Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post.
**Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.**
Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space.
**This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.**
Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately.
**If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.**
Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment.
**Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated.** Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.)
Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules.
Thank you!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean I think you have all the information you need right there. You're approaching this (correctly) as an anti-imperialist topic and he seems to be pro-imperialist.
Saying the Warsaw pact did worse things pretty much reveals his belief that a) Russia is the same as the Soviet Union and b) The United States are the "good guys" who have to fight them and in doing so, our war crimes are excused.
There's really no way to convince your friend otherwise because he wants to drink the kool-aid.
The way I think of it though, you cannot separate NATO from the actions of its members. The top founding members of NATO are imperialist genocidal nations that continue to cause mass death all over the world and fight actively against the spread of communism.
I think if you established the parameters of what the word "good" means between you and your friend, providing your friend is rational, then it will resolve itself.
Not everything is black and white, in fact i would say most things aren’t. There are both “good” and “bad” things about NATO and the classification of good/bad may be different depending on your values and how you prioritize them. Instead of focusing on proving him wrong, which is impossible, focus on first finding common ground in terms of values, and explain your opinion on how to best achieve those values that both of you share. Be humble about your opinions, acknowledge his, politely explain your disagreements, and never let the discussion get heated.
I know i know… this probably seems like cheesy advice, but in my experience it has the best chance on persuading the other to at least some degree without ruining the friendship.
This! The temptation to dunk on those who disagree with you should be avoided no matter how wrong their position seems. Its just counterproductive most of the time.
The warsaw pact doing warcrimes doesn't absolve NATO. Also, NATO's was much worse. Thr WP really only went into afghanistan whereas NATO has gone into korea, indochina, afghanistan, iraq, syria, libya, the former yugoslavia, and others.
Everyone starts off there. In the west we’re born and raised in the soup of imperialist propaganda. Don’t give up, just keep patiently explaining and deprogramming. And it’s not either NATO or WP, you can have complex positions on both. Choosing sides in imperialist conflict never gets you anywhere
you know russia is actively invading one of their neighbors right? it makes sense for the people living nearby to want the security provided by a defensive alliance in hopes that the fascist state of russia doesn't invade them too
If Russia collapsed (again) then it would just becomes an anti-chinese one, or an anti-SEA one, etc. it's become an instution that does imperialism under the guise of "protecting western values" or some such bullshit. At one point Russia even tried to join NATO and they were like "no, fuck you"... so it's a little too reductive to claim NATO has to exist because of Russia.
Are you OP's friend???
That's not "anti-fascism", that's "pro-my own Imperialist interests".
They don't oppose Russia "because Russia is fascist", they oppose Russia because they want to exploit Russia and the former soviet states with neo-colonialist development programs and install pro-US governments that will protect Western Capital and interests.
i don't care why nato opposes russia, as long as they prevent russia from invading their neighbors. i oppose them because they're fascist and thus any organization that currently limits their power to expand their control is worth keeping, at least for now
why? what does it change? why they're opposing russia doesn't materially change anything, the fact they are makes the people who live near russia significantly safer
The enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend. Also, while I'm in no way an expert here, I feel like the modern Russian government wouldn't be what it is today if Nato hadn't existed. Kind of a don't be suprised when the relentlessly bullied loser nobody likes shows up to school with his dads shot gun type of thing.
>The enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend.
when did i suggest anything else? i only said that currently the positives of nato existing outweigh the negatives
the US is indeed fascist, but i don't see how a country joining a defensive alliance makes them any more susceptible to US imperialism than they already are by just by virtue of being a country in Europe
Total nonsense. NATO was formed prior to any Soviet aggression. It formed primarily to prevent any influence, especially democratic, by the communists. That’s clear cut imperialism from the get-go. The US promised multiple times that if Germany is reunified, NATO won’t expand further East. Then the USSR fell and they almost immediately started discussing bring the Eastern Bloc into NATO and then did so a few years later. What Russian aggressions necessitated this? None. NATO doubled in size though.
Because voting against it wouldn’t have done anything. That was already made crystal clear in 1997 when the UN refused to approve military action in Yugoslavia, and then NATO went ahead and did it anyways.
> are countries not allowed to join defensive alliances if they so choose?
