What’s “true” is based on facts and evidence, how we interpret truth causes stark disagreements. How we highlight, omit, and even falsify information all plays a role in changing viewpoints and presenting the same information in different ways. Which sources are reported critically vs. uncritically, etc.
In the context of capitalist states like those found in Europe, both the public and private sectors serve the capitalist class, and as such are not aligned against capitalist interests. The state is not outside class society, but within it.
Independent media is more likely to be anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, such as The Grayzone and Liberation News. Sources from socialist/progressive governments, like CGTN, TELESUR, and Granma are also obviously anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist. I’m sure there are socialist orgs in Europe doing their own reporting, such as PTB in Belgium.
I’m not sure what you think you can change my mind on, what specifically do you disagree with that I’ve said? Which claims do not correspond to the reality you believe you are seeing?
I’m not sure what you think you can change my mind on, what specifically do you disagree with that I’ve said? Which claims do not correspond to the reality you believe you are seeing?
Not so much interested in changing your mind on something specific, but I think the only valuable version of this conversation is dialectical. Theredore I’m very interested to hear what ways you imagine changing your mind on matters such as the role of Russia in international politics.
If you can’t imagine changing your mind, then I can’t really learn much from the conversation, but if you can, I’d love to hear how, and reconsider my own view.
For clarity, you are referring to dialectics in the traditional Greek sense, and not in the Marxist sense, dialectical materialism? For me, analysis needs to be on the basis of dialectical and historical materialism, and the facts and evidence need to be indisputable.
At the present moment, because Russia doesn’t have the same imperialist role that the west has in the world, the periphery is siding with Russia at increasing rates (though mostly China), and is therefore charting an alternative that allows the periphery to escape the underdevelopment traps the imperial core has set out for them. In this manner, Russia is playing a progressive role in undermining imperialism, not advancing it.
Ukraine, as a tool used by the west without care for the lives lost, is presently under a Banderite regime engaged in repressions against the Donbass region. The west is harvesting Ukraine for resources and using it as a battering ram to weaken Russia, in order to get Russia to concede to imperialist domination like what happened in the 90s after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
For clarity, you are referring to dialectics in the traditional Greek sense
Yes, in the sense that a good faith conversation between people of opposing understandings of the world can lead to a synthesized, higher understanding.
The facts and evidence need to be indisputable.
Would a source be automatically untrustworthy if it disputes your claims? If a source reports that Russia is currently undertaking an aggressive campaign of hybrid warfare in Europe, or if it claims that Russia is an authoritarian regime currently engaged in a war of choice and aggression in Ukraine, what could make you take that source seriously? Would that mainly be if the source is sponsored by a communist state?
People can certainly say things, but this is all analysis and opinion based on underling facts. Do you disagree with what I have said? Do you agree with the factual basis, but not my analysis?
Further, all states are instruments of class authority by which the ruling classes cement themselves, so to speak of one in particular as an “authoritarian regime,” it implies European countries are not also “authoritarian regimes” dominated by capitalists. The major difference is that Russia is dominated by the Russian nationalist bourgeoisie, while European countries (especially Germany, France, and the UK, but all are complicit and benefit from it to different degrees) are dominated by finance capital and the big imperialists.
Do you disagree with what I have said? Do you agree with the factual basis, but not my analysis?
It’s a little unclear to me. For example, you so far appear to have denied the fact that Russia is engaged in a hybrid warfare campaign against Europe. Do we agree that this is a true statement?
Another fact I’d like to agree on is that Russia invaded Ukraine, attacked it’s capital and started a war has led to the meaningless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of common working class people who could have otherwise contributed to the fight for global justice.
Do you agree that these are factual statements? Then we can discuss analysis.
If not, what type of source could change your mind?
What is a “hybrid warfare campaign against Europe?” Russia is not at war with Europe, except through Ukraine, which NATO is supplying heavily. This sounds like a divergence in analysis, rather than facts.
As for Russia starting the war, no, the West did in 2014 when they backed the Banderite coup. The civil war has been going on since then, and Russia joined in 2022. The war was avoidable if the west had not provoked it, and Ukraine would be better off had the west not supported the coup.
What is a “hybrid warfare campaign against Europe?”
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of hybrid warfare? Or do you not recognize its validity as a descriptor?
In any case, let’s get even more basic and factual. Here is an example, again from Denmark, of hostile behavior from Russia. Do you agree that these events have taken place?
If we extend the war back to 2014, do you agree that after Russia chose to join the war in 2022, which had until then claimed on the order of 15.000 innocent working class lives, the war escalated to immense scales of violence, with on the order of a million working class casualties?
