The Pro-Putin Left

[Jeremiah18.17]

Did not know he was ex-DAM. Was Hedley also vaguely affiliated with them at some point?

Don’t remember Hedley - Gordon was a long time ago (late eighties, early nineties?)

 

[Dystopiary]

Who the fuck are these weirdos?

That person's timeline is just wacky. "Anti-Imperialist" my arse. Retweets of Russian and Chinese state media, Greenwald, Galloway and that well known anti-imperialist, er, authoritarian neo Ottomanist, Recep Erdogan. Well I don't suppose he's getting paid in roubles.

 

[RD2003]

I don't think there's anything particularly surprising, shocking or mysterious about the so-called pro-Putin left. After all, there's been endless discussion about the 'anti-imperialism '-based left on boards like this for ages.

The UK, and, I suspect, other western 'Stalinists' kind of follow the lead, even if not consciously, of the ex-Soviet CP, whose approach was primarily nationalistic even before the breakup of the USSR. It almost appears that, by doing so, you're defending the communist project. In a connected way, those Trots who always prioritised anti-imperialism will continue to do this even when the landscape has changed. Whatever the faults of both currents, they have avoided the soft-left approach of, however you justify or apologise for it, inevitably throwing in your lot with your own ruling class. The anti-Staliinist far-left hang on their coat-tails. And 'class -struggle anarchists,' as usual, don't really count because they have no audience and lack even the minisule influence of the Trots and Stals. We should remember that our 'non-political' friends and relatives would be momentarily bemused by, and then dismissive, of this debate, and then largely go back to believing what the media tells them.

What all of it indicates is that the radical left collapsed around 1989-91 and, not entirely through its own fault, was never rebuilt. The difficulties of the task are reflected in what's happening right now, with the faux-certainties of the anti-imperialists and the flounderings of those radical left remnants who, correctly, are looking for an alternative but can't help but appear pro-NATO and pro the neo-liberal government of Ukraine (just like they celebrated their own irrelevance in 1989, it's probabbly the urge to always appear in the right or on 'the right side of history', which possibly affects the majority of people, whatever their politics.)

Personally, and I've never seen anything to prove me wrong, I can't help thinking that, with the events of 1989-91, so passed the era of socialist revolution. The mess we've seen on the radical left (not that it wasn't messy before) ever since is as a result of trying to come to terms with the fact (which I admit might not actually be a fact) that it has passed into history. What else remains other than trying to fuck things up by siding with those who, internationally, where the real shit happens, fuck up the aims of your own ruling class-a legitimate aim no matter what; the possibilities of socialist revolution or not, your own ruling class is still the enemy-or trying, largely in vain so far, to establish an alternative which is independent of either?

Meanwhile, the class struggle rolls on. It will never end. But it's now against the backdrop of a world in which, predictably, chaos reigns in a way that the halcyon days of Cold War certainties hid.

Perhaps the problem with the radical left is that it continues to believe in the progressive view of history. So does its enemies on the neo-liberal right, which continues its hold on most governments in the western world despite the disasters it has wrought. You can see it in the framing of the Ukraine war in terms of liberal democracy v authoritarianism, or in the more hysterical barbarism versus civilisation terms. It is forgotten, unfortunately, that in most of the world, where the majority live, this framework is irrelevant. What we are seeing now is merely the chaos of history re-asserting itself, as was inevitable; 1989-91 merely obscured it even while opening the door to it, and those who asserted confidently that liberal democracy was the natural endpoint merely regurgitated, in a different way, the idea that the endpoint was communism.

Get set for a rough ride-the world is set up for neither the dreams of communism nor of those who imagine liberal democracy can sweep it. Since 1989 we've seen the Iraq war x2, major war in Europe (Yugoslavia and, arguably, on some of the former territory of the USSR), the 2008 near-collapse of the world economic system, a major pandemic (others inevitably on the way), and the resumption of a major war in Europe, arguably the closest we've been to the Cuba crisis... All in the space of two decades.

And climate change has no definitive solutions, only the promise of further chaos and tragedy... 'Liberal democracy' is destined to fall all over the place, to be replaced by something much worse than 'communism.'

Could it have been different?

 

[AmateurAgitator]

I don't think there's anything particularly surprising, shocking or mysterious about the so-called pro-Putin left. After all, there's been endless discussion about the 'anti-imperialism '-based left on boards like this for ages.

The UK, and, I suspect, other western 'Stalinists' kind of follow the lead, even if not consciously, of the ex-Soviet CP, whose approach was primarily nationalistic even before the breakup of the USSR. It almost appears that, by doing so, you're defending the communist project. In a connected way, those Trots who always prioritised anti-imperialism will continue to do this even when the landscape has changed. Whatever the faults of both currents, they have avoided the soft-left approach of, however you justify or apologise for it, inevitably throwing in your lot with your own ruling class. The anti-Staliinist far-left hang on their coat-tails. And 'class -struggle anarchists,' as usual, don't really count because they have no audience and lack even the minisule influence of the Trots and Stals. We should remember that our 'non-political' friends and relatives would be momentarily bemused by, and then dismissive, of this debate, and then largely go back to believing what the media tells them.

What all of it indicates is that the radical left collapsed around 1989-91 and, not entirely through its own fault, was never rebuilt. The difficulties of the task are reflected in what's happening right now, with the faux-certainties of the anti-imperialists and the flounderings of those radical left remnants who, correctly, are looking for an alternative but can't help but appear pro-NATO and pro the neo-liberal government of Ukraine (just like they celebrated their own irrelevance in 1989, it's probabbly the urge to always appear in the right or on 'the right side of history', which possibly affects the majority of people, whatever their politics.)

Personally, and I've never seen anything to prove me wrong, I can't help thinking that, with the events of 1989-91, so passed the era of socialist revolution. The mess we've seen on the radical left (not that it wasn't messy before) ever since is as a result of trying to come to terms with the fact (which I admit might not actually be a fact) that it has passed into history. What else remains other than trying to fuck things up by siding with those who, internationally, where the real shit happens, fuck up the aims of your own ruling class-a legitimate aim no matter what; the possibilities of socialist revolution or not, your own ruling class is still the enemy-or trying, largely in vain so far, to establish an alternative which is independent of either?

Meanwhile, the class struggle rolls on. It will never end. But it's now against the backdrop of a world in which, predictably, chaos reigns in a way that the halcyon days of Cold War certainties hid.

Perhaps the problem with the radical left is that it continues to believe in the progressive view of history. So does its enemies on the neo-liberal right, which continues its hold on most governments in the western world despite the disasters it has wrought. You can see it in the framing of the Ukraine war in terms of liberal democracy v authoritarianism, or in the more hysterical barbarism versus civilisation terms. It is forgotten, unfortunately, that in most of the world, where the majority live, this framework is irrelevant. What we are seeing now is merely the chaos of history re-asserting itself, as was inevitable; 1989-91 merely obscured it even while opening the door to it, and those who asserted confidently that liberal democracy was the natural endpoint merely regurgitated, in a different way, the idea that the endpoint was communism.

Get set for a rough ride-the world is set up for neither the dreams of communism nor of those who imagine liberal democracy can sweep it. Since 1989 we've seen the Iraq war x2, major war in Europe (Yugoslavia and, arguably, on some of the former territory of the USSR), the 2008 near-collapse of the world economic system, a major pandemic (others inevitably on the way), and the resumption of a major war in Europe, arguably the closest we've been to the Cuba crisis... All in the space of two decades.

And climate change has no definitive solutions, only the promise of further chaos and tragedy... 'Liberal democracy is destined to fall all over the place, to be replaced by something much worse than 'communism.'

Could it have been different?

You're Alexandr Dugin aren't you.

 

[RD2003]

You're Alexandr Dugin aren't you.

Yes.

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Yes.

Thought so.

 

[RD2003]

Thought so.

One minute telling Putin what to do, the next posting on here. It all counts.

