ISO lowlight on Ukraine

[DaringMehring]

I try to steer clear of sectarian stuff because we're ultimately a persecuted minority all in this together, but this piece from ISO on the recent Ukraine protests is so incomprehensible:
http://socialistworker.org/2014/02/05/whats-at-stake-in-ukraine

The protests are led and carried out by right-wing groups including far-right, fascist groups. Recently one of the more "moderate" groups among them carried out a march to honor the genocidal Ukrainian Nazi Stepan Bandera.

But the ISO, instead of saying, the working class has no dog in this fight between far-right Ukrainian nationalists who favor the bourgeois EU, and Ukrainian Russians, the regime, and Putin, goes ahead and paints it as "protesters versus the government," saying left-wingers should intervene to introduce a "left voice" because "the Maidan movement will be a definitive reference point for generations of Ukrainians, so what the left does will resonate into the future, whatever the immediate outcome."

Are they seriously saying to try to tail the protest of a bunch of Nazis?

Isn't it good enough to say the Nazis and the government are brutalizing each other in the street -- good riddance to both of them?

The whole mentality of "intervening in struggles" is bankrupt. Launch your own struggle, don't try to latch on to someone else's (especially a Nazi's). I've seen enough of left-wing vultures coming in to situations they don't know about, where their lives aren't the ones on the line, and messing things up badly to say, Marx's line that the workers must carry out their own self-emancipation is more than just hot air.

[cyu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Entryism is probably one the prime methods that capitalists use to deal with any left-leaning organization - including their attempts to neuter trade unions.

[Le Socialiste]

I will copy and paste the article in its entirety, if it's not to much trouble. I've highlighted the sections and passages that I think are worth closer inspection in bold.


What's at stake in Ukraine?

Sean Larson analyzes the latest developments in the anti-government protests--and the politics of the different forces involved in the Maidan movement.

February 5, 2014

THE MASS protests centered in the main square of Ukraine's capital of Kiev survived another government attempt to quell them through violence in January, and both sides are maneuvering at the start of the month as further confrontations approach.

The demonstrations erupted in November, largely as a response to President Viktor Yanukovich's rejection of a free trade agreement with the European Union and suggestion that the country would join the Eurasian Customs Union led by Russia, which has dominated Ukraine for centuries in different forms.

But the conflict in Ukraine has long since transcended the choice between a trade deal with the EU, sanctioned by the International Monetary Fund, versus a similar arrangement with Russia.

The social conditions that underlaid the protests from the start and that have inspired Ukrainians to remain camped out in Kiev's Maidan (Independence Square) in spite of the bitter cold and police assaults include government corruption, state repression and lack of democracy, declining living standards and lack of social opportunities for the vast majority of Ukrainians.

The demonstrators are not united by an ideology per se, but a shared frustration with the regime and with their lack of control, political or economic, over their lives. These grievances are the product of enduring years of corruption in a state machine structured to serve the interests of the oligarchs grouped both around Yanukovich's ruling Party of Regions--and also within the major opposition parties represented in parliament.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE STRUGGLE over the country's future reached a new stage in mid-January when the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine's parliament, passed a series of draconian laws limiting freedom of speech and assembly, and imposing steep fines and prison sentences for minor offences.

The explosive response of protesters in Kiev three days later led to pitched battles in the streets--and qualitatively changed the dynamics of the movement. Now, while the goals of the movement are still typically articulated in terms of the rule of law, opposition to corruption and guarantees of human rights, there has been a shift away from a focus on integration with the EU and toward anti-government demands, such as the call for Yanukovich's resignation and for new elections.

This political shift has been matched by more dramatic action on the ground, such as the occupation of several government buildings. Worrisomely, a far-right organization composed mainly of street forces is accused of having led the mid-January street battles in Kiev. Meanwhile, three opposition parties, ranging from conventional center-right to the far right Svoboda, continue to claim leadership over the movement.

Meanwhile, the government has been raising the stakes this year, inflicting greater police violence, including the kidnapping of activists, some from their hospital beds, and torture of detainees. Hundreds of people have been injured and several killed in street clashes. Add to this the announcement of a pro-government "Ukrainian Front" on Saturday, which claims it will "clear the land of those who came to occupy it"--a not-so-veiled charge referring to the Maidan occupiers as agents of Europe.

The Yanukovich government is also facing pressure from Russia--Vladimir Putin has indicated that he will withhold the distribution of loans to Ukraine until a stable government emerges from the present situation.

To remain in office, Yanukovich must maintain the allegiance of a critical balance of Ukrainian oligarchs, and this depends upon his ability to secure a favorable business climate for them--low taxes on the rich, minimal regulations on industry, capital mobility, a stable and passive population ensured by a strong police apparatus.

To this end, Yanukovich has reduced the size of the armed forces considerably while gradually building up the Berkut (special riot police) and regular police. He has vacillated between looking to Russia and the EU, depending on which seems to be the safest bet for crucial loans and trade deals.

