Skip Navigation
Asklemmy @lemmy.ml
individual @toast.ooo

What's up with this straight up pro-china and pro-russia stuff on Lemmy lately?

What's up with this straight up pro-china and pro-russia stuff on Lemmy lately?

It's not even praising the people of China and Russia, but rather their gov directly.

Obviously the states have problems, and the EU to a lesser degree, but they at least have some human rights.

Is this some kind of organized disinformation campaign?

You're viewing a single thread.

452 comments

  • Others have given great answers, but the short-answer is that it's not a "disinformation campaign," nor is it organized. It's because Lemmy has a lot of leftists, especially Marxist-Leninists, and MLs both support AES ("Actually Existing Socialism"), like the PRC, and critically support capitalist countries forced into allying with them against the Global North's imperialism.

    In terms of their net impacts on the world, the US and EU far outweigh the evils of Russia. Russia is certainly flawed, but unlike the US and EU Russia doesn't rely on expropriating vast amounts of wealth from the Global South, sanctioning, couping, or genociding those who go against imperialism. It isn't because Russia is some moral paragon, but because they simply lack the means to be imperialist, they are boxxed in by the west and lack the financial capital to rely on expropriation of wealth.

    As for the PRC, it gets far more support, because it's the leading socialist country. 800 million people were lifted from poverty, and it's rapidly improving. Even when the west runs propaganda against them, like the COVID lab leak theory or the Chinese spy balloon hysteria, the PRC is being widely supported by the Global South as the PRC is providing a genuine alternative to the genocidal west.

    If you (or anyone else) want an introduction to Marxism-Leninism, here's my Read Theory, Darn It! introductory reading guide!

    • Russia is literally conducting an imperialist invasion of Ukraine right now...

      I can't stand this shit when fake leftists defend authoritarian, imperialist states because they oppose the west.

      Just because Russia "opposes" the west doesn't make it any better than them.

      • Russia is literally conducting an imperialist invasion of Ukraine right now...

        The most prolific invader in the world - NATO - did a coup in Ukraine, tried to bring weapons and personnel to Russia's most important border near Russia's most populated parts, and has been conducting terror attacks against the Russian population.
        The rest of the world has every right to defend against NATO, so you either have a good explanation for what else Russia could have done in this regard, or your criticism of Russia is not serious.

        Just because Russia "opposes" the west doesn't make it any better than them.

        The fact that Russia hasn't done anything nearly as bad as things like the invasion of Iraq - let alone the genocide of Palestine - does make Russia better.

        • The most prolific invader in the world - NATO - did a coup in Ukraine

          You mean when the largest european democratic movement in decades ousted a Russian puppet who refused to pass a bill ratified by the Ukrainian Parliament?

          tried to bring weapons and personnel to Russia's most important border near Russia's most populated parts

          This never happened.

          defend against NATO,

          NATO is a defensive alliance. The closest it's ever gotten to starting a war was Afghanistan and not every member participated.

          And before you wind up the next "gotcha", there are lots of dog shit imperialist countries in NATO, but we're discussing the organization itself here.

          The fact that Russia hasn't done anything nearly as bad as things like the invasion of Iraq

          Georgia, Chechnya, Syria, Afghanistan?

          And also this is your moral foundation? It doesn't matter what crimes Russia is committing so long as they never commit more crimes than the US?

          • EDIT: People should stop claiming that the gang of states that are currently engaging in at least one genocide, keep invading everywhere, doing coups is a 'defensive alliance'.

            You mean when the largest european democratic movement in decades ousted a Russian puppet

            This is silly.
            That's quite a fantasy you have concocted there.

            Firstly, just describing any pro-NATO movement, i.e. a movement that supports literal colonialism, as 'democratic' is extremely silly. Especially when such movements are known to be created by NATO and include literal politicians and open nazis. Going to also note that you are fine with the perpetual dictator Zelenskiy.
            Secondly, everybody is familiar with things like the leaked correspondence between USian representatives in Ukraine picking who gets to be in what position in the new government weeks before the completion of the coup, as well as them bragging about how much money they spent on subjugating Ukraine.
            Thirdly, you can't even name what was supposedly so bad about Yanukovich. It's pretty obvious that his sin - in your eyes - was that he did not sell Ukraine off to NATO.

            who refused to pass a bill ratified by the Ukrainian Parliament?