How do you like my English?

 

[seventh bullet]

You're Alexandr Dugin aren't you.

Nah, Dugin isn't pessimistic about the future, of the potential social and ecological collapse that could render the world uninhabitable. Instead he promotes his vision to save it with a culturally/ethnically compatible (read racially) multipolar utopia with no nation states as we understand them but regions, in which the Russian people as the civilisational beating heart of Eurasia have a privileged place in only one vast but significant part of the world. Disagree with someone, sure, but get it right.

 

[NoXion]

I don't think there's anything particularly surprising, shocking or mysterious about the so-called pro-Putin left. After all, there's been endless discussion about the 'anti-imperialism '-based left on boards like this for ages.

The UK, and, I suspect, other western 'Stalinists' kind of follow the lead, even if not consciously, of the ex-Soviet CP, whose approach was primarily nationalistic even before the breakup of the USSR. It almost appears that, by doing so, you're defending the communist project. In a connected way, those Trots who always prioritised anti-imperialism will continue to do this even when the landscape has changed. Whatever the faults of both currents, they have avoided the soft-left approach of, however you justify or apologise for it, inevitably throwing in your lot with your own ruling class. The anti-Staliinist far-left hang on their coat-tails. And 'class -struggle anarchists,' as usual, don't really count because they have no audience and lack even the minisule influence of the Trots and Stals. We should remember that our 'non-political' friends and relatives would be momentarily bemused by, and then dismissive, of this debate, and then largely go back to believing what the media tells them.

What all of it indicates is that the radical left collapsed around 1989-91 and, not entirely through its own fault, was never rebuilt. The difficulties of the task are reflected in what's happening right now, with the faux-certainties of the anti-imperialists and the flounderings of those radical left remnants who, correctly, are looking for an alternative but can't help but appear pro-NATO and pro the neo-liberal government of Ukraine (just like they celebrated their own irrelevance in 1989, it's probabbly the urge to always appear in the right or on 'the right side of history', which possibly affects the majority of people, whatever their politics.)

Personally, and I've never seen anything to prove me wrong, I can't help thinking that, with the events of 1989-91, so passed the era of socialist revolution. The mess we've seen on the radical left (not that it wasn't messy before) ever since is as a result of trying to come to terms with the fact (which I admit might not actually be a fact) that it has passed into history. What else remains other than trying to fuck things up by siding with those who, internationally, where the real shit happens, fuck up the aims of your own ruling class-a legitimate aim no matter what; the possibilities of socialist revolution or not, your own ruling class is still the enemy-or trying, largely in vain so far, to establish an alternative which is independent of either?

Meanwhile, the class struggle rolls on. It will never end. But it's now against the backdrop of a world in which, predictably, chaos reigns in a way that the halcyon days of Cold War certainties hid.

Perhaps the problem with the radical left is that it continues to believe in the progressive view of history. So does its enemies on the neo-liberal right, which continues its hold on most governments in the western world despite the disasters it has wrought. You can see it in the framing of the Ukraine war in terms of liberal democracy v authoritarianism, or in the more hysterical barbarism versus civilisation terms. It is forgotten, unfortunately, that in most of the world, where the majority live, this framework is irrelevant. What we are seeing now is merely the chaos of history re-asserting itself, as was inevitable; 1989-91 merely obscured it even while opening the door to it, and those who asserted confidently that liberal democracy was the natural endpoint merely regurgitated, in a different way, the idea that the endpoint was communism.

Get set for a rough ride-the world is set up for neither the dreams of communism nor of those who imagine liberal democracy can sweep it. Since 1989 we've seen the Iraq war x2, major war in Europe (Yugoslavia and, arguably, on some of the former territory of the USSR), the 2008 near-collapse of the world economic system, a major pandemic (others inevitably on the way), and the resumption of a major war in Europe, arguably the closest we've been to the Cuba crisis... All in the space of two decades.

And climate change has no definitive solutions, only the promise of further chaos and tragedy... 'Liberal democracy' is destined to fall all over the place, to be replaced by something much worse than 'communism.'

