• 2 Posts
  • 18 Comments
Joined 5 years ago
cake
Cake day: April 18th, 2019

help-circle




  • Who genocided the muslim populations of the USSR? Was it the USA and western colonizers too? Does that ring any bells? From the wikipedia page on Deportation of Chechens and Ingush:

    The deportation was prepared from at least October 1943 and 19,000 officers as well as 100,000 NKVD soldiers from all over the USSR participated in this operation. The deportation encompassed their entire nations, as well as the liquidation of the Checheno-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. The demographic consequences of this eviction were catastrophic and far reaching: of the 496,000 Chechens and Ingush who were deported (according to Soviet archives; Chechen sources put the deportees at 650,000[1]), at least a quarter perished. In total, the archive records show that over a hundred thousand people died or were killed during the round-ups and transportation, and during their early years in exile in the Kazakh and Kyrgyz SSR as well as Russian SFSR where they were sent to the many forced settlements. Chechen sources claim that 400,000 died, while presuming a higher number of deportees.

    Just because western empires are evil does not mean other empires have to be good.




  • Criticism must happen not against the oppressed (pro-Russian) narrative, but the dominant (pro-NATO, pro-Ukraine) narrative

    In what world do you live that there is an oppressed and dominant narrative? Both sides are trying to impose their own narrative for their own fucked up interests. Neither of those sides will be what local militants will tell you, as those have a common understanding (anti-war, anti-imperialist) of the situation from every side of the border/conflict.

    Russia needs to do a lot of catchup on whatever Anglo countries have done, for Russia to be equally called an empire.

    I’m not saying Russia is as evil as UK/France/USA. I’m not interested in playing a game of who’s less worse. This is not a game. This is real life and our comrades are suffering on both sides of the border.

    most of whatever is shown to paint Russia bad in the media is debunked as fake news

    Of course there’s disinformation on both sides, like during any political conflict. Where can you see me spreading fake news?

    Playing both sides trope when the media is suspiciously imbalanced against Russia is purely meant for grift purposes.

    I’m not doing “both sides”. I’m doing “neither side”. I chose my side, and i side with the people who struggle across this planet. I’m taking time to counter propaganda on both sides on these forums because i have higher expectations in terms of information/debate when it comes to Lemmy, and because some people need to take the side of the common people and militant antifascists and spread their analysis on the situation, when everyone else is spewing Washington/Kremlin propaganda.


  • If you can point to one instance where i advocated for NATO, i’d be happy to provide an apology. Unfortunately this does not exist except in your mind where being against the Russian empire means siding with the western empire. I strongly recommend you do some reading on third-worldism and the importance of non-alignment (in regards to colonial empires) for the socialist/communist/anarchist movement worldwide.

    Do you seek interest in publishing photos on Lemmy like this, since you call critics of current narrative “puppets of Russian Empire”?

    Challenge accepted. I’m all up for denouncing nazism/fascism where it is. I just criticize when denouncing a specific brand of fascism is done in a way to reinforce another (whether it’s USA or Russian fascism/imperialism).



  • One side… that has 0% representation in current media for SOME reason.

    That’s definitely not true. You are the proof of this. While many national outlet are spewing NATO propaganda, others are spewing Kremlin propaganda. I’m hoping we can have more balanced information on lemmy.ml, that accounts for psyops on both sides of the conflict.

    Quoting should help here, because Putin’s recent speech tells otherwise.

    OK let’s dissect Putin’s speech together:

    I am referring to the eastward expansion of NATO, which is moving its military infrastructure ever closer to the Russian border. (…) First a bloody military operation was waged against Belgrade. (…) Then came the turn of Iraq, Libya and Syria. (…) in the 1990s and the early 2000s, when the so-called collective West was actively supporting separatism and gangs of mercenaries in southern Russia

    Geopolitical concerns between the two big empires (Russia and NATO), nothing about Ukrainian separatists. Though in this part of the speech, Putin presents separatism (in the Caucasus presumably) as morally wrong and dangerous.

    they sought to destroy our traditional values and force on us their false values that would erode us, our people from within, the attitudes they have been aggressively imposing on their countries, attitudes that are directly leading to degradation and degeneration, because they are contrary to human nature.