We don’t need to agree on the exact numbers, I just want to see if we agree more or less on these facts.
If we are being honest, western Europe has been waging hybrid warfare (and occasionally hot warfare) against Russia since World War I. Russia has been defensive since it pulled out of World War I, and occasionally has helped anti-colonial wars of resistance since then. As for Ukrainian national identity, it is very much real, but at the same time it isn’t homogenous across all of Ukraine, hence why the more Russian Donbass area ran into conflict with west Ukraine.
The war has killed many people, yes, and my question to return to you is if you believe Kiev has the right to ethnically cleanse the Donbass region because fewer people would die that way.
Authoritarian is a largely meaningless pejorative. All states/countries/political groups etc. must be authoritarian by necessity in class society.
Does it make sense to distinguish the degree of authority that a state wields over its citizens? And by extension, does it make sense to distinguish to which extent citizens can act to hold the state accountable for its actions?
Does it make sense to distinguish the degree of authority that a state wields over its citizens
Not particularly no. More or less authority is largely inconsequential in comparison to the actual important question of class character of the state. Authority of who wielded against who, for what purpose. A workers state that violently represses fascists and the bourgeoisie and a fascist state that violently represses labour organisations are both “authoritarian” however I hope you can agree in reality in every way that matters are in fact diametrically opposed.
does it make sense to distinguish to which extent citizens can act to hold the state accountable for its actions?
Yes but this is not a question of authority but again of class content. For example China is “authoritarian” but we have for more control over our state than for example Amerikans or the British.
Authoritarian obscures for more than it explains and is so broad as to be largely useless for meaningful analysis thus leading it in the modern day of hegemonic liberalism and capitalism to being used as shorthand for “enemy of the EuroAmerikan hegemony” much like regime.
I reject your stated symmetry between fascists and workers. Fascists are inherently violent, workers are not.
A state which only violently represses the violent is far less authoritarian than a state which violently represses a peaceful political group. This distinction is extremely consequential to the inhabitants of said state.
Maybe I worded it poorly but the fact there is no symmetry was sort of exactly my point. While both acts are definitionally authoritarian in reality they are diametrically opposed thus highlighting the fact that authoritarian doesn’t provide any insight of value.
Any working class state will need to protect itself with force against capitalist classes and fascists. It’s still a direct use of state authority against a group of people, but this liberates the majority. That’s why Marxists reject the notion of “authoritarianism.”
What’s “true” is based on facts and evidence, how we interpret truth causes stark disagreements. How we highlight, omit, and even falsify information all plays a role in changing viewpoints and presenting the same information in different ways. Which sources are reported critically vs. uncritically, etc.
In the context of capitalist states like those found in Europe, both the public and private sectors serve the capitalist class, and as such are not aligned against capitalist interests. The state is not outside class society, but within it.
Independent media is more likely to be anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist, such as The Grayzone and Liberation News. Sources from socialist/progressive governments, like CGTN, TELESUR, and Granma are also obviously anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist. I’m sure there are socialist orgs in Europe doing their own reporting, such as PTB in Belgium.
I’m not sure what you think you can change my mind on, what specifically do you disagree with that I’ve said? Which claims do not correspond to the reality you believe you are seeing?
Thanks, I’ll look into it!
Not so much interested in changing your mind on something specific, but I think the only valuable version of this conversation is dialectical. Theredore I’m very interested to hear what ways you imagine changing your mind on matters such as the role of Russia in international politics.
If you can’t imagine changing your mind, then I can’t really learn much from the conversation, but if you can, I’d love to hear how, and reconsider my own view.
For clarity, you are referring to dialectics in the traditional Greek sense, and not in the Marxist sense, dialectical materialism? For me, analysis needs to be on the basis of dialectical and historical materialism, and the facts and evidence need to be indisputable.
At the present moment, because Russia doesn’t have the same imperialist role that the west has in the world, the periphery is siding with Russia at increasing rates (though mostly China), and is therefore charting an alternative that allows the periphery to escape the underdevelopment traps the imperial core has set out for them. In this manner, Russia is playing a progressive role in undermining imperialism, not advancing it.
Ukraine, as a tool used by the west without care for the lives lost, is presently under a Banderite regime engaged in repressions against the Donbass region. The west is harvesting Ukraine for resources and using it as a battering ram to weaken Russia, in order to get Russia to concede to imperialist domination like what happened in the 90s after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.
Yes, in the sense that a good faith conversation between people of opposing understandings of the world can lead to a synthesized, higher understanding.
