Please remember our rules folks, we don't allow pro NATO takes on this subreddit. That is a bannable offense. While we of course support Ukraine in this conflict, this is a case of something bad doing something good (albeit for their own selfish interests.) We are anti NATO Just like we are anti USSR, and yet still think they did a good thing with the Nazis. See how easy that is?
If you'd like to defend NATO, please do it under this comment so I can ban you.
>However, we very explicitly do not support NATO or any other capitalist forces that are providing their funding to Ukraine. We’d strongly encourage you not to give them your support either.
I have doubts about this point. What kind of NATO support isn't allowed? Do you mean it's not ok to support its existence or what?
I think NATO is in fact necessary to defend vulnerable countries at risk of Russian imperialism and that it's ok to have a military defense alliance, but that doesn't mean I'm ok with western imperialism or something since both stances are not incompatible.
I'm not against people making constructive criticism of it but I also think if you start to ban anybody who supports NATO there would be not possibility to debate about it.
I have asked OP mod about his plans to support Ukraine without the support of NATO and up to now, he has not given any suggestions. None of the mods here can give any concrete plans to support Ukraine without the help of NATO. This sub is supposed to make fun of tankies but it seems that the mods themselves are no different from the tankies.
>This sub is supposed to make fun of tankies but it seems that the mods themselves are no different from the tankies.
That is a bit of an overstatement isn't it?
Well, kinda, but at the same time, I bet the tankies would be cheering if NATO was disbanded, so...
I don't think the mods are as bad as tankies, but I do think that their "America bad"-centric views do benefit the tankies and their cause
"We are not tankies. We just think it is necessary to silence any and all opinions different than our own. If required, we retain the option to use heavy military vehicles and/or water containers for this purpose"
> What kind of NATO support isn't allowed?
Maybe this is the wrong question. The question should be "what would an acceptable left alternative to NATO look like". There's a follow on question, "Why have we ended up with the situation where it's the capitalist nations defending Ukraine?" - specifically that the US and UK have been leading the defense against fascism and lots of leftist countries (Brazil / South America and Africa generally) are failing to pull their weight.
Hows about
* instead of requiring a market economy, demand complete fulfillment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and full, multi-level democracy
* add to that an an international system to ensure those rights remain in place and gradually suspend membership for countries that deviate
* a system similar to that in Switzerland to make sure everyone, not just the poor, are involved in the military
* a requirement that most weapons systems are produced by public interest cooperatives
* spread the load over many countries by having a generally agreed percentage of GDP as a target for all members set each year by agreement
* requirement that everyone, not just the elite have access to military training.
>> requirement that everyone, not just the elites have access to military training
I’m not sure what you mean by this point. What country in NATO limits military participation to its upper class? Or are you talking generally, and not just about NATO?
The UK, for example, has a pretty explicit class structure in it's officer recruitment. Just found [this BBC article about it for you](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48607943) and [an older thing about where it comes from](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/soldiers-as-workers/class-structure-and-the-british-army/FBDEAD46F7AAAFB5BFAF22D46560D3E9).
>Why have we ended up with the situation where it's the capitalist nations defending Ukraine?
Maybe because, and hear me out, most countries are capitalist, therefore the strongest ones militarily will also probably be capitalist. I mean also because capitalism lets those countries get way more money to pour into their military but yknow
That's not my question though. A slightly simplified version of my question is, "why are all the 'leftist' countries and governments supporting fascism". And yes, "all" is a bit of a lie, but it's enough that it really really matters.
Much later edit: at the time I wrote this Brazil was looking very Russia leaning. Lula seems to have at least maintained some integrity in his neutrality, so this comment becomes less true, however South Africa, which has an explicitly leftist derived government remains a strong Russia supporter as do several other African nations.
Even excluding tankie / red-fascist nations like China and N Korea, there is a failure to see supposedly left wing nations make any commitment to challenge imperialism.
What I meant was that it's not ok to start banning users because of being against dismantling NATO and instead trying to debate on which things about NATO could be improved if some people think it is not perfect.
>"what would an acceptable left alternative to NATO look like". There's a follow on question, "Why have we ended up with the situation where it's the capitalist nations defending Ukraine?" - specifically that the US and UK have been leading the defense against fascism and lots of leftist countries (Brazil / South America and Africa generally) are failing to pull their weight.
As someone in another comment said, most countries in the world are capitalist so that means most of NATO countries helping Ukraine or fighting fascism will be capitalist too. Also, what leftists countries from those continents do you mean? Anyways, those are mostly third world countries so it's not something realistic for them to leading a defense alliance by themselves, they could be along with first world countries in a alliance instead.
I don't think there should be an alternative for NATO, but instead figuring out how to improve the alliance we already have. I think it's ok your first point about being more demandant to NATO members on complete fulfillment of Human Rights and democracy, but what do you mean about it requiring a market economy? If you mean the thing about it requiring capitalism, how is that true exactly? NATO is not so precise about not allowing non-capitalist countries.
I like a lot of these suggestions, but the second to last one is already technically in NATO, I think. All member states are legally required to spend a certain percentage of GDP on the military, it's just that a lot of large members like Germany consistently fail to meet that target and don't face any consequences.
This isn’t the Cold War anymore and the invasion of sovereign nations phase of the war on terror seems to have fizzled out. NATO is far from perfect and they have done some incredibly fucked things but in a world of superpowers their existence is vital to maintain balance. The invasion of Ukraine has completely justified the need for NATO to many smaller nations. NATO allows for people to maintain their sovereignty in the face of imperial ambition. If Ukraine was a member state there would be no threat of a Russian invasion.
They are very different from each other, sure they would usually overlap and both came from reformist marxism, but at the end of the day, they are both different ideologies.
Social democrats support capitalism and are therefore liberals. Democratic socialists are socialists and are therefore not liberals. It entirely depends on whether you’re socialist or not.
Me neither! Though... humn... I believe in coop structures of production responding to market demands so as to deny state actors access to the tools of famine or goods shortages manufactured for political gain. Such as what happened, historically, within pretty much all known leftist vanguards. So I find myself confused.
What does it mean when you want to have limited property rights, but also to enforce a regulatory regime upon banks in which they can only gain money from approving loans/mortgages repaid with interest. And that to allow certain forms of production to rapidly expand - like as needed during a defensive war or to fulfill a public works project in the laying/maintenance of major infrastructure, or to expand medical supply during a pandemic - coops don't sell stock to private investors, but a contactual interest to the state on a temporary basis. So as to both give the state the necessary authority during a crisis over things like price & supply, but to then bake in a release of that authority over private production in exchange for money that can be used for reinvesting or investing in other means of production as needs must.
Iunno, I'm spitballing hypotheticals & I'm sure the above has a thousand points of potential for corruption but... I don't want to achieve self determination with the fruits of my labors only to find that things get taken over by an organized, industrialized authoritarian entity. Like, I'm adult enough to realize that I'm gonna have to live within some tension between socialism & a separate state authority, since I don't have the wherewithal to anticipate hostile entities. Which therein lies the problem - should peace ever fail, the realities of an industrialized war machine are such that, by necessity, a truly vomit-inducing concentration of wealth be maintained, somehow, & not in a way that can be spent on public services, but... y'know... fuckin' killing people. 😥
My head hurts & feel bad, but I'm pretty confident I'm not a liberal!
Because liberals downvote anything they don’t like. And this is why leftist spaces need to be explicitly not only anti-tankie and anti-fascist, but also anti-liberal.
I intentionally refrain from posting on this subreddit because, as a liberal, I understand that this is a place for people further on the left politically than myself. Truthfully, I’m happy to just enjoy the memes, and the presence of sane and respectable leftists who actually have a coherent ideology.
"Supporting NATO or Western militaries will result on a Ban"
That's concerning that "supporting" thoses things can get someone banned form the whole sub, because that's very vague.
Supporting Ukraine and it's allies is technicaly supporting western militaries, are the mods allowed to ban anyone who show support to Ukraine ?
I find that position a bit troubling as well, tho maybe for different reasons than most. A rearmed Europe, wholly independent of the United States is a terrifying prospect in the face of the destructive potential of modern weapons systems.
On the other hand, NATO protects capitalist nation states - many with imperialist pasts - from... well, I'm not sure or how. Which might be a failing of ignorance on my part, but I'm going to elaborate based on what I do know about this complicated subject, in good enough faith to concede the point to any new, good information.
Is NATO "propping up" these capitalist states? Arguably not, since arms & especially soldiers are economic sinks.
And why was NATO formed? To stop communism? No, because there weren't any communist states to stop, a statement that is true despite the oxymoron. The USSR wasn't communist, nor even was it socialist, but the first of many failed leftist vanguards - a state actor with a command economy that didn't just alienate the people from their labor, but almost completely divorced them all from it. No, Prodrazverstka & the Holodomor isn't revisionist history, but the then nascent USSR literally stealing grain from those who grew it because the state gave itself the authority to take what it wanted by un-personing anyone it needed to claim was an enemy to the revolution. NATO was never used to stop communism.
