Counterpunch: Slavoj Zizek Does His Christopher Hitchens Impression


Bradley Mayer
 

Thought I'd beat the crossposters to their own "counter"punch :-)  Want to focus on this passage:

"After attacking pacifism and its advocates throughout the piece, Zizek makes a claim that only someone with his ego and arrogance would be okay with making, at least seriously.  He writes, “Today, one cannot be a leftist if one does not unequivocally stand behind Ukraine.”  In other words, Zizek’s test of left moral purity is whether or not they support every and any version of the Kyiv government and its war.  In a sentence, Zizek goes from just someone stating his argument against negotiated settlement for an expanded NATO, and against rational alternatives to a long, deadly and potentially wider war to purging a fairly large segment of the international left from the debate.  As far as I know, no other leftist who supports Ukraine has dismissed those who don’t from the ranks, such as they are.  No other leftist has written out those they disagree with over the Ukraine-Russia conflict.  Slavoj Zizek, on the other hand, makes this the core of his argument."

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! 

The Brown alliance will impress such former leftists into its global ranks across a much longer period than they recognize right now. This won't be a brief 2 year "Nazi-Soviet Pact" period but without Nazis or Soviets.  The Ukraine War marks a turning point in a long term political realignment now underway.  At the end of the process, the treasonous left will either be consigned to history's dustbin, or will have fully moved to the Far Right.

Jacobs presents no real evidence that Zizek has become our next new Hitchens.  You see, the subtext is, if you stand with Ukraine it is "inevitable" that you will "become a Hitchens".  But in reality it was Hitchens who voluntarily drummed himself out of the left, after taking the wrong side in an imperialist war of aggression (Iraq), and not the other way around.  Otherwise, it can be stated with high confidence that it will precisely be US imperialism, and not Chomsky or the "pacifist" or "antiwar" left, that will bring the Ukraine government to the negotiating table to make concessions.  Ukraine Socialist Solidarity does and will directly OPPOSE US imperialism on this, AND we will support an active armed resistance struggle in Ukraine's occupied territories.  Just as with Palestine. The war will continue while the pacifists go back to sleep after the US-engineered sellout "peace".

So it looks like our antiwar pacifists address the wrong people with their peace demands,  Address the Biden Admin!  Perhaps they already are.

Finally, note the anti-intellectualism.  This is another common characteristic of both our opponents, the Brown Far Right, and American culture.  Why?  Because all have no coherent and consistent case that they can articulate.  No need for an "intellectual" capacity.

https://www.counterpunch.org/2022/06/22/slavoj-zizek-does-his-christopher-hitchens-impression/


sartesian@...
 

Baloney.  Identifying Ukraine as a capitalist state, part of an imperial network with its allegiance to the IMF, irrevocably hostile to the working class, while at the same time tracing the roots of the conflict to capitalism's overproduction and declining profits (prior to the war) particularly in the energy industries, and tagging Russia as a key participant in this capitalist death spiral, does not make one a supporter of a Red Brown alliance.

Mayer thinks he's holding a lens to those who advocate political independence when he says that makes them partners in the far right Brown alliance.  Actually he's holding up a mirror given his "objective" "subjective" popular front with the Zelensky government, the EU, and NATO.

Mayer taunts "pacifists" to address their pleas to Biden, because Biden will sell out Ukraine.  No shit Sherlock, so why aren't you breaking with Zelensky government?  Why on a Marxist discussion list is there no discussion of capitalism in Ukraine?  Why are Marxists urging the distribution of weapons to a capitalist  government?   

Sounds to me like the ones who addressed their pleas to Biden are  those advocating NATO weapons  and troops.  Yes troops,  Get real, heavy weapons don't go anywhere without advisors and instructors. 

Sure thing, inviting NATO weapons into the conflict is the way to socialism.  Like Allende inviting Pinochet to take the position as army chief of staff was the path to democracy in Chile.. Nach NATO, uns!  

