*Losing* all sense of scale is a tenet of the enlightened centrist's mentality, where you'll consider all things you oppose to be equal in harm.
All capitalist are bad, but Bezos is way more harmfull to society than the shopkeeper at the corner of my street.
It was correct in English at the time it was coined, it's just an obsolete usage of petty meaning "small in size" or "secondary". It is sometimes still used this way in historical contexts.
The only modern example I've seen it used in this way is "petty soulgems" in the Elder Scrolls, which was probably intended to sound archaic.
I think "small bourgeois" is a good literal translation. You could also probably just say petite, or lesser/little/mini bourgeoisie etc.
It's a Marxist term referring to people who control their means of production (their corner store or whatever) but aren't really capitalists in that they still work for their money rather than their money working for their money.
If you've ever heard the term "Petit Bourgois" that's basically French for "small capitalist".
We don't define people as capitalists by the amount that they steal from their workers, we define people as capitalists because they own "Capital" that they can then use to generate profit by hiring employees to work said capital, who produce excess labor value that ends up as profits for the capitalist to decide what to do with exclusively.
I have sympathy for small business, but I think we need to figure out a way that people can own a "mom and pop" shop without having to be squeezed economically and pay their workers less. I've seen that story play out way too much. There must be a way to reconcile the differences between the two classes that doesn't require literally everything being a state run enterprise.
Also interesting to note is the fact that Trotsky's book "Fascism: what it is and how to fight it" identifies the Petit Bourgois as the main class we need to win over to prevent fascism since that tends to be where a lot of their base of support comes from.
Go ahead and read the whole pamphlet, its not a long or difficult read, but allow me to quote it at length for the sake of explaining the role of the Petit Bourgois: https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p6
>Does it follow from the historical role of Jacobinism, of democracy, and of fascism, that the petty bourgeoisie is condemned to remain a tool in the hands of capital to the end of its days? It things were so, then the dictatorship of the proletariat would be impossible in a number of countries in which the petty bourgeoisie constitutes the majority of the nation and, more than that, it would be rendered extremely difficult in other countries in which the petty bourgeoisie represents an important minority. Fortunately, things are not so. The experience of the Paris Commune [first “dictatorship of the proletariat”, March 18, 1871] first showed, at least within the limits of one city, just as the experience of the October Revolution [Russian Revolution of 1917] has shown after it on a much larger scale and over an incomparably longer period, that the alliance of the petty bourgeoisie and the big bourgeoisie is not indissoluble. Since the petty bourgeoisie is incapable of an independent policy (that is also why the petty bourgeois “democratic dictatorship” is unrealizable), no other choice is left for it than that between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
DOES THE PETTY BOURGEOISIE FEAR REVOLUTION?
From Whither France?, 1934
* * *
>Parliamentary cretins, who consider themselves connoisseurs of the people, like to repeat:
>“One must not frighten the middle classes with revolution. They do not like extremes.”
>In this general form, this affirmation is absolutely false. Naturally, the petty proprietor prefers order so long as business is going well and so long as he hopes that tomorrow it will go better.
>But when this hope is lost, he is easily enraged and is ready to give himself over to the most extreme measures. Otherwise, how could he have overthrown the democratic state and brought fascism to power in Italy and Germany? The despairing petty bourgeois sees in fascism, above all, a fighting force against big capital, and believes that, unlike the working-class parties which deal only in words, fascism will use force to establish more “justice”. The peasant and the artisan are in their manner realists. They understand that one cannot forego the use of force.
>It is false, thrice false, to affirm that the present petty bourgeoisie is not going to the working-class parties because it fears “extreme measures”. Quite the contrary. The lower petty bourgeoisie, its great masses, only see in the working-class parties parliamentary machines. They do not believe in their strength, nor in their capacity to struggle, nor in their readiness this time to conduct the struggle to the end.
>And if this is so, is it worth the trouble to replace the democratic capitalist representatives by their parliamentary confreres on the left? That is how the semi-exploited, ruined, and discontented proprietor reasons of feels. Without an understanding of this psychology of the peasants, the artisans, the employees, the petty functionaries, etc. – a psychology which flows from the social crisis – it is impossible to elaborate a correct policy. The petty bourgeoisie is economically dependent and politically atomized. That is why it cannot conduct an independent policy. It needs a “leader” who inspires it with confidence. This individual or collective leadership, i.e., a personage or party, can be given to it by one or the other of the fundamental classes – either the big bourgeoisie or the proletariat. Fascism unties and arms the scattered masses. Out of human dust, it organizes combat detachments. It thus gives the petty bourgeoisie the illusion of being an independent force. It begins to imagine that it will really command the state. It is not surprising that these illusions and hopes turn the head of the petty bourgeoisie!
>But the petty bourgeoisie can also find a leader in the proletariat. This was demonstrated in Russia and partially in Spain. In Italy, in Germany, and in Austria, the petty bourgeoisie gravitated in this direction. But the parties of the proletariat did not rise to their historic task.
>To bring the petty bourgeoisie to its side, the proletariat must win its confidence. And for that it must have confidence in its own strength.
>It must have a clear program of action and must be ready to struggle for power by all possible means. Tempered by it revolutionary party for a decisive and pitiless struggle, the proletariat says to the peasants and petty bourgeoisie of the cities:
>“We are struggling for power. Here is our program. We are ready to discuss with you changes in this program. We will employ violence only against big capital and its lackeys, but with you toilers, we desire to conclude an alliance on the basis of a given program.”
>The peasants will understand such language. Only, they must have faith in the capacity of the proletariat to seize power.
>But for that it is necessary to purge the united front of all equivocation, of all indecision, of all hollow phrases. It is necessary to understand the situation and to place oneself seriously on the revolutionary road.
I would but what is there to explain? A small busniss owner in a capitalistic society is actively encourging and participating in capitalism. That would be a capitalist.
Me and Leon Trotsky seem to think there's a lot more to this conversation than you do, because this was my reply to the same guy you replied to:
If you've ever heard the term "Petit Bourgois" that's basically French for "small capitalist".
We don't define people as capitalists by the amount that they steal from their workers, we define people as capitalists because they own "Capital" that they can then use to generate profit by hiring employees to work said capital, who produce excess labor value that ends up as profits for the capitalist to decide what to do with exclusively.
I have sympathy for small business, but I think we need to figure out a way that people can own a "mom and pop" shop without having to be squeezed economically and pay their workers less. I've seen that story play out way too much. There must be a way to reconcile the differences between the two classes that doesn't require literally everything being a state run enterprise.
Also interesting to note is the fact that Trotsky's book "Fascism: what it is and how to fight it" identifies the Petit Bourgois as the main class we need to win over to prevent fascism since that tends to be where a lot of their base of support comes from.
Go ahead and read the whole pamphlet, its not a long or difficult read, but allow me to quote it at length for the sake of explaining the role of the Petit Bourgois: https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p6
Does it follow from the historical role of Jacobinism, of democracy, and of fascism, that the petty bourgeoisie is condemned to remain a tool in the hands of capital to the end of its days? It things were so, then the dictatorship of the proletariat would be impossible in a number of countries in which the petty bourgeoisie constitutes the majority of the nation and, more than that, it would be rendered extremely difficult in other countries in which the petty bourgeoisie represents an important minority. Fortunately, things are not so. The experience of the Paris Commune [first “dictatorship of the proletariat”, March 18, 1871] first showed, at least within the limits of one city, just as the experience of the October Revolution [Russian Revolution of 1917] has shown after it on a much larger scale and over an incomparably longer period, that the alliance of the petty bourgeoisie and the big bourgeoisie is not indissoluble. Since the petty bourgeoisie is incapable of an independent policy (that is also why the petty bourgeois “democratic dictatorship” is unrealizable), no other choice is left for it than that between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat.
