Don’t normalize imperialistic ambitions as a way to appeal to fascists. Ukraine should be supported, but not because of the need to maintain the hegemony.
So in response to my argument that you shouldn’t directly encourage imperialism you’re arguing “but my empire is better than their empire.” How very… insightful. I understand that you believe imperialism is a fundamental reality of international politics, but it’s only because of tact shit like this that defeats internationalism.
Let me give you an overview of our argument so far.
I made a comment that the original language encourages a false dichotomy that justifies imperialism.
You replied that there are only options that allow imperialism.
I replied that’s a false dichotomy.
You replied they’re the only options.
In the meantime we’ve got the history non-aligned movement and the history of imperial ambitions being inherently self destructive and leading to fundamental overreach that destroys the very states that attempt them because they start to believe that absolute nonsense that you seem to. The frank truth is, neither the US, Russia, or China are CAPABLE of being a true hegemony. All three of them have serious issues even maintaining their own internal cohesion. Internationalism is the only rational path forward and these “realpolitik” takes are fundamentally a delusion derived from empires believing their own propaganda. Encouraging imperialist rhetoric is what allows fascists to thrive and results in idiotic interventionalism.
Ukraine should be supported because Russia is acting in an imperialistic manner, not because America has some danger of losing an empheral imperial power that it doesn’t have in the first place.
Don’t normalize imperialistic ambitions as a way to appeal to fascists. Ukraine should be supported, but not because of the need to maintain the hegemony.
Down with American imperialism. Long live the imperialism of their successor!
So in response to my argument that you shouldn’t directly encourage imperialism you’re arguing “but my empire is better than their empire.” How very… insightful. I understand that you believe imperialism is a fundamental reality of international politics, but it’s only because of tact shit like this that defeats internationalism.
Well, “my empire is better” is a very good argument when discussing which empire should run the world.
There’s only 3 choices for who gets the hegemony right now, or is my knowledge out of date? There’s USA, China, and Russia.
Curious who should take over if Americans should let go.
Let me give you an overview of our argument so far.
I made a comment that the original language encourages a false dichotomy that justifies imperialism.
You replied that there are only options that allow imperialism.
I replied that’s a false dichotomy.
You replied they’re the only options.
In the meantime we’ve got the history non-aligned movement and the history of imperial ambitions being inherently self destructive and leading to fundamental overreach that destroys the very states that attempt them because they start to believe that absolute nonsense that you seem to. The frank truth is, neither the US, Russia, or China are CAPABLE of being a true hegemony. All three of them have serious issues even maintaining their own internal cohesion. Internationalism is the only rational path forward and these “realpolitik” takes are fundamentally a delusion derived from empires believing their own propaganda. Encouraging imperialist rhetoric is what allows fascists to thrive and results in idiotic interventionalism.
Ukraine should be supported because Russia is acting in an imperialistic manner, not because America has some danger of losing an empheral imperial power that it doesn’t have in the first place.
A power balance would be more beneficial than the US rampaging without countries having other imperialists to align with.