Elon Musk Wants Hasan ARRESTED For Charlie Kirk Attack | Hasanabi reactsHasanabi (AKA Hasan Piker) is an American Twitch streamer and political commentator. ...
Yes but the point is intent in this case. If what’s preventing a chud from chudding is a jail cell, does that stop them from being a chud? No it fucking doesn’t
They ally themselves with targets of imperialism, or I should say targets of imperialism often ally themselves with Russia, because they have a common enemy. It really doesn’t have anything to do with an ideology that died in that country decades ago. China actually does domestic shit that’s respectable which is what’s given them the ability to contend with western influence and financial power
Russia is susceptible to western interference because they’re much weaker than they once were, and so they’re forced into preemptive action (which is not wrong), but it’s not out of some anti-imperialist ideology, it’s for their own sovereignty. Just because those actions are taken doesn’t make them anti-imperialist.
I mean the blind and uncritical faith in both Russia and China simply because they are aligned against a foe completely discounts their significant differences in the modern day, and frankly it’s insulting to China’s progress to even lump them together. Russia hasn’t just swapped places with China in the US-Russia-China relationship, it’s swapped places but is in a decline; it doesn’t have potential anymore. Its leadership has failed from a starting point significantly more privileged than China’s, it cannot fend off western influence outside of physical war, of which most if not all is entirely preemptive which begs the question, was all of it necessary, since it creates yet another drain on their workforce and people?
Frankly I don’t even think the west really considers them very threatening outside of their locale. Current power is dominated by finance. China understands that, and China’s decisions put them in a position to fight on a front that matters. Most western rhetoric on Russia is in an attempt to divert public funds towards private arms companies, not to stunt a legitimate threat. Their investment in Ukraine is more a dumping ground for old equipment than anything else, and to prevent a short-term engagement that might spread beyond that, that would be considered short term because Russia’s population is in literal decline and has been for decades because their domestic policy has generated nothing for their people besides extraction. The Soviet Union collapsed and is still being looted, and the call is predominantly coming from inside the house
It really doesn’t have anything to do with an ideology that died in that country decades ago.
Communism isn’t as dead in Russia as you think. There are far more communist sympathies in Russia than there are in any other western or post-Soviet country. The communist party is the biggest opposition to the ruling party.
China actually does domestic shit that’s respectable which is what’s given them the ability to contend with western influence and financial power
China and Russia are more alike than you might think. China is not a perfect socialist country, it has a very active market economy, and a lot of capitalistic elements to their economy, albeit always with the state having the final word and making sure capital doesn’t get out of line. Russia is not a perfect capitalist country. They have a fairly large state owned sector, especially in military and resource extraction industries, and the state at times exercises strong control over the economy to discipline rogue capitalists. China has a socialist ruling party and Russia a capitalist one, but in practice their economies are closer to each other than they are to the neoliberal West.
they’re forced into preemptive action (which is not wrong), but it’s not out of some anti-imperialist ideology, it’s for their own sovereignty. Just because those actions are taken doesn’t make them anti-imperialist.
I think here there are just differing philosophical views on the importance of intent vs practical results. What good is good intent if the results are objectively bad? And if the results are objectively good, does it really matter what the intent is?
I mean the blind and uncritical faith in both Russia and China simply because they are aligned against a foe completely discounts their significant differences in the modern day, and frankly it’s insulting to China’s progress to even lump them together
I don’t think we should have uncritical faith in either of them. In Russia’s case it should definitely be critical support.
And yes the two countries are very different. Russia is certainly not the USSR. But Russia is for all intents and purposes allied with China, and the two countries have complementary strengths. Russia is a raw material superpower with a very advanced military industry. In many ways Russian military technology is still ahead of both the US and China, even if it’s not as big by sheer size. It’s also about as close to self-sufficient as a country can get. China on the other hand is a manufacturing and technology superpower. Each has what the other needs. This partnership is not going away any time soon. Their relationship is only deepening.
Most western rhetoric on Russia is in an attempt to divert public funds towards private arms companies
True. But a defeat in the Ukraine proxy war would still be extremely destabilizing for them. Due to the sheer amount of money and political capital that they have invested into this conflict, it would be viewed as a humiliating defeat of NATO and the EU, and both organizations risk falling apart as a result.
