This is nationalist rhetoric. Claiming to be a socialist and yet obsessing over the borders of one bourgeois state over another bourgeois state is one of the reasons you are being called a liberal here. You are a nationalist cheerleading for one group of billionaires to rule over the people instead of another group of billionaires, all while hundreds of thousands of people get killed in the name of that. Meanwhile socialists are out here saying we don't want people dying and do not give a fuck what borders exist as long as people aren't dying, the best solution is the quickest and fastest way to minimise death.

You are defending the state, not people's lives. You are sacrificing people for states and borders. You are a bourgeois nationalist, and you would have advocated for the same thing in every past conflict. You're not even a social chauvinist and they were shitbags, you're just straight up nationalist.

[–] ShimmeringKoi@hexbear.net 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

You are defending the state, not people's lives.

Ironic when liberals act how they claim communists act. I mean I know it makes sense logically, that it's all projection with scratched libs, but it's still so weird to see in practice

I mean the Ukranians are doing suicidal infantry attacks against entranched positions with conscripts ffs, it's just too on the nose

[–] Awoo@hexbear.net 20 points 1 year ago

In the post-ww2 period we had a long period of people being anti-nationalist as a result of experience of what nationalism and this obsession with borders instead of people causes.

The current crop of liberals have no experience or connection to this and are incredibly easily led by the ultranationalists into supporting them, because nationalists share a priority with ultranationalists.

The primary issue here is nationalism. We need an absolutely massive anti-nationalism movement. Anti-nationalism is anti-fascism.