Date   

Re: Counterpunch: Slavoj Zizek Does His Christopher Hitchens Impression

Les Schaffer
 

I'd caution against inferring "attitude ... on this list". (***)

I will grant you there is a vocal minority of subscribers (***), with Brad at one extreme with the treason thing, taking a tough stance against groups that are not sufficiently supportive of the Ukrainian working class. But as Anthony stated in the MODERATORS' STATEMENT last week, all are welcome. meaning -- among other things -- that the moderator(s) will not allow this kind of talk to dominate the forum as a kind of litmus test for participation.

my hope is that rather than fearing the list, you contribute to the discussion.

Les


*** i just did an analysis of all posts to Marxmail from Jan 1 through June 22, 2022. The vast majority of posts are submitted by less than 5% of the subscriber base. Specifically, about 5% of the subscriber base post more than five articles a month (on average). About 10% of the list posted ALL the emails in that period.


On 6/26/22 10:24 AM, Roger Kulp wrote:
Bradley Mayer wrote:

.... [les snipped] ... a red line of treason to leftism, socialism, anti-imperialism, the proletariat, Marxism, and social revolution, period, tout court. 
How's that?  ... [snipped again]

I mostly lurk on this list, but I have also been a member of the PSL for several years. Given the attitude towards the PSL on this list, I learned early on to keep my mouth shut about my membership.


Re: Counterpunch: Slavoj Zizek Does His Christopher Hitchens Impression

Mark Baugher
 

On Jun 25, 2022, at 8:27 PM, Marv Gandall <marvgand2@...> wrote:

You could advise them to join their respective militaries and work towards the overthrow of their officers and the ruling class, drawing on the model of revolutionary sgitation successfully conducted by Bolshevik organizers in the Czarist army and navy.
IIRC, this was an about-face from the WWI policy of the left wing of the Socialist Party of America.

In fact, this was the essence of the Proletarian Military Policy adopted by the SWP and other sections of the Fourth International during World War II.

https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/document/icl-spartacists/prs2-pmp/swp-pmp.html
Also during the Vietnam War, but only when induction was unavoidable: What good is a US antiwar activist in jail or in Canada? Might as well accept induction and agitate among GIs. Of course, the Leninist cadre might face the ethical conundrum of having to kill people fighting for their nation's independence or risk getting fragged by the cadre's own troops for endangering their lives.


The policy was predicated on the unshakeable conviction that capitalism would not recover from the war and that the FI was destined to lead the impending world revolution. As we know, that turned out to be as fever dream
So would it make sense to question the policy today given this change of historical conditions?


The pacifist line, whether we care to admit it or not, has had somewhat more success While antiwar activists have initially been subjected to ostracism, beatings, and jail for the reasons you suggest, war weariness often sets in at a certain stage and gains them a sympathetic hearing, including to some extent within the armed forces. We saw this in our lifetime in both Vietnam and Iraq.
I don't know about incidents in Iraq, during the second or the first invasion. Both were fought by a much different military than Vietnam or WW II: There were no draftees, far fewer US war casualties and far more civilian ones in the Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria. This reality is an enormous problem for mobilizing against forever warfare. Conscription gives a population at least some control over the military.

I don't expect to see revolts in the Ukrainian military so long as homes and loved ones are directly threatened by Russian troops. Russians might, if the tide of war turns against them. They're fighting an unjust war, tolerable only while winning. Like the US in Vietnam. Also, after the Kyiv fiasco, the esteem for Russian generals is likely very low among Russian troops. That's my guess anyway.

Mark


Re: Abortion rights: Today we mourn, tomorrow we organize! – Communist Party USA

Andrew Stewart
 

Yes but the Russian Revolution of 1917 was borne of several unique matters that are absent our moment. First, the 1917 Revolution picked up from where the 1905 revolution left off by recreating the Soviets from 12 years before. Second, Tsarism was imploding in real time due to the combination of the autocracy reaching its pinnacle of calcification combined with a destructive war that had decimated the population. Third, the level of organization by the Russian Left within the military was substantial (by contrast, the American military has been substantially infiltrated for decades by the Evangelical Right, incubating a proto-fascist officers corps with tremendous power and influence over our national conversation). Finally, there were other motivations for the Revolution besides Marxism. Many Russians were looking to see Russia finally experience what America and France had with their 18th century revolutions, ushering in not so much a proletarian revolution as a liberal democratic Russified expansion of the Enlightenment. Many peasants were looking to see the final vestiges of serfdom to be sloughed away. And many minorities (Jews, Tartars, Ukrainians, et al) wished for the end of their oppression and the opportunity for self determination. In fact, it becomes quite clear in the second of Isaac Deutscher’s trilogy about Trotsky that these inclinations rapidly were deemed “counterrevolutionary” once the Civil War was over and, sad to say, even Trotsky was a willing participant in that business.

As for the strategy of using the courts, yes, this is true, though it bears mentioning why exactly this failed. The problem was specifically that liberals and a significant section of the Left fundamentally misunderstood that the Warren and Burger Courts were the exception rather than the rule for the Supreme Court. It was quite understandable that our side came to think that the Progressive narrative of historical advance applied to American institutions. In other words, the narrative line advanced by our mass media and the broad consensus of historians was that the US is moving forward towards a more perfect union and that the Judicial branch was going to maintain a centrist orientation that would prevent the Executive and Legislative branches from going too far to the left (case and point the SCOTUS decisions that invalidated portions of the New Deal) or the right (obviously the attempt to end the protection of abortion care). That has been manifestly disproved in the past few days and we need to understand why. One reason is that the Right successfully coopted organizing strategies of the New Left, using things like direct action and entryism to take over the entirety of the Republican Party, which at one point in recent memory had a sizable liberal wing that had been pro choice and Keynesian. Another is the absence of the Soviet Union, which influenced geopolitics in a progressive direction, something that is hinted at clearly in the Brown v Board decision and declassified documents showing concern by the federal government over the way that Jim Crow apartheid was providing a powerful propaganda tool to the Socialist Camp. Finally, the evisceration of the trade union movement and other progressive sources of countervailing power has allowed the Right to push the envelope so far beyond the previously respected boundaries of acceptable behavior. 

My ultimate argument is that trying to pinpoint the problem on a singular matter or strategy simply avoids the hard conversation about how this is the culmination of multiple failed tactics in a multitude of arenas.  


Labor Should Tell the Fed to Take a Hike | Branko Marcetic | Jacobin

Kevin Lindemann and Cathy Campo
 


Re: How to get involved in the mass mobilizations erupting after Roe overturned

Mark Lause
 

We got where we are by deferring to the Democratic officeholders.   The priority needs to be mass mobilizations, get the majority sentiment into the streets as much as we can.  As a corollary to that, we should be prepared to assist in the active resistance to more draconian efforts of the more idiotic state governments to go after women who seek abortions and those who assist them.



Re: Counterpunch: Slavoj Zizek Does His Christopher Hitchens Impression

Roger Kulp
 

Bradley Mayer wrote:

Beg to differ.  Without carring any brief for Zizek, it is clear that those of us who stand in solidarity with Ukraine have been, are, and will do precisely that!  Why?  Because, whether our opponents stand openly with the Putin regime as with the PSL, the Becker Bros., etc., or objectively (if not in their own minds) stand with the Putin regime by making demands that the Ukranians not accept weapons from NATO while being invaded, or stop fighting and negotiate "peace at any price" while under invasion and occupation, these all have crossed a political Rubicon, a red line of treason to leftism, socialism, anti-imperialism, the proletariat, Marxism, and social revolution, period, tout court. 
How's that?  Because these are subjectively, objectively or both, now in open league with the world-wide Far Right Putin fan club.  These are now junior partners in a world wide Brown "Populist" alliance. Whether they care to recognize it or not. It is just that some don't want to look too closely over their Right shoulder at their new Brown comrades, say in the shape of the CPRF-United Russia-The Duginist "Eurasianist" Russian Far Right, for just one prime example.  They are all on the same side! 

I mostly lurk on this list, but I have also been a member of the PSL for several years. Given the attitude towards the PSL on this list, I learned early on to keep my mouth shut about my membership. I have also followed Brian Beckers' podcasts, even before I joined the party. I can tell you for certain the brothers Becker are not Putin fans, or Putin apologists. I would sugest you listen to recent episodes of Brian's podcast "The Socialist Program", for clarification on his, and the party's, position. My own position on Ukraine is slightly to the left of the party's, and would greater support for the communist/socialist resistance in both Russia, and Ukraine. 


Re: Video: Oakland protest against Supreme Court ruling

Bobby MacVeety
 

I’m an abolitionist: abolish the Supreme Court, the Senate, and the electoral college. Then abolish the constitution. I could keep going.


On Jun 26, 2022, at 9:35 AM, John Reimann <1999wildcat@...> wrote:


Here is a video of the protest in Oakland against the Supreme Court's ruling.
The large turnout on only a few hours notice shows the huge potential for a new movement of youth and workers. In future articles, Oaklandsocialist will examine what immediate demands can be raised and where it can go from here. Among other things, we should consider demanding the impeachment of Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for lying under oath – perjury. That demand does not mean accepting the undemocratic role of the US Supreme Court (and the entire federal judiciary); it means helping to expose its political nature.
https://oaklandsocialist.com/2022/06/26/video-oakland-protests-supreme-court-anti-abortion-ruling/

--
“Science and socialism go hand-in-hand.” Felicity Dowling
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook


Re: Abortion rights: Today we mourn, tomorrow we organize! – Communist Party USA

sartesian@...
 