The fact that some oligarchs are defecting from Yanukovich is a sign of their decreasing confidence in the regime to secure their interests. These oligarchs will look to whatever other political force may suit their needs--which right now could be one or all of the opposition parties riding on the wave of the protests.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THOSE OPPOSITION parties and their leading political figures are: the Fatherland Party and Arseniy Yatsenyuk; Ukrainian Democratic Alliance for Reform (UDAR) and Vitali Klitschko; and Svoboda and Oleg Tyagnibok.

The opposition parties occupy a contradictory position in the current situation. On the one hand, their perceived legitimacy and their claim to provide a genuine alternative toe regime are rooted in the Maidan protest movement. On the other, they seek to control the movement and funnel it in a "safe" direction that doesn't threaten the basic structures of the economy and state necessary for the oligarchs to rule.

The opposition leaders must therefore balance between maintaining the demonstrators' waning faith in their ability to win real changes for ordinary Ukrainians and garnering the support of oligarchs with assurances that the wealth and power of the elite will be better secured through an opposition government.

To this end, Yatsenyuk of the Fatherland Party last Saturday proposed a four-step plan for the opposition parties to take over governing responsibility. Predictably, Yatsenyuk's plan begins with the de-escalation of the protests and culminates in a return to a parliamentary-presidential republic, with minor changes made in the constitution. The plan also calls for a $15 billion economic package, backed by the IMF, EU and "other financial institutions"--which Yatsenyuk states is the "minimum amount necessary to calm the situation in Ukraine."

This proposal, along with other attempts by leaders of the three main opposition parties to de-escalate or contain the activity of the Maidan follows a significant blow to the parties' claims to be leaders of the movement.

During the furious 100,000-strong demonstration on January 19 against the repressive laws against protest passed three days earlier, thousands of people--many of them frustrated with the tame speeches of opposition leaders--began to head to the Rada building, despite the warnings of their supposed leaders.

According to an eyewitness account from William Risch, a professor of history at Georgia College and State University, police buses and trucks blocked the road at Hrushevskoho Street, and riot police were stationed to prevent the protesters from moving further.

In a similarly tense situation last December 1, Vitali Klitschko still had enough influence among protesters to restrain them from taking more radical action. Not so this time. A battle broke out, with riot police using tear gas, stun grenades and rubber bullets, and blasting protesters with water cannons in the freezing weather.

Numerous reports have charged that the far-right extremists of the "Right Sector" instigated the violence on January 19. Risch's narrative says the Right Sector began pelting the riot police with pavement stones and Molotov cocktails, and the police then responded.

But other accounts stress the role of "Automaidan," a group that emerged since November and is known for using its cars in protests at the homes of government officials, in leading people away from the main rally toward the Rada, with the Right Sector arriving later. Others claim the violence was begun by provocateurs in an attempt to smear the peaceful image of the Maidan and justify the imposition of martial law.

Regardless of who instigated the battle at Hrushevkoho Street, however, the fact remains that it quickly became a full-fledged confrontation between armed riot police and an unprecedented number of protesters. The conflict continued in various forms over the next three days and, far from alienating participants, mobilized thousands of Ukrainians unwilling to tolerate Yanukovich's dictatorial laws, but also frustrated with the impotence of the main opposition leaders in the face of the escalating crackdown.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE LONGER-term consequence of these battles has been a developing, though uneven, rift between the demonstrators of the Maidan and the opposition party leaders who have dominated the protests politically.

The protests are largely composed of people who went through the experience of the so-called "Orange Revolution" at the end of 2004. Mass protests overturned the results of a rigged run-off election--but a new government under Viktor Yushchenko failed to bring any meaningful change to Ukrainian society. The obvious conclusion is that more radical change is needed than shuffling political elites within an endemically corrupt political system institutionally dominated by oligarchs.

The success of the Maidan demonstrations will hinge on the extent to which the mass of people involved can act independently of opposition party leaders. But the developing rift is far from a definite break--most participants still allow themselves to be represented in negotiations with the government by these so-called "leaders."

The movement has achieved some concessions from the government already, such as the resignation of Prime Minister Mykola Azarov along with his entire cabinet in late January.

Other moves by the government that have been depicted by the media as concessions aren't that at all. For example, Yanukovich pushed a law through the parliament that would grant amnesty for all but the most serious crimes, but on the condition that protesters relinquish control of government buildings they have occupied within 15 days. Were the movement to comply with this demand, it would not only implicitly legitimate the crackdown and mass arrests the government has already carried out, but significantly weaken the standing of the demonstrators and their physical control of Independence Square itself.

Meanwhile, leaders of both the Fatherland Party and Svoboda are moderating their demands, now calling for a return to the constitution of 2004 as the goal of the movement.

It's clear that if the opposition parties were to be put in power under the current circumstances, they would be subject to the same international and domestic pressures that have led to Yanukovich's policies of austerity and repression, and ultimately to the crackdown on protests.

Thus, the proposal of Western political leaders for a transition to an opposition-led government is by no means certain to be more democratic--not given the deadly mix of the militarized state apparatus built up under Yanukovich, the harsh austerity measures attached to a potential IMF loan and the far-right politics that have gained a wide hearing in the protests to this point.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

THE MAIDAN is a mass movement with significant internal contradictions and widely differing politics. The direction the protests take from here will largely be determined by the coherence and organization of different forces within the movement.

