As time passes, and the liberal technocrats scramble to respond to their catastrophic Ukraine foreign policy failure, we’re getting a clearer sense of what it’s going to mean when the United States brings its wars home.
Hey Rainer, nice work here. I completely unite with your position that the freedom movement needs to distance itself from anarchists and radlibs, and to instead expand the base of anti-imperialism. I would like to offer some feedback on the line of anti-imperialism that you take. The sense I get from your work is that in order to counter imperialist propaganda, you overextend yourself in defense of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. For example, the link you cited on the Uyghur issue doesn't contain any primary evidence, it's just counter-propaganda, and that's not to say thats it's factually incorrect, it may well be correct but as an independent viewer there's no way for me to validate that based on the source you linked. Thus the position you take in defense of China also becomes baseless propaganda in this particular case, rather than advancing the cause of Truth finding. I believe that we can uphold a line of anti-imperialism that doesn't necessitate defending the positions of Russia or China, because we know that those countries have flaws, and if we can't uphold a line of anti-imperialism that can't sit with the fact that there probably are some atrocities that those countries commit, then we have a very weak anti-imperialist line. We must strive to find a line of opposing US-led war mongering without the need to glorify the stated "enemies" of the US. I'd love to get your take on this
How can anti-imperialism not involve defending the positions of Russia or China? The whole purpose of imperialist propaganda is to discredit their positions. By definition we need to defend them. Do we need to defend every position they take? I doubt anyone would say so. We need to do so for a great deal of them though. The imperialists want us to be constantly hesitant to go “too far” in combating them, so that they can undermine our confidence by saying “you’re not being nuanced!” They’re going to accuse us of lacking nuance no matter what we say or how we phrase things.
I linked to that source because the lies of the imperialists on Xinjiang are of the nature that if we engage with them too much, we’ll be getting dragged into arguments whose very existence serves to validate the Xinjiang psyop. The propagandists seek to set a rhetorical trap for us. Therefore the best way to counter that psyop is by forcefully putting forth our own ideas about the issue. Is that particular source the best? Maybe it’s not, since as you say it doesn’t have primary sources. In the future I’ll look for ones that do.
The extent to which we need to defend foreign countries is to demonstrate that they don't represent a clear and present threat to American national security, and that peaceful relations would be more beneficial, we need to also demonstrate how investing in war is not beneficial to anyone involved, we can even point out how countries that engage in trade with Russia and China benefit, and that the US would similarly benefit. However, there is a certain tendency amongst communists to paint countries like Russia, China, VietNam, North Korea in idealistic lenses, with unwillingness to cede any criticism of those countries, this is something I also have been guilty of, but there is a way to oppose imperialism without positioning yourself on takes that may not end up being factually correct. While it may seem beneficial as a short term strategy to "advance" anti-imperialist rhetoric, ultimately you need to have a strong foundation on truth to develop a solid line.
For example, let's say for example that China is in fact commiting atrocities against Uyghurs, or in Tibet, or in Taiwan, which they most likely are to an extent that is miniscule compared to what Western media makes it out to be, even if they are commiting such atrocities, it still doesn't make sense for the US to engage in war mongering against them. If we can't articulate that position then that's a weakness and failure on our part. By the way, if you want a better sourced debunking of claims on the Uyghur issue, Qiao Collective did a really great job.
What atrocities is China committing? You’ve conceded a huge point to the enemy by saying this, and that undermines everything else you’re trying to do.
Rainer, I have a lot of respect for you as a writer, but are you really this naive? Have you talked to anyone who's actually lived in China for an extended period of time? It's a country that's done a lot of excellent, really important work, and one that continues to do so, but it's not without it's flaws. Every state that wields the amount of power that China does is going to commit injustices, especially when it's faced with the threat of war from the imperialist bloc. Just because China has a communist government doesn't mean their state apparatus doesn't exercise violent power to control it's citizens. We need to be ok with that. It does more harm to glorify what we don't know than to accept that our knowledge is limited
You used the word “atrocities,” which connotes extremely serious human rights abuses that can’t be used to describe even China’s most flawed practices. Language like that simply isn’t appropriate to describe things like corruption or China’s model of policing, and equating these things with atrocities effectively advances the anarchist position on the state. The anarchists exaggerate the real or perceived flaws of anti-imperialist states to deny the necessity of using authority during the class struggle. And it’s counterproductive to reinforce their misleading analytical framework.
I get the impression you’ve felt the need to correct past beliefs that lacked nuance, and then overcorrected. You’ve explained your reasoning quite well, and I don’t think having a call would let me understand it better. Because I used to hold these same beliefs about China committing atrocities, then learned just how false that narrative is.
