The cold, hard truth in the war between Russia and Ukraine today is that Ukraine’s last-gasp offensive has failed, and no amount of spin will change the outcome.
The pure (libertarian) socialists' ideological anticipations remain untainted by existing practice. They do not explain how the manifold functions of a revolutionary society would be organized, how external attack and internal sabotage would be thwarted, how bureaucracy would be avoided, scarce resources allocated, policy differences settled, priorities set, and production and distribution conducted. Instead, they offer vague statements about how the workers themselves will directly own and control the means of production and will arrive at their own solutions through creative struggle. No surprise then that the pure socialists support every revolution except the ones that succeed.
This is more of a comment on radlibs and baby anarchists, but it strikes me as appropriate here. It's very easy to idealistically criticize everything that isn't the way it should be. At some point, though, you have to address reality.
"When I pay for this Snickers I'm a glutton, but when I steal it I'm a thief! What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy saying that you judge me for eating a Snickers, so assiduously marketed by 7/11 that it affects cashiers across their entire national footprint."
Come now I am trying to ask questions in an attempt to get them to question the shit they have been immersed in from birth. As excellent a use of that emoji as that is I think we have a miniscule chance to maybe reach this person if we can get the gears turning.
In an ideal world where there was a good-faith international actor or organization who could take the role of moderating a referendum, and the outcome be respected by all parties, that would be ideal. However, no such organization exists. The institutions of the so-called "rules based international order" serve the interests of western hegemony. That is why, for example, Catalonia is not able to have an effective referendum for independence from Spain, and that is a perfectly fine state of affairs; just the way things are. Maybe a diplomatic complaint gets filed somewhere, maybe someone calls out how awful it is that police were interfering with the referendum in 2017, and they're not wrong. But ultimately, nothing fundamentally changes, and that is the point.
Should people just accept the way things are until an ideal situation allows them to improve their lives in a way everyone finds acceptable? What should people do if things are only getting worse, and there are no effective, good-faith actors to mediate the best possible solution?
until an ideal situation allows them to improve their lives in a way everyone finds acceptable?
Craziest part is that a lot of people that follow that line of thinking have also at least recognized the immediacy of police and prison abolition in the context of places like the US but can't seem to take the next step in applying the same logic to places outside the imperial core.
By a random dictatorship well known for destabilising and invading its neighbors, absolutely not.
Definitely not talking about the USA. You are also not aware of the fact that the USA is sending troops to Peru to back a government that is currently supported by 6% of its people. But I’m sure this has no relevance at all to the situation in Ukraine. Despite its many honest mistakes (centuries of ongoing slavery and genocide), the USA has been overall a force for good in the world!
If people in a country want to secede then it is up to the country and its procedures to do so. They can have a vote (not the invaders variant as that does not count) but you will have no guarantee it will happen though.
Is this going to be a form of 4chan discussion where you will never answer but keep bouncing new questions as a form of discouragement?
Answered your question clearly. You might not like or understand it but answered it was.
And I see you have another question. So 4chan style it is for you. For being bad faith poster I will now stop discussing with you as it is painfully obvious what you want to do here.
If people in a country want to secede then it is up to the country and its procedures to do so.
Say the occupied Navajo nation (or Hawaii, or Puerto Rico...) wants to formally secede from the U.S. The U.S. says no, and says they can't even vote on it. What then?
Without specifying a group or situation, they rules and procedures for seceding should be followed. If the process fails to deliver your wanted outcome then you have to abide to the rulings.
What is not ok is for a foreign body to interfere. Certainly not by invading said country and killing, torturing and whatnot. If secession is successful then that autonomous new country can join whatever other country at their hearts desire. But again, that other country is not to step in and force secession.
Now what if the plight is of such nature it is not sustainable? The last resort you have is revolution or civil war. Again, not the call of a foreign body to step in and start killing people.
Invading and starting a war which costs the live of innocent people is not the answer.
If the process fails to deliver your wanted outcome then you have to abide to the rulings.
So if all Puerto Ricans unanimously decide to declare independence and the U.S. says "nah," they're just supposed to live with that? How is that just? You even acknowledge that's the path to a revolution or civil war, which we can both agree is a terrible option. What right does any country have to impose its will (through violence, of course) on a unified region that wants to leave?
Once a region declares independence, why does it have to fight with one arm behind its back? Isn't it free to seek out allies, as all warring countries have done throughout history?
Should the American Colonies have declared independence? Should they have sought the help of France to even the odds against their much stronger opponent?
Like I said, voting for or wanting a separation does not guarantee you get what you desire.
It’s up to a country to determine how and if secession is possible. If the people of the complete country disagree with this separation the it will not happen and should not happen. Are the rest of a country any less of a factor? It is their country after all.
Discussing other situations specifically is tricky here. The formation of the US for example is incredibly difficult. Where did it start? The French, British or the colonist who formed the current country?
In the case we are discussing we have to deal with country as-is, the Ukraine as a whole. If secession is wanted then this region has to follow the rules and possibilities of Ukraine. iI’m not privy to these tbh.
What is not acceptable is invading that country and start killing people. Masquerading an election as valid while invading that country is not an option to consider as fair or legitimate.
Allow me to answer your question with a question: Do you believe in the right to self determination of people in the Donbas?
Through properly monitored and implemented referendums, yeah.