Disturbingly, the most organized and therefore most influential voices in the Maidan continue to be on the political right. This includes parties with representatives in parliament, such as the far-right Svoboda, which has ties to the British National Party and France's National Front--as well as the neo-fascists of the Right Sector.

Unlike other far-right groups in Europe, Svoboda--like the other two opposition parties in parliament, UDAR and Fatherland--is in favor of Ukraine joining the EU and strengthening the country's connections to Europe.

Right Sector, on the other hand, is a conglomeration of extreme right-wing nationalist street gangs and soccer fan clubs. It rejects the parliamentary tactics of Svoboda. Its main goal is the overthrow of the Yanukovich government, but it does not seek European integration.

The rhetoric of these far right groups, despite their differences, has attained such influence among demonstrators because the short-term goal of bringing down the Yanukovich government coincides with the demand of all other protesters, including those on the left.

The battle of Hrushevskoho Street even saw a temporary and uneasy truce between left-wing and right-wing militants in their mutual confrontation with Yanukovich's riot police forces. Such a de facto temporary alliance in action is obviously dangerous, and the continued ideological hegemony of the right over the protests must be challenged, or the authority of the movement could be used to justify the establishment of a right-wing government after Yanukovich's fall.

The role that the far right has played is not a reason for the left to dismiss the Maidan movement or refrain from participation. On the contrary, it must struggle to shift the political balance by getting involved and fighting alongside ordinary Ukrainians for their basic democratic rights in the face of an intensifying police state. Erecting a left pole within the movement--or, in the words of Ilya Budraitskis, a spokesperson for the Russian Socialist Movement, a "Left Sector"--must be a priority to counter the influence of the right.

To accomplish this, the small and scattered groups of the left in Ukraine must cohere around a common strategy and some basic demands. Beyond the resignation of the Yanukovich government and new elections, these must include, above all, dismantling the police state and stripping the oligarchs of their power. A socialist grouping in Kiev calling itself the Left Opposition has produced a 10-point plan which it hopes will be "first steps toward the formation of policies that could gather together all anti-oligarchic forces which don't consider an ultra-right fascist dictatorship to be any kind of solution."

Despite the relatively small size and disorganization of the revolutionary left in Ukraine--one estimate puts it at no more that a few hundred people--its involvement can be decisive for the future of the struggle. In addition to the pressing need to combat the right in the here and now, the Maidan movement will be a definitive reference point for generations of Ukrainians, so what the left does will resonate into the future, whatever the immediate outcome.

In the most likely scenario--the opposition parties come to power and inevitably fail to deliver what protesters are demanding--the presence of a strong left voice during turbulent times will be important in raising the possibility of a real alternative.

To achieve genuine change, the protesters of the Maidan will have to fight for their rights independently of the opposition parties, the far right, and the foreign governments, whether the EU or Russia, attempting to influence Ukraine's future direction. Political democracy is only the first step--from there, profound economic changes would be needed, including nationalization of major industries, a steep progressive tax and strong protections of labor rights.

In this way, the left can address the core issues that have given rise to the sustained mass struggle centered in the Maidan--and offer a strong voice for these and other progressive demands within the changing movement.

Far from promoting 'tailism', the above article clearly states that the revolutionary left (as small as their numbers are) must strive to counter the rise of the far right in these demonstrations, and work to create a revolutionary pole around which socialists can congregate to pose alternative demands in opposition to both the right and Yanukovich's administration. More to the point, the article explicitly condemns evidence of cooperation or 'uneasy truces' between the left and far right:


The battle of Hrushevskoho Street even saw a temporary and uneasy truce between left-wing and right-wing militants in their mutual confrontation with Yanukovich's riot police forces. Such a de facto temporary alliance in action is obviously dangerous, and the continued ideological hegemony of the right over the protests must be challenged, or the authority of the movement could be used to justify the establishment of a right-wing government after Yanukovich's fall.

[adipocere]

The same author, Sean Larson, took out a plauditory full page advert (http://socialistworker.org/2013/09/05/at-stake-in-moscows-elections) for Alexei Navalny and embedded it in his analysis of the Moscow elections, dressing him up as some hapless democratic every-man drowning in a sea of dirty Russian corruption.

I dunno, took me about 5 minutes to find the Wikileak linking Navalny to NED (http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=06MOSCOW12709) so perhaps Larson is only inexplicably lazy on the research and not just part of a long con.

"DA!: Mariya Gaydar, daughter of former Prime Minister Yegor Gaydar, leads DA! (Democratic Alternative). She is ardent in her promotion of democracy, but realistic about the obstacles she faces. Gaydar said that DA! is focused on non-partisan activities designed to raise political awareness. She has received funding from the National Endowment for Democracy, a fact she does not publicize for fear of appearing compromised by an American connection."

