Comrade Motopu on the potential pitfalls when the Left looks to the Right for allies.
I travelled far and wide and unknown martyrs died
What did you see there?
I saw the one sided trials
What did you see there?
I saw the tears as they cried
--Joy Division, “Wilderness”
I.
The Undertow
Jeff Sharlet’s essay collection The Undertow: Scenes From A Slow Civil War was mostly written during a drive in a rental car across the US. He was interacting, embedding, and talking with people at Christian evangelical events, MAGA rallies, a Men’s Rights convention, and various other far Right spaces. Sharlet has written a lot about Right wing extremism and Christian fundamentalists in the US, but when he thought about the MAGA movement he didn’t really consider them to be fascists. He changed his mind after reconsidering Trump’s personality, the glorification of violence and inclusion of paramilitary and street gangs, the movement’s assessment of the US as a decadent culture, and the embrace of white victimhood.
The title essay of his book examines the tragic figure of Ashli Babbitt, whom Sharlet sees as embodying many of the fears, hopes, dreams and delusions of the American Right. He finds a lot of people who think of Babbitt as an angel, and many more who see her as a martyr. Defining martyr as “witness,” as in giving one’s life to attest to a larger truth, he asks “...what if she died as a witness not to fact but to dream?”
Babbitt was the Air Force veteran killed in the January, 6th riot at the Washington D.C. Capitol as she attempted to climb through a broken window into the Speaker’s Lobby. Many of the rioters wanted to stop the certification of the January 6th election results and somehow keep Trump in office. She immediately became a martyr for the MAGA, Q anon, and fascist movements in the US and beyond.
In discussions with preachers and televangelists, pop up church and Trump rally attendees, as well as people in small towns who invited him into their homes, Sharlet elicited heart felt responses on the state of politics in America. For me, this was the scariest thread of the book, the stunningly weird things many on the far Right believe.
Just to give one example, Sharlet attends a Christian rally where Sovereign Citizen leader David Straight informs the audience that Hillary Clinton has already been
executed by Trump. The Hillary you see now is all green-screen and technical trickery. According to Straight, Trump was accomplishing incredible things because he was actually still President of the other, real, US government. As Sharlet talked to people in the audience they seemed to take it all as factual.
Reaching out to the working class by moving Right
There are many on the Left who see potential allies in the far Right. Reactionary Right wing folks are often present in working class organizations, like unions. Though many hold bigoted views, the hope is that they learn more inclusive behavior in the fight, shoulder to shoulder with fellow workers of different ethnicities, nationalities, sexual and gender identities, etc. It’s not that Leftists can’t win over public opinion and give Right wingers reasons to warm up to them. People with different social and political beliefs do work together all the time for specific goals.
But that’s not the same as tailoring our movements to be more inclusive to Right wing extremists and fascists based solely on their being working class. That is a mistake. At some point you have to admit there are actual fascists, racists, sexists, bigots, etc. who will not be won over to progressive or radical Left causes. Seems obvious, but the puzzle of gaining traction among the masses has caused many on the Left to lose their political compass. So much so that they begin to see secret radical Left positions on the far Right.
There are many variations on “Left goes Right.” We’ve seen class reductionists jettison “social justice” issues, allegedly to appeal to meat and potatoes working class folks. Jettison core socialist and radical Left principles to create a big tent class-based organization. Forget Internationalism when we can settle for anti-immigrant unions in the name of “defending American jobs.” Forget racial equality, anti-racism, lgbtqi+ rights, reproductive rights, etc. Those issues are “too woke,” or devolve into “libtard” or “snowflake” fetishes that destroy class based organizing, we’re told.
Lee Fang says people are being "reductive" if they can't see Tucker's white nationalist views on immigration make him a socialist.
We’ve seen the Left fetishize blue collar workers to dismiss or mischaracterize “PMC” and other “aristocracy of labor” types as elites. Others do this by claiming that most workers don’t produce “value” (e.g. teachers) and therefore can’t be proletarians.
We’ve recently seen “no war but the class war” used to deny people in Ukraine the right to defend themselves by whatever means necessary against capitalist dictator Putin’s invasion because doing so would be nationalism, at which point people have even invoked Rosa Luxemburg to run cover for Russian expansionism. The never ending torrent of Stalinist takes on the Russian invasion of Ukraine are indistinguishable from decades of rationalizations from groups like the International Action Center, ANSWER Coalition, and Code Pink running cover for Milosevic, Assad, Putin, Xi, and every other anti-working class regime so long as it is “anti-imperialist.”
The kind of marches you used to break away from. Seems like some of the current online left didn't get the news.
There is a whole genre of post-Left pseudo-socialist media that has embraced anti-democratic, illiberal and even fascist positions in many cases, along with anti-vaxx, and the more banal Republican style nationalist xenophobia, while maintaining that their ideas stem from deep Marxian dialectics. There are campists who yearn for a multipolar world in which their favored non-Western authoritarian capitalist regimes will hold spheres of influence and roll over their respective working classes, minority groups, and those deemed terrorists.
Hawaii videographer Karaokecomputer is a member of the "Ukrainians=Nazis" club. Welcome to the anti-imperialism of fools.
These degradations of meaning are on display daily on social media, including posts by academics, media professionals, high profile youtubers, podcasters and social critics. Fascist rhetoric is often embraced or normalized by figures on the Left.
Medea Benjamin has been an ANSWER Stalinist for as long as I can remember.
Triangulation
The triangulation in these “Left” positions comes from precedents set during the Cold War. Noam Chomsky instructed us that the first duty of the activist is to work against what their own government does. There is a certain logic to that for those living “in the belly of the beast.” But the practice often leaves critiques of foreign capitalist regimes unspoken. Today that shows up as “Sure, Russia is invading, but they had no choice given how the NATO threat is expanding.”
Cosmonaut Mag Chump in Chief Donald Parkinson has read over 20 million pages of Marx to develop his political line which is indistinguishable from the ANSWER Coalition's.
So oppose NATO for Russia’s invasion. Triangulation means when tankies want to say Assad or Putin are somehow good, they do that by saying NATO is bad. If NATO imperialism created Putin’s invasion, that invasion must be defensive, hence anti-imperialist.
The leadership of the Revolutionary Communist Party in Hawaii demands NATO stop the bombing in Ukraine.
The Left sometimes does the same with the far Right. We can go back to the responses to the Oklahoma City bombing: Right wing nuts are bad, but they were made that way by FBI and state brutality against Americans.” Nazis bad, FBI worse, oppose the FBI. Notice that this is not the standard Left critique of the FBI as a repressive force protecting the smooth operation of the capitalist state. It is triangulation opening the door to saying that somehow the far Right is good, or at least just like the Left in their victimhood. A radical analysis would not give either side a free pass and would never suggest affinity with the far Right.
Martyrs of the far Right and the reactionary beliefs they helped spread are now integrated into the populist and Republican movements and alarmingly into much of the “pragmatic” and contrarian “Left.”
Section II is a partial overview of the Right wing “martrys” and recent historical standoffs in the US. These are key moments that define the current victim identity of the far Right.
II.
From Ruby Ridge to Oklahoma City
We can trace the development of the far Right and white supremacist beliefs in the US back to the country’s founding and earlier. The unbroken history of US racism is well documented: the genocide of Native Americans, the Atlantic slave trade and the rise of the Southern plantocracy, anti-Chinese laws, the defeat of Reconstruction, Jim Crow, the homegrown Nazi movement during World War II, redlining and “urban renewal,” as well as the racism in working class and Left organizations, and countless other examples.
It’s not that capitalism is a purely racial project, or that all whites are inherently racist, but that the US ruling class has always used racism to divide the working class. It’s important to remember also the moments of resistance, of white abolitionists, the flawed but important efforts at the Federal level in the Civil War and Reconstruction to end slavery and move toward equality, the support for the Civil Rights Movement and more recently of the BLM Movement by many whites and so on. There are examples of cross-ethnic class solidarity. The one I think of most is the union struggle on the docks and at the plantations in my home state of Hawaii that helped break the stranglehold of an Apartheid government in the mid 20th century.
Many current threads of white supremacist and Right wing anti-government millenarianism started booming in the 1970s. These movements tended to see themselves as victims and losers of a race war. In that way they can be traced to the Southern “Lost Cause” rhetoric, but perhaps also seen as a reaction to post WWII developments. The rise of Civil Rights demands were threatening to white supremacy, and the end of the post-war economic boom put more stress on the average working person regardless of race (though non-whites were less the beneficiaries of that boom to begin with). Those white power formations of the 1970s onward tell us a lot about the dreams of people like Ashli Babbitt and about the creation of martyrs for the cause.
Historical Dramas and Documentary Representations
At the same time I was reading Sharlet’s book I started watching a couple of shows. “Waco the Aftermath” (2023), led me to the first part of the series “Waco” (2018). These are fictionalized historical dramas, but looking at the relevant wikipedia pages, news articles from that time, as well as a few related books and articles, the main plot points seem accurate.
“Waco” was based mostly on two books: Waco: A Survivor's Story by David Thibodeau, a Branch Davidian survivor, and Stalling for Time: My Life as an FBI Hostage Negotiatorby Gary Noesner, who was the main negotiator at Waco and other standoffs. Judging by the tv series, both accounts are partly critical of Koresh while also sympathetic to the followers and why they held their beliefs. Noesner is portrayed as arguing vehemently for negotiation over psychological warfare or storming the compound. He is overridden by the hot headed militarized faction. “Waco the Aftermath” continues the story as events culminate in the Oklahoma City bombing.
If anything, the first series is far too sympathetic to Koresh. It’s not that I oppose depicting how Branch Davidians saw themselves, it’s that Koresh’s child abuse, including marrying multiple “wives,” as young as 10 years old, and impregnating them upon their pubescence, is severely downplayed.
“Waco the Aftermath” was even worse on this front. I worry the Branch Davidians come off as innocent peasants against a corrupt king, and McVeigh as their avenging angel carrying out a sublime act of retribution. I can’t help but hear Trump’s “good people on both sides” in my head as I think of the show.
Watching these shows led me to the 2018 PBS “American Experience” documentary “Oklahoma City.” It provides a very useful timeline of the rise of domestic Right wing, Christian nationalist, and white supremacist terror in the US that preceded the Oklahoma City bombing. This documentary is my main source in the overview here.
Aryan Nations
The documentary starts in Northern Idaho in the early 1980s where, in the previous decade, new white supremacist groups had formed. One of those was the Aryan Nations. They were led by Richard Butler who told his followers (many of whom are pictured in full Nazi uniforms with swastika armbands) that they had to destroy the allegedly Jewish run US government and get rid of all non-whites if they were ever to bring America back to normalcy. For Butler, that meant rewinding to the way things were before the, as he sees it, tragedy of the American Civil War of 1861-1865. A big concern was the alleged genetic mongrelization of the “white race.” The Aryan Nations wanted to establish America’s white Christian sovereignty.
