# Forthcoming ACG Public Meeting on War in Ukraine



## charlie mowbray (Apr 5, 2022)

War in Ukraine: Is 'No War but the Class War' Just a Slogan?
					

What does the slogan 'No War but the Class War' mean in the interimperialist conflict between Russia and NATO-backed Ukraine?




					www.eventbrite.co.uk


----------



## cupid_stunt (Apr 5, 2022)

If they need to ask that question, there's no hope for them.


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Apr 5, 2022)

cupid_stunt said:


> If they need to ask that question, there's no hope for them.


I think the questions asked in that link are good ones actually. But then I'm kind of biased I guess.

Not that I want this thread to be de-railed btw.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 5, 2022)

cupid_stunt said:


> If they need to ask that question, there's no hope for them.


The headline is poor, but as AmateurAgitator says, the key questions are in the blurb.


----------



## chilango (Apr 5, 2022)

I think the headline is fine. Even if your answer is an unequivocal "yes"  it is still worth asking.

I find the description of the invasion as an "interimperialistic conflict" more problematic tbh. I can't make the meeting but if an ACGer can point me towards some expansion on that I'd be grateful.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 5, 2022)

It is an inter-imperialist conflict, Russian imperialism with Ukraine (tragically) as a NATO proxy. This is not saying that the authoritarian nationalist Russian state isn't the aggressor and formerly neo-liberal Ukraine (I say formerly, as it's too fucked to be anything other than in basic survival mode now) isn't the victim; but various "western" states and NATO conditionally swinging behind Ukraine is what makes it an inter-imperialist conflict.

Yeah, maybe the question "should we take sides?" should be asked, and the fact that some don't think it's worth asking is yet another echo of WW1 trenchism. But I don't think it should be the most prominent question. Besides, who's "we"?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 5, 2022)

cupid_stunt said:


> If they need to ask that question, there's no hope for them.


the point of having a meeting on the subject is to present one's ideas to an audience, and to defend them in debate. and while the acg are asking the question, they're also going to answer it in their presentation to the audience. this really shouldn't need to be pointed out to you.

sometimes you post really well and incisively and sometimes you offer up a pile of puke, as here


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 5, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> It is an inter-imperialist conflict, Russian imperialism with Ukraine (tragically) as a NATO proxy. This is not saying that the authoritarian nationalist Russian state isn't the aggressor and formerly neo-liberal Ukraine (I say formerly, as it's too fucked to be anything other than in basic survival mode now) isn't the victim; but various "western" states and NATO conditionally swinging behind Ukraine is what makes it an inter-imperialist conflict.
> 
> Yeah, maybe the question "should we take sides?" should be asked, and the fact that some don't think it's worth asking is yet another echo of WW1 trenchism. But I don't think it should be the most prominent question. Besides, who's "we"?


When you say 'conditionally swinging behind Ukraine ', can you expand on this and describe how/why this has occurred?


----------



## LDC (Apr 5, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> It is an inter-imperialist conflict, Russian imperialism with Ukraine (tragically) as a NATO proxy.



That is far too simplistic bordering on nonsense in my understanding, and the understanding of many anarchists and communists in the area (and others). And 'proxy' are you sure you mean that as well? Ukraine is not fighting on behalf of NATO, it's fighting for itself with limited NATO and other support. It's all very well talking about NWBTCW, but you're slipping into very dodgy and analytically weak language, you're still doing this campism thing of solely seeing things as monolithic 'blocks', there's no understanding or acceptance of people outside that having agency and potential. It's all just grist to an imperialist war.

I'll try and come to the meeting anyway!


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 5, 2022)

In other words The39thStep, all but WW3 scenario troops on the ground, no fly zone, etc. 

I'm a bit busy now doing some urgent last minute strike ballot stuff. I'll try and come back to LynnDoyleCooper this evening (unless someone else steps in first).


----------



## chilango (Apr 5, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> It is an inter-imperialist conflict, Russian imperialism with Ukraine (tragically) as a NATO proxy. This is not saying that the authoritarian nationalist Russian state isn't the aggressor and formerly neo-liberal Ukraine (I say formerly, as it's too fucked to be anything other than in basic survival mode now) isn't the victim; but various "western" states and NATO conditionally swinging behind Ukraine is what makes it an inter-imperialist conflict.


Thanks for taking the time to answer.

Aside from the specific disagreements that LynnDoyleCooper raises, which I'd tend to share. I'd add that I think we need to re-consider the term "imperialism". I think the current culture war bollocks on "defending the empire" and the "anti-imperialism" of the red-brown types have brought the term into disrepute if you like. I also think there's a wider discussion to be had (and probably is being had no doubt) about the releveance of theories of imperialism in a globalised 2022. 

Either way, I'm not sure the description "inter-imperialist" is super useful here.

The discussion is though.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2022)

Lol nobody is 'conditionally swinging behind ukraine' beyond rhetoric, the US won't even give them weapons ffs. They've also repeatedly asked to join NATO and been turned down.


----------



## LDC (Apr 5, 2022)

Yeah, I think 'imperialism and anti-imperialism' need some clarity and thinking about (if not jettisoning) as they're getting used lazily to mean a whole load of things that I think isn't what they actually mean?


----------



## chilango (Apr 5, 2022)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Yeah, I think 'imperialism and anti-imperialism' need some clarity and thinking about (if not jettisoning) as they're getting used lazily to mean a whole load of things that I think isn't what they actually mean?


...or they were a description of how things were at one point (maybe) but both the term's usage and the actions it describes have long since changed.


----------



## chilango (Apr 5, 2022)

...and deciding that it is not an "inter-imperialist conflict", a "proxy war" etc. and recognising that one State is very much acting as unprovoked aggressor twoards another does not necessarily mean you have to throw your support behind the State being attacked. That should still be questioned. You can leave imperialism out of it and still find issues of nationalism, anti-statism and so on that need unpicking.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 5, 2022)

Why leave imperialism out of it when its imperialism that's at the self-pronounced heart of the ideological drive of Putin's invasion? Its utterly central to the dynamic. Putin is proud to be an imperialist - for him it is a point of pride. Make Russian Empire Great Again.

Also seems to me that US/neoliberal imperialism is so dominant/all-pervasive/hegemonic as to be deemed invisible in this dynamic by many.

We've all seen the crudest imperial reductionism by the worst elements of the left, but that depressing reductionism doesnt mean there isn't a complex imperial aspect to this all.

I can't understand how anyone can rule out the imperial-realists from across the political spectrum who predicted this war.


----------



## cupid_stunt (Apr 5, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> the point of having a meeting on the subject is to present one's ideas to an audience, and to defend them in debate. and while the acg are asking the question, they're also going to answer it in their presentation to the audience. this really shouldn't need to be pointed out to you.



TBF, I only looked at the link question, whilst waiting for someone on the phone and didn't bother to click on it, and thought well if they hadn't worked it by now, there's no hope. 



> sometimes you post really well and incisively and sometimes you offer up a pile of puke, as here



So, we have something in common then.


----------



## chilango (Apr 5, 2022)

ska invita said:


> Why leave imperialism out of it when its imperialism that's at the self-pronounced heart of the ideological drive of Putin's invasion? Its utterly central to the dynamic. Putin is proud to be an imperialist - for him it is a point of pride. Make Russian Empire Great Again.
> 
> Also seems to me that US/neoliberal imperialism is so dominant/all-pervasive/hegemonic as to be deemed invisible in this dynamic by many.
> 
> ...



I think to do that, you'd/we'd need to be clear in what is meant by 'imperialism'.

I'd also question the construct of "US/neoliberal imperialism". I'm not sure lingering US imperial ambitions (or its more pervasive neo-imperialist campaigns of the latter half of the 20th century) are the same as neoliberal globalisation (although of course there'll be some converging interests and some shared battles).

I do take your point on hegemony > invisibility, that's interesting and worth looking at further perhaps.

I've no idea what an "imperial-realist" is I'm afraid!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 5, 2022)

cupid_stunt said:


> TBF, I only looked at the link question, whilst waiting for someone on the phone and didn't bother to click on it, and thought well if they hadn't worked it by now, there's no hope.


who is 'they' in this case?


----------



## chilango (Apr 5, 2022)

...also even if (and it's a big 'if' for me) Russia's actions are imperialist in form and intent rather than just rhetoric I would still have serious misgivings about the "inter-imperialist" bit. Ukraine are not acting in any sort of imperialist fashion, and NATO are not exactly taking the opportunity to go all in on a proxy war are they?

I think "expansionist" is perhaps a more useful term to describe NATO's interests in the region, but that's not a direct part of this war. As for Russia, I'm not sure what the correct term for a military reclamation of territory that they consider theirs (but is disputed by the majority of the actual inhabitants) is?

Dunno.

Words and labels are important, they require care and accuracy.


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 5, 2022)

cupid_stunt said:


> TBF, I only looked at the link question, whilst waiting for someone on the phone and didn't bother to click on it, and thought well if they hadn't worked it by now, there's no hope.


I reckon they have got an answer to the question, dunno if it's one you'd like though?


Pickman's model said:


> who is 'they' in this case?


I would guess the hosts of this meeting?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 5, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> I reckon they have got an answer to the question, dunno if it's one you'd like though?
> 
> I would guess the hosts of this meeting?


that'd be just plain daft.


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 5, 2022)

Also, I don't want to pick on the ACG here, but I suppose it is a question I'd ask of any group hosting a similar meeting - will there be any Ukrainian or indeed Russian comrades invited to speak?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 5, 2022)

chilango said:


> I think "expansionist" is perhaps a more useful term to describe NATO's interests in the region, but that's not a direct part of this war. As for Russia, I'm not sure what the correct term for a military reclamation of territory that they consider theirs (but is disputed by the majority of the actual inhabitants) is?


irredentist perhaps


----------



## ska invita (Apr 5, 2022)

chilango said:


> I think to do that, you'd/we'd need to be clear in what is meant by 'imperialism'.
> 
> I'd also question the construct of "US/neoliberal imperialism". I'm not sure lingering US imperial ambitions (or its more pervasive neo-imperialist campaigns of the latter half of the 20th century) are the same as neoliberal globalisation (although of course there'll be some converging interests and some shared battles).
> 
> ...


lingering? alive and fucking rampant id say!

Heres a simple definition of imperial-realism from a quick google:
 "IR theory, known as “offensive” or “great power” realism. Russia is a great power. Great powers, the theory goes, guard their security through spheres of interest. The US does so too, in the form of the Monroe doctrine and more recently in the Carter doctrine, which extends America’s interests to the Persian Gulf. If necessary, those zones are defended with force, and anyone who fails to recognise and respect this fails to grasp the violent logic of international relations. 

In so far as ideas can actually influence international relations, given the determinative force accorded to geography, economics and military power, the most that one can hope for is to bring decision-makers and the general public to recognise each other’s interests and spheres of influence and pull back from unnecessary confrontation. What realism means in this context is clarity about the underlying structure and a resigned acceptance of its logic."


----------



## ska invita (Apr 5, 2022)

chilango said:


> ...also even if (and it's a big 'if' for me) Russia's actions are imperialist in form and intent rather than just rhetoric I would still have serious misgivings about the "inter-imperialist" bit. Ukraine are not acting in any sort of imperialist fashion, and NATO are not exactly taking the opportunity to go all in on a proxy war are they?
> 
> I think "expansionist" is perhaps a more useful term to describe NATO's interests in the region, but that's not a direct part of this war. As for Russia, I'm not sure what the correct term for a military reclamation of territory that they consider theirs (but is disputed by the majority of the actual inhabitants) is?
> 
> ...


It would be wrong to say Ukraine Are Acting In An Imperialist Fashion - of course it would - but theres not a state in the world that isnt tied into inter-imperial conflict and has to walk the tightrope
I mean look at isolated Nauru - Wikipedia - 21km square island out in the pacific, current population 10,000, has had occupations from japan, germany and australia


----------



## chilango (Apr 5, 2022)

Thanks ska invita. Not sure I agree, but at least I can see where you're coming from.


----------



## LDC (Apr 5, 2022)

Not sure where this should go, but it's a nice succinct take by a Ukrainian socialist on the issue of weapons supply.

“Russia’s retreat from the towns and villages around Kiev reveals the brutal and systematic massacre of civilians. This is graphic, but not a new fact or something one could not predict. There is also no reason to think this will not repeat in other occupied places. This raises the following question. What is the cost of a ban on supplying weapons to Ukraine’s army that many on the left advocate? I think that it is legitimate to debate the issue of supplying weapons. But those who take a stance should also acknowledge the costs and take the responsibility. This would be a mature political move. E.g. if you say ‘Our country should stop supplying weapons to Ukraine because this will make the war shorter’ you should also add ‘but this will necessarily lead to mass killings of civilians and systematic repressions in the occupied territories’. If one makes such a statement, I would like to see a rational calculation behind this, namely your arguments that justify this stance on the level of analysis of the dynamics of the war and the political/humanitarian costs.”


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 5, 2022)

ska invita said:


> lingering? alive and fucking rampant id say!
> 
> Heres a simple definition of imperial-realism from a quick google:
> "IR theory, known as “offensive” or “great power” realism. Russia is a great power. Great powers, the theory goes, guard their security through spheres of interest. The US does so too, in the form of the Monroe doctrine and more recently in the Carter doctrine, which extends America’s interests to the Persian Gulf. If necessary, those zones are defended with force, and anyone who fails to recognise and respect this fails to grasp the violent logic of international relations.
> ...