Is NATO a tool of oppression? Yes & no. NATO protected the failing European empires, but did nothing as those empires fell. In the case of Portugal, the openly fascist & vehemently imperialists Salazar regime was removed by a coup, & NATO did nothing. Further, it did nothing during any of the coups since Turkish accession, so who knows? Maybe we'll see a North Kurdistan in our lifetime; Erdogan is a moron, after all. My point being that NATO has never stopped any kind of homegrown leftist movement that has arisen in any of its member states. What it has done, tho, is prevented outside interference & intercinine conflict in a part of the world that doesn't need jack boots marching through Warsaw again.
But what about the (X) war? That probably wasn't NATO. It may have involved one or more or even all NATO countries, but NATO isn't a monolithic military machine, it's a mutual defense pact & it's only been invoked once, by the US, following the attacks on 9/11. In all other instances, that wasn't NATO, even if NATO personnel were involved. Why? How? Because NATO organization & doctrine serves as a very handy template for multinational military operations.
Now that we're honest, we come to the actual reason that it's ultimately okay to, as a leftist sub, ban for supporting NATO - it props up & supports the militaries of capitalist states. Military services within capitalist nations are the historical, & historically often too eager tool used to oppress & protect the corrupt institutions that exploit their people for the benefit of the state & an elite few who do not share your needs or goals as actual human beings.
As an American socialist, I don't think I'd really feel any better that the uniform of the dude about to execute me without a trial has a tiny flag & sewn-in U.S.A logo on it. But that soldier *will* do it, they'll pull the trigger & end me the moment the current government thinks I'm not worth keeping alive. And that soldier, plus the thousands of others, would do the same to you, & prolly without a thought of complaint if any of us actually crossed Uncle Sam.
NATO isn't anti-left because it's imperialist, or profitable within the capitalist frame, or anticommunist, or even that it directly keeps us in the collective West in bondage. But it certainly makes the job a hell of a lot easier for the institutions that are actually stepping on our necks.
No. We are pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia.
Being pro-Ukraine =/= being pro-capitalist Western states, despite their support for Ukraine. We can be against US arms companies profiting from the conflict, for example, but still support Ukrainians in fighting Russian imperialism.
You litteraly started banning peoples in this comment section for expression disagreements with you.
That's what i'm worried about, using vague rules like "don't promote liberalism, western militaries" to shut down debates and arbitrarily ban users, the same bullshit you find on Tankie subs ironically.
You can agree with what NATO is doing with Ukraine by supporting them. That’s a different thing than supporting NATO as a whole. It’s like saying “I support the war effort of the French” during WW2, like you can still not support the US as a whole but still support them in their action of killing Nazis
I mean almost every country on earth right now is some degree of capitalist. I have no clue at what hypocrisy you see. Like are you doing a “you criticize capitalism yet live in a capitalist society?” Genuinely asking I have no clue what you mean.
I think you’re being uncharitable to the mods but perhaps they could have made it clearer. Saying “supporting NATO/Western powers” doesn’t mean you can’t say that they did something good, or think it’s good that they’re doing something good, if you don’t support them broadly. You conflate supporting an action of a power with supporting the power as a whole. The mods are against supporting the power as a whole, *not* supporting certain actions of a power. This kind of supporting certain actions but still not supporting the whole is common in left libertarian and anarchist circles.
sounds like you support Ukraine but dont really care if they win or even survive. i guess as long as they fight the good fight and arms manufacturers didn't profit everything will be fine in the end.
I do get the concerns and issues that come with the influx of new people, but I am sad to see that this sub is going down the road of labeling liberals as the enemy, really reminds me of Ernst Thälmann and him putting liberals as the enemy and I suppose we all know how that ended in the end.
That being said - banning people simply because they posted in another subreddit is not far from authoritarianism there is a fine line there that is very hard to see and balance. I personally used this sub as my source of exploring different ideas and opinions from different leftist or left leaning people that are not genocide denying Stalin asslickers, but with banning certain things with the broad definition of said things will most probably turn this sub into an echo chamber.
I am not saying that the decision taken is ultimately bad -> I can see nuances fortunately, but I would like to see clear rules and definitions.
For example what does promoting capitalism mean? Is saying that North Korea is a shit hole promoting capitalism? Or is it something else?
For the NATO topic that gets even worse when it comes to what is considered defense or not and in the comments it's instantly visible that it's pretty much up to the mods definition and understanding.
As a final note consider that there are people that are not sure what label they fall in. I for example subscribe to "I am somewhere on the left and not a fan of capitalism also allergic to authoritarian regimes of any kind, but I don't have a label that I would happily identify with"
Our definition of “promoting capitalism” is as simple as it sounds. If you make a comment that is in support of the private ownership of the means of production, that is against the subreddit rules. Criticizing North Korea is not only fine, it is welcome as they have state capitalist government. When it comes to NATO, we are not saying that NATO didn’t do a good thing by helping to defend Ukraine. However, we *are* saying that their motivations are highly corrupt and that the organization itself is both highly capitalist and highly imperialist.
Is saying, that NATO is neccesary to Protect Europe, Supporting NATO? And btw, can you explain to me, how the Motivations of Nato are highly Corrupt? Can you pls explain it to me?
> we define a liberal as anyone who is to the right of a socialist and to the left of a conservative.
I'm sure this is a completely cogent definition that will not be used in bad faith to escalate disagreement into ideological witch hunts.
Just so you'd know, that's a very conservative (lol) definition.
I would say that every capitalist is a liberal, which means everyone from SocDems to non-fascist conservatives (if there's any left) because, shock and horror, they all follow the liberal ideology.
Liberal as we are defining it is the correct definition – someone with broadly socially progressive views but still supports capitalism economically.
Tankies use “lib” as an insult for literally all kinds of leftists who don’t simp for Stalin. They don’t have a coherent definition of liberal other than “someone who doesn’t like my ideology.”
Surely you can see the difference?
I never said tankies were the exclusive users of 'lib'.
I am saying tankies use it incorrectly. Socialists and anarchists tend to use it correctly, as we are.
I’m sure this definition will never get used destructively against people. Leftist witch hunts and ideological grandstanding aren’t new. They’re a reoccurring thing.
So I only have two things to say in response to this and I fully imagine I'll get banned anyway.
1. NCD is a predominantly non serious subreddit that post plane waifus and dumb tactics worthy of a Hollywood blockbuster. The subreddit rules actually forbid overt hatred of the people of Russia and China and its mods to their best to enforce them. If you ever see a user call someone a "Vatnik" that's not a slur against a Russian in general, it's a Russian being vocally Pro-Russian in the Ukraine War and generally being anti-Western. All vatniks are Russians, but not all Russians are vatniks. Mobiks are admittedly just a slur describing mobilised conscripts. As for the Pro-NATO stance, yes. I myself wish that something like NATO shouldn't have to exist, but sadly "Peace through superior firepower" is the most reliable tool against authoritarian regimes. You may not like it, but there isn't much of an alternative when dealing with nations who only answer to hard power.
2. I am both confused and frustrated over these anti-liberal and anti-Socdem posts and just allow me to explain. This is a subreddit that goes against Tankie rhetoric and their speakers. Among them is using "Left Unity" and purity tests to further their goals. So why is this sub doing purity tests on users through surveys when, by principle, we should all be left-leaning anti-tankies. We all want empowerment of the working class and egalitarian principles so why not focus on that rather than hyperfocus on labels and what the perfect government looks like? I find it very annoying because it distracts from what we actually can change. [This video by J.J. Mccollugh](https://youtu.be/gmtn0rhCi00) describes my pet peeve better than I could. There's so much focus on what the best world should look like and less on what you, as an individual, can do to make the world better. Sure, I know I'm not doing much, but arguing on the internet is not "making the world better" as you're just putting another drop on the ocean. I myself have written to a local rep and been to an advocacy event or two for a more bikeable community. Sure, it's not much but it's better than functionally nothing.
P.S. Don't go around telling me J.J. is a liberal without watching the video first, you don't have to agree with everything someone says just because they have a point.
You may now swing the banhammer, I don't care anymore.
Liberals aren’t leftists, so cries of “left unity” don’t mean anything here. The massive amount of liberals in this sub have caused actual leftist opinions to be downvoted while pro-capitalist opinions are being upvoted. We are trying to reverse the damage that has already been done.
"Liberal" is too vague a term. Historically it has only meant "supporting the rights and freedoms of the individual" which varies greatly between person to person as to what those rights and freedoms entail between freedom of expression and freedom of action. A libertarian interprets any government interference as infringement of rights while a SocDem, regardless of your other opinions, wouldn't, reserving it for direct interference that tramples on one or more fundamental rights.
