The Pro-Putin Left

[Rimbaud]

Even if it ever truly existed totalitarianism is impossible now given the opportunities for people to communicate outside imposed boundaries. We're led to believe that China, for instance, has been pulled back towards totalitarianism, but we frequently see cases of mass rebellion, as in the recent anti-Covid lockdown protests. Iran? Again regularly occurring rebellion. These displays of opposition might get put down or neutralised, but so do those which happen in western democracies, usually in a more subtle way. And when it comes down to it, both officially-designated democracies and non-democracies have a common enemy...

And whether happening in a formal democracy or otherwise, quite often the opposition is, in these days of the meltdown of all that we once took for granted, societally and ideologically, worse than that which it is rebelling against, as we saw here in our own anti-lockdown protests. I fear this is the pattern of the future.

On the contrary, totalitarianism is more possible today than ever. A telescreen in every home like 1984 wasn't technologically possible at the time as you couldn't possibly observe everyone at once, but now with AI and big data you could realistically do that.

 

[Rimbaud]

Perhaps, but they weren't the first rebellions we've seen in China in the current era, even if maybe the biggest. But the point is that they took place without Tianenman-style repression, which took place in a China which had supposedly been moving away from 'totalitarianism.'

There have been very few significant rebellions over the last decade as the techno-surveillance state took shape. You may be thinking of events from before China's recent totalitarian turn. Most protests now are in rural areas, outside of the cities where the reach of the techo-state is more limited but this space is shrinking every day.

And those involved in the protests were later rounded up and disappeared, and the vigils weren't actually that large. Big data and constant surveillance means you can easily find people involved through their phones, they don't to roll tanks over them.

China’s zero-covid protesters helped end the lockdowns. Where are they now?

In China, life has returned to something like the pre-covid normal. You no longer need to show a green health QR code to enter public places or swab your throat every other day for mandatory PCR testing, and lockdowns are a thing of the past. But some of the people who pushed for the end […]

www.grid.news

It also took a great deal to finally trigger these modest vigils which were smaller than anti-lockdown protests in the west despite being much more valid. As a percentage of population participating they were smaller still.

 

[Rimbaud]

The tragedy of today's left is that it doesn't realise how it's been co-opted into being a harmless part of the system, dedicated, in the main, to perpetuating the destructive so-called culture wars.

With one proviso: those on the left who make a career out of it probably do understand this all too well.

I agree with this - relatively harmless culture wars stuff is a product of the weakness of organised labour.

But so also is the tankie trend of cheerleading for any opponent of the west and imagining that they offer any alternative. The equivalent today would be if Lenin just found little ways that Bismark's reforms were socially progressive relatively to some aspects of France and Britain and cheered impotently for a German victory, rather than making revolution himself.

 

[JimW]

On the contrary, totalitarianism is more possible today than ever. A telescreen in every home like 1984 wasn't technologically possible at the time as you couldn't possibly observe everyone at once, but now with AI and big data you could realistically do that.

The tendency and possibilities are there but I don't think they've achieved or attempted the measure of control the old social organisation afforded, the intimate knowledge of your doings by the people you lived and worked alongside. You hear of people having to apply to their factory hierarchy to get married and then there was the whole way an assigned class background could blight someone's life chances, and so on.

 

[Yossarian]

The tendency and possibilities are there but I don't think they've achieved or attempted the measure of control the old social organisation afforded, the intimate knowledge of your doings by the people you lived and worked alongside. You hear of people having to apply to their factory hierarchy to get married and then there was the whole way an assigned class background could blight someone's life chances, and so on.

Times have certainly changed but it seems old-fashioned methods have been replaced by higher-tech ones. Do you know anybody who could be considered a dissident?

 

[Rimbaud]

The tendency and possibilities are there but I don't think they've achieved or attempted the measure of control the old social organisation afforded, the intimate knowledge of your doings by the people you lived and worked alongside. You hear of people having to apply to their factory hierarchy to get married and then there was the whole way an assigned class background could blight someone's life chances, and so on.

I wasn't talking specifically about China (although they are surely furthest ahead in totalitarian applications of big data etc), just that it is wrong to say it is no longer possible. The comment I was replying to was claiming that the ability to talk to anyone from overseas online means totalitarianism is no longer possible, but I don't think this is true at all - the Chinese Communist Party is still very much able to control a narrative through a mixture of repetition, social media algorithms/astroturfing, and censorship.

Edit - diverging a bit, but your point about applying to the factory hierarchy to get married made me think a bit about a point Alain Badiou once made, that dating apps are in some ways a return to the arranged marriage as they are based less on the expedient encounter and more on pragmatic selection based on advertised traits.