The Order
As US white supremacists got more organized in the 1980s, one group broke from Aryan Nations, which they saw as all talk and no action. This was “The Order” led by Neo-Nazi Bob Matthews and named after the white supremacist revolutionary group in the book The Turner Diaries. He was younger than Butler and more energized to carry out terror. The Order were the ones who killed liberal radio shock jock Alan Berg (on which Eric Bogosian’s “Talk Radio” was based). One of Berg’s assassins, David Lane, coined “the fourteen words” slogan of the modern white power movement. Bob Matthews wanted to start the white revolution and so he and his fellow radical Nazis started carrying out bank and armored car robberies to fund it. Matthews dropped his gun at an armored car robbery leading the FBI to his door. He was killed in a shootout with something like 75 Federal agents in December of 1984.
Matthews, and many other US fascists were big fans of the aforementioned Turner Diaries, by William Pierce. It became a blueprint type document for most white power folks. The book starts with the US government trying to take people’s guns. It includes plot points about a fertilizer bomb, like the one Timothy McVeigh would later use, and storming the Washington DC capitol as Trump’s followers carried out on January 6th, 2021. The book’s Final Solution is the mass murder of all liberals, Jews, and non-whites.
Bob Matthews’ death foreshadowed the Ruby Ridge standoff.
Ruby Ridge
Moving into the 1990s, the next featured standoff involves Army veteran Randy Weaver. Weaver and his wife held Right wing Christian fundamentalist beliefs and were attending Aryan Nations events. At one of those meetings Randy was enlisted to modify guns by sawing them off to illegal specifications for the AN. He needed some income at that time and agreed to do it. It turns out this was coordinated by an undercover federal informant, meaning Weaver was entrapped. Around this time the Weaver family had moved to Ruby Ridge, where they were much closer to the Aryan Nations compound. Weaver faced firearms charges but he refused to show up for his court date and so the FBI went up to bring him in, leading to the 1992 standoff. Community members showed up to protest and the news footage shows many of them in full Nazi garb or screaming about saving the white race.
Protesters praying near the Ruby Ridge standoff
Weaver’s wife and son were killed by the FBI in a shoot out that also left one agent dead. One of the main themes developed in the Waco dramas mentioned above is the militarization of government responses and the quick resort to deadly force. That left white nationalists, but also many other observers sickened and worried.
The history of the FBI is unsavory to say the least. Cointelpro, targeting and spying on peace and environmental activists, dissidents, and Civil Rights leaders, murdering Black Panthers and Black community activists, and their general role in upholding the broader American system of white supremacy and capitalist nationalism means there are no “good guys” to root for in these standoffs with white supremacists.
Having said that, there is obviously also no point in either romanticizing Christian nationalist and white nationalist groups as innocent victims and martyrs or downplaying their bigoted and violent politics to make them sympathetic to the Left.
Waco
Shed no tears for the martyr dying
Only in pain, suffering and death
Can the martyr become what he's chosen to be
No tears wasted
No sorrow, no pity
No, no crying, no loss
Flipper, “No Tears Wasted”
The next point in the thread of standoffs and martyrs is Waco and the Branch Davidians. David Koresh had taken over their Mount Carmel complex. Under his leadership the group was hoarding weapons. From a description of the trial of Branch Davidians in the New York Times:
He showed the jury charts listing hundreds of firearms found at the site, including 61 AK-47's, 13 12-gauge shotguns, 11 Belgian assault rifles, 2 .50-caliber rifles and what he described as "literally millions of rounds of ammunition."
Most of the materials found were legal, Mr. Cadigan testified, but 48 weapons had been illegally modified to be fully automatic. These included 20 AK-47's, 2 MP-5's, 2 Mac-11's and 22 M-16's.
Koresh had convinced the Branch Davidians that he was a messiah, not Jesus, but equally as important. He prophesied that he and his followers would be attacked by the state. This would signal the opening of the fifth of seven Biblical seals. This fifth seal has to do with the crying out of martyrs for God’s vengeance.
When He opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain for the word of God and for the testimony which they held. And they cried with a loud voice, saying, ‘How long, O Lord, holy and true, until You judge and avenge our blood on those who dwell on the earth?’ Then a white robe was given to each of them; and it was said to them that they should rest a little while longer, until both the number of their fellow servants and their brethren, who would be killed as they were, was completed.
Inside the Mount Carmel compound life was as rigidly controlled as any of the worst modern cults, despite most Davidians insistence that they were there of their own free will. David Koresh forbid sexual relationships for any of the male members, and took many of their wives as his own. He “married” girls in the compound, as young as 10 years old, and impregnated many of them upon their reaching puberty. He justified the celibacy rule for all men but himself by explaining that, as Messiah, he must take on the “burden” of fucking anyone he wished. He was actually releasing the other men from the spiritual distraction of sex. Riiight.
While the final siege by the feds was brutal and stupid, the FBI and others worried that either Koresh had plans for a terrorist action or that he would kill his followers Jim Jones style, like the 1978 Guyana tragedy 15 years earlier. The Waco standoff lasted 51 days. According to the ATF website, 24 members were released (mostly children) before the final confrontation. The hot head militarized FBI agents won out against Gary Noesner’s attempts to prolong negotiations indefinitely until the situation could be peacefully resolved.
There was a point at which Koresh agreed to surrender and let everyone out, but he claimed God told him not to and went back on the deal. He kept his core of followers and his 25 biological children with him inside the compound. On the day of the final attempted “rescue,” he told his followers to set fire to the compound. This information comes from audio evidence in the PBS “Oklahoma City” documentary. Kathleen Belew in her book Bring The War Home also cites FBI transcripts of conversations recorded via bugs inside the Branch Davidian compound indicating the fires were intentionally set by the group (Belew, 206).
Eighty-two Branch Davidians died in the fires, including 28 children. It’s not wrong to see the mask off moment, and the grinning skull of the state as the Branch Davidians and their children melted to death or died of smoke inhalation inside. But it’s also important to see the way Koresh manufactured this tragedy, openly prophesied it into being, and then had his followers set the fires that fulfilled his prophecy.
Trump kicked off his 2024 run at Waco, for no particular reason.
Some survivor accounts recall joy and spiritual fulfillment for Branch Davidians in their daily lives but we also remember how they willingly surrendered their kids’ childhoods to Koresh to propagate the new master race. Another image reminds us that Koresh was probably never any kind of “lamb.” He was arrested with his followers in 1987 for a shootout with a rival prophet to determine who would control the compound. He had been violent since before he took control at Mount Carmel.
Oklahoma City
This timeline of martyrs culminated in the last decade of the twentieth century in the high casualty terror event that the movement had dreamt of at least as far back as the publication of The Turner Diaries in 1978. Timothy McVeigh bombed the Oklahoma City Federal Building on April 19th, 1995 killing 168 people, 19 of whom were children. The blast injured and maimed 680 more.
McVeigh served in Iraq in the 1990-91 Gulf War. There he became disillusioned with the US, which he started to see as a global bully. Counter to some narratives, he didn’t immediately go home after Iraq. He first tried out for the U.S. Army Rangers, an elite infantry group. This goes against the idea that he became morally opposed to US wars after the incident in which he killed two defenseless Iraqis as a sniper. He washed out of the Rangers and then he left the Army.
Upon returning home, he had trouble finding steady work and resumed his interest in white supremacy and conspiracy theories. He had a consistent simmering resentment of non-whites: “McVeigh took the federal civil service exam to work as a U.S. marshal and scored high but was never hired; he blamed this and other career dead ends on equal opportunity laws, and said black people had put him out of a job” (Belew214).
After watching news coverage of the Waco massacre he recruited two army buddies, Terry Nichols and Michael Fortier, into a plan to bomb a government building, just like in The Turner Diaries. All three of them liked the explicitly racist book about the Final Solution against all non-whites, liberals, and Leftists. They were following the story of the keystone racist white nationalist text. When McVeigh made his bomb, the main difference between his and the character Earl Turner’s was that McVeigh used much more powerful fuel, Nitro-Methane racing fuel, making his bomb many times more powerful than the one in the book.
It turns out that McVeigh’s racism did not develop after his Gulf War trauma. He had joined a KKK chapter while stationed at Fort Riley, Kansas. While there he had already been sharing his copy of The Turner Diaries with fellow soldiers (Belew, 212). From Fort Riley he was deployed to Operation Desert Storm.
McVeigh also sold copies of of The Turner Diaries when he returned stateside, on the gun show circuit in the lead up to his carrying out the Oklahoma City Bombing (Belew, 110). Excerpts from The Turner Diaries were found in his getaway car:
There are a lot more examples of McVeigh’s ties to white supremacists:
“McVeigh’s phone records would later reveal several different calls, placed before the bombing, to an Arizona representative of the National Alliance—Turner Diaries author William Pierce’s white separatist organization.” In the lead up to the bombing he “also met repeatedly with a Neo-Nazi activist, and met skinhead leader Johnny Bangerter.” Mcveigh had “ample and sustained connections” to the white supremacist Christian Identity compound at Elohim City which he later downplayed. (Belew, 214-216).
McVeigh was no more a “lone wolf” than countless other Right wing murderers since. His actions were inspired by his revulsion at US state power, but this was entirely shaped by the extremist Right wing literature he read and networks he moved in, from the Aryan Nations and the Order, to the millenarian patriarchal cult of the Branch Davidians he obsessed over. Then as now, single actors are mobilized without direct orders from any leader. The white nationalist networks disseminate conspiracy theories, racist hate speech, and literature that eggs believers on to acts of terror. McVeigh’s actions brought the story of The Turner Diaries, the Bible of his movement, into existence.
People have pointed out that toward the end of his life, McVeigh saw him self as similar to a modern day abolitionist: “In the letters to reporters Dan Herbeck and Lou Michel, authors of a book about McVeigh, he said he hopes he will be remembered as a freedom fighter akin to John Brown, the 1800s abolitionist.” Source:
McVeigh never lashed out at the underpinning structure of US state violence. He sought to bring The Turner Diaries to life to cleanse the US of what he saw as degrading elements. The bombing was an effort to accelerate the collapse of government that could pave the way for the great social and racial cleansing that “Earl Turner” envisioned.
Gore Vidal had a three year correspondence with McVeigh, and took at face value his statements that he was not a racist, that he only liked The Turner Diaries for the actions Earl Turner took tactically, not all the racist stuff. This sounds an awful lot like statements from groups like Patriot Prayer and the Proud Boys. “How can we be fascists when we have Black and brown members?” There are a couple of obvious responses. First, fascism has never been the exclusive property of whites. These include Franco’s Spain, Imperial Japans military ruling class, Pinochet’s Chilean regime, and others.
As for McVeigh’s claim that he didn’t hate Blacks or other non-white groups, anyone who has ever been around fascist skinheads (for example, in and around punk scenes) knows that they can party with non-white people one minute and engage in white supremacist rhetoric and violence the next. And non-white people can also join or support groups that act on white nationalist principles. Plenty of bigoted Latinx, Black, and Asian people backed the brutal fascist street violence unleashed during the Trump Presidency and after. Those attacks targeted antifa, Leftists, lgbtqi+, trade unionists, immigrants, drag queens, and others. That shows how movements that grow out of white nationalist causes can attract a multi-ethnic coalition of bigotry so long as adherents buy a narrative that they’re the victims and are desperate for violent punitive action against scapegoats.
