Because it's a disingenuous question. It isn't a western-backed faction, it is the will of Ukrainians. They marched in the street. Only an absolute idiot would ask such a stupid poopoo baby headed question. Foolish smh. Now leave me alone and go be a legume brain elsewhere.
This is so funny to me. It's sexist, straight up. You can dislike it but this is sexist towards women.
When I was 19 nobody would've cared if I was with a 50 year old, unless it was a man, because then that's sinful or something. If I was with a 90 year old woman, people would accuse me of taking advantage of her.
Let people do what they want, isn't that what this society we operate in is supposed to be about? If I wanna lick 90 year old wieners and buns, let me do me.
Your framing is so pathetic I genuinely think you might actually be American by your lack of reading comprehension and your failure to have an actual position you're consistent in.
Your entire argument is a desire to take your ball and go home because people don't agree with you, which is the basis of a democratic government, people disagreeing. While people want to sling shit about socialism vs capitalism, Marx and Engles both 100% supported a democratic notion of a country where voting was key which you clearly don't. You're ignorantly standing on the opposite side of that fence thinking you champion these people and it makes me sad you try to use their names to prove a point you genuinely don't even understand. You parrot Russian talking points to legitimize their claim to Ukraine. You deny Ukraine it's sovereign right to decide for itself and genuinely referred to it's democratic decisions as the result of it being a puppet state, something only a person with a legume for a brain would think.
I said I'm done here stop talking to me. Go back to read your theories and fail to understand them. Go back to supporting authoritarianism because people don't agree with what you think or do what you say. If you ever lead a country it would be under an authoritarian rule because you genuinely cannot handle people disagreeing with you and view it as them being "wrong". Bye bye bonehead.
Just because you're saying what your position is, doesn't actually make that your position. You are literally going "I TREAT BOTH EQUALLY" and then do nothing but pump Russia and their talking points - Voting doesn't work, Ukraine didn't want democracy, the US is worse. You have not levied a single criticism equally in the direction of any of the other three in that image. Every single step of the way I have been equally critical of the US and pointed out their actions are the same as Russia does, they are imperialist and their goals are selfish. You're disingenuous and think just because you say it, it becomes true. Just the same as you treat everything: It isn't liberal unless you agree, it isn't democracy unless you say so, it is fair if you say it is fair. You're like a five year old.
Nice strawman bro. Get out of here you've got nothing to offer me but crap opinions and false positions. You stand for nothing and your beliefs are paper thin. A "marxist" who supports authoritarianism. What an absolute living breathing joke of a human being go back to your little circles of "wELl ReAd mARxIsTs". Buncha dorks, classic .ml
After being the second highest official for 8 years of occupation
This is such a funny thing to say when you're doing laps and mental gymnastics to support Putin, the guy who has ruled a country for 20 years unchallenged and unimpeded, who has bombed his own citizens, spreads fake news and instigated a full scale "tHRee dAY spEciAL OPerAtion" into millions dead while pressganging innocent Indians, Africans and South Americans into the war. Bombing apartments, shopping centers and having his goons torture Ukrainians.
This is exactly why I can't take you seriously. Double standard. Completely a joke. Classic .ml 🙄
As someone who supports socialist movements I 100% agree. But I really think the big problem in the world right now is the misunderstanding of capital basically. People think capital or money or anything that involves government is capitalism? Or something? I don't really understand.
But just because people we might call capitalists pearl clutch about socialism doesn't give someone the space to do the same back, or really just lie/be ignorant. We can definitely discuss the flaws of economic systems or the system we live under and some solutions. But stamping "CAPITALISM BAD" or "SOCIALISM BAD" literally gets us nowhere.
I never claimed that either of those factions was being solely controlled by a foreign power, by the way. As I said, there is some genuine support and some foreign influence in both cases, and I’m merely saying that I don’t see a reason to treat one side as more legitimate than the other.
You did, you even reiterated it just now?
Correct. I don’t consider it a Western puppet because Russia invaded it, but because of the 2013 coup.
The first time,
The overthrow of the central government involved some degree of genuine support by the people and some degree of foreign backing and control.
the second time with back tracking. And you move forward claiming you never said it was solely controlled but that the US was the bad guy when they did it and Russia was not for... reasons?
I think we both agree that Ukraine doesn't exist in a bubble. It not only has influence from these specific foreign powers but probably every single power in the world because that's kind of how a global economy works. The US/the west/the EU have a financial incentive in Ukraine the same as Russia, both are somewhat legitimate to want what they want. I think we both understand that but also do not respect or enjoy that fact about the world as it is gross and imperialistic and removes a nation and it's people's sovereignty.
