Never heard the word “irredentism” before, looked it up. It’s literally fascist logic. Do tankies seriously not realize that the logical endpoint of irredentism is a world made up exclusively of ethnostates?
If you actually read what the person was saying, they said:
i do not support the russian invasion of ukraine btw.
that being said, irredentism is still awful. i’m ideologically against all forms of killing, and that includes the russian attack on ukraine. just so we’re clear here, this is just about definitions, i’m not trying to argue that russia attacking its neighbors is good in any way.
Marxists tend to use a specific definition of imperialism, and that user’s position is that while Russia does engage in irredentism (bad), like invading Ukraine, they do not fit the Marxist definition of imperialism (which is more concerned with resource extraction on a global scale). This Marxist definition goes back at least to Lenin, so it isn’t something that they just made up (as they were accused of in the thread), but the common meaning today is different.
This is being misinterpreted or distorted here into, “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is fine because it’s irredentism” which was very clearly not what they were saying. What they were saying is that irredentism is bad (including the war in Ukraine), but that it is a distinct thing from imperialism.
They’re still doing apologia by playing with definitions to argue that not only is Russia not imperialist, but they’re anti-imperialist. Stating that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is irredentist and not imperialist carries the assumption that Russia’s officially stated reasons for invading Ukraine are truthful when they are clearly not. Russia wants Ukrainian territory not because it’s populated by ethnic Russians, but because they want to exploit the natural resources contained therein. Irredentism is the justification for imperialism, they are not mutually exclusive.
It’s inherently difficult and subjective to speculate about motivations, and doubly so when talking about a country with multiple groups with their own motivations. Of course, in any conflict, enemy countries will be assigned the worst motivations possible, which is why virtually every conflict draws comparisons to Nazis, and the idea that the enemy will just keep attacking forever if they are not defeated. This was said about Vietnam (Domino Theory) and Afghanistan (“if we don’t fight them there, we’ll be fighting them here”). Those examples show that motivations assigned to enemy countries are often inaccurate.
I don’t think it should be considered “apologia” to express reasonable skepticism that the motivations of a rival country aren’t what some people speculate. Especially when they’re still assigning a negative motivation to said country, just a different negative motivation than the one you assign. That’s kind of a ridiculous degree of purity testing, “It’s not enough to condemn Russia, you have to agree with my exact assessment of their motivations, otherwise you’re doing apologia by condemning them in the wrong way.”
As they said, they condemn both Russia’s invasion and irredentism in general, so my main point was to correct your misunderstanding, when you asked if “tankies” don’t realize that irredentism leads to negative results.
Trying to divine Russia’s True Motivations for invading Ukraine is a total Red Herring side show distraction in the context of this discussion.
The problem we’re discussing is that tankies employ definitions gymnastics to escape giving traditionally capitalist negative labels to their beloved authoritarian dictatorships, like “imperialist” and “tyrant.”
“Russia is not imperialist because they only invade for irredentist reasons” and “Russia is not imperialist because they oppose imperialist nations” are both half-cooked, dumb assertions.
It doesn’t matter if Russia invades other countries and takes their resources because they think the Bible says they should, because there are people with similar genetics in neighboring countries, or because Putin is bored; it’s still imperialist.
Imagine if someone said the USA is not imperialist because they’re only bombing Iran to fulfill a biblical prophesy, so they’re actually just theocratic. That’s obviously a ridiculous thing to say and you wouldn’t jump in to defend them because you’re biased to defend tankies but not western capitalists.
I’m not interested in discussing anything else with you until you answer my other comment, because it seems to me that you just blatantly lied claiming you didn’t label the other user a tankie. If you blatantly lied about that conversation, then I should expect you’ll lie about this one too. Even now you’re labelling them a tankie again, after claiming not to.
TL;DR: “This comment you just made explains away my confusion so I refuse to respond to it because I am (pretending to be) confused about the other comment you made.”
Oh look, you’re lying about this conversation too, just like you did the other one! I should know better than to engage with you liberals in good faith.
I’m not interested in discussing anything else with you until you answer my other comment, because it seems to me that you just blatantly lied claiming you didn’t label the other user a tankie.
That’s because you have difficulties reading and comprehending English or logic.
Even now you’re labelling them a tankie again, after claiming not to.
I actually agree with you on that. However, “being too prone to using Marxist definitions and terminology” does not warrant labelling them as a “tankie” or “Russian propagandist.”
