*martyr

See, this is a good example of exactly what I’m talking about. I get that it can seem shocking to people, especially if they’re used to viewing a war as a simple good nation / bad nation dynamic, and that it’s emotional. But if you’re actually asking in good faith and just upset, I’ll try to explain - although I also think you should go back and reread my comment above.

So what you’re saying is that imperial powers should be able to send little green men into other countries, instigate astroturf civil wars, to break those countries apart, and then have those “independent” territories “democratically” join the imperialist aggressor nation

That bizarre generalisation is obviously not my position, as the rest of the post above makes clear.

And that we should let them get away with it.

I don’t even know what this means. Russia still will have lost thousands of people, been isolated by the NATO-West, and suffered big economic blows. Beyond that, the sad reality is that countries almost always “get away” with waging war. What’s the alternative, escalating it into a global conflict, nuclear war? How does that benefit the people of either side or anyone else?

That we’re supposed to tell Ukraine, the attacked party here, “No sorry the Russians are too good at weaselling and throwing rhetoric smoke grenades you’re out of luck we won’t help you”.

Again, I don’t really know what that means. It’s a matter of dealing practically with the situation as it actually exists. How could those regions possibly immediately reintegrate into Ukraine? The Ukrainian government was shelling the Donbas for more than half a decade before the war even started, not to mention the far-right militias. Do you think the rhetoric or hate for Russian speaking people in those regions has reduced during this war, that those regions and the Ukrainian nationalists are closer to peace? Without security guarantees it’ll be worse than before the war and very likely end in ethnic cleansing and the breaking of the Minsk agreements already demonstrates that the Ukrainian government can’t or won’t keep a lid on it.

Since you framed it as we won’t help you I’m going to assume you’re also in a NATO country like I am. Again, I ask you, what should we tell them? That there can be no peace and they have to fight Russia to the last Ukrainian? That retribution and likely ethnic cleansing against those regions is fine actually because of some arbitrary notion of national fairness?

Personally I’m not sure we should be telling them anything. It’s pretty clear that foreign meddling helped create this war and derail peace talks earlier in the conflict. Like I said before, ideally I want Russia and Ukraine sat at the negotiating table, both begrudgingly settling on a deal that’s best for everybody - meaning ordinary people, not the egos of nation states.

This is the 24th (century) type of liberalism.

(I kid, I kid)

If Hexbear kills anyone it’ll be our first poster to die of dehydration whilst posting for 72hrs uninterrupted. But we’ll probably get of a new thesis on posadism out of it.

If there’s ever anything else like that you’re wondering about on a Hexbear comment or whatever in the future, just ask. We’re always happy to explain.

Two users in the same post, both throwing out smears and totally unable to back them up, both referencing a Sartre quote they clearly don’t understand while doing the very thing it criticises. What are the odds!?

We’re being nice. As I said to the other user who tried to pull that, Sartre would have had you in tears:

Sartre was a lifelong Marxist. A man who opposed the Nazi occupation of France, was happy to support revolutionary communist resistance groups, and was a prisoner of war taken by the Nazis. He wrote about the fact that the Soviet Union was a true revelutionary project working for the betterment of all mankind. He had his criticisms like we all do when it didn’t live up to it’s ideals, but unlike other nations he considered to be mostly disgusting bourgeois colonial powers, he didn’t ascribe it to an innate problem with the USSR. He called the US of the time “dangerously pre fascist”. He strongly condemned the US and South Korea in the Korean War. He was disgusted by the US involvement in Vietnam. Loathed the later French state for their oppression of Algeria. And on and on and on.

You’d have called him a brainwashed, tankie, genocide denying, authoritarian, equivalent to the Nazis too. And he’d have fucking hated you and everything you apparently stand for in return.

No worries, you’re welcome.

(And yeah, I didn’t link because I wasn’t sure about that either)

No problem on part two. You got it, I just wanted to add some extra context too because obviously we’d been focused on wars with the Ukraine stuff.

I’ve enjoy it too, I appreciate you asking and taking the time to go through it all with me.

Yeah I bet not. Any one of those things can get tough, especially with that kind of parent. I’m glad you’ve made some progress though and I hope it helps. I know it probably doesn’t mean much from an internet stranger, but I’m rooting for 'ya.

Yeah, you’re definitely getting the broad strokes of it (and I didn’t give you much more than that). I get it’s a lot to take in all at once too.

