A 'Hard Left' view of the War in Ukraine

[sartre play]

We the people, will have a fighting chance only when or if We get honest.
Admit that neither party is working in our better interest.
AND start demanding that they work for us,
and not for a name brand political party.

 

[Doug1943]

We the people, will have a fighting chance only when or if We get honest.
Admit that neither party is working in our better interest.
AND start demanding that they work for us,
and not for a name brand political party.

The problem is, modern politics requires political parties. The Founders hoped it wouldn't, but it just does.

So we have to try to express our will via political party. If you lean to the Left, that's the Democrats. To the Right, the Republicans.

But ... once you become a 'professional' politician, you become subject to many pressures:
--- lobby groups, who can mobilize activists for or against you. (See how the maniac and eventual mass murderer Jim Jones made the Democrats serve him in the Bay Area in the late 70s, via his deluded "Peoples' Temple" followers.
[ Jim Jones - Wikipedia ] )
--- Above, money, money, money. It costs a minimum of one million dollars to mount a bid just to become a Congressmen. You don't get that from passing the hat around at meetings, not for most people.

It's a problem. All we can do is to join our chosen party, work within it, but also work outside it to build mass movements that can pressure your party, and provide people who can become 'professional' politicians and perhaps resist the wrong outside influences.

For us patriots, the DSA's work inside the Democrats seems like something worth studying and maybe learning from.

 

[otto105]

An even more profound comment! Are there no limits to this man's brilliance?

Thank you and no there is not.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

“All we can do is to join our chosen party, work within it, but also work outside it to build mass movements that can pressure your party, and provide people who can become 'professional' politicians and perhaps resist the wrong outside influences.” — Doug 1943

“For us patriots, the DSA's work inside the Democrats seems like something worth studying and maybe learning from.”

The choice to work within one or the other major parties to effect change is certainly available to anyone, including so-called “socialists.” The Democrats attract most “democratic socialists” and the Republicans attract most “national socialists” — aka fascists.

But the tiny “hard left” (and fascist right) usually clearly distinguishe themselves from both mainstream capitalist parties — or at least their traditional leaders.

The war in Ukraine has not only torn apart “democratic socialist” mini groups in Russia and Ukraine, but its powerful nationalist hysteria and war repression has mostly crushed their very existence.

Meanwhile, in the West “anti war” socialists and “hard leftists” are divided as to how exactly to respond to Putin’s bloody invasion, as well as to U.S. / NATO’s seemingly ever-increasing financial and military support to Ukraine. Left groups differ radically over this war. In this they are not much different than most ordinary Republicans.

Of course being divided about how to proceed on their own, real “Left” organizations are also divided over how or even whether to make any “United Front” temporary alliances with the right. Still, we will probably eventually see more “anti- Ukraine war” demonstrations like the one in D.C. earlier this month … as this war grinds on and becomes even more bloody.

The European “hard left” (and “hard right”) face similar issues, whether inside or outside of British Labour or European Social Democratic parties, or as “anti-war” factions organized in other parties.

The normal slogans used by principled internationalist socialists (like Eugene Debs in WWI) offer a few helpful hints. The Democratic Socialists of America (largest socialist formation in the U.S.) and even the ancient “U.S. Communist Party” do their best to work out a strategy they see as in the interests of peace and working people everywhere — opposing the Russian invasion, demanding its immediate withdrawal from Ukraine, looking to end or limit “U.S. arms escalation” … proposing an end to hostilities and peace negotiations.

Of course the CPUSA, now fully independent from Russia and hardly a threat to anything, is crippled in the U.S. by its name and past association with the USSR.

But all these “Left” groups at their best cook up only a very weak broth, as everybody knows that until the military battles in Ukraine end either in “victory” for one side or the other, or regime collapse of one one side or the other, or in mutual exhaustion, there will be no peace discussions, let alone a lasting peace agreement.

I mostly limit myself to opposing the ultra-partisanship of much MAGA criticism of Biden’s help to Ukraine, which sometimes reaches the weird level of being pro-Putin and pro-Russian Invasion. I try to explain the complexity and tragedy of this war. I don’t consider taking a balanced and humanitarian view — an internationalist view — as being necessarily “leftwing.”