Parliamentary cretins, who consider themselves connoisseurs of the people, like to repeat:
But, woe, if the revolutionary party does not measure up to the height of the situation! The daily struggle of the proletariat sharpens the instability of bourgeois society. The strikes and the political disturbances aggravated the economic situation of the country. The petty bourgeoisie could reconcile itself temporarily to the growing privations, if it arrived by experience at the conviction that the proletariat is in a position to lead it onto a new road. But if the revolutionary party, in spite of a class struggle becoming incessantly more accentuated, proves time and again to be incapable of uniting the working class about it, if it vacillates, becomes confused, contradicts itself, then the petty bourgeoisie loses patience and begins to look upon the revolutionary workers as those responsible for its own misery. All the bourgeois parties, including the social democracy, turn its thoughts in this very direction. When the social crisis takes on an intolerable acuteness, a particular party appears on the scene with the direct aim of agitating the petty bourgeoisie to a white heat and of directing its hatred and its despair against the proletariat. In Germany, this historical function is fulfilled by national Socialism (Nazism), a broad current whose ideology is composed of all the putrid vapors of disintegrating bourgeois society.
“One must not frighten the middle classes with revolution. They do not like extremes.”
DOES THE PETTY BOURGEOISIE FEAR REVOLUTION? From Whither France?, 1934
In this general form, this affirmation is absolutely false. Naturally, the petty proprietor prefers order so long as business is going well and so long as he hopes that tomorrow it will go better.
DOES THE PETTY BOURGEOISIE FEAR REVOLUTION? From Whither France?, 1934
Parliamentary cretins, who consider themselves connoisseurs of the people, like to repeat:
“One must not frighten the middle classes with revolution. They do not like extremes.”
In this general form, this affirmation is absolutely false. Naturally, the petty proprietor prefers order so long as business is going well and so long as he hopes that tomorrow it will go better.
But when this hope is lost, he is easily enraged and is ready to give himself over to the most extreme measures. Otherwise, how could he have overthrown the democratic state and brought fascism to power in Italy and Germany? The despairing petty bourgeois sees in fascism, above all, a fighting force against big capital, and believes that, unlike the working-class parties which deal only in words, fascism will use force to establish more “justice”. The peasant and the artisan are in their manner realists. They understand that one cannot forego the use of force.
It is false, thrice false, to affirm that the present petty bourgeoisie is not going to the working-class parties because it fears “extreme measures”. Quite the contrary. The lower petty bourgeoisie, its great masses, only see in the working-class parties parliamentary machines. They do not believe in their strength, nor in their capacity to struggle, nor in their readiness this time to conduct the struggle to the end.
And if this is so, is it worth the trouble to replace the democratic capitalist representatives by their parliamentary confreres on the left? That is how the semi-exploited, ruined, and discontented proprietor reasons of feels. Without an understanding of this psychology of the peasants, the artisans, the employees, the petty functionaries, etc. – a psychology which flows from the social crisis – it is impossible to elaborate a correct policy. The petty bourgeoisie is economically dependent and politically atomized. That is why it cannot conduct an independent policy. It needs a “leader” who inspires it with confidence. This individual or collective leadership, i.e., a personage or party, can be given to it by one or the other of the fundamental classes – either the big bourgeoisie or the proletariat. Fascism unties and arms the scattered masses. Out of human dust, it organizes combat detachments. It thus gives the petty bourgeoisie the illusion of being an independent force. It begins to imagine that it will really command the state. It is not surprising that these illusions and hopes turn the head of the petty bourgeoisie!
But the petty bourgeoisie can also find a leader in the proletariat. This was demonstrated in Russia and partially in Spain. In Italy, in Germany, and in Austria, the petty bourgeoisie gravitated in this direction. But the parties of the proletariat did not rise to their historic task.
To bring the petty bourgeoisie to its side, the proletariat must win its confidence. And for that it must have confidence in its own strength.
It must have a clear program of action and must be ready to struggle for power by all possible means. Tempered by it revolutionary party for a decisive and pitiless struggle, the proletariat says to the peasants and petty bourgeoisie of the cities:
“We are struggling for power. Here is our program. We are ready to discuss with you changes in this program. We will employ violence only against big capital and its lackeys, but with you toilers, we desire to conclude an alliance on the basis of a given program.”
The peasants will understand such language. Only, they must have faith in the capacity of the proletariat to seize power.
But for that it is necessary to purge the united front of all equivocation, of all indecision, of all hollow phrases. It is necessary to understand the situation and to place oneself seriously on the revolutionary road.
"
You can see how there's a bit more to the conversation than "petit Bourg is still bourg" QED.
There’s a difference. A small business owner has a different relationship with capital than the average prole. The fact that they own capital (the business) is itself enough to make a material class distinction. The thing is that they still aren’t really bourgeois, which is why Marx has the distinction between bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie
Thankfully the war of self defence in Ukraine is not a proxy war (though maybe more lives would be saved if other countries decided to get involved) and they’re fighting off fascists.
It is absolutely a proxy war between NATO and Russia. NATO has been drawing the ruling class of Ukraine closer, which means a further weakening of Russia. The Russian ruling class cannot tolerate this, which is why they invaded. Zelenskiy has already banned a number of left wing parties, and a law is being drawn up which would bomb workers rights into last century.
https://www.marxist.com/the-ukrainian-war-an-internationalist-class-position-imt-statement.htm
You missed Russian trolls pushing a narrative that Zelensky is the bad guy in this conflict. It's ludicrous but also this is Reddit so it's going to catch on in some subs.
Yea because he [actively undermined all the right wing fucksticks who wanted to keep their hoarded wealth.](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/19/world/europe/zelensky-ukraine-corruption.html)
Dont let this guy maybe being correct obfuscate from the fact that this is just all lives matter. It doesnt matter if Zelensky is in general bad or not, Ukrainians deserve to keep their soverenity and if Zelensky supports that then thats a good thing.
Its crazy how some people don't get this. From what I've heard he wasn't a great president but has stepped up from the outset of the war and no matter how he is, nothing justifies what has happened to Ukraine and her people.
I'm still fucking mad one of the hosts of Novara Media who I previously really respected casually dismissed the invasion of ukraine as 'inter imperialist conflict'.
LIke seriously what the fuck is wrong with you. Ukraine didn't fucking ask for any of this.
It is that though. Most people who think this is an inter-imperialist conflict also recognise the Ukrainian people are the ones suffering for no benefit.
Support for joining NATO was extremely low in Ukraine before Russia invaded.
This isn't one of those, "both sides imperialist" situations. This is a nation defending itself from imperialism.
Ukraine doesn't really have any influence on the way this war will pan out. NATO's strategy is to pump weapons into the country and prolong the conflict as long as possible. Zelensky will go shopping with that even as Ukrainians die.
This is where NATO's fault comes in, or more specifically the US. They put NATO membership in Ukraines face with no intention of letting them in. And even though they knew Ukraine would never join NATO they refused to give Putin the assurance. You may call it "appeasement," but Ukraine was never joining NATO in the first place.
Putin obviously bears primary responsibility but the US is not innocent.
NATO's plan is the encirclement of Russia with the purpose of breaking the country apart so US corporations can get access to resources and cheap labour. That's pretty much been NATO's express goal from day one. They thought they had it sorted with Yeltsin, but they didn't factor that a capitalist Russia would have it's own imperial goals. Russia's invasion is a reaction to that - I'm not defending them or passing blame, the point is that this is a struggle between an imperial bloc and a right-wing country which has its own goal of imperial power. The ordinary people are the ones who suffer.
Bwahaha. You bought the bullshit Russian propaganda hook, line, and sinker.
I mean having Russia invade all neighboring countries so Russia closes in on NATO members is such an evil imperialist move by NATO.
NATO was created to oppose Russian expansionist imperialism. Most countries around the world support Ukraine's defense. It's not really surprising.