On Sat, Jun 25, 2022 at 02:05 PM, <gilschaeffer82@...> wrote:
The lesson of the reversal of the advances made during Reconstruction is that the fight for democracy has not been won. Of course, words on paper don't guarantee anything. Only organized political power can make words a reality, but the words are important as a statement of the goal of organization. Fight to win and enforce a democratic constitution.
I think the lesson of the defeat of Congressional Reconstruction is that without specifically, explicitly, targeting and breaking up the property of the old regime, restoration, albeit modified, will be achieved through the use of terror.  I think the other lesson of Reconstruction, pre-reversal is that progress follows the use of force.

The history of the Russian Revolution indicates that calls for a constituent assembly are quickly eclipsed by actual events, and are dropped as soon as practical, and by necessity.


Re: there-is-a-major-rift-dividing-the-white-working-class-and-democrats-are-clueless-26-Jun-2022

Bobby MacVeety
 

Yes, the Democrats are clueless. Perhaps this analysis can show them more compelling promises to break if they can cling to power.


On Jun 26, 2022, at 8:48 AM, Michael Meeropol <mameerop@...> wrote:


If this has already been sent to Marxmail, I apologize.  I think this analysis is REALLY REALLY GOOD and worth some serious discussions...  

Mike

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Meeropol (via Google Docs) <mameerop@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 8:45 AM
Subject: there-is-a-major-rift-dividing-the-white-working-class-and-democrats-are-clueless-26-Jun-2022
To: <mameerop@...>
Cc: <putnamprogressives@...>, <take18ny@...>, <longhaulny@...>


Michael Meeropol attached a document
Unknown profile photo
Michael Meeropol (mameerop@...) has attached the following document:
Dwight tells me the first version did not get through. Hopefully this one will
there-is-a-major-rift-dividing-the-white-working-class-and-democrats-are-clueless-26-Jun-2022
Snapshot of the item below:

 

TH E BI G I D EA

There Is a Major Rift Dividing the White Working Class — And Democrats Are Clueless

There’s an important social and economic divide that drives working-class whites that progressive elites mostly miss — to their political peril.

J.D. Vance greets supporters during a rally at the Delaware County Fairgrounds on April 23, 2022 in Delaware, Ohio. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Lisa R. Pruitt is Martin Luther King Jr. professor of law at the University of California, Davis. She is writing a book about what the experience of migrating from the working class to the

chattering class can teach us about contemporary political divisions.

Ever since J.D. Vance became the Republican Senate nominee in Ohio, 

journalists and pundits have been preoccupied with how Vance’s politics have shifted since the 2016 publication of his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy. The book brought Vance fame and a platform that he used, among other things, to criticize Donald Trump. Since then, Vance’s positions on polarizing issues like immigration

have lurched to the right and he sought — and won — Trump’s endorsement. Vance now also dabbles in conspiracy theories and has taken on a belligerent, Trump-like tone.

What the pundit class isn’t talking about, however, is an important consistency between 2016 author Vance and 2022 politician Vance. In his memoir, Vance pitted two groups of low-status whites against each other—those who work versus those who don’t. In academic circles, these two groups are sometimes labeled the “settled” working class versus the “hard living.” A broad and fuzzy line divides these two groups, but generally speaking, settled folks work consistently while the hard living do not. The latter are thus more likely to fall into destructive habits like substance abuse that lead to further destabilization and, importantly, to reliance on government benefits.

Vance has not renounced that divisive message. He no doubt hopes to garner the support of the slightly more upmarket of the two factions—which, probably not coincidentally, is also the group more likely to go to the polls. While elite progressives tend to see the white working class as monolithic, Vance’s competitiveness in the Ohio Senate race can be explained in no small part by his ability to politically exploit this cleavage.

As a scholar studying working-class and rural whites, I have written about this subtle but consequential divide. I have also lived it. I grew up working-class white, and I watched my truck driver father and teacher’s aide mother struggle mightily to stay on the “settled” side of the ledger. They worked to pay the bills, yes, but also because work set them apart from those in their community who were willing to accept public benefits. Work represented the moral high ground. Work was their religion.

We lived in an all-white corner of the Arkansas Ozarks, so my parents weren’t fretting about the Black folks Ronald Reagan would later denigrate with the “welfare queen” stereotype. They were talking about their lazy neighbors. They called these folks “white trash,” the worst slur they knew.

Though Vance described this divide in Hillbilly Elegy, readers unfamiliar with the white working class may not have picked up on it. Vance’s beloved grandparents, Mamaw and Papaw, represented hard work. Papaw had a steady job at the Armco steel mill—one good enough to draw him and hundreds like him out of the Appalachian Kentucky hills to Middletown, Ohio. Indeed, it was such a good job that Mamaw could

stay home and take care of the kids. Though they were crass and unconventional by polite, mainstream standards, Papaw and Mamaw’s work ethic positioned them in the settled working class.

From that perch, Vance’s grandparents harshly judged neighbors who didn’t work. They even judged their daughter, Vance’s mother, Bev. Though she’d trained for a good job, as a nurse, Bev’s drug use and frequent churn of male partners led to the instability associated with the “hard living.” Indeed, at one point Vance uses that very

term to refer to his mother: “Mom’s behavior grew increasingly erratic,” Vance writes. “She was more roommate than parent, and of the three of us — Mom, [my sister], and me — Mom was the roommate most prone to hard living” as she partied and stayed out ‘til the wee hours of the morning.

Given the childhood trauma associated with his mother’s behavior, it’s perhaps not surprising that Vance came to emulate his grandparents’ judgmental stance toward the hard living. This is illustrated by his condemnation of shirking co-workers at a warehouse job and those who used food stamps (SNAP) to pay for the groceries he bagged as a teenager. (It seems that Vance also inherited his family’s pugilistic tendencies, which have come in handy with his conversion to Trumpism; words like “scumbag” and “idiot,” which readers of Hillbilly Elegy can easily imagine coming out of Mamaw’s mouth, have become staples of Vance’s campaign vocabulary).

Ultimately, of course, Vance traveled far from his modest roots to graduate from Yale Law School and become a venture capitalist. For this success, he credited the hard work and boot-strapping mentality he learned from his grandparents. What Vance didn’t credit — not explicitly, anyway — were the structural forces that benefitted him and his grandparents. For Vance, these included an undergraduate degree from an excellent public university (Ohio State) and opportunities in the military. For his grandparents, these included that good union job at Armco Steel—even as Papaw complained about the union. (A significant faction of workers believe that hard working people like themselves don’t need unions, that unions simply protect slackers from hard work. My own father’s pet peeve was unionized loading dock employees whose generous breaks delayed getting his truck loaded or unloaded and thus back on the road earning money. The naming of “right-to-work” laws plays to this mindset.)

Like Vance, settled white workers tend to see themselves living a version of the American dream grounded primarily — if not entirely — in their own agency. They believe they can survive, even thrive, if they just work hard enough. And some of them are doing just that. Because they lean into the grit of the individual, they tend to

downplay structural obstacles to their quest to make a living, e.g., poor schools and even crummy job markets, just as they downplay structural benefits. They also discount “white privilege” because giving skin color credit for what they have achieved devalues the significance of their work. This mindset is also the reason that when Obama said in 2012, “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” the remark landed so badly among the settled working class. They’re not accustomed to sharing credit for what they have — perhaps especially when they don’t have much.

Vance and my parents are mere anecdotes, yes, but scholars have documented the phenomenon they represent. Kathryn Edin of Princeton University, Jennifer Sherman of Washington State University and Monica Prasad of Northwestern University have studied folks like them in both urban and rural locales. What “settled” and “hard living” express as cultural phenomena, Edin and colleagues express quantitatively as the second-lowest income quintile dissociating from the bottom quintile — the very place from whence many had climbed. Edin described that disassociation as a “virulent social distancing” — “suddenly, you’re a worker and anyone who is not a worker is a bad person.”

Journalists have also brought us illustrations of the settled working class. Alec MacGillis did so in a 2015 New York Times essay, introducing us to Pamela Dougherty of Marshalltown, Iowa, a staunch opponent of safety net programs. As a teenaged mother who divorced young, Pamela’s own journey had been rocky, and she had benefitted from taxpayer-funded tuition breaks at community college to become a nurse. But at the dialysis center where Pamela worked and where Medicare covered everyone’s treatment regardless of age, she noticed that very few patients had regular jobs. Pamela resented this. She thought the patients should have “hoops to jump through” to get the treatment, just as she’d had to keep up her grades when she was getting assistance with college. She thought they should have some skin in the game.

Atul Gawande brought us a similar tale in a 2017 New Yorker article about whether health care should be a right. He introduced us to Monna, a librarian earning $16.50 an hour in Athens, Ohio. After taxes and health insurance premiums were deducted, Monna was taking home less than $1,000 a month, and her health insurance annual deductible was a whopping $3,000. It was her retired husband’s pension, military benefits, and Medicare — all benefits considered earned, not handouts — that kept them afloat. In spite of this struggle, Monna didn’t support health care as a right because it was “another way of undermining responsibility.” Noting that she could quit

her job and get Medicaid for free like some of her neighbors were doing, Monna explained that she was “old school” and “not really good at accepting anything I don’t work for.”

Exit polls from 2016 also reflect this division, with the lowest-income voters supporting Clinton—and therefore safety-net programs associated with Democrats— by the greatest margin, 53 percent to 41 percent over Trump. It was folks earning $50,000 to $99,000, those who depending on region and family size might be considered settled working class, who preferred Trump by the greatest margin of all income brackets — 50 percent to 46 percent.

This dynamic shifted a bit by 2020, when exit polls showed Trump garnering the greatest level of support from those earning between $100,000 and $199,000. This may suggest an improvement in the circumstances of the settled working class, or that the lack of empathy for those who don’t work is creeping up the income ladder. By 2020, those in the $50,000 to $99,000 bracket may also have begun feeling the vulnerability associated with those a rung beneath them, particularly during the pandemic, causing them to lean Democratic. Meanwhile, folks in the higher income group may have become increasingly judgmental — and more beholden to Trump as they saw their 401K accounts gain value during his administration.

