• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

What tendency/ideology do you best align with?

  • Anarchism

    Votes: 125 12.0%
  • Marxism

    Votes: 86 8.2%
  • Marxism-Leninism

    Votes: 79 7.6%
  • Left Communism

    Votes: 19 1.8%
  • Democratic Socialism

    Votes: 423 40.6%
  • Social Democracy

    Votes: 238 22.8%
  • Other

    Votes: 73 7.0%

  • Total voters
    1,043

Scottt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,208
You can't do those style of protests in the US. You really can't, you'll catch years in federal prison for property damage if you try those tactics.
That if you don't get executed by cops before that.

I was thinking rolling blockades rather than occupations, that with coordinated communications maybe they would be useful to disrupt traffic or police presence enough to help protesters on the ground. Say a few cars block an intersection for a minute or clog lanes to slow police vehicles, then roll on to safety or the next useful spot.

Or a silly version would be to get twenty cars or so to clog a border crossing because they're all carrying a ton of cold cuts and dairy products.
 

Chikor

Banned
Oct 26, 2017
14,239
I was thinking rolling blockades rather than occupations, that with coordinated communications maybe they would be useful to disrupt traffic or police presence enough to help protesters on the ground. Say a few cars block an intersection for a minute or clog lanes to slow police vehicles, then roll on to safety or the next useful spot.

Or a silly version would be to get twenty cars or so to clog a border crossing because they're all carrying a ton of cold cuts and dairy products.
I don't think there is much to learn from protests like the truckers in Canada, they have the support of cops, rich people, large chunks of the media and a lot of politicians.

You will never have any of those things.
 

Anton Sugar

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,946
Part of the problem is the police/state's reaction is very discretionary and there's very little accountability.

theintercept.com

Exclusive: NYPD Took Hours to Respond to Mass Looting, Despite Quickly Cracking Down on Protests

Exclusive: Internal city documents outline how the NYPD dealt swiftly with BLM protests but moved slowly to contain and address full-scale looting.

Also see: police preparation for/response to BLM protests at the capitol vs Jan 6 riots.

Ending qualified immunity would also help, although I seriously doubt it would stop violent response from police. The idea of a leftist/protest convoy is sick but in reality, I think everyone would end up dead.
 

Don Fluffles

Member
Oct 28, 2017
7,052
I'd like to see future socialist activism incorporate vehicles into protests like the fascist convoys are doing now. It will be a useful strategy to control protest spaces and police movement. Combining that with the Hong Kong protest tactics would be powerful.

Worth finding good strategies and good lawyers to back you up.
 

Anton Sugar

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,946
There was a thread about how the neo-nazis in Ukraine are getting funding to "potentially" help fight Russians and some are saying "we gotta do what we gotta do". jesus christ.
I got a two week ban for "trolling" in the big Ukraine thread by asking similar questions ("is anyone worried about possibly funding neo-nazis?" basically).

I thought there might be a better chance for discussion outside of the rampant neocons/left-hating in there, but alas.
 
Oct 25, 2017
7,294
new jersey
I got a two week ban for "trolling" in the big Ukraine thread by asking similar questions ("is anyone worried about possibly funding neo-nazis?" basically).

I thought there might be a better chance for discussion outside of the rampant neocons/left-hating in there, but alas.
I got banned for two weeks for trolling too, lol. I asked why NATO is still a thing even though there's no more USSR. Everyone jumped on me and got even accused as a russian bot. It's so weird seeing a forum like Era be more open-minded towards social stuff but suddenly become a mouthpiece of the US State Department in an instant.

I'd personally rather not fund neo-nazis.
 
Last edited:

Temascos

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,493
Been so disappointed in subreddits I used to go on a lot toadying up to Putin/Russia BS regarding Ukraine. Let the country run it's own affairs and don't fucking threaten an invasion for years on end. Seeing people I once respected do some both sides BS when it's not their country about to be invaded (And actually has been since 2014 if you count Crimea) made me feel ill. Between r/greenandpleasant and r/antiwork implode over stupid decisions and arrogance actually pissed me off.

Maybe it's my fault for being emotionally invested in those boards, and it'll be better to focus my attention to things I can actually do, but that's as long as I can actually figure out what that is. It's hard as a lot of potential groups seem to want me to sign up onto Facebook which I am not going to do.
 

Deleted member 34725

User-requested account closure
Banned
Nov 28, 2017
1,058
The many people who were claiming "Russia is 100% invading!!!" in the Ukraine thread will slowly pivot to "Yay!! The U.S. and NATO defeated Russia!!"
 
Jun 20, 2019
2,638
An interior point of view of Russian circumstances from a leftward author and a Muscovite:

“We are in a worse situation than during the Cold War” - International Viewpoint - online socialist magazine

“But people are increasingly worried. […] Recent opinion polls, however, show that at least 60% of the population fears the possibility of armed conflict, and that this fear is stronger than health concerns related to the pandemic. ”

I do not know the author well but I found his comments provoking and informative regarding the Russian establishment's domestic-facing outward stance and plausible inward deliberations on Ukraine, relations with the West and the US in particular, and the conduct of the campaign against Ukraine's government so far. Please take time to read it if you have interest in the situation in Eastern Europe or Russia.
 

