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

[danny la rouge]

FWIW I don't actually disagree with the idea that 'russophobia is not anti left' but I don't really consider myself part of 'the left' any more

It’s not a very meaningful sentence is it?

 

[redsquirrel]

Yes, and we’ve responded without mentioning their need for sub editors.

Identity, nationalism and xenophobia at Freedom - Anarchist Communist Group

We cannot leave the recent comment pieces in Freedom uncommented on. The first piece, “Fuck Leftist Westplaining” (4th March), contained much that we politically and intellectually, disagreed with. While we have every sympathy for where it was coming from emotionally, unfortunately, any point...

www.anarchistcommunism.org

BTW anyone reading the Freedom piece now please note that the piece has now been edited to remove the "more power to them" but it was present originally.

 

[Serge Forward]

No admission of anything untoward then, just apply the airbrush. They should have withdrawn this xenophobic, nationalist drivel and just held their hands up about bad shit getting through the net. That would be the end of it. Sadly, by keeping this shit on their website, Freedom has lost all credibility with this reactionary bollocks

 

[redsquirrel]

There is a (weak) explanation on their Facebook page

The full paragraph is in the specific context of understanding where people are coming from, while criticising arbitrary attacks on anything perceived Russian, ie the next lines are:
"... part of the narrative Putin is giving to Russians is that he is the only person on their side. “It’s us against them”. He says the rest of the world hates us, watch how they treat us. He says Ukrainians are Russophobes (imagine). The insular, exceptional nationalism which Putin has been carefully nurturing and weaponising will only become more effective if the rest of the world turns its back on Russian people."
But we've now edited out the "more power to them" bit.

Worth noting the author is part-Russian, so it's closer to us saying "I totally get why you'd hate the bloody English," before going on to argue the world shouldn't turn its back on Russian people, but yes it was too easy to read as being anti-Russians, as opposed to anti Russia's actions.

But that explanation just highlights that this piece should not have been posted before the editorial team had given it a good read through and editing before deciding to or not to post it.

Also under the circumstances Freedom should make it clear that the piece has been edited since publication.

 

[Wilf]

There is a (weak) explanation on their Facebook page


But that explanation just highlights that this piece should not have been posted before the editorial team had given it a good read through and editing before deciding to or not to post it.

Also under the circumstances it should be made clear that the piece has been edited.

If I was going to mount a defence, it would just be to wonder whether the author is somehow conflating fear of/concern over Russia's action with actual Russophobia. I think that's unlikely, though I don't know the author (could they be a non-English speaker or similar?). But yeah, the real point is how the fuck did it get through without editing?

The other thing is that this fuck up gets in the way of the point made in both pieces, that parts of the left are stuck in a politics that still leaves them unable to criticise Russian gangsterism and oligarchy. If you have habits of mind that were entirely wrong even in the period of the USSR, which leave you unable to callout the mass murder of Syrians, Ukranians and others, you really are a scumbag.

 

[xenon]

Yes, and we’ve responded without mentioning their need for sub editors.

Identity, nationalism and xenophobia at Freedom - Anarchist Communist Group

We cannot leave the recent comment pieces in Freedom uncommented on. The first piece, “Fuck Leftist Westplaining” (4th March), contained much that we politically and intellectually, disagreed with. While we have every sympathy for where it was coming from emotionally, unfortunately, any point...

www.anarchistcommunism.org

maybe the Freedom article has been edited since the AC reply piece. It doesn't say "more power to them" with respect to people hating Russians. I also didn't read that part as saying yes hating Russians is good. Rather explaining lots of people hate Russians, for understandable reasons. Not justifiable, AKA racism is OK" but understandable if for example, arising out of Russian / Soviet invasion experiences. Lots of people hate the British due to experiences of Empire.

Equally, the point about nationalist identity clearly is empowering for groups resisting imperial aggression. This is just self evident. Quotidian nationalistic fervor is antithetical to working class solidarity, agreed. But in a time of a war where a nation's survival is at stake, identity is obviously a rallying point.