As important as this divide is to understanding working-class whites — and in spite of national publicity by big-name scholars and journalists — coastal and urban progressives often seem oblivious to it. This may be because few have any meaningful interaction with either faction of the white working class. Outsiders struggle to grasp the significance of this class war that rages within our nation’s broader class war.

But this war within a war animates a lot of voters. It also drives a lot of policy decisions, including work requirements for Medicaid and food stamps (SNAP) imposed by red state governors and legislatures, just as the Clinton administration did for welfare (TANF) a quarter century ago.

Whenever I talk about this settled working class mindset to folks in my coastal progressive world, I get two responses. The first is an assumption that these folks are simply racists whose sole motivation is to deny benefits to people of color. The second response is that they are irrational, even delusional, not to see that they are

vulnerable — that they might someday need public benefits, too, given the way precarity has not only crept up the socioeconomic ladder, but also outward and into a growing number of communities left behind by the knowledge economy.

Indeed, it’s true that many in the settled working class would benefit from big structural government interventions like single-payer health care, universal pre-K and other childcare supports, greater investments in education and broadband. They would also benefit if higher taxes on the wealthy paid for these interventions. That many white workers don’t see it this way leads to the oft-heard assertion that working-class whites vote against their own interests.

But both of these progressive responses further alienate folks with strong identities as workers, those hanging on to a version of the American dream that places the individual squarely in the driver’s seat.

First, going straight to allegations of racism is incendiary and infuriating to the folks being labeled “racist.” They tend to define that term narrowly, referring to people who say the n-word or explicitly endorse white nationalism. (Academics label this cohort “old-fashioned racists” to differentiate from the many broader definitions that now dominate public discourse.) Many of these folks know they don’t use overtly racist terms or believe in white supremacy. But just as those oriented to work tend to discount the significance of beneficial structures in their own lives, they also tend to discount the force of structural racism in others’ lives.

Plus, an assumption that these white workers are thinking only in terms of the “welfare queen” stereotype fails to consider that most of the non-workers who people like Pamela and Monna know are almost certainly white folks. After all, they live in Marshalltown, Iowa and Athens, Ohio — virtually all-white burgs. Ditto my folks in the Arkansas Ozarks.

I’m not saying that no one in the settled working class has racist impulses; some do. I am pointing out their tendency to harbor class-based animus toward anyone who doesn’t work, regardless of skin color. Bias based on race and bias based on class are not mutually exclusive, and it can be easier to assume that racial animus is at work when in fact, it’s classist or cultural animus directed at those on a lower economic or social rung. As the late cultural critic Joe Bageant expressed it, “what middle America loathes … are poor and poorish people, especially the kind who look and sound like they just might live in a house trailer.”

Depending on your politics, this is not a flattering image of the settled working class. But it is the reality political candidates are facing when they seek their votes—and J.D. Vance knows that. So does his Democratic opponent Tim Ryan, also a product of white working-class Ohio.

In July 2016, Senator Chuck Schumer suggested Democrats could ignore this constituency. “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania,” he said, “we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

Schumer’s strategy proved a notorious disaster for Democrats, and it’s not a gamble the party can afford to repeat in 2022 or 2024. If anything, white workers look more critical than ever to a winning Democratic coalition, as more Latinos drift into the Republican column.

It thus behooves Ryan and other Democrats to consider carefully how to communicate with a voting bloc they once took for granted.

President Biden talks more about jobs and the working class than President Obama did, but generic job talk may no longer be getting through to workers given the shifting image (and reality) of Democrats as the party of elites and intellectuals. The sad truth is that coastal progressive condescension toward workers has become second nature to many Democrats, so much so that they don’t realize they’re doing it.

Take the issue of higher education. Wider, more affordable access to college is absolutely critical to our country’s future, and I’m a grateful poster child for how it can propel working-class kids up the socioeconomic class ladder. But elite preoccupation with higher education (never mind elitism within that sector) sends a signal that getting a college degree is the only way people succeed and make contributions to our nation. By implication, everyone else is a loser. What the credentialed class often conveys— whether or not they intend to—is that if workers were smart and ambitious enough, they’d have degrees and careers like ours. But many in the settled working class never aspired to go to college. They nevertheless look to their work as a source of dignity, identity, and pride.

Ryan, Vance’s Democratic opponent, gets this. He recently tweeted “Say it with me: you shouldn’t need a college degree to get a good job and live a good life.”

When Trump said he “love[d] the poorly educated,” the credentialed class cringed. They assumed no one would want to be labeled as such and, indeed, that no one would want to be poorly educated (read to mean having little formal education). But folks without college degrees — even folks without high school diplomas — heard Trump’s comment as affirmation. He was happy to be associated with them, and Trump’s warm embrace was a salve on a deep, festering wound. Trump’s comment was also a rare one that did double duty in speaking to both settled and hard-living factions of the white working class.

But Trump also found a way to speak specifically to the settled working class, those with strong identities as workers. The “again” part of “Make America Great Again” brings to mind a time when their jobs provided greater economic security—as Papaw Vance’s steel mill job had—and also a time when blue-collar workers felt broadly respected. For workers displaced or fearing displacement, Trump named various external culprits (aka structural challenges)—unfair foreign imports, immigrants, regulation. He also offered solutions, e.g., tariffs, a border wall, less red tape, though he didn’t deliver on all of his promises. Trump didn’t save coal jobs, but the American steel industry did benefit from his tariffs.

Democratic solutions to worker travails will mostly differ from those proposed by Republicans, of course, but Democrats can fruitfully borrow a page from how Trump communicated with workers. First and foremost, tell workers that they and their labor are seen and appreciated. A key theme of 2016 election coverage was that many working-class white and rural voters felt overlooked. Tracie St. Martin, a union member and heavy construction worker who supported Trump, summed up the disgruntlement, “I wanted people like me to be cared about. People don’t realize there’s nothing without a blue-collar worker.” (St. Martin, of Miamisburg, Ohio, was quoted in a ProPublica story reported by MacGillis aptly titled “Revenge of the Forgotten Class.”)

The more specific Democrats’ affirming messages, the better. Democrats should go beyond broad “jobs” platitudes and say workers’ names—that is, the names of their vocations: steelworkers, yes, but also stylists, caregivers, police officers, machinists, and food service workers.

Our nation got better at seeing workers—especially certain categories of workers—in the early days of the pandemic. As we collectively waxed poetic about shelf-stockers and truck drivers, I recalled the pride my whole family felt in the mid-1970s when the trucker song “Convoy” topped both pop and country charts and the movie “Smokey

and the Bandit” glamorized the work that truckers do. Of course, that was long before we started thinking in terms of two Americas, one blue, the other red, before we started putting down one group to build up the other. To many of us—white folks anyway— America felt more like a commonwealth back then.

Needless to say, I’m not suggesting that it’s within the Democratic Party’s power to deliver another 1970s-style love fest for truckers or any other blue-collar constituency. But the broad, mainstream dignity associated with workers in that earlier era is something for Democrats to aspire to in their messaging.

The ongoing labor shortage is all the more reason Democrats should keep telling blue collar workers of all races that they are valued—and all the more reason to mean it. Our nation badly needs carpenters, electricians, plumbers and the full array of blue collar workers who are going to help us overcome our national housing shortage and actually reconstruct our infrastructure. Politicians like Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) speak more often than most about job training for workers like these, as with her Skills Investment and Skills Renewal Acts (co-sponsored by Ben Sasse); others should follow her lead.

There’s other low-hanging fruit. When Democrats talk about investments in childcare, they should talk about it as not only good for the children, but good for the parents—a way to keep them in the workforce and off public benefits.

Finally, Democrats need to channel the can-do spirit of workers themselves and lead with solutions. When politicians belabor the structural challenges to which solutions are supposed to respond, some in the white working class hear government making excuses. When work is your religion, too much emphasis on what’s keeping you from making a living sounds like apostasy.

For them, the most important thing is simply to get to work. A close second is living in a country that values their work—along with a paycheck that reflects both that value and their dignity as workers.

About Us

Advertising

Breaking News Alerts

Careers

Credit Card Payments Digital Edition

FAQ

Feedback

Headlines

Photos

POWERJobs

Press

Print Subscriptions

Request A Correction

Write For Us

RSS

Site Map

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

Do not sell my info

Notice to California Residents © 2022 POLITICO LLC

This is a courtesy copy of an email for your record only. It's not the same email your collaborators received. Click here to learn more.Logo for Google Docs


Video: Oakland protest against Supreme Court ruling

John Reimann
 

Here is a video of the protest in Oakland against the Supreme Court's ruling.
The large turnout on only a few hours notice shows the huge potential for a new movement of youth and workers. In future articles, Oaklandsocialist will examine what immediate demands can be raised and where it can go from here. Among other things, we should consider demanding the impeachment of Barrett, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh for lying under oath – perjury. That demand does not mean accepting the undemocratic role of the US Supreme Court (and the entire federal judiciary); it means helping to expose its political nature.
https://oaklandsocialist.com/2022/06/26/video-oakland-protests-supreme-court-anti-abortion-ruling/

--
“Science and socialism go hand-in-hand.” Felicity Dowling
Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook


there-is-a-major-rift-dividing-the-white-working-class-and-democrats-are-clueless-26-Jun-2022

Michael Meeropol
 

If this has already been sent to Marxmail, I apologize.  I think this analysis is REALLY REALLY GOOD and worth some serious discussions...  