McVeigh’s world view, choice of reading, who he associated with, his support networks, all fits a white nationalist profile. Denying being a racist, or invoking abolitionist heroes is also by now understood as a common tactic for the alt-Right, Boogaloo movement, weird contrarian faux Leftists, and other fascists. David Duke constantly denies he’s ever been a white supremacist, even when he was the Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. Source:
III.
Mischaracterizations from the Left
Gore Vidal wrote a piece in Vanity Fair based on his correspondence with McVeigh that was published in August of 2001, two months after his execution by lethal injection. He knew that McVeigh was motivated in part out of his anger over the Waco massacre. Vidal characterizes the Branch Davidians as “a peaceful group of men, women, and children living and praying together in anticipation of the end of the world, which started to come their way on February 28, 1993.” He dismisses charges of child abuse against Koresh as a symptom of the uptight times and generated by sensationalist media. He compares the Waco Massacre to the 1890 Wounded Knee slaughter of Native Americans. You get the idea. Vidal uses McVeigh as a spring board to write a critique of US culture and history of state repression and violence. In the process, McVeigh becomes a wisened martyr who taught us about US government abuses against its own citizens.
Similarly, in the Fall 2001 issue of Race Traitor, John Garvey wrote about McVeigh, wondering if his righteous anger might have been channeled in such a way to make him a modern John Brown. Garvey takes McVeigh at his word that he wasn’t a racist, and claims that he “felt no special animosity towards any of his fellow Americans other than those who worked for agencies he thought to be responsible for assaults against peoples' rights and freedoms (such as the FBI and the ATF).” But we know that McVeigh was immersed in white nationalist circles and got most of his “anti-government” ideology from them, with TheTurner Diaries as a huge influence.
Garvey takes McVeigh’s anti-government sentiment and terrorism against Americans as evidence that he could have been persuaded to channel the anger into destroying the whiteness at the core of American exceptionalism and imperialism. Garvey wrote that ““Timothy McVeigh never claimed to be a race traitor but he does not appear to have been a white supremacist.” He really does though. You can’t live the life of a white nationalist without taking on those prejudices. The proof is McVeigh’s network of contacts and every move in the lead up to and actual bombing. Reading what Garvey wrote in 2001, it’s possible he didn’t know about all of McVeigh’s white power connections and influences.
To Garvey, if you believe in the goodness of US wars (and I don’t) you have to “pay close attention to the deeds and political vision of Timothy McVeigh.” Maybe, but you need to start by acknowledging that McVeigh’s political vision was white supremacist.
Garvey cites McVeigh’s justifications for the bombing, that mass casualties will make the US notice, and that “collateral damage” is the precedent set by the US in the first Gulf War, Vietnam and other wars. McVeigh called out the hypocrisy in the way the presence of a day care center at the Oklahoma City Federal Building was held up as a sign of his callousness while the US government always claimed that civilian structures in war zones were utilized to insulate the enemy: “Yet when the discussion shifts to Iraq, any day-care center in a government building instantly becomes ‘a shield.’ Think about that.”
Here it seems to me the answer is simple. Targeting civilian structures is wrong whether it’s Timothy McVeigh or US imperialism doing it. We can pay attention to McVeigh without legitimizing his actions as somehow effective or righteous. If his goal was to teach the US what collateral damage felt like, he failed, given the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan and 2003 invasion of Iraq, which killed over a milion people, including countless civilians along with vital infrastructure needed for basic life.
Similarly, we can see the 911 attack on the towering symbols of US finance and empire as predictable blowback but simultaneously as criminal, morally repugnant, and serving the interests of ruling class actors. There is no reason to sanitize Osama Bin Laden’s rational for 9-11 or pretend he was acting from a righteous position in defense of human rights and freedoms.
Garvey gives some social economic context to humanize McVeigh. He grew up in the deindustrializing US economy of the 1970s and 80s and would never have the job security his parents did. He also points out that this lack of regular work experience meant McVeigh didn’t really develop a class consciousness, and awareness of the enemy being the boss and the problem the social relations of capital.
Garvey traces McVeigh’s alleged turn toward the wrong path of action to his time in Iraq, specifically an incident where he kills two Iraqi soldiers from a distance beyond the range of their weapons to return fire. McVeigh later said he felt like he was on the side of the bully. Garvey marks McVeigh’s awakening when he suddenly realizes he was killing human beings, as the moment he lost faith in the US military mission. What he doesn’t say is that after that incident, McVeigh tried out for the elite Army Rangers.
It was after failing to become a Ranger that he went back home. Garvey again talked about McVeigh’s limited prospects, even his time as a “salesman at a gun shop and gun shows,” along with a stint defending an abortion clinic from protesters as a security guard. The sense you get there is that McVeigh was pretty liberal actually. He came back disillusioned with the war, protected women’s rights for a while, but had a hard time. Garvey doesn’t mention the fact that McVeigh was cultivating ties with white nationalists, and that he was selling The Turner Diaries at those gun shows. He also skips or didn’t know the part where McVeigh was sharing The Turner Diaries with fellow soldiers before the incident in Iraq. The book is not mentioned in his article at all.
Garvey wrote that “McVeigh came back from the Gulf War a different person” which is somewhat misleading. The war may have unleashed his capacity for deadly violence but it did not change his white nationalist world view. McVeigh was consistently embracing white nationalist anti-government narratives before, during, and after his time in Iraq, and he built on those beliefs via ties to white nationalists after he returned up until he carried out the bombing. His war experience did not push him off this trajectory.
That should make us cautious about the pitfalls of portraying reactionary individuals or segments of the population as we want them to be and not as they actually live their lives. We may paint them as open vessels waiting to be filled with the desire for cross-ethnic solidarity along class lines, equality for all, etc. If only we could bring them in to the struggle against capital and imperialism, shoulder to shoulder with the diverse working class, they would change.
It’s not that we shouldn’t keep the door open to all to join that struggle, but creating people in our own image, believing there is a switch waiting to be flipped to bring them to our side, that is more projection than class analysis. Some people are deeply committed to destroying movements for equality, radical democracy, and a post-capitalist world. They’re not waiting for our outstretched hand of solidarity unless it’s to cut it off.
Garvey describes McVeigh’s travels across the US in the lead up to his bombing, writing “[h]e reminds me of John Brown and Huck Finn....” Finally, sad that McVeigh lacked the necessary radical Left support system to connect his anti-government feelings into an abolitionist framework, Garvey writes that the potential was there, that “[h]e might even have become the John Brown of our day.”
But Timothy McVeigh could never be a modern John Brown. Both men turned on those assumed to be their natural allies (whites for Brown and Americans for McVeigh), and both carried out acts of terror, but the glaringly obvious difference is that McVeigh, steeped in the anti-Semitic, white nationalist Turner Diaries, and moving in a white supremacist network, had no interest in smiting racists and ending racial inequality. The reason he terrorized the US government with a white supremacist support network is because he was fine with enacting their vision. Maybe he could have become the next John Brown and maybe Pee Wee Herman could have become Rambo.
Gore Vidal was more enamored with McVeigh as he was, though he also wished for the radical he could have been. He consistently used adjectives like “heroic” and “stoic” when describing McVeigh. Much of his essay focuses on how Americans are simply too backward to appreciate McVeigh’s sensitivity and depth. Like Garvey, he wishes McVeigh’s rebellious streak might have led him to a righteous cause:
...he seems more and more to have stumbled into the wrong American era. Plainly, he needed a self-consuming cause to define him. The abolition of slavery or the preservation of the Union would have been more worthy of his life than anger at the excesses of our corrupt secret police. But he was stuck where he was and so he declared war on a government that he felt had declared war on its own people.
Isn’t that what the Confederates thought too? That the North started a war “on its own people” by abolishing Southern planters’ right to own their human property? And Garvey pointed to McVeigh holding animosity toward those he saw carrying out “assaults against peoples' rights and freedoms.” McVeigh’s rage was against the US government over its attacks against white supremacists, and against a white Christian cult leader in a military compound where he was breeding a new race from his messianic loins. Whose “rights and freedoms” was he concerned about? His shock about his own killing in Iraq led him to sign up for the elite Rangers. His anger over collateral damage led him to create his own collateral damage. It doesn’t yield great results to pick through his rationalizating crap for nuggets of unrealized abolitionism.
Both commentators are projecting their own world view onto an enemy in the mistaken assumption that even in the heart of the worst reactionary lies a soul waiting to be shown the path to redemption. Similar to the way much of the Left is incapable of mustering any critique of non-Western regimes, because we must focus on our own government’s culpability as the source of all belligerence, many Leftists cannot condemn a homegrown reactionary when we must first blame the violence of the US government for creating them. There can be no racist enemies, only misguided potential John Browns.
Neither Vidal nor Garvey seem to have been able to imagine at the turn of the 21st century what Steve Bannon clearly saw in 2018. Bannon travelled the globe meeting the leaders of the extreme Right and attempting to create a global coalition of the US extremist Right with the global one. He failed but he saw the forces of a future coalition were waiting to be organized.
Katherine Belew notes the internationalist vision along “race” lines that many in the white power movement want: “Many pursued the idea of an all-white, racial nation, one that transcended national borders to unite white people from the United States, Canada, Europe, Australia, South Africa, and beyond” (Belew, 2). Their battle will never turn against their own “race.”
It’s a mistake to see McVeigh as an apolitical actor seeking to wake Americans up to the way wars are fought in their name. He was acting out of a fully developed political world view, white supremacy. He wasn’t going to become a socialist or an abolitionist after years of training and indoctrination in white nationalist circles.
.
..the white power movement mobilized adherents using a cohesive social network based on commonly held beliefs. These activists operated with discipline and clarity, training in paramilitary camps and undertaking assassinations, mercenary soldiering, armed robbery, counterfeiting, and weapons trafficking. White power violence reached a climax in the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City. (Belew, 2).
IV.
Conclusion
The “anti-government” focus of the far Right is often presented by people like Tim Pool, Glenn Greenwald, Jimmy Dore, Michael Tracey, and even some of the more Left leaning influencers as proof of its common ground with the broader working class struggle. The real lesson here is that the Left and Right of the working class are not inherent allies.
Martyrs
It’s important to clearly understand the specifically white supremacist foundation of so much of the MAGA, Q anon, and even the Republican Party’s ideology. It came out of the same politics as those held by “martyrs” of the white power movement from the 1970s to present. The movement’s use of martyrs is very much in the tradition of the Nazi’s “Blutfahne” (Blood flag) a swastika banner dipped in the blood of an SA member who was killed at the failed 1923 Beer Hall Putsch. Ashli Babbitt is part of the Blood Flag tradition.
The Base
While it’s true that the MAGA base is more petty bourgeoisie than “working class,” the base have influence over working class voters. In some parts of the country the working class look to this Right wing petty bourgeoisie as leaders and patrons. Where bigoted rhetoric mobilizes angry Right wing mobs, a lot of those activist sincerely believe in the big lies they’ve been swimming in for decades.
None of the people acting out the MAGA script have common cause with any radical Left vision of overcoming capitalism and racist, imperialist ruling classes. The populist line says that because neoliberalism attacks the working class, and can push people into far Right wing and conspiratorial beliefs, that the Left should bend over backwards to trim any focus on social issues which are dismissed as “culture war.” If we’re “too woke” we might scare off allies, or even worse push them to the far Right.