Would a source be automatically untrustworthy if it disputes your claims? If a source reports that Russia is currently undertaking an aggressive campaign of hybrid warfare in Europe, or if it claims that Russia is an authoritarian regime currently engaged in a war of choice and aggression in Ukraine, what could make you take that source seriously? Would that mainly be if the source is sponsored by a communist state?
People can certainly say things, but this is all analysis and opinion based on underling facts. Do you disagree with what I have said? Do you agree with the factual basis, but not my analysis?
Further, all states are instruments of class authority by which the ruling classes cement themselves, so to speak of one in particular as an “authoritarian regime,” it implies European countries are not also “authoritarian regimes” dominated by capitalists. The major difference is that Russia is dominated by the Russian nationalist bourgeoisie, while European countries (especially Germany, France, and the UK, but all are complicit and benefit from it to different degrees) are dominated by finance capital and the big imperialists.
It’s a little unclear to me. For example, you so far appear to have denied the fact that Russia is engaged in a hybrid warfare campaign against Europe. Do we agree that this is a true statement?
Another fact I’d like to agree on is that Russia invaded Ukraine, attacked it’s capital and started a war has led to the meaningless slaughter of hundreds of thousands of common working class people who could have otherwise contributed to the fight for global justice.
Do you agree that these are factual statements? Then we can discuss analysis.
If not, what type of source could change your mind?
What is a “hybrid warfare campaign against Europe?” Russia is not at war with Europe, except through Ukraine, which NATO is supplying heavily. This sounds like a divergence in analysis, rather than facts.
As for Russia starting the war, no, the West did in 2014 when they backed the Banderite coup. The civil war has been going on since then, and Russia joined in 2022. The war was avoidable if the west had not provoked it, and Ukraine would be better off had the west not supported the coup.
Are you unfamiliar with the concept of hybrid warfare? Or do you not recognize its validity as a descriptor?
In any case, let’s get even more basic and factual. Here is an example, again from Denmark, of hostile behavior from Russia. Do you agree that these events have taken place?
Do you agree that Vladimir Putin challenges the very existence of a Ukrainian nation?
If we extend the war back to 2014, do you agree that after Russia chose to join the war in 2022, which had until then claimed on the order of 15.000 innocent working class lives, the war escalated to immense scales of violence, with on the order of a million working class casualties?
We don’t need to agree on the exact numbers, I just want to see if we agree more or less on these facts.
If we are being honest, western Europe has been waging hybrid warfare (and occasionally hot warfare) against Russia since World War I. Russia has been defensive since it pulled out of World War I, and occasionally has helped anti-colonial wars of resistance since then. As for Ukrainian national identity, it is very much real, but at the same time it isn’t homogenous across all of Ukraine, hence why the more Russian Donbass area ran into conflict with west Ukraine.
The war has killed many people, yes, and my question to return to you is if you believe Kiev has the right to ethnically cleanse the Donbass region because fewer people would die that way.
Not particularly interested in the rest but,
Authoritarian is a largely meaningless pejorative. All states/countries/political groups etc. must be authoritarian by necessity in class society.
Regime again is a meaningless pejorative. Might as well say designated bad country ™.
Does it make sense to distinguish the degree of authority that a state wields over its citizens? And by extension, does it make sense to distinguish to which extent citizens can act to hold the state accountable for its actions?
Not particularly no. More or less authority is largely inconsequential in comparison to the actual important question of class character of the state. Authority of who wielded against who, for what purpose. A workers state that violently represses fascists and the bourgeoisie and a fascist state that violently represses labour organisations are both “authoritarian” however I hope you can agree in reality in every way that matters are in fact diametrically opposed.
Yes but this is not a question of authority but again of class content. For example China is “authoritarian” but we have for more control over our state than for example Amerikans or the British.
Authoritarian obscures for more than it explains and is so broad as to be largely useless for meaningful analysis thus leading it in the modern day of hegemonic liberalism and capitalism to being used as shorthand for “enemy of the EuroAmerikan hegemony” much like regime.
I reject your stated symmetry between fascists and workers. Fascists are inherently violent, workers are not.
A state which only violently represses the violent is far less authoritarian than a state which violently represses a peaceful political group. This distinction is extremely consequential to the inhabitants of said state.
Maybe I worded it poorly but the fact there is no symmetry was sort of exactly my point. While both acts are definitionally authoritarian in reality they are diametrically opposed thus highlighting the fact that authoritarian doesn’t provide any insight of value.
Any working class state will need to protect itself with force against capitalist classes and fascists. It’s still a direct use of state authority against a group of people, but this liberates the majority. That’s why Marxists reject the notion of “authoritarianism.”
If this was the case everyone on the lower democracy index should be called authoritarian, like Russia, Ukraine, France, Paraguay and Indonesia.