First part - yeah you get it and you can see clearly why that kind of false class that the right sometimes peddles to people like your parents is bullshit. It’s not for the benefit of them, it helps the rich who fund that kind of media keep the working class divided and not United against them. That’s why they have to invent enemies like Satanists or whatever. It’s the same way capitalists have always tried to break strikes (and still do) by trying to drive a wedge between different ethnicities in the workforce. It’s the same reason any real communist is so opposed to any form of bigotry, we’re workers regardless of race, sexual orientation, gender etc.

Second part - you’re right, but we’d argue it goes much further than just the usual invasions and interventions as ‘the world’s policeman’. Its about the coups, the assinations, funding disinformation, sanction regimes, IMF debt, the dollar as global currency and plenty more. They use dozens of methods to bend the world to their will and punish those who step out of line.

Third part - yeah, that’s it. Or sometimes just “this is the best realistic option, because the others are worse”.

Fourth part - Yep, got it again.

Fifth part - totally.

Sixth - yeah basically. There’s various reasons we don’t that think that upper class has the incentive or ability to, one of them being that capitalists from all sides make a massive amount of money on war - so it’s good for them, but it’s not worth getting into all of them here.

Seventh - even if you didn’t get the meaning of all the details, you understand the basics just fine. What you said was right again.

And the end bit, you got it spot on. I’m really glad it was clear and understandable.

Yeah, that sounds doubly tough. But it sounds like you’re absolutely right to be proud of yourself!

And here we go again, the false equivalences between Nazis and communists. We can’t be trusted on what we say so defending or explaining our positions is proof. Not doing so is proof. Reacting to such obvious hostile, bad faith attacks is proof.

It’s particularly gross to use that quote, since clearly you don’t know anything about the man who wrote it but are happy to smear his memory and intent to win internet points and minimised the horrors of Nazism.

Sartre was a lifelong Marxist. A man who opposed the Nazi occupation of France, was happy to support revolutionary communist resistance groups, and was a prisoner of war taken by the Nazis. He wrote about the fact that the Soviet Union was a true revelationary project working for the betterment of mankind. He had his criticisms like we all do when it didn’t live up to it’s ideals, but unlike other nations he considered bourgeois colonial powers, he didn’t ascribe it to an innate problem with the USSR. He called the US of the time “dangerously pre fascist”. He strongly condemned the US and South Korea in the Korean War. He was disgusted by the US involvement in Vietnam. Loathed the later French state for their oppression of Algeria.

You’d have called him a brainwashed, tankie, genocide denying, authoritarian, equivalent to the Nazis too. And he’d have fucking hated you and everything you apparently stand for in return.

I commented below. I hope you don’t mind me just pointing you there because it’s a long post and I don’t want to clog the thread too much.

I also just wanted to add a note to say I’m really sorry you’ve had to deal with that issue with your parents. I’m no stranger to having difficult and suddenly susceptible family members to the well-funded barrage of reactionary content that’s aimed at them.

I think we are, but I only briefly saw it in passing. I don’t think anyone on Hexbear read it as a call to kill people in the organisation of NATO (although I doubt many would she’d many tears either) but as a wish to see the demise of the institution. Our instance also has specific rules about that sort of thing.

Anyway, I was using it to help illustrate the barrage of bad faith misrepresentations we’ve been dealing with constantly, especially from instances that we’ve never even interacted with, but it’s by no means the only one. Other preemptive defederations for example have all fixated on these kind of wild misrepresentations only to finally concede that we weren’t pro-NATO enough. So when we see these kind of bad faith takes and plumbing the depths to find a comment amongst an instance of 20,000 users and 3 years of posts (usually mixed with generic anti-commie abuse in the threads for good measure) we definitely tend to assume the actual reasons are political.

Even here there’s a lot of those same signs. I’m not saying that’s the case by the way, and I think it’s clear from myself and others that plenty of us are engaged and here in good faith. But I mention it because it’s part of the reason there’s also been some pretty salty and skeptical Hexbears users pop into the thread too - especially in reaction to some of the more openly hostile comments about us.

There’s a couple of different aspects to it but I’ll try and outline it as simply and clearly as possible, without getting deep into specific topics.

As communists (and our anarchist comrades overlap although there’s definitely differences) we’re mostly ‘internationalists’. We don’t believe that the most meaningful conflicts are between nation states, but between the class interests of the proletariat (workers, ordinary people basically) and capital (the class that owns the means of production, finance etc). A supermarket worker in France has more in common, in terms of their place in society, with a shop worker in China then either have with the people who own the big businesses they work for.