At least chilango thinks the USA is a  'lingering' imperialist  power, could be  worse Paul Mason describes the USA as  "globalist democratic _former imperialist_ countries of the USA and EU,"


----------



## chilango (Apr 5, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> At least chilango thinks the USA is a  'lingering' imperialist  power, could be  worse Paul Mason describes the USA as  "globalist democratic _former imperialist_ countries of the USA and EU,"


Please don't tell me that this is the reboot of the interminable degenerated/deformed/moribund blah blah blah analyses of the USSR.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 5, 2022)

chilango said:


> Please don't tell me that this is the reboot of the interminable degenerated/deformed/moribund blah blah blah analyses of the USSR.


Ok I won't. Anyway they were state cap


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 5, 2022)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> That is far too simplistic bordering on nonsense in my understanding, and the understanding of many anarchists and communists in the area (and others). And 'proxy' are you sure you mean that as well? Ukraine is not fighting on behalf of NATO, it's fighting for itself with limited NATO and other support. It's all very well talking about NWBTCW, but you're slipping into very dodgy and analytically weak language, you're still doing this campism thing of solely seeing things as monolithic 'blocks', there's no understanding or acceptance of people outside that having agency and potential. It's all just grist to an imperialist war.
> 
> I'll try and come to the meeting anyway!


You're right that Ukraine is not fighting on behalf of NATO, it's fighting for the most basic survival of its population against a terroristic invader. But that doesn't make it any less a NATO-proxy, even if its population (and government) doesn't see itself as such, and is in fact getting very half-hearted support from NATO/"the West" for its proxydom. Sadly, Ukraine is basically stuck in the middle, acting as the fall guy for Western expansionism and Russian irridentism.

The NATO/"Western"/neoliberal capitalist block is a thing, just as are the authoritarian nationalist blocks of the Russian Federation and China. It's not campism to remark on their existence. It would only be campism if I was backing either western neoliberal capital or Russian authoritarian nationalist capital, the latter of which is making a brutal revanchist powerplay. I'm not doing either of those things, though. Nor am I saying that people or countries outside of those imperialist blocks don't have agency either. But to ignore that the butchery in Ukraine is taking place against a wider global backdrop of global inter-imperialist interests would be a mistake. Sure, it doesn't give some poor Ukrainian having their family massacred much comfort, but that's the current set up.

Too be honest though, I really don't have much in the way of answers. My heart goes out to people in Ukraine, and like many, I find watching news about the activities of the Russian military against the population there to be pretty much unbearable. 

Anyway, you'll be very welcome at the meeting and it would be good to have your perspective.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 5, 2022)

What is the attendance like at these normally? I might listen in but only if I won't stick out as the obvious new person.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2022)

If it is getting half hearted support for its proxydom it isn't a proxy.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2022)

Proxy war is when a force is under the total or near enough commanding control of another state, entirely dependent on it eg. Like eg the Shia militias in Syria that are called 'Iranian proxies' or for that matter some of the pro Turkish jihadist groups. Ukraine isn't in that category- the commanding control is non existent and western support is lukewarm at best.


----------



## LDC (Apr 5, 2022)

If (Ukraine) is fighting for its survival and it's not getting much support, and the people and government don't see it as a proxy (all your language Serge Forward) how is it even one? It's lazy language that is just repeating leftie cliches that don't stand up to the reality.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 5, 2022)

frogwoman said:


> Proxy war is when a force is under the total or near enough commanding control of another state, entirely dependent on it eg. Like eg the Shia militias in Syria that are called 'Iranian proxies' or for that matter some of the pro Turkish jihadist groups. Ukraine isn't in that category- the commanding control is non existent and western support is lukewarm at best.


Don't I agree with that at all FW.

The US used the mujahideen as proxies in Afghanistan but they did not have total control of them. Israel used Hamas as a (unwitting) proxy to undermine Fatah but it would be daft to say the Israeli government had total or near enough control of Hamas. Plenty of the conflicts in former colonies were/are proxy wars but in most cases local groups had significant independence. Plenty of times states (or other groups) have used others as proxies, only to see their proxy then make decisions beyond their control.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2022)

Israel has been called a US proxy , the reason is gets called that (I disagree btw) is because of the vast sums that get spent on US military aid to Israel to the extent creating a financial dependency on the US, the fact that Israels military goals often align with the US military goals and that the US has often ended up using Israels military to do stuff it didn't want to do itself. 

Ukraine isn't in that category. It's leaders would probably like to be but the fact they keep on asking to join the EU and NATO and getting refused should give you a clue.


----------



## LDC (Apr 5, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Nor am I saying that people or countries outside of those imperialist blocks don't have agency either.



Many of them are fighting the nationalist expansionist and murderous invasion as their way of taking agency, but you're against that right? And in saying the fighting is wrong as it means taking sides in the war, I don't understand how that then gets squared with the reality of what's happening on the ground to people? And you're saying you don't have much in the way of answers, except to say 'don't fight as it's taking sides?' Which is then your answer? Are you telling people (as some NWBTCW people are doing) that they shouldn't have weapons, and they shouldn't fight, they should just leave or stay and put up with it? I'm not being obtuse, I think NWBTCW is a good starting point (in Russia for example, and in many other situations and historical periods) but falls apart completely in Ukraine now imo.


----------



## LDC (Apr 5, 2022)

redsquirrel said:


> Don't I agree with that at all FW.
> 
> The US used the mujahideen as proxies in Afghanistan but they did not have total control of them. Israel used Hamas as a (unwitting) proxy to undermine Fatah but it would be daft to say the Israeli government had total or near enough control of Hamas. Plenty of times states (or other groups) have used others as proxies, only to see their proxy then make decisions beyond their control.



I think there's a difference between groups being used as proxies in a limited conflict and saying this war is a 'proxy war' between X and Y. It's again this denying of Ukraine and it's reasons, and reducing it to a US/NATO/EU? versus Russia proxy war, it's nonsense. You could say the US etc. have specific interests in how it goes and they're supplying weaponry for those reasons, but that doesn't make it a proxy war.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2022)

redsquirrel said:


> Don't I agree with that at all FW.
> 
> The US used the mujahideen as proxies in Afghanistan but they did not have total control of them. Israel used Hamas as a (unwitting) proxy to undermine Fatah but it would be daft to say the Israeli government had total or near enough control of Hamas. Plenty of times states (or other groups) have used others as proxies, only to see their proxy then make decisions beyond their control.


I wouldn't say those groups were proxies though tbh. , just that they were happy to take 'The enemy's' help at the time for a specific short term goal like getting one over on Fatah or the Soviets. Of course proxies can make decisions that the main state is pissed off about but the relationship between Iran and Shia militias is very different to that of the US and the mujahideen in the 80s, or Israel and Hamas for a very limited time


----------



## LDC (Apr 5, 2022)

Any war or social uprising anywhere outside their own countries and the left say it's a proxy NATO/US/CIA led war/regime change ffs.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 5, 2022)

Well even take the case of Israel, which has had 50 odd years of the latest high tech weaponry and military aid from the US and in fact got totally dependent on it. Ukraine isn't even in the category, they keep asking to be in a military alliance with NATO and getting turned down.


----------



## chilango (Apr 5, 2022)

I think it's a mistake to lump the US/NATO/The EU/The West/Neoliberals together in a one bloc that is somehow symmetrical to Russia (or China).

The forces around Trump - for example - show little inclination for imperial adventures abroad and seem to be more akin to the old isolationist type (some, as we know see Russia quite positively. I've no idea what NATO's interests here are tbh and the EU is not exactly presenting a unified agenda regarding Ukraine either.

_Of course_ all of these forces will have more desired outcomes and less desired outcomes from the Russian invasion, but that does not make them a 'bloc' nor the invasion a proxy war.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 5, 2022)

Very surprised that Columbia is a member of NATO

Edit - Imagine my surprise when I was wrong


----------



## chilango (Apr 5, 2022)

...and to consider the Russian invasion a proxy war suggests that a) someone is using the Ukrainian fighters as a proxy and that b) these "hidden forces" have some share of agency or responsibility for the ongoing conflict. Which easily slips into the perception that it is not just Russia "to blame". I think that's a hard position to reconcile right now.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 5, 2022)

emanymton said:


> What is the attendance like at these normally? I might listen in but only if I won't stick out as the obvious new person.


I'll contact the organisers so that you get introduced at the beginning as a new person who doesn't want to stick out, if that's helpful?


----------



## chilango (Apr 5, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Very surprised that Columbia is a member of NATO


 They're not.

I think I'm missing your point here?


----------



## emanymton (Apr 5, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> I'll contact the organisers so that you get introduced at the beginning as a new person who doesn't want to stick out, if that's helpful?


Thanks


----------



## chilango (Apr 5, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> I'll contact the organisers so that you get introduced at the beginning as a new person who doesn't want to stick out, if that's helpful?



"Why don't you introduce yourself and say a little bit about what brings you here?"


----------



## JimW (Apr 5, 2022)

The Chinese view of Taiwan is similar, they see it as essentially a US proxy as it's only their support (well, and the Korean War back in the day) that stopped it being reunited like all the other provinces with nationalist hold-outs after official victory in the civil war in 1949. Of course that ignores what Taiwan has become in its own historical process over the intervening years, but it's not a baseless view of the situation.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 5, 2022)

chilango said:


> "Why don't you introduce yourself and say a little bit about what brings you here?"


----------



## JimW (Apr 5, 2022)

chilango said:


> "Why don't you introduce yourself and say a little bit about what brings you here?"


Hi, I'm Jim and I got the bus.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 5, 2022)

frogwoman said:


> I wouldn't say those groups were proxies though tbh. , just that they were happy to take 'The enemy's' help at the time for a specific short term goal like getting one over on Fatah or the Soviets. Of course proxies can make decisions that the main state is pissed off about but the relationship between Iran and Shia militias is very different to that of the US and the mujahideen in the 80s, or Israel and Hamas for a very limited time


Well I guess I'd use proxy in a different way to you. I'd say those are all very clear examples of the use of proxies.



LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think there's a difference between groups being used as proxies in a limited conflict and saying this war is a 'proxy war' between X and Y. It's again this denying of Ukraine and it's reasons, and reducing it to a US/NATO/EU? versus Russia proxy war, it's nonsense. You could say the US etc. have specific interests in how it goes and they're supplying weaponry for those reasons, but that doesn't make it a proxy war.


I don't think noting that a conflict is a proxy war (should) remove the local factors. Vietnam was clearly a proxy war but it would be stupid to reduce the Vietnam state to not having its own desires, taking its own actions.

TBH this is a bit of a technical discussion as I was more challenging FWs definition of proxy (which is too narrow IMO) than talking about the Ukraine conflict which I don't know if I would call a proxy war. I might say that certain forces would like to use Ukraine as a proxy.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 5, 2022)

chilango said:


> They're not.
> 
> I think I'm missing your point here?


You're right , apparently  they are only involved in  " an individual partnership and cooperation program"


----------



## LDC (Apr 5, 2022)

I mean I've seen some bonkers stuff on the 'left' that says it's a proxy war to the point of saying Ukraine wants to 'surrender' and is being funneled weapons solely to forcibly prolong the war as that is in the US's interests. And the others that say it's Ukraine that wants to prolong the war and not have a swift end to get more sympathy from 'the west' for their 'future plans'. It's all just fucking nonsense, some people have lost the plot.


----------



## LDC (Apr 5, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> You're right , apparently  they are only involved in  " an individual partnership and cooperation program"



With that and Columbia (Colombia?) you've totally lost me with what you're referring to?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 5, 2022)

emanymton said:


>


Try and keep it to two mins max


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 5, 2022)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I mean I've seen some bonkers stuff on the 'left' that says it's a proxy war to the point of saying Ukraine wants to 'surrender' and is being funneled weapons solely to forcibly prolong the war as that is in the US's interests. And the others that say it's Ukraine that wants to prolong the war and not have a swift end to get more sympathy from 'the west' for their 'future plans'. It's all just fucking nonsense, some people have lost the plot.


Yeah I don't think there's any doubt that that's crap.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 5, 2022)

emanymton said:


> What is the attendance like at these normally? I might listen in but only if I won't stick out as the obvious new person.


Attendance varies but it is generally large enough that you don't have to worry about sticking out.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 5, 2022)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> With that and Columbia (Colombia?) you've totally lost me with what you're referring to?


Think I got a bit lost myself tbh . I was pre occupied with drafting emanymton 's introduction


----------



## chilango (Apr 5, 2022)

redsquirrel said:


> Attendance varies but it is generally large enough that you don't have to worry about sticking out.


In fairness I went to f2f ACG meeting a few years back and didn't have to say anything to anyone.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 5, 2022)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I mean I've seen some bonkers stuff on the 'left' that says it's a proxy war to the point of saying Ukraine wants to 'surrender' and is being funneled weapons solely to forcibly prolong the war as that is in the US's interests. And the others that say it's Ukraine that wants to prolong the war and not have a swift end to get more sympathy from 'the west' for their 'future plans'. It's all just fucking nonsense, some people have lost the plot.


