Pro-Russian rebels adopt Czarist Imperial Flag as National Flag

[Tim Cornelis]

Pro-Russian rebels adopt Czarist Imperial Flag as National Flag

Source: http://lifenews.ru/news/138331

Flag: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_State_of_Novorossiya

The Pro-Russian rebels have reportedly adopted a new flag, and for those familiar with the ideological background of the pro-Russian rebels it is not surprising that the flag is the White-Gold-Black of the Czarist Empire; a flag frequently flown by far-rightist Russian ultranationalists and monarchists. The imperial colours are frequently used, in alternative flags as well, by far rightists:

http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ru%7Dnaz2.html

"The black-yellow-and-white tricolour flag was the official national flag of the Russian Empire from 1858 to 1883. In 1858, Alexander II ordered for the black-yellow-white flag to be used during celebrations. In 1865, the emperor issued a decree naming black orange (later “golden yellow”), and white as the state colours of Russia. Today, the flag is being used by Russian Nationalists and Monarchists." http://www.angelfire.com/pa/ImperialRussian/blog/index.blog/1452989/st-petersburg-lawmakers-attack-bill-on-imperial-russian-flag/

Political movements have a dual nature: the ideological content and the class content. Usually, the class content is ignored except by Marxists. The ideological content tends to veil the class content. The ideological content of fascism is palingentic ultranationalism. This tendency wants to stage a national rebirth of a country inspired by a romanticised golden age period of the national history. For this reason we see Dutch and Flamish fascists use the symbolism of the Dutch Empire (Orange-White-Blue Prince flag); we see Turkish fascists use the symbolism of the Ottoman Empire; we see Scandinavian fascists use (regional and religious) symbolism of the Vikings; and we see that Russian fascists use the symbolism of the Russian Empire (the Imperial flag) or the Stalinist symbolism as Stalin catapulted Russia into the position of world superpower (a national rebirth inspired by this), which we know as the National-Bolsheviks (and national-Stalinists). Those in power of the Rebel state of New Russia are all ultranationalists of these persuasions. Ideology serves as legitimising factor (e.g. if fascists went around saying "we need to forcefully marry the petty bourgeois stratum with the working class and haute bourgeoisie alike to continue the exploitation of the proletariat and perpetuation of capital through class collaboration" it would not be a legitimate [accepted and supported] movement -- I assume fascists aren't even aware that this is what they are doing) . So this explains their use of the imperial colours. Ideologically, those in power are fascists.

I don't have enough information on the class character and nature and composition of the Rebels to comment, although it is a cross-class movement (but then this may not be reflected in the class character).

So for this who said in previous threads that approaching fascism by looking at its ideology as somehow idealist are wrong. For instance, that WWP-buffoon argued essentially that ideology is irrelevant. But then, Golden Dawn is not fascist simply because it is not in power and therefore has not implemented the class content of fascism. Such a notion is ridiculous.

"The first congress was attended by pro-Russian separatist officials of the Donetsk People's Republic, Donbass Militia. Notable figures belonging to anti-semitic Russian-nationalist extremist groups were involved,[6] including: Donetsk Republic leader Pavel Gubarev [a National-Bolshevik], neo-Nazi/fascist/Stalinist [national-Stalinist] writer Alexander Prokhanov,[6] fascist political scientist and Eurasia Party leader Aleksandr Dugin, and Valery Korovin.[2][7] Both Prokhanov and Korovin are members of the Izborsky Club (ru), which advocate a "Eurasian Empire" to "save the peoples of Russia from degeneration and outside attack".[8] The congress announced the creation of a new self-declared confederate state called 'New Russia'. "

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Russia_Party

These ultranationalists in power have attacked LGBT-people, gypsies, religious minorities, and aren't too friendly with Jews neither, peddling common anti-semitic canards about 'Jewish-controlled media' ("Zionist media").