Beyond Left and Right is always Right wing
Instead, populists say, the Left must present a class reductionist socialist platform capable of winning over even the MAGA Right as workers. This is as delusional as any Q anon narrative. It also takes Nazi rhetoric about class at face value. Instead, the Left should expose fascist’s populist rhetoric as the cynical manipulation of class issues it is. We need to show the ways fascist cross class collaboration in a nationalist mold is nothing like socialist internationalist class solidarity. One only need look at the way fascists when in power destroy independent worker organizations and tie the working class into top-down nationalist party led unions.
As we’ve seen, this vision of unity between Left and Right working class movements ended up as a call for strict borders and excluding immigrants so as to protect “native” workers, and countless other deranged “strategies” for broadening class support that clearly slip over into the “red-brown” side of the political spectrum.
In a 1999 essay entitled “New World Order” American neo-Nazi Louis Beam wrote of a patriotism beyond Left and Right: "The New American Patriot will be neither Left nor Right, just a freeman fighting for liberty. … Soon there will be millions in this country of every political persuasion confronting the police state in streets throughout America. … Wake up and smell the tear gas. Freedom is calling its sons and daughters."
We’re not the same
The heavy handed violence of the state can and will be meted out to any who challenge its authority, or the free functioning of capitalist production and value extraction, whether from the Left or Right. But the content of the challenge, the goals of the outlaws surely must matter. Anyone who thinks antifa and fascist street gangs are just two sides of the same coin (looking at you Nick Cave) could easily be convinced that the wave of extremist Right wing violence unleashed by Patriot Prayer, the Proud Boys, Atom Waffen, the Klan, Hammmer Skins, Rise Above, etc. etc. was actually a “defense” against “the real nazis: antifa.”
If anyone thinks, as post-Left, contrarian, and even some social democratic pundits do, that we all better rally to protect the rights of Nazis and their terrorist organizations lest the state turn the same violence it does on them against us, you have not thought it through. The state has always targeted the Left, far more than the Right. Rushing in to defend the Right is the wrong move. “Let them fight” as the meme instructs us.
The far Right will always portray their martyrs as universal victims, even as angels and messiahs.
The inheritors of their stories and martyrs are currently trying to usher in a new fascist age, with Right Wing Death Squads and “free helicopter rides” a la Pinochet, total control over the bodies of those who give birth, and obvious eugenic exclusion of those deemed “unhealthy.” Even neoliberal democracy is too much for those who want or are ok with trading it for fascist dictatorship. These are the forces the MAGA Right marches and organizes ‘shoulder to shoulder” with, learning in the fight that they don’t really care if their allies are fascists as long as they have similar political and social goals. And in the end, this is why it’s so hard to tell the overlapping movements of the Right apart from self-defined fascists. They’ve merged into one big movement on the far Right and the distinction has become largely meaningless.
Invictus
Timothy McVeigh’s last statement was a handwritten transcription of the poem “Invictus” by the English poet William Henley. The poem was also a favorite of Nelson Mandela, one of the main leaders of the freedom struggle against South African Apartheid. Mandela found inspiration in this poem during the his decades in prison. For losing his freedom, he is considered a martyr.
Some on the Right see McVeigh as a patsy, but many consider him a martyr in the struggle against the state that executed him. We’ve seen how enmeshed in white supremacist circles McVeigh was, and he had no problem promoting that ideology and acting to further it.
Imagine McVeigh reading the poem, then Mandela and think about what meaning each found in these words.
Out of the night that covers me,
Black as the Pit from pole to pole,
I thank whatever gods may be
For my unconquerable soul.
In the fell clutch of circumstance
I have not winced nor cried aloud.
Under the bludgeonings of chance
My head is bloody, but unbowed.
Beyond this place of wrath and tears
Looms but the Horror of the shade,
And yet the menace of the years
Finds, and shall find, me unafraid.
It matters not how strait the gate,
How charged with punishments the scroll,
I am the master of my fate:
I am the captain of my soul.
.
Comments
Comrade Motopu We’ve…
No War but the Class War means proletarian internationalism - i.e. no support for any capitalist states. It's what Luxemburg stood for. If you're so concerned about alliances with the "right", such alliances are currently proliferating not only among those supporting Russia, but also those supporting Ukraine. It's what always happens to those who choose sides in imperialist conflicts and by doing so give up on the prospect of independent class struggle.
Our comrades are not…
Our comrades are not fighting for imperialism, or the state. They're fighting to end an engoing genocide that the NWBCW types are far too comfortable appeasing. Here's Dmitry spelling it out to you just before he was killed. It was one of the last things he did publicly and it was to address these dumbass accusations from people he should have been able to rely upon for solidarity and mutual aid.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0eLYC6F-CtY
It is quite common for…
It is quite common for soldiers of every army, both as individuals and as a group, to think they are fighting a just and noble cause. Twenty years ago in Iraq, many US soldiers will have believed they are there in the name of democracy, to bring down a corrupt regime; meanwhile many Iraqi soldiers will have thought they are defending their nation and their freedom. Today in Ukraine, many Russian soldiers might think they are liberating Ukraine from fascism; meanwhile many Ukrainian soldiers will, as you point out, believe they are opposing imperialist aggression in the name of some higher ideal.
Such lofty rhetoric is actively encouraged by capitalist states, because without it they would find it much more difficult to recruit workers as cannon fodder (it's something they already learned after the First World War). The reality is, no matter what soldiers on the ground may think, capitalist wars are always waged in the interests of the ruling classes (who everywhere control the means of material and mental production).
Right now we are seeing rising military production and preparations for war worldwide. Anti-capitalists, if they are serious about building a world without war, should dispel all such illusions, rather than encourage the kind of propaganda which will feed current and future wars.
I guess if "no war but the…
I guess if "no war but the class war" isn't doing it for people we could revive this one instead; "Proletarians of all countries, unite in peace-time and cut each other’s throats in war!"
I take issue with your…
I take issue with your considering Gore Vidal on the Left. He was a patrician East Coast elitist who called himself a conservative, and was a vehement anti-semite to boot. Toward the end of his life his views became more and more Truther-QAnon extreme with his embrace of 9/11 as an "inside job", He too embraced a Red-Brown alliance of convenience between America and the Soviet Union because: “For America to survive economically in the coming Sino-Japanese world, an alliance with the Soviet Union is a necessity. After all, the white race is the minority race and if the two great powers of the Northern Hemisphere don’t band together, we are going to end up as farmers—or, worse, mere entertainment—for more than one billion grimly efficient Asiatics.” This Slate article is worth reading: https://slate.com/culture/2012/08/gore-vidal-dont-believe-the-rosy-obituaries-he-was-a-racist-and-an-elitist.html
[article]Nelson Mandela, one…
article
Thanks CM, the article is useful. But it's ironic that while it rightly criticises today's stalinist ‘anti-imperialists’ for defending dictatorial regimes it ends by giving an uncritical free pass to the stalinist SACP, of which Mandela was a central committee member. (Whether Mandela, in jail for most of the struggle, was really an active ‘leader’ or more an iconic figurehead is another question.) Just as your enemy’s enemy is not your friend in inter-imperialist conflict so neither are they in conflicts over who will be the national ruling class. Of course the end of apartheid was a necessary victory for the black working class but its enthronement of a new black ruling elite has been a defeat. That elite rapidly enriched itself, happily following IMF and neo-liberal guidelines. While a formal political and legal equality of citizenship was established, social and economic relations of class society have barely changed for most; https://time.com/6087699/south-africa-wealth-gap-unchanged-since-apartheid/
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/2/10/30-years-since-mandela-was-freed-where-does-south-africa-stand
Thanks Red, I wasn't…
Thanks Red, I wasn't intending to give a free pass Mandela or the SACP. In the last section I tried to use that poem to show the huge difference between what motivated each individual. Both found the poem inspiring so I wanted to emphasize that not all anti-government beliefs come from places that align with our projects. But I agree with the broader critique of anti-colonialist movements which then become the new ruling classes, and of the critiques of Stalinist parties, so I have no problem with you finding that contradictory to my article. I mean to say it's a legitimate critique. Not sure if my intent fixes that, but I acknowledge what you say.
If you wanted to you could look at my review of Nandita Sharma's _Home Rule_ which has a great critique of "post-colonial" rule where "neo-imperialism" is blamed for all a decolonized nation's problems as a way of letting off "native," "indigenous," or just local ruling class policies (but not to ignore the existence of a global capitalist system).
And I will also read the article GA Matiasz posted on Gore Vidal. I don't know that I thought about whether or not he was really on the Left or not so much as I had not read much from him and just sort of considered him as a Chomsky type anti-Vietnam War guy. So it is worth pointing to articles that spell out his reactionary politics.
I'm no longer a big fan of Chomsky even though I think he made important contributions to opposing US sponsored terror.
Chomsky's a mixed bag…
Chomsky's a mixed bag politically, though he's certainly knowledgeable and has had more of a positive than negative influence in my view (can start another thread to debate that). I'm kind of disappointed to hear about his dealings (both personally and financially) with Epstein. I know Chomsky's famous and all, but hanging around financiers/the bourgeoisie is not really a good look, even if Chomsky was unaware of what sort of other activities Epstein was engaged in.
Reactionary Right wing folks…
The fact that the right wing as well as the left wing of capital operates within all the institutions of capitalism is hardly an ingenious contribution.
The whole popular appeal and "average worker" nonsense is obviously pretty dimwitted, but the problem isn't class reductionism or a lacking in commitment to social justice, instead to be defined as opportunism. Further, social justice ("render unto Caesar what is Caesar's") is not the goal of communism.
The fact is that these "core socialist and radical Left principles" were never exactly well-defined in the first place. There have always been and will always be many forms of bourgeois and reactionary socialism and revisionist and opportunist "leftisms." One would have been more clear to point to a specific set of principles or a specific tradition.
How would you prefer the slogan were used? I always assumed it was to be taken absolutely literally until some fools started appropriating the whole aesthetic of being opposed to capitalist wars. I also don't believe questions of rights of defence against aggression are useful questions in an imperialist war.
Also very strange to specifically invoke Putin's capitalist status, since it would also apply just as much to Ukraine. By casting together national aggression and political dictatorship, you also confuse two different questions. What if there is a legitimate defensive war of national liberation carried out by an authoritarian capitalist dictator against a democratic national oppressor? Communists should instead support neither capitalist democracy for the sake of democracy nor national liberation for the odd sake of incorporating the nation and the "right to self-determination".
The reference to Luxemburg could mean many things. That Luxemburg's views were always a cover for Russian expansionism? That those views are misrepresented in principle by the opponents of all capitalist wars? Or that they are being dogmatically applied beyond their proper use in practice?
Sure, if a principled opposition to all capitalist war is indistinguishable from the support for the war of the opposite camp. But this essentially amounts to slander. Didn't you defend Ukraine (an objectively "anti-working class regime" - which every conceivable bourgeois democracy is!) as anti-imperialist just previously?