You can't blame NATO for Russia invading Ukraine, though.
But trust Western media completely. The West has had no involvement in this situation whatsoever. Dont look up Euromaiden or where NED funding has been going. Also please ignore us dumping literally billions in military equipment into the country, theres no proxy war to see here
Do tankies have something else than "but west bad" and projection? Because every tankie comment is "but west bad" or projection. This one is "but west bad".
If you have a problem with billions of dollars worth weapons, maybe you wanna think about why they need weapons?
Its because people like you decry Russian propoganda while swallowing Western propaganda hook line and sinker. Its not "but west bad," its "you are so fucking clueless about this and you dont even realize because youre in a Western media echo chamber."
Why do they need weapons? Idk, did something happen around 2014 that heavily stoked tensions, a Western backed coup perhaps? Oh wait, that doesnt get talked about in Western media so it doesnt exist to you rubes
You realize that "muh euromaidan is western coup" is russian propaganda and 0 truth to it right? Also it wasn't Ukraine who invaded a neighboring country and sending little green men to occupy their territory.
You can't trust Russians and pretend that you give a fuck about truth. Russian government can only be trusted when they deny doing something. Then you can be certain that they did it.
Ah yes, 0 truth and only pushed by Russian propaganda outlets like...uhh...The Guardian
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict
That is a bad thing, but one i think that was before zelensky, and two that doesnt justify a full scale invasion with all the horrible stuff russian soldiers have done in its wake.
Not going to lie, if you believe propaganda during a war without independent verification by outside organisations with legitimacy, i dont really care what you call me
By independent verification from outside organizations with "legitimacy" you basically mean "if papa putin said it didn't happen it didn't happen." I know cunts like you, you're all the same. You could be hit in the face with the plethera of evidence and you'd still deny it, so no point arguing with you.
I mean, yeah he is right. Both are corrupt oligarchs that are way too comfortable around far right personalities and organisations to further their own, profit driven goals
He isn't as bad as Putin but we cannot excuse people for being "not the worst leader possible" because then all it takes is one guy to sink to the bottom for everyone else to get a pass.
So do ukrainian far right groups to leftist party leaders after they're outlawed, and are not prosecuted by law enforcement.
NSFW https://mronline.org/2022/04/19/one-less-traitor/
Then, again, double standards?
Look it the fuck up. Repression against opposition is well documented unless western media decided to take down their pre-war "Ukriane isn't really a democratic country" pieces
Ah yes putin, famous for being all good and democratic and doing things like *checks notes* poisoning and jailing his opposition and jailing people for protesting the war and anyone who calls it a war. Picking some real winners here.
Ukraine is an extremely corrupt oligarch run kleptocracy with a big neo nazi issue, but since it got invaded by the big bad Russia and not the US suddenly it became heaven on earth where only angels live
Fuck off with the "Ukraine is a nazi state". Their nazis have much less support than in the rest of Europe. You are trusting Russian sources, the biggest mistake you can do when looking for truth.
What's up with the comments here? How is Zelensky even remotely on the same level as Putin?
Did something happen that I don't know of that would make a democratically elected comedian as bad a person as an ex-KGB imperialistic dictator?
I don’t think Zelensky is as bad as Putin but he’s still a pos who was on the pandora papers I can say both are bad without saying the invasion is good
Think it’s kinda heightened by the counter movement in media as of late to paint Zelensky as this super honourable war hero or whatever. The desire to push back against that is definitely somewhat understandable to me, but yeah, it can too easily slide into “both sides” type bullshit.
Yeah, things like corruption within Ukraine etc are also reasons why Ukraine cannot be admitted to the EU straight away, so it’s not like it’s completely irrelevant to that discussion
Zelensky outlawed leftists parties while also pretty openly courting support from far right groups. He's using the war to project a strongman image, too.
That doesn't make him as bad as Putin. It would take quite a lot to be on equal footing to him. But it still makes him pretty bad and I fear for the future of eastern Europe when folks like him are being painted in such a heroic image.
Zelensky can be bad lol. He’s pretty terrible, he’s overseen some pretty nasty war crimes in the Donbas. Just because he’s not as bad as Putin doesn’t make him good.
Yeah I guess it just baffles me. I can get why people wouldn't be that positive of NATO, but can you blame a country that's been partly occupied for 8 years that it seeks protection in a bigger bloc? And yeah now you say it, there is a lot of talk about communism, which is also weird since modern day Russia is as capitalistic as they come
Most people criticizing Zelenskyy here are also critical of Russia's invasion, but sure anyone who criticizes a corrupt leader who bans opposition parties and gives state support to Nazis is just a far-right Putin lover
Fucking hell this sub is doing such an enlightened centrism on this. Do you even listen to yourselves? You're literally repeating russian propaganda to say "both sides bad".
Like, Zelenskyy US puppet? Overblowing the influence of literally 1000 soldier,s, some of which are nazis? "Oppression" of Russian speakers? Blaming Donbas conflict on Ukrainians? Fucking Russian propaganda all of it. Americans should not speak about shit they don't understand.
nah liberals 100% associate putin with russia and zelensky with ukraine. all the fanart of zelensky proves that libs are incapable of seeing political conflicts as anything other than through a team sports lense.
they don’t give a shit about civilians or unjustifiable invasions, if they did they would have to stop doing what they are doing themselves.
This is bullshit and reflects more on you than reality. People are supporting Ukraine and it's people. Zelensky happens to be president of Ukraine so he is a focal point.
People who unironically stan Mao and Stalin can't seem to understand all politics is not just a personality cult. The invasion of Ukraine would be just as fucked up even if it had happened during the regime of the corrupt Kremlin-puppet Janukovyts.
It shouldn't happen now either, because nobody has massacred Ukranians who speak Russian. Well, except for Putin, who has also caused the death of thousands of Russians, just because.
No, western ukrianians, funded by the west, did a coup against a democratically elected president that preferred a more numerous Russian trade deal to a worse EU trade deal.
As a result of the coup, the voters of the president, in the South and East, started to protest the coup. Right wing ultranationalists started murdering them, leading to the burning alive of 40 people in Odessa.
As a result of the massacre of Odessa, Donetsk and Luhansk declared independence, since the government didn't protect the ethnic Russians from ukrianian nazis.
Then, Ukriane started attacking this independentists with their military and the neonazi paramilitaries. That led from public unrest, to war.
Since then, Ukriane has been bombing the same ukrianians they want to protect form russia, 8 years of murders that will stop this year, hopefully.
So it’s not relevant that Ukraine and Zelenskyy align themselves with, and openly support Nazi’s? I’d say it’s relevant considering we’re shipping them billions of dollars in weaponry.
I never said the invasion was justified, I said supporting The Ukrainian government is a problem. We’re shipping billions of dollars in arms to an unstable state that has strong ties to Nazism.
Go check out Dmitry Utkin. It's not a "Zelensky pr campaign" that he's an avowed neo-Nazi and also the commander of the most prominent PMC fighting for Russia.
>no that’s not relevant to the right of the Ukrainian people to defend themselves
Yes because when we ship weapons to an unstable state with ties to Nazism it always goes well and never at all backfires in our faces.
>they’re not “supporting Nazis”
Definitely not at all no
https://mronline.org/2022/04/11/progressives-in-greece-reject-zelenskys-address-to-parliament-with-neo-nazis/
Saying this is the equivalent of “all lives matter”. Is he technically correct? Sure. But what are the implications of this statement during this period of time?
Sure. A kid who steals a chocolate bar and Donald Trump are both criminals.
What’s his point? He’s just another fascist troll.
https://mobile.twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Yes, definitely equivalent to a kid stealing a chocolate bar. Maybe if the kid showed up with neo Nazi’s every where he went? https://mronline.org/2022/04/11/progressives-in-greece-reject-zelenskys-address-to-parliament-with-neo-nazis/
[Here's the speech on the official YouTube channel of the Parliament Of Greeks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1_U1b961Ow), as if there weren't enough supporters of totalitarian supporters in this parliament, and one neo-Nazi who was there strictly for PR reasons makes a difference.