I agree with one thing.  Ukraine is a turning point.  While you were out, World War 3 called. 

Excuse my vehemence, but this bullshit about "objectively allying with the Brown" is right out of the Stalinist playbook.

Defeat of all government parties to this conflict is the only alternative to this iteration of war without end, amen.  Such an independent international movement of workers isn't in the cards?  TINA?  Suit yourself.  Please refrain from smearing those who do think it's possible with your red-brown baloney.


John Edmundson
 

Funny how this "you're a traitor if you disagree with me" post appeared so soon after the moderator's message saying not to call each other traitors.

Comradely,
John

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022, 08:56 , <sartesian@...> wrote:
Baloney.  Identifying Ukraine as a capitalist state, part of an imperial network with its allegiance to the IMF, irrevocably hostile to the working class, while at the same time tracing the roots of the conflict to capitalism's overproduction and declining profits (prior to the war) particularly in the energy industries, and tagging Russia as a key participant in this capitalist death spiral, does not make one a supporter of a Red Brown alliance.

Mayer thinks he's holding a lens to those who advocate political independence when he says that makes them partners in the far right Brown alliance.  Actually he's holding up a mirror given his "objective" "subjective" popular front with the Zelensky government, the EU, and NATO.

Mayer taunts "pacifists" to address their pleas to Biden, because Biden will sell out Ukraine.  No shit Sherlock, so why aren't you breaking with Zelensky government?  Why on a Marxist discussion list is there no discussion of capitalism in Ukraine?  Why are Marxists urging the distribution of weapons to a capitalist  government?   

Sounds to me like the ones who addressed their pleas to Biden are  those advocating NATO weapons  and troops.  Yes troops,  Get real, heavy weapons don't go anywhere without advisors and instructors. 

Sure thing, inviting NATO weapons into the conflict is the way to socialism.  Like Allende inviting Pinochet to take the position as army chief of staff was the path to democracy in Chile.. Nach NATO, uns!  

I agree with one thing.  Ukraine is a turning point.  While you were out, World War 3 called. 

Excuse my vehemence, but this bullshit about "objectively allying with the Brown" is right out of the Stalinist playbook.

Defeat of all government parties to this conflict is the only alternative to this iteration of war without end, amen.  Such an independent international movement of workers isn't in the cards?  TINA?  Suit yourself.  Please refrain from smearing those who do think it's possible with your red-brown baloney.


sartesian@...
 

"You cannot call another list participant a murderer, a misogynist, a traitor or an imperialist on this list"

" 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!" 


John Edmundson
 

To be clear, my reference was to this:

"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."

Comradely 
John

On Thu, 23 Jun 2022, 09:43 , <sartesian@...> wrote:
"You cannot call another list participant a murderer, a misogynist, a traitor or an imperialist on this list"

" 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!" 


Marv Gandall
 

I’ve refrained from further comment on the Ukraine debate because it both sides are clearly talking past each other, but I can't let go unanswered Bradley Mayer’s sectarian attack on those opposing his unconditional support of the Ukrainian national movement as having "crossed a political Rubicon, a red line of treason to leftism, socialism, anti-imperialism, the proletariat, Marxism, and social revolution, period, tout court.” 
 
Since I assume Bradley is an admirer of Trotsky, as many on this list are, he and others might be surprised to learn that their political mentor was a lifelong sharp critic of the bourgeois-led Ukrainian movement for national independence, which then as now was predominantly concentrated in the west of the country outside the industrialized Donbas. 
 
When Trotsky proclaimed his support for Ukrainian self-determination, it was was conditional on that struggle being led by the socialist proletariat. This was consistent with the Bolshevik view that the bourgeoisie had exhausted its historic mission as an agent for change both in relation to its own absolutist monarchies and to the struggle for national independence from foreign imperialist powers. This understanding was encapsulated in his call a "united, free and independent workers’ and peasants’ Soviet Ukraine” (emphasis mine).

