politics

22268 readers

7 users here now

Protests, dual power, and even electoralism.

Labour and union posts go to [email protected].

Take the dunks to /c/strugglesession or [email protected].

[email protected] is good for shitposting.

Do not post direct links to reactionary sites.

Off topic posts will be removed.

Follow the Hexbear Code of Conduct and remember we're all comrades here.

founded 4 years ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

Why are some right wing talking points similar to communist ones (Russia/Ukraine) (hexbear.net)

submitted 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

123 comments fedilink hide all child comments

I'm trying to learn more about the Russia/Ukraine conflict. In the articles that I find that seem to be critical of Ukraine, there are a few that are right wing that seem to have similar viewpoints as what I've read on here or in the more leftist articles.

For example this piece from National Interest, or this from the CATO institute.

There are others that aren't flagged as right wing that are critical, but it's just got me wondering, why would right wing politicians/publications perceive these things similarly to how some communists would when the ideologies of both are so extremely opposite?

Disclaimer: I'm not pro-ukraine at all, but in my search for info that's not super pro-Ukraine propaganda, this is the stuff that comes up for me

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Sometimes its the funny outcome of seeing groups use rhetorical arguments as cover for what they really believe.

So a right wing isolationist and an anti-imperialist antifascist can both state "hey, maybe the war in Ukraine is a bad thing". But the reasons behind the statement will be wildly different.

Being able to mask an ideology behind rhetoric also allows a group to gain support or legitimacy from other groups that would otherwise be critical or hostile. Right wingers love to make rhetorical arguments based around "we must protect the children". This sentiment is pretty simple and not controversial in any way. So people who can't/don't/won't look too deep into what the right wingers are actually going to do to "protect the children" will wind up doing the work of defending their project from the people who are aware of the true goals of the right wing project.

Its one of those things that requires the extreme use of "consider the source" when trying to understand why similar arguments/rhetoric can be seen deployed by groups with wildly different ideological worldviews.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

So in this instance, a lot of people have pointed towards China being the reason for this position. So then would the "source" be that they are more concerned with propping up Russia to thwart China's economic growth?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

yeah... there's a strain of right wing argumentation that says "Get Russia engaged in some boondoggle of epic military proportions" with a goal of 1) destabalizing a nation with a large land border with China (the Anti-China groups) or 2) just straight up believing that Russia, itself, is some existential threat to the USA (old Cold War-riers kelly )

Though it may have less to do with China's economic growth ( at least from some groups) as it would be with trying to do some "accellerationism" and try to push China into a position where they'd openly have to retaliate militarily which would give the USA/West an excuse to be even more openly hostile towards China (and definitely WAY more hostile towards any nations who are allied with or in the orbit of China). These do-do birds still think that the US military is actually as competent, resilient and strong as their own propaganda constantly states... which isn't true and would just lead to a large chunk of the planet burning through conventional or nuclear warfare.