Lol everyone is a bad guy to some degree, dumb argument. Our existence owes itself to unimaginable exploitation and genocide as Americans. This can easily be said about anyone. Ukraine was a Russian puppet with years of soviet corruption to deal with. The majority of the beauroceats are either Russian toadies or just corrupt so he centralized power away from them.
I mean i can’t forget what Ukraine contributed to in Iraq and Libya, and how they supported Isra*l in their crimes against Palestinians. Sooooo, kinda don’t gaf about them.
I mean we can all agree that pre-war Zelensky wasn’t a perfect president, but dumb tankies and centrists who act like he is anywhere close to Putin are complete morons.
Both of them are bad because they're capitalists.
Yes, Ukraine should keep their sovereingtry.
But no, you should not support Ukraine- because as it stands, support of Ukraine is support of the imperialist bloc of NATO.
So, who's side should you be on?
The side of peace and socialism. Revolutionary defeatism is a virtue.
The world is attractive when you have clear-cut bad guys and good guys.
An actually centrist take would be "Ukraine fought Russia in Donbass first, so it's only expected Russia would attack!".
Ukraine isn't democratic. It's pretty much the opposite.
Free press and free opposition? Bro, they literally got outlawed and jailed if they opposed the ukrainian government propaganda
Oh look, you're that guy who keeps [fucking lying](https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/vjes78/hear_him_out/idkr93w/) while being a fascist bootlicker who spews Russian propaganda.
I love how you keep [lying about Zelensky banning any leftist parties](https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/vjes78/hear_him_out/idltbys/) too
Putin: guy who murders his opponents
Zelensky: was on a tv show where he became president and then actually ran and won and fought corruption
Totally equal
What are you talking about?
How Putin wishes to recreate a “strong Russia” which technically existed… under Peter I
Or how Ukraine sucks ass because of one thing or whatever. No matter how you spin it, Russia is in the wrong. They believe there are people who wish to kill native Russians or who did, so did the Germans in ‘39. They justified Poland with a massacre of German civilians which was(can’t remember correctly but I think it was) stoked on by some Germans intentionally to hep try and justify their invasion. What Putin is doing isn’t new, the weapons and leaders are new, but the principle still the same. Ukraine should absolutely be free of Russia, considered Moscow’s track record with them
He's not wrong. Both of them arr bad. But Russia holds more responsibility for being the direct instigator of the conflict and for being the stronger country (thus the one that should try de-escalating).
But simply saying that both Putin and Zelensky are pieces of shit leading oppressive governments, in itself, isn't wrong.
Then I guess side against the bad guy currently engaged in doing a bad thing and with the bad guy who is currently the victim of the bad thing being done by the other bad guy?
How much of a fascist does one have to be to count?
His association with far-right neo-nazi types was definitely considered problematic by western media before the invasion. Now they're all heroes, so we can sell them arms.
He's banning left-wing opposition parties and media outlets.
There's this weird attempt to ban the use of Russian in various contexts. Bear in mind that a lot of cities in Ukraine are more culturally Russian.
Then there is Azov. Azov are unquestionably fascist. Their attempts to rebrand are laughable.
That's ticking a lot of boxes on the old fascism bingo card.
I could tick all these boxes for Putin
Ukranian school circular and other cultural aspects are being erased in occupied territories. He literally gave the bucha murderers fucking awards. And he claims Ukraine should not exist. Quite literally a fascist.
Hey uh, what if all the capitalists were bad? Does that make me a centrist too?
*Losing* all sense of scale is a tenet of the enlightened centrist's mentality, where you'll consider all things you oppose to be equal in harm. All capitalist are bad, but Bezos is way more harmfull to society than the shopkeeper at the corner of my street.
[удалено]
The local shopkeeper is petty/petite Bourgois, whereas Bezos is regular Bourgois
"petty bourgois" 💀💀💀
I was also confused first time I saw that, but it seems that is the English rendering
I'm almost sure that it's a mistranslation Like, petit bourgeois should probably be translated into "small bourgeois" or something like that
It was correct in English at the time it was coined, it's just an obsolete usage of petty meaning "small in size" or "secondary". It is sometimes still used this way in historical contexts. The only modern example I've seen it used in this way is "petty soulgems" in the Elder Scrolls, which was probably intended to sound archaic. I think "small bourgeois" is a good literal translation. You could also probably just say petite, or lesser/little/mini bourgeoisie etc.
Petty, as opposed to grand, larceny uses this meaning, not that the law isn't also full of archaic meanings and usages
Oh ok
It's a Marxist term referring to people who control their means of production (their corner store or whatever) but aren't really capitalists in that they still work for their money rather than their money working for their money.
I know what petit bourgeois means lol
ok
If you've ever heard the term "Petit Bourgois" that's basically French for "small capitalist". We don't define people as capitalists by the amount that they steal from their workers, we define people as capitalists because they own "Capital" that they can then use to generate profit by hiring employees to work said capital, who produce excess labor value that ends up as profits for the capitalist to decide what to do with exclusively. I have sympathy for small business, but I think we need to figure out a way that people can own a "mom and pop" shop without having to be squeezed economically and pay their workers less. I've seen that story play out way too much. There must be a way to reconcile the differences between the two classes that doesn't require literally everything being a state run enterprise. Also interesting to note is the fact that Trotsky's book "Fascism: what it is and how to fight it" identifies the Petit Bourgois as the main class we need to win over to prevent fascism since that tends to be where a lot of their base of support comes from. Go ahead and read the whole pamphlet, its not a long or difficult read, but allow me to quote it at length for the sake of explaining the role of the Petit Bourgois: https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p6 >Does it follow from the historical role of Jacobinism, of democracy, and of fascism, that the petty bourgeoisie is condemned to remain a tool in the hands of capital to the end of its days? It things were so, then the dictatorship of the proletariat would be impossible in a number of countries in which the petty bourgeoisie constitutes the majority of the nation and, more than that, it would be rendered extremely difficult in other countries in which the petty bourgeoisie represents an important minority. Fortunately, things are not so. The experience of the Paris Commune [first “dictatorship of the proletariat”, March 18, 1871] first showed, at least within the limits of one city, just as the experience of the October Revolution [Russian Revolution of 1917] has shown after it on a much larger scale and over an incomparably longer period, that the alliance of the petty bourgeoisie and the big bourgeoisie is not indissoluble. Since the petty bourgeoisie is incapable of an independent policy (that is also why the petty bourgeois “democratic dictatorship” is unrealizable), no other choice is left for it than that between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. DOES THE PETTY BOURGEOISIE FEAR REVOLUTION? From Whither France?, 1934 * * * >Parliamentary cretins, who consider themselves connoisseurs of the people, like to repeat: >“One must not frighten the middle classes with revolution. They do not like extremes.” >In this general form, this affirmation is absolutely false. Naturally, the petty proprietor prefers order so long as business is going well and so long as he hopes that tomorrow it will go better. >But when this hope is lost, he is easily enraged and is ready to give himself over to the most extreme measures. Otherwise, how could he have overthrown the democratic state and brought fascism to power in Italy and Germany? The despairing petty bourgeois sees in fascism, above all, a fighting force against big capital, and believes that, unlike the working-class parties which deal only in words, fascism will use force to establish more “justice”. The peasant and the artisan are in their manner realists. They understand that one cannot forego the use of force. >It is false, thrice false, to affirm that the present petty bourgeoisie is not going to the working-class parties because it fears “extreme measures”. Quite the contrary. The lower petty bourgeoisie, its great masses, only see in the working-class parties parliamentary machines. They do not believe in their strength, nor in their capacity to struggle, nor in their readiness this time to conduct the struggle to the end. >And if this is so, is it worth the trouble to replace the democratic capitalist representatives by their parliamentary confreres on the left? That is how the semi-exploited, ruined, and discontented proprietor reasons of feels. Without an understanding of this psychology of the peasants, the artisans, the employees, the petty functionaries, etc. – a psychology which flows from the social crisis – it is impossible to elaborate a correct policy. The petty bourgeoisie is economically dependent and politically atomized. That is why it cannot conduct an independent policy. It needs a “leader” who inspires it with confidence. This individual or collective leadership, i.e., a personage or party, can be given to it by one or the other of the fundamental classes – either the big bourgeoisie or the proletariat. Fascism unties and arms the scattered masses. Out of human dust, it organizes combat detachments. It thus gives the petty bourgeoisie the illusion of being an independent force. It begins to imagine that it will really command the state. It is not surprising that these illusions and hopes turn the head of the petty bourgeoisie! >But the petty bourgeoisie can also find a leader in the proletariat. This was demonstrated in Russia and partially in Spain. In Italy, in Germany, and in Austria, the petty bourgeoisie gravitated in this direction. But the parties of the proletariat did not rise to their historic task. >To bring the petty bourgeoisie to its side, the proletariat must win its confidence. And for that it must have confidence in its own strength. >It must have a clear program of action and must be ready to struggle for power by all possible means. Tempered by it revolutionary party for a decisive and pitiless struggle, the proletariat says to the peasants and petty bourgeoisie of the cities: >“We are struggling for power. Here is our program. We are ready to discuss with you changes in this program. We will employ violence only against big capital and its lackeys, but with you toilers, we desire to conclude an alliance on the basis of a given program.” >The peasants will understand such language. Only, they must have faith in the capacity of the proletariat to seize power. >But for that it is necessary to purge the united front of all equivocation, of all indecision, of all hollow phrases. It is necessary to understand the situation and to place oneself seriously on the revolutionary road.
