On gays - "we in Crimea do not need such people" - de facto leader says

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/02/crimea-not-need-gay-people-top-official


Crimea’s most senior official has said sexual minorities “have no chance” on the peninsula that Russia annexed from Ukraine in March.
Speaking about gay people during a Crimean government session on Tuesday, the region’s de facto leader Sergei Aksyonov (http://time.com/19097/putin-crimea-russia-ukraine-aksyonov/) said “we in Crimea do not need such people.”
In comments reported by the Russian news agencies Interfax (http://www.interfax-religion.com/?act=news&div=11495) and Itar-Tass, Aksyonov said that if the LGBT community tried to hold public gatherings, “our police and self-defence forces will react immediately and in three minutes will explain to them what kind of sexual orientation they should stick to.”
He added that Crimean children should be brought up with a “positive attitude to family and traditional values.”
Russia annexed Crimea (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/mar/18/ukraine-putin-draft-bill-russia-annex-crimea) after a referendum that was deemed to be illegal by the United States and European Union.
President Vladimir Putin signed an anti-gay law last year that banned activities that could be seen as promoting homosexuality to minors, which was adopted in Crimea this year. Western governments and activists said curtails gay rights and encourages discrimination (http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/05/russia-anti-gay-law-criticism-playing-into-putin-hands). A gay pride event (http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2014/04/29/lgbt-people-in-crimea-and-ukraine-fear-persecution-under-russian-anti-gay-law/) that had been due to take place in Sevastopol in April was cancelled.



This speaks so many volumes about how we should not be defending these petty little nationalist movements. When they oppose "liberalism", they are often opposing not capitalism, but the aspects of liberalism which the Proletarian movement must not abandon (but, in fact, move beyond). They hate diversity, and want a conservative, heteronormative, illiberal, white and orthodox Christian world. You can't support Russian homophobia and imperialism, and be an intellectually or theoretically consistent Leftist.

Of course, for some real asshole tankies, caring about the rights of LGBT people, gypsies and women in these areas makes people "White Power radiKKKal Labor Aristocrats (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=2784846&postcount=10)" (god why isn't that fool banned already? He makes every other tankie I've seen on this forum look intellectually stimulating by comparison)

[adipocere]

who knew that the elephant in the room could also double as a podium if you wedge yourself in there just right...

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

Can you clarify what you mean by that?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Anyone who thought the Crimean authorities would not be homophobic must have been hitting the alcohol cabinet pretty hard.

What bothers me, though, is the implication that gay people would be better off under Kiev - obviously they wouldn't. And furthermore, as communists, we have no business telling the workers of Crimea that they should remain under Kiev when they blatantly don't want to. To do so would mean aligning ourselves with Ukrainian nationalism. If, tomorrow, Crimean workers decide to separate from Russia, we would have no business calling for the unity of the bourgeois Russian state either. It was the failure of ostensible communists to correctly position themselves toward the events in Ukraine - either tailing Yanukovich and various post-Yanukovich phenomena or the People's Fascist Revolution at Maidan and the subsequent Kiev government - that resulted in the present state of the conflict.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Anyone who thought the Crimean authorities would not be homophobic must have been hitting the alcohol cabinet pretty hard.

What bothers me, though, is the implication that gay people would be better off under Kiev - obviously they wouldn't. And furthermore, as communists, we have no business telling the workers of Crimea that they should remain under Kiev when they blatantly don't want to. To do so would mean aligning ourselves with Ukrainian nationalism. If, tomorrow, Crimean workers decide to separate from Russia, we would have no business calling for the unity of the bourgeois Russian state either. It was the failure of ostensible communists to correctly position themselves toward the events in Ukraine - either tailing Yanukovich and various post-Yanukovich phenomena or the People's Fascist Revolution at Maidan and the subsequent Kiev government - that resulted in the present state of the conflict.

haha aren't you the little turncoat. How long ago was it that you attacked me for apparently 'tailing the working class'. Now apparently we shouldn't oppose the wishes of the working class even if it leads them to the yoke of Russian imperialism.

You're a right slick little number aren't you?

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I don't think the implication is that anything is better under Kiev. I take this as a direct continuation of what the communist party of Ukraine said regarding homosexuals and immigrants during the maiden protests. Why is it necessary for us to first criticize Kiev and NATO before we can utter any unkind words about Russia and the rebels?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

haha aren't you the little turncoat. How long ago was it that you attacked me for apparently 'tailing the working class'. Now apparently we shouldn't oppose the wishes of the working class even if it leads them to the yoke of Russian imperialism.

You're a right slick little number aren't you?

Perhaps you might have half a point if the Ukraine was an underdeveloped region on the periphery of the imperialist system and Russia an imperialist power. As it stands, though, none of that is the case. The common contention that Russia is an imperialist power ignores that the Russian economy is a joke, and the Ukrainian economy is of the same type.

And of course we shouldn't tail the workers in Crimea, but aim for a clean break between the workers and nationalists. At the same time we can not oppose the partition of the Ukraine without implicitly saying the territorial integrity of a bourgeois state is sacrosanct.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Perhaps you might have half a point if the Ukraine was an underdeveloped region on the periphery of the imperialist system and Russia an imperialist power. As it stands, though, none of that is the case. The common contention that Russia is an imperialist power ignores that the Russian economy is a joke, and the Ukrainian economy is of the same type.

The Soviet Union economy was largely imbalanced (a joke, if you will) and yet it was an imperialist power. The Russian economy may be a joke but that doesn't mean that it isn't an imperial power that has a commanding present on the world military and diplomatic stage, i.e. an imperial power. If Russia wasn't an imperialist power then the west wouldn't be sitting on its hands doing fuck all whilst Russia slowly picks apart Eastern Europe.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Anyone who thought the Crimean authorities would not be homophobic must have been hitting the alcohol cabinet pretty hard.

What bothers me, though, is the implication that gay people would be better off under Kiev - obviously they wouldn't.

Come on I'm sure you are smarter than this. Clearly the implication of Lenin's call for Russian defeatism was NOT saying that the Russian working class would be better off under Berlin. Why is it that calling Russian nationalists out on their reactionary bullshit is seen as supporting Ukraine's reactionary bullshit?

That said, despite the reactionary nature of Ukraine's government, at least they aren't threatening to use cops to impose reparative therapy on gay people via truncheons.


And furthermore, as communists, we have no business telling the workers of Crimea that they should remain under Kiev when they blatantly don't want to.Was I telling the workers of crimea that? Tell me where I did ... oh right, you're assuming "implications" in what I say.

Also, what of the Ukrainian and Tatar workers who were not so enamored with the idea of rejoining Russia? That we don't care about their interests? What makes them so different? The mere fact that they are not in a majority? That seems like the most petty and vulgar parlaimentarianism and majoritarianism, which are trends I thought you opposed.

I will say that petty nationalism, either Ukrainian or Russian, is a reactionary response to the conditions workers find themselves in, and has no hope for building a real global working class movement, any more than Catalan nationalism


To do so would mean aligning ourselves with Ukrainian nationalism.Nobody here is doing that.