            Oh no. An elected president vetoed a bill that was being protested against by the same people that you love being in power.
            Mind sharing why an elected president vetoing a bill justifies NATO completing yet another coup? Sounds like your standards are very much not applied uniformly.

            This never happened.

            This is, again, silly.
            Do you want to tell us that Ukraine was not trying to join NATO in the years 2014-2022, and that no relevant claims were made by NATO?

            NATO is a defensive alliance.

            This is also very very silly.
            Nobody can seriously claim that invasions of Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Syria, Palestine (complete with a very obvious genocide), Libya, Vietnam, Laos, Korea, etc. - all done by NATO - were 'defensive'.
            The only 'defensive' thing about NATO is how it protects its members from facing justice for centuries of ongoing colonialism, including for settler-colonial and other genocides.

            The closest it's ever gotten to starting a war was Afghanistan and not every member participated.

            Between Iraq and Afghanistan, there is not a single de jure member of NATO that did not participate. And those were very obviously wars started by NATO, with NATO invading those countries.
            There is also the fact that not every glorified USian province sending troops neither makes those non-NATO actions, nor negates other forms of complicity in the activities.

            And before you wind up the next "gotcha", there are lots of dog shit imperialist countries in NATO, but we're discussing the organization itself here.

            If every member of this organisation is a 'dog-shit imperialist state' - and they all are, - then we can conclude that there is no defense that can be levied for the organisation itself that is the most prolific invader in the world and that is currently engaging in at least one high-profile genocide.

            Georgia, Chechnya, Syria, Afghanistan?

            This is also silly.
            Russia did not invade Afghanistan and Syria. Russia literally helped Syria against your invasion forces and DAESH (which has since become yet another de facto part of NATO, if it ever wasn't).
            Russia fought against the separatist in Chechnya with NATO's support. The part of the Russian government that supported the separation of Chechnya were shelled with tanks by pro-NATO forces.
            Georgia was literally the one that attacked the Ossetian separatists. This is doubly silly, considering that you support Chechen separatists.

            And also this is your moral foundation? It doesn't matter what crimes Russia is committing so long as they never commit more crimes than the US?

            Again, the rest of the world has every right to defend itself from NATO. Look at what you did to Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Palestine. On what grounds should the rest of the world just roll over for you?

          • NATO is a defensive alliance.

            Previously:

             

            The closest it’s ever gotten to starting a war was Afghanistan and not every member participated.

      • The Russo-Ukrainian War is about forcing Ukraine to be neutral to NATO, and resolving the conflict between Kiev and the Donetsk and Luhanks People's Republics that requested Russian support after the Minsk agreements fell through due to Ukraine failing to keep up their end of the bargain. It isn't an imperialist war, the goal is not expropriation of wealth, it's to keep NATO out of the main path by which Russia has historically been invaded from the ground, such as in World War II by Nazi Germany.

        Russia is not worthy of critical support just because "west bad." Russia can't imperialize countries like the west has. It tried, back when Putin requested to join NATO 2 decades ago, but Russia was denied because the Nationalists in Russia didn't want to open their markets up to foreign plunder like in the 90s. As a consequence, Russia is forced to ally with the anti-imperialist countries, largely made up of countries in the Global South and socialist countries. The Sahel States, for example, are turning to Russia and the PRC as an alternative to western plunder, because Russia physically cannot imperialize in the same way the west does. It fundamentally lacks the ability to export vast amounts of capital and outsource production.

        If you're going to call leftists "fake," then you should at least do the due dilligence to familiarize yourself with the Marxist analysis of imperialism.

        • The Minsk agreement has nothing to do with the formation of the Donetsk "republic".

          Though Russia respecting the territorial integrity of Ukraine was a big part of it nobody seems to remember.