Good God. Just utter bullshit. 

I particularly like the idea that a country will just keep fighting a war it doesn't want to as long as you keep giving it weapons. 

Like they are me a pack of jaffa cakes.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 5, 2022)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> Any war or social uprising anywhere outside their own countries and the left say it's a proxy NATO/US/CIA led war/regime change ffs.


This conversation has gone a bit straw man IMO
I haven't heard anyone here saying Its All Just a Proxy War - that's massively simplistic and reductive and of course Ukrainians are retaliating of their own agency first and foremost.

Just recently Hilary Clinton, in drumming up US state military support for arming Ukraine, explicitly drew on the Mujahidin experience as a positive example of the US being able to weaken Russia. The military support Ukraine gets is not so half-arsed as not have been able to repel Russian army from the north... It is clear that from a NATO point that there is a good degree of proxy fighting going on...

...but that is a sideline IMO to the key way in which this is an inter-imperialist conflict, and that is the earlier history pre invasion, and the reason why imperial-realists were able to list a litany of actions going back for years that they deemed having the potential to start a war.

In 97 Brezinski placed particularly emphasis on Ukraine within the Grand Chessboard
"if Moscow regains control over Ukraine, with its 52 million people and major resources, as well as its access to the Black Sea, Russia automatically again regains the wherewithal to become a powerful imperial state, spanning Europe and Asia. Ukraine’s loss of independence would have immediate consequences for central Europe, transforming Poland into the geopolitical pivot on the eastern frontier of a united Europe."

He saw it as the key square on the board between Russian and The West

The US and other EU countries spent billions extending their influence ...deals were drawn up about 'developing' resources...the Ukrainian government of any given day made their choices, but the imperial-realist view is that those choices carried great risks - the risk of choosing one block over another, and therefore the risk of invasion. This tacit struggle is now out in the bloody open.

Was there a more neutral path Ukraine could've trodden? Who knows. It was a tightrope for sure. Its a 'poisoned chalice' of a position to be in. I've no desire to cast blame in that regard.
I just cannot see how anyone can deny that Ukraine  is and was a front line between competing imperial blocks - to me it seems the obvious reality. The argument comes after that: what can be done to change that dynamic.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 5, 2022)

chilango said:


> In fairness I went to f2f ACG meeting a few years back and didn't have to say anything to anyone.


Althusser’s  stuff is pretty easy to mime to tbf


----------



## chilango (Apr 5, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Althusser’s  stuff is pretty easy to mime to tbf


I don't actually like Althusser!!!


----------



## chilango (Apr 5, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Althusser’s  stuff is pretty easy to mime to tbf



...although in fairness you could probably express the concept of _interpellation_  pretty effectively through the medium of mime, yes.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 5, 2022)

chilango said:


> I don't actually like Althusser!!!


Nobody admits liking their ex Chilango.


----------



## Riklet (Apr 6, 2022)

Lenin would definitely have written a better blurb.


----------



## LDC (Apr 6, 2022)

I do really like the ACG, and probably share loads of the politics, but looking at this meeting blurb I am quite angry about it this morning. Why first call it an inter-imperialist conflict straight off, as if it's some equal war that's emerged from nowhere? Why mention NATO backed Ukraine in the opening blurb against the more neutral just Russia? You're re-writing the facts to fit your politics, and arguably minimizing and misrepresenting what's going on it in the opening line to your meeting.

The Stop the War coalition could have written this opening line.

_What does the slogan ‘No War but the Class War’ mean in the inter-imperialist conflict between Russia and NATO-backed Ukraine?_​
Why not, "What does the slogan NWBTCW mean in the brutal war being waged by Russia after its invasion of Ukraine?"

Can you see the difference in tone and meaning?


----------



## chilango (Apr 6, 2022)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> You're re-writing the facts to fit your politics,


I'm not sure that's true to be fair.

I don't think the problematic framing/phrasing _does_ fit the ACG's politics. I think it's more reflective of a wider/older unreflective Left default autoresponse to world events that hasn't changed much since the anti-Vietnam War era.


----------



## ska invita (Apr 6, 2022)

chilango said:


> autoresponse


quite patronising

ive tried to describe how its an inter-imperial conflict at some length on these boards and again on this thread - your response rather than criticising any points directly was "i dont think i agree" (no reasons given why) and suggested to erase the very notion that this is anything to do with "empire" <utterly bizzare in my opinion, ignoring the Kremlin pronounced world view, ignoring the way Western imperialism works in the 21st century, and ignoring the fundamental reality of global geo-politics. 

the idea this is "outdated" and just a view from 70s is given away by your seeing US imperialism as "lingering" - im genuinely shocked to hear you say that. we are living in a different understanding of reality, clearly. 

That said LDC has a fair point here about tone, which makes the two sides feel equal in the fight


LynnDoyleCooper said:


> _What does the slogan ‘No War but the Class War’ mean in the inter-imperialist conflict between Russia and NATO-backed Ukraine?_
> Why not, "What does the slogan NWBTCW mean in the brutal war being waged by Russia after its invasion of Ukraine?"
> Can you see the difference in tone and meaning?


...but again, the cold fact is *there is* a clear and central inter-imperial dynamic and it shouldn't be airbrushed out - it is central to the war


----------



## andysays (Apr 6, 2022)

I think there is a case to be made that the overall context of the invasion etc is "inter imperial", and that case can be made while still recognising that Russia is very much the aggressor.

But I don't think it's particularly helpful to jump straight into describing it as inter imperial in the info about the meeting, rather than having that discussion as part of the meeting.


----------



## LDC (Apr 6, 2022)

There's something less important and subtle about the language as well (or maybe I'm just over thinking it or something) about what language you use and how clear it is or isn't, and who it attracts and who it puts off.

Like what does 'inter-imperialist conflict' actually mean to most people? Why use that not 'invasion and war' or something that is just clearer and less coded? It feels like specialized political language that is likely to just appeal to geeks, even ignoring what its usage hides and shows of the wider politics. I'm not doing that 'dumb it down for the proles' thing, but just say it as it is, don't mystify it with obscure jargon.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 6, 2022)

I think LynnDoyleCooper's point about the language used being a gatekeeper is important - for me, 'intra-Imperial conflict' is Britain and Germany fighting over a tin mine in Tanganyika in 1914: if a group is advertising it's discussions on Ukraine on that basis my assumption is that it's going to be some Corbynite, value free, both-sides-as-bad-as-each-other-but-its-not-Russias-fault borefest with a special appearance by some war crimes deniers and anti-Semitic cameos, and I'll decide to stay at home and paint skirting boards instread...


----------



## chilango (Apr 6, 2022)

ska invita said:


> quite patronising
> 
> ive tried to describe how its an inter-imperial conflict at some length on these boards and again on this thread - your response rather than criticising any points directly was "i dont think i agree" (no reasons given why) and suggested to erase the very notion that this is anything to do with "empire" <utterly bizzare in my opinion, ignoring the Kremlin pronounced world view, ignoring the way Western imperialism works in the 21st century, and ignoring the fundamental reality of global geo-politics.
> 
> ...


Not intended to patronising be (obviously) I'm just as much trying to figure out what's going on as anyone else, and my own lense(s) need updating too.

I think we may agree on some of the geo-political interests involved but disagree on whether "imperialist" is an appropriate or accurate term to use to describe them.


----------



## xenon (Apr 6, 2022)

And the “left “ wonder why they can’t build a mass movement.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 6, 2022)




----------



## The39thStep (Apr 6, 2022)




----------



## kenny g (Apr 6, 2022)

emanymton said:


>


I dropped in to one of these ACG things once and it was pretty good. Nice bunch of strong minded characters being suitably forthright on the topic. I would just dial in - you can always log out if it gets scary.


----------



## LDC (Apr 6, 2022)

frogwoman said:


> View attachment 317362



Looks like a nice afternoon that. If only it were all that appealing!


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 6, 2022)

kebabking said:


> I think LynnDoyleCooper's point about the language used being a gatekeeper is important - for me, 'intra-Imperial conflict' is Britain and Germany fighting over a tin mine in Tanganyika in 1914: if a group is advertising it's discussions on Ukraine on that basis my assumption is that it's going to be some Corbynite, value free, both-sides-as-bad-as-each-other-but-its-not-Russias-fault borefest with a special appearance by some war crimes deniers and anti-Semitic cameos, and I'll decide to stay at home and paint skirting boards instread...


And inter-imperial conflict? If you're going to harp on about language you ought to pay attention to what people are actually saying. As for your assumption about what people are going to be saying you seem well off the mark on this one, tho you'll have to wait for the meeting for my belief to be substantiated


----------



## chilango (Apr 6, 2022)

frogwoman said:


> View attachment 317362


You should have said hello.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 6, 2022)

frogwoman said:


> View attachment 317362


He's unhappy because he missed the ACG meeting. Not even his dog can cheer him up


----------



## Wilf (Apr 6, 2022)

Feels like an 'asymmetrical imperialism', if there is such a thing. In reply to Campist idiocies, Russia is an imperialist power and this is a further direct example of them trying to re establish part of the Soviet empire (along with providing aid to separatist rebels).  The West/USA are clearly a factor/player in the recent history and tug of war over Ukraine, so in that sense there's an imperialist struggle happening.  I've no problem saying that or the left saying that.  But fucking hell, not saying that first. 

First you oppose the murderous aggression from the Russian imperialist power. You stand with the Ukrainian people - and Russian conscripts.  You stand with trade unions and left groups in Ukraine. You support all the people who a decent human being would support.  And ultimately it's a asymmetrical imperialist war, in that there is one aggressor and one side doing the murdering, raping and destroying cities. 

 Theory and positions are important, but as with Campist and similar versions of 'anti-imperialism', ossified positions can sometimes lead you down the rabbit hole (where you end up supporting Russia or pretending Ukraine is under Nazi rule).  If your theory and positioning doesn't fit with common decency and drags you to getting even close to justifying this war, there's something profoundly wrong with your theory.

Edit: probably should have said that's not a direct response to the wording of the ACG thingy, nor to anything on this thread (I'm only on p 1).  Largely a rant about some of the stwc stuff.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 6, 2022)

Blimey, there's been a lot of posts on here. Some valid points, some less so. Yes, the ACG blurb could have been phrased better, but it's as if some of the commenters are responding to the STWC type politics here. They're really not.

A question I'd like to ask those who are opposed to the NWBTCW position (and yes, I realise NWBTCW - nor arguments against it - are monolithic) is, does this mean they are in favour of military intervention? And if so, by whom? NATO? "The West"? The EU? The UK government? Private military outfits? Arms dealers? And if push comes to shove and the UK and other  governments/NATO were to become more directly involved, how far would they support such intervention? Would they volunteer themselves, or would they be okay with friends, family members, etc volunteering? 

This might all sound far fetched, but I'm struggling to see how the non NWBTCW position doesn't end up as some sort of "oh what a lovely war" jingoistic rerun of 1914.


----------



## LDC (Apr 6, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Blimey, there's been a lot of posts on here. Some valid points, some less so. Yes, the ACG blurb could have been phrased better, but it's as if some of the commenters are responding to the STWC type politics here. They're really not.
> 
> A question I'd like to ask those who are opposed to the NWBTCW position (and yes, I realise NWBTCW - nor arguments against it - are monolithic) is, does this mean they are in favour of military intervention? And if so, by whom? NATO? "The West"? The EU? The UK government? Private military outfits? Arms dealers? And if push comes to shove and the UK and other  governments/NATO were to become more directly involved, how far would they support such intervention? Would they volunteer themselves, or would they be okay with friends, family members, etc volunteering?
> 
> This might all sound far fetched, but I'm struggling to see how the non NWBTCW position doesn't end up as some sort of "oh what a lovely war" jingoistic rerun of 1914.



I'm not sure I'd say I'm opposed as such, and like I've said I think it holds much more use in Russia rather than Ukraine. But I do think it's generally inadequate as a position, and I also do think bringing up 1914 as having any relevance to what's going on for people in Ukraine is a bit misplaced tbh. Anyway, a couple of quick answers to your points:

For a start I support people in Ukraine resisting the Russian State attack by whatever mean they see appropriate and effective. That as it stands is a non-NWBTCW position isn't it?
On military intervention, for a start I support supplying people there with weaponry they need to fight the Russian State attack. Also a non-NWBTCW position.

I don't take those positions lightly btw, I think this is a horrendous situation, but I think the world is messy and complicated and it's not always possible to take perfectly correct positions. I also think not supporting people there is a basic failure of something quite fundamentally human, and to retreat from that is quite problematic.

But direct military intervention, no. But I don't know anyone here or in the wider political world we inhabit calling for such a thing.

Within those positions I think there's plenty to discuss about the practicalities and what it means 'on the ground' and how much is a compromise, and the dangers of them. Beyond those positions I am less sure, and what I think might well change as the situation does.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 6, 2022)

> For a start I support people in Ukraine resisting the Russian State attack by whatever mean they see appropriate and effective. That as it stands is a non-NWBTCW position isn't it?


I see no contradiction between a NWBTCW position and sympathy for people defending their families, friends, neighbours in the face of a brutal invading force.


> On military intervention, for a start I support supplying people there with weaponry they need to fight the Russian State attack. Also a non-NWBTCW position.