I’m merely saying that I don’t see a reason to treat one side as more legitimate than the other.
But there is for two massive reasons. First, Ukrainians have made their choice where they would like to go, towards the EU and what they want is a democratic country. That reason standing alone is the deciding factor. Neither Russia or the US was the reason hundreds of thousands marched in the street, every individual made that choice themselves. It is so silly when political leaders refer to protestors as fake or paid or whatever. I know for a fact in protests there are bad actors, some of them paid, some of them are even local law enforcement. But that many bodies did not walk into the street and get paid to do so, that was their choice. And for that reason their want to move towards the EU, which was the whole reason they protested in the first place. Ukraine wanted ties to the EU, they wanted those trade deals and benefits. When it was rejected, they stormed into the street and decided what they want. So for a foreign power allied with the EU or in the EU to take measures to aid a sovereign Ukraine to that direction is legitimate. Second, Russia engaging in deceitful and violent measures to derail that goal lessens their claims further, it literally makes them the bad guy here. They are trying to change what the Ukrainian people want and now there is a war of disgusting aggression going on, bodies are being destroyed and lives wasted and ruined for Russia (see Putin's) personal wants. Which is absolutely disgusting and makes it so any argument to compare the west and Russia's goals in Ukraine completely incomparable.
Incidentally, there was a leaked phone call from the state department discussing who should wind up in power from Euromaidan, and wouldn’t you know it, their picks were the ones who did.
Again as we both have stated above, these countries have vested interests it is unrealistic to say they shouldn't discuss this. Nothing in that phone call was offensive or imperialistic. It's not speaking of corruption or subverting law, it's talking about their goals in Ukraine.
"A senior aide for Russian President Vladimir Putin has accused Washington of "interfering in Ukraine's domestic affairs," the BBC reported."
Which is fuckin' hilarious because A) Yanukovych is Putin's guy. B) Putin is literally doing the same exact thing, you're lying if you don't admit that. C) If Yanukovych succeeded in snuffing out those protests you can bet Putin's picks for Ukraine's government would be sitting in their positions now too. You're literally doing it again where you give Russia this invisible pass and act like the US/the west is the only one who is doing these things and at the same time you're saying things like :
I am perfectly happy to apply the same standard in both cases, it’s you who’s applying a double standard. On what basis should I determine that the Western-backed movement in western Ukraine is more legitimate that the Russian-backed movement in the east? It’s utter nonsense.
But you're BLATANTLY NOT. Which is what I'm arguing about here. You're just not. I'm sitting here stating openly how both of these actors are doing the same behavior except one has turned to bloodshed and lies and the other has peddled in lies BUT with the caveat that the Ukrainian people have decided which direction they want to go, not towards the bloodshed guy who you are literally arguing in favor for. So no, you're being dishonest or you don't understand your own position or you're straight up misunderstanding/being intentionally obtuse and ignorant.
Ha! And what mechanisms are those, exactly? I was given a binary choice between two parties, both of which supported the Palestinian genocide, both of which supported an aggressive stance against China, both of which opposed lifting sanctions against North Korea or similar countries, etc. When I voted for a third party that actually represented my interests but had no chance of winning, I received constant criticism for it and was accused of being a secret Trump supporter.
Or tell, me, which major presidential candidate did not want to continue fighting in Afghanistan for 20 years? Bush, Kerry, Obama, McCain, Romney, and Clinton were all 100% in favor them, despite their unpopularity. As I said, part of the reason for Trump’s success was appearing to be an outsider to that bipartisan consensus, but then he of course continued the war in Afghanistan and even started another one in Iran. The ruling class will never allow you to vote away the war machine.
Our elections are not democratic, by design. A handful of immensely wealthy people, the ruling class, can pour massive amounts of money into them with no regulation. The two major parties have no requirement to provide a free and fair primary process and are perfectly within their rights to rig them or just hand pick whatever candidate they like. Congress consistently operates with an approval rating below 20%.
Once again, we see your double standard at play. When the US has such factors compromising our elections, it’s exceptional, it’s because of foreign money, etc. But Russia and China have elections too, and when there are issues with those elections, they don’t get any sort of excuses, they are simply rotten to their core, fundamentally undemocratic. It’s because I don’t make exceptions in my analysis of the US that you see my analysis as biased and unfair, because you don’t realize your own bias.
