I'm not convinced but it is important to read opposing views, so here goes.
You must log in or register to comment.
Bunch of rambling propaganda, just casually sneaks in a categorical denial that Russia could have any security concerns, and claims all leftists should agree with self determination without then dealing with the issue of the Donbass republics(presumably this author is of the opinion that they are not legitimate expressions of self-determination).
Then tries to exonerate Zelensky as essentially a powerless moderate in the face of an uncontrollable nationalist ferment and that if we dont support him and win the war for him, Ukraine will certainly collapse into authoritarianism. Why the fuck should we care about the nuance that "Oh actually Zelensky didnt put the anti-russian laws into place he just repeatedly backed down from doing anything about them when nazis complained"? Its just the same exact shit we have heard over and over again since the start of this war.
Edit: Also the hammering of the idea that "The people, not the state, rose up" is undercut by the fact that half the population or so are not allowed to leave the country, locking them between looking on powerless or joining the military.
Also also, I find it interesting that none of these screeds contain a real plan or call for action against their own nationalists after the war is over, I mean most dont even acknowledge a nationalist threat but here its presented as on the cusp of taking over Ukraine with Zelensky as the sole big man keeping things moderate, and the only real idea they have is "Well if we win the war that will boost Zelenskys prestige and keep him in power over the nationalists", which is moronic.
without then dealing with the issue of the Donbass republics(presumably this author is of the opinion that they are not legitimate expressions of self-determination).
Presumably Crimea too
The complete difference in clarity between this vague, cloudy drivel and that article the Union Of Communists Of Ukraine put out recently shows the difference between actual communist, material analysist and idealist left-libs pretending they're socialists.
you gotta move this to dunk tank, it's Jacobin so it's a freebie anyways, this post is gonna get eaten alive
also the archive has a giant pop up on it and it's grayed out, the original is much more readable
Didn't many of Ukraine's actual leftists get arrested recently? Unless this article was written from jail, it's pretty plausible that this is just Ukrainian Bernie Sanders giving a shitty foreign policy take (as standard).
I know their political parties have all been banned and they've faced harassment, kidnapping, and torture from the SBU and paramilitaries since at least the Maidan coup. But then there are, or were, anarchist and leftist formations in the territorial defense forces, too.
But then there are, or were, anarchist and leftist formations in the territorial defense forces, too.
That sinking feeling that you're going to be Night of the Long Knives'd
The basic premise of self determination that any leftist should agree with
Yes, you should. For LPR, DPR and Crimea. But you don't do you?
This is why people call Jacobin an op. Articles like this one.
Jacobin serves a long leftist tradition of westoids limiting "self-determination" to what is easiest to defend at brunch and doesnt require materialism
I'm happy you posted this but it might need to go to c/dunktank
Also I guess this is 80 year old petty trot drama but citing "if fascist Italy supported an anti-colonial uprising against France, internationalist should support them arming the rebels" is a pretty bad point because if that situation happened, Italy would probably be able to give arms to a questionable faction if they truly supported the cause, or stop supporting the cause pretty quickly when convenient like the US and the Kurds.
Also doesn't really talk about Zelensky banning opposing parties (liberals suddenly don't care about free speech when national security is at risk but still hate Cuba)
I guess it's different when you're on the ground with the troops so shit gets normalized, but rationalizing Zelensky trying to appease nationalists and not talking about the banning of left parties is sus to me (call them Russian shills or address them in some way). Idk what the Jacobin line is with pre-WW2 Germany and the whole Rosa Luxemburg thing but to me that's making the exact same mistakes again, rationalizing a liberal handing power to fascists.
Why did Azov get their own city to rule before Russia took over (Mariupol) and there weren't any hard left equivalents?
Also hate when the idea of self-determination is brought up when it comes to joining NATO, a military alliance with a defence pact, which is not the same as a defensive organization. What about self determination of those two new republics in the less bandera part of the country? I guess it's a half realpolitik argument and half NATO bad argument, but it's still a risky move to poke Russia like that by joining the org that toppled Gaddafi and didn't care about what happened next in Libya.
Also not sure about military defeat of Russia being a good thing if it gets carved out again like after the Soviet Union, but maybe it would be a reshuffle to a similar situation so I'm not really going to argue against that point.
I get that the situation in Ukraine probably really sucks now, and I don't want to be that critical of this guy, but this article really doesn't state anything. Like all he says is that the Ukrainian military needs to win, because if/when they lose Azov will probably take over, and therefore the west needs to give be writing the Ukrainian military blank checks for the foreseeable future. The US and Europe have sent Ukraine 30 billion dollars in military aid and they're still losing. And eventually they will lose this war.