Weapons supplied by whom? Arms dealers we've spent years opposing? NATO? Whose military? The British Army? This is where the interventionist solution becomes part of the problem and this would not be a NWBTCW position.


> I don't take those positions lightly btw, I think this is a horrendous situation, but I think the world is messy and complicated and it's not always possible to take perfectly correct positions. I also think not supporting people there is a basic failure of something quite fundamentally human, and to retreat from that is quite problematic.


I agree, it is horrendous, and that's why I say I don't have the answers, just political lines I won't cross. I agree that a cold NWBTCW position may seem a failure of something quite fundamentally human, but I also see military intervention as an even bigger failure. There are no easy answers.


> But direct military intervention, no. But I don't know anyone here or in the wider political world we inhabit calling for such a thing.


They may not be openly calling for it, but this is where indirect military intervention is highly likely to end up, ie cheering on "our boys" and WW3.


> Within those positions I think there's plenty to discuss about the practicalities and what it means 'on the ground' and how much is a compromise, and the dangers of them. Beyond those positions I am less sure, and what I think might well change as the situation does.


I agree there's plenty to discuss. I think the NWBTCW position definitely needs more nuance, as well as the understanding that we'll meaning interventionism can mean ultimately falling down that slippery slope which ends up with those with revolutionary politics siding with what is (at least in the Ukraine context) a currently less brutal capitalist gang. That's the kind of thing I expect we'll be discussing in the meeting.


----------



## chilango (Apr 6, 2022)

I hope the people who make it to the meeting find it as challenging and thought provoking as some of this thread has been for me.


----------



## LDC (Apr 6, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> I see no contradiction between a NWBTCW position and sympathy for people defending their families, friends, neighbours in the face of a brutal invading force.
> 
> Weapons supplied by whom? Arms dealers we've spent years opposing? NATO? Whose military? The British Army? This is where the interventionist solution becomes part of the problem and this would not be a NWBTCW position.
> 
> ...



Yes, I support arms supply by NATO or any countries willing to do it. I would love it to come from the arms warehouses of the ACG but we're not there yet. How is that more of a problem (not sure what you even mean by 'problem' tbh? Because it breaks a sacred political or moral position?) than saying do nothing and see Ukraine be defeated and subject to a brutal occupation? Does that need to happen before you think it's OK to fight? Or as some have said there's no point fighting as there's no organised class in Ukraine, so you're inevitably fighting as individuals not as a class? But then that doesn't seem to stop them doing plenty of small pickets and demos etc. here in the UK to try and build that power where there is none? So why suddenly different when it's this?

What about the option that not defeating Russia makes WW3 _more_ likely not less? Like I've said I don't know enough about that, but plenty of people do say that is a possibility, and it doesn't seem like a totally wild idea.

Also how about fighting not simply being as clear as siding with a 'less brutal capitalist gang' (although you know I can see why you might be OK to do that if you live in Ukraine) but about fighting a horrendous nationalist and militarist power that if it occupies your town would see your friends and workers oppressed or disappeared? They only have to look at what happened to plenty of people like us in the DPR and LPR.

E2A: I'm not as sure as I might seem on here. I am still working this out as well as many of us are. Also I think sanctions are something really worth talking about. I feel much less happy with lots of them more than fighting and supplying weapons to the Ukrainians tbh, but they seem to get a pass as not really problematic much of the time.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 6, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Weapons supplied by whom? Arms dealers we've spent years opposing? NATO? Whose military? The British Army? This is where the interventionist solution becomes part of the problem and this would not be a NWBTCW position.



This, you see, is where you loose people because you're obviously spinning a line that's only real objective is avoiding a difficult choice.

Is there an Anarcho-Syndicalist Workers Collective currently able to provide Anti-Tank Guided Weapons, or jamming resistant UAV's, or Surface-to-Air missiles, or night vision gear, or Signals Intelligence, or any of the 500 things necessary to keep the Ukrainian resistance on its feet?

Your NWBTCW position isn't about finding a better option for them, it's about finding a more comfortable position for _you_, and they can go and fuck themselves.

There is only one group who can provide the Ukrainians with what they need, you either support/accept them taking that help off that group, or you are advocating _no_ help. That's it, that's all there is. 

If that's what you think, that's fine, that's your choice - but don't dress it up as something else.


----------



## LDC (Apr 6, 2022)

Also as I posted the other day, can't remember where, but something along the lines of if you say 'no weapons supply' you need to follow that with something about how that's sacrificing people there to all sorts of horrors, but that's a position you're happier to take than weapons being sent.


----------



## Smokeandsteam (Apr 6, 2022)

chilango said:


> I hope the people who make it to the meeting find it as challenging and thought provoking as some of this thread has been for me.



Spot on. One of the best threads on here for a while. Some really good contributions and some difficult issues being properly, firmly and constructively debated.


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 6, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Blimey, there's been a lot of posts on here. Some valid points, some less so. Yes, the ACG blurb could have been phrased better, but it's as if some of the commenters are responding to the STWC type politics here. They're really not.
> 
> A question I'd like to ask those who are opposed to the NWBTCW position (and yes, I realise NWBTCW - nor arguments against it - are monolithic) is, does this mean they are in favour of military intervention? And if so, by whom? NATO? "The West"? The EU? The UK government? Private military outfits? Arms dealers? And if push comes to shove and the UK and other  governments/NATO were to become more directly involved, how far would they support such intervention? Would they volunteer themselves, or would they be okay with friends, family members, etc volunteering?
> 
> This might all sound far fetched, but I'm struggling to see how the non NWBTCW position doesn't end up as some sort of "oh what a lovely war" jingoistic rerun of 1914.


This is partially retreading stuff that I've said already, but: instinctively, NWBTCW is my starting point, or at least one of the principles that I start from. But another one is... I'm tempted to phrase it as "listen to what Ukrainians are saying", but of course that's shorthand, there are Ukrainians who are in Azov battalion, Ukrainians who genuinely and uncomplicatedly think NATO is great, Ukrainians who think that the war is a brilliant liberation of the oppressed Donbass region, etc etc. So what I actually mean is "listen to what Ukrainians who seem to have similar principles and values to me are saying". And this is where I run into trouble, cos most of the Ukrainian anarchist/antifa/left voices I can find seem to be arguing for what you'd tend to call anarcho-trenchism. I don't think this is just me automatically trusting anyone who puts circles around their vowels, like if there was a strong and significant Ukrainian leftcom group or similar going "that lot have got it all wrong, here's how we're doing the proper serious class war that cuts against national unity" I might well listen to them and conclude that the UA @s had just shat the bed. But I've not seen much of anything like that, so that leaves me thinking that like... either all our comrades in the country are getting it wrong and we've got it right, or else they understand the situation better than we do.
As to how far we support intervention: well, various Western projects have already begun providing support, either ideological (eg Crimethinc and Final Straw) or whatever limited direct material support we can provide (eg ABC Dresden, Brighton ABC, Antifa International and others) to groups within the country like Operation Solidarity and their mates. I think I'm coming down on the side of that being a good and worthwhile thing to do.
As for whether I'd volunteer, or be OK with other people volunteering: I'm not going to do it myself, and I'm not going to say other people should do it either. But some people from our milieu have already gone to fight in Rojava, and I don't personally feel like it's my place to condemn that decision?  


Serge Forward said:


> I see no contradiction between a NWBTCW position and sympathy for people defending their families, friends, neighbours in the face of a brutal invading force.
> 
> Weapons supplied by whom? Arms dealers we've spent years opposing? NATO? Whose military? The British Army? This is where the interventionist solution becomes part of the problem and this would not be a NWBTCW position.
> 
> I agree, it is horrendous, and that's why I say I don't have the answers, just political lines I won't cross. I agree that a cold NWBTCW position may seem a failure of something quite fundamentally human, but I also see military intervention as an even bigger failure. There are no easy answers.


I'm sure everyone is desperate to see a Spain 36 argument break out on this thread, so I might as well go there: what line did, or should, British and French anarchos take on "their" state's neutrality on Spain? I genuinely don't know what campaigns and things there were, but I sort of felt like I'd got the impression that that the British and French insistence on sticking to strict non-intervention after Germany and Italy had clearly fucked their end of that pact off was seen as a bad thing. Obviously Ukraine today is not Spain 36 or even Ukraine 19, and Zelensky's no Durruti, but still: does NWBTCW mean never supporting any supply of arms to a conflict under any circumstances, or does it mean opposing supply of arms unless specific conditions are met?


----------



## kenny g (Apr 6, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Ukraine today is not Spain 36 or even Ukraine 19, and Zelensky's no Durruti, but still: does NWBTCW mean never supporting any supply of arms to a conflict under any circumstances, or does it mean opposing supply of arms unless specific conditions are met?


I would propose the latter interpretation over the former but would be interested if anyone were to propose the reverse.


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 6, 2022)

kenny g said:


> I would propose the latter interpretation over the former but would be interested if anyone were to propose the reverse.


I'd say the latter too, but then obviously that leaves a wide range of possibility to disagree about what those precise conditions should be?


----------



## chilango (Apr 7, 2022)

Spain '36 more easily can be seen as a class war.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 7, 2022)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I'm not sure I'd say I'm opposed as such, and like I've said I think it holds much more use in Russia rather than Ukraine. But I do think it's generally inadequate as a position, and I also do think bringing up 1914 as having any relevance to what's going on for people in Ukraine is a bit misplaced tbh. Anyway, a couple of quick answers to your points:
> 
> For a start I support people in Ukraine resisting the Russian State attack by *whatever mean they see appropriate and effective*. That as it stands is a non-NWBTCW position isn't it?
> On military intervention, for a start I support supplying people there with weaponry they need to fight the Russian State attack. Also a non-NWBTCW position.


I don't think I interpret no war but class war in quite the same way as Serge Forward but if you really mean the bit I've bolded then yes I don't see how can be anything other than a non-NWBCW position. And it is the bolded bit where you lose me.  

I would not deny that in the current conflict the interests of Ukrainian workers are more aligned with the Ukrainian state and capital (both national and international) than at other times but there is (for me) a difference between alignment and simply subsumption. 
Does 'whatever means' include the Ukrainian state imposing forcible conscription? Would it include putting down strikes (probably not likely in this conflict but has happened in plenty of previous conflicts). 

This is what I mean about keeping the class conflict in mind. I can understand why Ukrainian socialists see the interests of the workers are best served by joining the fight against the Russians, I think I'm probably more accepting (wrong word but I can't think of a better alternative) of that such than Serge, but I don't think that can mean simply throwing away class struggle absolutely.  

TBH I skeptical that you really do mean the bolded bit, at least literally. Surely there would be lines which you would be unhappy to see crossed? I am not going to pretend those lines are nice and clear, or easy to navigate, but class has to continue to be the lodestone for socialists even in the midst of conflict.


----------



## LDC (Apr 7, 2022)

redsquirrel said:


> I don't think I interpret no war but class war in quite the same way as Serge Forward but if you really mean the bit I've bolded then yes I don't see how can be anything other than a non-NWBCW position. And it is the bolded bit where you lose me.
> 
> I would not deny that in the current conflict the interests of Ukrainian workers are more aligned with the Ukrainian state and capital (both national and international) than at other times but there is (for me) a difference between alignment and simply subsumption.
> Does 'whatever means' include the Ukrainian state imposing forcible conscription? Would it include putting down strikes (probably not likely in this conflict but has happened in plenty of previous conflicts).
> ...



Yeah, I left that purposefully vague as it's a whole extra layer of complexity I didn't think I could address it, as well as being not sure what I thought any 'lines' were for me. Re-reading it I think it was clumsy wording as well, and as I wrote it I thought it was open to fair questioning. As hitmouse said, listening to the 'Ukrainians' comes with the obvious "yeah, but which ones" response? But of course there are lines, I guess I'd broadly say for me they'd be similar to those examples you gave. 

Gonna have a coffee and try and write something else in a bit about Syria and a few other bits.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 7, 2022)

kebabking said:


> If that's what you think, that's fine, that's your choice - but don't dress it up as something else.


As you've said this I'll throw it right back at you.

Let's not pretend that your own politics on the Ukrainian conflict aren't every bit as ideological as mine, Serge's or anyone else's.
Your views are absolutely based on your own Labour rightist liberal politics with the nation and state subsuming workers.


kebabking said:


> Is there an Anarcho-Syndicalist Workers Collective currently able to provide Anti-Tank Guided Weapons, or jamming resistant UAV's, or Surface-to-Air missiles, or night vision gear, or Signals Intelligence, or any of the 500 things necessary to keep the Ukrainian resistance on its feet?
> 
> Your NWBTCW position isn't about finding a better option for them, it's about finding a more comfortable position for _you_, and they can go and fuck themselves.
> 
> There is only one group who can provide the Ukrainians with what they need, you either support/accept them taking that help off that group, or you are advocating _no_ help. That's it, that's all there is.


This is what I oppose LynnDoyleCooper.
The complete writing out of class. The contention that the interests of the Ukrainian state (and capital) *are* the interests of the workers and therefore one cannot support the workers without supporting the Ukrainian state (and NATO, the EU, etc).
If one accepts such politics that then I don't see how that can be anything other than a rejection of anarchism and socialism.

On the accusation that trying to keep class politics during a conflict is simply about "finding a more comfortable position for _you_, and they can go and fuck themselves.", well the same line could be thrown that back at those who promote an increased conflict and nationalism, a strengthened NATO, increased spending on arms (policies that they've always backed but now have increased popular support).

But yes those of us here do have a luxury that our comrades in the Ukraine (and Russia) don't have. Personally I agree with chilango


chilango said:


> As we have the luxury of being able to form our views without being bombed, shelled and shot at, I think we have a responsibility to use that luxury.


Frankly the size of the ACG (or any UK anarchist/socialist organisation) means that whatever support we can offer our comrades is very limited.
But one thing UK (and other western) socialists can do is argue for a class understanding of the conflict and, where possible, organising to support class power and against the increasing (supra-)nationalism at home.


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 7, 2022)

chilango said:


> Spain '36 more easily can be seen as a class war.


I mean, on one hand, yes, but also I reckon the conflict between German and Italian imperialism vs the proxy forces backed by Russia can accurately be described as an inter-imperialist conflict, innit? Anyway, I mostly brought it up because of the bit Serge Forward asked, about "Weapons supplied by whom? Arms dealers we've spent years opposing?... The British Army?", cos if we wake up tomorrow and this has all been a dream and we're actually living in 1936, then those same questions can be asked of anyone demanding arms for Spain, so I'm not convinced that they're an automatic knockout. Although it is certainly worth asking critical questions about who's supplying arms and why they're doing it and what they're asking for in exchange.

But thinking about Spain, and the WWII stuff raised by Rob Ray over on another thread, is maybe useful, cos there the class war was... not identical to the military struggle, existing alongside it at some points, in contradiction to it at others. And maybe it's a softer, more limited principle than NWBTCW, but something I take from that is the importance of rejecting like national unity popular front-type blackmail, which I don't think means being indifferent to how the war turns out?
So like in Spain, I think the "correct" position was to support the military antifascist struggle, while also supporting all the collectivisations and stuff that was denounced as undermining that struggle. On WWII, I've never been 100% confident what the official correct internationalist line is meant to be, but personally I am very very glad the nazis did not win the war, while also thinking the people who carried on class struggle in the Allied countries were more right than the people who wanted to put everything on hold for the war effort and denounced them as undermining the war.
What does that mean today? In the UK it's pretty simple, I don't think anyone except maybe Paul Mason suggests putting social struggle on hold for the duration of the war. The only thing I've seen that comes close is when the TUC cancelled the tory conference demo, but it turns out that apparently they weren't actually doing it because of national unity but cos they're shit at organising.
In the Ukraine - hard to say, it would be useful to have more Ukrainian voices involved! I suppose my rough sketch is something like support for looting, opposing conscription and the ban on men leaving the country, opposing the ban on opposition parties (too much opposition in this sentence!), definitely opposing the changes to labour laws and so on... but, I think you can take all those positions, while also "supporting"* the military resistance against the invasion.

*and yes, obviously there's also questions to be asked about what "supporting" means and how/whether it can be meaningfully put into practice.


----------



## redsquirrel (Apr 7, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> But thinking about Spain, and the WWII stuff raised by Rob Ray over on another thread, is maybe useful, cos there the class war was... not identical to the military struggle, existing alongside it at some points, in contradiction to it at others. And maybe it's a softer, more limited principle than NWBTCW, but something I take from that is the importance of rejecting like national unity popular front-type blackmail, which I don't think means being indifferent to how the war turns out?
> So like in Spain, I think the "correct" position was to support the military antifascist struggle, while also supporting all the collectivisations and stuff that was denounced as undermining that struggle.


See I agree with all this. But I don't see it as a rejection of NWBCW (I guess others disagree), for me this is a NWBCW position.
I don't interpret no war but the class war literally but as a principle to be applied by socialists to try and guide their actions, that class war is present and has to be thought about and, wherever possible, organised for.

I'll quote SpineyNorman again


> Class struggle isn't the glorious proletariat overthrowing the capitalist pigdogs or nothing.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2022)

redsquirrel said:


> See I agree with all this. But I don't see it as a rejection of NWBCW (I guess others disagree), for me this is a NWBCW position.
> I don't interpret no war but the class war literally but as a principle to be applied by socialists to try and guide their actions, that class war is present and has to be thought about and, wherever possible, organised for.
> 
> I'll quote SpineyNorman again


Just to go back to Spain, certainly anarchists in Barcelona had been preparing for revolution for some years as detailed in the excellent 'ready for revolution' Ready for Revolution


----------



## LDC (Apr 7, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> Just to go back to Spain, certainly anarchists in Barcelona had been preparing for revolution for some years as detailed in the excellent 'ready for revolution' Ready for Revolution


_
The Spanish Anarchists: The Heroic Years 1868-1936 _by Bookchin is good on that as well iirc.

Just on a quick point that's tangentially related to this... I think that 'the left' largely has ignored what's been going on in Ukraine for years, including in the months leading up to the invasion being in outright denial of something being very likely to happen, so to hold a position now that again prioritises what political position their group holds over what many of our comrades in Ukraine are calling for does slightly stick in my throat. And I don't agree that we blindly follow what people there say and want, but I do think it's notable I've heard quite a few Ukrainians speak in the last months (from all parts of the left) and not one has pushed a NWBTCW position. (Not aimed at the ACG btw, I think StW etc are far more guilty of this.)


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 7, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> I mean, on one hand, yes, but also I reckon the conflict between German and Italian imperialism vs the proxy forces backed by Russia can accurately be described as an inter-imperialist conflict, innit? Anyway, I mostly brought it up because of the bit Serge Forward asked, about "Weapons supplied by whom? Arms dealers we've spent years opposing?... The British Army?", cos if we wake up tomorrow and this has all been a dream and we're actually living in 1936, then those same questions can be asked of anyone demanding arms for Spain, so I'm not convinced that they're an automatic knockout. Although it is certainly worth asking critical questions about who's supplying arms and why they're doing it and what they're asking for in exchange.
> 
> But thinking about Spain, and the WWII stuff raised by Rob Ray over on another thread, is maybe useful, cos there the class war was... not identical to the military struggle, existing alongside it at some points, in contradiction to it at others. And maybe it's a softer, more limited principle than NWBTCW, but something I take from that is the importance of rejecting like national unity popular front-type blackmail, which I don't think means being indifferent to how the war turns out?
> So like in Spain, I think the "correct" position was to support the military antifascist struggle, while also supporting all the collectivisations and stuff that was denounced as undermining that struggle. On WWII, I've never been 100% confident what the official correct internationalist line is meant to be, but personally I am very very glad the nazis did not win the war, while also thinking the people who carried on class struggle in the Allied countries were more right than the people who wanted to put everything on hold for the war effort and denounced them as undermining the war.
> ...


I think much of that fits in with a nuanced NWBTCW outlook.

Eta: oops, I see redsquirrel said that in the post after yours


----------



## LDC (Apr 7, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> I think much of that fits in with a nuanced NWBTCW outlook.



How about non-State supplied weapons with no strings attached?   






						Kimber America | Kimber America | Kimber Press Releases
					

Fine 1911 pistols and rifles for both the hunter and shooter. Kimber offers law enforcement tactical pistols and rifles, less-lethal self-defense products, light weight rifles and mountain rifles.




					www.kimberamerica.com


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2022)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> How about non-State supplied weapons with no strings attached?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe pinched from armouries ftw


----------



## chilango (Apr 7, 2022)

I think it's probably worth remembering that "No War but the Class War" isn't "No War" full stop. There is somne interesting stuff on the Angry Workers site where various people are thinking about whether the war in Ukraine can, or does, contain a class war within it. I couldn't possibly say, but it is definitly worth thinking about.

For me the StWC position has nothing to do with nwbtcw. It's miles away. A lash-up of straight up "No War" unconditional pacifism with half-remembered hand-me-down anti-imperialism stuffed into a consumable package by career grifters.


----------



## LDC (Apr 7, 2022)

Re: Syria (especially NES/Rojava) as it's been mentioned a few times. Sorry if it's slightly rambling and doesn't seem that relevant!

I'm not going to talk about wider Syria and what happened there pre-2015 or so as I don't know enough, but there's a great book called _Burning Country: Syrians in Revolution and War_ by Leila Al-Shami and Robin Yassin Kassab I'd highly recommend. (Leila has also done a few talks about Ukraine btw.)

Anyway, I don't think there's much (any?) similarity about the development of what happened there and what happened/happening in Ukraine. I do think there's some similarities about the left's (really need a better word, but that'll do for the moment) response though, and then some of the dynamics with the military support provided, what that enabled, and what problems that brought with it.

There were similar positions on Rojava that we have here on Ukraine. Simplistically put lots of anarchists saw it as some re-enactment of Spain '36, and plenty of others saw it as nothing but a nationalist struggle that had no elements within it worth supporting. I think both those positions were wrong and were more about the groups and people and their ideology here rather than the realities there. Both seeing it as clear 'blocks' rather than a muddle of people and positions missed something important. Within the struggle and fighing in NES there were elements of self-organisation, decent left wing politics, community defence, material support and addressing of the daily concerns of people in the area, as well as a genuine attempt to create something different and better than what was there before. (Largely outside the militarised bodies themselves, and in communities really, but also there wasn't always a clear line between these things.) I don't think it was/is easy to put what was happening into a 'western class war' framework either, and also people still had strong connections to Kurdish nationalism that wasn't easy to get over, even through work was being done to try and do so. Anyway, to try and relate that to Ukraine, I think that while dynamics are of course different, to paint it all again as a simple 'nation vs. nation' struggle is also wrong and too simple, and within in will be elements very much worthy of the support of anarchists/etc. If you listen to Ukrainian lefties themselves plenty of them say this. (Although I also think just the act of self defence to the Russian State is something worthy of our support without any loftier political positions, but anyway...).

Western military support (largely airstrikes with some arms later on) enabled the YPG/J to defend and also recapture towns, villages, and land lost to IS that they wouldn't have been able to do otherwise. In the mess of what was going on there I think that was a 'good thing' and justifiable in any way - left wing politics as a judge or not. But on Serge's point about slippery slopes, access to those resources then did also then enable the YPG/J to militarily overreach themselves into areas that were less clearly justifiable (in terms of their politics and plans) but fitted more with those supplying the support - the defeat of IS no matter what. (Also not to say that on some level it didn't have benefits for the people there, especially some of the older elements within the PYD higher political ranks who still had some designs on the more nation state building side of stuff). It caused tension on the ground that Kurdish forces were moving into largely Arab areas supported by western military support that they wouldn't have been able to do without it. They did try and lessen this somewhat by forming a broader SDF force rather than it being a solely Kurdish led one, but that wasn't entirely convincing or successful. So I think bringing it back to Ukraine, I think it's possible to support the supply of weapons now as a needed and 'good' thing, but also be aware that this can very easily cross into something that then starts to cause problems if certain boundaries are pushed on (pushing into Russian areas for example), and that is for sure something to be careful of, but doesn't mean the position should be no weapons for you now because of what they might lead to at some distant point in the future.

I think people here have something weird about weapon supply as well. It's partly totally justifiable in terms of the history etc. of who and why it happens, although I think it's also connected to the dominance of pacifism and anti-militarism in the left wing political scene since the '50s or so. Which is partly why I think the left's position on this in Spain in the 30s is very different to Ukraine now. But I think this position doesn't logically make sense on some examination to me unless you think people should just not be fighting at all. If you accept that fighting is legitimate, but then block weaponry being sent to support this, then you're saying, 'Well you can fight, that's fine, but not with what you actually need, only with what you have now.' Which to me is clearly nonsense and is just people tying themselves in ideological knots.

Sorry that was a bit of an over-long ramble! At least it helps me think things through in my head!

Wanted to try and say something about the difference between people with similar politics having absolute 'positions' or general 'tendencies' as well, and how some of that maybe accounts for the differences in perspectives on this but ran out of steam.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 7, 2022)

It's weird but I find the idea of sending weapons almost easier to swallow than sanctions, the british state already ships weapons all over the place to much worse regimes like Saudi Arabia lol and nobody bats an eye. Whereas the sanctions are having real devastating effects on people I know, I'm also not at all convinced they are having the desired effect of weakening Putin, I think it's the opposite. But I think people view sanctions as less bad because it's not 'military'?


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 7, 2022)

How would the 'arm the Ukrainians/send more arms to Ukraine ' line be implemented in practice ie what actions/protests/ etc could/ would be proposed?


----------



## LDC (Apr 7, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> How would the 'arm the Ukrainians/send more arms to Ukraine ' line be implemented in practice ie what actions/protests/ etc could/ would be proposed?



None. It's happening. I don't think anyone has suggested we do demos actually requesting it? There's some practical opposition to the supply, in Italy there's been a few refusals to handle shipments, largely by Stalinist unions I think. I wonder if the ACG and other NWBTCW positions would be supportive of that kind of action?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 7, 2022)

Well let's be honest its going to happen (or not) with or without anyone agreeing to it on here. Dont think a specific demo asking for it would be a good idea.


----------



## chilango (Apr 7, 2022)

Who can arm who?


----------



## LDC (Apr 7, 2022)

chilango said:


> Who can arm who?