Could it have been different?

Oh look, it's Eeyore again. Do you have anything else to say other other than "hold on to your butts, 'cause the future's gonna be wild!", 'cause that's not even a remotely original or useful thought. I remember back when the terminally-online Peak Oil wankers right at the turn of the century said that we'd all be roaming the wastelands, slashing each other's throats for a dribble of petrol by now. I love the "more pandemics" prediction too, because that's a way of sounding smart to the rubes about something that's going to happen sooner or later anyway (future pandemics will always be a possibility for as long as infectious diseases in general are around), and the doomsayers will think that means they get to be all smug about it when the constantly-rolling dice inevitably land on snake eyes. Yeah, very impressive, I also predict that it will rain again somewhere on this planet at some time in the future.

For all the supposed leftist obsession with history, it's so strange to me to see this kind of almost-apocalyptic rhetoric. I mean it's not like the 19th and 20th centuries were periods of utopian peace, unsullied by massively ruinous world wars, economic crashes and global pandemics. And yet despite that, many people all throughout those centuries, from a diverse range of backgrounds, could nevertheless find it within themselves to envision a better world and fight for it.

 

[The39thStep]

I'm more worried about the pro Nato left and pro Nato pragmatic liberals than some crank in America on Twitter and a handful of ex IMG members tbh.

 

[Rimbaud]

Oh look, it's Eeyore again. Do you have anything else to say other other than "hold on to your butts, 'cause the future's gonna be wild!", 'cause that's not even a remotely original or useful thought. I remember back when the terminally-online Peak Oil wankers right at the turn of the century said that we'd all be roaming the wastelands, slashing each other's throats for a dribble of petrol by now. I love the "more pandemics" prediction too, because that's a way of sounding smart to the rubes about something that's going to happen sooner or later anyway (future pandemics will always be a possibility for as long as infectious diseases in general are around), and the doomsayers will think that means they get to be all smug about it when the constantly-rolling dice inevitably land on snake eyes. Yeah, very impressive, I also predict that it will rain again somewhere on this planet at some time in the future.

For all the supposed leftist obsession with history, it's so strange to me to see this kind of almost-apocalyptic rhetoric. I mean it's not like the 19th and 20th centuries were periods of utopian peace, unsullied by massively ruinous world wars, economic crashes and global pandemics. And yet despite that, many people all throughout those centuries, from a diverse range of backgrounds, could nevertheless find it within themselves to envision a better world and fight for it.

To be fair to him, apart from the miserable misanthropic pessimism, he isn't exactly wrong in his diagnosis of where we are.

However, unlike him, I still think there is hope for a way forward. It requires genuine internationalism though, which means shedding a lot of old 20th Century dogmas and seeing things as they are. Perhaps we are a long way from it, but the possibility of building a new international political movement has never been more real. It just requires work, serious thought, and an ability to reduce goals down to a culturally non-specific universality.

If we learned nothing from the last century of Actual Existing Socialism, it is that institutions matter. Liberal Democratic revolutions have succeeded where they put thought into effective institutions and checks on power. Marxist Leninist parties thought in mechanistic terms that when the party of the working class gains power, a working class state will develop organically. It didn't, and any progressive content from 1917 was undermined by the lack of any institutional safeguards against unlimited central power.

I think focusing on political revolution which can create more space for popular participation and working class representation can create the conditions for a social revolution in the relations of production, and can also create the conditions for common cause between social movements in liberal democracies and those in authoritarian states (which are steadily converging anyway IMO and will likely continue to). This isn't happening because what remains of the radical left is either focused on "anti-imperialism" fantasies, looking for saviours abroad in the absence of any signs of salvation at home, OR they are focused on repeating the 19th and 20th Century mode of labour organisation, but globalisation and the atomisation of communal life has fundamentally weakened the conditions that made this possible. It has, however, opened up the possibilities of a more universal and global movement, which is, to me, the main ray of hope.