It was the failure of ostensible communists to correctly position themselves toward the events in Ukraine - either tailing Yanukovich and various post-Yanukovich phenomena or the People's Fascist Revolution at Maidan and the subsequent Kiev government - that resulted in the present state of the conflict. "Ostensible Communists" had little influence or power over events in the Ukraine either way. The only major Ukrainian Communist party was a marginal parliamentary supporter of Yanukovich motivated more by Soviet nostalgia than working class politics, and foreign Communists have no real sway over the situation


Perhaps you might have half a point if the Ukraine was an underdeveloped region on the periphery of the imperialist system and Russia an imperialist power. As it stands, though, none of that is the case. The common contention that Russia is an imperialist power ignores that the Russian economy is a joke, and the Ukrainian economy is of the same type.
A state with a weak economy can still be Imperialist. Imperialism is structural, and has to do with the need and ability to export Capital, not whether or not an economy is a "joke". Russia may have a "weak" economy but they do have substantial capital in the form of oil and gas, which Ukraine does not have, as well as the military power to impose its will on its peripheral nations.


And of course we shouldn't tail the workers in Crimea, but aim for a clean break between the workers and nationalists. At the same time we can not oppose the partition of the Ukraine without implicitly saying the territorial integrity of a bourgeois state is sacrosanct.

No it has to do with the reactionary nature of petty nationalist demagoguery by Russians and Ukrainians alike.

[Tim Cornelis]

haha aren't you the little turncoat. How long ago was it that you attacked me for apparently 'tailing the working class'. Now apparently we shouldn't oppose the wishes of the working class even if it leads them to the yoke of Russian imperialism.

You're a right slick little number aren't you?

This is different from tailism. Tailism would be rallying behind the demand of the working class to be part (or not) of Russia. This is not what 870 advocates. He advocates the correct position of communists, a sort of 'active indifference' where communists neither support nor oppose seceding from or being annexed by a country, but try to spread awareness that this will not solve economic problems.

I would agree though, with SCM that 870 does make assumptions, which is typical of him, and often shade into strawmen.

And of course, using Lenin's theory to "prove" Russia is imperialist is ridiculous, the same can be done to prove that the USA is not imperialist (it imports more capital than exports). Lenin's theory does not stand up to empirical scrutiny but dogma overrides that to many. He wrote that such and such proves a country is imperialist, therefore we must assume it's the absolute truth without testing this hypothesis.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

And of course, using Lenin's theory to "prove" Russia is imperialist is ridiculous, the same can be done to prove that the USA is not imperialist (it imports more capital than exports). Lenin's theory does not stand up to empirical scrutiny but dogma overrides that to many. He wrote that such and such proves a country is imperialist, therefore we must assume it's the absolute truth without testing this hypothesis.

True, and I am also unsatisfied by taking Marx and Lenin dogmatically. Certainly, even if Lenin's theory of Imperialism is correct, it should be updated for modern conditions (where Imperialism survived much longer than I think Lenin thought it would). However, 870 is a Bolshevik and, as far as I know, does accept Lenin's theory of Imperialism, so I find it curious as a rhetorical point that he nonetheless does not consider Russia Imperialist.

That said, I think Lenin's theory would still hold that the US is Imperialist, as it does not so much have to do with the ratio of Capital imported to exported so much as the expansion of Capitalist enterprise outside of the protective boundaries of the national borders for the sake of reducing costs by exploiting labor and resources from elsewhere more efficiently than it can at home - something which the US does. At least that is my understanding of Lenin's reading of Imperialism (it's been a while since I read that work though)

[Tim Cornelis]

True, and I am also unsatisfied by taking Marx and Lenin dogmatically. Certainly, even if Lenin's theory of Imperialism is correct, it should be updated for modern conditions (where Imperialism survived much longer than I think Lenin thought it would). However, 870 is a Bolshevik and, as far as I know, does accept Lenin's theory of Imperialism, so I find it curious as a rhetorical point that he nonetheless does not consider Russia Imperialist.

That said, I think Lenin's theory would still hold that the US is Imperialist, as it does not so much have to do with the ratio of Capital imported to exported so much as the expansion of Capitalist enterprise outside of the protective boundaries of the national borders for the sake of reducing costs by exploiting labor and resources from elsewhere more efficiently than it can at home - something which the US does. At least that is my understanding of Lenin's reading of Imperialism (it's been a while since I read that work though)

Nevertheless, "In Lenin's theory the central aspect is the export of capital. Yet today, taking into consideration debt repayment, many peripheral countries are net exporters of capital [cf. Michael Hudson Trade, Development and Foreign Debt]." (http://www.marxmail.org/archives/June99/lenins_theory_of_imperialism.htm )

One article denying the imperialist nature of Russia from some Fourth International roleplaying group, or Spart moonbats, (here: http://www.internationalist.org/bugbearrussianimperialism1405.html ) states that "So Russia’s economy is not dominated by finance capital, it is not a major exporter of capital and it has not gained full admittance to the imperialist clubs," because they are not a member of the NATO, or OECD, or EU, or G8. Completely ignorant to other such formations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurasian_Economic_Union
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shanghai_Cooperation_Organisation

[Rafiq]

When the German working class supported the Nazis, we would have had no business telling them not to pursue a greater Germany.

Workers today actively support reactionary parties and sustain capitalism, we have no business in these affairs. Proletarian consciousness = whatever the "proletariat" decides to do, any demographic support given by some of the proletariat reflects our position, their will is absolute. As a matter of fact, let's abandon Marxism because we don't even need it. The working class always knows what it's doing, and always is pursuing its interests as a class. We have no BUISNESS.

Why is 870 still here again?

[Rafiq]

870, or the Left that he represents, have perfected the behavior of political, and intellectual laziness. They are the modern philistines of the Left, no matter what happens, no matter what occurs, they have the ultimate insurance policy: "20th century Communism (barely, more like new left trash) doesn't apply this, i can't fit the 21st century into a Communist ideological universe, so I brush off everything". These, Gentlemen, these philistines want to see to the permanent abstinence of the field of power for the Left.

870 proudly, arrogantly sneers at the world from a tower of string, just waiting for the slightest snip. He prattles of the "working class", what working class? For a spartacultist, this is odd, as the Sparts - like the whole of the new left never had any basis in the "working class" but the petty bourgeois intelligentsia. Evidently, secession is an INTRUSIVE act, it is a positive act, like Franco's rebellion, not something to be passively accepted. Yes the separatists are reactionary, yes they are stooges of Russian interests.

Russian interests, as they have been decades before the red star tore through the Aurora lights, reactionary as a world fact, within the international capitalist totality. In other words, reactionary even by hegemonic liberal standards. Would you fine "socialists" like to know what Russia wants for Europe? Farage, Orban and Le Penn. Say the French workers vote in Front National, by their interests, should we respect their "right" to national sovereignty? And what of England? Must we "respect" the people's hero Farage?

Though of course, for a sympathizer of a cult that regards China a deformed workers state today victim of western imperialism, who knows what ludicrous theories might come about: Support for the Donbass peoples republic! The Donbass Deformed Workers State, rather.

What can the Communists do? Violently oppose the reactionaries wherever they reside, and all of their actions, including our own opportunist national chauvinists who seek war. We don't have the cards to bring to the table to prattle of "the working class". We dont have a movement, or strong parties capable of mobilization. We can, presently, only know. The conditions ARE mature for a Communist movement, never before in history has there been a greater context, basis for Communism. We need only pursue it. Presently we have two options: socialism or barbarism. A new Communism, or our legacy to historical damnation.