As opposed to what/who? Putin who has sat in power for the last 20 years unchallenged? The Kim regime? China's single party? You are given a choice, there are not two parties. There is not one election. Every two years and sometimes more there is a chance to vote. If "Not Voting" was an option to win the office it would win every single time. You're parroting talking points of foreign interests in the United States/the west which is that democracy is a sham why bother voting. You see this all over lemmy from these supposed "marxists" who apparently don't want any form of representation I guess and embrace authoritarianism? It's nonsense. How can you call yourself any form of a left-leaning ideology without the understanding of representation and democratic procedures. You're literally arguing on the behalf of authoritarians and stating at the same time you are a proud marxist. Make it make sense?
This is where you fall flat on your face claiming liberals fall into loyalty or something. Americans are so heavily critical of their government, there's not a single president everyone has 100% liked in our life time. Every presidency is riddled with criticism and backlash and calls to remove them. You don't have that in these countries you're literally supporting, you're going to tell me you don't support them but you literally are by giving Russia these fake passes that allow them to engage in the same activity the west does, while also being far worse, and acting like they don't fucking do it too. For lack of better words it's childish to think other people don't see through that instantly. And once again you fall into this same line of thinking that if they don't agree with YOUR OPINION, it isn't really democracy and it isn't legitimate which is so funny because that's the opposite of democracy. People don't have to agree with you and your personal view of legitimacy doesn't have to be accepted. How many elections across this entire country have happened since the year 2000? Likely over 100,000 elections, that's my small estimate. You think out of 100,000 local to presidential elections not a single candidate has supported a withdraw from the middle east or afghanistan? Off the top of my head here's a few: Dennis Kuchinich, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Bill Richardson, JOE BIDEN(WHO LITERALLY WITHDREW FROM THE MIDDLE EAST!?)
What we see here is you playing a pick and choose game. You decide the US is interfering in Ukraine not Russia. You decide they aren't true liberals and it isn't real democracy because they aren't what YOU want. You parrot obvious Russian talking points trying to delegitimize both elections in the US and in Ukraine, the will of the people in both countries "aren't real" and we can talk all day about corruption, foreign influence, the power of money and it's ability to influence campaigns. But you're just ignoring simple truths.
Again, if "Not Voting" was a candidate, it would win EVERY SINGLE TIME. The problem isn't the system here, it is people like you who throw up their hands and whine when they don't win. The solutions are there and obvious. I'm done here. Ridiculous
Won't last. Youtube offers financial incentives and originally when Youtube got big it had lax as fuck censorship which is what gained it's initial popularity. Unless China is going to be entirely lax in the same way, there is no incentive for people to move over.
You're listing things and going "BAD" so Capitalism is bad.
A trading bubble is really just economics. Can't really say Capitalism causes that. The East India Trading Company is mercantilism which as evil as that specific company was the idea of trading goods from one country to another is like the core of our entire economic trade system today. Teapot Dome was flagrant corruption which happens in any economic system, the Canal and the railroad are more examples of labor exploitation which you can easily argue was less bad than the labor exploitation that came before it and led to better labor laws in the country.
It's like you're pointing at a gun and saying "FIRE MADE GUN, FIRE BAD!" because guns kill people. It's pretty caveman.
I think you're using the term liberal to mean too many things and also nothing at all. You're crafting a bogeyman. The things you've said suggest liberal means the liberal ideology, democratic politicians, liberal voters, western governments, social democrats and really anyone who isn't a marxist. They're not the same thing. Genuine opposition also doesn't mean anything, if someone criticizes their government but doesn't go as far as you believe then suddenly their position is loyalty to a state, insufficiently anti-imperialist or basically a fake. That's moving a goal post or a strawman or something, I dunno but it is disingenuous.
If genuine opposition means adopting your personal belief of a solution then you're saying genuine opposition is an agreement with your politics. Someone can oppose all those things without arriving at the same conclusion as you. You can't just decide what is a genuine opposition because it doesn't go far enough for you.
I also think it's pretty hypocritical the way you speak of Ukraine. The 2013/2014 events as a western backed coup is just not true. There was an enormous domestic protest of hundreds of thousands, a lot of which died during their protests because of a state crackdown lead by Yanukovych. When they kept pushing he literally fled the country TO RUSSIA where he is now hanging out with bashar al assad probably at some swanky resort because he's never been anything but a Russian puppet. Now you can criticize Ukraine on how it used its procedures to remove Yanukovych and maybe that was questionable. You can debate the west or the EU had strategic investments in Ukraine, sure. But calling it a western led coup delegitimizes the sovereignty of Ukrainians who ultimately decide how the hell their government should and will function.
Which is extremely relevant to your argument about liberals. You're suggesting they don't genuinely oppose their government because their opposition doesn't result in change of the state. But when Ukraine does, you're inclined to interpret their actions as if it was solely a foreign power than the agency of it's citizens.
I see this all the time with marxist, socialist, etc folk here on Lemmy. Their analysis of the United States in comparison to China or Russia is lopsided. Russia has its own ruling elite and imperial interests, as does China and North Korea. Russia invaded Ukraine like assholes because Ukraine didn't do what it wanted. China has engaged in coercive territorial disputes with neighboring states and has been accused with really strong evidence of operating overseas citizen policing centers as part of transnational repression.
The biggest thing I want to make clear when I'm talking about liberals, I mean people broadly committed to liberal traditions of individual liberty, democratic government, civil liberties. Recognizing that liberal democracies provide citizens with substantially greater autonomy and political rights than authoritariajn states is not the same thing as being loyal to the state. These people likely realize democratic institutions and civil liberties are preferable to authoritarian alternatives like you find in Russia, China, North Korea.
Ordinary Americans have virtually no input on any foreign policy decision, not has US foreign policy ever been about serving the interests of ordinary Americans.
Democracy creates mechanisms which ordinary people can influence state policy even if those mechanisms are imperfect. At least in this country we have them and we understand why they're failing, because wealthy individuals, many of which aren't native to this country or even live here, have spent a lot of money encouraging a culture of Americans to not vote, not believe in democracy and allow them to continue to descend into an authoritarian state. China, Russia and North Korea don't have that and Trump wishes the United States didn't have that. Which is partly why Trump is depicted on that side of the seewsaw, because he wants to be on that side acting as those countries you're heavily less critical of, act.
Man look you're right on some parts but you're either intentionally or unintentionally pushing almost all the responsibility onto one party while giving the others in this image a pass.
You're applying an analysis of the United States' structure that you're not applying to Russia, China or North Korea. These countries all have a ruling class, capital, engage in imperialism and wield a specifically unique geopolitical power.
If we agree states are vehicles through which a ruling class pursues power, wealth and control then that has to apply to them all equally. They all have ruling elites, their own geopolitical ambitions and engage in their own means of repression or information control. Russia cracks down heavily on dissent, China engages in transnational repression and border disputes, North Korea has literally destroyed any meaningful space for political opposition or criticism of the Kim regime.
You're portraying American actions as the product of imperial interests but repeatedly explain the actions of the other three in this image as reactions.
Look at Ukraine. You called it a "proxy war", that doesn't erase the fact that Russia chose to invade Ukraine. It doesn't suddenly magically make Ukraine a puppet of the west. Western governments have a strategic interest in Ukraine you expect them to just throw up their hands in the face of a genuine invasion? Ukraine has its own interest and agency, they have their own aspirations. So why does western strategic interest erase Ukrainian agency while Russian interest in Ukraine doesn't? Is Russia not engaging in one of the most obtuse and offensive acts of imperialism in the 21st century in their actions? They're grinding an entire generation away into a supposedly "three day special operation" and pressganging any foreign national they can into the conflict as well. That's a pretty disgusting thing to do.
they are in fact reaffirming their fundamental loyalty to the state even as they criticize it, because they cannot denounce the state without denouncing the state’s rivals and reaffirming their willingness to fight on the side of their own state against them.
Okay but what would genuine opposition look like to you? Abandoning ship entirely at the first sight of a disagreement or infringement? If criticizing your own government is keyfabe opposite its foreign policy is loyalty to the state and criticizing the leaders is just reaffirming the system. Then what could an individual, a liberal person, actually do that you would recognize as opposition?
I don't understand what you think here. I don't have to defend imperialism done by the Trump president or any president before to oppose Russian or Chinese imperialism. I don't support the foreign policies of the United States to support Ukrainian sovereignty. I don't believe China and North Kore are good because the United States has done terrible things. I think you're missing that point entirely, or intentionally glossing over it all.
If you're going to analyze power structures to define the flaws of liberals, then analyze all of it and paint the full picture. Otherwise you're not analyzing power you're just picking a side, the side of the other three in the image Trump has now joined. Which is what the artist is depicting.
But what’s actually happening in the real world is irrelevant to liberals, who don’t dare criticize US foreign policy for being too aggressive for fear of appearing disloyal, and so they’re only capable of criticizing it from the right.