It is all good to oppose U.S. imperialist wars (as I have throughout my life) and make criticisms of neo-cons and neo-liberal warhawks, to discuss historical errors the U.S. may have made in dealing with now manic Russian authoritarian leaders like Putin … but what road forward?

One way to prepare for and ease into an eventual ceasefire and negotiations (which most of us hope for) is to raise the issue of “self-determination” for Ukraine. I haven’t seen this slogan raised at ANY of the peace rallies in Europe or the U.S.

To insist Ukraine is part of Ukraine — which is the official U.S. position of the Biden Administration and of hard Ukrainian nationalists — is to be excessively “legalistic,” ignores Crimea’s history, and ignores the traditional “right of self determination” recognized at the end of WWI. It also ignores the Crimean population’s evident desire (though that can certainly change). Most importantly, perhaps, it strengthens the Russian people’s nationalism and support of Putin, supports Putin’s argument that this is a Western world conspiracy to tear it apart completely.

This “ultimatist” Ukrainian and U.S. demand thus will probably lengthen this tragic war and increase the possibility of a catastrophic nuclear end to it.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Correction: An obvious error in my earlier comment, here corrected …

One way to prepare for and ease into an eventual ceasefire and negotiations (which most of us hope for) is to raise the issue of “self-determination” for Ukraine Crimea…

To insist Ukraine Crimea is part of Ukraine — which is the official U.S. position of the Biden Administration and of hard Ukrainian nationalists — is to be excessively “legalistic,” ignores Crimea’s history, and ignores the traditional “right of self determination” recognized at the end of WWI. It also ignores the Crimean population’s evident desire (though that can certainly change). Most importantly, perhaps, it strengthens the Russian people’s nationalism and support of Putin, supports Putin’s argument that this is a Western world conspiracy to tear it apart completely.

This “ultimatist” Ukrainian and U.S. demand thus will probably lengthen this tragic war and increase the possibility of a catastrophic nuclear end to it.

 

[Doug1943]

Correction: An obvious error in my earlier comment, here corrected …

This demand -- self-determination -- is really the key to a (partial) resolution for a lot of problems. Let there be an honest -- UN-supervised -- vote in Crimea.. which country, if either, do they wish to be a part of?

Such a referendum ought to include a guarantee to the Russians that if Crimea does return to Ukraine, it will NOT become host to a NATO military presence. (After WWII, the Russians could have Sovietized Finland and Austria. They didn't. They were concerned about their military security -- they were not filled with an idealistic desire to help the poor proletarians of these countries achieve the socialist utopia.)

However, as in almost all these situations, a simple majority, or even super-majority, vote doesn't end the question. For example, Crimea was orginally home to the Tatars -- deported by Stalin during WWII for disloyalty (to him). They don't want to be part of Russia. So if the majority of Crimean non-Tatar residents vote to remain part of Russia, they will not be happy.

This situation occurs everywhere -- restless mankind inter-penetrates its tribes, and when the 'National Question' arises, even if there is a clear majority for its resolution in one way, there is usually an unhappy tribe in the minority who doesn't want to accept the result.

Thus, population transfers, not really voluntary. We've seen them throughout the 20th Century: Greeks/Turks after WWI, Poles driven out of Ukraine at the beginning of WWII (with lots of them being murdered by the Poles), the Jews, Germans after WWII; Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs when the British got of India; Jews and Arabs at about the same time; then Yugoslavia when it came apart.

There is no perfect solution here, but a partial amelioration would be a UN-supervised fund to compensate those who lose their homes and businesses as a result of having to flee, and some sort of 'house-swap' arrangement, which operated a bit during the Yugoslav disintegration.

And even if Crimea voted to return to Ukraine, if the Ukrainian leadeship is not completely under the neo-con thumb, they will offer the Russians some sort of iron-clad 100 year lease on their Black Sea naval base, including guaranteed access.

But if your view is that Putin is Hitler, bent on conquering Europe if not the world, that it's a zero-sum game, and the war must only end with his utter and total defeat, the loss of his naval base at Sebastopol, the Russian army in full retreat .... well, stock up on your potassium iodide tablets.