Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Ukraine and the Russian invasion, 2022-24

I read one of Fukayama's books (The Origins of Political Order) and he is actually a much more nuanced thinker than his association with the 90s "End of History" triumphalism would suggest.

I actually found his historical teleology to be surprisingly similar to Marxism, recognising early slave societies as the origins of class society, and viewing some form of tribal democracy (analagous to "primitive communism" in Marxism) as the "natural" human order which class society has alienated us from. His "end of history" conclusion, at least from the book I've read, doesn't actually mention capitalism - he concludes that a triumvirate of political accountability, rule of law, and a strong state are the "final" form of political order, balancing the naturally democratic tendencies of human nature against the demands of large scale and complex economic organisation. In principle, this isn't incompatible with Democratic Socialism, it is only incompatible with Marxist-Leninist "Democratic Centralism" which in practise lacks accountability and rule of law (i.e. executive state power is subject to no serious legal constraints).

But anyway I think the western left could do with reverting to a recognition of "bourgeois revolution" to bring basic rule of law and Parliamentary democracy as something progressive instead of dismissing global south demands for basic democratic accountability as imperialist plots. Liberals (in the political sense) are not the biggest enemy in the world today - if the spread of authoritarian capitalism isn't beaten back then there we won't even have the space to organise a working class movement, and authoritarian capitalism (especially China) also hinders the necessary emergence of an international workers movement as it is impossible to communicate and organise safely with Chinese workers who play an integral role in the world economy, and without whom an international workers movement could never succeed.

I view the Ukraine war as something like a bourgeois-democratic revolution against whatever you call Russia's system (there isn't really a name for it, but it seems defined by dictatorial power operating in the interests of a small number of oligarchs competing for influence and favour with the leader) and support it on that basis. I don't think we can take basic democratic rights for granted these days, and reestablishing the old link between socialist politics and democratic politics is key to reviving socialism as a global force, because it is the only way for Western leftists to make common cause with global south (including Ukraine here, maybe) struggles for basic democratic rights.
Yes he is nuanced , if that is a phrase that adequately describes starting of with a conclusion ( incidentally from The End of History , a book that he was not only associated with but authored) of:

“The egalitarianism of modern America represents the essential achievement of the classless society envisioned by Marx.”

and then seeing class as important when it came to explaining the rise of Trump and then admitting Marx was right on certain issues .

So yes , nuanced , eclectic, magpie and often opportunistic , and he doesn’t in fact understand Marx .
 
There is a link between democratic and socialist politics. If you don't have the right to freedom of assembly and speech then you can hardly organise a labour movement, can you?

That's not a link though, it arguably means it's easier to organise in a liberal democracy, but it's only one aspect of what makes organising possible anyway. Plenty of people have organised under a military dictatorship where it's banned for example.
 
Seriously! That is such an ahistorical statement I find it hard to comprehend how you can make it - labour has frequently organised without any such "rights"
It has frequently organised without such rights, but having those rights has always been important and always been a demand. Are you saying the illegalisation of trade unions wouldn't be a setback?
 
That's not a link though, it arguably means it's easier to organise in a liberal democracy, but it's only one aspect of what makes organising possible anyway. Plenty of people have organised under a military dictatorship where it's banned for example.

The early labour and socialist movements were part of movements for universal suffrage etc. I'm thinking of the Chartists and so on.
 
That's not a link though, it arguably means it's easier to organise in a liberal democracy, but it's only one aspect of what makes organising possible anyway. Plenty of people have organised under a military dictatorship where it's banned for example.

That is also going to be dependent on surveillance and communication technologies, how a given society is structured etc. I can't talk to my Chinese friends about politics, at least not outside a spectrum around the party line. Not a snowball's chance in hell we'd discuss labour rights.
 
It has frequently organised without such rights, but having those rights has always been important and always been a demand. Are you saying the illegalisation of trade unions wouldn't be a setback?
The early labour and socialist movements were part of movements for universal suffrage etc. I'm thinking of the Chartists and so on.
Rights are meaningless without the power to defend them. Where labour can force the state and capital to conceded "democratic" benefits to it all right and good but those gains cannot be left to the support democratic norms but the power of the working class.
And the ultimate aims of the "democratic norms" is to extend and increase the exploitation of the workers.

EDIT: I'll just note that attempts to focus on 'democracy' result in a retreat from class, and ultimately a rejection of socialism.
Damn, I now feel that my naivety about the subtle nuances of leftist politics has been responsible for YET ANOTHER fucking derail of the thread. :rolleyes:
Fuckyama is not in any sense a leftist, he is a right wing shit, who for years was associated with the neo-cons (he was a long time friend of Wolfowitz), there is not nuance here, there is a straight political conflict. .
 
