I'm trying to learn more about the Russia/Ukraine conflict. In the articles that I find that seem to be critical of Ukraine, there are a few that are right wing that seem to have similar viewpoints as what I've read on here or in the more leftist articles.
For example this piece from National Interest, or this from the CATO institute.
There are others that aren't flagged as right wing that are critical, but it's just got me wondering, why would right wing politicians/publications perceive these things similarly to how some communists would when the ideologies of both are so extremely opposite?
Disclaimer: I'm not pro-ukraine at all, but in my search for info that's not super pro-Ukraine propaganda, this is the stuff that comes up for me
What a democratic action? Is a democracy violently putting down a far right uprising authoritarian or democratic? Is a democracy invading a another country to "bring it democracy" authoritarian or democratic?
Is a government that's only democratic for some of its citizens but maintains the economic prosperity needed for a stable democracy by ruthlessly exploiting some of its own citizens and/or others abroad democratic or authoritarian?
Protecting democratic processes from authoritarians is democratic, even when physical violence is required in doing so.
Invasions aren't. The people of a country should be the ones wielding the power there, not a foreign military.
"Democracy for some" is authoritarianism
I can't remember the last time most western democracies held referenda before going to war.
Would it be safe to say that this is inherently authoritarian and that the violent resistance and potential overthrow of these governments would be a democratic action because, as illustrated above, these governments are authoritarian and they wantonly violate the democratic process?
The invasion of other countries is authoritarian. Resistance against that, even violent, is warrented.
Unfortunately, even the most democratic systems will have authoritarian elements. The world isn't black and white, it isn't "good" democracies vs "evil" dictatorships. Pretty much every country has a hybrid system running.
Whether a government is so rotten that it needs to be overthrown is up to the people. The questions ultimately are: is our government democratic enough? Are there ways of reforming it? Is overthrowing it worth the bloodshed? Will our newly established government have a chance of being more democratic, or is it more likely to end up even more authoritarian?
I can't answer these questions, personally I think the time for a revolt is around the time the government starts to lock up non-violent dissidents.
I know they aren't here to defend this asinine point of view, but for the viewers at home, this means that they literally believe that the time to revolt is when someone is locked up for stealing something (who knows though, maybe that is a 'violent dissent from the democratic rights of the property owner, I can't tell), put in jail overnight for public intoxication, or being placed in jail for not paying a fine. While I can somewhat agree with this, that still means that there hasn't been a single government in the existence of the world that isn't authoritarian and in need of immediate revolution. This includes any known functional anarchist collectives. This statement essentially leads to a state of constant revolution, an unprincipled libertarian anarchists or Trotskyist wet dream.
The logic goes like this, if you are in violation of the rules of a polity, you are by definition, dissenting from the decisions of that polity, what that means is that 'non-violent dissension' is an impossibly broad term that has never applied and can never apply to any real functional state apparatus. It is quite literally the bedrock of 'no-bedtimes, no-vegetables' libertarian anarchism. The state, under this idea, could never actually enforce any public mandates such as vaccination, public education, or speed limits without being in violation. They also could not control the business dealings of hostile corporate entities, as long as they are suitably 'non-violent'.
The state is still wielding its authority against people, the fact it's towards a cause you think is good doesn't magically make it not an exercise of authority.
Also most western democracies aren't really democracies by your approximation since most were colonialist nations for much of their history, partially when they became democracies, and the economics stability that helped them grow stable democracies came in large part from exploiting colonialist subjects.
The state will always hold authority against individuals. There is nothing wrong with that per se, as long as the state gets that authority from the people by democratic means.
Just wanna shout-out here that the state in this case fucking loves doing shit that the majority of its populace does not support, like funneling $14B and change into one of its colonies doing genocide
How do you determine from where the authority derives? Also, In your mind, can democracy look like anything other than western bourgeois democracy? And, if so, what are the mechanisms of democracy that imbue it with the anti-authority characteristics that counteract specific utilization of violence/authority?
Also, what are the appropriate measures of violence/oppression that a state can take on when dealing with, for example, foreign invasion/aggression before they switch over to authoritarian (despite claiming to be defending democracy)?
How do I determine where a states authority derives from? By looking at the state of democracy. If the state has functioning democratic processes, it gets most of its authority from the people, otherwise it doesn't.
Democracy in and of itself doesn't have "mechanisms" to prevent violence or authoritarianism. If anything, the past has shown how fragile it is. It is up to the people to constantly monitor the state of democracy and step in when things get authoritarian. Democracy is little more than the idea that the power should come from the population at large, rather than a small subset of it.
I don't see how an invasion would justify any amount of oppression of the population. The only appropriate violence is that which is necessary to repell the invaders.
What are those democratic processes? How are those functioning democratic processes not mechanisms that are intended to solidify a public mandate and prevent resistance to policy by the population?
If Democracy is fragile how does one protect it? What are the tools that one can use to defend democracy? Habeus Corpus suspension act of 1863, overreach or necessity? Where is the line? If there are "democratic actions" and "authoritarian actions" that are separate from an authoritarian state or a democratic state then presumably we can look at history and determine where this line is.
And would you say the US government derives its authority from democratic means? Despite peoples' votes only mattering in a handful of swing states, despite the government constantly taking actions that are massively unpopular or refusing to take up ones that are massively popular, despite systemic, racialized disenfranchisement via the prison industrial complex?
No I would not. The US has markings of an oligarchy, giving the rich way more power than the poor.
So then you'd support the use of violence to instate actual democracy in the US then?