    Being slightly informed about Putin’s fight for cis-hetero-patriarchy, this appears to be anti-LGBT propaganda. Nothing to do with ukrainian separatists.

    Moreover, these past days NATO leadership has been blunt in its statements that they need to accelerate and step up efforts to bring the alliance’s infrastructure closer to Russia’s borders. (…) The problem is that in territories adjacent to Russia, which I have to note is our historical land, a hostile “anti-Russia” is taking shape.

    Once again this is about sovereign nations and their choice of military alliances (i.e. not Russia), nothing to do with ukrainian separatists. Special note that Putin explicitly appropriates Ukraine territory (“our historical land”) and in the same sentence acknowledges that his colonial stature fuels “anti-Russia” sentiment.

    For our country, it is a matter of life and death, a matter of our historical future as a nation. This is not an exaggeration; this is a fact. It is not only a very real threat to our interests but to the very existence of our state and to its sovereignty.

    This is highly debatable. Russia is a major military power and has weapons capable of destroying half of Europe and Asia. In the “delicate balance of terror”, there is no indication that the balance has been broken (despite NATO expansionism, Putin still has one-click “life-or-death” button over much of the world) and Putin is not providing any evidence for Russia to be under risk of military attacks.

    For eight years, for eight endless years we have been doing everything possible to settle the situation by peaceful political means.

    Saying “i won’t destroy you if you don’t become friends with my enemy” is not peaceful political means. It’s threats.

    We had to stop that atrocity, that genocide of the millions of people who live there and who pinned their hopes on Russia, on all of us. (…) the showdown between Russia and these forces cannot be avoided. It is only a matter of time

    Putin talks about a genocide which beyond ordinary (and yes, unfair) State repression does not exist in Ukraine, and never provided any evidence for that. If anything, there is evidence that much of this spectacle was planned in advance (video metadata in official releases). And once again, Putin does not provide any evidence that Russia is in any way threatened.

    Moreover, they went as far as aspire to acquire nuclear weapons.

    There is exactly zero evidence for that that i could find. On the contrary, Ukraine used to be a major nuclear power in the times of the USSR and agreed to dismantle its entire arsenal in order to acquire relative peace with both Russia and NATO. This sounds a lot like the Bush administration’s “weapons of mass-destruction” narrative in Iraq back in the early 2000s.

    Russia accepted the new geopolitical reality after the dissolution of the USSR. We have been treating all new post-Soviet states with respect

    As the military repression (some would say civil war) in muslim States (such as Checheny) and in Caucasus has shown, Russia has been treating separatists and ordinary citizens way worse than the Ukrainian has ever treated the people of Donetsk (at least from what we know publicly so far).

    To this end, we will seek to demilitarise and denazify Ukraine, as well as bring to trial those who perpetrated numerous bloody crimes against civilians, including against citizens of the Russian Federation. (…) It is not our plan to occupy the Ukrainian territory. We do not intend to impose anything on anyone by force.

    So they don’t plan to occupy the country, yet they are bombing the capital and intend to impose (“not by force” ?!) their laws and judicial systems, as well as fully demilitarize a sovereign nation. Is that not a textbook example of a colonialist invasion?

    You look to be on the side of Ukraine, that wants to prevent the oppressed people of DPR and LPR to have independence

    I’m on the side of the people, against Nation States and borders. I recognize the autonomy of local community and am ready to support people struggling for their independence. I’m not on the side of Ukraine and i’m not on the side of Russia, and i’m certainly not on the side of NATO as i’m anti-France, but i also have to be against Russia on this because they’re the ones who “fired” and keeps on shooting.

    Your first question mixing Putin and NATO on the same side is a fallacy

    On the contrary, it’s the only reasonable analysis. Putin and NATO are two sides of the same dice of colonialist garbage. I stand with the people not with governments, as is a foundational principle of socialism (i strongly recommend some historical socialist/anarchist anti-war propaganda). Overall, i strongly recommend that you listen to the demands and cries of comrades on both sides of the border.


  • You are okay with NATO invading Russia and surrounding it with Aegis missile system

    I’m not OK with either. But NATO did not invade Russia and AFAIK is not planning to. There is zero evidence to believe

    Russia protecting Donbas citizens from Ukraine

    I have no problems with that. But that’s not what’s happening: there is a full-scale invasion going on threatening the capital of Ukraine, where Putin’s demands go far beyond independence for Donbass.