"Alexey is also co-founder of the Democratic Alternative movement" - Yaleworldfellows (http://worldfellows.yale.edu/alexey-navalny)

[Le Socialiste]

The same author, Sean Larson, took out a plauditory full page advert (http://socialistworker.org/2013/09/05/at-stake-in-moscows-elections) for Navalny and embedded it in his analysis of the Moscow elections, dressing him up as some hapless democratic every-man drowning in a sea of dirty Russian corruption.

*sigh*

Here is the article in full (once again, I've highlighted areas of particular interest in bold):


At stake in Moscow's elections

Sean Larson and Kristina Mayman analyze the upcoming election in Moscow--and the situation of the opposition two years after democracy protests began to emerge.

September 5, 2013

MOSCOW, THE cultural, economic and political center of Russia, will hold mayoral elections for the first time in a decade on September 8. Arguably the first election with any genuine independent candidates since the 1996 presidential elections, the Moscow mayor's race is being viewed as a litmus test for the opposition to the ruling party of Russian politics, Vladimir Putin's United Russia.

On June 4, then-Moscow Mayor Sergey Sobyanin resigned the post he had been appointed to, only to declare immediately that he would be running for reelection in the subsequent mayoral race. While Sobyanin remains a member of United Russia, he will be running as an independent candidate. This represents a trend rather than a peculiarity, since United Russia has lost significant credibility and is now widely known as the "party of crooks and thieves."

United Russia's fall began with Prime Minister Dmitri Medvedev's endorsement of Putin's presidential candidacy at the party's convention in September 2011, which was the first signal of the end of any hopes that Medvedev would spearhead further liberalization of the Russian political system.

Parliamentary elections in December 2011 were exposed as a large-scale fraud in favor of United Russia. The party received only about 35 percent of the vote--even with the election fraud, it still failed to get 50 percent. Protests took place starting the day after the fraudulent elections and continued through the winter and into the spring.

The movement was fueled by Putin's election as president on March 4, taking back the position from Medvedev, in a largely orchestrated race. The response from the street came on May 6, the day before Putin's inauguration, when 60,000 demonstrated against Putin and were brutally repressed by police forces.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

IN CONTRAST to those federal elections, the upcoming Moscow elections are viewed by many people with hope that they will actually be competitive. Arguably, the biggest factor causing a stir in the run-up to the vote is the participation of opposition leader and anti-corruption blogger Aleksey Navalny.

Navalny was among those arrested in early December at the demonstrations that kicked off the protest movement against United Russia. He was sentenced to 15 days in jail, which only increased his popularity among protesters. His relentless anti-corruption activity online and growing prominence within the opposition made him a target, and he was hit with a series of criminal charges, culminating in a sentence of five years in prison issued in July. More than half of Russians view the case as politically motivated.

Navalny was arrested in court and put behind bars to await the start of his prison term. That day saw the biggest non-sanctioned protest of the decade in one of the most central locations in Moscow. To the surprise of many, that same evening, the prosecutor's office of the Kirov region issued a demand to release Navalny from custody until the beginning of his jail time.

The consensus among opponents of the establishment is that Navalny was needed out of jail in order to legitimize the mayoral race. If the sentence is still carried out, he will be barred from holding public office for life. Some political analysts speculate that the decision on whether Navalny will be imprisoned after the end of the campaign depends at least to some extent on what percentage he gets.

Navalny's release is not the first time the rules have been bent for the benefit of image. For any candidate to run for Moscow mayor, they have to gather at least 110 signatures of Moscow municipal deputies (out of a total of 1,800) from at least 110 municipalities (out of a total of 185). Given the party makeup of the municipalities, only Sobyanin and the Communist candidate Ivan Melnikov had the ability to gather the needed number of signatures.

But a two-candidate race was undesirable for Sobyanin, as it would defeat the vote's legitimizing purpose. Therefore, the Moscow Municipal Deputies' Association gave out the missing signatures to the other four candidates to clear them for running.

The campaign has been fairly uneventful. Sobyanin, following Putin's precedent, refused to participate in televised debates, making them even less significant than they were before. Meanwhile, Sobyanin continues to receive exaggerated amounts of media hoopla, while Navalny is excluded from all billboards and most television channels, except for an occasional smear campaign. The primary publicity channel remaining to Navalny is the street, which his campaign has been flooding with volunteers since the end of June.

Navalny's main message for the campaign is the promise of instituting the rule of law, a reaction to the rampant corruption he was famous for helping to expose. His program relies heavily on the idea that a free market will take care of many existing problems, once corruption is eliminated.

Another big issue is immigration, particularly in the wake of recent police raids against immigrant workers and establishment of detention camps in Moscow. Scapegoating migrant workers has been a central strategy of the Russian ruling class to deflect criticism and active opposition.

On this question, Navalny is far from liberal. He has openly expressed xenophobic beliefs, including toward the people of the Caucasus region, at the southwestern corner of the Russian Federation and a longtime victim of Russian domination, whether under the Tsar or the former Stalinist regime. Navalny has participated in the notorious "Russian Marches," which have served as parades for far-right nationalists, including open fascists. In the 2000s, he was expelled from the Yabloko party for his collaboration with right-wing nationalists.

