This is the problem with a nationalist worldview, you miss the actual dynamic driving the event. Which Russians?
The actual dynamic driving the event is the same for whatever government is controlling the modern states territory… the whole point of historic materialism is to view the inherent motive behind the actions of state.
Whatever government controls Russia has the same material needs as governments in the past. They require access to trade routes and logistics wether they are soviets, federations, or imperial.
Then why are you talking about it in the same terms as naive nationalists who don’t know materialism? It’s some really sus shit to proclaim to know all this but then make zero effort to differentiate your rhetoric from the “inherently authoritarian ruzzian orcs” crowd, continuing to frame it as though people who happen to be born in a certain socially constructed polity are somehow inherently a problem, while arguing pretty unmaterialistically that Russians (not the Russian Federation, just Russians gestures vaguely) started the conflict in Ukraine rather than joining a conflict that had been ongoing for nearly a decade. I’m not saying you’re not a materialist, but I am saying i detect latent nationalist brainworms.
Then why are you talking about it in the same terms as naive nationalists who don’t know materialism?
I don’t know what you’re talking about? All I said was that the Russian state has always seen Crimea as a strategic asset.
continuing to frame it as though people who happen to be born in a certain socially constructed polity are somehow inherently a problem, while arguing pretty unmaterialistically that Russians (not the Russian Federation, just Russians
Lol, that’s quite the assumption to jump to based on the use of “Russians”. Do you get as pedantic if I were to say “the Americans benefited from chattel slavery”
started the conflict in Ukraine rather than joining a conflict that had been ongoing for nearly a decade. I’m not saying you’re not a materialist, but I am saying i detect latent nationalist brainworms.
A conflict they’ve been perpetuating for nearly a decade… you are the one trying to interpret the situation through a nationalistic lense. You’re literally aping the nationalistic justification for the imperial expansion of a capitalist nation.
Forget about the nationalistic dressing and actually apply some leftist theory… why does the west support Ukraine, the poorest country in Europe? Why does the US support Turkey, a state run by man who’s trying to turn it into a Islamic theocracy?
It’s all to control access to the black sea, the same reason the Russian state has always seen Crimea as a strategic asset.
Do you get as pedantic if I were to say “the Americans benefited from chattel slavery”
Not the person you replied to, but I’d like to jump in on that question. Yes, we should be; do you think Black Americans benefited in any way from slavery?
Yes, we should be; do you think Black Americans benefited in any way from slavery?
Again, this is a semantic dispute. Saying that black Americans did not benefit from slavery, doesn’t mean that America itself didn’t benefit from slavery.
You are reaching for an argument I obviously wasn’t trying to make.
You didn’t say “America” though, you said “the Americans”:
Do you get as pedantic if I were to say “the Americans benefited from chattel slavery”
Versus
Saying that black Americans did not benefit from slavery, doesn’t mean that America itself didn’t benefit from slavery.
You had to change your language from the American people to the American state in order to be able to claim that people are putting words in your mouth because they’re not doing that and you conflate people and states all over this thread.
The thing people are trying to get you to not do is conflate people and states because that kind of rhetoric is inherently nationalistic and invites belief in a unified immutable polity where none exists.
you to not do is conflate people and states because that kind of rhetoric is inherently nationalistic and invites belief in a unified immutable polity where none exists.
Maybe if you take it out of the given context… I was talking about the history of conflicts over warm water ports. Which spans back to the Russian empire. Given that context i think it’s a bit obtuse to believe I would be saying the Russian people have a incredible yearning for warm water ports. It’s fair obvious I was talking about controlling arm of the Russian state. Especially considering the Russian empire was a true monarchical government and didn’t take input from the Russian people.
The given context is you flattening 200 years and three Russian states into wanting a warm water port.
It’s not unreasonable for a person reading your responses to see that particular form of national essentialism and then you referring to all Russians as wanting that thing and recognizing at the very least someone with extreme nationalism brain.
It’s okay to be wrong here. If you’re okay with it you can move on to something else after learning some shit. If you’re not okay with it you’ll end up dying mad and no one wants that.
The given context is you flattening 200 years and three Russian states into wanting a warm water port.
Yes, they occupy roughly the same region and thus have the same material constraints. Just because a revolution took place, doesn’t mean the incoming government is going to be less reliant on access to the black sea.
referring to all Russians as wanting that thing and recognizing at the very least someone with extreme nationalism brain
You honestly think that I believe the people yearn for warm water ports? That seems to be a bit of a stretch, I think you’re being purposely obtuse.
It’s okay to be wrong here
Lol, how am I being wrong about my original claim? You have a semantic dispute with the use of the word Russian, despite the given context, and my further explanation. You are just fighting a strawman you erected yourself.
Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, most often repressed) between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex.
— Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (1980)
When you frame your arguments in this nationalist way, you’re concealing these conflicts of interest. It would be clearer if you frame it in a way that specifies exactly who you mean.