Besides the innacuracy of the definition of fascism as anti-democratic and illiberal, doesn't this imply communists should be "liberal"? Even assuming the support for a future proletarian democracy, haven't you reduced the question of democracy to one of supporting or opposing an existing fact of democracy? These outlets would also be defined with more accuracy and less moral heavy-handedness as bourgeois-socialist rather than pseudo-Socialist. Depending on what kind of socialist, socialists can be the enemies of the proletariat.
Campism, if it has any meaning of worth beyond "defending the camp I don't like rather than the camp I like", is defined as support for one or more of the capitalist camps, so invoking a critique of campism while defending Ukrainian national liberation is bizarre. All capitalist regimes are "authoritarian" to varying degrees of necessity and rationality against the proletariats, politically and economically, as well as other dangers. The idea of an authoritarian far-right movement "rolling over the working class" seems to me just a vestige of the failed project of popular fronts. The working class is to be rolled over, whether specific capitalist movements or states triumph or not, unless the class independence of the communists can be asserted.
Those who describe themselves as anti-imperialists whatsoever are usually actually defending imperialism by defending capitalist regimes. It has ceased to be a useful label. As for Nazis, they exist on both sides of that conflict. I don't care so much - they aren't the ones with the power, and most Russian and Ukrainian fighters would define themselves as good students of the democratic state, vigilantly anti-Nazi. That isn't why both sides are to be opposed.
The defender of Holocaust deniers, the self-described Zionist, and anarchist supporter of Clinton and Biden because Sanders, the most mendacious social-liberal, was to him a Leninist revolutionary. GS ripped his theoretical nonsense to shreds long ago iirc, they had a great piece on his "work". A much more compelling citation would be Lenin's appeal to the defeat of one's own government in the imperialist war.
Yet you fail to take note of what you share with Parkinson's argument here: an obsession with notions of aggressive and defensive postures in capitalist states or "who started it", placed above internationalist analysis. The person who replies to him is also pretty blatantly wrong in claiming the bourgeois doesn't act rationally. An irrational bourgeoisie would not be able to protect its own class interest with any significant degree of stability.
But what has one contributed with this assertion? You have only declared the aggressor on the one hand and the defensive people's war on the other, asserted that opposing the camp of the latter "triangulates" with the defense of the former, and then put forward some nonsense postulates as to why it must do so. The final sentence is just pure rubbish: imperialism creates all imperialist wars, something which makes no statements on aggression and defence; and opposition to imperialism has nothing to do with being defensive. One could just as well repeat back at you that a critic of both sides is necessarily supporting NATO:
"Triangulation means when tankies want to say NATO or Ukraine are somehow good, they do that by saying Putin is bad. If Russian imperialism created Ukraine's defence, that invasion must be defensive, hence anti-imperialist."
So, apparently, this nonsense response to the Oklahoma City bombing believes that fascism finds much deeper roots in capitalist conditions and institutions, an objectively correct statement - and is therefore assessing that the those intitutions are worse than Nazis (which does not even follow from the former step as you presented it). As for what distinguishes this from critiquing the FBI's connection to the capitalist state, I don't know what you're getting at there. What if both are bad - and it doesn't matter which is worse, anyhow?
This question - which has nothing to do with declaring affinity to the Right - depends on the circumstances and stability of the bourgeois State, which might find it fit to attack the Right. That is, I would never think of defending sympathy with either side in a conflict between liberal state and fascist "victims".
"Pragmatic and contrarian" is a pretty strange equation in critiquing elements of "leftisms." Wouldn't the pragmatic and opportunist bend to existing whims and views, rather than countering them for the sake of critique?
In both these cases, pretty obviously reactionary and to be opposed, but not at all the pertinent point in either even to that effect.
Precisely why such phrases and justifications are to be opposed.
Those of just that white bourgeois, obviously. Communists should not concern themselves much with rights and freedoms (just as in the case of aggression and defence) in the first place.
This says more about the Left itself than certain negative elements of it, since the proletarian and revolutionary critique has long substantiated itself.
Because we must focus on our own government’s culpability as the source of all belligerence, many Leftists cannot condemn a homegrown reactionary when we must first blame the violence of the US government for creating them.
The source of all belligerence is never the government or the reactionary, but capital itself and the conditions themselves.
Sure, but one really shouldn't call that internationalism.
Yeah, but how could someone "apolitical" expose that in the first place? Being apolitical and doing that would make one a mere madman, rather than a fascist.
One shouldn't really care if they do. Many fascists dreamed as utopians of "overcoming capitalism."
The idea of a "populist" promoting "class reductionism" is nonsensical, since a populist politics of "the people" is already a non-class perspective.
If those socialists are just defending fascism in the first place, which they probably are, why not just describe it as "brown-brown"?
But this has always been the same classic Fascist viewpoint, of a mystified society beyond the class struggle and beyond capitalism and communism. It represents no new synthesis in essence.
Yes, since communists should care when communists and their strategic allies are suppressed, not others. Not in terms of "who to support".
Social democrats defending universalist ideas of right and democracy is not exactly surprising. Also, it shouldn't really matter who the state chooses to target more, left or right, communists or fascists, as an average. I'm not exactly bothered. It will always defend on the situation.
And in this struggle of mere political shells of the bourgeois, one should turn one's head.
The defender of Holocaust…
In Chomsky's defense: 1) he lived through the McCarthyism and censorship of the '40s and '50s, so it is somewhat understandable why he would defend the idea of free speech even when he disagreed with Faurisson personally 2) he has been an outspoken critic of Israel's treatment of Palestinians, so it is quite dishonest to lump him in with today's (mostly right-wing) Zionists 3) he has only supported voting against Trump in swing states, where voting actually matters, and has described such electoral activities as a very small part of what people should be doing in order to effect societal change 3a) anarchist history is also filled with examples of anarchists either running in elections, like Proudhon, or favoring certain candidates over others, like Bakunin, so there is nothing really unique about Chomsky's position in this regard; he has spent basically his entire life opposing the farce of bourgeois democracy (repeatedly noting how elections are essentially bought in the US) and stressing the need to overcome capitalism; his frequent use of expressions like "corporate tyranny" likewise directly echoes the socialist labor press of early nineteenth-century America, which he is quite familiar with
Didn't you defend Ukraine …
Responding to Substance Enjoyer
No I did not defend the bourgeois democracy of Ukraine as anti-imperialist. If you can cut and paste where you think I do that I would respond. I agree that all bourgeois democracies are anti-working class because they are capitalist.
What I wrote was that “post-Left pseudo-socialist media that has embraced anti-democratic, illiberal and even fascist positions in many cases...” so you can see the word “even” separates fascism out as a third set of politics that these pseudo socialists often embrace. I don’t define fascism at all here, despite your claim that I do.
No I don’t think communists should be liberal or become liberals as that would mean they are pro-capitalist. There is a distinction between pointing out the _illiberalism_ of fascist movements, from the Nazis to Duginism, and saying “Let’s all be liberals.”
But when pseudo communists/socialists openly throw support to currently existing illiberal strategies, forces, ideology, or policy that is a huge problem and they are to be opposed. One example: When Angela Nagle, darling of the Jacobin/Chapo “left” for a couple of years, talked in terms of Marx and socialism, some people missed that she was promoting nationalist, xenophobic, racist, and anti-working class politics. It’s obvious to me that huge swaths of the Millennial “Left” have fallen for reactionary forms of “socialism” just as portions of the generations before them did. I’m keeping my comments limited to your suggestion that I was implying by my reasoning that communists should become liberals, which doesn’t follow from anything I wrote.
Unlike the ANSWER coalition, Code Pink, and Donald Parkinson, I don’t whitewash “anti-imperialist” invasions as rational, justified, or the doing of “the other side.” I opposed and protested the US invasion of Iraq. That doesn’t mean I gave uncritical support as a “cheerleader” for “the Iraqi Resistance.” (“Cheerleader” is a frequent term used by the current crop of anarchist anti-militarists to besmirch anyone who disagrees with their strategy as alleged war-loving, pro-Nato, “anarcho-trenchists” or liberals.) Believing that Iraqis had a right to repel the US invasion did not make one a fan of Islamist militias or Saddam Hussein. Sadly there were groups, like the ISO, who called for uncritical support for “the Iraqi resistance” a position that made no sense.
I don’t think it’s my place to pronounce that people in Ukraine facing death, genocide, oppression, etc. should not determine for themselves the best way to deal with Putin’s murderous expansionist invasion. That doesn’t doesn’t make me pro-NATO. I just believe that when there is no organized Anarchist of radical anti-capitalist power, party, fighting force that could repel the Russian invasion, the people under the rain of bombs are not required to meet any socialist litmus test to wage their fight for survival in their defensive war. You feel they are required to meet it and that’s where we disagree. And some extend that belief to sabotaging the Ukrainian war effort and arms shipments to Ukraine while the Russian invasion/10 year occupation is ongoing.
I notice you ascribe to me the positions of supporting “national liberation” and some promotion of the concept of “self-determination” (in the Wilsonian or Leninist usage both being a form of nationalism). But I don’t promote either. I think that there is a reason people who feel it is a priority to stand in the way of Ukrainians, people in Ukraine, repelling a Russian invasion, have to always start by wrongly defining their opponents as inherently nationalist, pro-NATO, for national liberation, etc. And that’s because they can’t even imagine that a person could oppose all nationalism but still look at an actually existing situation and not feel it is their first duty to demand a purity of arms in a struggle for survival.
I also don’t find invoking “interimperialist war,” as somehow disqualifying support for Ukraine to repel an imperialist invasion, to be persuasive. What seems more important to me is what the lives of people in Ukraine would be like if they get absorbed into imperial Russia. A lot worse (see Steven quote below). As if just knowing that all wars are fought for capitalist ends is the same as saying there is no situation in which defending against imperialist invasion is justified because you’d just be fighting for a different imperialist. Again, this reduces all the context and debate of the various socialist parties and factions in the lead up to World War I, which is where a lot of these positions come from, to axioms that can be referred to as if they were a rule book to a board game “Oh, rats, it says here on page 3 that we can’t shoot back at Putin’s forces with rifles supplied by NATO or we’re imperialists too. Pack it up folks. Let’s just set up a welcome parade instead.”
The idea that people inside a given nation, state, region, etc. should only be encouraged to fight for survival if they can do so with purely anarchist, socialist, or communist means, including modern weaponry from a communist or socialist source, or they should be told to just be conquered, is repugnant to me. For one thing, there is no anarchist, socialist, or communist government, state, federation, or even organized power structure anywhere on the planet, let alone one with modern weapons that could withstand a Russian invasion. The anti-militarist argument makes impossible demands based on theoretical positions that are out of touch with reality.
People might argue that they are calling for anarchists to organize other kinds of resistance, aid to refugees, support for deserters, fraternizing with troops, etc. which is all great but none of that has or will stop the main problem, the brutal invasion. If anarchist and socialist organizing could have stopped massacres of civilians, massive bombing campaigns, seizure of huge swaths of land to be occupied by the invading Russian forces, forced deportation of thousands of children, the creation of millions of refugees and tens of thousands of dead that would have been fantastic. The Russian leadership and state media’s openly announced goal of reclaiming Ukraine as part of Russia because Ukraine “doesn’t exist” is evidence that the invasion goal is genocidal, whether you believe states should exist or not (and I don’t). I do support the groups and individuals inside Russia resisting in various ways but they risk imprisonment or even death which has shut that down for the most part.