Since becoming a leading figure of the opposition in 2011 and after, Navalny has toned down his public support for right-wing causes. He didn't attend the most recent "Russian March," though he said this was due to "sickness."

Despite Navalny's prominence, polls show little likelihood that there will be a second round in the election.

As of late August, the government-run VTsIOM agency put gave Sobyanin 64 percent of the vote and Navalny at 15.6 percent. The independent Synovate Comcon and Levada Center predict 58-60 percent for the incumbent mayor and 18-22 percent for Navalny. Navalny's own headquarters have issued different results, putting Sobyanin at 49-51 percent and their own candidate at 24-26 percent. With election-day fraud always a possibility, it's fair to assume that Sobyanin will keep his post, though a run-off between the two top vote-getters on September 8 is still possible.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

UNDERSTANDING THE stakes in this election requies examining its context.

In the wake of the collapse of the former USSR in the 1990s and the imposition of mass privatization schemes, an elite class of oligarchs, mainly oil magnates, was created. But the 2000s brought the election of Vladimir Putin, who neutralized or chased many of these oligarchs out of politics. Subsequently, the power concentrated among this group was dispersed to other big businesspeople with wealth from mineral resources, banking and telecom--the oil oligarchs' direct influence on political decisions was significantly weakened.

Soon after coming to office, Putin centralized the many of the federal powers in the hands of the president or presidential representatives and appointees. The main instrument of this consolidation of power was the officially unaffiliated United Russia party, which nonetheless acts completely in line with Putin's political interests. A series of strict limitations has prevented the inclusion of independent parties and candidates on ballots for the state Duma, while the Communist Party and the Liberal Democratic Party have been relegated to the status and function of "loyal opposition."

Thus, the "liberalization" of politics in the post-USSR era has served the consolidation of political power and the fracturing of the opposition that could challenge the political elite. The result has been tight state control over a process of fee market reforms, including ongoing neoliberal privatization, favors to capital and the decimation of institutions of independent working class resistance.

The neoliberal restructuring, which extended into the labor market and housing early in the Putin years, has had widespread effects. As Tony Wood outlined in New Left Review, the financial crisis hit Russia hard, bringing with it skyrocketing unemployment, factory closures, non-payment of wages and rising poverty levels, especially in small towns and rural areas. These factors exacerbated conditions that fed corruption. As in the U.S., the government response to the crisis largely consisted of bailing out banks and prominent Russian companies--at a cost of $200 billion dollars, or about 13 percent of the Russian gross domestic product.

Under these conditions, those presiding over the crisis either had to shore up support or face a potential challenge to their power from below. State workers or employees of state-affiliated companies, which comprise up to 40 percent of the Russian workforce, were insulated from the crisis by Medvedev's 30 percent wage increase, while other working class people were impacted severely. Income inequality in Moscow is massive, with the income of the richest and poorest Muscovites differing by a magnitude of 35-40 times.

The stability of the Russian status quo rests on a longer history, however. The thorough interweaving of the political elites with big business over the course of the 1990s and 2000s has underwritten the stability of the Putin-Medvedev regime, often made even more profitable by large-scale corruption.

However, corruption is not limited to the direct interests of big business and the political elites, but thrives throughout the Russian state. While the latest available Global Integrity Report on Russia, from 2010, praises transparency in Russia (information is made publicly available by the government), it also highlights the relative lack of effective press freedom, a significant gap between the laws and their consistent implementation, flagging election integrity, lack of oversight of the executive branch of government, and extensive bribery and political interference in law enforcement, among other factors.

Meanwhile, ongoing capital flight from Russia, currently estimated at rates of around $$7 billion per month, coupled with extremely low investment levels are major challenges faced by the propertied classes. Small businesses have thus been increasingly pushed to confront their situation of being on the losing end of the selective application of the law--which is why the appeal to the "rule of law" is popular--along with a desire for less interference by the state in their business endeavors.

Far from a challenge to big business profits, this represents a bid by small business owners for a bigger share of the pie. This is why the demands and successes of this middle class are inseparable from the further neoliberalization of the Russian economy, opening up new markets for capital and new avenues for competition.

A conditional letter of support for Navalny's candidacy from 35 business owners and entrepreneurs, initially issued on August 7, has since gathered over 200 supporters.The signatories come mostly from the information technologies industry and claim that they are part of the "knowledge economy," explicitly distancing themselves from the oil-trading businesses that they imply don't produce anything new.

While this by no means represents the entire "professional" class or petty bourgeoisie in Russia, it is symptomatic of the sections of this stratum to stake their interests with the opposition, along the lines expressed in the August letter: "Our support is not an act of charity. We expect the protection of the rule of law from Navalny, support for independent courts and real accountability of public officials. For our part, we will support Navalny's policy by means of our reputation and our financial, organizational and other resources." One signee encapsulated the interests of this class as follows: "Navalny is removing a barrier to the growth of the economy: corruption, which increases 3-5 percent annually."