Sibylus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,728
An interior point of view of Russian circumstances from a leftward author and a Muscovite:

“We are in a worse situation than during the Cold War” - International Viewpoint - online socialist magazine

“But people are increasingly worried. […] Recent opinion polls, however, show that at least 60% of the population fears the possibility of armed conflict, and that this fear is stronger than health concerns related to the pandemic. ”

I do not know the author well but I found his comments provoking and informative regarding the Russian establishment's domestic-facing outward stance and plausible inward deliberations on Ukraine, relations with the West and the US in particular, and the conduct of the campaign against Ukraine's government so far. Please take time to read it if you have interest in the situation in Eastern Europe or Russia.
It's a good interview with a lot of food for thought. As marginal and divided as the left is in America, everything I've heard of the political landscape sounds downright bleak in Russia. Internationalism certainly has to be the way forward.
 

Toxi

The Fallen
Oct 27, 2017
17,546
An interior point of view of Russian circumstances from a leftward author and a Muscovite:

“We are in a worse situation than during the Cold War” - International Viewpoint - online socialist magazine

“But people are increasingly worried. […] Recent opinion polls, however, show that at least 60% of the population fears the possibility of armed conflict, and that this fear is stronger than health concerns related to the pandemic. ”

I do not know the author well but I found his comments provoking and informative regarding the Russian establishment's domestic-facing outward stance and plausible inward deliberations on Ukraine, relations with the West and the US in particular, and the conduct of the campaign against Ukraine's government so far. Please take time to read it if you have interest in the situation in Eastern Europe or Russia.
Thanks for posting this.

This has been a rough time for me and the way people online have talked about the people in Russia and Ukraine (including on this forum, and yes, in this thread) hasn't helped.
 

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,094
The impetus to troll a community thread where 70-80% of the users are permabanned is a weird one, not gonna lie.
 

Sibylus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,728
The impetus to troll a community thread where 70-80% of the users are permabanned is a weird one, not gonna lie.
Not weird to me, just an easy outlet for petty beef and stress besides. And as much as I can understand wanting to balm the knowledge of coming war horrors with something lighter, lording your fantasy footwar points over other people isn't it.
 

Serpens007

Well, Tosca isn't for everyone
Moderator
Oct 31, 2017
8,119
Chile
I also didn't think an invasion would happen. Not that it was impossible, I'm not really shocked at it happening in the end, but I saw it as Putin bluffing trying to get NATO to concede some points.

I was wrong, I imagine many of us here are realizing that. I would happily eat crow in other instances, but this is one I really wanted to be right about. People will suffer. Poor people will suffer. The rich folks will safely run away.
 

Scottt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,208
I also didn't think an invasion would happen. Not that it was impossible, I'm not really shocked at it happening in the end, but I saw it as Putin bluffing trying to get NATO to concede some points.

I was wrong, I imagine many of us here are realizing that. I would happily eat crow in other instances, but this is one I really wanted to be right about. People will suffer. Poor people will suffer. The rich folks will safely run away.

I've been feeling similarly. I had initially been thinking about this in terms of existing international power structures that Russian imperialism would have to abide. That felt like a fairly reasoned expectation. It seemed separate from the impending global crises we worry about since this invasion is an "old" form of imperialist violence, but I'm quickly feeling mistaken about imagining a separation between future crises and current crises. I don't know if that makes sense, I still haven't figured it out.
 

Deleted member 34725

User-requested account closure
Banned
Nov 28, 2017
1,058
Quite possibly the dumbest posts in the history of this forum.
I definitely should have qualified with "If". Sadly tensions have continued to build and it looks increasingly likely that Putin will try to Annex part of Ukraine.

I wish it were possible to have a more nuanced discussion in the Ukrain thread about what is happening, but that's not possible. Skepticism of NATO, U.S. Imperialist interests, and criticizing the arming of Nazi elements leads to an instant ban and accusations of being a Russian bot.

Meanwhile, sharing the most hawkish tweets out there and even conspiracy weirdos like Lev Parnes is permitted.

Hoping for the best for Ukrainians and that diplomacy still has a chance.
 

phazedplasma

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
1,855

"My pink socialism became red as a wound": Impossible interview from Ukraine​

lefteast.org

“My pink socialism became red as a wound”: Impossible interview from Ukraine - Lefteast

In 2000s Ukraine, Anatoli Ulyanov co-made online media dedicated to art, culture, and politics, and became recognized for his provocative writing style. After a series of violent attacks from the government-hired right-wing mercenaries, in 2009 Anatoli and his partner Natasha Masharova were...

Great interview about Ukraine not necessarily pertaining to the conflict but dealing with a lot of the history of capitalism in Ukraine, and its relationship to Russian and American imperialism.

I also believe a lot of us wanted to have these kinds of conversation elsewhere on this site but this is probably the better place for it.

Lots of relatable points for me and maybe a bunch of us who were radicalized over the last 2 administrations.
 