In the case of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, I find the use of Lenin quotes as axioms to be usually ineffective and out of touch. It’s one thing to consider what Lenin wrote or did in the context of the Revolution or other events, but that’s not the same as just producing his writing as the final word on any issue remotely correlating to his historical context. As if Lenin, who sent the Red Army to dismantle even social democratic governments in some of the states he promised independence to (Suny, The Soviet Experiment), who enacted top down scientific management and one man management to over-ride workers self management (Brinton, Wetzel, etc.), who offered state capitalism as the way forward (Suny and https://libcom.org/discussion/lenin-acknowledging-intentional-implementation-state-capitalism-ussr), is any kind of “authority” that wins an argument over who is the most authentic socialist just seems silly to me. Never mind that what Lenin wrote and what he did were often utterly contradictory, and changed over time (see Draper on the meaning of Lenin’s theory of the “Defeatism” https://www.marxists.org/archive/draper/1953/defeat/index.htm). And I find the form of argumentation in a series of historically decontextualized quotes and slogans “we insist on class war or none at all” to be delusional and disconnected from present reality.
I don’t question whether or not class-war is the necessary type of struggle to carry through a social revolution. But Neither would I strip the situation in Ukraine of all history, of meaningful contrast between a heavily autocratic state with fascist elements, and a neoliberal one that had brought its fascist political and militia movements far more under control. There is no “both sides” Trumpian equivalency argument when comparing the dominant fascist aspects of the Russian state and the diminishing fascist political and militia groups of Ukraine who are in power nowhere.
The Right Podcast did good comparisons a couple years ago at the start of the current phase of the Russian invasion of Ukraine:
Russia's Extremists in Ukraine: Nazi's in Donbas: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K6_MEqSqBuM
Azov Battalion & Ukrainian Nationalism: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XphLvgcL17Y
With apologies to Steven, who I do not assume agrees with my political views, I do agree with what he said about anti-militarism as an anarchist revolutionary ideal versus it’s current practical applicability to the Russian invasion of Ukraine:
Comrade Motopu wrote: The…
We could certainly talk about Ukrainian self-defense at the beginning of the Russian invasion, when Russia was attempting to capture Kiev amid a mostly hostile Kievan population, and in the process perpetrated horrific massacres like the one in Bucha (which is in the Kiev Oblast). However, it is mostly Ukraine who is on the offensive now in an effort to regain territory currently held by Russia, so it really makes no sense to continue talking about “Ukrainian self-defense” in these circumstances; or at the very least, one should speak precisely about what parts of Ukraine they're referring to. It is just dangerous nonsense, for example, to portray the Ukrainian recapturing of places like Crimea as a form of “Ukrainian self-defense,” whether carried out by the Ukrainian military or some autonomous “anarchist/left-wing” forces, especially when Putin has described Crimea as one of his “red lines.” The Russophilic views of Crimeans, as lamentable as they are from a socialist perspective, are also well-documented, even by Western/mainstream sources, so there is really no excuse to continue pretending like Crimeans are just sitting around "longing" for their supposed “liberation” by Ukraine.
I think a lot of this discussion on the Russian invasion also overlooks the fact that many of the regions that Russia has absorbed were never particularly close to Kiev to begin with, especially following the 2014 overthrow of Yanukovych and the subsequent persecution of Russian speakers.[1] Some people seem to forget that there was an entire civil war following the so-called “Maidan Revolution” in 2014, in which Ukraine became increasingly fractured into nationalist and more Russophilic (including separatist) regions. Crimea, for instance, has almost always been overwhelmingly pro-Russia and is mostly inhabited by ethnic Russians (even before the 2014 annexation—i.e. the ethnic-Russian population is not just the result of demographic manipulation), which is a fact that many people/war-mongers in the West seem to choose to ignore. The Donbass is similarly a heavily Russophilic region, as evidenced by a Ukrainian (not a Russian) survey following the 2014 overthrow of Yanukovych. Among other findings, the survey indicated that a majority of Donbass residents were in favor of different forms of greater regional autonomy, including a number of people who were in favor of separating from Ukraine and joining Russia.[2] The post-Maidan government in Kiev disregarded such findings and labeled anyone who opposed the new ultra-nationalist government and its exclusionary policies as “terrorists.” This history, along with the aggressive expansion of NATO, an alliance which should have dissolved following the end of the Cold War when it was originally aimed at the Soviet Union, should be the starting point for any understanding of the current Russo-Ukrainian War.
1. Mostly all Ukrainians understand Russian, but not all Ukrainians, such as in the Russophilic regions, understand Ukrainian. Hence why the various language laws that the post-Yanukovych governments have enacted, or attempted to enact, have been so divisive.
2. To be precise, 25.7% wanted to maintain the current status in a unitary Ukraine with extended authority, 23.5% wanted autonomy within a federal Ukraine, 8.4% wanted separation from Ukraine and the formation of an independent state, and 22.5% wanted separation from Ukraine and to join another state (i.e. Russia). See the table for the other percentages.
so-called “Maidan Revolution…
Reading your comments made me realize how much you’re just promoting Putin’s revived “Novorossiya” campaign, justifying expansionist war with the goal of adding Ukraine, in part or in whole to Russia. Using the “Russophilic” desires of Ukrainians to imply this is what they asked for as a way of justifying Putin’s invasion is both dangerous and disingenuous, unless you actually believe this stuff. The casual dismissal of the “so called Maidan Revolution” also indicates that you might believe it was all a Western false flag, or perhaps a CIA orchestrated coup, anything but an organic and genuine expression of resistance by Ukrainians against Russia and Yanukovych, who was massacring protesters. At any rate you are clear in that you don’t believe it was a legitimate revolution.
The line about the expanding NATO threat also seems disingenuous and in line with minimizing even the possibility that Putin is the main instigator of this war. We’re supposed to disregard his record as a war-monger, expansionist, with a record of invasions in Georgia (20% of which Russia has occupied since 2008), Ukraine, and as providing the main fire-power that upheld the brutal Assad dictatorship, killing hundreds of thousands and creating millions of refugees in Syria. The old 2003 Common Dreams sort of Chomskyite “we only need to critique what our governments and alliances do, not others” is now glaringly the “anti-imperialism of fools” as in campism. Critiquing NATO is warranted. Merely using NATO’s record to whitewash and justify Putin’s major role and culpability for the Russo-Ukraine war is run of the mill tankieism.
You mention this survey was taken “following the overthrow of Yanukovych.” You could have said the survey was taken months after Putin had invaded Crimea, dismissed the existing Crimean government, and then had the newly installed government vote to be annexed by Russia. The survey you cite was taken from April 29 to May 11, 2014.
You also could have mentioned that in April of 2014, Russia was already backing the separatists in Luhansk and Donetsk (Donbas): “In April 2014, Russian-backed militants seized towns in Ukraine's eastern Donbas region and proclaimed the Donetsk People's Republic(DPR) and the Luhansk People's Republic (LPR) as independent states, starting the Donbas war.”
[source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russo-Ukrainian_War ]
Both Luhansk and Donetsk were already declared “republics” before this survey was taken. Luhansk declared April 27th, 2014. Donetsk declared April 7th 2014. So the survey you rely on to show reliable sentiment about the percent of the population in Donbas who supported joining Russia was taken after Russia had used armed force to settle the question.
Even if the survey was accurate, and 22.5% of people in Donbas (a minority) supported joining Russia, this in no way indicates they would want to be invaded, have separatist groups trained, armed, and led by Russian military troops, and be assimilated by force.
Important side note, Crimea was already an ‘autonomous republic” of Ukraine (since 1991) when Russia invaded it in 2014. They were allowed to vote themselves this status while in the Ukrainian state. “In the Russian Federation, however, the category of “autonomous republic” does not exist. In the treaty of annexation signed by the Russian and Crimean governments on 18 March 2014, the status of the peninsula was changed to simply a “republic” (Respublika Krym), joining 21 other “republics” of the Russian Federation’s now-85 federal “subjects,” with Crimea and the city of Sevastopol added as separate entities.” [source for quote: https://www.wilsoncenter.org/publication/why-did-russia-give-away-crimea-sixty-years-ago ]
What you call the civil war was triggered, orchestrated, and sustained by the presence of the Russian invasion force. The Regular Russian military both trained and equipped the “rebels” they created and they fought side by side with them. Igor Girkin-Strelkov, a main Russian instigator of the Donbas war, and then the Minister of Defense in the “Donetsk People's Republic,” was quoted saying “You are making an idiot or fool of yourself if you think that [the Donetsk and Luhansk Peoples’ Republics] were formed by themselves.” [source: https://theconversation.com/dont-call-it-a-civil-war-ukraines-conflict-is-an-act-of-russian-aggression-46280 ]
You cite the statistic of the April/May 2014 poll about less than 25% expressing a desire to join with Russia. As if this in any way justifies Putin sending Russian troops covertly to Donbas, and then “using troops, special forces, and intelligence operatives to foment a faux, pro-Russia separatist uprising.” While thousands of locals who didn’t support the Maidan Revolution did join, they were not a grass roots self-organized “rebel” force. They would not have existed if not for the Russian invasion, creation, and management of these “rebels” in the “civil war.” [Source: The War Came to Us. Christopher Miller. Ebook version]
Pretty stunning to see you posit Ukraine is now the aggressor. You’re not even talking about the Kursk incursion, but just fighting over Ukrainian territory annexed by Russia. I hope you can see why a lot of people will read your statements as pro-invasion, dare I say “war mongering” (a term you introduced into the discussion). The invasion started in 2014 with the taking of Crimea, and Donbas by Russia. The UN General Assembly adopted a resolution “Calling upon States Not to Recognize Changes in Status of Crimea Region.” [ https://press.un.org/en/2014/ga11493.ddoc.htm ] and the act qualifies as an “Act of Agression” under General Assembly resolution 3314 [ https://legal.un.org/avl/ha/da/da.html ] if anyone cares about international law.
So yes, retaking areas that Russia seized, occupied, and annexed by an invasion (Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia) still obviously qualifies as defensive. After two years of war and suffering, Ukraine has also invaded Russian territory and wants permission to strike targets inside Russia using weapons supplied by the US to target weapons and fuel supplies. It’s all part of the defensive war as simply allowing the aggressor to carry out supply lines and war material production unchecked, as well as allowing Russian missile launches against Ukrainian military and civilian targets from the safety of inside Russia was not working.
You could have also cited surveys from April 2014 by the same KIIS that asked people in Donetsk and Luhansk very specific questions about the Donbas war. (Source: https://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=302&page=1&y=2014&m=4 )
Do you support actions of those, who with arms capture administrative buildings in your region?
Donetsk: 72% Rather or Certainly no.
Luhansk: 58.3% Rather or Certainly no.
Do you consider Viktor Yanukovych to be a legitimate President of Ukraine?
Donetsk: 58.2% Rather or Certainly no.
Luhansk: 57.6% Rather or Certainly no.
Do you support the idea, that your region should secede from Ukraine and join Russia?
Donetsk: 52.2% Rather or Certainly no.
