• 0 Posts
  • 51 Comments
Joined 3 years ago
cake
Cake day: July 7th, 2023

help-circle




  • Your division between intent and capability is meaningless here. As is your quibbling over the specifics of imperialism. While there is, potentially, some room for argument over Iran, Russia fits your definition of Imperialism perfectly. Russia is a strong advocate for exactly the world of imperial spheres of influence that you describe, and it’s absolutely wild that you can’t see that. As for the question of intent vs capability, this is an irrelevant distinction because they are actively working towards the creation and reinforcement of imperialist power structures. As the strength of competing imperial powers in their respective sphere wane they will expand - or at least attempt to expand - to fill the gaps. That is imperialism.

    The outcome of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is misery and oppression. They are not aiding the oppressed, they are oppressors. The Iranian regime engage in the oppression of their own people and if given the opportunity they would engage in the oppression of other people as well.

    It’s frankly ludicrous that I even have to explain any of this. You - and just about everyone else here - are operating on a childish morality. You haven’t actually unpacked the propaganda you grew up with, you’ve just swapped out the heroes and villains in a global meta-narrative that still demands the existence of heroes and villains.

    I’m aware that I’m trying to offer reason to a cult by even trying to convey any of this. I probably won’t bother replying further, there’s little value in trying to convince a wall not to be a wall.


  • Russia and Iran are totalitarian imperialist states (Iran’s imperialist ambitions are extremely constrained, but they would still gladly overrun their neighboring states if the opportunity existed). They’re not undermining imperialism, they’re perpetuating it. That’s like arguing that GameStop is undermining capitalism by trying to buy eBay. Competing within the bounds of a system isn’t undermining that system. Cancer isn’t good because it sometimes kills bad people.



  • They didn’t, either time. But reality got in the way of the meme so OP ignored it.

    The first Iraq war was an unqualified success. There’s really no way around that. Should they have gone the whole way and removed Saddam from power? Maybe. But the goal of the war was to protect Kuwait and that goal was accomplished.

    The second Iraq war was stupid, unnecessary, messy, pointless, badly mismanaged, and came at a staggeringly high cost. But it was successful. They achieved the regime change they wanted and ultimately created a puppet state in the Middle East. They’re using Iraqi bases right now in their attacks on Iran, something that would not possible if that war had been a failure.

    Doesn’t make it a good idea. Getting what you want isn’t great if you massively overpay for it.

    Afghanistan, on the other hand, absolutely counts as a loss. The US got nothing that they wanted - it didn’t even lead to the death of Bin Laden since he was hiding out in Pakistan - and wasted a tonne of lives and resources to ultimately just put the country back in the hands of the Taliban and give them a whole bunch of military hardware.




  • It is, but it’s also an image that has very frequently been used to depict billionaires / the aristocracy / royalty, etc. See Bram Stoker’s Dracula, the Eaters from Ian Banks’ Consider Phlebas, Denethor in Return of the King (movie version), Baron Harkonnen in Dune, Dorian Grey, Parasite, Snow Piercer… I mean that’s random stuff flying off the top of my head, you could easily come up with many, many more. Basically name a piece of even vaguely egalitarian art and you’ll probably find an image of conspicuous consumption tied to the wealthy and powerful somewhere in there.

    I think, contextually, it was clear what they were talking about, and I don’t think that conspicuous consumption can in any way be deemed a purely fascist imagery.

    You can also argue that “parasites” has been used to refer to the poor and disabled, but I don’t think that should stop people from using it as a label for billionaires.





  • The following can all be true:

    • The Democrats are a right wing neoliberal party.
    • The Democrats are the most left-wing option that is realistically available to American voters.
    • The Democrats can be pushed further left if American progressives work to do so.
    • The Democrats - at the party level - will resist such a change, but that resistance can still be overcome.
    • In the long term, massive structural overhauls and the downfall of capitalism are the only things that will save America and the world
    • In the near term, voting consistly and enthusiastically for the least bad option can still protect vulnerable groups from harm and create changes that lay the groundwork for those structural overhauls.