Anyway, this is further proof that fascists have gained political power in East Ukraine. Yet there are the buffoons, the Sparts, some Trots, some Stalinists, who deny this obvious fact and continue their critical support of these fascists in the name of anti-fascism, deluding themselves into thinking there is "self-rule" of the people, often thinking there are "soviets".

Russian ultranationalists:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057649/Nazi-saluting-nationalists-Take-Russia-march-Moscow-Muslim-migrants.html

"Nazi-saluting nationalists march through Moscow in 'Take back Russia' protest over Muslim migrants

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/04/article-0-0EAADEF800000578-615_634x346.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/04/article-2057649-0EAAE75B00000578-908_634x286.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/04/article-2057649-0EAAC8B800000578-728_634x327.jpg
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/11/04/article-0-0EAAE60D00000578-112_634x484.jpg

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2057649/Nazi-saluting-nationalists-Take-Russia-march-Moscow-Muslim-migrants.html#ixzz3BKAYVtLJ

[Hrafn]

http://borotba.org/borotba_opposes_the_imposition_of_reactionary_symb ols_on_the_peoples_republic.html

Borotba's stance on the situation.

As usual, they remain collaborators. In condemning the Tsarist flag, they only confirm just how closely tied to the Fascist Russian project they are.

[Geiseric]

http://borotba.org/borotba_opposes_the_imposition_of_reactionary_symb ols_on_the_peoples_republic.html

Borotba's stance on the situation.

As usual, they remain collaborators. In condemning the Tsarist flag, they only confirm just how closely tied to the Fascist Russian project they are.

That is a non sequitur, the second part at least. How does that make any sense? "they condemn the czarist flag thus are fascists." Lolwut?

[Hrafn]

They're basically saying that they're a part of the whole thing, not a force separate from Novorossiya, and now they're mad that their bosses aren't behaving in a way that's good for PR.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

That is a non sequitur, the second part at least. How does that make any sense? "they condemn the czarist flag thus are fascists." Lolwut?

I think what he's saying is that they are criticizing the decision of the People's Republics, without questioning whether or not seriously reactionary institutional tendencies led to the decision. It is like complaining that the logo of your company expresses the evils of Capitalism. The problem is that the movement in Donbass seems to be driving its ideological justification from Russian nationalism and not international class struggle.

[Rafiq]

I don't understand how users can make the argument of taking the side of the "progressive" forces indiscriminate of their class nature. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think that the pro-Russian reactionaries are the "progressive" force as far as this conflict goes. Russia has re-assumed, both ideologically and politically, the role of the reactionary force of Europe. Le Penn, Farage, Orban of Hungary among countless others are the Russian application to European states: they all might very well be mini-Putins. They have been either discreet or blantant about their identification with Russian interests.

It's funny though, western anti-imperialists might be able to cheer on crypto-fascists in countries they have fuck all to do with, but when push comes to shove and they end up in their own countries in the form of Front National or UKIP, what do they have to say for themselves? These are "anti-imperialist" parties who oppose foreign intervention, to add insult to injury. Universalize your standards, this is what I say. If you can't stand reactionaries in your own precious countries then don't support them elsewhere.

[Geiseric]

They're basically saying that they're a part of the whole thing, not a force separate from Novorossiya, and now they're mad that their bosses aren't behaving in a way that's good for PR.

Theres a political conflict inside of the rebels which I knew for a long time. Borotba is operating on a popular front basis almost by necessity which is why these conflicts rise, but its idiotic to call borotba fascist.

[Geiseric]

I don't understand how users can make the argument of taking the side of the "progressive" forces indiscriminate of their class nature. You have to be a special kind of stupid to think that the pro-Russian reactionaries are the "progressive" force as far as this conflict goes. Russia has re-assumed, both ideologically and politically, the role of the reactionary force of Europe. Le Penn, Farage, Orban of Hungary among countless others are the Russian application to European states: they all might very well be mini-Putins. They have been either discreet or blantant about their identification with Russian interests.

It's funny though, western anti-imperialists might be able to cheer on crypto-fascists in countries they have fuck all to do with, but when push comes to shove and they end up in their own countries in the form of Front National or UKIP, what do they have to say for themselves? These are "anti-imperialist" parties who oppose foreign intervention, to add insult to injury. Universalize your standards, this is what I say. If you can't stand reactionaries in your own precious countries then don't support them elsewhere.
Lol now you're an EU supporter. I should have put you on ignore a while ago.

[Geiseric]

I think what he's saying is that they are criticizing the decision of the People's Republics, without questioning whether or not seriously reactionary institutional tendencies led to the decision. It is like complaining that the logo of your company expresses the evils of Capitalism. The problem is that the movement in Donbass seems to be driving its ideological justification from Russian nationalism and not international class struggle.

For the record Borotba directly claims the conflict is a result of the EU (international class struggle). Only russian adventurers like Strelkhov are ultranationalists, but the rebela are forced to work with them.

[Ele'ill]

I should have put you on ignore a while ago.

why even bother putting people on your ignore list almost everyone on the forum is already ignoring you

[Hrafn]

Theres a political conflict inside of the rebels which I knew for a long time. Borotba is operating on a popular front basis almost by necessity which is why these conflicts rise, but its idiotic to call borotba fascist.

I've never called Borotba Fascist. I call them Fascist collaborators.

A popular front containing majorly far-right activists, neo-Nazis, religious extremists and other such people is a popular front I'd rather do without.

[Rafiq]

Lol now you're an EU supporter. I should have put you on ignore a while ago.

If one were to criticize my position there is only one place they could stand while doing so: Aside Farage and Le Penn.

To oppose the EU from the standpoint of 'national sovereignty' is reactionary. The more isolated the national exploitation of the proletariat, the worse. The interests of capital previously resided with globalization and this made for a contradiction: Proletarian internationalism and the disintegration of the nation-state and "national autonomy".

Capitalism creates the seeds of its own destruction. You're not a Marxist. I would hypothetically say "you're just a moron" but that's against the rules, so instead I will say nothing. Hypothetically speaking what kind of idiot comes to such a conclusion (about my post)? I don't know. Maybe Geiseric knows.

[Geiseric]

I've never called Borotba Fascist. I call them Fascist collaborators.

A popular front containing majorly far-right activists, neo-Nazis, religious extremists and other such people is a popular front I'd rather do without.

I agree that this popular front is politically bad, but from Borotba's POV it is only because of the EU's instrumental role in terms of the kiev junta. And Borotba has been marginalized inside of Ukraine itself due to Kiev.

[Rurkel]

The Novorossiya leadership's potential repressive tendencies so far had been counteracted by its need to dedicate all resources to resisting Kiev's onslaught. They aren't that firmly in place to afford a proper "fascist" clamp-down, and so a large part of their nastiness remains declarative.

Not that we shouldn't worry about that, although it needs to be underlined that the government in Kiev isn't a legitimate agent of their overthrow.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

For the record Borotba directly claims the conflict is a result of the EU (international class struggle). Only russian adventurers like Strelkhov are ultranationalists, but the rebela are forced to work with them.

Opposing the EU is not taking an inherently class-based political line. The EU represents one faction of Capital. Nationalists within the EU who oppose the EU are largely Capitalists themselves, yet oppose the EU because it challenges the ideology of the nation state which they embrace.

[Martin Luther]

Many if not most of the leading factions of the rebels have close ties to Russian nationalists of different orientations, who themselves are closely tied to and funded by Russian oligarchs.

They have emerged as the leading elements over the course of the civil war as Russia has largely ignored the plight of the East Ukrainians and allowed the Kiev government to regroup and launch a vicious campaign to subjugate the region. The resistance emerged with widespread anti-oligarchic and even neo-Soviet ideas, but that has been eclipsed by those who follow ideologies most useful to Moscow's cynical power politics. Russia backs those who pose the least threat to its own fragile social order, and as a result those who believe the answer to Ukrainian chauvinism is Russian chauvinism are rising to the top. Now they've imposed their symbolism on the new republic. This flag, as the statement by Borotba notes, has no historical basis in that area and represents only the reactionary aims of neo-imperialists who are coopting the resistance.

As for Borotba being "collaborators" of fascism, the main task at hand remains to defeat the onslaught of Ukraine and Ukrainian fascism. Prying the movement from the hands of right wing pro-Moscow adventurists is a different task entirely, and is one Borotba needs to take up. They are in a position to challenge the Putin regime and the Russian oligarchy.

[Art Vandelay]

To oppose the EU from the standpoint of 'national sovereignty' is reactionary.
Genuine question: do you reject the right to national self determination, as far as nations within the EU goes? Or are you saying that while respecting their right to self determination, the Marxist stance should be to criticize the notion, ie: critical support?

[Rafiq]

Genuine question: do you reject the right to national self determination, as far as nations within the EU goes?

I deny the existence of such a right for them. There can be no talk of national self determination when the clutches of capitalism has stretched over the whole globe. Any talk of national self determination for European countries especially is explicitly reactionary.

[Sharia Lawn]

Right to self-determination applies to oppressed countries, not imperialist ones. Talk of self-determination for imperialist countries is great power chauvinism.

[Deep Sea]

Right to self-determination applies to oppressed countries, not imperialist ones.

It's the Right of Nations to Self-Determination, not "oppressed countries." Nowhere does the idea of non-oppressed nations not having a right to self-determination appear in Lenin's works.


Talk of self-determination for imperialist countries is great power chauvinism.

"Self-determination" for Oppressor Nations is either non-sense or a nation wanting out of an imperialist bloc, like the imperialist Euro-Union.


From the standpoint of the economic conditions of imperialism—i.e., the export of capital arid the division of the world by the “advanced” and “civilised” colonial powers—a United States of Europe, under capitalism, is either impossible or reactionary...

A United States of Europe under capitalism is tantamount to an agreement on the partition of colonies.

On the Slogan for a United States of Europe. (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm)

Quote:

The demand for a United States of Europe, as advanced by the Central Committee’s Manifesto, which accompanied it with a call for the overthrow of the monarchies in Russia, Austria, and Germany, is distinct from the pacifist interpretation of this slogan by Kautsky and others.

Issue No. 44 of Sotsial-Demokrat, our Party’s Central Organ, carries an editorial proving the economic erroneousness of the United States of Europe slogan. Either this is a demand that cannot be implemented under capitalism, inasmuch as it presupposes the establishment of a planned world economy, with a partition of colonies, spheres of influence, etc., among the individual countries, or else it is a reactionary slogan, one that signifies a temporary union of the Great Powers of Europe with the aim of enhancing the oppression of colonies and of plundering the more rapidly developing countries-Japan and America

https://www.marxists.org/archive/len...15/aug/x01.htm (https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/x01.htm)

[Red Commissar]

Use of the white-black-gold tricolor is not a new thing among Russian nationalists much less unexpected, you tend to see it a lot in their demonstrations it seems. I think that should in of itself however say enough about what drives the uprisings in east Ukraine if it hasn't been made clear already.

I guess it's also probably tied to problems with the previous flag, which didn't seem to have much resonance despite their attempts to tie it to a historical flag, and at least among foreign observers resembled the confederate battle flag without the stars.

[ckaihatsu]

Use of the white-black-gold tricolor is not a new thing among Russian nationalists much less unexpected, you tend to see it a lot in their demonstrations it seems. I think that should in of itself however say enough about what drives the uprisings in east Ukraine if it hasn't been made clear already.

I guess it's also probably tied to problems with the previous flag, which didn't seem to have much resonance despite their attempts to tie it to a historical flag, and at least among foreign observers resembled the confederate battle flag without the stars.


Likewise:


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f5/Flag_of_Libya_%281951%29.svg/220px-Flag_of_Libya_%281951%29.svg.png
The former Kingdom of Libya's flag was used by the National Conference, eventually becoming Libya's official flag after the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Conference_for_the_Libyan_Opposition