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.
As an anarchist I’m on the side of the Ukrainian people defending their homes and resisting imperialism. The fact that NATO is on the same side is just a coincidence.
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?
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.
You can’t string random nonsensical sentence and then expect someone to waste time out of their day to specificly debunk your easly debunkable lie. You are so wrong that it’s not even funny. (Even a pro Nato person would hopefuly sgree on this point).
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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”
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.
Calling everything imperialism is incorrect. It’s no different than calling somebody a Nazi because of a racist statement. It dilutes the meaning of the word.
Colonialism is a form of imperialism but imperialism isn’t always colonization. Read the comment I just made, or study the history of the USSR up to now to understand motivations for the actions.
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.
As an anarchist I’m on the side of the Ukrainian people defending their homes and resisting imperialism. The fact that NATO is on the same side is just a coincidence.
in theory yes
but in reality children die and suffer so this war must end
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.
care to elaborate in this context?
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?
What option is there?
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.
NATo is not bad at all, it keeps the world in order without the states being in control.
no it doesn’t.
That’s a very well-constructed argument.
I don’t know what I was thinking before I read that.
You can’t string random nonsensical sentence and then expect someone to waste time out of their day to specificly debunk your easly debunkable lie. You are so wrong that it’s not even funny. (Even a pro Nato person would hopefuly sgree on this point).
Without NATO the US is the biggest army so I’d like to see how you can easily debunk my lie.
NATO, the famous USA counterweight LOL
Lmao.
Imperialism has nothing to do with Ukraine
Nothing to do with it? There are thousands of uninvited members of a foreign military in five of their oblasts right now.
The statement is a bit ambiguous. They might mean it in support of Ukrainian independence.
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.
In other words, trying to rebuild the empire, i.e. imperialism.
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.
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
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.
Fair, the conquests of Henry VIII into France then? The Italian campaign in Africa?
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.
The USSR isn’t invading Ukraine. Russia is.
Someone should get the word out to the UK, they basically can’t do imperialism.
Then why is it under siege by the Russian federation, which is in fact an empire
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.
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
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.
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.
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”
If it has nothing to do with it you certainly know some different reasons why Ukraine was attacked and carved piece by piece since 2014.
Please elaborate.
Copy pasting what I said elsewhere:
Calling everything imperialism is incorrect. It’s no different than calling somebody a Nazi because of a racist statement. It dilutes the meaning of the word.
By that definition the only imperialism in the last centuries was in Antarctica.
Invading other societies with the purpose of acquiring their resources and people sound imperialists to me, same with Russia.
Colonialism is a form of imperialism but imperialism isn’t always colonization. Read the comment I just made, or study the history of the USSR up to now to understand motivations for the actions.
Uh.
I don’t think you know the meaning of the term ‘imperialism’.