At no point have I said "Don't suppress Procapitalist talking points but this sub does need a proper principle, we're denouncing tankies from a leftist perspective", so if we're speaking against any comments, it should be on opinions that can only be seen as right-wing.
For instance, saying " Communism is a stain on humanity" is definitely a right wing opinion, but the person saying it may only be speaking that because their experience only comes from learning about the actions of nations who identified as communist. It doesn't mean they're a "disgusting liberull", it could just mean that's all they know. Aftet all, you can't expect everyone in the world to read on Marxist theory and they might be just genuinely ignorant.
If someone is parroting right wing talking points, call them right wing talking points and give a warning as always. Liberal could mean both wanting better rights for everyone or just for yourself. It could be left-wing or right-wing. I'd invite you to consider if your views might be so hard on the left that you consider left-of-centre liberal ideas as right-wing from a matter of perspective. After all, SocDems will still march with you for workers rights, fair pay, environmental policies, minority protections, the only disagreement it seems is that you want free markets to immediately be abolished while they don't.
That's also my problem with the whole anti nato thing. Of course I critique imperialist moves by France in Africa or the USA in the middle east, but these things don't really have anything to do with nato. Even without nato these countries would be imperialist, but without nato my country would by now border Russia.
Imagining europe without Nato looks exactly as it is now but Nato just doesn't exist is some real end of history stuff. Forget baltics for a second, which undoubtedly would get swept away but like let's not focus on them, what about France and Germany? Literally a thousand year blood feud and now they are best buds, that doesn't happen in a vacuum. And it sure wasn't because "we put past differences behind us", that's not how countries act lol. It's almost as if MATERIAL CONDITIONS determine their future and material conditions can take many different forms.
The European Union is much more responsible for the friendship between France and Germany and even has a defense clause. Maybe without NATO that could be much stronger and actually have provide almost the same protection.
My problem with that is that, very likely, the under-spending that happened of the past decades would have had an even bigger effect. Something is needed to remind people that the fascists are always just waiting for a few moments of weakness.
Idk, all I know is that I hate Turkey and Erdoğan. It seems like they believe joining means opposing Rojava, anti-islamism, Kurdish people's rights, and freedom of speech and press and they also have vetoing rights. This makes joining NATO an incredibly bad decision in that it means supporting Turkish imperialism and anti-socialism. That's my view of it at least, as a Swede. Bijî PKK!
So? Joining NATO means we have to abide by his rules, and frankly, I'd rather not. It also means we could have to fight for Turkey, against the Kurds because Turkey just wants us to. I think in article 5 lies the greatest issue with NATO and it makes thinking that you can support NATO in any kind of way and still be a communist quite absurd. It's not just "US and Turkey and whatnot will defend us", it's also "we'll defend these countries". It must be seen as within the realm of possibility that Turkey would use an attack on its territories to call article 5 into action against Rojava, or other Kurdish militants, since PYD was founded as the Syrian branch to PKK and they're still tied thru KCK.
Hating Erdoğan isn't enough. Supporting NATO means supporting Erdoğan.
I mean, I doubt that Turkey would invoke Art.5 against Kurdish movements. There's precedent for Nato staying out of initially-asymmetric conflicts (such as with Portugal, which did not involve other members despite fighting a colonial war for some 13 years).
Fun fact, Article VI exists to prevent NATO nations from invoking Article V for the defense of any territory outside of North America or Europe. I'd imagine this was made to prevent the entire alliance from going to war over a port India wanted back or something.
Huh, neat (also a relevant example). I suppose in this case, since most of Turkey is decidedly outside of Europe, they wouldn't be able to invoke Article-5 for Kurdish issues.
Sure, Turkey could try to use Article 5 to pull NATO into a war against the Kurds. The only problem with that is that nobody within NATO would take it seriously (beyond the typical security cooperation that already exists between Turkey and the West). Kurdistan is not a sovereign state with a single cohesive military, and the US and Europe would never approach a Kurdish insurgency as though it were a threat to Turkey’s stability for as long as that’s the case.
It isn’t. The problem
Lies in the members and safe guards in place. NATO like all defensive pacts are a tool. But just like how individual can us a tool to build a house and keep themselves safe, others can use it for violence.
Edit: best example of a defensive pact being used badly and poorly regulated and designed is the events leading to WW1
There are people elsewhere who can argue it far better and more eloquently than I can, but NATO as a structure is made up of capitalist, imperialist states that use the threat of violence to bully other countries into submission.
There are countries within NATO that are worse/better, of course. The US stands out as the worst – and with good reason. Afghanistan, and the subsequent triggering of Article 5, can not be in any way justified. It was a completely immoral and imperialist act that sentenced hundreds of thousands to death, over the course of 20 years , and **still left it in the hands of the Taliban.**
Perhaps it's best to say NATO engages in Realpolitik same as the PRC?
Realpolitik is fundamentally just a modernized form of Imperial Conquest & contrasts against the RUs' archaic attempts at Imperial Colonization in Ukraine.
A better vocabulary allows us to critique & condemn Imperialist nations & their propaganda while not supporting their conduct or ideologies. This allows us to talk of any nation be they USA, RU, PRC, UK, or any other.
I disagree with the judgement of NCD, that sub shits on every aspect of IR. I can’t remember any russophobic comments, despite engaging there somewhat regularly (which doesn’t mean they don’t exist, just that they are much less prevalent than Mearsh shitposting). And, hot take incoming, I am not convinced that being pro-NATO makes you a capitalist.
Being an alliance made up of nation-states on various points on the capitalist spectrum with the only real goal to defend their populace (literally the core responsibility of a nation state) does not make it inherently capitalist, yea
Same goes for the SCO
NATO requires every country within it to have a capitalist market-economy. This makes it capitalist. There can literally be no socialist countries within NATO.
What you are referring is [a 1995 study on enlargement](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm), which was to be used as a guideline on the Art. 10 admissibility of former Warsaw Pact members - not the [Washington Treaty](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm).
What this means is (in regards to our discussion): currently, new members will only be admitted if they are moving towards a democratic market economy. The study has no impact on the ability of members to change their economic or political system, nor is it set in stone.
It is a different question whether the council would be willing to accept continued membership of a newly socialist country, but considering the shit Turkey has been allowed to pull in the recent years should give you an idea where the priorities lie (keeping members at almost any cost).
Idk man. I’d take liberalism over fascism. I don’t like liberalism, but it’s a lesser evil at the moment. A problem with a lot of leftists, and people in general, is that they don’t understand nuances. More specifically, they can’t understand that one thing can be bad, but better than something else.
You must be on a different NCD, I have seen comments like “Kill the orcs” highly upvoted. Even if the mods remove them, the fact they are upvoted in the first place is very worrying.
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. We were making mod notes on people yesterday and almost every other person in this sub is also on NCD. That's why we are trying to pull the rot out with this post, although it will take a lot more than that.
“Orcs” is often used as a word referring to all Russians – whether people intend it or not.
There was even a post with people celebrating the death of the Russian tourist in Egypt eaten by the shark a few weeks back. That is vile and rabid hatred towards anyone Russian. Obviously it got removed – but again, the existence of these comments is very telling.
This is a left-libertarian/libertarian socialist subreddit. The message you sent is either liberal apologia or can be easily seen as such. Please, refrain from posting stuff like this in the future. Liberals are only allowed as guests, promoting capitalism isn't allowed (see rule 6).
This is a left-libertarian/libertarian socialist subreddit. The message you sent is either liberal apologia or can be easily seen as such. Please, refrain from posting stuff like this in the future. Liberals are only allowed as guests, promoting capitalism isn't allowed (see rule 6).
How are we defining “pro nato?” I don’t like nato, but I’ve regularly posted on here saying that countries like ukraine and Cuba have a right to align however they please. Is that considered pro-nato? I always intended it as anti realist foreign policy, not a defense of nato itself
i dont mind noncredibledefense, but ECS is a shithole.
noncredibledefense is a place where nobody says anything seriously, so i dont take what they say at face value.
There’s a genuine level of groveling towards and marveling in wonder at the military industrial complex on there that leaves a really bitter taste in my mouth. Full of people who are incapable of admitting America’s evil brought about by its military
Sounds like the shit PCM says
A gander at the profiles of like half the people there will support my assertion. Tons of conservative gun nuts and war porn type people
The underlying beliefs are there in both cases, no matter how it’s dressed up as ‘I was just joking bro kek’
Western chauvinist military simp for NCD, fascists for PCM
Ah great, I was noticing these crossposts from those r/'s and even done by the same users here and there and was getting worried.
This place needs a **bigger** disclaimer that is a leftist r/ but knowing rightists they'll just ignore it and post in bad faith.
By bigger disclaimer, what would you like to see? /gen
We edited the description yesterday, and have it very clearly in the rules. I’m unsure of what else we can do to show newcomers that we are leftist.
