Tag-Archiv für 'democratic-ideology'

Fake „leftists” and „anarchists” in Ukraine: Western tools to destroy leftists and promote fascist ideology in colonized Eastern Europe

Kiev, Ukraine - Autonomous Workers' Union

https://anarchocommunista.wordpress.com/2015/08/22/fake-leftists-and-anarchists-in-ukraine-western-tools-to-destroy-leftists-and-promote-fascist-ideology-in-colonized-eastern-europe/

[…] The most active of these Western stooges were a small group of individuals who portray themselves as „anarchists or leftist revolutionaries” but who only attempted to draw western leftists of all kinds, in particular anarchists, into supporting NATO’s aggression against another of their victims in Eastern Europe.

They constantly whitewashed the fascist coup – which was even admitted by the US administration publicly – and misrepresented the next and premeditated step of the maidan – the civil war – as „Russian aggression”, though even western media and western „human rights” organizations admitted it was nothing but the slaughtering of the civilian population of Donbass by the Ukrainian government. What no western media and no western supporter in Ukraine says to the western public – but they do say it quite openly and loudly in Ukraine – is that this civil war carries an ideological weight, in that the Kyiv nazis – who are pushing for this war against the constant sabotage by other Ukrainains, trapped and kidnapped by the government to go kill women and children in Donbass – see this civil war as a cleansing of the nation of the „occupants”. The occupants being mostly the Russian speaking population in the east, but the „occupants” also include anyone who resists Ukrainian fascism of building an Ukrainian empire through „a pure white nation” in „a pure white Europe of nations”.

Here are just a few examples of who the propagandists of western aggression against the entire population of Ukraine are.

AWU aka the “Autonomous Workers Union” in Ukraine is a small group of people, maybe 10-12, although only four seem active. Alexander Volodarsky (Shiitman, Hihilist blogs), Volodymyr Zadiraka, Serhii Kutnii, and Denis Gorbach ( aka on FB Gryts Varenyk who initially gave anti-Maidan interviews to lib com and revolution news, but ended up writing for George Soros (https://www.opendemocracy.net/author/denys-gorbach). The AWU pose as anarchists, and may even believe themselves to be so, but they are effectively supporting the Ukrainian government and nationalists agenda using psuedo-anarchist rhetoric. Their main focus seems to be lashing out against any leftist or anarchist movement who dares to criticize the government and its war and repression. This tiny group became so well known by initially being a (seemingly) lone voice among Ukrainian anarchists, and appealing to various leftist organizations.

Here is one interview with RKAS (revolutionary confederation of anarcho-syndicalists, which is also a small group):

“Autonomous Workers Union” (AWU) contacted the Swedish SAC and other reformist syndicalists abroad. After the beginning of the actual crisis, the more important figures in the AWU supported the Maidan, declaring it a “bourgeois revolution”. They defend the Ukrainian “national liberation” and the actual regime in Kiev against Russia, rejecting the internationalist position against all states, governments and nations and welcoming the NATO. Some members of the AWU consider such position “too nationalist”. They consider themselves “internationalist” and created a group “Black Rainbow”, but they miss until now to reject Maidan and to break definitely with the nationalist leadership of AWU. Finally, the AWU/AST condemns expansionist actions of the Russian state, but not one word mentioned inflammatory actions of its equally imperialist rivals from NATO. There is no mention of the need to cease hostilities and stop the death of workers under the bullets and shells of punitive forces of “anti-terrorist operation”. The statement completely ignores the catastrophic humanitarian situation in eastern Ukraine, and blames for this tragedy exclusively the separatists and “agents” of Russia.” https://libcom.org/library/what-happening-ukraine-interview-international-secretary-kras-iwa

Since it was obvious that the maidan was actually organized and controlled by nazis – especially from UNA UNSO and their most visible political arm, Svoboda party – AWU presented themselves to western public as being critical of the Maidan. But at the same time they always supported it, and some of AWU even joined the openly hard-core nazi battalion of Azov. This is how the position of this AWU member, Sergii Kutnii, should be read, as he posted it publicly on his Facebook page:

“I will not go to meeting against the ATO (“anti-terror-operation” of Ukrainian forces in the East. – transl.). Because I think that the conflict in Donbass is one of illnesses which become worse if they are not cured. If the Ukrainian troops will withdraw, these fucking idiots from “people`s republics” will a) take control of territory; b) mobilize it own army; c) decide that they win over Ukrainians and conquer all now. Therefore if we listen to some naïve citizens who think that it is possible to enclosure ourselves from Donbass with a frontier line, we would obtain as a result a frontline and not a frontier. They will attack Kharkov, it`s sure. We all were shocked that the separatists in Zaporozhye were made run the gantlet in “corridor of shame”. But after events in Odessa, I think that these fucking idiots there would be alive if such a “corridor of shame” would be just in time organized in Odessa. And I think, we will look at Odessa after ATO and understand that if such a little fire would be organized just in time in the administration house of Donetsk, it could be called small losses. And I don`t want that we will in the end feel regret that the ATO was not organized in proper time” (https://www.facebook.com/sergii.kutnii/posts/839609146068808)

“The left detectors of ATO train at neglect of an elephant. This elephant is the Russian factor which is necessary to considerate. Why Russia didn`t make a military intervention until now? Because it afraid new sanctions… But it is clear now that when Russia can`t wage war with Ukraine openly, the Donetsk and Lugansk people’s republics can it… So it is clear that in a hypothetical situation of permission to republics to separate, Putin will push them to war with Ukraine… Putin will explicitly try to put into practice the same pattern as Milosevic with Republic Srpska (in Bosnia, – transl.). So there are no peaceful alternative to ATO. What is proposed by some left who fall into ill pacifism – is a way to Munchen, to a combination of shame and war”https://www.facebook.com/sergii.kutnii/posts/840916939271362

After the support of bourgeois pro-EU and pro-NATO Maidan coup, many AWU members support now the war of Kiev bourgeois regime against the bourgeois regimes in Eastern Ukraine. It is the support of one nationalists against the others. Infamy like for some “anarchists” in 1914“

It’s also important to note this post by Anarcho-Communism highlighting some of those who AWU have collaborated with, and what those people have done: https://www.facebook.com/anarchocommie/posts/818661544891260

Also it’s important to listen to AWU’s main rival organization, marxist union Borotba (yes their main target is a leftist union) as well. After all, Borotba attempted to join into Maidan as well, but unlike AWU they were beaten and physically removed by nationalists and neo nazis. It’s also important to note that one Borotba member was murdered in the Odessa massacre. Here is a quote from a Borotba member about AWU:

“The dilemma faced by the lefts was something like the following: when you see a hundred middle-class nationalists rallying and demanding privileges for themselves, what tactics do you choose? Do you create an opposing group to challenge them and their ideas, or do you intervene and try to influence and hijack the middle-class nationalists concerns? The liberal left in Ukraine chose the latter. But as a result, they were the ones to be influenced, not the other way around. Because regardless of whatever a middle-class nationalist may read or be told, the basis of his/her ‘visceral’ politics is their own class interest; in particular, the desire to secure a privileged status. This perspective began to slide towards the ideology of Nazism” (read the rest here: http://newcoldwar.org/how-the-liberal-and-anarchist-left-became-swept-up-in-the-surge-of-right-wing-nationalism-in-ukraine/)

Mostly trotskyists supported the Maidan, but even the Trotskyist site “Internationalist” had substantial criticism of the AWU:

“There was even a group of supposed anarchists with reactionary, anti-woman, xenophobic positions who tried to unite with the Nazis and threw firebombs at the police together:

“A week ago they, together with some actual leftists who wanted to ‘act,’ decided to form an ‘anarchist sotnia’ [hundred, or centuria] in the Maidan self-defence. In order to do that they were prepared to give an oath to Andriy Parubiy [the fascist-nationalist commander of the storm troops]. But when they formed their ranks to do this, they were met by approximately 150 Svoboda fighters with baseball bats and axes. The fascists accused them of being racially impure and politically irrelevant and forced them out of Maidan…”

“So unlike many Maidan enthusiasts, the AWU is not blind to the dangers staring it in the face. They also resist the “patriotic” fervor against Russian intervention in Crimea, while calling for respecting the Tatar minority. Yet they sign joint statements with pro-Maidan groups, and do not present a revolutionary program to bring down the new rulers (or even refer to the seizure of power as a coup) nor for working-class struggle against all the oligarchs.” (http://www.internationalist.org/ukrainefascistcoup1403.html)