Nations are not communities and never have been. The history of any country, presented as the history of a family, conceals fierce conflicts of interest (sometimes exploding, most often repressed) between conquerors and conquered, masters and slaves, capitalists and workers, dominators and dominated in race and sex.
How does any of this pertain to my claims about historical conflicts over warm water ports?
When you frame your arguments in this nationalist way, you’re concealing these conflicts of interest. It would be clearer if you frame it in a way that specifies exactly who you mean.
Right, but I never claimed to be framing it in a nationalistic way, that’s just how you’re interpreting it. Given that I was talking about the history of Crimea, it would imply we are talking about a timeframe that reaches back to the Russian empire. In the given context, saying Russia has always needed access to warm weather ports is obviously referring to the governments in control of Russia.
The actual dynamic driving the event is the same for whatever government is controlling the modern states territory… the whole point of historic materialism is to view the inherent motive behind the actions of state.
Whatever government controls Russia has the same material needs as governments in the past. They require access to trade routes and logistics wether they are soviets, federations, or imperial.
Then why are you talking about it in the same terms as naive nationalists who don’t know materialism? It’s some really sus shit to proclaim to know all this but then make zero effort to differentiate your rhetoric from the “inherently authoritarian ruzzian orcs” crowd, continuing to frame it as though people who happen to be born in a certain socially constructed polity are somehow inherently a problem, while arguing pretty unmaterialistically that Russians (not the Russian Federation, just Russians gestures vaguely) started the conflict in Ukraine rather than joining a conflict that had been ongoing for nearly a decade. I’m not saying you’re not a materialist, but I am saying i detect latent nationalist brainworms.
I don’t know what you’re talking about? All I said was that the Russian state has always seen Crimea as a strategic asset.
Lol, that’s quite the assumption to jump to based on the use of “Russians”. Do you get as pedantic if I were to say “the Americans benefited from chattel slavery”
A conflict they’ve been perpetuating for nearly a decade… you are the one trying to interpret the situation through a nationalistic lense. You’re literally aping the nationalistic justification for the imperial expansion of a capitalist nation.
Forget about the nationalistic dressing and actually apply some leftist theory… why does the west support Ukraine, the poorest country in Europe? Why does the US support Turkey, a state run by man who’s trying to turn it into a Islamic theocracy?
It’s all to control access to the black sea, the same reason the Russian state has always seen Crimea as a strategic asset.
Not the person you replied to, but I’d like to jump in on that question. Yes, we should be; do you think Black Americans benefited in any way from slavery?
Again, this is a semantic dispute. Saying that black Americans did not benefit from slavery, doesn’t mean that America itself didn’t benefit from slavery.
You are reaching for an argument I obviously wasn’t trying to make.
You didn’t say “America” though, you said “the Americans”:
Versus
You had to change your language from the American people to the American state in order to be able to claim that people are putting words in your mouth because they’re not doing that and you conflate people and states all over this thread.
The thing people are trying to get you to not do is conflate people and states because that kind of rhetoric is inherently nationalistic and invites belief in a unified immutable polity where none exists.
Maybe if you take it out of the given context… I was talking about the history of conflicts over warm water ports. Which spans back to the Russian empire. Given that context i think it’s a bit obtuse to believe I would be saying the Russian people have a incredible yearning for warm water ports. It’s fair obvious I was talking about controlling arm of the Russian state. Especially considering the Russian empire was a true monarchical government and didn’t take input from the Russian people.
The given context is you flattening 200 years and three Russian states into wanting a warm water port.
It’s not unreasonable for a person reading your responses to see that particular form of national essentialism and then you referring to all Russians as wanting that thing and recognizing at the very least someone with extreme nationalism brain.
It’s okay to be wrong here. If you’re okay with it you can move on to something else after learning some shit. If you’re not okay with it you’ll end up dying mad and no one wants that.
Yes, they occupy roughly the same region and thus have the same material constraints. Just because a revolution took place, doesn’t mean the incoming government is going to be less reliant on access to the black sea.
You honestly think that I believe the people yearn for warm water ports? That seems to be a bit of a stretch, I think you’re being purposely obtuse.
Lol, how am I being wrong about my original claim? You have a semantic dispute with the use of the word Russian, despite the given context, and my further explanation. You are just fighting a strawman you erected yourself.
My point is perhaps best expressed as follows:
— Howard Zinn, A People’s History of the United States (1980)
When you frame your arguments in this nationalist way, you’re concealing these conflicts of interest. It would be clearer if you frame it in a way that specifies exactly who you mean.
How does any of this pertain to my claims about historical conflicts over warm water ports?
Right, but I never claimed to be framing it in a nationalistic way, that’s just how you’re interpreting it. Given that I was talking about the history of Crimea, it would imply we are talking about a timeframe that reaches back to the Russian empire. In the given context, saying Russia has always needed access to warm weather ports is obviously referring to the governments in control of Russia.