I know other people have said similar.
But for all that Fuckyama has injected more nuance and rowed back a little from neoconservatism it would mad to suggest that he is the opponent of anyone fighting for socialism, his politics remain the expansion and extension of capitalism.

You are assuming a link between democratic and socialist politics that many would contest did/does not exist. Socialism has had to, and will continue to have to, oppose liberal democracy to achieve its aims.
Ally not opponent surely ? ( your second line)
 
There is a link between democratic and socialist politics. If you don't have the right to freedom of assembly and speech then you can hardly organise a labour movement, can you?
how do you think it was organised? do you know anything about the battles for freedom of assembly in the uk? things like the destruction of the hyde park railings in 1866 or the prosecution of irish speakers at a hyde park fenian amnesty meeting in 1873 or peterloo?
 
Yes he is nuanced , if that is a phrase that adequately describes starting of with a conclusion ( incidentally from The End of History , a book that he was not only associated with but authored) of:

“The egalitarianism of modern America represents the essential achievement of the classless society envisioned by Marx.”

and then seeing class as important when it came to explaining the rise of Trump and then admitting Marx was right on certain issues .

So yes , nuanced , eclectic, magpie and often opportunistic , and he doesn’t in fact understand Marx .
Largely agree with you that he doesn't understand Marx, but I suspect he is influenced by him a bit in his sweeping historical narrative. He seems to have set out to put a liberal spin on Marxist historical teleology.

I don't agree with him because I am, in fact, a Marxist. But I do agree with him and other liberals that rule of law and democratic accountability are important, and I think socialists have something to learn from the liberal emphasis on institutions. The USSR had a great constitution and on paper had a lot of democratic rights, but this is meaningless if the government is under no obligation to follow its own constitution and is free to just act however it pleases. Leninist Democratic Centralism was something good for running a subversive underground movement but a complete disaster when it came to building government institutions on that model.
 
how do you think it was organised? do you know anything about the battles for freedom of assembly in the uk? things like the destruction of the hyde park railings in 1866 or the prosecution of irish speakers at a hyde park fenian amnesty meeting in 1873 or peterloo?
Yes, I'm not arguing against political force here. I'm saying those rights are important. Which means it is justified to use force to attain them.
 
Yes, I'm not arguing against political force here. I'm saying those rights are important. Which means it is justified to use force to attain them.
what you said was you can't organise a labour movement if you don't have freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. which to my mind doesn't really follow, as people in the uk (certainly) didn't wait around for foa and fos to start organising around workplaces
 
Rights are meaningless without the power to defend them. Where labour can force the state and capital to conceded "democratic" benefits to it all right and good but those gains cannot be left to the support democratic norms but the power of the working class.
And the ultimate aims of the "democratic norms" is to extend and increase the exploitation of the workers.

EDIT: I'll just note that attempts to focus on 'democracy' result in a retreat from class, and ultimately a rejection of socialism.

I don't disagree there, but it doesnt follow that we should be neutral on whether capitalism is dictatorship or liberal democratic. One is clearly worse.

And ignoring democracy results in Stalinism which ultimately results in the re-emergence of capitalism.
 
Largely agree with you that he doesn't understand Marx, but I suspect he is influenced by him a bit in his sweeping historical narrative. He seems to have set out to put a liberal spin on Marxist historical teleology.

I don't agree with him because I am, in fact, a Marxist. But I do agree with him and other liberals that rule of law and democratic accountability are important, and I think socialists have something to learn from the liberal emphasis on institutions. The USSR had a great constitution and on paper had a lot of democratic rights, but this is meaningless if the government is under no obligation to follow its own constitution and is free to just act however it pleases. Leninist Democratic Centralism was something good for running a subversive underground movement but a complete disaster when it came to building government institutions on that model.

I am a supporter of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law in the EP Thompson tradition. Democracy in my view should be extended I am therefore also a fervent supporter of economic democracy and workers' control.
 
what you said was you can't organise a labour movement if you don't have freedom of assembly and freedom of speech. which to my mind doesn't really follow, as people in the uk (certainly) didn't wait around for foa and fos to start organising around workplaces
Ok you can't legally or easily organise one.

And in the 19th or 20th Century it may have been possible to organise without those rights, but in 21st Century surveillance capitalism it may potentially become impossible.
 
There is a link between democratic and socialist politics. If you don't have the right to freedom of assembly and speech then you can hardly organise a labour movement, can you?
You can organise and resist without permission of the cunts at the top.
 