Another member of AWU, Volodymyr Zadiraka, ends his interview (in German) by saying that if he were to be conscripted by Ukraine to military service, he wouldn’t evade military draft and joins the army, though he is not a good soldier. (https://dasgrossethier.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/bekenntnisse-eines-kiewer-anarchisten/)

It’s also interesting that AWU openly reveal their connections to USAID, a “labor initiatives” NGO which announced the summer camp in Odessa, Ukraine in late July. (https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=464839853682910&set=gm.1593540747590225&type=1&theater&__mref=message) & (https://www.facebook.com/avtonomia.net/posts/981337938564732?pnref=story&__mref=message)

As many nationalists do, they effectively masterminded anarchist and liberal rhetoric, and applied it to justify the actions of its own nationalists and government. They never support Ukrainian anti government prisoners – just Russian ones such as Ukrainian anarchist Kolchenko. It’s a typical nationalist position to ignore domestic repressions. Imagine a Greek “anarchist” who decried Turkish nationalists or Muslim clericalism, but completely turned a blind eye to the Golden Dawn. It’s truly that bizarre.

Dmitry Kovalech from Borotba says: “There is now a request from west NGOs to establish a new ‘left-liberal’ movement in Ukraine, but which would be harmless, safe and would be able to effectively divert (or hijack) rising popular social protest into a safe mode. Although, such expectations and reliance on such groups in Ukraine are of no use, since such groups are not interested in expanding their number and influence so that not to create potential competitors for grants and payments. It’s a matter of jobs for them. That’s why all such projects (be they liberal left, feminist, or environmentalist) never spread further and became a matter of a narrow group which may regroup and rebrand but it’s always the same bunch of people.”

“If you want to expose a nationalist, ask him under which condition he/she would accept in theory the right to self-determination of autonomy of a part of own country? Do they recognize in principle any way for the population of certain territories to express their will, if it contradicts nationalists dreams of ‘a greater nation’? Most likely, he/she would avoid the issue. In case of AWU we have a small group which echoes the government’s position; is against federalization of the country and effectively stands for its centralization. AWU actually acts like patriotic ‘socialists’ in WWI – when German ‘socialists’ pointed at violations in France, while French patriotic ‘socialists’ pointed at violations in Germany – thus, both sides echoed own government/nationalist propaganda. Let’s take the example of this interview: ‘UKRAINIAN SYNDICALISTS: THE BIGGEST FASCIST THREAT IS CONCENTRATED IN RUSSIA AND IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES” – shouts the headline, identifying Donbass as ‘occupied territory,’ echoing the government’s rhetoric. Meanwhile, they effectively downgrade Ukrainian (own) fascist threat:

“The position of the far right in Ukraine is rather weak and often depends on current political situation; a single mistake can lead to their collapse” http://ukrainesolidaritycampaign.org/2015/03/14/ukrainian-syndicalists-the-biggest-fascist-threat-is-concentrated-in-russia-and-in-the-occupied-territories/

Yet another recent blog post by an AWU member, Alexander Wolodarsky, attempts to take advantage of western ignorance and whitewash the fascists and their symbolism and role in the Maidan:

“Western observers, especially the left, were often resented by Nazi symbolics on “nationwide” protests in Ukraine. Due to this, the myth of the “fascist coup” and a “junta” and was so tenacious.

But this tolerance to extreme right, which manifested itself during the Maidan and held until recently, was not due to love of Ukrainians to fascism.

The external observers (and many domestic) did not take into account one important feature of post-Soviet politics in general, and of Ukrainian one in particular. And this feature is its complete lack of public political organizations had a clear ideology.” (http://www.nihilist.li/2015/07/16/o-vospriyatii-fashizma-uber-die-wahrnehmung-des-faschismus/)

AWU, besides cooperating with Ukrainian fascists, coordinated with a Bosnian group of “anarcho nationalists” (racial separatists – google it if you aren’t familiar), here is some relevant anarchist criticism regarding their alliance with this group. (http://www.sabotagemedia.anarkhia.org/2014/03/on-self-styled-libertarians-and-antiauthoritarians-from-bosnia/)

Anarchists in Ukraine are engaged against the civil war. They do not support IMF, EU, NATO or Russian capitalists. This does not mean that Russia’s help towards Donbass when people were starving under bombs should be mocked since the food and medicine helped working people of Donbass resist the fascist military repression of the Kyiv government.

What AWU and other such ghost-like „anarchists”, and other liars who attempt to compromise leftists in the west by getting them to support fascists and nazis, do not ever speak of are the following, and the listing of these real life facts exposes them once more as nothing more but capitalists and supporters of the US empire:

– Ukrainians were robbed by two thirds of their income while prices skyrocketed. There were people who organized strikes and were arrested by the nazi-controlled secret service of Ukraine, SBU. There were also people protesting in the neighborhoods of Kyiv against lack of electricity and food.

– over 90 % of Ukraine’s population in the territories controlled by Kyiv government are utterly against the civil war, which they sabotage any way they can. This is why the government resorted to kidnap men and boys from workplaces, university campuses and even from the streets.

– there is an active and brutal colonization of Ukraine by the west, which is something not witnessed even in Latin America before: the colonizers are in the government and are named as governors (Odessa’s case).

– Nazis from UNA UNSO (aka Right Sector) are named as propaganda officers of SBU, in the police, in the army and recently they even got themselves their own unit within SBU. These nazis openly organize to attack Russia so they can restore the Kievan Rus which they claim it was „theirs” – a historical abberation –, they also resent the USSR not because of reasons falsely propagated by westerners but because they did not control it. UNA UNSO’s program states publicly that USSR should have been „Ukraine’s”.

– Ukrainian ideology explicitly urges the annihilation of the population in the east.

This is another attempt by supporters of the fascists in Ukraine to rebrand themselves as “leftists” – http://ukrainesolidaritycampaign.org/2015/08/21/interview-with-activists-of-the-new-left-party-social-movement/

[…]

Notes on the “Fascist” state of Ukraine and many more

LENIN

LINK

A few random thoughts for Ukrainian events.

Note 1

The state of Ukraine is not fascist, but of democratic/liberal. I’ll explain what I mean immediately. First, the assumption that the state of Ukraine is fascist makes a dangerous logical leap.It Identifies the ideological direction of the government with the form of the state,it makes the logical leap of the equalization of government with the state. Although these two are obviously related to each other, yet are not the same, the form of the state has to do with how the state interacts with components of bourgeois society, while the ideological direction of the government is of what wants to do a part of bourgeois society. The naivety of this argument can be seen more clearly if we change just one word: If we have left or communist government that goes to say that we have communist state. Although we do not endorse in any way the meaning of communism as a form of state, even with a “Soviet-style” meaning given to communism, again the above suggestion is clearly misleading, because for example the Soviet state had too many special features and differences from a western state, which go beyond the autocracy of the communist party in government. The above misconception arises from the mistaken view that the national state is neutral instrument for classes, and not a particular specific political form of the entire bourgeois society. The special character of the state has to do mainly with its institutions not only with its government. Now if we look upon the Ukrainian example we wont have a fascist state even if the whole government was consisted of fascists, which is not the case though. For a fascist state we need a radical change in the way the state works. Fascist state means banning parties corporatism, integration and institutionalization of the contradictions of bourgeois society in the state by violence and force, banning of elections when the fascists take power, fragmentation of the working class movement by dividing it in particular revalued and highly undervalued fragments in order to integrate it, to weaken it, to put it back to work. None of this is not the case in Ukraine, the new transitional government came to power in order to “streamline” them all not banning them, and for the act of legalization of any its atrocity the new government announced elections. Beyond the particular form of the fascist state, its special character is to break a vibrant and unruly working class, bringing up a part of it and precipitating another. This in Ukraine obviously is not necessary, as the working class, went through perestroika, and is fully decomposed after 20 years of liberalism and totally personalized social relations. The working class was not in anyway a force, nor an organized threat to the accumulation of capital ,that means that the working class was already split and fragmented. This does not mean that in Ukraine there are no social demands, or Maidan and AntiMaintan not share such a common core of social concerns. The point is that these requests are mediated strongly by politics, personalization and decomposed social relations, so this is the main reason why all of these people meet in the context of abstract bourgeois social relations within that delineations of bourgeois society, therefore there is absolutely no reason for the state to become fascist etc: None ever in Maidan said he does not want state or capitalism, the exact opposite they were accusing the Ukrainian capital and the Ukrainian capitalism that is not “right”. [1] This of course made in response to the wider crisis of bourgeois underlying causes and dynamic contradictions of worldwide financial capitalism, and just this reason produced the conflict produced. But this specific conflict was in character due to the overall crisis of bourgeois subjects in the context of capitalist crisis and not because of the tendency of one pole of capital relation(labor) to dominate throughout the capital relationship. A purely fascist critique for Ukrainian state is irrelevant-unless you expand the meaning of fascism so much that includes everything-as it fails to see all the above. It also ignores the special character that takes the class struggle in Ukrainian conditions-the inclusion of fascist and nationalist phenomenon into liberalism and democracy. Thus making antifascist critique for Ukrainian state shoots blanks as it essentially criticizes the Ukrainian state for not beeing a “right democracy” and a “right liberalism”. So unwittingly perhaps, those who do antifascist critique, they end up to defend another form of organization capital: bourgeois democracy. They essentially do a bourgeois critique -even if it is armed- to Ukrainian state. The social reality of capitalism and the specific activities performed by the people in its context do not exist as autonomous beings but they reproduce one one another, as parts of the capital relation itself. This means that we can not judge things individually but always in direct correlation with the historical context and social relationships in which they are performed. Regardless of the intentions of the participants, the hierarchyzation of forms of capital and the critique only of one form (like anti-fascism does) essentially functions as practical “from below” reconstruction of capital to the form of democracy, that practically, willy-nilly means, in the context of bourgeois social relations the reproduction of capital in its democratic version. Antifascism even if does not want to, just because it ignores the dialectical interrelation of bourgeois social categories, essentially reproduces a version of the bourgeois sovereign state. Besides by ignoring the inclusion of the fascist phenomenon in democracy,by ignoring the particular form which the class struggle takes place in the current situation in Ukraine and elsewhere (eg in Greece) by capital, it is not possible to see the particular contradictory and inconclusive circumstances in which has come, the decomposed proletariat in Ukraine. The antifascist critique in Ukraine has no meaning and it does not say anything to these proletarians who consciously defend their capitals against the future which the regionalization of capital reserves for them, which is the destruction of their local capitals by the more competitive EU capitals. Ukraine does not need an anti-fascist critique but an anticapitalist one:The Ukrainian example shows how vile and barbaric forms can take the bourgeois democracy in order to protect the capital relation,it shows that democracy is no stranger to nationalism or fascism, it shows that democracy is nothing other but the physical capital community and that has no value in itself.

