Thoughts on this article?
Thoughts on this article?
Exposing the Opportunism of the 'Zoomerwald Left'
I disagree with Haz on a lot of things, but Haz's statement that revolutionary warfare is more than a mere "class war" within a vacuum and also has national-liberation aspects due to the globalistic nature of imperialism is pretty valid
Sorry but I think this text is horrible.
Its a reactionary mess with a few good points that other better texts have already addressed without attacking other ML comrades like Luna Oi.
Haz missrepresents Hakims statements and essentially "refutes" an strawman version of what he calls the "Marxist-Leninist" position.
First and foremost, he directly ties the idea of "wokeness", "identity politics" and "political correctness" to "social engeneering" and the US mainstream media views. This is a pathetic and reactionary position to take. Not only that but he claims this is the "mainstream consensus". If so, then why the fuck the US is still so damn racist? why is LGBTphobia so prevalent? Why are minorities still being murdered? This take is so horrendous that it also directly contradicts the single greatest revolutionary movement in the US: The Black Panther Party. They were before anything else, worried about black people in the US, but they understood their struggle is connected to a bigger one. They have shown us what is partially the way to radicalize the american working class, and it holds up to this day. The biggest mass mobilizations against the american goverment in the last few years were a direct consequence of George Floyd death and the black movement repsonse to it. Denouncing "wokeness" and "identity politics" is a stupid mistake and I don't think we should listen to people who insist on pushing this reactionary idea.
Anyway, let's talk about what he is actually concerned with in this text: the Russia-Ukraine war
I know most people here in Lemmygrad support Russia in this invasion. I too used to support Russia but my positioning has changed in the months I stopped browsing here and now, after knowing better and interacting more with my country (Brazil) ML organizations, I believe that simply supporting Russia is a mistake and one of the reasons for that is exactly why this text by Haz is so problematic.
One thing he mentions is that Hakims idea of not supporting the war is "idealistic". It is not. The proof of that is that most of the third world did not support or condemned it. Most of them were "Neutral". Brazil for example condemned the invasion but refused to apply sanctions against Russia and refused to send Ukraine armaments. Instead, they insist on a diplomatic solution where Russias very valid security concerns regarding NATO are addressed. This is a positions that is held by every single ML that I talked with. Hell, this is the position that China defended. None of them have the slightiest illusion about Putin, a well know anti-communistand reactionary of the worst kind. But Haz and his infrared ilk do. (More on this later)
This position also doesnt mean supporting the US/NATO, quite the opposite. Back when the war broke out, the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL) released a perfect statement the condemned the war but did not support Russia. Its last paragraphs summon it pretty well:
"Recognizing that Russia has legitimate security concerns does not require an endorsement of all its military actions, nor Putin’s suggestion that Ukraine has no basis to exist as an independent county, nor his larger geopolitical strategies. The role of the U.S. antiwar movement is not to follow the line of countries in conflict with U.S. imperialism, but to present an independent program of peace and solidarity and anti-imperialism.
The menace of war can only be defeated by international solidarity among the peoples of the world and a resolute struggle against U.S. imperialism, which must demand the abolition of NATO. No war on Russia!"
The US wanted this war to happen for a series of reasons: First, because it would give them reasons for crippling Russia with insane sanctions, and they did so. Second, the military-industrial complex could flood Ukraine with wepaons in order to profit, and they did so. Third, they wanted to weaken Russia, and have openly stated that. The continuation of this war favors no one but american imperialism, and Haz position of unconditional and uncritical support to Russia shows that he is not paying attention to the US intentions.
Since the beggining of this war, the US has destroyed the Nordstream and is making Germany - the strongest and most influential european state - act against their own interests in detriment of american ones.
Honestly if you want to read an amazing text about US imperialism and the ukrianian war I highly recommend these two studies by the Tricontinental:
About Putin:
Putin is an anti-communist. Haz is right when he mentions that the URSS achievments are still present in modern Russia in some degree. That doesnt make Putin an ally. He had Ieltsin blessings as his successor and has tried to join the west multiple times. He even tried to join fucking NATO. His opposition to western order is nothing more but a consequence of years of western agressions. Don't think for a second he is an ally, he is not. Although it is interesting for us a strong Russia that opposes the west creating a multipolar world, we must hold no illusions towards modern Russia. I feel like some of us forget the "critical" in "critical support". Haz is definitelly one of these.