Sibylus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,728
Though you hardly need more practical examples of the self-destructive capacity of nationalism and militarism, look no further than what the Russian ruling class is accomplishing in Ukraine (since at least 2014 in the responses to Maidan). Whatever their ultimate military high water mark in the coming days and weeks, they're rapidly losing the people for generations and sharpening, rather than squelching an increasingly defiant Ukrainian nationhood. Starker still, days removed from Putin lambasting nationalism as a virus. Is he himself sick to the death with it?
 

Lidl

Member
Dec 12, 2017
2,568
User banned (1 week): antagonizing other users
Sibylus has been able to discuss nuance in these threads without getting banned. If you can't read the room / don't have an ounce of emotional intelligence and / or don't have a deeper understanding of the issue, don't discuss the topic, period. To flee into this thread and cry & complain is cowardly.

When faux opposition RU communist MPs speak up against the war then you know that something is wrong with said war.



When the authorities are arresting anti war protesters while pro war, pro monarchy nationalists can freely demonstrate you surely must begin to shed your weird nostalgia for (Soviet) Russia.

And if you're still unable to, listen to this and understand that this now applies to Ukraine and Ukrainians against Russia:

 

Deleted member 34725

User-requested account closure
Banned
Nov 28, 2017
1,058
Sibylus has been able to discuss nuance in these threads without getting banned. If you can't read the room / don't have an ounce of emotional intelligence and / or don't have a deeper understanding of the issue, don't discuss the topic, period. To flee into this thread and cry & complain is cowardly.

When faux opposition RU communist MPs speak up against the war then you know that something is wrong with said war.



When the authorities are arresting anti war protesters while pro war, pro monarchy nationalists can freely demonstrate you surely must begin to shed your weird nostalgia for (Soviet) Russia.

And if you're still unable to, listen to this and understand that this now applies to Ukraine and Ukrainians against Russia:


Are you implying that people in here are pro Putin and think that what he is doing is good?
 

Lidl

Member
Dec 12, 2017
2,568
Are you implying that people in here are pro Putin and think that what he is doing is good?
No, where did I imply that?
However, some were probably (if not even definitely) ok with what Putin was doing before his speech and the full scale attack. Something something, NATO made them do it. However, after his notorious speech you'd have to be lying through your teeth to pretend like it's their top priority in Ukraine.

And the constant claims of "but they're nazis" was also parroting Russian propaganda, literally what Putin is now using in his casus belli arc.
It's basically like saying "but Palestinians are Islamist fundamentalists".

Is there an English translation?
Sure:
 

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,094
However, some were probably (if not even definitely) ok with what Putin was doing before his speech and the full scale attack.
If you're gonna accuse people of this you might as well name names instead of coming in this thread to talk shit and say "some were probably thinking this." Now THAT is cowardly. Accusing socialists of being pro-Putin is an extremely oldhat and tired too.
 

Deleted member 34725

User-requested account closure
Banned
Nov 28, 2017
1,058
No, where did I imply that?

When faux opposition RU communist MPs speak up against the war then you know that something is wrong with said war.

When the authorities are arresting anti war protesters while pro war, pro monarchy nationalists can freely demonstrate you surely must begin to shed your weird nostalgia for (Soviet) Russia.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but I read these as accusations that people here think that there is nothing wrong with said war and that we are rooting for Russia in this war because of a weird nostalgia for Soviet Russia.
 

Necromanti

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,545
Whatever their ultimate military high water mark in the coming days and weeks, they're rapidly losing the people for generations and sharpening, rather than squelching an increasingly defiant Ukrainian nationhood. Starker still, days removed from Putin lambasting nationalism as a virus. Is he himself sick to the death with it?
Absolutely, not to mention strengthening the solidarity with its neighbors against Russia's oppression, and revitalizing the previously waning support for NATO in many European countries. And then you add in people in Putin's circles not being too pleased.
 

Sibylus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,728
Absolutely, not to mention strengthening the solidarity with its neighbors against Russia's oppression, and revitalizing the previously waning support for NATO in many European countries. And then you add in people in Putin's circles not being too pleased.
I think it supplies yet another practical example to the (big) stack of examples that imperialism can't solve imperialism, no more than bailing water to the outside of the canoe will solve the hole in the bottom. American imperialism has no more solved Russian imperialism than Russian imperialism has solved American imperialism, it's much the opposite: they've sustained and emboldened each other step by step.

Every time one is on the upswing (and they both yo-yo on the up and downswings in relation to one another), righteous anger and bellicosity wash away the bitter lessons of yesterday's war and yesterday's failures. Even if the Russian ruling class saw the American empire implausibly rupture and dissolve in the face of this crisis, they would soon see an increasingly bellicose and militaristic Europe riding the imperialistic upswing and moving to fill the void.
 

