Howie Hawkins (Ukraine Solidarity Network US): ' The anti-imperialist position is to support the national liberation struggle of the Ukrainian people'
|
John Obrien <causecollector@...>
One might consider (and I certainly hope) that the coming Russia military offensive against Ukraine, turns into a massive collapse with vanished troop morale and desertions.
And leads to Putin forced from power by forces that include the Russian laborers. Certainly, Putin's invasion and war, does not benefit either Russian or Ukranian workers.
That is the question of power perhaps Marv refers too - and to consider? - that might result - if "things do not go well as Putin hopes".
Whether Putin's military advance and occupy more of Ukraine, it seems clear that long term resistance to such occupation, will have only one result besides more harm and death - and that is the eventual defeat and withdrawal of Russian forces. Perhaps the
growing Russian antiwar sentiment with more dead, will develop into a large Antiwar Movement that leads to focus on removing Putin.
Seems aiding in many ways a growing Russian Antiwar Movement, would be acceptable for any true antiwar advocate.
From: Marv Gandall
Ultmately it’s a question of power, David, as I’m sure you’ll agree. Let’s assume (but only for argument’s sake) that the Ukrainian working class will not settle for an end to the
war short of reconquering all of the Donbas and even Crimea. Apart from such a sweeping victory being considered highly unlikely by most Western military analysts I’ve read and seen, does the Ukrainian working class have anything near the power to impose its
will on a settlement negotiated with Russia by the Ukrainian state and its powerful US imperialist and NATO allies? Hardly. Whether you’re here or over there with Sotsialnyi Rukh won’t affect the answer.
|
|
|
|
Marv Gandall
Ultmately it’s a question of power, David, as I’m sure you’ll agree. Let’s assume (but only for argument’s sake) that the Ukrainian working class will not settle for an end to the war short of reconquering all of the Donbas and even Crimea. Apart from such a sweeping victory being considered highly unlikely by most Western military analysts I’ve read and seen, does the Ukrainian working class have anything near the power to impose its will on a settlement negotiated with Russia by the Ukrainian state and its powerful US imperialist and NATO allies? Hardly. Whether you’re here or over there with Sotsialnyi Rukh won’t affect the answer.
|
|
|
|
David Walters
Marv, I'm not trying to be difficult here, at all, but these "what ifs" are not particularly helpful as they are not based in any reality on the ground there. The fact is that the Ukrainian public is not interested in conceding land to Russia (NATO membership, perhaps but I've not seen a single poll on that one) so then what are we talking about? It is not a "trope" but a political reality. It was not only the far-right but the general Ukrainian public. And, lastly, what "escalation"??? 150 tanks? 200 IFVs? what exactly is the escalation??
|
|
|
|
Marv Gandall
We've also touched on this question before, David, but I suppose repitition is unavoidable in extended debates like this one. See #21608 where I replied: "However, as improbable as it now seems, and as I’ve previously suggested, if the Ukrainians and Russians agree to end the fighting, I believe a Ukrainian public exhausted by wartime deprivation would ratify a Minsk redux, however grudgingly, if it is tied to Western investment and reconstruction grants, as I expect it would be.”
Which is not to say the Zelensky (or any other) Ukrainian government signing an accord wouldn’t come under fire from the far right, as it did when it inidicated its readiness to implement Minsk in 2019. But if the US this time, unlike then, decides it is time to settle and the settlement is accompanied by security guarantees and financial aid, the right will almost certainly be isolated. At present, the Biden administration and its apologists like Timothy Garton Ash are using “the Ukrainian public won’t allow a negotiated end to the war” trope as a pretext to escalate it. |
|
|
|
David Walters
Where Fiddler is wrong is the clear *exclusion* of the country under attack. If I were to frame this Marv, I'd "simply" raise the question "is a negotiated settlement agreeable to all sides preferable to the continuation of the war". The problem of course is that there is only one side attacking. Again, I wouldn't argue this under the so-called "socialist leaning" national liberation struggles, I wouldn't do it here either. What do the Ukrainians want and that remains the only real question. Having Imperialist powers carve up countries is not the kind of negotiations I'd ever want to see.
David |
|
|
|
Marv Gandall
The analyses of the conflict, imperialism, and self-determination offered by contributors on the list who have chosen the Ukrainian side interest me less than whether they continue to favour continuation of the war "until final victory” or have a more sober appreciation of the need for a negotiated settlement before it uncontrollably escalates. To his credit, Howie Hawkins, who belongs to this camp, understands which direction to take at this crossroads.