When I hear stuff like this I literally do not understand what you're talking about. Who are these liberals afraid to appear disloyal? Are you talking about international relations, internal government representatives or the voting bloc that might identify themselves as liberal or part of the liberal identity? Because my next question to whoever you're going to label as the "liberals" is -- what the hell are you talking about? Liberal voters are never-endingly critical of their representatives / government, politicians in liberal nations benefit from appearing to be "not the other guy" and cause disloyalty in all directions towards their opponents, international relations between liberal countries is literally the equivalent of public shaming to try and keep each other in step together. All left-leaning political factions engage in the circular firing squad, constant criticism that drags each other down, Marxists and socialists included.
It is actually insane to state there is any form of loyalty among liberals historically or today. Within a few years of America's founding, the liberal facade shattered into political factions that have only become more and more polarized and fractured. It's really just nonsense to say what you said. It's also super arrogant to state marxist circles actually read things when here on lemmy the "marxists" constantly spread some of the fakest news you can find and ban each other on their instances for disloyalty or stating alternative opinions.
Trump's foreign policies and all of his policies have nothing to do with the US agenda or historic goals.
Also this comic is taking arguably the most complex thing on this planet, international relations/history and framing it on a freakin' seesaw, some delicate things are going to be lost in translation. That's literally the point of political cartoons, to take super hard to define topics and basically make them into caricatures for people to laugh at and get a small grasp of the bigger picture.
Agreed
Because it's a disingenuous question. It isn't a western-backed faction, it is the will of Ukrainians. They marched in the street. Only an absolute idiot would ask such a stupid poopoo baby headed question. Foolish smh. Now leave me alone and go be a legume brain elsewhere.
This is so funny to me. It's sexist, straight up. You can dislike it but this is sexist towards women.
When I was 19 nobody would've cared if I was with a 50 year old, unless it was a man, because then that's sinful or something. If I was with a 90 year old woman, people would accuse me of taking advantage of her.
Let people do what they want, isn't that what this society we operate in is supposed to be about? If I wanna lick 90 year old wieners and buns, let me do me.
Your framing is so pathetic I genuinely think you might actually be American by your lack of reading comprehension and your failure to have an actual position you're consistent in.
Your entire argument is a desire to take your ball and go home because people don't agree with you, which is the basis of a democratic government, people disagreeing. While people want to sling shit about socialism vs capitalism, Marx and Engles both 100% supported a democratic notion of a country where voting was key which you clearly don't. You're ignorantly standing on the opposite side of that fence thinking you champion these people and it makes me sad you try to use their names to prove a point you genuinely don't even understand. You parrot Russian talking points to legitimize their claim to Ukraine. You deny Ukraine it's sovereign right to decide for itself and genuinely referred to it's democratic decisions as the result of it being a puppet state, something only a person with a legume for a brain would think.
I said I'm done here stop talking to me. Go back to read your theories and fail to understand them. Go back to supporting authoritarianism because people don't agree with what you think or do what you say. If you ever lead a country it would be under an authoritarian rule because you genuinely cannot handle people disagreeing with you and view it as them being "wrong". Bye bye bonehead.
Just because you're saying what your position is, doesn't actually make that your position. You are literally going "I TREAT BOTH EQUALLY" and then do nothing but pump Russia and their talking points - Voting doesn't work, Ukraine didn't want democracy, the US is worse. You have not levied a single criticism equally in the direction of any of the other three in that image. Every single step of the way I have been equally critical of the US and pointed out their actions are the same as Russia does, they are imperialist and their goals are selfish. You're disingenuous and think just because you say it, it becomes true. Just the same as you treat everything: It isn't liberal unless you agree, it isn't democracy unless you say so, it is fair if you say it is fair. You're like a five year old.
Nice strawman bro. Get out of here you've got nothing to offer me but crap opinions and false positions. You stand for nothing and your beliefs are paper thin. A "marxist" who supports authoritarianism. What an absolute living breathing joke of a human being go back to your little circles of "wELl ReAd mARxIsTs". Buncha dorks, classic .ml
Bob did 9/11
This is such a funny thing to say when you're doing laps and mental gymnastics to support Putin, the guy who has ruled a country for 20 years unchallenged and unimpeded, who has bombed his own citizens, spreads fake news and instigated a full scale "tHRee dAY spEciAL OPerAtion" into millions dead while pressganging innocent Indians, Africans and South Americans into the war. Bombing apartments, shopping centers and having his goons torture Ukrainians.