I dunno, I'm a bit tired but that Freedom article didn't seem terrible and I assumed aimed at a general audience. Not here's the correct anarchist PoV laid out for nerds.

 

[xenon]

Yeah

In general I just really hate stuff like this lol like stop trying to be fucking buzzfeed lol.





I actually don't think this is a bad point (seems to be arguing against russophobia tbh) but in that case why say it's ok to be russophobic and put this point in a paragraph seeming to argue this?

FWIW I don't actually disagree with the idea that 'russophobia is not anti left' but I don't really consider myself part of 'the left' any more

See I didn't read it as it's OK to be russophobic. More that many obviously hate Russians and Russia because they've been invaded ,by bombed and or subjugated by various Russian regemes.

And whilst understanding that, slipping into russophobia, anti Russian racism, is playing into Putins hands. Demonising Russians as a whole, only strenthens Putin's messages, inculcating a nationalistic sege mentality.

 

[Serge Forward]

This is what it said before airbrushing, offending parts emphasised:

some observers are voicing their concerns about the sort of patriotism we can see in Ukraine, but Ukrainian resistance to Russia is not the same sort of nationalism we get nervous about in the UK. From the outside, seeing crowds waving national flags, joining armed forces, and defending state borders might appear to be the sort of harmful violent devoted patriotism we’ve spent our lives campaigning against. But this isn’t comparable to the UK. Here, we can be justifiably anxious about flag-waving and militaristic language around “defending our land”. The English and the Union flags have both been backdrops to street and state-level fascism. They each conjure up mental images of the EDL, Combat 18, bricks through Muslim families’ windows, “send the Bulgarians back to where they came from”, tories and poppy shaggers, Morrissey, the Brexit campaign, This is England, and that one day last summer when everyone fucking hated Italy. Whether you’re foreign or not, many of us have no time nor tolerance for any sort of pride in this country. And we’re right to oppose it; British nationalism is and has always been a vehicle of absolute fucking cruelty across the world.

We can’t risk assuming the same logic applies when Ukraine and the UK are incomparable. While the latter is literally an imperialist force, nationalism or patriotism (or however we feel most comfortable defining it in English) can be empowering and important for people who are under threat of imperialist invasion. Around the world, the fights for citizenship, autonomy, and self-determination come alongside asserting certain flags, languages, religions, and cultures. This isn’t the same as far-right, neo-nazi groups who do it on behalf of somewhere like England. Fascism punches down, resistance is not the same. From Ukraine to Scotland to Western Sahara to Palestine to Tatarstan, we stand with the people resisting imperialism.

Bad-faith accusations of Russophobia are corrupting our ability to properly criticise how pointless it is to arbitrarily ban everything Russian. I get that Russian people often get tied closely to the actions of the state and it makes sense, Russians have famously played a big part in the formation and destruction of governments. Russians and Russian things are often seen as political even if they’re not. Everything is pushed through some ideological prism and used for endless manipulations of the political spectrum. And while it is truly understandable that many people hate Russia and Russians and anything to do with Russia, and more power to them, part of the narrative Putin is giving to Russians is that he is the only person on their side. “It’s us against them”. He says the rest of the world hates us, watch how they treat us. He says Ukrainians are Russophobes (imagine). The insular, exceptional nationalism which Putin has been carefully nurturing and weaponising will only become more effective if the rest of the world turns its back on Russian people.

It also isn’t anti-left to be Russophobic, but taking Russian bands off festival line-ups also isn’t going to help anyone.

 

[Humberto]

That's pretty much a load of shite.

 

[redsquirrel]

Equally, the point about nationalist identity clearly is empowering for groups resisting imperial aggression. This is just self evident. Quotidian nationalistic fervor is antithetical to working class solidarity, agreed. But in a time of a war where a nation's survival is at stake, identity is obviously a rallying point.

It is true that patriotism is often a rallying point during war, but it is quite a different thing for socialist/communists/anarchists to argue that such is understandable than to argue it is a good thing.

The writer actually falls into the same "anti-imperialist" trap that has had some idiots defending the actions of the Russian state, only they have reversed the position with Ukrainian nationalism/patriotism being justified due to its "anti-imperialism". I'm sorry but that is crap.