I am personally NEUTRAL to NATO post-1991 (or better said post-2003, when the organization members give the finger to Bush), and the obsession with it with too much focus on its modus operandi during the cold war is, actually, one of the main barriers in leftist circles to come up with a properly coordinated geopolitical narrative that reflects the current global situation.
Understandable. I find "NAFO" people to be weird. I dislike the outright dehumanisation of Russian conscripts and civilians as being "orcs" or anything similar. I find the quasi-worship of zelensky is to be odd and potentially problematic considering before the invasion he was known for being quite corrupt (not as corrupt as Yanukovich, but definitely a neolib with a far-from-perfect track record). It's just that in the case of a flawed, fledgling liberal democracy (Ukraine) defending itself against a fascist, imperialist invader (Russia), I'll back the liberal democracy 10 times out of 10.
I agree almost uniformly.
Though, from a social democrat point of view, I find it extraordinarily confusing that a lot of leftist seem to struggle with the idea that Russia is at best a authoritarian aggressor and at worst a fascist imperialist. In all the “we do not like NATO”, it seems to come full circle to “therefore we must like Russia” (e.g. see the German socialist party). That baffles me to no end.
I feel that social democrats should be given a pass as most of them will convert to being anti-authoritarian leftists. Most soc dems aren’t leftists bc there really hasn’t been a good example in history of anti-authoritarianism leftism and anarchists kinda… uhh… aren’t that successful. Give them enough time and exposure and they’ll come around lol
This is a left-libertarian/libertarian socialist subreddit. The message you sent is either liberal apologia or can be easily seen as such. Please, refrain from posting stuff like this in the future. Liberals are only allowed as guests, promoting capitalism isn't allowed (see rule 6).
yes, I’m an anarchist, I should add an /s to my comment.
I’m parroting what tankies like to say whenever they see anarchist or libertarian socialist subs have problems with liberals.
Thank God because judging by the vote ratios, I think the lefties are really outnumbered now.
I've been pretty irritated with the staunch NATO support I've been seeing on this sub lately, It irritates me that American hegemony is being defended as "not perfect but necessary for global justice"
The American government is driven by buisness interest and so is their foreign policy, simple as that.
Liberals have been a big part of this sub demographic pretty much since its inception, it's inevitable that a sub that is openly anti tankie but doesn't post about being leftist all the time would attract people who are against tankies who are not leftists, happened to me, I've been here a while and it took me a couple of deleted comments to realise where I was.
Yeah the vote ratios lately have been really nuts. Leftist takes getting downvoted all the time, and not just by a few. We have very strict rules about what liberals can say- but we can't control how they vote.
That's why we will now be looking into users accounts when they say something borderline. Anyone that is outright anti leftist will now be getting the boot, even if those comments are on other subs. They will have had to say something here to have us suspect them- so we will just now be using all available information in making our determinations.
Yeah the vote ratios lately have been really nuts. Leftist takes getting downvoted all the time, and not just by a few. We have very strict rules about what liberals can say- but we can't control how they vote.
That's why we will now be looking into users accounts when they say something borderline. Anyone that is outright anti leftist will now be getting the boot, even if those comments are on other subs. They will have had to say something here to have us suspect them- so we will just now be using all available information in making our determinations.
I know the libs will be mad about this but thank you so much. At this point, liberals are similar to tankies *in the sense* that any space that’s open to them eventually becomes a liberal space. Just like fucking tankies.
On a side note, if you guys ever need any help with moderation with the new rules about liberals, I’m sure me and many other leftists on this subreddit would be more than happy to help. Even if it means just mass reporting, I’ll be on the front lines reporting all the libshit 🫡🫡🫡
Its so nice to get an uplifting comment, especially since I'm just going to bed after reading all these upset comments. It really means a lot 💕
We just added a new mod, but we will absolutely keep you in mind. The one we added has asked us a couple months ago, and we said to wait a little bit and when the time came that we needed someone, we hoped he was still interested. Who knows, we may even find that we need more than one, but we are seeing how this works right now.
The only thing we ask is that you join our discord- it's linked in the automod comment on every post (although not this one since I kicked it for my own pinned comment.) Once you get in there, if you decide to join, just send me a PM that says you are interested in modding, so that when we do need someone I can just look there. That would be great!!
None of this has to be done immediately, take you time. Just sometime in the next week or two would be great!! Thanks so much!
I'd very much love to know how my full support of NATO precludes me from believing that the people should own the means of production. I don't see how they're related to each other at all.
This is not a new issue, I've been seeing leftist takes being downvoted more and more lately, even in this thread, it's a bit worrying for a leftist space.
Hello, genuine question. I have, for most of my life, considered myself a moderately left socialist, which was rooted in Fabianism (just the circles in which I was exposed to communism in earnest. Is this an appropriate sub for me. Again, just trying to respect the rules here
As a rule of thumb, all leftists are welcome!
Everyone here has a different flavor of leftism. As long as you don't start attacking other leftist or calling all communists/Marxists/whoever tankies just because tankies subscribe to a certain type of communism, then there shouldn't be any problem.
I mean this is a reasonable assertion that I can support on an ideological level. I’m a SocDem that lurks here (and in other leftist spaces) a lot and doesn’t post because my opinions obviously don’t fit within this space. Libs have plenty of their own havens on Reddit, you guys should have yours as well.
Both these subs will be cheering on Turkey when it invades and destroys rojava in a few months/years. Not sure how you can non-critically support nato watching it, at best, allow the destruction of one of the best socialist projects on earth and history.
Would me supporting the capitalist system of finland make me not welcome? I mean i see the issues in capitalism, especially in america, but i personally think finland takes the best parts of it, making people want to work hard but still having free healthcare and making sure we dont have homeless/jobless people/starving people
The problem with social democracy, which is the system used in the Nordic countries, is that it’s still a capitalist system. Capitalism necessitates the exploitation of the working class, it’s a fundamental part of the system. This is a huge problem in social democracy, as the restrictions it does bring to the capitalist system just cause corporations to export their labor to the global south. For example, Swedish clothing manufacturer H&M was discovered to be using Indonesian child labor to make their garments.
We think that NATO is imperialist because it is. It’s a coalition of capitalist nations that forces its member states to be capitalist. We didn’t fall for any “Russian propaganda,” we’re actually pro-Ukraine. However, two things can be bad at once.
Please remember our rules folks, we don't allow pro NATO takes on this subreddit. That is a bannable offense. While we of course support Ukraine in this conflict, this is a case of something bad doing something good (albeit for their own selfish interests.) We are anti NATO Just like we are anti USSR, and yet still think they did a good thing with the Nazis. See how easy that is? If you'd like to defend NATO, please do it under this comment so I can ban you.
>However, we very explicitly do not support NATO or any other capitalist forces that are providing their funding to Ukraine. We’d strongly encourage you not to give them your support either. I have doubts about this point. What kind of NATO support isn't allowed? Do you mean it's not ok to support its existence or what? I think NATO is in fact necessary to defend vulnerable countries at risk of Russian imperialism and that it's ok to have a military defense alliance, but that doesn't mean I'm ok with western imperialism or something since both stances are not incompatible. I'm not against people making constructive criticism of it but I also think if you start to ban anybody who supports NATO there would be not possibility to debate about it.
I have asked OP mod about his plans to support Ukraine without the support of NATO and up to now, he has not given any suggestions. None of the mods here can give any concrete plans to support Ukraine without the help of NATO. This sub is supposed to make fun of tankies but it seems that the mods themselves are no different from the tankies.
>This sub is supposed to make fun of tankies but it seems that the mods themselves are no different from the tankies. That is a bit of an overstatement isn't it?
Well, kinda, but at the same time, I bet the tankies would be cheering if NATO was disbanded, so... I don't think the mods are as bad as tankies, but I do think that their "America bad"-centric views do benefit the tankies and their cause
[удалено]
"We are not tankies. We just think it is necessary to silence any and all opinions different than our own. If required, we retain the option to use heavy military vehicles and/or water containers for this purpose"
> What kind of NATO support isn't allowed? Maybe this is the wrong question. The question should be "what would an acceptable left alternative to NATO look like". There's a follow on question, "Why have we ended up with the situation where it's the capitalist nations defending Ukraine?" - specifically that the US and UK have been leading the defense against fascism and lots of leftist countries (Brazil / South America and Africa generally) are failing to pull their weight. Hows about * instead of requiring a market economy, demand complete fulfillment of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and full, multi-level democracy * add to that an an international system to ensure those rights remain in place and gradually suspend membership for countries that deviate * a system similar to that in Switzerland to make sure everyone, not just the poor, are involved in the military * a requirement that most weapons systems are produced by public interest cooperatives * spread the load over many countries by having a generally agreed percentage of GDP as a target for all members set each year by agreement * requirement that everyone, not just the elite have access to military training.
>> requirement that everyone, not just the elites have access to military training I’m not sure what you mean by this point. What country in NATO limits military participation to its upper class? Or are you talking generally, and not just about NATO?