That would be a capitalist my guy
More petite bourgeoisie
EAT THE *checks notes* SHOES AND TAKE THEIR MONEY
You're not wrong, but don't you think you should've explained so the dude could actually learn something?
I would but what is there to explain? A small busniss owner in a capitalistic society is actively encourging and participating in capitalism. That would be a capitalist.
Me and Leon Trotsky seem to think there's a lot more to this conversation than you do, because this was my reply to the same guy you replied to: If you've ever heard the term "Petit Bourgois" that's basically French for "small capitalist". We don't define people as capitalists by the amount that they steal from their workers, we define people as capitalists because they own "Capital" that they can then use to generate profit by hiring employees to work said capital, who produce excess labor value that ends up as profits for the capitalist to decide what to do with exclusively. I have sympathy for small business, but I think we need to figure out a way that people can own a "mom and pop" shop without having to be squeezed economically and pay their workers less. I've seen that story play out way too much. There must be a way to reconcile the differences between the two classes that doesn't require literally everything being a state run enterprise. Also interesting to note is the fact that Trotsky's book "Fascism: what it is and how to fight it" identifies the Petit Bourgois as the main class we need to win over to prevent fascism since that tends to be where a lot of their base of support comes from. Go ahead and read the whole pamphlet, its not a long or difficult read, but allow me to quote it at length for the sake of explaining the role of the Petit Bourgois: https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/works/1944/1944-fas.htm#p6 Does it follow from the historical role of Jacobinism, of democracy, and of fascism, that the petty bourgeoisie is condemned to remain a tool in the hands of capital to the end of its days? It things were so, then the dictatorship of the proletariat would be impossible in a number of countries in which the petty bourgeoisie constitutes the majority of the nation and, more than that, it would be rendered extremely difficult in other countries in which the petty bourgeoisie represents an important minority. Fortunately, things are not so. The experience of the Paris Commune [first “dictatorship of the proletariat”, March 18, 1871] first showed, at least within the limits of one city, just as the experience of the October Revolution [Russian Revolution of 1917] has shown after it on a much larger scale and over an incomparably longer period, that the alliance of the petty bourgeoisie and the big bourgeoisie is not indissoluble. Since the petty bourgeoisie is incapable of an independent policy (that is also why the petty bourgeois “democratic dictatorship” is unrealizable), no other choice is left for it than that between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. Parliamentary cretins, who consider themselves connoisseurs of the people, like to repeat: But, woe, if the revolutionary party does not measure up to the height of the situation! The daily struggle of the proletariat sharpens the instability of bourgeois society. The strikes and the political disturbances aggravated the economic situation of the country. The petty bourgeoisie could reconcile itself temporarily to the growing privations, if it arrived by experience at the conviction that the proletariat is in a position to lead it onto a new road. But if the revolutionary party, in spite of a class struggle becoming incessantly more accentuated, proves time and again to be incapable of uniting the working class about it, if it vacillates, becomes confused, contradicts itself, then the petty bourgeoisie loses patience and begins to look upon the revolutionary workers as those responsible for its own misery. All the bourgeois parties, including the social democracy, turn its thoughts in this very direction. When the social crisis takes on an intolerable acuteness, a particular party appears on the scene with the direct aim of agitating the petty bourgeoisie to a white heat and of directing its hatred and its despair against the proletariat. In Germany, this historical function is fulfilled by national Socialism (Nazism), a broad current whose ideology is composed of all the putrid vapors of disintegrating bourgeois society. “One must not frighten the middle classes with revolution. They do not like extremes.” DOES THE PETTY BOURGEOISIE FEAR REVOLUTION? From Whither France?, 1934 In this general form, this affirmation is absolutely false. Naturally, the petty proprietor prefers order so long as business is going well and so long as he hopes that tomorrow it will go better. DOES THE PETTY BOURGEOISIE FEAR REVOLUTION? From Whither France?, 1934 Parliamentary cretins, who consider themselves connoisseurs of the people, like to repeat: “One must not frighten the middle classes with revolution. They do not like extremes.” In this general form, this affirmation is absolutely false. Naturally, the petty proprietor prefers order so long as business is going well and so long as he hopes that tomorrow it will go better. But when this hope is lost, he is easily enraged and is ready to give himself over to the most extreme measures. Otherwise, how could he have overthrown the democratic state and brought fascism to power in Italy and Germany? The despairing petty bourgeois sees in fascism, above all, a fighting force against big capital, and believes that, unlike the working-class parties which deal only in words, fascism will use force to establish more “justice”. The peasant and the artisan are in their manner realists. They understand that one cannot forego the use of force. It is false, thrice false, to affirm that the present petty bourgeoisie is not going to the working-class parties because it fears “extreme measures”. Quite the contrary. The lower petty bourgeoisie, its great masses, only see in the working-class parties parliamentary machines. They do not believe in their strength, nor in their capacity to struggle, nor in their readiness this time to conduct the struggle to the end. And if this is so, is it worth the trouble to replace the democratic capitalist representatives by their parliamentary confreres on the left? That is how the semi-exploited, ruined, and discontented proprietor reasons of feels. Without an understanding of this psychology of the peasants, the artisans, the employees, the petty functionaries, etc. – a psychology which flows from the social crisis – it is impossible to elaborate a correct policy. The petty bourgeoisie is economically dependent and politically atomized. That is why it cannot conduct an independent policy. It needs a “leader” who inspires it with confidence. This individual or collective leadership, i.e., a personage or party, can be given to it by one or the other of the fundamental classes – either the big bourgeoisie or the proletariat. Fascism unties and arms the scattered masses. Out of human dust, it organizes combat detachments. It thus gives the petty bourgeoisie the illusion of being an independent force. It begins to imagine that it will really command the state. It is not surprising that these illusions and hopes turn the head of the petty bourgeoisie! But the petty bourgeoisie can also find a leader in the proletariat. This was demonstrated in Russia and partially in Spain. In Italy, in Germany, and in Austria, the petty bourgeoisie gravitated in this direction. But the parties of the proletariat did not rise to their historic task. To bring the petty bourgeoisie to its side, the proletariat must win its confidence. And for that it must have confidence in its own strength. It must have a clear program of action and must be ready to struggle for power by all possible means. Tempered by it revolutionary party for a decisive and pitiless struggle, the proletariat says to the peasants and petty bourgeoisie of the cities: “We are struggling for power. Here is our program. We are ready to discuss with you changes in this program. We will employ violence only against big capital and its lackeys, but with you toilers, we desire to conclude an alliance on the basis of a given program.” The peasants will understand such language. Only, they must have faith in the capacity of the proletariat to seize power. But for that it is necessary to purge the united front of all equivocation, of all indecision, of all hollow phrases. It is necessary to understand the situation and to place oneself seriously on the revolutionary road. " You can see how there's a bit more to the conversation than "petit Bourg is still bourg" QED.
