78
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 13 Aug 2025
78 points (67.1% liked)
Asklemmy
49957 readers
476 users here now
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
- Open-ended question
- Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
- Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
- Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
- An actual topic of discussion
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
- Lemmyverse: community search
- sub.rehab: maps old subreddits to fediverse options, marks official as such
- !lemmy411@lemmy.ca: a community for finding communities
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Given the political leanings of Lemmy's lead developers, and relatedly the whole reason why Lemmy started development in the first place, it should not be surprising to anyone that many Lemmy users have since the very beginning of Lemmy's existence had stances that could be called, in a word, "pro-Russia" or "pro-China".
The problem arises when people who don't hold these views look at them only through their own myopic biases, where, rather than genuinely interrogating why people might hold these attitudes, they instead more readily believe that a social media platform that most people have never even heard of is actually crawling with paid actors trying to influence public opinion.
No, to understand my own views on Russia, you need to understand my views on Atlanticism; to understand my views on Atlanticism, you need to understand my views on class, among other things. None of that comes across clearly in a one-liner or a four-panel meme. I'm sure I could discuss it in a more fitting space provided I'm not too drained of energy from having stayed up until five in the morning for the umpteenth time.
There once was a father who told his son, "All swans are white." One day, he and his son went to Australia on vacation. While there, at a park with a large pond, his son pointed out, "Look, Dad, black swans!"
"No, Son," the father laughed, "all swans are white!"
Russians have been framed millions of times in, for example, hollywood movies. I like justice, so I support the victims of framing and wish for the framers to get punished.
If you like justice, I invite you to visit Russia and speak up publicly against its invasion of Ukraine to experience its marvelous justice system first hand.
One of my friends has spent a year in Wandsworth without trial for supporting Palestine so don't fucking try to tell me about the evils of Russian justice
But why be against the invasion of Ukraine?
The word is sliver, and there are reasons to view Russia in a positive light.
Thanks for correcting me on the spelling.
Claiming Russia of all nations is anti-imperialist though is such a stupid take it's not even ridiculous anymore.
Russia both doesn't have the financial capital nor the available subjects to imperialize, the west has far more financial capital and already has nearly the entirety of the global south under its thumb. Because of this, Russia is incentivized, for its own survival, to oppose the global north and its imperialism.
Russia is the most imperialist state currently in existence. No other nation has destroyed so many languages and cultures in its colonies. There is no other state that uses state run propaganda to extend its power in other nations to the extent that Russia does. No other state that uses its secret service to kill dissidents abroad. There is no other state that currently wages wars to extend its territory (apart from Israel, but it lacks other defining characteristics of an imperialist state). Obviously, the US is imperialist too and many European states used to be, but that in no way substantiates the claim that is Russia is anti-imperialist.
Holy shit. Westerners really are the most propagandized people on earth.
I assume you’ve heard the joke about the KGB agent and the CIA agent.
Yeah, it very much came to mind
The majority of what you said is just outright false, such as the claims of Russia destroying languages and cultures (unless you mean Tsarist Russia, but that would be making a highly racist argument that relies on the idea that no matter what economic system Russians are evil), but the biggest issue seems to be that you don't understand what imperialism is, which is why I linked the definition.
When leftists speak of imperialism, we mean the system by which the developed capitalist countries export capital to the global south, financially dominating them and using this to expropriate vast sums of wealth. This is why African countries tend to be under-developed, it's intentionally so, and countries like France, Germany, the UK, and of course the US especially are evil for this. Russia doesn't have the ability to do this because it lacks the financial capital to do so, and because the west already has everyone under their thumb. The west are like landlords and the global south their tenants.
Oh cool, so you made your own definition of Imperialism to fit your world view. Hilarious.
This is demonstratably true and I'm not talking about Tsarist Russia.
I'm not disagreeing with your critique of France and its treatment of its former colonies and the same goes for other European countries. None of that has anything to do with Russia being Imperialist though.