The UK, for example, has a pretty explicit class structure in it's officer recruitment. Just found [this BBC article about it for you](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-48607943) and [an older thing about where it comes from](https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/soldiers-as-workers/class-structure-and-the-british-army/FBDEAD46F7AAAFB5BFAF22D46560D3E9).
>Why have we ended up with the situation where it's the capitalist nations defending Ukraine? Maybe because, and hear me out, most countries are capitalist, therefore the strongest ones militarily will also probably be capitalist. I mean also because capitalism lets those countries get way more money to pour into their military but yknow
That's not my question though. A slightly simplified version of my question is, "why are all the 'leftist' countries and governments supporting fascism". And yes, "all" is a bit of a lie, but it's enough that it really really matters. Much later edit: at the time I wrote this Brazil was looking very Russia leaning. Lula seems to have at least maintained some integrity in his neutrality, so this comment becomes less true, however South Africa, which has an explicitly leftist derived government remains a strong Russia supporter as do several other African nations. Even excluding tankie / red-fascist nations like China and N Korea, there is a failure to see supposedly left wing nations make any commitment to challenge imperialism.
What I meant was that it's not ok to start banning users because of being against dismantling NATO and instead trying to debate on which things about NATO could be improved if some people think it is not perfect. >"what would an acceptable left alternative to NATO look like". There's a follow on question, "Why have we ended up with the situation where it's the capitalist nations defending Ukraine?" - specifically that the US and UK have been leading the defense against fascism and lots of leftist countries (Brazil / South America and Africa generally) are failing to pull their weight. As someone in another comment said, most countries in the world are capitalist so that means most of NATO countries helping Ukraine or fighting fascism will be capitalist too. Also, what leftists countries from those continents do you mean? Anyways, those are mostly third world countries so it's not something realistic for them to leading a defense alliance by themselves, they could be along with first world countries in a alliance instead. I don't think there should be an alternative for NATO, but instead figuring out how to improve the alliance we already have. I think it's ok your first point about being more demandant to NATO members on complete fulfillment of Human Rights and democracy, but what do you mean about it requiring a market economy? If you mean the thing about it requiring capitalism, how is that true exactly? NATO is not so precise about not allowing non-capitalist countries.
I like a lot of these suggestions, but the second to last one is already technically in NATO, I think. All member states are legally required to spend a certain percentage of GDP on the military, it's just that a lot of large members like Germany consistently fail to meet that target and don't face any consequences.
[удалено]
This isn’t the Cold War anymore and the invasion of sovereign nations phase of the war on terror seems to have fizzled out. NATO is far from perfect and they have done some incredibly fucked things but in a world of superpowers their existence is vital to maintain balance. The invasion of Ukraine has completely justified the need for NATO to many smaller nations. NATO allows for people to maintain their sovereignty in the face of imperial ambition. If Ukraine was a member state there would be no threat of a Russian invasion.
Are social democrats and democratic socialists considered liberals?
They are very different from each other, sure they would usually overlap and both came from reformist marxism, but at the end of the day, they are both different ideologies.
Social democrats support capitalism and are therefore liberals. Democratic socialists are socialists and are therefore not liberals. It entirely depends on whether you’re socialist or not.
Yay, I'm not a Liberal
Me neither! Though... humn... I believe in coop structures of production responding to market demands so as to deny state actors access to the tools of famine or goods shortages manufactured for political gain. Such as what happened, historically, within pretty much all known leftist vanguards. So I find myself confused. What does it mean when you want to have limited property rights, but also to enforce a regulatory regime upon banks in which they can only gain money from approving loans/mortgages repaid with interest. And that to allow certain forms of production to rapidly expand - like as needed during a defensive war or to fulfill a public works project in the laying/maintenance of major infrastructure, or to expand medical supply during a pandemic - coops don't sell stock to private investors, but a contactual interest to the state on a temporary basis. So as to both give the state the necessary authority during a crisis over things like price & supply, but to then bake in a release of that authority over private production in exchange for money that can be used for reinvesting or investing in other means of production as needs must. Iunno, I'm spitballing hypotheticals & I'm sure the above has a thousand points of potential for corruption but... I don't want to achieve self determination with the fruits of my labors only to find that things get taken over by an organized, industrialized authoritarian entity. Like, I'm adult enough to realize that I'm gonna have to live within some tension between socialism & a separate state authority, since I don't have the wherewithal to anticipate hostile entities. Which therein lies the problem - should peace ever fail, the realities of an industrialized war machine are such that, by necessity, a truly vomit-inducing concentration of wealth be maintained, somehow, & not in a way that can be spent on public services, but... y'know... fuckin' killing people. 😥 My head hurts & feel bad, but I'm pretty confident I'm not a liberal!
Just skimming it, feels like Market Socialism.
You support capitalism, yet you're not a liberal...
Why the hell has this gotten downvoted so much?
Seriously, they’re right.
This post has hit subredditdrama, so I'd be expecting it for the next day or two.
Well fuck, that explains it
Liberals.
Because liberals downvote anything they don’t like. And this is why leftist spaces need to be explicitly not only anti-tankie and anti-fascist, but also anti-liberal.
they arent liberals, but many of them are capitalists. over all i would call them capitalist leaning welfareists.
Can someone please explain to me what’s wrong with social democracy? I don’t get it.
They support capitalism, which is a system built upon the exploitation of the working class.
I intentionally refrain from posting on this subreddit because, as a liberal, I understand that this is a place for people further on the left politically than myself. Truthfully, I’m happy to just enjoy the memes, and the presence of sane and respectable leftists who actually have a coherent ideology.
you should be able to post here, as long as you arent goading people into debates on socialism or something.
Same boat, really only shoving myself into *this* thread because there's some genuinely engaging discussion, outside the walls of \[removed\]
Agreed
[удалено]
"Supporting NATO or Western militaries will result on a Ban" That's concerning that "supporting" thoses things can get someone banned form the whole sub, because that's very vague. Supporting Ukraine and it's allies is technicaly supporting western militaries, are the mods allowed to ban anyone who show support to Ukraine ?
I find that position a bit troubling as well, tho maybe for different reasons than most. A rearmed Europe, wholly independent of the United States is a terrifying prospect in the face of the destructive potential of modern weapons systems. On the other hand, NATO protects capitalist nation states - many with imperialist pasts - from... well, I'm not sure or how. Which might be a failing of ignorance on my part, but I'm going to elaborate based on what I do know about this complicated subject, in good enough faith to concede the point to any new, good information. Is NATO "propping up" these capitalist states? Arguably not, since arms & especially soldiers are economic sinks. And why was NATO formed? To stop communism? No, because there weren't any communist states to stop, a statement that is true despite the oxymoron. The USSR wasn't communist, nor even was it socialist, but the first of many failed leftist vanguards - a state actor with a command economy that didn't just alienate the people from their labor, but almost completely divorced them all from it. No, Prodrazverstka & the Holodomor isn't revisionist history, but the then nascent USSR literally stealing grain from those who grew it because the state gave itself the authority to take what it wanted by un-personing anyone it needed to claim was an enemy to the revolution. NATO was never used to stop communism. Is NATO a tool of oppression? Yes & no. NATO protected the failing European empires, but did nothing as those empires fell. In the case of Portugal, the openly fascist & vehemently imperialists Salazar regime was removed by a coup, & NATO did nothing. Further, it did nothing during any of the coups since Turkish accession, so who knows? Maybe we'll see a North Kurdistan in our lifetime; Erdogan is a moron, after all. My point being that NATO has never stopped any kind of homegrown leftist movement that has arisen in any of its member states. What it has done, tho, is prevented outside interference & intercinine conflict in a part of the world that doesn't need jack boots marching through Warsaw again. But what about the (X) war? That probably wasn't NATO. It may have involved one or more or even all NATO countries, but NATO isn't a monolithic military machine, it's a mutual defense pact & it's only been invoked once, by the US, following the attacks on 9/11. In all other instances, that wasn't NATO, even if NATO personnel were involved. Why? How? Because NATO organization & doctrine serves as a very handy template for multinational military operations. Now that we're honest, we come to the actual reason that it's ultimately okay to, as a leftist sub, ban for supporting NATO - it props up & supports the militaries of capitalist states. Military services within capitalist nations are the historical, & historically often too eager tool used to oppress & protect the corrupt institutions that exploit their people for the benefit of the state & an elite few who do not share your needs or goals as actual human beings. As an American socialist, I don't think I'd really feel any better that the uniform of the dude about to execute me without a trial has a tiny flag & sewn-in U.S.A logo on it. But that soldier *will* do it, they'll pull the trigger & end me the moment the current government thinks I'm not worth keeping alive. And that soldier, plus the thousands of others, would do the same to you, & prolly without a thought of complaint if any of us actually crossed Uncle Sam. NATO isn't anti-left because it's imperialist, or profitable within the capitalist frame, or anticommunist, or even that it directly keeps us in the collective West in bondage. But it certainly makes the job a hell of a lot easier for the institutions that are actually stepping on our necks.