By a random dictatorship well known for destabilising and invading its neighbors, absolutely not.
And what gives you the right to determine what "properly monitored and implemented referendums" are?
Also Russia is a dictatorship of the bourgeoisie just the same as the US so that argument holds zero water here.
I am genuinely curious what your metrics for what constitutes a legitimate referendum are.
Nothing to do with me. I'm a programmer lol
Nothing to do with the US. I wouldn't support them invading a neighbor after a bogus vote they arranged. Whataboutism.
Independent monitors to make sure the vote is fair.
And who are these independent monitors?
--Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds
This is more of a comment on radlibs and baby anarchists, but it strikes me as appropriate here. It's very easy to idealistically criticize everything that isn't the way it should be. At some point, though, you have to address reality.
Oh yeah I quote from that book all the time at the cash register lol
"When I pay for this Snickers I'm a glutton, but when I steal it I'm a thief! What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy saying that you judge me for eating a Snickers, so assiduously marketed by 7/11 that it affects cashiers across their entire national footprint."
No answer to that one.
You say this shit like it isn't a euphemism.
Democracy
Dictatorship
Come now I am trying to ask questions in an attempt to get them to question the shit they have been immersed in from birth. As excellent a use of that emoji as that is I think we have a miniscule chance to maybe reach this person if we can get the gears turning.
In an ideal world where there was a good-faith international actor or organization who could take the role of moderating a referendum, and the outcome be respected by all parties, that would be ideal. However, no such organization exists. The institutions of the so-called "rules based international order" serve the interests of western hegemony. That is why, for example, Catalonia is not able to have an effective referendum for independence from Spain, and that is a perfectly fine state of affairs; just the way things are. Maybe a diplomatic complaint gets filed somewhere, maybe someone calls out how awful it is that police were interfering with the referendum in 2017, and they're not wrong. But ultimately, nothing fundamentally changes, and that is the point.
Should people just accept the way things are until an ideal situation allows them to improve their lives in a way everyone finds acceptable? What should people do if things are only getting worse, and there are no effective, good-faith actors to mediate the best possible solution?
Craziest part is that a lot of people that follow that line of thinking have also at least recognized the immediacy of police and prison abolition in the context of places like the US but can't seem to take the next step in applying the same logic to places outside the imperial core.
Definitely not talking about the USA. You are also not aware of the fact that the USA is sending troops to Peru to back a government that is currently supported by 6% of its people. But I’m sure this has no relevance at all to the situation in Ukraine. Despite its many honest mistakes (centuries of ongoing slavery and genocide), the USA has been overall a force for good in the world!
So no answer then?
If people in a country want to secede then it is up to the country and its procedures to do so. They can have a vote (not the invaders variant as that does not count) but you will have no guarantee it will happen though.
Is this going to be a form of 4chan discussion where you will never answer but keep bouncing new questions as a form of discouragement?
You still did not answer my question:
What constitutes - in your eyes- "properly monitored"?
Answered your question clearly. You might not like or understand it but answered it was.
And I see you have another question. So 4chan style it is for you. For being bad faith poster I will now stop discussing with you as it is painfully obvious what you want to do here.
You literally did not answer the question.
What do you consider to be "properly monitored"?
Also I have never once posted or even visited the Nazi shithole that is 4chan so nice ad hominem.
https://feddit.nl/comment/1945149
Say the occupied Navajo nation (or Hawaii, or Puerto Rico...) wants to formally secede from the U.S. The U.S. says no, and says they can't even vote on it. What then?
Without specifying a group or situation, they rules and procedures for seceding should be followed. If the process fails to deliver your wanted outcome then you have to abide to the rulings.
What is not ok is for a foreign body to interfere. Certainly not by invading said country and killing, torturing and whatnot. If secession is successful then that autonomous new country can join whatever other country at their hearts desire. But again, that other country is not to step in and force secession.
Now what if the plight is of such nature it is not sustainable? The last resort you have is revolution or civil war. Again, not the call of a foreign body to step in and start killing people.
Invading and starting a war which costs the live of innocent people is not the answer.
So if all Puerto Ricans unanimously decide to declare independence and the U.S. says "nah," they're just supposed to live with that? How is that just? You even acknowledge that's the path to a revolution or civil war, which we can both agree is a terrible option. What right does any country have to impose its will (through violence, of course) on a unified region that wants to leave?
Once a region declares independence, why does it have to fight with one arm behind its back? Isn't it free to seek out allies, as all warring countries have done throughout history?
Should the American Colonies have declared independence? Should they have sought the help of France to even the odds against their much stronger opponent?
Like I said, voting for or wanting a separation does not guarantee you get what you desire.
It’s up to a country to determine how and if secession is possible. If the people of the complete country disagree with this separation the it will not happen and should not happen. Are the rest of a country any less of a factor? It is their country after all.
Discussing other situations specifically is tricky here. The formation of the US for example is incredibly difficult. Where did it start? The French, British or the colonist who formed the current country?
In the case we are discussing we have to deal with country as-is, the Ukraine as a whole. If secession is wanted then this region has to follow the rules and possibilities of Ukraine. iI’m not privy to these tbh.
What is not acceptable is invading that country and start killing people. Masquerading an election as valid while invading that country is not an option to consider as fair or legitimate.
They literally asked for protection because they tried to do what you said they should and were met by siege warfare from their own government.