Note 2

In terms of alternative information there was not any essential effort. The information about the incidents came mostly, directly from regime/mainstream channels-both of west and east- and to the extent that they fit within the existing Greek experience, these information were totally accepted. So we saw a lot of totally mainstream propaganda information republished by dissident / alternative sites and blogs. This combined with what has been said above, shows mainly a failure of analysis of the Ukrainian reality. This failure of analysis just didn’t create the need for alternative information. This lack of alternative information in turn, deepened the weakness of analysis resulting in a catastrophic vicious monologue. So long as the events progressed to increasingly wild situations, the analysis was trapped, and even deepened as such, into the frustrating dipole “democratic uprising against corruption and the oligarchs of Russia, with the support of the democratic countries of the EU” on the one hand, and “proletarian or /and antifascist rebellion in the east against fascism of EU and NATO and the Western imperialists” on the other hand. And finally led to the dipole that if “there is something like fascism” in Ukraine, what resists it “should be something like the left.” This, however, is closer to mythology than reality. There is a huge need for alternative information.

Note 3

Also, was revealed the weaknesses and lack of political relations with Ukraine, which could balance the absence of alternative sources of information. Even more this lack was filled with mainstream info or the even-worse-reduction of situation in Ukraine, to the Greek experience, standards, meanings and symbolisms . So the analysis got a totally nonhistorical character at its core, and created a strange mix with antifascism rhetoric which literally ignores all the peculiarities of Eastern European reality. Thus appeared the need for the greek movement to create stronger political relationships with comrades for criticizing them of course but also for more non mainstream information and to get used about how people think and analyse political situations abroad, which are they contradictions etc . The basic rule is to historicize everything when comes to talk about symbols, statements, parties, organizations, etc., and try to understand the particular historical context. This is not about to relativise the theory, within a post-modern perspective, but to make it possible to find the specific content in the historically specific forms of appearance. So it is to make it valid to the circumstances referred to, and simultaneously possible to associate events with broader processes. In other words, it is not possible to overlook the fact that the class struggle in this area went through the form of the workers’ state, its failure, and after that the emergence of oligarchic state which was facing terrible contradictions in the historical context of the capitalist crisis. This contradictions created the Ukrainian crisis.