          Yanukovych refused to sign a free trade agreement with the EU that the Ukrainian Parliament had ratified, leading to the largest democratic protests in Europe in decades. When he was ousted from power, Russia realized they were losing their puppet, invaded Crimea and fully backed fringe separatist movements providing money, arms and Russian regulars on "vacation" to generate a pretext for the 2014 full scale invasion.

          it's to keep NATO out of the main path by which Russia has historically been invaded

          NATO is a voluntary defensive alliance. The only reason it has expanded is because Russia continually tries to invade the former Soviet republics.

          If eastern Europe wasn't terrified of Russia, they wouldn't be applying to join.

          Putin requested to join NATO 2

          Sure Putin at some point allegedly expressed interest in joining NATO. Who the fuck knows what happened but he also allegedly refused to apply for membership.

          Russia didn't want to open their markets up to foreign plunder like in the 90s

          Do you have any idea what the market is like in Russia? Have you ever even visited? It's a state run by robber barons with palaces and yachts all over the world. The west couldn't plunder what Putin and his cronies have already robbed.

          Look at what China managed to build since the 90s and look at the failed state of Russia after decades of Putin's rule.

          The Sahel States, for example, are turning to Russia and the PRC as an alternative to western plunder

          You mean the gold mines Wagner was running in Africa to plunder for the Russian war chest?

          It fundamentally lacks the ability to export vast amounts of capital and outsource production.

          You acknowledge Russia wants to, but you admit the only reason they don't, is that they can't? So we're in some sort of agreement here.

          familiarize yourself with the Marxist analysis of imperialism.

          Attempting to expand your countries power through military action is the textbook definition of imperialism.

          Marx (correctly) views imperialism as an inevitability of a capitalist system due to its drive to expand and accumulate capital, but he didn't define the word.

          What's most disappointing is how little respect is given to democratic movements by authoritarians posing as socialists. People completely ignore the voices of Ukrainians fighting to defend their homeland.

          • The western trade agreement required privatization of safety nets and general austerity politics, the Russian loans did not. The Russian loans had more respect for the sovereignty of Ukraine than the western loans, hence the decisuon of Yanukovych. The nationalists in the west couped the government with the assistance of the west, installing the Banderite nationalist regime, while the ethnic Russians in Donetsk and Luhansk seceded after seeing their president get couped.

            NATO is an alliance of imperialist states that has been led by Nazis like Adolf Heusinger. Its sole purpose is to perpetuate imperialism, and encircle countries that oppose having their markets plundered by the west. Russia is not trying to "continually invade" countries.

            Putin wanted to join NATO because Putin wanted Russia to be able to imperialize the global south like the west does. Pretty clear-cut.

            Yes, Russia is a deeply flawed nationalist country owned by capitalists. The PRC is socialist, which is why it has achieved far more in the same span, and did not collapse into capitalism like Russia did.

            The Sahel States are a coalition of anti-imperialist countries that are nationalizing their industry and focusing more on trading finished goods than raw materials. This was impossible when the west was imperializing them, Russia is not imperializing the Sahel States because they can't.

            Yes, Russia is a deeply flawed nationalist country that, by circumstance, is forced to align with progressive, anti-imperialist movements and socialist countries. Nobody is saying "Russia is a perfect country that is ideologically pure," that's the point of critical support.

            Russia is not trying to expand their power through conquest, their goal is to demillitarize Ukraine and ensure its neutrality with NATO, as Ukraine is the best front to stage a war on Russia.

            Marx analyzed imperialism in its very early stages, it was Lenin that expanded that theory into the Marxist canon and thoroughly established and analyzed it. There are practically no Marxists that reject Lenin's analysis of imperialism.

            I do listen to Ukrainians, support for the war is falling sharply, and the ethnic Russians in LPR and DPR have wanted independence from Ukraine for over a decade. The best thing for the Ukrainian working class is a quick surrender of the 4 oblasts, NATO neutrality, and a prompt socialist revolution to oust the Banderite regime.

            • I do listen to Ukrainians

              Except when they democratically decide on closer ties with the EU?

              I want to focus on your belief that NATO started this war and that Russia is somehow defending itself because it's inherently contradictory. It requires you to believe the following:

              1. The Ukrainian Parliament under Yanukovych was not democratic so couldn't ratify the trade agreement, but Yanukovych was.
              2. The Maidan protests were staged by nearly 800,000 NATO drones, but the much smaller Donetsk separatist movement was legitimate and wasn't a Russian imperialist front.

