Reply To: Russian Tensions
“Thank you for your response. It seems we found a way to communicate without symmetrical negative retorts.”
I am quite capable of being civil but if there’s a shift in tone I won’t allow an insult to go unanswered.
“I prefer that, it is conducive to discourse. So, thank you.”
I agree.
“Fanatical belief seems systemic in today’s world order. States produce messaging through their ideological state apparatus , having one believe there is a just cause and a matter of principle on either side.”
Sure, but they can’t both be right. You will probably retort that they can both be wrong. And yes, they could. But I don’t believe the Russian state is in the wrong here. As far as I understand it it is the official position of the SPGB that Russia was provoked in to invading Ukraine. If you deliberately provoke someone in to taking an action then they they take that action it seems to me that the provocateur is at fault.
“The Regressive apparatus (Army, Police and traditional forms of power) are simply engaging in a capture of markets.”
That is NATOstan’s motivation, sure. Not Russia’s. For Moscow this is a conflict to prevent the imperialist dismemberment of its state and to birth a new anti-NATOstani coalition to overthrow the “rules based order” of the US hegemon.
“Corporations may not lob a weapon with such crudity in a hostile take over, yet the principle and inter-discursiveness is that… war for market control of a people and its resources. I know you may not see it this way, but this is how it seems to me and many others, but we will not get full recursion on that idea.”
You are correct. I do not see it that way and I believe it an ideological blind-spot of yours that you do.
“The socialist intention is education leading to awareness of our oppression and collective wish for a pro-social society.”
Isn’t praxis the socialist intention?
“Parliament is our only tool- a tool of a class or groups of people alienated from the means of production and anterior to the accumulation of wealth.”
But parliaments are constituted of representatives are they not? How does a leaderless organisation lead?
“It is through democracy that we get a collective will of the social group and change the base/structure (it economic and its ideological articulations).”
It depends what you mean by “democracy”. There are many iterations, some, like the American or British, undifferentiatiable from oligarchy.
“Bodies of our dear brothers and sisters is not the way.”
I believe you’ve misunderstood me. I was inferring protest/civil disobedience not armed resistance.
“That is a barbarism in Rosa Luxemburg’s “socialism or barbarism”.”
“TS, I wonder if you may consider that nationalism and vilification of the Ukraine is the narrative Russian state officials are using to legitimise the war.”
I don’t believe you are familiar with Russian media. They do not vilify Ukraine. Russians love Ukraine. Moscow is very specific. They blame this conflict on
NATO and the Nazis maneuvered into power through the Maidan regime change operation/coup.
“Wonder if you might consider the sub narrative (aside narrative) might be the capture of markets to compete against the Western economies- increasing their economic base through annexation to retain a larger relevancy against OECD blocks.”
Except that Moscow did everything within its power to avoid the conflict continually calling for the implementation of Minsk 2. We know Minsk was a charade, thanks to Merkel and Yanukovych, meant to string along the Russians and buy time for the Nazi proxies in Kiev to rearm. This is incontrovertible evidence of western, not Russian, duplicity. Russia wanted peace not a costly war for “markets”. Again, I believe this is an ideological blind-spot of yours.
“Time is money: war is money.”
Pithy but in no way does it advance understanding of this conflict.
“Stay safe and thank you for your challenges, it assist focus a point of view, even if you might not share it..”
I believe you are focused on a mistaken point of view. One arrived at through ideology rather than evidence. But, as Swift said, “You cannot reason someone out of something he or she was not reasoned into.”
“maybe at times it may lead to concurring: like socialism or barbarism.”
Maybe.