I demand the State sends my friend Yuri in Lviv 20 NLAWs! They promise they won't sell them on eBay.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 7, 2022)

Dear Sir or Madam,

I'm the cousin of a Ukrainian General in Dnipro who just died in a plane crash, please send me your bank details so I can send you a few RPGs. God bless you.


----------



## zahir (Apr 7, 2022)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> I think people here have something weird about weapon supply as well. It's partly totally justifiable in terms of the history etc. of who and why it happens, although I think it's also connected to the dominance of pacifism and anti-militarism in the left wing political scene since the '50s or so. Which is partly why I think the left's position on this in Spain in the 30s is very different to Ukraine now. But I think this position doesn't logically make sense on some examination to me unless you think people should just not be fighting at all. If you accept that fighting is legitimate, but then block weaponry being sent to support this, then you're saying, 'Well you can fight, that's fine, but not with what you actually need, only with what you have now.' Which to me is clearly nonsense and is just people tying themselves in ideological knots.


The arms embargo was of course fundamental to what happened in Spain in the 30s:





						Arms for Spain: The Untold Story of the Spanish Civil War: Howson, Gerald: 9780312241773: Amazon.com: Books
					

Arms for Spain: The Untold Story of the Spanish Civil War [Howson, Gerald] on Amazon.com. *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Arms for Spain: The Untold Story of the Spanish Civil War



					www.amazon.com
				





> The victory of fascism in Spain in 1936 set the stage for World War Two. As Gerald Howson argues in this startling and compelling new look at the Spanish Civil War, that victory was assured by the non-fascist European powers. When military officers and rich landowners rebelled against the left-wing Spanish government in 1936, the Spanish Republic found itself abandoned by other European nations. Hoping to prevent the escalation of the conflict into a world war, European leaders created an international arms embargo against Spain.
> 
> Arms for Spain reveals that this embargo gave Franco's rebels an enormous advantage against the Republic. While hindering arms from reaching the Republic, it allowed Hitler and Mussolini to equip Franco with enough armaments to win. The Republic was thus forced to buy illegal arms from foreign officials who extorted huge bribes for arms they never delivered. Banks and arms traffickers also swindled the Spanish government, often sending unusable weapons. Russia, long believed to be the Republic's strongest supporter, was one of the worst offenders. The Soviets provided far less aid than has been thought and defrauded the Spanish government of millions of dollars by secretly manipulating the exchange rates.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 7, 2022)

Just wondered that aside from agreeing to it whether there was anything practical being suggested .  I get the point that it's happening and that it's happening without waiting for a section of Urban politics thread to agree to it.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 7, 2022)

While I am in favour of weapons being sent to Ukraine not sure or is something I would ever want to demonstrate for. 

In general I think it's important not to get too committed to a position. This is a complex situation which the possibility to progress in many different directions, so what is right today might be wrong tomorrow. 

At the moment I am in favour of weapons being sent by NATO and for the Ukrainian state to continue the war.

But the situation could change in the future so I have to reconsider. 

For example what if the Ukrainian state was to reject a peace deal that large numbers of Ukrainians want to accept and they continue the war while repressing anti-war demonstrations?

I think that's unlikely, in fact it is probably more likely they will sign a peace deal many Ukrainians reject.


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 7, 2022)

Update Donation for Solidarity with anarchist and anti-authoritarian activist from Ukraine - Anarchist Black Cross Dresden
					

We support people from anarchist and anti-authoritarian community, their families and friends. For those who need to flee we help with travel costs, accommodation as long as needed, “pocket money” and special needs. We support as well people still in the country with any necessary support. We...




					abcdd.org
				






> Since the beginning of the war, 24.02.2022 we have started gathering money to support people from anarchist and anti-authoritarian community, their families and friends.
> People donated around 170.100 Euro so far.
> With this money we supported Operation Solidarity and Individuals leaving the country or who are still in Ukraine and need financial support.
> 
> ...


Of course, while 170,100 euro/107,500 euro is a fair chunk of money, it's pretty small compared to most military budgets, but there you are: there's states who have large amounts of resources, and we can call on them to do whatever and probably get ignored; and then there's non-state actors, who have much less resources, but we can at least make more direct decisions about how we want our money to be spent.
And, as LDC mentions, there's also the issue of workers in Italy and Greece refusing to handle weapons for Ukraine on antiwar grounds - that's a tactic we'd all support in other situations, like weapons for Israel and so on, if we decide that we wouldn't support that tactic here then that's something. Again, it might seem a bit posture-y but it's not totally abstract, like I'm sure some of us here are in the same unions that British dock and transportation workers are and can have some say in arguments about what those unions should be doing.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 7, 2022)

> This postcard urging arms to be sent to the Republican Government during the Spanish Civil War was sent to the National Council of Labour (NCL) in 1937. The NCL address on the reverse is printed, so this postcard was part of a campaign organised (probably by the Communist Party) to persuade the NCL to oppose Government policy on Non-Intervention.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 7, 2022)

charlie mowbray said:


> War in Ukraine: Is 'No War but the Class War' Just a Slogan?
> 
> 
> What does the slogan 'No War but the Class War' mean in the interimperialist conflict between Russia and NATO-backed Ukraine?
> ...



_Inter-imperialist_. 

Better go and tell all those dead kids they shouldn't have been so NATO-backed in the first place.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 7, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> _Inter-imperialist_.
> 
> Better go and tell all those dead kids they shouldn't have been so NATO-backed in the first place.


Maybe read the thread.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 7, 2022)

He won't.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 7, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> He won't.



I read it.

It seems to be quite a lot of people pointing out that 'inter-imperialist' is a load of old bollocks, along with you gradually backing down from various claims to the contrary.

Would be interesting to search for posts about 'NATO imperialism' from before this current conflict, and it becoming the hot take of tankies everywhere. You yourself never mentioned NATO once prior to January 2022.


----------



## zahir (Apr 7, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> I read it.
> 
> It seems to be quite a lot of people pointing out that 'inter-imperialist' is a load of old bollocks, along with you gradually backing down from various claims to the contrary.
> 
> Would be interesting to search for posts about 'NATO imperialism' from before this current conflict, and it becoming the hot take of tankies everywhere. You yourself never mentioned NATO once prior to January 2022.



I had wondered if people would see something imperialist in, say, Latvia's membership of NATO or in Finland's plans to join.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 7, 2022)

zahir said:


> I had wondered if people would see something imperialist in, say, Latvia's membership of NATO or in Finland's plans to join.



They're waiting for the official position on that to be sent down from Comrade Commissar Galloway.


----------



## emanymton (Apr 7, 2022)

zahir said:


> I had wondered if people would see something imperialist in, say, Latvia's membership of NATO or in Finland's plans to join.


I think It's complicated. Obviously the reason countries like Latvia joined NATO isn't because they have grand imperial ambitions of Marching on Moscow one day. They joined because they are afraid of Russia doing to them what it is currently doing in Ukraine. 

But at the same time them joining does benefit America and European imperialist ambitious having them as members. 

There are a variety of Push and pull factors at work.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 7, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> I read it.
> 
> It seems to be quite a lot of people pointing out that 'inter-imperialist' is a load of old bollocks, along with you gradually backing down from various claims to the contrary.
> 
> Would be interesting to search for posts about 'NATO imperialism' from before this current conflict, and it becoming the hot take of tankies everywhere. You yourself never mentioned NATO once prior to January 2022.


"seems..."


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Apr 7, 2022)

zahir said:


> I had wondered if people would see something imperialist in, say, Latvia's membership of NATO or in Finland's plans to join.


Well, a bloke in the pub told me that Russia had always been Latvian and one day Latvia would take back control. At least, I think that's what he said. My Latvian is a bit rusty these days.


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 7, 2022)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> Well, a bloke in the pub told me that Russia had always been Latvian and one day Latvia would take back control. At least, I think that's what he said. My Latvian is a bit rusty these days.



I used to live with a Lithuanian guy with similar views, only with Lithuania instead of Latvia. According to him all western civilisation was derived from stuff Lithuanians invented.


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Apr 7, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> I used to live with a Lithuanian guy with similar views, only with Lithuania instead of Latvia. According to him all western civilisation was derived from stuff Lithuanians invented.


He was probably at least half serious, though. I'd forgotten all about Lithuania's imperialist past.


----------



## zahir (Apr 7, 2022)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> He was probably at least half serious, though. I'd forgotten all about Lithuania's imperialist past.


Which is actually quite interesting: BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time, The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth


----------



## SpookyFrank (Apr 7, 2022)

zahir said:


> Which is actually quite interesting: BBC Radio 4 - In Our Time, The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth



History's only elected monarchy IIRC.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2022)

SpookyFrank said:


> History's only elected monarchy IIRC.


The holy roman emperors famously elected


----------



## Kevbad the Bad (Apr 7, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> The holy roman emperors famously elected


It wasn't exactly universal suffrage though.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 7, 2022)

Kevbad the Bad said:


> It wasn't exactly universal suffrage though.


No. But then what was


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 7, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> The holy roman emperors famously elected


And King Harold of England was elected, though again, not by universal suffrage.


----------



## mojo pixy (Apr 7, 2022)

ah fuckit nvm

I got a ticket to this meeting though and I'll do my best to log in on the night.
Will a link be forthcoming? And now I think of it, what platform will it be on? Serge Forward


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 7, 2022)

And will you have to pass a quiz on King Harold before being admitted to the meeting?


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 7, 2022)

mojo pixy said:


> ah fuckit nvm
> 
> I got a ticket to this meeting though and I'll do my best to log in on the night.
> Will a link be forthcoming? And now I think of it, what platform will it be on? Serge Forward


Yeas. You'll get the link on the day. Zoom I think.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 7, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> And will you have to pass a quiz on King Harold before being admitted to the meeting?


No, but the password is Workers Witan.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 7, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> No, but the password is Workers Witan.


I've changed it to 'The Raven'


----------



## xenon (Apr 7, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> And will you have to pass a quiz on King Harold before being admitted to the meeting?



Ah invoking Godwinson‘s law.


----------



## xenon (Apr 7, 2022)

I didn’t realise this was online as well. I am actually tempted to join. Although I do have issues with a lot of this pontification. Stances.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 8, 2022)

Mason has just announced his ten tweet critique of some Corbyn statement and in the replies, he sets out what Corbyn should be doing . Can anyone expand on the Ukrainian left and people's war issue. ?  I always thought that the left  in  Ukraine was extremely small and fragmented.


----------



## chilango (Apr 8, 2022)

Hang on. Is Mason criticising Corbyn for not sending guns to Ukraine?


----------



## AmateurAgitator (Apr 8, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Mason has just announced his ten tweet critique of some Corbyn statement and in the replies, he sets out what Corbyn should be doing . Can anyone expand on the Ukrainian left and people's war issue. ?  I always thought that the left  in  Ukraine was extremely small and fragmented.



I think you've got the wrong thread mate.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 8, 2022)

AmateurAgitator said:


> I think you've got the wrong thread mate.


No this is the thread where I might get a decent answer. I’ve got to push past the bomb Russia brigade , retweets of retired generals nonsense on the other Ukraine threads .


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2022)

chilango said:


> Hang on. Is Mason criticising Corbyn for not sending guns to Ukraine?


i have emailed jeremy corbyn a copy of loompanics' guide to gun-running for fun and profit.


----------



## chilango (Apr 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> i have emailed jeremy corbyn a copy of loompanics' guide to gun-running for fun and profit.


Loompanics! Now there's a blast from the pre-internet past....


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2022)

chilango said:


> Loompanics! Now there's a blast from the pre-internet past....


i imagine that things have moved on since 1986 but at least the text will give him the basics so he can do paul mason's bidding


----------



## chilango (Apr 8, 2022)

Maybe Mason has buried a cache of weapons from his old org's "Workers' Defence Squad" days in Corbz's allotment?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2022)

chilango said:


> Maybe Mason has buried a cache of weapons from his old org's "Workers' Defence Squad" days in Corbz's allotment?


let's hope he stored the stuff properly U.S. Army Special Forces caching techniques : [(hiding and storing stuff safely)] : United States. Army. Special Forces : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive


----------



## Sue (Apr 8, 2022)

chilango said:


> Maybe Mason has buried a cache of weapons from his old org's "Workers' Defence Squad" days in Corbz's allotment?


Why do you think Corbyn's even _got_ an allotment...?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2022)

Sue said:


> Why do you think Corbyn's even _got_ an allotment...?











						The plot thickens: what does Corbyn’s allotment say about his politics?
					

Sweet corn, artichokes and neatly strimmed paths – the Labour leader’s veg patch is a leafy, undressed salad of clues to the man and his mission




					www.theguardian.com
				




for example

or Fire engine stuck at Jeremy Corbyn’s allotment for nine hours after responding to a fire in East Finchley


----------



## Sue (Apr 8, 2022)

Pickman's model said:


> The plot thickens: what does Corbyn’s allotment say about his politics?
> 
> 
> Sweet corn, artichokes and neatly strimmed paths – the Labour leader’s veg patch is a leafy, undressed salad of clues to the man and his mission
> ...


I'm pretty sure the blue tarpaulin is a red herring and the AK-47s and Semtex are stashed elsewhere.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 8, 2022)

chilango said:


> Maybe Mason has buried a cache of weapons from his old org's "Workers' Defence Squad" days in Corbz's allotment?


