Forthcoming ACG Public Meeting on War in Ukraine

[charlie mowbray]

War in Ukraine: Is 'No War but the Class War' Just a Slogan?

What does the slogan 'No War but the Class War' mean in the interimperialist conflict between Russia and NATO-backed Ukraine?

www.eventbrite.co.uk

 

[cupid_stunt]

If they need to ask that question, there's no hope for them.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

If they need to ask that question, there's no hope for them.

I think the questions asked in that link are good ones actually. But then I'm kind of biased I guess.

Not that I want this thread to be de-railed btw.

 

[Serge Forward]

If they need to ask that question, there's no hope for them.

The headline is poor, but as AmateurAgitator says, the key questions are in the blurb.

 

[chilango]

I think the headline is fine. Even if your answer is an unequivocal "yes" it is still worth asking.

I find the description of the invasion as an "interimperialistic conflict" more problematic tbh. I can't make the meeting but if an ACGer can point me towards some expansion on that I'd be grateful.

 

[Serge Forward]

It is an inter-imperialist conflict, Russian imperialism with Ukraine (tragically) as a NATO proxy. This is not saying that the authoritarian nationalist Russian state isn't the aggressor and formerly neo-liberal Ukraine (I say formerly, as it's too fucked to be anything other than in basic survival mode now) isn't the victim; but various "western" states and NATO conditionally swinging behind Ukraine is what makes it an inter-imperialist conflict.

Yeah, maybe the question "should we take sides?" should be asked, and the fact that some don't think it's worth asking is yet another echo of WW1 trenchism. But I don't think it should be the most prominent question. Besides, who's "we"?

 

[Pickman's model]

If they need to ask that question, there's no hope for them.

the point of having a meeting on the subject is to present one's ideas to an audience, and to defend them in debate. and while the acg are asking the question, they're also going to answer it in their presentation to the audience. this really shouldn't need to be pointed out to you.

sometimes you post really well and incisively and sometimes you offer up a pile of puke, as here

 

[The39thStep]

It is an inter-imperialist conflict, Russian imperialism with Ukraine (tragically) as a NATO proxy. This is not saying that the authoritarian nationalist Russian state isn't the aggressor and formerly neo-liberal Ukraine (I say formerly, as it's too fucked to be anything other than in basic survival mode now) isn't the victim; but various "western" states and NATO conditionally swinging behind Ukraine is what makes it an inter-imperialist conflict.

Yeah, maybe the question "should we take sides?" should be asked, and the fact that some don't think it's worth asking is yet another echo of WW1 trenchism. But I don't think it should be the most prominent question. Besides, who's "we"?

When you say 'conditionally swinging behind Ukraine ', can you expand on this and describe how/why this has occurred?

 

[LDC]

It is an inter-imperialist conflict, Russian imperialism with Ukraine (tragically) as a NATO proxy.

That is far too simplistic bordering on nonsense in my understanding, and the understanding of many anarchists and communists in the area (and others). And 'proxy' are you sure you mean that as well? Ukraine is not fighting on behalf of NATO, it's fighting for itself with limited NATO and other support. It's all very well talking about NWBTCW, but you're slipping into very dodgy and analytically weak language, you're still doing this campism thing of solely seeing things as monolithic 'blocks', there's no understanding or acceptance of people outside that having agency and potential. It's all just grist to an imperialist war.

I'll try and come to the meeting anyway!

 

[Serge Forward]

In other words The39thStep, all but WW3 scenario troops on the ground, no fly zone, etc.

I'm a bit busy now doing some urgent last minute strike ballot stuff. I'll try and come back to LynnDoyleCooper this evening (unless someone else steps in first).

 

[chilango]

It is an inter-imperialist conflict, Russian imperialism with Ukraine (tragically) as a NATO proxy. This is not saying that the authoritarian nationalist Russian state isn't the aggressor and formerly neo-liberal Ukraine (I say formerly, as it's too fucked to be anything other than in basic survival mode now) isn't the victim; but various "western" states and NATO conditionally swinging behind Ukraine is what makes it an inter-imperialist conflict.

Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Aside from the specific disagreements that LynnDoyleCooper raises, which I'd tend to share. I'd add that I think we need to re-consider the term "imperialism". I think the current culture war bollocks on "defending the empire" and the "anti-imperialism" of the red-brown types have brought the term into disrepute if you like. I also think there's a wider discussion to be had (and probably is being had no doubt) about the releveance of theories of imperialism in a globalised 2022.

Either way, I'm not sure the description "inter-imperialist" is super useful here.

The discussion is though.

 

[frogwoman]

Lol nobody is 'conditionally swinging behind ukraine' beyond rhetoric, the US won't even give them weapons ffs. They've also repeatedly asked to join NATO and been turned down.

 

[LDC]

Yeah, I think 'imperialism and anti-imperialism' need some clarity and thinking about (if not jettisoning) as they're getting used lazily to mean a whole load of things that I think isn't what they actually mean?

 

[chilango]

Yeah, I think 'imperialism and anti-imperialism' need some clarity and thinking about (if not jettisoning) as they're getting used lazily to mean a whole load of things that I think isn't what they actually mean?

...or they were a description of how things were at one point (maybe) but both the term's usage and the actions it describes have long since changed.

 

[chilango]

...and deciding that it is not an "inter-imperialist conflict", a "proxy war" etc. and recognising that one State is very much acting as unprovoked aggressor twoards another does not necessarily mean you have to throw your support behind the State being attacked. That should still be questioned. You can leave imperialism out of it and still find issues of nationalism, anti-statism and so on that need unpicking.

 

[ska invita]

Why leave imperialism out of it when its imperialism that's at the self-pronounced heart of the ideological drive of Putin's invasion? Its utterly central to the dynamic. Putin is proud to be an imperialist - for him it is a point of pride. Make Russian Empire Great Again.

Also seems to me that US/neoliberal imperialism is so dominant/all-pervasive/hegemonic as to be deemed invisible in this dynamic by many.

We've all seen the crudest imperial reductionism by the worst elements of the left, but that depressing reductionism doesnt mean there isn't a complex imperial aspect to this all.

I can't understand how anyone can rule out the imperial-realists from across the political spectrum who predicted this war.

 

[cupid_stunt]

the point of having a meeting on the subject is to present one's ideas to an audience, and to defend them in debate. and while the acg are asking the question, they're also going to answer it in their presentation to the audience. this really shouldn't need to be pointed out to you.

TBF, I only looked at the link question, whilst waiting for someone on the phone and didn't bother to click on it, and thought well if they hadn't worked it by now, there's no hope.

sometimes you post really well and incisively and sometimes you offer up a pile of puke, as here

So, we have something in common then.

 

[chilango]

Why leave imperialism out of it when its imperialism that's at the self-pronounced heart of the ideological drive of Putin's invasion? Its utterly central to the dynamic. Putin is proud to be an imperialist - for him it is a point of pride. Make Russian Empire Great Again.

Also seems to me that US/neoliberal imperialism is so dominant/all-pervasive/hegemonic as to be deemed invisible in this dynamic by many.

We've all seen the crudest imperial reductionism by the worst elements of the left, but that depressing reductionism doesnt mean there isn't a complex imperial aspect to this all.

I can't understand how anyone can rule out the imperial-realists from across the political spectrum who predicted this war.

I think to do that, you'd/we'd need to be clear in what is meant by 'imperialism'.

I'd also question the construct of "US/neoliberal imperialism". I'm not sure lingering US imperial ambitions (or its more pervasive neo-imperialist campaigns of the latter half of the 20th century) are the same as neoliberal globalisation (although of course there'll be some converging interests and some shared battles).

I do take your point on hegemony > invisibility, that's interesting and worth looking at further perhaps.

I've no idea what an "imperial-realist" is I'm afraid!

 

[Pickman's model]

TBF, I only looked at the link question, whilst waiting for someone on the phone and didn't bother to click on it, and thought well if they hadn't worked it by now, there's no hope.

who is 'they' in this case?

 

[chilango]

...also even if (and it's a big 'if' for me) Russia's actions are imperialist in form and intent rather than just rhetoric I would still have serious misgivings about the "inter-imperialist" bit. Ukraine are not acting in any sort of imperialist fashion, and NATO are not exactly taking the opportunity to go all in on a proxy war are they?

I think "expansionist" is perhaps a more useful term to describe NATO's interests in the region, but that's not a direct part of this war. As for Russia, I'm not sure what the correct term for a military reclamation of territory that they consider theirs (but is disputed by the majority of the actual inhabitants) is?

Dunno.

Words and labels are important, they require care and accuracy.

 

[hitmouse]

TBF, I only looked at the link question, whilst waiting for someone on the phone and didn't bother to click on it, and thought well if they hadn't worked it by now, there's no hope.

I reckon they have got an answer to the question, dunno if it's one you'd like though?

who is 'they' in this case?

I would guess the hosts of this meeting?

 

[Pickman's model]

I reckon they have got an answer to the question, dunno if it's one you'd like though?

I would guess the hosts of this meeting?

that'd be just plain daft.

 

[hitmouse]

Also, I don't want to pick on the ACG here, but I suppose it is a question I'd ask of any group hosting a similar meeting - will there be any Ukrainian or indeed Russian comrades invited to speak?