Mike

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Meeropol (via Google Docs) <mameerop@...>
Date: Sun, Jun 26, 2022 at 8:45 AM
Subject: there-is-a-major-rift-dividing-the-white-working-class-and-democrats-are-clueless-26-Jun-2022
To: <mameerop@...>
Cc: <putnamprogressives@...>, <take18ny@...>, <longhaulny@...>


Michael Meeropol attached a document
Unknown profile photo
Michael Meeropol (mameerop@...) has attached the following document:
Dwight tells me the first version did not get through. Hopefully this one will
there-is-a-major-rift-dividing-the-white-working-class-and-democrats-are-clueless-26-Jun-2022
Snapshot of the item below:

 

TH E BI G I D EA

There Is a Major Rift Dividing the White Working Class — And Democrats Are Clueless

There’s an important social and economic divide that drives working-class whites that progressive elites mostly miss — to their political peril.

J.D. Vance greets supporters during a rally at the Delaware County Fairgrounds on April 23, 2022 in Delaware, Ohio. | Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Lisa R. Pruitt is Martin Luther King Jr. professor of law at the University of California, Davis. She is writing a book about what the experience of migrating from the working class to the

chattering class can teach us about contemporary political divisions.

Ever since J.D. Vance became the Republican Senate nominee in Ohio, 

journalists and pundits have been preoccupied with how Vance’s politics have shifted since the 2016 publication of his memoir, Hillbilly Elegy. The book brought Vance fame and a platform that he used, among other things, to criticize Donald Trump. Since then, Vance’s positions on polarizing issues like immigration

have lurched to the right and he sought — and won — Trump’s endorsement. Vance now also dabbles in conspiracy theories and has taken on a belligerent, Trump-like tone.

What the pundit class isn’t talking about, however, is an important consistency between 2016 author Vance and 2022 politician Vance. In his memoir, Vance pitted two groups of low-status whites against each other—those who work versus those who don’t. In academic circles, these two groups are sometimes labeled the “settled” working class versus the “hard living.” A broad and fuzzy line divides these two groups, but generally speaking, settled folks work consistently while the hard living do not. The latter are thus more likely to fall into destructive habits like substance abuse that lead to further destabilization and, importantly, to reliance on government benefits.

Vance has not renounced that divisive message. He no doubt hopes to garner the support of the slightly more upmarket of the two factions—which, probably not coincidentally, is also the group more likely to go to the polls. While elite progressives tend to see the white working class as monolithic, Vance’s competitiveness in the Ohio Senate race can be explained in no small part by his ability to politically exploit this cleavage.

As a scholar studying working-class and rural whites, I have written about this subtle but consequential divide. I have also lived it. I grew up working-class white, and I watched my truck driver father and teacher’s aide mother struggle mightily to stay on the “settled” side of the ledger. They worked to pay the bills, yes, but also because work set them apart from those in their community who were willing to accept public benefits. Work represented the moral high ground. Work was their religion.

We lived in an all-white corner of the Arkansas Ozarks, so my parents weren’t fretting about the Black folks Ronald Reagan would later denigrate with the “welfare queen” stereotype. They were talking about their lazy neighbors. They called these folks “white trash,” the worst slur they knew.

Though Vance described this divide in Hillbilly Elegy, readers unfamiliar with the white working class may not have picked up on it. Vance’s beloved grandparents, Mamaw and Papaw, represented hard work. Papaw had a steady job at the Armco steel mill—one good enough to draw him and hundreds like him out of the Appalachian Kentucky hills to Middletown, Ohio. Indeed, it was such a good job that Mamaw could

stay home and take care of the kids. Though they were crass and unconventional by polite, mainstream standards, Papaw and Mamaw’s work ethic positioned them in the settled working class.

From that perch, Vance’s grandparents harshly judged neighbors who didn’t work. They even judged their daughter, Vance’s mother, Bev. Though she’d trained for a good job, as a nurse, Bev’s drug use and frequent churn of male partners led to the instability associated with the “hard living.” Indeed, at one point Vance uses that very

term to refer to his mother: “Mom’s behavior grew increasingly erratic,” Vance writes. “She was more roommate than parent, and of the three of us — Mom, [my sister], and me — Mom was the roommate most prone to hard living” as she partied and stayed out ‘til the wee hours of the morning.

Given the childhood trauma associated with his mother’s behavior, it’s perhaps not surprising that Vance came to emulate his grandparents’ judgmental stance toward the hard living. This is illustrated by his condemnation of shirking co-workers at a warehouse job and those who used food stamps (SNAP) to pay for the groceries he bagged as a teenager. (It seems that Vance also inherited his family’s pugilistic tendencies, which have come in handy with his conversion to Trumpism; words like “scumbag” and “idiot,” which readers of Hillbilly Elegy can easily imagine coming out of Mamaw’s mouth, have become staples of Vance’s campaign vocabulary).

Ultimately, of course, Vance traveled far from his modest roots to graduate from Yale Law School and become a venture capitalist. For this success, he credited the hard work and boot-strapping mentality he learned from his grandparents. What Vance didn’t credit — not explicitly, anyway — were the structural forces that benefitted him and his grandparents. For Vance, these included an undergraduate degree from an excellent public university (Ohio State) and opportunities in the military. For his grandparents, these included that good union job at Armco Steel—even as Papaw complained about the union. (A significant faction of workers believe that hard working people like themselves don’t need unions, that unions simply protect slackers from hard work. My own father’s pet peeve was unionized loading dock employees whose generous breaks delayed getting his truck loaded or unloaded and thus back on the road earning money. The naming of “right-to-work” laws plays to this mindset.)

Like Vance, settled white workers tend to see themselves living a version of the American dream grounded primarily — if not entirely — in their own agency. They believe they can survive, even thrive, if they just work hard enough. And some of them are doing just that. Because they lean into the grit of the individual, they tend to

downplay structural obstacles to their quest to make a living, e.g., poor schools and even crummy job markets, just as they downplay structural benefits. They also discount “white privilege” because giving skin color credit for what they have achieved devalues the significance of their work. This mindset is also the reason that when Obama said in 2012, “if you’ve got a business, you didn’t build that,” the remark landed so badly among the settled working class. They’re not accustomed to sharing credit for what they have — perhaps especially when they don’t have much.

Vance and my parents are mere anecdotes, yes, but scholars have documented the phenomenon they represent. Kathryn Edin of Princeton University, Jennifer Sherman of Washington State University and Monica Prasad of Northwestern University have studied folks like them in both urban and rural locales. What “settled” and “hard living” express as cultural phenomena, Edin and colleagues express quantitatively as the second-lowest income quintile dissociating from the bottom quintile — the very place from whence many had climbed. Edin described that disassociation as a “virulent social distancing” — “suddenly, you’re a worker and anyone who is not a worker is a bad person.”

Journalists have also brought us illustrations of the settled working class. Alec MacGillis did so in a 2015 New York Times essay, introducing us to Pamela Dougherty of Marshalltown, Iowa, a staunch opponent of safety net programs. As a teenaged mother who divorced young, Pamela’s own journey had been rocky, and she had benefitted from taxpayer-funded tuition breaks at community college to become a nurse. But at the dialysis center where Pamela worked and where Medicare covered everyone’s treatment regardless of age, she noticed that very few patients had regular jobs. Pamela resented this. She thought the patients should have “hoops to jump through” to get the treatment, just as she’d had to keep up her grades when she was getting assistance with college. She thought they should have some skin in the game.

Atul Gawande brought us a similar tale in a 2017 New Yorker article about whether health care should be a right. He introduced us to Monna, a librarian earning $16.50 an hour in Athens, Ohio. After taxes and health insurance premiums were deducted, Monna was taking home less than $1,000 a month, and her health insurance annual deductible was a whopping $3,000. It was her retired husband’s pension, military benefits, and Medicare — all benefits considered earned, not handouts — that kept them afloat. In spite of this struggle, Monna didn’t support health care as a right because it was “another way of undermining responsibility.” Noting that she could quit

her job and get Medicaid for free like some of her neighbors were doing, Monna explained that she was “old school” and “not really good at accepting anything I don’t work for.”

Exit polls from 2016 also reflect this division, with the lowest-income voters supporting Clinton—and therefore safety-net programs associated with Democrats— by the greatest margin, 53 percent to 41 percent over Trump. It was folks earning $50,000 to $99,000, those who depending on region and family size might be considered settled working class, who preferred Trump by the greatest margin of all income brackets — 50 percent to 46 percent.

This dynamic shifted a bit by 2020, when exit polls showed Trump garnering the greatest level of support from those earning between $100,000 and $199,000. This may suggest an improvement in the circumstances of the settled working class, or that the lack of empathy for those who don’t work is creeping up the income ladder. By 2020, those in the $50,000 to $99,000 bracket may also have begun feeling the vulnerability associated with those a rung beneath them, particularly during the pandemic, causing them to lean Democratic. Meanwhile, folks in the higher income group may have become increasingly judgmental — and more beholden to Trump as they saw their 401K accounts gain value during his administration.

As important as this divide is to understanding working-class whites — and in spite of national publicity by big-name scholars and journalists — coastal and urban progressives often seem oblivious to it. This may be because few have any meaningful interaction with either faction of the white working class. Outsiders struggle to grasp the significance of this class war that rages within our nation’s broader class war.

But this war within a war animates a lot of voters. It also drives a lot of policy decisions, including work requirements for Medicaid and food stamps (SNAP) imposed by red state governors and legislatures, just as the Clinton administration did for welfare (TANF) a quarter century ago.

Whenever I talk about this settled working class mindset to folks in my coastal progressive world, I get two responses. The first is an assumption that these folks are simply racists whose sole motivation is to deny benefits to people of color. The second response is that they are irrational, even delusional, not to see that they are

vulnerable — that they might someday need public benefits, too, given the way precarity has not only crept up the socioeconomic ladder, but also outward and into a growing number of communities left behind by the knowledge economy.