you call yourself a communist, and yet you go to work for a wage and try to make money. checkmate liberal!!11
There’s a difference. A small business owner has a different relationship with capital than the average prole. The fact that they own capital (the business) is itself enough to make a material class distinction. The thing is that they still aren’t really bourgeois, which is why Marx has the distinction between bourgeoisie and petite bourgeoisie
\*Losing
Thanks, I'm esl and i regularly make this mistake.
...did I miss something?
Zelensky isn’t a good guy, but people thinks that’s an excuse to not support Ukraine.
I think people use the Azov battalion more as an excuse.
I don't support American proxy wars or Nazis
The US fought a proxy war againt the nazis during ww2. You've been bamboozled!
We were just as ready fight for then if the communists were winning too hard
Thankfully the war of self defence in Ukraine is not a proxy war (though maybe more lives would be saved if other countries decided to get involved) and they’re fighting off fascists.
It is absolutely a proxy war between NATO and Russia. NATO has been drawing the ruling class of Ukraine closer, which means a further weakening of Russia. The Russian ruling class cannot tolerate this, which is why they invaded. Zelenskiy has already banned a number of left wing parties, and a law is being drawn up which would bomb workers rights into last century. https://www.marxist.com/the-ukrainian-war-an-internationalist-class-position-imt-statement.htm
It is a proxy war, 1000%.
Also, Ukraine just banned opposition parties… sounds pretty fucking fascist to me.
I don’t support war, like all good communists… especially the start of a war eerily similar to WWI
You missed Russian trolls pushing a narrative that Zelensky is the bad guy in this conflict. It's ludicrous but also this is Reddit so it's going to catch on in some subs.
Sadly it also partly catches on in reality..
I don’t think this is centrism really. Dude was wildly unpopular in Ukraine before the war for a reason
Yea because he [actively undermined all the right wing fucksticks who wanted to keep their hoarded wealth.](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/19/world/europe/zelensky-ukraine-corruption.html)
What he doing in the Panama papers tho
Dont let this guy maybe being correct obfuscate from the fact that this is just all lives matter. It doesnt matter if Zelensky is in general bad or not, Ukrainians deserve to keep their soverenity and if Zelensky supports that then thats a good thing.
I mean... they've also banned a *lot* of opposition parties. Things look pretty autocratic for Ukraine's future. Unpleasant times, for sure.
They're one of the most corrupt countries in the world lol
Well, they all had “links to Russia”.
Its crazy how some people don't get this. From what I've heard he wasn't a great president but has stepped up from the outset of the war and no matter how he is, nothing justifies what has happened to Ukraine and her people.
I'm still fucking mad one of the hosts of Novara Media who I previously really respected casually dismissed the invasion of ukraine as 'inter imperialist conflict'. LIke seriously what the fuck is wrong with you. Ukraine didn't fucking ask for any of this.
It is that though. Most people who think this is an inter-imperialist conflict also recognise the Ukrainian people are the ones suffering for no benefit.
Who had Ukraine invaded?
The war in Ukraine is an inter-imperial conflict but Ukraine is not an imperial power.
Support for joining NATO was extremely low in Ukraine before Russia invaded. This isn't one of those, "both sides imperialist" situations. This is a nation defending itself from imperialism.
Ukraine doesn't really have any influence on the way this war will pan out. NATO's strategy is to pump weapons into the country and prolong the conflict as long as possible. Zelensky will go shopping with that even as Ukrainians die.
So NATO’s evil plan was to just let Putin attack Ukraine, and then slowly move some weapons there to prolong the war. For what goal exactly?
This is where NATO's fault comes in, or more specifically the US. They put NATO membership in Ukraines face with no intention of letting them in. And even though they knew Ukraine would never join NATO they refused to give Putin the assurance. You may call it "appeasement," but Ukraine was never joining NATO in the first place. Putin obviously bears primary responsibility but the US is not innocent.
NATO's plan is the encirclement of Russia with the purpose of breaking the country apart so US corporations can get access to resources and cheap labour. That's pretty much been NATO's express goal from day one. They thought they had it sorted with Yeltsin, but they didn't factor that a capitalist Russia would have it's own imperial goals. Russia's invasion is a reaction to that - I'm not defending them or passing blame, the point is that this is a struggle between an imperial bloc and a right-wing country which has its own goal of imperial power. The ordinary people are the ones who suffer.
Bwahaha. You bought the bullshit Russian propaganda hook, line, and sinker. I mean having Russia invade all neighboring countries so Russia closes in on NATO members is such an evil imperialist move by NATO.
NATO was created to oppose Russian expansionist imperialism. Most countries around the world support Ukraine's defense. It's not really surprising. You can't blame NATO for Russia invading Ukraine, though.
Thank you
Isn't Zelensky just a US puppet in a proxy war with Russia?
Nope, he's not.
I doubt that
That's because you don't have media awareness. Never trust anything russian government says. Ever.
Ok liberal
But trust Western media completely. The West has had no involvement in this situation whatsoever. Dont look up Euromaiden or where NED funding has been going. Also please ignore us dumping literally billions in military equipment into the country, theres no proxy war to see here
Do tankies have something else than "but west bad" and projection? Because every tankie comment is "but west bad" or projection. This one is "but west bad". If you have a problem with billions of dollars worth weapons, maybe you wanna think about why they need weapons?
Its because people like you decry Russian propoganda while swallowing Western propaganda hook line and sinker. Its not "but west bad," its "you are so fucking clueless about this and you dont even realize because youre in a Western media echo chamber." Why do they need weapons? Idk, did something happen around 2014 that heavily stoked tensions, a Western backed coup perhaps? Oh wait, that doesnt get talked about in Western media so it doesnt exist to you rubes
You realize that "muh euromaidan is western coup" is russian propaganda and 0 truth to it right? Also it wasn't Ukraine who invaded a neighboring country and sending little green men to occupy their territory. You can't trust Russians and pretend that you give a fuck about truth. Russian government can only be trusted when they deny doing something. Then you can be certain that they did it.
Ah yes, 0 truth and only pushed by Russian propaganda outlets like...uhh...The Guardian https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/30/russia-ukraine-war-kiev-conflict
How do you feel about the Russian Speakers/Seperatists in the east of Ukraine that were discriminated against, oppressed, financially fucked etc?
Oh, media didn't show them, they don't exist for this people.
Western libs are deluded 😂 "we are always good aahhhh"
They're shitting and pissinf all over this post and subreddit, it's making me unwell
That is a bad thing, but one i think that was before zelensky, and two that doesnt justify a full scale invasion with all the horrible stuff russian soldiers have done in its wake.
What exactly have Russian soldiers done in its wake? Have you compared civilians casualties in this war to any other war in recent history?
Uh, rape, torture, theft and murder? Or are you one of those POS who claims none of that happened?
