Noam Chomsky

I agree about revising the western left's attitude regarding Russia -- I do see a lot of anarchists (particularly the anarcho-communism facebook page) express support for Russia in the conflict. I think, in this case, it has more to do with opposition to the right wing Ukrainian government than it has to do with love for Putin. But often, people only see the world in such clearly defined sides. We can support the people of Ukraine (and Russia) without resorting to support of their governments.

However, regarding Chomsky, I think he often speaks of states having legitimate grievances within the framework of statist rationality. I don't believe he is making a case for Russian annexation, but rather expressing how, within the logic of nation states,Russia has reason to express concern. I don't think he is stating that this logic is a good thing, but that within the established rules of the game -- in which the US and the EU are players, of course -- Russia has a case to make.

Although Chomsky often veers off into reformist rhetoric, I think his analysis is meant more for the mainstream discourse, and can be utilized as a gateway to more radical ideas. I can't help but think that he's aware of this. Sorry if I sound like a Chomsky apologist -- I respect him greatly, but there is a great deal I disagree with him on, particularly in the realm of philosophy. However, I don't think he's one of these Comintern, or comintern influenced, shills.

I agree INFEKTFM;
I think many Anarchists misunderstand Chomsky because they overlook the deliberate line he takes in confronting orthodox viewpoints on their own terms to stress the inaccuracy and falsehood they profess.
I suppose this comes from his linguistic background and attacking reactionary lines on their own ground.If he came from a libertarian angle every time those prone to an opposition view would dismiss him but when confronted with their own weaknesses which they often never question it exposes their reactionary POV.
There are many ways to attack reactionary lines and all too often we don't look at the mindsets of our enemy and the many reasons everyone adopts a specific line.
This doesn't mean we can convert Fascists or every opponent but if you can undermine them on their own ground without compromising your own principles then that has to be welcomed.

"invasion of Russian troops"....? What a ridiculous statement.

Crimea was annexed by Russia after a free and fair election. CNN and others were at the scene and their reporters as well as all independent observers stated that it was no contest, the people wanted to join Russia. They could hardly find one person voting against it, in both the people that voted and the people they talked to. The Ukrainian government made their native language Russian illegal in official documents. They are clearly doing much better after joining Russia rather than being in a warzone.

Anti-Russian sentiment is really starting to get to be a bit of a joke at this stage. Especially over the past few months/years, Putin has proven time and time again that Russia are the real leaders in world affairs except where they have allowed the US to take a dominant position due to their better economic status and threatening behaviour.

I'm sure the people on this forum are intelligent enough to realize that the main reason for the downfall of the USSR was because of US interference?

infektfm

I agree about revising the western left's attitude regarding Russia -- I do see a lot of anarchists (particularly the anarcho-communism facebook page) express support for Russia in the conflict.

tbh i doubt if they have any anarchists among their editors

Primal, wrong forum to spout that type of nonsense. People here couldn't give a lesser shit whether the Crimea was annexed or peacefully left the Ukraine. It's all fucking nationalist bollocks in different wrapping.

While I do not support Putin, talking about some "Russian aggression" in Ukraine, focusing on Russian imperialism, is a red herring that serves to cover up predatory appetites of Western rulers. It is USA and EU imperialists that supported the coup spearheaded by fascists, which put Russian speakers in Crimea and Donbass in a state of alarm (can't blame them- look at how Russian speakers are treated in glorious Baltic EU democracies), that bear chief responsibility for Ukrainian crisis. Putin is actually only defending himself after years of encirclement of Russia through various Western-sponsored "colour revolutions".

However, meerov21 was supportive of that coup, seeing Maidan as some kind of "popular", "democratic" movement, so it's not surprising they make threads like that.

As for Western leftists revisiting their attitude, living in Europe I think the problem with the left here is rather opposite, that it is hopelessly pro-EU and refuses to acknowledge that Putin is not the Hitler incarnate and that Russia is a run-of-the-mill bourgeois state. Pro-Putin tankies are ridiculous but at least they don't support "their" own bourgeois government.