So let me again repeat that I agree with Richard Fidler’s assessment that "Hawkins adds a useful personal opinion on a possible path to a negotiated solution that is directed to Washington, not Kyiv: 'The US should be offering publicly and aggressively to resume talks with Russia on a mutual security framework. If the US, NATO and Russia could agree on mutual security arrangements, which would surely include the renewal of conventional and nuclear arms treaties I mentioned before, it could give Putin a politically acceptable way for Russia to withdraw from Ukraine, claiming that his security objectives have been achieved'.” |
|
|
|
John Reimann
We've been over it again and again. I'm talking about the issue of the war in Ukraine. But here's a different way of looking at it. Consider it from a strictly class point of view. Does the Ukrainian working class have any vested class interest in which side wins, meaning in whether Putin succeeds in annexing additional territory in Ukraine, whether that annexation be in name or just in fact? I would say "yes" without any doubt. Nobody except for the equivalent of the covid and global climate change deniers can deny the absolute brutality with which Russia's troops have treated the local populations where they - the Russians - have gained control. No, Zelensky is not a working class leader; he is a neo-liberal capitalist leader. But his regime is not based on the brutal repression that Putin's forces mete out in Ukraine. Under those conditions, it will be impossible for the working class to organize and fight for its interests. It's the difference between capitalist democracy and a brutal dictatorship whose methods approach those of fascists. You're telling me the Ukrainian working class, as a class, has no interest in the outcome? John Reimann “Science and socialism go hand-in-hand.” Felicity Dowling Check out:https:http://oaklandsocialist.com also on Facebook |
|
|
|
Richard Fidler
Marv writes: “ crucially, the delegates did not choose sides, calling instead on the workers to act in favour of an immediate end to the conflict.” Not so, as my article illustrated.
The left Zimmerwaldists were strongly in favour of supporting Belgium’s self-determination, Lenin going so far as to state that “By refusing to support the revolt of annexed regions we become, objectively, annexationists. It is precisely in the ‘era of imperialism’, which is the era of nascent social revolution, that the proletariat will today give especially vigorous support to any revolt of the annexed regions so that tomorrow, or simultaneously, it may attack the bourgeoisie of the ‘great’ power that is weakened by the revolt.” |
|
|
|
Marv Gandall
On Tue, Jan 31, 2023 at 06:21 AM, Richard Fidler wrote:
Adherence to the Zimmerwald Manifesto did not mean that socialists should turn a blind eye to the occupation or annexation of nations by opposing powers.I thought it was clear from my comments above that Russia shouldn't annex the Ukrainian territories and that Zimmerwald was opposed to annexations or reparations, with specific reference to Belgium, Serbia, Poland, and Armenia. But, crucially, the delegates did not choose sides, calling instead on the workers to act in favour of an immediate end to the conflict. |
|
|
|
Richard Fidler
Adherence to the Zimmerwald Manifesto did not mean that socialists should turn a blind eye to the occupation or annexation of nations by opposing powers. I addressed this here: Supporting Ukraine's right to self-determination: The historical example of ‘poor little Belgium’, https://links.org.au/supporting-ukraines-right-self-determination-historical-example-poor-little-belgium
Richard Fidler |
|
|
|
Marv Gandall
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 10:20 AM, Charles Rachlis wrote:
So the Hawkins and so called socialist solution has nothing to do with turning inter-imperialist war into class war to defeat imperialism a lá the Left Zimmerwald. Unfortunately, Charles, there are no forces of any significance in Russia or Ukraine even remotely comparable to the Zimmerwald Left which called on the workers in all belligerent countries to turn the war into a civil war against their bourgeois governments.
The Zimmerwald Left’s manifesto, drafted by Radek and submitted to the conference, stated that “objective conditions are already ripe for this task.” It called for the "rejection of war credits, an exit from government ministries, and denunciation of the war’s capitalist and anti-socialist character – in the parliamentary arena, in the pages of legal and, when necessary, illegal publications, along with a forthright struggle against social-patriotism. ..street demonstrations against the governments, propaganda for international solidarity in the trenches, demands for economic strikes, and the effort to transform such strikes, where conditions are favourable, into political struggles. 'The slogan is civil war, not civil peace’.”