Last edited:
I don't disagree there, but it doesnt follow that we should be neutral on whether capitalism is dictatorship or liberal democratic. One is clearly worse.
What does 'not being neutral' amount to though?
Not organising against liberal democracies? Supporting an expanded NATO and increased spending on armed forces? Organising for attacks on Russia and China?
I am a supporter of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law in the EP Thompson tradition. Democracy in my view should be extended I am therefore also a fervent supporter of economic democracy and workers' control.
At which point it will soon come into conflict with liberal democrats.
(Not that I disagree with your statement but it just empathises how the conflict between liberalism and socialism cannot be smoothed over).
 
What does 'not being neutral' amount to though?
Not organising against liberal democracies? Supporting an expanded NATO and increased spending on armed forces? Organising for attacks on Russia and China?

At which point it will soon come into conflict with liberal democrats.
(Not that I disagree with your statement but it just empathises how the conflict between liberalism and socialism cannot be smoothed over).

What it means in positive terms is hard to say because I have neither the resources, time, influence or charisma to have any impact on what the left does.

However, what not to do is also important as Western tankie leftists posting shit online has real consequences for global south leftists simply hoping for rights we take for granted (which were, you are correct in saying, fought for in the past and didn't come for free). So simply NOT doing some stuff and telling other western leftists doing it to stfu would be something.

Here is a voice from a Lebanese-Palestinian leftist on the matter:


This distorted anti-imperialism exposed Lebanon’s protest movement to the usual accusations that they were being paid by foreign governments and were part of a global conspiracy against Hezbollah and the “Resistance” against Israel. Lebanese Shi’a protesters were particularly targeted by Hezbollah supporters, who smeared them as “embassy” Shi’as (i.e. paid by foreign embassies). This has since taken on dangerous dimensions such as death threats and physical assaults, with some activists opting for online anonymity or withdrawing from public life; many others are planning to leave Lebanon entirely.


The fact that some progressive activists are having to take such drastic steps highlights an understudied angle of the tankie phenomenon: the emotional and mental price that these self-described anti-imperialists exact on activists from peripheral countries.

The real damage of the tankie approach comes from the way it forces dissident anti-authoritarians, already facing difficult circumstances, to spend much of their time combating online smears and debunking fake news and dis/misinformation. It drains the energy of those already in vulnerable positions, as it fundamentally dehumanizes them and delegitimizes their lived experiences. This in turn can undermine their ability to push for change in their home countries.

This phenomenon has been particularly prevalent among Syrian activists and journalists, many of whom have become demoralized and cynical after seeking solace online from unspeakable hardships, only to find widespread conspiracy theorizing on social media in support of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. Commenting on this state of affairs, the Syrian writer Yassin Haj Saleh argued that “the world is sick, and its sickness is aggravating our sicknesses, both inherited and acquired.”

In other words, instead of finding consolation, these Syrians were finding a world complicit in their suffering. For those on the receiving end of state brutality, it is profoundly heartbreaking to see supposed leftists share the authoritarian justifications used to crack down on protesters.

And some interviews with left wing HK protestors:

The vast presence of tankies on social media, a key medium for Hong Kong protesters, could also help explain why so many pro-democracy Hong Kongers had shown steadfast support for former United States President Donald Trump – because they associate the left-wing with tankies.

....

“Basically, it’s very hurtful, okay,” said Moot. “I don’t want to make it sound like: ‘Oh, my feelings are hurt.’ But it’s quite invalidating, actually, when you are on the short end of the stick. When you have all these projectiles pointed at you from cops, when you have laws that restrict your freedoms.”

“So to have these people — sitting comfortably in their chairs overseas, in their own free countries — tell us, the ones who are facing this oppression, that our cause is invalid, and sometimes even that we should be shot and killed — it’s not a very good thing to be saying.”

...

Sophie Mak, a pro-democracy activist and student who does work digitally monitoring human rights at the Human Rights Hub at University of Hong Kong, has, many times over, gotten caught in fights with tankies online who criticize her work as a smear campaign against China. She told The Diplomat that tankies often pose an obstacle when promoting human rights. They attack and refute even the most well-sourced claims of China’s human rights abuses — something she has had to deal with in her own work.

One accusation often thrown at pro-democracy activists that makes her particularly angry is when critics dismiss pro-democracy movements in Asia as products of U.S. covert operations to overthrow rising regimes, she said.

“Tankies like to say that they refuse to believe that these protesters can mobilize democracy movements on their own based on nonsensical reasons, like how their protest slogans are in English,” she said, in reference to some who had accused the anti-coup protests in Myanmar of being orchestrated by the United States because some protesters brought protest signs written in English. Critics denounced these accusations as patronizing and Orientalist because they insinuated that the average Burmese person would not be able to write in English.