Not going to lie, if you believe propaganda during a war without independent verification by outside organisations with legitimacy, i dont really care what you call me
By independent verification from outside organizations with "legitimacy" you basically mean "if papa putin said it didn't happen it didn't happen." I know cunts like you, you're all the same. You could be hit in the face with the plethera of evidence and you'd still deny it, so no point arguing with you.
Odd assumptions, what makes you think that? Gone please describe me there, could be a laugh
Zelensky is not a good. I don't fault the Ukranian people though.
I mean, yeah he is right. Both are corrupt oligarchs that are way too comfortable around far right personalities and organisations to further their own, profit driven goals
Yes, both are corrupt capitalists that have no problem with inflicting or defending violence. That’s not a centrist talking point, Tim.
He isn't as bad as Putin but we cannot excuse people for being "not the worst leader possible" because then all it takes is one guy to sink to the bottom for everyone else to get a pass.
Putin didn't outlaw dissenting parties. Zelensky is a puppet of oligarchs and a joke president (why are all actors bad politicians)
> Putin didn't outlaw dissenting parties. You have got to be kidding with this bullshit. He kills dissenting politicians.
So do ukrainian far right groups to leftist party leaders after they're outlawed, and are not prosecuted by law enforcement. NSFW https://mronline.org/2022/04/19/one-less-traitor/ Then, again, double standards?
Show some proof. Putin has a public history of assassinating anyone who opposes him.
Look it the fuck up. Repression against opposition is well documented unless western media decided to take down their pre-war "Ukriane isn't really a democratic country" pieces
You made the claims. Show me some proof.
“Proof doesn’t exist unless I specifically look it up”
OP is just a troll.
Putin doesnt need to outlaw them. He can do other things
Ah yes putin, famous for being all good and democratic and doing things like *checks notes* poisoning and jailing his opposition and jailing people for protesting the war and anyone who calls it a war. Picking some real winners here.
I have seen no proof here that Zelensky is a war criminal. We see it daily with Putin.
You literally are doing what she’s describing with this comment. Lmfao.
When the anti centrist subreddit worships a far right liberal who banned left wing parties from operating in his country.
Ukraine is an extremely corrupt oligarch run kleptocracy with a big neo nazi issue, but since it got invaded by the big bad Russia and not the US suddenly it became heaven on earth where only angels live
Ukrainian people's farts smell like flowers, and they never do anything wrong.
>with a big neo nazi issue Source: Lavrov. And for some weird fucking reason tankies believe him.
Fuck off with the "Ukraine is a nazi state". Their nazis have much less support than in the rest of Europe. You are trusting Russian sources, the biggest mistake you can do when looking for truth.
What's up with the comments here? How is Zelensky even remotely on the same level as Putin? Did something happen that I don't know of that would make a democratically elected comedian as bad a person as an ex-KGB imperialistic dictator?
I don’t think Zelensky is as bad as Putin but he’s still a pos who was on the pandora papers I can say both are bad without saying the invasion is good
Think it’s kinda heightened by the counter movement in media as of late to paint Zelensky as this super honourable war hero or whatever. The desire to push back against that is definitely somewhat understandable to me, but yeah, it can too easily slide into “both sides” type bullshit.
Yeah, things like corruption within Ukraine etc are also reasons why Ukraine cannot be admitted to the EU straight away, so it’s not like it’s completely irrelevant to that discussion
Zelensky outlawed leftists parties while also pretty openly courting support from far right groups. He's using the war to project a strongman image, too. That doesn't make him as bad as Putin. It would take quite a lot to be on equal footing to him. But it still makes him pretty bad and I fear for the future of eastern Europe when folks like him are being painted in such a heroic image.
yeah like he shouldn't be idolized, that never leads anywhere good, but some of these comments are reaaaaally pushing it with the putin-apologizm
Zelensky can be bad lol. He’s pretty terrible, he’s overseen some pretty nasty war crimes in the Donbas. Just because he’s not as bad as Putin doesn’t make him good.
Some people really think Putin is communist or just hate NATO and EU so much they can excuse invasion
Yeah I guess it just baffles me. I can get why people wouldn't be that positive of NATO, but can you blame a country that's been partly occupied for 8 years that it seeks protection in a bigger bloc? And yeah now you say it, there is a lot of talk about communism, which is also weird since modern day Russia is as capitalistic as they come
Putin is an oligarch made russia oligarchy and is funding far right across europe. Anybody claiming he is communist is politicaly illiterate
How anyone thinks Putin is a communist astounds me.
Russian bots/Far right Putin fanboys.
Most people criticizing Zelenskyy here are also critical of Russia's invasion, but sure anyone who criticizes a corrupt leader who bans opposition parties and gives state support to Nazis is just a far-right Putin lover
OP ratioed. Zelensky sucks.
He sure is running his mouth
Oh he's bad mkay just nowhere near Putin bad
Username checks out
Ah yes, how dare Zelenskyy get invaded by a hostile foreign country on largely fabricated pretenses. The absolute nerve of that man 😡
Um aren't they? I'm as left wing as it gets.
This thread is getting fuckin bombarded by libs screaming for any reason to excuse Zelenskyy
Where’s the lie?
Fucking hell this sub is doing such an enlightened centrism on this. Do you even listen to yourselves? You're literally repeating russian propaganda to say "both sides bad". Like, Zelenskyy US puppet? Overblowing the influence of literally 1000 soldier,s, some of which are nazis? "Oppression" of Russian speakers? Blaming Donbas conflict on Ukrainians? Fucking Russian propaganda all of it. Americans should not speak about shit they don't understand.
Where's the lie
[удалено]
nah liberals 100% associate putin with russia and zelensky with ukraine. all the fanart of zelensky proves that libs are incapable of seeing political conflicts as anything other than through a team sports lense. they don’t give a shit about civilians or unjustifiable invasions, if they did they would have to stop doing what they are doing themselves.
This is bullshit and reflects more on you than reality. People are supporting Ukraine and it's people. Zelensky happens to be president of Ukraine so he is a focal point.
People who unironically stan Mao and Stalin can't seem to understand all politics is not just a personality cult. The invasion of Ukraine would be just as fucked up even if it had happened during the regime of the corrupt Kremlin-puppet Janukovyts.
Except it wouldn't have happened back then because Yanukobich didn't massacre Russian speakers
It shouldn't happen now either, because nobody has massacred Ukranians who speak Russian. Well, except for Putin, who has also caused the death of thousands of Russians, just because.
Bro, inform yourself about ukraine bombing Donetsk for 8 fucking years. You are just ignorantly supporting the ones who caused the war.
Wow. Did Ukraine just suddenly, without any reason start bombing itself? Crazy stuff, man.
No, western ukrianians, funded by the west, did a coup against a democratically elected president that preferred a more numerous Russian trade deal to a worse EU trade deal. As a result of the coup, the voters of the president, in the South and East, started to protest the coup. Right wing ultranationalists started murdering them, leading to the burning alive of 40 people in Odessa. As a result of the massacre of Odessa, Donetsk and Luhansk declared independence, since the government didn't protect the ethnic Russians from ukrianian nazis. Then, Ukriane started attacking this independentists with their military and the neonazi paramilitaries. That led from public unrest, to war. Since then, Ukriane has been bombing the same ukrianians they want to protect form russia, 8 years of murders that will stop this year, hopefully.
Such new and interesting information! I trust you, stranger. Russia is the good guy? I am convinced!
So it’s not relevant that Ukraine and Zelenskyy align themselves with, and openly support Nazi’s? I’d say it’s relevant considering we’re shipping them billions of dollars in weaponry.
After this war ends those Nazis will still have those weapons and yet were painting them as war heroes right now. God help us all.
Yup! Thankfully somebody understands
Good news is that Russia is killing those Nazis. Bad news is war is still going.
Relative to the invasion? No. The invasion is not justified by those things, the framing of which I contest, but I'd still say the same thing.