Indeed, it’s true that many in the settled working class would benefit from big structural government interventions like single-payer health care, universal pre-K and other childcare supports, greater investments in education and broadband. They would also benefit if higher taxes on the wealthy paid for these interventions. That many white workers don’t see it this way leads to the oft-heard assertion that working-class whites vote against their own interests.

But both of these progressive responses further alienate folks with strong identities as workers, those hanging on to a version of the American dream that places the individual squarely in the driver’s seat.

First, going straight to allegations of racism is incendiary and infuriating to the folks being labeled “racist.” They tend to define that term narrowly, referring to people who say the n-word or explicitly endorse white nationalism. (Academics label this cohort “old-fashioned racists” to differentiate from the many broader definitions that now dominate public discourse.) Many of these folks know they don’t use overtly racist terms or believe in white supremacy. But just as those oriented to work tend to discount the significance of beneficial structures in their own lives, they also tend to discount the force of structural racism in others’ lives.

Plus, an assumption that these white workers are thinking only in terms of the “welfare queen” stereotype fails to consider that most of the non-workers who people like Pamela and Monna know are almost certainly white folks. After all, they live in Marshalltown, Iowa and Athens, Ohio — virtually all-white burgs. Ditto my folks in the Arkansas Ozarks.

I’m not saying that no one in the settled working class has racist impulses; some do. I am pointing out their tendency to harbor class-based animus toward anyone who doesn’t work, regardless of skin color. Bias based on race and bias based on class are not mutually exclusive, and it can be easier to assume that racial animus is at work when in fact, it’s classist or cultural animus directed at those on a lower economic or social rung. As the late cultural critic Joe Bageant expressed it, “what middle America loathes … are poor and poorish people, especially the kind who look and sound like they just might live in a house trailer.”

Depending on your politics, this is not a flattering image of the settled working class. But it is the reality political candidates are facing when they seek their votes—and J.D. Vance knows that. So does his Democratic opponent Tim Ryan, also a product of white working-class Ohio.

In July 2016, Senator Chuck Schumer suggested Democrats could ignore this constituency. “For every blue-collar Democrat we lose in western Pennsylvania,” he said, “we will pick up two moderate Republicans in the suburbs in Philadelphia, and you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.”

Schumer’s strategy proved a notorious disaster for Democrats, and it’s not a gamble the party can afford to repeat in 2022 or 2024. If anything, white workers look more critical than ever to a winning Democratic coalition, as more Latinos drift into the Republican column.

It thus behooves Ryan and other Democrats to consider carefully how to communicate with a voting bloc they once took for granted.

President Biden talks more about jobs and the working class than President Obama did, but generic job talk may no longer be getting through to workers given the shifting image (and reality) of Democrats as the party of elites and intellectuals. The sad truth is that coastal progressive condescension toward workers has become second nature to many Democrats, so much so that they don’t realize they’re doing it.

Take the issue of higher education. Wider, more affordable access to college is absolutely critical to our country’s future, and I’m a grateful poster child for how it can propel working-class kids up the socioeconomic class ladder. But elite preoccupation with higher education (never mind elitism within that sector) sends a signal that getting a college degree is the only way people succeed and make contributions to our nation. By implication, everyone else is a loser. What the credentialed class often conveys— whether or not they intend to—is that if workers were smart and ambitious enough, they’d have degrees and careers like ours. But many in the settled working class never aspired to go to college. They nevertheless look to their work as a source of dignity, identity, and pride.

Ryan, Vance’s Democratic opponent, gets this. He recently tweeted “Say it with me: you shouldn’t need a college degree to get a good job and live a good life.”

When Trump said he “love[d] the poorly educated,” the credentialed class cringed. They assumed no one would want to be labeled as such and, indeed, that no one would want to be poorly educated (read to mean having little formal education). But folks without college degrees — even folks without high school diplomas — heard Trump’s comment as affirmation. He was happy to be associated with them, and Trump’s warm embrace was a salve on a deep, festering wound. Trump’s comment was also a rare one that did double duty in speaking to both settled and hard-living factions of the white working class.

But Trump also found a way to speak specifically to the settled working class, those with strong identities as workers. The “again” part of “Make America Great Again” brings to mind a time when their jobs provided greater economic security—as Papaw Vance’s steel mill job had—and also a time when blue-collar workers felt broadly respected. For workers displaced or fearing displacement, Trump named various external culprits (aka structural challenges)—unfair foreign imports, immigrants, regulation. He also offered solutions, e.g., tariffs, a border wall, less red tape, though he didn’t deliver on all of his promises. Trump didn’t save coal jobs, but the American steel industry did benefit from his tariffs.

Democratic solutions to worker travails will mostly differ from those proposed by Republicans, of course, but Democrats can fruitfully borrow a page from how Trump communicated with workers. First and foremost, tell workers that they and their labor are seen and appreciated. A key theme of 2016 election coverage was that many working-class white and rural voters felt overlooked. Tracie St. Martin, a union member and heavy construction worker who supported Trump, summed up the disgruntlement, “I wanted people like me to be cared about. People don’t realize there’s nothing without a blue-collar worker.” (St. Martin, of Miamisburg, Ohio, was quoted in a ProPublica story reported by MacGillis aptly titled “Revenge of the Forgotten Class.”)

The more specific Democrats’ affirming messages, the better. Democrats should go beyond broad “jobs” platitudes and say workers’ names—that is, the names of their vocations: steelworkers, yes, but also stylists, caregivers, police officers, machinists, and food service workers.

Our nation got better at seeing workers—especially certain categories of workers—in the early days of the pandemic. As we collectively waxed poetic about shelf-stockers and truck drivers, I recalled the pride my whole family felt in the mid-1970s when the trucker song “Convoy” topped both pop and country charts and the movie “Smokey

and the Bandit” glamorized the work that truckers do. Of course, that was long before we started thinking in terms of two Americas, one blue, the other red, before we started putting down one group to build up the other. To many of us—white folks anyway— America felt more like a commonwealth back then.

Needless to say, I’m not suggesting that it’s within the Democratic Party’s power to deliver another 1970s-style love fest for truckers or any other blue-collar constituency. But the broad, mainstream dignity associated with workers in that earlier era is something for Democrats to aspire to in their messaging.

The ongoing labor shortage is all the more reason Democrats should keep telling blue collar workers of all races that they are valued—and all the more reason to mean it. Our nation badly needs carpenters, electricians, plumbers and the full array of blue collar workers who are going to help us overcome our national housing shortage and actually reconstruct our infrastructure. Politicians like Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) speak more often than most about job training for workers like these, as with her Skills Investment and Skills Renewal Acts (co-sponsored by Ben Sasse); others should follow her lead.

There’s other low-hanging fruit. When Democrats talk about investments in childcare, they should talk about it as not only good for the children, but good for the parents—a way to keep them in the workforce and off public benefits.

Finally, Democrats need to channel the can-do spirit of workers themselves and lead with solutions. When politicians belabor the structural challenges to which solutions are supposed to respond, some in the white working class hear government making excuses. When work is your religion, too much emphasis on what’s keeping you from making a living sounds like apostasy.

For them, the most important thing is simply to get to work. A close second is living in a country that values their work—along with a paycheck that reflects both that value and their dignity as workers.

About Us

Advertising

Breaking News Alerts

Careers

Credit Card Payments Digital Edition

FAQ

Feedback

Headlines

Photos

POWERJobs

Press

Print Subscriptions

Request A Correction

Write For Us

RSS

Site Map

Terms of Service

Privacy Policy

Do not sell my info

Notice to California Residents © 2022 POLITICO LLC

This is a courtesy copy of an email for your record only. It's not the same email your collaborators received. Click here to learn more.Logo for Google Docs


Re: Abortion rights: Today we mourn, tomorrow we organize! – Communist Party USA

Bobby MacVeety
 

Thanks for your cogent and insightful analysis, of course, the US and Chile are not equivalent. I am noting that the process of SCOTUS, interpreting the intentions of white bourgeois slaveholders 250 years ago, is a dead end for democracy and specifically right now, for the rights and personhood of over half the population. Clearly, reform under the current document worship regime has failed.


On Jun 25, 2022, at 9:05 PM, Andrew Stewart <hasc.warrior.stew@...> wrote:

Chile has a significantly different socio-political reality from ours. Their Constitutional Convention was essentially part of a much longer process seeking to undo the tremendous harms of the Pinochet era, which is rightfully and correctly construed as an instance of Yankee imperialism negating their national sovereignty and imposing upon them a Monroe Doctrine regime of terror. By contrast the forces that are responsible for the 50+ years of efforts to reverse the gains of the Warren-Burger Courts are deeply rooted and indigenous social phenomena within our settler-colonial society. The largest (nominal) socialist organization in the USA is DSA and they have only really grown to this size over the past five years (and furthermore are utterly marginal within the larger US polity in contrast with what the Right has built). Chile by contrast has a long-standing multi-party inter generational Left that has been building this momentum for 50 years. If any parallels are to be drawn, it would be a contrast between how the Chilean Left REBUILT itself after Allende died while the US Left wilted away while the Right rebuilt itself after the implosion of Nixon and Watergate. Only part of this would be truly attributable to the fact that the US has a Federalist system that is at once hyper-centralized AND simultaneously de-centralized whilst Chile has a Westminster-style parliamentary system.


Re: Counterpunch: Slavoj Zizek Does His Christopher Hitchens Impression

Marv Gandall
 

Mark asks: "What do you think a Ukrainian socialist should do? Join the fight? Flee the fight? In my experience, socialist, particularly young ones, are highly patriotic people; most will choose to fight invaders to their homeland out of loyalty to their family, neighbors, and nation. I don't know how a group who stood aside during the ravaging of their people will ever have much credibility with them.

