• BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml
    182·
    2 days ago

    Surely not? How dare they share a heinous state-affiliated media?? Dont they know its untrustworthy? Unlike our clearly unbiased BBCCNNMSNBCCCTVCSPANREUTERSAPNEWS? Dont they know the very unbiased mediafactchecktruthorg has rated RT news 5 whole pinnocios? Now let me return to reading the Kyiv Post.

    Did I read the article they shared? No, like a clever citizen I saw it was RT, so I shut my eyes. No need to engage with the material, Snopes told me not to read it.

    • DegradationDenial@feddit.nlBanned from community
      220·
      2 days ago

      Nice uno reverse of the OP’s meme.

      Revolutionair socialisten die internationalisme serieus nemen zouden vrede zonder annexaties moeten eisen. Het gaat hier om internationale solidariteit.

      https://socialisme.nu/het-antioorlogsverzet-in-rusland/

      For you Dumb Americans the English translation:

      Revolutionary socialists who take internationalism seriously should demand peace without annexations. This is about international solidarity.

      • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
        141·
        2 days ago

        A left-wing Russian-speaking group in Germany and their contacts in Russia are once again on the view that Ukraine is waging a justified defensive war against Revanchist Russian imperialism. This is the so-called defeatist position, as also promoted during the First World War by the German socialist Karl Liebknecht: the enemy stands domestically and a defeat of Russia is the least evil.

        That’s completely wrong and ahistorical. The “defeatist” position in WWI was the position that completely rejectedthe notion that any side was fighting a “justified defensive war,” instead viewing as a conflict between imperialist powers. On that basis, defeatism called for revolutionary action against one’s own government, whichever government that is. It was an explicit rejection of “the lesser evil.”

        Lenin called Trotsky out over this point very clearly and explicitly:

        Theory

        To desire Russia’s defeat, Trotsky writes, is “an uncalled-for and absolutely unjustifiable concession to the political methodology of social-patriotism, which would replace the revolutionary struggle against the war and the conditions causing it, with an orientation—highly arbitrary in the present conditions—towards the lesser evil” . . .

        The phrase-bandying Trotsky has completely lost his bearings on a simple issue. It seems to him that to desire Russia’s defeat means desiring the victory of Germany. . .

        What is the substitute proposed for the defeat slogan? It is that of “neither victory nor defeat.” This, however, is nothing but a paraphrase of the “defence of the fatherland” slogan. It means shifting the issue to the level of a war between governments (who, according to the content of this slogan, are to keep to their old stand, “retain their positions”), and not to the level of the struggle of the oppressed classes against their governments! It means justifying the chauvinism of all the imperialist nations, whose bourgeoisie are always ready to say—and do say to the people—that they are “only” fighting “against defeat”. “The significance of our August 4 vote was that we are not for war but against defeat,” David, a leader of the opportunists, writes in his book. The Organising Committee, together with Bukvoyed and Trotsky, stand on fully the same ground as David when they defend the “neither-victory nor-defeat” slogan.

        On closer examination, this slogan will be found to mean a “class truce”, the renunciation of the class struggle by the oppressed classes in all belligerent countries, since the class struggle is impossible without dealing blows at one’s “own” bourgeoisie, one’s “own” government, whereas dealing a blow at one’s own government in wartime is (for Bukvoyed’s information) high treason, means contributing to the defeat of one’s own country. Those who accept the “neither victory-nor-defeat” slogan can only be hypocritically in favour of the class struggle, of “disrupting the class truce”; in practice, such people are renouncing an independent proletarian policy because they subordinate the proletariat of all belligerent countries to the absolutely bourgeois task of safeguarding the imperialist governments against defeat. . .

        Whoever is in favour of the slogan of “neither victory nor defeat” is consciously or unconsciously a chauvinist; at best he is a conciliatory petty bourgeois but in any case he is an -enemy to proletarian policy, a partisan of the existing governments, of the present-day ruling classes.

        What on earth does maintaining the territorial integrity of a bourgeois state have to do with international solidarity?

        • DegradationDenial@feddit.nlBanned from community
          214·
          2 days ago

          It’s a good thing I’m not a Leninist or I would feel pretty silly now. Nevertheless time has moved on and other strategies of Socialism have continued in different directions each European country and its cultural influence. Some recognising that ignorance or defence of autocratic actions don’t slide after talking about power to the people.

          • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
            15·
            2 days ago

            The source you linked explicitly chose to bring up the defeatist slogan in the context of WWI, and then described it as something entirely different than what it was. Maybe you should link a source you’re actually willing to stand by.

            Some recognising that ignorance or defence of autocratic actions don’t slide after talking about power to the people.

            Do “autocratic actions” include things like banning political parties you disagree with and drafting people en masse? You are defending autocratic actions and trying to get it to slide by talking about “power to the people.”