“At best, it’s ignorance. At worst, it’s willful distortion. They live in their own fantasies and irresponsibly spout their ideology to the detriment of others and to basic humanity,” said Mak. “They think that every world issue has to do with the United States and believe that attempts in regime-change or protests are run by the U.S. government. So, in that way, [the tankies] believe they’re acting to ‘challenge imperialism,’ completely disregarding the irony behind their actions.”

....

“Institutionally, they have no influence,” said Jeffrey Ngo, a Georgetown Ph.D. student, self-described “activist historian,” and pro-democracy activist from Hong Kong who is the former chief researcher for Demosisto. “But their presence on social media can sometimes shift the conversation in directions that are unpleasant to people who are actually fighting for democracy.”

Ngo doesn’t engage in debate with tankies, but often highlights tankie takes in order to criticize them on his social media.

The most pressing concern, in his view, is that tankies often distort the premise of debates around human rights in greater China by disputing well-documented claims, taking the discussion in less constructive directions. Another important aspect, he said, is the struggle over defining what it means to be a leftist: to support or to go against these regimes. If the Marxist-Leninist segment of the far-left manages to secure a monopoly on what it means to be leftists, that would make it much harder for non-tankie left-wingers to promote their cause. That’s significant because many of the people who stand up to tankies consider themselves leftists.

It has even reached a point where some Hong Kongers accuse people like Ngo — who as a member of Demosisto and a spokesperson for democracy in Hong Kong has been admired as a champion of the protest movement — of being tankies because of their left-wing views.

I selected some sections to show how western tankies posting shit online has real repercussions, in that it a) damages the morale and even endangers anti-authoritarian activists in the global south and b) turns them off leftist politics.

So the bare minimum that this means is to offer solidarity and sympathy to people fighting for basic democratic rights instead of aiding in their repression by labelling them foreign agents, abusing them, downplaying their struggles and getting them to waste their time trying to prove things which should be common sense. And telling tankies to fuck off.

And back on topic - the same goes for Ukraine.
 
I certainly don't have a problem with criticising brain dead 'anti-imperialism'.
I'm pleased to hear it. But if democratic rights aren't important, then it follows that people fighting for them aren't worth backing unless they are explicitly socialist. This is where I disagree. Socialists should back basic democratic rights as being desirable in general and also as a precondition for socialism.

The war in Ukraine has an important nationalist dimension but also it is clearly about the type of system Ukraine has - whether Ukraine is something like the Russian system or a European style democracy. Indeed the de-oligarchization of Ukraine's economy is a key backdrop to the conflict:



I think this is comparable to a kind of peculiar bourgeois-democratic revolution. The political system in Russia is an expression of the economic system of oligarchs, and in the absence of functioning rule of law, their collective interests are represented by Putin, and they compete for favour and influence with him. It isn't feudalism or fascism... but it is surely something worse than bourgeois liberalism.

I think there's a reasonable case to be made that Zelensky's anti-oligarch law was a factor in triggering the invasion, because under Putin's personalised system, relations with Ukrainian oligarchs were an important tool of political influence and moving against them signalled a loss of Russian influence in Ukraine.

So Ukraine is worthy of support for this reason, and also that a Russian victory in Ukraine would have serious repercussions across the world as well. The links between Putin and the European (and US) far-right would only strengthen and I suspect the mid term consequences would see many new Orbans emerging across Europe.
 
At 14 million dollars a pop , those 36 M109s destroyed is a lot of dosh , 500m dollars ?

Doesn't quite work like that... it's a 60 year old design spanning 7 main generations. Ukraine has a mixed bag... I think mostly from the 80s (this is just off wiki). The 18 the US donated are the previous generation (produced until 2015), so presumably pretty modern, but of course we don't know which have been damaged/destroyed. With much of the kit donated to Ukraine, there is an element of just cycling out stuff that would otherwise sit in storage, though that may be less true of tracked artillery than it is of e.g the ludicrous numbers of M113 APCs sent.
 
I'm pleased to hear it. But if democratic rights aren't important, then it follows that people fighting for them aren't worth backing unless they are explicitly socialist.
No it doesn't, that's twaddle.
Workers do not need to have the "correct" membership, either formal or informal, or ideology to self-organise and improve their conditions, to oppose capital and create new opportunities.
This is where I disagree. Socialists should back basic democratic rights as being desirable in general and also as a precondition for socialism.
But they are not a precondition for socialism. Or at least you've not provided any evidence that they are a precondition for socialism.
You seem to be (re-)creating a strange stagist version of socialism where the working class has to pass though the correct stage before it can reach next stage. And fixing on liberal democracy as the necessary stage.