This is exactly why I can't take you seriously. Double standard. Completely a joke. Classic .ml 🙄
As someone who supports socialist movements I 100% agree. But I really think the big problem in the world right now is the misunderstanding of capital basically. People think capital or money or anything that involves government is capitalism? Or something? I don't really understand.
But just because people we might call capitalists pearl clutch about socialism doesn't give someone the space to do the same back, or really just lie/be ignorant. We can definitely discuss the flaws of economic systems or the system we live under and some solutions. But stamping "CAPITALISM BAD" or "SOCIALISM BAD" literally gets us nowhere.
You did, you even reiterated it just now?
The first time,
the second time with back tracking. And you move forward claiming you never said it was solely controlled but that the US was the bad guy when they did it and Russia was not for... reasons?
I think we both agree that Ukraine doesn't exist in a bubble. It not only has influence from these specific foreign powers but probably every single power in the world because that's kind of how a global economy works. The US/the west/the EU have a financial incentive in Ukraine the same as Russia, both are somewhat legitimate to want what they want. I think we both understand that but also do not respect or enjoy that fact about the world as it is gross and imperialistic and removes a nation and it's people's sovereignty.
But there is for two massive reasons. First, Ukrainians have made their choice where they would like to go, towards the EU and what they want is a democratic country. That reason standing alone is the deciding factor. Neither Russia or the US was the reason hundreds of thousands marched in the street, every individual made that choice themselves. It is so silly when political leaders refer to protestors as fake or paid or whatever. I know for a fact in protests there are bad actors, some of them paid, some of them are even local law enforcement. But that many bodies did not walk into the street and get paid to do so, that was their choice. And for that reason their want to move towards the EU, which was the whole reason they protested in the first place. Ukraine wanted ties to the EU, they wanted those trade deals and benefits. When it was rejected, they stormed into the street and decided what they want. So for a foreign power allied with the EU or in the EU to take measures to aid a sovereign Ukraine to that direction is legitimate. Second, Russia engaging in deceitful and violent measures to derail that goal lessens their claims further, it literally makes them the bad guy here. They are trying to change what the Ukrainian people want and now there is a war of disgusting aggression going on, bodies are being destroyed and lives wasted and ruined for Russia (see Putin's) personal wants. Which is absolutely disgusting and makes it so any argument to compare the west and Russia's goals in Ukraine completely incomparable.
Again as we both have stated above, these countries have vested interests it is unrealistic to say they shouldn't discuss this. Nothing in that phone call was offensive or imperialistic. It's not speaking of corruption or subverting law, it's talking about their goals in Ukraine.
Which is fuckin' hilarious because A) Yanukovych is Putin's guy. B) Putin is literally doing the same exact thing, you're lying if you don't admit that. C) If Yanukovych succeeded in snuffing out those protests you can bet Putin's picks for Ukraine's government would be sitting in their positions now too. You're literally doing it again where you give Russia this invisible pass and act like the US/the west is the only one who is doing these things and at the same time you're saying things like :
But you're BLATANTLY NOT. Which is what I'm arguing about here. You're just not. I'm sitting here stating openly how both of these actors are doing the same behavior except one has turned to bloodshed and lies and the other has peddled in lies BUT with the caveat that the Ukrainian people have decided which direction they want to go, not towards the bloodshed guy who you are literally arguing in favor for. So no, you're being dishonest or you don't understand your own position or you're straight up misunderstanding/being intentionally obtuse and ignorant.
As opposed to what/who? Putin who has sat in power for the last 20 years unchallenged? The Kim regime? China's single party? You are given a choice, there are not two parties. There is not one election. Every two years and sometimes more there is a chance to vote. If "Not Voting" was an option to win the office it would win every single time. You're parroting talking points of foreign interests in the United States/the west which is that democracy is a sham why bother voting. You see this all over lemmy from these supposed "marxists" who apparently don't want any form of representation I guess and embrace authoritarianism? It's nonsense. How can you call yourself any form of a left-leaning ideology without the understanding of representation and democratic procedures. You're literally arguing on the behalf of authoritarians and stating at the same time you are a proud marxist. Make it make sense?
