equal sovereign republics in which the rights and freedom of an individual of any ethnicity will be fully guaranteed?” It would have drastically reformed the Soviet Union if it had succeeded. And funnily enough, it was a coup by hardliners in the communist party that prevented the reforms (New Union Treaty). This coup, while not successful in seizing power, ultimately lead to the Soviet government losing influence, which in turn resulted in its dissolution. By the time the Supreme Soviet voted to formally dissolve the Soviet Union, it had de-facto already ceased to exist.
And while 71.5% of Ukrainians voted in favor of the New Union Treaty, 81.7% voted for an independent Ukraine.
From your latter referendum:
Surely then you agree that the coming Ukrainian capitalist government violated the Ukrainian popular will by allowing NATO troops to be stationed in Ukraine more than a decade ago as confirmed by Jen Stoltenberg?
You mentioned nothing about the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe, only focusing on technicalities over referenda. My question stands: do you support the regime change that led to the worst humanitarian crisis in Europe, the war in Ukraine, and which prematurely ended the lives of millions of Ukrainians purely through economic destruction? Or do you want to focus on bickering over violated referenda instead of the material living conditions of people?
I wonder if something happened to make them change their mind on neutrality
Because there’s nothing to say about it other than that it was bad. And I honestly don’t get what point you’re trying to make. The Ukrainian people, along with ~70% of the Soviet Union, voted to reform the Soviet Union. Hardliners in the Communist Party staged a coup which stopped the New Union Treaty from being signed. Afterwards, the Soviet Union fell apart, and was then formally dissolved.
And when the Crimean annexation by Russia took place, where was the referendum to allow NATO troops? Or does the government suddenly get the unilateral decision-making power when it comes to NATO?
Yes, there is plenty to say, actually. You could, for example, stop pretending that you actually do care about the well-being of Ukrainian people, since you apparently have no mention of the millions of deaths from destruction of public healthcare, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, suicide, shitty diet and outright hunger that took place after 1991 and kept happening as Ukraine became the poorest country in Europe. You could admit that you only care about Ukrainians suffering now because the war happens to be against the geopolitical enemy of your country.
If you gave one flying fuck about the well-being of Ukrainians, you’d be supporting communism and the Soviet Union right now, since its disintegration led to the worst humanitarian crisis the country has seen since the Nazis invaded it, and to an ever-ongoing disintegration of public services which led to millions more premature deaths than the illegal Russian invasion. You would be complaining about Russian capitalism which is the one that invaded Ukraine, and you’d understand that there was no such war during Soviet times. It is precisely capitalism that brought all of this to Ukraine, and if you cared genuinely about Ukrainians and wished the best for them instead of using them as a pawn for your media-induced hatred of Russia, you’d wish for the USSR never to have fallen.
You’ve shown us in other comments that you’ve done no reading on the topic to the point that you don’t even bother to understand the difference between income and wealth, and you make up on-the-spot assumptions from your ill-informed, poorly-read, west-propagandized version of the topic. The problem isn’t that you do this, the problem is that you do this while claiming to be a leftist/anarchist. I’ll tell you something: if you, as a leftist/anarchist, share 90% of your opinion about a geopolitical enemy of the USA with the CIA, you’re doing something wrong.
The hardliners of the communist party prevented the needed reforms to prevent the chaotic collapse of the Soviet Unions, which would have prevented, or at least mitigated, the “millions of deaths from destruction of public healthcare, alcoholism, drug abuse, violence, suicide, shitty diet and outright hunger that took place after 1991”. And if Lenin hadn’t betrayed the revolution, we wouldn’t have had the Holodomor. The Soviet Union fucked Ukraine first through malice, then through incompetence.
The one mostly responsible for the collapse of the Soviet Union is the communist party of the Soviet Union.
At least I’m coherent, unlike you. The fault for the collapse of the Soviet Unions lies by its incompetent government.
So everything bad that happens during communism is communism’s fault, and everything bad that happens after communism is also communism’s fault, gotcha.