As for Chomsky being an ally of Russian imperialism, I'd rather say he acts as a "radical" advisor to U.S. imperialism, believing that it could be made to really spread "freedom" and "democracy" as it claims to be doing.

meerov21

I do not discuss with red enemies who are the puppets of Russia and who denies the fact of Russian imperialism. I also don't support the Ukraine government or USA.

You seem a bit defensive? Who are you talking about anyway? As I don't think anywhere Gepetto suggested support for any faction of capitalism.

meerov21

Gepetto-"Putin is actually only defending himself after years of encirclement of Russia through various Western-sponsored "colour revolutions"."

This is a common Pro-imperialist thesis of Russian propaganda with its conspiracy theory, according to which all revolt against Pro-Russian regimes are the result of a conspiracy of the Western powers. It doesn't deserve discussion. This is the same that the theory of global Jewish conspiracy.

or you could say "This is a common Pro-imperialist thesis of EU propaganda with its conspiracy theory, according to which all revolt against Pro-EU regimes are the result of a conspiracy of the Eastern powers. It doesn't deserve discussion. This is the same that the theory of global Jewish conspiracy."

But I will ask where is Gepetto arguing a pro-Russian line?

I do not discuss with red enemies who are the puppets of Russia

Wait, Gepetto is a Russia puppet?

Sure, with a name like that, he's the puppet-master. ;-)

This is a common Pro-imperialist thesis of Russian propaganda with its conspiracy theory, according to which all revolt against Pro-Russian regimes are the result of a conspiracy of the Western powers. It doesn't deserve discussion. This is the same that the theory of global Jewish conspiracy.

Bullshit. It is a run of the mill IP analysis focusing on the breakup of old spheres of influence. Russia has always considered Easter Europe to be their backyard, and Nato has been encroaching on it for years. From an IP perspective, what Russia did made sense in terms of national self-interest. It's basically the same logic that was behind the Cuban missile crisis. And this has actually got nothing to do with any revolts, and this shit started years and years before Ukraine went the way it did.

I just said the words of Gepetto's "Putin is actually only defending himself after years of encirclement of Russia through various Western-sponsored "colour revolutions" is a classic conspiracy theory. And this is also the Central thesis of Russian propaganda. So Russian propaganda characterizes the mass uprisings in Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan against Pro-Russian dictatorships and corrupt governments as a result of Western intervention.

You do realize that it is possible for there to be both Western encirclement of Russia, for them to support uprisings and at the same time there being popular revolts against regimes. This black and white analysis you're spouting is rather trite and reveals your ideological blinders.

This is not a conspiracy theory. US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland herself said that USA have invested around 5 billion dollars since in 1991 in "democratic and prosperous" Ukraine. Various Western politicians appeared at Maidan to express support, most famously John McCain. Party of boxer and the opposition hero Vitali Klitschko, UDAR, was financed by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation, close to the ruling German CDU. Poland offered medical help to Maidan fighters and brokered the negotiations between government and opposition. Immediately toppling of Yanukovych USA sent planes to Poland, General Rasmussen assured Yatsenyuk that NATO will intensify its efforts to build Ukrainian military capacity, military exercises with Russia were cancelled and instead of that exercises called Rapid Trident were organised in Lviv- sabre-rattling against Russia stopped only when the world's attention became focused on the Islamic State. EU imperialists, for their part, offered to two ex-USSR countries, Georgia and Moldova, association agreements similar to that signed by Ukraine- undoubtedly a provocation against Russia.

As for Ukrainian putsch being a "mass uprising"- well, there are revolutionary and reactionary masses. Nazism was also a mass movement. People in Ukraine were rightly fed up with Yanukovych, but their grievances couldn't be articulated politically in Maidan, which started as a gathering of "nice" petty-bourgeois liberal democrats without social demands (but in support of the imperialist EU, admission to which would mean even more poverty for Ukrainian workers) and got took over by fascist thugs who were better organised and had more money so they could pay their people for camping at Maidan. What was needed then was not leftist entryism into Maidan but mobilisation of workers to sweep that rabble from the streets.