Perhaps I am more optimistic than R2D2 becuase I am younger than he is, but jaded old men aren't exactly renowned for their role in forging a new zeitgeist, yet new zeitgeists are forged all the same throughout history.

 

[RD2003]

I'm more worried about the pro Nato left and pro Nato pragmatic liberals than some crank in America on Twitter and a handful of ex IMG members tbh.

Yeah, but the ex-MIGs do represent peak evil.

 

[Lurdan]

Bob from Brockley posted a twitter thread last night about Socialist Action. Archived as a web page here.

twitter link

Speaking of No Cold War, co-founder, and 'Friends of Socialist China' co-editor, Carlos Martinez, writing two days after the invasion started:

Responsibility for Ukraine crisis lies in Washington and Kyiv - CGTN

This is the context in which Russia, on February 21, recognized Donetsk and Luhansk "republics" and, two days later, launched a special military operation to wipe out Ukraine's military installations - which pose a threat to both the peoples of the Donbas and to Russia. Putin assured the world that Russia has "no plans to occupy the Ukrainian territories."

Such an escalation is of course worrying. Even with limited objectives, military operations can easily get out of control. But it is clear that the fundamental responsibility here lies with the West - primarily with the governments in Washington, London and Kyiv, which have consistently failed to address Russia's legitimate security concerns.

Some days later, presumably after some 'room reading', a marginally toned down group statement appeared
No Cold War | Ending the war in Ukraine and constructing a lasting peace

But Illustrating that the shift in tone is purely presentational here's Fiona Edwards (Socialist Action/No Cold War/Stop the War etc etc) :

twitter link

twitter link

I suppose in fairness these giant geopolitical brains are less pro-putin than pro- his 'objectively progressive' role in creating 'two, three, many' imperialisms.

 

[The39thStep]

Yeah, but the ex-MIGs do represent peak evil.

The Fred Wests of Trotskyism ?

 

[RD2003]

The Fred Wests of Trotskyism ?

Worser than that-they're actually keeping Paul Mason awake at night.

Probably Nick Cohen too. He has nightmares about what these people would do if they came to power!

 

[hitmouse]

The pro-NATO left is also just some crank on twitter, fwiw.

 

[The39thStep]

Worser than that-they're actually keeping Paul Mason awake at night.

Probably Nick Cohen too. He has nightmares about what these people would do if they came to power!

Lower bus fares and cheap Venezuelan oil

 

[JimW]

There's also some pretty good staunch Tankie analysis in Chinese from the left section loyal to the revolutionary project and legacy but dismayed at the neoliberal turn, decent human beings at heart types, and there's a lot of them. It's of so little relevance outside the Chinese context won't bother digging it up for here, but being a crusty old Leninist certainly doesn't seem to mean you have to be an idiot or pro-war because it's your "side".

 

[AmateurAgitator]

I'm more worried about the pro Nato left and pro Nato pragmatic liberals than some crank in America on Twitter and a handful of ex IMG members tbh.

That's a fair point.

 

[Kevbad the Bad]

I never used to believe in the concept of multiple universes, alternative realities and so on. Now I'm not so sure.

 

[Smokeandsteam]

Did not know he was ex-DAM. Was Hedley also vaguely affiliated with them at some point?

Yes he was. Gordon is CPB now isn't he?

 

[AmateurAgitator]

Nah, Dugin isn't pessimistic about the future, of the potential social and ecological collapse that could render the world uninhabitable. Instead he promotes his vision to save it with a culturally/ethnically compatible (read racially) multipolar utopia with no nation states as we understand them but regions, in which the Russian people as the civilisational beating heart of Eurasia have a privileged place in only one vast but significant part of the world. Disagree with someone, sure, but get it right.

I wonder how long his optimism will last.