            • DegradationDenial@feddit.nlBanned from community
              111·
              2 days ago

              Drafting your population when you have a foreign adversary dropping bombs on you is the right thing to do. It is known as self defence. I know I’ll get some hate for this from most people but yeah. As a Dutch man my country’s history contains the defeatism to the fucking Nazis.

              Do you have a publisher that you 100% stand by? Come on.

              Bad faith news sources like RT, FoxNews, OngehoordNederland. Should not have the same rights sorry, similar to blocking bad faith politicians from being elected, see the ongoing case for removing AfD.

              • m532@lemmy.ml
                15·
                2 days ago

                So I’m germany, I invade your country, kill your gov, put myself in charge, and then start drafting the population because I’m at war with france.

                According to you, that draft would be justified…

                  • m532@lemmy.ml
                    13·
                    2 days ago

                    Ah, as I expected, when you are the one being drafted by a foreign ursuper it’s suddenly different

                  • BrainInABox@lemmy.mlEnglish
                    111·
                    2 days ago

                    That is what you wrote dipshit. The fact that you don’t want to stand by it doesn’t change that .

              • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                12·
                2 days ago

                Drafting your population when you have a foreign adversary dropping bombs on you is the right thing to do. It is known as self defence.

                “Self”-defense? The state is not yourself, nor is it a person. Defending the state is defending the power, structure, and organization that exists in the country. Which is only a worthwhile endeavor if there is a significant difference for the average person between the two sides.

                If a state is actually good, if it actually improves the quality of life of its people, then sure, it’s worth defending. Conversely, if a state is genuinely exterminationist, like the Nazis, then even a flawed, bourgeois state can be worth defending. But every major conflict since WWII, from Vietnam to Iraq, has had people trying to justify it by comparing the other side to Hitler and the Nazis, generally those comparisons are frivolous.

                Ukraine and Russia are both capitalist states. What tangible difference will there be if one side winds up governing the disputed territory instead of the other? It’s just a question of what color flag they look at while they get exploited. Is that worth sending people at gunpoint into a meat grinder? Is it a leftist, progressive position to say that it is?

                • DegradationDenial@feddit.nlBanned from community
                  110·
                  2 days ago

                  That is why I’m only defending the concept on the requirement that it is to defend your country not attack another.

                  The Japanese or Dutch self defence forces are different to the US or Russian invasion troops.

                  • OBJECTION!@lemmy.ml
                    13·
                    2 days ago

                    “Aggressor and defender” is just not a good framework for understanding any conflict. For example, during the Vietnam War, where the US was sending troops halfway around the globe to terrorize a bunch of poor rice farmers into submission so that they could keep exploiting them, they justified it by saying they were just “defending” the state of South Vietnam.

                    The same can be said of either side in Ukraine. The West is just “defending” the government which they hand-picked during Euromaidan, while Russia is just “defending” the separatist governments who requested their aid. It’s trivially easy to paint virtually any side in any conflict as merely “defending.” Even the Roman Empire, while they were expanding across Europe, often claimed that they were simply “defending their allies.” Look at an area you want to control, pick one side in that area to be your ally, wait for a conflict to break out, then use the excuse to move in, and the next thing you know you’ve conquered the known world, “defending” all the while.

                    In any case, I can’t say I’m particularly invested in upholding a status quo where my enemies are the ones on top. That’s their problem, not mine.

      • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
        191·
        2 days ago

        It’s unsurprising that this is from a Trotskyist website, which endlessly frames internationalism from a pro-western angle and justifies swelling NATO. How does Ukraine actually get peace without annexations? Even if Kiev pushed all the way back to the prior borders, they’d have to continue the Ukrainian Civil War against Donetsk and Luhansk that they couldn’t win after 8 years of fighting prior to Russia’s involvement. The Donbass doesn’t want to be a part of Ukraine anymore, so this is just an erasure of the right of nations to self-determination.

        • DegradationDenial@feddit.nlBanned from community
          315·
          2 days ago

          You americans can only see black and white can’t you? This is about to systematic squashing of any form of anti war opposition of Russian civilians. And to be solidar to those inside while not capitulating to the same form of imperialism Israel is using by setters.

          • Cowbee [he/they]@lemmy.ml
            21·
            2 days ago

            Again, Trotskyists love absolving themselves of any responsibility to oppose NATO internally, pushing it onto Russians, caping for western imperialism, and erasing the sovereignty of the Donbass region. Also silly to bring in Israel when Zelensky said he wants Ukraine to be the “Israel of Europe.”

      • BanMeFromPosting@lemmy.ml
        182·
        2 days ago

        What do you mean? I just told you I would never be so silly as to even read something written by state affiliated media. I was told by BBC to look up anything I read on truthbiaschecker.america first, and that site rated RT 8 pants on fire! So I would never read it, I stick to trustworthy media such as AP and CNN.
        Likewise I would never engage with anyone whose character allows them to even look at a russian. If their hominem is so ad then I know not to think about their argument.