What do you think a conscripted Russian socialist should do?"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
You could advise them to join their respective militaries and work towards the overthrow of their officers and the ruling class, drawing on the model of revolutionary sgitation successfully conducted by Bolshevik organizers in the Czarist army and navy. In fact, this was the essence of the Proletarian Military Policy adopted by the SWP and other sections of the Fourth International during World War II. 
 
 
The policy was predicated on the unshakeable conviction that capitalism would not recover from the war and that the FI was destined to lead the impending world revolution. As we know, that turned out to be as fever dream, and the class struggle is at much lower ebb today than it was then. So I doubt you’d make much headway calling on the “highly patriotic” Ukrainian and Russian soldiers to fraternize with each other and to make common cause against their respective military and political leaders.
 
The pacifist line, whether we care to admit it or not, has had somewhat more success While antiwar activists have initially been subjected to ostracism, beatings, and jail for the reasons you suggest, war weariness often sets in at a certain stage and gains them a sympathetic hearing, including to some extent within the armed forces. We saw this in our lifetime in both Vietnam and Iraq. It’s telling that with rare exceptions most young revolutionary socialists opted to join the antiwar movement rather than volunteering for or accepting to be drafted into the military.


The catastrophe of Ukrainian capitalism (book review)

Chris Slee
 


Re: Abortion rights: Today we mourn, tomorrow we organize! – Communist Party USA

Andrew Stewart
 

Chile has a significantly different socio-political reality from ours. Their Constitutional Convention was essentially part of a much longer process seeking to undo the tremendous harms of the Pinochet era, which is rightfully and correctly construed as an instance of Yankee imperialism negating their national sovereignty and imposing upon them a Monroe Doctrine regime of terror. By contrast the forces that are responsible for the 50+ years of efforts to reverse the gains of the Warren-Burger Courts are deeply rooted and indigenous social phenomena within our settler-colonial society. The largest (nominal) socialist organization in the USA is DSA and they have only really grown to this size over the past five years (and furthermore are utterly marginal within the larger US polity in contrast with what the Right has built). Chile by contrast has a long-standing multi-party inter generational Left that has been building this momentum for 50 years. If any parallels are to be drawn, it would be a contrast between how the Chilean Left REBUILT itself after Allende died while the US Left wilted away while the Right rebuilt itself after the implosion of Nixon and Watergate. Only part of this would be truly attributable to the fact that the US has a Federalist system that is at once hyper-centralized AND simultaneously de-centralized whilst Chile has a Westminster-style parliamentary system.


Ukrainian oligarchs

Anthony Boynton
 

I don't think this has been posted here before. It is a very interesting description of the losses of Ukrainian oligarchs since the Russian invasion began. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/6/22/will-the-war-with-russia-rein-in-ukraines-oligarchs


Re: The feminist vanguard against Putinist Neo-Czarism

sartesian@...
 

Hari,

1. Bad links, can't access any of the writings linked in item 2 via internet
2. Everything I've read by MN Roy in the period 1923 (and that's available on MIA) makes it clear that he thought a "revolutionary bourgeoisie" was, again, conspicuous only its absence.


Re: Counterpunch: Slavoj Zizek Does His Christopher Hitchens Impression

sartesian@...
 

Might Russia do that if it conquers Ukraine?
__________________

Oh that's slick.  Another brilliant non-answer that leaves undisturbed the origins of this conflict.  The issue at hand is not what might happen, but what were the causes of this conflict.  The argument put forth that Ukraine is engaged in a war of national self-determination against an imperialist oppressor--NOT that Russia might extract reparations from Ukraine if it is victorious.  

According to Mark then, Ukraine engages in a war of anticipatory national liberation against possible future subordination to a possible future oppressor.  And to that end, we're supposed suspend class struggle against the bourgeoisie locally, tolerate NATO's intervention, welcome shipment of arms from the existing imperialist powers, and "leave it to the people of Ukraine to decide if they want to belong to the EU"?

It's enough to gag a maggot.

Note from history:  The occupation of the German Rhineland after WW1 did NOT make the German people an oppressed nationality, did not make Germany a colony.  The extraction of war reparations from Germany after WW1 did NOT make rising nationalist sentiment and actions in Germany a revolutionary struggle that warranted support by socialists.  The possible occupation of one country by another does not make one imperialist and one the colony.

Mark, get back to me when you're able to free yourself from the torturous contortions you had to execute to come up with this one.


A US Pseudo-Trotskyist Association Hired by Russian Imperialism by Oleg Vernyk

Zakhyst Pratsi
 

A US Pseudo-Trotskyist Association Hired by Russian Imperialism: How the ICFI Attempts to Rewrite the History of the Ukrainian Revolutionary Liberation Movement

By Oleg Vernyk

https://blogs.korrespondent.net/blog/world/4489043/


On June 11, 2022, the Russian version of the WSWS website run by the pseudo-Trotskyist sect ICFI, posted an informative article with a very controversial and striking title: “The ISL’s Oleg Vernyk promotes Ukrainian fascist Stepan Bandera and the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists”. This is not the first time that this small online group has made slanderous attacks against ISL's positions and against Oleg Vernik in particular, the latter being the leader of the Ukrainian ISL organization – Ukrainian Socialist League. In theory, the attempted defamation by that miserable middle-class pseudo-Trotskyist online group from the United States could have been ignored, if it were not in the current context of the aggression of Russian imperialism against Ukraine and a kind of informative isolation of Russian in the current context.

Today no one believes Russian propaganda anymore. In particular, no one believes this discourse of Ukraine being governed by "Nazis" and Russia's mission being precisely the "denazification" of Ukraine. We are well aware that in this confrontation between two imperialisms, Western imperialism and Russian imperialism, Ukraine plays only one role: the role of victim. However, we members of the USL/ISL, have as our basic principle the defense of Ukraine as a political subject, the defense of its working people, the defense of the unconditional right to self-determination of the Ukrainian people and the struggle for the preservation of the integrity of the State. The USL/ISL does not support the Ukrainian bourgeoisie, nor Volodymyr Zelensky; it manifests itself in favor of the mass resistance of the country's lower class in its struggle against oppression. At the same time, the question arises: what does the ICFI's activity consist of and what are the values and principles of these strange people who only appear on the Internet?

For several years now, the leader of the pseudo-Trotskyist sect called ICFI, a United States citizen, Mr. David North, has been defending the interests of Russian imperialism and its propaganda apparatus on issues related to Ukraine. However, the disinformation activity of this propagandist sect has been revived precisely in the beginning of the month of June of the current year, when it became clear that official Russian propaganda no longer has sufficient informational space within the American media or any other country in the western orbit. Hence, the need arises to use these organizations with little authority and little influence, such as the WSWS, for this purpose. From the introductory part of their defamatory text, the authors indicate with total honesty that the central purpose of the article is to “reject false conceptions of ‘Russian imperialism’ and ‘democratic Ukraine.’”

It is absolutely clear that in order to whitewash Russia's military aggression, the ICFI needs to:

a) affirm that Russian capitalism is not imperialist in character;

b) indicate that Ukraine is not a simple nation with an extremely dependent and peripheral bourgeois democratic regime, but is a key player in the Nazi movement. That is to say, precisely this argument is key in the task of justifying the military aggression, both on the side of the Russian Federation, and on the part of its agents within the political movement of the left.

It should be noted that, from the beginning, the controversial and striking title of this article has absolutely nothing to do with reality. Oleg Vernik has never made propaganda in favor of the political figure named Stepán Bandera. He (Oleg Vernik) never made propaganda in favor of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. On the contrary, he always proposed to make a deep analysis of the liberation and nationalist movement in Ukraine and the dynamics of its evolution, considering its branches both on the right and on the left, and advised against ignoring the complexities and problems that characterized these movements. In addition, Oleg Vernik has always been very critical of the figure of Stepán Bandera, who had precisely been the leader of the ultra-radical right wing branch of the OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists), also expressing himself strongly against the democratization of the political figure of Bandera and against his conversion into leftist leader. We will return to this problem later. But now let's ask ourselves the following question: based on what did the ICFI reach the conclusion that Oleg Vernik professes the ideas of Stepán Bandera?

Following the article published by the ICFI, we learn that Oleg Vernik shared a post on May 26, 2022 on his Facebook page “Záhyst Prátsi” (“Defense of Labor” in English) which is an open group. The material shared in the post originally belonged to Mr. Ket Sotnyk. It is a photocopy of a historical book from 1948, whose author is Petró Poltava. That book is considered a bibliographical relic in Ukraine. Precisely due to the fact that it tells the story of one of the ideologues of the leftist branch of what was once the movement of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. The author and protagonist of the book, Mr. Petró Poltava narrates in that work how he had begun to propagate ideas that were absolutely opposed to the ideology of Stepán Bandera. Precisely those ideas that were proclaimed during the 3rd Regional Congress of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists in 1943 were described by Stepán Bandera as "Bolshevik" ideas, that that Congress had been organized by some "Bolsheviks" and that he (S. Bandera ) would never accept the resolutions approved by that Congress. S. Bandera, who at that time was imprisoned in a German concentration camp called "Sachsenhausen," had perfectly understood that a tendency towards democratization was beginning to appear within the ranks of the OUN (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists), towards the ideas of the left and the incitement to a simultaneous war against German national socialism and against Stalinism. Obviously, this position was firmly rejected by Bandera and by the other members of the right-wing branch of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. Not even the title of the brochure could calm the discord: “Who are the Banderites and what are they fighting for.”