Trotsky took up the question in 1939 because he considered the centralizing policies of the Stalinist bureaucracy were leading the Ukrainian masses to dependence rather than independence from imperialism. A few quotes will illustrate:

"The worker and peasant masses in the Western Ukraine, in Bukovina, in the Carpatho-Ukraine are in a state of confusion: Where to turn? What to demand? This situation naturally shifts the leadership to the most reactionary Ukrainian cliques who express their “nationalism” by seeking to sell the Ukrainian people to one imperialism or another in return for a promise of fictitious independence."

"Only hopeless pacifist blockheads are capable of thinking that the emancipation and unification of the Ukraine can be achieved by peaceful diplomatic means, by referendums, by decisions of the League of Nations, etc. In no way superior to them of course are those “nationalists” who propose to solve the Ukrainian question by entering the service of one imperialism against another."

"Insofar as the issue depends upon the military strength of the imperialist states, the victory of one grouping or another can signify only a new dismemberment and a still more brutal subjugation of the Ukrainian people, The program of independence for the Ukraine in the epoch of imperialism is directly and indissolubly bound up with the program of the proletarian revolution. It would be criminal to entertain any illusions on this score.” 

"The Ukraine is especially rich and experienced in false paths of struggle for national emancipation. Here everything has been tried: the petty-bourgeois Rada, and Skoropadski, and Petlura, and “alliance” with the Hohenzollerns and combinations with the Entente. After all these experiments, only political cadavers can continue to place hope in one of the fractions of the Ukrainian bourgeoisie as the leader of the national struggle for emancipation.”

"At the beginning of the last imperialist war the Ukrainians, Melenevski (“Basok”) and Skoropis-Yeltukhovski, attempted to place the Ukrainian liberation movement under the wing of the Hohenzollern general, Ludendorff. They covered themselves in so doing with left phrases.”

"There is not the slightest basis for hoping that the comparatively impoverished and backward Ukraine will be able to establish and maintain a regime of democracy. Indeed the very independence of the Ukraine would not be long-lived in an imperialist environment.”

"A powerful and purely Ukrainian proletariat has been created there by the development of industry. It is they who are destined to be the leaders of the Ukrainian people in all their future struggles.”

"The slogan of a democratic Ukraine is historically belated. The only thing it is good for is perhaps to console bourgeois intellectuals. It will not unite the masses. And without the masses, the emancipation and unification of the Ukraine is impossible.”

Trotsky was writing when Ukraine was still part of the USSR and the concept an independent, socialist Ukraine was not the pipedream it appears to be today, That said, I very much doubt Trotsky, were he alive today, would have retreated from that dream to align himself with those "seeking to sell the Ukrainian people to one imperialism or another in return for a promise of fictitious independence”, with those who “continue to place hope in one of the fractions of the Ukrainian bourgeoisie as the leader of the national struggle for emancipation.”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/04/ukraine.html and https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/07/ukraine.htm


Mark Baugher
 


Trotsky was writing when Ukraine was still part of the USSR and the concept an independent, socialist Ukraine was not the pipedream it appears to be today, That said, I very much doubt Trotsky, were he alive today, would have retreated from that dream to align himself with those "seeking to sell the Ukrainian people to one imperialism or another in return for a promise of fictitious independence”, with those who “continue to place hope in one of the fractions of the Ukrainian bourgeoisie as the leader of the national struggle for emancipation.”

https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/04/ukraine.html and https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1939/07/ukraine.htm
_._,_._,_
Thanks. What a mess of historical factors backdropped those writings you cite. There was a Greater Ukraine that spanned three countries occupied by related people and included Galacia and Carpathia Ukraine. Maybe others, I don't know. Greater Ukraine contained Ukrainians along with Jews, Poles, and Hungarians. Hitler had apparently just handed Carpathia-Ukraine over to Hungary, but I haven't gone back to review Trotsky's reference on that. Soviet Ukraine was smaller overall than today's Ukraine. Soviet Ukraine was suffering under Soviet policies and had undergone a cycle of land privatization, collectivization and re-privatization (to some extent) over the previous 17 years. The "Little Russians" in the Ukraine also suffered lower status. Moreover, things were changing fast and about to change completely: The articles were written months before Hitler and Stalin partitioned Poland with USSR taking Galacia for Ukraine.