Applying to the factory hierarchy for marriage in Maoist China clearly has some connection to how marriage and courtship in China was always (and still is to a lesser extent) something that had more to do with the parents then the people getting married. But that doesn't mean that there isn't the possibility in future of some sort of algorithm deciding on people's compatibility, e.g. people with low social credit being pushed to the back of dating apps etc. It's a different form of totalitarianism but it is definitely a possibility that could emerge.

 

[JimW]

Times have certainly changed but it seems old-fashioned methods have been replaced by higher-tech ones. Do you know anybody who could be considered a dissident?

Only thing recently has been Mongolian friends who were involved in protests against changes to minority language education in the IMAR; think it's got their cards marked but there's not been the sort of follow up arrests as seen in the COVID protests AFAIK.
As to dissidents in the more conventional sense, seems like that period where you saw a number of oppositional public intellectual types was a brief interlude, chill's been back in again for a good decade or so now. Strikes me that's both the new tech and methods catching up with social change and the end of such ideological contest as there was that Xi's accession marked. Heads down all round.

 

[RD2003]

yes totalitarianism existed and it exists now, enough to kill and crush many - is that not total enough for you?
the ability to communicate is always a hope against the crush but hardly a power equal against that of the totalitarian state...

you try and draw equivalence between western democracies and other totalitarian states. i feel that, there are a lot of strong similarities, democracy is largely a sham. but they're not the same . to squash all differences into one lump is just reductionism.

I'm far from convinced that it does exist in the real sense of the term. People tend to confuse authoritariaism and totalitarianism, often for cynical purposes. Any kind of government can 'kill and crush many,' if it so chooses. But it isn't what even authoritarian governments spend most of their time doing.

 

[RD2003]

So, how to solve the problem? The tragedy of the left, as you put it.

Is there a way of opting out of the lesser stuff, like combatting the harmless culture wars?

Not sure if the problem can be solved. The culture warriors live for getting indignant and stoking the fires further, especially those who get paid for it.

 

[RD2003]

On the contrary, totalitarianism is more possible today than ever. A telescreen in every home like 1984 wasn't technologically possible at the time as you couldn't possibly observe everyone at once, but now with AI and big data you could realistically do that.

The possibility of it may depend on the nature and traditions of particular societies. I suspect that in societies like this one the method of control will not be to get everybody ostensibly agreeing with the government and state, but to exacerbate the existing chasmic divisions while those with power and wealth continue to get richer and more powerful, and it will be sold to us as vibrant democracy.

 

[krtek a houby]

Not sure if the problem can be solved. The culture warriors live for getting indignant and stoking the fires further, especially those who get paid for it.

Reckon the various campaigns against, say, GBNews (advertisers pulling out) are having some effect. When you hit them in the pocket, it hurts. Small steps, for sure, but it's something.

 

[Rimbaud]

I'm far from convinced that it does exist in the real sense of the term. People tend to confuse authoritariaism and totalitarianism, often for cynical purposes. Any kind of government can 'kill and crush many,' if it so chooses. But it isn't what even authoritarian governments spend most of their time doing.

This is a semantic issue really. If totalitarianism has never existed, then how can you distinguish between regular authoritarianism (e.g. military dictatorship) and something like Nazi Germany?

 

[RD2003]

This is a semantic issue really. If totalitarianism has never existed, then how can you distinguish between regular authoritarianism (e.g. military dictatorship) and something like Nazi Germany?

Perhaps differing degrees of authoritarianism?

 

[Rimbaud]

Perhaps differing degrees of authoritarianism?

I think the main difference is that authoritarianism seeks to preserve monopoly over political power whilst totalitarianism seeks to control all aspects of culture, daily life, even people's private thoughts etc, and therefore tends to be more ideological.

It's on a spectrum of course but the distinction between Nazi Germany/Cultural Revolution era China and something like the military dictatorship in Egypt is a meaningful one, so it is justified to have the word totalitarian.

 

[wemakeyousoundb]

I could be wrong but I suspect anyone running authoritarian X.XX wish they could upgrade to totalitarian 1.00
I might just be a bit paranoid though.

 

[tim]

Reckon the various campaigns against, say, GBNews (advertisers pulling out) are having some effect. When you hit them in the pocket, it hurts. Small steps, for sure, but it's something.

The major media investor in GBNews, Discovery, may have backed out, but the people running and financing the channel now don't seem driven by ideology rather than money. It would be interesting to know where and who exactly their money comes actually from.

 

[Rimbaud]

The tendency and possibilities are there but I don't think they've achieved or attempted the measure of control the old social organisation afforded, the intimate knowledge of your doings by the people you lived and worked alongside. You hear of people having to apply to their factory hierarchy to get married and then there was the whole way an assigned class background could blight someone's life chances, and so on.

State-sponsored matchmaking app launched in China

Service in Jiangxi uses data on single residents to build platform amid drive to boost marriage rate

www.theguardian.com

Could be coming back in a modern algorithmic form

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Disappointed to hear that a slim majority of UCU members voted in favour of the StWC-backed motion which makes the objectively Pro-Putinist demand to 'stop arming Ukraine'. I'm sure many members didn't realise the implications of what they voted for. Trade unionists need to make sure that the StWC scum are exposed and destroyed whenever possible.