Part of the efforts to address Russia's capital flight have included major tax cuts for small businesses between 2012 and 2013 and relaxing the criminal code for entrepreneurs under Medvedev, among other changes. This may signal the development of a strategy of expanding economic opportunities for the class of small business owners. However, the precise path of this development remains contested, with big capital still reacting harshly to the small business/professional opposition in many instances, while some measures seem to move in this direction, but are rather weak or slow to implement, such as the amnesty on economic crimes issued on July 2.

Unfortunately for the small- and medium-business-owning class, they comprise only about 22 percent of the Russian economy and must rely in any bid at political power on support beyond the young, liberal professionals who have already hopped on board--that is, they need the support of working Russians. The glue they have tried to use to cohere some kind of opposition has largely consisted been nationalism, but the limits of this are becoming apparent--both insofar as it is the traditional language of the ruling elites and because it is alienating a significant voting bloc of legal immigrants.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

SINCE ITS beginning in 2011, the character of the protest movement against the Putin-led regime has changed.

According to surveys of the democracy movement in Moscow and surrounding cities between December 2011 and December 2012 by OVDInfo.org, the driving force behind protests has been individuals and activists, rather than sustained organizations. As Sean Guillory has written, an extensive report released on the Russian protest movement indicates its ranks have thinned, particularly among youth (the average age of protesters has risen from 30-35 years to 40-45 years), the poor and the working class.

This atrophy can be attributed largely to the success of the state offensive, which has included violent crackdowns by police, searches of oppositionists' apartments, high-profile trials of government critics such as Pussy Riot and Navalny, and the promotion of laws such as the anti-LGBT propaganda law. Despite its relative social weakness, the Left Front in particular has been a target of this crackdown, as Guillory outlines.

The upcoming Moscow elections were designed from the start as a safe bet to give the semblance of legitimacy and a democratic mandate to acting Mayor Sobyanin. Because of this and Sobyanin's overwhelming media presence, it is highly unlikely that he will get less than 50 percent of the vote, pushing the elections into a second round. As Sergei Udaltsov, a leader of the Left Front who remains under house arrest, put it, "In any case, the main event must take place on September 9"--that is, the day after the election.

If the dishonest, non-representative character of the elections pushes discontent into action, this could give new impetus to the protest movement. The activists and protesters of today are an "eclectic and fractious, but determined group," according to Guillory. The protest movement needs participation by youth and the working class to flourish, and to do that, it must aim to provide a real alternative to Putin for wide swathes of Russian society that have not yet taken to the streets.

The tasks of the left in the current political climate were perceptively pinpointed by Russian socialist Ilya Budraitskis:

We, of course, can't dismiss the slogans against corruption and in defense of democracy as mere "false consciousness" to be replaced by anti-capitalist demands. On the contrary, we must show that in the model of capitalism practiced in this part of the world, corruption is not a defect but a decisive structural element.

So, does this qualify as a laudatory 'advert' for Navalny? Hardly. Has Larson portrayed him as a "hapless democratic everyman?" Nope.


I dunno, took me about 5 minutes to find the Wikileak linking Navalny to NED (http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=06MOSCOW12709) so perhaps Larson is only inexplicably lazy on the research and not just part of a long con.

This is not the first time you've leveled such charges. Is everything a conspiracy to you? Because if that's what you're reaching for, you're going to come up rather short.

[Light of Lenin]

This wouldn't have anything to do with the resignation of one of the "ISO Renewal" factionalists, would it?

Ahmed Shawki, Uncle Tom collaborator and Neo-Nazi loving so-called Arab "Trotskyist," expelling "factionalists" from his little Labor Bureaucrat wannabe imperialist NGO funded club of White Power enthusiasts. Didn't this Neo-Nazi collaborator himself enter the ISO as a pro-SWP factionalist?

Also, Sean Larson looks like Thor. Probably is a secret member of the Asatru Alliance, lmao.

[DaringMehring]

Yes you quoted the article in full which makes notes of some things like the fascists are running it (though the article just says they are influencing it), that the US and EU bourgeois Imperialists support it (McCain actually visited with Ukrainian fascist leaders) -- then incomprehensibly concludes that this is a good arena for leftists to exert influence.

It also says that the "opposition" (the far-right) could take power and would then discredit itself, preparing the way for the left (?). Ie, the same thing the German communists said about the Nazis (nach Hitler, uns). Didn't exactly work out.

Socialist Alternative put it much better even in their headline on this:
"UKRAINE: BATTLING FORCES NO FRIENDS OF WORKING CLASS"
http://www.socialistalternative.org/2014/02/07/ukraine-battling-forces-friends-working-class/
and their conclusion is much stronger:
"A powerful workers’ movement could sweep away the far right and fascists from the streets and put forward a socialist alternative to those sections of society attracted by their poisonous ideas."

Spartacist also good on this issue:
"Ukraine Turmoil: Capitalist Powers in Tug of War"
http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1038/ukraine.html
Conclusion: "But what is clear is that the future under capitalism is bleak for the working masses of Ukraine, Russia and elsewhere in the former USSR. The crucial task is to forge Leninist-Trotskyist parties that will wage a thoroughgoing struggle against all manifestations of nationalism and great-power chauvinism as part of patient but persistent propaganda aimed at winning the proletariat to the program of international socialist revolution."