As internationalists we’re anti-imperialists and the largest imperial power and global hegemon (the state that dominates most of the world) today is undoubtedly the USA. While this remains the case, it will continue crushing any anti-capitalist or anti-imperialist movement across thr world, so we want to see their control weakened. This is often referred to as ‘multipolarity’ meaning that instead of a single country that dominates, there’s at least space for multiple powers, which forces more compromise and allows more space for individual movements and nations to survive or even thrive.

This is why we’ll often refer to having ‘critical support’ for nations or political movements that don’t ascribe to our communist ideals (equality, workers owning the means of production, proletarian democracy etc). The “critical” bit is the most important. It’s “critical” like ‘criticism’, not like ‘essential’. States like Russia and China becoming less vulnerable to and dependent on the USA helps to weaken their global dominance. So while we loathe Russia’s scapegoating and attacks on LGBTQ+ people and that they’re a capitalist state, we believe it’s in the international interest that the USA doesn’t succeed in it’s attempts to destroy (or severely weaken) them and consolidate their own power.

We also tend to be ‘historical materialists’ and believe that the economic and material interests of people’s lives are what shape politics and societies, not idealism. So we don’t put any stock in the idea that nations are defined by the personal traits of their leaders for example, but by economic and political pressures within and on the people in the country. So we see the idea that the war in Ukraine is because Putin is evil and craves power as rather silly, for example. The reasons (and for Ukraine’s decisions, an all nations for that matter) are more complicated and practical than that. We don’t like Putin - he’s a cynical if successful, member of the ultra-rich capitalist class that was given free reign to loot Russia by the US after the fall of the Soviet Union - but we also don’t think it matters very much.

Different communists (and our anarchist comrades with whom there’s a lot of overlap, but obviously differences too) might disagree on the best approaches and to what degree we should focus on these conflicts at all, but generally the above remains true. It’s important to know that it’s not a zero sum game though, and solidarity with the working class around the world is still most important.

So the sentiment you’ll find in some Hexbear users’ critical support for Russia is that we want an end to the war sooner rather than later. Because this war is terrible for the working class on both sides. And because we don’t see any compelling evidence that Ukraine can win, even with NATO support. We want both sides at the negotiating table rather than on the battlefield ideally, but if the conditions don’t allow the two sides to do that then we hope they’ll change as quickly as possible, because the longer this goes on the worse it gets all around. Some of us see Russia as being the most able to force the other side to the table, but obviously we’d prefer they just saw the realities of the situation and did it now.

We also get a lot of shock at the fact that some of us think, in that situation, Ukraine would have to give independence and security guarantees to the Donbas & Crimea. Many of us think that given the realities of the civil war there over the last 8 years or so, plus this conflict, it’s probably the only way to prevent retributory ethnic cleansing in the region. It has nothing to do with ideas of fairness or sovereignty or any other nebulous concept; it’s about what’s least worst for the working class there.

Obviously there’s a broad variety of views held to different degrees and I’m not speaking for every Hexbear user. Also, people being people, we all express ourselves differently, especially when dealing with heavy subjects. Some of us find consolation in understanding the chaos of it all, some obsess over details for the illusion of control, others have a dark sense of humour about it etc.

I know that’s long, but I hope it’s clear and I wanted to try and explain a complex way of looking at the world as simply as possible without just throwing out a lot of jargon and assumptions.

Maybe I can clear up some of your concerns or confusion around the “pro-Russia” stuff if you’d like me to?

Because as far as I can tell that’s the only one they’ve ever used to defederate. Because it’s such a silly, jokey, slogany, non-actionable example. And finally because this has been a pattern with numerous instances that pre-emptively defederate before we’d ever even engaged with them at all, based on absurd deliberate misrepresentations of individual comments. We had one the other day which claimed that when some one off handedly said Death to NATO they were advocating and planning the genocide of every single person living in a NATO aligned country.

As for your other question, I don’t believe that all violent rhetoric is equal (and I doubt many other Hexbear users would either). I thinks it’s dependent on context, arguements of credible self defense, and the risks of how actionable it is amongst other things. But if you deliberately choose and only enforce the silliest, least serious example then either you’re doing it disingenuously or it’s a blanket, no tolerance approach that treats all cases equally. This is what they went with and as I’ve pointed out it’s not the latter, so I think it’s the former.

This. It was basically a ‘we’re not going to dignify that with an answer’ shorthand for abusive or obviously trolling posts.

Same old ahistorical buzzword nonsense. Even if anyone took your false equivalence seriously, how do you explain the secret police and concentration camps of all those ‘liberal’ nations? Or do you only scream unsupported accusations of fascism at people you disagree with as a cheap tactic to try and silence them?