That’s not what I was asserting, no.
Claiming that it’s a blatant lie after I described you calling them a tankie and you replied “that’s not what I was asserting,” wtf you’re just trolling.
If they’re going with a niche definition rather than the common definitions everyone uses, they should have stated that to prevent the confusion and argument that it seeded, as I said further down in the argument.
I actually agree with you on that. However, “being too prone to using Marxist definitions and terminology” does not warrant labelling them as a “tankie” or “Russian propagandist.”
It’s this sort of thing that makes me see every accusation of “tankie” as a complete joke. If you can literally say, word for word, “I do not support the Russian invasion of Ukraine” and still get called a tankie and Russian propagandist, then those words have no meaning, aside from, “You disagreed with a liberal about literally anything.”
Did their condemnation of Russia not give you a moment’s pause before dismissing them as a Russian propagandist and misrepresenting their positions to others afterwards? It seems like you just recognized that they’re not part of your political in-group so you ignore everything and jump straight to labelling them a fascist. Yes, they communicated in a way that’s somewhat confusing, but you’re much more at fault for jumping to those unwarranted accusations.
I actually agree with you on that. However, “being too prone to using Marxist definitions and terminology” does not warrant labelling them as a “tankie” or “Russian propagandist.”
That’s not what I was asserting, no.
The rest of your comment soapboxes on that straw man so I’ll not respond to it.
Even if we take the assertion that they are doing apologia for Russia as true; the accusation of ‘tankie’ is strange. As if people who identify as communist have never heard of the fall of the USSR.
Maybe it would make sense when defending China in some contemporary contexts, but Russia?
It all reminds me of how George Bush used the term terrorism. Anyone who thought we need a different approach to respond to 9/11 than GWB was ‘letting the terrorist win’. Now anyone who thinks we need to find a different approach other than throwing the military industrial complex at the war in Ukraine is a tankie.
Do these same people think the war in Iran would be better if China got involved. Of course not, that would be insane. But change China to US and Iran to Ukraine and all of a sudden they support it.
The point is to have more skepticism toward all militarism; that’s not to say militarism is never justified. But NATO was literally built to contain the USSR, it worked on some level, the USSR fell. Russia’s militarism toward Ukraine is completely unjustified, but their complaint about still being contained NATO is valid. They subjected their people to a ton of economic hardship in the 90s to appease the west. But we can’t disband or renegotiate NATO because too many people benefit from it staying how it is.
The answer to the Ukraine war was to bring Russia into the western block on more equal terms 30 years ago. Now the situation is fucked, it gets more dangerous to more people every day it goes on.
The point is to have more skepticism toward all militarism
I completely agree. Throughout history people opposing war have almost always been accused of treason and supporting the other side. 20 years ago the term was “terrorist sympathizer,” today it’s “tankie” and when we’re still at war 20 years from now it’ll probably be something equally meaningless.
Social democrats tend to rally around the flag during wartime, going all the way back to the social democrats in Germany and Western Europe who supported WWI. The reason for that is that they contain their stances to what is acceptable to the powers that be, and during wartime the scope of what is a permissible opinion narrows considerably. If they were prepared to break from that, they wouldn’t be social democrats. For this reason, careerist social democrats will never be able to have any kind of international solidarity, nor will they generally oppose war in practice, no matter how much they condemn it in the abstract.
The best case scenario in Ukraine is, and has been from day 1, whatever peace agreement can end the war quickly and uphold lasting peace, regardless of who ends up with what.
How much rhetoric has flown around about Israel’s right to defend itself?
In that context, Ro Khanna, one of the most sympathetic national politicians to the Palestinian cause immediately after being held up at gun point by Isreal cannot say the Palestinians also have the same right to defend themselves.
I have a lot of respect for as far as Ro has tried to push things, but come on man, humanity cannot keep playing these games. Something has to give.
It’s more or less exactly the content of this post here. Literal Russian propaganda, I’m sure. Couldn’t confirm 100% because I don’t waste my precious time checking what Russia has to say about their invasion, but I’m sure the term/topic of “irredentism” comes up and never “invasion” or “genocide.”
Couldn’t confirm 100% because I don’t waste my precious time checking what Russia has to say about their invasion, but I’m sure the term/topic of “irredentism” comes up and never “invasion” or “genocide.”
Irredentism is a negative word, nobody would use it in their own propaganda to describe their own actions. Furthermore, the user you were talking to clearly and explicitly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine:
i do not support the russian invasion of ukraine btw.