The discontent of the ultra-right is understandable, but the fear that this little brochure has caused in the ICFI will have to be explained in more detail. Apparently, this text, dated 1948, annuls all the arguments of Russian propaganda and its ICFI lackeys regarding the assertion that any nationalist liberation movement in Ukraine should be considered, without exception, a far-right current and Nazi. The authors of such a “pearl” even dared to quote some key phrases from that brochure: “The ‘Banderites’ fight ‘for the construction of a society without division into social classes, for an authentic elimination of the exploitation of a human being by another… for democracy, against dictatorship and against totalitarianism, for freedom of expression and freedom to assemble… for the guarantee of all kinds of rights for national minorities in Ukraine.” At the same time, those slogans that are articulated through that Ukrainian brochure were cataloged by the authors of the ICFI as being nurtured “with the spirit of fascist ‘national socialism.’” It is not entirely clear where in these slogans the “spirit of National Socialism” is revealed. Perhaps it shows itself in the phrase “against dictatorship and against totalitarianism” or in the line that speaks of “the authentic elimination of the exploitation of one human being by another,” or in the part about “the guarantee of rights for the national minorities of Ukraine…” As we can see, the ICFI Lords have a rather strange perception of the term “fascism”. Though their perception of the term fully coincides with that of Mr. Putin, who started a war in Ukraine precisely to combat this rare kind of “fascism.”

But the most interesting thing is that Oleg Vernik, who had shared the photocopy of the aforementioned book in his publication, did not leave any comments of his own about it, offering the readers of the union’s group to familiarize themselves with the text, which is so difficult to find today in the Ukrainian archives, and reach their own conclusions. That post was not at all about any propaganda related to S. Bandera, nor the author of the book Petró Poltava (it should be remembered that the latter was an ideological opponent of S. Bandera). That very obvious lie of the ICFI can be discovered very easily. But first let's analyze the arguments of these exotic pseudo-Trotskyists about the so-called “S. Bandera propaganda” that Oleg Vernik has allegedly made.

The ICFI authors wrote:On June 5, Vernyk shared another post with a passage from a book by Danylo Shumuk, a former member of the Communist Party in West Ukraine (KPZU), who, disoriented by the crimes of Stalinism, joined the Ukrainian Insurgent Army (UPA by its Ukrainian acronym).”

Once again it must be clarified that Oleg Vernik made no comment of his own when sharing that excerpt from Danylo Shumuk's book. On the contrary, he invited the readers to analyze for themselves the opinion of the book’s author, who was a true communist, but had been a victim of Stalinist repressions on several occasions since 1935 for being a member of the Communist Party of Western Ukraine.

At this point, it is very important to remember the chronology of historical events. In 1938, the Executive Commission of Stalin's Communist International had approved the resolution on the definitive dissolution of the Communist Party of Poland and, with it, of the Communist Parties of Western Ukraine and Belarus, the latter two organizations being part of the prior. The Communist Party of Poland had a considerable number of representatives of the Fourth International who had a significant influence within the party and clandestinely made anti-Stalinist propaganda and supported Leon Trotsky’s ideas of revolutionary Marxism. This situation was the fundamental factor in Stalin's decision to dissolve these parties and repress the communists in western Ukraine. The excuse that was officially presented to carry out these repressions was that “the leadership positions of those parties were occupied by fascist agents.” Such an accusation seems similar to the context of the war we are currently experiencing, doesn’t it?

It was precisely the activists of the Communist Party of Western Ukraine who were the first victims of the repressive apparatus of Stalinism and were practically exterminated after the annexation of the western territory of Ukraine to the USSR in 1939, in accordance with the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact. Danylo Shumuk miraculously survived after spending long years in Stalinist concentration camps. Evidently having been through this situation and having been one of the victims of Stalin's repression against members of the Communist Party of West Ukraine, this man (using the words of the ICFI authors) had grounds to be somewhat “disoriented by the crimes of Stalinism.” Obviously, I allow myself a bit of irony here, despite the seriousness of the events described.

In any case, let us refer to the works of Comrade Trotsky. He was the one who had very carefully analyzed the situation of the communist movement in Western Ukraine in particular, and had paid much attention to Ukraine and its peculiarities in his works of the time. It is clear that the authors of ICFI are perfectly aware of the existence of this analysis by Trotsky, but, aiming to please their imperialist boss who employs them, they prefer to omit any mention of said analysis.

In August of the year 1939 Leon Trotsky wrote his famous work called “Democratic Feudalists and the Independence of the Ukraine” (“Bulletin of the Opposition (Bolshevik-Leninists), No. 79-80”) in which he wrote clearly and unambiguously the following: The Ukrainian revolutionary movement aimed against the Bonapartist bureaucracy is the direct ally of the international revolutionary proletariat… The national revolutionary Ukrainian movement is an integral part of the mighty revolutionary wave which is now being molecularly prepared underneath the crust of triumphant reaction. That is why we say: Long Live Independent Soviet Ukraine!

In 1939, the communists of western Ukraine no longer had any illusions about Stalinism and they knew perfectly well the position of Leon Trotsky. What kind of fighting strategy should the Western Ukrainian communists have adopted in that context after having been forced underground in Poland and in the Stalinist “liberated Western Ukraine?” Danylo Shumuk waited until 1943, when the “UPA” (Ukrainian Insurgent Army) had begun its war on two fronts, that is against German National Socialism and against Stalinism. That is when he enlisted in the ranks of the "UPA".

Unfortunately, Stalin's executioners had taken Trotsky´s life by 1943. Therefore, it is very difficult for us to predict what tactics and strategy Leon Davýdovich might have proposed to the communists of western Ukraine, considering the complex context of that time. He left that question to future discussions among comrades.

However, already in 1939, Leon Trotsky had his work “The Problem of the Ukraine” (“Bulletin of the Opposition (Bolshevik-Leninists), No. 77-78”), which currently serves as the bedside text for any Ukrainian Marxist; there he wrote the following: Not a trace remains of the former confidence and sympathy of the Western Ukrainian masses for the Kremlin. Since the latest murderous “purge” in the Ukraine no one in the West wants to become part of the Kremlin satrapy which continues to bear the name of Soviet Ukraineit is precisely this despicable equivocation, it is precisely this ruthless hounding of all free national thought that has led the toiling masses of the Ukraine, to an even greater degree than the masses of Great Russia, to look upon the rule of the Kremlin as monstrously oppressive. In the face of such an internal situation it is naturally impossible even to talk of Western Ukraine Voluntarily joining the USSR as it is at present constituted. Consequently, the unification of the Ukraine presupposes freeing the so-called Soviet Ukraine from the Stalinist bootA clear and definite slogan is necessary that corresponds to the new situation. In my opinion there can be at the present time only one such slogan: A united, free and independent workers’ and peasants’ Soviet Ukraine.”

Do the pseudo-Trotskyists of the ICFI know this position taken by Trotsky? Yes, they know it very well, though they prefer to lie and manipulate minds in a premeditated way, fulfilling the order of their authoritarian mentors and Kremlin bureaucrats. So, let's continue looking at the other points of the text that these Rashists published.

In yet another post, from May 26, Vernyk shared a comment glorifying a 1953 uprising in a Soviet labor camp (Gulag), which was led by Shumuk and other members of the OUN and UPA who had been imprisoned by Soviet authorities.As we can see, from this point on, the ICFI Lords have abandoned all kind of ethical limit, abruptly and definitively breaking any ties that united them to the Trotskyist heritage, siding with the Stalinist executioners in that struggle that took place between the latter and the prisoners of the Gulag. This is the famous uprising in the Gulag of the city of Norilsk in the summer of 1953. It was the largest uprising in the entire history of the Gulags. It is estimated that about 30,000 people participated in it and that the Trotskyist prisoners played a key role in the organization and execution of the plan.

In “The notes of the Head of the Authorities of the Penitentiary Service of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the USSR” it is clearly indicated that precisely the prisoner with the surname Klichenko, who had been sentenced twice for anti-Soviet activity and received for this a sentence of 25 years, was in charge of carrying out the most important job of inciting the convicts to continue and strengthen their resistance. Likewise, some testimonies were preserved that highlight the importance of the role played by the convicted Trotskyist with the surname Shimánskaya in that prisoner uprising. The Norilsk uprising of 1953 was one of the most important and remarkable events in the history of resistance against Stalin's regime within the USSR. But the quasi-Stalinists of the ICFI have another vision of things, extending their hand as an act of help and support to the numerous authoritarian and bureaucratic dictatorships such as the dictatorships of Stalin or Putin.

Continuing down the text of that article, its authors' words become truly delusional. In particular, they write the following: On its website, the ISL posted a video of one of its members, Kirill Medvedev, masked and in body armor, who is identified as a member of the UVO, a detachment of the Territorial Defense Forces. Where did they get that our comrade Kirill, activist of the ISL/USL, bears the last name “Medvedev?” Honestly, it was not very clear to us. Later we understood that the authors of the text apparently simply confused our Ukrainian comrade Kirill with the Russian activist of the “Russian Socialist Movement” (USEC) named Kirill Medvedev. This detail could not even classify as one of the many lies in the article. It is a striking display of ignorance and lack of preparation on the part of the authors of the ICFI who sow defamation, being unintelligent people, but at the same time very committed to what their contractors dictate.

We could go on endlessly evaluating each paragraph of the ICFI pro-Russian instigators' text of amalgamation of outright lies and half-truths. However, the task before us is totally different. We have to use the refutation of the lies of that little-known and boring sect of pseudo-Trotskyists in the United States in the context of our attempt to grasp the deeper aspects of the Ukrainian question and the history of its revolutionary liberation movement.
By the beginning of the 20th century, most of Ukraine was within the Russian Empire, while its western part was part of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. The development of capitalism in Ukrainian territory prompted the accelerated formation of its proletariat. This process also fostered the creation of social democratic (Marxist) parties and other socialist-oriented parties. Large proletarian centers linked to the development of coal mines (Donbas region), the railway industry, the sugar sector (Sumy province, which belongs to the Slobozhanshina region) among other branches of industry. The social class of the proletariat was formed both from the Ukrainian peasants who were left without their plots of land, and from those peasants who migrated to Ukraine from the central regions of the Russian Empire as a result of having been left without land to farm.