I didn't make up any definition of imperialism. John A. Hobson was the most significant theorist on imperialism pre-Lenin and Lenin's work Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism. This is the most relevant definition of imperialism over the last century, and accurately explains the world position today where wealthy elites in the global north offshore production and utilize state power like the millitary, sanctions, and coups to keep a class of compradors in power in the global south. It's super-exploitation for super-profits.
What would be more legitimate is me saying that you have created your own definition. Everyone else that has mentioned imperialism thus far has been following somewhere around what I've described, yet you seem to be dramatically unclear, and moreover erasing this process of wealth expropriation so as to minimize the crimes of the west.
As for Russia destroying language and cultures, no, that's silly. The USSR had no colonies, and neither does the Russian Federation. It would have to be Tsarist Russia to make any sense.
Sounds interesting, I will look into it. Not sure Russia doesn't do this though. Not by means of capital, but it definitely extracts wealth from the global south, for example by using mercenaries to take over mines.
Trying to change the meaning of a well established concept is not helpful. While the definition you posted above is certainly interesting, it should not try to change the meaning of an existing word (if it even tries to do that, maybe it's a conscious or unconscious misrepresentation by you).
Russia has an extraction industry, but it doesn't "take over" mines in Africa. Trade does not equal imperialism, imperialism specifically relates to super-exploitation for super-profits, and Russia doesn't have the ability to do that.
As for your definition of imperialism, it's much less useful and is far more vague. It's entirely unsurprising that bourgeois economists would erase the true nature of imperialism in the modern era by de-linking it from capitalism, and moreover this definition fails to analyze why imperialism happens, and why it happens in greater and lesser extents, and how to end it forever. Lenin's analysis answers all of that. It is the bourgeois economist that has blunted the theories of imperialism in the modern era, not the Marxist-Leninists.
Again, I re-iterate: it was the bourgeois economists who erased the link between capitalism and imperialism! John A. Hobson had the most popular and coherent definituon of imperialism, which Lenin advanced further, and this definition of imperialism is the one that has guided state policy throughout the last century! Anti-imperialists of the last century have all been adhering to Lenin's definition, be they from the USSR, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Vietnam, Korea, Latin America, South America, Africa in general, Palestine, etc.
And no, the USSR had no colonies, period. Not overseas, not nearby.
You don't have the background knowledge necessary to have this debate if you think it is the Marxists that have the less wide-spread definition. Perhaps if you only think western, pro-imperialist discourse is valid, but that's chauvanism.
LUL. By that logic Brazil is imperialist.
Imperialism is when standardized paperwork
Famously imperialist country, Mongolia.
Also 3 of Switzerland's official languages are just the language of the closest country, less than 1% of the population speak Romansh.
What a joke of a statement. The US has far more powerful outlets like this, see the Voice of X channels or Freedom House as just a few examples of how the US essentially runs the narrative in Western media.
Just using common sense you should be able to figure out that the country that runs the entire Western entertainment industry, which is exported worldwide and routinely submits to US government interests, has far more reach than Russia.
The key is state run. Obviously, US media has way more reach and is indeed dominating the "narrative" globally, but it's (for the most part) not propaganda, because it's not state run. People just like that stuff, I mostly hate it as well, but that's how the world is.
This is nonsense. Not a single definition of propaganda, Marxist, liberal, or otherwise, states that propaganda must be state-owned. All media trying to push a narrative is propaganda in some form. Private owners pushing pro-capitalist propaganda is still propaganda.
Further, the US does use state influence. Whether it be in the education system, or via state-funded NGOs like Radio Free Asia, the Victims of Communism foundation, etc the state supports the ruling class via propaganda.
On the level plain, simple mounds look like hills; and the imbecile flatness of the present bourgeoisie is to be measured by the altitude of its great intellects.
By that standard PragerU is not propaganda because it originates from private funding. Do you wanna go back and think about that one, maybe try again?
How propaganda works in Western capitalist states has been well-understood for decades.
Amazing.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_Hope
First of all, the most imperialist state from the end of WWII to today is the US.
Lmao, have you been living your entire life in a cave?
Sure, and the West is even worse.