Compare to the ISO's line, "uneasy truce between left-wing and right-wing militants in their mutual confrontation with Yanukovich's riot police forces" ie unprincipled attempt not just to bloc the far-left and far-right (which every Trotskyist should know is wrong based on reading classic Trotsky) but to hitch the far-left to a struggle owned and operated by the far-right (making them a tail), in an inter-bourgeoise battle (Russian Imperialists vs US/EU Imperialism). It's just bunk, ISO should check themselves and re-orient.

[DaringMehring]

Bump -- ISO follows up with this muddle: http://socialistworker.org/2014/02/24/ukraines-political-earthquake

The article talks about how fascists and neo-liberals are in the driver's seat among the opposition forces, at the same time as talking up the whole deal -- "masses of people celebrated" "scenes reminiscent of insurrections past" (what insurrections? certainly not 1917) "mass resistance forced out a tyranny" even quoting an occupier on how this is a "revolution."

What a sad lack of clarity, reflected in the conclusion -- the left should build to influence this process through the "principle of solidarity" -- or something. Even though it also notes that fascists have control of the street fighting gangs, and now they also have the official government ministry of defense, and that there is "no organization that can carry out planned strategic activities" on the left.

This is really an impressionistic jumble that might impress some newbie in the west but has nothing of use to a proletarian in Ukraine or really anywhere. There is nothing of Lenin in this. How about clear slogans, like "no faith in the opposition government," or "fascism -- out!"... or go full Lenin and call for revolutionary defeatism in the struggle between two bourgeois camps -- "no workers' blood spilled for capitalist's gain!"

Not a "de facto temporary alliance" with the USA/EU-backed fascists, an "uneasy truce between left-wing and right-wing militants in their mutual confrontation with Yanukovich..." as ISO call for -- this is political bullshit that would be easily seen through in the USA. Who would call for a de facto alliance between socialist and neo-Confederate Tea Partyer in their mutual confrontation with Obama? Well these fascists are worse than a neo-Confed Tea Partyer.

This is a muddled political line perhaps intentionally designed to keep ISO members from having to take a controversial stand in the USA, instead of saying "no US support for fascist Ukrainian opposition!" "hands off Ukraine!" "workers have no side when two packs of capitalist wolves fight!" the member can say, oh yes, the opposition (who our bourgeoisie and media promote) has got a good goal, I mean, it's complicated, but this is the path to progress, blah blah weak stuff.

Not exactly going to challenge ourselves or the US proletariat to think about the brutal and reactionary Imperialism in Ukraine.

[AmilcarCabral]

Hi, sometimes I read the leftist news site World Socialist Website http://www.wsws.org and I remember an article they had about how the International Socialist Organization (ISO) and the socialistworker.org website were in favor of the anti-Bashar Al Assad rebels who were not real rebels, but Al Qaeda terrorists funded by NATO and CIA. According to World Socialist Website and The Socialist Equality Party of USA, the people of ISO and socialistworker.org are part of the middle-class left, the bourgeoise-left, the college-left, the liberal left, the social-democratic centrist left. I think that ISO is a little bit too elitist, just look at the leaders of ISO like Heather Rodgers who are in favor of green capitalism like Amy Goodman, Katrina Vanden Heuvel, Van Jones, Jeremy Scahill, Bernie Sanders, Laura Flaunders, etc.

That's the real problem of the left of USA, that the marxist radical left is very weak and do not have media visibility at all. While the middle class elitist left (Democracy Now, The Russia Today News, The Nation Magazine, Commondreams, Alternet, Thinkprogress.org, Huffington Post, Salon.com is loaded with money, media power, state of the art TV stations. No wonder most progressive leftist americans support the middle class social-democrat reformist left and only only a few americans support the radical marxist left. Because the marxist radical left doesn't have the amount of money and resources like the people of Russia Today, Democracy Now and The Nation Magazine. I wonder where do the reformist middle class college left get all their money from

By the way here is an article about the International Socialist Organization supporting the new Democratic Party mayor of New York Bill Deblasio: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/25/isob-o25.html

ISO lines up behind Democrats in New York mayoral election
By Fred Mazelis
25 October 2013

On November 5 it is all but certain that a Democratic Party mayor will be elected in New York City for the first time in nearly 25 years. Candidate Bill de Blasio has a lead in the polls of more than 40 points over his Republican rival, Joseph Lhota.
No doubt de Blasio’s commanding margin in part reflects popular disgust with social conditions and the attacks on the living standards of the working class, especially over the past 12 years under New York’s billionaire mayor, Michael Bloomberg. De Blasio’s triumph in the September 10 primary election followed a campaign in which he feigned outrage over inequality in New York and attacked Bloomberg at every turn.

It would be quite wrong to exaggerate the enthusiasm for de Blasio among voters, however. Barely 20 percent of registered Democrats went to the polls in the primary election, and millions ignore the primary contests for good reason. Among the workers who struggle to meet housing and health care costs and other basic needs, there is little enthusiasm for any of the big business politicians.