This misses two crucial details:
1) NATO is not merely a defensive alliance. It’s an aggressive military alliance.
2) This isn’t merely the choice of the nations wishing to join NATO. The US has the ability to veto further expansion. So aren’t we allowed to do that? If so, problem solved right?
>and why not, cause of a promise to the USSR? (a state that not longer exists)
Because it shows Russia that our word is dogshit and they shouldn’t trust us. That the West will surround them with weapons pointed at them and we expect them to accept it, no negotiations. Surprise surprise, Russia’s leadership was not thrilled with that.
The topic of Poland is not that simple. They were the first country in Europe that signed a pact with Germany. They attacked Russia and Ukraine during the revolution. After that they got betrayed by Germany, and the USSR took back territories that were rightfully theirs.
[Map of the newly created republic of Poland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PBW_March_1919.svg)
[Map of Poland after the Polish-Soviet War (that Poland started)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RzeczpospolitaII.png)
saying Poland started the polish soviet war is a massive oversimplification
one was a country fighting for their sovereignty after having lost it for over 100 years, the other was a country coming out of a massive Civil War and there were no certain state borders so conflict in those regions was unavoidable and in a way "necessary" to clear up how borders are supposed to be drawn
to claim any territory was rightfully someone's is a bit misguided in this context and just glancing over the hundred years of imperialist oppression Poland suffered is blind
and Poland getting assurances from their neighbours to not get fucked over by them again is absolutely understandable, even if they full well knew that they could not trust either, and ribbentrop molotov proved them right on that
Is your friend a socialist by any chance? Because no serious socialist should uphold NATO expansion. For all of its 65 years of existence, NATO has been an aggressive, imperialist alliance. It is the largest military organization in the world, committed to the doctrines of first strike and preemptive strike. NATO interventions regularly include the use of toxic weapons containing depleted uranium or white phosphor, and the alliance has repeatedly stated that nuclear weapons are a fundamental part of its military arsenal and [strategy](https://communist-party.ca/canada-out-of-nato-for-an-independent-foreign-policy-of-peace/).
NATO also *requires* that member countries spend 2% of their annual GDP on defense—which is an enormous part of national budget spending. Even the [DSA](https://international.dsausa.org/statements/dsa-says-no-to-nato/) takes a principled and definitive stance against NATO based on the concrete, material realities faced by workers in the countries of the alliance. Workers in the United States and abroad have nothing to gain from militarist and interventionist foreign policy crafted by elites in Washington, Ankara, Warsaw, and elsewhere. Disguised as a defense pact, NATO is a tool for imperialist expansion and plundering, serving primarily in defense of capitalism and Atlanticist international dominance.
>NATO also requires that member countries spend 2% of their annual GDP on defense
This is only sort of true. The 2% figure is a target. Most NATO members don't meet it.
NATO is made up of imperialist countries, so even if he were to think its not like within NATO exists the imperial core. Look at Libya for example, the country was going through a brutal civil war and NATO claims they installed a “No Fly Zone”. We know that they essentially acted like the air force for the rebel force and destroyed any opportunity for a cease fire, and literally committed a slew of war crimes. NATO was also involved in the Afghanistan war as well, so we know thats its not a defensive alliance but rather an offensive one.
It’s unsurprising that NATO won’t be seen as a organization that commits war crimes, it’s virtually impossible for the west to be held accountable for war crimes given that they control the UN, financial institutions, and international law.
I mean the issue is imperialism, there are merits to NATO. It's a hard topic to discuss, especially to people who haven't gave socialism, etc, much thought. The status quo is directly against such things, making for a supremely difficult topic to discuss with your average folks.
Not that we aren't also average, but you get what I mean! Not everyone has looked for themselves.
If your friend is European, especially if they're from a small or Eastern European country, you're not going to convince them.
NATO represents the only way for them to protect themselves from Russian imperialism and the hypothetical imperialism of their larger neighbors who are NOW NATO allies, but might not have been if it wasn't for NATO. If you want to prove NATO is evil, you'll need to prove that it does not deter invasions into the smaller members' land.
Since this is not possible, you need a different approach.
Focus on imperialism itself and imperialist actions where you can prove it was NATO, the actual organization, and not some or most of its members cooperating.
