- cross-posted to:
- anarchism@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- anarchism@lemmy.ml
Statements by Movement of Irkutsk Anarchists and Combat Organization of Anarcho-Communists, translated by CrimethInc.
In the current situation around the Wagner mutiny, there is no side we can choose but ourselves.
We do not flatter ourselves: the onset of this moment could take some time. From the February revolution (during which the generals participated in removing the Tsar) to the October revolution, nine months passed. From the Kornilov rebellion to October, two months.
neither the Putin regime nor Prigozhinsky are our friends. In this fight between two cannibals, anarchists should stay away—let them bleed each other as much as possible.
You must log in or register to comment.
gloves are off when Prigozhin equates anarchy to chaosBut, Putin also equated this to
so both sides are finding time to make these astute comparisonsIt makes more sense to "support" Putin because this conflict is not happening in a vacuum and its outcome also is important to the conflict between Russia and NATO. Wagner winning would probably represent -- at best -- another 1993 and may in fact be much worse depending on the influence of genuine Nazis. Mutual destruction would also, much more directly, represent another 1993 because it would mean NATO can roll in whether via tanks or corporate stooges and take over.
Third campism is trot bullshit and should not be supported.
The Trotskyists wanted the Chinese communists to do Lenin’s “revolutionary defeatism” by abandoning collaboration with the national bourgeoisie (i.e. the KMT), but instead act on defeating the KMT government right when the Imperial Japanese Army was rampaging through China.
Between this and Stalin wanting the CPC to self-liquidate and join the KMT, I'm glad Mao completely ignored both their terrible advice.
What did Chen do after that? Did he try to make a fourth (/fifth?) camp?
Stalin was incorrect, but it wasn't as terrible advice at the time as it may look today. The KMT was a very, uh, dynamic organization that went through many different phases.
No but you see its the moral thing to do, the moral thing being suspiciously similar to what would be best outcome for the state department. The issue of the „left-deviationists“ is like sooo common with the western left (for historical reasons of course).
I find it extremely curious how it's "both sides suck" when it's Putin vs Prigozhinsky, but it's "the Ukrainian state has a right to exist" when it's Putin vs Zelensky. From a previous article where they interviewed one of the same anarchist orgs:
So the Putin regime is bad for the transformation of Russia to "a neo-Stalinist concentration camp," Prigozhinsky is bad for being some merc loudmouth who wants to raze Kiev to the ground, but the Zelensky regime is good for wanting to liquidate ethnic Russians living in the Donbas. But then again, crimethinc has always been sus for almost always toeing the Western line.
Certainly, but contra to radlib claims, the odds are low that any of us are Russian feds.
Yeah, the only way it could be more anarcho-bidenist is if it was siding with Wagner overtly
finalizing its transformation into a neo-Stalinist concentration camp
I'm in. Death to Ukraine.
Z.
True that its better that Putin beats Wagner than the other way around. But what does "support" mean here beyond pointing out that lone fact? Russian anarchists and communists aren't going to commit any material support for Putin and probably shouldn't. So why confuse the public?
I mean, one of the groups is calling for attacks on rail and oil infrastructure, which is pretty clearly taking sides against Putin without a mass movement capable of picking up the pieces. Imo this is a bad call outside of the core of empire, akin to extending the sanctions from the bottom up.
Attacking infrastructure right now doesnt seem in line with those statements. They should be avoid being collateral and taking the time of a distracted Putin to build that missing mass movement.
For sure, that's my take too, and I think the first and third group were talking along those lines. The second group is probably just more nihilist in orientation than the other two
I'd suggest Russian communists make an effort to oppose Wagner in parallel to Putin's opposition of the same.
Why would we subject our own bodies to destruction when there's plenty of willing patriots? Some fights are just worth sitting out.
Because Nazis should be crushed? Because Russia caving to NATO would fuck you over tremendously? By all means, I'm not saying take my word as authoritative, but this is an ideologically very clear case for militant praxis and pretending otherwise is silly.
And what position would those communists find themselves after Wagner is defeated? Are they to expect Putin to tolerate an armed communist militia? Are they supposed to take the place of Wagner on the front lines?
Putin is not a committed anticommunist, if they were strictly attacking the Wagnerites I think he would treat them as any other militia in that position. I frankly don't know how militias in general would be treated though. Could it merely be disbanded? Would it be pressed into service in Ukraine? I don't know, but I don't think members would simply be killed or imprisoned if they had already made it clear that they weren't going to turn their guns on the Federation, whatever rightful grievances they have with it. It simply wouldn't be pragmatic.