For me that is a nonsense, the working class will create its own way(s) to socialism above any pathway laid out by socialists. If workers self-organise for democratic norms then that is worth supporting because workers are organising and drawing power from it, not because some sort of 'rights' are required. And if workers self-organise to attack liberal democracy then that is also an opportunity.

EDIT:
Ellen Meiksins Wood said:
We have noted that an essential component of the NTS programme is a detachment of socialist objectives from the material goals of classes and a new emphasis on ‘non-material’, universalistic, humanistic ends – such as democratic control, peace, a health-giving environment, and the quality of life, or the satisfaction of ‘primary human needs’. Of these objectives, the most general and the one that has been subjected to the most systematic theorization is democracy. As a political programme, the NTS can in fact be more or less identified with the strategy of ‘democratization’, developed most completely but not exclusively, by Eurocommunist theorists.

Ellen Meiksins Wood said:
Its distinctive characteristic is the abstraction and autonomization of democracy, an insistence on the ‘indeterminacy’ of bourgeois democracy and its lack of any particular class character, and above all the conviction that the (relative?) autonomy of bourgeois democracy makes it in principle expandable into socialist democracy. Socialism is thus merely the completion of capitalism, and the progression from one to the other can be conceived as a seamless continuum.

Ellen Meiksins Wood said:
With political struggle thus detached in varying degrees from class conflict, any nostalgic adherence to the Marxist doctrine that class struggle will be the moving force in the transition from capitalism to socialism would seem to depend on the principle (articulated, as we have seen, by Chantal Mouffe) that the ‘class struggle’ does not require class agents. At any rate, the motivating drive in the transition is here dissociated from class interests and relocated in a disembodied democratic impulse, which, though it may ‘conjuncturally’ coincide “with certain class interests, is autonomous from them.

Ellen Meiksins Wood said:
The reformulation of the socialist project proposed by Hunt, Hindess, Jessop, et al. simply conceptualizes out of existence the very problems that need to be solved. It is merely a theoretical conjuring trick, a play on words, that makes the strategy of extending bourgeois democracy look like a method for achieving the transition to socialism and makes the transformation of a ‘popular democratic’ movement into a socialist movement seem relatively unproblematic. It depends in the first instance on conflating the various meanings and aspects of ‘democracy’, so that the question of socialist democracy becomes merely a quantitative one, a matter of extension, expansion. We lose sight of the chasm between the forms of democracy that are compatible with capitalism and those that represent a fundamental challenge to it. We no longer see the gap in the continuum of ‘democratization’, a gap which corresponds precisely to the opposition of class “interests. In other words, we are induced to forget that the struggle between capitalism and socialism can be conceived precisely as a struggle over different forms of democracy, and that the dividing line between the two forms can be located at exactly the point where fundamental class interests diverge.
 
Last edited:
No it doesn't, that's twaddle.
Workers do not need to have the "correct" membership, either formal or informal, or ideology to self-organise and improve their conditions, to oppose capital and create new opportunities.

But they are not a precondition for socialism. Or at least you've not provided any evidence that they are a precondition for socialism.
You seem to be (re-)creating a strange stagist version of socialism where the working class has to pass though the correct stage before it can reach next stage. And fixing on liberal democracy as the necessary stage.

For me that is a nonsense, the working class will create its own way(s) to socialism above any pathway laid out by socialists. If workers self-organise for democratic norms then that is worth supporting because workers are organising and drawing power from it, not because some sort of 'rights' are required. And if workers self-organise to attack liberal democracy then that is also an opportunity.

EDIT:

But some rights are required for socialism to work as well. If you do away with seperation of powers and legal protection of basic democratic rights after using them for the revolution (which is what I mean by liberal institutions), then all that will happen is the leadership will then abuse their power, make themselves impossible to remove, and then restore capitalism to benefit themselves. This is exactly what happened over the 20th Century.

Even if you envision some form of Council Communism or syndicalism, you still need to have separation of powers to ensure that elections are overseen fairly, and you still need to legally protect the right to free speech and assembly otherwise there is nothing to stop people in power - even if elected - from repressing criticism and critics of themselves. So democratic norms are a good in and of themselves. You need to have them as a precondition for socialism to work otherwise you just repeat the 20th Century again. If it doesn't go through this stage, then democratic revolution must necessarily be a part of a socialist revolution.
 
Back
Top Bottom