• cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    He asks the question "How can we make radical change in America by saying ‘Vladimir Putin is our leader?’, which is a very salient point. He goes on to say that we should strive for socialist leadership in all of our countries. What is so off about that? Seriously?

    Nothing is wrong with that in general, but who is he saying it to? Who are these people that only want multipolarity and simp for Putin? His call for socialism is good, but ignores the material reality of today’s world in which new socialist construction is not possible without first the decline of US hegemony.

    I don’t like Shea and think he’s quite problematic, but your comment about what Kim is saying is, I think, not a good portrayal.

    but just thinking about it for like 20 seconds, this obviously wouldn’t mean supporting reactionary states against the US for the pure sake of it. Would Kim il Sung have supported Hitler? Obviously not.

    The USSR and China did ally with other capitalist and imperialist forces against Japan and Germany in WW2. And today’s world is largely split into two camps - the US and China. Critical support given to Russia (which while being reactionary still currently plays a progressive role globally in the struggle against US hegemony and is allied to the world’s socialist countries, though only out of necessity) is not the same as “supporting Hitler”. Putin and Russia today are not equivalent to Hitler and Nazi Germany.

    As Losurdo puts it:

    we can speak of a struggle against a new colonial counter-revolution. We can speak of a struggle between the imperialist and colonialist powers — principally the United States — on the one side, and on the other we have China and the third world. Russia is an integral part of this greater third world, because it was in danger of becoming a colony of the West.

    • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Brian Becker and the PSL critically support Russia. Shea takes the critical part and makes it seem like Becker is a “Russia bad” commentator. He’s not. Don’t listen to Shea talk about Becker. Listen to Becker directly and form your own opinion. When you do, you’ll see Shea is dangerous.

      • SovereignState@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        1 year ago

        I do not totally dismiss much of Shea’s writing, yet this is wrecker behavior. Anyone who listens to what PSL is actually saying knows they are not against multipolarity, they’re the only prominent Amerikan communist organization even tackling its importance!

      • cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t take anything Shea says at face value. I’ve listened to the part of the interview in question and find Becker’s answers to be weird and contradictory. As I’ve explained in another comment, he answers the question “is it good that unipolarity has been challenged?” and his answer is in essence no because it seems like he just argues against some multipolarity in general without considering the material reality of today’s world split into the west and the rest (with China on top). His answer implies that today’s multipolarity is like that of pre-WW1 which is in contradiction with his stance in general.

        • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          14
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          He’s answering the question. Multipolarity, in a vacuum, does not immediately lead to socialism. Socialism must be present along with multipolarity.

          • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            He’s waffling and refusing to give a clear answer, and the only correct answer for a socialist to give is: yes, because without the defeat of the unipolar US hegemony socialism cannot arise or thrive anywhere.

            • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              13
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              I guess this is exactly where this belongs then, in leftist infighting. My comrade, you are applying a ridiculous purity test to a political figure who has a much bigger scope of influence, audience, and perspective than you do. And you are choosing to give Rainer Shea the benefit of the doubt in his assessment that the PSL isn’t worth listening to despite being shows as a bad actor but not willing to listen to more of Brian Becker to understand where he’s coming from despite multiple comrades telling you that it’s worth the time because Becker explicitly supports the end of US hegemony.

              • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                My perspective is that of someone sitting outside of the US for whom the defeat of US imperialism is the primary interest since that is what is making my life worse and revolution in my country impossible at the moment. I don’t know the conditions in the US well enough to say whether what Becker is doing is worth it to attract more people to his movement, but my impression is that he is misjudging the level of support that exists for anti-imperialist and anti-NATO position among the general population. Except that he seems to primarily be addressing a liberal and socdem audience which is why he thinks he needs to add all these caveats and hide his real views.

                • freagle@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  5
                  arrow-down
                  3
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  So your position is ignorant. Got it. Brian Becker used to be an anti-war liberal. He’s been against US imperilaism since he began organizing during the Vietnam war. He understands better than any of us how popular sentiment flows around the US machine, the history of US imperialism, the history of NATO, etc.

                  Just stop trying to hold your position. It’s unwinnable. You literally have no idea what you’re talking about because you won’t even engage with the content we’re discussing.

                • QueerCommie@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Yes, he is trying to remain able to draw in liberals to the far left. This is a far better strategy than focusing purely on far right people just because they like Russia at the moment.

              • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.mlOP
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                5
                arrow-down
                2
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Meaningless word salad. Give me a clear answer: how can socialism arise let alone survive anywhere in the world today so long as the US empire, unless challenged in the way that Russia and China are currently doing, is free to use its global reach and all military and economic power at its disposal to strangle any nascent revolution in its infancy and slowly ratchet up the suffocating pressure on the remaining AES states? What other alternative is there than for some state or states to take the fight to the empire and actually hit them back and weaken them the way Russia and China are currently doing?

                Please, if you know one, tell me of a practical path to revolution and socialism in a world where the US empire reigns supreme.

                A lot of leftists like to talk about anti-imperialism in the abstract, but what Russia and China are currently doing is anti-imperialism put into practice. When push comes to shove suddenly opportunist elements of the western left don’t like the way anti-imperialism looks when it’s more than empty rhetoric… because it alienates your liberal friends, because it’s messy and bloody and dangerous, because it requires some amount of compromise, or because the “wrong people” are doing it and that doesn’t fit the idealized picture you had in your head.