    To you, Zelensky, who has a 25% approval rate and jailed the democratically elected Poroshenko and banning opposition media

    What the hell are you talking about? I may be missing some details, but Poroshenko’s wikipedia page does not mention incarceration, but mentions losing in the elections to Zelensky. To quote the article:

    There was no true consensus (…) why Poroshenko lost (…) [:] opposition to intensifying nationalism, failure to stem corruption, dissatisfaction of overlooked Russian-speaking regions with his presidency (…) He is considered an oligarch due to the scale of his business holdings in the manufacturing, agriculture and financial sectors, his political influence that included several stints at government prior to his presidency, and ownership of an influential mass-media outlet. (…) His presidency was distilled into a three-word slogan, employed by both supporters and opponents: armiia, mova, vira. In translation from Ukrainian, it is: military, language, faith.

    I’m not saying Zelensky is much better, but you seem to be ardent to defend an actual bourgeois fascist whose slogan is “military, language, faith” and inventing conspiracies around him? I mean if you do have reliable sources contradicting this Wikipedia article, please help improve it.

    Or is it selective Cold War bias going on?

    Yes there’s selective cold war propaganda going on. And you’re fully subscribed to one side of it. I personally am very critical of both sides of the propaganda, and supportive of the civilians and internationalist socialists/communists/anarchists suffering due to political repression on both sides of the border. As much as you dismiss Greenwald, he’s doing a correct journalistic job on this topic: he’s presenting the lies from both sides and supporting the victims (the populations). You’re just a puppet of the Russian Empire. Which side are you on? Are you on the same side as Putin and NATO and other vampires playing the same game of geopolitics? Or are you on the side of the people who struggle against oppression and aim for self-organization at all levels of society?


  • I’ve read it. Some sources in there are interesting, but the material itself is completely disconnected from reality. In the sociopathic game of geopolitics, NATO expansion has certainly destabilized the balance of power and incentivized Russia to assert itself (and its claim on its former colonies). But you cannot compare countries forging military alliances, and a country invading another country… it’s a completely different kind of escalation.

    If anything, your article confirms that Putin is a colonialist bully just as much as NATO is in other parts of the world. It’s just russian propaganda and does not account for mischief and imperialist ambitions on the part of Russia. If you want a more nuanced source, i’d recommend checking out Glenn Greewald’s Twitter feed: it does a great job to denounce the hypocrisy of western powers, while at the same time acknowledging that invading a sovereign nation is always wrong, no matter what.


  • Ukronazi

    What’s this neologism? Are you not aware nazis are very well integrated in the State apparatus in many nations? It’s not just Ukraine: it’s also Russia, France, Germany… So why paint a single nation as nazis when more or less of all the parties involved in the conflict are varying brand of imperialism and racial/cultural supremacy?

    supporting a planned Ukronazi attack on Donbass republics

    What’s the evidence that there was a wide-scale attack planned? If that was true, it could justify bringing military support to Donbass as an incentive for the central government not to attack, but how could it ever justify invading the rest of Ukraine?!

    Russia also offered diplomatic solutions many times (since December, and in fact since 2014).

    From this article, the demands formulated by Russia amount to saying eastern european countries can’t have military alliances except with them (neocolonialism, much?). Interviewed russian foreign ministry says:

    This is not about us giving some kind of ultimatum, there is none. The thing is that the seriousness of our warning should not be underestimated

    That’s not a diplomatic solution, that’s extortion/bullying. “Do what i say, or else…” has nothing to do with diplomacy and nothing to do with the political autonomy of specific regions.

    just a few days ago Ukraine threatened to develop nuclear weapons. That was obviously a red line for Russia

    Iran did pursue to develop nuclear weapon for decades. Has that ever justified a full-scale military invasion from the USA? Oh yes, the USA fascists and hard-liners from the republicans would have loved that. Just like the various fascists, traditionalists and neo-nazis of Russia who love the flag and the military really love the idea of conquering Ukraine and reforming a Great Russia (like historical nazis liked their Great Germany). I did not think i would ever say this in my entire life, but do you realize you’re spitting propaganda from actual fascists in the name of fighting against nazism?


