The war and "the left" - what do "we" do?

[Humberto]

No reason or excuse for it?

 

[Humberto]

Vlads deliriums not counted.

 

[RD2003]

No reason or excuse for it?

For what?

 

[Humberto]

For what?

Invading a peaceful country of no threat to his own.

 

[RD2003]

Invading a peaceful country of no threat to his own.

It doesn't matter, as we are seeing, if it is, on paper, ' a peaceful country of no threat...' if the current rulers of Russia (in line with their historical background) believe it to be a threat by throwing in its lot with NATO and 'the west' generally.

Beliefs, as we are also seeing, count for far more than apparent reality. They always have. That's why we have so many war graves and unknown soldiers etc.

But we may be derailing a thread about what the left 'wants out of all of this.'

 

[Humberto]

Say it again coherently, shorten it if you like, but I'm not trying to respond to this.

 

[RD2003]

Say it again coherently, shorten it if you like, but I'm not trying to respond to this.

Don't then (and how much shorter do you want it than a sentence or three?)

 

[RD2003]

Putin invaded you muppet. Oh don't mind Russia.

Did 'he' invade? Oh yeah, looks like he did. Without anybody warning of this whatsoever.

This war was in the pipeline since at least 2008. And the tragedy is how easily it could have ben avoided. It wasn't avoided because people on both sides wanted the showdown. Ordinary working people lost, and will continue to lose no matter what happens.

 

[Humberto]

Did 'he' invade? Oh yeah, looks like he did. Without anybody warning of this whatsoever.

This war was in the pipeline since at least 2008. And the tragedy is how easily it could have ben avoided. It wasn't avoided because people on both sides wanted the showdown. Ordinary working people lost, and will continue to lose no matter what happens.

He invaded. Yes. You think he had a justification?

 

[Supine]

Did 'he' invade? Oh yeah, looks like he did. Without anybody warning of this whatsoever.

This war was in the pipeline since at least 2008. And the tragedy is how easily it could have ben avoided. It wasn't avoided because people on both sides wanted the showdown. Ordinary working people lost, and will continue to lose no matter what happens.

You sound like a proper nutter tbh. You a putin bot or what?

 

[RD2003]

He invaded. Yes. You think he had a justification?

It doesn't matter what you, me or anybody else thinks when you consider that he, and at least some of those around him. almost certainly think they had a justification, and went ahead and invaded.

We can forever debate the rights and wrongs of it, but it no longer makes any difference.

I still think we're getting away from what the thread is supposed to be about.

 

[RD2003]

You sound like a proper nutter tbh. You a putin bot or what?

I've applied for the job several times, but my references are shite.

 

[Humberto]

It doesn't matter what you, me or anybody else thinks when you consider that he, and at least some of those around him. almost certainly think they had a justification, and went ahead and invaded.

We can forever debate the rights and wrongs of it, but it no longer makes any difference.

I still think we're getting away from what the thread is supposed to be about.

You can 'debate', the facts are Vlad invaded Ukraine and is a friendless monster.

 

[RD2003]

You can 'debate', the facts are Vlad invaded Ukraine and is a friendless monster.

So what, when the war is happening anyway, and is set to go on? Killing thousands, and possibly you, me and tens of millions of others also.

Do you really see 'Vlad' as the problem? As if it wouldn't have happened if, given the way the post-USSR Russia went in the '90s, and outside developments, it wouldn't have happened at some time anyway?

I keep answering you while pointing out that we're derailing. Have you anything to say that's relevant to the thread?

 

[Humberto]

So what, when the war is happening anyway, and is set to go on? Killing thousands, and possibly you, me and tens of millions of others also.

Do you really see 'Vlad' as the problem? As if it wouldn't have happened if, given the way the post-USSR Russia went in the '90s, and outside developments, it wouldn't have happened at some time anyway?

I keep answering you while pointing out that we're derailing. Have you anything to say that's relevant to the thread?

 

[Humberto]

Do what Vlad says

 

[RD2003]

Do what Vlad says

I always do. Because he tells me.

Now that we've put that to bed, can you go away for a bit?

 

[Humberto]

I always do. Because he tells me.

Now that we've put that to bed, can you go away for a bit?

The first sentence is ironic?