Sibylus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,728
ridl.io

Ivan Ilyin: A Fashionable Fascist – Riddle Russia

By approving of Ivan Ilyin’s philosophy, the Russian state is effectively sugar coating a holder of bitterly fascist views
It is about more than just quotes here and there. Ilyin's books were recommended as a must read by two of the Kremlin's "grey cardinals" – Vladislav Surkov and Vyacheslav Volodin. Mikhael Zygar, in his book "All the Kremlin's Men," claims that it was precisely these works of Ilyin that influenced Putin's definition of traditional Russian values. We could argue for a long time whether this means that he is just one of the "approved Kremlin philosophers," or something much bigger, but I would like point out something simpler to prove: Ilyin — who the state has been promoting for the last 15 years as a genuine Russian philosopher, exemplary statist and true Russian patriot — is a very dubious historical figure to draw inspiration from, even an inappropriate person just to quote. He was a proponent of fascist ideology; a trait he did not renounce even after the end of the Second World War.
To get around this awkwardness, Ilyin's works tend to be divided into two categories. The first one is made up of his works on Russian statehood and spirituality, which are considered respectable and worthy of quoting by the head of the state and others. The second category: dubious texts about fascism that Putin does not quote, so can be ignored. No such divide, in essence, exists between these categories, only that he is just being more explicit in the second category. Ilyin is in fact quite consistent; his ideas of spirituality and the Russian state are closely linked to his positive views of the regimes of Hitler, Mussolini, Salazar and Franco.

Even after the war, in 1948 in his article "About fascism" Ilyin writes: "Fascism is a complex, multifaceted and historically speaking by far not a used up phenomena. It has the healthy and the sick, old and new, state-conservative and destructive features. That is why in assessing it we need to be calm and just". In this piece Ilyin is enumerating the mistakes that Hitler and Mussolini made and finishes with a warning to his future followers: "Franco and Salazar understood this and are trying to avoid these mistakes. They don't call their regimes "fascist". Let's hope that Russian patriots will reflect upon the mistakes of fascism and national-socialism in full and will not repeat them". This article is part of the collection known as "Our tasks" – quotes from where feature Putin's public speeches.
Despite all the horrors of war, Holocaust and unseen destruction of Europe, Ivan Ilyin did not reject the ideas of fascism but immediately proposed how to make it better, by avoiding several mistakes his contemporaries made. This is something you can get convicted with in today's Russia under the "Article 354.1 Criminal code of the Russian Federation. Rehabilitation of Nazism". The very fact that the rulers of Russia, the Duma, the Church and the TV are cleansing the image of Ilyin, legitimizing him as a true Russian philosopher cannot but cause total rejection and resentment. Moreover in a country where its people are proud of "defeating fascism", cherishing Ilyin is a tragic irony.

Passing along an interesting 2018 article I saw shared about one of the Russian leadership's favorite pet philosophers: a man they cannot fully embrace because his sympathy and justification for fascism were quite naked, but whose work is nonetheless mined for pearls in a seeming effort to synthesize a chimera of new national ideology.
 

Keasar

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
5,724
Umeå, Sweden
User banned (permanent): Downplaying the genocide of Kosovo Albanians in Serbia, a long history of inflammatory commentary
My ban is over but I feel no compulsion to post here anymore, if anything I just feel done with this place. The neoliberals have won and their message runs rampant all over the place. To somehow try and point out the underlying reasons for things happen in a dialectical analysis of the world situation just gets you branded as a "Russian shill" or Putin supporter. There has been a massive fucking campaign of painting all leftists here as supporters of Russia because "We hate the US. imperialism and therefore must love the Russian imperialism" which is some of the fucking dumbest takes I have seen in a while.

Back 2 weeks ago I too made the assumption that the most likely scenario was that Putin wouldn't authorize an attack, cause the deck would be stacked against the Russian military and the assumption was that, maybe, he would think rationally about things. Turns out he didn't. I will eat that crow. I still stand though by analysis of that day still cause what we are seeing now is the Russian invasion grinding to a halt exactly because of the reasons I then pointed out: the world would turn against Russia and the Ukrainian people would take arms against an invader (polls telling 63% of the Ukrainian people ready to defend their country, give or take a chunk of that of anyone saying things and then still fleeing and you still got a hell of a civilian guerilla to deal with).

I will still curse this "defensive" alliance of NATO that is a major cause of Putins rise to power and Russias alienation from the rest of the world. I found this quote from a 1998 interview to be quite telling of what the fuck went wrong with NATO still expanding when it's primary enemy, the Soviet Union, had fallen.
On May 2, 1998, immediately after the Senate ratified NATO expansion, I called George Kennan, the architect of America's successful containment of the Soviet Union. Having joined the State Department in 1926 and served as U.S. ambassador to Moscow in 1952, Kennan was arguably America's greatest expert on Russia. Though 94 at the time and frail of voice, he was sharp of mind when I asked for his opinion of NATO expansion. I am going to share Kennan's whole answer:

"I think it is the beginning of a new cold war. I think the Russians will gradually react quite adversely and it will affect their policies. I think it is a tragic mistake. There was no reason for this whatsoever. No one was threatening anybody else. This expansion would make the founding fathers of this country turn over in their graves. "We have signed up to protect a whole series of countries, even though we have neither the resources nor the intention to do so in any serious way. [NATO expansion] was simply a lighthearted action by a Senate that has no real interest in foreign affairs. What bothers me is how superficial and ill informed the whole Senate debate was. I was particularly bothered by the references to Russia as a country dying to attack Western Europe.

