The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Think I got a bit lost myself tbh . I was pre occupied with drafting emanymton 's introduction
Forthcoming ACG Public Meeting on War in Ukraine
- Thread starter charlie mowbray
- Start date
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
In fairness I went to f2f ACG meeting a few years back and didn't have to say anything to anyone.
emanymton
A cat politely sat on the flaming gardener.
Good God. Just utter bullshit.
I particularly like the idea that a country will just keep fighting a war it doesn't want to as long as you keep giving it weapons.
Like they are me a pack of jaffa cakes.
ska invita
back on the other side
This conversation has gone a bit straw man IMO
I haven't heard anyone here saying Its All Just a Proxy War - that's massively simplistic and reductive and of course Ukrainians are retaliating of their own agency first and foremost.
Just recently Hilary Clinton, in drumming up US state military support for arming Ukraine, explicitly drew on the Mujahidin experience as a positive example of the US being able to weaken Russia. The military support Ukraine gets is not so half-arsed as not have been able to repel Russian army from the north... It is clear that from a NATO point that there is a good degree of proxy fighting going on...
...but that is a sideline IMO to the key way in which this is an inter-imperialist conflict, and that is the earlier history pre invasion, and the reason why imperial-realists were able to list a litany of actions going back for years that they deemed having the potential to start a war.
In 97 Brezinski placed particularly emphasis on Ukraine within the Grand Chessboard
"if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources, as well as its access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia. Ukraine’s loss of independence would have immediate consequences for central Europe, transforming Poland into the geopolitical pivot on the eastern frontier of a united Europe."
He saw it as the key square on the board between Russian and The West
The US and other EU countries spent billions extending their influence ...deals were drawn up about 'developing' resources...the Ukrainian government of any given day made their choices, but the imperial-realist view is that those choices carried great risks - the risk of choosing one block over another, and therefore the risk of invasion. This tacit struggle is now out in the bloody open.
Was there a more neutral path Ukraine could've trodden? Who knows. It was a tightrope for sure. Its a 'poisoned chalice' of a position to be in. I've no desire to cast blame in that regard.
I just cannot see how anyone can deny that Ukraine is and was a front line between competing imperial blocks - to me it seems the obvious reality. The argument comes after that: what can be done to change that dynamic.
Last edited:
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Althusser’s stuff is pretty easy to mime to tbf
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
I don't actually like Althusser!!!
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
...although in fairness you could probably express the concept of interpellation pretty effectively through the medium of mime, yes.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
Nobody admits liking their ex Chilango.I don't actually like Althusser!!!
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
I do really like the ACG, and probably share loads of the politics, but looking at this meeting blurb I am quite angry about it this morning. Why first call it an inter-imperialist conflict straight off, as if it's some equal war that's emerged from nowhere? Why mention NATO backed Ukraine in the opening blurb against the more neutral just Russia? You're re-writing the facts to fit your politics, and arguably minimizing and misrepresenting what's going on it in the opening line to your meeting.
The Stop the War coalition could have written this opening line.
Why not, "What does the slogan NWBTCW mean in the brutal war being waged by Russia after its invasion of Ukraine?"
Can you see the difference in tone and meaning?
The Stop the War coalition could have written this opening line.
What does the slogan ‘No War but the Class War’ mean in the inter-imperialist conflict between Russia and NATO-backed Ukraine?
Why not, "What does the slogan NWBTCW mean in the brutal war being waged by Russia after its invasion of Ukraine?"
Can you see the difference in tone and meaning?
Last edited:
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
I'm not sure that's true to be fair.
I don't think the problematic framing/phrasing does fit the ACG's politics. I think it's more reflective of a wider/older unreflective Left default autoresponse to world events that hasn't changed much since the anti-Vietnam War era.
ska invita
back on the other side
quite patronising
ive tried to describe how its an inter-imperial conflict at some length on these boards and again on this thread - your response rather than criticising any points directly was "i dont think i agree" (no reasons given why) and suggested to erase the very notion that this is anything to do with "empire" <utterly bizzare in my opinion, ignoring the Kremlin pronounced world view, ignoring the way Western imperialism works in the 21st century, and ignoring the fundamental reality of global geo-politics.
the idea this is "outdated" and just a view from 70s is given away by your seeing US imperialism as "lingering" - im genuinely shocked to hear you say that. we are living in a different understanding of reality, clearly.
That said LDC has a fair point here about tone, which makes the two sides feel equal in the fight
...but again, the cold fact is there is a clear and central inter-imperial dynamic and it shouldn't be airbrushed out - it is central to the war
andysays
Love and solidarity
I think there is a case to be made that the overall context of the invasion etc is "inter imperial", and that case can be made while still recognising that Russia is very much the aggressor.
But I don't think it's particularly helpful to jump straight into describing it as inter imperial in the info about the meeting, rather than having that discussion as part of the meeting.