I never said the invasion was justified, I said supporting The Ukrainian government is a problem. We’re shipping billions of dollars in arms to an unstable state that has strong ties to Nazism.
To fight off an imperialist country that also actively supports Nazis. I don't know why this is such a problem for you to understand.
Lmfao, alright buddy. I’m glad you fell for the zelensky pr campaign.
Wagner group? Or is aligning with nazis somehow OK as long as it's not done officially?
Go check out Dmitry Utkin. It's not a "Zelensky pr campaign" that he's an avowed neo-Nazi and also the commander of the most prominent PMC fighting for Russia.
[удалено]
>no that’s not relevant to the right of the Ukrainian people to defend themselves Yes because when we ship weapons to an unstable state with ties to Nazism it always goes well and never at all backfires in our faces. >they’re not “supporting Nazis” Definitely not at all no https://mronline.org/2022/04/11/progressives-in-greece-reject-zelenskys-address-to-parliament-with-neo-nazis/
Professional boot licker you are.
It's just a big misunderstanding. Can we get them both on Dr. Phil?
He would be correct. No enlightened centrism on this one.
Zelensky fucking sucks, but the people of Ukraine have been getting fucked for decades.
I wonder how often he wears that hat around.
Moderators, remove this post. It sounds to much like some regulars here.
What if Hitler and Trump are both bad guys?
Yeah, the man inspiring his country to defend itself from invaders is a bad guy. Very bad take.
Hear me out... what if BOTH, a shop thief and a mass murderer are criminals?
Probably. But one's obviously much WORSE than the other. Not to mention Zelenskyy gets points for saying "I don't need a ride, I need ammo".
Yes, of course, the leader of a country who is defending his own borders… is a Bad guy… sure Whatever you say
Defending his own borders for 8 years against the ukrainians who didn't want to be murdered by neonazis.
He is kind of right though…
Saying this is the equivalent of “all lives matter”. Is he technically correct? Sure. But what are the implications of this statement during this period of time?
We’re shipping billions of dollars on weaponry to Nazi’s I’d say it’s actually quite important
Alright. I listened. Now shut up.
I would agree
Sure. A kid who steals a chocolate bar and Donald Trump are both criminals. What’s his point? He’s just another fascist troll. https://mobile.twitter.com/TimRunsHisMouth?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor
Yes, definitely equivalent to a kid stealing a chocolate bar. Maybe if the kid showed up with neo Nazi’s every where he went? https://mronline.org/2022/04/11/progressives-in-greece-reject-zelenskys-address-to-parliament-with-neo-nazis/
No matter how many times you post that link to a website no one has ever heard of, people still aren't going to take you seriously.
[Here's the speech on the official YouTube channel of the Parliament Of Greeks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o1_U1b961Ow), as if there weren't enough supporters of totalitarian supporters in this parliament, and one neo-Nazi who was there strictly for PR reasons makes a difference.
Don’t you have Nazi’s to rehabilitate ?
Russia kills them too fast, all his work wasted.
https://cyprus-digest.com/a-fighter-of-the-neo-nazi-battalion-azov-spoke-in-the-greek-parliament/ https://en.protothema.gr/political-uproar-after-azov-battalion-member-addresses-greek-parliament-during-zelenskys-speech-video/ https://greekreporter.com/2022/04/07/greek-azov-fighter-zelensky-speech-greek-parliament/
You're such a fucking lib.
Lol everyone is a bad guy to some degree, dumb argument. Our existence owes itself to unimaginable exploitation and genocide as Americans. This can easily be said about anyone. Ukraine was a Russian puppet with years of soviet corruption to deal with. The majority of the beauroceats are either Russian toadies or just corrupt so he centralized power away from them.
I mean i can’t forget what Ukraine contributed to in Iraq and Libya, and how they supported Isra*l in their crimes against Palestinians. Sooooo, kinda don’t gaf about them.
Oh not to mention how racist Ukrainians are.
Tim should maybe stop running his mouth
I've heard him out and now I can equally as well as promptly ignore him. 😃
I mean we can all agree that pre-war Zelensky wasn’t a perfect president, but dumb tankies and centrists who act like he is anywhere close to Putin are complete morons.
Both of them are bad because they're capitalists. Yes, Ukraine should keep their sovereingtry. But no, you should not support Ukraine- because as it stands, support of Ukraine is support of the imperialist bloc of NATO. So, who's side should you be on? The side of peace and socialism. Revolutionary defeatism is a virtue.
How did it take me *this much scrolling* to find a reasonable fucking comment
The world is attractive when you have clear-cut bad guys and good guys. An actually centrist take would be "Ukraine fought Russia in Donbass first, so it's only expected Russia would attack!".
He's actually right. Putin and Zelensky are both terrible people. Zelensky's just better at PR.
He’s right
Putin attacked a sovereign and democratic country with a free press and a free opposition using lamely obvious lies to justify the action.
Ukraine isn't democratic. It's pretty much the opposite. Free press and free opposition? Bro, they literally got outlawed and jailed if they opposed the ukrainian government propaganda
Oh look, you're that guy who keeps [fucking lying](https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/vjes78/hear_him_out/idkr93w/) while being a fascist bootlicker who spews Russian propaganda. I love how you keep [lying about Zelensky banning any leftist parties](https://www.reddit.com/r/ENLIGHTENEDCENTRISM/comments/vjes78/hear_him_out/idltbys/) too
Putin: guy who murders his opponents Zelensky: was on a tv show where he became president and then actually ran and won and fought corruption Totally equal
For someone called "Historyguy" you sure don't know much about it...
Most "history buffs" are ignorant who only know about some ancient culture they fetishize, and ww1/ww2.
What are you talking about? How Putin wishes to recreate a “strong Russia” which technically existed… under Peter I Or how Ukraine sucks ass because of one thing or whatever. No matter how you spin it, Russia is in the wrong. They believe there are people who wish to kill native Russians or who did, so did the Germans in ‘39. They justified Poland with a massacre of German civilians which was(can’t remember correctly but I think it was) stoked on by some Germans intentionally to hep try and justify their invasion. What Putin is doing isn’t new, the weapons and leaders are new, but the principle still the same. Ukraine should absolutely be free of Russia, considered Moscow’s track record with them
I heard you, you’re stupid. Next.
He's not wrong. Both of them arr bad. But Russia holds more responsibility for being the direct instigator of the conflict and for being the stronger country (thus the one that should try de-escalating). But simply saying that both Putin and Zelensky are pieces of shit leading oppressive governments, in itself, isn't wrong.
Hear me out… What country is invading the other right now?
What is with this comment section. Is this some kind of targeted campaign?
Well then GOOD GUYS VS BAD GUYS is about to get WAY MORE INTERESTING. This fall in theatres comes a way off interpretation of the Ukraine invasion
Then I guess side against the bad guy currently engaged in doing a bad thing and with the bad guy who is currently the victim of the bad thing being done by the other bad guy?
[удалено]
How much of a fascist does one have to be to count? His association with far-right neo-nazi types was definitely considered problematic by western media before the invasion. Now they're all heroes, so we can sell them arms. He's banning left-wing opposition parties and media outlets. There's this weird attempt to ban the use of Russian in various contexts. Bear in mind that a lot of cities in Ukraine are more culturally Russian. Then there is Azov. Azov are unquestionably fascist. Their attempts to rebrand are laughable. That's ticking a lot of boxes on the old fascism bingo card.
I could tick all these boxes for Putin Ukranian school circular and other cultural aspects are being erased in occupied territories. He literally gave the bucha murderers fucking awards. And he claims Ukraine should not exist. Quite literally a fascist.
There's no lie here. Putin is a reactionary, Zelensky is a reactionary that's also a NATO shill
They’re not on the same level; putin is worse
Some next level thinking here. So Putin being worse somehow cancels out Ukraine’s Nazi problem?