Luhansk: 51.9% Rather or Certainly no.
Do you support introduction of Russian troops into Ukraine?
Donetsk: 66.3% Rather or Certainly no.
Luhansk: 53.4% Rather or Certainly no.
2023 survey from the KIIS group you cited also show extremely low numbers of people anywhere in Ukraine believe Russian speakers are oppressed. KIIS also did surveys before 2014 with the same results. You seem to be repeating the Russian propaganda rhetoric that the invasion and annexation of Crimea and were all about “protection of the Russian-speaking population” with almost your entire post relying on the “Russophillic views” of Ukrainians, as if that justifies this horrific war started and continued by the Russian capitalist class and Putin in particular.
From the intro: Although the Russian authorities are constantly changing their vision of their goals in the war against Ukraine, the emphasis on the imaginary "protection of the Russian-speaking population" remains unchanged. A reliable argument for verifying these accusations is to ask the citizens of Ukraine themselves whether they see systematic oppression and persecution because of the Russian language.
In May 2022, KMIS asked whether, according to respondents, Russian-speaking citizens are subjected to systematic oppression and persecution (it should be noted that both before 2014 and until 2022, numerous surveys indicated that the language issue is not a significant problem for Ukrainians). Now, in May 2023, we have repeated this question.
https://kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=1245&page=1&t=10
In your version, detached statistics are enough to justify Putin’s invasion, even to suggest this is what the people in Crimea and Donbas wanted. Funny how you don’t really hear people saying that surveys inside Russia show that the majority of Russians have supported the war and since that’s what they really want, we should listen to them and that it must be justifiable. Instead people rightly point out how hard it is to protest inside Russia, how poor, immigrant, and minority regions bear the brunt of conscription as a way to keep protests in cities lower, and how the Russian state media propaganda machine eradicates anti-war dissent along with all other political dissent. Only a pro-Putin propagandist would even try to justify the war on those grounds. Yet you parrot Putin’s lines about Donbas and Crimea’s Russophiles as justification for the annexations and invasion.
I’ll tack on an excerpt from Christopher Miller’s book _The War Came To Us_. He is a reporter who lived in Ukraine for over a decade. I think reading his account might help you break out from the sort of Grayzone/Russia Today talking points.
Just about everyone I knew in Kyiv was playing some sort of role on the Maidan, including my Russian-speaking friends. We almost couldn’t remember what life was like before the uprising, even though it was only a few weeks old. Days felt like weeks, and weeks like years. Soon it all just blurred together and time was dictated by events on the Maidan. All conversations and interactions now centered around what was happening on the square.
Meanwhile, in eastern Ukraine, only a little more than half of my friends were turning out to smaller satellite Euromaidan and anti-government rallies in Donetsk, Luhansk, and Kharkiv. Even fewer were making pilgrimages to Kyiv to join the big weekend rallies. Some were suspicious of what they saw in Kyiv. Meanwhile Yanukovych, being from Donetsk and still controlling most of the city through his vast “family” network of tycoons, local politicians, and goons, used his resources to quash the demonstrations there and keep them from taking hold like they had in Kyiv. Those in the east were predominantly Russian speakers and lived close to the border with Russia. Many of them regularly tuned into Russian television, which at best presented a distorted view of events and the people partaking in them, and at worst pushed blatant disinformation to discredit the uprising.
It was true that not all Ukrainians supported Euromaidan and the revolution emerging from it. Three prominent Ukrainian pollsters found that in December 2013 between 45 per cent and 50 per cent of Ukrainians supported Euromaidan, while 42 per cent to 50 per cent opposed it. Unsurprisingly, the most support for it was in Kyiv (about 75 per cent) and western Ukraine (more than 80 per cent). Those figures also aligned with where the protesters came from: about 55 per cent were from the west of the country while 24 per cent hailed from central Ukraine; just 21 per cent came from the east.
It was also true that ultranationalists and extremist groups on the far right of the political spectrum and from the margins of Ukrainian society came to the Maidan. The Kremlin pointed to their involvement as evidence of the uprising being a Western-backed “fascist coup” led by radicals who wanted to oppress the country’s ethnic Russians and Russian speakers, which couldn’t have been farther from the truth on the ground. Moscow cherry-picked events and groups to support its anti-Ukrainian and anti-Western propaganda. In particular, it pointed to the toppling of the Lenin statue in Kyiv, revered by diehard Communists but a symbol to many Ukrainians of tyranny and oppression.
A good podcast on Maidan: Ukraine Without Hype episode 65: Ten Years of Revolution, the Anniversary of Euromaidan with Olga Tokariuk
Olga Tokariuk is a Ukrainian journalist and Chatham Fellow who was there when the history of Ukraine - and the world - changed forever on the night of November 21, 2013. Former President Yanukovych had gone back on his promises of European Association, and fully chose Russia. What followed was protests turned into Revolution, and Revolution turned into a war to defend the very existence of the Ukrainian people.
https://open.spotify.com/episode/0x9hXVlEpDZNDtlGyODDpt
“Russia was trying to control Ukraine long before 2013. Mostly with economical means, with its penetration into all realms of life in Ukraine. In the media there was a total control. There was a presence of Russian citizens in the boards, in the management, in the editorial teams of major tv stations. I’m speaking from personal experience [she is a journalist]. There were no independent media. The Russians then used gas blackmail, energy blackmail to keep Ukrainian governments loyal. Russia would interfere in Ukrainian internal affairs during every election. So Russia tried to subjugate Ukraine and keep it in it’s sphere of influence long before the Maidan.” --Olga Tokariuk, November, 2023.
He lived through the…
A French proverb says:“Tout comprendre c’est tout pardonner”. However, this does not apply to us.
Making his "anti-Zionist Zionism" even more absurd. I think he even considered the kibbutz to be socialist (defended by Jacobin magazine), which tells you about his vision of socialism (essentially a liberal desire for more democracy in the world at the extent of certain forms of state power).
No, he also specifically justified appealing directly to the State if necessary, very principled indeed.
I'm afraid that was part of my point. The anarchist democrat or anarchist nation-state supporter is a classic contradiction.
I did not defend the…
So you do in fact agree that the Ukraine war is an inter-imperialist conflict?
Then qualifying any specific capitalist regime as anti-working class is tautological and meaningless except to emphasise that you don't like that specific regime. You mentioned
Sure, you didn't say they supported every anti-working class regime, but only those perceived as anti-imperialist. But this still feels like an implication that those regimes in particular are *more* anti-working class than others.
You implicitly associate fascism with anti-democracy and anti-liberalism by associating all three with these "pseudo-Socialists" of yours. I never said you tried to analyse fascism as such, but that's worse in a way.
But if we shouldn't be liberals, than won't our own strategies, forces, and policy also be illiberal? Which is not to suggest affinity with illiberal fascist movements insofar as they are indeed illiberal, which is only to the extent that the capitalist State requires it so long as it matters.
Comrade Motopu wrote: You…
The fact that you’re citing Wikipedia, people who are openly sympathetic towards the post-Maidan government, American think tanks like the Wilson Center (!) (named after that racist eugenicist Woodrow Wilson), and other low-quality/dubious sources says enough about your “analysis” I think.
You’re also just spreading misinformation by arguing that there was no real civil war following the 2014 overthrow of Yanukovych, and that all opposition to the ultra-nationalist (and also extremely right-wing) government that replaced him was merely orchestrated by Russia. Protests erupted across the Russophone parts of Ukraine following the February coup, together with widespread clashes between pro- and anti-Maidan protesters. Most notably, on 2 May 2014, there was the horrific attack by Ukrainian fascists (including the Right Sector) and other pro-Maidan activists against anti-Maidan protesters at the Odessa trade union building. The pro-Maidan protesters forced the anti-Maidan protesters into the building before setting it on fire and preventing their escape, resulting in the deaths of around 42 people. (Here’s footage of that, since you seem to think that there was no genuine Ukrainian opposition to the Maidan coup.)
Yanukovych was hardly some saint, and nobody is trying to present him as such; he was a corrupt oligarch who was opposed by a significant number of Ukrainians, even within the Russophilic areas of Ukraine. However, there were just as many anti-Maidan protesters who were understandably displeased with the ultra-nationalist (and no less oligarchic and corrupt) government that replaced him and the discriminatory policies that they wanted to implement. It really is quite baffling that you seem to be defending this regime and are upset with me for simply pointing out that the “Maidan Revolution” was not as “emancipatory and glorious" as the Ukrainian ultra-nationalists and their Western sponsors try to portray it.
Do you have a source for where the Russian government has stated that their goal is to "reclaim all of Ukraine," or any legitimate source that attests to Russia's so-called "imperial (as in empire) ambitions," as Ukrainian nationalists and other Western sources constantly fear-monger about? It might be fun to pretend that Putin wants to resurrect the Russian Empire before conquering all of Europe, with Ukraine supposedly serving as the only bulwark against all of this, but this portrayal has little to do with reality.
Just taking the Russian annexation of Crimea as an example, the peninsula had originally been Russian territory before Nikita Khrushchev transferred it over to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954. Russia has maintained a naval base in Sevastopol, one of Russia's only warm-water sea ports, since the days of the Russian Empire. It was (eventually) agreed that Russia would continue to have access to this sea port following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. However, following the 2014 overthrow of Yanukovych and the rise of an openly pro-Western and anti-Russian government in Kiev, Russia became apprehensive about their continued access to the naval base, which played a large role in the Russian decision to simply annex Crimea (again, with the approval of a large part of the Crimean population, as Western sources themselves concede). Contrary to your and others' fear-mongering, there are no indications that Russia wants to "reclaim all of Ukraine." Russia is an oppressive capitalist regime (not unlike Ukraine), but more than anything, they simply want to maintain access to their only major warm-water sea port, in addition to having non-hostile neighbors who aren't members of an anti-Russian military alliance (i.e. NATO).
I never said that the majority of Donbass residents were “in favor of joining Russia”—you’re just distorting what I said and the statistics I provided, which were quite clear. I said that they were in favor of "different forms of greater regional autonomy," which was true then and is still true now. According to the survey, only 22.5% of Donbass residents wanted separation from Ukraine and to join Russia, but that percentage was part of a larger percentage of people who, like I said before, favored “different forms of greater regional autonomy.” The majority of people were not in favor of separating from Ukraine and becoming part of Russia, and I never claimed that they were. (I'm also basically citing Sakwa's book Frontline Ukraine with respect to this survey. See pp. 153-54.) There are also numerous other surveys corroborating the above findings regarding Donbass residents' dissatisfaction with the Kiev government and their desire for greater regional autonomy following the Maidan coup.
I'm really not. The fact that the post-Maidan government has enacted discriminatory policies against Russian speakers (as well as other idiotic measures, like renaming streets after fascists in order to help build up nationalist sentiments and honor their "nationalist heroes"), and that these measures have also alienated people living in the more Russophilic parts of Ukraine, is not something that is really up for debate. It's quite disgusting that you're even trying to trivialize such policies, by citing obviously biased surveys, when international organizations like Human Rights Watch and others have already condemned the Ukrainian regime for the same reasons.