Radek's draft was rejected by the delegates who sought to pressure their governments to end the war, not to overthrow them by subverting the war effort - the policy of “revolutionary defeatism” of the Zimmerwald Left. This was particularly the case for West European delegates who did not consider conditions ripe for social revolution in their countries, and who hoped to repair relations with the pro-war socialists in the Second International. Lenin and the Bolsheviks, on the other hand, considered the Second International bankrupt and were already working towards the Third. Trotsky and his faction occupied the centre ground. He would only join the Bolsheviks after the February Revolution in Russia and growing mass worker and soldier discontent elsewhere appeared to validate Lenin’s position. At Zimmerwald, he was called upon to bridge the differences between right and left by drafting the conference Manifesto. It was very militant in tone but in order to win majority approval was antiwar rather than revolutionary defeatist in essence. It’s call for intensified class struggle was aimed at forcing the belligerent powers to end the war "We have come together to retie the torn threads of international relations and to appeal to the working class to come to its senses and take up the struggle for peace”, it declared, "a peace without annexations or reparations. Such a peace is only possible if every thought of violating the rights and freedom of peoples is condemned. Occupation of entire countries or parts of countries must not lead to their forcible annexation. There must be no annexation, either open or concealed, and no forcible economic alignment, one made still more unbearable by denial of political rights. The right of nations to self-determination must be the unshakable foundation of national relations...No sacrifice is to great, no burden is to heavy to achieve the goal of peace among the peoples." Lenin and the Bolsheviks were unhappy with how the conference defined its tasks as peace rather then revolution, and also criticized the omission of the specific demands they had proposed in their minority resolution for the mobilization of the working class against both their own ruling class and the pro-war socialists. Nevetheless, in the interests of unity, Lenin became one its signatories on behalf of the Russian delegation. See: https://johnriddell.com/2015/08/21/zimmerwald-1915-the-zimmerwald-manifesto/#_edn2. and https://johnriddell.com/2015/08/21/zimmerwald-1915-resolution-of-the-zimmerwald-left/#_ednref4 |
|
|
|
Marv Gandall
On Mon, Jan 30, 2023 at 06:19 AM, Richard Fidler wrote:
Hawkins adds a useful personal opinion on a possible path to a negotiated solution that is directed to Washington, not Kyiv: “The US should be offering publicly and aggressively to resume talks with Russia on a mutual security framework. Thanks for posting Howie Hawkins’ comments, Richard. I obviously endorse his proposal that "the US and NATO should pursue negotiations with Russia about pan-European security arrangements that could provide a background foundation for a just and enduring peace in Ukraine.” But I note that he is only “speaking for myself and not the Ukraine Solidarity Network.” While you seem to concur with his suggestion, I'd be interested in knowing whether this also holds true for the other contributors on the list who support the Ukrainian side.
My own view is that it's very unlikely that the Russians would agree to such negotiations while the US and NATO are increasing the quantity and quality of arms to Ukraine to continue the war. A necessary first step to reaching a wider accord would be a ceasefire rather than escalation. I accept that a mutual security pact should be tied to the withdrawal of Russian forces from Ukrainian territory. The history of the conflict dating back to 2014 suggests to me that Russia would accept to withdraw its forces if these border regions were demilitarized, which Minsk anticipated and which a security pact would imply.
Russia has complicated the issue by “annexing” these regions, but Hawkins clearly thinks this development could be reversed if "a politically acceptable way for Russia to withdraw from Ukraine” were found, one which allowed Putin to claim "that his security objectives have been achieved.” I tend to agree. In any case, his position that the US and NATO should should “pursue negotiations” will hopefully spark some debate within the "Ukrainian solidarity" left, where many share the prevailing Western narrative that a peace overture to the Russians is futile "appeasement" since Putin will settle for nothing less than the reconquest of the old Tsarist Empire. |
|
|
|
Charles Rachlis
So the Hawkins and so called socialist solution has nothing to do with turning inter-imperialist war into class war to defeat imperialism a lá the Left Zimmerwald and everything to do with sustainability of the imperialist order by “peaceful coexistence”. This perpetuates the bourgeois ideology and theory that capitalism does not by necessity lead to inter-imperialist wars. So said Kautsky, and yet the slaughter persists.
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Monday, January 30, 2023, 8:49 AM, Bobby MacVeety <bobbymacveety@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Bobby MacVeety
This is an interesting idea but I have not seen where security is Putin’s war aim; he basically claims that Ukraine as a nation doesn’t exist. Hawkin’s idea also frames the conflict as between US and Russia, opposite of the Ukraine Solidarity Network analysis
toggle quoted message
Show quoted text
On Jan 30, 2023, at 9:19 AM, Richard Fidler <rfidler@...> wrote:
|
|
|
|
Richard Fidler
Howie Hawkins is a retired Teamsters union warehouse worker, the US Green Party 2020 presidential candidate and an ecosocialist. Together with a range of other leftists, socialists, unionists and academics, he recently helped set up the Ukraine Solidarity Network (US). Hawkins spoke to Federico Fuentes about the initiative and the challenges of building solidarity with Ukraine while opposing US imperialism.
Hawkins adds a useful personal opinion on a possible path to a negotiated solution that is directed to Washington, not Kyiv: “The US should be offering publicly and aggressively to resume talks with Russia on a mutual security framework. If the US, NATO and Russia could agree on mutual security arrangements, which would surely include the renewal of conventional and nuclear arms treaties I mentioned before, it could give Putin a politically acceptable way for Russia to withdraw from Ukraine, claiming that his security objectives have been achieved.”
Richard |
|
|