Russia’s population is in literal decline and has been for decades because their domestic policy has generated nothing for their people besides extraction
Pretty much all European countries are struggling with their demographics and for the most part the growth they do have is thanks to immigration. China’s situation is not much better in this regard either. But i don’t think this is as big of a deal as it is made out to be. Russia isn’t going to run out of people and neither is Europe and neither is China.
Also, you should not underestimate the level of recovery that Russia has achieved compared to where they were 25 years ago. Russia today is not the Russia of the 1990s. There are a lot of problems but from what i can tell the mood seems to be generally optimistic. They have solid growth, they are regrowing their domestic industries as a result of the sanctions, living standards have greatly improved, and their international standing outside of the collective West is very good.
Whether this is sustainable in the long term remains to be seen. They may need to take a page out of China’s playbook and copy some of China’s policies and development strategies. But if that is the case then they are well positioned to do it, with a communist party as the second biggest independent political force in the country, and with China right next door to look to and gain inspiration from.
Hey I just wanted to say I appreciate your response a lot. I disagree with parts of it but also agree with parts of it and was just a little frustrated at the seemingly uncritical support we often see here of nations simply because they’ve found themselves in opposition to western forces. I do want to respond to it but it’s hard to do from mobile which is how I typically access this site but did want to just mention that I appreciate it!
If a nation’s material position forces them into an anti-imperialist stance then their ideology will follow. The opposite is true as well - of a nation’s material position allies them with imperialism then their ideology will follow.
If ideology is downstream from material reality then why has material reality over the course of all human history begged for a more equitable distribution of resources among its laborers, but no nation has ever ended up with an ideology that made that a reality (China still pending)?
Material reality does influence ideology. In that those who control the means dictate the ideology much, much more often than not, with an occasional revolution that very often ends up with the same dichotomy between owner and worker.
Do not conflate nation with people, as very often a nation is represented by a very thin margin of elites pretending to represent the interests of their “people”. And very often from a failed state comes corpse-picking vultures who understand the economic situation and trajectory their nation is in, and the economic situation they are personally in, and take advantage of it for good reason.
Ideology is only downstream from your perception of reality if
that reality is a revolution among labor, not among elites. Last I checked the Soviet Union falling wasn’t one driven by its labor. Its ideology is aligned with its elite material interests, since it’s very much owned by its elites. Barring some occasional theatrics, Putin is not the people’s president. And that’s not because he’s a permanent ruler, I understand the necessity of one in the face of stronger imperialist forces, it’s because he’s a shitty leader
Yes but the point is intent in this case. If what’s preventing a chud from chudding is a jail cell, does that stop them from being a chud? No it fucking doesn’t
They ally themselves with targets of imperialism, or I should say targets of imperialism often ally themselves with Russia, because they have a common enemy. It really doesn’t have anything to do with an ideology that died in that country decades ago. China actually does domestic shit that’s respectable which is what’s given them the ability to contend with western influence and financial power
Russia is susceptible to western interference because they’re much weaker than they once were, and so they’re forced into preemptive action (which is not wrong), but it’s not out of some anti-imperialist ideology, it’s for their own sovereignty. Just because those actions are taken doesn’t make them anti-imperialist.
I mean the blind and uncritical faith in both Russia and China simply because they are aligned against a foe completely discounts their significant differences in the modern day, and frankly it’s insulting to China’s progress to even lump them together. Russia hasn’t just swapped places with China in the US-Russia-China relationship, it’s swapped places but is in a decline; it doesn’t have potential anymore. Its leadership has failed from a starting point significantly more privileged than China’s, it cannot fend off western influence outside of physical war, of which most if not all is entirely preemptive which begs the question, was all of it necessary, since it creates yet another drain on their workforce and people?
Frankly I don’t even think the west really considers them very threatening outside of their locale. Current power is dominated by finance. China understands that, and China’s decisions put them in a position to fight on a front that matters. Most western rhetoric on Russia is in an attempt to divert public funds towards private arms companies, not to stunt a legitimate threat. Their investment in Ukraine is more a dumping ground for old equipment than anything else, and to prevent a short-term engagement that might spread beyond that, that would be considered short term because Russia’s population is in literal decline and has been for decades because their domestic policy has generated nothing for their people besides extraction. The Soviet Union collapsed and is still being looted, and the call is predominantly coming from inside the house
Communism isn’t as dead in Russia as you think. There are far more communist sympathies in Russia than there are in any other western or post-Soviet country. The communist party is the biggest opposition to the ruling party.