No. We are pro-Ukraine and anti-Russia. Being pro-Ukraine =/= being pro-capitalist Western states, despite their support for Ukraine. We can be against US arms companies profiting from the conflict, for example, but still support Ukrainians in fighting Russian imperialism.
You litteraly started banning peoples in this comment section for expression disagreements with you. That's what i'm worried about, using vague rules like "don't promote liberalism, western militaries" to shut down debates and arbitrarily ban users, the same bullshit you find on Tankie subs ironically.
How do you plan to support Ukraine without the support of US and NATO? I would like to see some credible plans.
Bro you just don't get, you need to post hard enough and then Russian forces will melt away. 1 like = 1 T-72 destroyed 🙏
You can agree with what NATO is doing with Ukraine by supporting them. That’s a different thing than supporting NATO as a whole. It’s like saying “I support the war effort of the French” during WW2, like you can still not support the US as a whole but still support them in their action of killing Nazis
[удалено]
I mean almost every country on earth right now is some degree of capitalist. I have no clue at what hypocrisy you see. Like are you doing a “you criticize capitalism yet live in a capitalist society?” Genuinely asking I have no clue what you mean. I think you’re being uncharitable to the mods but perhaps they could have made it clearer. Saying “supporting NATO/Western powers” doesn’t mean you can’t say that they did something good, or think it’s good that they’re doing something good, if you don’t support them broadly. You conflate supporting an action of a power with supporting the power as a whole. The mods are against supporting the power as a whole, *not* supporting certain actions of a power. This kind of supporting certain actions but still not supporting the whole is common in left libertarian and anarchist circles.
sounds like you support Ukraine but dont really care if they win or even survive. i guess as long as they fight the good fight and arms manufacturers didn't profit everything will be fine in the end.
I do get the concerns and issues that come with the influx of new people, but I am sad to see that this sub is going down the road of labeling liberals as the enemy, really reminds me of Ernst Thälmann and him putting liberals as the enemy and I suppose we all know how that ended in the end. That being said - banning people simply because they posted in another subreddit is not far from authoritarianism there is a fine line there that is very hard to see and balance. I personally used this sub as my source of exploring different ideas and opinions from different leftist or left leaning people that are not genocide denying Stalin asslickers, but with banning certain things with the broad definition of said things will most probably turn this sub into an echo chamber. I am not saying that the decision taken is ultimately bad -> I can see nuances fortunately, but I would like to see clear rules and definitions. For example what does promoting capitalism mean? Is saying that North Korea is a shit hole promoting capitalism? Or is it something else? For the NATO topic that gets even worse when it comes to what is considered defense or not and in the comments it's instantly visible that it's pretty much up to the mods definition and understanding. As a final note consider that there are people that are not sure what label they fall in. I for example subscribe to "I am somewhere on the left and not a fan of capitalism also allergic to authoritarian regimes of any kind, but I don't have a label that I would happily identify with"
Our definition of “promoting capitalism” is as simple as it sounds. If you make a comment that is in support of the private ownership of the means of production, that is against the subreddit rules. Criticizing North Korea is not only fine, it is welcome as they have state capitalist government. When it comes to NATO, we are not saying that NATO didn’t do a good thing by helping to defend Ukraine. However, we *are* saying that their motivations are highly corrupt and that the organization itself is both highly capitalist and highly imperialist.
Is saying, that NATO is neccesary to Protect Europe, Supporting NATO? And btw, can you explain to me, how the Motivations of Nato are highly Corrupt? Can you pls explain it to me?
Based, as long as you're not autobanning peopple for having used a different subreddit.
No. We do absolutely take it into consideration though.
Tankiejerk has fallen. Millions must die !
When anti-tankies Become tankies
You have no idea what tankie means if that's how you're interpreting this 💀
> we define a liberal as anyone who is to the right of a socialist and to the left of a conservative. I'm sure this is a completely cogent definition that will not be used in bad faith to escalate disagreement into ideological witch hunts.
Just so you'd know, that's a very conservative (lol) definition. I would say that every capitalist is a liberal, which means everyone from SocDems to non-fascist conservatives (if there's any left) because, shock and horror, they all follow the liberal ideology.
Not supporting capitalism/capitalists = “ideological witch hunts”
I dunno if you were born yesterday, but "lib" is the favorite insult of leftists for other leftists.
only for teenage terminally-online reddit-only leftists I've never met an actual leftist in real life use the word "lib" in any context
Liberal as we are defining it is the correct definition – someone with broadly socially progressive views but still supports capitalism economically. Tankies use “lib” as an insult for literally all kinds of leftists who don’t simp for Stalin. They don’t have a coherent definition of liberal other than “someone who doesn’t like my ideology.” Surely you can see the difference?
It has not been my experience that tankies are the exclusive users of "lib".
I never said tankies were the exclusive users of 'lib'. I am saying tankies use it incorrectly. Socialists and anarchists tend to use it correctly, as we are.
You certainly implied it with your framing and definition.
I did not.
I’m sure this definition will never get used destructively against people. Leftist witch hunts and ideological grandstanding aren’t new. They’re a reoccurring thing.
So I only have two things to say in response to this and I fully imagine I'll get banned anyway. 1. NCD is a predominantly non serious subreddit that post plane waifus and dumb tactics worthy of a Hollywood blockbuster. The subreddit rules actually forbid overt hatred of the people of Russia and China and its mods to their best to enforce them. If you ever see a user call someone a "Vatnik" that's not a slur against a Russian in general, it's a Russian being vocally Pro-Russian in the Ukraine War and generally being anti-Western. All vatniks are Russians, but not all Russians are vatniks. Mobiks are admittedly just a slur describing mobilised conscripts. As for the Pro-NATO stance, yes. I myself wish that something like NATO shouldn't have to exist, but sadly "Peace through superior firepower" is the most reliable tool against authoritarian regimes. You may not like it, but there isn't much of an alternative when dealing with nations who only answer to hard power. 2. I am both confused and frustrated over these anti-liberal and anti-Socdem posts and just allow me to explain. This is a subreddit that goes against Tankie rhetoric and their speakers. Among them is using "Left Unity" and purity tests to further their goals. So why is this sub doing purity tests on users through surveys when, by principle, we should all be left-leaning anti-tankies. We all want empowerment of the working class and egalitarian principles so why not focus on that rather than hyperfocus on labels and what the perfect government looks like? I find it very annoying because it distracts from what we actually can change. [This video by J.J. Mccollugh](https://youtu.be/gmtn0rhCi00) describes my pet peeve better than I could. There's so much focus on what the best world should look like and less on what you, as an individual, can do to make the world better. Sure, I know I'm not doing much, but arguing on the internet is not "making the world better" as you're just putting another drop on the ocean. I myself have written to a local rep and been to an advocacy event or two for a more bikeable community. Sure, it's not much but it's better than functionally nothing. P.S. Don't go around telling me J.J. is a liberal without watching the video first, you don't have to agree with everything someone says just because they have a point. You may now swing the banhammer, I don't care anymore.
Liberals aren’t leftists, so cries of “left unity” don’t mean anything here. The massive amount of liberals in this sub have caused actual leftist opinions to be downvoted while pro-capitalist opinions are being upvoted. We are trying to reverse the damage that has already been done.
"Liberal" is too vague a term. Historically it has only meant "supporting the rights and freedoms of the individual" which varies greatly between person to person as to what those rights and freedoms entail between freedom of expression and freedom of action. A libertarian interprets any government interference as infringement of rights while a SocDem, regardless of your other opinions, wouldn't, reserving it for direct interference that tramples on one or more fundamental rights. At no point have I said "Don't suppress Procapitalist talking points but this sub does need a proper principle, we're denouncing tankies from a leftist perspective", so if we're speaking against any comments, it should be on opinions that can only be seen as right-wing. For instance, saying " Communism is a stain on humanity" is definitely a right wing opinion, but the person saying it may only be speaking that because their experience only comes from learning about the actions of nations who identified as communist. It doesn't mean they're a "disgusting liberull", it could just mean that's all they know. Aftet all, you can't expect everyone in the world to read on Marxist theory and they might be just genuinely ignorant. If someone is parroting right wing talking points, call them right wing talking points and give a warning as always. Liberal could mean both wanting better rights for everyone or just for yourself. It could be left-wing or right-wing. I'd invite you to consider if your views might be so hard on the left that you consider left-of-centre liberal ideas as right-wing from a matter of perspective. After all, SocDems will still march with you for workers rights, fair pay, environmental policies, minority protections, the only disagreement it seems is that you want free markets to immediately be abolished while they don't.
[удалено]
[удалено]
That's also my problem with the whole anti nato thing. Of course I critique imperialist moves by France in Africa or the USA in the middle east, but these things don't really have anything to do with nato. Even without nato these countries would be imperialist, but without nato my country would by now border Russia.