But I don't think it's particularly helpful to jump straight into describing it as inter imperial in the info about the meeting, rather than having that discussion as part of the meeting.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
There's something less important and subtle about the language as well (or maybe I'm just over thinking it or something) about what language you use and how clear it is or isn't, and who it attracts and who it puts off.
Like what does 'inter-imperialist conflict' actually mean to most people? Why use that not 'invasion and war' or something that is just clearer and less coded? It feels like specialized political language that is likely to just appeal to geeks, even ignoring what its usage hides and shows of the wider politics. I'm not doing that 'dumb it down for the proles' thing, but just say it as it is, don't mystify it with obscure jargon.
Like what does 'inter-imperialist conflict' actually mean to most people? Why use that not 'invasion and war' or something that is just clearer and less coded? It feels like specialized political language that is likely to just appeal to geeks, even ignoring what its usage hides and shows of the wider politics. I'm not doing that 'dumb it down for the proles' thing, but just say it as it is, don't mystify it with obscure jargon.
kebabking
Not a Girly Swot, but I like them....
I think LynnDoyleCooper's point about the language used being a gatekeeper is important - for me, 'intra-Imperial conflict' is Britain and Germany fighting over a tin mine in Tanganyika in 1914: if a group is advertising it's discussions on Ukraine on that basis my assumption is that it's going to be some Corbynite, value free, both-sides-as-bad-as-each-other-but-its-not-Russias-fault borefest with a special appearance by some war crimes deniers and anti-Semitic cameos, and I'll decide to stay at home and paint skirting boards instread...
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
Not intended to patronising be (obviously) I'm just as much trying to figure out what's going on as anyone else, and my own lense(s) need updating too.
I think we may agree on some of the geo-political interests involved but disagree on whether "imperialist" is an appropriate or accurate term to use to describe them.
The39thStep
Urban critical thinker
kenny g
Sheeple Awake!
I dropped in to one of these ACG things once and it was pretty good. Nice bunch of strong minded characters being suitably forthright on the topic. I would just dial in - you can always log out if it gets scary.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
Looks like a nice afternoon that. If only it were all that appealing!
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
And inter-imperial conflict? If you're going to harp on about language you ought to pay attention to what people are actually saying. As for your assumption about what people are going to be saying you seem well off the mark on this one, tho you'll have to wait for the meeting for my belief to be substantiated
chilango
Hypothetical Wanker
You should have said hello.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
He's unhappy because he missed the ACG meeting. Not even his dog can cheer him up
Wilf
Slouching towards Billingham
Feels like an 'asymmetrical imperialism', if there is such a thing. In reply to Campist idiocies, Russia is an imperialist power and this is a further direct example of them trying to re establish part of the Soviet empire (along with providing aid to separatist rebels). The West/USA are clearly a factor/player in the recent history and tug of war over Ukraine, so in that sense there's an imperialist struggle happening. I've no problem saying that or the left saying that. But fucking hell, not saying that first.
First you oppose the murderous aggression from the Russian imperialist power. You stand with the Ukrainian people - and Russian conscripts. You stand with trade unions and left groups in Ukraine. You support all the people who a decent human being would support. And ultimately it's a asymmetrical imperialist war, in that there is one aggressor and one side doing the murdering, raping and destroying cities.
Theory and positions are important, but as with Campist and similar versions of 'anti-imperialism', ossified positions can sometimes lead you down the rabbit hole (where you end up supporting Russia or pretending Ukraine is under Nazi rule). If your theory and positioning doesn't fit with common decency and drags you to getting even close to justifying this war, there's something profoundly wrong with your theory.
Edit: probably should have said that's not a direct response to the wording of the ACG thingy, nor to anything on this thread (I'm only on p 1). Largely a rant about some of the stwc stuff.
First you oppose the murderous aggression from the Russian imperialist power. You stand with the Ukrainian people - and Russian conscripts. You stand with trade unions and left groups in Ukraine. You support all the people who a decent human being would support. And ultimately it's a asymmetrical imperialist war, in that there is one aggressor and one side doing the murdering, raping and destroying cities.
Theory and positions are important, but as with Campist and similar versions of 'anti-imperialism', ossified positions can sometimes lead you down the rabbit hole (where you end up supporting Russia or pretending Ukraine is under Nazi rule). If your theory and positioning doesn't fit with common decency and drags you to getting even close to justifying this war, there's something profoundly wrong with your theory.
Edit: probably should have said that's not a direct response to the wording of the ACG thingy, nor to anything on this thread (I'm only on p 1). Largely a rant about some of the stwc stuff.
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
Blimey, there's been a lot of posts on here. Some valid points, some less so. Yes, the ACG blurb could have been phrased better, but it's as if some of the commenters are responding to the STWC type politics here. They're really not.