Probably find Cocker's catapult in the rhubarb patch


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 8, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Mason has just announced his ten tweet critique of some Corbyn statement and in the replies, he sets out what Corbyn should be doing . Can anyone expand on the Ukrainian left and people's war issue. ?  I always thought that the left  in  Ukraine was extremely small and fragmented.


Tbf, the left in the UK is extremely small and fragmented but we spend enough time discussing them. Uh, for a bit more info this interview seems like a decent starting point:








						Ukrainian socialist: ‘The future of demilitarisation lies in stopping Russia’s war machine now’
					

Vitaliy Dudin discusses Russia’s invasion, the peoples’ resistance to it and key issues such as Ukraine’s far right, NATO and sending weapons to Ukraine.




					www.greenleft.org.au
				





> *Could you give us an idea of the kinds of resistance — armed and unarmed — that Ukrainians are engaging in. What role is the left, such as Social Movement, and trade unions playing within the resistance?*
> 
> 
> Firstly, hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians have joined the Armed Forces (AF) of Ukraine and the Territorial Defence (TD), which is integrated into the AF. The AF is currently fighting on the frontline with all the weapons available to it, whereas the TD mostly protects cities with guns.
> ...


If you're interested, here's the Resistance Committee ig and telegram:








						Комітет Спротиву /// Resistance Committee
					

Об'єднані антиавторитарні сили України. За нашу та вашу Свободу! За нашу и вашу Свободу! For our & your Freedom! United anti-autoritarian forces in Ukraine. DM us: @Theblackheadquarter_bot Medias: https://linktr.ee/Theblackheadquarter




					t.me
				











						Комітет Спротиву (@theblackheadquarter) • Instagram photos and videos
					

12K Followers, 132 Following, 80 Posts - See Instagram photos and videos from Комітет Спротиву (@theblackheadquarter)




					www.instagram.com
				





AmateurAgitator said:


> I think you've got the wrong thread mate.


Oh, is Corbyn not in the ACG anymore? When did that happen?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2022)

Sue said:


> I'm pretty sure the blue tarpaulin is a red herring and the AK-47s and Semtex are stashed elsewhere.


i fear that elsewhere was blown many years ago: from 12 october 1989's times
**


----------



## kenny g (Apr 8, 2022)

xenon said:


> Ah invoking Godwinson‘s law.


Beautifully clever!


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 8, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Tbf, the left in the UK is extremely small and fragmented but we spend enough time discussing them. Uh, for a bit more info this interview seems like a decent starting point:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Ta . Still can’t find any reference to this turn Masons on about to ‘People's War’


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 8, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Ta . Still can’t find any reference to this turn Masons on about to ‘People's War’


Yeah, I suspect that particular phrase is probably Mason's own gloss rather than how m/any people in Ukraine are describing it?
But while I remember, I think Vladimir Platonenko's writings on the subject are interesting, and I suppose not a million miles away from the "people's war" idea:








						About the war with Ukraine
					

Vladimir Platonenko About the war with Ukraine 13 March 2022 Originally published by Avtonom. Written by Vladimir Platonenko. Translated by Riot Turtle with...




					theanarchistlibrary.org
				





> I do not believe that “the worst republic is better than any monarchy”. Everything is determined by grassroots activism of the masses, not by voting in elections. But in this case, the Ukrainian people are much more independent of the government and much more influenced by it than the Russian people. Putin considers this to be Ukraine’s weakness, but in fact it is its strength. This is the main reason why the army of the “full-fledged state” cannot cope with the army and self-defense units of Ukraine: slaves fight badly, while free people who do not want to be slaves fight well. This is one of the main reasons why Zelensky is perceived as a lesser evil even by his opponents in Ukraine.
> 
> A lesser evil tends to transform into a bigger one, which makes it unreasonable to support a lesser evil. However, in addition to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, there are territorial defense units in Ukraine, and the Ukrainian government is forced to support them. Willingly or unwillingly, it has distributed weapons to the people. And now there is a third force in Ukraine – the armed people. In addition, as once in republican Spain, units of foreign volunteers are coming to Ukraine. Finally, partisan militias may emerge in the occupied territories. One should not idealize all this, the Ku Klux Klan was also a product of self-organization of a part of the people; but an armed self-organized population is the only force from which something good can emerge. Everything will depend on self-consciousness–the people’s self-defense units as a whole are just as “good” or “bad” as the people as a whole. That said, they are heterogeneous, as are the people as a whole. Anyway, as of today they are the only force worthy to be supported. And if I were asked where an ordinary Ukrainian, who doesn’t want to sit idly by, should go, I would answer: “If he or she can, create one’ own unit, if not – join the self-defense brigades. Or join a partisan unit.”
> 
> The Ukrainian government is now forced to support this force. However, when the situation changes, it will try to get rid of the Territorial Defense units, the volunteers, and any other self-organized brigades. Recall the fate of the Donbass battalion, which was deliberately left without support and in a knowingly doomed position. Fighters of self-organized units should keep this in mind.











						And After the War?
					

How will the outcome of the war in Ukraine shape the prospects for revolutionary movements in Russia, Ukraine, and Belarus?




					crimethinc.com
				






> To be fair, the contradictions between the authorities and the people, and the difference in the interests and goals of the upper and lower classes, have not disappeared. In the Poltava region, if I am not mistaken, they confiscated from the villagers… eleven Russian tanks (abandoned by the Russians). That is, the villagers were going to use these tanks as plows or tractors, and the Ukrainian army confiscated them. But for now, such contradictions are resolved in favor of the government—in the name of a common victory.
> 
> Ukraine has always been good at one thing: it was always normal to depose the ruler who displeased the people. This made it different from Muscovy (ancient Russia), where the figure of the Tsar was sacred. The exceptions were the Time of Troubles, which was ended by the merchant (Minin) and the prince (Pozharsky). But in Ukraine, it has always been the rule that unpopular leaders are forced out. This Ukrainian tradition goes back at least to the Cossack times. How many Ukrainian Cossack atamans have paid with their positions, and sometimes with their lives, for “unpopular measures”! Whether this tradition will continue now is hard to say.
> 
> ...


Mind you, Platonenko's writings seem quite balanced and nuanced to me, which isn't something I'd always say of Mason?


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Yeah, I suspect that particular phrase is probably Mason's own gloss rather than how m/any people in Ukraine are describing it?
> But while I remember, I think Vladimir Platonenko's writings on the subject are interesting, and I suppose not a million miles away from the "people's war" idea:
> 
> 
> ...


Spartacus fought quite well by all accounts


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 8, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Yeah, I suspect that particular phrase is probably Mason's own gloss rather than how m/any people in Ukraine are describing it?
> But while I remember, I think Vladimir Platonenko's writings on the subject are interesting, and I suppose not a million miles away from the "people's war" idea:
> 
> 
> ...


Used to have about a quarter of Workers Power on here arguing that the slogan ‘Stop the War ‘ was a counter revolutionary position as it should have been ‘ Stop the War now ‘


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 8, 2022)

The39thStep said:


> Used to have about a quarter of Workers Power on her


This typo properly confused me for a moment, for a second I thought you were describing some kind of very convoluted bet.


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 8, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> This typo properly confused me for a moment, for a second I thought you were describing some kind of very convoluted bet.


Or sweets, quarter of aniseed balls please, and a quarter of workers power for the lad here


----------



## Ĝasper (Apr 8, 2022)

About "people's war", the likes of Social Movement, Ukrainian Solidarity Campaign, Resistance Committee, are of course waging a war for national self defence. But also working class self defence, they did not stop condemning domestic Ukrainian oligarchs* when the war started. They did not stop condemning the Ukrainian far right when the war started (albeit telling foreigners not to exagerrate the far right and legitimise Putin). They are remarkably internationalist, despite the obvious priorities of an invaded people, they have written and spoken in English about links to other wars such as Syria and the Armenia-Azerbaijan war (can't remember it's proper name rn) but also other wars unrelated to Russia like Yemen, Afghanistan, Libya. They say, yes, Ukrainians benefit from this huge attention in the media, sanctions on the aggressor etc, much more than all other ongoing wars. And they say, don't fight this out of jealousy - use it as a precedent. Members have also said that the left needs a vision of a reformed UN. 

*As an aside, I am not including Zelensky as an oligarch. Yes they criticise him. But his £2m or so is peanuts beside the oil and gas wealth hoarded away in Ukraine by probably all of Ukraine's previous leaders. While Zelensky had a media company, the other oligarchs all own the actual television channels, newspapers and radio stations. Its like comparing Nick Park and Rupert Murdoch.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 8, 2022)

Ĝasper said:


> About "people's war", the likes of Social Movement, Ukrainian Solidarity Campaign, Resistance Committee, are of course waging a war for national self defence. But also working class self defence, they did not stop condemning domestic Ukrainian oligarchs* when the war started. They did not stop condemning the Ukrainian far right when the war started (albeit telling foreigners not to exagerrate the far right and legitimise Putin). They are remarkably internationalist, despite the obvious priorities of an invaded people, they have written and spoken in English about links to other wars such as Syria and the Armenia-Azerbaijan war (can't remember it's proper name rn) but also other wars unrelated to Russia like Yemen, Afghanistan, Libya. They say, yes, Ukrainians benefit from this huge attention in the media, sanctions on the aggressor etc, much more than all other ongoing wars. And they say, don't fight this out of jealousy - use it as a precedent. Members have also said that the left needs a vision of a reformed UN.
> 
> *As an aside, I am not including Zelensky as an oligarch. Yes they criticise him. But his £2m or so is peanuts beside the oil and gas wealth hoarded away in Ukraine by probably all of Ukraine's previous leaders. While Zelensky had a media company, the other oligarchs all own the actual television channels, newspapers and radio stations. Its like comparing Nick Park and Rupert Murdoch.


Very useful post thanks


----------



## charlie mowbray (Apr 12, 2022)

Tomorrow!


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2022)

It could have been an interesting discussion, but unfortunately it was hijacked by the Jehovah's Marxists of the International Communist Current, which did make for a tedious listen.


----------



## kebabking (Apr 14, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> It could have been an interesting discussion, but unfortunately it was hijacked by the Jehovah's Marxists of the International Communist Current, which did make for a tedious listen.



Any chance it's downloadable?


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2022)

kebabking said:


> Any chance it's downloadable?


The plan was to make it available on the website, when our audio expert gets around to it.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2022)

If the question section makes the cut, I'd advise against listening to be honest.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 14, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> It could have been an interesting discussion, but unfortunately it was hijacked by the Jehovah's Marxists of the International Communist Current, which did make for a tedious listen.


Really? That's a shame tbh, I kind of had a soft spot for them (though haven't looked at what they've been saying recently)


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2022)

frogwoman said:


> Really? That's a shame tbh, I kind of had a soft spot for them (though haven't looked at what they've been saying recently)


I have a soft spot for the CWO, but not for the ICC because of their behaviour.  It's the doctrinaire filibustering of other people's meetings that's just tiresome.  I wouldn't dream of going mobhanded to one of their meetings and droning on at a weird tangent.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 14, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> I have a soft spot for the CWO, but not for the ICC because of their behaviour.  It's the doctrinaire filibustering of other people's meetings that's just tiresome.  I wouldn't dream of going mobhanded to one of their meetings and droning on at a weird tangent.


I've been to one or two of their meetings and its standard for them to have opponents from different groups raising objections to various things from what I can see. CWO are all right, not my politics these days tho


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2022)

frogwoman said:


> I've been to one or two of their meetings and its standard for them to have opponents from different groups raising objections to various things from what I can see


I don't have a problem with that.  You expect different viewpoints at public meetings.  This was a coordinated drone fest.


----------



## Lurdan (Apr 14, 2022)

I'm not up with this new fangled technology but I assumed you could just turn them down and delegate people to nod politely every once in a while.

What's their age profile these days?


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 14, 2022)

Danny has no authority, no authority at all


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2022)

Lurdan said:


> What's their age profile these days?


Methuselah's Uncle Colm.


----------



## Lurdan (Apr 14, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> Methuselah's Uncle Colm.


Bit worrying. If they've all hit retirement age they'll have time on their hands to get up to all sorts.


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 14, 2022)

frogwoman said:


> Really? That's a shame tbh, I kind of had a soft spot for them (though haven't looked at what they've been saying recently)


I haven't looked at what the ICC have been saying recently either, but I bet I could tell you what it is. Don't suppose the decadence of the capitalist system came up at any point?


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 14, 2022)

frogwoman said:


> I've been to one or two of their meetings and its standard for them to have opponents from different groups raising objections to various things from what I can see. CWO are all right, not my politics these days tho


The ICC are a weirdy loon cult. Back in the old ACF days, we banned them from our public meetings for being boring fillibustering twats (and got denounced in four languages for it).


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> I haven't looked at what the ICC have been saying recently either, but I bet I could tell you what it is. Don't suppose the decadence of the capitalist system came up at any point?


Something an Urbanite said was decadence as it happens.  I’m not sure what because I zoned out.


----------



## JimW (Apr 14, 2022)

Ah, the fifteen minute "question" cum manifesto. Emphasis on cum.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 14, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> The ICC are a weirdy loon cult. Back in the old ACF days, we banned them from our public meetings for being boring fillibustering twats (and got denounced in four languages for it).


