this post was submitted on 02 Dec 2023
45 points (100.0% liked)
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
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
different people can come to the same conclusions for different reasons.
different people can also come to different conclusions for the same reasons.
so looking at Ukraine. You often see conservative foreign policy realists like John Mearsheimer for example, calling out America's role in this conflict. Why does he disagree with it? Is it because he's against American imperialism in Eastern Europe? No. Is it because he's against NATO? No. Is it because he wants Russia to win? No. He loves American imperialism. He's in favor of NATO. He wants America to win. He views America's role in Ukraine as a strategic failure. The empire overextending itself and accelerating its own decline by biting off more than it can chew. His critique is entirely strategic. He thinks America has strategically failed to do imperialism competently. He wants the imperialism to be more competent. Compare that with a Communist critique which is against NATO expansion, which recognizes the NED's role in funding right wing extremism in Ukraine for decades, which understands that the Neo-Nazi Banderites used Euromaidan as a Trojan horse to coup the Yanukovich government, which understands that America is trying to balkanize and isolate countries that have a history of socialism, even if that history is long over.
Some people childishly see Communists and Conservatives coming to similar conclusions, but for different reasons, and moving from opposite directions. They are unable to do vector calculus on our political positions. All they see is two people occupying the same point on the graph. They don't see what direction they're moving towards, where they came from, or any other nuance, and they conclude "these people are allied with each other because they agree on this one thing."
lol this is such a great phrasing and I think helps to answer my question pretty fully. I also appreciate how you described horseshoe theory perspective that most libs/"centrists" have. Context seems to almost never be taken into account, for anything. Not having rich context is what has made me apprehensive to voice a strong opinion on the Russia/Ukraine conflict. I just know that the backing of the US already made me extremely suspicious of it from the get and that there was more going on than "Russia bad scary evil guys who want to dominate!!!".
I had just started reading up about the conflict more in depth the night that I posted the question, and after reading everyone's responses I just went back to see that there is no meaningful discussion around the Nazi infiltration (of course). I plan to re-read them both and I hope that it will be much more clear to me the objectives of the writers in contrast with the general communist stance