This is where you fall flat on your face claiming liberals fall into loyalty or something. Americans are so heavily critical of their government, there's not a single president everyone has 100% liked in our life time. Every presidency is riddled with criticism and backlash and calls to remove them. You don't have that in these countries you're literally supporting, you're going to tell me you don't support them but you literally are by giving Russia these fake passes that allow them to engage in the same activity the west does, while also being far worse, and acting like they don't fucking do it too. For lack of better words it's childish to think other people don't see through that instantly. And once again you fall into this same line of thinking that if they don't agree with YOUR OPINION, it isn't really democracy and it isn't legitimate which is so funny because that's the opposite of democracy. People don't have to agree with you and your personal view of legitimacy doesn't have to be accepted. How many elections across this entire country have happened since the year 2000? Likely over 100,000 elections, that's my small estimate. You think out of 100,000 local to presidential elections not a single candidate has supported a withdraw from the middle east or afghanistan? Off the top of my head here's a few: Dennis Kuchinich, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Bill Richardson, JOE BIDEN(WHO LITERALLY WITHDREW FROM THE MIDDLE EAST!?)
What we see here is you playing a pick and choose game. You decide the US is interfering in Ukraine not Russia. You decide they aren't true liberals and it isn't real democracy because they aren't what YOU want. You parrot obvious Russian talking points trying to delegitimize both elections in the US and in Ukraine, the will of the people in both countries "aren't real" and we can talk all day about corruption, foreign influence, the power of money and it's ability to influence campaigns. But you're just ignoring simple truths.
Again, if "Not Voting" was a candidate, it would win EVERY SINGLE TIME. The problem isn't the system here, it is people like you who throw up their hands and whine when they don't win. The solutions are there and obvious. I'm done here. Ridiculous
Won't last. Youtube offers financial incentives and originally when Youtube got big it had lax as fuck censorship which is what gained it's initial popularity. Unless China is going to be entirely lax in the same way, there is no incentive for people to move over.
I don't understand your comment.
You're listing things and going "BAD" so Capitalism is bad.
A trading bubble is really just economics. Can't really say Capitalism causes that. The East India Trading Company is mercantilism which as evil as that specific company was the idea of trading goods from one country to another is like the core of our entire economic trade system today. Teapot Dome was flagrant corruption which happens in any economic system, the Canal and the railroad are more examples of labor exploitation which you can easily argue was less bad than the labor exploitation that came before it and led to better labor laws in the country.
It's like you're pointing at a gun and saying "FIRE MADE GUN, FIRE BAD!" because guns kill people. It's pretty caveman.
I think you're using the term liberal to mean too many things and also nothing at all. You're crafting a bogeyman. The things you've said suggest liberal means the liberal ideology, democratic politicians, liberal voters, western governments, social democrats and really anyone who isn't a marxist. They're not the same thing. Genuine opposition also doesn't mean anything, if someone criticizes their government but doesn't go as far as you believe then suddenly their position is loyalty to a state, insufficiently anti-imperialist or basically a fake. That's moving a goal post or a strawman or something, I dunno but it is disingenuous.
If genuine opposition means adopting your personal belief of a solution then you're saying genuine opposition is an agreement with your politics. Someone can oppose all those things without arriving at the same conclusion as you. You can't just decide what is a genuine opposition because it doesn't go far enough for you.
I also think it's pretty hypocritical the way you speak of Ukraine. The 2013/2014 events as a western backed coup is just not true. There was an enormous domestic protest of hundreds of thousands, a lot of which died during their protests because of a state crackdown lead by Yanukovych. When they kept pushing he literally fled the country TO RUSSIA where he is now hanging out with bashar al assad probably at some swanky resort because he's never been anything but a Russian puppet. Now you can criticize Ukraine on how it used its procedures to remove Yanukovych and maybe that was questionable. You can debate the west or the EU had strategic investments in Ukraine, sure. But calling it a western led coup delegitimizes the sovereignty of Ukrainians who ultimately decide how the hell their government should and will function.
Which is extremely relevant to your argument about liberals. You're suggesting they don't genuinely oppose their government because their opposition doesn't result in change of the state. But when Ukraine does, you're inclined to interpret their actions as if it was solely a foreign power than the agency of it's citizens.
I see this all the time with marxist, socialist, etc folk here on Lemmy. Their analysis of the United States in comparison to China or Russia is lopsided. Russia has its own ruling elite and imperial interests, as does China and North Korea. Russia invaded Ukraine like assholes because Ukraine didn't do what it wanted. China has engaged in coercive territorial disputes with neighboring states and has been accused with really strong evidence of operating overseas citizen policing centers as part of transnational repression.
The biggest thing I want to make clear when I'm talking about liberals, I mean people broadly committed to liberal traditions of individual liberty, democratic government, civil liberties. Recognizing that liberal democracies provide citizens with substantially greater autonomy and political rights than authoritariajn states is not the same thing as being loyal to the state. These people likely realize democratic institutions and civil liberties are preferable to authoritarian alternatives like you find in Russia, China, North Korea.