Note 4

Consequence of all this, is something really of an oxymoron. While the left and the anarchists seem particularly strong with a criticism of capitalist crisis, all other historical experiences of the Greek reality of the class struggle and history seemed to be attributed as analogies in Ukraine, often arbitrarily, the fact is that the experience of the capitalist crisis as a contradictory process of value was not the starting point of analysis. That is how the Ukrainian bourgeois society, is experiencing the crisis, not just as an economic crisis, but as a capitalist crisis within the worldwide frame, a crisis of bourgeois social roles, as a contradiction with itself. This again is not for reasons of theoretical fidelity but for practical political reasons. An analysis without the crisis as a starting point is outside our historical reality, and it can not catch the variations of the present situation in relation to the past, and therefore can not lead us to “on the point” political thesis. Such an analysis misses a key point. If an analysis is not starting from the dialectic of crisis as a contradictory process of bourgeois subjects constituted by value, it cant see the historically specific subjects involved in the processes and sees no contradictions on them, as possible changes to “worst” or “best” directions . So the Maidan and AntiMaintan fit easily under homogenized а priori identities and categorizations,so the degree of their heterogeneity and contradictions, limits and chances of development are not being visible. Thus the conviction “against” or the defense of one or the other side of the conflict, within a homogenization of everything becomes easy. Also this lack of “crisis” theory leads to this: the totality, ie the relation of state-bourgeois society is not perceived as a contradiction between two regions of capitalist accumulation that was “set on fire” by the capitalist crisis of our time, but results in an interpretation of events in Spinoza tautological formula eg “the fascist state of Ukraine does what it does because it is fascist and is consisted by fascists “or the liberal analysis that are really favoured at dig mainstream channels that say that the conflict is at its core of” cultural ” differences(!;). The tautology and essentialism to analyze the tactics of the state and the forms it takes the class struggle is the common core shared by the Stalinist / non dialectical version analysis of vulgar Marxism and clearly bourgeois analysis (so it is no coincidence that bouth of result in a distorted bourgeois critique) . For example, the fact that the proletarians are protesting with requests which have as horizon their capitals, the fact that they defend their capitals, or the fact that the Lugansk miners do not side with nor the Maidan or the AntiMaintan is not analysed. Based on the dominant discourse or the above analysis, these workers who are buried under the earth, just do not know what they are, they don’t have a “revolutionary conscious” and they may not realize the stakes, between Maidan and antiMaintan conflict, fascism/antifascism etc. Nevertheless, they themselves simply saw the truth in the eyes: The dilemma of staying or leaving Ukraine, namely in what region of accumulation they will be a part of, and this means, is not ok with them. The dilemma of whether ,they will die through unemployment, or exploitation inside the Russian federation is the crisis of the wage relation and reproduction of the working class. So this workers see no future neither with the West nor with the East. Thus the reading of the heterogeneity of these movements and the social relations that dictate the limits and the reasons for this heterogeneity is a key point. A more dialectical examination of AntiMaintan as a mirror of the Maidan is crucial, and there has not been such an examination on even greater extent than about the Maidan.

Note 5

There is a need in relation to the above, to explain the phenomenon of ultras fans and their role in the events, the way in which historical relations formed in stadiums interweavewith issues of nationalism, state, gender, etc. For example in both on April 13 in Kharkiv, and the brutality of Odessa, the presence of hooligans was crucial, as a marginalized and undervalued youth.This should be considered separately and specifically as they seem to have played a central role in one way or another. We usually underestimate this social part as “hooligans” and give up the analysis of them, and we usually tend to understand the youth movement only in terms of “students”. But this is historically determined criterion of ours. There it seems that the student strikes and occupations had little relevance to the big picture of the events, and played little role. On the other hand, hooligans appear to play a key role, and not being completely negatively stigmatized by society: as the Maidan, and the AntiMaintan actively collaborated with ultra right-wing hooligans on both sides. This in our opinion, has to do with the history of the structured society in Ukraine. The university was not a privileged field of class confrontation, even before the dissolution of the USSR is neither now, while the football hooligan social space, in response to intense state repression experienced and the “nationalistic shift” of these countries, it was a place of “anti-cop” activity and spreading of nationalistic ideas. [2] after perestroika.

Note 6

We are really disgusted about the conflict which takes the form of national idea conflict, and we have a real agony for all those who are trapped within their own contradictions, within the limits of a conflict that is seen by them as necessary and foreign at the same time. So we have a small but important request to all of us. In Ukraine is produced a quirky collision, two national ideas collide and are produced, two bourgeois societies with all their beings, and their components, collide. The forms of this conflict are diverse, but also inhumane and destructive. Within this conflict, they have an organic position, fascists, and all components of bourgeois society, the two sides remain “internal” democratic, their bourgeois categories remain united [3] . Let’s not make the mistake to support either side of the conflict, as did some in Yugoslavia, and become apologists for nationalism and civil war, nor call ​​them all a priori fascists, but to see the atrocities for which they are able Capital and bourgeois democracy,let’s make an anticapitalist critique and simultaneously see the internal contradictions and diversities between the two sides of the conflict as the possibility of their own overcoming. In Ukraine we have nationalism, we have fascism, as parts of bourgeois democracy, as two sides of bourgeois societies in conflict. As said an Ukrainian blogger some time ago, “Maidan is the birth of a nation within another.”

Note 7

The Ukrainian state is attacking and treats the eastern provinces in the most brutal way, while inside the west and center of Ukraine is prevailing bourgeois normality(more or less…). Why is that? Why also the Ukrainian state characterizes the eastern provinces as “terrorists” (sic)? The question must be answered as to bourgeois democracy as the natural political form of state of bourgeois society. Fascism and the loss of democracy come as a historically reply of Capital to a strong working class within one bourgeois csociety, which tends to break or spoil the plans of capital accumulation.In Ukraine we do not have something like that. On the other hand, the eastern Ukraine does not belong to the same bourgeois society(this was and the main contradiction of the Ukrainian state) with the rest of the country-the west- and for this the reason, why as to this “western” government, eastern Ukraine is something else, an externality that must be dealt with. This can be done within a democratic form (with frontline fascist security forces, where else can you find such good killers….) as well as Kiev and the separatists not consider themselves part or component of this one bourgeois society but of another (Russian) and they even raise the flag, they ask for a referendum etc. Thus we see Kiev treats those who resist in the east, as elsewhere are treated the marginalized (those who no longer participating in bourgeois social roles but live in their margin as externalities of circulation of value), the insurgents immigrants or the “foreigners invaders “, the treatment is completely hostile. The democratic state has the “obligation” (although this form of state now it is in crisis in the context of financial capitalism) to be consistent in its own bourgeois society, not the externalities of its. The term “counter-terrorism operations” used by Kiev is quite enlightening to see how the movement of antiMaidan is viewed by the West

footnotes.

[1] As we were told by Ukraine comrade “the Maidan was a liberal revolt that solved the hands of a big part of the Ukrainian bourgeoisie” A very important element in the whole analysis in our view is that both sides have fascists, actively in the service of the state(s), so far without changing the form of the state.

[2] The university is not a privileged place for class confrontation first of all because it works in an intense insecurity codex, that is, the relatively easy way to get kicked out or expelled when there are violations of regulations or if there is a failing to the exams. Secondly, the Ukrainian universities, have some very interesting features: There are a lot, so there is a large number of graduates,they have a plethora of educational fields, but they are corrupted as to their management and to teaching methods. Additionally, the majority of Ukrainians replied that basic criterion for finding a job are “acquaintances” and “political” connections, and only after these two factors, they consider education in itself, as an important factor for professional restoration.All this when combined with the relatively low unemployment until recently (average approximately 9.5%) means that graduates in Ukraine study relatively little, and they could find a job without giving much significance to the degree. Therefore the university not only was a privileged place for class struggle because of strict policies, but did not create a tradition of struggle in universities as it seemed to have no direct relation to trade market.