 

[Wilf]

Abstract morality might say that Ukraine should get all the weapons it demands. They have already had a hell of a lot, and the result is thousands of dead Ukrainians (and Russians). 'The west' is determined to fight to the very last Ukrainian... If they hadn't had them, thus diluting their ability to resist, arguably fewer, but still too many, Ukrainians (and Russians) would have died. Workers predominate among the dead civilians (and soldiers from working class backgrounds) in both scenarios. Working class people (cannon fodder) are always the main losers in war, at the expense of those who enrich themselves from it. And people from both sides are going to enrich themselves immensely as a result of this war, as is, as usual, the international arms industry. And there is going to be no definitive victory for any side: neither the Ukrainian state, nor the Russian state, nor those fuelling the conflict from outside. Biden has invested so much politically that he can't be seen to back down, and Putin can't afford anything seen as a defeat either. Blood everywhere and many more lives to be destroyed for some time to come, not least among the Ukrainian pawns in the game. Arguments that stress that Russia has no right to demand anything of Ukraine ignore the fact that it inevitably will, and also ignore the place of Ukraine in both Russian history and the Russian nationalist mentality. Neither Russian history nor its nationalist outlook, which usually prevails no matter who controls the state, can possibly just vanish. Russia will push this to its very limit, and if thse who oppose it respond in kind then it's very bad news indeed for all of us. The likelihood of Russia accepting a place in the world where it is just another country without anything to boast about is almost non-existent. Sure enough, as we have seen, such people can sometimes gain control there, but historically they have always proved only temporary.


This is why I tried to start a discussion in the 'War will always be with us' thread. 'The left' no longer has a convincing answer to why we constantly go to war, which derives from the fact that it no longer has a coherent ideology nor a movement which is capable of mobilising working class people, nor any real chance of creating one in the prevailing conditions of a de-industrialised west, and the inevitable erosion of working class solidarity that follows. Which means that the working class the world over will remain at the mercy of the 'imperialisms' and whatever they decide to do, and explains the current situation of a small and impotent class struggle-oriented left, disorientated and at the mercy of the predominant narrative, spending its time raging, mostly online, at the (possibly bigger for what it counts) anti-imperialism-focussed wing of the same fragmented, loosely-termed movement. Hardly anybody else has even heard about the argument, let alone the semi-imaginary red-brown alliance that is the focus of so much internet ire-as if, in these circumstances, there can actually be a winner in that pseudo-debate and it would count for something.

Hearts are ruling heads in this fiasco, which is, on the ground, no worse than what routinely takes place in Africa, or has done (and currently is) in the Middle East, or did in Vietnam. The only difference is that the threat of nuclear war looms. And such is the hysteria that people, including some of those with actual power, talk as if nuclear conflict is actually worth the risk. Once this war is over (presuming it doesn't put an end to most of us and destroy civilisation), another one will be along soon.

Do you think the, predominantly working class, people of Ukraine would agree with this? And if you think they might not, do you think that is significant?

 

[strung out]

Do you think the, predominantly working class, people of Ukraine would agree with this? And if you think they might not, do you think that is significant?

In RD2003's mind the Ukraining working class are simple minded, easily led idiots, who are only fighting because their liberal elite masters are telling them to.

 

[LDC]

It's a hard ramble to reply to as it covers so much stuff in broad brushstrokes, some of which I would likely find some common ground with, but some of which I think is quite odd.

What would you say was the left's convincing answer 'about why we constantly go to war' do you think RD2003? Why was that lost and when?

For the later he does seem to have a slightly patronising view of the working class, being 'at the mercy of imperialisms' - and also seemingly incapable of forming their own opinions and taking action for their own interests without a wise external force to guide them. Discounting the red-brown alliance as something 'imaginary' when it exists in real concrete form, and is also partly one of the reasons why (as he says) that the left 'no longer has a coherent ideology nor a movement which is capable of mobilising working class people' also seems a bit arse about face (although of course there are other larger problems).

 

[RD2003]

Do you think the, predominantly working class, people of Ukraine would agree with this? And if you think they might not, do you think that is significant?

Don't know, although I would imagine they wouldn't. That doesn't mean that what I'm saying will happen/is happening is untrue.

I can't help that.

 

[Wilf]

Don't know, although I would imagine they wouldn't. That doesn't mean that what I'm saying will happen/is happening is untrue.

I can't help that.

Well, we can only thank you for acquainting us with the sweep of history and, if they get in touch, I'll be sure to pass your sermon analysis on to the Ukrainian working class. They'll be disappointed, but I'm sure they'll understand.

 

[RD2003]

It's a hard ramble to reply to as it covers so much stuff in broad brushstrokes, some of which I would likely find some common ground with, but some of which I think is quite odd.

What would you say was the left's convincing answer 'about why we constantly go to war' do you think RD2003? Why was that lost and when?

For the later he does seem to have a slightly patronising view of the working class, being 'at the mercy of imperialisms' - and also seemingly incapable of forming their own opinions and taking action for their own interests without a wise external force to guide them. Discounting the red-brown alliance as something 'imaginary' when it exists in real concrete form, and is also partly one of the reasons why (as he says) that the left 'no longer has a coherent ideology nor a movement which is capable of mobilising working class people' also seems a bit arse about face (although of course there are other larger problems).

Simplifying drastically, the radical left used to claim that a society run on co-operation rather than competition, for use and not profit etc, would eventually put an end to the need for war. Didn't it?

Obviously, many working class people do form their own opinions and take actions they see as being in their own interests. These are not necessarily actions which further a radically left-wing agenda or benefit the working class long-term. Right now in Ukraine, for example, most workers have understandably thrown in their lot with their own highly corrupt state in its war with another highly corrupt state. As a result, lots of them have died and many more are set to join them. Had they not done so, many would still have died but probably fewer. As elsewhere, nationalism is winning out over class. Even should their own state win, they will gain nothing more than the right to vote for their own continued explotation while watching their overlords prosper.

I never mentioned a need for 'a wise external force.' I did claim that pro-working class forces have probably never been weaker, which is why such matters as the possibility of putting an eventual end to war are never seriously considered anymore.

Where does this so-called red-brown alliance exist outside the internet and at meetings, so I sometimes read (on the internet), of minor cult figures like Vanessa Beeley? What political successes has it enjoyed?

 

[RD2003]

Well, we can only thank you for acquainting us with the sweep of history and, if they get in touch, I'll be sure to pass your sermon analysis on to the Ukrainian working class. They'll be disappointed, but I'm sure they'll understand.

Do you contact the Ukrainian working class by email, or is it, under the circumstances, a PO Box address?

 

[Rimbaud]

Without a de-escalation there will be, at the very least, many thousands more deaths. It depends on what people want.

Some people want to gamble on pushing Russia (which is far from being just Putin) to the very limit. That is a very dangerous game with a nuclear armed state that may or may not believe its own rhetoric. I'm not the only one, and among the least clever, of those who seem to think it just might.

Letting Vlad have what he wants will create more war, not less.

 

[LDC]

Simplifying drastically, the radical left used to claim that a society run on co-operation rather than competition, for use and not profit etc, would eventually put an end to the need for war. Didn't it?

Obviously, many working class people do form their own opinions and take actions they see as being in their own interests. These are not necessarily actions which further a radically left-wing agenda or benefit the working class long-term. Right now in Ukraine, for example, most workers have understandably thrown in their lot with their own highly corrupt state in its war with another highly corrupt state. As a result, lots of them have died and many more are set to join them. Had they not done so, many would still have died but probably fewer. As elsewhere, nationalism is winning out over class. Even should their own state win, they will gain nothing more than the right to vote for their own continued explotation while watching their overlords prosper.

I never mentioned a need for 'a wise external force.' I did claim that pro-working class forces have probably never been weaker, which is why such matters as the possibility of putting an eventual end to war are never seriously considered anymore.

Where does this so-called red-brown alliance exist outside the internet and at meetings, so I sometimes read (on the internet), of minor cult figures like Vanessa Beeley? What political successes has it enjoyed?

Cheers for taking the time tor reply. So I agree with the first bit and that the demise of a politics of solidarity and co-operation (I guess you're partly hinting at the growth of identity politics and single issue activism?) has been discussed on here endlessly, as it is in all sorts of political groups. Also of course discussed in wider society and then used as ammunition by the right to attack 'the left' and its 'irrelevance'.

Second paragraph I think is more complicated, not sure I can be arsed to try and articulate a reply atm.

Last bit, well look at what the Russian State is doing in Ukraine as part of its war to 'de-nazify' Ukraine, I think that has elements of red brown stuff in it for sure. And in the US the related alt-right influence is huge. Outside that it's influence is there in the left (and outside it) in this country for sure (look at the Putin lovers thread on here, or bits of the Labour party support) but yeah quantifying it's successes would be hard, but I think some of the distrust, misinformation, and general cynicism towards what we talked about in the first sentences can in part be put down to that.

 

[LDC]

...I'll be sure to pass your sermon analysis on to the Ukrainian working class...

I read that as semen analysis.

 

[RD2003]

Letting Vlad have what he wants will create more war, not less.

Allegedly.

However, Putin is not acting alone. He represents, as I said above, a centuries-old outlook on Russia's place in the world which usually proves dominant there, and will not die even if temporarily defeated. What's more, the attempt to defeat Russia in the current war could in itself create more war. This is why the world is in such a dengerous situation with no clear way out.

 

[hitmouse]

Abstract morality might say that Ukraine should get all the weapons it demands. They have already had a hell of a lot, and the result is thousands of dead Ukrainians (and Russians). 'The west' is determined to fight to the very last Ukrainian... If they hadn't had them, thus diluting their ability to resist, arguably fewer, but still too many, Ukrainians (and Russians) would have died.

Anyway, sorry to distract from this latest round of The RD2 Show Featuring RD2, but here's a few more recent links:

Private Site

The Final Straw interview with Maria from ABC Kyiv and Mira from the Kharkiv hardcore scene is now available as a PDF, as well as in just general transcribed format:

Zines | The Final Straw Radio Podcast

thefinalstrawradio.noblogs.org

Eric King Speaks | 2 Radical Ukrainian Voices | The Final Straw Radio Podcast

thefinalstrawradio.noblogs.org