              Can you speak more to those ideas?

              • NATO has been pressing eastward despite making agreements with Russia that it would not. From the beginning, NATO was formed as an anti-communist alliance, and even after the Soviet Union fell it has been a key tool in encircling Russia to get them to open up their markets to foreign plunder, a tried and true strategy used elsewhere.

                Yanukovych was correct in not pursuing the western requirement of austerity politics and becoming a puppet of western countries. NATO used this as an opportunity to overthrow Yanukovych and install a far-right Banderite regime. When the Donbass region wanted to secede, Kiev responded with ethnic repression in the form of language suppression and outright shelling, shelling which accelerated in the weeks leading up to Russian invasion.

                With a far-right regime that is violently Russophobic and is cozying up to the number 1 anti-Russian millitary alliance in the world right on their borders, Russia decided to invade when diplomacy fell through. Russia does not give a shit about extraction from Ukraine. They are not in this for the plunder. Russia purely wants Ukraine to promise NATO neutrality, and stop the ethnic cleansing in Donetsk and Luhansk.

                This is the bog-standard communist take. Orgs like The Party for Socialism and Liberation have released statements, same as FRSO's statement. You are unfamiliar with communism yet are trying to use it against itself.

                • Did you respond to the correct post? This isn't relevant to what I asked.

                  • It's entirely relevant and I directly answered you.

                    • You didn't answer the question.

                      You believe Maidan was orchestrated by NATO without evidence but without any critical thought believe the separatist movements are real.

                      • The Maidan coup is precisely why separatist movements came to be of any significance in the first place.

                        The Maidan protests were staged by nearly 800,000 NATO drones

                        The Maidan massacre was a false flag attack by fascist Banderite snipers with US support. The protests were partly real and partly astroturfed: they were funded & advised by the US/UK in the interest of regime change. Previously.

                        Here’s how it works: we look for the sorest division/tension within the country we want to regime change, and we take advantage of it and inflame it, because that’s the easiest and most effective way of getting the regime change and/or Balkanization we want. It’s what we did in Afghanistan in the 1980s, and we’ve been reusing the playbook ever since.


                        In case you don’t recognize this face, it’s bin Laden.

                        FAIR: Forgotten Coverage of Afghan ‘Freedom Fighters’

                        But the U.S. government and the American press have not always opposed Afghan extremists. During the 1980s, the Mujahiddin guerrilla groups battling Soviet occupation had key features in common with the Taliban. In many ways, the Mujahiddin groups acted as an incubator for the later rise of the Taliban in the 1990s.

                        Despite CIA denials of any direct Agency support for Bin Laden’s activities, a considerable body of circumstantial evidence suggests the contrary. During the 1980s, Bin Laden’s activities in Afghanistan closely paralleled those of the CIA. Bin Laden held accounts in the Bank for Credit and Commerce International (BCCI), the bank the CIA used to finance its own covert actions. Bin Laden worked especially closely with Hekmatyar—the CIA’s favored Mujahiddin commander. In 1989, the U.S. shipped high-powered sniper rifles to a Mujahiddin faction that included bin Laden, according to a former bin Laden aide.

                        The blueprint of regime change operations - How regime change happens in the 21st century with your consent

                        [H]ere’s the step-by-step process summarized:

                        1. A strategic country is selected as a target.
                        2. Stories start being fed to the media about human rights abuses or just concerning developments (lack of democracy, dwindling economy, etc).
                        3. To help lay the basis, the government may make official reports the media can then use. They might also use humanitarian NGOs (Amnesty, HRW…) or outright CIA outfits (World Uyghur Congress, Radio Free Europe…).
                        4. Stories start coming out more and more often. The volume of coverage regarding the target country becomes much bigger than before the campaign.
                        5. At the same time, groups and individuals in the target country, that have been funded by the imperialist country, are being put in the spotlight. They have been groomed for years, laying somewhat dormant until it’s time to activate them.
                        6. Stories about these groups call them champions of democracy, freedom fighters, etc. A clear limit is drawn: they are good people, and the government that’s preventing them from achieving their policies are the bad guys. This is the basis of a color revolution.
                        7. Slowly, public opinion starts to shift. We don’t necessarily act on this opinion yet though, we plant the seeds to make later consent easier. Each seed makes the next one easier to plant and grow.
                        8. The imperialist country continues the campaign but also starts small, probing actions to see what it can get away with. It might enact sanctions or query the UN for intervention. It will also call these acts “moral” and underline that they are meant to sanction the country until it becomes a democracy again, further digging the good vs. evil line.
                        9. Meanwhile, everything the target country does to prove its innocence and lawful conduct is not published or gets blocked (e.g. request for a UN delegation visit). Their point of view is never printed in the media or if it is, only when they can spin it in a good way.
                        10. Slowly, regime change is brought up. Subconsciously at first (e.g. “China would be free if it wasn’t for the communist party”, which implies destroying it and the system it built). Later, it can be more overt (e.g. Iran).
                        11. Finally, consent has been manufactured and public opinion has completely shifted on the target country. People come to see invasion as the only solution, and they will happily support it once it happens. It may not happen for several years though, as material reasons might not make invasion possible. Sometimes, a color revolution (which is mostly carried by nationals of the country in question but funded and trained by the imperialist country) is the best thing we can do.

                         
                        If the operation succeeds:

                        1. If the operation succeeds, a pro-US dictator will be ‘elected’ or seize power. The election will be called fair and democratic, as was the case in Ukraine 2014. This president will be paraded around in the West and become a media figure that everyone comes to know. This is what happened to Zelensky, but also to Pinochet in his time and Juan Guaido.
                        2. Inside the country, everything gets privatized and sold to US and European companies under the directives of the dictator. This is rarely talked about or if it is, it’s presented as banal — e.g., “Ford to open factory in Argentina”. Quality of life plummets, actual humanitarian crises start, etc.
                        3. The media still publishes stories on the country, but always in a good light, and not as many as during the operation. They might sometimes call to unrest in the country but always as a distant, abstract phenomenon.
                        4. As long as the dictator plays by our rules, the country keeps being talked about positively. As soon as he starts to become too independent, we will use the chaotic post-coup situation to repeat the process with a new President.

                        It’s what we did to China in the late 1980s in Beijing and again recently in Xinjiang.

                      • Davel pretty much covered it. Part of the Maidan coup was legitimate, but the west took advantage of it and steered it towards its own interests. The seperatist movements were sparked by ethnic suppression and the coup against the president they supported.

              • The Ukrainian Parliament under Yanukovych was not democratic so couldn’t ratify the trade agreement

                It was a fast moving process. Unclear when IMF interference demands for austerity were known. Russia did make a much better offer than EU, and Yanukovych was right to prefer it.

                The Maidan protests were staged by nearly 800,000 NATO drones

                While there is an obvious pull among the young to get western values, CIA/US state propaganda operations to fabricate that opinion, was done purely for nazification and warmongering purposes. The idiocy of the public makes them resort to their programing. Not informed pragmatic study of all alternatives.

                the much smaller Donetsk separatist movement was legitimate and wasn’t a Russian imperialist front.

                The nazi rulership, installed by US, immediately massacred opposition in Odessa, removed Russian language rights, and wanted to seize Crimean port out of Russian lease. Ukrainian naziism has become the new western liberal values, but most people don't like nazis, and especially not their "subhuman labelled" targets for extermination.

                Your previous post was dishonest as well.

          • People completely ignore the voices of Ukrainians fighting to defend their homeland.

            Which Ukrainians?

            • The oligarchs running the state?
            • The Banderite fascists?
            • The eastern & southern Ukrainians, who, after the Maidan coup, declared independence from an unelected government, and were subsequently terrorized by the Banderites for nearly a decade, with tacit and overt support from the Ukrainian and US governments?
            • The western Ukrainians who want the war to end?
            • The men being kidnapped off the streets and pushed to the front lines against their will?

             
            Previously: If not for the US/NATO, this war wouldn’t have happened in the first place.

452 comments