It is better for Russia to win in Ukraine though, so it's ideologically consistent to say that conscription is not optimal but also not intolerable as an option since it would be in opposition to NATO through their proxy state.
I would've expected him to try press them into replacing Wagner. I also wouldn't be so blaise about feeding many of Russia's militant communists into a meat grinder.
Its all moot now though. Come to think of it. The idea that any sort of militia could rapidly materialize out of nothing to meanfully fight a professional fighting force like Wagner seems ridiculous.
I came across this passage from losurdo's class struggle on how marx viewed such scenarios "Finally, let us return one last time to Longuet’s testimony. In confirmation of the ‘clear, frank theory of class struggle’ professed by Marx and his family circle, he added a further detail : ‘[i]n this house people never hesitate to take sides in conflicts where “different fractions of the bourgeoisie” can be recognized’."
Sure, I was just curious about the reasoning behind their thesis. Perhaps it is like Mao's answer about "primary contradictions", but obviously one shouldn't be hasty to assume like that.
unfortunately its just a throwaway line in the book, used to support the much less exciting point of "there are multiple class struggles". I guess you'd probably have to chase up the longuet guy
So its from an Italian book called "Colloqui con Marx e Engels - Enzensberger (editor)" (which might be german but i could only find an italian download) which is a compilation of accounts of his life. I found the text and DeepL translated the account
The author here, Longuet, is the son in law of Marx
The full text
CHARLES LONGUET [1900] summer 1872
We feel with how much emotion and anxiety Marx wrote [his pages on the Paris Commune]. We feel that he admires and loves those unknown proletarians, those obscure brothers, whose imperishable memory will live forever "in the great heart of the working class." The horrors experienced by these martyrs of a new faith, the tortures they suffered, all this immense grief brought mourning to the house of Marx, as they were mourned throughout the the whole world by the great family of socialists, of which Marx is the honor and glory.
This was Marx's state of mind, these the feelings of his family when he wrote those pages of fire. There, in the extreme refuge of the Hegelian dialectic - which today advances, along with all of us, put back on its feet by Marx, and is therefore able to advance again - there, in the temple of historical materialism, always pulsated a life full of the highest ideals - the only life worth living. There the exiles of all movements people were always welcomed with open arms, and, regardless of any other consideration, from any dissent of a theoretical or doctrinal order, with a spirit far from any trace of sectarianism, they encountered the signs most numerous and tangible of the most affectionate hospitality. In that house no one was ever wronged any absent, independent spirit. There was no ashamed to honor the noble adventurer of Italian independence [Garibaldi]. Even the heroism thrown to the wind of one Gustave Flourens, as active in Crete as in Belleville, was followed with emotion rather than with derision. In that house never lacked a gentle hand ready to caress the idealized image of the romantic knight of the Mancha.
The Polish insurrection of 1863, the Irish Fenian uprisings of 1869, the Agrarian League and the Home Rulers of 1874: all these uprisings of the oppressed nationalities were followed from the terraces of that fortress of the International with no less interest than the rising tide of the socialist movement of the two hemispheres.
In that house one never hesitated to take a stand against the conflicts in which one could recognize "the different fractions of the bourgeoisie." Neutrality was abhorred. In the words of his favorite poet, the implacable Ghibelline, Marx hunted neutral souls to the gates of hell,
"Mixed [...] with that evil chorus
Of the angels who were not rebellious
Nor were faithful to God, but for themselves were"
damned not for their revolt but for their cowardice. His philosophy was not was casuistry; never would he take refuge in ambiguous quibbles where at stake was at stake the clear, open theory of class struggle. Marx would have stigmatized the torturers of Captain Dreyfus no less than the executioners of the worker Varlin.
It looks like it was about supporting national bourgeoisie in national liberation struggles like poland and ireland
"Marx hunted neutral souls to the gates of hell" goes crazyyyyy
The extra parliamentary communists/ anarchists are having a good day there.
Wonder if the parliamentary ones will grow a spine, though honestly they're so awful I find it hard to offer even critical support sometimes.
You do not need to offer critical support for the parliamentary communists, they're a nostalgia act filled with revisionists and reactionaries.
Who the hell knows anymore
We're gonna wake up in three weeks and there'll be news reports of the Crustacean Hegemony making inroads through Canada
Maybe this is mean but the "neither putin nor prigozhin" message isn't really for us, we already now, this is for the substantial amount of "self-described" anarchists who actually need this told to them
Sorry