You seem to have misunderstood what they were saying, and the idea that they’re spouting “literal Russian propaganda” while explicitly condemning the invasion, and labelling it an invasion, is completely absurd.
I guess that’s why you felt the need to pretend they didn’t label it as an invasion. I do wish y’all would practice a slightly higher degree of intellectual honesty though.
I needed a good laugh.
Never heard the word “irredentism” before, looked it up. It’s literally fascist logic. Do tankies seriously not realize that the logical endpoint of irredentism is a world made up exclusively of ethnostates?
If you actually read what the person was saying, they said:
Marxists tend to use a specific definition of imperialism, and that user’s position is that while Russia does engage in irredentism (bad), like invading Ukraine, they do not fit the Marxist definition of imperialism (which is more concerned with resource extraction on a global scale). This Marxist definition goes back at least to Lenin, so it isn’t something that they just made up (as they were accused of in the thread), but the common meaning today is different.
This is being misinterpreted or distorted here into, “Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is fine because it’s irredentism” which was very clearly not what they were saying. What they were saying is that irredentism is bad (including the war in Ukraine), but that it is a distinct thing from imperialism.
They’re still doing apologia by playing with definitions to argue that not only is Russia not imperialist, but they’re anti-imperialist. Stating that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is irredentist and not imperialist carries the assumption that Russia’s officially stated reasons for invading Ukraine are truthful when they are clearly not. Russia wants Ukrainian territory not because it’s populated by ethnic Russians, but because they want to exploit the natural resources contained therein. Irredentism is the justification for imperialism, they are not mutually exclusive.
It’s inherently difficult and subjective to speculate about motivations, and doubly so when talking about a country with multiple groups with their own motivations. Of course, in any conflict, enemy countries will be assigned the worst motivations possible, which is why virtually every conflict draws comparisons to Nazis, and the idea that the enemy will just keep attacking forever if they are not defeated. This was said about Vietnam (Domino Theory) and Afghanistan (“if we don’t fight them there, we’ll be fighting them here”). Those examples show that motivations assigned to enemy countries are often inaccurate.
I don’t think it should be considered “apologia” to express reasonable skepticism that the motivations of a rival country aren’t what some people speculate. Especially when they’re still assigning a negative motivation to said country, just a different negative motivation than the one you assign. That’s kind of a ridiculous degree of purity testing, “It’s not enough to condemn Russia, you have to agree with my exact assessment of their motivations, otherwise you’re doing apologia by condemning them in the wrong way.”
As they said, they condemn both Russia’s invasion and irredentism in general, so my main point was to correct your misunderstanding, when you asked if “tankies” don’t realize that irredentism leads to negative results.
Trying to divine Russia’s True Motivations for invading Ukraine is a total Red Herring side show distraction in the context of this discussion.
The problem we’re discussing is that tankies employ definitions gymnastics to escape giving traditionally capitalist negative labels to their beloved authoritarian dictatorships, like “imperialist” and “tyrant.”
“Russia is not imperialist because they only invade for irredentist reasons” and “Russia is not imperialist because they oppose imperialist nations” are both half-cooked, dumb assertions.
It doesn’t matter if Russia invades other countries and takes their resources because they think the Bible says they should, because there are people with similar genetics in neighboring countries, or because Putin is bored; it’s still imperialist.
Imagine if someone said the USA is not imperialist because they’re only bombing Iran to fulfill a biblical prophesy, so they’re actually just theocratic. That’s obviously a ridiculous thing to say and you wouldn’t jump in to defend them because you’re biased to defend tankies but not western capitalists.
I’m not interested in discussing anything else with you until you answer my other comment, because it seems to me that you just blatantly lied claiming you didn’t label the other user a tankie. If you blatantly lied about that conversation, then I should expect you’ll lie about this one too. Even now you’re labelling them a tankie again, after claiming not to.
TL;DR: “This comment you just made explains away my confusion so I refuse to respond to it because I am (pretending to be) confused about the other comment you made.”
Oh look, you’re lying about this conversation too, just like you did the other one! I should know better than to engage with you liberals in good faith.
That’s because you have difficulties reading and comprehending English or logic.
Speaking of blatant lies…
Claiming that it’s a blatant lie after I described you calling them a tankie and you replied “that’s not what I was asserting,” wtf you’re just trolling.
If they’re going with a niche definition rather than the common definitions everyone uses, they should have stated that to prevent the confusion and argument that it seeded, as I said further down in the argument.