A question I'd like to ask those who are opposed to the NWBTCW position (and yes, I realise NWBTCW - nor arguments against it - are monolithic) is, does this mean they are in favour of military intervention? And if so, by whom? NATO? "The West"? The EU? The UK government? Private military outfits? Arms dealers? And if push comes to shove and the UK and other governments/NATO were to become more directly involved, how far would they support such intervention? Would they volunteer themselves, or would they be okay with friends, family members, etc volunteering?
This might all sound far fetched, but I'm struggling to see how the non NWBTCW position doesn't end up as some sort of "oh what a lovely war" jingoistic rerun of 1914.
A question I'd like to ask those who are opposed to the NWBTCW position (and yes, I realise NWBTCW - nor arguments against it - are monolithic) is, does this mean they are in favour of military intervention? And if so, by whom? NATO? "The West"? The EU? The UK government? Private military outfits? Arms dealers? And if push comes to shove and the UK and other governments/NATO were to become more directly involved, how far would they support such intervention? Would they volunteer themselves, or would they be okay with friends, family members, etc volunteering?
This might all sound far fetched, but I'm struggling to see how the non NWBTCW position doesn't end up as some sort of "oh what a lovely war" jingoistic rerun of 1914.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
I'm not sure I'd say I'm opposed as such, and like I've said I think it holds much more use in Russia rather than Ukraine. But I do think it's generally inadequate as a position, and I also do think bringing up 1914 as having any relevance to what's going on for people in Ukraine is a bit misplaced tbh. Anyway, a couple of quick answers to your points:
For a start I support people in Ukraine resisting the Russian State attack by whatever mean they see appropriate and effective. That as it stands is a non-NWBTCW position isn't it?
On military intervention, for a start I support supplying people there with weaponry they need to fight the Russian State attack. Also a non-NWBTCW position.
I don't take those positions lightly btw, I think this is a horrendous situation, but I think the world is messy and complicated and it's not always possible to take perfectly correct positions. I also think not supporting people there is a basic failure of something quite fundamentally human, and to retreat from that is quite problematic.
But direct military intervention, no. But I don't know anyone here or in the wider political world we inhabit calling for such a thing.
Within those positions I think there's plenty to discuss about the practicalities and what it means 'on the ground' and how much is a compromise, and the dangers of them. Beyond those positions I am less sure, and what I think might well change as the situation does.
Last edited:
Serge Forward
Just enjoyin' my coffee.
I see no contradiction between a NWBTCW position and sympathy for people defending their families, friends, neighbours in the face of a brutal invading force.
Weapons supplied by whom? Arms dealers we've spent years opposing? NATO? Whose military? The British Army? This is where the interventionist solution becomes part of the problem and this would not be a NWBTCW position.
I agree, it is horrendous, and that's why I say I don't have the answers, just political lines I won't cross. I agree that a cold NWBTCW position may seem a failure of something quite fundamentally human, but I also see military intervention as an even bigger failure. There are no easy answers.
They may not be openly calling for it, but this is where indirect military intervention is highly likely to end up, ie cheering on "our boys" and WW3.
I agree there's plenty to discuss. I think the NWBTCW position definitely needs more nuance, as well as the understanding that we'll meaning interventionism can mean ultimately falling down that slippery slope which ends up with those with revolutionary politics siding with what is (at least in the Ukraine context) a currently less brutal capitalist gang. That's the kind of thing I expect we'll be discussing in the meeting.
LDC
On est tous des pangolins
Yes, I support arms supply by NATO or any countries willing to do it. I would love it to come from the arms warehouses of the ACG but we're not there yet. How is that more of a problem (not sure what you even mean by 'problem' tbh? Because it breaks a sacred political or moral position?) than saying do nothing and see Ukraine be defeated and subject to a brutal occupation? Does that need to happen before you think it's OK to fight? Or as some have said there's no point fighting as there's no organised class in Ukraine, so you're inevitably fighting as individuals not as a class? But then that doesn't seem to stop them doing plenty of small pickets and demos etc. here in the UK to try and build that power where there is none? So why suddenly different when it's this?
What about the option that not defeating Russia makes WW3 more likely not less? Like I've said I don't know enough about that, but plenty of people do say that is a possibility, and it doesn't seem like a totally wild idea.
Also how about fighting not simply being as clear as siding with a 'less brutal capitalist gang' (although you know I can see why you might be OK to do that if you live in Ukraine) but about fighting a horrendous nationalist and militarist power that if it occupies your town would see your friends and workers oppressed or disappeared? They only have to look at what happened to plenty of people like us in the DPR and LPR.
E2A: I'm not as sure as I might seem on here. I am still working this out as well as many of us are. Also I think sanctions are something really worth talking about. I feel much less happy with lots of them more than fighting and supplying weapons to the Ukrainians tbh, but they seem to get a pass as not really problematic much of the time.
Last edited:
