East Ukraine: Russia installs a new leadership

August 26, 2014 at 5:09 pm (AWL, Cross-post, fascism, posted by JD, reactionay "anti-imperialism", Russia, stalinism)

By Dale Street (cross-posted from Workers Liberty):

Pro-Russian separatists parade Ukrainian prisoners through Donetsk

Above: Pro-Russian separatists march Ukrainian prisoners through Donetsk in response to the Independence Day celebrations in Kiev.

In mid-July Denis Pushilin resigned as chair of the Supreme Soviet of the Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR). In early August Alexander Borodai resigned as Prime Minister of the DPR.

In mid-August Valery Bolotov resigned as head – he was always simply referred to as “the head” – of the Lugansk People’s Republic (LPR) and Igor Strelkov-Girkin resigned as Minister of Defence of the DPR.

According to Boris Kagarlitsky (a longstanding Russian socialist turned cheerleader for the separatists), the latter resignations were the result of pressure by the Kremlin, in preparation for a deal with the Kiev government at the expense of what Kagarlitsky calls “Novorossiya”.

Kagarlitsky is particularly concerned about the pressures which Strelkov-Girkin – who, he claims, did the most to “aid the radicalisation” of the “revolutionary crisis” – must have suffered:

“How Strelkov was lured to Moscow, and what was done to him there in order to extract from him his ‘voluntary’ resignation (if, in fact, he signed such a statement at all), we can only guess.” (1)

(Donetsk inhabitants such as Alexander Chornov who had the misfortune to be interrogated, threatened and beaten up by Strelkov-Girkin after their ‘arrest’ by separatists probably do not share Kagarlitsky’s concerns. (2))

In theory, Kagarlitsky might be right to argue that the Kremlin is preparing to do a deal with Kiev. But there is an alternative, and much more straightforward, explanation for the resignations.

The fighting in Donetsk and Lugansk – according to the separatists, the Putin government, the state-controlled Russian media, and Boris Kagarlitsky – is a mass popular uprising.

But the fact that the key separatist leaders (Strelkov-Girkin and Borodai) were fascist in their politics, Russian in their citizenship, auxiliaries in Russia’s annexation of the Crimea, and directly linked to the Russian security services, made a mockery of such claims.

Replacing them by lesser-known locals removed that problem. Paradoxically, it also underlined the degree of Russian involvement: as Kagarlitsky himself admits, in however emotional a form, the decisions about the resignations emanated from Moscow.

Whereas Borodai and Strelkov were White-Russian imperialists who looked forward to the restoration of Tsarist “Novorossiya” on the territory of Ukraine, the new separatist leaders prefer to live the fantasy that they are fighting a re-run of the Great Patriotic War against fascism.

According to a statement issued last week by the Supreme Soviet of the DPR, instructing the Council of Ministers of the DPR not to accept a convoy of humanitarian aid organised by the Kiev authorities:

“In recent days the propaganda machine of fascist Ukraine has announced certain humanitarian aid which the Kiev junta is supposedly distributing on the territory of the DPR.

This propaganda action by Ukrainian fascists has been inspired by those who openly finance and support the mass elimination of the people of the DPR and its infrastructure – the USA, the European Union, and its other allies.

The people of the DPR will not accept the so-called humanitarian aid from the hands of the fascist punitive forces.” (3)

Last Sunday (24th August – Ukrainian Independence Day) the DPR authorities staged what they called the “Parade of Shame”, as they marched around 90 captured Ukrainian soldiers through the centre of Donetsk:

“At exactly two o’clock the person chairing the rally declared the anti-fascist meeting open and said a few bitter words: ‘Now you will see people who kill us and bombard our city. These people have also killed the Ukrainians in us. From now on we are Russians!’” (4)

The event was consciously ‘modelled’ on a parade of 57,000 German prisoners-of-war, organised by Stalin’s henchman Beria in Moscow in July of 1944. Beneath the headline “March of the Captured Fascists”, an article on a pro-separatist website explained the event as:

“A revival of the tradition of the Red and Soviet Armies of the time of the Great Patriotic War. Captured fascists marched through Leningrad and Moscow, so let them do the same here. In Novorossiya the militia are fighting extreme dregs lacking moral principles or constraints.” (5)

Underling the theme of Ukrainian soldiers being fascist filth and vermin, and not really even human, vehicles from the local authority’s cleansing department followed the parade, washing the streets along which the Ukrainian soldiers had been forced to march.

Elsewhere in Ukraine, Independence Day celebrations were used to whip up enthusiasm for the war from the other side.

Speaking at a Soviet-style military parade in Kiev – ironically, the first since 2009, when the annual event had been scrapped by the now ousted Yanukovich – President Poroshenko summoned up visions of permanent war-readiness:

“According to foreseeable historical perspectives, Ukraine will constantly be threatened by war. And we not only have to learn how to live with this, we also have to constantly be ready to defend the independence of our state.” (6)

Poroshenko also announced that the military budget would be increased by $3 billions in the period 2015-17. So, just when Ukraine’s workers will see massive attacks on their living standards, jobs and working conditions, in line with the strings attached to IMF loans, the government will be massively increasing the military budget.

Against such a grim background, socialists internationally need to step up their support for the beleaguered Ukrainian left in its fight for working-class unity and against all forms of militarism and national chauvinism.

And we should have no truck with those on the left, like Kagarlitsky, who deny Ukraine’s right to self-determination (and its very existence) and continue to hail the forces of “Novorossiya”:

“This (Ukrainian) state no longer exists and it will not be restored. It may be that after a time we shall again see a Ukrainian state that is not divided by the fronts of a civil war. … The road to founding such a state lies through civil war. Ukraine will again be united only if the forces of the insurgent south-east raise their banner over Kiev.” (7)

Not for nothing is Kagarlitsky now rightly denounced as “the ‘left wing’ of the Putin regime.” (8)

1) http://links.org.au/node/4008
2) http://www.ostro.org/general/politics/articles/452250/
3) http://novorossia.su/ru/node/5472
4) http://rusvesna.su/news/1408882616
5) ibid.
6)http://www.unian.net/politics/954789-poroshenko-ukraina-doljna-gotovitsya-k-jizni-v-usloviyah-postoyannoy-vneshney-agressii.html
7) http://links.org.au/node/3911
8) Comments in ibid.

Permalink 1 Comment

Morning Star cover-up of domestic abuse allegation sparks crisis and resignations

August 15, 2014 at 7:46 pm (apologists and collaborators, corruption, crime, misogyny, posted by JD, RMT, sexism, stalinism, thuggery, unions, women)

00056512

Above: Caroline Leneghan

An extraordinary crisis has erupted at the Morning Star (de facto mouthpiece of the British Communist Party), resulting in the resignations of the editor and the company director. It stems from reporter Rory McKinnon’s questioning of the RMT leadership over allegations of domestic abuse on the part of the union’s assistant general secretary Steve Hedley (which Shiraz covered here).

McKinnon, who resigned from the Star on 25 July, has written an account of what happened to him at the Star, at the blog Another Angry Woman. This is important, not least because much of the British trade union movement (without reference to their membership) funds the Morning Star:

*********************************************************************************************************

This is a guest post by Rory McKinnon. Content warning for domestic violence. It is published with permission of the survivor.

“The public have no right to know”: how the Morning Star threatened to sack me for reporting domestic violence allegations

My name’s Rory MacKinnon, and I’ve been a reporter for the Morning Star for three years now. It’s given me a lot of pride to see how readers and supporters believe so strongly in the paper, from donating what cash they can to hawking it in the streets on miserable Saturday afternoons. I was proud to represent a “broad paper of the left”, as my editor Richard Bagley always put it: a paper that saw feminism, LGBTQ issues, racial politics and the like as integral to its coverage of class struggle.

It’s for this reason that I thought I would have my editor’s support in following up domestic violence allegations against the Rail, Maritime and Transport union’s assistant general secretary Steve Hedley. Instead the Morning Star’s management threatened me with the sack, hauled me through a disciplinary hearing and placed me on a final written warning.

If you want to see my reasons for writing this, skip to the bottom. But I’m a reporter, and in my mind the most important thing is that you all know exactly what’s happened behind closed doors. So let’s get on with it.

—–

Last March a former RMT assistant branch secretary, Caroline Leneghan, went public about what she described as a “violent assault” at the hands of Hedley while they had been in a relationship.

“On this occasion he kicked a pot of paint at me, threw me around by my hair and pinned me to the floor repeatedly punching me in the face.”

Leneghan said she had approached both police and the union after their break-up to seek an investigation: her RMT rep confirmed that police had suggested “a high chance of conviction” but that the six-month window for a charge of common assault had since expired.

Despite this, the union’s then-leadership had decided not to refer the allegations to its national executive for a formal investigation. It was at this point that Leneghan decided to go public (you can find Leneghan’s full statement and photographs here).

Now, I don’t pretend to have any inside knowledge, and at the time I had only just been assigned to a post in Scotland and was busy trying to get my feet in under the table up there. But I am a journalist, and when the union agreed to consider an appeal from Leneghan only to see it eventually withdrawn at her request – amid a pretty vile reaction from some elements of the left – I mentally filed it away as something to keep an eye on.

In March of this year I went as a Morning Star reporter – with the RMT’s approval – to cover its women’s conference in Glasgow. Women I knew of in the RMT were still talking about Leneghan’s case, and it made sense to me as a reporter to follow it up in the public interest, so I took advantage of a Q&A session with the union’s national organising co-ordinator Alan Pottage – a session on recruiting women organisers and combating sexism in the workplace – to ask whether he thought the lack of formal investigation into the allegations against Hedley had affected women members’ perceptions of the union. Pottage declined to comment and the session continued, but when delegates reconvened for the afternoon session the union’s equalities officer Jessica Webb and executive member Denis Connor approached my seat and forcibly ejected me from the conference. (You can find my full statement on the incident here).

The very next day the Morning Star’s editor Richard Bagley informed me that I had been suspended following allegations of gross misconduct and that any public comment I might make “could risk bringing the paper into disrepute and could have a bearing on [my] case”. (You can see the letter here and subsequent charges here.)

Six weeks later, I found myself back in London for a disciplinary hearing, with the company’s secretary Tony Briscoe bringing the charges and Bagley sitting in judgement. But as the Morning Star management’s minutes (for some reason presented as a verbatim transcript), and my own notes here show, it quickly became clear that the real nature of the accusations had nothing to do with the charge sheet and everything to do with appeasement.

From the minutes:

“RB: You have three years’ experience as a Morning Star journalist. Given the type of stories you’ve covered previously do you think the paper would have published a story on the issue you raised?”

—–

“RB: So let’s clarify the role of the Morning Star here: internal union matters are different from inter-union matters.”

—–

“TB: It’s debatable whether the NUJ (National Union of Journalists – Rory) code of conduct applies in a situation such as this and the fact you asked it raises a question about your approach. The question feels more like something a Daily Mail reporter would ask than someone from the Morning Star. You should have known better. This indicates a lack of journalistic etiquette and has damaged our relationship with the trade union movement.”

And from my own notes:

TB: “I would have thought the role of the Morning Star reporter was to progress the aims & goals of the paper.”

—–

TB: “I would expect that sort of question to be asked in the Daily Mail or the Sun.”

—–

TB: “I would say the public has no right to know about the ins-&-outs of the relationship between Leneghan & Hedley.”

Shortly afterwards I received Bagley’s written judgement. Again, you can read it for yourself here, but the thrust of the Morning Star’s editorial policy is below:

“After three years at the paper you should reasonably be expected to be familiar with the paper’s news priorities, which do not include reporting internal union rows or personal controversy. Your actions suggest a fundamental failure to grasp the Morning Star’s news focus, and by extension the role of any journalist employed by it.”

I was placed on a final written warning with twelve months’ probation, then went on to appeal (dismissed, ruling here), but that’s procedural stuff that isn’t strictly relevant.

What’s relevant, to my mind, is that readers cannot trust the Morning Star’s current leadership to report on abuse allegations and failures to formally investigate when they concern favoured figures in the trade union movement, even when those figures are elected officials. As the edition for 24 July shows, however – coincidentally the same day I had decided to give my notice – those Nasty Tories cannot expect such discretion. Feminist principles are a weapon with which to attack the right, but not an end in itself for the left.

I’ve written this because I was told that “the public has no right to know.” I think the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union’s members do have a right to know about their leaders’ decision not to hold a formal investigation into reports of violence against a female member, and I think the Morning Star’s readers and supporters also have a right to know that the paper’s senior staff have an explicit policy of suppressing such allegations.

It is quite possible that the Morning Star’s management committee – a panel which includes the National Assembly of Women’s Anita Wright – have not been told anything about this. If so, I hope that they will investigate and reassert the paper’s editorial independence. I am not trying to wreck the Morning Star here. I am insisting that it commits to its feminist principles and treats readers with the respect they deserve.

Rory MacKinnon
Morning Star reporter (2011-2014)
mackinnon.rorySPLATgmail.com
@RoryMacKinnon

UPDATE – This post was drafted on Saturday 26 July, the day after informing the Morning Star’s management of my intent to quit. On Monday 28, the paper announced company secretary Tony Briscoe’s retirement and editor Richard Bagley’s departure “for family reasons”. Bagley would continue to work for the paper, the report added.

__

ETA: The survivor has clarified some of the sequence of events. Caroline says:

“There’s a mistake here, the executive refused me to appeal, after that the only route was the agm, which is the quashed one, as i realised all my documents, statements etc had been distributed to hundreds of people without my knowledge”

ETA 2 (19.14 08/08/14): The MS have issued a statement denying everything. To borrow their phrasing, it is interesting to note they haven’t started issuing libel threats…

Permalink 7 Comments

The Guardian and antisemitism

August 14, 2014 at 6:30 am (anti-semitism, AWL, From the archives, Guardian, israel, Jim D, media, Middle East, publications, reactionay "anti-imperialism", relativism, stalinism, zionism)

It should not need saying, but it does: people can be as angry as they like at the Israeli government, but to attack a synagogue, threaten children at a Jewish school, or throw a brick through the window of a Jewish grocery store is vile and contemptible racism. It cannot be excused by reference to Israeli military behaviour. The two are and should be kept utterly distinct.

Some may counter that that is impossible, given the strong attachment of most Jews to Israel. But this is less complicated than it looks. Yes, Jews feel bound up with Israel, they believe in its right to survive and thrive. But that does not mean they should be held responsible for its policy, on which some may disagree and over which they have no control.

Nor should they be required to declare their distance from Israel as a condition for admission into polite society. We opposed such a question being put to all Muslims after 9/11 and, though the cases are not equivalent, the same logic applies here. This is a test for those who take a strong stance in support of the Palestinians, but in truth it is a test for all of us.

The Guardian has recently carried a number of pieces denouncing antisemitism, including the editorial quoted from above, a powerful piece by Jon Henley on the rise in antisemitic attacks in Europe, a polemic entitled ‘Please don’t tell me what I should think about Israel’ by self-described “liberal American Jew” Hadley Freeman, and a confused but well-intentioned ramble by Owen Jones, who makes some good points but still seems to think that (often) “the charge of antisemitism is concocted” to silence critics of Israeli policy. Still, whatever its weaknesses, Jones’ s piece is further evidence of the Guardian taking antisemitism seriously.

Why the Guardian‘s recent concern with antisemitism comes as something of a surprise is because the paper itself has, in the past, been accused of downplaying the dangers of antisemitism, and even of promoting it, due to its often extremely simplistic Middle Eastern coverage, its promotion of ‘one-state’ (sic) propaganda and crude ‘anti-Zionism,’ due in large part to the the influence of the paper’s Stalinist associate editor Seumas Milne and its middle east editor Ian Black. The criticisms have not only come from the right. At the time of the last Gaza war (2009), Sean Matgamna of the Alliance for Workers Liberty wrote the following open letter to editor Alan Rusbridger. It’s worth republishing now because the underlying political problems it identifies are still commonplace on the liberal-left, including – as Owen Jones’s piece arguably demonstrates – the Guardian itself:

Dear Alan Rusbridger,

The Guardian is the “house organ” of most of the non-Muslim people who took part in the two big demonstrations during the Gaza war. A vigorous campaign by the Guardian against anti-semitism on the “left” might do much good.

On Saturday 7 February, the Guardian carried an editorial, “Language and History”, denouncing anti-semitism and specifically the “anti-Zionist” anti-semitism that is now commonplace, remarking on the growth of anti-semitic incidents in Britain (now on average, one per day, and increasing).

Unfortunately, the editorial seriously misdefined the realities of what it discussed, and pussyfooted around the issue.

“Some extremists on the right and possibly [sic] the left might claim [that] the government is in the pocket of a ‘Jewish lobby’. There is no ‘Jewish lobby’ in the conspiratorial sense that the slur implies, and to assert that there is can only be the result of the kind of racism that has scarred Europe from tsarist Russia to the fascists and Stalinists of the 1930s through to the jihadists now. To present all Jewish people as coterminous with Israel and its supporters is a mistake with potentially terrible consequences. It aligns ethnicity with a political perspective, and it is simply racist”.

Indeed. The editorial records the Government’s statement that “unlike other forms of racism, antisemitism is being accepted within parts of society instead of being condemned.”

And the left? “Some within its ranks now risk sloppily allowing their horror of Israeli actions to blind them to antisemitism…. Last month, a rally in defence of the people of Gaza that included verbal attacks on the so-called ‘Nazi tendencies’ of Israel was followed by actual attacks on Jewish targets in north London”.

The editorial adds that such things as “kill Arabs” graffiti in Gaza are “chilling”. And? “The style in which that is condemned must not create the climate that allows scrawling ‘kill Jews’ on synagogues in Manchester”. The style….

The problem with all this is that it is so shot through with understatement that it seriously misrepresents the state of things. The demonstrations on Gaza “included verbal attacks on the so-called ‘Nazi tendencies’ of Israel”? Included? As we reported (www.workersliberty.org/gazademos) the demonstrations were entirely dominated by placards equating the Star of David and the Nazi swastika, Israel with South Africa, Gaza with the Nazi mass murder of Jews, or chants about a “Palestine” stretching “from the river to the sea”.

All the platform speakers, in their varying notes, tones annd degrees, proclaimed the same sort of politics. The one-time British diplomat Craig Murray explicitly called for the abolition of Israel and the rolling-back of Middle East history to before 1948. An SWP organiser on the megaphone at one of the marches was shouting that Israeli Jews should “go back to New York”.

The Guardian says that the left “possibly” subscribes to notions of an all-controlling “Jewish lobby”. Possibly? Moshe Machover came pretty close to saying it outright in the recent exchanges in this paper – and he is one of the most sophisticated of the “absolute anti-Zionists”.

Mr Rusbridger, the root and core of modern anti-Semitism is the denial of Israel’s right to exist and defend itself. That inexorably leads on to a radical political hostility to most Jews alive.

Of course Jews and Israel are not co-terminous. They could hardly be! It is a fact that all but a few Jews — revolutionary socialists, Neturei Karta, etc. — feel connected with Israel, however critically, and however much they abhor such things as the onslaught on Gaza. How could a people with their history not have such attitudes?

The “demand” that the self-proclaimed left has made on British Jews — very aggressively on university campuses, for example – has been that they repudiate Israel, that they not be Zionists, that they accept that Israel is “racist” in essence and has no right to exist.

The denial of Israel’s right to exist, predominant on the self-proclaimed left, is the precondition for the bizarre alliance of so much of the left with political Islam (to give it its proper name, Islamic clerical fascism). It is what allows the self-proclaimed left, political Islam, and Islamic communalists to merge and meld almost indistinguishably on occasions like the Gaza demonstrations.

Inevitably that radical political hostility to most Jews alive taps into the great half-buried septic reservoirs of old anti-semitism — into old racist, religious, and nondescript crank anti-semitism.

The Guardian Editorial writes of Nazi and Stalinist anti-Semitism in the 1930s. The worst Stalinist anti-semitism – from which come such things as the Stalinist-typical lunacy of equating Zionism and Nazism – erupted in the late 1940s and early 50s. The poisonous account of modern Jewish and Zionist history in the 20th century, which is dominant on the “left”, originates there, in Stalinism.

These old ideas of High Stalinist “anti-Zionism”/ anti-Semitism are rampant in the pro-Palestinian movement because they have conquered so much of the Trotskyism-rooted “left”. Young people who, to their credit, want to do something about such things as Gaza, come under the sway of the “smash Israel”, supposedly “pro-Palestinian” campaigns. The are taught ro reject a “Two State” settlement.

For the Guardian editorial to say that the difficulty lies in “the style” in which specific Israeli actions are criticised and condemned is simply preposterous! Whatever the “style” — and it varies from the seemingly reasonable to froth-at-the-mouth, open anti-semitism — the proposal to put an end to Israel leads inexorably to the things which the Guardian condemns, and to far worse.

The Guardian Editorial talks of the anti-semitism of the “jihadists”. The point is that the politics dominant in the Gaza demonstrations were entirely in line with the jihadists and their anti-semitism.

The Guardian has influence within the broad left. It is a pity you do not use that influence to tell the left the unpalatable truth about the state it’s in, that you don’t hold the mirror up, force people who should know better to see what they have let themselves become.

Yours, Solidarity

Sean Matgamna

Below: different faces of contemporary antisemitism:

The Argus: Synagogue is sprayed with pro-Gaza graffiti

God_bless_hitler

 
 

Permalink 5 Comments

Passenger jet ‘tragedy': all the fault of the West (NOT a spoof)

July 19, 2014 at 4:04 pm (apologists and collaborators, Beyond parody, conspiracy theories, Europe, fantasy, posted by JD, reactionay "anti-imperialism", stalinism, tragedy)

I was going to write a spoof article, loosely based upon the oeuvre of the Graun‘s Shameless Milne, blaming “the West” and the “fascist” Ukraine government for the MH17 atrocity. But I see that Mr John Wight of Socialist Unity (and Russia Today) has saved me the trouble. Only I fear Mr Wight’s piece is intended to be taken seriously. I republish it here as an (perhaps extreme) example of the crass stupidity, hypocrisy, pig-ignorance and wilful denial of reality that continues to infect sections of the so-called “left” when it comes to international affairs:

John Wight addressing anti-war (sic.) rally in July 2006

By John Wight (pictured above)

The downing of a Malaysian passenger aircraft over eastern Ukraine is a terrible tragedy. Almost 300 people have been killed in the most awful circumstances and though it is self evident that a full and thorough investigation must follow to find out what happened, its conclusions will be scant comfort to the families and loved ones of those who perished.

That said, the mind boggles that a civilian passenger aircraft should be flying anywhere near a war zone, especially one in which fighter jets, military aircraft, and military transport aircraft are playing such a key role in hostilities.

The alacrity with which Washington and its allies have sought to exploit this tragedy to attack Russia is as unedifying as it’s despicable. Whoever was responsible for downing the Malaysian passenger jet, it was clearly an accident. Moreover, the underlying causes of the conflict in eastern Ukraine, despite efforts to argue otherwise, is the toppling of the last legitimate democratically elected Ukrainian government of Viktor Yanukovich by an armed mob in Kiev in February, in which avowed fascists and neo-Nazis played a key role. Those fascists now occupy ministerial offices in the regime led by Petro Poroshenko and are prevalent in the violence that has been visited on the people in the east of the country, who have risen up in resistance to Kiev and its sponsors in the West.

The need for a political solution to the conflict is beyond dispute, and has been for some time now. The Russian government has been calling for a de-escalation in hostilities since the ill fated Geneva peace conference back in April, and has shown remarkable restraint in holding back from mounting a military intervention in response to the Poroshenko regime’s brutal military assault on Ukrainian citizens across its western border with tanks, artillery, fighter jets, and attack helicopters.

Let’s be clear: if Russia decided to deploy its military forces against those of Kiev it would crush them in a matter of hours. Sadly, though, when it comes to the US and its allies restraint when it comes to war and conflict is anathema. Indeed, the very word has been stricken from the dictionary where they are concerned. Consequently, Russia’s restraint has been taken for weakness, evidenced in a ramping up of the conflict since Poroshenko’s election as President of western Ukraine in May.

The recent signing of an association agreement between the EU and the regime in Kiev has brought the EU into disrepute. Just think about this for a moment: the EU has entered a state into its ranks which is bathed in the blood of its own citizens.

The pressure being brought to bear against Russia, exploiting this tragedy as a pretext, shouldn’t blind anyone as to the role of the West in fomenting and prolonging the ongoing military conflict for its own geopolitical interests. Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine, Palestine – their crimes would shame all the devils in hell.

Only when Washington and its allies understand that their days of uncontested hegemony and unipolarity are over will there be a chance for a new global framework in which respect for national sovereignty and international law is returned to prominence and upheld as the non negotiable arbiter of international affairs and foreign policy. The alternative is more conflict and more of the chaos we are witnessing today.

Permalink 4 Comments

Just remind me again: where was Alex Callinicos educated?

July 14, 2014 at 7:36 pm (gloating, Guardian, humanism, Jim D, stalinism, SWP)

Thanks to Owen Jones, in today’s Graun, for drawing my attention to a nasty little piece in the present edition of Socialist Worker. SW was once essential (and – believe it or not – entertaining) reading on the left, even for those of us who had little time for the SWP’s politics. But I haven’t bought a copy since September 2001 and so very rarely get to read it.

Above: Prof Callinicos, privately educated scion of the ruling class

For those of you who can’t be arsed to follow the link above, the article is entitled ‘Eton by Bear? The inquest begins,’ a supposedly ‘humorous’ take on the death of Horatio Chapple, mauled to death by a polar bear while on a trip to the Svalbard archipelago of Norway.

What makes the death of Chapple suitable material for SWP chortling is, it seems, the fact that he was a posh boy who went to Eton.

There was a time when I might have joined in with the sniggering, but I well remember being admonished over this by a senior comrade (himself of unimpeachable working class credentials) who told me, “socialism is about doing away with the idea that people’s worth should be judged by an accident of birth – and that applies just as much to workerism on the left as it does to mainstream society’s fawning before the aristocracy.” He was surely right, and I’ve never forgotten it – or the shame I felt at having to have such an elementary point explained to me.

Socialist Worker’s unpleasant sniggering over the death of this young man is all the more bizarre and distasteful when you consider the upper class, public school backgrounds of so many of their leading comrades, past and present – not least head honcho Callinicos, who (according to Wikipedia) “was educated at St George’s College, Salisbury (now Harare) …  [and] … first became involved in revolutionary politics as a student at Balliol College, Oxford, from which he received his BA.”

Even more importantly, SW‘s gloating over this horrible death tells us a lot about the kind of “socialism” that this degenerate organisation now represents. Jones usefully reminds us of the words of Peter Fryer, the Daily Worker (forerunner of the Morning Star) journalist who resigned from the Communist Party of Britain after they suppressed his sympathetic coverage of the 1956 Hungarian revolution. Fryer was describing the Stalinist CP, but his words equally well apply to the nominally “Trotskyist” SWP of today:

“Stalinism is Marxism with the heart cut out, de-humanised, dried, frozen, petrified, rigid, barren.”

Permalink 3 Comments

Ukraine: return of Putin’s useful idiots

July 13, 2014 at 10:46 pm (apologists and collaborators, fascism, Guest post, posted by JD, reactionay "anti-imperialism", Russia, stalinism)

RLS - SEE / Boris Kagarlitsky: Od krize socijalizma do krize savremene levice

 Above:  Boris Kagarlitsky

Boris Kagarlitsky je ruski marksistički teoretičar i sociolog, politički disident u Sovjetskom savezu i post-sovjetskoj Rusiji. Zbog svog aktivizma, Boris je dvaput bio hapšen, 1982. i 1993. godine. Koordinator je projekta „Globalna kriza“ pri Transnacionalnom institutu i direktor Instituta za globalizaciju i društvene pokrete (IGSO) u Moskvi. Od 1994. do 2002. bio je viši istraživač-saradnik na Institutu za uporedne političke nauke Ruske akademije nauka (ISPRAN). Doktorat je stekao 1995. godine, sa tezom „Kolektivne akcije i politike rada u Rusiji tokom 1990-ih godina“. Autor je nekoliko knjiga među kojima su i Empire of the Periphery: Russia and the World System, Russia under Yeltsin and Putin: Neo-liberal Autocracy i The Mirage of Modernisation.

Sa Borisom smo razgovarali o sovjetskom socijalizmu, aktuelnoj političkoj situaciji u Rusiji, ali i o perspektivama levice u Evropi.

- See more at: http://pe.org.rs/osvrti/boris-kagarlitsky-od-krize-socijalizma-do-krize-savremene-levice-intervju/#sthash.ds4nfESE.dpuf

Boris Kagarlitsky je ruski marksistički teoretičar i sociolog, politički disident u Sovjetskom savezu i post-sovjetskoj Rusiji. Zbog svog aktivizma, Boris je dvaput bio hapšen, 1982. i 1993. godine. Koordinator je projekta „Globalna kriza“ pri Transnacionalnom institutu i direktor Instituta za globalizaciju i društvene pokrete (IGSO) u Moskvi. Od 1994. do 2002. bio je viši istraživač-saradnik na Institutu za uporedne političke nauke Ruske akademije nauka (ISPRAN). Doktorat je stekao 1995. godine, sa tezom „Kolektivne akcije i politike rada u Rusiji tokom 1990-ih godina“. Autor je nekoliko knjiga među kojima su i Empire of the Periphery: Russia and the World System, Russia under Yeltsin and Putin: Neo-liberal Autocracy i The Mirage of Modernisation.

Sa Borisom smo razgovarali o sovjetskom socijalizmu, aktuelnoj političkoj situaciji u Rusiji, ali i o perspektivama levice u Evropi.

- See more at: http://pe.org.rs/osvrti/boris-kagarlitsky-od-krize-socijalizma-do-krize-savremene-levice-intervju/#sthash.ds4nfESE

Guest post by Dale Street

An “international conference” entitled “The World Crisis and the Confrontation in Ukraine” was held in Yalta (Crimea – formerly Ukraine, now Russia) on 6th/7th July.

The background to the conference was provided in an article published on the website of the Russian academic magazine, “Politicheskoye Obrazovaniye” (1). An identical report of the conference’s proceedings was subsequently published on the website of “Rabkor” (2) and “Russian Spring” (3).

(The former is a left-wing website, edited by Boris Kagarlitsky. The latter is a right-wing website which is one of the electronic media mouthpieces of the Donetsk/Lugansk ‘People’s Republics’.)

According to its organisers, who included the “Centre of Co-ordination and Support for Novaya Rus’ (Novorossiya)” (4), the purpose of the conference was threefold:

“To create an international network of support for the movement for the creation of Novorossiya. … To provide additional arguments and emotional materials for western activists and intellectuals who support us.” (1)

“By inviting a number of western experts to Crimea, to demonstrate to the domestic (i.e. Russian) public the existence in western public opinion of a strong current hostile to the current anti-Russian campaign.” (1)

“Publications by conference participants in the western press and in the English-language section of the web (which) must facilitate the dissemination of information which is positive for Russia about the processes now underway.” (1)

The organizers also stressed the importance of the fact that the conference was being held in Crimea:

“The mere fact of the arrival in Crimea of an entire delegation of western intellectuals in and of itself is already a form of support for the changes which have taken place (i.e. the annexation of Crimea) and a blow to the various initiatives for a boycott of Russia.” (1)

The conference agreed that the overthrow of Yanukovich and the uprising in the south-east of Ukraine were both the product of the European social-economic crisis. As one of the participants put it:

“The struggle against the new Kiev authorities is really a struggle against the European Union, only not just in the form of a rejection of the politics of the destruction of the family and heterosexual relationships but in the form of a rejection of the entire anti-social neo-liberal policies of the western elites.” (2, 3)

“Banderite fascism,” the same speaker continued, was “needed by Washington and Brussels as an instrument to beat down social opposition.” (2, 3)

‘Representatives’ of the Donetsk and Lugansk so-called ‘People’s Republics’ informed the conference:

“A fifth column in Donetsk dreamed of surrendering the city to the punitive expeditionaries (the name used by the separatists to describe Ukrainian troops). They blocked initiatives to organize the rear and the defence of the city. But now order is being imposed.” (2, 3)

“We will not be raising the white flag, as desired by the oligarchs and the Banderite politicians and their American chiefs. We are very much in need of international support. We want people in Europe and beyond to know: we are fighting against the new fascism, we are fighting for freedom, we are fighting for our land.” (2, 3)

Described as “the co-ordinator of the campaign in defence of Novorossiya”, Richard Brenner (presumably Richard Brenner of “Workers’ Power”) is quoted as saying:

“For us it is very important to know what is happening in Donetsk and Lugansk, what is happening in the entire territory controlled by the junta. We perfectly understand that we are not helping some faraway incomprehensible rebels but are making common cause with the workers of Novorossiya.” (2, 3)

Other speakers stressed:

“The struggle of the people against fascism in former Ukraine has an international character. The Banderite-liberal-fascist regime in Kiev does not accord us any rights. And this is the doctrine of the USA and the EU, who are running the show on our land. The liberation struggle of Novorossiya not only has a Russian character but also a Eurasian one.” (2, 3)

An unnamed “European expert” present at the conference described the socio-economic havoc currently being wreaked by the “Euro-bureaucrats” and concluded:

“That is why we are in solidarity with you! Because we recognise that the enemy of Novorossiya is our common enemy – those neo-liberal forces who deprive us of our future.” (2, 3)

The conference concluded with agreement on an appeal to be published in English and Russian. Doubtless its politics will be on the same grotesque level as those of the conference itself.

Apart from Richard Brenner, attendees at the conferences included Boris Kagarlitsky, the American economist Jeff Sommers, Vasily Koltashov (doubtless not the only participant to have a problem with gay rights), and Roger Ennis (“co-ordinator of the Canadian Campaign in Support of the Donetsk people’s Republic”).

1) http://www.lawinrussia.ru/node/299677

2) http://rabkor.ru/report/2014/07/09/yalta

3) http://rusvesna.su/news/1405106243

4) This organization defines its role as: “The struggle against the fascist junta which has seized power in Kiev. The struggle for the freedom of the citizens of Novorossiya. The struggle of the Russian World for the right to live according to its own laws, free of Neanderthal Galician nationalism and oligarchic fascism of the Latin-American variety.” See: http://centerkor-ua.org/o-tsentre/pomoshch-soprotivleniyu.html

Permalink 1 Comment

Ukraine public meeting, London, Weds 9th July

July 8, 2014 at 9:44 am (Europe, internationalism, London, posted by JD, Russia, solidarity, stalinism, truth)

We’ve been asked by Ukrainian Socialist Solidarity, to publicise this meeting to be held at the House of Commons tomorrow; we’re happy to oblige, especially in view of the appalling, thoroughly one-sided campaign of misinformation/disinformation and pro-Putin propaganda being spread on the British left by the likes of the Morning Star and the so-called ‘Stop The War Coalition.’ Apologies for the short notice:

Ukr Soc Commons Meeting (Amended)

Ukraine is suffering from war and a deep social crisis that has implications for all of Europe.  Many are asking what has happened in Ukraine. What is the role of Russia and the West?  How should we respond?  This forum is a unique opportunity to hear an alternative, first-hand analysis from leading socialists and trade unionists from Ukraine and Russia.

 Speakers

Nina Potarskaya of the Left-Opposition, director of the Centre for Social and Labour Research, socialist candidate in the Kyiv elections
Kirill Buketov  of the Praxis centre Moscow, and the Global Labour Institute
Hosted by John McDonnell MP.

Wednesday 9th July 7pm

Committee Room CR10,  House of Commons, London
Via the main St Stephens entrance

Permalink 2 Comments

Of course Putin’s Russia is imperialist!

June 28, 2014 at 10:30 pm (AWL, imperialism, Marxism, posted by JD, Russia, stalinism, USSR)

By Dale Street (first published by Workers Liberty)

Sam Williams has written 16,000 words to claim that Russia is not imperialist, even when its tanks are rolling through other nations.

He describes the old Stalinist states “the former socialist countries of the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe.” In those days there was “no true Soviet imperialism”, claims Williams, because “wealth was not accumulated in the form of capital, and therefore not in the form of finance capital — there was not a single kopeck of finance capital.” Any other view is down to “imperialist Western propaganda and its bought and paid-for historians.”

And Russia retains its non-imperialism even after it has unambiguously reverted to capitalism. “Has the military-feudal imperialism of pre-1917 Russia been restored?” asks Williams. No, it’s not feudal. (But it was not the feudal residues in Tsarist Russia which made Marxists of the time classify it as imperialist. It was its domination and exploitation of other nations).

“What about a modernised Russian imperialism based on the rule of monopoly capitalism and finance capital?” He rejects this argument as well: Russia is “very poor in finance capital. … (Therefore) today’s Russia is very far indeed from becoming an imperialist country.”

This is really just a re-run of Williams’s denial of Stalinist imperialism. There was no finance capital in Stalin’s USSR, and therefore no Stalinist imperialism. Today’s Russia is “very poor” in finance capital, and therefore there is no Russian imperialism.

However, Williams’s equation of “imperialist” with “rich in finance capital” obliges him to classify Taiwan, Ireland, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Iceland and New Zealand as imperialist powers. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 4 Comments

Why the f*** is Labour backing Cameron’s EU posturing?

June 24, 2014 at 2:29 pm (David Cameron, democracy, elections, Europe, internationalism, Jim D, labour party, populism, reformism, stalinism, Tory scum)

EU Flag

Polish foreign minister Radoslaw Sikorski sums up Cameron’s attempts to undo European integration:

“It’s either a very badly thought-through move or, not for the first time, a kind of  incompetence in European affairs. Remember? He fucked up the fiscal pact. He fucked it up – simple as that. He is not interested. He does not get it. He believes in stupid propaganda. He stupidly tries to play the system …

“His whole strategy of feeding [the Eurosceptics] scraps to satisfy them is, just as I predicted, turning against him; he should have said fuck off … But he ceded the field to them that are now embarrassing him.”

Sikorski is, believe it or not, considered a political ally of Cameron’s and (like the Tories’ bête noir, Jean-Claude Junker) a thoroughgoing reactionary. But, of course, that’s not the reason for the rift between Cameron and the Euro-Tories of the centre-right EPP. They agree on most aspects of economic policy.

Nor is it – despite Tory demagogy –  anything to do with the elitism, bureaucratism and lack of democracy of EU institutions.

In fact David Cameron’s attempt to veto the appointment of Jean-Claude Juncker to head the European Commission is no stance against elitism, nor an attempt to make EU institutions more democratic. Within the highly-limited standards of EU democracy it is the exact opposite.

Juncker is the preferred candidate of the conservative political bloc which won the largest chunk of popular votes in May’s European election. But Cameron isn’t bothered by the tally of the popular vote. He prefers bureaucratic manoeuvring and nationalistic special pleading. Cameron, with an eye on his UKIP rivals, wants to be seen to be “fighting for Britain”. No matter that there is no great difference on economic policies between Juncker and the British Tory party.

It would be a whole lot better if the political semi-union of Europe, which Cameron choses out of political expediency to object to, were more democratic, more transparent and were not tied to a drive to make workers pay for the crisis.

But it is still a big step forward for working-class people around Europe that barriers between nations have been drastically reduced.

At a time when migrants are being scapegoated we need those barriers to stay down.

The semi-dissolution of the barriers has made it easier to fight the class struggle across Europe. If the labour movement leaders of Europe had any imagination they could run powerful Europe-wide campaigns. For instance they could organise a Europe-wide struggle for a decent Living Wage, one which would could generalise much needed solidarity to existing struggles of low-paid workers.

Unfortunately there are a few on the left in Europe (but notably not  the Greek radical-left party Syriza) who oppose the existence of the political union of the EU: in the UK it is the No2EU campaign. The logic of their campaign is to advocate the resurrection of national barriers. In this way they add to the increasing toxic nationalism of UKIP and Cameron. But No2EU are, in the main, a bunch of brain-dead Stalinists whose fanatical little-Englandism stems from a visceral hatred of Germany and a bizarre, anachronistic perception of the EU as a threat to the USSR (by means of a time-warp, presumably). The derisory number of votes they picked up in the last Euro-elections means we don’t have to take them seriously – though RMT members may well be wondering what the hell their leadership was doing throwing away the union’s money on this reactionary irrelevance.

Much more serious – and worrying – is the present stance of the Labour Party. That pompous prat of a shadow foreign secretary, Douglas Alexander, has instructed Labour MEPs not to support Junker. If that was because Junker is an anti-working class, pro-austerity right-winger, then we’d agree. But no;  the wretched Alexander has made it clear that the Labour leadership supports Cameron’s quest for a less “federalist” (ie: more right-wing) candidate: “There can be no excuses. David Cameron has a clear mandate from political parties here in the UK – including Labour – to build consensus across Europe for an alternative candidate for president of the commission.”

What a disgrace! Or, as Mr Sikorski might say, what an incompetent, badly thought-through, fucking fuck-up.

 

Permalink 3 Comments

Eurasianism and the ‘Russian Spring’

June 11, 2014 at 7:53 pm (anti-semitism, Cross-post, fantasy, fascism, populism, Racism, reactionay "anti-imperialism", Russia, stalinism, Stop The War, USSR)

Above: Andrew Murray addresses a recent London meeting of Eurasianists (aka  ‘Anti-Fascist Resistance in Ukraine’)

Cross-post by Dale Street:

Apologetics, if not outright support, for the forces of political reaction and oppression have become a hallmark of sections of the socialist left in the two and a half decades following the collapse of the Soviet Union.

The “rationale” for such an abandonment of basic socialist principles is rooted in a bogus “anti-imperialism”, according to which any force in conflict with “imperialism” (defined solely as: the USA and/or the European Union) is automatically presumed worthy of some degree or other of support.

Now the “anti-imperialist” left is well advanced in repeating the same ‘mistake’ in relation to the conflict in the south-east of Ukraine.

Obsessed with the role played (or allegedly played) by the US and the European Union, fantasising about the supposed power wielded by fascist organisations in Ukraine, it shuts its eyes to the actual politics of those playing the leading role in the Russian-separatist forces.

On this occasion the result is even more bizarre than usual: the “anti-imperialist” left ends up in a de facto alliance with a political ideology committed to imperialist expansion and containing pronounced elements of fascism.

Eurasianism first emerged as a relatively systematised set of ideas amongst White émigrés in the early 1920s. Central to those ideas was the belief that Russia represented a unique civilisation with its own traditions and path of historical development.

Russia’s future, argued the Eurasians, lay not in following in the footsteps of Europe or Asia (although it would incorporate certain elements of both). Instead, they looked forward to the eventual collapse of the west and the emergence of an expanded Russia as a leading imperial power in its own right.

Eurasianism remained the preserve of Russian diaspora intellectuals until the collapse of the Soviet Union, since when it has become a significant political movement in Russia itself.

The main traits of Eurasianism today are: a commitment to restoring the glories of imperial Russia; the expansion of Russia’s borders to incorporate the territories of the ancient kingdom of Rus; hostility to western liberal values, which it holds responsible for what it sees as the decline and degeneration of the west.

The European Union and the USA — and Jews — are regarded as responsible for the post-Soviet economic and social collapse of Russia. Stalin, on the other hand, is admired as someone who established Russia as a world power.

Eurasianism is socially conservative and singles out gay rights for particular condemnation. Although it frequently presents itself as “anti-fascist”, its “anti-fascism” is no more than a Russian-imperialist glorification of Stalin’s defeat of Nazi Germany and the subsequent occupation of Eastern Europe.

At best, Eurasianism is a form of extreme Russian nationalism. At worst, it is a specific form of fascism which has been shaped by political traditions peculiar to Russia.

And it is the politics of Eurasianism which are espoused by leading figures in the Donetsk and Lugansk People’s Republics, by the websites which seek to rally support for them, and by those political forces which have taken the lead in Russia in mobilising support for them. Read the rest of this entry »

Permalink 2 Comments

Next page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 470 other followers