From Ukraine to Scotland to Western Sahara to Palestine to Tatarstan, we stand with the people resisting imperialism.

Is true but a class perspective says that you do not it by simply accepting nationalist arguments but on the basis of trying to create class and non-national response.
In the first three cases (I don't know enough about Tatarstan) there are too many examples of nationalism/patriotism writing out class to simply accept nationalism.
Anarchists should not be supporting nationalist, even civic nationalist, arguments regarding Scotland. They should not be accepting the nationalism in Palestine that has not only led to class being diminished as a focus of struggle but has put communists in Palestine under persecution.

Yes a class based perspective should try to understand the motivation of workers to embrace nationalism/patriotism, it should even recognise that while nationalism is fundamentally harmful it is formed in part by the actions of workers, and that finger wagging at people is often counter productive. But FFS anarchism has to be opposed to nationalism.

And Freedom as the oldest anarchist publication in the UK (a point it stresses itself) should have the sense to publish articles with the above in mind. If it wanted to publish this piece as a comment from within the community then ok, but it should have made it clear that the piece was being published on that basis
(We in the ACG have published pieces that which we think are useful to a debate even if we don't fully agree with them, but we make it clear that they are not the ACG "line" but rather a contribution to a conversation).

 

[Humberto]

Zenon is my mate.

 

[redsquirrel]

I'll just add that there is also a big space between UK socialists finger wagging at Ukranian workers for their nationalism, and trying to counteract the nationalist (Russian, Ukrainian and British) framework this conflict is being seen through here in the UK.

 

[danny la rouge]

It doesn't say "more power to them" with respect to people hating Russians.

It did. It’s been edited.

 

[chilango]

Fwiw I think a "pure" Anarchist perspective is really valuable at the moment in maintaining a strict anti-nationalist position. It might not be practical, or even 'correct', but I think it's important for it to be part of the discussion.

 

[JimW]

ACG and Freedom share the same address, couldn't you have just popped upstairs and made these criticisms in person? Silliness aside, that was a right pair of stinkers from Freedom.

 

[frogwoman]

Nobody can really agree what that is though.

Fwiw I think a "pure" Anarchist perspective is really valuable at the moment in maintaining a strict anti-nationalist position. It might not be practical, or even 'correct', but I think it's important for it to be part of the discussion.

 

[Cid]

Well, as long as it doesn't involve identity politics...


<backs away and hides>

 

[hitmouse]

Oh, and another text from Ukraine, offering something closer to that "pure" anarchist analysis (content warning for violent videos within article):

Private Site

enoughisenough14.org

Did anyone read the French/Syrian one? Any thoughts?

 

[Cid]

Oh, and another text from Ukraine, offering something closer to that "pure" anarchist analysis:

Private Site

enoughisenough14.org

Did anyone read the French/Syrian one? Any thoughts?

Er... warning: video in that has someone being shot.

 

[chilango]

Nobody can really agree what that is though.

True enough. But that doesn't really matter.

 

[hitmouse]

Er... warning: video in that has someone being shot.

Oh, fair enough, I didn't actually click on any of the videos, have edited in a warning.

 

[frogwoman]

What I guess I'm saying is that I think it's ok not to have a fully worked out ideological leftist/anarchist position on everything. Sometimes it's better just to admit you don't know. I also think anti idpol stuff can be taken way too far, like people not wanting to support Palestine demos because of people on them with Palestinian flags. Like challenge racist stuff obviously but also be aware you don't have all the answers.

 

[chilango]

What I guess I'm saying is that I think it's ok not to have a fully worked out ideological leftist/anarchist position on everything. Sometimes it's better just to admit you don't know. I also think anti idpol stuff can be taken way too far, like people not wanting to support Palestine demos because of people on them with Palestinian flags. Like challenge racist stuff obviously but also be aware you don't have all the answers.

I think all of this stuff is up for discussion. And you have to start from somewhere.

 

[chilango]

I think all of this stuff is up for discussion. And you have to start from somewhere.