"Don't people understand? Our differences in the Cold War were with the Soviet Communist regime. And now we are turning our backs on the very people who mounted the greatest bloodless revolution in history to remove that Soviet regime. And Russia's democracy is as far advanced, if not farther, as any of these countries we've just signed up to defend from Russia. Of course there is going to be a bad reaction from Russia, and then [the NATO expanders] will say that we always told you that is how the Russians are — but this is just wrong."

It's EXACTLY what has happened.
https://www.nytimes.com/2022/02/21/opinion/putin-ukraine-nato.html

And now my country of Sweden is considering to join this bullshit. It's a clusterfuck of stupidity and fuck Putin, that stupid, demented piece of autocratic shit, for driving people into the arms of another imperialist power. For NATO doesn't exist as just a sole "defensive alliance" where we might be called upon to rush off to defend another member, it is a military pressure that America suddenly can put on it's members. America remains the main controller of the alliance and can enforce rules and regulations onto it's members, how much to spend, what to buy, where to go etc. etc. etc. During the war of Serbia NATO participated, for some reason, as an aggressor and conducted a massive bombing campaign. There was no member state there, there was no defensive strategy being involved. Suddenly NATO members had to participate in a war that costs thousands upon thousands of civilian lives. Same with Libya. NATO suddenly dragged into a war as the aggressor, not defensively, to remove Gaddafi. I don't want people to be part of that.

I am gonna post the statement of my fellow Russian comrades of the IMT, and then take a fucking break from this place.
The following is a statement by Russian comrades of the International Marxist Tendency, denouncing the invasion of Ukraine that began in the early hours of today. Against military intervention! Against chauvinism! No war between the peoples, no peace between the classes! Read the original in Russian here. Also, this statement should be read in conjunction with the previous one by our Russian comrades, and the latest analysis by marxist.com editor Alan Woods.


In the early morning of 24 February, the Russian army launched a military operation against Ukraine, inflicting airstrikes on military units, air defence systems and ammunition depots. In a video message to the nation, Russian President Vladimir Putin justified the operation by citing an appeal from the people's republics of the Donbas requesting military protection. He said that the objective of the operation is not the occupation of Ukraine, but its demilitarisation and denazification. He called on the servicemen of the Armed Forces of Ukraine to lay down their arms and not obey the "anti-people junta that is robbing the people."

In our previous articles, we, the International Marxist Tendency (IMT), assessed the likelihood of a direct military clash between Russia and Ukraine as extremely small. This was due to the fact that our analysis focused on the interests of Russian imperialism, its capabilities and past behaviour. A full-scale war in Ukraine was then seen as an extremely dangerous adventure for the Putin regime with an uncertain outcome, which would be accompanied by enormous costs for Russia. The situation, however, consistently developed from bad to worse, and eventually spiralled towards this catastrophic scenario. Putin chose the adventure, apparently counting on the Ukrainian state to crumble under his first blows, after which it would only be necessary to carry out a blitzkrieg and put a new loyal government in power. As with the recognition of the people's republics, one cannot speak of a "last-minute decision based on the circumstances", because the video message about the start of the operation, as it turned out, was recorded on 21 February.

A significant part of Russian society and the Russian left justified both the recognition of the republics and the entry of Russian troops into the territory of Ukraine by saying that this would stop the shelling of the Donbas and end the eight-year-long hell of bombing for millions of people. This contained a certain amount of truth, although in our previous statement we stressed the negative consequences of the recognition of independence, condemning both recognition and intervention. But now that the missiles have flown into Ukraine, it will not be possible to talk about bringing in troops for the sake of "ending the war".

It is hard to find anything more hypocritical than the statements issued by Putin and other Russian officials about 'denazification'. Contrary to their rhetorical appeal to the memory of the Great Patriotic War of 1941-1945, and the sacrifices of the Soviet people in the fight against Nazism, the historical model of the Putin regime is not the Soviet Union. Rather, Putin's model is the Russian Empire, as he has directly and repeatedly explained. His long speech on 21 February regarding the introduction of troops into the LPR (Luhansk People's Republic) and DPR (Donetsk People's Republic) was emphatically anti-communist. It was based on the stance of Russian chauvinism, and not Soviet internationalism. In Russia, Nazi collaborators are also regularly honoured, although by no means on the same scale as in Ukraine. The White movement is glorified and communists are persecuted, including functionaries of the Communist Party. The communist parties in the people's republics of Donbas still operate illegally. The policy of the Russian authorities is one of national chauvinism, anti-communism, anti-democracy and the robbery of the workers. Under such conditions, only extremely naive people can perceive Russia as an 'anti-fascist' force.

Even if Putin's blitzkrieg succeeds and the existing government of Ukraine is dispersed, whatever it is replaced with by force of Russian bayonets will be just as reactionary, only with a different colouration. It cannot be otherwise. We only need to consider the forces that the Russian regime has nurtured in Donbas for the past eight years; how it has killed objectionable field commanders; and the motivations that have guided Ukrainian politicians in the same period. Given the curtailment of bourgeois democracy in Russia itself, one cannot expect that Putin will contribute to its construction in Ukraine. We will not see 'denazification', but 'nazification' under another flag.