I actually agree with you on that. However, “being too prone to using Marxist definitions and terminology” does not warrant labelling them as a “tankie” or “Russian propagandist.”
It’s this sort of thing that makes me see every accusation of “tankie” as a complete joke. If you can literally say, word for word, “I do not support the Russian invasion of Ukraine” and still get called a tankie and Russian propagandist, then those words have no meaning, aside from, “You disagreed with a liberal about literally anything.”
Did their condemnation of Russia not give you a moment’s pause before dismissing them as a Russian propagandist and misrepresenting their positions to others afterwards? It seems like you just recognized that they’re not part of your political in-group so you ignore everything and jump straight to labelling them a fascist. Yes, they communicated in a way that’s somewhat confusing, but you’re much more at fault for jumping to those unwarranted accusations.
That’s not what I was asserting, no.
The rest of your comment soapboxes on that straw man so I’ll not respond to it.
Uh huh.
You’re trying to deny labelling them a tankie now? That’s just a blatant lie.
Another straw man. Try again.
How on God’s green earth could that possibly be a strawman?
Even if we take the assertion that they are doing apologia for Russia as true; the accusation of ‘tankie’ is strange. As if people who identify as communist have never heard of the fall of the USSR.
Maybe it would make sense when defending China in some contemporary contexts, but Russia?
It all reminds me of how George Bush used the term terrorism. Anyone who thought we need a different approach to respond to 9/11 than GWB was ‘letting the terrorist win’. Now anyone who thinks we need to find a different approach other than throwing the military industrial complex at the war in Ukraine is a tankie.
Do these same people think the war in Iran would be better if China got involved. Of course not, that would be insane. But change China to US and Iran to Ukraine and all of a sudden they support it.
The point is to have more skepticism toward all militarism; that’s not to say militarism is never justified. But NATO was literally built to contain the USSR, it worked on some level, the USSR fell. Russia’s militarism toward Ukraine is completely unjustified, but their complaint about still being contained NATO is valid. They subjected their people to a ton of economic hardship in the 90s to appease the west. But we can’t disband or renegotiate NATO because too many people benefit from it staying how it is.
The answer to the Ukraine war was to bring Russia into the western block on more equal terms 30 years ago. Now the situation is fucked, it gets more dangerous to more people every day it goes on.
I completely agree. Throughout history people opposing war have almost always been accused of treason and supporting the other side. 20 years ago the term was “terrorist sympathizer,” today it’s “tankie” and when we’re still at war 20 years from now it’ll probably be something equally meaningless.
Social democrats tend to rally around the flag during wartime, going all the way back to the social democrats in Germany and Western Europe who supported WWI. The reason for that is that they contain their stances to what is acceptable to the powers that be, and during wartime the scope of what is a permissible opinion narrows considerably. If they were prepared to break from that, they wouldn’t be social democrats. For this reason, careerist social democrats will never be able to have any kind of international solidarity, nor will they generally oppose war in practice, no matter how much they condemn it in the abstract.
The best case scenario in Ukraine is, and has been from day 1, whatever peace agreement can end the war quickly and uphold lasting peace, regardless of who ends up with what.
The recent interview with Jeremy Scahill and Ro Khanna comes to mind as a contemporary example.
How much rhetoric has flown around about Israel’s right to defend itself?
In that context, Ro Khanna, one of the most sympathetic national politicians to the Palestinian cause immediately after being held up at gun point by Isreal cannot say the Palestinians also have the same right to defend themselves.
I have a lot of respect for as far as Ro has tried to push things, but come on man, humanity cannot keep playing these games. Something has to give.
It’s more or less exactly the content of this post here. Literal Russian propaganda, I’m sure. Couldn’t confirm 100% because I don’t waste my precious time checking what Russia has to say about their invasion, but I’m sure the term/topic of “irredentism” comes up and never “invasion” or “genocide.”
Irredentism is a negative word, nobody would use it in their own propaganda to describe their own actions. Furthermore, the user you were talking to clearly and explicitly condemned Russia’s invasion of Ukraine:
You seem to have misunderstood what they were saying, and the idea that they’re spouting “literal Russian propaganda” while explicitly condemning the invasion, and labelling it an invasion, is completely absurd.
I guess that’s why you felt the need to pretend they didn’t label it as an invasion. I do wish y’all would practice a slightly higher degree of intellectual honesty though.