Soviet Ukraine was post-capitalist, however, and I can't imagine that Trotsky would entertain the restitution of capitalism in Ukraine, right on the doorstep of the USSR. Particularly with the degenerated workers state facing a dangerous Germany. Near-term proletarian revolution was a realistic expectation, moreover, and certainly not something in the rear-view window as it is today.

Mark


sartesian@...
 

So much then for all your religious reverence for "tradition."

It seems to me that your attachment to "tradition" is highly conditional,  and when the tradition doesn't support your current preferences you're able to find all sorts of changes in circumstances.


Mark Baugher
 

On Jun 23, 2022, at 10:05 PM, sartesian@... wrote:

So much then for all your religious reverence for "tradition."

It seems to me that your attachment to "tradition" is highly conditional, and when the tradition doesn't support your current preferences you're able to find all sorts of changes in circumstances.
Didn't someone just write today that the list is less snarky these days? I wonder.

Mark


sartesian@...
 

We'll try to unsnark that:  Why do you reject the tradition Marv cites after declaiming on the importance of tradition?


Mark Baugher
 

On Jun 24, 2022, at 10:30 AM, sartesian@... wrote:

We'll try to unsnark that: Why do you reject the tradition Marv cites after declaiming on the importance of tradition?
Right, like I'm Tevye from Fiddler on the Roof. Maybe my word choice was poor for you, but I was trying to get across this idea: Generations of Marxists going back to Marx have made the national question an essential part of the body of work called "Marxism." Much concerns Ukraine. And today, from Cleveland to Catalonia, when issues of nationalism come up, people who draw from that body of work can refer to past writings on it - as a place to start, for guidance, not for prescriptions or ritualistic chants.

I wouldn't ignore the national question on Ukraine. But I don't care if you do.

I have no beef with Marv's posting. I read or re-read both articles he cited, and they made me think. After taking the time and doing the work to understand his thoughts, I shared mine. I think the process is working.

Mark


sartesian@...
 

I wouldn't ignore the national question on Ukraine. But I don't care if you do.
_____________________________________________________________

Perhaps I didn't make it clear enough. Where in that tradition that you cite has the "national question" required, or advocated subordination of the working class to the bourgeoisie in the so-called national struggle, and where that subordination has been advocated, imposed, etc. what has been the result?

THEN:  What makes the conflict in Ukraine a "national question"?

If it is, does that require subordination of the working class to the discipline of the ruling class's armed forces, and the ruling class's articulation of a "national policy."

I hope that's clear enough. 


sartesian@...
 

PS I do not now, nor have I ever ignored the "national  question."  The issue are the circumstances under which the question arises, and if the struggle over the national question is "necessary and sufficient" unto itself or if it, like democratic "moments" in general, arise as part of a struggle for a social revolution?  If it's  the latter, then do we have to reject collaboration with the bourgeoisie attaching themselves to the question or do we subordinate the program for social revolution to that "national" question?


Anthony Boynton
 

Defending Ukraine, including defending the Ukrainian state's right to acquire weapons, does not equate to subordinating the Ukrainian working class and oppressed to the Ukrainian bourgeoisie. A very large part of the Ukrainian working class is now part of the territorial defense where it has most often chosen its own officers. The socialist, anarchist, and revolutionary left from outside of Ukraine has been sending convoys of many kinds of aide, and providing volunteers to aid Social Movement and its efforts both in the armed struggle against the Russian invasion and in the struggle against the Zelensky government's anti working class measures. Sartesian is the only person here talking about subordinating the Ukrainian working class to anyone. I suggest he do some studying on what we are talking about, and what is really happening. He and any others interested can start here 


and here


Anthony


On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 2:54 PM <sartesian@...> wrote:
PS I do not now, nor have I ever ignored the "national  question."  The issue are the circumstances under which the question arises, and if the struggle over the national question is "necessary and sufficient" unto itself or if it, like democratic "moments" in general, arise as part of a struggle for a social revolution?  If it's  the latter, then do we have to reject collaboration with the bourgeoisie attaching themselves to the question or do we subordinate the program for social revolution to that "national" question?


