Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

[Rimbaud]

I've read and re-read that middle paragraph several times however I'm struggling with it .I've come up with so many possible variations about what I think you mean that it's best that you break this argument down in baby steps please.

1) You can't have effective trade unions outside the public sector and some specific services that can't be outsourced (like trains) because it is so easy for companies to move where labour is cheaper.

2) Similarly, democratic states are increasingly unresponsive because they are to some extent at the mercy of global capital due to threat of capital flight and need to attract investment.

3) Because of this the most successful states in the modern era are authoritarian ones like China which are able to use repressive means to create a pro-business environment and some kind of fusion between the state and business. UAE, Qatar, Saudi are also examples.

4) Within the West, many democracies are also regressing into corrupt authoritarian states with diminished rule of law. Orban's Hungary is most advanced but the UK and Italy are somewhere along that path too. The most advanced along the path is of course Russia which never had a developed civil society in the first place and is basically ran by a fusion of interests between the state and private ownership of oil and gas etc.

5) The failure of any kind of democratic movement in Russia is because democracy in Europe and the US these days is not particularly inspirational. The rise of China's authoritarian capitalism also enables Russia to wage war. Other states within Europe (and the US itself) seem poised to transform into authoritarian states too. A successful invasion of Ukraine by Russia will most likely accelerate this process.

Hope that clarifies my thinking on the matter.

 

[redsquirrel]

I didn't click your link to a previous post of mine cos I don't want to cringe. I don't deny I've posted some bad ideas over the years, but that isn't because I don't understand the history of class struggle, it is because I understand it well enough to recognise that the conditions that gave rise to a workers movement in the 19th and first half of the 20th Centuries no longer exist so I am keen to look for a new approaches which could revive working class politics in the contemporary context. You need to look at the present with new eyes in order to understand why socialism has declined and figure out how to revive it as a movement. Looking to the past does have lessons but they are limited.

The second of last sentences I would agree with. But you cannot have socialism without class struggle, it is the foundation of the philosophy. The task is to build on class struggle as it is in the present (and I do think looking to the past can help with that). In the context of the Ukraine conflict that does not mean rejecting a class analysis in favour of a liberal national analysis, on the contrary a class perspective must be maintained.
Also as I've pointed out before the retreat from class struggle to 'democracy' is very far from being new, it was analysed not just by Woods but by Marx.

Also, the early workers movement did push for things like freedom of speech, of association, and universal suffrage so I don't see how wanting to defend those rights is separate to socialism. The whole point of anti-fascism being a part of the left was to defend these hard won rights. It seems some on the left now think that these things don't matter and authoritarianism/fascism and liberalism is basically all the same. This is a very naive position, and comes across to me as honestly quite spoilt in taking these for granted.

Such 'rights' are useful when they support working class power, they are useless or harmful when they weaken working class power. The retreat from many of on the liberal left from the political to the technocratic/legal is a bad move.
As for the second to last sentence I think that's nonsense - certainly I can only think of one (tinfoil hat) poster on U75 that has taken that line. What some of us do believe is that the fight against the populist hard right has to be a fight against liberalism, as it is liberalism that is the soil from which the hard right grows.

 

[Rimbaud]

i didnt say it would. i would say there is a greater chance of it. even the greater chance i wouldnt describe as great though.
as for the us embracing russia to counter china because of trump. this is just nonsense in many different ways.

So you are basically supporting anything against the US out of a desperate hope that somehow - you don't know how or even think that it's likely - the US empire will collapse and something better will magically emerge from the ashes?

Seems a bit daft.

Henry Kissinger Pushed Trump to Work With Russia to Box In China

The former secretary of state pushed one president to use China to isolate the Soviet Union. These days, he’s counseling almost the reverse—and officials are listening.

www.thedailybeast.com

And no it isn't nonsense, there is a lot of stuff out there which suggests that is why the US right (including Trump) favours Russia, they want Russia to be a US ally rather than a Chinese ally.

 

[Pickman's model]

Weren't you ranting about how you thought another poster was experiencing cognitive decline a few pages ago?

by no means. I wasn't ranting, I pointed it out and adduced evidence to support the point. I wasn't holding up any position he holds as justification of my view.

 

[Ax^]

*cough

your opinion is not a fact ..

 

[sleaterkinney]

the collapse of the us empire could bring many opportunities. whether or not these opportunities are taken is another matter.

Much like Brexit. :-D

 

[discokermit]

So you are basically supporting anything against the US out of a desperate hope that somehow - you don't know how or even think that it's likely - the US empire will collapse and something better will magically emerge from the ashes?

Seems a bit daft.