Democracy creates mechanisms which ordinary people can influence state policy even if those mechanisms are imperfect. At least in this country we have them and we understand why they're failing, because wealthy individuals, many of which aren't native to this country or even live here, have spent a lot of money encouraging a culture of Americans to not vote, not believe in democracy and allow them to continue to descend into an authoritarian state. China, Russia and North Korea don't have that and Trump wishes the United States didn't have that. Which is partly why Trump is depicted on that side of the seewsaw, because he wants to be on that side acting as those countries you're heavily less critical of, act.
Man look you're right on some parts but you're either intentionally or unintentionally pushing almost all the responsibility onto one party while giving the others in this image a pass.
You're applying an analysis of the United States' structure that you're not applying to Russia, China or North Korea. These countries all have a ruling class, capital, engage in imperialism and wield a specifically unique geopolitical power.
If we agree states are vehicles through which a ruling class pursues power, wealth and control then that has to apply to them all equally. They all have ruling elites, their own geopolitical ambitions and engage in their own means of repression or information control. Russia cracks down heavily on dissent, China engages in transnational repression and border disputes, North Korea has literally destroyed any meaningful space for political opposition or criticism of the Kim regime.
You're portraying American actions as the product of imperial interests but repeatedly explain the actions of the other three in this image as reactions.
Look at Ukraine. You called it a "proxy war", that doesn't erase the fact that Russia chose to invade Ukraine. It doesn't suddenly magically make Ukraine a puppet of the west. Western governments have a strategic interest in Ukraine you expect them to just throw up their hands in the face of a genuine invasion? Ukraine has its own interest and agency, they have their own aspirations. So why does western strategic interest erase Ukrainian agency while Russian interest in Ukraine doesn't? Is Russia not engaging in one of the most obtuse and offensive acts of imperialism in the 21st century in their actions? They're grinding an entire generation away into a supposedly "three day special operation" and pressganging any foreign national they can into the conflict as well. That's a pretty disgusting thing to do.
Okay but what would genuine opposition look like to you? Abandoning ship entirely at the first sight of a disagreement or infringement? If criticizing your own government is keyfabe opposite its foreign policy is loyalty to the state and criticizing the leaders is just reaffirming the system. Then what could an individual, a liberal person, actually do that you would recognize as opposition?
I don't understand what you think here. I don't have to defend imperialism done by the Trump president or any president before to oppose Russian or Chinese imperialism. I don't support the foreign policies of the United States to support Ukrainian sovereignty. I don't believe China and North Kore are good because the United States has done terrible things. I think you're missing that point entirely, or intentionally glossing over it all.
If you're going to analyze power structures to define the flaws of liberals, then analyze all of it and paint the full picture. Otherwise you're not analyzing power you're just picking a side, the side of the other three in the image Trump has now joined. Which is what the artist is depicting.
When I hear stuff like this I literally do not understand what you're talking about. Who are these liberals afraid to appear disloyal? Are you talking about international relations, internal government representatives or the voting bloc that might identify themselves as liberal or part of the liberal identity? Because my next question to whoever you're going to label as the "liberals" is -- what the hell are you talking about? Liberal voters are never-endingly critical of their representatives / government, politicians in liberal nations benefit from appearing to be "not the other guy" and cause disloyalty in all directions towards their opponents, international relations between liberal countries is literally the equivalent of public shaming to try and keep each other in step together. All left-leaning political factions engage in the circular firing squad, constant criticism that drags each other down, Marxists and socialists included.
It is actually insane to state there is any form of loyalty among liberals historically or today. Within a few years of America's founding, the liberal facade shattered into political factions that have only become more and more polarized and fractured. It's really just nonsense to say what you said. It's also super arrogant to state marxist circles actually read things when here on lemmy the "marxists" constantly spread some of the fakest news you can find and ban each other on their instances for disloyalty or stating alternative opinions.
Trump's foreign policies and all of his policies have nothing to do with the US agenda or historic goals.
Also this comic is taking arguably the most complex thing on this planet, international relations/history and framing it on a freakin' seesaw, some delicate things are going to be lost in translation. That's literally the point of political cartoons, to take super hard to define topics and basically make them into caricatures for people to laugh at and get a small grasp of the bigger picture.
Isn't that what all political factions do? Everyone who isn't them is stupid, then they engage in infighting with their own.
lol
Coward
What sicko has sat down and tried every one of these OS???
That said what's the spider one. I am an ignorant.
I could start streaming my showers? I take two a day
Unless you have a cool teacher