If your read what I wrote carefully, you'll see that I never said that China is committing atrocities. I said that even if they hypothetically were, it wouldn't be grounds for US imperialism and warmongering. What we can disprove is US war propaganda, but disproving imperialist propaganda is not the same as understanding what is actually going on inside the country, and I think you understand this. My point is that we should not have to articulate an anti-imperialist line based on that which we cannot possibly know
I don't mean to offend you, I think this is an important conversation and perhaps the medium of substack comment doesn't do it the justice it deserves. If you would like, I'm open to have a call with you sometime
This is also what I meant by overextending yourself. If your enemy is attacking belligerently, you don't have to meet them where they are at, often it's better not to. Moreso, it's best not to try to strike outside of your frame, otherwise you lose your balance and are easier to knock down. In information warfare, a solid frame is a deep understanding of what you know and what you don't know. If you can't acknowledge what you don't know to your core (ex: the Uighur issue), and build a strategic line that holds that gap in knowledge, and you try to over extend yourself, then your position becomes weaker. We need to be more comfortable with not knowing everything, and still being able to articulate that imperialism is not the way to go
Hey Rainer, nice work here. I completely unite with your position that the freedom movement needs to distance itself from anarchists and radlibs, and to instead expand the base of anti-imperialism. I would like to offer some feedback on the line of anti-imperialism that you take. The sense I get from your work is that in order to counter imperialist propaganda, you overextend yourself in defense of Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, Syria, etc. For example, the link you cited on the Uyghur issue doesn't contain any primary evidence, it's just counter-propaganda, and that's not to say thats it's factually incorrect, it may well be correct but as an independent viewer there's no way for me to validate that based on the source you linked. Thus the position you take in defense of China also becomes baseless propaganda in this particular case, rather than advancing the cause of Truth finding. I believe that we can uphold a line of anti-imperialism that doesn't necessitate defending the positions of Russia or China, because we know that those countries have flaws, and if we can't uphold a line of anti-imperialism that can't sit with the fact that there probably are some atrocities that those countries commit, then we have a very weak anti-imperialist line. We must strive to find a line of opposing US-led war mongering without the need to glorify the stated "enemies" of the US. I'd love to get your take on this
How can anti-imperialism not involve defending the positions of Russia or China? The whole purpose of imperialist propaganda is to discredit their positions. By definition we need to defend them. Do we need to defend every position they take? I doubt anyone would say so. We need to do so for a great deal of them though. The imperialists want us to be constantly hesitant to go “too far” in combating them, so that they can undermine our confidence by saying “you’re not being nuanced!” They’re going to accuse us of lacking nuance no matter what we say or how we phrase things.
I linked to that source because the lies of the imperialists on Xinjiang are of the nature that if we engage with them too much, we’ll be getting dragged into arguments whose very existence serves to validate the Xinjiang psyop. The propagandists seek to set a rhetorical trap for us. Therefore the best way to counter that psyop is by forcefully putting forth our own ideas about the issue. Is that particular source the best? Maybe it’s not, since as you say it doesn’t have primary sources. In the future I’ll look for ones that do.
The extent to which we need to defend foreign countries is to demonstrate that they don't represent a clear and present threat to American national security, and that peaceful relations would be more beneficial, we need to also demonstrate how investing in war is not beneficial to anyone involved, we can even point out how countries that engage in trade with Russia and China benefit, and that the US would similarly benefit. However, there is a certain tendency amongst communists to paint countries like Russia, China, VietNam, North Korea in idealistic lenses, with unwillingness to cede any criticism of those countries, this is something I also have been guilty of, but there is a way to oppose imperialism without positioning yourself on takes that may not end up being factually correct. While it may seem beneficial as a short term strategy to "advance" anti-imperialist rhetoric, ultimately you need to have a strong foundation on truth to develop a solid line.
For example, let's say for example that China is in fact commiting atrocities against Uyghurs, or in Tibet, or in Taiwan, which they most likely are to an extent that is miniscule compared to what Western media makes it out to be, even if they are commiting such atrocities, it still doesn't make sense for the US to engage in war mongering against them. If we can't articulate that position then that's a weakness and failure on our part. By the way, if you want a better sourced debunking of claims on the Uyghur issue, Qiao Collective did a really great job.
What atrocities is China committing? You’ve conceded a huge point to the enemy by saying this, and that undermines everything else you’re trying to do.
Rainer, I have a lot of respect for you as a writer, but are you really this naive? Have you talked to anyone who's actually lived in China for an extended period of time? It's a country that's done a lot of excellent, really important work, and one that continues to do so, but it's not without it's flaws. Every state that wields the amount of power that China does is going to commit injustices, especially when it's faced with the threat of war from the imperialist bloc. Just because China has a communist government doesn't mean their state apparatus doesn't exercise violent power to control it's citizens. We need to be ok with that. It does more harm to glorify what we don't know than to accept that our knowledge is limited
You used the word “atrocities,” which connotes extremely serious human rights abuses that can’t be used to describe even China’s most flawed practices. Language like that simply isn’t appropriate to describe things like corruption or China’s model of policing, and equating these things with atrocities effectively advances the anarchist position on the state. The anarchists exaggerate the real or perceived flaws of anti-imperialist states to deny the necessity of using authority during the class struggle. And it’s counterproductive to reinforce their misleading analytical framework.
I get the impression you’ve felt the need to correct past beliefs that lacked nuance, and then overcorrected. You’ve explained your reasoning quite well, and I don’t think having a call would let me understand it better. Because I used to hold these same beliefs about China committing atrocities, then learned just how false that narrative is.
If your read what I wrote carefully, you'll see that I never said that China is committing atrocities. I said that even if they hypothetically were, it wouldn't be grounds for US imperialism and warmongering. What we can disprove is US war propaganda, but disproving imperialist propaganda is not the same as understanding what is actually going on inside the country, and I think you understand this. My point is that we should not have to articulate an anti-imperialist line based on that which we cannot possibly know
I don't mean to offend you, I think this is an important conversation and perhaps the medium of substack comment doesn't do it the justice it deserves. If you would like, I'm open to have a call with you sometime
This is also what I meant by overextending yourself. If your enemy is attacking belligerently, you don't have to meet them where they are at, often it's better not to. Moreso, it's best not to try to strike outside of your frame, otherwise you lose your balance and are easier to knock down. In information warfare, a solid frame is a deep understanding of what you know and what you don't know. If you can't acknowledge what you don't know to your core (ex: the Uighur issue), and build a strategic line that holds that gap in knowledge, and you try to over extend yourself, then your position becomes weaker. We need to be more comfortable with not knowing everything, and still being able to articulate that imperialism is not the way to go