The real significance of the air of inevitability that hangs over the election of de Blasio as the next mayor is the coalition of support for this supposed “left-wing” candidate. It stretches from what remains of the Democratic Party machine, to the trade unions enrolling hundreds of thousands of city workers, to many of the billionaires who would have preferred to see Bloomberg remain in office forever but are more than satisfied that their interests will be well taken care of under the Democrat. They are beginning to see the advantage of having a Democrat in City Hall who is able to negotiate a new round of drastic attacks on pensions and health care with the union apparatus.

De Blasio has spent the last six weeks reassuring Wall Street that, despite his occasional rhetoric in the primary campaign, it has absolutely nothing to fear from his taking the reins at City Hall. He recently addressed a group of plutocrats, including Lloyd Blankfein of Goldman Sachs and Rupert Murdoch, the owner of both the Wall Street Journal and the New York Post, at the headquarters of Viacom. De Blasio pledged allegiance to what he termed the city’s “hometown industry.”

While the cynical Democratic Party and trade union operatives sing the praises of de Blasio as a crusader for the poor and the working class, the corporate elite has donated well over a million dollars to him in recent weeks. On Monday night former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, for whom de Blasio was campaign manager in her 2000 Senate campaign, hosted her own fundraiser for de Blasio that raised more than $1 million.

FULL ARTICLE: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2013/10/25/isob-o25.html




.




Yes you quoted the article in full which makes notes of some things like the fascists are running it (though the article just says they are influencing it), that the US and EU bourgeois Imperialists support it (McCain actually visited with Ukrainian fascist leaders) -- then incomprehensibly concludes that this is a good arena for leftists to exert influence.

It also says that the "opposition" (the far-right) could take power and would then discredit itself, preparing the way for the left (?). Ie, the same thing the German communists said about the Nazis (nach Hitler, uns). Didn't exactly work out.

Socialist Alternative put it much better even in their headline on this:
"UKRAINE: BATTLING FORCES NO FRIENDS OF WORKING CLASS"
http://www.socialistalternative.org/2014/02/07/ukraine-battling-forces-friends-working-class/
and their conclusion is much stronger:
"A powerful workers’ movement could sweep away the far right and fascists from the streets and put forward a socialist alternative to those sections of society attracted by their poisonous ideas."

Spartacist also good on this issue:
"Ukraine Turmoil: Capitalist Powers in Tug of War"
http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/1038/ukraine.html
Conclusion: "But what is clear is that the future under capitalism is bleak for the working masses of Ukraine, Russia and elsewhere in the former USSR. The crucial task is to forge Leninist-Trotskyist parties that will wage a thoroughgoing struggle against all manifestations of nationalism and great-power chauvinism as part of patient but persistent propaganda aimed at winning the proletariat to the program of international socialist revolution."

Compare to the ISO's line, "uneasy truce between left-wing and right-wing militants in their mutual confrontation with Yanukovich's riot police forces" ie unprincipled attempt not just to bloc the far-left and far-right (which every Trotskyist should know is wrong based on reading classic Trotsky) but to hitch the far-left to a struggle owned and operated by the far-right (making them a tail), in an inter-bourgeoise battle (Russian Imperialists vs US/EU Imperialism). It's just bunk, ISO should check themselves and re-orient.

[DaringMehring]

Even the CPUSA has stronger, simpler, and more coherent line, which is sad.



The Communist Party USA demands that:

* The United States government refrain from words and actions that infringe on the national sovereignty of the Ukrainian people.

* The United States government, and individual U.S. politicians and officials, cease to associate themselves with fascists and anti-Semites in the Ukraine, or anywhere. Rather, they should denounce them and their works.

* The United States cease to carry out policies that could well lead to a dangerous confrontation in the Black Sea area, and not give aid or comfort to politicians who wish to create trouble between the Ukrainian and Russian peoples.

Furthermore, the CPUSA expresses its total solidarity with the Communist Party of the Ukraine, with the Ukrainian Jewish community and with all others who are endangered by the fascist upsurge.

http://politicalaffairs.net/communist-party-usa-hands-off-ukraine/

[AmilcarCabral]

Here is a link with lots of anti-ISO articles exposing the social-democrat reformist nature of the International Socialist Organization (ISO): http://www.wsws.org/en/topics/internationalPoliticsCategory/ISO/



Even the CPUSA has stronger, simpler, and more coherent line, which is sad.

[renalenin]

The recent statements by AKEL (Cyprus), Initiative, and the Joint Statement of Communist and Workers’ Parties all show the wisdom of opposing these so-called protesters who are really neo-Nazi elements. We should support the Ukraine communists and worker allies.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Even the CPUSA has stronger, simpler, and more coherent line, which is sad.

Ha! "The United States government" this, the "United States" that. They obviously are not even trying to act revolutionary anymore - While they're at it, why not suggest to 'our' President how to rule 'our' country without 'infringing' so much on the 'rights' of the American people?