[3] The components of bourgeois society remain united and reproduced as such in the context of the conflict in Ukraine. By the term “united social components” of bourgeois society we mean the general practice of the nation and the national idea, which takes the political form of bourgeois democracy. Only when there is a revolutionary proletarian movement as a threat to the unified bourgeois elements, fascism emerges. So there is no coincidence that both sides use fascists in the context of conflict, but neither repudiates Democracy, unlike both sides accuse the opponent as anti-democratic, fascist rebel etc. Democracy is no stranger to the national idea or nationalism, but in different variations, is the political form of their practice. The basic capitalist contradiction of our time and the Ukrainian state contradiction, produces a conflict in Ukraine as a civli war and not as an internal rift between bourgeois subjects, as a revolution. For more information see our texts “Maidan as the pattern of unrest” and “songs of the Black Sea” .There, there is an attempt to explain the broader contradictions of Ukrainian reality and where they led.

»Egypt: A historic compromise over an attempt at democratic change«

LINK I

LINK II

The problem is that at this stage the proletarian cause is masked by classic democratic demands and the power games within the dominant classes. Very quickly, the insurgents showed that they were incapable of considering themselves as an expression of a social class which is independent and without a country, a class which aspires not only to the overthrow of authoritarian and corrupt regimes but also the destruction of the state, of all states, and, above all, the revolutionary constitution of a centralised cooperative society, without classes, without money, without exploitation and without oppression. As in Iran in the summer and autumn of 2009, the main limit of the movement remains the under-utilisation by workers of the essential weapon at their disposal: the strike. In this way they deprive themselves of the only really solid foundation of their fight and, at the same time, of a form of struggle which is the most effective against the state and the bosses, whether “native” or “foreign”. The heart of the system of domination in any country in the world is production. It is there that we need to strike.

Democracy

What on Earth could be better than democracy, the power of the sovereign people? As the word “capitalism” assumes more pejorative connotations, “democracy” gains adherents. The whole world is for democracy, whether constitutional monarchy or republic, bourgeois or people’s democracy. If there is one thing everyone accuses their enemies of, it is that they are not democratic enough.
Anyone who criticizes democracy can only be, in the best case, a nostalgic apologist for the old absolute monarchies. Generally the appalling label of “fascist” is the preferred epithet reserved for such people. The most fanatic mudslingers in this regard are often the Marxists and Marxist-Leninists who forget what the founding fathers said about democracy, and who praise democracy so much in order to conceal their own taste for power and dictatorship. Ironically enough, it is certain elements tainted with the brush of Stalinism that will hypocritically accuse us of being Stalinists.
Democracy seems to be the antithesis of capitalist despotism. Where everyone knows that it is a minority that really rules, it is common for people to set against this minority rule the power derived from universal suffrage.
In reality, capitalism and democracy go hand in hand. Democracy is the fig leaf of capital. Democratic values, far from being subversive, are the idealized expression of the really existing and somewhat less than noble tendencies of capitalist society. Communists are no more eager to realize the trinity of “liberty, equality, and fraternity” than that of “work, family, and fatherland”.
If democracy is the consort of capital, why do dictatorship and capitalism so often coexist? Why do most people live under authoritarian regimes? Why is it that, even in democratic states, democratic functions are so often hindered?
Democratic aspirations and values result from capitalism’s tendency to act as a solvent in society. They correspond to the end of the era when the individual had his place in a stable community and network of relations. They also correspond to the need to preserve the image of an idealized community, to regulate conflicts, and to reduce friction for the good of the whole community. The minority yields to the will of the majority.
Democracy is not merely a lie or a vulgar illusion. It derives its content from a shattered social reality, which it seems to reunite into a totality. The democratic aspiration conceals a search for community and respect for others. But the soil in which it is rooted and attempts to grow prevents it from successfully attaining these goals.
Even so, democracy frequently poses too great a threat to capital or at least to certain powerful interests. This is why it is always encountering impediments to its existence. With few exceptions, these constraints and even unadorned dictatorship are presented as victories for democracy. What tyrant does not pretend to rule, if not through the people, at least for the people?
Democracy, which during calm periods can appear to be a useful means to pacify workers struggles, is shamelessly abandoned when this is required for the defense of capital. There are always intellectuals and politicians who are very surprised when they are so easily sacrificed on the altar of the interests of the powerful.
Democracy and dictatorship are two contrasting, but not totally unrelated, forms. Democracy, since it implies the submission of the minority to the majority, is a form of dictatorship. A dictatorial junta may very well have recourse, in order to make decisions, to democratic mechanisms. (mehr…)

»Noi siamo l‘1%«

LINK

(eng. Version/dt. Version)