In the territory of Ukraine, the Ukrainian colloquial language was widely used, despite all the repression and despite all kinds of prohibitions imposed by the government of the Russian Tsar. That language came to be preserved and rooted within the broad masses of the Ukrainian population. Leon Trotsky, who was born and raised in the central part of the Ukraine, wrote in his diary that his mother tongue was “Súrzhyk:” a colloquial variety of the Ukrainian language with a high content of foreign words. However, in the Russian Empire one could only receive higher education in the Russian language, while the Ukrainian language maintained its level as a popular language of the lower class. Most of the intelligentsia and the bourgeoisie of the urban sectors, upon graduating with some higher education degree, began to speak the Russian language permanently. A significant part of the proletariat, i.e. those people who were previously Ukrainian peasants, was also subjected to this kind of “Russification.” However, at the same time, at the beginning of the 20th century, an inverse process was set in motion. A significant segment of the country's urban intelligentsia, and even working-class people, had begun to gradually transfer the use of the Ukrainian language from rural to urban areas as an act of protest against the Russian monarchy. This factor is key to the analysis of the following years of the history of the revolutionary movement of liberation and the Ukrainian labor movement. From the beginning of the 20th century in Ukraine, the class-revolutionary aspect of social liberation and the national liberation aspect of the struggle for self-determination of the Ukrainian people have gone hand in hand; that is, they have been inseparable and interconnected. Any attempt to destroy this link and interdependence between the two in Ukraine was doomed to have catastrophic consequences and undergo its own extreme reforms. The entire history of Ukraine in the 20th century is a complex, controversial and, in many aspects, tragic story.

The social-democratic Marxist groups that had been actively formed within the territory of Ukraine were in practice and from the very beginning divided into two factions. The first was of those who joined the structure of the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party and the second was of those who became part of the Ukrainian Social Democratic Labor Party. In turn, it is important to note that, in regard to the vision of both groups on the solution of the “Ukrainian question,” with the influence of Vladimir Lenin being a decisive factor, the Russian Social Democratic Labor Party had a well-defined position: recognize the right of the Ukrainian people to create their own independent state. However, the party that proclaimed itself to be the most pro-Ukrainian, that is, the Ukrainian Social Democratic Workers' Party, limited itself to claiming Ukraine's autonomy among its slogans, as it was part of Russia.

Unfortunately, within the Leninist party (Russian Social Democratic Labor Party) it turned out that there was a cross-section of activists who expressed their internationalist approach only in words, but in practice had strong rudiments of Russian imperialist chauvinism embedded in their subconsciousness. Joseph Stalin progressively became the informal leader of that political faction. This chauvinistic approach of Stalin was already glimpsed at the time of the preparation of the Constitution of the USSR in the year 1924. As a counterweight to the position of Lenin and Trotsky, Stalin had tried to introduce into the Constitution of the USSR the principle of “autonomies.” In other words, instead of having a full and equitable federal union of Soviet republics, what Stalin proposed was to annex all those republics to Russia as its “autonomies.” Lenin and Trotsky completely discarded that Stalinist attempt at a “second edition” of the Russian Empire and the Constitution of 1924 finally turned out to be democratic and reinforced in the body of its text the federative principle of the Union of Soviet Republics, preserving free and full right of exodus from the Soviet federation, if so desired.

However, after Lenin’s death and the defeat of Trotsky's Left Opposition, Stalin's political faction began to gradually reduce the rights of the Soviet republics, concentrating more and more levers of power and leadership in Moscow. Unfortunately, in the mid-1920s Leon Trotsky and his Left opposition failed to establish a close alliance with the communists of those Soviet republics who were in opposition to Stalin's centralist policy. This shortcoming cost all anti-Stalinist forces within the Party dearly. Practically all the communists in the Soviet republics who had the courage to fight against Stalin's chauvinist policy were repressed and shot during the 1930s. To make matters worse, Stalin had invented a treacherous deceitful term for them: “national-communists.” Despite this, they were the ones who precisely acted as the authentic internationalists, fighting against the revival of national oppression and against inequality among the Soviet republics of the USSR.

Stalin's bureaucratic counter-revolution could not but penetrate all spheres of life of the Soviet state. Its revelation was beyond evident in regard to the issue of national self-determination, which remains a very sensitive issue for Ukraine. Not understanding this question or, worse, turning a blind eye to it, means breaking the ties to the Marxist emancipatory tradition that supports both the class-social struggle of the proletariat and all the policies and practices that accompany it, including the struggle of national liberation of the peoples.

For us it is clear on which side the members of the pseudo-Trotskyist sect, racist instigators of the ICFI, stand. No matter how many attempts these people make to put on a Trotskyist mask, their Stalinist face is exposed, as is their open support for the Russian imperialist spirit of Putin and company. Both characteristics give them away, tearing away their “Trotskyist” façade.

As already indicated above, the authors of that ICFI text accuse Oleg Vernik and the ISL in general of supporting Ukrainian nationalism, repeating Putin's narrative. We fully understand that these Putinist instigators are prepared to incriminate all Marxists who show support for the resistance of the lower class of Ukrainian society against the aggression of Russian imperialism. However, here the relationship that revolutionary Marxism has with all forms and manifestations of a phenomenon such as “nationalism” remains very relevant. This question is especially relevant in those countries that recently became independent and reached their fullness as a state (such as Ireland, the countries of the former USSR that emerged as a result of the restoration of capitalism and the disintegration of a single state, among other examples). This also concerns those regions of the world where the processes of the national liberationist struggle continue to this day (Palestine, Catalonia, Western Sahara, Basque Country, etc.).

It should be remembered that in his 1922 work called “The question of nationalities or ‘autonomization’” Lenin wrote the following: “an abstract presentation of the question of nationalism in general is of no use at all. A distinction must necessarily be made between the nationalism of an oppressor nation and that of an oppressed nation, the nationalism of a big nation and that of a small nation. In respect of the second kind of nationalism we, nationals of a big nation, have nearly always been guilty, in historic practice, of an infinite number of cases of violence.”

In the same work he mentions: “nothing holds up the development and strengthening of proletarian class solidarity so much as national injustice; ‘offended’ nationals are not sensitive to anything so much as to the feeling of equality and the violation of this equality.

Obviously, any nationalism enters into a contradiction in the face of proletarian internationalism and any nationalism is a limiting factor in the development of the world revolutionary process. However, Lenin justly proposed that we make a distinction between the different types of “nationalism” within our Marxist analysis. And if the nationalism of the imperialist and oppressive nations is always reactionary and points against the working class, the "nationalism" of the peoples who fight for their national freedom, although it does not coincide with our Marxist vision linked to proletarian internationalism, deserves at least that its causes of creation and the logic of its development be understood.

Here we should emphasize the fact that it was precisely Stalin and his imperialist policy carried out in Soviet Ukraine that made right-wing Ukrainian nationalism triumph in Western Ukraine in the second half of the 1930s. Even in the 1920s the most popular party in that region was the Communist Party of Western Ukraine. Precisely this political force was considered by the Ukrainian working people as the vanguard of their struggle of national liberation against the yoke of the Poles. By the end of the 1930s that party was practically destroyed by the Stalinists. A Ukrainian proverb says: “a sacred place will never be unoccupied”. Who would fill that void left in the political field of western Ukraine after the crimes of Stalinism were committed? Evidently, that vacant post was filled by the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists. Do the authors of the ICFI know what are the real causes of this transformation in the moods and the causes of political support for the right-wing forces by the population of Western Ukraine in the 1930s? Yes, of course they know, but they prefer to ignore the obvious facts as they are affected by a fit of Stalinist rage and by their desire to serve Putin’s regime.

As mentioned above, in the history of the right-wing political formation of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists, there were endless transformations, cracks, radical changes in its slogans, certain inclinations to the left and to the right, cooperation with Hitler and the war on two fronts, among many other events. To this we must add the creation of the Ukrainian Insurgent Army in 1943 and the massive entry to that organization in 1939 of the communists of western Ukraine that miraculously escaped total extermination by the Stalinist regime. All of this forms part of Ukraine's history that is often characterized as extremely complex, controversial and ambiguous. However, this history should not be used in any context as a kind of universal anti-Ukrainian propaganda in the hands of the rogue Stalinist instigators and imperialist Putin collaborators who emerged from the so-called ICFI sect.

I am convinced that this article of mine has only dealt with a small part of the problem of the history of Ukraine that is so relevant for all of us. However, this text could further the development and deepening of Marxist research on the Ukrainian question, the history of the development of Ukrainian Marxism and its role in the national liberation struggle of the working class.

Oleg VERNYK
June, 2022




Re: More artists imprisoned in Cuba

Walter Lippmann
 

Quite a bit. I have another few in the works.

 

Attorney General's Report on criminal proceedings where citizens
Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara and Maikel Castillo Pérez were tried


https://groups.io/g/cubanews/topic/cubadebate_attorney/91983107

Common crimes will never be political


https://groups.io/g/cubanews/topic/cubadebate_common_crimes/91983165

 

 

Walter Lippmann

.

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 







===============================
WALTER LIPPMANN
Los Angeles, California
Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews


walterlippmann.com
https://groups.io/g/cubanews
facebook.com/walter.lippmann.33

"Cuba - Un Paraiso bajo el bloqueo"
===============================

-----Original Message-----
From: <marxmail@groups.io>
Sent: Jun 25, 2022 3:32 PM
To: marxmail@groups.io <marxmail@groups.io>
Subject: Re: [marxmail] More artists imprisoned in Cuba

 

Has Granma, or any other Cuban publication, written anything on these cases?
 
 

 

1941 - 1960 of 19553