China and Russia are more alike than you might think. China is not a perfect socialist country, it has a very active market economy, and a lot of capitalistic elements to their economy, albeit always with the state having the final word and making sure capital doesn’t get out of line. Russia is not a perfect capitalist country. They have a fairly large state owned sector, especially in military and resource extraction industries, and the state at times exercises strong control over the economy to discipline rogue capitalists. China has a socialist ruling party and Russia a capitalist one, but in practice their economies are closer to each other than they are to the neoliberal West.
I think here there are just differing philosophical views on the importance of intent vs practical results. What good is good intent if the results are objectively bad? And if the results are objectively good, does it really matter what the intent is?
I don’t think we should have uncritical faith in either of them. In Russia’s case it should definitely be critical support.
And yes the two countries are very different. Russia is certainly not the USSR. But Russia is for all intents and purposes allied with China, and the two countries have complementary strengths. Russia is a raw material superpower with a very advanced military industry. In many ways Russian military technology is still ahead of both the US and China, even if it’s not as big by sheer size. It’s also about as close to self-sufficient as a country can get. China on the other hand is a manufacturing and technology superpower. Each has what the other needs. This partnership is not going away any time soon. Their relationship is only deepening.
True. But a defeat in the Ukraine proxy war would still be extremely destabilizing for them. Due to the sheer amount of money and political capital that they have invested into this conflict, it would be viewed as a humiliating defeat of NATO and the EU, and both organizations risk falling apart as a result.
Pretty much all European countries are struggling with their demographics and for the most part the growth they do have is thanks to immigration. China’s situation is not much better in this regard either. But i don’t think this is as big of a deal as it is made out to be. Russia isn’t going to run out of people and neither is Europe and neither is China.
Also, you should not underestimate the level of recovery that Russia has achieved compared to where they were 25 years ago. Russia today is not the Russia of the 1990s. There are a lot of problems but from what i can tell the mood seems to be generally optimistic. They have solid growth, they are regrowing their domestic industries as a result of the sanctions, living standards have greatly improved, and their international standing outside of the collective West is very good.
Whether this is sustainable in the long term remains to be seen. They may need to take a page out of China’s playbook and copy some of China’s policies and development strategies. But if that is the case then they are well positioned to do it, with a communist party as the second biggest independent political force in the country, and with China right next door to look to and gain inspiration from.
Hey I just wanted to say I appreciate your response a lot. I disagree with parts of it but also agree with parts of it and was just a little frustrated at the seemingly uncritical support we often see here of nations simply because they’ve found themselves in opposition to western forces. I do want to respond to it but it’s hard to do from mobile which is how I typically access this site but did want to just mention that I appreciate it!
If a nation’s material position forces them into an anti-imperialist stance then their ideology will follow. The opposite is true as well - of a nation’s material position allies them with imperialism then their ideology will follow.
Ideology is downstream from material reality.
If ideology is downstream from material reality then why has material reality over the course of all human history begged for a more equitable distribution of resources among its laborers, but no nation has ever ended up with an ideology that made that a reality (China still pending)?
Material reality does influence ideology. In that those who control the means dictate the ideology much, much more often than not, with an occasional revolution that very often ends up with the same dichotomy between owner and worker.
Do not conflate nation with people, as very often a nation is represented by a very thin margin of elites pretending to represent the interests of their “people”. And very often from a failed state comes corpse-picking vultures who understand the economic situation and trajectory their nation is in, and the economic situation they are personally in, and take advantage of it for good reason.
Ideology is only downstream from your perception of reality if that reality is a revolution among labor, not among elites. Last I checked the Soviet Union falling wasn’t one driven by its labor. Its ideology is aligned with its elite material interests, since it’s very much owned by its elites. Barring some occasional theatrics, Putin is not the people’s president. And that’s not because he’s a permanent ruler, I understand the necessity of one in the face of stronger imperialist forces, it’s because he’s a shitty leader