Henry Kissinger Pushed Trump to Work With Russia to Box In China

The former secretary of state pushed one president to use China to isolate the Soviet Union. These days, he’s counseling almost the reverse—and officials are listening.

www.thedailybeast.com

And no it isn't nonsense, there is a lot of stuff out there which suggests that is why the US right (including Trump) favours Russia, they want Russia to be a US ally rather than a Chinese ally.

no.

it is. they can want all they like, it isn't gonna happen.

 

[discokermit]

Much like Brexit. :-D

yes. those opportunities were wasted though. sadly.

 

[Rimbaud]

yes. those opportunities were wasted though. sadly.

Supporting various harmful things to pass in order to theoretically provide opportunities to a non-existent revolutionary movement is terrible politics.

Brexit could have provided opportunities to a socialist government if it existed. But it didn't, the Conservative Party was in government and driving Brexit.

The collapse of the US empire could benefit a revolutionary world movement geopolitically if such a thing existed, but it doesn't.

 

[discokermit]

Supporting various harmful things to pass in order to theoretically provide opportunities to a non-existent revolutionary movement is terrible politics.

Brexit could have provided opportunities to a socialist government if it existed. But it didn't, the Conservative Party was in government and driving Brexit.

The collapse of the US empire could benefit a revolutionary world movement geopolitically if such a thing existed, but it doesn't.

im not supporting anything.

you asked me how the annexation of ukraine helped the revolution, despite me never claiming it did. i then suggested a way it could. you put a lot of incorrect words into other peoples mouths.

 

[Rimbaud]

no.

it is. they can want all they like, it isn't gonna happen.

Why wouldn't it happen, Putin has been quite keen to cosy up to the US right, see interview with Tucker Carlson.

You do realise that Russia isn't the USSR right? There are no major reasons why it can't ally with the US.

 

[Dystopiary]

I can't think of many (any?) posters who have been actively posting supporting both those positions.

I support all those rejecting invasion and colonialism, be they Ukrainian, Palestinian or from anywhere else.

I don't support any governments though.

 

[discokermit]

Why wouldn't it happen, Putin has been quite keen to cosy up to the US right, see interview with Tucker Carlson.

You do realise that Russia isn't the USSR right? There are no major reasons why it can't ally with the US.

that was the us right cosying up to putin.
you do realise the us of now isnt the us of, say, twenty years ago? the us isn't calling the shots anymore.

 

[The39thStep]

1) You can't have effective trade unions outside the public sector and some specific services that can't be outsourced (like trains) because it is so easy for companies to move where labour is cheaper.

2) Similarly, democratic states are increasingly unresponsive because they are to some extent at the mercy of global capital due to threat of capital flight and need to attract investment.

3) Because of this the most successful states in the modern era are authoritarian ones like China which are able to use repressive means to create a pro-business environment and some kind of fusion between the state and business. UAE, Qatar, Saudi are also examples.

4) Within the West, many democracies are also regressing into corrupt authoritarian states with diminished rule of law. Orban's Hungary is most advanced but the UK and Italy are somewhere along that path too. The most advanced along the path is of course Russia which never had a developed civil society in the first place and is basically ran by a fusion of interests between the state and private ownership of oil and gas etc.

5) The failure of any kind of democratic movement in Russia is because democracy in Europe and the US these days is not particularly inspirational. The rise of China's authoritarian capitalism also enables Russia to wage war. Other states within Europe (and the US itself) seem poised to transform into authoritarian states too. A successful invasion of Ukraine by Russia will most likely accelerate this process.

Hope that clarifies my thinking on the matter.

Ok so ' the rise of China's authoritarian state also enables Russia to wage war ' however ,from your first analysis ,neo liberal states enable authoritarian capitalism?

 

[Pickman's model]

The second of last sentences I would agree with. But you cannot have socialism without class struggle, it is the foundation of the philosophy. The task is to build on class struggle as it is in the present (and I do think looking to the past can help with that). In the context of the Ukraine conflict that does not mean rejecting a class analysis in favour of a liberal national analysis, on the contrary a class perspective must be maintained.
Also as I've pointed out before the retreat from class struggle to 'democracy' is very far from being new, it was analysed not just by Woods but by Marx.

Such 'rights' are useful when they support working class power, they are useless or harmful when they weaken working class power. The retreat from many of on the liberal left from the political to the technocratic/legal is a bad move.
As for the second to last sentence I think that's nonsense - certainly I can only think of one (tinfoil hat) poster on U75 that has taken that line. What some of us do believe is that the fight against the populist hard right has to be a fight against liberalism, as it is liberalism that is the soil from which the hard right grows.

To be fair, you can't have capitalism without class struggle either, it is foundational to the mode of production

 

[Pickman's model]

1) You can't have effective trade unions outside the public sector and some specific services that can't be outsourced (like trains) because it is so easy for companies to move where labour is cheaper.