 

[Rimbaud]

Bob from Brockley posted a twitter thread last night about Socialist Action. Archived as a web page here.

twitter link

Speaking of No Cold War, co-founder, and 'Friends of Socialist China' co-editor, Carlos Martinez, writing two days after the invasion started:

Responsibility for Ukraine crisis lies in Washington and Kyiv - CGTN




Some days later, presumably after some 'room reading', a marginally toned down group statement appeared
No Cold War | Ending the war in Ukraine and constructing a lasting peace

But Illustrating that the shift in tone is purely presentational here's Fiona Edwards (Socialist Action/No Cold War/Stop the War etc etc) :

twitter link

twitter link

I suppose in fairness these giant geopolitical brains are less pro-putin than pro- his 'objectively progressive' role in creating 'two, three, many' imperialisms.

Just of curiosity, what is the logic exactly behind tankies saying they want a multipolar world because that will somehow bring about socialism? Is it any deeper than reflexive anti-Americanism?

IMO we are already in a multi-polar world. At what point is it multi-polar enough to stop backing right wing authoritarians in non-western countries?

 

[xenon]

Who cares. No one outside a few nerds has even heard of these out of touch groups, let alone gives a shit for their useless smug self regarding screeds.

It's OK to have a hobby sure but you know, perspective is important.

 

[steeplejack]

Nah, Dugin isn't pessimistic about the future, of the potential social and ecological collapse that could render the world uninhabitable. Instead he promotes his vision to save it with a culturally/ethnically compatible (read racially) multipolar utopia with no nation states as we understand them but regions, in which the Russian people as the civilisational beating heart of Eurasia have a privileged place in only one vast but significant part of the world. Disagree with someone, sure, but get it right.

Thanks for your great posts on this topic- was always slightly puzzled why Western observers took Dugin so seriously.

As this above shows, his thinking is just mad...Rollerball multiplied by the power of Logan's Run dubbed in Russian, with blessings from Patriarch Kirill. If we exist as a species in 100 years these ramblings will be filed by Russophiles / observers / scholars in the same type of "barking mad but briefly taken seriously" folder, as P.D.Ouspensky's Tertium Organum was in "our times".

 

[seventh bullet]

I wonder how long his optimism will last.

As long as the image of a radical but right-wing countercultural public intellectual and commentator on Russian and FSU talk shows, invites to academic conferences paid for by his mates, the passing off of the intellectual work of others (even if repugnant fascists like the French New Right) as his own trail-blazing, world shifting ideas which, coupled with his no-doubt decent knowledge of geopolitics and its inversion to make Russia seem like the exotic starting point to a revolutionary global order to young fascists in western Europe, and in North and South America, keeps on feeding his sense of self-importance and his belly.

 

[seventh bullet]

Thanks for your great posts on this topic- was always slightly puzzled why Western observers took Dugin so seriously.

As this above shows, his thinking is just mad...Rollerball multiplied by the power of Logan's Run dubbed in Russian, with blessings from Patriarch Kirill. If we exist as a species in 100 years these ramblings will be filed by Russophiles / observers / scholars in the same type of "barking mad but briefly taken seriously" folder, as P.D.Ouspensky's Tertium Organum was in "our times".

He is an intelligent man, and in earlier years he dug out original and incredibly obscure texts written by the classical emigre Eurasianists, making them available for the first time to a wider but specialised readership, but as butchersapron once said he's a 'high-functioning bull-shitter' with a history of moving from one organisation to another, ubiquitous in his self-promotion to try and get closer to an influential position in the orbit of the political elite. The reality is he's still a fringe figure.

His politics are exotic enough to appear fresh and new to young fascists who in small numbers outside of Russia have been seduced by his image. Eurasianism in and of itself is a fascinating subject, I'm out of my depth with the classical side of it, but there are also Tatar, Turkish and Kazakh variants, the latter sponsored by the Nazarbayev regime and heavily influenced by Lev Gumilev, a man who after his death enjoys legendary status in Russia and the Central Asian republics with his theory of ethnogenesis, running alongside and at odds with Dugin's fascist concoction termed neo-Eurasianism.