[John Nada]

And of course, using Lenin's theory to "prove" Russia is imperialist is ridiculous, the same can be done to prove that the USA is not imperialist (it imports more capital than exports). Lenin's theory does not stand up to empirical scrutiny but dogma overrides that to many. He wrote that such and such proves a country is imperialist, therefore we must assume it's the absolute truth without testing this hypothesis.Does this include dollars, bonds and stocks?
true, and I am also unsatisfied by taking Marx and Lenin dogmatically. Certainly, even if Lenin's theory of Imperialism is correct, it should be updated for modern conditions
The capital-exporting countries are nearly always able to obtain certain “advantages”, the character of which throws light on the peculiarity of the epoch of finance capital and monopoly. The following passage, for instance, appeared in the Berlin review, Die Bank, for October 1913:

“A comedy worthy of the pen of Aristophanes is lately being played on the international capital market. Numerous foreign countries, from Spain to the Balkan states, from Russia to Argentina, Brazil and China, are openly or secretly coming into the big money market with demands, sometimes very persistent, for loans. The money markets are not very bright at the moment and the political outlook is not promising. But not a single money market dares to refuse a loan for fear that its neighbour may forestall it, consent to grant a loan and so secure some reciprocal service. In these international transactions the creditor nearly always manages to secure some extra benefit: a favourable clause in a commercial treaty, a coating station, a contract to construct a harbour, a fat concession, or an order for guns.”[2]

Finance capital has created the epoch of monopolies, and monopolies introduce everywhere monopolist principles: the utilisation of “connections” for profitable transactions takes the place of competition on the open market. The most usual thing is to stipulate that part of the loan granted shall be spent on purchases in the creditor country, particularly on orders for war materials, or for ships, etc. In the course of the last two decades (1890-1910), France has very often resorted to this method. The export of capital thus becomes a means of encouraging the export of commodities. In this connection, transactions between particularly big firms assume a form which, as Schilder[3] “mildly” puts it, “borders on corruption”. Krupp in Germany, Schneider in France, Armstrong in Britain are instances of firms which have close connections with powerful banks and governments and which cannot easily be “ignored” when a loan is being arranged.

France, when granting loans to Russia, “squeezed” her in the commercial treaty of September 16, 1905, stipulating for certain concessions to run till 1917. She did the same in the commercial treaty with Japan of August 19, 1911. The tariff war between Austria and Serbia, which lasted, with a seven months’ interval, from 1906 to 1911, was partly caused by Austria and France competing to supply Serbia with war materials. In January 1912, Paul Deschanel stated in the Chamber of Deputies that from 1908 to 1911 French firms had supplied war materials to Serbia to the value of 45 million francs. http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/imp-hsc/ch04.htm

I think Ukraine is a textbook example of imperialism. Russia offered Ukraine a loan equivalent to 15 billion dollar, EU offered a 2.5(?) billion loan with a trade deal. Russia agreed to joint exploitation, but the EU said either Russia's deal or theirs. One faction of the Ukrainian bourgeoisie wants greater access to the EU markets. The other faction wants to move closer to Russia, which already has interests with them. Being deeply in debt, Yanukovych choose Russia's deal.

Because Yanukovych was an asshole and the economy was shit, the Maidan protest started. The US spent billions of dollars over the years to ensure that any protest movement would be reactionary in nature. Hence fascist took charge, ousting Yanukovych after a massacre.

In the eastern Russian-speaking areas the anti-Maidan start in response to various actions of the new government, such as an attempt to ban Russian and impending IMF "structural adjustments". Naturally the pro-Russian bourgeoisie back the most reactionary elements too. Russia uses the chaos to formally annex Crimea, where the already had bases.

And the working-class suffers for all of it.


Anyone who thought the Crimean authorities would not be homophobic must have been hitting the alcohol cabinet pretty hard.Even hitting the alcohol cabinet I could see it come. US imperialism backs homophobes in all sides. US Christians lobbied for Russia's homophobic laws in the first place.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The Soviet Union economy was largely imbalanced (a joke, if you will) and yet it was an imperialist power. The Russian economy may be a joke but that doesn't mean that it isn't an imperial power that has a commanding present on the world military and diplomatic stage, i.e. an imperial power.

Imperialism is not "commanding [presence] on the world military and diplomatic stage", but the dominance of finance capital, presence of financial oligarchies, export of capital and so on - the Soviet Union was not imperialist (in fact the Soviet bureaucracy was an intermediary between the Soviet economy and world imperialism). Imperialist powers don't act as the Soviet Union did.


If Russia wasn't an imperialist power then the west wouldn't be sitting on its hands doing fuck all whilst Russia slowly picks apart Eastern Europe.

But in fact "the West" - the actual imperialist powers, the US and EU - is not "sitting on its hands", although I'm sure many people in the region wish that it did.


Come on I'm sure you are smarter than this. Clearly the implication of Lenin's call for Russian defeatism was NOT saying that the Russian working class would be better off under Berlin. Why is it that calling Russian nationalists out on their reactionary bullshit is seen as supporting Ukraine's reactionary bullshit?

And then, in the very next sentence, you say:


That said, despite the reactionary nature of Ukraine's government, at least they aren't threatening to use cops to impose reparative therapy on gay people via truncheons.

Perhaps they aren't threatening to do so - and how would you know? do you read Ukrainian media, or simply what the overtly pro-Kiev US media reports? - but if you think they wouldn't, you must have been living under a particularly resilient rock for, well, a long time.

"Calling Russian nationalists out on their reactionary bullshit" is fine, and needs to be done (you can't go around calling NazBols your "brothers" like some people), but on RevLeft, that is the only nationalist side that is being criticised. People were practically orgasming over the Maidan protests, and of course denying that the fascist element that dominated them existed, and the Kiev government is almost never criticised. In fact certain users have, for example, blamed the Odessa fire on those horrible mean pro-Russians who dared to provoke the fascists.

This is not accidental. People might think "of course no one is for the Kiev government", but both rabid pro-EU sentiment and "anti-anti-imperialism" are very much a thing on RevLeft. In practice this means aligning oneself with US and EU imperialism. You can see the same thing when it comes to Iraq and Syria - people who constantly downplayed the Islamist presence in their beloved Syrian resistance are now having fits over ISIS and calling for US intervention. If, tomorrow, the Kurdish leadership falls out of favour with the US, they will remember all the shit PKK did, and then exaggerate it.


Also, what of the Ukrainian and Tatar workers who were not so enamored with the idea of rejoining Russia? That we don't care about their interests? What makes them so different? The mere fact that they are not in a majority? That seems like the most petty and vulgar parlaimentarianism and majoritarianism, which are trends I thought you opposed.

If they lived in contiguous areas that could viably separate from Crimea, sure, to oppose that secession would be a concession to Russian nationalism. That is not the case, however. This is unfortunate - but the national problem can not be solved under capitalism. This is something that needs to become clear to the nationally-oppressed workers - which won't happen if you portray yourself as the guardian of the territorial integrity of bourgeois states.


I will say that petty nationalism, either Ukrainian or Russian, is a reactionary response to the conditions workers find themselves in, and has no hope for building a real global working class movement, any more than Catalan nationalism

You don't say. The point was not that the secession of Crimea will lead to a real global working class movement, but that communists can not oppose it without de facto aligning themselves with the Kiev government, with the bourgeois Ukrainian state, and throwing all principles out of the window in face of liberal pressure.


"Ostensible Communists" had little influence or power over events in the Ukraine either way. The only major Ukrainian Communist party was a marginal parliamentary supporter of Yanukovich motivated more by Soviet nostalgia than working class politics, and foreign Communists have no real sway over the situation

This is completely backwards. Communists don't become popular, and then correctly intervene into actual struggles, they become popular (or rather influential) by correctly intervening into actual struggles.

The AWU, for example, certainly did a lot to popularise the fascist Maidan protests and the Kiev government among western leftists.


A state with a weak economy can still be Imperialist. Imperialism is structural, and has to do with the need and ability to export Capital, not whether or not an economy is a "joke". Russia may have a "weak" economy but they do have substantial capital in the form of oil and gas, which Ukraine does not have, as well as the military power to impose its will on its peripheral nations.

Yes, imperialism is structural, and not every economy is able to support the structures that are necessary for imperialism - Bhutan, for example, could never be imperialist. I think the comrades over at the Internationalist Group had an in-depth article about why Russia is not imperialist, but I can't find it for the life of me.


No it has to do with the reactionary nature of petty nationalist demagoguery by Russians and Ukrainians alike.

And what is more nationalist than to say that, the desires of the workers on the ground be damned, the borders of bourgeois Ukraine are sacred? We don't pretend that changing borders will change society. But the borders of bourgeois states are not holy, they are not eternal, they are not inviolate. In fact, not opposing secession is a weapon against nationalism. A Ukrainian communist that can not bring themselves to not oppose certain areas leaving Ukraine is not a communist. Likewise a Russian communist that would oppose the secession of Chechnya.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Imperialism is not "commanding [presence] on the world military and diplomatic stage", but the dominance of finance capital, presence of financial oligarchies, export of capital and so on - the Soviet Union was not imperialist (in fact the Soviet bureaucracy was an intermediary between the Soviet economy and world imperialism).

The main feature is the export of Capital - which is how 19th Century/early 20th Century Russia was Imperialist. It was not as dominated by finance capital as the UK or France, and was much poorer in terms of their industry.

That said, Russia today does have a substantial industrial and financial oligarchy, often tied to Putin's government, which has benefited substantially both from the initial fall of the USSR and the continuing Russian influence on ex-Soviet countries.


Imperialist powers don't act as the Soviet Union did.

"No true Scotsman would act in such a manner!"


Perhaps they aren't threatening to do so - and how would you know? do you read Ukrainian media, or simply what the overtly pro-Kiev US media reports? - but if you think they wouldn't, you must have been living under a particularly resilient rock for, well, a long time.

I would not put it past them to be so reactionary, and I am sure that the assholes in Right Sector who are aligned with the Ukrainian government do such things, but that doesn't change the fact that increased acceptance of homosexuals (among others) is one of the things which the Russian nationalists fear will come from the current regime of the Ukraine.


"Calling Russian nationalists out on their reactionary bullshit" is fine, and needs to be done (you can't go around calling NazBols your "brothers" like some people), but on RevLeft, that is the only nationalist side that is being criticised. People were practically orgasming over the Maidan protests, and of course denying that the fascist element that dominated them existed, and the Kiev government is almost never criticised. In fact certain users have, for example, blamed the Odessa fire on those horrible mean pro-Russians who dared to provoke the fascists.

People on RevLeft are being critical of Russian nationalists because there are a bunch of Leftists naively supporting them. I haven't seen any Leftists on this forum defending Right Sector or the current Ukrainian government. Or are you confusing ex-trot American neocons with RefLeft posters?


This is not accidental. People might think "of course no one is for the Kiev government", but both rabid pro-EU sentiment and "anti-anti-imperialism" are very much a thing on RevLeft

Who are all these rabid pro-EU people on RevLeft?


If they lived in contiguous areas that could viably separate from Crimea, sure, to oppose that secession would be a concession to Russian nationalism. That is not the case, however. This is unfortunate - but the national problem can not be solved under capitalism. This is something that needs to become clear to the nationally-oppressed workers - which won't happen if you portray yourself as the guardian of the territorial integrity of bourgeois states.

Who determines what is "territorially viable"? The Spartacists?

No the "national problem" can't be solved under capitalism, but the "national problem" is in fact exacerbated as social movements on opposing ends of a national struggle gain strength and political standing.


You don't say. The point was not that the secession of Crimea will lead to a real global working class movement, but that communists can not oppose it without de facto aligning themselves with the Kiev government, with the bourgeois Ukrainian state, and throwing all principles out of the window in face of liberal pressure.

Why can Communists not oppose it without supporting the Kiev government? Didn't Lenin oppose Moscow during WWI without supporting the Berlin government? The Crimean annexation of Russia is motivated by petit-bourgeois ideology and nationalism, and so it must be opposed for focusing on national divisions between the working class as opposed to bringing the workers together against their shared exploiters - Capital, in the US, EU, Ukraine, Russia and elsewhere.


This is completely backwards. Communists don't become popular, and then correctly intervene into actual struggles, they become popular (or rather influential) by correctly intervening into actual struggles.

To correctly intervene, they need to have some kind of political and social power which they currently lack.


The AWU, for example, certainly did a lot to popularise the fascist Maidan protests and the Kiev government among western leftists.

What kind of actual material consequence did this have on the ground?


Yes, imperialism is structural, and not every economy is able to support the structures that are necessary for imperialism - Bhutan, for example, could never be imperialist. I think the comrades over at the Internationalist Group had an in-depth article about why Russia is not imperialist, but I can't find it for the life of me.

Based on their activities in the peripheries of Russia, it is hard to see how Russia is NOT an imperialist power. A weak one maybe (and maybe Yeltsin's Russia was still too weak to be considered Imperialist in a significant manner), but it is clear that Russia's economic interests are imposed on other parts of the world by force, or by neocolonial ties with incredibly corrupt governments in the ex-Soviet world.


And what is more nationalist than to say that, the desires of the workers on the ground be damned, the borders of bourgeois Ukraine are sacred? We don't pretend that changing borders will change society. But the borders of bourgeois states are not holy, they are not eternal, they are not inviolate. In fact, not opposing secession is a weapon against nationalism. A Ukrainian communist that can not bring themselves to not oppose certain areas leaving Ukraine is not a communist. Likewise a Russian communist that would oppose the secession of Chechnya.

I find it fascinating that you continue with the same strawman. Nobody is saying Ukrainian borders are sacrosanct. What people are saying is that the people imposing themselves as the leaders of Crimea under Russian rule are reactionaries. Of course we would expect Ukrainian communists to oppose Ukrainian military intervention to protect their borders, and we would expect Russian communists to oppose Russian military intervention to preserve Chechnya as a part of Russia. That does NOT mean that we have any sympathy whatsoever with the assholes who tend to lead these nationalist movements.

Also you keep talking of the "Desires of the workers" - well, in what way are the interests of the Crimean and Russian petit-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie served by Russian expansion? Reports are coming in that Russia is seeking to expand the tourism sector in Crimea, for instance.

[Deep Sea]

who knew that the elephant in the room could also double as a podium if you wedge yourself in there just right...

Just goes to show what they actually care about politically. Imperialism means nothing to blood-sucking parasites, but Lord help those who don't kowtow to the stand-ins for the White Nation.

[DOOM]

Just goes to show what they actually care about politically. Imperialism means nothing to blood-sucking parasites, but Lord help those who don't kowtow to the stand-ins for the White Nation.

A rather stupid approach to moralize materialist consequences of capitalism, but hey I wasn't expecting anything diffrent from a may-be troll.

[Tim Cornelis]

Jesus, are mods/BA asleep? Maoist Third Wolrdism is an anti-working class ideology because it opposes class struggle by large sections of the global proletariat, and is therefore, as far as I know, still a bannable/restrictable 'offence'.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

MTW-ism is one thing, but MTWism to defend a state which threatens homosexuals with police brutality, blames Jews for splitting up Russia, threatens gypsies, murders Tatars, and bemoans immigration from brown parts of the world is something else. I guess physically assaulting innocent homosexuals and tatars is a good way to oppose the rich white man, because anyone who supports rights for those folks is a "blood sucking parasite". Fighting Imperialism justifies ALL other forms of racial, ethnic, gender/sex or even class based oppression in their little minds. And if you oppose those forms of oppression, it MUST be because you are a sympathizer with Imperialism, no other reason.

is "blood sucking parasite" here a euphemism for Jews? White people? Or just anyone who is conscious enough to think it is repugnant and reactionary to beat men and women with truncheons just because they are physically attracted to the same gender?

[DOOM]

is "blood sucking parasite" here a euphemism for Jews? White people? Or just anyone who is conscious enough to think it is repugnant and reactionary to beat men and women with truncheons just because they are physically attracted to the same gender?

could be everything at the same time, third-worldists are known for their notorious antisemitism.

[Deep Sea]

MTW-ism is one thing, but MTWism to defend a state which threatens homosexuals with police brutality, blames Jews for splitting up Russia, threatens gypsies, murders Tatars, and bemoans immigration from brown parts of the world is something else.The careful reader should see what SCM is doing here; pink-washing Western imperialism.


I guess physically assaulting innocent homosexuals and tatars is a good way to oppose the rich white man, because anyone who supports rights for those folks is a "blood sucking parasite".Yes, somehow the statements of a politician about LGBTQ issues justifies the hundreds of people killed by the Kiev-coup regime's shelling.


Fighting Imperialism justifies ALL other forms of racial, ethnic, gender/sex or even class based oppression in their little minds.I think you meant to say: "Fighting homophobia justifies ALL other forms of racial, ethnic, gender/sex or even class based oppression in their little minds." Cause this is how the liberal friends of the Labor Aristocracy justify all sorts of imperialist shenanigans coming from the White Oppressor Nation.


And if you oppose those forms of oppression, it MUST be because you are a sympathizer with Imperialism, no other reason.US bombs and the Democratic Party are gonna liberate LGBTQ people all over the world, it seems.

[Sasha]

Yawn, deep sea restricted, wanted to give him enough rope to ban himself but this should do for now.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The careful reader should see what SCM is doing here; pink-washing Western imperialism.


You're hiding brutal homophobia behind a thin veneer of "anti-imperialism". Nobody is defending "Western Imperialism", but you ARE defending some asshole who is threatening to use the police to terrorize homosexuals.


Yes, somehow the statements of a politician about LGBTQ issues justifies the hundreds of people killed by the Kiev-coup regime's shelling.
Nobody said that, boy you really will go far to defend vile bigots as long as you can shout "anti-Imperialism!!!" while patting yourself on the back



I think you meant to say: "Fighting homophobia justifies ALL other forms of racial, ethnic, gender/sex or even class based oppression in their little minds." Cause this is how the liberal friends of the Labor Aristocracy justify all sorts of imperialist shenanigans coming from the White Oppressor Nation.
Ukrainians and Russians are both "white".

Anyway, the fact that you think that protecting homosexuals from state violence is a "liberal issue" shows you have no place on the Left of today. I wonder if you will show your true colors as a reactionary "leftist" stuck in the 1930s and say homosexuality is a part of "cosmopolitan bourgeois culture", but then again you don't seem to have enough awareness of class struggle even to misuse the concepts. Anyone who shrieks about the "white oppressor nation" more often than they mention the bourgeoisie has no grasp of history or the true relationship between class, race, the state and imperialism.



US bombs and the Democratic Party are gonna liberate LGBTQ people all over the world, it seems.Again, show me one person saying this. You are clearly externalizing - you justify the homophobia, anti-tatar violence, anti-ukrainian violence, anti-roma violence, and anti-semitic propaganda by supporting these creepy militias, so anyone who opposes those militias must therefore support the imperialism the militias claim to oppose (no need to mention Russian capitalism and imperialism, of course).

Not everyone fails to see that nationalist struggles are not struggles between good and evil the way you seem to, but struggles between differing factions of the same global ruling class.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The main feature is the export of Capital - which is how 19th Century/early 20th Century Russia was Imperialist. It was not as dominated by finance capital as the UK or France, and was much poorer in terms of their industry.

The capitalist sector of the Russian economy was dominated by finance capital even if the overall economy wasn't. Russia was a special case as Russian imperialist capitalism was enmeshed with pre-capitalist forms in a way reminiscent of colonies and neo-colonies. This was due to the special function of the Russian Empire as the "policeman of Europe" - were it not for this, presumably Russia would have been a sub-imperialist power at best.


That said, Russia today does have a substantial industrial and financial oligarchy, often tied to Putin's government, which has benefited substantially both from the initial fall of the USSR and the continuing Russian influence on ex-Soviet countries.

The Russian banking sector is not divided into "financial oligarchies" of the sort Lenin talks about - I mean the biggest bank is a savings bank. By the way, I found the article I referred to earlier: The Bugbear of "Russian Imperialism" (http://www.google.hr/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCoQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.internationalist.org%2Fbugbea rrussianimperialism1405.html&ei=Fj4IVNaoFdSp7Aad6YDAAQ&usg=AFQjCNGgloyJH8O-SN0JcYiAUDYlEn8_bw&sig2=L8v15hrsjx4hjokU-aElFg&bvm=bv.74649129,d.ZGU). It's a bit over-excited as IG/l4I articles tend to be, but it's very good.


"No true Scotsman would act in such a manner!"

So the logic here is:

(1) the Soviet Union was imperialist, although it did not have any of the characteristics of an imperialist power (because bad evil totalitarian Soviet Union! bad!); therefore

(2) pointing out that it did not have the characteristics of an imperialist power is a "No True Scotsman" argument (because obviously, it was one); therefore, having preemptively proclaimed any appeal to the facts fallacious we can conclude that

(3) the Soviet Union was imperialist.


I would not put it past them to be so reactionary, and I am sure that the assholes in Right Sector who are aligned with the Ukrainian government do such things, but that doesn't change the fact that increased acceptance of homosexuals (among others) is one of the things which the Russian nationalists fear will come from the current regime of the Ukraine.

Yes, and in the thirties the Stalinists said the same things about the Nazis. Guess how that turned out. Homophobia is a consistent feature of bourgeois rhetoric, whether nationalist, conservative or liberal.


People on RevLeft are being critical of Russian nationalists because there are a bunch of Leftists naively supporting them.

Who? Light of Lenin? Geiseric, who in fact attacks the transfer of Crimea? Wow, two people. On the other hand, the general RevLeft response to the events in the Ukraine has been: first, orgasmic support for the Euromaidan protests, and constant denial that fascist forces exist or have any impact on the "movement". Second, embarrassed silence after the formation of the Kiev government (except those who valiantly continued to post material by the AWU and other pro-Kiev groups), the moves to enforce the speaking of Ukrainian were of course not commented on (just as the blood purity laws of the "poor, poor" Baltic states are not commented on). Third, a rhetorical onslaught on anyone opposed to Kiev, from the inhabitants of Crimea (who were, by the way, transferred to Ukraine by bureaucratic fiat - so much for anti-Stalinism, I guess), to the various Russian nationalists, to the people burned in Odessa and so on, while keeping quiet about the Kiev government (except to announce that, look, really, they're not so bad, they broke with the Right Sector and Svoboda - judging by how many times that claim has been posted, Svoboda is the Kiev Government's on-and-off partner).


I haven't seen any Leftists on this forum defending Right Sector or the current Ukrainian government.

Ha, really, you haven't seen people posting AWU guff about how the people burned in Odessa had it coming for provoking the fascists, people misinterpreting a report about violence against Roma by both sides into a claim that "the DPR authorities" (I think RevLeft is the only one who believes in this state) are engaged in a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Roma, and so on?


Or are you confusing ex-trot American neocons with RefLeft posters?

Well, first of all, the Shachtmanites were hardly Trotskyists. Second, at least they had the guts (where's Bea Arthur to call me out on my horrible sexism?) to admit that they're not socialists. In fact the decrepit corpse of Debs's party stopped using the term "socialist" at the insistence of Shachtmanites. So you have to give them that at least.


Who are all these rabid pro-EU people on RevLeft?

Since you asked nicely: the Sect of Lih, other fans of SYRIZA and Die Linke, psycho's "anti-anti-imperialists", other peeps whose only connection to socialism is their "anti-fascism", and so on, and so on.


Who determines what is "territorially viable"? The Spartacists?

Yes.

They gather in a secret conclave, and comrade Parks ingests massive amounts of the spice melange. Then she tells them which areas are viable and which are not, which nations are interpenetrated and which are not, and so on. Previously, the spice melange was mixed with beer, but this led to the Haiti debacle.

Or perhaps it's just a fact that non-contiguous areas with no real economic base can't exist as independent states, which is why the bantustans could not have been states, as projected, even if the Apartheid authorities would have allowed them to act as states.


No the "national problem" can't be solved under capitalism, but the "national problem" is in fact exacerbated as social movements on opposing ends of a national struggle gain strength and political standing.

And you propose to de-escalate the situation by forcing people who don't want to be in the Ukraine to remain under the Kiev government because... I don't know, because of what? You protest that you don't consider the borders of bourgeois Ukraine sacred, but you certainly act as if you do.


Why can Communists not oppose it without supporting the Kiev government? Didn't Lenin oppose Moscow during WWI without supporting the Berlin government? The Crimean annexation of Russia is motivated by petit-bourgeois ideology and nationalism, and so it must be opposed for focusing on national divisions between the working class as opposed to bringing the workers together against their shared exploiters - Capital, in the US, EU, Ukraine, Russia and elsewhere.

The analogy makes no sense. Lenin called for the defeat of both Entente and Central Power imperialism - likewise we call for the overthrow of both the Kiev and Moscow bourgeois governments. Lenin correctly opposed imperialist aggression, annexations, murder and so on.

Now, what is to be opposed about Crimea being annexed to Russia? Nothing. It is no concern of ours where the boundaries of a bourgeois state are. And in fact, the workers on the ground do not want to live in the Ukraine! So what, we're supposed to tell them "sorry, you'll just have to make due with material problems that arise from your language being banned, if you don't get killed of course, because every boundary marker of the Ukraine is sacred, every boundary marker of the Ukraine is great there is a need for multi-national unity of the proletariat, which as is widely known simply can't happen outside the Ukraine". Right.


To correctly intervene, they need to have some kind of political and social power which they currently lack.

Power is built by intervention. The RSDRP was originally a loose collection of Marxist circles. The RSDRP(CK), the Bolsheviks, were a minor party on the eve of the First World War. And so on.


What kind of actual material consequence did this have on the ground?

It threw forces that could have been won over to a proletarian perspective into confusion, for one thing.


Based on their activities in the peripheries of Russia, it is hard to see how Russia is NOT an imperialist power. A weak one maybe (and maybe Yeltsin's Russia was still too weak to be considered Imperialist in a significant manner), but it is clear that Russia's economic interests are imposed on other parts of the world by force, or by neocolonial ties with incredibly corrupt governments in the ex-Soviet world.

Once again: imperialism is not "imposing interests by force", which would make states as diverse as the Ming state and the Aztec empire imperialist.


I find it fascinating that you continue with the same strawman. Nobody is saying Ukrainian borders are sacrosanct. What people are saying is that the people imposing themselves as the leaders of Crimea under Russian rule are reactionaries. Of course we would expect Ukrainian communists to oppose Ukrainian military intervention to protect their borders, and we would expect Russian communists to oppose Russian military intervention to preserve Chechnya as a part of Russia. That does NOT mean that we have any sympathy whatsoever with the assholes who tend to lead these nationalist movements.

Except that, once again, no one said anything positive about the nationalist leaders on "the Russian side". They need to be fought. But they need to be fought from a communist, not a Ukrainian-chauvinist standpoint. And telling Crimean workers that they must remain in the Ukraine because, fucked if I know anymore, is Ukrainian-chauvinist.

Anyone who can't bear the thought of his beloved country being dismembered shouldn't call himself a communist. Anyone who opposes the borders of the "poor, poor" state supported by the US and EU media at the moment being changed is not a communist. It's as simple as that.


Also you keep talking of the "Desires of the workers" - well, in what way are the interests of the Crimean and Russian petit-bourgeoisie and bourgeoisie served by Russian expansion? Reports are coming in that Russia is seeking to expand the tourism sector in Crimea, for instance.

Bourgeoisie profits under capitalism. Also on the news tonight - the Sun is yellow, scientist says.

The bourgeoisie managed to profit out of concessionary enterprises in Bolshevik Russia as well, perhaps this means the October Revolution should have been opposed. Communists don't exist to put a minus everywhere the bourgeoisie puts a plus.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

870 you are the least intellectually honest poster on this forum by far. You keep talking about how I am defending the "sanctity" of Ukraine's borders when I repeatedly said I have not. Then you go on to say how I said the USSR was Imperialist because it was "totalitarian" when I said no such thing.

The issue, again, has nothing to do with some stupid nationalist metaphysics of borders but the reactionary nature of the Russian chauvinist movement behind the secession, especially in light of the fact that now workers are butchering each other on behalf of the Ukrainian and Russian nations. Instead of banning Russian (a move which was at least temporarily reversed), cops are busy terrorizing homosexuals and Russian nationalists are harassing Tatars and Ukrainians. Huge improvement.

Next you will be defending ISIS for beheading religious minorities/pows/homosexuals/women/journalists because anyone criticizing them must be defending the sanctity of Syrian and Iraqi borders, because the beheader was a worker, and because liberalism is homophobic anyways.

It is even more pathetic when you consider the fact that all Spartacists seem to like to do is to go to left meetings and criticize other groups for all sorts of exaggerated or otherwise insignificant theoretical or practical issues. Yet apparently reactionary homophobes ordering cops to beat up homosexuals is not worth criticizing.

The debate on whether Russia is imperialist is interesting - it seems pretty obvious it is though, you seem to be unable to view anything outside of what you think Lenin said on the topic as if the writing of a thinker in 1917 can accurately depict the international and economic relations of a 21st century petro-state. I might be bothered to read the article but it is frustrating to discuss things with folks who refuse to think with even a shred of intellectual honesty.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Russia's economy is shit (http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2014/08/12/despite-us-and-eu-sanctions-russias-economy-is-still-growing/)? Hmm

Also, am I the only one who thinks using 'Philistine' in the pejorative sense, as an insult and disparaging remark isn't cool? *cough* Rafiq *cough* you're not Marx Or Engels nor live in 19th century Europe *cough*

Excuse me, I'm just allergic to racism

[Lord Testicles]

What's wrong with using philistine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistinism) in the pejorative sense? People exclusively use it to describe something that is hostile or indifferent to culture and the arts.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

870 you are the least intellectually honest poster on this forum by far. You keep talking about how I am defending the "sanctity" of Ukraine's borders when I repeatedly said I have not. Then you go on to say how I said the USSR was Imperialist because it was "totalitarian" when I said no such thing.

The issue, again, has nothing to do with some stupid nationalist metaphysics of borders but the reactionary nature of the Russian chauvinist movement behind the secession, especially in light of the fact that now workers are butchering each other on behalf of the Ukrainian and Russian nations. Instead of banning Russian (a move which was at least temporarily reversed), cops are busy terrorizing homosexuals and Russian nationalists are harassing Tatars and Ukrainians. Huge improvement.

Next you will be defending ISIS for beheading religious minorities/pows/homosexuals/women/journalists because anyone criticizing them must be defending the sanctity of Syrian and Iraqi borders, because the beheader was a worker, and because liberalism is homophobic anyways.

It is even more pathetic when you consider the fact that all Spartacists seem to like to do is to go to left meetings and criticize other groups for all sorts of exaggerated or otherwise insignificant theoretical or practical issues. Yet apparently reactionary homophobes ordering cops to beat up homosexuals is not worth criticizing.

The debate on whether Russia is imperialist is interesting - it seems pretty obvious it is though, you seem to be unable to view anything outside of what you think Lenin said on the topic as if the writing of a thinker in 1917 can accurately depict the international and economic relations of a 21st century petro-state. I might be bothered to read the article but it is frustrating to discuss things with folks who refuse to think with even a shred of intellectual honesty.

And yet, for all the verbiage, you can't say why you oppose the secession of Crimea, and in fact compare it to ISIS beheading people. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that beheading generally hurts actual people. Now, who is being hurt by the secession of Crimea? Gay people would experience the same obstacles whether under Crimea or Kiev, and the same goes for Roma etc.

And yes, shockingly enough nationalists are in fact nationalists, and are enemies of the proletariat. But they would remain the enemies of the proletariat even if Crimea reverted to the Ukraine - if anything they would gain in popularity. The only ones who would lose are Russian-speaking workers.

As for ISIS, yes, I do think a single-track opposition to ISIS of the sort that is popular on RevLeft these days is a concession to imperialism. Hell, people here apparently want the US to arm Kurdish militias, because that's such a good idea (but hey, fuck people on the ground, if it means some US coffee-cooperative-dweller can enthuse about national autonomism and Book Chin finally being acknowledged as the premier revolutionary theorist of the century).

Your argument that the USSR was imperialist is simply "it obviously was". I could respect arguments like the one Pröbsting makes, even if it is completely factually incorrect, but you start from the firm belief that the USSR was imperialist and, not having moved one inch, you conclude that the USSR was imperialist. Likewise for Russia. It's imperialist because it scared some liberal journalists and pundits. Oh, and keep in mind I still remember your attempts to proclaim the Soviet Union a "police state" as opposed to the nice Western democracies.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Russia's economy is shit (http://www.forbes.com/sites/markadomanis/2014/08/12/despite-us-and-eu-sanctions-russias-economy-is-still-growing/)? Hmm

Also, am I the only one who thinks using 'Philistine' in the pejorative sense, as an insult and disparaging remark isn't cool? *cough* Rafiq *cough* you're not Marx Or Engels nor live in 19th century Europe *cough*

Excuse me, I'm just allergic to racism

The term "Philistine" is not racist. Nobody uses it to refer to Palestinians. Is using "Babylon (http://islandpen.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/what-does-babylon-mean-in-reggae/)" as a word for British and American wealth and excess "racist" towards Iraqis? If we talk about "vandalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals#Kingdom_in_North_Africa)" are we being racist towards Tunisians?


What's wrong with using philistine (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philistinism) in the pejorative sense? People exclusively use it to describe something that is hostile or indifferent to culture and the arts.

I think she is confusing "Philistine" with "Palestinian"


And yet, for all the verbiage, you can't say why you oppose the secession of Crimea, and in fact compare it to ISIS beheading people. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but it is my understanding that beheading generally hurts actual people. Now, who is being hurt by the secession of Crimea? Gay people would experience the same obstacles whether under Crimea or Kiev, and the same goes for Roma etc.

And yes, shockingly enough nationalists are in fact nationalists, and are enemies of the proletariat. But they would remain the enemies of the proletariat even if Crimea reverted to the Ukraine - if anything they would gain in popularity. The only ones who would lose are Russian-speaking workers.


I oppose a movement which confuses workers by convincing them that secession to protect them from "liberalization" of anti gay laws will liberate them.

To say they will face the "same obstacles" is silly - clearly gay rights activists in Russia face different kinds of challenges from those in France.


As for ISIS, yes, I do think a single-track opposition to ISIS of the sort that is popular on RevLeft these days is a concession to imperialism. Hell, people here apparently want the US to arm Kurdish militias, because that's such a good idea (but hey, fuck people on the ground, if it means some US coffee-cooperative-dweller can enthuse about national autonomism and Book Chin finally being acknowledged as the premier revolutionary theorist of the century).

FYI the US government is not arming and probably wont get around to arming the PYD


Your argument that the USSR was imperialist is simply "it obviously was". I could respect arguments like the one Pröbsting makes, even if it is completely factually incorrect, but you start from the firm belief that the USSR was imperialist and, not having moved one inch, you conclude that the USSR was imperialist. Likewise for Russia. It's imperialist because it scared some liberal journalists and pundits. Oh, and keep in mind I still remember your attempts to proclaim the Soviet Union a "police state" as opposed to the nice Western democracies.

(1) We're not talking about the USSR but free market Russia - the way imperialism functions in the two states is very different (and in a large part, contemporary Russian Imperialism largely impacts former Soviet states). The issue of whether the USSR was "Imperialist" or not was in passing and I'm not bothering to defend that thesis because it is not very relevant to Crimea in 2014.

(2) The debate of the USSR being a police state is different from it being "totalitarian" nor did I ever say the USSR was not as "nice" as the West - in fact, the whole point of what I was saying was that the European Capitalists violently oppressed 3rd world political movements as effective "police states"

(3) I never said Russia was Imperialist because "omg liberal journos" ... again that is your own attempt to strawman folks.

[Sasha]

Thug, assassin, so many cool words have ethnic origins

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

The term "Philistine" is not racist. Nobody uses it to refer to Palestinians. Is using "Babylon (http://islandpen.wordpress.com/2012/10/25/what-does-babylon-mean-in-reggae/)" as a word for British and American wealth and excess "racist" towards Iraqis? If we talk about "vandalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vandals#Kingdom_in_North_Africa)" are we being racist towards Tunisians?



I think she is confusing "Philistine" with "Palestinian"

No I'm not but does seem to reinforce the Western Christian notion that Semites or Semitic culture is backwards, uncoordinated, uncoothe and so in and doesn't really sit well with me.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

No I'm not but does seem to reinforce the Western Christian notion that Semites or Semitic culture is backwards, uncoordinated, uncoothe and so in and doesn't really sit well with me.

Maybe but Semites came up with the term in the first place. It is after all an ancient Hebrew word.

[Geiseric]

I'm not sure if russia is exporting capital, the definition of imperialism. Im also not sure if theyre investing in ukranian financial institutions. I know that NATO wants to open military bases though.

None of this excuses anti gay violence though.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I oppose a movement which confuses workers by convincing them that secession to protect them from "liberalization" of anti gay laws will liberate them.

Everyone opposes "the movement" (except Geiseric, I think, presumably because the Lambertistes are behind on their quota of capitulation to nationalism since Imširović died) but Russian nationalism is one thing, and secession from the Ukraine another. How, in fact, do you propose that the Russian workers be induced to break from the nationalists? "We oppose all national privileges and all forms of chauvinism and also don't you dare leave the Ukraine." Sure.


To say they will face the "same obstacles" is silly - clearly gay rights activists in Russia face different kinds of challenges from those in France.

Wow, now that's grasping at straws. Even if France were to annex the Ukraine tomorrow, which is the only situation in which your example might have a chance to make sense, the structural differences when it comes to the economy would ensure that nothing has changed for gays in the Ukraine - just as happened in Romania, Bulgaria and indeed Croatia when these countries joined the EU some of our esteemed forum members have the hots for.


FYI the US government is not arming and probably wont get around to arming the PYD

And I'm sure the workers of the region are as despondent about that as the so-called Leftists in the west.

No, wait, the other one.


(1) We're not talking about the USSR but free market Russia - the way imperialism functions in the two states is very different (and in a large part, contemporary Russian Imperialism largely impacts former Soviet states). The issue of whether the USSR was "Imperialist" or not was in passing and I'm not bothering to defend that thesis because it is not very relevant to Crimea in 2014.

In fact you claimed that both states can be described as imperialist - that is important because that's how Sovietophobia functions in a modern context, paradoxically enough (I mean people like Yeltsin and Putin tore the Soviet Union apart - they should be heroes to you people) the animus toward the former Soviet Union is transferred to Russia, in line with US foreign policy as always.


(2) The debate of the USSR being a police state is different from it being "totalitarian" nor did I ever say the USSR was not as "nice" as the West - in fact, the whole point of what I was saying was that the European Capitalists violently oppressed 3rd world political movements as effective "police states"

Which still implied that domestically they weren't "as bad" as the Soviet Union and the glacis states, which simply. Is. Not. True.


(3) I never said Russia was Imperialist because "omg liberal journos" ... again that is your own attempt to strawman folks.

No, you said it was imperialist because it obviously is. Oh, and do you think it is an accident your analysis coincides perfectly with the general thrust of US foreign policy? Come on.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Maybe but Semites came up with the term in the first place. It is after all an ancient Hebrew word.

You know what I mean. I'm not good with terminology, really.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Everyone opposes "the movement" (except Geiseric, I think, presumably because the Lambertistes are behind on their quota of capitulation to nationalism since Imširović died) but Russian nationalism is one thing, and secession from the Ukraine another. How, in fact, do you propose that the Russian workers be induced to break from the nationalists? "We oppose all national privileges and all forms of chauvinism and also don't you dare leave the Ukraine." Sure.


Show me where anybody talked about the importance of keeping Crimea Ukrainian, as opposed to highlighting the reactionary nature of Russian Crimea's leadership.


Wow, now that's grasping at straws. Even if France were to annex the Ukraine tomorrow, which is the only situation in which your example might have a chance to make sense, the structural differences when it comes to the economy would ensure that nothing has changed for gays in the Ukraine - just as happened in Romania, Bulgaria and indeed Croatia when these countries joined the EU some of our esteemed forum members have the hots for.

The point is that there are specific threats which the Russian Crimeans are making towards the gay community, playing off of the most reactionary tendencies within Russian nationalism.


And I'm sure the workers of the region are as despondent about that as the so-called Leftists in the west.

No, wait, the other one.

Its funny you claim to speak for the workers in this respect. What if Kurdish workers actually do support Western intervention to stop ISIS? Would you be as willing to accede to this view as you are to some Russian workers in Crimea backing reactionaries? Of course, we would instead speak to the fact that American support brings danger - as does Russian dominance over Crimea.


In fact you claimed that both states can be described as imperialist - that is important because that's how Sovietophobia functions in a modern context, paradoxically enough (I mean people like Yeltsin and Putin tore the Soviet Union apart - they should be heroes to you people) the animus toward the former Soviet Union is transferred to Russia, in line with US foreign policy as always.


Again you are playing a ludicrous game of strawmanning. Contemporary Russia is not the USSR, and one can think both are Imperialist for different reasons independently of neoconservative discourses.

Folks like Hoxha and Mao called the USSR "Imperialist" - I disagree with those thinkers but it highlights the fact that Leftists have criticized certain Soviet international policy decisions as well as the economic structure of the state. I guess it is easier for a Spart to just lump every Left critic of the USSR in with neocons though.


Which still implied that domestically they weren't "as bad" as the Soviet Union and the glacis states, which simply. Is. Not. True.


Only if you presuppose the difference between the "domestic" and the "colony"


No, you said it was imperialist because it obviously is. Oh, and do you think it is an accident your analysis coincides perfectly with the general thrust of US foreign policy? Come on.

First you strawman, then you guilt by association ... no wonder nobody like arguing with Sparts. You expose their fallacious reasoning in one area, and so they resort to new fallacies.


I'm not sure if russia is exporting capital, the definition of imperialism. Im also not sure if theyre investing in ukranian financial institutions. I know that NATO wants to open military bases though.

I think they are exporting capital, and need to so as to preserve their role in the international energy trade as well as their sway over trade in the former Soviet states.


None of this excuses anti gay violence though.

Exactly ... thankyou for being more honest than 870.

[Ocean Seal]

Jesus, are mods/BA asleep? Maoist Third Wolrdism is an anti-working class ideology because it opposes class struggle by large sections of the global proletariat, and is therefore, as far as I know, still a bannable/restrictable 'offence'.
Yeah MTW is a restrictable offense and the troll worthy post is bannable, but we can't always fix this within 30 minutes being that only admins can ban.

[Sasha]

Global mods can ban clear cut cases too, and I followed deep sea his posts also since he showed up, its just that for the sake of the discussion you let someone stay long enough to give users the time to destroy their rediculous "arguments" and only restrict/ban them when the discussion ran its course or they get disruptive, echo chambers are boring and not educational.

[Hagalaz]

Sure is a lot of hatred between members around here.

[Slavic]

Sure is a lot of hatred between members around here.

There is nothing wrong with hatred toward bigots.