2) Similarly, democratic states are increasingly unresponsive because they are to some extent at the mercy of global capital due to threat of capital flight and need to attract investment.

3) Because of this the most successful states in the modern era are authoritarian ones like China which are able to use repressive means to create a pro-business environment and some kind of fusion between the state and business. UAE, Qatar, Saudi are also examples.

4) Within the West, many democracies are also regressing into corrupt authoritarian states with diminished rule of law. Orban's Hungary is most advanced but the UK and Italy are somewhere along that path too. The most advanced along the path is of course Russia which never had a developed civil society in the first place and is basically ran by a fusion of interests between the state and private ownership of oil and gas etc.

5) The failure of any kind of democratic movement in Russia is because democracy in Europe and the US these days is not particularly inspirational. The rise of China's authoritarian capitalism also enables Russia to wage war. Other states within Europe (and the US itself) seem poised to transform into authoritarian states too. A successful invasion of Ukraine by Russia will most likely accelerate this process.

Hope that clarifies my thinking on the matter.

Would you mind defining success for three purposes of paragraph 3?

 

[tim]

3) Because of this the most successful states in the modern era are authoritarian ones like China which are able to use repressive means to create a pro-business environment and some kind of fusion between the state and business. UAE, Qatar, Saudi are also examples.

I've lived in Saudi Arabia and follow, the political situation. It doesn't strike me as a particularly successful state. It's wealthy because it has oil, but it hasn't been particularly well invested in the long-term post-oil future. The current Crown Prince is squandering huge amounts on fantasy projects such as Neom. These are popular with many young Saudis, but as they are unlikely to succeed, that popularity is likely to wane and backfire on the regime.

 

[emanymton]

Don't they? All of them? I'm not so sure about that. Certainly I don't think many Israelis are simply repeating a line when they see the Palestinians as aggressors. But I'm not claiming that I agree with any of these arguments or that they are good and sensible, I'm saying that the idea that some sort of objective victim vs aggressor is naive - and a political dead end.

I think the Israeli's that consider Palestinians as the aggressors are viewing the conflict through a specific political view - one that I sharply disagree with. I'd also disagree with the view of Palestinians who consider Isreali's (rather than the state) the aggressor. But for any useful (i.e. pro-working class) political action to take place any group needs to at least attempt to understand such political viewpoints.

EDIT: I've a Russian colleague, he's lived outside Russia for decades, he's no fan of Putin and he did not support the invasion. Still I don't think he would recognise it simply as a case of a victim and an aggressor, he sees this conflict in the context on Russia being pressured by the US/EU/NATO. To say he's just conning himself or deluded, is not just unfair but does not get anywhere.

We're socialists, the basis of our politics is that struggle and power forms politics, most crucially class struggle, but other material factors too. People's class, nationality, race, gender, sexuality, where they were born, the education they had, the social capital they had/have access to. All these create and more our politics, and out politics shape them. Is the story of the Paris Commune one of mob rule or an inspiring attempt of workers fighting for themselves.


What reality? Yours.
Politics is not some objective science with one reality. The whole point of political conflicts is that you have a clash of competing groups with different political realities. The position you're articulating this morning would make most mid-century liberals throw up their hands.

I don't think the situations are really comparable.

Israel's assault on Gaza would not have happened without the 7 Oct attacks. So it is easy to construct a very basic analysis that claims Hamas are the aggressor. There really is no similar inciting incident that can be used as a pretext in Ukraine.

 

[tim]

I don't think the situations are really comparable.

Israel's assault on Gaza would not have happened without the 7 Oct attacks. So it is easy to construct a very basic analysis that claims Hamas are the aggressor. There really is no similar inciting incident that can be used as a pretext in Ukraine.

The Ukrainians were shelling territory under Russian occupation,which had killed civilians.

 

[Rimbaud]

Ok so ' the rise of China's authoritarian state also enables Russia to wage war ' however ,from your first analysis ,neo liberal states enable authoritarian capitalism?

No, neoliberal globalisation provides a competitive advantage to China's authoritarian state because it is better able to discipline workers than rowdy western workers with their unions and strikes.

 

[Rimbaud]

I've lived in Saudi Arabia and follow, the political situation. It doesn't strike me as a particularly successful state. It's wealthy because it has oil, but it hasn't been particularly well invested in the long-term post-oil future. The current Crown Prince is squandering huge amounts on fantasy projects such as Neom. These are popular with many young Saudis, but as they are unlikely to succeed, that popularity is likely to wane and backfire on the regime.

That remains to be seen, nevertheless it and UAE, Qatar etc depend not just on oil but on exploitation of migrant labour force. They along with China are examples of a kind of authoritarian modernity linked in to the capitalist world market which dominant thinking in the 90s assumed to be contradictory.