Btw, keep in mind that you’re being a CIA pawn when you make such political use of “Holodomor”:
It’s a western-promoted propaganda word to refer to the Soviet Famine of the collectivization effort, and it’s used to blow over the Russian and Central-Asian deaths from the famine as if only Ukrainians had suffered it. It attempts to turn an unfortunate hunger during the first successful nation-wide land collectivization in human history into some sort of manufactured genocide of Ukrainians now that they can be used as a token to promote hate on communism and Russians. Do you also have a special scary word to refer to, e.g., the Bengal Famine in India, or is it something reserved to the enemies of capitalism?
I’m blaming the leadership of the Soviet Union, not communism. The Soviet Union wasn’t communist, and neither was the communist party of the Soviet Union. And yes, if you cause a disaster through incompetence, then You’re also responsible to the long term consequences caused by said disaster.
Now, the holodomor happened 220 years ago. No, wait, it was 1932-1933. Okay, I realize 1800-2022 is the default time range, still, it’s quite pointless to look for mentions of a concept in text from before it happened. Secondly, since the Holodomor refers to a specific event, is is capitalized.
Here is the graph with your methodical errors corrected.
Dude, 3.5 million deaths (That’s the low estimate, by the way) through famine does not qualify as “successful nation-wide land collectivization”.
No? The fuck kind of question is that? It’s like asking if I want Israel to continue existing after everything they’ve done.
It’s to weed out tankies.
People are using tankie for Russia supporters?
Tankies are people who identify as communist or socialist, but want a state where the ruler cannot be switched out through elections, or a comparable peaceful process. Such as the Soviet Union. In fact, the term “tankie” was first coined to describe people who supported the Soviet Union sending tanks to crush the Hungarian Revolution.
Authoritarianism and communism are incompatible. Under communism, the means of production are publicly owned. Ownership over a thing means that either a) you control the thing, and owe no accountability to anybody. Or b) the person controlling the thing is accountable to you. If the person who claims to control the means of production as the representative of the people is not accountable to the people, then he is actually the owner of the means of production. For example, Stalin effectively owned the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union wasn’t communism, it was the end state of capitalism, the complete enslavement of the working class to the owner class.
And for some reason, people who think Stalin was great like Russia, even though modern Russia doesn’t even claim to be communist.
Not to be pedantic or anything, but wasn’t the etymology of the word “tankie” vindicated recently when it was released by Trump that the leader of the Hungarian Freedom Fighters ended up being funded by CIA?
Regarding your point of Stalin controlling the Soviet Union and dictating whatever happened with the means of production, I actually have stuff to add: union membership was highest in the USSR than it’s ever been anywhere to that point of history, with unions taking care of a lot of stuff such as guaranteeing workers access to housing and healthcare, organizing vacation, ensuring workplace safety, and obviously representing the will of workers: in every factory there was a factory newspaper where workers could submit their complaints or comments on the work organizing, and unions had the power to change the workplace director. As for sources of this, you can have a look at Pat Sloan’s “Soviet Democracy”, a book written by an Englishman who left the UK to go to the USSR in the Stalin era and lived there for about a decade; also Mick Costello’s “Worker Participation in the Soviet Union”, a book written after a series of interviews to workers all over the USSR by the author, published 1977 so a very different era, tells a lot about this. I think most of the misconception that “workers had no say in production” comes mostly from western anticommunist propaganda and isn’t substantiated by any serious evidence. If you have any works contradicting what I’ve said above, I’d be glad to look into it.
Lastly, regarding your point of “Soviet Union being the end state of Capitalism and the enslavement of the working class to the owner class”: who was said owner class?
Source for the graph above, hopefully you know Meduza well enough to know that it’s not very much aligned with socialism. Wealth inequality has never been lower in any Soviet Union territories as it was during the Soviet Union, not before, not after. In fact, wealth inequality was remarkably low compared to most capitalist countries (again as you see in the graph), and the highest salaries belonged actually not to politicians as you could expect, but to highly trained intellectuals such as University professors or military researchers (my sources for this are Albert Szymanski’s “Is the Red Flag Flying” and Robert C. Allen’s "Farm to Factory: a Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution). If there were an “owning class vs. working class” dynamic, wouldn’t we expect high wealth disparity between workers and “owners”, whoever they were? Why, if workers had no say over 70 years in industrial and economic production, was wealth inequality consistently at historic minima and not growing as is the case in proven class-societies such as capitalism (Russia post-1990 per the graph) or feudalism (Russia pre-1929ish per the graph)?