Putin doesn't have a clever bearded mystic offering him advice like some insecure Tsar. Putinist nationalism recognises the geographical reality of Russia's place in Eurasia and seeks to optimise its advantages as a Eurasian power, but it sees a marriage between a pre-revolutionary conservative great power heritage and a recognition of the modernising influence and formidable authoritarian state built by the Stalinists but minus the Marxism-Leninism, indeed a selective recognition of its achievements in expanding Russian imperial control over what it sees as its areas of influence both internally and places like Ukraine today. Meanwhile Dugin just talks shit on a YouTube channel.

 

[The39thStep]

He is an intelligent man, and in earlier years he dug out original and incredibly obscure texts written by the classical emigre Eurasianists, making them available for the first time to a wider but specialised readership, but as butchersapron once said he's a 'high-functioning bull-shitter' with a history of moving from one organisation to another, ubiquitous in his self-promotion to try and get closer to an influential position in the orbit of the political elite. The reality is he's still a fringe figure.

His politics are exotic enough to appear fresh and new to young fascists who in small numbers outside of Russia have been seduced by his image. Eurasianism in and of itself is a fascinating subject, I'm out of my depth with the classical side of it, but there are also Tatar, Turkish and Kazakh variants, the latter sponsored by the Nazarbayev regime and heavily influenced by Lev Gumilev, a man who after his death enjoys legendary status in Russia and the Central Asian republics with his theory of ethnogenesis, running alongside and at odds with Dugin's fascist concoction termed neo-Eurasianism.

Putin doesn't have a clever bearded mystic offering him advice like some insecure Tsar. Putinist nationalism recognises the geographical reality of Russia's place in Eurasia and seeks to optimise its advantages as a Eurasian power, but it sees a marriage between a pre-revolutionary conservative great power heritage and a recognition of the modernising influence and formidable authoritarian state built by the Stalinists but minus the Marxism-Leninism, indeed a selective recognition of its achievements in expanding Russian imperial control over what it sees as its areas of influence both internally and places like Ukraine today. Meanwhile Dugin just talks shit on a YouTube channel.

This is very well put imo

Putinist nationalism recognises the geographical reality of Russia's place in Eurasia and seeks to optimise its advantages as a Eurasian power, but it sees a marriage between a pre-revolutionary conservative great power heritage and a recognition of the modernising influence and formidable authoritarian state built by the Stalinists but minus the Marxism-Leninism, indeed a selective recognition of its achievements in expanding Russian imperial control over what it sees as its areas of influence both internally and places like Ukraine today.

 

[seventh bullet]

There are some M-L clowns even saying it's impossible for Russia to be aggressively engaged in imperialism right now in trying to subjugate Ukraine because of its 'semi-peripheral' position in the global capitalist system. But hey, it's just Nazis getting killed right now.

 

[hitmouse]

Yes he was. Gordon is CPB now isn't he?

Having done a quick search, it looks like it. So there you go, some people say British anarchism has never achieved anything, but it seems to be a fairly decent training ground for Stalinist-leaning union bureaucrats.

Who cares. No one outside a few nerds has even heard of these out of touch groups, let alone gives a shit for their useless smug self regarding screeds.

It's OK to have a hobby sure but you know, perspective is important.

Yes and no, I suppose - on one hand, it's not like Putin's sitting there going "oh, I was going to throw in towel and give up on this whole war, but now I've seen that Socialist Appeal article I reckon I might have another crack at it", but on the other hand, a lot of this discussion is about the RMT leadership, who you can't really call a tiny ineffective sect.
As far as perspective goes, worth mentioning the Putin/RMT stuff has made headlines in the Telegraph, Standard and Mail recently. I think it might be useful to think of the RMT/wider left Putinism stuff as being similar to the Labour antisemitism argument in some ways - obviously it's being cynically exploited by vile dicks, and there are going to be cases of stuff that's borderline and could be read as being innocent, taken out of context or whatever, but there is some noxious shit there, and it should be challenged imo. If for no other reason, then at least to make Telegraph/Mail journos' jobs slightly harder the next time they want to find a reason to have a pop at railworkers.