Not in general no. I was more refering to how I have seen .ml users too encline to defend Russias decision to invade Ukraine. That’s what my comment was more refering to/implying.
Why is it that anti-communists never seem to be capable of genuinely engaging with the stances of Marxists, and have to invent strawmen to reconcile their refusal to understand the Marxist point of view?
“Ok so now it’s legitimate to invade these countries!”
Average tankie.
Meaning you took issue with the Marxist stance on the Russo-Ukrainian War. It seems like you’re trying to say that this is just an esoteric Lemmy.ml thing, plus again as I pointed out you were complaining about a distorted, strawman version of the Marxist stance.
Do you hereby imply that you agree that the tankie take is the invasion is legitimate? If yes, then please explain to me why and how it is the marxist stance.
First, I already established that you were strawmanning the point outright.
Either way, the general Marxist take is that when Yanukovych was offered an IMF loan that required austerity policies and privatization of safety nets, and a Russian loan that did not come with the same restrictions, he went with the Russian loan and was couped for it, including a western-supported Banderite false-flag shooting. Following the western-supported coup, the areas in the Donbass region seceded, as they supported Yanukovych, are culturally and ethnically Russian, and were unhappy with the Banderites taking over the government under the cover of “democracy.” Said Banderites were also legally suppressing the Russian language in the Donbass region.
What ensued was a decade of fighting, 2 failed Minsk agreements that Kiev broke and admitted to never wanting to follow, and massive risk of NATO on Russia’s doorstep. The Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics requested Russian assistance, and Russia complied, sparking the next stage of the war.
Russia purely wants the Donbass region and NATO neutrality. They want the Donbass region not out of the kindness of their hearts, nor for plunder or further expansion, but because it’s a land bridge straight to Russia, the same route the Nazis took in World War II. NATO was building up because the West uses their millitary to threaten countries into opening up their economies to foreign plunder (like what’s happening right now in Venezuela), a tradition employed since NATO was founded, destroyed Yugoslavia and Libya, etc.
This is the common Marxist take, shared largely by PSL’s statement and FRSO’s statement. Essentially, the war is tragic, should end as quickly as possible, and was provoked by the west.
It is too much reading in assuming I am anti-communist. I was replying to the post in the style of the post.
But you were just complaining about communists, no?
Not in general no. I was more refering to how I have seen .ml users too encline to defend Russias decision to invade Ukraine. That’s what my comment was more refering to/implying.
Average lib.
Nobody said that.
Why is this downvoted for example?
Then we circle back to the beginning:
In what is not agreeing with current russia foreign policies being anti-communist? We are not being circling back to the beginning, this is bad faith.
You complained about communists directly:
Meaning you took issue with the Marxist stance on the Russo-Ukrainian War. It seems like you’re trying to say that this is just an esoteric Lemmy.ml thing, plus again as I pointed out you were complaining about a distorted, strawman version of the Marxist stance.
Do you hereby imply that you agree that the tankie take is the invasion is legitimate? If yes, then please explain to me why and how it is the marxist stance.
First, I already established that you were strawmanning the point outright.
Either way, the general Marxist take is that when Yanukovych was offered an IMF loan that required austerity policies and privatization of safety nets, and a Russian loan that did not come with the same restrictions, he went with the Russian loan and was couped for it, including a western-supported Banderite false-flag shooting. Following the western-supported coup, the areas in the Donbass region seceded, as they supported Yanukovych, are culturally and ethnically Russian, and were unhappy with the Banderites taking over the government under the cover of “democracy.” Said Banderites were also legally suppressing the Russian language in the Donbass region.
What ensued was a decade of fighting, 2 failed Minsk agreements that Kiev broke and admitted to never wanting to follow, and massive risk of NATO on Russia’s doorstep. The Donetsk and Luhansk People’s Republics requested Russian assistance, and Russia complied, sparking the next stage of the war.
Russia purely wants the Donbass region and NATO neutrality. They want the Donbass region not out of the kindness of their hearts, nor for plunder or further expansion, but because it’s a land bridge straight to Russia, the same route the Nazis took in World War II. NATO was building up because the West uses their millitary to threaten countries into opening up their economies to foreign plunder (like what’s happening right now in Venezuela), a tradition employed since NATO was founded, destroyed Yugoslavia and Libya, etc.
This is the common Marxist take, shared largely by PSL’s statement and FRSO’s statement. Essentially, the war is tragic, should end as quickly as possible, and was provoked by the west.
As a side-note, if you haven’t really engaged with Marxism before, consider checking out the Marxist-Leninist introductory reading guide I made.
Thanks for this reply. I’ll check more about that.
If it makes you feel better, there are Marxist-Leninist parties with anti Russia stances, just most MLs on this site are not members of those parties.