That declassified document you posted doesn’t say a whole lot. Basically boils down to “we gave them a phone call”. If that’s all the proof there is for collaboration, then your evidence is pathetic.
Secondly, you notice that blue line going up almost vertically? I’ve already lined out my definition of ownership, there’s also a second one, namely that you own something if the sovereign legally recognizes you as the owner. What happened was that the Communist party went from controlling the means of production without accountability (de facto owning them), to being the recognized owner of the means of production (de jure owning them). The graph you posted just tracks the latter, that’s why it looks like the Soviet Union had low wealth inequality.
If you took care to actually read the graph, you would see it says “income inequality”. How income (i.e. regular earnings, NOT amount of property owned) relates to formal ownership of something is beyond me. Additionally:
I don’t even know what to say. Are you not aware that in 1991 the USSR was dissolved? How exactly would the communist party achieve formal ownership of means of production in 1991 if the system was discarded in favour of capitalism? What happened is kinda exactly the opposite: means of production went from formal ownership by the state, to formal and de-facto ownership by private owners over the following 5-10 years (the “vertical” line you talk about).
I’m under the impression that you have done 0 reading on the topic of actual worker representation, which you haven’t rebuked and haven’t given any sources too, and you’re pulling stuff out of your ass from hearsay, because your comment literally makes no sense whatsoever
The people who took over the government of Russia were the same people who ran the communist party of the USSR. For example the first president of Russia, Boris Yeltsin. That’s how they were able to steal all the stuff.
@Saledovil@sh.itjust.works no response here?
They gave a response which you can check out. It boils down to “I don’t understand the difference between income and wealth, and I’m choosing to make up an on-the-spot interpretation based on my preconceived views”.
You see where the blue line goes up vertically? That’s when they go from de facto ownership to de jure ownership.
Anything’s possible when you make shit up, but you should try making up something more believable once in a while
Not supporting the “dictatorship of the proletariat” types, but the reason tankies support Russia isn’t because they think modern Russia is Communist. It’s because Russia is fighting Ukraine, which they see as a proxy war against the United States and its puppets in NATO.
In the authoritarian Communist worldview, the United States is the vanguard of capitalism and the most dangerous threat to global communism. That’s why they think Communist nations need authoritarian governments and powerful militaries: to protect themselves from the United States and its client states.
So tankies support anyone fighting the United States or its allies, no matter who they are or how bad their governments are. Because they think anything that weakens the United States is good for the world.
in the end, all they’ve done is make another oligarchy to replace the US with.
Me when all my knowledge of geopolitics comes from children’s movies instead of history
reading my comment was a thoughtcrime for you, comrade.
Tankies support Russia but Russia supporters aren’t all tankies
Better than accusing me of being one simply cause I refuse to fall in line with the blue or red fascists.
Who are the blue and red fascists, I’ve only heard the term “red fascism” before
Democrats and Conservatives. Anyone who sides with capitalism, supports state sanctioned violence by the police along with genocide and thinks that human rights are something to be debated over with shit like “up to the states to decide” or whatever is a fascist.
I don’t give a shit, if you care so much about Ukraine pick up a gun and go fight
I suppose you don’t care about Gaza either, do you?
I do actually
I’m guessing you have a gun in hand alredy?
Interesting guess, definitely not something a person with a working brain would discuss in detail through unsecure channels
Lmao that’s a no
Moron or fed, embarassing either way
I’m sorry but I can’t discuss that over unsecured channels
So, why are you indifferent to Russia committing genocide, but not to Israel?
Russia isn’t committing genocide, fucking duh
So, your standard is “Imperialism is fine, as long as you’re not committing genocide”? Also, Russia not committing genocide is highly questionable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegations_of_genocide_of_Ukrainians_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_War)
The current regime in Ukraine is the result of a coup staged by the US, it’s our imperialism at work as usual. Yes Russia sucks ass, the US is still the bigger problem globally and a loss for the US proxy state is a preferable outcome. There’s nothing questionable about whether it’s a genocide or not, the only people claiming it is are feds pushing for more gun money and incurable fucking morons.
No, it’s not.
Let’s examine Russian war crimes, shall we:
Yeah, so I’m basically just going through the sections of the wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_in_the_Russo-Ukrainian_war_(2022–present)