Also, last thing, but extremelly important: Comparing Modern Russia and Vietnam is an ahistorical, antimaterialist and pathetic take. The Russia-Ukraine war is not similar to the Vietnam war in anything. Russia is not socialist in any way. And Ukraine is not simply part of Russia. It is an independemt country that had this independence given to it by Lenin, opposing Russiam chauvinism back then. Does that mean supporting Banderites and other Ukraine nacionalists nowadyas? Hell no, but also it doesnt mean supporting fucking Russian chauvinism that Putin represents.
Haz is a dishonest reactionary and both Hakim and Luna are 100% correct in their assesments.
On your last paragraph- I recently saw a clip of this same guy defending Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge against, and this is a direct quote, "revisionist Vietnam". I found the whole video and couldn't get much into it, it's very obvious he is pure spectacle, pretty sure it may even be satire? Same guy unironically calls himself a "maga communist" which makes me think it may be satirical as well. MAGA communism is hilarious and is the American version of "national socialism". Feel like it's either a character being played or it's a straight up psy op.
So my opinion on the whole "patriotic socialist" thing is that it's basically a few good insights stretched far beyond what they can reasonably support. Haz and Maupin, to their credit, saw something that nobody else in the American left was really cognizant of: namely, that since the 1970s there has been a confluence of Trotskyism with orthodox Marxist-Leninism, so that a whole lot of "tankiesm" in the US is actually revisionist. (Sam Marcy and the Workers' World Party, who tried to downplay the differences between Trotskyism and the historical practice of actually existing socialist states, is a big reason for this shift). Thus, a whole lot of American communists actually hold, consciously or unconsciously, that Europe and the US are where genuine revolution actually happens; socialist countries on the peripheries are to be supported because they are, under the calculus of liberalism, "underprivileged," not because they represent a genuine path forward for humanity. This is basic dilution of Leninist thought.
However, having recognized this, CPI, Infrared etc. made the leap of assuming that the entire American left from McCarthyism onward was unsalvageable, and that the only way forward was to adopt tactics used by the CPUSA during the 1930s. (Because of their emphasis on Black nationhood and building parallel political infrastructure, the Black Panthers are often regarded by patsocs as a successor to the 1930s CPUSA). Thus you get the current reworking of "Socialism is 20th Century Americanism," and other attempts to create a left-wing American nationalism -- the idea being that since it almost worked before, it has a good chance of working now. I've said before, and will say it again, that I'm convinced neither Haz nor Maupin is really sincere in their patriotism. Certain things they let slip from time to time betray it: Maupin listing the crimes of the American government, Haz stating that it was during the War on Terror that he recognized the true nihilistic essence of American culture, etc. It's a tactic, and not necessarily a good one.
Sun shines even on a dog’s ass some days, broken clock moment, whatever phrase you like. Point is, yea he’s a PatSoc P.O.S. most of the time, but that analysis is pretty sound. One thing I will say is he refers to the Russian Communist party, KPRF, which is the largest communist party in Russia and someone correct me if I’m wrong but I recall hearing that the KPRF is somewhat reactionary insofar as it often follows what the Russian state calls for. And I don’t just mean the war in Ukraine, they have corruption issues. Other than that, I kinda agree with him but he went a bit hard on Hakim, I still love my Doctor Habibi
This, he has no real reason to go after Luna and Hakim due to some vaguely idealistic tweets right after the shock of a new war happens
I used to follow Haz somewhat -- for all his faults, he does have a first-rate philosophical mind, with takes on Hegel that at least used to be illuminating -- and the Luna Oi thing goes rather far back. It's based on the idea that, because of its anti-China stance, modern Vietnam is a revisionist country, as demonstrated by its position as "aggressor" during the Sino-Vietnamese war. It's a little silly, but to be fair the official position of the Chinese government regarding the war is basically similar.
Of course it gets shameful when infrared orbiters -- I saw this once on stream -- start mocking the relative level of development in Hanoi vs. Beijing, and saying things like "most developed revisionist country."
I think his criticism towards Hakim and Luna are wrong, specially that horrible and ahistorical comparision between modern Russia and North Vietnam.
He does have some valid points but the amount of bad takes in this text is astonishing. Every good think he says has been said better by other texts that do not have reactionary worldview regarding minorities rights or uncritical support for Putin. I think I never read or interacted with PatSocs in a meaningful way before reading this and I honestly wish I never did.
Lol his criticism of Luna Oi is ridiculous, she has issues with American patriotism (huh I wonder why? She’s from America right? Oh wait a sec? Oh she’s from Vietnam, the country that the US bombed more than all the bombs in WW2 dropped combined)no shit she’s against US patriotism, she also gives analysis past that obvious point but Haz and Maupin ignore these and say she’s wrong