Don't you have a mute feature, or did the power of marx override it somehow? 

I don't agree with you on much but ive had similar experiences with annoying politicos before. sorry the meeting got disrupted


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 14, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> Something an Urbanite said was decadence as it happens.  I’m not sure what because I zoned out.


Did you have decomposition and parasitism?


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 14, 2022)

frogwoman said:


> Did you have decomposition and parasitism?


This is making me imagine a leftcom death metal album. Bordigism - Descanting the Insalubrious, etc etc.


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2022)

frogwoman said:


> Did you have decomposition and parasitism?


lol, ICC bingo!  I have to admit I only heard the former last night.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 14, 2022)

I remember at the meeting I went to, there was a heated debate between the ICC and SPGB about whether a revolution would mean there had to be a massive civil war, with one (I can't remember who) seeming a bit too enthusiastic about it


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2022)

frogwoman said:


> I remember at the meeting I went to, there was a heated debate between the ICC and SPGB about whether a revolution would mean there had to be a massive civil war, with one (I can't remember who) seeming a bit too enthusiastic about it


The SPGB would want us to vote for civil war in a general election.


----------



## Sue (Apr 14, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> The ICC are a weirdy loon cult. Back in the old ACF days, we banned them from our public meetings for being boring fillibustering twats (and got denounced in four languages for it).


Christ, if you banned everyone who's a boring twat from political meetings...


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 14, 2022)

I was thinking of joining the ICC or CWO at one point ages ago, I couldn't really take their stance on WW2 though if I'm honest. I've got a Battaglia Communista t shirt actually haha


----------



## Lurdan (Apr 14, 2022)

The last time I saw the ICC at a meeting they asked questions. Back in the LWG days they didn't used to do that. Instead they would make a little speech using what I came to think of as the 'three lines' trick. Whatever the subject under discussion they would start off with something vaguely related to it and then, by a sometimes very convoluted and time consuming process, they would finish up with the 'answer', which was one of their three lines at the time. Opposition to the trades unions; opposition to anti-fascism and, ermm, whatever third one was. (As you can see this was a highly effective teaching method). After you'd seen it done a couple of times and knew how it worked this became very tedious indeed. But it got better still. We formed the strong impression that they were occasionally using our meetings to train people in this technique. If the regular 'three line trick' was bad the 'Tommy Cooper' version was far far worse. We also banned them for a while. I remember we got downgraded from being a 'confused group' at one point and were denounced, although I'm not sure if that was why.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 14, 2022)

What was the Tommy Cooper version?


----------



## Lurdan (Apr 14, 2022)

The incompetent magician not getting the trick right. (In fairness to Tommy his performance of this took a lot of skill).


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 14, 2022)

frogwoman said:


> Don't you have a mute feature, or did the power of marx override it somehow?
> 
> I don't agree with you on much but ive had similar experiences with annoying politicos before. sorry the meeting got disrupted


I wasn't at this one so can't say.

And whaddya mean you don't agree with me on much? I'm sure we agree loads... but on the occasions we don't agree, it's a biggie


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 14, 2022)

chilango wasn't able to make it but the ICC did. Coincidence?


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 14, 2022)

Sue said:


> Christ, if you banned everyone who's a boring twat from political meetings...


Ahem... I take it you haven't met the ICC then. They are in a monotonous league of their own.


----------



## Dom Traynor (Apr 14, 2022)

JimW said:


> Ah, the fifteen minute "question" cum manifesto. Emphasis on cum.


Valarie Solanas typo


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 14, 2022)

Dom Traynor said:


> Valarie Solanas typo


Ah, I think I saw Valerie Solanas Typo in the back room of the Cricketers' Arms once, if I remember rightly their regular drummer was ill and so Ruddy Yurts had to fill in at the last minute. Think they were supporting Parasitic Decomposition.


----------



## The39thStep (Apr 14, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> Ah, I think I saw Valerie Solanas Typo in the back room of the Cricketers' Arms once, if I remember rightly their regular drummer was ill and so Ruddy Yurts had to fill in at the last minute. Think they were supporting Parasitic Decomposition.


Once saw Heavy Sausage at the Cricketers' Arms


----------



## Sue (Apr 14, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Ahem... I take it you haven't met the ICC then. They are in a monotonous league of their own.


I don't think I've had the pleasure*...  

*Clearly not the right word but it's been a long week.


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 14, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Ahem... I take it you haven't met the ICC then. They are in a monotonous league of their own.


I'm now imagining them going around handing these out after their interventions:


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 14, 2022)

Inter City Cunts?


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 14, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> I wasn't at this one so can't say.
> 
> And whaddya mean you don't agree with me on much? I'm sure we agree loads... but on the occasions we don't agree, it's a biggie


Probably at least you have a sense of humour. Did anyone mention the typewriter incident?


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 14, 2022)

The infamous ICC Typewriter War... it was mayhem.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 14, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> The infamous ICC Typewriter War... it was mayhem.



With their famous opposition to anti fascism I think you could probably label the attempt to recover the typewriter a special operation tbh


----------



## charlie mowbray (Apr 14, 2022)

Yeah, decadence was mentioned a lot, but not decompostion or parasitism (ironic that the parasites here were them) Oh and up to 1914 some wars were "progressive" (WTF?) but not after!


----------



## danny la rouge (Apr 14, 2022)

charlie mowbray said:


> Oh and up to 1914 some wars were "progressive" (WTF?) but not after!


That was one of my favourite bits!


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 14, 2022)

charlie mowbray said:


> Yeah, decadence was mentioned a lot, but not decompostion or parasitism (ironic that the parasites here were them) Oh and up to 1914 some wars were "progressive" (WTF?) but not after!


What makes the pre 1914 wars progressive? (Probably going to regret asking)


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 14, 2022)

The International Communist Carlsberg says the Boer War was probably the best war in the world.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 14, 2022)

frogwoman said:


> What makes the pre 1914 wars progressive? (Probably going to regret asking)


If my memory serves me right, it's something to do with capitalism being a progressive force, making the conditions for global revolution but in 1914, when all the global powers turned against each other, then capitalism went into its decadent rather than progressive phase, likewise, their wars 

Whenever the ICC talk about decadence, I always envision bohemian types sitting around smoking opium and drinking absynthe,


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 14, 2022)

But tension had been building up for years between the Great Powers, its not like WW1 came out of nowhere.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 14, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Whenever the ICC talk about decadence, I always envision bohemian types sitting around smoking opium and drinking absynthe,


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 14, 2022)

frogwoman said:


> But tension had been building up for years between the Great Powers, its not like WW1 came out of nowhere.


I'm sure the ICC would love to receive an email from you to fully discuss the matter.


----------



## petee (Apr 14, 2022)

* ahem * i was a hanger-on with the ICC here in NYC for awhile. solid bunch of people mind.
but in the spirit of this thread, once two guys from the IP showed up and flipped the script you're describing, taking the floor and trying to flog their own literature during an ICC meeting. it was uncomfortable, the more so as most of them knew each other and i wondered exactly what the IP were hoping to achieve, holding forth in front of mostly their acquaintances.


----------



## Shechemite (Apr 14, 2022)

hitmouse said:


> This is making me imagine a leftcom death metal album. Bordigism - Descanting the Insalubrious, etc etc.



Next ACG meeting: “Do we need a revolutionary party? Headbangers welcome.”


----------



## nastyned (Apr 14, 2022)

charlie mowbray said:


> Yeah, decadence was mentioned a lot, but not decompostion or parasitism (ironic that the parasites here were them) Oh and up to 1914 some wars were "progressive" (WTF?) but not after!


Left Communism is just weird. Decadence allows them to get in a bit of multitudinous positionism, like defending the Second International (that expelled the anarchists for being anti-parliamentarian) whilst being anti-parliamentarians themselves.


----------



## LDC (Apr 14, 2022)

Sorry to have missed it - I think!? Hope to listen to the edited highlights online.


----------



## Lurdan (Apr 14, 2022)

nastyned said:


> Left Communism is just weird. Decadence allows them to get in a bit of multitudinous positionism, like defending the Second International (that expelled the anarchists for being anti-parliamentarian) whilst being anti-parliamentarians themselves.


indeed. But that's a function of periodisation rather than of left communism as such. It's not central to all forms of left communism and examples can be found across all far left and ultra-far left currents. "Imperialism The Highest Stage of Capitalist Development" "The Downturn" "Fordism".

Once it's been determined that we've "entered a new period" we have "new possibilities" "new challenges" and "new tasks" calling for new leaflets. Faced with the uncertainty this 'shock of the new' might provoke, "fortunately" we have the same old "class organizations" with the same old "leading cadres" and the same old "leading theorists" to orient us. It's dialectical innit.


----------



## nastyned (Apr 14, 2022)

Lurdan said:


> It's dialectical innit.


I figured it must be dialectical. As an anarchist I've always thought that's a right load of old bollocks. And a handy way for making a complete U turn whilst insisting you were always right all along!


----------



## rekil (Apr 14, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> Whenever the ICC talk about decadence, I always envision bohemian types sitting around smoking opium and drinking absynthe,



I tend to think of of it as eating viennetta in the bath while the cleaner is in. I don't have much of an imagination however.


----------



## hitmouse (Apr 14, 2022)

rekil said:


> I tend to think of of it as eating viennetta in the bath while the cleaner is in. I don't have much of an imagination however.


Oh, is 1914 when viennetta was invented? It all makes sense now.


----------



## Lurdan (Apr 14, 2022)

nastyned said:


> ... I've always thought that's a right load of old bollocks. And a handy way for making a complete U turn whilst insisting you were always right all along!


Always felt the same.

Of course 'it is a truth universally acknowledged', that a single leading element in possession of a right load of old bollocks, must be in want of a left load of old bollocks, in dialectic with it. Unless, of course,  like Hitler, you're suffering from an extreme form of 'combined and uneven development'.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 14, 2022)

Does that mean that some on off skirmish could have been progressive in 1913 and then on 1st January 1914 be decadent?


----------



## Lurdan (Apr 14, 2022)

frogwoman said:


> Does that mean that some on off skirmish could have been progressive in 1913 and then on 1st January 1914 be decadent?


Periodisation - or at least the more "successful" forms of it - isn't usually applied in quite as 'rigid' a way as that. (Although a recollection comes to mind of a member of the ICC very confidently asserting that if I told him the date I considered the Russian revolution had degenerated he would be able to deduce the whole of my politics from that). Even in the more rigidly prescriptive forms of it you need a degree of wiggle room flexibility. And at the opposite end of the spectrum - some forms of 'political autonomy', or of trotskyism, for example - you seemingly have nothing except 'flexibility'.


----------



## A380 (Apr 15, 2022)

The opium wars always sounded decadent to me,


 untill I found out what they really were.


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 15, 2022)

And lest we forget... the cod war. The things they did, all for a nice chippy tea.


----------



## frogwoman (Apr 15, 2022)

Serge Forward said:


> And lest we forget... the cod war. The things they did, all for a nice chippy tea.


Nothing decadent about good honest fish and chips tho. Have the ICC factored this one into their analysis


----------



## Serge Forward (Apr 15, 2022)

It was pennies for a chippy tea in the early 70s. My mam used to send me to the chippy with a big shopping bag to hide the grub, just in case the neighbours saw me walking home from the chippy and thought we were poor  After the cod war though, such a feast as cod, chips, mushy peas and gravy became proper extravagant, no longer embarrassing and so the bag was not required. Now chippy tea is positively decadent (especially with Vienetta for pud).

So what would the ICC say to that? I think we should be told.


----------



## likesfish (Apr 16, 2022)

Pity the spook who has to document this crap😂*

* just in case there is, a revolution the spooks want job security and it would be embarrassing it they didn't have files on people. Can't even have fantasy about torturing them it's not like they ever shut up😂🤔


----------



## TopCat (Apr 16, 2022)

Never before has a ACG meeting provoked such controversy


----------



## Pickman's model (Apr 16, 2022)

I never read those dense columns of ICC text and so missed on what appears a genuinely funny newspaper, haha where I just thought it peculiar


----------



## hitmouse (May 8, 2022)

Turns out the recording of this is online now:


Sadly we're denied the chance to hear what the ICC had to say about fish'n'chips though. Also for the record I'd disagree with how the speaker characterises the Russian anarchist movement, I think CRAS/KRAS seem to be a bit of an outlier and groups like Autonomous Action and Anarchist Militant, while certainly "internationalist" in the sense of opposing any compromise with the Russian state, are closer to the defeatist/anti-imperialist/anarcho-trenchist position than the strict nwbcw line of CRAS and the ACG? I can't see that much difference between the Belarusian movement and the non-CRAS Russian groups, from what I've seen?


----------



## LDC (May 8, 2022)

No discussion after, did it not make the cut?


----------



## danny la rouge (May 8, 2022)

LynnDoyleCooper said:


> No discussion after, did it not make the cut?


The ICC can do their own podcasts if they want.


----------



## LDC (May 8, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> The ICC can do their own podcasts if they want.



Ah yeah, I forgot you had a 'technical' interruption of endless white noise....


----------



## hitmouse (May 8, 2022)

danny la rouge said:


> The ICC can do their own podcasts if they want.


Letting the ICC have typewriters caused enough problems, god knows what they'll get up to if they have mp3s!


----------