...because, even if you don't reflect upon the framework or lens through which you view these events others will. They come to events with coherent worldviews that make connections, make sense of situations and generate actions based upon this. This is seductive for those trying to figure what the hell is going and what the hell they can do about it.

It's basic "filling the vacuum" stuff.

Our job, in as far as there is a "we" here, is to be reflective about what shared lenses and frameworks we have. What shared values and principles we have, and try to figure how much of a coherent worldviews we can offer. Otherwise we'll be left impotently chasing shadows and wondering why everything is always so shit.

 

[danny la rouge]

...because, even if you don't reflect upon the framework or lens through which you view these events others will. They come to events with coherent worldviews that make connections, make sense of situations and generate actions based upon this. This is seductive for those trying to figure what the hell is going and what the hell they can do about it.

It's basic "filling the vacuum" stuff.

Our job, in as far as there is a "we" here, is to be reflective about what shared lenses and frameworks we have. What shared values and principles we have, and try to figure how much of a coherent worldviews we can offer. Otherwise we'll be left impotently chasing shadows and wondering why everything is always so shit.

I think that especially after the (now edited) second Freedom piece, we in organised anarchism (in my case the ACG) did have something like a duty to publicly evaluate the views being published in Freedom. I believe we did so with an even hand and without rancour. But to sit back and say nothing for fear of being tarred as “Westsplainers” would have been cowardly.

 

[rekil]

Not a direct reply but saw this was on this morning.

We at Stop the War condemn the invasion of Ukraine, and warmongers on all sides | Lindsey German

The anti-war movement is no supporter of Putin. But we can, at the same time, criticise our government’s dreadful war record, says Lindsey German, convenor of Stop the War

www.theguardian.com

In 2003 we were “friends of the Taliban” or “allies of Saddam”. It wasn’t true then and it’s not true now.

This is a lie isn't it. Didn't they cheer on saddam and islamists in 'raq'n'stan on anti-imperialist grounds? They were toxic loons then and they're toxic loons now.

We oppose our own imperialist governments, hoping for their defeat. If defeat had come at Saddam's hands we would still have welcomed it.

 

[hitmouse]

This is a lie isn't it. Didn't they cheer on saddam and islamists in 'raq'n'stan on anti-imperialist grounds? They were toxic loons then and they're toxic loons now.

If anyone wanted to do a bit of elaborate IRL trolling, I reckon digging out/printing off some old Iraq-era StW/SWP "VICTORY TO THE RESISTANCE" placards and bringing them along to current StW events might be quite an effective way to do it.

 

[NoXion]

ACG and Freedom share the same address, couldn't you have just popped upstairs and made these criticisms in person? Silliness aside, that was a right pair of stinkers from Freedom.

The "Russophobia" article has got most of the attention in this thread, and with good reason I think. But I'd be interested in hearing a bit more criticism of what I assume is the other piece. It was emotionally charged and I'll admit some parts ruffled my feathers, but I think it made a good point about the Western left's detachment from the realities on the ground in eastern Europe.

 

[danny la rouge]

The "Russophobia" article has got most of the attention in this thread, and with good reason I think. But I'd be interested in hearing a bit more criticism of what I assume is the other piece. It was emotionally charged and I'll admit some parts ruffled my feathers, but I think it made a good point about the Western left's detachment from the realities on the ground ground in eastern Europe.

We (the ACG) refer to that other piece in our response.

Personally I do think you’ve highlighted one of the areas that revolutionaries in the “West” need to take note of. I did have a lot of trouble with the way it was all couched in identity, though.

I have met the author and like her; we’ve been for a pint in my local. But I think we have to accept that she and I come from different traditions. The identity focused milieu (she’d probably prefer to call it intersectionalism, but I think that’s claiming ownership of a term that initially at least had useful things to say) is drifting ever further from class struggle communism.

The language each uses tends to pass the other by and can lead to misunderstandings. There’s no reason we shouldn’t have respectful exchanges, but we increasingly occupy very different spaces.

 

[chilango]

Most of us are detached from the realities on the ground in eastern Europe. No sense expecting otherwise.