sartesian@...
 

On Fri, Jun 24, 2022 at 05:13 PM, Anthony Boynton wrote:
Sartesian is the only person here talking about subordinating the Ukrainian working class to anyone. I suggest he do some studying on what we are talking about, and what is really happening. He and any others interested can start here 
That's simply not true.  Walter Daum, a participant on this list, has produced  theses on Ukraine which contain not a word of class struggle against the Zelensky regime.  Calling for support of a Ukraine "national struggle" without articulating class opposition to collaboration with the Zelensky government and the Ukraine state's  military command is subordinating the class struggle to a "national struggle," whether or not Anthony cares to acknowledge that.

Bradley Mayer claims that national struggle is ALONE necessary and sufficient when assessing the way forward in/regarding Ukraine.  Whether Anthony recognizes it or not, that is subordination of the independence of the working class to the Zelensky government

David Walter is explicit in his statements that he doesn't give a shit about what the Ukrainian government does, represents, or intends to do.  Don't think we can get a more clear acknowledgement of subordination of the working class to the program of the bourgeoisie than that.

Before Anthony tells anybody on this list to study what is really happening, he ought to honestly assess what participants on this list are advocating

I find it enlightening to read of the work of the Ukraine Social Movement, but I noticed this, which apparently Anthony did not:

"We can hear that in harsh times the state economy relies on the entrepreneurs who pay taxes and salaries. Somehow, the workers’ role is missing in this picture. We see it as our task to remind the government about that. Also, not to forget about thousands of public workers—in the sphere of health care, social sector, education, public transport—who are putting their lives in danger to fulfil their duties, all those who at the same time are doing this on the minimum wage.
 
We are very well aware of its shortcomings, but this is the only government there is"

We see it as out task to remind the government.... this is the only  government there is.   That doesn't sound like independent class actions and program to me, but then I come from a different tradition, apparently.
  

I've asked before, what makes this battle a battle for national self-determination of an oppressed people against the oppressor?  Does Russia represent an advanced capitalist country exporting capital to Ukraine to appropriate higher rates of surplus value than it might realize from domestic exploitation?  Does Russia or did Russia control and dominate Ukraine's economy for its own ruling class' benefit? Did Russia hold economic leverage over Ukraine through debt arrangements; or by mandating "economic restructuring"?  What is the size of Russia's economic presence in Ukraine in relation to the size of Ukraine's economy?

The answers to those questions indicate to me that cause of the conflict is not Russian dominance, Russian aggression, no more than the cause of the previous world wars was "German aggression." but the cause is an intra-capitalist conflict among ruling classes. 


 


Marv Gandall
 

That “a very large part of the Ukrainian working class is now part of the territorial defense” does not , as Anthony suggests, mean it is independent of the Ukrainian bourgeoisie and state. The evidence is quite overwhelming that most Ukrainians support the Zelensky government and, to a lesser extent, currents to the right of it. The Ukrainian left operates on the margins and and is hounded by the state with the support of the population which associates socialism with Russian domination. Anthony exaggerates the influence of a small number of Ukrainian socialist volunteers aided by an equally marginalized far left in the developed countries to justify his support of the Ukrainian war effort.
 