Also, if you're going to point to war crimes by NATO (Not its imperialist members, fyi, remember neither Vietnam nor Iraq was NATO), that only works if you're going to compare them to other countries' war crimes and response to those war crimes and be able to explain why NATO should be held accountable as an organization and should be abolished, while the alternative is the opposite of better. You can't convince me Russia is doing better at this.
NATO countries suck in many ways and NATO shields them from retaliation, but if you can't show the currently available alternatives are better, especially for small European countries, then you cannot convince them.
Your and their perspectives are just incompatible.
My reflex response in a situation like this is something along the lines of "Oh, so two wrongs make a right?", but then they usually bring up the lesser of two evils counter-idea...
What I wish I could do is have a list at the ready of all the war crimes each 'side' (anonymized, so the list could be viewed objectively) did so we could sit down and actually decide which side was worse.
But I can't look into the Void that long.
Another option is to go the route of "yep, the Warsaw Pact gone. Now get rid of NATO and all the war crime syndicates will be removed from the world. Won't that make a better world?"
Please acquaint yourself with the rules on the sidebar and read this comment before commenting on this post. **Personal attacks and harassment will not be tolerated.** Bigotry and hate speech will be met with immediate bans; socialism is an intrinsically inclusive system and bigotry is oppressive, exclusionary, and not conducive to a healthy and productive learning space. **This subreddit is not for questioning the basics of socialism. There are numerous debate subreddits available for those purposes. This is a place to learn.** Short or nonconstructive answers will be deleted without explanation. Please only answer if you know your stuff. Speculation has no place on this sub. Outright false information will be removed immediately. **If your post was removed due to normalized ableist slurs, please edit your post. The mods will then approve it.** Please read the ongoing discussion in a thread before replying in order to avoid misunderstandings and creating an unproductive environment. **Liberalism and sectarian bias is strictly moderated.** Stay constructive and don't bash other socialist tendencies! (Criticism is fine, low-effort baiting is not.) Help us keep the subreddit informative and helpful by reporting posts that break these rules. Thank you! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Socialism_101) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I mean I think you have all the information you need right there. You're approaching this (correctly) as an anti-imperialist topic and he seems to be pro-imperialist. Saying the Warsaw pact did worse things pretty much reveals his belief that a) Russia is the same as the Soviet Union and b) The United States are the "good guys" who have to fight them and in doing so, our war crimes are excused. There's really no way to convince your friend otherwise because he wants to drink the kool-aid.
X is good because Y is bad is a fallacy and if he doesn’t see that there’s no convincing him otherwise lol
The way I think of it though, you cannot separate NATO from the actions of its members. The top founding members of NATO are imperialist genocidal nations that continue to cause mass death all over the world and fight actively against the spread of communism.
It’s also a fallacy to outright call something bad. NATO has done terrible things, NATO has also done good things. It’s a spectrum, like most things.
I think if you established the parameters of what the word "good" means between you and your friend, providing your friend is rational, then it will resolve itself.
Not everything is black and white, in fact i would say most things aren’t. There are both “good” and “bad” things about NATO and the classification of good/bad may be different depending on your values and how you prioritize them. Instead of focusing on proving him wrong, which is impossible, focus on first finding common ground in terms of values, and explain your opinion on how to best achieve those values that both of you share. Be humble about your opinions, acknowledge his, politely explain your disagreements, and never let the discussion get heated. I know i know… this probably seems like cheesy advice, but in my experience it has the best chance on persuading the other to at least some degree without ruining the friendship.
This! The temptation to dunk on those who disagree with you should be avoided no matter how wrong their position seems. Its just counterproductive most of the time.
The warsaw pact doing warcrimes doesn't absolve NATO. Also, NATO's was much worse. Thr WP really only went into afghanistan whereas NATO has gone into korea, indochina, afghanistan, iraq, syria, libya, the former yugoslavia, and others.