                These are all vestiges of a liberal idealist mentality that it seems much of the western left is not yet mature enough to have outgrown.

                • Black Yeonmi Par𝕏@lemmygrad.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Please tell me you don’t really believe those genocidal libertarian hard-c crackers are actually anti-imperialist; as opposed to using a cute little photo op to launder their reputations. If that’s really what you believe, you’re more lost than I ever thought you to be. It is not compromise to work with the genocidal, it’s actively endorsing suicide.

                  • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.mlOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    1 year ago

                    I don’t believe that they are, no, i think they are a mix of delusional idiots, contrarians and cynical opportunists. But results matter more than motives, and i see that they are among the only ones actually agitating against NATO and against the war and actually gaining some traction among the population. And i see that there are some sections of the left, such as the PCUSA, that have made a judgement call that it is worth to piggyback on this despite the contradictions present. I would love nothing more than to see a popular leftist movement against NATO and against the lies and propaganda that the West’s support for this war is predicated on, that way there would be no need to share a platform with reactionaries. But instead, much of the western left has chosen to side with the imperialist position on this conflict in order to stay in the good graces of the liberal establishment, and are doing so under the pretext that to support Russia or to refuse to support Ukraine is tantamount to siding with reactionaries.

                    Instead of attacking those who reluctantly piggyback on the libertarian platform because they have nowhere else to go if they want to be anti-NATO, why doesn’t the part of the left that is also critical of NATO build its own platform for this purpose? This is a rhetorical question because i know the answer: the left isn’t given the same freedoms and leeway to be critical of the liberal establishment that the right is. We have already seen communists persecuted and jailed for taking a pro-Russia stance. Unfortunately this is the environment that exists in the imperial core today, and it is in no small part being enabled by the more opportunist elements of the left which have chosen to side with the imperialist narrative and demonize pro-Russian communists as “tankies”, “patsocs” or “Putin puppets”. This leads some of us to conclude that, however distasteful it may be, the only choice that anti-imperialists have left is to use these dubious platforms because that is the only way to get the anti-imperialist narrative out to the people.

      • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.mlOP
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        If that is true then Shea is wrong and should have done his research on Becker and the PSL better. But i can only judge based on what i have read and heard from them so far. If you can point me to where they say they critically support Russia i would appreciate it.

          • cfgaussian@lemmygrad.mlOP
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Of the 36 posts i made over the last three months 5 have been about this rift that has developed among the western left between those who support Russia’s SMO and those who do not. This is something that is not going away, the conflict has not yet been resolved and remains topical as it relates to one of the most impactful geopolitical developments of our generation.

    • Idliketothinkimsmart@lemmygrad.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m currently on the move so I can’t currently give more lengthy response, but these are the people. There’s a growing right wing opposition to NATO, which now, might seem insignificant, but as the war drags longer and longer?

      The US knows it can’t drag the war on in perpetuity, and if support falls come time for the next election, this puts Democrats in a dangerous and weakened position.

      I’d be interested to see what instances you’re referring to in terms of the SU and China allying with other imperialist forces. The instances I can think, such as the Molotov Ribbentrop pact we’rent so much allying as it was a stalemate that allowed the SU to gather up it’s arms. Even then, the SU ended up going to war against those same forces, which points to the reality points to how alliances with reactionary forces is ultimately short lived and can be dangerous.

      I do think that Russia plays a progressive tole in today’s landscape, but that’s different than expecting Putin to liberate us from NATO.

      • cucumovirus@lemmygrad.ml
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        There’s a growing right wing opposition to NATO

        But that’s not actual opposition to NATO or US wars in general. They are just opposing what the democrats are currently doing until they get elected again. These people very much want and are working towards US hegemony and open war with China, not just this proxy war against Russia. They do not want multipolarity and their appeals to Putin don’t really mean anything. They’re just part of a larger effort to be as contrarian as possible to the current democrat positions in public, while actually pursuing largely the same foreign policy as the democrats. There’s also the factor of Trump “being friends” or whatever with Putin which is nonsense, but the republicans seem to like spreading that, if nothing else, just to piss off the democrats.

        this puts Democrats in a dangerous and weakened position.

        I don’t really care what kind of position the democrats are in and neither should you. Both parties have the same imperialist and hegemonic policy and serve military-industrial, and other large corporation’s shareholders’ interests. The dems are not better than the republicans, and the US elections don’t really decide anything. No one in the US should be allying with democrats (or republicans or relying on elections) and expecting achieve any sort of meaningful anti-imperialist changes.

        I’d be interested to see what instances you’re referring to in terms of the SU and China allying with other imperialist forces.

        I’m not talking about the Molotov–Ribbentrop pact, that wasn’t an act of allyship. I’m talking about the larger picture of WW2 in general. The USSR, along with the UK and US fought the Nazis in Europe, and the communists in China formed temporary alliances with capitalist/feudalist forces which were funded by US imperialists to fight against Japan.

        expecting Putin to liberate us from NATO

        Again, my point is that no one is actually expecting this. Maybe a few fringe voices, but its far from a real position taken by people.