Sartesian is correct in characterizing the war as a small capitalist state resisting an invasion by a larger capitalist neighbour rather than a war of national liberation/independence/self-determination, as Anthony and others have previously contended. Marxists have understood the central feature of such conflicts as a struggle by an oppressed people to secede from the larger empires or states which were oppressing them. On that basis, Marx and Engels  supported the Irish struggle for independence from Britain and contemporary Marxists have upheld the right of the Quebecois and Catalans to secede from Canada and Spain and for the Kurds to secede from their host countries and reconstitute themselves as an independent state.
 
This is no longer the situation the Ukrainian nationalists find themselves in as they did when they engaged in a long struggle to secede from the Russian empire and the USSR. That objective, as we know, was realized in 1991 following the dissolution of the Soviet Union. So while Anthony and many others may be drawn to Ukraine as a small country stubbornly defending itself against a more powerful neighbouring invader, it is an error to associate its defence with the mainly left-led national liberation struggles Marxists have historically supported and it also overlooks the enormous military, economic, and political support the US and its NATO allies have given to Ukraine which has balanced the scales and which was unavailable to the Vietnamese, Cubans, Algerians, and other anti-imperialist movements.
 
In the same vein, Marxists have historically opposed the forcible annexation of smaller nations by larger powers, as in the case of Belgium, Serbia, and Armenia by the contending imperialist powers during WW I, the attempted annexation of Ethiopia by fascist Italy in the interwar period, and in our time the annexation of Palestine by Israel. The issue of whether Crimea was forcibly annexed by Russia or whether the predominantly Russian-seaking majority freely welcomed the annexation is also a matter of great controversy on this list and beyond.
 
As is the legitimacy of the secessionist movement in the Donbas, which can perhaps lay greater claim to being the party  actually fighting a war of national independence against an oppressive central government in Kiev which has reduced its cultural and political rights since the Maidan shift in power relations in 2014. Whether Luhansk and Donetsk will remain independent republics  or vote to join the Russian federation or to remain autonomous regions within Ukraine is still unclear and will depend on the outcome of the war.


Mark Baugher
 

On Jun 25, 2022, at 10:25 AM, Marv Gandall <marvgand2@...> wrote:

That “a very large part of the Ukrainian working class is now part of the territorial defense”
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?

Mark


Bobby MacVeety
 

I think they need to do whatever they can to insure the needs and safety of the the mothers and children and working women and families and the old, the pensioners, the sick and the special population.

On Jun 25, 2022, at 6:15 PM, Mark Baugher <mark@...> wrote:



On Jun 25, 2022, at 10:25 AM, Marv Gandall <marvgand2@...> wrote:

That “a very large part of the Ukrainian working class is now part of the territorial defense”
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?

Mark




Mark Baugher
 

On Jun 24, 2022, at 3:42 PM, sartesian@... wrote:


I've asked before, what makes this battle a battle for national self-determination of an oppressed people against the oppressor? Does Russia represent an advanced capitalist country exporting capital to Ukraine to appropriate higher rates of surplus value than it might realize from domestic exploitation?
Might Russia do that if it conquers Ukraine?

Does Russia or did Russia control and dominate Ukraine's economy for its own ruling class' benefit?
Won't Russia do that if its invasion succeeds in conquering Ukraine?

Did Russia hold economic leverage over Ukraine through debt arrangements; or by mandating "economic restructuring"?
Will Russia hold economic leverage over Ukraine if it conquers the country?

What is the size of Russia's economic presence in Ukraine in relation to the size of Ukraine's economy?
Won't Russia have a dominant position in the Ukrainian economy if it subjugates Ukraine?


The answers to those questions indicate to me that cause of the conflict is not Russian dominance, Russian aggression, no more than the cause of the previous world wars was "German aggression." but the cause is an intra-capitalist conflict among ruling classes.
So if Russia subjugates Ukraine like it was a big Chechnya, would it then be ideologically correct, in your view, for the Ukrainians to go to war against their conquerer?

If it was their right to secede in 1991, why is wrong for them to defend that secession thirty years later?

Mark


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.