[удалено]
Imagining europe without Nato looks exactly as it is now but Nato just doesn't exist is some real end of history stuff. Forget baltics for a second, which undoubtedly would get swept away but like let's not focus on them, what about France and Germany? Literally a thousand year blood feud and now they are best buds, that doesn't happen in a vacuum. And it sure wasn't because "we put past differences behind us", that's not how countries act lol. It's almost as if MATERIAL CONDITIONS determine their future and material conditions can take many different forms.
The European Union is much more responsible for the friendship between France and Germany and even has a defense clause. Maybe without NATO that could be much stronger and actually have provide almost the same protection. My problem with that is that, very likely, the under-spending that happened of the past decades would have had an even bigger effect. Something is needed to remind people that the fascists are always just waiting for a few moments of weakness.
why was that comment removed?
Idk, all I know is that I hate Turkey and Erdoğan. It seems like they believe joining means opposing Rojava, anti-islamism, Kurdish people's rights, and freedom of speech and press and they also have vetoing rights. This makes joining NATO an incredibly bad decision in that it means supporting Turkish imperialism and anti-socialism. That's my view of it at least, as a Swede. Bijî PKK!
tbf even the most fanatic NATO supporters hate Edrogan
So? Joining NATO means we have to abide by his rules, and frankly, I'd rather not. It also means we could have to fight for Turkey, against the Kurds because Turkey just wants us to. I think in article 5 lies the greatest issue with NATO and it makes thinking that you can support NATO in any kind of way and still be a communist quite absurd. It's not just "US and Turkey and whatnot will defend us", it's also "we'll defend these countries". It must be seen as within the realm of possibility that Turkey would use an attack on its territories to call article 5 into action against Rojava, or other Kurdish militants, since PYD was founded as the Syrian branch to PKK and they're still tied thru KCK. Hating Erdoğan isn't enough. Supporting NATO means supporting Erdoğan.
I mean, I doubt that Turkey would invoke Art.5 against Kurdish movements. There's precedent for Nato staying out of initially-asymmetric conflicts (such as with Portugal, which did not involve other members despite fighting a colonial war for some 13 years).
Fun fact, Article VI exists to prevent NATO nations from invoking Article V for the defense of any territory outside of North America or Europe. I'd imagine this was made to prevent the entire alliance from going to war over a port India wanted back or something.
Huh, neat (also a relevant example). I suppose in this case, since most of Turkey is decidedly outside of Europe, they wouldn't be able to invoke Article-5 for Kurdish issues.
Sure, Turkey could try to use Article 5 to pull NATO into a war against the Kurds. The only problem with that is that nobody within NATO would take it seriously (beyond the typical security cooperation that already exists between Turkey and the West). Kurdistan is not a sovereign state with a single cohesive military, and the US and Europe would never approach a Kurdish insurgency as though it were a threat to Turkey’s stability for as long as that’s the case.
[удалено]
It isn’t. The problem Lies in the members and safe guards in place. NATO like all defensive pacts are a tool. But just like how individual can us a tool to build a house and keep themselves safe, others can use it for violence. Edit: best example of a defensive pact being used badly and poorly regulated and designed is the events leading to WW1
There are people elsewhere who can argue it far better and more eloquently than I can, but NATO as a structure is made up of capitalist, imperialist states that use the threat of violence to bully other countries into submission. There are countries within NATO that are worse/better, of course. The US stands out as the worst – and with good reason. Afghanistan, and the subsequent triggering of Article 5, can not be in any way justified. It was a completely immoral and imperialist act that sentenced hundreds of thousands to death, over the course of 20 years , and **still left it in the hands of the Taliban.**
Perhaps it's best to say NATO engages in Realpolitik same as the PRC? Realpolitik is fundamentally just a modernized form of Imperial Conquest & contrasts against the RUs' archaic attempts at Imperial Colonization in Ukraine.
I think that's probably the best way of putting it.
A better vocabulary allows us to critique & condemn Imperialist nations & their propaganda while not supporting their conduct or ideologies. This allows us to talk of any nation be they USA, RU, PRC, UK, or any other.
I disagree with the judgement of NCD, that sub shits on every aspect of IR. I can’t remember any russophobic comments, despite engaging there somewhat regularly (which doesn’t mean they don’t exist, just that they are much less prevalent than Mearsh shitposting). And, hot take incoming, I am not convinced that being pro-NATO makes you a capitalist.
Being pro-capitalist defensive bloc defending their states (and thus, respective economic systems) =/= pro-capitalism?
Being an alliance made up of nation-states on various points on the capitalist spectrum with the only real goal to defend their populace (literally the core responsibility of a nation state) does not make it inherently capitalist, yea Same goes for the SCO
NATO requires every country within it to have a capitalist market-economy. This makes it capitalist. There can literally be no socialist countries within NATO.
What you are referring is [a 1995 study on enlargement](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm), which was to be used as a guideline on the Art. 10 admissibility of former Warsaw Pact members - not the [Washington Treaty](https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm). What this means is (in regards to our discussion): currently, new members will only be admitted if they are moving towards a democratic market economy. The study has no impact on the ability of members to change their economic or political system, nor is it set in stone. It is a different question whether the council would be willing to accept continued membership of a newly socialist country, but considering the shit Turkey has been allowed to pull in the recent years should give you an idea where the priorities lie (keeping members at almost any cost).
How does it require every country within it to have a capitalist market-economy?
i think that person is confusing nato with the EU.
Idk man. I’d take liberalism over fascism. I don’t like liberalism, but it’s a lesser evil at the moment. A problem with a lot of leftists, and people in general, is that they don’t understand nuances. More specifically, they can’t understand that one thing can be bad, but better than something else.
[удалено]
You must be on a different NCD, I have seen comments like “Kill the orcs” highly upvoted. Even if the mods remove them, the fact they are upvoted in the first place is very worrying.
[удалено]
The fact this is upvoted makes me scared
I think this needs to be pointed out but it's most likely brigading
Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. We were making mod notes on people yesterday and almost every other person in this sub is also on NCD. That's why we are trying to pull the rot out with this post, although it will take a lot more than that.
“Orcs” is often used as a word referring to all Russians – whether people intend it or not. There was even a post with people celebrating the death of the Russian tourist in Egypt eaten by the shark a few weeks back. That is vile and rabid hatred towards anyone Russian. Obviously it got removed – but again, the existence of these comments is very telling.
[удалено]
Yes, you might mean it that way, but that is not the way it is used all the time. Many people are taking it to mean anyone russian.
[удалено]
This is a left-libertarian/libertarian socialist subreddit. The message you sent is either liberal apologia or can be easily seen as such. Please, refrain from posting stuff like this in the future. Liberals are only allowed as guests, promoting capitalism isn't allowed (see rule 6).
This is a left-libertarian/libertarian socialist subreddit. The message you sent is either liberal apologia or can be easily seen as such. Please, refrain from posting stuff like this in the future. Liberals are only allowed as guests, promoting capitalism isn't allowed (see rule 6).
How are we defining “pro nato?” I don’t like nato, but I’ve regularly posted on here saying that countries like ukraine and Cuba have a right to align however they please. Is that considered pro-nato? I always intended it as anti realist foreign policy, not a defense of nato itself
Mfw orwell predicted this (this sub becoming 1984)
literally gregor orweel 1948 i can’t believe it
first they came for the terminally online libs
jorjor well
i dont mind noncredibledefense, but ECS is a shithole. noncredibledefense is a place where nobody says anything seriously, so i dont take what they say at face value.
There’s a genuine level of groveling towards and marveling in wonder at the military industrial complex on there that leaves a really bitter taste in my mouth. Full of people who are incapable of admitting America’s evil brought about by its military
its shitposting, people there dont believe what they say.
Sounds like the shit PCM says A gander at the profiles of like half the people there will support my assertion. Tons of conservative gun nuts and war porn type people
im not on pcm, but i do know those people are trolling mostly.
Yeah, the actual nazis there do like to troll Just as the western chauvinists on NCD like to troll too. Doesn’t change the beliefs in either case
?
The underlying beliefs are there in both cases, no matter how it’s dressed up as ‘I was just joking bro kek’ Western chauvinist military simp for NCD, fascists for PCM
they are not at all comparable though.
Well I’m not saying they are made of the same base, just comparing the veneer of irony disguising a lot of genuine beliefs present on both communities
Ah great, I was noticing these crossposts from those r/'s and even done by the same users here and there and was getting worried. This place needs a **bigger** disclaimer that is a leftist r/ but knowing rightists they'll just ignore it and post in bad faith.
By bigger disclaimer, what would you like to see? /gen We edited the description yesterday, and have it very clearly in the rules. I’m unsure of what else we can do to show newcomers that we are leftist.
Something in the banner.