War is the most difficult subject to analyse. Of course, we cannot predict the outcome of a military operation. But despite the huge material and technological superiority of the Russian Army over the Armed Forces of Ukraine, there is a chance that the Ukrainian army and state will not simply be defeated within a couple of days. Under those circumstances, the most nightmarish scenario for the working people of Russia and Ukraine will come to life: a protracted, bloody slaughterhouse, in which the workers are the livestock. But regardless of the outcome of the war, Ukrainian and Russian chauvinism will rise to new heights and a deep wound will have been inflicted on the relations between Ukrainian and Russian working people that will last for many decades to come. Therefore, the struggle for the reconciliation of peoples, the fierce struggle against chauvinism of all stripes, is the duty and urgent task of communist internationalists today.

The most important task of honest Russian communists is to directly oppose Russia's military intervention. The sanctioning of this operation under the pretext of "protecting the Russian population", "fighting against Nazism", and so on is a direct betrayal of the principles of internationalism. The position of the leadership of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation, which formally offered Putin their recognition of the people's republics of the Donbas, and then approved the introduction of troops and the military operation, has caused the greatest harm in this respect. It is noteworthy that this is happening at the very moment when members of the Communist Party itself, from Moscow to Vladivostok, are facing repression. We believe that consistent communists in the ranks of this party should strongly protest against the fact that the leadership has not only capitulated to Russian chauvinism, but is leading its procession. The time has come for all loyal communists to remember the lessons of the collapse of the Second International; to remember Lenin's struggle against the social chauvinists and the principles on which the Communist International was founded!

We call on all communists in Ukraine, Russia and Donbas to oppose the war. We urge the military personnel of the Russian Federation not to carry out criminal orders. We call for the fight against chauvinism of all stripes – for the international brotherhood of peoples.

AGAINST MILITARY INTERVENTION!

AGAINST RUSSIAN IMPERIALISM!

AGAINST CHAUVINISM OF ALL KINDS!

NO WAR BETWEEN PEOPLES! NO PEACE BETWEEN CLASSES!

No to war with Ukraine! Against Russian military intervention! | Ukraine | Europe

The following is a statement by Russian comrades of the International Marxist Tendency, denouncing the invasion of Ukraine that began in the early hours of today

No war between peoples, no peace between classes indeed comrades.

Stay safe out there everyone and don't stop fighting for a world where we, the proletariat, and not the fucking political and economical elite finally control our lives and fates.
 
Last edited:
Jun 20, 2019
2,638
I had thought to check whether Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Žižek had commented on the war on Ukraine as his life experience, community and intellectual projects intersect with Ukraine, Russia, Europe, and broader imperialism in clear ways. As it so happens he has a newly published essay in Project Syndicate on the war and European chauvinism.

www.project-syndicate.org

What Does Defending Europe Mean? | by Slavoj Žižek - Project Syndicate

Slavoj Žižek argues that the welcome given to Ukrainian refugees has once again exposed an ugly truth.

LJUBLJANA – After the Russian attack on Ukraine, the Slovene government immediately proclaimedits readiness to receive thousands of Ukrainian refugees. As a Slovene citizen, I was not only proud but also ashamed.

After all, when Afghanistan fell to the Taliban six months ago, this same government refused to accept Afghan refugees, arguing that they should stay in their country and fight. And a couple of months ago, when thousands of refugees – mostly Iraqi Kurds – tried to enter Poland from Belarus, the Slovene government, claiming that Europe was under attack, offered military aid to support Poland's vile effort to keep them out.

Throughout the region, two species of refugee have emerged. A tweet by the Slovene government on February 25 clarified the distinction: "The refugees from Ukraine are coming from an environment which is in its cultural, religious, and historical sense something totally different from the environment out of which refugees from Afghanistan are coming." After an outcry, the tweet was quickly deleted, but the obscene truth was out: Europe must defend itself from non-Europe.
Cut right to the chase, Žižek sees the difference in hospitality toward Ukrainian and Afghan refugees as signifying a problem in the formative inner image of Europe itself. Later he directly calls this accounting of worthiness 'neo-colonialism' that must be 'relentlessly uprooted'. Because Europe insists on standing apart and above the rest of the world the attempt to divide loyalties into us-vs-them 'Western "liberal" sphere and a Russian "Eurasian" sphere' sounds preposterous anywhere outside Europe and European-dominated spaces. For example, where does a Latin American observer fit in this framework? They wouldn't be elevated to 'worthy victim' status like white, Christian Ukrainians have been, but they have no clear alignment with Russia either. The 'free West' undermines its claims of moral authority or common interest with the majority of the world when it expresses these neo-colonial priors.

What should worry us now is that the radicalization we see, most clearly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, is not just rhetorical. Many on the liberal left, convinced that both sides knew they could not afford a full-on war, thought Putin was bluffing when he massed troops at Ukraine's borders. Even when Putin described Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky's government as a "gang of drug addicts and neo-Nazis," most expected that Russia would just occupy the two breakaway "people's republics" controlled by Kremlin-backed Russian separatists or, at most, extend the occupation to eastern Ukraine's entire Donbas region.
Here we turn from European chauvinism to Russian imperial aspirations. When Žižek says
And now some who call themselves leftists (I wouldn't) are blaming the West for the fact that US President Joe Biden was right about Putin's intentions. The argument is well-known: NATO was slowly encirclingRussia, fomenting color revolutions in its near-abroad, and ignoring the reasonable fears of a country that had been attacked from the West in the last century.