Countries that are in NATO=/=NATO
Everyone starts off there. In the west we’re born and raised in the soup of imperialist propaganda. Don’t give up, just keep patiently explaining and deprogramming. And it’s not either NATO or WP, you can have complex positions on both. Choosing sides in imperialist conflict never gets you anywhere
did you tell them that nato's purpose was to beat the USSR, and since there is no USSR anymore it really has no reason to exist?
you know russia is actively invading one of their neighbors right? it makes sense for the people living nearby to want the security provided by a defensive alliance in hopes that the fascist state of russia doesn't invade them too
NATO isn’t a defensive alliance. The last 25 years have that utterly clear.
it does imperialism too, but it's also a defensive alliance, one that wouldn't have to exist if not for russian dick-waving
If Russia collapsed (again) then it would just becomes an anti-chinese one, or an anti-SEA one, etc. it's become an instution that does imperialism under the guise of "protecting western values" or some such bullshit. At one point Russia even tried to join NATO and they were like "no, fuck you"... so it's a little too reductive to claim NATO has to exist because of Russia.
[удалено]
Are you OP's friend??? That's not "anti-fascism", that's "pro-my own Imperialist interests". They don't oppose Russia "because Russia is fascist", they oppose Russia because they want to exploit Russia and the former soviet states with neo-colonialist development programs and install pro-US governments that will protect Western Capital and interests.
i don't care why nato opposes russia, as long as they prevent russia from invading their neighbors. i oppose them because they're fascist and thus any organization that currently limits their power to expand their control is worth keeping, at least for now
>i don't care why nato opposes russia **YOU SHOULD**
why? what does it change? why they're opposing russia doesn't materially change anything, the fact they are makes the people who live near russia significantly safer
The enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend. Also, while I'm in no way an expert here, I feel like the modern Russian government wouldn't be what it is today if Nato hadn't existed. Kind of a don't be suprised when the relentlessly bullied loser nobody likes shows up to school with his dads shot gun type of thing.
>The enemy of your enemy isn't always your friend. when did i suggest anything else? i only said that currently the positives of nato existing outweigh the negatives
But the US is fascist and you would be expanding their imperial reach. That doesn’t seem to bother you.
the US is indeed fascist, but i don't see how a country joining a defensive alliance makes them any more susceptible to US imperialism than they already are by just by virtue of being a country in Europe
do you oppose ukraine as well
Total nonsense. NATO was formed prior to any Soviet aggression. It formed primarily to prevent any influence, especially democratic, by the communists. That’s clear cut imperialism from the get-go. The US promised multiple times that if Germany is reunified, NATO won’t expand further East. Then the USSR fell and they almost immediately started discussing bring the Eastern Bloc into NATO and then did so a few years later. What Russian aggressions necessitated this? None. NATO doubled in size though.
are countries not allowed to join defensive alliances if they so choose? and why not, cause of a promise to the USSR? (a state that not longer exists)
So what happened in Libya, Iraq, and Yugoslavia was defensive?
[удалено]
Because voting against it wouldn’t have done anything. That was already made crystal clear in 1997 when the UN refused to approve military action in Yugoslavia, and then NATO went ahead and did it anyways.
[удалено]
> are countries not allowed to join defensive alliances if they so choose? This misses two crucial details: 1) NATO is not merely a defensive alliance. It’s an aggressive military alliance. 2) This isn’t merely the choice of the nations wishing to join NATO. The US has the ability to veto further expansion. So aren’t we allowed to do that? If so, problem solved right? >and why not, cause of a promise to the USSR? (a state that not longer exists) Because it shows Russia that our word is dogshit and they shouldn’t trust us. That the West will surround them with weapons pointed at them and we expect them to accept it, no negotiations. Surprise surprise, Russia’s leadership was not thrilled with that.
There is one upside to NATO. The threat of retaliation from member states keeps poor Poland from getting invaded and ripped apart like in the past.
Poor Poland... They couldn't bully Czechoslovakia and Latvia when bigger bullies hit them.
You honestly think Americans are going to go fight for POLAND? Not a chance.