 

[Rimbaud]

that was the us right cosying up to putin.
you do realise the us of now isnt the us of, say, twenty years ago? the us isn't calling the shots anymore.

Putin invited Carlson for a reason and Russia misinformation is heavily aimed at conservative Americans.

Russia disinformation looks to US far right to weaken Ukraine support

The Kremlin is deploying new tactics by drawing on favorite themes and conspiracy theories of rightwing Republicans

www.theguardian.com

Also yes I do realise it isn't the US calling the shots anymore. That's why monomaniacally focusing on opposition to the US in lieu of the existence of any credible leftist movement is so silly and outdated.

And if the US isn't calling the shots anymore, then where are these opportunities US decline will bring about that you mentioned?

 

[Pickman's model]

Putin invited Carlson for a reason and Russia misinformation is heavily aimed at conservative Americans.

Russia disinformation looks to US far right to weaken Ukraine support

The Kremlin is deploying new tactics by drawing on favorite themes and conspiracy theories of rightwing Republicans

www.theguardian.com

Also yes I do realise it isn't the US calling the shots anymore. That's why monomaniacally focusing on opposition to the US in lieu of the existence of any credible leftist movement is so silly and outdated.

And if the US isn't calling the shots anymore, then where are these opportunities US decline will bring about that you mentioned?

All about us. Obviously.

 

[Rimbaud]

All about us. Obviously.

What is all about us? And who are we?

 

[Pickman's model]

What is all about us? And who are we?

us is we, we are everyone, the opportunities surround us. i didn't realise i was using a load of unusual and rare technical terms.

 

[discokermit]

And if the US isn't calling the shots anymore, then where are these opportunities US decline will bring about that you mentioned?

just because the oven is on, doesnt mean the cake is cooked.

 

[Pickman's model]

That remains to be seen, nevertheless it and UAE, Qatar etc depend not just on oil but on exploitation of migrant labour force. They along with China are examples of a kind of authoritarian modernity linked in to the capitalist world market which dominant thinking in the 90s assumed to be contradictory.

so what you mean by modernism is some sort of progressive thing. therefore modernity would be an expression of that form of progressivism. i look forward to your sharing what is progressive about the sort of absolute monarchy mixed with technology founded on oil and gas production found in the gulf.

 

[Rob Ray]

No, neoliberal globalisation provides a competitive advantage to China's authoritarian state because it is better able to discipline workers than rowdy western workers with their unions and strikes.

Shorr term sure, but there's a reason capitalism outmanoeuvred feudalism in the first place in the imperial nations. Excessive intervention is inefficient, unnerves investors, promotes corruption, screws with dynamism, and often autocrats aren't actually very good decision makers over time (the rose-tinted bottleneck of one guy deciding about too many expert fields based on info from flunkies). Spain under Franco is a good example of this dynamic even in a West-aligned state.

There's also quite a lot of indicators that China is struggling in multiple areas atm, from real estate to tech and education. The relevant article list from the FT isn't exactly happy reading: https://www.ft.com/chinese-economy

 

[Rimbaud]

so what you mean by modernism is some sort of progressive thing. therefore modernity would be an expression of that form of progressivism. i look forward to your sharing what is progressive about the sort of absolute monarchy mixed with technology founded on oil and gas production found in the gulf.

I said modernity not modernism because I meant modern in a general sense, not modernism which has a more specific meaning. By which I mean that they are prosperous and technologically developed. So it's an authoritarian form of modernity, in contrast to the 90 and 00s liberal assumptions that democracy and modernisation go hand in hand. My whole point is that while this may have had some truth in the 20th Century, neoliberal globalisation has created a situation which favours authoritarian states due to their enhanced ability to create investment-friendly environments and heightened ability to exploit their workforces.

 

[Rimbaud]

Shorr term sure, but there's a reason capitalism outmanoeuvred feudalism in the first place in the imperial nations. Excessive intervention is inefficient, unnerves investors, promotes corruption, screws with dynamism, and often autocrats aren't actually very good decision makers over time (the rose-tinted bottleneck of one guy deciding about too many expert fields based on info from flunkies). Spain under Franco is a good example of this dynamic even in a West-aligned state.

There's also quite a lot of indicators that China is struggling in multiple areas atm, from real estate to tech and education. The relevant article list from the FT isn't exactly happy reading: https://www.ft.com/chinese-economy

China is struggling in part because increasing wages mean that companies are moving to India, Vietnam, Cambodia, Bangladesh etc. And India is also sliding into authoritarianism via Modi's Gujarat model, a top down, centralised form of business-friendly development with an undercurrent of violent Hindu nationalism.