There is, of course, an element of truth here. But saying only this is equivalent to justifying Hitler by blaming the unjust Treaty of Versailles. Worse, it concedes that big powers have the right to spheres of influence, to which all others must submit for the sake of global stability. Putin's assumption that international relations is a contest of great powers is reflected in his repeated claim that he had no choice but to intervene militarily in Ukraine.
He furiously rebukes leftists who refuse to make the turn to address Putin's violent break with the very underpinnings of peaceful coexistence between countries. This one stings a bit for someone like me who believed warnings of imminent war were unnecessary fear mongering, who believed in fact that diplomacy along lines of mutual recognition of sovereignty would keep war a less likely outcome. Nope. Russian international doctrine here and now have deformed to become self-serving, specially pleading and universally antagonistic. In other words, it is has imperial aspirations.

Should we leftists still have something to say about NATO and such in context of this conflict? I think there is good cause to talk about it where it's useful: for example, when observing the new urgency in Sweden and Finland to join the treaty alliance it is necessary to make the case that NATO brings harms as well as benefits to the countries within it and without it. But with regards to Russia and Ukraine we cannot express solidarity with the vulnerable and oppressed people there if we uncritically take up Putin's grievances about NATO expansion.

Also, I can't pass up this short phrase: 'What should worry us now is that the radicalization we see, most clearly with Russian President Vladimir Putin, is not just rhetorical.' From Žižek I wouldn't have expected anything to be just rhetorical. Žižek has built has intellectual work around extending and elevating Lacan's psychoanalysis for deploying non-discursive rhetoric. He has written a book on Hegel (well, it's supposed to be about Hegel, he meanders) arguing that Hegelian dialectics as rhetoric are necessary pre-conditions to the development of much of contemporary philosophy. So how can rhetoric be waved away?

Perhaps this can happen when rhetoric crashes against the unintegrated elements of the Lacanian 'real'. Stories about NATO promises and dead Russian generals lose their power against reports of shelling and rolling tanks. We must bring aboard the now-visible reality of Russian militant ambitions in our thinking or risk floating away from material groundedness, a place that many leftists build upon to find paths to make a better world, into pure ideology.
 

Scottt

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,208
I think I've revealed myself as a not-super-into-Zizek person in the past, but I find his last statements in that article to be provocative and worth thinking about:

With reference to Putin's assertion of multiple "truths":
The "Russian truth" is only a convenient myth to justify Putin's imperial vision, and the best way for Europe to counter it is to build bridges to developing and emerging countries, many of which have a long list of justified grievances against Western colonization and exploitation. It's not enough to "defend Europe." The true task is to persuade other countries that the West can offer them better choices than Russia or China can. And the only way to achieve that is to change ourselves by ruthlessly uprooting neo-colonialism, even when it comes packaged as humanitarian help.

Are we ready to prove that in defending Europe, we are fighting for freedom everywhere? Our disgraceful refusal to treat refugees equally sends the world a very different message.

I'm sitting with this for a bit. But my first impression is that Zizek's imperative suggests a way through the multifaceted conflicts between the material histories of NATO, Europe, and Russia and the material present of military invasion, moral justification, and imperialism.
 

Mekanos

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 17, 2018
44,094
Should we leftists still have something to say about NATO and such in context of this conflict? I think there is good cause to talk about it where it's useful: for example, when observing the new urgency in Sweden and Finland to join the treaty alliance it is necessary to make the case that NATO brings harms as well as benefits to the countries within it and without it. But with regards to Russia and Ukraine we cannot express solidarity with the vulnerable and oppressed people there if we uncritically take up Putin's grievances about NATO expansion.
Really gotta say I disagree with this, there are many examples of bludgeoning the left with "now is not the time" and the current media onslaught is about painting the anti-war left as tankies who actually secretly support Russia.


This talking point is specifically to misrepresent and talk down to socialists and I think conceding on it is not a good idea.

On the flip side, NATO was not stupid enough to basically declare nuclear war by enforcing a no fly zone in Ukraine even though Zelensky asked for one, so I'll give them that much.
 

Anton Sugar

Banned
Oct 27, 2017
3,946
Article recommended by sphagnum (rip):

newleftreview.org

Mike Davis, Thanatos Triumphant — Sidecar

Does hegemony require a grand design?

Lots of good in there, some excerpts that resonated with me:
By all accounts, Putin, who surrounds himself with as much astrology, mysticism and perversion as the terminal Romanovs, sincerely believes that he must save the Ukrainians from being Ukrainians lest the celestial destiny of the Rus becomes impossible. The present must be smashed in order to make an imaginary past the future.

Far from the arch-strongman and master-deceiver admired by Trump, Orbán and Bolsonaro, Putin is simply ruthless, impetuous and prone to panic. The people in the streets of Kiev and Moscow who laughed away the threat until the missiles started falling, were naive only in expecting that no rational leader would sacrifice the 21st-century Russian economy to raise a faux double-eagle over the Dnieper.