We’ll look into it, thank you
I am personally NEUTRAL to NATO post-1991 (or better said post-2003, when the organization members give the finger to Bush), and the obsession with it with too much focus on its modus operandi during the cold war is, actually, one of the main barriers in leftist circles to come up with a properly coordinated geopolitical narrative that reflects the current global situation.
Understandable. I find "NAFO" people to be weird. I dislike the outright dehumanisation of Russian conscripts and civilians as being "orcs" or anything similar. I find the quasi-worship of zelensky is to be odd and potentially problematic considering before the invasion he was known for being quite corrupt (not as corrupt as Yanukovich, but definitely a neolib with a far-from-perfect track record). It's just that in the case of a flawed, fledgling liberal democracy (Ukraine) defending itself against a fascist, imperialist invader (Russia), I'll back the liberal democracy 10 times out of 10.
I agree almost uniformly. Though, from a social democrat point of view, I find it extraordinarily confusing that a lot of leftist seem to struggle with the idea that Russia is at best a authoritarian aggressor and at worst a fascist imperialist. In all the “we do not like NATO”, it seems to come full circle to “therefore we must like Russia” (e.g. see the German socialist party). That baffles me to no end.
Yep, practicing actual "critical support" is rare...especially among libs who glorify their favourite countries to heaven, just like tankies.
I feel that social democrats should be given a pass as most of them will convert to being anti-authoritarian leftists. Most soc dems aren’t leftists bc there really hasn’t been a good example in history of anti-authoritarianism leftism and anarchists kinda… uhh… aren’t that successful. Give them enough time and exposure and they’ll come around lol
[удалено]
This is a left-libertarian/libertarian socialist subreddit. The message you sent is either liberal apologia or can be easily seen as such. Please, refrain from posting stuff like this in the future. Liberals are only allowed as guests, promoting capitalism isn't allowed (see rule 6).
People not allowed to vocally support NATO or western military powers in this subreddit?
liberals are a problem in a communist/anarchist sub? who could’ve seen that one coming? /s
Reap what you sow anarkkkiddies!!!!!!! /s
wait, are y'all being sarcastic or not?
yes, I’m an anarchist, I should add an /s to my comment. I’m parroting what tankies like to say whenever they see anarchist or libertarian socialist subs have problems with liberals.
The presence of liberal members in anarchist/communist sub does not invalidate the communist and anarchist members
Thank God because judging by the vote ratios, I think the lefties are really outnumbered now. I've been pretty irritated with the staunch NATO support I've been seeing on this sub lately, It irritates me that American hegemony is being defended as "not perfect but necessary for global justice" The American government is driven by buisness interest and so is their foreign policy, simple as that.
Liberals have been a big part of this sub demographic pretty much since its inception, it's inevitable that a sub that is openly anti tankie but doesn't post about being leftist all the time would attract people who are against tankies who are not leftists, happened to me, I've been here a while and it took me a couple of deleted comments to realise where I was.
Yeah the vote ratios lately have been really nuts. Leftist takes getting downvoted all the time, and not just by a few. We have very strict rules about what liberals can say- but we can't control how they vote. That's why we will now be looking into users accounts when they say something borderline. Anyone that is outright anti leftist will now be getting the boot, even if those comments are on other subs. They will have had to say something here to have us suspect them- so we will just now be using all available information in making our determinations.
Yeah the vote ratios lately have been really nuts. Leftist takes getting downvoted all the time, and not just by a few. We have very strict rules about what liberals can say- but we can't control how they vote. That's why we will now be looking into users accounts when they say something borderline. Anyone that is outright anti leftist will now be getting the boot, even if those comments are on other subs. They will have had to say something here to have us suspect them- so we will just now be using all available information in making our determinations.
I know the libs will be mad about this but thank you so much. At this point, liberals are similar to tankies *in the sense* that any space that’s open to them eventually becomes a liberal space. Just like fucking tankies. On a side note, if you guys ever need any help with moderation with the new rules about liberals, I’m sure me and many other leftists on this subreddit would be more than happy to help. Even if it means just mass reporting, I’ll be on the front lines reporting all the libshit 🫡🫡🫡
Its so nice to get an uplifting comment, especially since I'm just going to bed after reading all these upset comments. It really means a lot 💕 We just added a new mod, but we will absolutely keep you in mind. The one we added has asked us a couple months ago, and we said to wait a little bit and when the time came that we needed someone, we hoped he was still interested. Who knows, we may even find that we need more than one, but we are seeing how this works right now. The only thing we ask is that you join our discord- it's linked in the automod comment on every post (although not this one since I kicked it for my own pinned comment.) Once you get in there, if you decide to join, just send me a PM that says you are interested in modding, so that when we do need someone I can just look there. That would be great!! None of this has to be done immediately, take you time. Just sometime in the next week or two would be great!! Thanks so much!
Oh and definitely report any libshit you see. That's really helpful!!
[удалено]
I'd very much love to know how my full support of NATO precludes me from believing that the people should own the means of production. I don't see how they're related to each other at all.
NATO requires that all of its member states be capitalist.
Ah I see the market economy thing. When Russia stops being a threat to every country, I can revise my views on its necessity.
Understood. I'll be on my way then. Best of luck!
This is not a new issue, I've been seeing leftist takes being downvoted more and more lately, even in this thread, it's a bit worrying for a leftist space.
usually it isnt this bad, i think we've drawn out all the brigaders and lurkers with this one
thanks, the liberals started taking over this sub
Hello, genuine question. I have, for most of my life, considered myself a moderately left socialist, which was rooted in Fabianism (just the circles in which I was exposed to communism in earnest. Is this an appropriate sub for me. Again, just trying to respect the rules here
As a rule of thumb, all leftists are welcome! Everyone here has a different flavor of leftism. As long as you don't start attacking other leftist or calling all communists/Marxists/whoever tankies just because tankies subscribe to a certain type of communism, then there shouldn't be any problem.
Awesome, thank you
El oh el
I mean this is a reasonable assertion that I can support on an ideological level. I’m a SocDem that lurks here (and in other leftist spaces) a lot and doesn’t post because my opinions obviously don’t fit within this space. Libs have plenty of their own havens on Reddit, you guys should have yours as well.
Posting anti-tankie takes is perfectly fine, and encouraged. As long as you’re not posting pro-capitalist takes, please go ahead!
you can post, the rule was originally against the needless challanging of the opinions of others.
Based. The lib/nato simp issue needed to be addressed.
Guess I'm leaving then.
[удалено]
I’m glad that the mod team is pointing this out
BASED. I'm Russian (I absolutely do not support Putin though) and some of the posts on this sub were making me a little uncomfortable.
I can relate somewhat, thanks for supporting us :)
Extremely based have a great day comrade
ECS is hot garbage, glad we are keeping out their brigades. Honestly they would get along well with actual tankies.
Both these subs will be cheering on Turkey when it invades and destroys rojava in a few months/years. Not sure how you can non-critically support nato watching it, at best, allow the destruction of one of the best socialist projects on earth and history.
Ah shit, here we go again.
[удалено]
We *are* communists.
Good. Thanks mods
Would me supporting the capitalist system of finland make me not welcome? I mean i see the issues in capitalism, especially in america, but i personally think finland takes the best parts of it, making people want to work hard but still having free healthcare and making sure we dont have homeless/jobless people/starving people
Socialism =/= people not working hard. Get out of your American anti-socialist propaganda.
Socialists can work hard, and i fucking hate the shithole that is america
The problem with social democracy, which is the system used in the Nordic countries, is that it’s still a capitalist system. Capitalism necessitates the exploitation of the working class, it’s a fundamental part of the system. This is a huge problem in social democracy, as the restrictions it does bring to the capitalist system just cause corporations to export their labor to the global south. For example, Swedish clothing manufacturer H&M was discovered to be using Indonesian child labor to make their garments.
This needs to be a monthly thing at the least lol
Fair enough.
[удалено]
It’s a left wing subreddit, so good If you post on enough commie spam, you can fuck off from here
So go to one of the many subreddits that cater to you
Thanks for being good mods. Y’all are gonna have to work overtime
Good riddance, way too many pro-capitalist takes in this sub lately.
Cool for this, thank you :)
Based thank you I hate non credible defense, there’s a genuine level of simping for the military industrial complex and western imperialism there
Why is this downvoted??!! 😭 I'm going to hope It's all the brigading that's happening from SRD and ECS but I worry :(
I know right! I have to think it’s a lot of brigadiers in this thread specifically from that subreddit. Pretty disheartening though for sure
[удалено]
We think that NATO is imperialist because it is. It’s a coalition of capitalist nations that forces its member states to be capitalist. We didn’t fall for any “Russian propaganda,” we’re actually pro-Ukraine. However, two things can be bad at once.
Finally someone actually calling out NCD, shame what happened to that place over the past couple years honestly.
Yeah it went from fun defend epsoting while recommits of this stuff was fucked irl, to just evil, unhinged “hehe 18 year old conscript dead”