 

[Pickman's model]

I think "expansionist" is perhaps a more useful term to describe NATO's interests in the region, but that's not a direct part of this war. As for Russia, I'm not sure what the correct term for a military reclamation of territory that they consider theirs (but is disputed by the majority of the actual inhabitants) is?

irredentist perhaps

 

[ska invita]

I think to do that, you'd/we'd need to be clear in what is meant by 'imperialism'.

I'd also question the construct of "US/neoliberal imperialism". I'm not sure lingering US imperial ambitions (or its more pervasive neo-imperialist campaigns of the latter half of the 20th century) are the same as neoliberal globalisation (although of course there'll be some converging interests and some shared battles).

I do take your point on hegemony > invisibility, that's interesting and worth looking at further perhaps.

I've no idea what an "imperial-realist" is I'm afraid!

lingering? alive and fucking rampant id say!

Heres a simple definition of imperial-realism from a quick google:
"IR theory, known as “offensive” or “great power” realism. Russia is a great power. Great powers, the theory goes, guard their security through spheres of interest. The US does so too, in the form of the Monroe doctrine and more recently in the Carter doctrine, which extends America’s interests to the Persian Gulf. If necessary, those zones are defended with force, and anyone who fails to recognise and respect this fails to grasp the violent logic of international relations.

In so far as ideas can actually influence international relations, given the determinative force accorded to geography, economics and military power, the most that one can hope for is to bring decision-makers and the general public to recognise each other’s interests and spheres of influence and pull back from unnecessary confrontation. What realism means in this context is clarity about the underlying structure and a resigned acceptance of its logic."

 

[ska invita]

...also even if (and it's a big 'if' for me) Russia's actions are imperialist in form and intent rather than just rhetoric I would still have serious misgivings about the "inter-imperialist" bit. Ukraine are not acting in any sort of imperialist fashion, and NATO are not exactly taking the opportunity to go all in on a proxy war are they?

I think "expansionist" is perhaps a more useful term to describe NATO's interests in the region, but that's not a direct part of this war. As for Russia, I'm not sure what the correct term for a military reclamation of territory that they consider theirs (but is disputed by the majority of the actual inhabitants) is?

Dunno.

Words and labels are important, they require care and accuracy.

It would be wrong to say Ukraine Are Acting In An Imperialist Fashion - of course it would - but theres not a state in the world that isnt tied into inter-imperial conflict and has to walk the tightrope
I mean look at isolated Nauru - Wikipedia - 21km square island out in the pacific, current population 10,000, has had occupations from japan, germany and australia

 

[chilango]

Thanks ska invita. Not sure I agree, but at least I can see where you're coming from.

 

[LDC]

Not sure where this should go, but it's a nice succinct take by a Ukrainian socialist on the issue of weapons supply.

“Russia’s retreat from the towns and villages around Kiev reveals the brutal and systematic massacre of civilians. This is graphic, but not a new fact or something one could not predict. There is also no reason to think this will not repeat in other occupied places. This raises the following question. What is the cost of a ban on supplying weapons to Ukraine’s army that many on the left advocate? I think that it is legitimate to debate the issue of supplying weapons. But those who take a stance should also acknowledge the costs and take the responsibility. This would be a mature political move. E.g. if you say ‘Our country should stop supplying weapons to Ukraine because this will make the war shorter’ you should also add ‘but this will necessarily lead to mass killings of civilians and systematic repressions in the occupied territories’. If one makes such a statement, I would like to see a rational calculation behind this, namely your arguments that justify this stance on the level of analysis of the dynamics of the war and the political/humanitarian costs.”

 

[The39thStep]

lingering? alive and fucking rampant id say!

Heres a simple definition of imperial-realism from a quick google:
"IR theory, known as “offensive” or “great power” realism. Russia is a great power. Great powers, the theory goes, guard their security through spheres of interest. The US does so too, in the form of the Monroe doctrine and more recently in the Carter doctrine, which extends America’s interests to the Persian Gulf. If necessary, those zones are defended with force, and anyone who fails to recognise and respect this fails to grasp the violent logic of international relations.

In so far as ideas can actually influence international relations, given the determinative force accorded to geography, economics and military power, the most that one can hope for is to bring decision-makers and the general public to recognise each other’s interests and spheres of influence and pull back from unnecessary confrontation. What realism means in this context is clarity about the underlying structure and a resigned acceptance of its logic."

At least chilango thinks the USA is a 'lingering' imperialist power, could be worse Paul Mason describes the USA as "globalist democratic former imperialist countries of the USA and EU,"

 

[chilango]

At least chilango thinks the USA is a 'lingering' imperialist power, could be worse Paul Mason describes the USA as "globalist democratic former imperialist countries of the USA and EU,"

Please don't tell me that this is the reboot of the interminable degenerated/deformed/moribund blah blah blah analyses of the USSR.