Meanwhile the White House seems to have almost casually chucked its weak commitment to progressivism into the trash. A week after the most frightening report in history, one that implied the coming decimation of poor humanity, climate change rated nary a mention in the State of the Union. (How could it compare to the transcendental urgency of rebuilding NATO?) And Trayvon Martin and George Floyd are now just roadkill rapidly vanishing from sight in the rear-view mirror of the presidential limousine as Biden rushes around reassuring the cops that he's their best friend.

But this is not simply a betrayal: the US Left bears its own share of responsibility for the dismal outcome. Almost none of the energies generated by Occupy, BLM and the Sanders campaigns were channelled into rethinking global issues and framing a renewed politics of solidarity. Equally there has been no generational replenishment of the radical mindpower (I.F. Stone, Isaac Deutscher, William Appleman Williams, D.F. Fleming, John Gerassi, Gabriel Kolko, Noam Chomsky… to name just a few) that was once focused laser-like on US foreign policy.

It also may be the case that our rulers are blind because they lack the penetrating eyesight of revolution, bourgeois or proletarian. A revolutionary era may dress itself in costumes of the past (as Marx articulates in The Eighteenth Brumaire), but it defines itself by recognizing the possibilities for societal reorganization arising from new forces of technology and economics. In the absence of external revolutionary consciousness and the threat of insurrection, old orders do not produce their own (counter-)visionaries.
 

leder

Member
Oct 25, 2017
7,111
Been slowly reading through David Graeber's final book, "The Dawn of Everything". It challenges accepted dogma and common myths about the possibilities of social structures and the inevitability of status based, hypercompetitive societies. A friend linked me this review that touches on some of the main themes (and points out some of the work's shortcomings from a Marxist perspective):


This is combined with a polemic against the popular understanding of human social development, what the authors call the "evolutionary" approach.

The evolutionary understanding of history should be familiar. It says that the freedoms of "primitive" societies, those like the native North Americans, are no longer possible due to the social complexity introduced by urban life and the agricultural revolution. Because of greater population density and regular surplus created by permanent agriculture, we got bureaucratic states, private property and a complex division of labor, or so the theory goes.

The authors counter by citing a series of hard data that disrupts this narrative. They point to cities and economically complex societies that lacked agriculture or our notions of private property. On the other hand, the authors contend, agriculture existed for extremely long periods of time without becoming the primary economic activity, and when it did, did not necessarily lead to class societies, private property or the state. In contrast, the authors present the following counterclaims: peoples of free societies could consciously choose their political and social arrangements, and the state has no origin, having no necessary material trigger.

All this is wrapped into a new anthropological framework that Graeber and Wengrow have developed as an alternative to the evolutionary model. This framework centers around three categories of domination: domination via control of violence, control of information and individual charisma. The counterpart to these categories of domination are the three categories of primordial freedom: freedom of movement, freedom to disobey, and freedom to change your social relations. In free societies, what Marx called primitive communism, there was general freedom to leave, a freedom which itself supported the freedom to disobey any kind of serious authority. These societies were characterized by a high degree of mutual aid and sharing of resources as the basis for economic coordination, and many had seasonal changes in social organization or regular festivals where social relations became inverted.

... But without this evolutionary approach and the stochastic teleology it provides, it is impossible to make much sense of a social technology which has come to dominate the globe like the state has. To even engage in the project of explaining the formation of the state is something the authors explicitly reject with their claim that there is "no origin to the state", and further declaring that such investigation is uninteresting and unimportant. They reduce the rise of the state to the rise of certain kinds of domination, which themselves are the result of the erosion of the primordial freedoms, especially the freedom of movement.

If spooks and a failure to rationally debate were really at the heart of our present malaise, then we must take our solution as a change in consciousness. Just as the greatest failures in psychoanalysis, quack scientists, religious cults and irrelevant sects have argued for centuries. What separates this book from such hippy-dippy nonsense is its intellectual rigor, but notably, such rigor is not necessarily in service of its larger claims. The authors are fond of quoting Marx when he says "Men make their own history, but they do not make it as they please; they do not make it under self-selected circumstances…".6 Marx understood this attitude by going through painstaking lengths to show the material tendencies, class interests, and relations of production that set the stage for all political action. This runs counter to the post-structuralist project which seeks to disrupt any conclusions about what the effect of material tendencies economic development might be.

Thus, while perhaps a series of brilliant interventions in anthropological and archeological discourses, the popular message of the book is ultimately not very useful. But Marxists shouldn't be looking to books from anarchists or liberals as sources of easy answers, instead, they should be treated as sources of the raw materials of arguments, evidence and new ideas which can be repurposed towards our ends. The Dawn of Everything, and Graeber's entire corpus, are rich in these raw materials and are forever indispensable as a result.
 

Sibylus

Member
Oct 25, 2017
4,728
I have no political epithets in my brain that aren't 'socialism' and 'communism', but by gum I'm not going to let that stop me from applying them to every exploitative thing I can think of!

Anyway that's enough preamble, let's talk Multi-Level Marketing 🙂