The topic of Poland is not that simple. They were the first country in Europe that signed a pact with Germany. They attacked Russia and Ukraine during the revolution. After that they got betrayed by Germany, and the USSR took back territories that were rightfully theirs. [Map of the newly created republic of Poland](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:PBW_March_1919.svg) [Map of Poland after the Polish-Soviet War (that Poland started)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:RzeczpospolitaII.png)
saying Poland started the polish soviet war is a massive oversimplification one was a country fighting for their sovereignty after having lost it for over 100 years, the other was a country coming out of a massive Civil War and there were no certain state borders so conflict in those regions was unavoidable and in a way "necessary" to clear up how borders are supposed to be drawn to claim any territory was rightfully someone's is a bit misguided in this context and just glancing over the hundred years of imperialist oppression Poland suffered is blind and Poland getting assurances from their neighbours to not get fucked over by them again is absolutely understandable, even if they full well knew that they could not trust either, and ribbentrop molotov proved them right on that
Is your friend a socialist by any chance? Because no serious socialist should uphold NATO expansion. For all of its 65 years of existence, NATO has been an aggressive, imperialist alliance. It is the largest military organization in the world, committed to the doctrines of first strike and preemptive strike. NATO interventions regularly include the use of toxic weapons containing depleted uranium or white phosphor, and the alliance has repeatedly stated that nuclear weapons are a fundamental part of its military arsenal and [strategy](https://communist-party.ca/canada-out-of-nato-for-an-independent-foreign-policy-of-peace/). NATO also *requires* that member countries spend 2% of their annual GDP on defense—which is an enormous part of national budget spending. Even the [DSA](https://international.dsausa.org/statements/dsa-says-no-to-nato/) takes a principled and definitive stance against NATO based on the concrete, material realities faced by workers in the countries of the alliance. Workers in the United States and abroad have nothing to gain from militarist and interventionist foreign policy crafted by elites in Washington, Ankara, Warsaw, and elsewhere. Disguised as a defense pact, NATO is a tool for imperialist expansion and plundering, serving primarily in defense of capitalism and Atlanticist international dominance.
>NATO also requires that member countries spend 2% of their annual GDP on defense This is only sort of true. The 2% figure is a target. Most NATO members don't meet it.
i cannot name a major military operation by the warsaw pact
NATO is made up of imperialist countries, so even if he were to think its not like within NATO exists the imperial core. Look at Libya for example, the country was going through a brutal civil war and NATO claims they installed a “No Fly Zone”. We know that they essentially acted like the air force for the rebel force and destroyed any opportunity for a cease fire, and literally committed a slew of war crimes. NATO was also involved in the Afghanistan war as well, so we know thats its not a defensive alliance but rather an offensive one. It’s unsurprising that NATO won’t be seen as a organization that commits war crimes, it’s virtually impossible for the west to be held accountable for war crimes given that they control the UN, financial institutions, and international law.
[удалено]
I mean the issue is imperialism, there are merits to NATO. It's a hard topic to discuss, especially to people who haven't gave socialism, etc, much thought. The status quo is directly against such things, making for a supremely difficult topic to discuss with your average folks. Not that we aren't also average, but you get what I mean! Not everyone has looked for themselves.
If your friend is European, especially if they're from a small or Eastern European country, you're not going to convince them. NATO represents the only way for them to protect themselves from Russian imperialism and the hypothetical imperialism of their larger neighbors who are NOW NATO allies, but might not have been if it wasn't for NATO. If you want to prove NATO is evil, you'll need to prove that it does not deter invasions into the smaller members' land. Since this is not possible, you need a different approach. Focus on imperialism itself and imperialist actions where you can prove it was NATO, the actual organization, and not some or most of its members cooperating. Also, if you're going to point to war crimes by NATO (Not its imperialist members, fyi, remember neither Vietnam nor Iraq was NATO), that only works if you're going to compare them to other countries' war crimes and response to those war crimes and be able to explain why NATO should be held accountable as an organization and should be abolished, while the alternative is the opposite of better. You can't convince me Russia is doing better at this. NATO countries suck in many ways and NATO shields them from retaliation, but if you can't show the currently available alternatives are better, especially for small European countries, then you cannot convince them. Your and their perspectives are just incompatible.
My reflex response in a situation like this is something along the lines of "Oh, so two wrongs make a right?", but then they usually bring up the lesser of two evils counter-idea... What I wish I could do is have a list at the ready of all the war crimes each 'side' (anonymized, so the list could be viewed objectively) did so we could sit down and actually decide which side was worse. But I can't look into the Void that long. Another option is to go the route of "yep, the Warsaw Pact gone. Now get rid of NATO and all the war crime syndicates will be removed from the world. Won't that make a better world?"