And annexation of Crimea was not an act of imperialist aggression. Crimea has been Russian since 1783, only in 1954 Krushchev made it part of Ukraine without regard for ethnic composition and languages used there. Most people there, rightly alarmed by coup led by Ukrainian chauvinists, supported Russian intervention, heck, even most soldiers stationed in Crimea defected to Russians. However I don't uphold the right of nations to self-determination so I don't care who gets that piece of land, but I think that communists should strive for equality of nations, which in Ukraine means federalisation and revoking chauvinist banning of Russian as a second official language.

meerov21

I also don't support the Ukraine government or USA.

So said AWU members here, which did not stop them from saying effectively that Putin is the main enemy of Ukrainian workers (what happened to "the main enemy is at home"?) and that success of Kiev's "anti-terrorist operation" (which means bloody repression, crimes committed on civilian population by fascists from Azov Battalion and using cluster munitions on housing blocs) would be a lesser evil (and it seems that one of them, certain Zadiraka, even works or used to work with the Ukraine's Ministry of Interior).

meerov21

In Ukraine, nothing threatens the Russian-speaking people.

Yeah, nothing, except that over 40 trade unionists and Russian nationalists were massacred by Ukrainian fascists in Odessa...

You clearly give the Russian bourgeoisie more clarity of through than they really have. It is perfectly compatible in its own paradoxical logic to be dependent on European and American banks and market for exports while at the same time desiring to keep old spheres of influence.

In any case, why this defensiveness? Who here has said they support Russia? None. Though it seems like you are firmly within the grip of Ukranian propaganda considering how much you feel the need to portray "their" side of the story. You say you don't care about he Ukrainian state, but the amount of pixels you spend on parroting the Western line on Russia is pretty telling.

So, is Russia imperialist according to you or is it merely an enforcer of American and EU imperialism? (the latter would be said by Sparts, who have supported Russian annexation of Crimea) Or perhaps you believe in some kind of "ultra-imperialism" a la Kautsky?

Gepetto

US Secretary of State Victoria Nuland

who?

As for Odessa- well, here in Poland, when ultra-nationalists attacked a squat during the Independence March, they also claimed that squatters had provoked them into doing that by throwing stones at them.

It's not surprising that meerov21 defends Maidan as a popular uprising and apologises for bandits from Right Sector and pogrom perpetrated by them- apparently he's the same person as Magid, another poor creature on the Eastern European "left" infected with "autonomous", ethnic nationalism. In an article he defended pogroms of Caucasian immigrants in Kondopoga as "proletarian". Meerov21 himself on libcom wrote that his comrades threaten with violence those who expose them as reactionaries that they are (and who are these comrades, you can learn here http://www.leftcom.org/en/articles/2014-03-04/the-problem-of-nationalism-and-the-gkm-group-of-communist-maximalists)

meerov21

he defended pogroms of Caucasian immigrants in Kondopoga

And this is another lie of the red. Bring the quote where I defend the attacks on Caucasians)))

http://en.internationalism.org/icconline/2007/kondopoga

In a statement published on the internet (Libcom, 24/9/06) - we don’t know whether it is the individual initiative of its author (M. Magid) or whether it reflects the official position of the organisation he belongs to (the Russian section of the anarcho-syndicalist IWA), we can find some dangerous confusions about the class nature of this movement and the perspectives it contained. The author even defines this movement as something, if not from the working class itself, then at least as useful to its struggle: “Everywhere, or almost everywhere in Russian province destruction is widespread, due to bandits of all nationalities, who are controlling local markets, companies and banks…In Kondopoga we saw an attempt of people to set up an organ of self-governance, a regular meeting of people who would make resolutions, which according to opinion of the people authorities should fulfil. But riots became nationalist ones...Is this movement ordered or initiated by fascists or local traders? No, that claim is a lie by mainstream media. It was a popular riot, of working people, which developed to a nationalistic direction, safe for authorities - partly due to events themselves, partly due to initiative of local traders”.