The status of Russian as an official language has in fact always been a contentious issue within Ukraine (and a recurring theme in Ukrainian elections) ever since Ukraine's declaration of independence from the Soviet Union in 1991. One of the first measures of the post-Maidan government in 2014 was to attempt to do away with the 2012 Kolesnichenko-Kivalov Language Law, which allowed any language spoken by at least 10% of the population to be declared official within a particular region/oblast. The post-Maidan regime eventually succeeded in repealing this law in 2018 and have replaced it with the more discriminatory 2019 law, which made the use of Ukrainian compulsory at almost all levels of public life. Besides being criticized by international organizations like HRW, the law has also predictably been widely unpopular among a large number of Russian speakers in Ukraine.
The fact that you’re citing…
The genetic fallacy (also known as the fallacy of origins or fallacy of virtue)[1] is a fallacy of irrelevance in which arguments or information are dismissed or validated based solely on their source of origin rather than their content. In other words, a claim is ignored or given credibility based on its source rather than the claim itself.
[source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_fallacy ]
I didn’t say ALL opposition was organized by Russia. You should really read the Christopher Miller book although I’m guessing you will refuse to because he got a grant from something connected to George Soros, or went to a school funded by a company connected to the military industrial complex, or wrote for the Financial Times. Best not to read his stuff. That’s just “source analysis.” I suggest the Miller book because it provides a lot of nuance, and he does talk accurately and honestly about all of the different factions, views, possible motivations for pro-Russian or pro-Western positions people around him are taking. I don't have to agree with all of his assessments to find his insights and journalism as someone who lived there since 2010 and is currently reporting from the field in Ukraine useful. But unlike you, he also has a good nose for Russian state propaganda, and he has a highly developed timeline of events and factions, as well as being able to weigh the centrality or peripheral nature of factors to the overall situation. So he doesn’t do the “Ukraine is actually governed by extreme right ultra-Nationalists” simplification type stuff just to win arguments, or the “Russian speakers were all oppressed to the point their lives were hell” type hysterics I see in your almost totally inaccurate description of the war. And even if you don't say in so many words, the implied meaning of your chosen facts, and weight you give things, shows a clearly biased position with the goal of whitewashing Putin's regime.
And yeah, it’s not a civil war. Just because there are two sides fighting inside a country doesn’t make it a Civil War, especially when there would have been no war if not for the invading force from another country. A cursory look at US imperialism in Southeast Asia or Latin America should show anyone this. It’s just weird to insist Russia didn’t kick start the war and that they don’t sustain it. “Nope, I don’t see any elephant in the room, sorry.” Like, the Contras were an American created counter-insurgency. Call that a civil war if you like, but it was a US intervention in Nicaragua.
Intentionally misinterpreting what I wrote again or just not trying to honestly assess it. Beyond that though, this really reminds me of the people who say “The Proud Boys are a fraternal drinking club” or “Trump’s Muslim ban isn’t racist because Islam is a religion.” It’s very clear there are things about Putin’s invasion, and his regime that you don’t want to see. But I’ll give you a couple of links to things he’s said and written about Ukraine. I think if you can forget for a moment that you are in a debate, you might just see what he’s _really saying_ or if you like _implying_ with his views on Ukraine. There is just no point in taking the “Can you prove he’s an imperialist?” line here unless your goal is defending his regime and his wars.
Address by the President of the Russian Federation February 21, 2022
22:35 The Kremlin, Moscow
[source: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/67828 ]
Article by Vladimir Putin ”On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians“
July 12, 2021 17:00 [source: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/66181 ]
I probably won’t respond to Adri or Substance Enjoyer if your future posts are like your last round as I just think we might be done saying what we have to say on the issue of so called anti-militarism vs. support for people in Ukraine being the ones who have to determine how they will repel an imperialist invasion and genocide.
Thanks for your responses.
Unlike the ANSWER coalition,…
Not invasions, but "anti-imperialist" defence, as I previously stated.
Rightly so.
No individual or group has an innate right to defend itself or to wage war against aggressors or victims. I usually don't entertain any notions of national rights.
There is none at present, but supporting your "defensive war" objectively impedes its emergence. It is all well and good to state there is no revolutionary defeatism at the moment. But the revolutionary defeatism is always preceded by mere defeatism, which appears pathetic until the moment the proletarian forces can emerge. And Russia also believes quite sincerely it is waging a "defensive war" against NATO's violation of various inter-imperialist treaties. The category is vacuous depending on who you've already decided to support, but also not one that should even be taken into consideration, since again - without relying on Lenin's opinion, though it was the same - I don't believe communists should think about "aggressors" and "victims" in capitalist wars. By that grade, one should at least be principled and apply this to all the classic historic examples of capitalist wars, defending Belgium's war of defence against Germany in 1914, and so on. And they aren't waging a fight for survival, but the fight for the survival of the state. The state and the people residing within the territory of the state are very rarely the same or share the same interests.
Yeah, since I believe that the main enemy is always at home in capitalist imperialism, and thus it is one's own state and its militarisms that must be opposed and sabotaged first and foremost. I would say the same to Russians, you know!
Lenin actually lent support for national liberation on purely tactical or class grounds, mostly in areas where the bourgeois was incomplete, never for humanitarian or patriotic reasons.
Defence of the nation-state is nationalist and patriotic for one's nation-state.
You seem to understand imperialism as a specific subset of capitalist states or a military or moral practice they undertake. Imperialism is an entire epoch of capitalism in which all states naturally tend towards imperialism.
Except some of them were blatantly social-patriotic and some where actually revolutionary. As Mattick wrote, one side of those debates found themselves in the war cabinets, and the other found themselves imprisoned.
Who is the "we" here? Ukrainian capitalist state? Communists? As if any internationalist communist is more favourable to Russia by opposing that war effort, and desires a "welcome parade".
If you consider anti-militarism and internationalism in these terms, then why shoulds you not just go all the way and support the "lesser" capitalist state in every capitalist war where revolutionary action does not seem likely?
This was a classic argument of social-patriots of the First World War: Socialism didn't prevent the war, so now it must be supported. But the fact that the war started is not the fault of communists, is it? Once those forces have themselves encouraged war, one should leave the defence of the nation in wartime to other forces and parties.
The conflict should not be considered from the standpoint of the UN Genocide Convention, but the interests of communists, the most favourable outcome for us.
What about communists in Ukraine? And don't give that nonsense about their suppression being limited to pro-Russian groups. You know and I know that a group opposed to the war on both sides will be persecuted.
I won't be reading any of those links, but can we stay on topic? I was merely quoting Lenin's internationalist analysis of the first world war. Therefore, take objection to that aspect wish to take objection.
For us, questions of autocratic and democratic states should be nothing but illusory and transitionary questions of various possible political shells for bourgeois rule. It's also just untrue that democratic or liberal states are more favourable to communists or revolutionaries. If that was really true, they wouldn't be the prevalent form of developed capitalist rule.
I feel the same misunderstanding of the nature of imperialism applies here. Also, whatever their righteousness or rationality in doing so, those fighting for their own nation-state are not revolutionary forces in that state. They're not.
Mostly because they opposed the war, which you just mentioned for Ukraine. Do you really think the Ukrainian state makes a studious distinction between "pro-Russian" parties and those merely opposing the war effort? I mean, Russia tolerates any level of supposed radicalism which doesn't oppose the war, as Ukraine does, just look at CPRF, however un-communist they are.
Also, don't misunderstand my intentions here, but this was Mussolini's argument concerning Italian entry into World War I: Austria-Hungary and Germany were more reactionary and autocratic states which tended more to suppress socialists than developed democracies like France, England and the USA. I only mean to say that it is a farcical error as reasoning. I'm suspicious of those arguments.
The need to justify critique is the first step towards the conservative stifling of any ruthless critique.
That can be your opinion, but then in supporting the Ukrainian state you'll have to take up the responsibility of promoting their suppression. There are no two ways about the thing.
The casual dismissal of the …
Who cares if it was legitimate? It could be described as a national movement. It wasn't genuinely revolutionary or proletarian, certainly.
[The "Maidan Revolution"]…
Case closed?
What is a genuine revolution? Revolution is either bourgeois or proletarian. To the best of my knowledge, the combatants in the Ukrainian Revolution were the forces of order at the behest of the Russian and Ukrainian capitalist states, and Ukrainian civilians, predominantly working class, but infiltrated by supporters of numerous bourgeois causes, most notably that of the European economic block.
Perhaps the rebbe can help us?
Marx, The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte
Our conclusion is that it was proletarian revolution, proceeded by a bourgeois Revolution and inter-bourgeois war.
Comrade Motopu: I didn’t say…
The Maidan movement was certainly a diverse movement at first, responding to a range of genuine grievances, but there is also more than enough truth to the claim that the government that came to power was permeated by right-wing elements who were guided by an extreme Russophobic nationalist ideology. Regarding the cabinet of the new government, the Minister of Justice, Deputy Prime Minister, and Secretary of the National Security and Defense Council all came from the ultra-nationalist and right-wing Svoboda party. There was also little representation for the Party of Regions in the new government, the major party representing the Russophilic regions of Ukraine (hence the name "regions"), despite the fact that its members held a significant number of the seats in the Rada. Since coming to power, the post-Maidan government has also regularly celebrated fascists and anti-Semites, or their so-called "national heroes," like Stepan Bandera, Roman Shukhevych, Dmytro Klyachkivsky, and others. The 2015 "decommunization" laws were in fact mostly drafted up by Yuri Shukhevych, the late son of Roman Shukhevych. The latter had been a leader in the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA) of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists (OUN-B), which carried out massacres against Jews, Poles, and other targeted groups in Eastern Europe.
Also going back to what you claimed earlier:
There is now mounting evidence that some of the killings of pro-Maidan protesters, who have since been christened the "Heavenly Hundred" by the new government, were carried out by Ukrainian far-right nationalists in order to make it appear that the Yanukovych government was responsible. Sakwa discusses such shootings in his scholarly book (which isn't Wikipedia, hint hint—and which also doesn't mean that I agree with all his views) Frontline Ukraine:
Although I haven't read it yet, the Ukrainian-Canadian scholar Ivan Katchanovski has also recently released an entire book, The Maidan Massacre in Ukraine, dealing with the killings and their perpetrators, which seems worth checking out. (He's also made the work open-access here.) Relying solely on the post-Maidan government to investigate itself regarding the Maidan Massacre is about as absurd as relying on Israel to investigate its own crimes, which Israel's Western allies regularly do.
Again, this is just Ukrainian nationalist propaganda that you're spewing, which is designed to make it appear as if Russia is behind any feelings of bitterness towards the post-Maidan regime. Besides the deadly clashes in places like Odessa and elsewhere, the uprisings in the Donbass were also genuine outbursts of resentment towards the ultra-nationalist post-Maidan government in Kiev and its Ukrainizing policies. Moscow did not create or orchestrate these uprisings, but only exploited them once they were already underway. It also doesn't really matter whether a third party is supporting a particular faction in a civil war; not to provide a rigorous definition of the term, but a civil war is mostly characterized by an armed conflict between inhabitants of the same country or polity, which was certainly the case following the 2014 overthrow of Yanukovych. The Russian Civil War (1917-1922), for example, was no less of a civil war simply because Western countries provided major assistance to the reactionary White forces.