Business of the strategy and finance committee (open session)

UCU Congress 2023: Saturday 27 May 2023, 10:45-12:30

www.ucu.org.uk

 

[The39thStep]

Disappointed to hear that a slim majority of UCU members voted in favour of the StWC-backed motion which makes the objectively Pro-Putinist demand to 'stop arming Ukraine'. I'm sure many members didn't realise the implications of what they voted for. Trade unionists need to make sure that the StWC scum are exposed and destroyed whenever possible.

Business of the strategy and finance committee (open session)

UCU Congress 2023: Saturday 27 May 2023, 10:45-12:30

www.ucu.org.uk

You in a union Jeff?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

yes.

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Some real big brain energy here. Academics eh?

(content removed)

Still, cunts all round on this one. Liberals of all stripes desperate to find any justification to quit the union issuing pearl-clutching 'resignations' because of this moronic but ultimately meaningless motion, rightists and hawks leaping on it to denounce the union and Jo Grady with her usual le syndicat c'est moi energy. A true clusterfuck.

 

[The39thStep]

Some real big brain energy here. Academics eh?



Still, cunts all round on this one. Liberals of all stripes desperate to find any justification to quit the union issuing pearl-clutching 'resignations' because of this moronic but ultimately meaningless motion, rightists and hawks leaping on it to denounce the union and Jo Grady with her usual le syndicat c'est moi energy. A true clusterfuck.

I remember a similar outcry, sans Paul Mason, when the UCU backed Palestine. Speaking of which, what do you think of the Habibi twitter account ? I've always found it very Zionist

 

[Jeff Robinson]

I remember a similar outcry, sans Paul Mason, when the UCU backed Palestine. Speaking of which, what do you think of the Habibi twitter account ? I've always found it very Zionist

Yeah, almost disclaimered that he sucks too. A Harry’s Place Stan.

 

[planetgeli]

Some real big brain energy here. Academics eh?



Still, cunts all round on this one. Liberals of all stripes desperate to find any justification to quit the union issuing pearl-clutching 'resignations' because of this moronic but ultimately meaningless motion, rightists and hawks leaping on it to denounce the union and Jo Grady with her usual le syndicat c'est moi energy. A true clusterfuck.

That's one of the worst pieces of speaking I've seen in a long time.

 

[hitmouse]

I get why people object to that UCU motion, but also jesus, this feels pretty shit as well:

Unions back increased defence spending

Unions have backed increased defence spending in a ‘victory for common sense’, says GMB.

www.gmb.org.uk

 

[redsquirrel]

The motion was very crap and stupid but I think people should be wary of sharing that tweet.

It was filmed without the consent of any delegates videoed, against the rules, and while the union activists in the UK are far better off then in many parts of the world they can still get comeback for their actions.
And yes the delegate speaking was talking crap but they are young, and from a community that is getting a lot of hatred, and potentially violence, directed at them at the moment - stirred up by people like the cunt habibi.

(If is is every resolved which delegate videoed congress and shared it, they need a serious talking to).

 

[Jeff Robinson]

The motion was very crap and stupid but I think people should be wary of sharing that tweet.

It was filmed without the consent of any delegates videoed, against the rules, and while the union activists in the UK are far better off then in many parts of the world they can still get comeback for their actions.
And yes the delegate speaking was talking crap but they are young, and from a community that is getting a lot of hatred, and potentially violence, directed at them at the moment - stirred up by people like the cunt habibi.

(If is is every resolved which delegate videoed congress and shared it, they need a serious talking to).

Good points, I've deleted the link to the tweet with the video in.

(edit, though I've just seen that the video was originally shared by 'UCU Marxists' twitter page, I don't know if the speaker is part of group or not. Further edit, she is).

 

[redsquirrel]

(edit, though I've just seen that the video was originally shared by 'UCU Marxists' twitter page, I don't know if the speaker is part of group or not. Further edit, she is).

Yeah fucking idiot(s).

 

[Jeff Robinson]

"The majority of delegates were persuaded by the argument that pouring Western arms into Ukraine would only succeed in lengthening the war, add to the suffering of Ukrainian people and Russian soldiers alike, and risk a serious escalation of the conflict beyond Ukrainian territory, potentially to nuclear war."

Christ on a bike

Why UCU Congress was right to pass Motion 5 on the Ukraine war

Having initially defended Congress delegates’ right to take decisions on UCU’s attitude to the Ukraine war, the General Secretary has now joined the chorus of denunciation of Motion 5: Stop the War…

uculeft.org

 

[hitmouse]

Wow, I don't think I've ever seen a link preview with a flickery gif before.