In the final analysis, the author institutes the means used, riots and pogroms, as valid weapons that the proletariat can use. The only regret he expresses is that it should not have simply targeted what he calls Caucasian bandits but should have widened to target Russian bandits. The most striking thing is that he takes at face value the nationalist campaigns of the Russian state which portray all Caucasians as mafiosi. At no point does it occur to him that this could be a false idea. This is clearly making concessions to the repulsive lies of the state, giving credence to the racist scapegoating of the Caucasians.

meerov21

"Crimea was annexed by Russia after a free and fair election." - ahahaha))))

1. In Russia there is no election we have nothing like this since the beginning of the 2000s. All results are falsified. To speak about honest elections in Russia it's not serious.

In the start of the 2000s there were lots of suspicions about Putin's meteoric rise and lots of serious people were saying things like that about the elections. Since then there's been confirmation after confirmation of Putin's popularity and that the elections are being carried out freely and fairly. Nobody serious is saying what you're saying about election fraud in Russia anymore, there are just a few outliers like you who don't want to leave go of the argument because you think it sounds so good. You may as well say that American elections are all rigged and all fraud. Find ANY sort of credible source to back up what you're saying about elections in Russia today. There are many people who write really, really vicious criticisms of Putin and Russia all around the world so it shouldn't be too hard if there's even a hint of suspicion.

You can talk all you like about Putin's control of the media and manipulation of the process, but claiming outright electoral fraud is another thing entirely.

meerov21

2. In addition, Crimea have been taken by Russian troops, and then they held the referendum. It was a referendum at gunpoint, where the votes were counted the people, falsifying the elections in Russia itself.

At gunpoint? Now I think you are joking man, a joke poster. It's like claiming a bank transaction was done "at gunpoint" because there were security gaurds with guns not in the vicinity but well outside the fucking building and the transaction was anonymous.

When you come up with something like "at gunpoint" does it cause a little heart flutter inside of you? That it sounds so damning and such a good rhetorical weapon to use against Putin? Try to have some dignity when you're arguing please.

meerov21

3. Next, 300 thousand Tatars of the Crimea boycotted the referendum as part of the Pro-Ukrainian population.

That's their right to do so. You can boycott any election you don't like. Of course there's always an argument that one part of a country shouldn't be allowed to secede even if they have a local majority - Venice in Italy, Catalan in Spain, Kosovo in Serbia (supported by the US and enforced), you're not doing it much justice here.

meerov21

4. In 1939 ethnic Russians were minesse half of the population of Crimea. The fact is that after the transfer of Crimea to Ukraine (1954), Khrushchev organized mass resettlement of ethnic Russians in the Crimea. It was done for two reasons. First, after the deportation of Tatars there was not enough manpower for Crimea's economy. Secondly, as noted by historian Mark Kramer, Khrushchev tried to change the ethnic composition of Ukraine's population, creating Russian enclaves there. It was a typical policy of the USSR. They relocated millions of Russians into Central Asia, the Baltic States and Ukraine to increase there Pro-Imperial elements and to prevent the development of local separatism. And finally, you need to understand that in Crimea received hundreds of thousands of veterans and pensioners of KGB and police. In fact, a massive portion of the Russian immigrants are employees of special services.

You can't fix the mistakes of the past with mass discrimination and upheaval against minorities like ethnic Russians today. Should the US give all their land back to the native Americans? Should Jews all go back to Austria, Poland etc.? Should third generation illegal immigrants in the US today be forced to go back to where they were originally? There has to be some sort of period after which things have to let be and try not to make the same mistakes again.

Eh, he's been saying that sort of thing going back to at least the Bush years.

meerov21

Oh this is new.
Chomsky: I'd 'absolutely' vote for Hillary Clinton
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/01/noam-chomsky-supports-hillary-clinton-218192

To put it in context, he actually said:

Noam Chomsky would “absolutely” choose Hillary Clinton over the Republican nominee if he lived in a swing state,

He has said this before so hardly news -- He has been very much in the "vote for the lessor evil" camp for some time. Given nature of the Republicans, you can have some sympathy with his position -- and it would be nice not to truncate his words and so distort his position.