His whole comparison to Vietnam is also way off the mark. Ukraine isn't fighting a war for independence and it isn't a colony of Russia. Trotsky's statement about Algeria makes some sense because that would have been an actual anti-colonialist war, and no matter how many times the NY Times and Jacobin say it, Ukraine and Russia just don't have the same relationship as France and Algeria. And besides, I don't know who this is being written for, is it to ensure that AOC keeps voting in favor of funding the war? Everyone in Congress is on board with this, and like maybe 5 of them read Jacobin.
Where are the leftists that stop their own governments from sending military aid to Ukraine? None.
This has happened in Greece, I think?
despite various pleads from Moscow, both before and after the war started, for diplomatic resolution of the situation. All had been ignored.
do you not see any problem in framing this in such a way that the aggressing force in the conflict is making the pleas for a diplomatic solution after the invasion? is demanding 'de-nazification' and de-militarization a plea or a set of war aims? and I'm putting 'de-nazification' in quotes because, frankly, if you believe this talking point from the russian side has any substance, I really do think you're buying their propaganda the same way libs buy the nato line. it's pretty much bullshit. ultra-nationalists are a dime a dozen throughout europe, and that includes russia. ultra-nationalists are the base of the current russian government ffs.
whether you like it or not, the world is different as a result of this war. Nato has become more powerful as a result of it. buying into the russian state's talking points doesn't help any more than buying into the other side. matter of fact, it makes you look like a fool to the average person.
You have people declaring People’s Republics in the east of the country, and this ‘socialist’ really wants to back an illiberal liberal.
How about this: support the east to the hilt, have them take care of your Nazi nationalist problem, and work with those republics during reconstruction.
And no I didn’t read the article
either deserves a :funny-clown-hammer: or :amber: for 99% of their articles
I've been having this thought for a while but haven't been sure enough to say it out loud. This article is plenty enough to push me over the edge.
https://jacobin.com/2021/04/uyghur-oppression-ccp-surveillance-reeducation-war-on-terror
https://jacobin.com/2019/06/china-uyghur-persecution-concentration-campsthey're CIA as NYT. The author of both articles works at Stanford and looky here. https://news.stanford.edu/report/2021/02/12/faculty-senate-seeks-future-report-increased-collaboration-hoover-institution-stanford/ He's a professor of comparative literature and he originally testified AGAINST the Hoover institution taking over.
“But too much of what we have seen coming out of the Hoover has made a travesty of honest intellectual debate, because an excess of partisanship has led some Hoover fellows out of the realm of fact, science and good faith argumentation,” he said."
The CIA has done it many times before, same with the MI6 in the UK (The Greyzone has covered it and interviewed the professors themselves). They threaten to get professors fired if they don't play ball. I think this guy just went along with them after he was threatened. He's also a perfect candidate for such an article because he has an Asian-ish last name, and it seems like the CIA prefers "China bad" articles to be authored by Asian people, for whatever reason. As an aside, this is why I said maybe Chomsky is self-censoring less because he's getting old and doesn't give a fuck about CIA threats anymore.
The institution’s “purpose,” as Hoover defined it in 1959, “must be, by its research and publications, to demonstrate the evils of the doctrines of Karl Marx — whether Communism, Socialism, economic materialism, or atheism — thus to protect the American way of life from such ideologies, their conspiracies, and to reaffirm the validity of the American system.” Sounds exactly like the goal of the CIA.
Very interesting use of the word "conspiracies" here though. I wonder if that word was in vogue back then. Source: https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2020-11-17/stanford-hoover-institution
no they’re literally just :amber: s politics as a magazine, you don’t need intelligence agencies to have a mix of kautskyism trotskyism and stupidpol as your editorial line and produce :jesse-wtf: content
I’ve read enough to know they’re really genuinely idiots
https://youtu.be/FqB8Rb4bXjQ
I'm not saying their entire staff is literally working from Langley. Just that their editorial policy is being heavily influenced by the national security state. They're free to write dumb articles as long as the main message aligns with whatever the CIA and state department are saying.
but like why and how does this work, in what way would be something unacceptable for them to publish if they have to stick to some sort of line
I am not aware of media whistleblowers so I don't know the details but you should look at The Greyzone's recent youtube video/article talking about MI6 suppression of academics in UK who spoke out against the false flag in Syria. They interview the professors themselves.
I just read it the article is absolutely derranged and does not claim the academic were surpressed in any way only that some idiot was collecting information on them to maybe to shame them or something, it’s also the grayzone lmao.
I’m not gonna watch a 30m video on the same topic it’s too long, I would not put all my eggs in one basket into a news source that hides their funding and themselves basically toe the editorial line of being Russian state media even if they don’t admit it. They also published an unironic article claiming philosophy tube was mi6 or whatever on top of all the anti vax stuff recently.
are you on the wrong site or something
the evidence is definitive. reddit worldnews is thatawayFunny of you to say this and then go on the next day to make a stand for Taiwanese independence
I’ll stop by and chat with my :cia: handler on the way over there :rat-salute:
