• 768@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    11 months ago

    Anarchism doesn’t really have an option aside from siding with NATO, as politically expensive that is. Imperialism was bad in the 16th century, in the 18th century, in the 20th century and is bad in the 21st century.

    • Sybil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      19
      ·
      11 months ago

      Anarchism doesn’t really have an option aside from siding with NATO,

      just because you can type the words in that order doesn’t make the statement true. nato is bad and anarchist should not support it.

        • JackOfAllTraits@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          11 months ago

          What s there to elaborate on? It’s like saying that mice don’t have other options but to side with a cat. Are people this dual-minded to be unable to see any option between US imperialism and Russian imperialism?

            • JackOfAllTraits@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Anarchist and Socialist should do what they did until now: offer sustainable economic and societal models that would prevent future wars. Rooting for the guys being attacked (Ukraine) does not prevent me from recognizing that NATO is an imperialist project unto itself specifecly designed to keep US dominant in Europe and the capitalist system rolling.

      • meeeeetch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        38
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        Nothing to do with it? There are thousands of uninvited members of a foreign military in five of their oblasts right now.

        • BB69@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          36
          ·
          11 months ago

          Not every invasion is imperialism.

          It was a stupid decision by a leader trying to cement his legacy by repairing the USSR and attempting to restore the lost power of years past.

          Imperialism is expansion in to previously unoccupied lands. Scramble for Africa. Roman expansion. Colonization of the Americas.

          Not invading a satellite of years past first through clandestine methods then with a true military force.

          • sigmaklimgrindset@sopuli.xyz
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            20
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            Imperialism is expansion in to previously unoccupied lands. Scramble for Africa. Roman expansion. Colonization of the Americas.

            None of the lands you just listed were unoccupied. They literally had indigenous people that were eradicated or absorbed into the empire.

            …like what Russia is trying in Ukraine.

            • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              I think they mean unoccupied by them. So for example, WWI wouldn’t be imperialism because Germany and France both claimed to be the Holy Roman Empire and Flanders is within that territory. I disagree but I understand the argument

              • BB69@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                11 months ago

                Yes, although WWI is a bad example. Continental domination wasn’t the goal of WWI, it was the result of the web of alliances. You could argue that taking control of colonies owned by the other European nations is imperialism, but that seems like late stage colonialism issues. Can’t colonize once everything is occupied.

                  • BB69@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    11 months ago

                    Definitely Henry VIII.

                    I can agree with Italy as well, it was supposed to be a show of strength and gaining of new territory. I wouldn’t call it colonization, Ethiopia was more advanced than what most neighbors were able to field.

        • BB69@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          14
          ·
          11 months ago

          Russia isn’t a federation. It’s still the USSR but different tactics and name.

          Why did Russia start this in 2014? They lost their puppet government in Ukraine. Russia desires secure borders. They always have. Ukraine slipping away necessitated Russia to invade to reinstall a puppet government. The bonus for Putin was retaking Crimea after the USSR gifted it to Ukraine in the 80s I believe.

          • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            ·
            11 months ago

            Ok that’s bullshit. They’re hyper capitalist and anti communist and anti equality. They share similarities to the USSR, but those qualities also appeared in czarist Russia. Russia is just like that and will be until they fix it

            • BB69@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              8
              arrow-down
              4
              ·
              11 months ago

              USSR was barely communist. They were closer to fascist than communist.

              Releasing the grip slightly to appeal more to the global market was strategic to adapt to the times.

              • DragonTypeWyvern
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                11 months ago

                It’d be cool if the anarchads and demsocs of yesteryear had coined a catchy term to describe the Soviets who were genociding them and making deals with Hitler.

                Oh wait, they did.

                Red Fascists.

                • BB69@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  5
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  11 months ago

                  Yeah exactly lol USSR was not a communist nation. Soviets aren’t communist, Maoism is closer to Marxism.

                  People look at the name of the country and assume it all changed. USSR -> Russia was just a rebrand and trimming the fat of the less than useful “members” of the “alliance”