  • Where has the US been which provoked the war and said it “stands with Ukraine?”

    I have yet to see any evidence that western powers are in any way responsible for the war. If you consider the war is caused by the ukrainian government not respecting the Minsk agreements, then it’s an internal policy matter and i fail to understand how that implicates the USA. Moreover, from all i could see western powers (at least in open/official channels) have been preaching for de-escalation whereas Putin was openly calling/threatening for escalation.

    I hate the US and French colonial empires, but come on it’s hard to blame them when another major colonial empire invades a country (which just so happens to be its former colony). In true internationalist spirit, we should be supportive of people struggling for freedom & equality on both sides across continents and borders. Fuck nation states and military organizations, vive la commune!




  • I prefer having this filter rather than not having it, mostly because of the systemic effects I explained.

    That’s also the case for me, in case that was not clear :)

    I think some words are almost always meant to harm, and can be easily replace by more positive or neutral term.

    I don’t think it’s that easy, because of the context. Should all usage of the n***** word by black people be prevented? Should all usage of w****/b**** words by queer/femmes folks in a sex-positive context be prevented? etc… I agree with you using these words is most times inappropriate and we can find better words for that, however white male technologists have a long history of dictating how the software can be used (and who it’s for) and i believe there’s something wrong in that power dynamic in and of itself. It’s not uncommon that measures of control introduced “to protect the oppressed” turn into serious popular repression.

    Still, like i said i like this filter in practice, and it’s part of the reason i’m here (no fascism policy). As a militant antifascist AFK, i need to reflect on this and ponder whether automatic censorship is ok in the name of antifascism: it seems pretty efficient so far, if only as a psychological barrier. And i strongly believe we should moderate speech and advertise why we consider certain words/concepts to be mental barriers, but i’m really bothered on an ethical level to just dismiss content without human interaction. Isn’t that precisely what we critique in Youtube/Facebook/etc? I’m not exactly placing these examples on the same level as a slur filter though ;)


  • The devs explain here a clear intention to make this change difficult enough to prevent at least partially the migration of some communities they don’t want to support and/or give a platform to.

    I’m happy it’s becoming harder for neonazis to find a home online, however i’m not happy that this makes lemmy english-centric, and i’m not happy that honest discussion about some topics (including thoughtful criticism) will be made harder.

    Related example: on another message board a few weeks back i couldn’t post a message containing my criticism of “bitcoin” because bitcoin was part of the slur filter to filter out the crypto-capitalist clique… i understand and appreciate why it was put in place, but i felt really powerless as a user that a machine who lacks understanding of the context of me using this word, decided i had no right to post it. I appreciate strong moderation, but i don’t trust machine to police/judge our activities.


  • Well it depends what type of “communism” we’re talking about. Fascism has usually a pretty clear understanding: repression of political dissent, emphasis on a national feeling and a sense of unique destiny to destroy/conquer whoever disagrees, various forms of eugenism (in the sense of killing people because they’re homosexual or handicapped), the cult of work as a duty to your homeland, as in some cases also strong racism (to my knowledge this is not a feature of italian fascism, but rather other forms of nazism/fascism).

    So now, what is communism? According to marxists and anarchists, communism is the stateless, peaceful, egalitarian society. However, marxists believe an intermediary step is required to reach communism: the dictatorship of the proletariat, which has led to countless deaths and suffering. So if “dictatorship of the proletariat” is your definition of communism, then i would almost agree with you “communism” is just as bad as “fascism”. However, there still are some differences:

    • women’s rights (and often gay rights) are faring well under marxism-leninism ; that is, women are equal in their right to be exploited by the State
    • most leninist regimes, despite their atrocities, are not known for putting forward racial theories and committing genocides (although Stalin in the USSR had quite some genociding on his hands)

    So no, it’s not the same. And in any way, most people you will meet through life will talk about communism as the principle free and equal society. That is, the abolition of privileges (remember 1789?) and freedom and equality for all. In this anarchist understanding of communism, then really there’s nothing wrong with communism.

    Free association + Mutual aid + Solidarity against domination = <3 Short introduction to anarchism i wrote in another topic